which forms so large a part of human nature cannot be entirely wanting in the divine. Again, we believe that God is good, for otherwise we could give no account of goodness in ourselves. But goodness is a relation, and therefore implies a second. Were there but one being in the universe, there would be no room for goodness. If such goodness could be supposed incidental, it might possibly be satisfied by a transitory world; but if it is essential as it must be, the second it implies must be eternal. Yet, again, goodness means submission to a rule of goodness which is not conventional. If I am good to some unconscious infant, I confess our common duty to an ideal of goodness which is no creation of my will, however willing I may be to follow it. So if God, who is essentially good, is good to us, He is following a law of goodness which is no mere creation of His will, but the expression of His nature.

As for Arianism and the rest of the half-and-half systems which make the Lord more than man, yet not truly divine, they preach a solitary God surrounded indeed with creatures, but having no true second in the universe. His goodness is, therefore, will, not nature--at least we can never know for certain that it is anything more than the expression of a will subject to change. So of other qualities. Everything becomes arbitrary, and the Son of God Himself can give us no certainty if he is but a creature, and the true nature of the Father is unknown to him as well as to us.

This is all very well for an Eastern sultan with infirmities of temper; but is it a worthy conception of God? And if we can find a worthier, are we not bound to accept it? Now the óμoovotov of the Nicene Council, which a logical necessity soon shaped into the full doctrines of the Trinity, simply means that the Son is as divine as the Father. It means nothing more, except that Christian men are not free to explain it away. But it makes a world of difference. If God spared not His own Son, we have a mighty argument; but it does not come to much if He only gave up Joseph's son. Here then and only here we reach firm ground at last. The prophet may tell his vision, but neither man nor angel-no being short of the eternal Son can tell us with full and final certainty the very heart of God our Father.

Again, whatever be the mysteries of the Trinity, there is a simple aspect of it which anyone can understand. It gives us the social element we were looking for; and by making it a relation of eternal Persons, it firmly plants it inside the divine

nature. Here is one reason why I believe that this, rather than some sort of Unitarianism, is the religion of the future. The half-and-half systems may suit the simple administration of past ages; but we are learning from the infinite complexity of nature and society something of the infinite complexity of the divine expressed alike in the universe and by the doctrine of the Trinity. Shortly to say, Unitarianism in all its forms belongs to an order of thought which has ceased to satisfy either reason or conscience, and both the scientific and the social development make it everyday more visibly untenable. Ideals once transcended are for ever false; and if the deistic and agnostic mists are once more gathering round us, they will surely vanish in the brighter light which the revelation through society throws on things divine.

DISCUSSION.

Canon GIRDLESTONE thanked Professor Gwatkin, in the name of all present, for his thoughtful paper. He added that many of our theological difficulties arise from changes in the sense which we attach to words, e.g., Person. He emphasised the distinction between Unitarianism which leads to the "hard impassive God" of Islam, and Biblical monotheism which involves eternal relationship answering to the words Fatherhood and Sonship, within the compass of the Godhead. The new theology was either Gnostic, on which Mansel's lectures on early heresies should be consulted, or Agnostic, which St. Paul touched in a sentence when he said "whom ye ignorantly worship, Him I declare unto you." Professor Drummond, who was brought up at the feet of Dr. Martineau, has done us good service by his study of St. John's Gospel, which he determines both on external and internal grounds to be the work of the disciple whom Jesus loved.

The DEAN OF CANTERBURY expressed his gratitude to Professor Gwatkin for his excellent paper.

Mr. CORY thought that there was a saying of St. Augustine which would always be found helpful towards the realisation of this doctrine, "There have always been a lover and a loved."

Professor GWATKIN.-There was still left the difficulty of the Third Person, yet he thought that he could see a way.

The Rev. H. J. R. MARSTON. To venture to say anything on this subject is to launch out into deep waters. Professor Gwatkin has to-day said almost the last word on a subject that he has made his own. I hope that we may hear the Professor again in the Victoria Institute.

Perhaps, however, it is not self-evident that every phase of human society in its development must reflect an aspect of the Godhead. Each genuine phase has adumbrated some aspect of the Biblical God, not the naturalistic God.

