The following address was delivered before the Presbytery of Clutha at its meeting at Milton, on March 9, 1904, when the Remit on Union and Overture (Appendix IV.) were under consideration. The Presbytery agreed not to transmit the Overture to the Synod, as, in its opinion, the objects sought in giving puplicity to the criticism of the Articles was sufficiently attained. On the motion of Rev. P. B. Fraser, the Presbytery unanimously agreed to a resolution requesting the Assembly to terminate the present Union movement, and to proceed in the direction overtured by the Presbytery in 1902 when the Assembly was requested to establish an annua Conference of representatives of Churches with a view to fraternal co-operation:—

Moderator and Brethren,—I do not need to make any apology for bringing this overture and the subject of it before this Presbytery. Nor will I say more than a sentence in reference to an attack made by Dr Erwin in his speech the other day before the Presbytery of Christchurch in reference to this same matter. To say that his brethren have no better motives for their opposition to this union movement than the vilest known to the human heart, personal animosity, is not a triumph either of truth or of charity, and shows how poorly equipped we all are to engage in controversy, and how difficult it is for us to practise what we preach. I will not do him the unkindness of thinking his statement is seriously intended, and will not waste precious time in further reference to it. I believe that Dr Erwin, on reflection, will withdraw the ungenerous calumny. Meanwhile, my indictment remains unchallenged and unanswered, and it will not be weakened, much less refuted, by a conspiracy of silence. I have received from all over the Church cordial expressions of appreciation of the service I rendered by that indictment to the cause of truth.

The Standpoint.

Now, at the outset of our discussion, let me point out that it is the common practice of advocates of new departures to invite you to discharge your minds of prejudices and presuppositions, and the present has been no exception to the rule. But this is an old controversial device, and, as a rule, it is no less than an invitation to you to shut your eyes and open your mouth, and swallow the conclusion of your opponent without a too searching scrutiny of his presuppositions or examination page 51 of his standpoint. As Neander says in the opening paragraph of his 'Life of Christ,' such an invitation is as vain as it is disingenuous. "We cannot entirely free ourselves from presuppositions—and the supposed freedom from them is but the exchange of one set for another." Though we have been invited to divest ourselves of what Dr Erwin calls our prejudices, we at all events shall be sufficiently frank to say that we shall make no pretence of the sort. We have our presuppositions, our standpoint, and Dr Erwin has his, and instead of making a pretence to divest ourselves of them, we ought at the outset on both sides frankly and fully to state what our presuppositions are. This would save us from entering on vain negotiations and controversy with the conclusions of which we can never agree.

What Is Your Standpoint?

Here we have a proposal for a Union of Churches, made by brethren in our own Church. Before the Church at large had ever been consulted, negotiations were conducted at incredible speed, almost entirely by one man, and a Creed formed in the manner with which we are now familiar. But if there had been at the outset a frank and open avowal of presuppositions on the part of the authors of this movement, we should never as a Church have been in the unhappy position we are in to-day. Before ever one step was taken, those proposing union should have given—and they have not yet given—a full and frank disclosure of their presuppositions. It is perfectly idle for Dr Erwin to say that you are "simply asked to consider whether, provided a basis of doctrine and polity can be agreed on, you are in favour of an incorporating union with other Churches." These negotiations, we know, must be conducted by parties from our Church, and we equally know that like ourselves, they have presuppositions. But what Dr Erwin would have us believe is, that they have none, or that theirs are the same as ours. And certainly, in addition, the parties negotiating for the other Churches will have presuppositions likewise. Are these, in the main, the same as ours, or radically opposed? To assume that all parties have the same presuppositions or none at all is as absurd as it is disingenuous and hypocritical. Yet this is what we are asked to do. No doubt, if you laid on the table the written Creeds of the respective Churches, most of the fundamental presuppositions would be the same. And this certainly is what you and I mean by saying that these Churches have much in common. But while the Creeds are silent, and the parties begin to speak, you soon discover that the supposed agreement is of quite a different kind. Dr Erwin, for instance, declares of your Confession that, "as a historical document, it is of incalculable value as an exhibition of the sense in which the fathers of our Church understood the Scriptures." The rathers! Now, the fathers all died in faith, having obtained a good report through the faith in which they died. What page 52 about their sons? "I say, too," says Dr Erwin, "without fear of contradiction, that there is a considerable departure of the working faith of the Church from her historical Creed." Not to waste words, this means the sons don't believe the Creed of their fathers. The serious thing is that the sons at every induction and ordination solemnly vow that they do-serious, for the sons. The statement, however, that we are concerned with is, that the "Church" does not believe her Creed. This would be serious indeed for the Church, if by "Church" Dr Erwin meant ordinary, commonplace people like you and me. Of course, by "Church" he only means those of his way of thinking—a slip of expression certain progressive and superior persons fall into, who love to regard all the world as having gone after Them. Now the Church can speak only through her formularies, and in these she professes to believe and adhere to the "system of doctrine" of the Westminster Confession. She has not yet, in her formu-laries, made a "considerable departure" from mat system. And if she has not, what right has Dr Erwin to say that she has? Therefore, by "Church" I say Dr Erwin can only mean those of his way of thinking.

