stroyed, there could be no uniformity of moral character; and society could not exist. Nor would a high state of intellectual culture secure a better result. In Greece and Rome there were ample room and time for trial; yet it is notorious that in both the moral tone was low, and the social condition of the "working class" wretched. The truth is, Secularism is virtually atheistical, and therefore saps the foundation of all morality. We are aware that Secularists maintain their ignorance of God's existence, and their indifferent state of belief; but no one who takes into consideration the proneness of men to sensual gratifications, and the repugnance between their affections and the attributes of God, can for a moment doubt, that this indifference becomes in practice atheistical. Now, when the idea of a personal God is blotted out of the mind, a blight is brought over the soul, and man is transformed into a fiend. It is idle to reply that morality has guarantees in human nature and utility. We admit man has elements in his constitution which are susceptible of culture; and which, therefore, under proper influence, may be developed, and contribute to form a noble character. But this fact, instead of proving that, under Atheism, morality might be upheld, proves the reverse; for we maintain, and the proof is easy, that the germs of moral principles in the heart can never be properly fostered unless man's dignity as an immortal being be believed-unwavering faith be had in God's existence-his true character as father and governor be seen-and the relation between the high morality which Christianity enjoins, and man's purest happiness be perceived. The heart is too delicately formed ever to be properly influenced by the low, material, profit and loss system of Secularism. But, even supposing Secularism could secure uniformity in its moral code, and leaving out of sight its narrowness, how imperfectly would it be kept! and what a host of evils, both personal and social, would result! The superiority of a social system depends not so much upon a clear and minute specification of duties as upon the strength and purity of the motives which it is calculated to furnish. It would not add to the dignity of Secularism were it to retain the moral precepts of the New Testament, because it ignores those doctrines which give them their power. It is on this ground that we regard Secularism as pernicious. It requires no argument to prove that high moral character is only attained by strict discipline. The habits which give dignity to man are formed by severe self-denial. There are thousands of temptations which beset us, both from within and without, against which we have to struggle. To be successful in our efforts, the heart must be animated with proper motives; the affections must ally themselves to the law of duty; and the noble inner life will embody itself in appropriate action. All this is most effectually accomplished by Christianity. Through it man's life in this world is seen in its true light as a term of probation. The laws which govern his physical and moral constitution, whether discovered by reason or made known by revelation, are recognised as the expression of God's will-as rules for the guidance of man's conduct—and as the conditions on which happiness, both in this world and the next, depends. Looked at under the light which streams from the Cross of Christ, these gain in strength. The character of God is revealed. His justice and purity are seen blending with his infinite love. Viewing God thus, and considering the position which man occupies in regard to Him, life assumes a new aspect. It has now a dignity and an importance which the mere fact of immortality could not impart. The moral precepts of Christianity appear in a new light they form the medium through which we are to manifest our new life. We cannot disregard them except at the peril of forfeiting everlasting life. But while fear deters, it is the love of God manifested through Christ which casts out fear-quickens our moral sensibility-purifies our affections -and leads us to say, that it is our meat and our drink to do the will of our heavenly Father. The “kingdom of heaven” is then in the heart; and we find it true that "godliness has the promise of the life which now is and of that which is to come." The objection that Christianity prevents proper attention to secular duties, it is easily seen, falls to the ground. It is one of the features of Christianity that its principles are practical; it enjoins a life of action, not of contemplation. The light in which it places human life; the relation which it shows man holds to his neighbour, its preceptive teachings, and its doctrines, all conspire to make men active in attending to what are called secular concerns. It places these as means to a nobler end—as agencies which are to be subordinated to the proper culture of our own souls —to the dissemination of the truth, and the promotion of social improvement throughout the world; and, in this way, it gives them an importance which, under Secularism, they can never have, and prevents them from exercising that debasing influence which they exert when viewed as only subservient to physical comfort. In this point of view, Christianity contrasts very favourably with Secunlarism. It takes in all the consequences of our actions which Secularism can urge as motives for proper conduct, and it adds what Secularism ignores, the consequences in the future life; while the revelation it makes of God has a powerful influence upon the affections, bringing them to twine around whatever is pure and noble. For efficiency in giving firmness and dignity to human character, it thus stands apart from, and far above, every system of man's devising. But Secularism imparts no life. Its morality is a matter of mere worldly calculation, and must therefore be exceedingly contracted. Its principles cannot form a noble character. In it, impure desires which pollute the whole moral constitution, are