dislikes, and likes and dislikes produce will; but effects and circumstances must be as they must be, and therefore the will must be as it must be, therefore there is no potential mood, either in grammar or anywhere else, and no will, and when there shall come among us one who, far above the monstrous Superstition,' shall be able by mere force of reasoning on these causes and effects, to trace all things to their natural and unavoidable results, we shall be able to predict all future events, and by looking through an egg-shell, to learn what the present and all future generations of yolks, will say and do when they come to be men and women; and so die with enlarged understandings and no small self-respect- -well perhaps that is as it were but however-now then-Ah, well away, αιλίνον αίλινον ειπε, τοδ ευ νικάτω. Here to day, and there tomorrow, we shall never hear poor Spangles argue again.” We may next find the philosopher rather curiously at issue with our half brethren, on a point on which the latter, only small-parcel right have much the best of it.

Accepting with our half brethren to the extent above indicated, the position of their 5th article, that we are recipients of life, p.20,supra, or that a life or spirit of life has been breathed into us, we have never been careful to dispute that this spirit of life in us, must have form, and if form, then a body or individual concrete of some kind, without which, except in the case of the Eternal filling the entire universe, we are unable to conceive the idea of a separate personality. But neither do we see the incongruity of speaking of a spiritual body, nor in so speaking, do we consider that we in the least detract from our belief in the resurrection of the body, within the line of teaching of our church; for though we know that we shall rise again, that of us which will so rise is not the native dust which we have so often seen with our own eyes returned to the general earth from which it came, but that unseen imperishable germ of life, which was born with every one of us, and which, carrying with it always its own consciousness, unbroken and unimpaired, will be changed only in this, that it will part with all of it that is corruptible,

to receive in its place what under far better and more glorious conditions will endure for ever.

In our belief, this change of the corruptible into the incorruptible has been seen by mortal eyes; for He who was received into Heaven, that is into the invisible world, in the sight of men, must have been so changed in the very act of disappearing.

A future state of happiness is a gift promised to us under conditions; and our only title to it is an earnest, perfect, abiding faith, leading to the due performance of these conditions; and it is idle, because beyond our powers, and presumptuous, because forbidden, to seek to know what He who gave the promise, has not only not disclosed, but declared that He will not disclose, until its fulfilment.

To this faith philosophy has rarely sought to guide us; it has indeed, devised a sort of morality of its own, and then, finding that there is undeniably such a thing as religious feeling, has thought to accommodate matters to itself, by seeking to distinguish it as "emotional morality," by which we may suppose is meant aggravated morality. But surely of all conceits that have ever started up in favour of rashly foregone conclusions, this is at once the tamest and most whimsical. The religious feeling is moral, because its seat is in the moral sense as defined above; and it is emotional in the highest degree from its object; but it is a shallow truism distinguishing nothing to call it emotional morality. The spirit of chivalry, the point of honour, the tragic sentiment, the feeling of pity, the natural affections, are all emotional, and all moral, but differing in objects, differ both in character and degree.

To our half brethren we would say a few words presently, in deprecation of the sort of argumentative Paradise, to which perhaps unconsciously, they would take

us.

Φεν. Κνισμου μεν ἐκ τουδ ̓ ἀντιχειροιν ὡς δοκέι
Φαυλον τι καὶ πονηρον ωδ' εισερχεται.

Certain of the present day, accepting or inclining to the

view, that sense, thought and will, are the effects of the motions among themselves of certain molecules,-of which our organisms are by them thought to be composed, have brought matters, as regards themselves, to a very convenient deadlock. In their own carefully selected words, "the finest spiritual sensibility is a function of a living organism, is in relation to molecular facts—and the problem is to discover what these molecular facts are, and whether the relation between them and the said spiritual sensibility, is one of antecedence in the molecular fact and sequence in the spiritual fact, or vice versa."

