and towards ourselves in the same relation as an anthropomorphic Creator was supposed to stand, bears a like relation with it not only to human thought but to human feeling: the gradual replacement of a Power allied to humanity in certain traits, by a Power which we cannot say is thus allied, leaves unchanged certain of the sentiments comprehended under the name religious. Though I have argued that in ascribing to the Unknowable Cause of things such human attributes as emotion, will, and intelligence, we are using words which, when thus applied, have no corresponding ideas; yet I have also argued that we are just as much debarred from denying as we are from affirming such attributes; 30 since, as ultimate analysis brings us everywhere to alternative impossibilities of thought, we are shown that beyond the phenomenal order of things, our ideas of possible and impossible are irrelevant. Nothing has been said which requires me to change this view: neither Mr. Harrison's statement that to make a religion out of the Unknowable is far more extravagant than to make it out of the Equator,' nor Sir James Stephen's description of the Unknowable as 'like a gigantic soap-bubble not burst but blown thinner and thinner till it has become absolutely imperceptible,' seems to me applicable. One who says that because the Infinite and Eternal Energy from which all things proceed, cannot in any way be brought within the limits of human consciousness, it therefore approaches to a nonentity, seems to me like one who says of a vast number that because it passes all possibility of enumeration it is like nothing, which is also innumerable. Once more, when implying that the Infinite and Eternal Energy manifested alike within us and without us, and to which we must ascribe not only the manifestations themselves but the law of their order, will hereafter continue to be, under its transfigured form, an object of religious sentiment; I have implied that whatever components of this sentiment disappear, there must ever survive those which are appropriate to the consciousness of a Mystery that cannot be fathomed and a Power that is omnipresent. Mr. Harrison and Sir James Stephen have said nothing to invalidate this position. Lastly, let me point out that I am not concerned to show what effect religious sentiment, as hereafter thus modified, will have as a moral agent; though Mr. Harrison, by ridiculing the supposition that it will make good men and women,' seems to imply that I have argued, or am bound to argue, that it will do this. If he will refer to the Data of Ethics and other books of mine, he will find that modifications of human nature, past and future, I ascribe in the main to the continuous operation of surrounding social conditions and entailed habits of life; though past forms of the religious consciousness have exercised, and future forms will I believe exercise, co-operative influences.31

First Principles, § 31.

31 Data of Ethics, § 62.

6

How, then, does the case stand? Under Retrospect' I aimed to show how the religious consciousness arose; and under Prospect,' what of this consciousness must remain when criticism has done its utmost. My opponents would have succeeded had they shown, (1) that it did not arise as alleged; or (2) that some other consciousness would remain; or (3) that no consciousness would remain. They have done none of these things. Looking at the general results, it seems to me that while the things I have said have not been disproved, the things which have been disproved are things I have not said.

EGYPT'S PROPER FRONTIER.

A LONG and lingering disease aggravated by the complications resulting from unskilful treatment must assume either a chronic character or will terminate in some acute development. The ignorant practitioner, startled at the unexpected crisis, seeks safety in a 'consultation,' which too frequently is a prelude to the death of an exhausted patient. Egypt has represented the sick man' under the baleful care of a British physician, who is now about to summon the assistance of professional advisers at a consultation, or conference. The European doctors will naturally inquire into the nature of the malady, and the treatment that has been pursued, before they can form a diagnosis; they will of course disagree respecting the past, present, and future course, and they will eventually quarrel among themselves. In the meantime the exhausted patient will be sinking.

Common sense (unprofessional) would suggest that, before all active interference, it is necessary to study the physical constitution of the sick man, and to prescribe accordingly such drugs and nourishment as shall be easily assimilated, and be compatible with his weak condition. A multitude of doctors would be fatal to the reputation of the original medical attendant, and would be dangerous to the patient.

There can be little doubt that Egypt is the victim of quack remedies and bungling charlatanism. Regardless of the difference between Egyptians and ourselves, we have attempted to thrust down their throats the blessings of a British administration; we have stuffed into the mouth of an Arab baby the tough beefsteak of an English ploughman, and we wonder that the infant chokes! The first great error committed by the British Government was the assumption of supreme authority after Tel-el-Kebir, unless we were prepared to accept entire responsibility. We found Egypt at that period as helpless as a baby in arms; we took it as a child of our own, and the Khedive represented our adoption; we declared that we should protect him, re-establish his authority, re-organise his military forces, reform the abuses of his country, introduce a liberal form of govern