not checked by the conviction of accountability to God; the heart is never warmed and purified by the consideration of the love and holiness of the Creator; and there are no cheering prospects of future reward to nerve for virtue, and strengthen against temptation. As this life is the whole term of existence of which the Secularist is certain, he will naturally try to compress all pleasure into it; and as, under its epicurean training, sensual gratification must be regarded as the chief good, he will become a debauchee. It is vain to hold up, in reply, the lives of some Infidels, for they lived in Christian society, and were subjects of Christian influence. But destroy Christianity, and let Secularism prevail, and a general corruption of morals is inevitable. If we contrast Christianity and Secularism now in reference to the happiness they yield, we shall find Secularism again inferior. In this world "The lot of one man is the lot of all, Happiness is never unmixed. Sorrow springs out from a thousand sources, and no human foresight can guard against it. Some men are oppressed with heavy toil; others with poverty; others with disease. What does Secularism give to alleviate these sufferings? Does it profess to strive to remove their causes? Then it only borrows, without acknowledgment, from Christianity, and appropriates the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." But, as we have said, there are sorrows which we try in vain to prevent. The stroke of death wounds the affections, and stirs up what must be to the Secularist a most painful and perplexing question, "Will no morning dawn on the grave?" The love of immortality is bound up with our very being. We shrink from annihilation with horror. In the bustle of life, the mind is frequently too much engaged to meditate on the change which will pass on all; but ever and anon we are startled from our carelessness, and compelled to contemplate the strange experience which is awaiting. The mystery of our being presses as a burden on the soul. In vain the eye attempts to pierce the vail; and in vain the spirit seeks repose. The inextinguishable love of life and the certainty of death continually agitate the mind with doubts, fears, and questions. But Secularism can give no hope, for it has no knowledge. To the poor it cannot speak of a world where sorrow shall be unknown. To the stricken in heart it cannot tell of one who heals the broken in spirit, and speak of a time when the parted shall meet again after the storms of life are over. To the most solemn inquiry of the soul, it can only answer, "There is no certainty." When sensual pleasures pall, and the spirit yearns incessantly for peace, it has no moral resources on which to draw. It allows man to feel the full bitterness of life; and in the last struggle aggravates his misery by adding doubt to his distress. But it is otherwise with Christianity. In it, life and immortality are brought to light. God as a wise, beneficent, holy, and just Governor, is seen ruling over all. Virtue and vice appear as indissolubly linked with perpetual happiness and misery. They who are struggling against the seductive influences of sin are thus stimulated by the assurance that in due time they shall reap if they faint not. The toil-worn man in the midst of his poverty, and the slave under the lash of his master, can secure a peace which the world can neither give nor take away, in the confidence of soon being in that land where sorrow shall be unknown. "The prospect of something to-morrow," says Dwight, "heightens all the comforts of man, and tinges with light the clouds of melancholy and affliction to-day," and thus the revelation which Christianity makes of man's future destiny dispels the darkness which broods over this world, and by its light becomes an inexhaustible source of joy. Its noble prospects, by enkindling hope in the heart, furnish man with a delight which cannot be affected by the ebbs and flows of worldly fortune. It nerves us in adversity to bear sorrow, and by assuring us that those ties which bound heart to heart, and contributed so largely to our happiness, are not snapt for ever-it consoles us in the day of bereavement, and thus keeps our life in a perpetual spring. Let us now glance for a moment at the influence of the two systems on society. When utility is made the standard of morality-accountability to God set aside-and belief in a future state of conscious existence unfixedit is impossible that society can ever be firmly bound together or make progress. As we have remarked, self-love is a prominent feature in human nature, and under a training which excludes the only elements that could purify and direct it, it must be fostered in all its perversity. It would then act as a disturbing force and lead to anarchy. In fact we know not how society could be more effectually undermined than by making Secularism universal. We admit that Secularists profess their dislike to such a result. They point to their social laws in evidence of this, and argue in support of their superiority. But it is forgotten that laws are worthless, unless people see it their duty and interest to keep them. If Secularism does not tend to create such feelings as will bind men together, it is a failure. It can appeal to no truths which are calculated to intensify the social affections. It cannot make the great fact of the universal brotherhood of man be felt and acknowledged. Generosity and inhumanity become alternately virtuous and vicious as they are found useful. But that all men are brethren is a truth which Christianity reveals and enforces. The mutual dependance of men is explicitly declared; and not only so, but the revelations which are made of God's character, and the injunctions which are given for our guidance, call into lively exercise those feelings which are essential to social union. Its spirit is love; and the feeling which it tries to enkindle on our hearts is likewise love. It ripens into active benevolence