line of cash, and his new-found friends left him amidst a profusion of thanks.

Another portion of this establishment is devoted to the purposes of a woman's lockup, and here the air is denser and even more foul, while the misery is more patent and revolting, as the sex always seems to sink when it falls to lower depths of disgust and degradation than is generally reached by man.

One may begin the study of low life in the capitals of Germany, or indeed in any part of Europe, in a philosophical mood and with the intent of making it thorough and profitable as a life experience, but the task is by no means a pleasant one, and unless the investigator happens to find a special pleasure in that kind of research it soon cloys, if it does not disgust. It is well, however, to make a more familiar acquaintance with some phases of it, to gain a juster appreciation of its true character.

Most of the places of popular resort in these cities succeed in assuming an air of innocent amusement which is not unfrequently quite deceptive. The uninitiated visitor may feel that he is at times in very pleasant and desirable surroundings, when he has in very truth fallen among thieves and harlots of whose presence he would have no suspicion from their surroundings and their amusements. The most depraved succeed in presenting an appearance of external propriety, or, if not, they are kept within bounds by a watchful police, so that a rosy surface too often conceals a rotten core. The police form a part of every gathering, and their silent influence is always felt, though their presence may not be patent. For weeks the gardens and concert halls and public dancing and drinking halls may go on so orderly that no one suspects the presence of

other than guests in quest of the peculiar enjoyment offered by the locality. But let a disturbance of any kind demand police interference, and the officers seem to spring out of the ground. This the people well know, and are thus schooled to a species of restraint which becomes a second nature, and gives a subdued character to public gatherings of all kinds that prevents them from being the scene of violence and dis

And this is, we opine, the case with the much discussed question of intemperance abroad. The surface tourists tell us that drunken men are never met with on public occasions in the popular life of Europe, and to a certain extent it is true. But this is partly the case from the fact that the police would instantly remove a drunken inan from public view, and partly from the fact that alcoholic drinks are less indulged in than with us. Men become stupid with beer, and seldom devilish on wine, though they drink it to excess. And as nearly everybody drinks moderately without apparent detriment to health, manners or good morals, the conclusion drawn from the surface is that countries in which beer and wine are usual beverages are therefore temperate countries in the popular acceptation of the

term.

But a night among the low haunts of any city will show how deceptive is this opinion, and prove to the sorrow of the philanthropist that it is a delusion. Indeed we need little more to convince us of this fact than the wail which is arising in various parts of Europe as to the fearful ravages now being made on society by the excessive use of beer, wine and alcoholic liquors.

PROTESTANTISM arose not only in protest against the papal corruptions, but also but also against the papal tyranny over the minds and consciences of men. But in this last respect there is also need of protest against Protes tantism; for there is neither liberty of thought nor of conscience allowed those within the pale of orthodox Protestantism.

If left to adult years to choose for themselves, they have the liberty to adopt one of

many different creeds. But, having once done so, their liberty of private judgment ceases; for henceforth the judgment of their creed-framer becomes the limit and measure of their own. They may not transcend the limits of thought fixed by their creed, except at risks which few will dare to take. The conscience, too, is bound, for it demands an utterance for profound convictions which they dare not give.

The liberty of Protestantism is, therefore, simply the privilege of choosing a sect. It is said, the communicant has the liberty to leave the church. But that is not liberty, for he is compelled to do so if he differs from its creed. It is said, also, that he joins the church on confession of faith, thereby agreeing to adhere to its creed while he remains in it. Is not that a fair compact? And what infringement of his liberty is there in requiring him to take himself off when he can no longer adhere to it? If he was capable when he espoused the creed of examining and understanding it; if he knew the nature of the compact he was entering; and if, in dismissing him, the church imposes no disabilities, then there is no wrong done him. But there is rarely a case where all these conditions are fulfilled. If the point in which he differs from the chosen sect be one merely of difference between orthodox sects, he may be dismissed from one to the other without serious disadvantage to himself. But if his doubts concern a point in which all the orthodox sects agree, then he must leave orthodoxy entirely, and incur the odium of heterodoxy, which involves always the suspicion of moral delinquency. Doubt is considered a sign of depravity; and orthodoxy treats the doubter as though he were immoral, not only by the withdrawal of confidence, but by visiting upon him the same penalties as are executed against gross immorality, viz., arraignment and expulsion if he does not recant.

