simplicity be one characteristic charm of gospel truth, no gospel yet heard is more simple than ours, which says to all men in all sorts and conditions of life "Trust in God, for He must be at least as good as you, and infinitely better than the best of men."

It matters little to us what Moses, Christ, Paul or Mahomet, may have taught; but as a great many Christians care very much what was said by their Master, Jesus Christ, it is very well to remind them that in the Sermon on the Mount, this was precisely the Gospel He preached: "If ye bring evil, know how to be kind to your children, how much more will your Father be good to you." This cannot be gainsaid or repudiated; and if the Christians try to defend their dogmas on the ground that elsewhere words were spoken of Jesus which considerably modify the above passage, e.g., " Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels "-then we must say all the worse for Christ and His teaching.

But this by the way. There can be no question that if we are to have religion at all, our religion is the most simple, the most reasonable, the most comforting, and, so far as it gives hope of final goodness, is the most wholesome, of all the religions with which we are acquainted. It is, moreover, not strictly confined to our society, but is prominent in the church of the Brahmo Somaj; is held, I am assured, by the most cultured Jews in Europe and America, though the time for more open renunciation of supernaturalism is not yet come; and it is most certainly taught in some Unitarian chapels. I could point to individuals of all the Christian churches and sects who accept this Gospel heart and soul, and who are doing their best to spread it; and from actual observation I may say there are more Theists among the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England than in all other orthodox Christian denominations.

I pass on to the second enquiry "Is the end we have in view being ostensibly and adequately pursued by any other existing organization ? "

We need not waste any time in noticing the various orthodox Churches and Sects; for manifestly the Theistic teaching of some individuals among them is not only ex

ceptional, but necessarily weakened, through being preached by ministers who are believed or supposed to hold a great many other doctrines which are opposed to Theism. The only church or organization which we need examine on this point is the Unitarian, including under that term all congregations, whether called Presbyterians or Unitarians, or Free Christians, who are either registered as worshipping in Unitarian Chapels, or whose ministers are duly entered on the Unitarian lists.

I will not say one word about the Unitarians, either of the body collectively or of individual members or ministers, till I have repeated my deep sense of the immense services which they have rendered, and are still rendering, to the cause of Rational Religion. We shall, indeed, never know how much we owe to them; and never be it my part to forget the friendly and generous greeting offered me by so many after the loss of my benefice. Unitarians have been among the most liberal and prominent of the subscribers to our movenient; and I am truly proud of, and thankful for, the sympathy and encouragement we are continually receiving at their hands.

If, then, I assume the attitude of a critic in settling a question of some delicacy, I trust no one, however susceptible, will be hurt at what I may say.

(1.) It is an acknowledged fact that there is a wide diversity of religious views among Unitarians and their ministers. Some are very nearly orthodox; some are bordering on Theism; some are quite Theistic; some are Pantheists, and some are even Positivists. It is a credit, and not a blemish, that such diversity is possible; for at least it argues freedom.

But (2) it is also an undisputed fact that Theodore Parker, who even retained the use of the Christian name, and made much of Christ and his teaching, was nevertheless disowned by the Unitarian body; that it is only quite recently that Parker has begun to be recognised and eulogised by Unitarian ministers, and, as I am informed, even yet his works are not circulated by Unitarian authority, though soon, I am happy to say, they will be.

(3.) The majority of the Unitarians call themselves a Christian Church. Symbols of Christianity are found in

their Churches. They have a Communion table and celebrate the Lord's Supper. They baptize infants in the name of Christ, and still use prayers ending in "through Jesus Christ our Lord." Familiar as I am with the Inquirer, the leading Unitarian paper, I could not help starting with surprise and wonder on seeing in the leading article of September 25, the following words :-"Let it not be imagined then, that disbelief in the old Creeds and dogmas and speculative opinions implies less faith in GOD and CHRIST." The names thus coupled "God and Christ," are printed in the same double capitals; and imply a position given to Christ which our reasons quite forbid us to grant. What would the editor think of saying instead of this, "faith in God and Channing," or "faith in God and Martineau ? " And if he could not say or print this, because it jars on our reverence for the Most High, and yet can say "God and Christ," it implies that Martineau and Channing are not in the same plane with Christ, who is, however, placed nearly on a level with God Himself. There is abundant evidence both in this excellent and charitable paper (indeed I know none like it for generosity of tone and temper) and also in the Unitarian Herald to shew that between their standpoint and Theism the gulf is very wide. I have read in both, defences of miracles, explanations in vindication of the Resurrection of Jesus, and various nearly orthodox reviews; and from these I gather either that the papers do not at all express the general opinion of the Unitarian body; or, if they do, the Unitarian body are certainly not doing the same work as our own.

