as in the physical progress. God's revelation responds to man's search; man's search is prompted by God's revelation. We cannot draw a hard and fast line between natural and revealed religion any more than we can between the natural and supernatural; but nevertheless the distinction expresses a reality. The prismatic colours shade insensibly into one another, but we can distinguish the blue ray from the red. The natural element mingles with the revealed as it does with the supernatural; the treasure is in earthly vessels. But we know the treasure when we see it. We cannot distinguish the natural from the supernatural, but we can distinguish God from Nature; and we can distinguish the Divine message from the human messenger. We can discriminate between the natural and the spiritual; we know the difference between the witness of God in Nature and the witness of God in the Spirit. The witness of Nature is indirect; the witness of the Spirit is direct. This is the supreme wonder and standing miracle of the Christian faith that, wherever Christ is made known, the soul recognises her Lord. He has become the conscience of humanity as He is its flower. His Divinity shines through His humanity. He is, to use Maurice's profound words, Son of God, because Son of man. He is God in man and man in God. He is perfectly natural yet Divine. He is so completely normal that we recognise Him to be above Nature. The religious consciousness of mankind finds in Him its highest expression, and recognises in Him its eternal Source. And thus the reconciliation which is most needed is found. Religion must be from above if we are to have confidence in it; it must be on earth if we are to get near to it. We ask power; we ask sympathy. Religion must have Divine strength to hold us fast; it must have human hands if it is to get hold of us at all. We have treated of teleology, of the relation of the natural to the supernatural, of the growth of man's religious consciousness. We have vindicated the teleological principle; and yet we are free to admit that in the present day the teleological argument largely fails to appeal to men. The reason is simple. Our thoughts have grown. The design-argument is still valid, perhaps more valid now than ever, to show mind in the universe; but this is not the problem of our day. Mind is recognised. We are asking rather reconciliation between the highest religious conceptions and the facts of the universe; we are seeking the Divine principle which lies at the root alike of our religious consciousness and of the things we see. We must think of all things as one. We want to see all that the intellectual R 2 intellectual consciousness perceives embraced in that which the religious consciousness demands; and all that the religious consciousness demands witnessed in all that the intellectual consciousness perceives. Such a religion must see God at once without and within us, yet it must be able to discriminate the higher sense in which He is within and not without.' The God of the universe must be the God of our religious consciousness; and the God of our religious consciousness must be the God of the universe. We are persuaded that this reconciliation is found in Christianity. * 'Ye Too often Christianity has been treated as a faith apart from Nature. Devotees and sceptics have delighted to denaturalize it. On the contrary, our belief is, that the teaching of Christ expressed the law of human life as it was from eternity. It was no new commandment, no novel faith. What He came to give was not a new invention, but a new discovery. It was a revelation, because men had not perceived it before; but it was a revelation of what was as old as gravity and as the everlasting mountains. The law of Sacrifice which Christ proclaimed was not then first set forth. The law existed from the beginning; the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. In Christianity we are going back to the everlasting sources of being, and we are also going forward to the perfecting of all things. Christ accepted the order of Nature: He would not by escaping it tempt God. He realized the law of progress. He did not expect men to understand all things at once. cannot bear them now.' He taught the law of the survival of the fittest. He bade men be perfect as their Father was perfect, and foretold the power of survival possessed by such a character, for in the hour of trial he would be as one who had built upon a rock. He taught no less the law of self-sacrifice. He that loseth his life shall find it. But, unlike some among ourselves, He found this law of sacrifice in the universe. The power of life was dependent upon death. Of the seed He said: If it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.' He saw no contradiction between the spiritual and the physical order. All things were of God. Man had the key in his own bosom; for the man who once entered into the life of God and became His friend would gain a power to understand. On this relation much knowledge depended; for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth. But in entering into God's life, we enter into the life of the universe. We are no longer aliens, but sons. * Evolution of Religion,' by Dr. E. Caird, vol. ii. p. 64. Till this truth thou knowest, The Duke of Argyll closes his book by reminding us of the unexhausted reserve of power which is possessed by Christianity. It is most true. Men are begining to realize this increasingly. They see in the applications of its principles hope for the social and national life of the world; they see in the character of Christ the true exemplar life of humanity. But its greatest advance will come when all men of all classes realize the one supreme law of Christ, and make the law of self-sacrifice the law of their life, and learn by love to serve one another. When the churches cease from their vain endeavours to change men's thoughts and seek the higher end of changing their characters; when they no longer wrangle about opinions, but strive to lead men to fulfil the law of Christ, then there will no longer be any questioning about the foundations of faith; for religion and life will be seen to rest upon that Everlasting Love which is alike the source of life and the inspiration of knowledge. ART. XI.