that matter); that there is a want of sympathy, and so forth; these are objections that, like most of the others, indicate defects that should be and may be amended; but they do not excuse working people from the duty and privilege of public worship and instruction. It is always easy to find a congregation of one's peers in social rank, if one insists on it; but how this self-sorting process, this or any other sort of shunning of the rich by the poor, can promote sympathy and develope kindly feeling between persons in different ranks, it it is impossible to discover. It is bad, certainly, that Brown in the pew never has a word to say to Jones in the free seats; bad that he should never be able to tell whether Jones would rather have him speak to him or be silent; bad that there should be pews on the one hand, and free seats on the other. But if Jones stops at home and sulks, or goes off to the teagarden and smokes or dances, does that in the least mend the matter?

That ministers of religion should think it necessary to dress differently from other Christians, may give cause for regret. It is a matter of taste. But that persons, who are not babies, should decline to receive the great message of the glad tidings through a larynx that has a white handkerchief around it, must give cause for astonishment. They would not act so foolishly in affairs of inferior moment. They would not refuse to receive directions for their journey whilst travelling in a strange country, because the innkeeper who proffered the information insisted on wearing a blue coat, or a white apron. Nor would they consider a scientific lecture vitiated merely because the professor was a little whimsical in his attire. The like may be urged in reply to other objections that are founded on trivial peculiarities of manner or style. And since the choice of a preacher is a varied one, and the liberty to exercise it lies within very wide limits, it is always possible to consult one's taste. Is one preacher too high and stilted? Others are homely enough for the humblest capacity. Is one man too solemn for us? Let us try another. There are preachers who are comical enough, in all conscience.

Much more important are the considerations grounded in doctrine that we find urged by some of the speakers. But here, again, the sincere seeker has abundant means of selfdefence against bad doctrine, a long way short of being obliged to forego public worship altogether. If one-sided teaching offends him, he may always find the other side brought out elsewhere. If some 'religionists' attribute bad passions to God, all are not guilty of that error. If some adulterate or withhold, others are not chargeable with so doing. If

some teach that all ought to rest in the rank of life in which they are, others are to be found recognising the truth that Christianity only requires absolute contentment with our lot where God's Providence does not afford any opportunity of mending it. Against unfair and dishonest ways of getting richer, of course, true Christianity always raises a protest. If the world is not a vale of tears to some hearers, let them thank God therefore, and not quarrel with preachers who have found it to be so.

And with regard to differences of belief in general, we may quote Mr. White again, who in his second lecture On the difficulty of knowing what is true through the multitude of opinions,' after some valuable reasoning, says (pp. 12, 13): The world is full of all sorts of diseases and infirmities; and no one can deny that the world is also full of all sorts of opinions on the proper method of treating them. In some countries. they treat them with charms and amulets. In others, as Montaigne says, with the most horrible combinations of every kind of abomination that the earth supplies. In this country there are two great schools of medicine, the homoeopathic and the allopathic;-almost every medical man has also some peculiar methods of his own; and the present state of medical science is such as to give some colour to the ironical remark of Dr. Southey, that "men pour medicines of which they know little, into bodies of which they know less." Such is the state of medicine in Europe. Now, when sickness comes to the house of a skilled artificer, how does he reason, how does he act? Does he say, "These doctors all work for pay; and these doctors all differ from each other to such a degree that I shall have nothing to do with any medicine at all; or, I shall let this fever take its course; I shall let this dislocated ankle work itself round if it can; this irritated and tormented liver, and stomach, and brain, shall have their own way; what's the use of meddling with medicine and surgery?" No, the intelligent mechanic says," It is a painful fact that doctors differ thus, nevertheless the doctors of all schools do much good. They are gradually influencing each others' practice. Those who gave too much medicine formerly, now give less. Those who gave too little, now give a little more. Besides, they are all agreed on the most essential things, on diet, on nursing, on the special efficacy of many drugs or modes of treatment, and I know my neighbour's child was cured by the doctors in the University Hospital, and my brother's wife in St. Bartholo mew's. I can't settle the differences of the doctors, but I shall send for this one or for that, for most of them will help a working man as much as they can, and somehow or other

they generally manage to do some good, and very often put you in the way to effect a speedy cure." Because while there are many things on which they differ, there are also many on which they are agreed, or there are totally different ways of bringing about the same result. And if the working classes were in illness to abandon all to neglect, because of the multitude of medical opinions, and just to learn enough of medicine to quote the doctors against each other, they would generally die in their illness, and they would deserve it for their folly. You see the parallel.'

