nature better than that which is provincial. The social system must be very elastic which can cover different types which are the product of different natural, social, and political forces.

But the greatest hindrance to the socialistic transformation of the social and political institutions of this country lies, we say it in friendliness, but in the utmost frankness, in the character of the current Socialism. The current Socialism is unmoral, not in the sense that it is immoral, but materialistic. We make exception, of course, in behalf of that Socialism which is thoroughly Christian in fact as well as in name, and we recognize the absolute dissociation of all genuine socialists from anarchists of every type. But the ideal of the current Socialism is materialistic rather than moral, and the remedy for existing abuses and inequalities is also materialistic in too large proportion to the moral. By far too little account is made of the place of individual morality in the new social system. Banish poverty, remove inequalities, and you assure the wellbeing of society. Does any one believe that? Does any one believe, for example, that poverty is altogether or the chief cause of the social vices, or that they would cease or even grow less under the equal distribution of the general wealth? We have allowed that the new social order, if once at work, would take away many of the motives to dishonesty; we also allow that it would remove many of the occasions for crime for which we now build prisons. But what of the vices for which we do not build prisons? What of the corruption which under the highest social development eats at the heart of society? The motto on the title-page of "The Nationalist" runs The Nationalization of Industry and the Promotion of the Brotherhood of Humanity. So far, so good, in its moral bearings. But the promotion of the brotherhood of humanity is not the only morality. There is an individual morality, which must be included if the social end is to be gained. And if it be said that this is of course assumed, we reply that it is not enough that it be assumed; it must be emphasized in any scheme of social reconstruction. And especially, as we began to say, with any scheme which is to find favor with the American people. The American people are in their convictions and methods profoundly moral. We do not forget, in this assertion, the apparent contradiction in the attitude of the nation toward slavery. But the end proved the truthfulness of the statement. We can understand and sympathize with the present impatience of socialistic thinkers with the apparent indifference in this country to social wrongs and inequalities. Still we repeat the statement that the American people are profoundly moral rather than materialistic in their use of methods, and in their conception of the true wellbeing of society. And in so far as the present aims and methods of Socialism are materialistic rather than moral, they will fail even of their legitimate influence upon the public mind. The Socialism which may prove a reconstructive and transforming force in this country must possess itself of a positive morality in accord with the genius and habit and method

of the American people. Indeed we believe a positive morality to be the great want of Socialism everywhere. And of this view we find confirmation from so unprejudiced an authority as the writer of the article on Political Economy in the last edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Mr. J. K. Ingram, himself, as we understand, a socialistic Positivist. We quote his words: "The solution, indeed, must be at all times largely a moral one : it is the spiritual rather than the temporal power that is the natural agency for redressing or mitigating most of the evils associated with industrial life." To which statement he adds in a foot-note: "The neglect of this consideration, and the consequent undue exaltation of state action, which, though quite legitimate, is altogether insufficient, appears to us the principal danger to which the contemporary German school of Economists is exposed," and then resumes: "What is now most urgent is not legislative interference on any large scale with the industrial relations, but the formation in both the higher and lower regions of the industrial world, of profound convictions as to social duties, and some more effective mode than at present exists, of diffusing, maintaining, and applying these convictions. This is a subject into which we cannot enter here. But it may at least be said that the only parties in contemporary life which seem rightly to conceive or adequately to appreciate the necessities of the situation are those that aim, on the one hand, at the restoration of the old spiritual power, or, on the other, at the formation of a new one."

The question which we have been discussing is of twofold interest. The endeavor to transform a democratic into a socialistic state is an experiment to which no student of political science can be indifferent. As we have said, there is no more inherent improbability in our time of a socialistic state than there was two centuries ago of a democratic state. But the democratic state having been established, can it not be made to satisfy by its own discriminating use of socialistic principles the true aims of Socialism, or must it in turn give place to a new social order. Of this no one can affirm, but no one can be unobservant of the phenomena which attend the determination of the question.

But the interest in what is a question of political science deepens into the most serious personal and social concern as we consider the occasion which gives rise to this and to like discussions. The inequalities, which are growing upon us out of the present industrial and social order, are becoming too great for the order itself unaided to control and remedy. An order founded on individualism is already doing much to repress and restrict healthy individual development. It may not be true that the poor are growing poorer as the rich are growing richer, but it is true that the richest are growing richer at the expense of society, and in other ways than that of wealth. It is the great middle class that is beginning to feel the pinch. Men of ordinary capital are crowded out of the traditional forms of business life. The loss here is not of VOL. XII.— - NO. 68.

15

pecuniary estimate alone; it is greater in its intellectual and social relations. Only the great capitalists, or those who unite in combinations, can preserve the conditions which favor the development of individuality. The real thing at issue is broader than any question of poverty, deep and broad and sensitive as that is. It is the question whether society can continue to develop normally and healthfully in all its parts under present conditions. If not, every true citizen is concerned in effecting so much of change in condition as may be necessary to that end, whether the outward and final form be the democratic or the socialistic state.

DOES THE AMERICAN BOARD PROPOSE TO CONTINUE ITS PROSCRIPTIVE POLICY?

THE time has come in our judgment to ask this question in the most direct way, with the view to a clear and frank understanding about the attitude of the Board toward candidates for the missionary service. We may be told that we have an unmistakable answer in the resolutions passed at Des Moines and at Springfield. So we had supposed. But the interpretation put upon these resolutions by those who were instrumental in securing their passage is becoming uncertain and contradictory. The semi-official utterances of the Board, especially in invitations to young men, do not accord with its official actions. Evidently the party in the majority is not of one mind in regard to the policy to be pursued, and in this issue the minority have the right to ask for information, in order that they may know how to act in special cases.

