shaken and disturbed by the great war, and now when the tendencies in modern successful government are plainly apparent. Autocratic rule has given place to a more democratic sway, while the aims of rulers are of a more sympathetic type than formerly, being founded on the teaching of the Bible, as our lecturer tersely puts it in his phrase of "a happy confusion of morals and politics." Not so very long ago it was said that kings could do no wrong, but that idea was shattered in England by the legal death of Charles I, who had grievously broken our laws; but though the feeling of intense subservience to royalty still survives in some countries, we find that nowadays the ruler of a prosperous country freely acknowledges that he is himself subject to law. England and the United States are pointed out by Prof. Roget as the leading examples of this modern trend in government, and Calvin is held to be the one who has largely led to the present state of things by his appeals to Scripture in reference to earthly rule. The modern leading State is not one in which militarism occupies a prominent place, and wars of aggression and conquest are not to be aimed at; but, at the same time, a vigorous State must be ready to engage in a war in which it takes part from a sense of justice with enthusiasm, and as quickly as possible. Prof. Roget in past years came to tell us how England (on the Swiss model, could mobilize her immense forces in man and material with order and some rapidity. When a war is over, the extra armies which have been raised should vanish as soon as possible, the arts of peace should be at once returned to and conciliation with former enemies should be actively sought for. Our own country affords happy examples of this adaptability to circumstances. For instance, after the Punjaub War the conquered Sikhs became our most loyal supporters in the suppression of the Indian Mutiny; and after the Boer War Briton and Boer have happily joined together in the government of the Cape. It is to be hoped that Briton and German will also combine together in the pursuits of commerce, trade, and science with mutual good will and with much less suspicion of each other than in pre-war days. As Prof. Roget helped us before the war by impressing on us the duty that all should train and be ready to mobilize, so we trust that this present lecture may help to cause to vanish the bitterness between us and the German nation, so closely connected with us by ties of religion and of kindred. Doubtless immense difficulties will remain in all governments, in our own included. Wars, perhaps worse and worse in character, will remain with us to the close of the age; but the broad features of present-day rule and success have been plainly put before us by our gifted lecturer, and we warmly thank him for his clearly worded and illuminating paper. Mr. THEODORE ROBERTS pointed out that the province of Quebec, Canada, showed the lecturer was mistaken in saying that a new France beyond the seas in the sense of the New England on the American Coast was historically impossible. He also disagreed with the lecturer's statement that the progress of man in relation to religion was from the darkest superstition, for he believed the Book of Genesis showed that a very pure religion was known in early days and became corrupted. He thought that France's being on the Allies' side in the late war was due to the accident of her proximity to Germany on the Rhine, and pointed out that the other two great Latin races, Italy and Spain, had lately gone over to autocracy, which he believed France would ultimately do. He instanced Benjamin Kidd's latest book entitled Principles of Western Civilisation as maintaining a thesis somewhat analogous to that of the lecturer, particularly with regard to the primacy of the ideals of the Anglo-Saxon race on each side of the Atlantic. He regarded Calvin as the most powerful mind since Augustine that had been brought under the sway of the Christian revelation, and pointed out that Augustine's teaching in his City of God had moulded the Christian Church for centuries. Augustine had insisted on original sin and the total depravity of man; and Calvin, while accepting this, brought in the new principle of the individual conscience being wrought upon by Scripture. He would have liked more from the lecturer as to the religious aspect of Calvinism, as he believed that this was at the root of its political importance, for Calvin stood above all else for the great truth of redemption through Christ. Remarks of W. HOSTE on Prof. Roget's paper :-I am thankful for Prof. Roget's reminder that the first Protestants anywhere became such by a personal, independent, free act (i.e. by individual conversion to God). One could wish they had been satisfied with God's order and come together into churches rather than conglomerate into States. Political Protestantism is verily a dead business. How can we ask for "voluntary subjection (p. 160) in the home or State unless the nature be renewed"? Surely Calvin meant this, but does it not need affirming? Did M. Brunetière really mean (p. 161) that politics may be divorced from moral principles when he speaks of