ciples can be altered; but the exposition of these principles is always affected more or less by the state of science, and the prevailing philosophy, at the time it is made. It may so happen, that the church may sanction an exposition, which, though true in substance, shall yet be faulty in form; for, while the truth is universal and eternal, the form, under which it is set forth, may be local and temporary. At the time of setting it forth, this form may be as necessary as the Greek language when speaking to Greeks, or the Latin when addressing the Romans; but subsequently, when other modes of thought and expression have become current, it may prove inadequate, and become the occasion of misapprehension and error. Instances of this kind could be enumerated. The church, in all cases of this kind, needs the power to revise; and to adopt such new forms of expression as will better convey her exact sense. The church should also have the power to appropriate to herself all the solid improvements, or real discoveries, which may be made, from time to time, in general philosophy, physical science, or any department of human knowledge; for her office is to blend in one harmonious whole, in one person, so to speak, the human and divine, what is supernaturally derived and what is obtained by the natural exercise of our faculties.

pos

Now, here, in short, is what we mean by the power of the church, to develope and apply to practical life, the great principles of life contained in the Gospel. In claiming this power for her, we have not gone beyond her own theory, though we contend that she has reluctantly submitted to practise always on this theory. But she may assert it, and fearlessly conform to it, for, as the church of God, she sesses a continuous inspiration, which gives her the right and the ability to interpret and apply the law. We did not imply that this inspiration revealed new principles, but merely stated that it authoritatively interprets and applies what is already contained in the Gospel. We are afraid our correspondent overlooks the fact, that Christ dwells, in the person of the Holy Ghost, in the church, and that he, therefore, sees in the church no ability but what is derived from external appointment and promise. If so, we tell him he has yet to learn what means the mystery of the Real Presence, without which, Christianity were a mere system of philosophy, and the church nothing but a collection of dead forms, arrogant pretensions, and senseless ceremonies.

That we are still a "forscher," we own, but we hope we

are sometimes, at least, a finder, as well as a seeker. Perhaps, we shall be able to satisfy our good friend, if he will wait patiently, that we have found more things than he is disposed to give us credit for. We have many things to say which we have not yet said. But all in good time. On this question of the church, we are sure of our ground, for we are attempting no innovation. We see very clearly the end to be reached, and the road that leads to it; but we must be allowed to proceed at our own pace. We cannot be tempted to turn aside, either to the right hand or to the left, to please, or to avoid displeasing, friend or foe; nor to engage in any discussion which we hold to be premature, or not likely to be profitable to the cause of unity and catholicity.

With regard to the personal fling at our supposed_vibration from one extreme to another, we can only say, that we are quite accustomed to such flings, or, if the writer prefers, such admonitions. But we have never been able to persuade ourselves, that the via media between truth and error, God and man, life and death, as much as we have heard said in its praise, is either the pleasantest or the safest road. A church, which is the mean between the two extremes, has no attractions for us. Death is to us none the less ghastly and repulsive for being decked out in festive robes, and surmounted with cap and plume. Truth is always an extreme view. Either there is life for us or there is not. If there is life for us, as we believe there is, it must be derived either from God or from man. Protestantism, pushed to its extreme principles, derives it from man, and puts man in the place of God, as we may see in all the political, economical, and philosophical theories to which it has given birth. If it is right, if man be sufficient for man, then let us say so, and be consistent with ourselves. But if man is not sufficient for man, and if life can come only from God, then let us take the other extreme, and seek life from God alone, through the only medium, so far as we know, that he has established.

NO CHURCH, NO REFORM.

[From Brownson's Quarterly Review for April, 1844.]

BELIEVING in and desiring the return of the Christian world to the unity and catholicity of the church, I propose now to offer some reasons which, in my judgment, go to prove that the question of this return is the first and paramount question of our age and country; because, till this question is settled, and the church rehabilitated in its authority and glory, no scheme of practical reform, individ ual or social, political or industrial, can be successfully attempted. In the present article I attempt to establish only the proposition, No Church, no Reform; in another article, I shall continue the discussion, and endeavour to demonstrate the impossibility of succeeding without the unity and catholicity of the church as an outward visible body or institution, through which will be given us one Lord, one faith, one baptism, or, in other words, unity of faith and discipline.

I do not know that I can take any better method of explaining or of establishing my first proposition, than to state the problems of social reform as they have come up in my own mind, and the difficulties in the way of their practical solution, which I have encountered in my own experience.