We who fail to discover and have never been shown any force in creation not directed by mind, are unaffected by this awful looking swinging door of a problem, and are content to look on and admire without surprise the well contrived failures of its inventors to solve it. But what if there be neither antecedence nor sequence in the matter? What if both facts be the continuing work of a Creator who made them one, so that in our present state neither of them can be or act without the other, and so that in the question as stated above, what may be truly said of the one, must always with equal truth be said of the other? In so entire and perfect a union as we perceive to exist, can it be otherwise?

In our view there is no dividing line by any means discernible by us, between these so-called spiritual and molecular facts, each being inseparably blended for the present, proceeding from and always resting on the same one creating mind. In our living organism it is one and the same indivisible creature that moves and breathes, and that thinks and feels, and together with the entire universe both of mind and matter, is wholly subjective in the Divine Being, now and for ever; and what are commonly accepted as second causes, are not really causes at all, but only successive phenomena, displaying the continuous working of that, which we call the First, but which is in truth the sole and ever acting cause of every created thing in Heaven and earth. That which created, alone sustains and governs; and since that cause is, as we at least infer

from His works, a Personality, perfect in wisdom and power, the result is that excellent order which we all perceive around us. This order, from its perfect and undeviating regularity, is thus the ground work of all our sciences, beginning as they all do with observation, and D.V. would be a proper heading to all our scientific writings, and would only seem absurd to prepared or idiosyncratic minds. Thus, we speak of gravitation as a law or property of matter, which is well enough and allowable in popular usage, because wherever we find matter we perceive that it is under this seeming law, or possesses this seeming property; but it is incorrect, and unless we keep the qualification above mentioned well in mind, misleading to say so; because matter has neither being, law, nor property, except in and by the present immediate will and sustaining act of the Creator; but what seem to us to be such laws or properties, we pronounce to be so, because of their perfect and never-failing regularity; and they are thus regular, because the wisdom of the Creator is perfect, and can never be at fault, or need either aid or amendment. The centrifugal and centripetal forces by which the planets are maintained in their orbits, are seated, not in the planets themselves, but in the hand that wields and the mind that directs them, now and every instant that passes, as they have done from the beginning.

This is in part a repetition of what we have said before; but it could not be helped; for the antagonist position we have quoted is itself only a repetition, the refrain in a modern dialect of a very old song, another throb of the same old philosophical ague. Except in natural science, this Nineteenth Century is by no means the inventive infant prodigy it is by some taken to be.

We can conceive no form of which we have not some experience, any more than we can a new sense, Suppose that, like our alchymist formerly quoted, a very famous person in bygone times,

We had first matter seen alone,
Before one rag of form was on;

and had never seen anything else, we should be utterly unable to give it any form at all. If we had never witnessed motion, or unless we had the idea of it conveyed to our minds by some objective means, we should never conceive such a thing. In like manner, we are unable to conceive life or thought existing without some individual organism or concrete to support it. There may be such a thing, but we cannot conceive it; that is, we cannot give it form; and we confess as much in adopting the expression "spiritual body"; in doing which we anthropomorphise, that is, materialise spirit, without altogether losing the several distinctive ideas.

In our own natural personalities, we certainly do recognise a spiritual sensibility and a living organism,

which you in your high-flying ambitious phraseology, call

spiritual and molecular facts"; we in our tamer vernacular, soul and body; and we do also observe generally, we are not quite prepared to say universally, a strong and very intimate functional relation between them; that is to say, when the spiritual fact (we are adopting here your own nomenclature) is in action, there is some corresponding movement in the molecular fact.

Now, we perfectly see, and cheerfully accept your consequence, that, if the molecular fact be a real and not a Berkeleyan entity, and its action antecedent to that of the spiritual one, the latter must also be molecular and material; but we do not so easily follow the process by which you arrive or would arrive at this consequence, or at the conclusion that the molecular fact has or can have this antecedence; and indeed we rather suspect that you do not really look to arrive at that or any other conclusion, but only throw out your question as a kind of " stop short" in a maze, to enable you to philosophize more at large and with greater ease in other directions.

You do but say after all, that our natural perceptions lead to your conclusion; that when the spirit thinks, the brain works; when the body languishes, the spirit grieves; and so on in many other imaginable instances. But our perceptions here are neutral, and as above noticed, give