If this mode of treatment is unjust toward those who have entered the church intelligently and responsibly, it becomes a gross abuse of liberty in the case of a large majority of doubters who join the church in early youth, before they are capable either of investigating or understanding its creed. Probably ninety-nine out of every hundred doubters are of this last class. While too young to doubt, they accept, and profess honestly to believe the creed of their fathers, because they have been taught to do so from their infancy. They grow up in the church, and learn to love it as the mother that has watched over and reared them. They are loyal to it, and make sacrifices for its maintenance. More than that, they are loyal to Christ, devout and faithful Christians. But with growth and culture they come to the ability to think and investigate for themselves, and so to doubt the creed they accepted unquestioningly and blindly at first. For them there are two courses possible. One is, to give an outward adherence to doctrines they disbelieve; and the other, to separate from

the church they love, and around which are entwined the fondest memories of their childhood and youth. It is not strange that

the majority prefer the former course, and consent to suppress their convictions, and maintain an outward allegiance to a creed which in their heart they repudiate, rather than leave the church.

There can be no doubt that there are thousands in the Protestant churches to-day, who, if required publicly to renew the same confession of faith which they made when they first entered the church, could not do it conscientiously. But the church accepts their external adherence, though cognizant of their heart-defection, and thus becomes a particeps criminis to a system of deceit which effectually undermines all integrity of character, sacrificing that for which alone the church was established, for the sake of an appearance of doctrinal soundness; preserving the shell, but destroying the kernel; debauching the conscience for the sake of preserving the creed intact.

But if the doubter will not suppress his convictions, and maintain an outward adherence to the creed he blindly accepted when he was too young to investigate it, he meets the same fate as if he had been a knowing, responsible party to the compact; that is, he is excluded from the communion he has loved and supported from his childhood. Surely, that is not liberty which hedges the thinker about with disabilities, which, though not so malignantly cruel, are yet just as effectual in repressing liberty of thought and conscience as were the fagot, the thumb-screw, and other tortures of the Inquisition.

Orthodox Protestantism is avowedly opposed to all theologic thought that does not harmonize with the creeds. It says to its adherents, "You may think, but within the limits prescribed by the creed. You may inves tigate, but you must always come to the same conclusion."

This is not liberty, but bondage.

And this bondage is felt more or less by every private member who thinks; but to the ministry it becomes a grievous burden and hindrance to efficiency. For while they are held to a stricter account for their opinions, they also suffer greater loss in case their orthodoxy is impugned. A slight suspicion of heterodoxy is usually sufficient to hedge up the way of a minister in any of the orthodox churches.

Any serious divergence from the prescribed and beaten track of theologic thought, is sure to provoke grave discussion and threats of

calling to guard its creeds with a flaming sword, and suppress every other form of doctrine, lest the truth committed to its keeping should suffer thereby. Accordingly its constant effort is to prevent freedom of thought, of investigation, and of discussion among its adherents. It prescribes for them all, young and old, what they shall read, what they shall think and believe, and proscribes everything else. The aim of all its theological teaching is to indoctrinate the pupil, and "fortify him in a particular mode of belief; rather than to make him a student and a lover of the truth wherever it exists. What would be thought of a school of medicine in which the professors aimed to convince the student that the existing modes of treatment admitted of no improvement, or a school of natural science which treated the discovery of new facts as a fault? But theology,-in its proper nature the noblest and most universal of the sciences, the child of liberty, the lover of all truth, the leader of the human race-theology has been manacled and guarded, and the first and last injunction to its votaries has been to stand still." *

One reason for the opposition of orthodoxy to liberty is the danger of its abuse. This danger equally besets all liberty. The right use of personal freedom is probably the most difficult of all things to learn. It is not merely that men are liable to abuse it, but that multitudes are certain to do so. But we do not therefore oppose civil liberty and advocate despotism, as the only means of preventing abuse. We believe it is better to have liberty notwithstanding the great perils attending it.

So, in religious matters, there is great danger of an extreme use of the right of private judgment. But it does not follow that men should be deprived of religious liberty for fear they will abuse it. They must rather be taught that it is theirs of right, as a gift of God; that they are accountable to him for the use they make of it, and may not therefore abuse it with impunity. Admitted that many will ruin themselves by abusing

their liberty, yet there can be no doubt that more would be ruined by an intolerance that drives them out of the church into a hatred of all religious truth.

It

Orthodoxy cannot keep men from thinking, nor can it keep the thinker within the prescribed limits. Mind is inherently free. cannot be chained, nor kept in ignorance of its liberty. Sooner or later men will find out that they have an inalienable right to freedom. The question is, shall orthodoxy recognize their freedom and encourage it by making them feel that Christianity, the great liberator of mankind, is not the enemy, but the friend and foster-mother of freedom, and thereby hold them under its influence, where it can teach them how to use their liberty temperately, reverently, in the fear and service of God?

