migration from that island, overcrowding the labor-market, allowing manufacturers and corporations to procure work at the lowest possible wages at which starvation can be avoided, increasing the burden of pauperism to a frightful extent, and leading to various schemes of emigration and much theorizing concerning "the evils of over-population."

In communities where trade is not the absorbing feature of the social economy, where, as far as possible, commerce is direct between the various producers, and where the middlemen who produce nothing, yet appropriate a large proportion of the productions of others, are reduced to the smallest possible number, a more healthy state of things would prevail. Labor would be in a continually rising market, means of sustenance would increase more rapidly than the population, great monopolies would be avoided, capitalists would have less illegitimate advantage over laborers, great overgrown central cities would shrink to their proper proportions, local centers would multiply and flourish, agriculture keep pace with other pursuits-which other pursuits would be subsidiary to agriculture-waste lands be reclaimed and cultivated, all soils rendered more productive, and man be more free, intelligent, and spiritual.

The policy of bringing the producer and consumer, or rather the different kinds of producers, into as close proximity to each other as possible, is generally acknowledged to be a correct one. Yet there are many who, while admitting it in the abstract, deny it in the concrete. One of our eminent writers on this subject argues against certain measures to produce this proximity, that by diminishing the necessity of transportation we destroy or impair some important branches of industry. Yet he would probably not advocate the maintaining of any business simply because it furnishes occupation to a certain number of workers. All the transporting and trading agencies in the world are only remedies for certain defects in the social system. They are not elements of power only as they supply these defects. When the latter no longer exist the former may be profitably dismissed. No one thinks of taking medicine to prevent its being wasted, or to employ a physician to keep the latter from starving. There are some who tell us that it is better that there should be a division of the various industries among

the different communities and nations on the same principle as that which makes division of labor among individuals desirable. They forget that the demand for a division of labor among individuals exists in just those points where the mutual relations of individuals differ from those of communities. The beneficial effects of exchange and the feeling of interdependence among nations are urged as having important and salutary ethical bearings. This is philosophical, but it does not prove that the good of the individual is to be sacrificed to the advancement of society. The latter is only an instrument of the former, and therefore subordinate to it. The maintenance of close commercial relations between nations is an important point to be gained. But it is of far higher importance to maintain the most complete commerce between the individuals of the several communities. It is obvious, too, that here as elsewhere in social relations the superior law implies the inferior. Between two communities in each of which internal commerce is made paramount to external, the exchanges, other things being equal, will be vastly greater than between two where external commerce is regarded as the chief thing. France presents a good illustration. Thirty-five years ago it was confidently predicted that by the measures she was then adopting to promote domestic industry and internal commerce her foreign trade would be ruined. Yet her exports within less than thirty years had nearly trebled, while her internal policy had been marvelously successful.

Of two towns fifty miles apart, the agricultural facilities of which were the same, no one would advocate that all the farmers in the one should exclusively cultivate corn and those of the other potatoes, for the sake of promoting commerce between them, nor for any other purpose. Nor is there any reason why all the carpenters should reside in one county, and all the blacksmiths in another a score or two of miles away, while no farmers should be allowed in either. The commerce of these separate localities would obviously be less than if all the occupations were found in both communities; and if there were any natural or artificial obstacle to the introduction of the absent occupations, it would be money well laid out that was expended in removing them. In almost every community there are some industries that cannot be profitably carried on

in others. Corn can be raised in one locality and not in another. Tea, coffee, spices, wheat, sugar, and various fruits, have their peculiar soils and climates. So there are certain manufactures which, owing to peculiar proximity of material or other advantages, can be prosecuted in one place better than in another. There are enough of these differences of industrial facilities in different communities and nations to answer all the beneficent ends of mutual dependence and friendly intercourse.

