religion in a world of social needs is here held to be, not the impracticable imitation of primitive social life, but the illumination of the world as it is with works of mercy and service. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."1 This way

of service has come to be a self-evident Christian duty. Never before was there so clear a recognition of the social responsibility of Christian believers; never was there such multiplication of philanthropic agencies in the name of Christianity, or such general agreement that the test of religion in the present age must be its capacity to inspire deeds of love. In 1849 Pastor Wichern, the founder nism is suggested. Of such an institution the book of Acts speaks not a word; " but going on to suggest that (s. 49), "The picture offered by the book of Acts of communism in Jerusalem represents the social ideal of the author, described as realized in the sacred days of the beginnings of Christianity;" a view which Rogge (s. 69) regards as "a complete contradiction of the method in which the author of the third gospel and the book of Acts elsewhere deals with his sources." Even a critic of avowed sympathy with the socialist programme, like O. Holtzmann, "Jesus Christus und das Gemeinschaftsleben der Menschen," 1893, candidly remarks: "What the book of Acts describes is free offerings of Christian brotherhood; ... of industry in common, of the estimating of each individual according to his work, of any levelling of possessions or of labor, there is not a sign. No likeness is to be found between the conditions of the first Christian community, and the programme proposed by socialism." Compare also: G. Adler, "Geschichte des Sozialismus und Communismus von Plato bis zur Gegenwart," Erster Teil, 1899, s. 69 ff.; Stein, "Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophie," s. 232 ff.; "Das Urchristentum und die soziale Frage."

1 John xiii. 35.

of the Innere Mission in Germany, addressed his Letter to the Nation, urging Christian believers to enter "into the ferment and questioning of the time, . . . and give the only indisputable proof that Christianity. . . can accomplish what is possible to no power or wisdom without the gospel; "1 and this proving of Christian faith by Christian works has become the special mark of modern Christianity. A hundred ways of service, visitation, and relief, the advocacy of temperance and of recreation, the provision of the social settlement and of the institutional church, illustrate the expansion of the work of religion into the sphere of the social movement. Yet these Christian activities, beautiful and fruitful as they are, and testifying as they do to the vitality of the Christian religion, cannot be regarded as presenting in themselves a solution of the modern social question. This question, as we have already seen, cuts quite beneath the whole problem of philanthropy, and cannot be summed up in terms of pity for the unfortunate or of almsgiving for the poor. It inquires for the causes of ill fortune, and demands justice for the poor. It applies itself to changing the conditions which make people poor, rather than to pitying the poverty which evil conditions have made. However legitimate

1 Wichern, "Die innere Mission der deutschen evangelischen Kirche," 3. Aufl., 1889; Göhre, "Die evangelisch-soziale Bewegung," 1896, s. 3 ff.; Schäfer, "Leitfaden der inneren Mission," 1889, s. 52 ff.; Uhlhorn, "Die christliche Liebesthätigkeit seit der Reformation," 1890, s. 347 ff.

and beneficent, then, the progress of Christian sympathy and charity may be, it does not satisfy the demand of the time. It is the work of a practising physician, dealing with special cases of disease, while beneath his mitigation of results lie profounder inquiries concerning the causes and prevention of disease. To meet the social question as it now presents itself, religion must be more than merciful and generous; it must find a place for itself in that search for better economic conditions and better social organization which absorbs the attention of the present time.

Here, then, we come upon many schemes and dreams which, in the name of the Christian religion, concern themselves directly with the disorder and incompleteness of the industrial world. They may be roughly classified in a few general types. First, and on the outskirts of these definite propositions and programmes, there is what may be called the work of prophecy. The prophet, in the social question, as in religion, is not the system-maker, or even the foreteller of the future. He is the advocate of righteousness; he lays bare the sins of his people, and pronounces judgment on their transgression; he pictures the rule of equity and peace, and promises to justice its reward. Here is at least one legitimate work of the Christian preacher. It does not need a training in political economy to make one sensitive to social sins. The same passion for righteousness which made the burden of Hebrew prophecy finds its place in an

effective Christian ministry to-day. The prophet may not know precisely what form the better future is to assume; and when he depicts the details of that future, he may become only an impracticable visionary. His place is to proclaim the eternal law of righteousness and the retribution which, for a nation as for an individual, is sure to follow wrong. "The prophet that hath a dream," he says. "Is not my word like as fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" "Behold, I am against them that prophesy lying dreams, saith the Lord; . . . I will cast you off, and the city that I gave unto you; "2 and again, of the faithful he says, "I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people." "I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land." 3

Among such prophets of the modern social question, two have had extraordinary influence on the consciences of Christians. Carlyle attacked

1 Jer. xxiii. 28, 29. 2 Jer. xxiii. 32, 39. 8 Jer. xxiv. 7, 6. 4 Of Carlyle's own writings the most significant are: "Chartism," 1840; "Past and Present," 1843; "Latter Day Pamphlets," 1880. See also: Schulze-Gävernitz, “Zum sozialen Frieden," 1890, I, ss. 77-290; "Thomas Carlyle als Sozialtheoretiker und Sozialpolitiker"; Garnett," Life of Thomas Carlyle" (with bibliography); Gibbins, English Social Reformers," 1892, p. 181 ff.; and the unsparing criticism of Robertson, “Modern Humanists," 1891, p. II ff. Of Ruskin the most significant writings are: "Unto this Last," 1862; "Crown of Wild Olive," 1866; "Time and Tide," 1867; "Fors Clavigera" (passim). See also the warm advocacy of J. A. Hobson, "John Ruskin, Social Reformer," 1898; the critical

with splendid satire the mammonism and dilettant ism of modern life, and pictured a revival of the ancient ways of social stability and peace; Ruskin arraigned the prevailing political economy as unreal and illusory, and substituted for it, in what he held was his most important work, a political economy whose roots should be honor, and whose veins of wealth should be "the purple veins of happy-hearted human creatures." Both of these great teachers were of the prophetic order. No one can read their arraignment of social unrighteousness without a glow of sympathy and of selfreproach. To many a mind, sunk in an Egyptian self-content of commercialism, the summons of Carlyle has been as if a new Moses were calling his people into the sterner region of the moral ideal; to many a mind which has been stupefied by the ugliness and squalor of modern civilization, Ruskin has restored the hope of beauty and peace. Instead of an England of cruel traders and chattering politicians, Carlyle conceives an England of heroes and captains of industry, fit to lead a holy war. Instead of wealth which sinks a man, as a belt of gold pieces would sink him in the sea, Ruskin calls for a new definition of riches. The only wealth is life; all else is not wealth, but "ill-th." "I can even imagine that England may cast all thoughts of possessive wealth back to the barbaric nations among

estimate of F. J. Stimson, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1888; and the less sympathetic treatment of Robertson (ut supra), p. 184 ff.; and of Politicus, "New Social Teachings," 1886, Ch. I. and II,