The questions Who is right? and What is expedient? I do not here touch upon. They may be wiser and nearer the truth than we are; their close clinging to the skirts of Christianity may be as politic now, as once it was both natural and necessary; but all we are concerned with is this Are they, as a body, judged by their two weekly papers, doing our work ostensibly and adequately? And we say they are not; they have a function of their own; they have traditions which justify their own rate of progress; they are unspeakably useful in bridging over the passage from Trinitarianism to Theism; but they are not preaching the same Gospel as ours, because they add to it much that we think spoils the beauty of its outline and mars the effect of its brightness by misplaced colouring.

It is true some individual congregations come very near to our own feeling and tone of thought, but even among them we find a human name thrust, as we think, into an artificial and excessive importance, dangerous in times like these to the safety of our principles and to the simplicity and integrity of our message.

We lose very much, my friends, in some respects, by not identifying ourselves with a body of Christians, so cultured, so intelligent, having so honourable a history as theirs; but what we might gain in prestige, in social comfort, and what not beside, we should have to subtract tenfold from our ultimate influence on the thought of our time. We are content to help to leaven the churches around us, and to see even in the Unitarian Churches distinct traces of the progress of Theism which, before very long, may even supplant that remnant of traditional Christianity to which the majority still cling. Let me with all respect remind them that the Jew would never dream of such dishonour to Jehovah, as to speak of "faith in God and Moses." Why then should a monotheistic Unitarian speak of "faith in God and Christ? "

At another opportunity, we may justify our attitude towards these venerable names Christ and Christianity. At present, it is enough to ask you, if you are satisfied with my replies to the two questions with which we started. I feel sure that every Theist will feel that his religion is worth propagating that it is, however, partial and even erroneous, at least the best he has ever heard of; and that with few individual exceptions none of the existing organizations are ostensibly and adequately pursuing the end we have in view.

From these premises, but one practical conclusion can be drawn-and you must draw it for yourselves.

Meanwhile, let us not forget that much more is needed beside our money, our time and our toil. We must pray for the prosperity which cometh from God-the fruit of holy and beautiful lives, without which all our fine Gospel and pure reasoning and bounding hope will be a mockery and a delusion. We must work out our prayers for prosperity by zeal, generosity and self-sacrifice, knowing that we shall reap nothing that we do not sow; and yet trustful that if we do the sowing right heartily and in due season, God will give us a bounteous harvest.

D. WILLIAMS & Co., Printers, 14, Bishopsgate Avenue, Camomile Street, E.C

The Faults of Christianity.

A SERMON,

PREACHED AT THE LANGHAM HALL, 43, GREAT PORTLAND STREET, W., OCTOBER 10, 1875, BY THE

REV. CHARLES VOYSEY.

LUKE, VI., 44. "Every tree is known by its fruit." HAVE thought it well to reproduce two Sermons on the Faults and the Merits of Christianity, which were preached about two years ago. They have been so frequently asked for, and have been so long out of print, that those who may have heard them already will not, I trust, be sorry to hear them again.

I am, however, most anxious that those who hear or read the sermon of to-day should also hear or read the sermon of next Sunday, as it is impossible to state both sides of the question in one discourse, and nothing would grieve me more than to be or to appear one-sided or unjust.

About two years ago an address was delivered at Edinburgh by Sir Bartle Frere upon the great African explorer Dr. Livingstone, in which he gave a most interesting account of some of the African races, urging the duty of European interference in African affairs, and especially of extending our missionary enterprise in those benighted regions. Of the policy which he recommended I do not now intend to say one word, but his address contained certain references to Christianity which I think ought not to pass unchallenged.

Sir Bartle Frere, as reported in the Scotsman of January 6th, 1874, said, "Let us note, in passing, the effects of Christianity as a bond of society. I am not now speaking of Christianity in any dogmatic or moral sense, but simply in its character of a political element affecting the destinies of nations where it is commonly professed."

Now, it is hard to see how Christianity can be considered at all, if either its dogmatic or its moral elements be excluded from the consideration. Even if we attempt to consider it "simply in its character of a political element affecting the

Rev. C. Voysey's sermons are to be obtained at Langham Hall, every Sunday morning, or from the Author (by post), Camden House, Dulwich, S.F. Price one penny, postage a halfpenny.