Rival Standpoints.

It is, we know, a foible of "advanced" critics to call their deliverances the "accepted results of scholars"; the gifted men of the other school, not being "scholars," do not count. Dr Briggs, chief of American "scholars," refers in like manner to those of his own way of thinking, as if they were the entire Church, and surely in no complimentary terms, in his book on Creeds, as follows:—" Religion in Great Britain and America is at present in a very unsatisfactory condition. There is a wide-spread dissatisfaction with the old Theology; and the old methods of worship and Church work. At the same time there is distrust and anxiety with reference to new theology and new measures that are proposed by recent theological doctors. The ministers" (what ministers?)" are not preaching the distinctive features of their own denominations, because the people are tired of them, and will not have them. The ministers" (what ministers?) "do not care to preach to empty pews, and, besides, not a few of the ministers sympathise with their people in these matters. The ministers" (what ministers?) "are in a feverish condition." After reference to hot champions of the new and sturdy defenders of the old and the desire of the majority not to disturb the peace, he adds a sentence of significant weight to our little Church struggling as it is for a bare existence in many parts of the colony: "There are some few who have real insight into the situation, and therefore hesitate to incur the responsibility for that dreadful theological struggle that is liable to burst forth on the first exciting occasion." That was written a few years ago, and, Dr Briggs would say, it is truer to-day than ever. Then Dr Warfield, the distinguished leader in page 53 America of the other school, wrote only the other month. "The issue is becoming an ever more and more pressing one. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Christian Churches are losing themselves and their cause in weak compromises, and crying 'Peace' when there can be no peace. The time seems rapidly approaching when no man will find it possible longer to serve, here either, two masters. Or, rather, for all discerning spirits, that time is already come." And Dr Erwin himself declares that if the Westminster Confession of your Church were brought into harmony with the working faith of the "Church"—he means those of his way of thinking—it would necessitate an entire restatement of many of its doctrines.

What Is Dr Gibb's Standpoint?

Now, in view of all these facts, is it not too child-like and bland for the worthy doctor to assure you that, in voting now, "it must be borne in mind that you are not called upon to consider any basis of doctrine or polity for the proposed united Church"—only give Dr Gibb a roving commission to seek one. That is, you are not to have presuppositions, but Dr Gibb and Dr Erwin are! Dr Erwin, it is true, vaguely, and not too courageously, hints at this, by nibbling at points in the Confession, so that, if you did not know better, you would think our brother a terrible fellow. Dr Gibb's presup-positions, however, we are not entirely ignorant about; at least, we know what they are not—not yours, nor mine, nor your fathers'. If you want to know where the army is moving, keep in touch with the head of the column. Dr Gibb is the head of the column—and he, to be sure, has no presup-positions! And you are to reduce yourselves to a state of mental vacuity or imbecility, and vote as if "you were not called upon to consider any basis of doctrine"! "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird"; and yet the Christchurch Presbytery were captured by the sophistry. What you are asked to do, under cover of a vote on the abstract question of Union, is to precipitate in this Presbyterian Church, with its handful of people, its ministers, none of them with the time or requisite qualifications for such a controversy, "that dreadful theological struggle" which Dr Briggs predicts, and which men of any insight will strive to avert from a small Church like ours. To say that the question before you is only the abstract question of Union is to deceive you.

Does "Union "Mean Creed Revision from a New Standpoint?

