by a procedure and on evidence which, in England, we should not think suffi cient to decide the title to a dog, or to warrant the stopping-up of a footpath." The effect of Uncle Tom," as a blow at the Fugitive Slave Law, is indicated, and traced to the subject, its appeal to our sympathies, and the naturalness of the handling. And the article closes with a statement of the difficulty which must be experienced in any attempt to repeal slavery, on account of the majority required in Congress to introduce any amendment into the constitution of the States.

The second is a short article on Science; the third a learned one on English Surnames; the fourth on the Correction of Juvenile Offenders; the fifth on Hucs' travels in China; the sixth on Pascal Paoli, and Corsica; the seventh a resumé of the Chemistry of Common Life; the eighth an able article on the Autocracy of the Czars; the tenth a few words on Lord Brougham's speech on Common Law Procedure, protesting against the stoppage by war of the great work of social improvement; and the last a vigorous and out-spoken one on Army Reform, with many of the points of which we cannot agree, but which certainly at the present crisis deserves the earnest attention of our legislators. THE LONDON QUARTERLY, still in its childhood, shows symptoms of considerable robustness and energy. "The Albigenses or Cathari," is an article full of interesting information regarding the condition of the papal church and power from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, and with what unrelenting hostility and bloody persecutions she followed those who stood in the way of her all-crushing despotism. Sir Astley Cooper and Abernethy are fairly sketched in the second. George Gilfillan is soundly rated for the arrogance and dogmatism of his criticisms in the seventh; while the last is occupied with a review of the war with Russia, its causes, and the manner in which it has been conducted.

THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW contains, among others, an article of great value on our Army, its condition and wants, and on the reorganization of the civil service; also a sympathetic article on Victor Hugo and his writings. Its Reviews of Theological Literature are conceived in that spirit of false liberalism which has long characterized it, and which proves that liberalism, so-called, has not learned to be candid.

THE DUBLIN REVIEW, the organ of Roman Catholicism, has a long article of seventy-two pages-a defence of "Bad Popes"-an attempt to parry the blows and destroy the influence of Savanavla by recrimination. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, meets with an apologist in the writer of the second article, and we do not say that no points have been brought out by Miss Strickland which go to prove that Mary Stuart in some respects has been falsely condemned. There is a notice of Marsden's Puritans, in which occurs the wonderful statement: "A skilful use of the weapons employed against each other by various sects of Protestantism, in their interminable warfare, would supply one of the most curious, and, we will venture to say, one of the most sound and convincing arguments of the truth of the Catholic religion to be found in the whole range of polemical literature."

Sir,

Our Open Page.

THE MEAGRENESS OF PULPIT TEACHING.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

Have you never thought of the meagreness of pulpit teaching-of its straightened means of moral influence, and of the non-relationship between

some of its doctrines and sound moral, useful ends? It seems to me that these positions are proved when I consider what my own experience of Christianity furnishes me with, and especially when I consider the number of Christians compared with other sects (say Mahometanism or Paganism), and with the very efficient help Christianity must receive from what is called a brighter and a more rational civilization. I say my own experience of Christianity furnishes me with complete evidence of the meagreness of pulpit teaching-of its inadequacy to help one on in the business of life-of strict, unselfish, physiological life, I mean, and, I say, of the non-relationship between some of its doctrines and healthy, moral ends. For instance, where is there a more important science than Physiology-a science where all our knowledge should begin and end? Where is there a more important text than, "Man, know thyself?"—and physiology not being in the circle of Christian teaching, we can never know ourselves physiologically from the pulpit. When we consider how very important it is that every bite we eat should properly do its work of health in the human economy, and when we consider that we should be more morally useful if we were more physically healthy,-I say, when we consider these things, it seems very strange in ministers not to give the people physiological sermons-teaching them what to eat, drink, and avoid," and that their present happiness is very dependent, and that their health is wholly so, on the kind and quantity of their food, and on the nature of their work and exercise. People get tired of hearing (I myself am weary of hearing) continually of the blood of Christ doing this and that. Blood-blood-for ever are we hearing of blood, the very sight of which in an ordinary company makes people sick. How can the blood of Christ influence people's conduct? It may be a fact that the blood of Christ was spilt in defence of truth, but other men's blood have been spilt for what they considered truth; but, to propagate the truths that these men died for, are we to be for ever harrowing people's feelings by talking, and preaching, and praying of their blood? It would be considered coarse and offensive to do so of common martyrs, but the chief martyr, Christ, was more than man, for Wesley sings in his 564th page of his hymn book—

"Thou Sun, as Hell's deep gloom be black,

'Tis thy Creator dies!"

"See, streaming from the accursed tree,
His all-atoning blood!

Is this the Infinite ?-'tis he!

My Saviour and my God!"

