Of the British section, Dr. A. Rowland, Mr. W. H. Groser, Mr. F. F. Belsey, Mr. Charles Waters, Mr. Edward Towers, Dr. W. F. Adeney, Dr. A. S. Peake, Dr. A. E. Garvie, Rev. C. H. Kelley, Rev. R. Cully, Prof. S. W. Green, and Rev. Frank Johnson. The following gentlemen were invited to be present as advisory members: From America, Dr. G. W. Bailey, Mr. W. N. Hartshorn, Mr. E. K. Warren, Mr. A. B. McCrillis, Mr. F. A. Wells, and Mr. Marion Lawrance. From Great Britain, Mr. T. G. Ackland, Mr. J. S. Crowther, Mr. F. Clements, and Rev. Carey Bonner.

The conference between the two sections of the committee, says the London Sunday School Chronicle, " may be termed with strict accuracy 'epoch-making.' No such assembly of the American and British members has been held before during the entire history of the International Federation, and it is unlikely that another will be held covering the same ground with equal frankness and thoroughness of discussion." Every aspect of Sunday school work was cerefully considered and there were some very earnest speeches made both by the American and by the British members of the committee. There were different opinions on some points, and subjects were viewed from different aspects; but the best of spirit abounded throughout, the conclusions arrived at were always unanimously adopted, and, as one of the British members expressed it, "there was not a single word uttered that any of the members could wish to forget."

The following resolutions were adopted. It will be seen that these partly cover general principles which enter into the selection of lessons, and partly refer to the division of labor between the two sections of the committee. It is iminently fair and proper that the initiative in mapping out a course of study should be taken by the sections alternately; and as the American section drafted the outline of the course from 1906 to 1911, the British section was requested to draft the general outline of the course from 1912 to 1917. In the same way the American section was requested to work out a detailed

scheme for 1911 and the British section for 1912. Primary and advanced courses, which are expected ultimately to be uniform for the constituencies of both sections, need careful study and some experimentation. The American section has done considerable work in this direction. It was felt accordingly that the British section should also take up this work and prepare schemes of lessons which will meet the needs of their own schools. It is hoped that thus by mutual effort and the selection of the best that can be produced on either side a harmonious outcome will result and a series of lessons be secured for schools of all grades better than have ever before been selected.

Resolutions Passed by the Conference.

1. That the International Lessons Committee undertakes to provide Schemes of Lessons for the whole range of Sunday school teaching, including Primary Work (ages 3–9); General or Intermediate Work (ages 9-15); and Senior or Advanced Work (over 15 years).

That the Lesson for the General or Intermediate Division shall be uniform, and that Primary and Advanced Lessons may be prepared by the American and British Sections of the Lesson Committee acting jointly or independently, but with a view to securing uniformity as soon as possible.

2. That in the preparation of each cycle of lessons, the elements, both of Biblical scholarship and practical efficiency be duly recognized.

3. That we commend the principle of affording opportunity, as far as practicable, for the consecutive study of (a) separate books, and (b) definite periods of sacred history.

4. The Poetical and Prophetical books of the Old Testament, and of the Epistles of the New Testament, should be used, when possible, in illustration of the contemporary history and its teaching.

5. That the present cycle of six years be deemed of suitable length, as also the average proportion of New to Old Testament subjects, viz. 7 to 5.

6. It is suggested, however, that in the arrangement and length of the courses, regard should be had to the respective requirements of the subject-matter, and the Review Lesson should be inserted at the most suitable point in each series, rather than always and arbitrarily on the last Sunday of the Quarter.

And further, that as the Review is intended rather to focus some main teaching of the series which it closes than to recapitulate the whole, the Committee should in future afford the guidance of a definite title to each Review and of illustrative Scripture.

A Pre-View may at times be usefully prescribed, to be dealt with similarly by the Committee.

7. This Conference, believing that it would be helpful to prepare International Lessons for Senior Classes, which shall include instruction on the progress of Revealed Truth, and on Christian Doctrine and Ethics, and the simpler aspects of Christian Apologetics, also some connected view of the Bible as a whole, and in its several divisions, hereby requests the British section to prepare schemes of this character.

8. That the Committee prepare a List of Texts, which shall be chosen in the first instance for their intrinsic value; and that from these, as far as possible, the "Golden Texts" shall be selected to emphasize and enforce the central truth contained in the portion of Scripture selected for study.

9. That the British Section be asked to prepare a General Scheme for the period 1912-1917, and a Detailed Scheme for 1912.

That the American Section prepare a detailed outline of Lessons for 1911.

10. That the British Section of the Committee prepare a Three Years' Primary Course.

THE THEOLOGICAL USES OF TADPOLES AND URCHINS. A bold professor of the University of Chicago has suggested that if theology is to be subsumed under any of the great divi

sions of science it should belong to biology. There is truth in this. The Mercersburg School rightly defined Christianity as a "life" and made good use of its stock illustration the "tree." We have the very highest authority for comparing the Kingdom to a "seed" or "leaven."

So long as teachers must use human language and illustrate the unknown by means of the known it will still be in order to compare spiritual things with natural. But it is instructive to note how sparingly this is done in the Scriptures. In the parables of our Lord the incidents drawn from personal and social experience far outweigh those taken from nature. In the case of the "seed" and the tree we need to remember the caution: "No simile can go on all fours." For we have to do here with two disparate spheres of existence. The fate of spiritual interests in the mind of a man who knows biology and nothing but biology is well illustrated in the case of Haeckel.

Two striking instances have recently come to our notice which indicate what will happen when theology is delivered over to the tender mercies of the embryologists.

A young doctor of philosophy was lecturing before a summer school of theology on "Crime as a Biological Phenomenon." His thesis seemed to be that crime is simply a case of reversion. To illustrate he adduced the instance of the frog, which in the course of its development recapitulates the evolutionary history of its race. So the character of a child, he said, passes through stages which correspond to stages in the evolution of our human ancestry. The individual begins with the coarse qualities of the savage and finally adds the better altruistic traits which were last acquired in the ascent of man. Now when tadpoles are insufficiently nourished they never come to maturity; they remain tadpoles. So the crminal fails to acquire the finer traits of humanity. The sinner is not an ordinary man plus sinful qualities; he is an undeveloped man. In other words sin is not bad, he said. The writer was profoundly astonished as he listened to this dis

course.

It was not the hoary heresy that sin is only defect that amazed him; it was the fact that the young lecturer should venture to stand up before a hundred theological graduates and dispute the conclusion of the great thinkers who for ages have wrestled with the problem of sin, offering no more justification for his view than that afforded by the observation of starved tadpoles!

A few months ago a doctor of science stood up to preach a sermon on an important occasion. The text was: "They have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid him." The gist of it was: The new theology is taking away our Lord. The vitality of our faith depends on the recognition of the divinity of Christ. The doctrine of His divinity stands on the basis of the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin. To deny the virgin birth is not only heretical but it is also unscientific, since parthenogenesis has been scientifically demonstrated. The preacher said: "The latest discovery, coming as a rebuke to the self-sufficiency of the critical doubters, is that in certain marine animals in which the ordinary mode of reproduction is sexual, parthenogenesis may be induced at the will, not of the animal itself, but at that of a human experimenter. Is it impossible, is it superstition to believe that what a chemist can do with a sea animal in the way of transcending the laws of nature, the Creator can do with human kind when the case makes the exception desirable?"

Why should opponents and defenders of the faith insist on discussing this essentially undiscussable subject? Here are the narratives of the virgin birth with the stamp of purity and truth upon them. We who believe that our Lord was absolutely unique among men see no reason for doubting them. But our faith is not based on them any more than was the faith of the first disciples. When Simon confessed his faith the Master said: "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father who is in heaven." St. Paul St. Paul says: "No man can say Jesus is Lord but in the Holy Spirit." The