the idea of following Christ, and teaches how for him who would follow Christ, poverty, both inward and outward, is necessary. Christ's is emphatically a "poor life." Yet to follow him and his life is really to follow nature, to be happy. And to enter into the kingdom of heaven is really nothing else than this following him, this following nature, this being happy. When Jesus said: "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven," this was, in our mystic's view, but another way of saying: "How hardly shall they that have riches follow me and my life, live naturally, be happy.' The life poor in external goods, as Christ's was, is therefore, concludes our mystic, the happy, natural life, the life to be preferred.

But the official and current religion interprets Christ's words, as we all know, in quite another fashion, and makes him in fact say: "If you trust in riches, if you make a bad use of riches, you cannot enter after death into the paradise above the sky." Now I do not at present inquire whether the doctrine of our mystic is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate. But it is well to remark how much nearer, at any rate, he comes to the mind of Christ, how much more sincerely and faithfully he interprets it, than our official religion does. For undoubtedly what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God or of heaven was the reign of saints, the ideal future society on earth. "How hardly shall they that have riches be fit for the society of the future," was what he in fact said. One who is unfit for this ideal society does not follow Christ; he is also in conflict with

nature, cannot be happy. This is the doctrine of Jesus, and our mystic has rightly seized it. Jesus threw out the doctrine and left it to bear fruit. It has worked in many and many an indi ual mind since, and will work more and more. The worldly themselves have to deal with it. They can free themselves from all concern about the paradise above the sky, but from concern about the society of the future they cannot. It will arrive, its beginnings are even now. No one yet, however, has disengaged the doctrine from difficulty, has so set it forth as to make it usable and serviceable; certainly our mystic has not. But to have rightly seized it is something.

Christ's sentence on riches is but a corollary from what we call his secret: "He that loveth his life shall lose it, he that will lose his life shall save it." Now the infinite progress possible in Christianity lies in the gradually successful application, to doctrines like this secret of Jesus and the corollary from it, of what we call his epieikeia, his temper of sweet reasonableness, consummate balance, unerring felicity. Although the application has here not yet been successfully made, and the mystics have not made it, yet the secret and its corollary are unceasingly felt to have in them something deeply important, and to be full of future; at the same time that mythology, like Luther's article of justification or Calvin's article of election, is felt to be passing quite away and to have no future at all. The mystics, then, have the merit of keeping always before their minds, and endeavoring earnestly to make operative on their lives, just that in

Christianity which is not perishable but abiding.

But I ought before I end to let our mystic, whether he be indeed Tauler as Mr. Morell thinks, or another, to speak for himself at more length than I have let him speak hitherto. I have mentioned his insistence on external poverty; let us hear him on, internal poverty, poverty of spirit, "a going out of yourself and out out of everything earthly." A man "must perceive and listen to the eternal word, and this hearing bringeth him to everlasting life.

"Through the outer word that men hear, they attain to the inner word, which God speaketh in the essence of the soul. They who have not come to this should hear preaching, and learn and follow what they hear or read; thus they come to the real truth, and to life which is God. Even if a man is so advanced that he hear the word in himself, he is yet not at all times prepared for it, for bodily nature cannot bear it, and a man must sometimes turn to his senses and be active; but he ought to direct this work of the senses to the best end. If preaching is useful to him, he can hear it; if an outward virtue is useful to him, he can work it; and he ought to exercise himself in what he recognizes as the best. But this by no means hindereth him from hearing the everlasting word, but it furthers him to what is best. And he should drop and drive out with violence all that hindereth him in this. Then he doeth as Jesus did in the Temple, when he drove out buyers and sellers and said: 'My house is a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves. A pure heart is a temple of God; the tradesmen whom Jesus drove out are the worldly furniture and goods that rust in the heart and are hurtful to it.

If now the heart keepeth the useless thoughts and tarrieth over them, it is no longer a house of prayer but a deu of thieves, for the evil thoughts drive out God from his dwelling and murder him. But the man who resisteth all thoughts that keep him apart from God, receiveth

from God living divine power. This inpouring is God's inspeaking, and that is the life full of ecstasy and joy."

The reader will recognize the strain of homage which from age to age successive generations of mystics have ever loved to uplift to "the eternal word." I will not say that it is entirely satisfying, but at least it is always refreshing, consoling, and ennobling.

Whoever turns to the little volume which Mr. Morell has translated will find plenty in this strain to give him refreshment. But he will find more than this, he will find * sentences such as those of which I spoke in beginning, and to which in ending I would return; isolated sentences fitted to abide in the memory, to be a possession for the mind and soul, to form the character. "Sin killeth nature, but nature is abhorrent of death; therefore sin is against nature, therefore sinners can "They who have left sins and come never have a joy." to grace have more delight and jay in one day than all sinners have in The Nineteenth Century. -MATTHEW ARNOLD, ever gained.'

ORTHOGRAPHY FOR NATIVE NAMES OF PLACES.