The question before you is, first and foremost, a question of Creed. The popular cry of Union is purely a secondary affair, and in the form that Union is now before you, it is little better than an ecclesiastical manoeuvre to commit the Church to Creed revision in the hands of Dr Gibb. Now, the fact has to be borne in mind that the differences of standpoint within page 54 the Churches are greater than the differences between the historical Creeds of the respective Churches Has not "modern criticism won its battle," as Dr George Adam Smith declares, "and is not all that remains to fix the amount of the indemnity?" It is not Union, much less evangelical Union, that is in the air; it is payment that is demanded of the first instalment of the indemnity to modern rationalistic criticism of the Scriptures. To be sure, not for the first time has rationalistic criticism haughtily demanded from the inspired Scriptures its indemnity; but it has never been paid, and never will, save, like Kruger's indemnity, for moral and intellectual damages, out of the damaged morals and intellect of those making the claim. Why should we allow ourselves to be deceived or self-deceived in this matter? "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"—agreed, first and foremost, as to their presuppositions? If our standpoint and persuppositions are the same, our conclusions will be the same, and we will "walk together." It our presuppositions are different, what is the use of entering or negotiations that can only precipitate strife? Are you brethren, or are you not, going to adopt the evolutionary presupposition that reduces those Old Testament Scriptures, which our Saviour spoke of as true history, to a bundle of fables and "pious" frauds—i.e., frauds about God? Are you to adopt the evolutionary speculation about man which makes him more sinned against than a sinner? Are you, on a side issue, to precipitiate strife on these subjects that strike at the very head of the Christian faith—I mean the Christian faith of your fathers? With these antagonistic radical presuppositions, how can it be for you a question of Union? For Union can never be between the evolutionary presupposition and the creative presupposition of your fathers. The only question is when, and where, and in what Church the cleavage is to come Shall we precipitate it here and now? When that cleavage comes, you will have the Smiths on one side and the George Mathesons on the other; some unfortunates, no doubt, will be found in the middle, getting the fire from both sides, in half way houses of temporary and uncertain rest. The evolutionary presupposition now being applied to the origin of the Scriptures and the origin of man is a presupposition native to the human heart, and, in various forms, is as old as the hills, In so far as it is received in its consequences, it is bringing theological and spiritual paralysis on some of the best blood of the Church—for, having no Gospel, it simply can't be "preached." Regarding this theory, Dr George Matheson, whose name is revered throughout Saxondom as a spiritual seer and scholar of the first rank, says: "My theological sympathies are in favour of breadth, but not of negation. I am as broad as broad can be, but a broad positive. I have no sympathy with the negative movement of Robertson Smith The Bible is real history, not myth. The critical movement has done a great deal of harm. I have no sympathy with the Higher Criticism. I wrote a book to show that evolution if page 55 true, is quite compatible with orthodoxy, but I have since come to the conclusion that evolution is not true. I have no more fear of it than I ever had, but I am quite convinced that in say, 1923, it will be an exploded heresy." And yet it is really in the interests of this evolutionary speculation on the origin of man and of Scripture that, under cover of evangelical union, the indemnity is now demanded. "And consequently"—in the words of one the ring of whose voice you will recognise—" we are told we ought to give up part of our old-fashioned theology to save the rest. We are in a carriage on the steppes of Russia. The horses are being driven furiously, but the wolves are close upon us. There they are! Can you not see their eyes of fire? The danger is pressing. What must we do? It is proposed to throw out a child or two. By the time they have eaten the baby we shall have made a little headway; but should they again overtake us, what then? Why, brave man, Throw Out Your Wife. 'All that a man hath will he give for his life '; give up nearly every truth in the hope of saving one. Throw out inspiration, and let the critics devour it. Throw out election and all the old Calvinism; here will be a dainty feast for the wolves, and the gentlemen who give us the sage advice will be glad to see the doctrines of grace torn limb from limb. Throw out natural depravity, eternal punisment, and the efficacy of prayer. We have lightened the carriage wonderfully. Now for another drop. Sacrifice the Great Sacrifice! Have done with the Atonement! Brethren, this advice is villainous, and murderous; we will escape these wolves with everything, or we will be lost with everything. It will be the 'truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.' We will never attempt to save half the truth by casting any part of it away. The sage advice which has been given us involves treason to God, and disappointment to ourselves. We will stand by all or none. We will have a whole Bible or no Bible. We are told that if we give up something the adversaries will also give up something; but we care not what they will do, for we are not the least afraid of them. They are not the imperial conquerers they think themselves. The truth of God we will retain As the Truth of God, and we shall not retain it because the philosophic mind consents to our doing so. God being with us, we shall not cease from this glorying, but will hold the whole of revealed truth, even to the end." These ringing words of perhaps the greatest preacher of the Gospel since the Apostle of the Gentiles are as true as when before his death C. H. Spurgeon uttered them. And that being so, we will now ask, with Palgrave, "Can time undo what once was true?" The question then before the Church is not the merely abstract question of evangelical Union; neither is it, as Dr Erwin would make out, merely such questions as the breadth of the intention of Atonement, though he himself preaches every Sunday when he preaches regeneration by the will of the Spirit of God, a "limited" "application" of it (John i, 13). The ques- page 56 tion now is, whether there is Atonement, or need of Atonement at all. It is not a qustion of a long Creed or a short one, broad or narrow, thick or thin, but a question of the Church's attitude to her whole faith; whether her System of doctrine is true or false.

