held "semper, ubique, et ab omnibus." And they were reminded (pp. 227 and 230) that the voice of conscience has authority greater than that of the Church. As regards science they would cordially concur with the statement (p. 204) that all true scientific thought “is in the attitude of Samuel-Speak, Lord, for Thy servant heareth."" Nothing was more reverential than science. In view, however, of the manner in which a powerful scientific school was endeavouring to impose upon students an acceptance of the evolution theory, the belief that their advances in interpreting nature were no longer to suffer obstruction from unproved theories put forward by some scientists, appeared too optimistic.

Might he suggest that the word "Romish" (instead of "Roman") would better express the author's meaning in speaking of the "Roman Church" and the "Roman error"? The Romish Church referred to was not synonymous with the Christian Church to-day existing at Rome, nor with that of the Christian Church there in apostolic times.

One of the most interesting parts of the paper was that which discoursed of the delegated or derived authority of Church and State. Probably the historic conflicts between these powers might be largely accounted for by an endeavour on the part of each to usurp an authority belonging to the other, e.g., the ecclesiastical has sought to bear the sword and to obtain the worldly possessions of the civil power; she had sought to wield an authority to which she had no right; it had not been given her.

It was important to distinguish authority from infallibility. Authority was not infallibility, nor were they necessarily conjoined. The authority of the civil power did not secure from error in its use, nor did the authority of those who were over them "in the Lord give them always "a right judgment in all things." "Even general councils may err." Authority must not be stretched beyond the limits within which it has been given.

Infallible authority was from God alone. It was found in conscience—which is the inward standard, and in the outward standard-which is the word of God, the Bible interpreted to the humble and obedient heart by the Spirit of Truth.

The following communications have been received from Dr. W. WOODS SMYTH, Mr. T. W. E. HIGGENS and Bishop THORNTON.

Dr. W. WOODS SMYTH writes:-I regret to have to differ from the views of Dr. Wace. What constitutes authority? In answering this question we may perceive that authority may be either impersonal or personal. Science as a body of verified facts is impersonal, and is an absolute authority. The pronouncement of God, of man, or of the Church is personal authority. Now it is not said that God doeth everything according to His own will, but that He doeth all things according to the counsel of His own will. That is according to Supreme Reason, of which He has made us partakers. God's will is, therefore, not the ultimate formation of authority, but the counsel or Reason is. The authority of man upon any subject depends upon his knowledge, and still more upon his having seldom or never having made a mistake. An erring man has no authority. When we turn to the Church, which is a body or congregation of men, we find, as a matter of historic fact, that it is a tragedy as well as a "comedy of errors." We are, therefore, unable to accept its authority; and the reason lies in the fact that the counsel of God's will as expressed in His word and His works is not faithfully followed.

Now, inasmuch as the word of God is a written expression of the works of God in nature, the knowledge of which is presented to us in ascertained science, we are, therefore, shut up to the position that authority is founded in the word of God, viewed in the light of verified natural science, and interpreted by the reason which God has given us.

Mr. T. W. E. HIGGENS writes:-I venture to utter a protest against what appears to be the teaching of Dr. Wace on the duty of Christians. as regards obedience in religious matters. And I do so the more reluctantly because he bases his argument on such a solid foundation on page 223, namely, on the personal authority of our Lord. Yet, he appears to teach an almost blind obedience to priestly authority in religious matters, and this I unhesitatingly repudiate.

On page 227 he informs us that the Catholic Church is a "phantom of the imagination," and on page 228 he says that authority is to be found in its most immediate moral action in the Church." What Church? Again, on page 227, I am told that each church must exercise its own authority, and that the only way in which I can discharge my duty of obedience to those set over me in the Lord is by submitting myself to the authority immediately over me, “so

long as it requires nothing of me which I may be persuaded on my conscience is absolutely contrary to the law of God!" The authority in religious matters immediately over me is my parish priest. Am I to submit myself dutifully to him? Is it to be to the vicar of the parish in which I reside, or the clergyman of the church to which I go, or am I wrong in going anywhere but to my parish church?

Again, I am perplexed on pages 229 and 230. The English Church and State are in conflict on the law of marriage. Is it suggested that on such a vital matter there should be "reasonable mutual deference"? Is the deference to be also shown in America, or are the rules which are suggested for guidance only of local application?

