hours, according to the convenience of different churches. The same children often attend several schools. Instead of getting additional benefit, they often get less. They use the teaching in one school as preparation for another, compare one school with another, and hold themselves in the attitude of patrons. If they receive aid on account of poverty, they may conceal the fact of attending other schools, and solicit aid from all. They seldom attend church services, or come in any way under effective and continual church training. The school is an influence for one hour in the week; as pupils approach maturity they drop out. In all details, however, much depends upon the teacher. If a missionary is employed in connection with the school better results may also be expected. Meanwhile the various churches are almost forced into the position of competitors for the scholars, and for church attendance. It will be strange if, on some side, proselytism is not developed and exceeding mischief done. It is easier to make proselytes than to make Christians; but the words of Christ respecting proselyte-making have not yet lost their force.

For aggressive and effective evangelization, there is nothing better than the system of separate fields of church labor long advocated among the Congregational churches of Massachusetts. Let the whole town be divided into fields corresponding to the number of the evangelical churches and to the working force of each. Let each church canvass its field to learn the denominational preferences of the residents. Those who prefer a church other than that which has taken the field are reported to the church of their preference, and then let alone. For all the rest the church taking the field holds itself responsible, and engages faithfully, persistently, and lovingly in the work of their evange lization. All social means are used, literature is employed, aid given to worthy poor as needed. There will be difficulties and failures, but also a rich reward, if there be honest Christian interest and varied helpfulness. There is one general difficulty: the sectarianism and proselyting fervor of some churches may prevent a faithful adherence to the plan.

As regards the Roman Catholic population, it is common testimony that little direct religious influence can be exerted by Protestants. The French are accessible to the Protestant influence of other Frenchmen. Where they are gathered in considerable numbers a French Protestant church is possible, and it will be very helpful in its influence upon all Frenchmen. The more ignorant and superstitious of all nationalities and ages are liable to

be intensely suspicious of anything that can be considered an approach to Protestant religious influence, and they at once recoil from it. With the more intelligent the case is very different, especially if acquaintance ripens into some degree of confidence. There may then often be frank, kindly, and helpful comparison of religious differences. In solving the problem of the manufacturing town, it is not needful to bring all Roman Catholics over to Protestantism any more than it is needful to bring all Protestant denominations into one. It is exceedingly desirable that intelligence and the love of God should displace superstition, that the Scriptures should be more influential than mediæval tradition, that Christ should be more revered than Mary and the saints, and that the attitude of heart toward Him should be considered more important than the form of sacraments. It is needful that allegiance to Rome shall not interfere, and shall not in any wise be allowed to interfere, with entire loyalty to the State, the nation, and to republican institutions. There are many Roman Catholics whose own convictions are expressed in these statements. There is a liberal Catholicism which is increasing, and, with intelligence, will increase. It will have conflicts with bigotry and with human claims of absolute authority in religion. Sometimes it will seem to be in harmony with Protestantism, sometimes in antagonism. But if we resist the intrusion of Rome into politics, if we insist upon a thorough common-school education of all children, and if, in the churches called Protestant, we develop and maintain an intelligent and earnest piety, loyal to the teachings and spirit of Christ, it will not be possible to maintain mediævalism in America.

The problem of the manufacturing town cannot be solved without the help of the operatives. In all endeavors their coöperation is needed for full success. Indeed, in some things they must be and have been leaders. The more intelligent and influential among them have an influence among their fellow operatives which none but they can have. They have a responsibility not second to that of any other class of persons. With persistent earnestness they should endeavor to leaven, to elevate, and purify their own communities. In matters industrial, in society, and especially in politics, they should rise above all class and race partisanships and limitations. Their aid is needed in establishing the lawabiding spirit and the principle of personal liberty in labor, as well as in securing better conditions of life and a better compensation. It is needed in abolishing the principle of uniform pay

ments to all workmen, good, bad, and indifferent, - the principle which takes away some of the strong motives to human improvement. They must aid in suppressing pauperism and the liquor traffic; in reforming or weeding out unworthy workmen; in elevating home life; in promoting general social intercourse and improvement. Especially must they give their hearty sympathy and their earnest coöperation in every endeavor to secure moral and religious elevation, so that it may come to be true, as it ought to be, that a community characterized by its continual and productive industry is also characterized by its superior worth. William W. Adams.

