I take to be "Christ" and "Lord" as designating Christ Jesus.

A year ago a scholarly free thinker, who deemed himself more of an Ethical Culturist than a Christian, went to hear one of our foremost preachers in Boston. The preacher declared that the translators of the New Testament purposely rendered Kiptog by the word "Lord," to intimate that Jesus was God. "Nonsense!" exclaimed his scholarly hearer, turning to a stranger in the pew. It was nonsense or worse, but it probably turned that hearer into a Christian clergyman. He knew that the word Kiptor was equivalent to the German Herr, neither word being fairly represented in English by the word "Master." In German we say freely Herr Goethe or Herr Gott.

For myself, I never heard of anybody who supposed that "the Lord's Prayer" was God's prayer, save as all true prayers are; and I fancy that, while we speak of Lord Byron, we shall still speak of the Lord Jesus, leaving men to fill out the phrase with what meaning they choose. That phrase is simply now an indestructible part of our language and literature.

But I make too long a preface to the following valuable letter. I so dissented from Mr. Chadwick's judgment in his address published in the July Unitarian that I at once wrote Dr. Martineau, asking if he

should feel himself to be barred from our fellowship by our use of the phrase "the Lord Jesus Christ." His clear, complete, and definite reply speaks for itself. We all thank him for it.

THE POLCHAR, ROTHIEMURCHUS, AVIEMORE,
July 23, 1892.

My dear Sir,-Mr. Chadwick's impression that I could not rank myself with the "disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ," to whom appeal is made in the Preamble to the Constitution of your National Conference, if based on the retention of the term "Christ," is probably inferred from my contention ("Seat of Authority," Book IV., chap. ii.) that the claim to be the "Messiah" was not made by Jesus during his ministry, but only for him after his departure from this world. The inference would be correct if I held the word "Christ," as now commonly understood, to be strictly equivalent, without subtraction or addition, to the word "Messiah” on the lips of Peter or of Paul.

The inference is incorrect, because, from the cluster of ideas which made up the con

notation of the word to a contemporary Israelite, the greater part have fallen away; and even disciples who still, in using it, think of a "Son of David" foreannounced by Hebrew prophets, no longer invest him with the functions of terrestrial conquest, enthronement, and theocracy, around the millennial New Jerusalem, which were crowded into the image and the drama of the Messianic kingdom ere yet it was "given up," at "the end," "to God, even the Father."

That Jesus was not this sort of personage history has made plain; nor can we save the official name by inventing for him, in the present or the future, some imaginary counterparts of these superseded functions, such as are distributed through the eschatology of many popular hymns and some received creeds.

But when the original Jewish dreams, and the later ecclesiastical mythology which took their place, have been dropped from the connotation of the term "Christ," it is not emptied of all its meaning and cut down to a mere syllable of a proper name, serving only to distinguish one Jesus from another,e. g., Jesus of Nazareth from Jesus, son of Sirach,-though probably, among some nominal Christians, as among all non-Christians, it may play no other part than that of surname in some proper name. To others it is not a mere human mark, discriminating one man from others of his kind, but intimates a relation to God,-a divine function, not predicable of others, giving him a special place in the history of religious faith and knowledge. It is not necessary for all who use it to have the same conception of the contents which that function carries. Whoever feels them to be exceptional in their truth and authority, and in his response to them is lifted into veneration and love toward the personality revealing them, will be impelled to recognize an unexhausted sacredness in the word "Christ," and to cherish it as the symbol of the pure life of man in God.

Far from being repelled by the word, I could not find any adequate church fellowship in a religious society which discarded it.

The word in the Preamble which is uncongenial to me, and which I should expect to be a stumbling-block to many, is the term "Lord." It has a natural place in the old Messianic theory, which retained a terrestrial seat and a kingly constitution with judicial, civil, and administrative offices in its picture of "the world to come." But it bears the indelible stamp of a temporal character, and cannot enter into any true report of spiritual relations. The power exercised over me by the higher character,-the diviner spirit, which I revere and trust,—be it finite or be it Infinite, is not that of "Lord" over "servant," but of the uplooking child to

was

This interesting new institution opened with appropriate exercises in the Congregational church of Boulder on Sept. 23, 1892. As many of the readers of the Unitarian know, the School is established on a non-sectarian basis. The Faculty is composed of representative scholars and ministers, chosen without regard to denominational connection. Thus the Dean of the School is a Baptist, its Secretary an Episcopalian; while the Presbyterian, Congregational, Unitarian, Universalist, and Christian denominations are all represented in the Faculty. The School is established in close connection with the Colorado State University, and, while financially independent, avails itself of many courses of instruction now offered in the University. The possibilities of the School in the way of developing the spirit of Christian unity, destroying sectarianism, and relieving theological education of narrowness and artificiality, have already been recognized, and have roused a good deal of sympathetic in

terest.

