acting in so generous and noble a manner as to excite the admiration of all Christians, one of whose prime delusions is that this kind of conduct is a monopoly of their own denomination.

Many of us have, I dare say, been invited to contribute to the temporary support of these poor people and have done so with a glad heart. But I allude to the conduct of the Hon. Auberon Herbert and his willing helpers merely to observe how intensely superior is natural human sympathy to the artificial barriers raised by false religion. At such a time it is impossible to forget that infamous dictum of one of the Apostolic Epistles ;-" If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine (viz. the doctrine of Christ) receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." The conduct of the heretic, I think, looks well beside this apostolic mandate; and I may say in passing that it is a healthy sign of coming freedom from bibliolatry that there are many Christians who would be just as ready to shelter and feed an outcast heretic, as the heretic in this instance has been to shelter and feed the outcast Christian. Such conduct, however, seriously imperils the value of the New Testament as a Divinely-inspired book.

Now one of the principal questions raised by this Lymington episode which the orthodox world will have to face is, whether or not the New Testament is infallible? If it be infallible, every precept it contains is equally binding on believers, every example set by infallible men is equally to be followed. If, on the other hand, it be found necessary to right conduct to obey some precepts and to disobey others; to copy some examples and to deviate from others; then the doctrine of New Testament infallibility must be given up. In which case again, the new question arises, on what principle is obedience or disobedience to be regulated? Are we to constitute ourselves the judges as to what we shall consent to follow and what we shall refuse? Or is a new interpreting authority to be introduced which shall supersede that of the book, yet bind us with an authority equally imperative and divine?

Any one of these alternatives is perfectly logical, and no one could impute inconsistency to those who adopted one or the other. But we may reasonably reproach with inconsistency those who try two alternatives at once; e.g. If a man believes that every word of the New Testament is divine,

that every precept in it is alike binding on his obedience, and that every example in it is set forth for his imitation, and at the same time he disregards some of its teachings altogether, disobeys on principle some of its precepts, and would think himself a fool if he tried to follow some of its examples; that man, I say, is monstrously inconsistent, and merits the ridicule usually poured upon persons in that dilemma. While another who, accepting the book in its entirety, tries his best to believe all that it reveals, to do all that it prescribes, to become all that its examples indicate, merits the highest prize for consistency and sincerity, and instead of being greeted with ridicule ought to be crowned with honour.

And yet here in this Christian England, we are witnessing a most astounding spectacle-that of Christians who believe, or say they believe, in the absolute, Divine infallibility and authority of the New Testament, deriding those who prove their profound belief in it by the utmost conscientious endeavours to live up to its requirements.

In all fairness we must say that the derision ought to come from the other side. If there be anything really ridiculous, it is the brazen and unconscious inconsistency of the mass of persons calling themselves Christians, and not the elaborate self-denying obedience on the part of Mrs. Girling and her followers.

It must be remembered that I am not now treating of the question as to which of the two parties is acting the more wisely or the more agreeably to the eternal principles of morality. I am speaking only of the respective exhibitions of conduct in two classes, both of whom agree in regarding as infallible and authoritative the same New Testament; and I am contrasting the conduct in each case entirely in its relation to the belief; the one being consistent; the other flagrantly inconsistent.

So obtuse on this subject are the orthodox, that it is necessary to give illustrations with the hope of bringing this inconsistency home to their minds.

In common with the sect called the "Peculiar People," Mrs. Girling and her associates systematically refuse medical aid in sickness. She herself states that she has been miraculously cured, without medical aid, of partial paralysis, blindness of one eye, &c. Well, anyone who knows his Bible, must remember that Asa, one of the Kings of Judah,

2

is reproached by the Chronicler, because "he saught not to the Lord, but to the physicians;" and in the Epistle of St. James, distinct orders are laid down respecting the sick, "Is any sick among you? let him call for the Elders of the Church and they shall pray over him, annointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up." And in the xvith chapter of Mark, verses 17 and 18, we read "These signs shall follow them that believe; in My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues (one of Mrs. Girling's accomplishments) they shall take up serpents; if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover." (Mrs. Girling claims this power and denies that it is mesmeric.)

Now in reference to the passage read from St. Mark, of course we all know that it forms part of a chapter, the last eleven verses of which are an interpolation, and of very doubtful authority. But as many of the clergy know this as well as we do, why do they not proclaim it loudly and frequently from their pulpits and thus do a little at least towards guarding their people from delusions? It is perhaps because in the same interpolated and doubtful passage there occur the celebrated words on which the blighting clauses of the Athanasian Creed are founded, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." At all events, until Bishops and Clergy bring the fact of the doubtfulness of the whole passage into prominent notice up and down the land, they are tacitly encouraging their flocks to embrace the very delusions which now they are so forward to deride.

