These remarks are made as preliminary to the examination of some of Mr. Beecher's positively-defined statements as regards Christianity. In my last paper I examined his negative position, and gave a review of seven points of doctrine which he indignantly repudiates. I endeavoured to show that there are good reasons for agreeing with him in this respect, inasmuch as there is no scriptural authority, no warrant from the Lord Jesus Christ, to countenance our reception of them: rather there is His direct veto, His prohibitive declaration against them. On the present occasion, however, that is, in reviewing Mr. Beecher's open profession of his faith, we cannot, I am sure-I am speaking, of course, on behalf of the New Churchdo anything but look with disappointment upon his teachings in the main, because they do not coincide with what Scripture, as the mouthpiece of the Lord Jesus Christ, unquestionably asserts. There is a good deal, certainly, with which we can sympathize in what he says upon particular points; but as regards what may be termed the essentials of Christian doctrine, e.g. the nature of God, the mode of reconciliation to Him, and the inspiration of the Holy Word, or the method according to which the Divine will is set forth,-these subjects are presented by Mr. Beecher in a way that is not at all satisfactory; for the Supreme Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ in His Church, and His office as the Light of, and thus the Light-Giver to, the world, are practically ignored in these matters, and a system of doctrine is instead inculcated, which leaves the mind in very great doubt in relation to topics concerning which the clearest evidence should be forthcoming.

No one except an atheist, an agnostic, or a pantheist, can disagree with what Mr. Beecher says about belief in a personal God, viz. that "He is personal in such a sense as that those who know personality in men, cannot make any mistake in attempting to grasp and conceive of God." He puts the matter into a very appropriate form when he remarks: "God is more than man in the operation of the intellect, larger in all the moral relations, infinitely deeper and sweeter in the affections. In all those elements, notwithstanding that He is so much larger than man that no man by searching can find Him out to perfection, yet the humblest person can conceive that there is such a Being. They know in a general way what the Being is,

and that He is a personal Being, and accessible, as other persons are accessible, to the thoughts, the feelings, the wants, the cares of men" (pp. 8, 9).1

But it is when Mr. Beecher passes away from this correct delineation of the Divine Personality, and seeks to extend it by saying: "I accept without analysis the tri-personality of God," that we are compelled to take exception to his position. As for his reasons, he tells us: "I accept the Trinity, perhaps, because I was educated in it. No matter why, I accept it. I hold that while we cannot analyze and localize into distinct elements, as it were, the three Persons of the Trinity, I hold them-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." He says nothing here, neither does he elsewhere, as to the testimony of Scripture to this dogma; hence he does not recognise the plain teaching of Scripture, that there is only one Divine Person, viz. the Lord Jesus Christ, who is to be acknowledged as having sole supremacy over mankind. It is as an educational bias or prejudice that he embraces the dogma. He is not repelled by the mystery attaching to it. "As to any attempt to divide the functions," he says, “the Father to His function, the Son to another department, and the Holy Ghost to yet another function, I leave it to those who are better informed than I am" (pp. 9, 10). He takes the dogma as a fact without any question, and whilst admitting its insuperable difficulties, argues as though it can be used as a most demonstrable foundation-premiss upon which to build the superstructure of a satisfactory theosophy.

But the objection to this plan of procedure is, that it might be made to apply with almost as much force to the points Mr. Beecher denies, as to the special dogma of the tripersonality in God which he embraces. Beecher's moral indignation has been aroused because God has been represented as unsympathetic, wrathful, self-glorious, exercising His sovereign power in arbitrarily condemning myriads upon myriads of mankind to everlasting torment in hell; and he has gone to Scripture, and found there what is quite true, viz. that in the light of Scripture it is a gross insult to our God-implanted moral sense to have it even hinted at that God is such as has been described. But he forgets that there is such a thing as insult to our reasoning, as well as to our moral faculty; and that the Divine Being gave

1 Reprint from New York Christian Union, Supplement, Oct. 19, 1882.

us the power of reason for the purpose of helping us to steer clear of absurdities relating even to the highest subjects, and of arriving at just conceptions of them, equally as He gave us the moral sense to enable us to abjure the practice of, and the delight in, what is vicious in matters connected with our everyday career, and to live soberly and virtuously in all we put ourselves to. We might defend all the other dogmas which the moral sense repudiates, on the ground that they are mysteries, and are quite reconcilable with the justice and mercy of God, although we cannot discern how,-thus that they are revealed doctrines above our comprehension, and which in consequence we must accept although we cannot explain them,— as defend the dogma that three Divine Persons make one God, because of the supposititious notion that it is a revealed truth, and must therefore nolens volens be allowed a front place in Christian teaching.

