I NOW come to my third general proposition, which is that it is a law of the productions of the human intellect that they are at length outgrown by the thinking portion of mankind, and are superseded by something better. Such productions often contain much truth; but the deficiency in them which after a time makes it necessary to lay them. aside is either that they do not contain enough truth, lacking especially perhaps the truth which is wanted, or that they do not present truth in a symmetrical way, nor in its proper relations; or that they contain too much error with the truth, not discriminating between them, or that their views of truth are limited, partial, one-sided, the writers insisting that one facet, which they have discovered, is all there is of a great gem. The human intellect has been more successful in giving to the world single truths or facts, than in trying to arrange these in systems. It is safe to say that every system produced by the human mind whose object is conviction and enlightenment-whether such system be scientific, ethical, or religious-must, in time, fail to meet the wants of men, and be superseded. I say every system whose object is conviction and enlightenment, because some emi1 Concluded from the April number.

nent men are of the opinion that productions in the fine arts follow a different law, and it is not necessary for me, in this place, to lay claim to any disputed territory outside of the proper field of our inquiries. No system originating in the human intellect, as distinguished from the imagination, can be such as to secure the full approval of succeeding ages. This proposition is a legitimate inference from one already established. If it be admitted that every effort of the human intellect is a natural result of its own age, and that the human intellect, both in the individual and in the race, is progressive, it follows that what is a source of improvement in one age will be inadequate to meet the wants of another. The most original man is finite, and no finite being can supply the wants of an endlessly progressing soul-still less the wants of an endlessly progressing race. Nobody but God can give us a system, especially a religious system, which the human mind can never outgrow. This statement might be illustrated by many facts.

We have already seen that one of the greatest minds which the world has produced is Lord Bacon. Too much. credit cannot well be given him for calling back the attention of mankind to the Christian law that no philosophy is of any worth which does not take as its end the general welfare-the good of humanity-that all else is "science falsely so called ";-that "philosophy and vain deceit" through which we are said to be "spoiled." This truth has been of unspeakable value, and is imperishable. But the claim of some of Bacon's friends that he was the discoverer of the inductive mode of reasoning, is no longer urged, and never had any solid foundation; and his works, in many parts, are now seen to abound in puerilities which no public school teacher could attempt to impart to his pupils as truth, without promptly receiving his discharge. Perhaps the most original uninspired man that ever appeared upon our earth was Sir Isaac Newton. Whewell, in his "History

of the Inductive Sciences," says of Newton's discovery of the Law of Gravitation, "It is indisputably and incomparably the greatest scientific discovery ever made." And yet Newton's own estimate of this achievement well illustrates what I have said of the incomplete character of the grandest human production. I quote Dr. Whewell once more: "It is no doubt conceivable that future discoveries may both extend and further explain Newton's doctrines; may make gravitation a case of some wider law, and may disclose something of the manner in which it operates; questions with which Newton himself struggled." Some day, the man will come who will give us the larger generalization, of which Newton felt his discovery to be only one phenomenon. Later still, some genius will arise who will, in some measure, explain the manner in which these laws operate. And as these further additions are made to our knowledge, the work of Newton will be more and more superseded. Already we have reached a point where no text-book in Astronomy would be accepted in school or college which should give us no more complete account of facts and principles than those which were known to the great discoverer of the Law of Gravitation. In the field of metaphysics, Locke was the pride and glory of his age. But I apprehend that his views are now generally discredited by our most thoughtful writers and teachers. It is a good thing to know much about him, but not to believe much in him. In my youth, I was directed to Paley's "Natural Theology," as a perfectly satisfactory demonstration of the being and attributes of God. Now, if I mistake not, our teachers would advise us to seek for a deeper response from the needs and intuitions of our moral nature. I half regret to see that even my old friend Bishop Butler is falling into disesteem. I fear that Butler's "Analogy" is less and less used as a text-book. They contend that instead of merely proving that you are "the same living agent" when your leg has

been cut off, he ought to prove that you are "the same living agent" when your head has been cut off. Is he, too, to be overwhelmed by the wave of progress? It looks very much like it. The history of the different departments of human thought has been, as a rule, the history of a succession of systems which human ingenuity has devised, each of which has been generally accepted in its day, and has then fallen into disrepute and given place to another, which in its turn has flourished, declined, and been superseded. Taking Astronomy as an example, we find the system of Hipparchus superseded by that of Ptolemy-that of Ptolemy by that of the Arabians-that of the Arabians by that of Copernicus-that of Copernicus by that of Newton-and that of Newton lingering, as he himself anticipated, to be superseded by some wider law. Why is it that we have thus outgrown the past? Is it because we have greater souls than those of Bacon and Newton and Locke and Paley and Butler? Certainly not; but because we began building upon the edifice of science and philosophy at the place where their labors terminated, and it would be strange if, by this time, we had not a higher point of observation than theirs.

This law applies, in its full force, to all human systems of religion. Every such system, together with its votaries, is, at length, left behind in the progress of civilization. We have an example of this in the Mohammedan faith. I have already given that faith the credit of having, for a time, served a useful purpose in the world. When it was first promulged, it was fully equal to the average civilization of mankind. For some centuries its leaders and thinkers ranked among the most intelligent portion of the race. But what place do that faith and its votaries occupy now? has but to glance at the Ottoman Empire and its dependencies, at Northern Africa, Arabia, and other parts of the Mohammedan world, to discover that Mohammedanism long ago finished whatever of useful work it could do, and is now

One

outgrown and rejected by intelligent humanity. The Saracen kingdoms attained a distinct nationality about the same time with several of the modern European states. Together with them, and possessing in some respects superior advantages, especially in certain departments of science, they started in the race of improvement. Why is it that, long ago, they were left far in the rear? Why is it that while the civilization of England, France, Germany, and Austria is in the very prime of expanding manhood, that of Turkey and other countries of like faith is falling into a repulsive decay? After making all suitable allowance for differences of race, it must be admitted that the fact is owing mainly to difference in religion. There is not room in the Mohammedan faith for the human soul or the nation to grow. As a whole, it is a worn-out system. If the disciples of the prophet would now advance in civilization, they must renounce their religion. If they would cling to their religion, they must be content to remain barbarians. Within a century, several Sultans, having caught something of the spirit of European progress, have made attempts to elevate their people. But they have been constantly embarrassed by the tenacity with which the Turks have clung to the established usages of their religion. The Koran is the fountain of law as well as of religion. The Sultan cannot introduce any reforms which conflict with the Koran, or, what is practically the same thing, which the superstitions of the people regard as conflicting with it. The Grand Seignior is further embarrassed by the fact that the Chief of the Ulemas, who appears to be a kind of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on all religious questions and the guardian of the Koran, has a veto upon all the acts of the imperial ruler. A writer in Chambers' Encyclopedia says: "The power of the Sultan is much limited by the Sheik ul Islam, the Chief of the Ulemas, who has the power of objecting to any of the Sultan's decrees, and frequently possesses more authority over