FALL RIVER, MASS.

EDITORIAL.

THE QUESTION ONCE MORE—WHAT IT IS NOT AND WHAT IT IS. It is becoming customary to ask candidates for ordination or installation such questions as these, bearing upon the immediateness and urgency of the claims of the gospel: Do you believe in urging upon men the immediate acceptance of the gospel? Would you say to them, Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation? Would you refuse to offer any hope to those who in this life reject Christ? And if the answers to these questions are promptly and emphatically in the affirmative, the attempt is made to create an impression that the candidate cannot be in sympathy with the New Theology.

Let it then be understood once for all that the advocates of the New Theology have but one answer to give to these questions, and that the most positive and emphatic. In fact, these questions with their affirmative answer belong peculiarly to the New Theology. For they all presuppose the preaching of the gospel. Why is now the accepted time,— why is now the day of salvation? Because of the knowledge of the gospel. Imagine a missionary going among the heathen and without first proclaiming the gospel saying to them, Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation. Words derive their meaning from their connection. The invitations of the gospel and the warnings of the gospel presuppose the gospel.

If it is desired to put a question which will test the attitude of a candidate toward the New Theology, let it take some such form as this: Do you believe in the immediate and universal condemnation of the heathen without the knowledge of Christ; or do you accept the dogma of the decisiveness of the earthly life as applying equally to the Christian and to the heathen, and do you propose to make this dogma the motive to missions?

It would seem to be plain enough without argument that it is consistent for one to hold to the absoluteness and universality of Christianity, and at the same time to emphasize its decisiveness and consequent urgency as presented to the individual. It would seem to be plain enough that a minister in a Christian land and before a Christianized congregation should urge the here and the now in respect to salvation, and at the same time refuse to deny to the heathen world the possibility of a future salvation through the knowledge of Christ. In our view there was not only no inconsistency, but a manifest harmony in the positions taken by a candidate before a recent Boston council, who affirmed with great positiveness the urgency of his message to men "Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation," and who said with equal positiveness, "I do not believe in the unconditional condemnation of the heathen, nor in the

unconditional perdition of any soul who knows not of Christ or of his salvation."

We submit the words above quoted as involving a test question, if one is sought for to determine the attitude of a candidate toward the New Theology.

THE INSENSIBILITY OF CERTAIN CLASSES TO MORAL OBLIGATIONS.

WHEN a conflict breaks out between labor and wealth, which is really a conflict between social classes, there is opportunity of learning a variety of lessons. Attention is especially drawn at this time to the habits, ideas, standards, and tendencies of those who engage in manual labor. The present disturbances are giving occasion, which is widely improved, to examine both intelligently and sympathetically the condition of working people. This investigation is likely to go on for some time, and is certain to result in improved social and personal relations between the representatives of labor and capital. The purpose of this paper, however, is to consider the attitude of a social class which is at the farthest remove from the laboring class. Many of those who belong to this socalled upper class are seen, in the lurid light of existing commotions, standing apart, with their backs turned on the masses of their toiling and angered fellow-men, knowing little and caring less about the discontent which threatens revolution, so long as they are undisturbed in the enjoyment of their possessions. The members of this class are characterized by an indifference which in many cases has hardened into actual insensibility to the obligations they sustain to others less favorably situated than themselves. This indifference is not equally advanced with all. It is incipient, growing, conscious, deliberate, as the case may be. When we speak of a certain class which is thus indifferent we do not mean that it is easy to recognize all such as properly belong to it. The inner nucleus is clearly distinguishable, while farther out the lines become indistinct, till one class merges into another. Indeed, no social class has an external organization, with rules and by-laws, but it is held together by affinities, tastes, customs, common pursuits and interests. Every one, also, belongs to several classes, if he is classified according to all his relations. But for practical purposes, the moral apathy we have in view is found within a social stratum which is tolerably well defined, while in many instances this insensibility to ordinary moral obligations is so conspicuous that it amounts to a distinct social differentiation.

An article in a recent number of the "London Spectator" on the "Future of Society" is chiefly occupied with the inquiry whether it may be expected that "society" will have in the future as little regard for moral obligations as it has had in the past. The writer describes the large but limited circle which surrounds the centre of power in European countries, which claims for itself most of the enjoyments of life, and se