I say nothing of the value of creeds and articles in their proper place. That is no part of the present question.

What, then, are the dogmatics of thought which are absolutely necessary to produce religious action? That action which would best conserve and elevate and bless society?

These are their universals:

1. There is one God, infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, holy, just, and good, whom we ought to love, reverence, worship, and obey, and who will judge us "according to our works.”

2. This God has given us a revelation of Himself in the Bible, and has therein shown us what to do to please Him; and that there is a future life beyond the grave in which we shall be either happy or miserable, according to the deeds done in the body.

66

3. We cannot think anything true, nor do anything good, except from the Spirit of God in us, and therefore we ought always to pray" for the help of that mighty Spirit, and not to faint," by endeavouring to think and act from our own powers alone.

These principles are the essentials of all religion.

Let a lectionary of the Bible be prepared and used in our schools, containing the chief parts of it which teach the religion of life-action. If the teacher were assisted also, as to the older pupils, by some elementary work which gives, in simple terms, proofs of the propositions just laid down, all the better. Leslie's "Short and Easy Way with Deists" is a specimen of the kind of proof of the second proposition which would be desirable for them all, and if they were all so proved, and the learning of those proofs were part of the discipline of the higher forms in our public schools, such a foundation would be laid for any dogmatic superstructure as never before was laid in any system of national education.

Add to this, the opening of the school by reading a short portion of the Word as theology, followed by the Lord's Prayer, and no other; or the order of these two exercises might be reversed.

Dogmatic theology might be taught in Sunday schools at the option of parents, and, indeed, if a truly national system of religious education were fairly at work, the teaching of the dogmatics of faith would be the special function of Sunday schools.

Here I might conclude, but it may be expedient to meet an objection which is sure to be taken. It will be said: In fact, then, you propose to teach mere morality in our national schools, not religion-man's righteousness, not God's!" I reply, if you read my words again, without the disturbing medium of creeds, you will see that what I propose to teach in our national schools is that part of the Christian religion which is the very foundation and life of all the rest; but this objection is so stubborn, and so constantly urged by highly educated theologians, that it must be met more fully, although nothing is more astonishing to my mind than that the perversity of the clergy should throw upon laymen the duty of contending that living religion is not mere morality," and of explaining the difference between the two. That it is necessary is plain, from the constant surging of vague thought, which bids fair to perpetuate strife on this subject; and it is equally plain that the origin of that strife lies in putting darkness for light; in preferring the darkness of mysteries to the Light of life.

To come, then, to the difference between "mere morality" and practical religion. Actions are what their motives are, and those six words are all that need be said to any logical mind; while, to the theo-logical, I may point out that in every mention of Divine judgment the Great Judge Himself names actions, and nothing else but actions, as the ground of it.

H

To expand these six words, so as to do some justice to their significance, and save a busy public the trouble of thinking.

"Mere morality" consists of such rules of right living as have reference to the wellbeing of civil society, and the secure enjoyment of individual and social life, without reference to any sanction but human sanction, or any will but man's will.

So far as Socrates, or Seneca, or Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius referred the duty of observing their perfect rule of life and action to some power or will, higher than man's power or will, their so-called morality was, in fact, religion.

Jehovah gave the two tables to the Jews as rules of life to be observed because He so commanded. All the commandments except the first and last relate to actions; but the first and last do not relate to mysteries of faith, but to intelligible states of thought and affection which naturally produce

action.

If a Jew observe these commandments in obedience to the Divine will, his obedience is practical religion, not "mere morality;" but the obedience of the Jew was not necessarily of the same religious quality or degree as that of a devout Christian. They are not on the same plane, to speak in the language of Euclid, and may be clearly and usefully discriminated.

The obedience of the Jew is for the most part outward, reverent, and fearful. That of a Christian should be inward, reverent and filial. The obedience of the Jew cleanses the outside of the cup and platter-actions. The obedience of the Christian cleanses the inside also-motives; for in the Sermon on the Mount our blessed Lord put into the decalogue, or rather drew out of it, a "pureness of living" which He never before taught to the Jews, and that spirit and life of Divine law is the very spirit and life which has made the Bible the civilizer, and will make it the regenerator of the world.

Religious obedience to the Divine commandments in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, transforms the very quality of virtue. Morals are then transfigured by the inner life and light which fill them. Dead morality is swallowed up of life, religious life, and moral virtues become Christian graces by the power of the Holy Spirit" working in us both to will and to do of God's good pleasure." All this is contained in the six pregnant words: Actions are what their motives are; and the highest enforcement of the religion of action is contained in the 25th chapter of Matthew, and also in the words, " And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their works" (Rev. xx. 12).—I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, J. W. HANCOCK, LL.B.

To the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, &c., &c.

Reviews.

THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. BY ST. GEORGE MIVART, F.R.S. London: Macmillan & Co. 1871.

THE author of this volume describes his work as having a twofold object:"To maintain the position that natural selection' acts, and, indeed, must act, but that still, in order that we may be able to account for the production of known kinds of animals and plants, it requires to be supplemented by the action of some other law or laws as yet undiscovered. Also, that the

consequences which have been drawn from evolution, whether exclusively Darwinian or not, to the prejudice of religion, by no means follow from it, and are, in fact, illegitimate." P. 5.

