interpreted in science it addresses itself to the understanding. But neither through the one medium nor through the other does it afford direct nutriment to Faith. Nature, as apprehended by the senses—apart from scientific interpretation-has nourished only Fetichism. Nature, regarded through an exclusively scientific interpretation, nourishes Atheism. If science acknowledges any Divinity it is that of an inflexible Law. Miracles impress those who know Nature only through their senses, but to the man of science they become a difficulty rather than an aid to Faith. And in this we may discover one reason why miracles have ceased. At our present scientific stand-point-in other words, with our present knowledge of the laws of Nature-they would perplex more than they would impress. The man of science knows as much of the inflexibility of law, and of the marvellous power of physical forces, as to make him doubt, on the one hand, whether there is any room for miracles, and on the other, whether there is any need for them. And thus we may see in the modes and media, chronologically realized, by which God has supernaturally revealed himself to men, an adaptation to the intellectual progress of the race. His earliest revelations were through manifestations impressive to the senses. Then the will was addressed by specific and detailed Law. And, lastly, the whole affectional and moral nature was appealed to in the life, teaching, and death of Jesus Christ. God would first impress men with his Power, then with His exclusive supremacy, and then, last of all,-yet on the basis of both the former-with the breadth and depth of His affectional nature. Jehovah is one; Jehovah is supreme and absolute Sovereign, but, and this is the ultimate revelation —that of the deepest essence of His moral nature-' God is love.'

Man divested of his affectional nature would, under culture, become a mere intellectual or calculating machine. Hence the corrective to an exclusively scientific culture is found in this element of his being. Here we may see the importance of Poetry and the Fine Arts being cultivated abreast of science; but still more distinctly the adaptation of Christianity to be the "last dispensation"-the ultimate form of religion for the race. Christianity, as-above all other revelations of God-disclosing the depth and breadth of His affectional being, is adapted to be the corrector of the scientific interpretation of His action through nature according to rigid uniform Law. The farther science is pursued the more clearly does it point to Unity and Power-so that miracles are no longer needed to signalise the one or the other—but the further we trace rigid Law, the less and less do we see of Character in the Power or Agent acting through it. Man, as his scientific culture advances, needs a corresponding culture of the heart of the affections—and Christianity supplies the only adequate instrument of this culture. It is Christianity alone that addresses itself to all the elements and susceptibilities of man's affectional nature. Christ

L

appealed to this constituent of our being in its whole breadth, as it faces God, man, nature; from its highest susceptibilities all downwardsmeeting all, excluding none. Faith in Him is, therefore, the one vitalising element of the religious life. But, more than this, it is under modern scientific culture, a necessity to the proper balance of the mental forces. Emphatically it is true here, "with the heart man believeth;" and in the absence of faith the heart will be neither fully drawn out nor adequately sustained. In its absence, both the intellectual classes and the active classes will almost equally suffer under an extending scientific knowledge-the one will be filled with pride and vain-glory, whilst the everaugmenting power over nature put into the hand of the other, will be directed more and more to the production of means of self-gratification.

A religious education is thus the highest-the most urgent necessity of our time, and it must be a Christian education. It is in Christianity alone, as we have already said, that we have the full revelation and development of the affectional and moral character of God. Christianity commends itself to reason, when reason is in right exercise, but it is to the heart and conscience it makes direct appeal. If it fails to draw forth a response there, it fails of its great end. A mere knowledge of its facts and doctrines-however extensive and correct-is as morally powerless as any other kind of knowledge. Hence we may see that real religious education involves much more than Christian instruction-it implies affectional training and discipline. To the mere understanding, Christianity will ever be found to present insuperable difficulties—and which increase rather than abate in the progress of knowledge and science. Indeed, it seems as if things were now tending to this, that if Christianity is not received in the moral nature, it will not long be possible to receive it at all-and that only those who "do God's will," shall be able to recognise it as of God. "None of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand."

XXIV.-WISDOM IS WEALTH.

THE question-Is it better that few or many in a community should be born to assured hereditary wealth ?—is (like many other questions in social economy,) one to which no categorical answer can be returned.

No absolute dictum can be given forth; only a conditioned and qualified verdict. As yet, in all countries where wealth has been accumulated, only a small minority have been born with the silver spoon in their mouth; and to be so has, to most, brought bale rather than blessing. This is a fact, alike of observation and of history. Yet, persistent belief to the contrary-maintained in the face of this, onwards through all time— implies something more and deeper than that the multitude are everlastingly deceived by appearances. An indestructible human sentiment always points to a reality; and in this case there must be (under the proper conditions and limitations) a real and not merely an illusory-a general, not an exceptional good. Properly to rear, train, and educate any one human creature, requires a great deal of money-more than the majority of those who have large families possess, or can possibly earn. To be born to so much, were a good to every one-provided his parents and instructors were properly qualified for the work of education and training. Where they are not so qualified we doubt whether any amount of pecuniary means will serve to secure the end. And where this primary condition of well-being and well-doing, is not realised, we are perfectly sure it is better to be born to limited than to large means. In the latter case pressure of circumstances-the restraints and requirements involved in continuing to live on at all-perform for the youth, at least some essential portions of that educative and disciplinary process which his parents are disqualified for performing.

