for bettering the condition of the honest and industrious poor. In short, it is a utopian scheme.*

The mention of the moral qualities required by such a scheme for its successful working, suggests that all the theories now noticed are, in their pure forms, or in their various modifications and combinations-of which there are many-subject to the same deadly criticism already made upon agrarianism. Like it, they all assume that the ills of the working man and of the poor are simply and solely in their circumstances, in their outward condition. These circumstances, this condition, are regarded wholly as causes. But, in truth, they are themselves largely effects. They are not a disease, but they are symptoms of disease. The prime and original trouble with men is not in their condition, but in their character. And all methods of improvement that busy themselves simply and solely with the condition and leave out of view the character, belong within the province of the quack, who doctors the symptoms but never touches the real disease.

There is a theory of social improvement which is not subject to this criticism. It is that of Secular Morality. Its doctrine is that the distresses of the poor and working classes are due to themselves, and not to the mere occasions that render them actual and apparent. These classes are largely unintelligent and unthinking; they are improvident, thriftless; they live for the present, and a poor and small present at that. They have habits that are idle, wasteful, bad. The remedy then is mainly in their own hands. The apostles of this doctrine preach honesty, industry, thrift, economy, temperance. They laud the night-school, the workingmen's lyceum, the temperance society, the savings-bank. We do not undervalue these instrumentalities. We do not ignore the present and worldly value of the natural qualities that render men good citizens, good husbands, fathers, employés. The commercial virtues, the domestic amiabilities, the justitia civilis, make the world vastly better than it would be without them. They form at least a sort of jury-mast, and enable society to keep under some sort

* One of the most striking as well as the most saddening features of this scheme, as expounded in the pages of M. Leroy-Beaulieu, is its intensely secular and materialistic character. It wholly ignores the spiritual nature and needs of man, and the existence and government of God.

of sail. But the theory that would make them everything exhibits profound ignorance of man and his needs. It is, indeed, a great advance to transfer the field of thought and effort, as respects the improvement of men, from what is without to what is within-from the material surroundings to the immaterial and moral nature. Even when upon the right road, it is possible, however, to stop too soon-to stop before the full truth has been attained.

As to the account given of the origin of the poverty and distress under which the classes we contemplate suffer, all must agree with it to a large extent. These do largely spring from want of intelligence, of economy, of foresight, from vicious habits. Earnings are squandered for objects of luxury, of vain display, for useless, for harmful gratification—as if an evil day could never come. How much goes out the pockets of the poor for tobacco and liquor! But, admitting all this, we want to supplement the explanation by the doctrine of Divine providence, according to the orderings of which even the greatest intelligence and prudence and virtue sometimes miscarry in their plans and efforts, and suffer reverse and fall into poverty.

But in practice the remedy proposed is inadequate. Here and there men may be gained by appeals to the natural reason, by the reasoning and inducements of Secular Morality. But the truth is, men in general are not, in such matters, governed and directed by reason. If all men did what they knew and saw to be right and profitable, there would be no trouble. Demonstrations, clear as light, of what self-love requires, the most pointed and powerful appeals to self-interest in its varied forms, do not, alas! avail. We urge the drunkard not to touch the baleful cup. We tell him he will be better and happier without it; that his wife, crushed in spirit, will regain something of the joyousness of those far distant, vanished days of early love; that his children, who now slink away in fear when he returns to his dwelling, will again run to meet and greet him and make his home resound with merry laughter. He knows it well as we; but still he pours the deadly potion down. It is fatal to the scheme of Secular Morality, that it affords no sufficient motive; for, in fact, its strongest motives fail.

