very things which are not true. Charles II puzzled the Royal Society by asking why a vessel of water does not increase in weight by having a live fish put into it, while it does increase if the fish be dead. After many experiments it was found that the assumption at the base of the question was a mistake. It was objected to Copernicus that if the earth turned on its axis, a stone falling from the summit of a tower would not fall at the foot, but at some distance in the same way as a stone dropped from the mast head of a ship. Some centuries had passed after the death of Copernicus before the assumption about the stone from the ship mast was found to be false. The existence of Napoleon is taken for granted but not proved. The accounts of him are very diverse, and if we only believe what is well authenticated, we may doubt that he ever existed. It may be argued that there are people in England who have seen Napoleon, but this may only be that some persons went to Plymouth and saw a man with a cocked hat. The feats ascribed to him are barely probable, and it is a well-known fact that the more marvellous anything is the less likely is it to be true. The exploits of Napoleon are so improbable that they would not have been believed had they been found written in some old book. They would have given rise to such speculations as we have about the gospels. The acts of Napoleon would have been ascribed to many different heroes, just as are those recorded by the Evangelists. This would have been confirmed by the name Buonaparte, or good part. The deeds ascribed to him would be the deeds of the good part of the French army. We believe in the existence of Napoleon, though we cannot prove it, and the same kind of evidence should suffice in other cases.

A volume of University sermons, preached about the year 1820, gives an early indication of the kind of theology from which Whately never departed.' The first was on a future state. It was not provable by reason. It was not believed by Pagans. It was not known in the Mosaic dispensation, but Jesus Christ brought life and immortality to light. He revealed the life to come. It was the great subject of apostolic preaching. The heathen had conjectures about the

immortality of the soul, but the gospel teaches the resurrection of the body. The Pagan idea of immortality was that the soul returned to the bosom of the universal spirit, and so personality was gone. No metaphysical arguments could prove the improbability of a future life, nor could they prove its certainty. In the Old Testament there are a few scattered but doubtful texts. If Moses had intended to teach such a doctrine to such a people as the Jews, and under their circumstances, he would have stated it clearly, and dwelt upon it in every page.

Another sermon or essay was on the Declaration of God in His Son. We are so surrounded with natural objects, and so occupied in worldly occupations that it is hard to lift up our thoughts to God. Of a being whose nature is so incomprehensible we can only have a negative knowledge. We do not know what He is, but rather what He is not. We say God is a spirit, but we have only a faint notion of spirit except the negative one that it is not a body. God is eternal, but we are bewildered with the very idea of eternity. The sentiments of Archbishop King on the unknowableness of God are endorsed, but though we cannot know God, His only-begotten Son hath declared Him.' The religion of philosophers was cold and rarely rose to worship. The multitude of people on the other hand worshipped angels, demi-gods and saints— something conceivable by the mind. Jesus Christ as God Incarnate was an object of affection for the philosopher, and those who craved a god in finite form could worship Him without idolatry.

In 1822 Whately was Bampton Lecturer. His subject was 'The use and abuse of Party Spirit in matters of Religion.' Party feeling is defined as the spirit of attachment to a party. This is a feeling inherent in our nature. It is not in itself evil, but it is subject to abuse. It was the source of union and also of division. The persons who separate are not always the persons guilty of schism. The conduct of orthodox Churchmen has often been the fruitful cause of division. There may be different modes of viewing the same thing Division is only caused by evil. All that is necessary to the Christian life is plainly revealed. There may be things be

seek to be wise above what is written, or to define what Scripture has not defined. Sabellian and Arian meant right at first, but they were driven into extremes by opposition. It is natural for people to get wedded to their opinions and their parties and become more intractable the more they are opposed, difference being often due to misunderstanding. The lesson is charity, impartiality, caution.

Whately followed reason as it is commonly understood. Logic, argument, common sense, were to him inspiration. In a treatise on 'the Kingdom of Christ,' he argued that the Christian Church knew nothing of sacrificing priests. Scripture was the rule of faith, and no interpretation of Fathers could supersede private judgment. The coercive power of the civil magistrate is not to be exercised in the cause of the Church, nor are the members of any particular Church to claim a monopoly of civil rights.