The Value of Single Doctrines.

To drop from a written Creed, because it may be a barrier to Union between brethren, an Article of Faith which, though true, is not fundamental, is a proposal well worth the consideration of our brethren in all the Churches; and this we are ready to consider, whenever the time arrives for skilled and reverent and careful hands to pour the old wine over into fresh wineskins. This, however, is a totally distinct position from asking us to drop a fundamental Article, or even a subsidiary' Article, because we now allege it to be false. For, as Bishop Westcott says, and every intelligent man knows: "One Doctrine many influence a system. A characteristic opinion on one point will be seen to re-appear in many unexpected ways through the whole system of doctrine to which it belongs." And if that is true of one doctrine, how much more of the system and substance of it? And if time can't undo what once was true, therefore what time Has Undone of faith and doctrine was never true; for ours is a historical religion of revelation of fact and doctrine, not a religious philosophy. Let us beware, then, of dropping out, piecemeal, the substance of our faith; lest presently we make the appalling discovery that the great river that has slaked and satisfied the thirst of mankind for thousands of years, not only has ceased to flow, but has never been. Then you shall have presented to you the tragic, pathetic, incredible, and impossible consequences of a false presupposition, such as the Aspotle presented to his brethren, when they, too, like ourselves, were under dominance of a false presupposition; "then" (if your presupposition be true, said he) "they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished." And he did not, like our polite moderns, who would have a Creed "broad" enough for everbody, hold true and false doctrine simply as regrettable differences of "opinion" or "views" among brethren. He declared that, if the evolutionary presupposition of His day was true: "Yea, and we are found (as a consequence) false witnesses of God."

The Coming Conflict on the Credibility, Sufficiency, and Sovereignity of Scripture.

It is not therefore the innocently abstract question of evangelical Union that is before the Church in this present movement; it is whether you are to precipitate within what is practically only a missionary Church still living in tents, without the time or adequate scholarship for such a task, that "dreadful theological struggle" which Dr Briggs predicts is coming on all Churches, and which Dr Warfield assures us is page 57 even now at the doors. "Now we seem to have drawn near to a critical point in the history of revelation, at least as far as the English-speaking races are concerned," wrote Bisnop Westcott in the book last from his hand. And if Dr Warfield may speak for America, and Bishop Westcott for England, they are corroborated by the ablest living theologian of Scotland, Professor James Orr, in his recent work on "The Progress of Dogma." "There are not wanting signs," he says, "that we are on the eve of new conflicts"—and, let me remind you, "conflict" is "controversy" become acute—"in which new solvents will be applied to Christian doctrines, and which may prove anxious and testing to many who do not realise that Christian faith in every age must be a battle. That battle," he declares, "will have to be fought, if I mistake not, in the first instance, round the fortress of the worth and authority of the Holy Scriptures." Yes, that is the issue raised by this new movement. The question of a limited Atonement! and sacramentarianism! Brethren, if the Old Testament Scriptures are a book of "cunningly-devised myths" (2 Peter i, 16), our Saviour believed the myths, and could not distinguish the fabulous from the authentic, nor the forgery from the genuine writing. And if that is so, if the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are not true, trustworthy, and of divine authority, your theological disputes about the length and breadth of the Atonement, or about priestly caste, or any Christian doctrine whatsoever, are but the bickerings of bats and owls and crows in the dark loft of a cathedral steeple. The busy world will go its way and leave you. If, then, these mighty issues, these foundation presuppositions, are being raised by this abstract question of union, are there not men of real insight in our midst who will hesitate, as Dr Briggs says, to precipitate that "dreadful theological struggle" precisely at a place and time when it can do the maximum mischief with the least conceivable good? If, however, our brethren are determined to raise these questions, we demand that they raise them on their merits, in a straightforward manner. On our part, we shall not show the weakness of panic by exhibiting a feverish haste. Professor James Orr, in answer to an inquiry as to the position of matters in Scotland, wrote to America only last month: "My impression is that among the great mass of our ministers and people faith in the great evangelical verities stands unshaken, and that the 'new theology' is not Generally in favour." That, I believe, would be an accurate estimate of the position in New Zealand. But if we do not exhibit a feverish panic, neither shall we show a lukewarm indifference to the truth as it is in Jesus, nor for our weak brother for whom He died.

