crowded and ill-ventilated, and whose modes of life, induced by the conditions under which they earn their livelihood, are in a high degree conducive to disease, especially consumption.

In several of the suits that the Board has been engaged in, having reference to the abatement of nuisances consisting of offensive odors, the question has been mooted as to what particular odors are and what are not detrimental to health. We are convinced that the only consistent and philosophical position on this question is, that all odors are detrimental to health, - that is, that unadulterated atmospheric air is best adapted to preserve all the organs in a perfectly healthful condition, and that anything which impairs the absolute purity of the atmosphere must of necessity be deleterious.

When, however, we consider the conditions under which a great city exists, the multitudinous necessities which attach to its traffic and its growth, we cannot expect that the atmosphere which pervades it shall be absolutely pure; still, we must not lose sight of the principle that the odors which attend on the various life of the city are so many warnings of danger, and that it is incumbent upon us to watch jealously these warnings, and see to it that they do not reach an intensity beyond that demanded by actual necessity.

The vast multitudes that throng the avenues of a metropolis, whose thoroughfares are bounded on either side by lofty warehouses or dwellings, whose streets are tunnelled with sewers, the contents of which, made up of all the various débris of the growth and decay of the community, are poured into the rivers that wash its shores, whose buildings are illumined with gas, the manufacture of which must be carried on either within or close upon the city precincts, whose wharves are crowded with vessels from every foreign port, and whose population is made up in great measure of the surplus of every country of the Old World, cannot expect to breathe the bracing air of the mountains or the sea-shore. But they can expect, and should demand, that the impurities be reduced to the minimum that unavoidably attaches to the prosperity and progress of the city. To reach this point is the aim of the Metropolitan Board of Health.

EDWARD B. DALTON, M. D.

THE student of history finds in every period two diverging and frequently opposing currents of thought in respect to religion, and those institutions intended for its support which are classed under the generic name of The Church. Without intending to criticise either of them by an appellation, one may be called the current of authority, the other of liberty. One is the expression of the tendency of the mind toward form, and the influence upon it of tradition, exhibited in creed, dogma, and superstition; the other of its search for reality, simplicity, and independence of external control. In the past, the former has been the wider, and has seemed to be the stronger current; at the present day the latter has a growing force.

"If we begin," says a writer in a recent number of the "Pall Mall Gazette," "by considering the Church as it was when it emerged from the Dark Ages, and was completing the conversion of the Northern barbarians, we cannot fail to see that it was then the great representative of whatever light and knowledge there was in the world. The clergy were, and were felt to be, the natural and rightful moral and intellectual leaders of the human race; nor need it be denied, that, though the spirit of their rule was as narrow as was to be expected from the state of knowledge in those times, it was on the whole highly beneficial. How the clergy failed to keep pace with the growth of knowledge,-how they quarrelled amongst themselves as to the true character of the revelation of which they claimed to be the keepers,-how the laity took part in the quarrel, and examined into their credentials, and with what results, how that part of human life which was to be regarded as the spiritual province of affairs was gradually narrowed, and the part which was to be regarded as the temporal province was gradually enlarged, are the principal subjects of modern history, the whole of which must be denied to be true by any one who really maintains, that, taken as a whole, the clerical view of life has been gaining, and the temporal view of life losing ground."

It is true, indeed, that the sacerdotal view, as it may be

called, of religion, and of the office of the Church, was never more ardently professed, and never more vigorously asserted, than it is in some quarters to-day. The Papal Encyclical of the 8th of December, 1864, and the accompanying Syllabus of opinions and doctrines which " are altogether reprobated, proscribed, and condemned," afford probably the most extreme instance of the extent of the claims now put forward by the adherents to the principle of authority in matters of religion. The 15th Article of the Syllabus condemns as a pernicious heresy the proposition, that "Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion which he, guided by the light of reason, shall believe to be true." The 24th Article denounces the error, that "The Church has not the right to employ force"; a subsequent Article - the 47th- denies that "Science ought to be exempt from ecclesiastical authority"; while the last Article of all reprobates the notion, that the Church "ought to reconcile itself and compromise with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization." The whole Syllabus is, indeed, a denunciation of the principles most efficient in the progress of the world, and on which existing society is founded.