Christ instituted a community or system of communities. The Church was not merely a revelation of certain truths, but a combination of men who were to be 'members of the body of Christ.' A community must have officers, or rulers, as well as members. Jesus acknowledged the authority of the officers of the Jewish Church, though He charged them with making void the authority of God through their traditions. The constitution of the Jewish Church was known to Christ's disciples. They could have had no doubt about what was meant by the authority of the keys, and the binding and loosing. The Christian Church was left free to adapt itself to the requirements of every age and country. At first there was no liturgy, no fixed form of worship, no rubrics, no canons. A religion without sacrifice or temple was a new idea both to Jew and Gentile. Jesus Christ was its only priest. His offering on the cross was its only sacrifice, and the worshipping people were its only temple.

The different churches or communities were branches of the spiritual brotherhood. They have no earthly head, nor has one society dominion over another. We know nothing more of the constitution of the Church as established by Christ than that it is a society. This is so meagre, that it has left room for some to deny altogether the idea of a

The latter is so obscure and uncertain that it has led to doubt and schism, the very evils which it was intended to prevent. In Article XIX, the visible Church should have been translated a visible Church. The Reformers intended the Church of England to be such a Church as Christ had formed. The Church is one just as the human race is one, but not as a society. From the moment the gospel was preached beyond the precincts of Judea, the Church as a society ceased to be To appeal to the 'primitive Church,' or to the Ancient Catholic Church is to appeal to something which never existed, in the sense supposed. When the Reformers appealed to the Fathers it was simply to defend themselves from the Romanist charge that they were introducing novelties.

We may now anticipate what Whately has said in other books on the Church and Christianity. Men must be addressed as rational beings. The counterpart of this is that the doctrines of Christianity, so far as they are revealed, are rational and not mysterious. Objectors to reason generally say 'mere' reason, or reason alone. To this it is answered that reason alone is no more meant than if a ship provided with a rudder and compass were said to be brought into harbour by them alone. We believe in Jesus because He did the works of His Father. We refuse to believe in Mohammed. The difference is that in one case there is evidence which appeals to reason. This rational spirit is in all Whately's theology.

The value of a Sacrament is not in the material consecration, but in humble trust in God's promises. Scripture is the rule of faith, but it is not to be so used as to exclude light from other sources. The Bible is not to be superstitiously carried into the battle field as the ark was into the camp of the Philistines. It is not intended to check inquiry, or to keep out light. If geology, astronomy, or any other science has anything to tell us it must be received as truth. We do not receive the ten commandments, because they had the authority of Moses, but because they were moral. The fourth was the only one concerning which there was any doubt. It was to be received so far as it could be shewn to be moral.

seek to be wise above what is written, or to define what Scripture has not defined. Sabellian and Arian meant right at first, but they were driven into extremes by opposition. It is natural for people to get wedded to their opinions and their parties and become more intractable the more they are opposed, difference being often due to misunderstanding. The lesson is charity, impartiality, caution.

Whately followed reason as it is commonly understood. Logic, argument, common sense, were to him inspiration. In a treatise on 'the Kingdom of Christ,' he argued that the Christian Church knew nothing of sacrificing priests. Scripture was the rule of faith, and no interpretation of Fathers could supersede private judgment. The coercive power of the civil magistrate is not to be exercised in the cause of the Church, nor are the members of any particular Church to claim a monopoly of civil rights.

Christ instituted a community or system of communities. The Church was not merely a revelation of certain truths, but a combination of men who were to be 'members of the body of Christ.' A community must have officers, or rulers, as well as members. Jesus acknowledged the authority of the officers of the Jewish Church, though He charged them with making void the authority of God through their traditions. The constitution of the Jewish Church was known to Christ's disciples. They could have had no doubt about what was meant by the authority of the keys, and the binding and loosing. The Christian Church was left free to adapt itself to the requirements of every age and country. At first there was no liturgy, no fixed form of worship, no rubrics, no canons. A religion without sacrifice or temple was a new idea both to Jew and Gentile. Jesus Christ was its only priest. His offering on the cross was its only sacrifice, and the worshipping people were its only temple.

The different churches or communities were branches of the spiritual brotherhood. They have no earthly head, nor has one society dominion over another. We know nothing. more of the constitution of the Church as established by Christ than that it is a society. This is so meagre, that it has left room for some to deny altogether the idea of a