The Basis of True Union.

Now, just because this is a question of Creed revision, and not primarily a question of Union, I have not allowed myself space in the brief time at my disposal to discuss the in- page 58 nocently abstract question of true evangelical Union on the lines of the historical Creeds. If Union ever comes, it will come along the lines of these Creeds. And it is only as Union comes along the lines of these Creeds that it can serve itself heir to the evangelical name and heritage. If cleavage comes, as come it may at any time, it will come along the lines indicated by Professor Orr. But may I not venture briefly to say on what lines, even by way of the historical Creeds, Union never will come. Until the happy time come when all shall know, from the least to the greatest, the world is not likely to do without written Creeds—those skins that hold the wine.

Not on Negations of Doctrine.

Union meanwhile, then, will never come by negations merely, for this is to pour out the wine by stripping your Creed to the lowest terms, so as to include everybody on what is the lowest common ground; for this were to reject Christ as Absolute King and Head of the Church, whose teaching is intelligible and whose Word is law, and place on His throne a limited monarch, or president, elected by popular show of hands. And, be it remembered, that if He prayed for unity. He also prayed that His people might be sanctified through the truth. That being so, they cannot have too much of it it is by this process of reducing your Creed to its lowest terms, to the level of the man in the street, that all distinctively Christian truth has vanished from your public education. To be sure, we are commanded by the Apostle of the Gentiles to "receive him that is weak in the faith"; and this we shall do; but that is another thing from "receiving" also his "weak" faith. If he has not attained to a like precious faith with us, we are not going, if he is "weak" in his theological upper storey, to make his weakness the measure of the truth to which we have been permitted to attain. And the same Apostle's inspired counsel is: "Whereto we have already attained, by that same rule, let us walk." Has it not been said of certain German divines that they escaped the shipwreck of faith "only in their shirts"? At the rate we are going, and in the direction we are asked to move, I doubt whether our shirts will be left to us, and whether we shall not be found, within a year or two, hid among the trees of the garden, in the primitive theological nakedness of natural religion. But, brethren, we shall not throw away our theological wineskins, lest we, with unskilled hands, spill the precious wine; we shall keep our theological garments, four of them it may be said, as of those garments of God's people in the wilderness, after forty years' wear and tear: "Your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy feet." This is more than can be said of the "working faith," the "working clothes," of our new theological doctors. These never suffer from age at all events; why should they, when Germany can turn out new "fashions" every decade?

Nor on External Conformity.

Neither is it along the lines of a dead uniformity, whether of Creed or polity, that Union will come. It is contrary to the analogy of God's world of nature, among plants, among animals, or among men. There is diversity amidst unity; and unity is found not in a monotone, but in a harmony. Each of the branches of the Church of Christ adds a distinctive note to the harmony, though at times the distinctive note, owing to the individual or denominational egotism, never so out of place as now, and more and more receding, may cause a jar, or even a scandal; but is this because there is too much of the truth that sanctities, or too little of the charity that edifies?

Nor on Compromise of Truth.

