the best men may become the worst, and vice versâ, as they may be touched by grace or not, it is obvious that morality is a figment of the fancy, having no substantial existence or foundation in the nature of things. The difference is not between good and bad men, whose goodness or badness depends on their moral endowment plus the training they receive, but between the recipients of grace and the non-recipients; and these are interchangeable according to the good pleasure of God. We can never tell, therefore, whether the greatest sinner now, may not become the greatest saint before his end; nor whether the best of men may not suddenly become prodigies of wickedness. This unknown factor of Grace vitiates all calculation. No doctrine more inconsistent with the facts of human

can well be conceived, and therefore no more misleading guide of conduct could be adopted. Imagine such a theory applied to agriculture, and that there was no reason, apart from the grace of God, why the most fertile soil should not become the most barren, or the reverse. If such were the case, what inducement would a farmer have to choose good land, and cultivate it with care? The worst land might serve him as well as the best, and bring him overflowing crops; and that with no effort on his part, for "God giveth the increase.'

He has only to wait or pray for fertilizing grace. Or apply it to the raising of horses or cattle. The grazier or breeder cannot trust to the qualities of his stock. His thoroughbreds may suddenly become valueless animals, which no one would take at a gift; while his neighbour, who had nothing but screws and low-breeds, has all at once a magnificent collection of superb cattle. Men differ at least as much as animals in their inherited qualities; and to say that a man naturally courageous, highminded, benevolent, and just, can become vile and cruel, cowardly or criminal, is not a whit less irrational than to say that a thoroughbred Arab can become a cart-horse. The faulty theory leads, as a matter of course, to disastrous practice. It is no exaggeration to say that the vigilant, painstaking cultivation of the moral side of man's nature has never been taken in hand with earnest persistence, because theology has always been celebrating the power of grace, to the depreciation of ethics. A miracle of grace, which removes the heart of stone and replaces it by a heart of flesh, might always be expected, or at least hoped for. Punctual performance of the moral law, social duty to the community and individuals, could well be postponed without harm, in view of the celestial transfiguration which converts a sinner from a bond

slave of Satan into a saint of God. If this conversion takes place in the last hour or minute of life, we have seen that by the unanimous consent of theologians of all schools, it is enough; the object has been attained ; a soul has been saved; the sinner's past wickedness has been blotted out, as regards its effects upon him. But its effects on society are not considered, and the result must be, and is, solely injurious to morality so far as it relates to conduct in this world. That depends on the performance of social duty; salvation depends on repentance and the subjective attitude of the soul towards God. And this repentance is powerful to cancel any number of previous breaches of the moral law. In other words, morality is not the one thing needful, but repentance is.

CHAPTER VI.

MORALITY IN THE AGES OF FAITH.

In the previous chapter we saw on the best evidence, that of eminent doctors in various denominations, that true Christian doctrine postponed morality to repentance; and that salvation in the next world. depended on other things than good conduct in this. The obvious inference was, that under such a scheme morality must necessarily be more or less slighted and undervalued, and that the alleged support afforded to ethics by the Christian religion must be either denied or considerably diminished. It will be perhaps useful to confirm this abstract deduction, by examples taken from the past of the actual working of Christian doctrine. If only a tithe of the compliments which it is usual to pay that doctrine be true, it is clear that the more we retrograde into the ages where it held undisputed sway over men's minds, the more moral we ought to find the public

and private life of the world. Wickedness and crime are assumed to be the natural result of neglected religion. No other cause is usually thought of in explaining the atrocities of the French Revolution. Here we see, it is remarked, the proper effect of atheism, and forsaking of the divine light of the gospel. Again, the corruption and immorality of the lower Roman Empire show what becomes of man when left to himself. The line of argument is too familiar to need further repetition of it. Now, we may profitably consult history as to the truth of these assumptions. Do we find, as a matter of fact, that the Ages of Faith were distinguished by a high morality? Were they superior in this respect to the present age, which is nearly on all hands acknowledged not to be an age of Faith? The answer must be in the negative. Taking them broadly, the Ages of Faith were emphatically ages of crime, of gross and scandalous wickedness, of cruelty, and, in a word, of immorality. And it is noteworthy that in proportion as we recede backward from the present age, and return into the Ages of Faith, we find that the crime and the sin become denser and blacker. The temperature of faith rises steadily as we penetrate into the past, almost with the regularity which marks the rise of the physical temperature of the air as we descend into a deep mine; but a neglect and defiance