The proscriptive policy of the Board has now been in force for three years. What is the situation at the close of the third year? The wellnigh complete alienation of young men of progressive tendencies in our colleges and seminaries, from the Board under its present management; a growing dissatisfaction on the part of the large minority of its constituents; and, as we have intimated, the weakening of not a few of the original supporters of the action of the Board, in regard to the expediency of continuing its intolerant policy. We have good reason to believe that at no time have the most discerning friends of the Board been so anxious about its immediate future as since the meeting at Cleveland. The weakness of the position taken at Des Moines and Springfield has been becoming more and more apparent upon calm reflection. Each year reveals more clearly the anomaly of the place held by the American Board, as now controlled, within the Congregational body. The denomination moves on in its traditional breadth and freedom, a growing democracy of strong, energetic, and earnest churches, but entrusting its whole foreign missionary work to an aristocratic bureau of ultra conservatism. The benefactions of the churches continue to be made, for the churches most at variance with the present management have too much at stake

in the final policy of the Board to withdraw from its financial support. No one proposes to sever his connection with the Board. Those most dissatisfied with the conduct of affairs have trusted much to the effect of time. They have given due weight to the impossibility of the situation. The more moderate among the conservative party have counseled patience. They have said, and are saying, to their aggrieved brethren, "Be patient; influences are at work which will relieve the stricture; we do not agree with you theologically, but we recognize the injustice of denying to suitable candidates the commission of the American Board."

Why do we not wait longer? Why urge the question which we have raised? Because of the interests involved which ought not to be trifled with by further delay. Three seminaries in the Congregational body are now virtually shut out from the American Board as the medium for service in "the cause of Christ in heathen lands." Here and there one from among the students or more recent alumni of these seminaries, who finds himself in sympathy with the theological tests imposed, may be accepted, but the seminaries are no longer represented by those who accept their general teaching and spirit. "We cannot expect any more men from Yale or Bangor under the present condition of affairs," was the recent remark of a conservative man, who spoke from personal knowledge of the public effect of the course pursued at the rooms of the Home Secretary. And his words were evidently uttered in anxiety as to the result of this alienation of young men in the seminaries named upon the prospects of the Board. We do not assume to know what the prospects of the Board are in respect to men, either as to their number or quality. Possibly a supply may be found in the seminaries in sympathy with the present direction of the Board, or in other denominations, or in Canada. Of this matter we have no actual knowledge. But this, we submit, is not the matter at issue. The question is not as to the supply of men, from whatever source they can be drawn, but as to the rights of young men to missionary service under the Board who represent the progressive wing of the Congregational churches. At present they have no acknowledged rights. And the churches which they represent have no rights. These churches would be entirely unrepresented on the mission field were it not for the missionaries already there, many of whom are in open or in unexpressed sympathy with them.

Furthermore, events have occurred since the last meeting of the Board, which make it in every way desirable that there should be an understanding upon the matter in question. If an adjustment of present differences is impracticable, we may at least avoid further differences growing out of a misunderstanding of the situation. The events which have happened since the meeting at Cleveland have an important bearing upon the relation of the Board to the churches and to the missions, and also upon the possible action of the minority in regard to special cases of missionary candidates.

First, it has been demonstrated that the churches will ordain as missionaries those who hold substantially the theological views of candidates who have been rejected by the American Board. There could never have been any reasonable doubt that this would be the fact whenever a test case should arise. The whole course of ordaining councils had been toward this conclusion. No one, to our knowledge, has ever been excluded from the Congregational ministry because of these views. Council after council has passed upon candidates holding them, and always with the same result. It was not to be assumed that an exception would be made whenever a candidate for missionary service of like opinions should present himself before a council. There was no evidence that the churches would accept the fictitious distinction made between the theological rights of pastors and missionaries. The fact to which we have called attention was to have been anticipated, but as an actual fact it has its indisputable significance.

Secondly, it has been shown that the friends of missions in the membership of the Congregational churches will support, if necessary, those thus ordained whose support the Board declines to assume. Here, again, there was little room to question the disposition of very many in the constituency of the Board. But the response, when the occasion offered, was prompt and generous to an unexpected degree. Care was taken that no public appeal for money should be made. Contributions were solicited in the most private ways, yet within a week enough was raised to support a missionary and his wife for five years. The readiness shown in response to private solicitation is very suggestive of what might be expected from a public appeal.

And thirdly, it has been made evident that men thus ordained and sent out will be welcomed to their work by missionaries of the American Board. It was hardly credible that any other reception would be accorded to them, notwithstanding many intimations and assertions to the contrary. But the reception of Mr. and Mrs. Noyes by the Japanese mission, unanimous, immediate, and hearty, the spirit of coöperation shown in so many ways, the virtual assignment of them to their field of labor, reveal and illustrate the spirit of the missionaries. Possibly not every mission would have shown a like spirit, though we should be very unwilling to allow such a possibility. Certainly there are fields in abundance pleading for work, where genuine hospitality and coöperation might be expected if any should be called to go out as solitary workers. The spirit abroad is no less tolerant and generous than that at home.

These are some of the facts which will confront the Board at its next annual meeting. The Board by its proscriptive policy has created an alternative to its own method. It has opened a direct way from the door of the churches into the mission fields. Nothing is wanting to the method thus created. Councils will ordain, the friends of missions will support, and the missionaries will welcome and cooperate with the