to give the theologian treasures of truth unknown to former ages. The critical study of the Bible makes it a richer and a grander book, and finds mines of doctrines, new as well as old. The Church, to the thoughtful student of history, becomes sublime, notwithstanding all its defects, as the Kingdom of Christ on carth. The reason, in the researches of modern science and philosophy, has become a vastly more potent factor in the apprehension and in the comprehension of divine truth. There is a reconciliation to be looked for, to be longed for, and to be labored for, in the future, to which Churchman, Rationalist, and Evangelical may each contribute. We may reasonably expect that the theological conflicts, the dissolutions of old theology, the reconstruction of new theology, the intense and eager researches after the truth of God, will result in a crisis in which all. of the forces of Christianity will come into play in order to give birth to a new age of the world in which the discord of Christendom will die away, and concord will live and reign and express its new faith and new life in a creed, a choral of praise to the triune God, in which all the essential doctrines of Christianity, learned from all the struggles and triumphs of twenty centuries, will be grouped about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In this period of transition there is need of patience, charity, courage, sound judgment, and at the same time passion for the truth. There are some who would do away with all creeds. To these we reply that the Church has had creeds from the beginning. It must have them to express its faith and life and unity. The excesses committed by the modern Church in all its branches ought not to drive us into opposite excesses. Let us correct the evil, remove the error, and make no more mistakes. Let every Christian rally to the position of the Anglican Church that the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed are sufficient. There are others who still insist upon subscription to the elaborate creeds of the modern Church. I have no difficulty myself in subscribing to the Westminster Confession in the historic sense of the terms of subscription as interpreted by the Adopting Act of 1729, and defined by the synod of New York and New Jersey. But I have difficulty in uniting with others in the Presbyterian Church in exacting such subscription as a con dition of ministerial service. And I shall do all in my power to relieve tender consciences and to remove the stumbling blocks from the way of the troubled seekers after truth. The Westminster Confession is a system of doctrine of exceeding value as the historic expression of the theology of the Puritan divines of the seventeenth century; but it contains a large amount of doctrine that is rejected by the vast majority of Protestant ministers, and much of it is not essential or even of very great impor tance. Presbyterians should, however, be patient and loving, and in chivalric contest endeavor to bring about the revision that is needed. The aim of Christianity is to march forward toward the full realization of the Christian ideal. We should use our utmost endeavor to construct a new consensus creed that will better express Christian faith than the old creeds. The Alliance of Presbyterian churches is approaching this problem with some degree of hopefulness of ultimate success. When each of the great alliances of Christian denominations has reduced its symbols to consensus creeds, it will be easier to frame a consensus creed in which all may unite. It is evident that the twentieth century will have great problems to solve in the relation of Church and creed, and thoughtful men in all denominations are preparing for the crisis. C. A. BRIGGS. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. THE British Colonial Office was wise enough, as long ago as 1849, to include in a bill clauses which provided for the possible creation of a general assembly for two or more of the Australian colonies. The House of Lords, however, rejected the proposal, and Lord Grey informed the colonies that the government had consented to abandon this portion of their measure because they found that, while New South Wales did not care for it, the other colonies had raised objections. At the same time, Lord Grey stated that his personal view was that the need of a central authority for Australia would be felt, and that probably at an early period. In 1853 Mr. Wentworth, in drawing up a constitution for New South Wales, suggested federation to the extent of a power to legislate, by a general assembly, on all subjects which might be submitted to it by addresses from the councils or assemblies of other colonies; with a federal revenue and a general court of appeal. The creation of such a body Mr. Wentworth and his committee thought was "indispensable" and "ought no longer to be delayed." In 1857 Mr. Wentworth proceeded to London to advocate this scheme, which was the germ of the idea which ultimately took shape in the Federal Council of Australia. Lord Grey may, therefore, be looked upon as the wise man who foresaw, and Mr. Wentworth as the practical