Calvin's "confusion of politics and morals"? An R.C. lecturer would scarcely admit such a thing before a Protestant audience. Did he not, perhaps, rather mean that politics are not carried on strictly on Christian principles, but on principles proper to it (i.e. of righteous government), and that any attempt to set up a Christian government must either spoil your government or your Christianity. Christianity acts in grace; Government "beareth not the sword in vain." It may seem a shocking heresy, but take the French action in the Ruhr. It is not Christian, nor does it claim to be; nor is it Christian to demand reparations, but governmentally it is perfectly justifiable and righteous. The Ruhr adventure may not turn out to be good business," and it was on this principle that Bonar Law kept out, and he seems to have been right. But politically the French are within their rights. They have put the brokers in. I do not see how any government can be carried on on principles of "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity," though the French carve these words even on their prisons, and it sounds something good. "On se paie de mots." Government must have its sanctions; the policeman is as necessary as the preacher. "Righteousness exalteth a nation." Anything more fatal to good government than spasms of sentimentalism can scarcely be conceived. The plane of Christianity is incomparably higher. To demand a profession of Christianity before the vote, is to confound things that differ and infringe on the liberty of the subject. Remarks by Dr. A. T. SCHOFIELD, V.P. :-This masterly paper approaches Calvinism from a standpoint that is new to most. people. It is in its theological rather than its political aspect that Calvinism is most generally known. Prof. Roget's paper is, however, an argument that the union of morals and politics is the essence of Calvinism, and largely the prerogative of the Anglo-Saxon race. In theology Calvinism appears to most to represent one-half of Divine truth and Arminius the other half, the misfortune being the extent to which each half denies the other. And this for the obvious reason that to man the two are irreconcilable. But in Divine things only opposites can be true, and the two become one. For example: Light and love in God. A Judge and Saviour in Christ. Law and liberty in love. Sovereignty and responsibility in Gospel. Election and freewill in Protes tantism. Jew and Gentile in church. Slavery and freedom in Christianity. In most religious disputes each side has part of the truth; and the needless conflict is not due to error in the word of God, but is rather a demonstration of the limitations of the human intellect. The combination of politics and morals here asserted to be the essential quality of Protestantism is a Bible principle. The close of several epistles is full of it, and law and morals are there not confused but combined. The late war was a real conflict between brute force and morals, and was most remarkable for the union on behalf of the latter of the Anglo-Saxon and Latin races, which was indeed surprising, if we accept Prof. Roget's view of French principles as set forth on pp. 163 and 169. HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, LIEUT.-COLONEL G. MACKINLAY IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the previous meeting were read, confirmed and signed. The CHAIRMAN read a letter from Lord Stamfordham acknowledging the receipt of the last annual volume of the Proceedings of the Victoria Institute, saying that he is commanded to express the thanks of His Majesty the King. The Chairman then referred to the recent death of Mr. E. J. Sewell, a valued Member of the Council of the Victoria Institute as well as of other bodies. Mr. Sewell had served as an Honorary Secretary for some two years during the war, and did excellent service at a time when the Institute was passing through a period of stress. He gained the last prize granted by the Gunning Trust Prize Fund, by his paper on Jonah which is much valued. It may be mentioned incidentally that he generously gave £10 of the sum he had gained towards the finances of the Victoria Institute. He was a distinguished (retired) member of the Indian Civil Service, and he freely employed his great linguistic talents in the service of the Victoria Institute, and of the Bible Society, of which he was a Vice-President, and for many years Chairman of the Sub-Committee which deals with the numerous translations of the Bible into a very large proportion of the languages of the world. He was a modest, kind-hearted Christian man, beloved of all who knew him, and his loss is much felt by a wide circle; we respectfully tender our hearty sympathy to his widow, Mrs. Sewell. The Chairman then called on Dr. Schofield, so well known and valued among the members of the Victoria Institute, to read his paper on "The Making of Men." I THE MAKING OF MEN. By ALFRED T. SCHOFIELD, Esq., M.D. 66 WOULD preface my remarks on this somewhat difficult theme by saying at the outset that I use the term men in this paper definitely without distinction of sex. This must be clearly understood, and is essential to my arguments-that in |