y or wrongly, in evil spirits
and sorcery, in malignant and disorderly influences proceeding from the
spiritual world, there the powers of the true kingdom, the powers of
order and freedom and beneficence, were put forth in acts which appealed
directly to the minds of the ignorant and superstitious, and which
proclaimed an authority stronger than that of demons. The common
multitudes of Judea were of the class which thus required to be treated
like spoiled and frightened children."[227]

THE SECOND BROAD CHURCH. This party maintains the avowed Rationalism of
Jowett, the _Essays and Reviews_, and Colenso. Miss Cobbe, in defining
the points of difference between it and the First Broad Church, says of
the latter, "It holds that the doctrines of the Bible and the church can
be perfectly harmonized with the results of modern thought by a new but
legitimate exegesis of the Bible and interpretation of church formulae.
The Second Broad Church seems prepared to admit that in many cases they
can only be harmonized by the sacrifice of biblical infallibility. The
First Broad Church has recourse, to harmonize them, to various logical
processes, but principally to the one described in the last chapter, of
diverting the student, at all difficult points, from criticism to
edification. The Second Broad Church uses no ambiguity, but frankly
avows that when the Bible contradicts science, the Bible must be in
error. The First Broad Church maintains that the inspiration of the
Bible differs in _kind_ as well as in _degree_ from that of other books.
The Second Broad Church appears to hold that it differs in degree but
not in kind. This last is the crucial point of the differences of the
two parties, and of one of the most important controversies of modern
times."[228] The First Broad Church has made antagonism to the doctrine
of endless punishment one of its great specialties, while the Second
Broad Church has made its most violent assaults upon the evangelical
view of the inspiration of the Scriptures. The position of the latter is
not fully defined. We may suppose, however, that in due time its
apologists will assume an organized form, and perhaps produce their
systematic theology.

We regret that the general opposition on the part of the clergy to the
theology of the _Essays and Reviews_, on the first appearance of that
work, has not been sustained. The Broad Church has therefore acquired
many new adherents within the last two years. It