two are antagonistic, or that the ministers contradict the doctrine of the confession. That would not be true-not at any rate generally true, however it may be with individuals here and there. But the Confession is quietly ignored. The gospel of divine love is substituted for the gospel of divine sovereignty. Men are exhorted to believe unto salvation, but the formal doctrine of justification by faith is very little heard of. You may sit from year's end to year's end in a church without hearing the word election spoken, unless it occur in the chapters which are read; and people would prick up their ears if anything were said about reprobation or preterition. Practically, the old controversy about Calvinism and Armenianism, which shaped in a great measure the Westminster Assembly's Confession, is treated as if it were an unreality-a fruitless conflict about the two opposite poles of one and the same truth. Thus a great change has taken place, if not in the theoretic belief, yet assuredly in the ordinary teachings of the Church-a change of greater moment than any that has happened since the time of the Reformation.

Of course, the leaders in the several branches of the Presbyterian Church are well aware of this, being clear-sighted men of no little sagacity. Some of them, I daresay, do not much like it, and may be greatly exercised what to do about it. Others feel that something must sooner or later be attempted to reconcile the professed creed of the Church with its living faith, lest it should gradually drift into a position of essential dishonesty. But they are all hampered by their sectarian rivalries. The Establishment, of course, is fain to call itself "The Church," and to affect a superiority to all sectarian weakness. In reality, it is just as little-minded and as selfish as any of our other religious communities-as truly a sect, with as much of the spirit belonging to a sect. For while it is absolutely certain that it has departed from the theology of the Confession quite as largely as any of its sister Churches, probably even more, yet it is eager to point to that new drift of opinion among them, and to claim for itself that it, and it alone, holds by the doctrine of the Westminster Assembly. I do not know, indeed, that its Supreme Court has ever given an utterance to that effect, but many of those who are supposed to speak in its name have not hesitated to do so; and hence the shrewd leaders of the other Churches dare not handle this grave question, which concerns the very life of religion among us, except in the most gingerly fashion, lest it should be seized on to prejudice their cause with the people; for among many of them there is still a traditionary feeling that the Confession and the Shorter Catechism are almost as sacred as the Bible. In no respect, then, is the unification of the Church of more importance than for the proper adjustment of this vital question. It cannot apparently be done till sectarian rivalries are swept away. At least, it will not be done by those who have the guidance of affairs at present, and to whom these ecclesiastical rivalries would seem to be

almost of greater moment than the moral integrity of the clergy. Of course, I do not believe that it is so in reality. They are upright and faithful men. But they see the one danger far more clearly than they see the other and more serious one. And I suspect it will be hopeless to look for any settlement of this vital matter till the Church is once more united, and is free to order her affairs rightly in the fear of the Lord. I do not suppose she would lose a day in facing this question, were she met in common council. Indeed, the very negotiations for union would inevitably force her to deal with it. The wedding could not take place without a settlement, and clear understanding of the terms on which they were to keep house together. All the several branches of the Church have passed through much the same change of idea. If that idea is poison, it is in the blood of all of them alike. If it is "the sincere milk of the word," they are all desiring it, and living on it. At present there is an uneasy feeling that it is held and taught in spite of a solemn engagement to hold and teach something very different, the truth of which they do not indeed deny, but which they can no more use in the good fight than David could use the armour of Saul. To such men, therefore, and they are probably now the majority in all the Presbyterian Churches, it is of more moment than anything else to get some readjustment of the Confession that shall be in harmony with their actual faith; and that apparently cannot be, certainly will not be in any sufficient thoroughness, until our three Presbyterian sects become one Presbyterian Church. This I reckon by far the most important point to be gained by the disestablishment of the State Church, and the reconstruction of a national one. Other ends it may also bring about, which are desirable enough in their own way. There is, e.g., an unhappy cleavage in the social aspect of religious life in Scotland. As Lord Rosebery says of the political divisions of the time, the cleavage is no longer perpendicular, but also horizontal. The masses and the classes are standing apart-to the certain ruin of the classes in the end, for the democratic forces are now overwhelming. Most of the upper class have forsaken the Presbyterian Church, and by their own account many of them did so owing to our strifes and divisions. The reunion of the several parties of Presbyterians now standing apart would at all events test whether that was their real motive, and would afford them an opportunity to return. How far they are likely to do so, I cannot forecast. Possibly the larger freedom of a truly national Church, the improved forms of worship, and the feeling that Scotsmen should cling to a really Scottish, historical Church, might influence some to take their place among the rest of their fellow-countrymen. But I am not very sanguine on this head, unless some high tide of Scottish feeling should arise, and swamp a variety of ideas and prejudices which are at present dominant. It is a pity, of course, that so many of the nobility and gentry should separate themselves from the whole stream

of national religious opinion and sentiment—a pity chiefly for themselves, for it deprives them largely of their legitimate influence with the people. Perhaps it may also indicate some weakness in our Presbyterian traditions, that they have failed to conciliate the men of culture and taste-an evil, however, which is being rapidly amended. I should anticipate that a broad and comprehensive national Church, wisely guided to meet all the spiritual wants of a complex social life, would sooner or later carry along with it the bulk of national sentiment and opinion. But it is hard to say what effect it might produce on so peculiar a sect as that of Scottish Episcopacy.

