chance of acceptance, were it preceded or attended with a frank offer of intercommunion whether Episcopacy were accepted or not. The advantages of a more moderate theory of Episcopal government, apart from its being the only tenable ground in view of the facts of history, are manifold. It affords an escape from the embarrassment which arises from the juxtaposition of Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, each claiming jurisdiction in the same territory, both professing to stand in the true line of Apostolic Succession, and the Anglican, at least, conceding to the Roman Catholic the justice of his claim. If the fundamental doctrine of the Apostolic Succession, and of grace transmitted in the act of ordination, be affirmed, it is not so easy to see how the demand of allegiance on the part of a Roman Catholic bishop, in a land like ours, where there is no establishment of religion, can be resisted. If it is said that his place in the succession has not kept him from falling into such error as justifies the ignoring of his priestly character, what amount of error shall be considered sufficient to divest him of sacerdotal authority?

Christian union, for which, as we hear, there is a yearning on all sides, will not be attained by artificial agencies. It will not come to pass through diplomatic negotiations and compromises, and by treaties framed by ecclesiastical leaders. Historical science will have something to do in bringing to pass this result. That no specific form of Church government can boast of being an Apostolic ordinance for all time is a verdict which historical scholars are rapidly approaching unanimity in rendering. The divine right of a particular form of Church organization will follow the divine right of kings, and repose in the same tomb. The over-valuing of externals in religion will be seen to be at variance with the whole drift of the teaching of Christ, and with the nature of the Christian, as distinguished from the Old Testament, dispensation. A sense of the supreme importance of the Christian spirit, of the religion of the heart, will more and more impress all religious bodies with the comparative insignificance of the differences in polity, over which there has been so hot contention. The deep import of the words of Jesus to the woman of Samaria concerning worship will be better understood. The battle which all Christian be

lievers have to wage with materialistic atheism will quicken their mutual sympathies, and make them conscious that they have a common cause. The conflict which Protestants as a body, have to carry forward in opposition to the pretensions and dogmas of Rome, will convince them that no half-way ground is tenable, and move them to take up a position such as the Protestant Reformers in all countries were once united in holding. More than all, the impulse to practical coöperation in doing good in the name of Christ, will impel Christian men, of whatever name or form of worship, to overleap the barriers of sect. The Shibboleths of party will one day cease to be heard. The process of undermining the walls that part good men from one another is going forward with a silent but irresistible energy. Now that the non-Christian nations with their diverse religions, are brought into close intercourse with the Christian peoples; now that we cannot avoid the competition with rival systems, the traditional religions of countless multitudes of the human race, sectarian warfare is more and more felt to be both disgraceful and perilous. Something like a united front must be presented by the professed believers in the Gospel, if they are not prepared to disregard the prayer of Christ that his disciples might be one, in order, as he said "that the world may know that thou hast sent me." It is our wisdom, then, not to magnify points of dissent among Christian churches, to lay due emphasis on whatever they hold and practise in common, to make rightful and useful concessions for the sake of union among brethren, and to watch for providential indications which appear to point to a path in which all the sincere adherents of our common faith may walk together.

GEORGE P. FISHER.

ARTICLE II.-THE AMERICAN BOARD AND THE LATE BOSTON COUNCIL.

THE facts and events which led to the call of this Council were briefly as follows: Mr. William H. Noyes, a member of the Theological Seminary at Andover, and graduate of 1886, in May of that year offered himself to the Prudential Committee of the American Board as a missionary to Japan, giving at the same time a brief statement of his theological beliefs. At the suggestion of the Committee, on the 12th of June, he met the three Secretaries for an extended exposition of his views, a report of which as agreed upon by the Secretaries (without so far as appears any further conference with him) was presented to the Committee. With this report as the basis for their action, on the 15th of June the Committee decided that "it was inexpedient to appoint Mr. Noyes a missionary of the Board at present." "It was voted that the statement of the Secretaries concerning Mr. Noyes' views be submitted to him for approval or for modification as he may desire, and copies of the same, after such approval or modification has been given, be furnished to the Committee."