Mrs. Girling moreover actually believes that the promise made by Jesus in the Gospels respecting his return to earth is true; and she frames her life accordingly. Now although it has not been given to our Bishops and Clergy generally, nor even to many orthodox dissenters, to share the sanguine hopes of Dr. Cumming and Mrs. Girling; yet one and all talk of the second advent as if they believed in it, and especially during the season of Advent they press upon their flocks-not the abundity or fallacy of the prediction as given in the Gospels, but-its truth and importance.

Mrs. Girling believes her Saviour's words "He that believeth in me shall never die." Why is she to be laughed at for accepting these words literally, when millions of Christians

accept literally those other words of his, "Take eat, this is my body;" and, "This is my blood, Drink ye all of it ;" and when millions more accept literally the words "I and my Father are one." Why, I ask, should this person be derided for either believing or accepting in a literal sense any one passage in that Book which those who laugh at her profess to regard in precisely the same light?

Celibacy, again, is one of Mrs. Girling's principles. Has it not been also that of thousands of men and women in the Church of Rome? Is her devotion to her Lord anything very different from that of the nuns of Paray-le-Monial, and the devotees of the "Sacred Heart?" Is not celibacy moreover distinctly encouraged, if not enjoined, in the New Testament? Does not Christ promise his best reward to those who give up their wives "for the kingdom of heaven's sake?" Did he not inculcate celibacy by his example, and by more or less open depreciation of family ties? The New Testament says he did. St. Paul certainly contrasts the honourable estate of marriage with the debasement of fornication and adultery; but the whole weight of his precepts and advice is thrown into the scale of celibacy altogether; urging that married folks are likely to live to please each other, whereas single folks would try only to please the Lord; and thus teaching that mutual regard was, if not opposed to, yet something quite outside, the duty owing to God.

And the Christians blame Mrs. Girling and her disciples for following the example laid down in the Acts of the Apostles by the conduct of the Early Church of Jerusalem. The apostles and first converts did exactly according to what we are told the precepts and example of Jesus had enjoined.

They sold all that they had and shared everything in common with the community; and spent much of their time in prayer. The Communism of that time has been defended on the ground of its consistency with the belief in the speedy return of Jesus to occupy the throne of David. Precisely the ground, you see, on which these poor people at Lymington, justify their unfortunate experiment at Communism. The more we study their ways and their asserted principles, the greater is our admiration for the fidelity with which they endeavour to realize what they believe; to act up in every particular to the precepts and examples they have accepted as divine.

Another important effort on their part to realize the

doctrines they learn from the New Testament is their belief in the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. In the Epistles of Paul we find such expressions as these, "Know ye not that your bodies (not souls) are the temples of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Know ye not that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost, which ye have of God." And these passages are interpreted according to the light shed upon them by the Acts of the Apostles, wherein it is stated that the giving of the Holy Ghost was followed by miraculous manifestations. Almost in every point, if we blame these people, we must blame the book from which their every peculiarity has been drawn.

The only feature of their rites which I cannot find authority for in the New Testament is the dancing or shaking of the body during periods of religious fervour. I do not know if they go to the examples of Old Testament history for this practice, but a verse or two in the Psalms speak of "praising God in the dance." It is possible they may be influenced by the story of David dancing before the ark-an act not only not sanctioned by any precept in the Jewish law, but actually traceable to the more than questionable ceremonies of the idolatry of Canaan. But it is most probable that the dancing or shaking is simply Nature's own relief under the influence of powerful religious excitement. It is common enough to hear some persons of exuberant emotion say "I feel as if I could leap;" or "I feel as if I should like to scream"-perfectly natural sensations caused by the over-stimulus of the nervous system when it closely borders on temporary insanity. So, among the community at Lymington, the powerful physical exertion which accompanies their devotions is very probably a necessary and healthful relief from the over-straining of the nerves.

With this exception, however, it is easy to see that all that they have distinguished themselves by, all that has brought upon them the ridicule of their fellow-Christians may be traced to the direct authority and indirect influence of the New Testament; a book which Christians regard as Divinely infallible and to defend the verbal accuracy of which they will fight and persecute any one who calls it into question. The language of their behaviour is this: "You may act as if it were not all true, nor all binding upon you. But you must not say so. Nay, the more you play fast and loose with its precepts, and dress or redress or undress its examples,