In furtherance of this design he suggests certain difficulties to the reception of the theory of "natural selection," and supports his position by curious facts and cogent reasoning-contending for the existence of some unknown internal law, similar to that which governs the crystallization of minerals, as the principal agent in determining the evolution of species, the symmetry of animal forms, and other phenomena. He affirms natural selection' to be wholly incapable of originating moral conceptions, such, for instance, as those of "right," and "duty," which he traces to "intuitive perceptions." In addition, he asserts that evolution does not necessarily involve a denial of Divine action, or of Divine providence, and concludes by declaring, that his "aim has been to support the doctrine that species have been evolved by ordinary natural laws (for the most part unknown), controlled by the subordinate action of "natural selection," and at the same time to remind some that there is and can be absolutely nothing in physical science which forbids them to regard those laws as acting with the Divine concurrence, and in obedience to a creative fiat originally imposed on the primeval cosmos, "in the beginning, by its Creator, its Upholder, and its Lord."

CONVERSATIONS ON WAR AND GENERAL CULTURE. By the Author of "Friends in Council." London: Smith & Elder.

1871.

"WHAT an exquisite thing is good conversation!" is the remark with which the author of this volume begins one of his charming works; and of such conversation does the one under notice consist. So "good," indeed, is it, that few of us can have opportunities of hearing any of equal merit. Serious thought is relieved by anecdote and humour; and the transition from "grave to gay, from lively to severe," renders these pages eminently engaging. The conversation, too, like that of-well cultured people in good society, is flowing and varied, resembling a river winding through fruitful fields, and adding to their fertility. The interlocutors are so nicely discriminated, and their distinctive differences so well preserved, that only a small effort of imagination is required to bring them so before the reader's mind as to produce the impression that he is hearing what in fact he is only reading. Those to whom Helps's works are familiar, feel acquainted with the circle of friends whose conversations are recorded, having met them again and again in different books. Like all good people, too, they seem to become riper and better as they grow older; indicating that the author himself is being matured and mellowed by time. To say that he is one of the most delightful and instructive of living writers, is simply to echo the general voice of criticism.

There is only one point upon which a deficiency is felt. The "Friends in Council," though not irreligious, agree to exclude religion and politics from their discussions. But these turn almost entirely upon morals, and the conduct of human life; subjects that cannot be handled satisfactorily apart from the dictates and sanctions of religion. The reader, therefore, walks lovingly beside the teacher across a verdant but level plain, and there the journey ends; while he longs that they would ascend together the regions of clearer light and purer motive.

War, and the means of preventing it, occupy a prominent place in this writer's works, and evidently engage his most earnest thought. But it is remarkable, that in his various speculations upon its causes, he rests in such as are secondary, never referring to that final cause existing in us all--the

love of pre-eminence, the determination to have one's own way, and to carry out one's own ends and purposes irrespective of the rights, interests, and feelings of others. Whether mutual advantage, common sense, and rational conviction will ever operate to render nations averse from war, or the outward evil be mitigated by any means except the removal of the internal evil from individual minds by regeneration, only time can shew.

Two short extracts are selected, but on subjects distinct from those to which the volume is principally devoted.

"Women are in many things our superiors, in many things our inferiors, -our equals never. I hold with Coleridge, that there are souls masculine and souls feminine. If I were suddenly asked to give a proof of the goodness of God to us, I think I should say that it is most manifest in the exquisite difference He has made between the souls of men and women; so as to create the possibility of the most comforting and charming companionship that the mind of man can imagine.”—p. 72.

"Some of the finest reasoners that have ever lived have been women. What you perceive in them that makes you think they cannot reason as well as men, is this, that they decline to abide by the decisions of reason. They introduce the affections of the soul, when we, in our poor creeping way, are content to abide by the conclusions of logic. You argue with a woman. I can tell you, she appreciates all your arguments, and at the end of your discourse, is frequently wont to repeat her original opinion in exactly the same words as she at first used in stating it. But this is because she does not choose to be convinced."-p. 76.

THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH MAGAZINES.

The December number of the American Magazine has a notice of the Repository, including the table of contents, and a favourable word for some of the articles in our November number. The editor concludes his article thus:

"We are surprised to find how small the number is in this country who subscribe for the Intellectual Repository, and the same remark may be applied to our English brethren in regard to the New Jerusalem Magazine; and yet, to our respective periodicals they and we must look, mainly, if we would know what work each party is engaged in, and to what extent the work is prospering in our hands. We have very few opportunities of seeing each other face to face. Occasionally one of us visits England, and still more rarely we are permitted to welcome one of them here. We cannot help thinking that it would be a mutual benefit to the New Church people in England and America, if they would become better acquainted with each other; and since this cannot be effected through personal contact, might not something, perhaps much, be gained by a free interchange of thought and feeling through our respective periodicals? We would gladly join in any effort that would bring about so desirable a result, and the above is a small contribution in that direction."

We quite agree with these remarks, and heartily reciprocate the wish for more intercommunication between the two churches through their periodicals, each of which has something peculiar to itself, besides the information it contains. An obstacle to this has recently been raised by the great increase in the rate of postage. But if these notices on either side may have the effect of awakening a new interest in the matter among the members of the Church, the booksellers would be suitable agents for effecting the use.

Miscellaneous.