The Royal Geographical Society of London, and the Société de Géographie of Paris, have each adopted a system of geographical orthography which is intended to put an end to the existing confusion in the mode of spelling in maps and books. We fully agree with the first rule set forth by the Royal Society, "No change will be made in the orthog

the notes written before any knowledge of the sound and structure of the language was obtained, with later ones, will acknowledge that the sound as perceived by a traveler is in no way binding. The individuality and nationality of the author give the sound a peculiar character which not at all corresponds to the word as pronounced by the natives. In Central Africa, for instance, we find rand or j and ch constantly interchanging, according to the nationality of the explorer.

The rules adopted by the societies named can only help the explorer who is not at all acquainted with linguistics which every explorer ought to be to write down the names in an intelligible form. They are in no way sufficient for determining the proper spelling. This ought to be done by linguists, and the results of their studies laid down in a gazetteer. It is impossible to It is impossible to decide by a rule whether it is correct write Uganda or Waganda; Urua, Warua, or Kerua, though the linguist will know that the first is the name of the country, the second that of the people, and the last the adjective form. On the English admiralty charts we find numerous mistakes. Native names are mistaken for English, and misspelled so as to make the meaning unintelligible. In Davis Strait we find the name "New Gummi Luck." The correct name is Nugumiut, and means "the inhabitants of the Cape. On the north-west coast of America we find the place "Bella Bella;" though this name has become that of a settlement, its origin dates back to a misunderstanding. The channel on which it is situated has the name "Milbank Sound." The na

tives of that aistrict cannot pronounce this word, and say, Bilbal, which is transformed into "Bella Bella" by the English traders and seamen. Similar mistakes occur everywhere. For these reasons it is impossible to lay down a few rules that would enable us to spell any geographical name correctly. The system adopted by the Geographical Society, however, is a decided improvement, inasmuch as every letter has only one meaning, and there is no room for doubt in the pronunciation of a written name. Therefore Science will adopt this system, with the improvements made by the French Geographical Society.

The pronunciation of letters will be as follows:-a as in father; e as in there; i as ee in feel; o as in mote; u as oo in fool; ö as e in her; i as in German München; ai as i in ice; au as ow in how; b, d, f, j, l, m, n, p, r, s, th, t, v, w, z, ch, as in English; g as in garden; h always pronounced except in th, ph, and gh; gr, an oriental guttural; gh, another oriental guttural; y as in yard. Vowels are lengthened by a circumflex. Letters are only doubled when there is a distinct repetition of the original sound.-Science.

FREE TRADE AND WAGES.

In a great industrial community Jike ours, producers are in an enormous majority. Working men, by the labor they contribute, estimated to amount to one-third of the cost of production, are much more producers than consumers. The investor in home railways, tramways, water-works, gas-works, mines, or

any other kind of home stocks, is a producer; all, in fact, who earn from work done or capital employed in this country are producers, who would gain more in income by a general rise in prices than they would lose as consumers. The exceptions are those whose incomes are fixed, and the investor whose capital has gone abroad to assist the foreigner in crippling British trade. The vast majority of the community, therefore, being much more producers than consumers, it requires but little reflection to see that a higher level of prices, induced by a judicious system of protection, would be a distinct benefit to the greatest number. As a question of fact, trade never was so prosperous as when wheat was at about 50s. The body politic is like the human body when one member suffers, all the others suffer with it. If such an important member of the body politic as its agriculture is suffering, is it possible the other members can escape suffering with it? Our exchequer would benefit by a largely increased revenue, one-half of which at least would be paid by the foreigner. Revenue must be paid somehow, and it seems but fair that the importer should be made to bear his share of the taxation at present levied from home producers.

The injunction to "buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market," in itself admirable, did our system admit of our acting on it, is quite as misleading as the term free by which we persist in describing our fiscal policy, but which it would be more accurate to term, a system devised for the protection of the foreign producer. By it we are enabled to buy in the cheapest market,

but at what a cost! We must sell before we can buy, either the mer chandise we produce or the labor we contribute toward that production. By our thoughtful care for the consumer and cruel disregard of the producer, we have not only reduced the latter's profits to the smallest possible margin, but we have materially enhanced his cost of production by curtailing his market. It is nothing short of mockery to tell him to sell in the dearest market, when by your system he is compelled to sell not in the dearest but the cheapest market.

The less the price of commodities, the lower must be the rates of wages, and the less the capacity of the masses to consume: a laborer has but his labor to sell, but our policy is to destroy his market.

It has hitherto been contended by the Cobden school that "British commodities are always paid for by foreign commodities, therefore the purchaser of foreign commodities encourages British industry as much as the purchaser of British commodities," and "that every export of goods must be balanced by an import of goods." If by this is meant that a nation shall exchange that which it produces for something it does not produce, and were it as a question of fact true that British commodities exported are always paid for by foreign commodities, we take no exception to it; but whatever M'Culloch may have intended, we know this is not the meaning of the latter-day Cobdenite. His theory is, that if by exchanging a commodity produced at home for one produced abroad-whether the latter is a product of this country or not— you can do so on better terms than