I suggest with all deference to the learned Dean that more stress might have been laid upon the necessity of private judgment when dealing with the commandments of men, provided that we first acknowledge our need for the personal direction of the conscience by our Lord Himself.

Lastly, I do not think that justice is shown to those churchmen who, differing from the Dean, have opposed what they deem to be State encroachments into the sphere of religion. They have opposed the authority of the State because they conscientiously believe it to be an usurped authority, and there is very little doubt that such resistance on the part of churchmen must increase when we have judges calmly informing us, as one did in the case of Banister v. Thompson, that the law of God varied according to Act of Parliament. It is not likely that any churchman who believes in the "Holy Catholic Church" of the Apostles' Creed will substitute for it the Houses of Parliament.

:

Bishop THORNTON writes:-The Dean of Canterbury's paper on authority is very timely and interesting. A special question it raises is, What, for a Christian, is the supreme criterion of religious truth and duty? The answer must be that which the paper implies the mind and will of God. He is bound to act on his conviction of what that is. And the organ through which that authority speaks to him is his own deliberate private judgment. In the absence of miraculous manifestations of it, the ultimate right to decide what God's mind and will is on any particular point of truth and duty must rest with the individual, and cannot be abdicated. "Him only shalt thou serve": on questions of right

and wrong we are subject only to the authority of God, and to those whom we recognise as speaking with His authority. Subject only to that, we judge for ourselves in all such matters. "Why yourselves judge ye not what is right?" Christ says: "Judge righteous judgment!" "Judge in yourselves." Says St. Paul: "Judge ye what I say"; "He that is spiritual judgeth all things"; "Let the prophets speak and let the others judge."

But, of course, in the exercise of this right of private judgment, the individual uses a respectful deference to the formulated judgment of the community as such, i.e., to the Church of his allegiance and the realm of which he is providentially a citizen. In religious questions, our National Church has disclaimed all right to supersede what is plainly set forth in Scripture, and all infallibility in interpreting it.

Questions arising out of conflict between the convictions of individuals, the teaching of the church they belong to, and the law of their country, are questions of casuistry, and can only be solved as they arise. As a general principle, we can only insist on the authority of our individual judgment in serious questions of right and wrong, on which we are conscious of having taken all reasonable means of getting well informed.

I quite agree with the Dean in his light, estimate of the current appeal made by some to "Catholicity" so called; but I cannot accept the disparaging generalisations as to Church history of Sir Robert Anderson or Dr. W. Woods Smyth.

BIOGRAPHICAL

NOTICE OF THE LATE MR. WILFRED H. HUDLESTON, F.R.S., Vice-President of the Victoria Institute.

WILFRED H. HUDLESTON was the son of Dr. John Simpson, who married Elizabeth Ward, heiress of the Hudlestons of Cumberland, and by letters patent assumed the name of Hudleston in 1867. Wilfred, the eldest son, was born in York on June 2nd, 1828. He received his early education at St. Peter's School, York, and entered St. John's College, Cambridge, where he graduated in 1850. In his last term in Cambridge he attended the lectures of Professor Sedgwick, and was much impressed by the manner and discourse of that eminent geologist. On leaving Cambridge he passed a considerable part of twelve years in travelling in Europe and North Africa.

From 1862 Mr. Hudleston applied himself to studies in natural science, attending the lectures of Playfair in Edinburgh, and those of Hoffman, Franklin, and Valentine at the Royal College of Chemistry in London, and his knowledge of geology may be considered to have commenced under the tuition of Professor John Morris, joining in excursions to places around London calculated to interest the students of that science. From this time geology became the prime subject of his pursuits. In 1867, he was elected Fellow of the Geological Society, and in 1892 he became its President. He had contributed several papers on geological subjects.

In 1891 Mr. Hudleston became a Member of the Victoria Institute; and immediately after, was elected one of its VicePresidents. Though he does not appear to have contributed original papers to its transactions, he evinced a warm interest in its proceedings by attending the meetings and taking part in the discussions. Mr. Hudleston's last appearance at the meetings of the Society was on the evening of December 4th last, when he took part in the discussion of Professor Hull's paper on "Geneva and Chamounix as they were fifty years ago, and as they are now." His interesting speech-corrected by himself-appears along with the paper in the present volume. The Members of the Institute will long regret the absence from their midst of Mr. Hudleston's striking personality and fine intellectual countenance.

E. H.