such are to be met with, pretending to be the only true expositors of Christianity. But the world heedlessly, or contemptuously passes them by, and moves with its never ceasing changes, whirling into existence revolutionary blessings, never returning to collect the fragments of shattered conservatism, and never rebuilding what it has battered down in its course. This we see daily more clearly illustrated in political organisms; and religion, in its evidently human constituents, without interfering with what is divine in its constitution, must also acknowledge the same providential principle. Nothing human is stable, but humanity itself, its accidental forms, its states and institutions must undergo unceasing change.

In commending what is just and laudable in the characteristics of our age, there is no need to approve every thing that crops out under the plausible guise of progress and enlightenment. It is clear that abuse is incidental to every form of good which we may enjoy. Hence, amidst all our justly boasted advancement, there are some things that cannot attract our sympathy, because the name of liberty is often applied to that which is mere libertinism, and many who most loudly proclaim themselves in the vanguard of progress, are really those who would drag back the human race into a state more deplorable than any form of barbarism from which it has emerged.

Whilst religion proclaims the sublime doctrines that guide to another and higher state of existence, it need not make war upon the legitimate aspirations of that civilization which it has ushered into life. Whatever form of Christianity teaches incomprehensible or irrational dogmas can hardly look with hope into the coming generations. If men are required to give credence to formularies that deny us the entirety of our rational faculties, they will not accept with intelligence or sincerity such formularies. If we are taught that human nature is essentially corrupt, and remains so even after a necessary mystic regeneration by sacramental agency, we cannot have faith in that contradiction of reason. If we are called upon to believe that no human being is capable of performing a virtuous act, or any thing but sin, even after the same mysterious rite, without a superadded efficacy as a gift from heaven, we hesitate before admitting such à proposition, even though accredited to us by the venerableness of age or by the predilections of prejudice. If we have due respect for our religious belief, we must regard it as having been intended for rational beings and presentable on rational grounds.

The Rationalistic movement did not originate in the past or present century. It may have attained a more scientific development, and assumed a more cautious course by endeavouring to assimilate its theories with Christology and the Bible interpreted upon principles purely rational and human. But its efforts were contemporaneous with Christianity from the beginning. There has been always in the Church a party inquisitive and searching as well as giving reasons for belief, and there has also been another party believing without reasoning, and denying to others the privilege of reasoning in order to believe reasonably. The Pelagius of the fourth, and Erigena, of the twelfth century, as well as the unfortunate Abelard, have not been surpassed in the boldness of their speculations by any Rationalist of the present day.

But the skeptical spirit of our times in regard to what claims an incomprehensibly supernatural origin, will not stop with the repressive tendency which would crush, without satisfying, its longings. Christianity claiming direct communication with the divine mind-the source and light of all rational existence, and the very Being which is seen in all things, and through which all things are seen-cannot deny itself to be in harmony with human reason. The party that would place it in dissociation from the other works of God, and unapproachable by our intellect, is really aiming at its annihilation. On the other hand, those who look upon it as a purely human_organization are sapping its foundations. Reason admitted

into religion within rational bounds, must be the great bulwark of Revelation. Instead of battering down the edifice it will prop it up, injured as it is already by the sophistries of a repulsive mysticism, which arose from the same source of human folly, as that which gave birth to the barbarous superstition of Paganism.

A revelation wholly unintelligible to reason were absurd. This, too, is the doctrine of the great Church which claims universality, although individual members practically ignore it. Many of our modern religionists are adverse to such an idea, and hence the discordant clashing of creeds that spring up around us, each claiming a superior excellence and approving itself, not to reason, but to sentimentalism or sensationalism.

As Christianity may not yet have assumed its purest form, so its destiny may not have yet been accomplished for this world. Ages of splendour await its triumph over

the imperfect forms, in which its divine nature has been invested by its mortal and fallible recipients. This triumph may be accelerated by correspondence with its sacred principles, or retarded by nonconformity with its pure doctrines. The accidental, the temporary, the transitory may shift and vary, as it evidently has done in its historic progress, but the immutable spirit and undying truth ever advancing the welfare and enlightenment of our race, shall ultimately put on the brilliant garb in which perfect religion will beautify the nations. This will happen when worship and civilization-its twofold object-shall have attained their climax on the scene of this world.

ART. III-1. Historical Disquisition on the Game of Chess. By DAINES BARRINGTON. London.

