Showing 2 results

Discusses Enfield's plans for the Christian Union, which he considers insufficient. Points out the apparent inconsistency between Enfield's own principle of leaving existing religious organisations alone and placing them all under a common Christian organisation, and his proposal to aid persons 'who in different sects are struggling to widen the terms of admission'. Gives his own view on sects. Agrees with Mr Martineau 'in almost all that he says' and believes, like the latter, of the importance of having 'a symbol of the common Christianity that runs through the sects'. Refers to Enfield's plans to bring out a series of tracts as a means of spreading opinion; suggests that a magazine might be more effective. Refers to an essay that he wrote in W.L. Clay's Essays on Church Policy [1868], in which he tried to demonstrates the common aspects of all sects. Discusses Christianity and Christian morality. Maintains that Enfield's plan contain too many 'negations', and thinks that the test of it will be inducing men like Mr [F. D.?] Maurice or Mr [John Llewellyn?] Davies to sympathise with its ideas.

Explains his reasons for not replying to Sidgwick's letter of the Spring. Claims that he had begun 'an elaborate answer' when the Christian Union meetings took place. He abandoned the letter after attending one meeting, and then hoped, but failed, to see Sidgwick in London. Refers also to his marriage, and to the fact that he had his hands full, and comments that Sidgwick's letter was one which required a full answer. Hopes that Sidgwick is not prevented from working at University reform, having given up his fellowship. Reports that Maurice writes that 'the welfare of Cambridge depends on a class of residents without College ties springing up.' Claims that 'the abuse at Cambridge is the College', and that by giving up his fellowship Sidgwick is 'more free to attack this abuse.' Expresses his hope to see him on the following Saturday or Sunday.