So here we are, in the 19th century, in the full daylight of electric-telegraphcivilization, brought down to the barbarism of singing of the Creator's blood streaming from the accursed tree! Rationalists, hide your diminutive headsdon't peep out, lest the bright glare of this Christian civilization makes you as blind as old Bartimeus! And this is the pulpit teaching of ministers who pray that knowledge may cover the earth as the waters cover the face of the mighty deep! Are the means fitted to the end prayed for? I have said they are not; I have tried to prove it, but a very superficial glance at their doctrines would satisfy any thinking mind of the non-relationship between some of their doctrines and moral, useful ends. There are just a string of doctrines hung-up, as it were, in every church and chapel in the land, and off this string the pulpitteacher is to pluck one for expatiation, and the more inconsistent with reason his doctrine is, the more pains has he to bestow, and the more special pleading has he to exercise, to "make ends meet." For instance, there is the Trinityhow many heads have ached in studying to make these three ends meet? God

the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: these three persons are not three persons, they are one! Reasoning seriously, what difference is there between a person and a being? If a "being" be a separate existence, a "person" is, so that you don't mend the matter by saying there are three persons" in one God, for it is tantamount to saying that there are three separate existences, and still only one existence. Dear Sir, I see in your last number a request that correspondents had to write briefly, but for which I would have said more to prove the meagreness of pulpit teaching, and of no relationship existing between some of their doctrines and sound moral, useful ends. But, Sir, with your kind permission I may resume the subject, and offer (and with humility, and a desire for a better state of things, I speak of myself as willing to offer) a substitute-a practical substitute for every so-called Christian doctrine I may try to destroy. I do not in sportive wantonness-nor in icy callousness-write to baffle an editor nor the priests, and don't think an article could be written to baffle either the one or the others, for they could have (in a Christian's estimation) what might be called a good Christian reply; but I write partly to urge Christians to rub off their prejudice, and that stiff chapel-going carelessness that seems to say:-"Pooh! let the world, politics, and everything earthly go to the bad man, my Bible is my best book I value no other book-it is my all of treasure-it conducts me to eternal bliss, &c. &c." I say I write partly to counteract the religious prejudice against politics and other earthly systems that tend to free and moralize all humanity, and partly to rub corners with priests, that they may be moulded into engines of power for moral ends. Faithfully yours, boold out

W. T. H.

SIK,

It ill becomes those to talk of the "meagreness" of pulpit teaching, whose whole lives seem devoted to finding fault with others, but who do nothing themselves for the world's enlightenment and renovation. The teaching of the pulpit may in some instances be meagre enough; but in its very lowest state, we opine, it is never so bald and bare as the teaching of infidel platforms, which is nothing more than the ringing of changes on a few commonplaces, and the reiteration to weariness of objections to Christianity, which a school-boy could answer. We heartily wish that we could shame you out of the misrepresentations in which you indulge, and induce you to look a little more candidly at the great question. Whatever may be the character of pulpit teaching, Christianity itself is neither meagre nor effete. It has the highest means of moral influence; and there are none of its doctrines whose tendency is not moral, useful, and purifying. We doubt whether you have had any experience of Christianity as it is taught in the Bible; and, therefore, we cannot regard your experience as any proof on the point. Although it is not very distinctly expressed, you seem to regard the fact that Christians are in a minority, compared with Mahommedans and Pagans, as proof of "the inefficacy of pulpit teaching;" but you forget that this inefficacy may have arisen from the fact that the pulpit has failed in presenting the great truths of Christianity with sufficient fulness, forcefulness, and simplicity. The teaching of the pulpit is not necessarily the teaching of Christ and his Apostles. The more it is assimilated to that, the more pregnant is it with moral power. The "sword of the Spirit" is not to blame for the awkwardness of him who wields it. An imperfect conductor, or a non-conductor, may neutralise the effect of the most powerful battery that has ever been worked or can be made so may

the moral power of the Gospel be weakened, if not destroyed, by the media through which it has to pass. Your argument, further, takes it for granted that the measure of any system's " meagreness" is the fewness of its converts. I rather think, however, you would not like infidelity to be judged by this stan dard: else it would cut but a sorry figure. You would tell us, if we attempted to apply such a standard, that numbers can never determine the truth of any theory; and that is what we beg to tell you. You take it for granted that civilisation has furnished Christianity with " very efficient help;" and you never think of asking where civilisation had its origin. Here is a pretty little problem, which we commend to your attention, and which we hope you will try to solve, How the world could be civilised without an original and divine revelation?