God, however, wishes us to know Him not as a Being whose nature baffles and perplexes our reason, any more than as a Being whose character is opposed to our notions of equity and morality. "Let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me" (Jer. ix. 24), is His own express desire; and when He would bring home conviction to us upon a subject of importance, we find Him saying: "Come now, and let us reason together" (Isa. i. 18).

God does not desire to be inscrutable. He does not wish, that is, to be a constant enigma to us. He is ever in the effort to dispense, not to withhold; to reveal Himself for our good, not so to hide Himself from us as to give us a vast sense of there being a wide gap between ourselves and Him.

What is written in John? "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God" (xvii. 3). How is it with respect to mundane things? How is our mutual happiness on earth enlarged, and our mutual intercourse made prolific of the richest blessings to us? Is not love strengthened, and are not the activities of love allowed both a freer play and a wider scope when there is a mutual unbosoming of ourselves, and a mutual adaptation of our various capacities to one another? When all mere conventionalities, e.g., are done away with, and we stand together as it were soul to soul, to prove that there is nothing whatsoever within us, as far as is possible in our im

perfect striving after Christian excellences, but what is intended to be a boon and a help to all around us? If it is so in mere human relationships-if it is a law that lack of knowledge of other persons' characters, when those characters are upright and sincere, prevents our being brought under the beneficial influences arising therefrom, whilst full acquaintance with them, so far as it can be gained, renders us susceptible in an eminent degree to such influences; then as regards the relationship of the Divine Being to man, the greatest spiritual prosperity, the most solid and lasting peace, the purest blessedness, all of which are summed up in the definition of "eternal life," become possible exactly in proportion as He is known, understood, conceived of under a form the mind is really able to satisfy itself with; for in this case the conditions upon which there can be free intercourse, free communion between the Creator and His creatures, are more capable of being realized than would otherwise be possible. We have before us in this case an intelligent conception as to the Divine ideal to which we have to aspire, as to the Divine image which we have to recover (Rom. viii. 29); consequently we can aim at embodying in ourselves, as far as our finite capabilities allow, those spiritual realities which help us most certainly to attain to this desirable eminence. In brief, there is no barrier now to interfere between what the Lord gives and our power of receiving it; there is no limitation now to our upgrowing into, our perpetual approximation towards, Him as the Best, the Wisest, the Holiest of all beings; for what the apostle says becomes at such a time capable of verification: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when He shall appear"-i.e. when He shall manifest or show Himself, when He shall plainly reveal Himself (pavɛpwly)—“ we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is. And every man that hath this hope purifieth himself, even as He is pure" (1 John iii. 2, 3).

Free communion with God, and the constant moulding of the soul into His image, are, however, greatly impeded when His nature is regarded as shrouded in impenetrable mystery, and especially when that mystery is one that is not merely above reason, but even contrary to reason, as is the case with the doctrine that three Divine Persons constitute the one Divine

Being; in other words-for the matter really resolves itself into this that three Gods make the one God. Of course, God being infinite, and we being finite, there must ever be much relating to Him that our minds cannot grasp, but there is a great difference between anything being above and its being against the discrimination of the mind. Much that is in the human body is against such discrimination at present, i.e. there are many physiological laws with the operation of which we are not yet in more than a very limited degree acquainted; still none of those laws mock our reasoning faculty, for we find it more reasonable to believe them in their most extended form than to deny them, and this is, in fact, the case with all natural laws. When we consider the most stupendous forces in the physical universe, e.g. heat, light, electricity, gravitation, chemical affinity, though we may stand amazed at the wonderful effects which proceed from their activity, yet in that activity reason finds nothing but what is in complete harmony with its strictest requirements. "In reason's ear they all rejoice," as the poet puts it. And so with spiritual things. The apostle records that "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal power and Godhead" (Rom. i. 20); hence, if in the things that are made there is nothing but what reason can accept, then as regards even "His eternal power and Godhead" there is nothing in relation to this either that has to be renounced by reason. There will be abundant confirmations rather, derivable from every source, as to what really constitutes the Godhead, and abundant "evidence" to strengthen our "faith" in the "things not seen" (Heb. xi. 1) in connection with it.

And, indeed, it is here that faith in God is of such paramount value to us. God, as the Scriptures declare, is one. "Thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD, and there is none else" (Isa. xlv. 18). "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment" (Mark xii. 29, 30). We are able to give our whole love to one Divine Person; we shall find it exceedingly difficult to