their day, shown more affinity for what we now call the functional interpretation of society than the type of classifiers for whom Professor Ford speaks.7 The jealousy which would smother sociology, in the interest of a programme of forcing all knowledge into cans, of form and caliber prescribed by an a priori schematology, is not science but decadence. Fifth, No competent sociologist ever supposed that he had a technique which could be a substitute for adequate means of research already devised by other divisions of social science. No one who comprehends the sociological movement, and means to tell the truth, would be caught accusing the sociologists of trying to make facts and relations and programmes out of nothing by a method through the use of which sociologists claimed to be sufficient unto themselves. The precise opposite is not only assumed by the sociologists, but from the start they have labored to provoke all the can-openers for very shame to admit the like in their own cases. The sociologist has to take his physics and psychology, and ethnology, and history, and economics, as they are given to him by the present condition of those divisions of labor. If he makes mistakes of fact or of conclusion, they are probably not counts against sociology at all. They may justify true bills against the individual's patience and caution and sobriety. They may chiefly expose either the incompleteness of the older divisions of knowledge, or the inadequacy of the means of communication between scientific investigators. Sixth, Sociology could afford to rest its expectation of vindication solely on its attorneyship for the motor aspects of knowledge. Knowledge that is knowledge only is an abortion. Knowledge is vital only when it is transformed into arterial sustenance for action. Here again sociology is neither a creator out of nothing nor a monopolist of the thing created. It has specialized more persistently than any other division of science upon the problem of making knowledge available for the guidance of con 'So far as the Germans are concerned, I think I have demonstrated this in a book which will appear in September: The Cameralists, the Pioneers of German Social Polity. structive social conduct. To say that we may summon from the historians and moralists and political philosophers and economists a great cloud of witnesses that knowledge is of no use until it is applied, robs sociology of no laurels. Does anyone discover a danger that knowledge will apply itself too fast in rationalizing the world's conduct? Is there no room for specializing as admonisher of men that knowledge is at hand which our social programmes have not assimilated? Both the Verein für Socialpolitik in 1871, and the American Economic Association in 1885 projected the motor impulse into social science in a salutary way. Without disparaging either movement, it must be pointed out that there was in each a certain hiatus between the dynamic sentiment of the organization, and the dynamic knowledge necessary to give the sentiment lasting force. Sociology has done no mean service in calling for organization of that sentiment into a system which shall rely for support upon functional psychology. In a nutshell, our whole elaborate scientific liturgy of life no more fits the reality which we encounter when we freely inspect human experience, than Calvin's Institutes reflect the moral order in which modern men believe. The sociological movement is fundamentally a resolve to learn life from life, not to take a version of it on the authority of a pseudo-scientific liturgy. The sociological movement begins whenever men part company with the Weltanschauung that life is a department store stocked with original packages of assorted stuff. The sociological movement gets a character of its own as fast as it brings into distinct focus the substitute Weltanschauung which the process conception of life throws on the screen. The nearest that we are likely to get for a long time to literalism in our social sciences will be in rendering the on-goings of the life-process in some variation of these terms: Everything that occurs among men is a certain reaction of the physical forces; beyond that it is more distinctively evolving processes first of knowing, then of feeling or judgment valuations, in view of concurrently evolving purposes, and of choices converging toward those purposes. The only possible vindication for an intellectual movement is that people after a while find themselves thinking its way. It is as evident that all thinking about social relations is setting irresistibly toward sociological channels, as that all our thinking is affected by Darwin. The solemn men, who return from reading the signs of the times with reports that there is nothing in sociology, deserve a stanza in the old song of Noah's neighbors. They knew it wasn't going to be much of a shower. CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM IN AMERICA JOHN SPARGO The most remarkable recent development of socialism in America is the phase of the movement represented by the Christian Socialist Fellowship. Almost every country in the world has its Christian-socialist movement, but only in the United States is there a perfectly harmonious and intimate relation between it and the regular socialist political party. England is the classic home of so-called Christian socialism. Little more is implied by the term, in England, than a philanthropic attitude toward the poor and the oppressed. Among the members of the various Christian-socialistic organizations there are many earnest and sincere men and women who accept the full political programme without reserve and loyally support it. But most of the members do not. They content themselves with preaching an ethical propaganda of human brotherhood, and, on the practical side, with reform movements, such as co-operative trading, anti-sweating crusades, relief colonies for the unemployed, and the promotion of the use of leadless-glaze pottery— all very commendable works, but not fundamentally related to socialism as that term is rightly understood. To one familiar with the writings of Frederic Denison Maurice, the founder of English Christian socialism, it is evident enough that he was not in sympathy with the great fundamental changes contemplated by the socialist of today. His desire was to "christianize socialism," by which he could not have meant more than to supplant socialism by Christianity. The spirit of Maurice largely prevails in the Christian-socialist movement today, and to find prominent Christian socialists opposing the socialist candidates at election time, and supporting anti-socialists, is not unusual. The Christian-socialistic movement of Germany-the movement started and led by the Protestants, Pastor Todt, and the late Dr. Stöcker-has long been the subject of merciless criticism by those who denied its right to be considered either Christian or socialist. On its economic side, at least, Pastor Todt's work was originally quite in harmony with the Marxian socialist theory, but the aggressive "atheism" of the leaders of the social-Democratic party developed in him a sort of mania. Starting out to convert the social democrats from this cardinal error, he and his friends became more and more concerned with fighting the socialists upon the religious issue than with supporting them upon the economic issue. For many years the Mucker-Socialismus of the Christian socialists has taken the form of bitter opposition to the social-democratic party. It has stood for the reactionary policy of strengthening the monarchical power, to make the sovereign absolute and independent of parliament, and for that most detestable of propagandas, at once repulsive to Christian and socialist ethics, anti-Semitism. It is easy to understand the intense, immeasurable hatred and contempt of the average German socialist for this kind of Christian socialism, and the spread of that hatred and contempt to other lands. In the United States we have, happily, never had Christian socialism of the German, Todt-Stöcker brand. We have always had a few Christian socialists of the Kingsley-Maurice type, mostly confining their activities to the Protestant Episcopal church, and never coming into contact with the actual socialist movement. But the Christian Socialist Fellowship represents neither of these types. It is concerned only with the carrying of the doctrines of socialism as taught by the socialist party to the Christian church. It has thus a very close relation to the political socialist movement. When one reflects that the socialist movement in America was for many years, and until very recent times, almost exclusively composed of Germans, and that the German influence, while rapidly declining, is still quite an important factor in the movement, it will be easy to understand the consternation with which the formation of the Christian Socialist Fellowship, by active members of the socialist party, was viewed. Here, indeed, was treason to the cause! That some of the most prominent and |