creation by man's own act--a free creation, a creation which can be reversed—yet once in being it tends to deathless being like that of God."* The chief danger is that we shall accept as conversion to God some change less radical than that of this "imperial will.”

It is farther objected that putting religion primarily into the voluntary department of our nature makes it cold, intellectual, and simply ethical. But here is precisely where the inspired apostle placed it. "Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and keep himself unspotted from the world." In other words benevolence, or the principle which finds expression in benevolent and upright conduct, is before our God and Father pure and undefiled religion. Is such a religion as this cold, intellectual, heartless? Precisely the opposite is true. From a soul dominated by the selfish principle all the fresher springs of feeling are gradually drying up; all the tenderer, sweeter emotions, like buried embers, are dying out and giving place to the cold, gloomy and malign. This silent process is going on in every unrenewed heart. Selfishness is self isolation, and cannot but deaden the affections, wither the soul, and dissever every link which binds it to kindred being. Benevolence is the panacea. With the power of an enchantress it makes the soul's emotions gush forth like the waters from the smitten rock.

With the great Edwards and Finney, I make virtue the synonym of benevolence. What else can it be? What else satisfies the reason, hushes the murmurs of conscience into song, fills the soul with the peace of God? What else is so fascinating? What other beauty like "the beauty of holiness?" Whose are the graves we keep fresh with our tears, the memories we weave into our songs, the names we will not let die? The men of consecrated lives, the servants of their generation. Even infidelity and atheism honor and revere such names.

With this definition of virtue how dread and obligatory the Divine law! Were its great imperative "thou shalt feel supreme affection toward God, and equal toward men" the question would instantly arise "What for?" The combined

*The New Birth, p. 55.

feeling of the world cannot feed a starving beggar, or comfort a homeless child, or control a human choice. Such a law would fail to secure the sanction of reason, for it would be neither feasible nor obligatory. The conviction that this is what the law of love requires, and that the sanctions of heaven and hell are behind it, cannot but be terrible in its practical workings. On the other hand, the requirement of good will among the offspring of God, of the devotion of each to the highest welfare of all, commends itself to every man's conscience, and compels every man's intellect, whether his heart shall accord or not, to unite in the great acclaim, "Just and righteous are thy ways, thou King of Saints."

ARTICLE III.-THE STATES GENERAL OF FRANCE.*

I. THE ORIGIN OF THE STATES GENERAL.

THE States General of France, like the Diet of Germany and the English Parliament, first took shape in the political and social conditions accompanying the decline of Feudalism. They survived only three centuries; during that period even they did not remain a fixed and definitely constituted factor of the government. Yet they had a mission, a history full of significance; they exerted an influence that even to-day has not wholly ceased to be felt. The iron hand of absolutism seemed to crush out for centuries among the French all disposition toward popular rule; but the Revolution of 1789 with its violence and horrors was only the penalty France had to suffer for allowing the States General to decline. It is a striking illustration of the persistency of force in natural tendencies that to-day France is a representative democracy.

The great "law of perfectibility" applies to human institutions as well as to human lives. All fall short of the ideal; yet some seem to have fulfilled the purpose of their existence much better than others. Failures, however, are often more instructive than successes; they reveal with greater clearness causes, dangers, possible remedies. No portion of political history is more suggestive, or presents more sharply the difficulties which popular government has to meet, than the record of the attempts of the French to establish a representative institution.

The States General first assembled in 1302. But that first meeting marked the climax of centuries of progress; in the

*It is proposed in a series of articles to treat briefly the Origin, Organization, Powers and Functions, and Causes of Decline, of the States General of France. For a preliminary discussion see the July New Englander, Art. III., "The Genesis of Modern Free Institutions." I regret that lack of space precludes the insertion of references to authorities, as well as the text of the laws and ordinances upon which many of the statements are based.

Dim fore

mind of a people great ideas mature but slowly. shadowings of representative government may be traced in the very beginnings of French history. All the various elements that blended together to make up the French nationality contributed each a part to the structure of French liberties. The Kelt, the Roman, and the Teuton, each had something to do with fixing in the mind of the people the principle of representation, which, when well-nigh obliterated amid the strife and anarchy of temporal powers, was retained and handed down to a brighter day in the organization of the Church.

Long before the birth of Christ the Keltic peoples of Gaul had reached the highest point of their independent development. They had made some progress in the arts; and in the rudiments of civilization far surpassed their Teutonic neighbors. The soil was cultivated under a tenure much like that of Feudalism. Each man of wealth was surrounded by a band of retainers who, under an honorable and easy clientship, tilled the fields and conducted his business or served as his force in war. Politically Gaul was pervaded by a spirit of independence and love of freedom. The country was divided up among many tribes or peoples, each of which jealously defended its territory and guarded its autonomy. The tribal organization was essentially democratic, the underlying principle everywhere being that of election. Each year a civil chief and a military leader were chosen by the people. In the Gallie character however there was a spirit of restless impulse and fickleness that twenty centuries has not obliterated, that appears among the French of to-day; changes in government were hence very frequent. Sometimes a man becoming more influential than the rest usurped the supreme power; occa sionally a circle of aristocrats for a time held sway; but sooner or later the people asserted their rights and regained their authority. War was the usual occupation of great landholders, who, supported by their clients, were continually engaging in private battles. To so great an extent was individuality made prominent that at times there was almost complete anarchy. More than once foreign powers gained a foot-hold in Gaul by being called in to settle intestine difficulties.

But behind all the strifes of both tribes and parties there

was an influence that tended to bring about the unity and harmony of all Gaul. The Druids formed a mysterious and powerful hierarchy from whose mandates there was no appeal. Above the individual, above the State, as endowed with authority from the unseen world, they terrified into submission the fierce spirit of a people that owned no other control. With austere countenance and strange dress, with an imposing ritual of service, always attractive to the Gaul (as to his French descendant), and with the horrible rites of human sacrifice they held the worshiper in awe. They alone had knowledge; from generation to generation they handed down a body of science both physical, moral, and political. To them therefore was entrusted the administration of justice. Whoso obeyed not their decrees was ever after treated as an outcast. In each state the Druids formed the supreme tribunal; but further than this there was a religious and judicial unity of all Gaul. Once each year the Druids from every part assembled at a point in the country of the Carnutes, probably in the vicinity of modern Dreux. Hither from all quarters were brought disputes and dissensions, and with the assembly of priests the ultimate decision rested. Differences between states, as well as between great men or parties of the same state were thus settled. At the head of all the Druids was one who possessed well-nigh supreme authority over them. At his death the members of the order most eminent in wisdom and dignity succeeded; but if no one stood forth prominently above the others, the office was filled by election.

In Caesar's time the Gauls were degenerating. The growth of towns and the rapid increase of wealth had introduced marked divisions of classes, while the decline of society was hastened by corrupting contact with the Greeks. Honorable clientship had sunk to slavery. Only two ranks, the Druids and the Knights, possessed any authority or dignity. Of the common people "the greater part," says Caesar, "being overwhelmed by debt or by the weight of taxation or by the oppression of the powerful, place themselves in subjection to the nobles. These have over them the same rights as masters over slaves." The country was in a state of ceaseless ferment Some states were struggling for the supremacy of all Gaul,