Or shall orthodoxy continue to teach men that free thought and investigation are wicked and lead to hell, and that if they persist in the exercise of their liberty they must be turned out of the church, and deprived of its sympathy and help; and thus force them into opposition to Christianity, and a hatred of the very name of orthodoxy as a synonym for bondage? If so, the result will be impious defiance instead of reverence, contempt instead of investigation, license instead of liberty, and utter recklessness instead of the fruits of a holy life.

The church has no right to drive men from its altars by intolerance, for in so doing it loses its power to benefit them. The church was not established to deprive men of their liberty, but to teach them how to use it. But in order that men may know how to use it rightly, they must have it. It is only by the possession and exercise of liberty that men can learn its proper use. It is therefore the duty of Protestantism to win men to its altars and keep them there, by guaranteeing perfect freedom of thought and conscience, that it may be able to benefit them, and guide them out of their doubts into a higher faith beyond.

*The Christian Union.

She is so individual, that she must, each and every one, be described as an individual.

She says this clever Frenchwoman-that each American woman is a book by herself; that they are, in their follies and their faults, their independence, diversity, and wealth of

gifts, their virtue and their vice, unlike the rest of the world and unlike each other.

To have produced such variety is certainly a successful result, even if some of the specimens are failures, but it renders classification and description almost impossible. To us who have had the subject always before us, the American woman can be divided into grand general types.

66

We of the North see great differences between the women of the South, West, and our own section; and could detect by accent, and certain perhaps indescribable characteristics, the exact meridian of one of our countrywomen, should we meet her abroad. These minor traits are lost on foreigners. All American women are problems to them. They always admire the Southern women, their sweet voices, soft manners and delicious languor, but they speak of a 'contradiction," and why should there not have been contradiction? The Southern woman's business was a contradiction. She reared her son to believe in the "Declaration of Independence," while she reared the slave boy to believe that there was no such thing as freedom. What a confusion of right and wrong this brought about in the naturally upright and compassionate! Yet what wonderful, what striking women have come out of the South, with beautiful manners, soft voices, and invincible wills!

Look then at the North,--what a contradiction to all that was natural, free, gay, and easy, was that Puritan education, that early repressing of the natural joyousness of the youthful heart. This was not discipline, it was tyranny.

Much of the mistaken fanaticism, the absurdity, and the severity attributed to the Northern women has come from this false passion of a gloomy faith, this blighting east wind which blasted the buds.

But what intellectual activity, what heroism, what virtue, what genius, what warmth have these Northern women! What pictures could we all paint, what books could we write, of those women of the North! And again, what aristocratic hands and feet, what cultivated and vigorous minds, what brilliant and peculiar faces, come, like Lord Lochinvar, out of the West! Here alone are three different types, and we only throw one light on the picture by all this circumlocution, and find that there is absolutely no standard to which we can look up.

There are so many false growths, so many "isms," so much disregard of propriety, so much carelessness of manner, so much, in

short, to condemn in the belonging and accompaniment of the American woman according to the critics, that some action would seem to be necessary to improve them. If we can first know and classify these promi nent defects, it will then be time to try and

correct them.

Woman, thank God! brought two flowers with her out of Paradise, which have never left her-compassion and religion. She is rarely ever, even in her worst strait, wrecked on the miserably arid shore of unbelief. She is not afraid or ashamed to pray; thus she has ever two lodestars to light her in the darkest night. So long as she can love and can pray, can help the unfortunate and can look upward, she has a chance against the powers of darkness. But when we remember her facility, her impressionable nature, particularly when we remember youth, and its mistakes and half-perceptions, we tremble when the good old garden wall of tradition and precedent, precaution and prudence, watchful guardianship and monitory voice is removed, and the fair flower left to grow up -as in America it too often is-at the mercy of wind and weather. Yet with her two "blossoms of Paradise" in her hand, the American woman has generally walked safely, securely, and even sublimely, through this new and dangerous atmosphere. In no land is she held in such romantic esteem. other countries a woman alone, especially if young, is a target for insult; in America she is an object of reverence, and her presence in a crowded car or theater clears the air; seldom does an oath or a ribald word fall from the lips of the coarsest man in her presence. This is a tribute to her dignity, offered with hats off, by a nation not distinguished for reverence, but by a nation who dares to say what it thinks, and says it loudly.

In

So universal has become this chivalrous respect for American women that they are accused of receiving it ungraciously, and with indifference, as one drinks in the summer air, not remembering to be grateful for it. This is sadly true, and we must acknowledge that American women are not, as a class, gracious. They have not that delightful French ease and power of making every one else at ease; they do not "study to please." They have not the refined voices, the elegant manners of the best English women. are American women with perfect manners, and there are those so genial, so cordial, that we say, "she reminds one of a Frenchwoman;" but we must not be angry with

There