those social sympathies, the germs of which have been implanted in our constitution. It links our own interest with that of our neighbour, assuring us that if we love not our brother whom we have seen, we can make no pretensions to having loved God, whom we have not seen. Moreover, this love is no evanescent feeling —it is the motive power of our conduct, impelling us to impart knowledge to the ignorant, to give food to the hungry, and relief to all who are in distress. It is, in fact, the very essence of Christian life. The various charitable institutions which fill our country, and the zealous and extensive efforts which are made for the civilisation of the heathen, owe their existence to this principle. Can Secularism point to its philanthropic missions? suspect not. But to proceed farther is unnecessary. We conclude, therefore, in the words of Henry Mackenzie :-" He who would undermine those foundations upon which the fabric of our future hope is reared, seeks to beat down that column which supports the feebleness of humanity;-let him but think a moment, and his heart will arrest the cruelty of his purpose ;—would he pluck its little treasure from the bosom of poverty? Would he wrest its crutch from the hand of age, and remove from the eye of affliction the only solace of its woe? The way we tread is rugged at best; we tread it, however, lighter by the prospect of that better country to which we trust it will lead. Tell us not that it will end in the gulf of eternal dissolution, or break off in some wild which fancy may fill up as she pleases, but reason is unable to delineate ; quench not that beam which, amidst the night of this evil world, has cheered the despondency of ill-requited worth, and illumined the darkness of suffering virtue."* A. O. HILDEBRAND AND HIS AGE-STEPS TO THE TIARA. BY THE REV. PROFESSOR M'MICHAEL. THERE is a noon for night as well as for day. There is a fulness of time for evil as well as for good. And unquestionably, the tenth century was the culminating point of what is called the dark ages. This was the case em * Man of the World, p. i., c. 5. There is a hide phatically with regard to the Pontifical court. At no period in its history (and this is a bold word) did the vicegerents of the Almighty reach to a worse eminence in crime, and never was Papal Infallibility convicted of a more flagrant violation of the common decencies of morality. The heart sickens as the eye wanders over the pages of contemporary historians, who have put upon record the enormities of this age. The foulest abominations of the Roman Emperors, in the days of heathenism, were revived in the centre of Christendom, and baptised with the sacred name of religion. Rome was then a den of harlots, and a cage for every unclean bird. During the former half of this century, it was not popes that reigned, but Theodora and her two daughters, Marosia and Theodora. They were the three Aspasias of Rome. Noble birth was theirs, commanding talents, rare accomplishments, and singular beauty. From the castle of St Angelo, was carried on what John Knox calls "the monstrous regiment of woman;" but in a sense infinitely worse than that in which this phrase was used by our stern reformer. These women were the paramours, the mothers and the sisters of popes. ous net-work of incest about them, which we have no wish to disentangle. One thing is certain, that, for a considerable period, all things in Rome were subject to their sway. They enthroned popes; they deposed popes; they banished popes; they imprisoned popes; they murdered popes. Under their influence, and that of the Tuscan family, with which they were connected, young lads were placed upon the throne of St Peter, and invested with its awful attributes; and not seldom, the character of the Supreme Pontiff was such as might have been expected from the character of his lady patrons and their friends. In this century, there were no fewer than thirty-seven popes: the average duration of their lives was thus a fraction less than three years. Six of them were banished, two died in prison, and three, at least, were murdered. It need, therefore, excite no surprise, that the idea was extensively believed, that the end of all things was at hand. Not a few of the charters of this age commence with the solemn words,-Seeing that the end of the world is approaching. Thoughtful and pious spirits were, everywhere, at the close of this century, looking and longing for the advent of the Redeemer to judge the world, and to make all things new. When the eleventh century dawned, the influence of the Tuscan family was still predominant in Rome; and a strong tendency had manifested itself to confine, as far as they could, the Popedom to persons of their own party. In 1033, Benedict IX., was elevated to the Papal throne; some say, when he was only ten or twelve years of age. This is scarcely probable, but at all events, he was by far too young. "Wearied with his thefts, and murders, and abominations" (to quote the language of one who ultimately became his successor)" he was expelled by the people." Sylvester III. paid down a stipulated sum, and was elected in his room. Benedict forced his way back to Rome at the point of the sword, and at last sold the Pontificate to Gregory VI., who appears to have been a respectable man, though very ignorant, and who, it is possible, adopted this plan of purchase, as the readiest method of getting rid of such a disreputable state of things. The object, however, was not accomplished; and in 1045, we are presented with the edifying spectacle of three popes, all in Rome, one at the palace of the Lateran, a second at the Vatican, and a third at St Mary Major. I wonder which of these was the true pope, and the legitimate successor of St Peter? I wonder from which of them, in 1045, descended that ethereal spark, transmitted by Episcopal hands, and without which no man has a right to preach in the church of Christ, and to dispense his sacraments? Dr Hook of Leeds informs us, in |