"

But you have felt the "inadequacy of Christianity to help you in the business of strict, unselfish life." This is rather strange. We have found infidels often complaining that religion was "too strict;" it seems not strict enough for you; will you tell us how much stricter you want it to be? You can't get help from it in the business of unselfish life!" How is that? Does it not say, Thou shalt love God with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself? Does it not teach that "it is more blessed to give than to receive?" Does it not set up as a model for our moral imitation, Him who" came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom" for the world? And what do you want higher than that? You say it does not help you in your "physiological (?) life." Ah! "there's the rub." It does not teach you what to "eat, drink, and avoid!" It is not so edifying as some Dr. Carvemup or Fleecethemwell! It does not tell them whether they have to eat mutton-chops or to become vegetarians! It does not specify how many ounces they have to take at one meal, or how many pounds at another! It does not tell them whether they should give their children "Godfrey's Cordial" for themselves "Morison's Pills!" It does not give them instructions about "work and exercise!" In a word, it does not give them "physiological sermons!" Therefore -listen O! logicians to the wonderful conclusion-Christianity is not morally useful! Gastronomy and dietetics the bases of morality! Every bite we eat should be under the care of some "physiological" purveyor that we may be saved from moral "meagreness!" Constitutions, sanguine and phlegmatic, nervous and bilious, with all their varieties of combination-"the fat kine" and "the lean kine" must all be carefully studied, and must receive special prescriptions from the purveyor! What paragons of morality, then, must be the physiologists of our hospitals, infirmaries, medical-schools, and colleges! Every doctor of medicine is, in fact, a doctor in theology; and every doctor in theology must see that he best fulfils his mission by preaching "physiological sermons," because W. T. H. has asked, with oracular dogmatism, "Where is there a more important science than physiology-a science where all our knowledge should begin and end?" We can fancy what a universal titter will be excited in the circle of our readers by this question, and how gladly they would vote our friend into the chair of physiology, that he may give us a few lessons on the subject!

Now, Sir, we would have no objections after you had received your diploma to listen to you on such a theme with the hope of learning something useful. We do not deny the importance of knowing and obeying the laws of health, We do not overlook the fact that a man, who is physically feeble is not capable of performing the work that is most needed in this world of ours. We would urge upon all the necessity of simplicity in their habits, and obedience to the laws of their constitution, that they might "present their bodies, living sacri fices upon (tod's alter, holy and acceptable, which is their reasonable service. We could show how the Bible in the examples of Sampson, of Elijah, of Daniel,

of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, of John the Baptist, of the prophets and apostles generally, of the Mazarenes, and the Rechabites, and in the spirit which it breathes, sanctions the principle of true temperance, and smiles upon simplicity of diet and of habit. We could quote multitudes of passages from the sacred page placing the necessity for care over the health and purity of the body on a far higher ground, than any which Secularism knows. Where has any system of worldly philosophy taught like the following: "What know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."-"Every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now, they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we are incorruptible.......

I keep under my body. and bring it into subjection."-" Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." Let your moderation be known unto all men." "Whatsoever things are pure... think on these things." And any person at all familiar with his Bible knows how indefinitely the list might be increased. But had the Bible gone no higher than you would have us, there would have been none more ready than the infidel to have complained. He would have said, "Here are truths which human reason can readily dis cover, presented to us in this book, which professes to be a revelation from heaven, and the great problems of our moral and spiritual condition, of which no earthly science affords any solution are altogether untouched with all its pretensions, this book cannot, therefore. be divine." We must plainly tell you, Sir, as you do not seem to know, that psychology, metaphysicis, moral philosophy, and theology, as mental sciences, treating of the relation of mind to truth and love, to thought, to duty, and to God, are infinitely more important than your favourite science; and that the redemptive truth, found in the Bible is infinitely more valuable than all other truths, because it saves man from sin and endless woe.

This redemptive truth infidels have ever laboured hard to misrepresent and caricuture, and you are not an exception. The blood of Christ, Sir, you ought to know, is useful as a synonym for the sacrifice of Christ, and that sacrifice has exercised, and will exercise "upon people's conduct," tho most moving, the most blessed, the most renovating influence, whenever regarded as a manifestation of Jehovah's infinite, unbought, undying love. We defend not the men who have no higher conception regarding the proclamation of the glorious gospel of the blessed God," than to bring charges upor. "the blood of Christ;" but our soul from its very centre abhors the spirit of the men who see no beauty in that solitary sufferer hanging upon the cross, and who stand unmoved before that fearless spectacle of moral heroism, magnanimity, gentless, and benevolence altogether divine. O, Sir, if there is in you any shame at all, you will"hide your head" in the dust at "taking so very superficial a glance" of the doctrines of the propitiation and the Trinity. You ought to blush for your representing doctrines as inconsistent with reason, when it is only your superficial representations of them that are so. There are doctrines, indeed, in the Bible which are beyond reason, which reason could never discover. But you have not yet proved that there is anything inconsistent with reason. If you have the humility, of which you speak, you will take our advice and go for a year at least to some ministry from which you will get a broader and deeper view of Christianity, than you now have. Write less and think more. Brand not men as "priests" who have as little sympathy with priest-craft as you, and who do more to destroy it than any infidels living. Do your best to rub off the prejudices of others, but do not forget your own. Do not suppose that be