particular regions, but in all unchristianized parts of the world and among all races of men-among the highest civilized as well as the most degraded in colonies and independent heathen lands, even in the remotest coasts and islands, where hundreds of languages and dialects are spoken, the cross of Christ has been raised." Now, for the first time in eighteen centuries, earnest efforts are made to carry the Gospel into all the world, and make disciples of all nations. The heathen countries are now covered with a network of missions, closer than that which covered the Roman Empire at the close of the first century of Christianity.

The Churches are attempting to convert the world to Christ. We may well stand appalled before the greatness of the undertaking. Without Divine aid it cannot be accomplished. But neither can a single soul be brought into saving relations with Christ without Divine aid. As some one has said, we should "expect great things from God," and "undertake great things for God." The success which has already crowned the work is a guarantee of final victory. We have every reason to persevere. Heathenism is not dead, but it is dying. What a glorious history would be that of the Nineteenth Century if we could add to all our other achievements that of bringing the remaining heathen nations of the world to accept the Christian religion before her cycle is completed.

In one view it may be said that the Christian Church has done nobly in inaugurating and carrying to its present success, the work of Foreign Missions. No doubt great credit is due on this score. But when we take into account the vast wealth in the hands of Christian Nations, the immense profits made every year, the large sums consumed in warfare and spent on luxuries and vices, which could easily be dispensed with, an annual contribution of ten or eleven million dollars for such a cause as this seems very meagre and pitiful. The war for the Union cost the United States Government nearly three hundred times that sum; and this is being cheerfully paid, and the Nation is still rich and prosperous. It is said that nine hundred

million are spent yearly in this country for strong drink. This is nearly ninety times as much as the whole Christian world spends for Foreign Missions. The average contribution to this cause in America is about fifty cents for every church member. Half our congregations give nothing at all. With these figures before us, are we not compelled to acknowledge that we have not yet gone at the work with much earnestness? We have only been playing at converting the heathen, as far at least as our contributions are concerned. Who can doubt also that when we once arouse ourselves, and give what we can, self-supporting Christian congregations will soon be planted all over the heathen countries! There is no want of men for this work. They have always been forthcoming in sufficient numbers as soon as the means were at hand for their support. We need more love for the souls whom Christ laid down His life to save, more zeal for the speedy triumph of His kingdom, and, as Dr. Christlieb says, "a conversion to the Lord's service not only of the heart and the head but also of the pocket-book."

V.

FALSE INDIVIDUALISM.

BY REV. SAMUEL Z. BEAM, A.M.

FALSE individualism, which involves the spirit of selfishness, grows out of a misapprehension, or a false conception, of the idea of liberty. This misapprehension implies a mistaken notion of the relation that obtains between liberty and authority. Authority seems to be understood as a sort of tyranny, on the one hand, and liberty, as the opposite extreme, which we may denominate lawless license, on the other. Wherever this idea is entertained, there is an effort to get as far as possible away from the restraints of authority, and this necessarily goes to the opposite extreme of antinomianism.

Authority and freedom are correlative terms, which may be illustrated by the physical forces of attraction and repulsion, or, perhaps better, by the centripetal and centrifugal forces of the solar system.* These forces are diametrically opposed to each other, as the opposite poles of the magnet. Yet it is only because these two forces are in normal operation, that the planets are held in their majestic pathways, as they fly through space with amazing velocity around their common centre. While they are in equilibrio, or in even balance, all goes on in perfect harmony.

But if this equilibrium should be disturbed, so that one of these forces should be overcome by the other, the inevitable result would be disaster and ruin. The final consequence would, doubtless, be the same, whichever force might predomi

* See Mercersburg Review, for July, 1861, Dr. Gerhart, on the National Question.

nate. If, for example, the centripetal force should prevail in the case of the earth, it would be drawn, with irresistible force and velocity, into the sun, where it would be swallowed up and consumed. If, on the contrary, the centrifugal force should get the advantage, the earth would fly off on a tangent, and be precipitated into the depths of space, where it would certainly come in contact with some other celestial sphere, and both would be subjected to a common ruin. In these particular cases, then, there would be a "wreck of matter and a crush of worlds."

Now, reasoning analogically, we may say that authority and freedom in the social organism correspond to these two forces in nature. Authority is the centripetal force, continually tending towards centralization, concentrating all power in a central government, whether monarchic, aristocratic or democratic. Freedom is the centrifugal force, constantly tending away from the centre and distributing the power among the people in their individual capacity. If now there could be found a state or nation where these two opposite principles were honored alike, and each had its own proper rights, there we should doubtless discover a perfect state of society, where peace and universal harmony would reign supreme.

But if either one of these principles prevails to any great extent over the other, just to the extent of that prevalence, there must be disaster. Authority will become despotic; despotism will become oppression; oppression will become an intolerable burden. This creates opposition and rebellion, and often revolution. And whatever the ultimate result, there must be suffering, distress and ruin.

Freedom leads to a feeling of personal independence, and this feeling, carried to an extreme, ends very naturally in an effort to overthrow all authority, and the individual proposes to become a law unto himself. This, if allowed to prevail, would disintegrate society, create anarchy, where might alone would be the rule of right, and all would be chaos.

Happily for mankind, under a wise arrangement of divine

Providence, neither of these principles has ever completely prevailed over the other. But a study of history makes it apparent that they have in turn partially predominated in different countries and nations, neither ever maintaining the ascendency, to the entire overthrow of the other. Yet the partial prevalence of the one or the other has often become the occasion of untold misery to the people. In the early ages of our race, and even till within a few centuries, the tendency was in the direction of centralization of power, except, perhaps, among fierce and lawless clans of barbarians and savages. The civilizations of Chaldea, Egypt, Greece and Rome, and of other less prominent nations of antiquity, furnish illustrations of this. The centralization of authority and power, in a greater or less degree, characterized these great world-kingdoms, and other more modern ones, which grew up on their ruins. With them the State was everything, the individual nothing, only as he could be used for the benefit of the State. Every man was required to contribute, in every possible way, to the interest and aggrandizement of the State, whatever might be the effect upon himself. The individual was held to be completely subordinate to the general welfare; his own rights were entirely ignored, and he was simply a slave among his equals. This principle held its ground under all kinds of civil govern

ments.

Even republics, where we would naturally expect the opposite principle to prevail, were governed in the same way. But on account of the inequality consequent upon this centralization of power, there could be no real happiness or security. The idea of liberty, however, has always been maintained to some extent among the people, and in numberless instances their well-meant efforts to emancipate themselves have resulted in bloodshed. For those, who have authority in their hands, are never inclined to submit to deposition without conflict. And the antagonism, bringing the two forces into abnormal conflict, must necessarily result in disastrous consequences.

There is nothing, perhaps, more distasteful and hateful to

1