289 
learned from the Divine Controller of the Universe. The Son of God has 
been down on earth and has taken the place of a servant, saying, “My 
Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” The divine image of the Father has 
taken the place of a servant. 
Mr, J. Hasseiu.—I admire the passage where the writer shows the true 
effect of the human conscience in the desire and need for God. I hold that 
the mind of man could never have formed an idea of God, had there not been 
aGod, There must have been the prototype; for it is impossible to form an 
idea from what does not exist. We ought never to omit the opportunity of 
putting before the people the argument so well urged by the author of the 
paper, that God is not the abstract idea of Herbert Spencer—that He 
is not the metaphysical Absolute, Unconditioned, and Infinite of those who 
adopt Herbert Spencer’s views. According to the metaphysical idea of 
these men, it is impossible to think of such a being as God. With them 
God becomes “unthinkable”; without attributes, relations, thought, or 
action, and therefore, as the author has put it, ‘without being.” I 
assert that God has relations, as He is our Father, and our King; 
and we are equally related to Him as His creatures, for whom He 
framed. laws, and for whose wants He makes provision. As opposed to the 
God of Herbert Spencer, the God of the Bible is a Being of infinite 
love and compassion ; One with whom we can have conscious intercourse, 
for He is a person—a God, whom we have the power to realise and come 
into contact and communion with, and is not the metaphysical abstract of 
the Spencerian philosophy. In opposition to the theory of evolution, I 
would stand out for the grand principle that God made all His creatures 
perfect in their order, leading up by various gradations to man, the crown- 
ing work of all,—a being formed in His own image, able to worship Him, 
and capable of personal contact with Him. 
Rev. W. C. Barutow.—In regard to ‘‘the terrible charge of being 
anthropomorphic” (page 267), I have never found anything in that term at all 
like what is described in Austin Caxton’s book. What is there regarded as 
the terrible resonance of the Greek, has not, in reality, any alarming power, 
Indeed, the word quoted by the author seems to me a most valuable word, 
and one that we have no need to apologise for. On the contrary, I think 
we ought strongly to insist on its being the correct word. 'We are talking 
everywhere about God as He is known, or can be, or ought to be known to - 
us ; and all human knowledge must come under human forms of thought. 
There must, therefore, be, as I understand Mr. Blencowe to say, an anthropo- 
morphic character in all our knowledge of God. Besides, a word like this 
has the merit of suggesting a correlated word. It is one of the words which 
must come with another word in order to complete the meaning, and on the 
page referred to the word is treated of in relation to the question of the pro- 
bability of a revelation from God to man. That revelation begins almost by 
an affirmation that man is theomorphic, for “‘ God said, Let us make man in 
our image,” the correlative being that God must be known to man in an 
