that we are responsible for our actions, the most momentous question is what is the nature of that responsibility? If we are to be judged hereafter, what is the standard by which we are to be judged? Even in respect of that point there is, I consider, a deeper agreement in human nature than is sometimes supposed. The general principle, “Do as you would be done by," is one on which all the nations of the world are agreed, even in countries where paganism is not exterminated. You may take it for certain that in any nation of the world a man will expect you to treat him as you would expect him to treat you, and if that principle were worked out it would no doubt carry us very far through the whole range of morals. I have heard it said by an experienced missionary in respect to nations in which the greatest vice prevails, that, nevertheless, when the principle of the Christian moral law is stated to them, it has cordially commended itself to their conscience, i.e., they felt that the principles of Christian moral law did correspond with what were the true relations in which they ought to exist towards one another; in other words, that Christianity is the re-establishment of the true relations of man to man, as well of man to God. Certainly, it would seem that nothing is more strikingly characteristic of our Lord's teaching than the way in which His parables appeal to what I may call the unsophisticated instincts of the human heart as the basis of the principles He lays down. He teaches men what is their duty towards each other and to God by appealing to the true and deeper instincts of human nature; but at the same time, when human nature once gets corrupted by false religion, evil habits, and vice, nothing is more certain than that it has no power to recover itself, and that man needed, therefore, a superior influence to reveal once more the true principles of action, and to enforce those principles by revealing the ultimate authority to which we are responsible. That is what the Christian religion did-it stated again what was the rule by which God intended man to be governed, and it also stated simultaneously, with equal earnestness, what was the tribunal by which this rule would be enforced. For practical purposes therefore, Lord Grimthorpe's contention in the latter part of his paper would seem to be unanswerable that practical moral responsibility in corrupted human nature is based on religion-it is a revealed responsibility. Our Lord came forward as the Legislator for

mankind, and the Judge of mankind, and in that point of view I must own that it seems to me, more and more, nothing but a great waste of time to discuss questions of morality and responsibility apart from the Christian revelation. If the Christian revelation be true, all these questions are settled once and for ever; and the Christian religion, as Lord Grimthorpe has said, from its position and its command over human nature, from all the claims it has upon us, must be heard and ought to be heard before we go any further. I think, therefore, apart from the general question whether we are responsible here or hereafter, the only question worth discussing is whether the law laid down in the Gospel is the true law that man should follow, and whether our Lord is the Judge by whom that law should be enforced. (Applause.)

Rev. W. J. ADAMS, D.C.L.-I think it is very important to observe that a knowledge and sense of responsibility should lead us up to God. If I tell a man he is responsible, the man naturally says to me, "Responsible to what?" I say, "To God's law;" and if he says, "Where is God's law?" I reply with St. Paul, "It is written in men's hearts." Now, Dr. Wace very aptly referred to the moral law of the old Egyptian Empire. It is a very remarkable fact that in the old Egyptian moral code, in respect to which every Egyptian had to clear himself before he could enter the Egyptian Heaven, there were forty-two mortal sins, any one of which would keep an Egyptian out of heaven, and every one of those is contained in the Law of Moses, that is to say, the old Egyptian moral code covered the whole Mosaic law. It is a very remarkable fact because that was in existence centuries before the time of Moses. Therefore there was a moral law, as St. Paul says, written in men's hearts from the very beginning, and the Christian faith, as I think Dr. Wace admitted, though he did not say so in so many words, claims not so much to be a new foundation for morality, as a sanction by an express Divine Person in an express Divine Appearance in the world of the old moral law; but from the very beginning the law was written on man's heart, and St. Paul argues therefrom. The Christian faith corroborates that law and gives it a Divine sanction and makes it clear. It found the moral law in men's hearts, and the Christian faith brings it to light and gives a Divine sanction for that moral law; but the moral law has been in the world from the very beginning, and so

leads us up to God, which is the point at which we are so anxious to arrive.

The CHAIRMAN.-I would like to ask Lord Grimthorpe his position in regard to the Egyptian "Ritual of the Dead," to which reference has been made by Dr. Wace, and to which my attention was called lately. I am more than ever impressed with the extreme importance of it, and especially when considering the age in which it was framed. In connection with the moral law being written in the heart of man, I would ask what is the difference between that and what we usually term conscience? Is not conscience itself a record of Divine influence which is granted to each individual coming into the world, whether civilized or savage? I cannot help thinking we mistake in separating conscience so entirely from the sense of moral law described by the apostle as being written in our hearts. It is difficult to distinguish between conscience in men and instinct in brutes; but I think it will be seen that there is a wide gulf between what we understand as the conscience of rational beings and the wonderful phenomenon of instinct in the lower animals. If that be so is not conscience, in point of fact, a revelation? In this Egyptian "Ritual of the Dead" the revelation is spoken of as being a moral law written in the heart. No doubt a moral law given as a revealed religion, is very much more definite, positive, and available, and in connection with responsibility, of a far higher and broader kind. I would venture to ask Lord Grimthorpe whether he could give any direct reference to these points which are not, I think, touched on in his paper.

