"Halket" refers to our assertion, that science, in its onward march, exposes the folly and error of infidelity, and denies it. Quo warranto? Infidelity has ever been arraying the revelations of science against biblic truth and infallibility. But what is the result? The biblic infallibility is as intact now as ever. Science is never opposed to scripture when scripture is fairly dealt with; the two only clash when man, by his false conceptions of either, make them; and as for "Halket's" childish insinuation concerning the heavens opening, and the visions of holy men, and their being dispelled by the telescope, it would be positive waste of time to comment upon it. Did “Halket" expect, when he looked through a telescope, to see Jacob's ladder, or the battlements of heaven, or the pearly gate, or the shining throne? Is not the power of the telescope merely an instrument to assist the physical sight? and is there no higher vision in man than that of the outward eye? Did "Halket" never experience inward intuitions, and see soulvisions? or has he always been confined to the limited sphere of perishable sight and sense? Surely he has, or he would never

talk in this inane way of divine realities and truths.

66

Halket," like "James," affirms that we dishonour reason, and debase its dignity. Our reply to "Halket" is our reply to James." We maintain that Secularism, with its monstrous errors, is a proof that human reason in religion is "vaunting, erring, and profane." We also maintain that reason, whenever it usurps the domain of faith, or throne of God, is guilty of the profoundest crime.

In concluding, we would say to our secularistic friends, You necessarily lack the highest and deepest evidence concerning Christianity, and are therefore of all men most incapable of forming a just judgment upon it. We recommend the words of Christ to you; ponder well their vast meaning, and let not proud reason deny them:-" My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." "He shall know!" Christianity is intended for every man, and he who rejects it and starves his immortal soul, perishes with vital bread in his quick hand. ROLLA.

IN the absence of the writer of the opening articles on this question, we take up our pen to jot down a few remarks as a final reply; and in doing so we shall be necessarily brief, inasmuch as any exposition of principles at this stage of the debate would come with ill grace from us, seeing that the negative writers have not, as yet, attempted to controvert the statements made in the able and manly articles of our friend "James." Before, however, touching the question of debate, we feel called upon to comment on, and utter our protest against, portions of our opponents' articles, wherein much bad taste is exhibited. With "Rolla" we have no fault to find, knowing that to denounce everything and everybody is his peculiarity. Nicknames and word-rage in "Rolla's" articles are received as a matter of course; and it is to be regretted that so valuable a contributor should forget the responsibility he is under, and set juniors the example of substituting fury for strength, and declamatory common-placisms for rhetoric. But "Benjamin," whose sins in this respect may be counted,-what shall we say

of him? In the first place we ask, What is meant by "the ostensible apostles of Secularism"? Such expressions might be expected from the editor of an evangelical paper, into whose columns we might be thrusting our views, but in this serial, where we stand on equal grounds, they are both unjust and offensive. If those whose sole aim in expounding their views is the promotion of truth are to be dubbed "ostensible apostles," who shall be exempt from the imputation ? What would be said if we termed "Benjamin' "the ostensible apostle" of Christianity? We hope he will see the injustice of using such expressions, and act accordingly. Of a better character is the article of "L'Ouvrier;" and we thank him for asserting that epithets and personalities are derogatory to the dignity of these pages.

Is Secularism consonant with the highest amount of social happiness? Here is a question which answers itself. All history proves that Secularism is consonant with the highest amount of social happiness. All science proves it. It is a self-evident fact. All men and all nations admit it as a

truth in their actions if they do not in their speech. Sages and philosophers have written in substantiation of this great and important fact. Hence arose the moral precept, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." Hence arose also the moral precepts of Christianity, of Confucius, of Socrates, and of every other great moralist. All the great lawgivers,- Moses, Solon, Lycurgus, and the great statesmen down to the present day, have worked on the secularist's axiom (which "L'Ouvrier" quotes on purpose to attempt its refutation), viz., on those principles "which pertain to this world, which relate to human life and welfare, which can be tested in time by facts of nature, experience, and consciousness." This is the great fundamental rule on which all improvement in civilization is based; and we secularists maintain that civilization is to be tested by the "highest amount of social happiness' it produces to the greatest bulk of the inhabitants of that nation which boasts of its civilization. How far English Christianity has produced the "highest amount of social happiness" may be gathered from reading Mayhew's "London Labour and London Poor." Our opponents will find that in that eminently religious city there exists an amount of vice, sin, misery, and human degradation, not to be found in any other part of the globe, barbarous or civilized. And this for the want of being surrounded by circumstances where the "highest amount of social happiness" would be produced for all-as Robert Owen says, "without regard to sect, party, country, or colour." Again, for the development of the moral English Christianity look to the 'Lancet," at the articles which have appeared in its pages on the adulteration of human food by every deleterious and poisonous article imaginable. And yet those persons who are guilty of such evil practices would blush with indignation at being called secularists.