The doctrines thus affirmed are not mere empty words; they are accepted by every genuine member of the Roman Church as truths necessary for salvation. Nor is the Papacy short-sighted in issuing what might seem a defiance à l'outrance to the enlightenment of society. Under this war-cry it gathers to its banners a host of zealots and enthusiasts, whose spirits are raised to the highest pitch by the sense of the impracticability of a peaceful composition with their opponents.

Thus, in a volume of Essays written by members of the Roman Church in England, and edited by Archbishop Manning, which was published a few months since, and may properly be considered as an authoritative exposition of the opinions and temper of a large body of the most enlightened and devoted Catholics, we find much that indicates their absolute subjection to the doctrines of the Encyclical.

"The Church," says one of these writers, "we must never forget, is our infallible guide, not in faith only, but in morals also; and every single proposition of which right or wrong is the predicate is under her direct jurisdiction." (p. 90.)

And again: "The foul poison of worldliness has, ever since the Fall, overspread the whole moral world; and our one security from its infection is to sit ever at the Church's feet, and listen to her voice, and make her utterances our one test and measure of human morality." (p. 94.)

"To speculation," says another of these essayists, "the Church leaves within the limits of the Christian domain a wide and open space to move about in at will. To step over these boundaries is not liberty, but license; it leads not to knowledge, but to confusion,-to darkness, and not to light. Hers is the hand to appoint the paths and the boundaries, hers the controlling will, and hers the infallible judgment to allow the more or the less, to separate the sound from the unsound, to define the true or the false. Her infallibility is man's security; it is not so much a yoke to the will as a light to the reason." (p. 473.)

It would not be difficult to find among recent writers belonging to various branches of Protestantism expressions which, though different in terms from those we have just cited, are not less absolute in the assertion of the existence of an infallible authority to which the intellect should be subjected in matters of religion, and of the necessity to salvation of the acceptance of certain doctrines or dogmas.

The revival of the sacerdotal spirit, which is to be remarked in America as well as in Europe, is in fact a protest of the churches against the growing force, not of scepticism or irreligion, but of religion independent of ecclesiastical formularies. It is an indication, on the part of the churches of all denominations, of a sense of common danger to their supremacy in the regulation of religion. The spirit of individual independence in religious no less and no otherwise than in secular affairs is gaining ground, and growing in distinctness and consistency; and as the natural effect, the sacerdotal spirit for the time gains in intensity and eagerness. It is vigorous, because put on its defence, and driven to its strongholds.

A complete statement of the historic causes of the decline in the power of creeds and churches would be a history of the intellectual development and social progress of modern times. But it is evident that two principles have been mainly instru

mental, during the last century, in bringing about the existing condition of religious opinion, and it is difficult to say which has been most operative. It may perhaps be fair to assume that the decay of belief in creeds is due in large, measure to the progress of science, and the application of the scientific method-the method of all true knowledge, that of induction from the facts of particular observation to the investigation of religious truth; while the decline in the authority of the churches is due more especially to the progress of political liberty. Certain it is that the combined influence of these two principles upon the minds of enlightened men has wrought a change of which all are conscious in religious faith, opinion, and spirit, and one likely to produce results on human character and on social institutions which as yet can be but very imperfectly estimated.

That point of progress has now been reached, when, for the first time in the history of civilization, it is not only free to a man to believe what he likes, but safe for him to profess what he believes. The time has come when not only the right of free thought in matters of religion, no less than in other matters of speculation, is generally allowed in society, but the propriety of free expression is almost equally acknowledged. The position is unexampled, and marks a definite era in the advance of civilization. To put all opinions upon equal ground, so far as the right to hold and to express them is concerned, is the opening of a new order of things. "In modern times," said Hume, writing a hundred years ago, "parties in religion are more furious and enraged than the most cruel factions that ever rose from interest and ambition." But Hume's modern times are not ours. However active and bitter the spirit of intolerance may be in some quarters, or however "irritated prejudice may oppose the gentle advent of new truth," the general temper of society does not allow force or violence to be exerted to control opinion. The recognition of the inviolability of private judg ment, and of the sanctity of individual belief, is gradually depriving parties in religion of their fury, and rendering their manners as accommodating as those of parties in politics. Even those sects that hold to a creed which, if logically followed out, would require the persecution of its adversaries, are com