It is now over twenty years since my attention was first called to questions of social reform, and I was led to reflect on the discrepancies which everywhere exist between society as it is, and society as all, in their serious moments, feel that it should be. I was struck, as have been so many others, with the wide disparity of social conditions, the general degradation of the operative classes, and the immense advantages which capital, in our industrial systems, holds over labor. I soon discovered that the whole tendency of modern industry is to separate capital and labor, and to create a numerous proletarian class, whom the representatives of capital may coerce into laboring for the mere minimum of human subsistence, and whose labor must depreciate in value to themselves nearly in the ratio of its productiveness. From that moment I was seized with a passion for social reform, and solemnly consecrated myself to the work

496

of discovering and applying a remedy to the evils I saw and deplored.

My first solution of the problem was sought in the prin ciple of selfishness. The causes of existing evils, I assumed to be in the vicious organization of society. Society, as at present organized, creates everywhere an antagonism of interests. Rewards are not proportional to works. We pay a premium for iniquity. The priest lives by our sins; the lawyer by our quarrels; the doctor by our diseases. So is it everywhere. It is for the interest of the trader to cheat -to buy under value, to sell over value; it is for the interest of the master to oppress the workman, by paying the least possible wages for the greatest possible amount of work; of the workman to oppress the master, by getting the greatest possible amount of wages for the least possible amount of labor. Thus is the interest of one everywhere opposed to the interest of another; and every man, in pursuing his own interest, must needs, as far as possible, overreach and supplant every other man.

If the causes of social evils are in the universal antagonism of interests, the remedy must be sought in so remodelling society as to harmonize the interest of each with the interests. of all. How shall society be remodelled so as to effect this result? This was the problem, and, no doubt, a problem not easily solved. But, at the time it first came up, I regarded the difficulty as extrinsic, rather than intrinsic. The difficulty lies, I said, in the fact, that attention is turned elsewhere. Instead of turning their attention to the solution of this problem, men are wasting their time, their thoughts, and their energies, in seeking to escape imaginary tortures in an imaginary hell. And why is it so? It is all the work of the priests, who have an interest in our sins, and, therefore, an interest in preventing us from ameliorating our condition. They must keep us poor and miserable, in order to maintain their influence over us. Men take refuge in heaven, only when they despair of the earth. Then, Down with the priests! and, as the church creates the demand for priests, then, Down with the church! and, as the church rests on faith in, and worship of, unseen powers, then, Down with all religious faith and worship! We must drop from the airy heavens to the solid earth, dismiss the fables of the priests, and betake ourselves to the acquisition of genuine science. As soon as we do this, we shall be able

VOL. IV-32

to solve the problem, and convert the earth into the abode of science, peace, and plenty.

All this was plausible, and in harmony with the general tendency of thought and speculation, for the last hundred and fifty years, throughout what are regarded as the more advanced nations of Christendom. What wonder, then, that it captivated, for a time, a young socialist, feeling, in his own heart every wound inflicted upon the heart of his brethren? I found, as I supposed, the priests, the church, religious faith and worship in my way, and I merely sought to clear the path for my onward progress. Well, these all cleared away, so far as I myself was concerned, I proceeded to solve the problem, and solved it, not by Communism, as did Robert Owen, but by Association and Attractive Industry, as did Charles Fourier. I do not claim to have drawn out, in my own mind, a complete system of association, nor to have established all the laws of attractive labor; I had not arranged all the details; but I do claim to have seized all the great principles of the practical part of Fourierism, long before Fourier's name was heard of in this country, and even before it had attracted much, if any, notice in his own. My plan was, to organize men and women into corporations, in which the capital should be held by the corporators as joint-tenants, and the profits be shared by each, according to his or her works. The corporation or community was also to be a school of science, literature, and art, in which science and art should combine to render both labor and study pleasant and attractive.

But the solution obtained, the remedy found, there remained the serious difficulty of reducing it to practice. How to get the remedy applied? The machine is cunningly devised, beautifully constructed, and will work admirably, if it be only once set a-going. But it will not set itself a-going. I must then have some power, by which to put it in operation. Whence this power? Selfishness, or each man's sense of his own interest, will keep it in motion, after it is once fairly in operation; but will it suffice to set it a-going? In my simplicity and inexperience I thought it would. Was it not for every man's interest to adopt the plan? What, then, had I to do, but to show men that it was for their interest to adopt it? Alas! a short experiment satisfied me that I had reckoned without my host. It required, for its introduction, that very union of interests, which I proposed its introduction to effect. Then, how,