On the 17th of June Mr. Noyes sent to the Committee a very long communication restating and modifying somewhat the report of his views made by the Secretaries. This was read to the Committee the day following and it was decided "that no change in the action of the last meeting was called for." Mr. Noyes was also informed that it is "inexpedient to appoint" him "a missionary of the Board at present." To this Mr. Noyes replied asking for the reasons for the decision of the Committee and for the interpretation of the phrase "at present." In April, 1887 (after the re-appointment of Mr. R. A. Hume) a renewed application was made by Mr. Noyes and a friend, accompanied by an extended statement of their theological views, in which there is a minute explanation of their opinions in regard to the relation of the heathen to the offers of

the gospel. To this a Secretary replies, noting the application as failing to answer the questions suggested in a letter from the Clerk of the Committee, as to whether Mr. Noyes' views corresponded to those ordinarily held by several churches in the vicinity of Boston, and how they would stand the test of the Resolutions passed at Des Moines. To this Mr. Noyes replied that he had designed only to explain his own views previously expressed, to which he still adhered, and had supposed the action at Des Moines was designed to be cautionary rather than mandatory. To which the Committee replied through their clerk that the Committee were bound by the instructions of the Board and in obedience to those instructions must decline to receive him as a missionary.

This letter closes the first chapter in this somewhat mem. orable history. The story cannot fail to suggest the inquiry whether the traditionary methods of communication between the Prudential Committee and candidates for appointment to missionary service are not susceptible of a radical improvement, at least in all cases of special difficulty or delicacy. The old rule which has been sanctioned by the experience of ages that a witness or accused person or plaintiff should be confronted with his judge and jury surely holds in the present instance. The simple perusal of the condensed recast of Mr. Noyes' opinions which is given by the Secretaries, especially when contrasted with the modifications and re-statements of the same by Mr. Noyes, suggests all that need be said to the effect that in respect to all critical points whether of opinion or policy, the missionary should have direct access to those who hold to him still higher relations than those of judges and jurors. functions of the Secretaries are sufficiently ample and various to task all their energies and wisdom, and their responsibilities are sufficiently onerous and trying to entitle them to all the relief which can possibly be accorded to them. The sympathy and support which might come to the missionaries themselves from the assurance and conviction that they were personally known by the Board whose duty it is to decide so many questions for them, might not unfrequently be of important service to them when in the field of conflict and self-denial and loneliness.

The

After this decision Mr. Noyes could do nothing but seek some other field of labor, and such a field he soon found in the Berkeley Street Church in Boston, inasmuch as this church had entered upon a somewhat extended scheme of home missionary effort, and he was soon employed as an assistant to the pastor. In this capacity he spent somewhat more than a year of service, with great acceptance to the congregation and with success proportioned to his ardor. In the meantime his missionary zeal had not abated, and his wishes being made known to the church, and especially to its younger members, the question was naturally suggested why cannot we send him to Japan as our missionary? Doubtless the possibility of sending one or more missionaries independently of the American Board had also occurred to not a few of its liberal contributors as a possible relief from the tension occasioned by the policy which had seemed to have been inaugurated and yet had failed to be universally approved. The money required for the support of Mr. Noyes for two or three years was soon provided, and a council of churches was called at the request of the Berkeley Street Church to ordain Mr. Noyes as a foreign missionary.

This council met on the 22d of October and was composed, as was soon made obvious, of members who were pledged to no theory or plan of proceedure and committed to no theological party. After some interchange of opinions and the rejection of two or three tentative propositions, the council resolved to examine the candidate with reference to his ordination as a foreign missionary. The examination was long and thorough, and as full as could be desired upon eschatology. To all the questions proposed frank and definite answers were given. In the discussions which followed no exception was taken to the opinions avowed by Mr. Noyes one or all as disqualifying the candidate for the missionary work or as inconsistent with substantial orthodoxy. When the vote was taken upon the proposition which prevailed, it was of twenty-five to one, and the one vote was understood not to relate to the matter of orthodoxy. The candidate moreover, insisted that the statements which he made to the Council were for substance the same which he had made to the Secretaries, while he contended that for some reason or other his real opinions had not been under