The

There is then something to say for the Sovereignty of God once unchallenged, now so much impoverished and caricatured. idea of Sovereignty is more needed than ever. As a life-long Liberal he hoped that there may be some such thing as a Divine Democracy.

Of the Sovereignty of God, Augustine and Calvin have caught glimpses, but St. John had a real vision.

It is my hope that all those who have ideals of Society, whether democratic or other, may gradually find all worthy speculations and ideals realised and transcended.

REMARKS BY LIEUT.-COLONEL ALVES.

Whilst there appear to be certain differences between ancient Arianism and the forms of modern Unitarianism, I think that, broadly speaking, both practically deny the unique Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; Gnosticism, on the other hand, denying His real humanity. Each of these opposing heresies would render useless His work on our behalf.

The reader of the paper has hinted that God can have no favourites; but is this correct? Abraham was God's friend; it is true that he was a man of great faith; but God must have foreseen that his descendants through Jacob would manifest what a writer on Scripture has called "a genius for perversity." Yet that nationas a nation was marked out for special favour; and, although at present in disgrace, is being preserved in order to be a blessing to the whole world, and also its head nation temporally. This is "Calvinism," so called, applied nationally.

As regards individuals, we cannot get rid of this ("Calvinistic ") doctrine without destroying the Bible. To say nothing of others, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter and John held those doctrines

of grace ("Calvinism") which, I believe, all the Protestant Reformers held without exception.

The revelation is clear, that some are "chosen in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world (Eph. i, 4). This is more than an invitation, or free grace which calls, setting the will free to accept or reject; it is Sovereign grace which compels. All are not compelled; those who are, must be "Favourites."

I think that "Calvinism" has suffered in two ways; (1) in restricting salvation to those irresistibly called (" hyper-Calvinism"); (2) in restricting God's plan of salvation to these, and to those others called who accept the invitation. Arminianism," if not as mischievous in one way as false, "Calvinism" in one direction, is worse in another, inasmuch as it leads men to suppose that they can come to Christ when they themselves choose, and not when God calls them. Both seem to me to narrow the scope of God's plan by the work of Jesus Christ through His Church and His nation; whereas He, through Paul, hints at a vast work extending through the Universe; see 1 Cor. vi, 1-3, and Ephesians i, 1-10. The Bible does not say that the case of those not called in this life is hopeless. 1 Peter iii, 18-22, and iv, 6, hints at a more populous Paradise, but not another or wider door.

I cannot go with one of the speakers in his hints at a Divine Democracy. Differences in degree and position are revealed where Christ bears rule; and the nearest approach to Democracy will be when, after the period known as "the ages of the ages" comes to an end, and everything contrary to God's mind is utterly destroyed out of existence, the Lord Jesus hands over the kingdom to God; even the Father. Even then, it is to me unthinkable that Our Redeemer should stand no higher than even the highest of His Redeemed.

504TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

MONDAY, MARCH 7TH, 1910.

THE REV. J. TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed. The announcement was then made of the impending election to fill eight vacancies on the Council, to take place on May 2nd.

The following paper was then read by the author :

(Illustrated by Lantern Slides.)

AŠŠUR AND NINEVEH.

By THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S.

Aššur.

F all the little explanatory verses on the Old Testament there are probably but few which are of greater interest than that referring to the great cities of Assyria. It is that well-known verse 11 of the 10th chapter of Genesis, which, in the Revised Version, tells us that, "out of that laud (Shinar or Babylonia) he (Nimrod, who is best identified with the Babylonian god Merodach) went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city)." Whether it was Asshur or Nimrod who went forth from Babylonia or not is a matter of but minor importance, as it is the cities which were founded, and not the person who founded them, with which we have to deal.

A very important testimony to the great size of Nineveh is given in the Book of Jonah, where it is spoken of, in verse 2 of the third chapter, as " that great city," and further, in the third verse of the same chapter, as "an exceeding great city, of three days' journey," the distance referred to being commonly regarded as indicating its extent. Naturally, there is some difficulty in