On the whole, then, now that the continuance of State Churches. is thrown into the ballot-box, I expect that their day is drawing to an end. It is purely a question of time, and of the growth of modern tendency. Let those who wish their abolition, then, have enough faith in that tendency to be looking forward to what is to come after, and to act now so as to facilitate the future readjustment of ecclesiastical affairs among us. Let them avoid whatever would make that settlement more difficult than it need be. Bitter partisanship just now, and ungenerous construction of motives will produce regrets one day, and disappoint our hopes. The smaller fry, indeed, will always run riot according to their nature, but let the wise and prudent, who do not look to disestablishment as an end, but only as a means to serve the higher interests of religion, be careful to keep that larger outlook steadily before them, and to avoid anything that would harm it in the long run. What is needed is the union of Presbyterian Churches in order to the more efficient service of the country, and the moral integrity of the clergy. The latter is of quite infinite moment. Things cannot long go on as they are now, with a creed strongly Calvinistic, and teaching that gives it little or no heed. Again, I say that the peculiarity of the position is, not that the Scottish clergy reject the Confession, but that they give it the go-by, and work on other lines altogether. They regard it as, no doubt, one side of the truth, but not the side that helps them to do their work. It may be theoretically right, but in practice they largely ignore it. That is not a state of things that is wholesome, or that can continue long to exist. And yet little will be done to amend it, till our scattered squadrons are drawn together, and the united army can order the battle anew. WALTER SMITH.

NOTE. Since this paper was written, Professor Candlish has carried a motion in the great Presbytery of Glasgow to hold a conference on this subject as to the formula of adherence to the Westminster Confession. Of course, many may vote for such a conference who are not prepared to go any farther. Yet the large majority he got seems clearly to imply that the question at least is pressing itself on the attention of many, and that there is a pretty general feeling that something must be done to get rid of the present state of things, which is both a scandal and a danger. Probably the Free Church will pass some measure such as the United Presbyterian Church passed a few years ago— enough to tide over present difficulties, and leave the real work for a future day. That is all we can expect, till an United Church of Scotland sits down to face it with courage, and settle it at least for a time-perhaps for a century to come.-W. S.

HAS THE LIBERAL PARTY A FUTURE?

NO sensible man can be much exercised as to whether the Liberal party-quá party-has a future or not. If the Liberal party is to be the party of humanity-the party that is to redress social inequalities, to make equal laws, to remove the stigma of poverty, to check vice in high places, to allow men to make us rich by their work without our taxing them before they begin, to stand between the employer and the employed, the landlord and the tenant, the poor and the police, why, then may it live a thousand years, and, above all, may the salaries of its officials resist the touchstone of common sense as long as possible! But, an it will not do this, why, let it go, in God's name, and relegate itself to the limbo of all wornout parties! That the old is passing away is, of course, since time was time, a truism; but it is because the Liberal party seems indisposed to admit this, and is seeking to restrain the new ideas in old brain-pans, that the children's teeth are being set on edge with the Sour grapes of individualism, while the stomachs cry out for a satisfying meal of Socialism. Laissez-faire is a very pretty device in a book, or a study, but a poor thing in practice; laissez-faire the Corn Laws and the Factories Acts, laissez-faire the Irish and Highland landlords and the chaos of London no-government, and you will in a short time have to face a civil war or a revolution. The Liberals have of late concerned themselves too little with the condition of the people question, have been too apt to pay too much attention to lines of figures without souls, to say to those who say that party is on the increase, "My dear sir, you must be mistaken. Incomes of £2000 a year are far more prevalent (for it would seem to be epidemic) than they were ten years ago. Let us settle the Irish question, and

get back, for God's sake, to our proper place in Downing Street, and all will yet be well." But although the one consistent and ardent aspiration of the Liberal politician is to throw the adverse party out of its comfortable armchairs in Downing Street and to rest there himself, still we cannot but feel that that inconsistent and dissentient Liberal party, in spite of the well-meant endeavours of those who form it, and who would still thrust into the mouths of a democracy to whom she has given a shadow of power by enfranchisement, the threadbare maxims of Adam Smith and Ricardo, and who would still like to sit comfortably and hatch political eggs in the good oldfashioned Liberal political way, is at war not only with itself and the Tory, but with those vestiges of more advanced political tendency which cling on to the edge of her garment.

The Liberal party, as a party, is severely threatened, and the signal of dissolution, inevitable and complete, will be the death of its leader, who still unites under his banner all shades of Liberal thought, whether tending towards moderation or advancement. But at his death, with no one to combine these heterogeneous elements, with not one man of weight or influence to guide the Liberal party, it is easy to foresee its ultimate fate. Into the Tory ranks will crowd most of these adverse elements, without order, and tumultuously, to array themselves against the common enemy, which time, education, and the past political events of this year are rapidly forming into an enemy of irresistible strength-the democracy and the wage-earners of Great Britain-which, stated simply, means the bulk of the population of Great Britain, and which, regarded as to its ultimate outcome, means civil war-war betwixt the classes and the masses; and events seem to be rapidly tending towards this climax.

I doubt all optimistic views. I believe that never before in England have the relations between the State and the people been so intimate and so strained-I doubt whether the Spirit of Hate and Fear animating the one, and the Spirit of Menace and Discontent the other, have ever encountered each other before with such virulent pressure as at this moment. The people dislike and distrust politicians-Liberal as well as Tory. They have begun to realize what manner of men these are whom they so tamely submit to rule them, and the submission is being lit up into inquiries and ugly questions, which are being asked at this moment in every workmen's club in the land.

This, then, explains the fear-nay, positive hatred for those theories which are at present being debated by every intelligent workman in the kingdom: Nationalization of capital, nationalization of land, and State regulation of wages and hours. No wonder that the Liberal party will transiger with any one or anything-with coercion in London, with coercion in Ireland-rather than admit