The opening exercises were marked by the most cordial spirit of harmony. The addresses of the Faculty followed each other with singular appropriateness. Dr. K. B. Tupper (Baptist), the Dean of the School, spoke on "Interdenominational Co-operation"; Rev. W. C. Selleck (Universalist), on "The Value of a Theological School in the Community"; Rev. F. F. Kramer (Episcopalian), on "The Place of Bible Study in Modern Life"; and Rev. W. B. Craig (Christian), on "Christianity as an Affection." Rev. C. Caverno (Congregationalist) welcomed the members of the Faculty in the name of the city, the churches, and the people of Boulder. The principal addresses were those of Rev. S. A. Eliot (Unitarian) and President Baker of the State University.

Mr. Eliot was called upon to state "The Spirit and Aim of the School." He said in part: "I am one who believes that religion can draw men together faster than divergent theologies can drive them apart. There always must be theological diversities, but we are trying to prove that sectarian divisions are no longer incompatible with brotherly love and cordial fellowship. One may be of Paul, and another of Cephas, and another of Apollos, and yet all be of Christ. This institution declares that the fallible opinions that divide us are transient and insignificant compared with the deep faith of the heart that unites us. Ours is a bold experiment, and yet it is thoroughly in accordance with the best spirit of our times. It is hospitable to modern intellectual methods. It rests in the belief that theology is the noblest of the sciences, and that students of theology are not clay to be moulded nor vessels to be filled, but men who are to be encouraged to develop and use their own intellects in their own way. We shall here present Christian truth from various points of view, believing that power is best developed by the independent action of individual minds. The aim of education, be it secular or theological, is the communication of power. We want more knowledge, and we want more than knowledge. We want powerful ministers, not merely graceful declaimers nor elegant essayists, but men so quickened in understanding, heart, and conscience that their words can arrest attention, rouse emotions, and bring new strength and cheer to human souls. Channing declared this fundamental principle years ago at the dedication of the Harvard Divinity School; but, with the single exception of that honored institution, ours is the first theological school in our country to frankly accept this principle as the genius and spirit of its organization." Mr. Eliot then depicted the opportunities that await a modern minister, his peculiar privileges and responsibilities, and the importance of the subjects that he is expected to illustrate and enforce. He declared the school dedicated to free inquiry. "Let those," he said, "who are to be trained here know that what we require of them is the manly utterance of what their deep study and profound conviction declare to them to be the truth of God." He would have the School incul

cate a spirit of enterprise and progress, a spirit of confidence in great results, and a spirit of disinterested self-forgetfulness. "These," he said, "are not elements of knowledge, but elements of the power to make the things that are known tell on the things that are done, which we take to be the object of education."

President Baker closed the meeting with a paper on "The Union of Theological and Secular Education." He said: "The world

is still making history. The success of this unique enterprise will make the men, this time, and this place historic. Many men are surprised that this movement has even been inaugurated. One gentleman said, 'This is nothing short of the millennium, and I don't believe the time is ripe for it.' But this point has been reached by gradual approaches. . . . Your success will command the respect and confidence of those who are accustomed to carp at theology and at the churches. ...

"Can there be a satisfactory union be tween theological and secular training? American education, in nearly all colleges, is secular in the sense that specific religious instruction is not enforced. All people demand good intellectual and moral training for their children. They differ as to religious education, and this is of necessity left to the home and the church. Union theological work cannot be carried on in connection with denominational colleges; but why cannot Schools of Theology unite their work with undenominational colleges, or, more specifically, with State Universities? This is certainly an economical method. A genuine university offers a liberal choice of graduate studies, and many of the studies adapted to the training of ministers are found among the elective courses. While the State expends not a dollar for the strictly theological work; yet this School, through its connection with the University, gains superior advantages and reduces expenses one-half. Some may claim that theological work should be carried on in exclusive institutions, where it may surround itself with its own atmosphere. But, if the doctrines of Christianity are true, surely they will stand candid investigation; and students of theology should receive no harm from association with those whose aim is to search out and impart truth in all lines.