And finally, one thing is certain, never along the lines of compromise, as is now proposed, will Union come. This would be for us not only to make fresh wineskins, but to make new wine. It was this beginning of miracles that Jesus did in Cana of Galilee when He made the wine, and manifested forth His glory; and His disciples believed on Him. And when the new theological doctors can repeat this beginning of miracles, and manifest their glory, no doubt their disciples will believe on them. A distinguished American divine, George Dana Boardman, D.D., has just written a fine book on "The Church and the Unification of Christendom." You will agree with every word of the following paragraph: Never," he says, "can the Church unify herself by compromise. This," he says in a sentence that will be remembered, "is a mistake of those unfortunates who are afflicted with cardiac hypertrophy or diseased enlargement of the heart. Compromise," he continues, "is often right in matters of policy or method. Compromise is always wrong in matters of principle or duty. Truth abhors compromise as light abhors darkness. Truth advances her kingdom by affirmation, not by evasion; by victory, not by surrender. If there is in all this world a sacred right, it is the right of every human being to have his own moral convictions. If there is in all the world a sacred responsibility, it is the responsibility which every human being has before his God and before his fellows for those convitions. If there is in all the world a sacred obligation, it is the obligation which rests on every human being to be true, at whatever cost, to those convictions. For the man who is willing to surrender his own convictions for the sake of unity is a man whose convictions for the sake of unity, or of anything, are to be distrusted. For he who begins with being false to himself will end with being false to everybody else. Moreover, the unity which is brought about by compromise is not unity at all; it is only a weak, sentimental, flabby uni-formity. The boneless, pulpy compromiser, like a composite photograph in which every sign of individuality is merged, page 60 looks remarkably kind, and also remarkably weak. No, unity cannot be secured by compromise."

Fraternal Co-operation and a Federal Union.

These sentiments of Dr Boardman, as admirably expressed as they are sound and Scriptural, will commend themselves to this Presbytery, and to the Synod of Otago and Southland which adopted unanimously the overture I moved in 1902, that the Assembly should take steps for establishing an annual Conference or other Association of Christian Churches—All Christian Churches—which would make for practical co-operation of Christian Churches in the present, and which, without the sacrifice of truth to charity or of charity to truth, but with the triumph of both, would, in the providence of God, make for an ultimate fusion of Christian denominations into a zealous and powerful National Church of New Zealand. That line of action commended itself alike to the judgment of Presbytery and Synod, and the principles I have set forth above will, I venture to believe, commend themselves not only to this Presbytery, but to the Church at large. I am persuaded that if they had had due weight at the initial stages of this present Union movement, which is primarily a movement for Creed revision in the interests of the rationalistic tendencies favoured in some quarters, there would never have arisen this present situation. A frank statement by the movers in regard to their "working faith"—that is, their persuppositions as to the system of doctrine of the Westminster Confession, and as to the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures—would at once have revealed such radical differences of standpoint that it would have rendered a common expression of doctrine impossible, save on the principle, or want of principle abhorrent to the truth, of using words, as appears in the new Creed, of an ambiguous, evasive, and consequently misleading, import. This, if it were done deliberately, would be an agreement to deceive. And if ignorantly, we ask, with the Apostle, "Even things without life giving a voice, whether pipe or harp if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war?" If we cannot agree on common presuppositions, we cannot agree on a common expression of the consequences of them. If you have got new wine, why, of course, by all means hasten to nut it into new wineskins. Do not put it into the skins of Westminster: for all you have got of Westminster and the "evangelical succession" are the skins—and the fine Westminster aroma! But the wine itself is gone. We hold no brief for the skins of Westminster, but we do relish the Westminster wine. Are we not agreed, therefore, to speak the truth that we have learned in unambiguous terms, as we stand by the Word of God, in the inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments? And we care for no inspiration that gives us a page 61 fabulous history of revelation, or a history of anything that is less than true. We have cast anchor therefore, on the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, and there, with God's help, we mean to abide. If that truth be lost, all is lost. Our "Union" and numbers, our learning and wealth and religious philosophies will avail us nothing. And, finally, without hastily forming a mechanical Union, founded on negations and compromise shall we not, as the best contribution we, at all events, can make to the Universal Church of Christ, strive to make our Presbyterian Zion more than ever worthy of her noble ancestry and inheritance? Has any Church for her size a nobler?

"Therefore I wish that peace may still
Within her walls remain,
And ever may her palaces
Prosperity retain."