And there is one thing-more damaging still-that must be said. There is a lack even greater than that of sufficient mo

tive. It is the lack of actual, operative, transforming power. The trouble after all is with human nature itself. Out of the heart are the issues of life. To change man's condition, we must change man himself. What power does Secular Morality invoke that can work the change? Can human resolve and effort do it? Can one by his own power turn about, and having been accustomed to do evil, now do good? Yes-when the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots. The apostle of Secular Morality says to me: "Be virtuous, be virtuous." I reply: "Virtue, to be real and true, must be rooted in my heart. Virtuous acts and traits must spring from a pure moral nature. And where in your doctrine or scheme is the renewing power that can cleanse my nature, that can make pure the fountain of life? You bid me be virtuous; but make me so." Virtue! Grand word! Grand thing! But the virtue of the secular moralist is a drifting, deceptive hope. The virtue of a renewed, transformed manhood, of a regenerated society, must have its sheet anchor in spiritual realities that lie beyond the horizon of this lower world.

There remains a

All these schemes are the devices of man. last one which towers above them all, preeminent in this, that it is divine. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It may seem weak, chimerical, utopian, as an instrnment of social improvement: but the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and his weakness is stronger than men. We need not expound this Gospel here. Suffice it to say, that it and it alone brings to bear upon man adequate motives to start him upon an upward career; motives which derive their force from the tremendous realities of God and eternity; from the mighty and attracting power of a Divine Redeemer's pity and atoning death. And it, and it alone, presents a spiritual force adequate to the regeneration of the world. It not only says to men: "Be good!" but it makes those who accept it good We believe in the Holy Ghost.

It is impossible now to set forth the many ways in which the gospel bears upon and promotes the improvement of society. But, at least, it may be said, that when its teachings are accepted and obeyed, employers shall be both just and generous, and employed shall be moderate, honest, faithful, and diligent. Greed of gain on one side, and rapacious demands on the other, shall be curbed. Intelligence, economy, temper

ance, and thrift shall abound and flourish as Christian virtues. Brotherly love shall continue. The blessing of God shall rest upon labor. The great currents of industry shall acquire increasing volume and force. The circle of production and consumption shall widen and widen, and its blessings extend. And though, as we know on the best of authority, we shall always have the poor with us, Christian philanthrophy shall render their lot less and less grievous. The rich and the poor shall meet together, conscious that the Lord is the maker of them all.

Hail, then, to the method which, unlike the Babel towers of human wisdom and effort that strive to reach the heaven by building from below, itself comes down, descending as did that glorious city which the apostle saw! Hail to the Gospel which, universal in its character, suited to man as man, is specially adapted to the poor, in that it not only holds out to their faith the compensation of a future life, but is the mightiest instrument in ameliorating and elevating their condition here!

Art. III.-CALVINISM AND AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE.

By THOMAS BALCH, Esq.

CALVINISM has been discussed so often, and in so many ways, and from such diverse standpoints, has been the theme of such acrimonious attack and of such loyal defense and eulogy, that it appears almost superfluous to add another to the numerous essays concerning it. But its regnant force as a political instrument, oftener recognized by publicists than by theologians, does not seem to have been examined with a care worthy of the vast effects it has wrought. The learned historian of the Reformation proposed to make this the subject of the crowning chapter of his last and profoundest work.* He died without having commenced what would have been a much needed and much valued contribution to political science, as well as to religious history, for it may be fairly asserted, that to the social mechanism, instituted by the great reformer, developed and modified by time and the experience of succeeding generations, we owe that form of political organization under which we live, commonly called Constitutional Republicanism. This species of government was wholly unknown to the ancients. As late as Montesquieu, that eminent publicist held that republicanism could flourish only in communities of limited territory, for at the time he wrote, the effects of Calvinism were but partially experienced, and Calvinism itself seemed almost perishing beneath a brutal and unsparing persecution. His rare judicial sagacity failed not, however, to discern that Protestantism, from its very nature,† ought to develop political independence. Not in Europe, not until transplanted beyond the ocean,

* See preface to Mr. Cate's admirable translation of The Reformation in the Time of Calvin, by Merle d Aubigné. London, 1875.

The opinions enunciated by Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, xxiv: 4, have been controverted by a distinguished Roman Catholic writer of our own day, Mr. de Parien, who contends, Principes de la Science Politique, Paris, 1870, p. 16, that although it was asserted that Protestantism should have led to political freedom, "yet it has not attained this result generally, or to a considerable extent, as may be seen by an examination of the constitution of many of the Protestant States of modern Europe."