man who shaped, the earliest Australian federation. Sir Henry Parkes it was, as we shall presently see, who seized the moment to push the idea of a closer federation to the front. A colonial conference assembled in 1881, and its outcome was the establishment of the Federal Council by Act of Parliament in 1883: but this council was deprived of authority by the refusal of New South Wales to join it. In October, 1889, a report by a general officer, who had been sent from HongKong to make suggestions on the military forces of the Austra lian colonies, was seized on by Sir Henry Parkes as giving him a leverage. The Prime Minister of New South Wales started for Queensland, and there conferred with Sir Samuel Griffith and Sir Thomas McIlwraith upon the whole subject of federation. Finding that he obtained support in Queensland from both parries, he made a public speech in which he declared boldly for a large scheme, and then communicated with Victoria and the other colonies. The Victorians were inclined to insist on using the Federal Council as the basis of the scheme, but Sir Henry Parkes soon managed to drive or persuade them out of this position; and he proposed in a dispatch to Mr. Duncan Gillies, the then Prime Minister of Victoria, that very scheme for a conference which was afterward accepted, and a plan of federal government more complete than that which the conference of 1890 and the convention of 1891 have brought about; for he stated that he assumed that the scheme of Australian federal government would follow the type of the government of Canada. I need explain to American readers, familiar with federal constitutions and their differences, that the Canadian constitution yields a federalism far more close or centralized than that of the United States. The lieutenant-governors of the Canadian provinces are named by the Viceroy on the advice of the Dominion cabinet. The central government of Canada possesses all powers which are not definitely allotted by Act of Parliament to the provinces. In this and other ways Canada is more one country than is the United States. The historic growth of many of the Commonwealths which compose the United States, such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, explains the jealousy with which in the United States the federal power has been viewed. In Canada, Quebec and Ontario and some of the maritime provinces had a somewhat similar, although a shorter history, but seem to have been welded together into a single country by jealousy of their great neighbor. In Australia there was no historic reason making against national unity; but local jealousies and local interests, which have grown up under the protectionist policy of the majority of the colonies, have weakened the idea of Australian unity and interfered with the completeness of the Parkes scheme. The Prime Minister of Victoria informed the Prime Minister of New South Wales that the latter, "the great mother-colony, has unfortunately stood aloof from such federation as was at the time possible, thus barring the way to Australian unity." This was very true, but unimportant in face of the fact that Sir Henry Parkes had taken up a position which made him master of the situation, in having seized the right moment to swim on the crest of a wave of federal feeling. In February, 1890, there met at Melbourne a conference of representatives of the whole of the Australian colonies and of New Zealand, and a vague federal resolution was proposed, containing the word "Australasian" so as to include New Zealand. It was carried, with the substitution of the word "Australian," inasmuch as the New Zealand representatives stated that they could not come into federation, although friendly to the movement. On the motion of one of them, Captain Russell, a further resolution also was carried, to the effect that to the union of the Australian colonies the remoter Australasian colonies should afterward be entitled to admission, on conditions to be subsequently arranged. The phrase "the remoter Australasian colonies" was intended to include New Zealand, as well as Fiji, both of which are within the purview of the Federal Council Act, the crown colony of Fiji being, moreover, actually represented on the existing loose Federal Council. Federation resolutions, for appointing delegates to the conference of 1891 to be held at Sydney, were passed in 1890 by all the Australasian Parliaments, and at the beginning of March of the present year the convention met. The leading member of the convention was, of course, Sir Henry Parkes-an old man of boundless energy and much rugged power, who has completely dominated the assembly. He is not Australian born, and considering that Australia is no longer a young country, for we have among us an elderly bishop whose father was born in New South Wales, it is curious that little more than a third of the leading men of Australasia who appeared at the convention were "native born." The framers of the American Constitution were all born Americans. But of the 45 Australasian delegates only 16, I think, were "native born," while 12 were born in England, eight in Ireland, six in Scot |