And then you ask a question that goes to the root of the matter: "Is it not desirable that the conditions of society should be so moulded and arranged that noble qualities shall have full play, and base qualities be kept in check? "

Is it not?

Is it not, Mr. Blatchford? Certainly it is! Who would say nay? Probably the whole world would give a unanimous vote here. But then, where are we when everybody has said yes? Just where we were. It is most desirable that the conditions of society should be rightly moulded and arranged;" but who is to do it? Who is to answer the subtle questions as to what the right moulding and arranging is? And who is to do the superhuman work of the right moulding and arranging when ascertained? Who is to decide authoritatively what are noble qualities and what are base qualities. There would be great difference of opinion here if the decision is to rest with the vox populi.

You put a most pertinent question to me. You say, “Will you tell me, Mr. Smith, who are the fittest to survive? A great deal depends upon our answer to that question." It does, Mr. Blatchford, it does. A great deal depends upon the answer. I am prepared with an answer, but I am afraid you will not accept my answer. I get my answer from the Bible. My answer is: The fittest to survive are those who fear God, do His commandments; those who follow after righteousness; the meek, of whom the Bible says they shall inherit the earth and dwell therein for ever; but that those who forget God shall be turned into the grave and be put away like dross. "Yet a little while," says the grand old book, "and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be."

Now suppose this the true answer, it follows that the Socialist answer would be nothing to the purpose. The Socialist answer would be the answer of the mob, of course. The mob have always voted the righteous a nuisance, and have hounded them off the face of the earth. Even the Jewish mob shouted, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

Mr. Blatchford, there is something deeper the matter than you recognise. I am quite touched by another question you put: Is there any natural obstacle to the establishment of a community on just terms? Is there any known law of nature that denies bread to the industrious and forces wealth upon the idle? If a natural law

makes waste and want imperative, what is the law? Tell me that I may know it?" This is your plaintive inquiry. The only fault about it is its narrowness. It shuts us up to nature. Nature is the work of God: you do not say there is no God. You have a reservation in favour of " the glory that men call God." Now, if God exist, and is managing the world for His own ends, why should you exclude Him from the question? Why not say, "Is there any known law of nature, or of God," &c.

Perhaps you think a law of nature and a law of God are the same thing. Not so, Mr. Blatchford. All natural laws, or attributes of the substance that constitutes nature, are of God's appointing: but He is higher than nature, and can supplement or over-ride the attributes of nature, as, of course, you would not deny if you believe in God. It is a law of nature for a dead man to remain dead; but "God raised Christ from the dead" (Acts xiii. 30-31). It is a law of nature for fire to burn animal substance; but the bodies of three servants of God were preserved alive in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace (Daniel iii. 24-27). You see I believe in the Bible.

Now, then, if you had asked, "Is there any known law of God requiring the present evil state of things? I should have been ready with an answer which would not only have commanded your assent but satisfied your reason provided you believe in Christ. I think you do believe in Him-in a way, at all events. You place Him at the top of your list of good men. Now, if He was a good man, He was a true man; for no man is a good man who lies. He tells us then that God sent him to fulfil the Bible, and that the Bible is the writing of the word of God, and that the Scripture cannot be broken. If I believe this (which I cannot help believing with all the evidence before me), then I am bound to believe there is a law of God requiring the present evil state. The Bible tells us we are "made subject to vanity by Him," and that it comes in punishment of man's rebellion against Him (Isaiah xlv. 7; Amos iii. 6). It points to the Jews as an illustration, e.g., " If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God the Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do until thou be destroyed and until thou perish quickly, because of the wickedness of thy doings whereby thou hast forsaken me" (Deut. xxviii. 20). It points further back than this. It points to the beginning of human history: Cursed is

the ground for thy sake

thou return."

dust thou art, and unto dust shalt

I thus get an answer to your pathetic question in every way satisfactory if you could but accept it. It explains why, after such a long run of things, the state of man should be so very unsatisfactory. It explains why no human method of treating human affairs has brought about, anywhere, in any age or country, the state of well-being which man desires. It may serve to convince Bible believers that Socialism cannot succeed in mending their affairs, even if there were not those other reasons which I have brought to your notice.

