t is not Christian in its essence is radical. No restraint
that is not Christian is permanently effective. Other influences are
partial in their operation. They modify one side of character. They
protect it partially at one or two weak points. They touch the outward
developments of the life merely; trying to regulate it from the
circumference. This goes to the very seat of life, purges the fountain
head of impulse and desire, creates a new man to do new works, and does
not simply ingraft new works on the old character, putting the new piece
into the old garment. This brings the thought and will into conformity
with the law of Christ, and develops the man _as a whole_, makes him
something, as well as restrains him from evil. Without this, who can say
that any restraint will be effectual; that any memories will be sacred
enough, any admonitions forcible enough, any associations attractive
enough, any moral purpose strong enough to keep one pure? Alas, the shore
of life is strewn so thickly with wrecks of youthful hope and promise, the
annals of crime embrace so many youth of noble aims and high attainments,
reared under the holiest influences of home and sanctuary, that we may
well ask--who is safe?

While then, I would not discourage an effort at reform made in good faith
by society, yet without any distinctively religious character, while I
believe that many such efforts have done good in their sphere, I say
distinctly, that their sphere is not large enough. Their influence does
not reach deep enough. They help reform or restrain certain developments
of the life; but they do not inaugurate any positive moral development.
Nay, the very fact that many of them are forced, as a condition of their
existence, to denude themselves of anything but the most general and vague
religious character, makes them incapable of fostering any high moral
development. To take the instance cited a few moments since. The community
establishes a coffee room, or reading room, or resort of any kind for
young men, without the vicious attractions of the fashionable restaurant
or saloon. It does a good and laudable thing. Its influence is good as far
as it goes, in keeping young men away from worse places. But the moral
influence exerted, depends entirely upon these outside appliances. In
other words, this institution keeps them from evil so long as they can
have recourse to it, but does not implant within them a principle which,
in the event of the