2. Le Palamède; Revue Monsuelle. Paris.

3. The Chess-Player's Handbook. By HOWARD STAUNTON. London.

4. Encyclopædia des Echecs, &c. Par M. ALEXANDRE. Paris.

THE influence of habit is more potent for good or evil than even the most thoughtful generally suppose, and it is almost needless to say, that in proportion as a habit is attractive its power increases. In youth it is so great that few can entirely emancipate themselves from its control. And experience shows but too plainly that it is not what is most useful that is most attractive, but generally the reverse. Far be it from us to maintain, however, that we should have utility in view in all our actions; we would not have the bow always bent, but would allow it sufficient relaxation. No one who understands physiology is opposed to rational amusement; we require no sages to assure us that it produces a salutary effect on both mind and body.

It should be remembered, at the same time, that amusement, like many other things that are useful and good in moderation, becomes a vice when carried to excess. This is particularly true of the kind of amusement afforded by gaming in any form. Nor does chess-playing form an exception. We are quite aware that by finding fault with chess we shall displease many; but it is precisely because such large numbers devote so much of their valuable time to that game at the present day that we take up the subject for discussion. Did we consult our own interests, we

would praise the improved tastes of the increasing thousands who devote so large a proportion of their time to the chess-board; we would say that more is to be learned from it than from the best books, and that, accordingly, those who attend our libraries or reading-rooms had better take up the chess-board than any printed volume, ancient or modern. Nor should we confine ourselves to this; we should regard a chess victory as of greater importance than any discovery in chemistry or astronomy.

Instead of all this, however, we take the liberty of thinking that the prevailing passion for chess-playing in this country at the present moment, is not at all creditable to our civilization. But let us not be misunderstood. We do not think there is any harm in playing a game of chess; we should think nothing the less of a gentleman or lady for playing a game occasionally. But when we see one or the other occupied at the chess-board from five to eight hours daily, or nightly, we cannot help thinking that there is something wrong; and we think the aspect of the case grows worse when the devotees of the game are not only permitted to fritter away their time in this way at our public libraries and reading-rooms, but are afforded every inducement to prefer playing to reading.

We confess that we have seldom been more surprised than we have at a recent sight of this kind. It would be invidious to mention the public library to which we allude, since we find it is by no means peculiar in that respect, although perhaps in no similar institution could we find so large a number of persons engaged for hours in playing chess; and for every one that played there were at least half a dozen of lookers-on who seemed to be very nearly if not quite as much excited by the progress of the game as the players themselves. But to us the worst feature of the scene was that three-fourths of those thus occupied were youths; quite a considerable portion were students or school-boys, who found it much more agreeable to play chess than to study either science or language. Although we have taken some pains to ascertain the fact, it is almost superfluous to say that they are by no means the best or most intelligent students, who are the most skilful chessplayers, but almost universally the reverse. The one who gains the most victories on the chess-board is pretty sure to be a bad translator, nor is he much more likely to be above the bottom of his class in mathematics, much stress as the votaries of the game lay on its quasi scientific character.

Yet if we are correctly informed-and we have no reason to doubt the veracity of our correspondents-the game has been introduced into many of our colleges and academies. We certainly have never seen students playing chess in any college or seminary, although we have visited many and been afforded opportunities in several instances of making ourselves familiar with the personal habits and tastes of the students. But the same is true of billiard playing; we have never to this day seen the game played in any literary institution. For this reason we refused to believe that it was one of the sciences upon which most attention was bestowed at certain institutions. At worst, thought we, the students play an occasional game in some dark corner of the college; surely the faculty would not connive at what all must admit to be a species of gaming; much less would it encourage it. We persisted in taking this view of the case until we saw it proved beyond all question, that the worst we had heard on the subject wa but too true. Nay, the worst remained to be proclaimed through the public journals by the professors themselves, who in their devotion to the game forgot, as our readers may remember, that there were some of the parents and guardians of those placed in their charge to be educated, who might prefer some other science to that of billiard playing. But were it necessary to choose between billiards and chess, as a branch of college study alternating with theology and the humanities, we certainly would recommend the former game before the latter on account of the physical exercise it affords.

It is curious enough that one of the principal arguments in favour of making all the rising generation chessplayers is that the game is very ancient. We cheerfully admit that it is; nay, we will take occasion to show that it is of a higher antiquity than the most zealous of its admirers have the hardihood to claim. In the mean time we may remark, that if we were to adopt a habit, or practice, merely because it was popular some hundreds or even thousands of years ago, we should adopt a good many. If we ought to play chess because the ancient Greeks and Romans, and even the Egyptians and Hindoos, did so, ought we not also, in order to be consistent, do many other things which the same nations did? The ancients worshipped a great many gods and goddesses; sometimes they worshipped the most loathsome of the lower animals. This may, therefore, be regarded as highly VOL. XVII.-NO. XXXIII. 4