A favourite plea with some of the speakers at the Conference was the contrariety of science and religious teaching. It was said that at the present time men's thoughts had turned into a new channel. They no longer studied literature or science in the same way as formerly; the great mass of men had turned their attention to the study of experimental science. Now, was this less really a worship of God, if it was devoutly done, than the direct worship carried on in churches and chapels? But what was the position of the great mass of teachers of the Christian religion? Why, they had separated themselves entirely from a scientific investigation of God's works; they had almost put themselves in opposition to it. The gravest opposition to science came not from the actual truth, but from the conceptions which had been formed of it by intelligent men, who had entirely separated themselves from the great truths that should have come from the Bible and illuminated their search. This was a most lamentable condition of things, and working men perceived it. There were professors who were obliged to let religion alone, because the interpretation that was made of religion clashed with the facts which they were conscientiously obliged to expound. He did not believe that such persons had any wish to put down religion, but they found that certain facts existed, and that the Church held certain views and adopted certain interpretations of the Bible, and that those things clashed. The working man standing between the two said, "There is the scientific man, am I to believe him? Here is the clergyman, am I to believe him?" The natural dislike that man no doubt had to religious teaching and religious thought led him to accept the scientific teaching in preference to the religious.'

It was further stoutly declared that 'science and religion had for a great number of years been considered to be at variance. When he looked at a number of gentlemen around him who had, to a certain extent, dissented from the established religion of the day, who had advanced in their opinions with regard to geology and other sciences, he did not wonder that

working men who had, to a certain extent, intellectually examined the subject, felt a good deal dissatisfied with the churches already existing. When he found a minister in the Church stating that the Mosaic cosmogony was necessarily true, and that Professor Huxley was a heretic, or something worse than a heretic; and, on the other hand, heard the Professor or Mr. Ramsay, or some competent searcher of geology or ethnology, dispute the statements made in the Church, and saying that the old cosmogony was not to be believed, there was a great source of infidelity. He would frankly state to them that working men had examined these questions extensively. And when clergymen condescend to go into philosophical institutions and deliver lectures on various sciences of the day, it was highly probable that the working classes would be found anxious to listen, and the common bond of sympathy would be more strongly cemented in that way than in any other.' These asseverations and others of a similar kind, were met upon the spot with some degree of smartness.

The Rev. G. W. Mc. Cree, who made a telling speech, said: 'If a man said, "I do not go to the house of the Lord because I do not find that you ministers are remarkably scientific men," he might be asked if he was a remarkably scientific man himself. Many persons seemed to think that the statements of scientific men were to be taken exactly as perfect truth, but where was the science of fifty years ago, or even of ten years ago? Scientific theories which were put in antagonism to the Divine Word when he was a lad were now admitted even by sceptical lecturers and by their very propounders to have been baseless and false, so that we were bound, as Dr. Miller had said, to ask, "Are you quite sure that your science is truer than the Bible, and are you quite sure that the gospel of science is a truer gospel than the Gospel of Revelation?" He must, however, remind his friends that some of the geologists of this country had been Christian men. What was Dr. Pye-Smith or Hugh Miller or Dr. Hitchcock? He might go on to prove that the most thoughtful, the broadestminded, the sublimest men in connection with science were men who believed in the Divine origin of Christianity as much as he himself did.'

On the other hand, there is much that preachers should think worthy of shrewd pondering, in the remarks of Dr. Miller, when he said, 'With regard to science, there was a great deal of truth in what had been stated, and it was a great pity that any religious man should ever put the question as if there could be really any variance between science and

true religion. The thing was out of the question. The same God that wrote the Bible made the world, and God was one, truth was one. But the working men misunderstood this truth altogether; it was not that Moses and science were at variance. When a man of science said to him, "You are wrong," he did one of two things. He said, "Let me be quite sure that Professor Huxley is right first ;" and if he was quite sure that he was right, then he would say, "Let me be quite sure that my interpretation of the Bible is right: it must be looked to, because it is quite possible that my interpretation of the Bible may be wrong." The Bible, and his interpretation of it, were two very different things; truth and his version of it were two very different things indeed.'

Some of the objections at the Conference came from men who seem quite unable to care for anything that has not a strong political flavour. They find fault with religious doctrine that it is not political, as a man might complain of music that it will not dig potatoes or turn a grindstone. The business of a minister of religion is to teach men the way rather to heaven, than to political power. Some politicians, who as to religious thought and worship are relatively as Hodge the ploughman is to literature, would like to turn the pulpit into a mere political engine, just as Hodge would sell all the books in the parish for cheese and beer. It was said that ' A very serious question had been raised as to politics connected with the clergy. No doubt many of the working classes were alienated in great measure from the Church by the consideration that too many of the clergy were linked up with the ruling powers in the State against them.' 'There are three elements which have each contributed their share-[of commercial success]the educated mind of the country, the accumulated capital, and the skilled and unskilled labour. But the labour is a principal element in the wonderful work, and deserves its proper and respectful recognition from the body politic. And it is the withholding of this recognition, it is the political exclusion of the educated working men from the rights and franchises of citizenship, which has more than anything else to do with the class feeling of which so many have spoken. The artisans are jealous of the middle classes, and hence arises that violent class feeling which leads them to regard Christian worship itself as a speciality of the middle and upper ranks of society. They shrink from weekly contact with people who enjoy privileges from which they are debarred. And the removal of those disabilities, the gradual and judicious removal of this political exclusion, will remove the principal barrier between the working community and the Church.'