Our Christian friends will perhaps say this is no argument at all; and we admit it at once. We judge of the tree by its fruits. The question is, as we have already said, self-evident. There is no "social happiness," and you will never get it by any other means than those which "pertain to this world, and which relate to human life and welfare." We may so far subjugate

the human mind as to induce a delirious "social happiness," by immolating ourselves at the car of Juggernaut, and by conjuring up imaginary worlds of bliss or misery. The writer of these remarks has more than once tried to live to the letter of Christianity, and so far as he has disregarded the teachings of Secularism, and indulged human weakness by embracing a dead theology, he has, in a corresponding ratio, receded from "social happiness." We speak from experience-not in idle gossip, but in obedience to the call of truth.

66

66

We find, then, that prayer and faith, "without works, are dead;" and except we do as Jove told the waggoner, put our shoulder to the wheel," and do something which "pertains to this world, and which relates to human life and welfare," we can never gain the highest amount of "social happiness." Thus, Secularism is consonant with the highest amount of social happiness;" for "L'Ouvrier" says, "We believe, with the secularist, in the necessity of moral purity, or that obedience to the moral laws on which happiness depends." So far we agree. Then it appears to us that the question ought to have been, "Is Secularism alone consonant with the highest amount of social happiness?" for we find that "L'Ouvrier" wants to couple it with " extraneous assistance of a supersensuous nature," and that without this extraneous assistance of a supersensuous nature the highest amount of social happiness cannot be attained. "SOCIAL happiness' alludes to this world; its attainment, therefore, must be by Secularism-by those means which "pertain to this world, and which relate to human life and welfare." We disagree, then, about the attainment of this "social happiness." And here we would remark that the secularist might err, for he is, like other men, weak and fallible. But then, we look to science-Christians, to blind faith in something they can no more define than they can describe the inhabitants of the moon. They have a creed which has been handed down to them from their forefathers; so have the Hindoos and the Mahometans. What then? Let us try it by the test "L'Ouvrier" brings forward. He says, "That which is established upon the principles of any science must, in all its outworkings, be manifest as a practical de

velopment of those principles. Its want of coincidence with those principles in any one particular endangers the whole theory, even when the particular is in itself insignificant, or of little importance; but should that want of coincidence arise in one or more of the first principles or foundation-truths of that science or theory, in this case the whole structure vanishes from the region of fact, although it may, for a time, find a place in the dreamland of its fond advocates." The Christian "assumes, without proof," the authenticity of the Bible, which we pass unnoticed, it bearing within itself so many evidences of its fallibility. Besides, so many learned writers have laid bare its errors and contradictions, that we need not but refer our readers to them. We mention one,-"The Historical Evidences," treated in a masterly style, by the Rev. Robert Taylor.

Although our opponents are men of known ability, in these pages we have no need to fear for our cause, for science and truth will withstand all attacks. We will not charge our opponents with sophistry, for that is nothing new. The Bridgewater treatises have shown this; and all that Dr. Buckland could tell us was, that to the Lord " 'a thousand years are as a day, and a day as a thousand years."

We now turn to "Persona," and shall set his assertion, that Secularism is "the old black crow of infidelity," down as harmless chat. We think that "Persona" and other sectarians (not religionists) will discover, on further examination, that the "plumes of positive philosophy," in which Secularism is decked, are not the "stolen peacock plumes," but the natural growth of the bird itself. Those of our opponents who think that railing at our principles is tantamount to refuting them, will discover that, though deemed a "black crow," they will ultimately appear in all their truthfulness, richness, and beauty. But it is said that "it will be hard for its (Secularism's) adherents to prove that anything of a positive nature can result from it." And again; "they (the secularists) have not, hitherto, so far as we can learn, enumerated a single new tenet which they are prepared to defend." What? Do we not say that man is not responsible for his belief? Do we not say that prayer will not avail us in the hour of need? That fasts and thanksgivings are useless in either