Men in these days must investigate, and they will not be content until they have explored every nook and corner of creation. Every genuine thinker should be regarded as a co-worker in the search for truth. Certainly, you will fail to touch thinking young men of to-day unless you meet them scientifically and liberally. Theologians must be practical men, stalwart men, independent thinking men, not afraid of real progress.

"The time will come when State Universities will make Theology and Social Science legitimate parts of their work. But that day is still distant, and I believe that you act wisely in providing for a denominational differentiation in the last year of your course. This plan touches a reasonable conservatism, the movement itself touches a generous liberalism, and the project is thus made feasible.

"We welcome you, then, to a union of effort and a union of theological with secular education. We believe that this movement is in accord with the growing sentiment in favor of a broad community of interests, and that it will lead to a fuller understanding and exemplification of the true Christian spirit."

The plan of the School is so novel and its inception so recent that the Faculty did not expect a large resort of students. It is pleasant to record, however, that fifteen students have already registered. Of these, two are entered for the regular course: the remainder are taking special courses. Several are ministers already ordained, who wish to supply the gaps of an insufficient education: others are Sunday-school teachers or persons who wish to train themselves for parish work. Altogether, the School starts under the most favorable auspices. Ought not this interesting experiment in unsectarian theological education to command the cordial sympathy and support of all liberal Christians?

THE UNITED LIBERAL CHURCH.*

Let me give you a brief word concerning one of the most delightful meetings held this year at Weirs. It was a session held during Unitarian Week, for the discussion of the unities between Unitarians and Universalists. It was a meeting agreed upon as to *From the Universalist Monthly for October.

its general character the year before, and the framers of the Unitarian programme incorporated it as a feature of the sessions of 1892. A large audience was present during the two sessions devoted to this subject. The speakers from the Unitarian side were Rev. W. R. Alger and E. A. Horton of Boston, Rev. B. R. Bulkeley of Concord, Mass., Rev. George M. Bodge of Leominster, and Watari Kitashima of Cambridge. On the Universalist side were Rev. Messrs. Dr. Shutter of Minneapolis, T. W. Illman of Concord, N.H., L. H. Squires of New Haven, Ct., and myself. There was such unity that a stranger sitting by could not have told which party belonged to which sect. There was not a dissenting or discordant note. One of the significant points made was that a name broad enough to cover both denominations, with no undue concessions to either, was desirable; and Dr. Shutter's contribution to this problem was The United Liberal Church. All parties agreed that both denominations are preaching, practically, the same gospel,-setting forth the same philosophy of life and religion, appealing to the same authors, believing the same doctrines; and a general regret was expressed that the two bodies are not together. And what is still more significant was the general feeling expressed among the people that the two bodies should be one. One of the Unitarians said he would be willing to abandon the name "Unitarian" if a more generous and co-operative title could be had. Dr. Thomas of Chicago has expressed his preference for the name "The American Church." Dr. Shutter's title recognizes the two liberal churches. The argument was made that in numerous towns and cities in the country there are some Universalists and some Unitarians, neither party being strong enough to support services. The experiment of having the prime movers for a church assume the title of the movement, and the other party unite with them, has not been satisfactory. Unitarians do not generally pass under the title "Universalist," and Universalists do not generally pass into the "Unitarian" movement; but, if a name broad enough to cover both, yet awakening no sectarian memories, could be adopted, those liberal elements in numberless instances might combine for the Liberal Church, and the people might have a rational

religious home where now they have practically none.

It is a question whether the legislative policy of the two denominations is not responsible for the many vacant liberal churches in the country,-Universalist policy responsible for vacant Universalist churches, Unitarian policy responsible for vacant Unitarian churches. If we think more of the kingdom of God on earth than we do of our sectarianism, it would seem not a difficult task to combine the forces, which together would be strong to that end where now they are weak.

