this Ma debate on the prop ly linked with Rel Mr. d. Fryer, President of the Society, occupied tie chair, and upwards of two hundred persons, including many Indies, ject, in opening the meeting, expressed his regret that Mr. Drummond, moved the resolution, wa unable to attend, The Ven. Arch deacon Moule had, however, con nted at a short notice to take his place, The Ven. Archdeacon Movre, in moving the rerlution, claimed the indulgence of the audience, as he had only two days before been asked by the Committee to take Mr, Drummond's place, He felt himaul entirely unable to cope with this aube ject, which was one of the grandest, noblest and most important which could occupy their Tt was not, however, ao much jor debate ab for action, and for tactical yui dence, It was @ source ction to hin that on one point he could not doubt that they were all at one. ight think about morality happiess—he might even say with the existence—of the human race on this earth. He believed if this fact were more fully recognised there would be less experinentalising with, immorality—levs touching that accursed thing. It might be a that it was impossible to discuss this subject until they were agreed as to what morality is and what religion is; but if ed to fully define these terms their dis-sud much micro. id therefore that the arguments on either side of the question this evening would run un parallel lines, passing euch other by in safety, so that it would be impossible for him to telescope and auvibilate his nent, Boral science was described by Richardeon in his Dictionary aa the science which teaches men duty. But man's first duty was duty towards God, and duty towards God implied religious belief. Religious belief was therefore, according to that definition, part and parcel of morality and it was absurd to argue the question whether one was linked to the other. It gested, however, by the Rev, W. Faber, whom the speaker warmly eulogised and wel-that morality thought they might There waa a deli which he U Whatsoe lovely, whatsoever are of good report; if there be and if there, be any praise the question whether " thoroughly moral man could be a thoroughly irreligions He atk his oppo! he could name hundreds, nay thousand But perhaps this was i fair An opponent might say, ral people are without too he thought was not quite fair argument. He would prefer to auawer it thus, He had very grave doubts, not as to the existence of morality among nou-professors of religion, but as to the existence of disti examples of morality who were nut religious thinkers und believers, He admin tances of morality among those di who had abandoned reli us belief, andj did not for onv moment challenge or doubt or wish to a Hi point was might say. ligious beliefs as old wives! fables, yet he imagined that all the time there was the sound of a voice that was still—the rom brace of a mother's prayers; the touch of a vanished haud—the remembrance of the guidance of a God-feating and upright father, Another objection that might be brought against him was this—that some religious professors were immoral. This too he thought would be unfair, It was turning the question upside down. The tion wa ious belief whether fiuked with morality, but whether morality was linked with religious belief. Hw confessed with ud ah some religious pro-'There were some religions, tov, whose deities were patterns, almost i ious, of moral evil could not be moral, whiler ieimocal poor and professors of auch religions of course
tessera of amoral creed, acted in defiance their bel Then, to pass his thied point, suppose they denied that morality was huke ious belief, what was thir alter: only one that he knew of, and what was called utilitarianism. Th lind in the moat able and ner in these modern days written port of reduuiem were J. S, Bull and Herbert Spencer. Why "had Herbert Spencer written his "Data of Ethics?" For forty yeara he had made this sub-special study, and he are 8 reason that the supernatural sanc-of morality were los it hold the people, and it was necessary to me other sanction. If then he could only prove: ved it could be proved to the eatiefaction of any mau—that Jlerbert Spencer rong, and that religion was nut losing its hold on the people, the necessity of fi sanction for morality no lon; Ho was prepared tv admit that some of the highest and noblest minds were drifting away from religious belief; but that religion wes generally losing its hold on the higher any more than the lower minds he ied. It was a popular theory that the right is that which promotes happiness and, the wrong that which induces wulappinens and pain; but to his mind this theory was vitiated through and through with Falla Their arguments this evening might e pleasure or they might give pain, Were they right or wrong according as they gave pleasure or the reverse? No. They gave pleasure because they wore right, or pain because they were wrong; they were right pecans they were right, b they by, then, ehoutd this authority for saying that this new religion did not consider murder wrong, or adultery wrong, oF theft wrong in themselves, but only when their effects were unplearaut they might be it when their effects were plonsaut, 'That nice position forthe world to be placed int Jeremy Bontham said we wanted a moral arithmetic; and if thie principle wore correct he (the apeaker) thought we july did. How was one to tell' when ho had renched so much pleasure that what he was doing was right, or so much pain that what he was doing was wrong?) Ho thought this was a mean view to tke, It had been truly and nobly aald that the aim of human nature was something higher than this—not summum bun acqutirendun, the highest yood to be acquired, but sionmum jus fuciendum, doing the high:
it, lion as regarded the origin of morality, one theory Was that it had grown by tentative evolution; but he arked which was the more probable—that God when he made man imparted to him a moral son ceted by the will of Gud—not a capricious will; but guided by His eternal and boundless intelligencs,—or that it owed its origin to tentative evolution Wo all know how dificult it was to load moral life, notwithstanding the helps and Few? social customs, hi example of tops around us—the strong arm of the
friends, one'e own dignity. hes props, and all those on which utilitariauima relied, constantly failed us, while the support of religion kept us in the right path, Then what was the outcome of morality 2 What was the end of this moral life upon earth? What if there were " coming world which was essentially ® moral world, how would the test of plessure and pain the criterion of morality and immorality conclusion therefore was I morality, a" temporary hive it without rel wanted a morality of intelligent origin, with strong helps, deep and wide-spread, stretching beyond the narrow limits of time and to the world to come, this morality must necessarily be linked with religious belief.
Mr. Kaxosuint, in lending thy oppor: tion, wished to disabuse the minds of those. present of the idea that he had any intention of casting a elur_on religion. With greater portion of the remarke made cou Moule he heart of debate. Before discussing the question, he would quote the words of our Saviour when he was asked what was the first and great commandment—"Thou abaft lore the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the firat and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neigh-manda had the purest form of hour as thyself." Now if in the first com-
religions belief, so in the second they had the purest form of morality; and the question they had to di whether these two great principles sprang from a common sour whether it was only in modern euciety that they had conte into close connection, He umed they were all acquainted with the Bible; and there was another
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.