Whether

or no Bibles be inspired, or immortality await us beyond the tomb, we must still love justice and merey. The moral sentiment has always been of slow growth, for it depends on knowledge. It is very ancient in its origin, and even animals have been found to show dim ideas of justice, and of kindne to the weak (see Conscience). The moral law represents the highest ideal known to man in the stage of progre reached. It is therefore in a state of flux, the general advance being accompanied by local or temporary relapse, as waves of ignorance prevail. Every flood tide has many low and apparently receding waves, and so has the growth of human knowledge and morality. Moral evils are due to ignorance, and to want of human love. At the age of four score years and four, our dear old friend Prof, J. S. Blackie, the companion of many happy and studious years, still thought that “growth in knowledge, and the search after truth, are the purest and most stimulating of human pleasures, and within the grasp of all.” Arthur Schopenhauer has bluntly told us j that “the basis of morality is egoism... induced by the evil and wickedne of a bad world, which we try to make endurable by moral rules and devices, tending to thwart evil men, and the cruel callousne of nature.” [This is true enough of the Neo machi an ethiks of Aristotle, taught at universities, but not true in the case when we are told to love our enemies. —Ep.] The aim of the highest morality is not egoism, but the promotion of general happine . Our motto should be: “Do good and be good, without hope of reward.” Moral laws are founded on human experience; and ethikal guidance must, as Mr Herbert Spencer says, ‘in the main be obtained by a judicial balancing of requirements and avoidance of extremes.” We come in time to see that “it is best to act towards others as we would have them act towards us.” The weak, savage, and lawle , are swayed by the pa ion or emotion of the moment, but morality is the conduct of the strong and patient, who reflect and foresee, doing what is best under the circumstances for all concerned, as far as can be understood. Our ideal cannot be too high, but our action must often be based on a choice between evils. The Hebrew, the Christian, and the Moslem alike, often lose sight of the foundation of morality, when they regard it as obedience to the will of God. If they lose faith in God, morality has no sanction in their eyes, unle they learn its real nature. The generosity of Christians, according to Herbert Spencer, has too often been prompted by the desire of buying Divine favour: for “He that hath pity on the poor lendeth unto the Lord” (Prov. xix, 17). The shrines and churches of the past were built with money given for such reasons; to compound for sins and crimes; to gain favour with God, or the applause of men. The welfare of the poor, as Mr Lecky says, was not in the thoughts of those who endowed such buildings. The Hebrew of the age of Jacob, or of Ahab, had little thought of reprobating lying. We can understand their writing “I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets” (1 Kings xxii, 22), for yet later, Ezekiel says: “If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I Yahveh have deceived that prophet” (Ezek. xiv, 9). But Paul says: “Let God be true if every man isa liar... for if God’s truth were increased by my lie to his glory, why should I be called a sinner, and why not say (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say) Let us do evil that good may come. Which things are justly condemned” (Rom. iii, 4, 7, 8). Our clergy 2N? still denounce morality without belief, and ery that salvation is found only through the blood of Christ. This is not what the first Christians taught (see James), and the day of superstition is pa ing away. 587