abating a plague, or in aiding us in our national struggles? Do we not say that man cannot put his religion on and off as he would a new hat? Secularism does not discover much-it proclaims facts which Christians have discovered and dare not assert, lest they might clash with their preconceived theological opinions. Fasts have been appointed avowedly for the purpose of staying the cholera. The Christian world looked complacently on, until Lord Palmerston spoke and said that the only way to ensure health was to look to our sanitary condition. That was Secularism. The same had been said scores of times by secularists; but not until a man in authority wafted their doctrine from land's end to land's end had they the satisfaction of being rightly appreciated. In point of fact, that was no "new tenet." Men caught its truth as by instinct. It was nothing "new" to the mass of mankind, but to enforce it from the platform and the press was a new way to popularize old facts, and Secularism claims the credit for so doing. We know it will be said that Christians believed such long before secularists proclaimed it: "the more shame for them," for it is evident that the millions might be groping in darkness for ages rather than Christianity should be deprived of one of its cherished dogmas. Man cannot select his particular creed with the same ease he could an apple from an orchard. Belief is the growth of years, dependent on country, combined with education and original organization; therefore he ought not to be branded as an "infidel" if he acts with fidelity to his belief. The question is so complex that it is impossible to consider it fully unless entering on a subject now being debated in these pages. But we know he is so branded, and with sorrow we mourn over it. How many of our fellow-creatures have felt the weight and seen the "moral evil" of this same "Christian charity"! "If the veil from the breast could be torn," the effects of an intolerant sectarianism would be seen. If we have shown sufficient evidence to prove that man is not responsible for his belief, but that it depends upon country, education, &c., have we not enumerated a "new tenet"? And if we could only emancipate man from this worst of slavery-mental slavery-and which it is our first aim to accomplish, that all might

speak their thoughts freely, would not great good result from it?

With the moral teachings of Christianity secularists do not quarrel,-if the precepts be of a moral character, as Christ's were, but with its doctrines, and such advice as Paul gave to his disciples, when he told them that any one bringing not the doctrines of Christianity with them, were to admit them not into their houses, nor bid them God speed. Secularists would do all that would increase virtue and happiness, and would change the institutions so as to produce such results. Do religionists say as much? Would they sink doctrinal differences to promote the general welfare? They have not hitherto, so far as we can learn, shown themselves that way disposed -rather the reverse. Sectarians dare not improve the body for fear of injuring the soul. Thus the difference of opinion among them increases the difficulty of framing a Bill for National Education. Their bigotry at the present moment is perpetuating vice, ignorance, and misery in the present generation, and is dooming millions, yet unborn, to worse than Egyptian darkness. Is Secularism such a stumbling block?

We have thus cursorily glanced at "Persona's" article, and supplied such remarks as it called forth; and we hope our readers will look upon them as hints, not intended for a face to face encounter-that is unnecessary.

We now conclude. We are not unmindful of the crude way in which we have performed our task. But we have done our best so far as time and space would admit. We should have replied to "Benjamin” had he not demanded too much. When an opponent puts us in the position of a criminal at the bar, putting forth our claims to our own individual morality, we respond in a fitting way-by silence.

We have not sought to bring immediate conviction to those who dissent from us; our object is achieved if we have induced our readers to turn to secular publications, and judge of us and our principles with the candour of truth-seekers. The higher claims of Secularism having been advanced by our coadjutors, "James," "Halket," and J. L., we conclude with the hope that truth has been advanced by this debate, whether we gain the largest number of adherents or not. HORATIO.

To set down the advantages to be derived from the study of history, it is necessary to consider its connection with other branches of knowledge, and their relations to the life of humanity. As a study, and as the essence of the unwritten and recorded lives of nations and individuals, in their connection with the development of human intelligence, as influenced by philosophy, art, climate, science, and religion, it is pre-eminently fitted to instruct the mind, improve the taste, and discipline the intellectual powers.

The object of the philosophical historian is, to discover the causes which have influenced the development of human intelli

gence, and trace their effects in the history of nations, as exhibited in their governments, laws, commerce, arts, and sciences. The condition of nations at different periods of their history, indicates the state of their intelligence, by which is discerned either the sources of their strength, or the causes of their weakness.

History is both universal and particular; it refers either to those works which aim at representing a view of all the transactions of our earth, or to those histories which are limited by time and place, in connection with events and persons, and which may be divided as follows: