14 JULY 1906, Page 3

To opposition with a view to the amendment of the

present Bill we have, as our readers know, not only no objection, but we deem it a public duty. For the attitude of Lord Hugh Cecil we have, however, nothing but condemnation, for we are certain that no religious cause was ever yet, or ever will be, served by heat and violence such as he and his friends unhappily import into the controversy. Is it possible that he really believes that undenominationalism " is subversive ultimately of Christianity itself " P And if he does, how comes it that he and his friends have so tamely acquiesced in undenominationalism for so long a period, and that in 1902 they actually assented to and supported a Bill which, as its author confessed, laid the foundation for a still further increase in undenomi- nationalism ? If Cowper-Templeism is the utterly evil thing it is now represented—it must be that if it is "subversive ultimately of Christianity itself "—we cannot believe that any power on earth would have induced Lord Hugh Cecil and his associates to make terms with it in 1902.