With regard to a basis on which conscientious men can really unite, is it well to go so much into detail? Mere creeds will never conserve the truth. Men will think, whether we will or no; and men will have diverse views. Do we not put a premium on dishonesty by constructing a creed for all details, and expecting men to subscribe to that creed? Have we not had too much of that in the past? A noted official in the Methodist body told me lately that he does not believe in eternal torment, but that if it were known, he would lose his position. But eternal torment is in the Methodist creed, and he had profest his adherence to it. It is so with many Presbyterians. I have spoken privately with several, and not one profest to believe in that doctrine. But we say, "Truth is mighty and will prevail." Yes, I believe it will; but it would surely prevail faster if we were always loyal to it. Besides, is there anything that makes more directly for the degeneracy of character than such evasion? To avoid all peril of this kind, how would it do to take for a basis of doctrine this simple statement, "I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God?" Or, "I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to contain the Word of God?" Then, with further "light breaking from God's holy word," we would not need to expunge anything from our creed, or add anything to it. Lately I heard a most fervid appeal on behalf of missions. But the speaker really gave no worthy, definite incentive, by which the appeal would be made effective. He gave no hint whatever as to the fate of the heathen if we failed to Christianize them. He did not say they would have to pass through pains in the next life necessary to their reformation. Nor did he say they would be extinguished at death, or some time after. Nor did he say they would drop into eternal fire. Any of these three possibilities if duly presented, would be more or less an incentive to action. But he simply referred to the heathen being saved in some vague way, which almost meant nothing. The nerve of enthusiasm for missions is cut if the appeal cannot be enforced by some definite incentive to action; but usually there is no such incentive advanced. There is no doubt or hesitation as to the positive part of salvation; but as to the negative part of it there is no clear-cut deliverance. The presumption is that there is usually no definite conviction. In the evangelical churches there is some faint survival of the doctrine of endless torment; but the preacher rarely or never presents it; it may be because he does not really believe it; or because he knows that the people will not believe it. I say, would it not be better to present the idea of Restoration, and present the view strongly, with a pronounced accent of conviction? Not only is such a course in my view required by the claims of honesty, but the effect would be better beyond all computation.