in this journal; and a more important question cannot be presented to the human mind. For in it is involved the posibility of any revelation from God to man.

We believe that reason, or the true philosophy, requires, both in spiritual and material things, that we should search after facts. In all our investigations the one object should be to ascertain what the real facts are. We must be wholly unprejudiced. Facts of a very novel or extraordinary character may require a much more careful investigation and a much greater amount of evidence to secure belief. But in each case the only aim we can have is to determine what is the fact.

In investigating the laws of the material world scientific men have learned to recognize this. Phenomena of a wonderful character, seemingly at variance with what had been inferred from all previous investigations, have sometimes confronted them. But what did they say? Did they reject them as incredible because inconsistent with their previous observations and generalizations? Not at all. They only applied themselves with all their faculties and their improved means of observation to find out whether they really were facts. And if so, then all their previous observations had to be reviewed in the light of these new facts, and their generalizations had to be so changed as to be in harmony with them. Again and again, in almost every branch of science, alleged facts, which in the light of previous investigations seemed to be incredible, have been thoroughly tested and then accepted, although they have worked almost a revolution in that particular branch of science.

We only ask that this same process shall be carried into every department of human inquiry. But when we apply it to spiritual things our material philosophers say, "No: that is all forbidden ground. Nothing can be learned there. It is of no consequence what you or any one else may say. Every report from that quarter is in its nature incredible." Galileo turned his glass towards the planet Venus, and asked the incredulous priests to see for themselves and believe. They looked and saw, but did not believe. "Your glass," they said, "does very well for earthly, but not for

heavenly objects. Like the priests of two centuries and a half ago, some scientific men of to-day refuse to believe in the results of their own methods when those methods are applied in other fields of inquiry. "Our methods," they say, "are perfect in their application to material, but not in their application to spiritual things." Why not? Facts, facts are what we want, in the realm of spirit not less than of matter. And how are we to get at facts except by searching for them with unprejudiced minds?

This superstition of men who claim to be philosophers against whatever is spiritual- this dogmatism of incredulity which plants its foot at the door that opens into a vast field of inquiry, and says, "Not one inch farther shall you go; that is all given over to illusion and falsehood"— is one of the most extraordinary spectacles of our day. It fixes a bar against all possible progress in that direction. And this all rests on the unwarranted and false assumption that there can be no communication between this world of living human souls and the living spirits which, for aught that we know, may be with us from day to day, our attendant friends and guardian angels.

We assume nothing in this matter. But as philosophical inquirers into the truth, we demand that others also shall assume nothing. This dogmatism is none the less unreasonable and hateful because it takes a scientific instead of a priestly name. We are not arguing for Spiritualism, but for a free, unbiased, philosophical search into the truth. We do not know whether what men call Spiritualism in our day is a branch of science resting upon fact or not, nor do we care very much about it. But the fundamental maxims which underlie all rational inquiries, by which alleged facts in the realm of matter and of mind alike are to be tried and judged, are of inestimable value to us, and we cannot allow them to be repudiated in order to furnish an easy method of overthrowing what many regard as a troublesome heresy. The unjust ruling of the court by which a real murderer is convicted and hanged to-day may be turned against the innocent to-morrow, and soon it may be that no man will be safe

because of that one unjust precedent when it has grown into a law.

Mr. Mountford is a believer in Spiritualism, and of course writes from his own point of view. In his articles, however, which we have published, he has not been dealing with the peculiarities of Spiritualism, but with principles of philosophy which apply to all religious investigations, and to phenomena which, whether facts or not, have been believed in more or less in all ages, by wise and great men, which are similar to some things recorded in the Scriptures, and which cannot be repudiated as in themselves utterly incredible without striking a blow at all revealed religion.

The above remarks have been called out by the following letter from Mr. Mountford to the publisher of this magazine. We ought to say that we print it without his revision or

consent.

NAHANT, Aug. 8.

My dear Sir: I am sorry that you should have been troubled by anybody, as to your magazine, on my account. What I have written for it, during the last few months, has been as faithfully and laboriously executed as human weakness will admit of. And it is certainly not what I should have persevered in, but for the manner in which my efforts have been approved by six or seven of the foremost theologians of New England, outside of the Unitarian body.