Lord GRIMTHORPE.-When you speak of the conscience coming from revelation, you must recollect that revelation in this matter may mean two things-either original revelation, such as I have alluded to in my paper, of which the Jews alone seem to have kept a record, which has kept it from running into bad developments, or such a revelation as there may have been to earlier nations even than the Jews, or to the Egyptians themselves. Another kind of revelation may be said to be one that goes on continuously in the nature of instinct. If we can prove that people never inherited revelation, and have a conscience like ours, in the sense of approving or disapproving of certain things, that would prove, I think, a continuous revelation. As to the Egyptian

“Ritual of the Dead" any information as to its probable date from Dr. Wace would be extremely valuable.

Rev. Dr. WACE.-Well, it is at least 2,000 years before Christ -before Abraham.

Lord GRIMTHORPE.-We know well from the Bible that there were revelations of one kind or another long before that, and I cannot help thinking- of course it is only think, and may not be good for much—that some revelation was probably given to the very earliest people. I have no doubt that the tradition of that went down, and I believe from reading the stories of Abraham and Noah that a religion was known. Even Moses does not profess to have given all his religion as a novelty, and even the Sabbath observance, which was a great deal earlier than that, was a kind of revelation. I cannot help thinking everything tends in the same direction; that conscience, or whatever it may be called, that has always existed in the world, has probably come from original revelation handed down more or less accurately. When Dr. Wace talks of future rewards, tortures, and Elysian fields, the notion of Elysian fields is not very satisfactory, and a great Homeric hero said he would rather be the meanest slave on earth than the greatest man in the Elysian fields. That, again, looks like a revival of old revelation corrupted a good deal, and so much corrupted that that great poet, who I suppose represented the faith of many others, put that speech into the mouth of Ajax in the Elysian fields. I agree with much that has been said by Dr. Wace and you, Sir Risdon Bennett. I cannot pass by altogether the reflections that have been made on Paley. He happens to be a pet of mine. I cannot help thinking that no man ever lived in modern times who did so much to advance the Christian religion as Paley. I was at Cambridge about the time he began to be sneered at, and that was coincident with the rising of a very different school which has passed through many names and phases. Paley was not hot or strong enough for them. He talked too much common sense, and relied on the Bible too much for them, and relied on tradition too little for them. And taking all those things into consideration, I am not surprised at many who call themselves authorities on religion reviling Paley. And when we are told that a modern Dean at Cambridge reviled him, I am still less surprised, because a certain tutor at another University spoke

still more disrespectfully of Butler, in language which I dare not quote, in the opposite direction. When Paley is accused, as Mr. Griffith has accused him, of dwelling on the doctrine of expediency, I must remind you that Paley was a man who expressed himself in a manner that might be misunderstood. He said short, sharp things, and people may take up and use a single term or sentence of his and say, "Paley only believed in expediency." But see what he meant by it. I will not quote from him now; but go home and read, and you will find that it is very different to what is commonly called expediency. I suppose you all agree that it is expedient to believe in Christianity, and Paley said so, and he would soon satisfy you that he is right; but it shows the mistake of taking words used originally in one sense and using them in another: one of the commonest logical fallacies.

There are sundry other points upon which Paley might be quoted, and which look like heresy, and perhaps absurdity, but that has arisen, as I say, from his short and sharp way of writing.

Dr. Wace has said all that is necessary in answer to Mr. Griffith about my not taking up more of the moral law; but at this time of night, in this cold weather, and at my age, I am not equal to entering upon that.

The HON. SECRETARY (Captain F. PETRIE).-With regard to the Egyptian "Ritual of the Dead," it will interest members to know that twenty years ago, when it began to be somewhat discussed among English Egyptologists, this Institute was the first to draw public attention to it; the late talented Mr. W. R. Cooper, who had specially devoted himself to its study, prepared a careful paper for this Institute entitled, “Observations on the Serpent Myths of ancient Egypt," in which he thoroughly described the teaching of the "Ritual of the Dead." This paper, valuable then, December, 1871, is so still, for Mr. Cooper's object in writing it was to place a complete and correct description of the subject before the world.

Rev. Dr. WACE.--Is the paper in our Transactions?

The HON. SECRETARY.-Yes, in the sixth volume, which is still in print.

The Meeting was then adjourned.

E