—1. Madagascar before the Conquest. By the Rev. James Sibree. London, 1896. 2. Madagascar in War Time. The Times' Special Correspondent's Experiences amongst the Hovas during the French Invasion of 1895. By E. F. Knight. London, 1896. 3. Étude de Politique Contemporaine: Madagascar en 1894. Par A. Martineau. Paris, 1894. 4. Copies et Traductions françaises des Documents et Correspondances échangés entre Son Excellence Rainilaiarivony, Premier Ministre et Commandant-en-chef de Madagascar, et M. Le Myre de Vilers, Plénipotentiaire de la République Française. Antananarivo, 1894. 5. Affaires de Madagascar, 1885-1895. Ministère des Affaires Étrangères. Paris, 1895. 6. Le Commerce et la Colonisation à Madagascar. Par Georges Foucart. Paris, 1894. 7. Voyage à Madagascar, 1889-1890. Par Docteur Louis Catat. Paris, 1895. 8. Two Campaigns: Madagascar and Ashantee, 1895-6. By Bennet Burleigh, War Correspondent of the 'Daily Telegraph.' London, 1896. MANY MA ANY months have elapsed since the slender column of General Duchesne dispersed the vast armed mob of Hovas arrayed against it outside the city of Antananarivo; and it is now some time since that commander returned to France in triumph; whilst his less fortunate antagonist, for thirty years the despotic ruler of Madagascar, has been deported to Algeria, leaving Queen Ranavalona III. to govern the Malagasy under the orders of a French Resident-General. The time seems therefore to have arrived when we can review dispassionately the series of events which led up to the invasion of the island as well as the conduct of the arduous campaign which barely escaped imminent disaster, and was only brought to a successful issue by the sternest determination of the French leaders. It will be next our somewhat difficult task to discuss under what sort of political and administrative régime the French Republic proposes to place its new possession, which in size and extent exceeds the total area of the great European State to which it has been practically if not formally annexed. A comparison between France and Madagascar in respect of area may be represented thus:— France, like Great Britain, has concluded several treaties with sovereigns of the Hova dynasty; but, whereas our earliest convention with the great Radama was negotiated as early as 1817, the first treaty made by the French was not signed by the second Radama until nearly half-a-century afterwards, in 1862, only to be torn in pieces within a few months, when the ** *Treaty of Tamatave, October 23rd, 1817. unfortunate unfortunate king was assassinated by his minister because this treaty threatened the independence of Malagasy territory. A heavy indemnity was exacted by the French commodore upon this occasion, but the next treaty was not signed until August 1868,* when Ranavalona II. came to the throne, the first Christian sovereign who had ruled over the Malagasy—‘Un traité, assez banal,' writes M. Henry d'Escamps, plagiat à peine déguisé du traité Anglais, dicté en 1865 par M. Packenham.'† The terms of this treaty were, however, only observed by the Hova Government, more or less evasively, until the death of M. Laborde, the French Consul, whom the experience of a lifetime spent in Imerina had taught how to deal with Malagasy officials. In fact it was the want of tact and a more aggressive attitude on the part of the Consuls who succeeded Laborde which caused such irritation at Antananarivo, that it culminated in bringing about the Franco-Hova War of 1883. At first Rainilaiarivony, trusting in the traditional impregnability of his fastnesses, so well protected by steep mountains, forest and fever, defied the demands of the French naval officers and laughed at their bombardments of distant seaports. But even the obstinacy of the Hovas in the interior had to give way before the protracted blockade of their coasts, which seriously impaired their revenues. In spite of the successful defence of the Hova lines outside Tamatave, Rainilaiarivony found himself forced to submit to onerous terms, including the payment of another heavy indemnity-this time amounting to ten million francs-to subject his relations with Foreign Powers to the supervision of France, and to cede to the Republic certain territory around Diego Suarez Bay. The treaty embodying these and other clauses was ratified at Antananarivo by the Queen's signature, in January 1886, on the express understanding that an Interpretative Letter,' signed by the French plenipotentiaries, should form an actual portion of the instrument; but, unfortunately, it was presented to both Chambers of Parliament in Paris by M. de Freycinet for ratification, without any reference to the existence of this all-important appendix. Thus the treaty ratified by the French President in March 1886 in no way satisfied the claims which had been put forward by the Republic at the beginning of the war. this subject M. Martineau states: * Treaty of Antananarivo, August 8th, 1868. + Vide Histoire Politique de Madagascar,' p. 284. On The Treaty of Tamatave, concluded on the 17th of December, 1885, in Paris on the 7th of March, 1886. 'The |