As to Spiritualism, any utterance which I have made has been withinside the sphere of the Scriptures; as any one who reads his Bible ought to know. If because of my experience I happen to know what a demoniac is, and that he is what Christ said he was, am I blamable? And if I defend Paul for sincerity and intelligence in his exorcising "a woman with a spirit of Pytho," who is in fault? Surely it is not I, while I am attempting to affirm the truth of the gospel against revilers.

At present, in the Unitarian body, preacher and writer may deny the miracles of the Bible, and yet lose none of that popularity which gains them a hearing. And men can publicly proclaim that there has never any knowledge been had of a world to come by revelation through Jesus Christ; and they can deny that any angel was ever concerned with human affairs, and yet be counted as good Christian believers among Unitarians. Apparently a man may deny, in regard to the Scriptures, as much as he likes, and as

recklessly as he pleases; while deep conviction is counted for an offense. If this be actually the state of things, the sooner it is known of publicly the better. Truth will be able to take care of itself; and I, too, as to my connection with it, shall also be able to take care of myself.

I would say, that while I have been writing in the magazine it has always been with the understanding, on my part, that its pages were open to any writer competent to correct me, either as to logic or statement. And perhaps nobody has a right to demur against me at the publisher's, except for a reason, which he ought to be able to put into writing.

If there are one or two or more persons who conscientiously object to my writing, and if also they are gentlemen of education and intelligence, and of any considerable standing in the Unitarian body, I should be very glad to confer with them; and if they will come to me at Nahant I will entertain them hospitably. Or, if they will write for me distinctly the points as to which they demur, and what the Scriptural texts are by which they would support themselves, I will either have an answer for them, simple and honest, or I will own myself to be wrong.

I have been writing because of my conscience, and as a duty.

What selfish end can any one who knows me suppose that I can possibly have had in view while I have been writing in your magazine? For it is not the only literary channel which is open to me.

Some persons may think that I must have been having rare pleasure in gratifying two of my great hatreds. But then they would be persons who only partly know me. Though it is true that I do hate to see men make fools of themselves, and I do hate the recklessness with which some men are false to the Bible. This letter you can show to anybody you please.

If myself I could please everybody and God also, I should be very glad; but, as I cannot do that, I agree with Peter and the other apostles, and I say, along with them, "We ought to obey God rather than men." I am, my dear sir, yours truly,

WOMEN'S WORK.

WILLIAM MOUNTFORD.

WHAT A WOMAN SAYS ABOUT IT.

BELIEVING in the diversity as well as the equality of the sexes, I cannot doubt that their work is essentially different. Still, I am not blind nor deaf to the stubborn facts of women

often succeeding where men have failed, even in the counting-room, the factory, or the blacksmith's shop. The kernel of this hard nut, which so many men and women have tried to crack, seems to be, that if work is well done it is no matter who does it. But, in the everlasting fitness of things, there is work fitted for men and work fitted for women; and of the work best fitted for women is every variety of work that goes to make a happy and useful home. Girls have now all the advantages of education which formerly belonged exclusively to boys; but in gaining the privilege of acquiring all these higher forms of knowledge they have lost (for they are finite in their capacity, and cannot, like Lord Bacon, take "all knowledge to be their province") the home arts which are among the most valuable and most potent of their rights. How many men have been driven from a comfortless home because their wives could not cook, or teach another woman to cook, a good dinner or to make a wholesome loaf of bread? How many young men have been tempted to unfaithfulness to their employers because their wives' inability to cut out and sew the garments of a family prevented the small income from meeting at both ends, as it should be the pride and duty of the home partner to make it? And yet how many of these very women may have understood the dead languages and the higher mathematics better than their husbands! The best education is that which best prepares the pupil for the duties of life. Whether a girl is to be a wife and mother, or one of the much talked of seventy thousand single sisters, there is no situation for which she will not be better fitted by a knowledge of all the arts of home life. These ought thee to do, but not to leave the other undone, may be said of all the wisdom of the schools which young women now have offered to them. But I would not have their heads educated and their hands forgotten. We read in the newspapers distressing accounts of the starving seamstresses who are paid eight cents apiece for making a dozen of shirts. We try in vain for a sewing woman who can do a day's work without the overlooking of an experienced eye, and for indifferent work we pay at the rate of