It goes one step further, and gives as a reliable prospect of reformation which is absent from all human schemes whatever. For the same Bible that tells us that human affairs have been marred by divine displeasure, tells us also that after a certain appointed period of subjection to evil, those affairs will be the subject of healing and "all families of the earth shall be blessed," but not apart from Christ, whom you recognise as the purest of the salt of the earth. "Without me," Christ said, "ye can do nothing." It is "in Him that "men shall be blessed and all nations shall call Him blessed." He said when on earth that He would be taken away (and He was). He said His friends should mourn in those days (and they do). He said, "I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice" (and they will), but this is to come: and when this comes, the problem that distresses you and all other good men will receive its effectual solution in a true system of Socialism pinned together at a centre of superhuman power and goodness and wisdom. Then indeed, Mr. Blatchford, and never till then, will "the conditions of society be so moulded and arranged as that noble qualities shall have free play and base qualities be kept in check.”

I am afraid you will think that in these remarks I travel entirely beyond the province of a discussion turning on contemporary "facts." I implore you to resist this thought. One of the greatest facts in the situation of mankind is the existence of the Bible. It is the phenomenon of all literature. It expressly claims in a thousand explicit and formal asseverations that what is written in it is as "thus saith the Lord." It is either the falsest or the truest book upon earth. Carlyle says it is the latter (see Miscellaneous Essays, vol. vii., p. 221). Its whole character when thoroughly grasped and calmly considered justifies this verdict,

notwithstanding all the adverse criticism which this generation has witnessed.

It is distinctly a factor in the problem you have so ably placed before the public. It will not-it cannot-be ignored by thoughtful men in the consideration of that problem. If it were a proved deception, the problem might be considered and would have to be considered apart from it; but it is so far from this that some of the brightest intellects of the age are found arrayed on its side, e.g., Mr. Gladstone amongst the Liberals, Mr. Balfour amongst the Tories; and vast numbers amongst the educated members of the community.

A plain man like me, then, may well be excused for pressing it upon your earnest consideration, even at the risk of being regarded by you as

Your superstitious, credulous, and behind-the-age friend,

JOHN SMITH.

The Springs of Human Action.

IT

My Dear Mr. Blatchford,

T may seem to be making a long descent from the ground taken in my last letter to discuss with you the question of human motives as affected by "Pay." But this is the question you deal with in your 18th letter; and as it has some bearing on the scheme of Socialism, I must follow you.

And first I must point out to you that you make a mistake in narrowing the consideration of pay to the mere question of possessing money. "This paltry plea about pay" (as you express it) involves much larger eleinents. Money is of no value except as a means of accomplishing desire. The man who desires to possess money apart from this, is the poor mean creature you make him out to be. It is not so with the man who desires it for what it will enable him to do. To such a man, it represents what he wishes to be done; and you must realise that what a man wishes to be done -whether good or not very good-represents the very strongest incentive that could possibly be brought to bear upon him. What stronger incentive could a man possess than the prospect of being able to accomplish what he wishes to be accomplished-whether it be the benefit of his family, the gratification of his friends, or the advantage of some class in society? I leave out of account all base desires. You would do such a man a gross injustice if you disconnected such a prospect from the incentive he derives from the prospect of obtaining money. It savours of vulgar claptrap to set down this incentive to "greed," "avarice," the "love of pelf," &c. You might just as well attribute the appeal for funds put out by various philanthropic and other societies to avarice.

Because, therefore, it appeals to a man's most powerful motive to hold out to him the prospect of enabling him to gratify his dearest desire, whatever that may be—(the culture of the arts, the practice of music, the growing of flowers, the study of literature, or,