In every community the greatest possible diversity of employment should be sought. Only thus can there be any considerable degree of prosperity. God has so constituted society that the more it is developed by civilization and education the more widely diverse is it in its tastes, aptitudes, capabilities, and capacities; and unless these are met by corresponding diversities of occupation, there will be a proportional waste of human power. If in any community all the children are expected to grow up to a particular trade, while other trades are ignored or kept at the minimum, there will be large numbers who, having no taste nor inclination for this, and no opportunities for any thing else, will either be inefficient, thriftless workers, with no enthusiasm or interest in their vocation, or mere drones and idlers, or vagabonds and criminals. There is thus a great waste of manhood, and an incalculable loss of productive power. It has been supposed by some that the introduction of new industries will proportionally diminish the productiveness of those already existing. But facts testify to the contrary. The manufactures of France within the last century have advanced from an insignificant amount till they alone amount to nearly double the whole product of the country at the beginning of the period. But instead of diminishing the agricultural product, this has trebled in that time, while the population has increased only about sixty per cent. This, too, is somewhat in antagonism with the Malthusian doctrine of population. The same kinds of facts appear in Belgium, Germany, and elsewhere. One remarkable thing appears here which appear so often to the careful student of social science that it ceases at length to be remarkable. It is that while there is less necessity for foreign commerce when the internal societary circulation is kept at its maximum, the amount is far greater. Mr. Carey shows in an interesting

manner that this is one of the grand natural laws of society, every-where evincing its operation-the powers of man being in inverse ratio to his necessities-the more completely he masters nature, the more abundantly she ministers to him; but in proportion as he is inferior to her, the more he needs of her help and the less of that help she gives.

We have not attempted an analysis or description of Mr. Carey's system-only touching upon a few of the more prominent topics which come under discussion in his elaboration of the subject. The philosophy is simple, as all true philosophies are. It is comprehended in a nutshell, yet its ramifications are vast and complicated, and through them all it meets the conditions at every point, evincing a delightful harmony in its application.

In the study of this subject we have been more forcibly struck than ever before by its moral bearings. After all, what is wanted is not so much a correct social theory, and larger information, though these are sadly wanting; but religious principle, uprooting and destroying the deeply-planted selfishness of human nature, and putting in its place the disposition to do justice, to exercise benevolence, to "honor all men," and to apply the principles of the New Testament to human society. Christianity is the best cure for all the social evils which are extant in the world.

ART. II. THEODORE PARKER.

Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker. By JOHN WEISS. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1864.

Miss Cobbe's Edition of Parker's Works. London: Trübner & Co.

AT this point it may be as well to examine the theological position of Mr. Parker and have done with it. It remains to see whether he has been able to set up any thing self-consistent and tenable in room of the ancient and divine revelations which he labored to destroy.

The three great doctrines of religion which Parker proclaims are these: "The instinctive intuition of God; the instinctive intuition of justice, or a moral law which we are bound to

obey,... and the instinctive intuition of immortality." His account of these ideas is so strange as to merit careful examination. They are "primal intuitions of human nature, which depend on no logical process of demonstration, but are rather facts of consciousness given by the instinctive action of human nature itself."

It is not exactly clear whether Mr. Parker had any very definite notions in his own mind, which he here failed to embody in accurate language; but it is unfortunate that he should have employed, to characterize our primal cognitions of God, a philosophic term which he does not employ in its ordinary and received signification. The discrimination of intuitive knowledge from knowledge obtained through logical processes has been drawn with great care, and has become quite clear. There is some difference in details between Kant, Hamilton, Cousin, M'Cosh, and others in the discussion of this topic, but there is no real difference among them as to the logical marks or tests of intuitions. These marks or notes are: self-evidence, necessity, and catholicity. Parker certainly had some notion of the true character of these primary cognitions of the human intellect, since, after classing his three great dogmas among them, he transfers one of their most striking peculiarities, namely, independence of logical processes, to those dogmas. But he should have known that his right to place these three great doctrines of absolute religion among the objects of intuition would be disputed. Hence it was incumbent on him to show that they bear the proper notes of à priori, or intuitional, ideas. This procedure alone could give some show of stability to his scheme of doctrine. Here Parker puts assumption for proof.

Let us test his right to make so serious an assumption in regard to the fundamental question of theology, the existence of God. Has he, then, the right, in philosophy, to assume that man knows God by direct intuition? Kant finds the marks of à priori, or intuitive, truths to be "necessity and strict universality." When we find ourselves compelled to think of any proposition as necessary, not derived from any other, and also as admitting no exceptions, this indicates that the source of its cognition is à priori, or intuitive. Such is the constant teaching of Kant on this subject. Of course, he could not