The meeting at Weirs was so inspiring that, at a conference of both denominations held after the meetings closed, a committee, consisting of Rev. Dr. Shutter and Rev. J. B. Morrison of Laconia, was appointed to prepare a programme for a joint meeting next year that shall continue for two days, in the interest of union. Rev. Mr. Payne of California was chairman of the conference, and Rev. L. H. Squires was secretary; and we may look for a strong programme next year. Rev. Dr. Hale would have been in the meeting this year, had he not been in Europe. He wrote a strong letter to the brethren as it was, expressing a warm sympathy with

the idea. It is a serious hindrance to what might be a strong and aggressive movement in this country that any prejudices should keep people separate whose essential faith is one. Separate, both denominations are weak: together, they might be a strong body. Why not unite? Boston, Mass.

E. L. REXFord.

THE "NEW WORLD."

"Of making many books there is no end"; and it may be added, of making book reviews the end is not yet in sight. So crowded is the field of periodical literature that he who enters it with a new venture, to claim the public attention, must needs put forth a strong plea for his action, or the world will entertain but a poor thought of his discretion. The managers of the New World think they see, even amid the superabundance of reviews with which the reading public is blessed, a vacant place which this new quarterly is designed to fill. Without attempting to criticise in the least the management

of other theological reviews, it may be said that, in the nature of the case, those which represent particular schools of thought are more or less committed to the advocacy of positions already taken. Surely there is room for one such review, which maintains on all questions in debate an impartial attitude, and in which any view of a theological problem may find utterance, so that it be urged with candor and ability. Before the establishment of the New World it could not be claimed that such a review, if it existed, had obtained general recognition. There are journals of ethics and philosophy unpledged to any dogma or preconceived opinion; but religion and theology are either entirely out of their scope or somewhat in the background of their purpose. There are monthlies in which a writer of popular reputation can be heard on any timely religious topic; but, as these periodicals exist to make money for their owners, they must apply the test of popular interest rather than that of scholarly merit in the acceptance of their articles.

"A review of ethics, theology, and religion," of the very highest scholarly ability, through which the ablest, unprejudiced minds may speak their whole thought on any of these great themes,- this is what the New World aspires to be.

The character of its management gives assurance of the genuineness of this purpose. Two members of the editorial board are professors in the one undenominational theological school which this country boasts, -that connected with Harvard University. A third member, though connected with a denominational institution, has made for himself a name as one far broader than all sectarian lines. The managing editor, also, is known as a man whose interests are all in line with the scientific spirit, and whose chief care it will be to secure the work of the best writers on all subjects of which the review should treat.

Three numbers have been issued, and they have set the standard of the new enterprise at a very high mark. Perhaps it is too much to hope that no succeeding number will fall below this standard. But it must fall very far indeed to strike the level of the cheap and commonplace. Three numbers of any other review containing an equal number of pages of equally valuable litera

ture it would be extremely difficult to find. The list of writers would be in itself an impressive exhibit if there were space here to quote it at length.

Besides those drawn from Unitarian and Universalist sources there are articles by such eminent men as Dr. Lyman Abbott, President Andrews of Brown University, President Schurman of Cornell, Prof. Royce of Harvard, and Prof. Pfleiderer of the University of Berlin. Special mention may also be made of articles by Mr. Kishimoto and Mrs. Humphry Ward (the author of "Robert Elsmere") in the second number. No well-informed person can glance at the tables of contents on the covers of these three numbers without being made aware at once that in order of merit the New World ranks among the foremost publications of the day. Being published by Houghton & Mifflin of Boston, and through their extensive business connection pushed into wide notice, there can be little doubt that a review of this high character will rapidly win its way to a commanding place.

Unitarians, of all others, should be interested in such a publication. We may safely say that whatever is not definitely against us makes in the direction of our purposes. Free thought and free discussion are certain to establish more and more the general views which we have come to hold. It may need special machinery to produce one and another stripe of dogmatism. But any enlightening agency is sure to produce what, to all intents and purposes, is Unitarianism. The merging of our Unitarian Review in this larger unsectarian work is analogous to the change by which our Divinity School at Cambridge was converted into a school of scientific theology. No Unitarian need fear that the cause which is dear to his heart will suffer in consequence of this change. Indeed, the wide distrust that now exists as touching all sectarian names, however innocently they may be cherished and maintained, narrows the opportunity of much that is published under cover of such titles. We have just reason to be proud of our name as a religious body, and to uphold it in the face of all hostile criticism. But it remains true that there is some good work which we ought to help support, and which furthers our interests, though it does not bear our name. If Unitarianism means,