To possess the means of properly rearing, training, and educating every human being would be a good for all, but the most essential of these means are such as wealth cannot give. Moral and intellectual endowments occupy the first place amongst them, and in their absence it may generally with truth be affirmed, that the greater the wealth the greater the calamity to the young-the more baleful the star under which they are born. The limitation of hereditary wealth is, therefore, in our present state, rather a check on evil than otherwise, and the law which this limitation observes is one revealing a wisdom and beneficence never enough to be admired.

What is it, in fact, that does, in these days limit hereditary wealth to the few? The absence, in the majority, of those moral qualities which could alone render it a blessing. Men spend money instead of saving it, because their appetites and passions are under no proper control. This, in the greater proportion of instances, is what precludes those who do not possess wealth from acquiring it—what causes those born to it to lose it. Wealth is thus confined to the few, by reason of the absence in the many of the moral qualities indispensable to the proper use of it. As these are diffused, wealth will increase and be diffused. With our means and appliances it must be so, and in spite of all oppos

ing laws and usages. Indeed, such laws and usages maintain their place, simply and solely, because the people have not sufficient moral power. to break them up. Those who labour as producers will be able to conquer for themselves a larger and still larger share of the common good, just in proportion as they succeed in making a yet more essential and primary conquest—that over themselves. Without that the other would be of no value. Educational and moral preparation in the people must precede, or at least accompany, material concessions in their favour, else the latter will be, in great measure, made in vain.

Is then the maintenance of inequitable laws and usages justified, supposing the people are not so prepared? Most certainly not—not even excused. There is another side to the question. Wealth is one great means through which the moral condition of the people is to be elevated; and those who possess the power of influencing and determining its distribution, through social usages and laws, are responsible to the community for the way in which they use that power. Wealth is every day becoming a greater necessity in order to this-just in proportion as our means of producing it increase. The young now need a higher education, in order to well-being and well-doing, than they did during the ages when they were surrounded by less exciting and less stimulative social influences; and it costs more now properly to educate and train them. Consequently, the responsibility of the "upper ten thousand" constantly increases; and their guilt must be proportionately deeper if they continue selfishly to consume means, and selfishly to monopolise advantages, whose diffusion is urgently demanded by the moral and social interests of the body of the people. In our large towns, 40 to 50 per cent. of the deaths are of children under five years of age. Ten per cent. of our births are illegitimate. Many thousands die every year from preventible causes. Ere these and cognate evils can be removed, the people must be better housed, better fed, better taught, and better trained. The intellectually uncultured-the morally and socially debased-can be educated and elevated only by others doing for them what they cannot, or will not do for themselves.

Another fact must be kept in view. You cannot elevate a class by exceptional efforts. You may draw up individuals from it by a religious agency, or by presenting educational and literary facilities to the young, but you can elevate the class only by bringing it to share, in a measure, in all the advantages which our modern civilization confers. Common sense will teach us so much-that it is vain to look for identical moral results under two sets of conditions entirely different. We cannot expect people to enjoy health under conditions that breed and foster disease. We cannot expect them to show good taste and reach a high moral elevation without adequate stimulus and training. If we would

see them exemplify the home virtues, we must first provide them with dwellings in which these can be exercised and can live. But wherever we would effect an improvement-often ere we can secure a basis of reformatory operation-money is required. The more urgently, the more widely, it is so, the more guilty, and the more socially disastrous, does its selfish use, monopoly, waste, become.

First and heaviest among the items in our deep debt of undischarged social obligation, is that which accrues as the natural profit from the land. First, because its increase has been proportionate and due to the growth of our numbers, industry, skill, and enterprise; and, therefore, cannot be justly claimed as their patrimony by any class. And, secondly, because being the chief monopoly now remaining amongst us, it stands in double antagonism to the great current of progress. The land monopoly is now an economical and maly, as well as a social injustice. By the land monopoly we mean those laws and usages, and that social spirit, which restrict the ownership of land to a limited class.

But though the landed proprietors stand first and highest in social responsibility, nothing would be more unwarrantable than to say that they stand alone. Every one who possesses wealth is responsible to the community, as well as to God, for the way in which he uses it. He is not free to invest it in that from which he may expect the largest return -whether of profit or pleasure-without regard to the interests and wellbeing of others. Society has not conferred on the wealthy and the powerful of these days, so many advantages without their corresponding responsibilities; the manual workers do not contribute so much to our elevation and enjoyment, without having great claims on us in return. Civilisation as it advances, the greater and still greater division of labour-increases the dependence of the various classes of society, the one on the other. The points are correspondingly multiplied at which they must affect one another for weal or for woe. Nor can the everwidening duties thence arising be shirked without incurring the inevitable Nemesis. The most energetic portions of the population will be drained away by emigration, while poor-rates, and the demand on philanthropy, will increase. If we will not voluntarily assess ourselves for the elevation of the people, they will certainly tax us by their degradation and their vices. Whatever measures we may take to keep all to ourselves, we shall not be able. If we invest our wealth in what we expect simply to yield us the largest return, without regard to the wellbeing of others, only the heavier will be the reversion claimed at our hands.