66

very poor" families, 269 from families in moderate circumstances, and only 19 from families in comfortable circumstances. "In but few cases," we are told, "was the home life such as to stimulate a good boy in good intentions, much less to deter one, whose tendencies are evil, from the commission of crime." Of the offenses committed, 521 were of a burglarious character; 69 robberies, or attempts to rob; 295 larcenies, or attempts at or in aid of larceny; and 73 were of different character. Most of these crimes would seem to be largely traceable to poverty. If the boys had had good homes and had been given a fair education, especially a trade and a fair "chance in the world," the vast majority would never have become criminals. Certainly, these boys, when once they were given a practical education and a chance, became useful men, and surely it is wiser to give them such help before they become criminals than it is to allow them to fall and then reform them.

However, it is vain to dream of a good time coming, when society shall cease to produce criminals. It is certainly quite possible to improve social, industrial, and political conditions, especially in our large cities, and this is the supreme desideratum; but still there will be a need of reformatory institutions, and it is very encouraging to note that these institutions are being conducted on more rational and humane principles that they were fifty or even twenty-five years ago.

CHICAGO PARENTAL SCHOOL.

T. H. MACQUEARY.

THE EVANGELICAL SOCIAL CONGRESS IN GERMANY.1

THE Evangelical Social Congress in Germany is a unique institution. No other country, so far as I know, has produced a similar society. An association of men and women who are held together by the desire "to make fruitful the forces of faith and love in contest with the social evils and dangers of the age," may count upon interest in all places where similar tasks are undertaken with different means. The experience and development of this society is typical of what may be accomplished in this field by "Christian Socialism," and may prove instructive

for other countries.

The first period of the Congress is now at its end. This stage is marked by the resignation of the former president, by the fact that for a full half-year a new president was sought in vain, and that, at last, the celebrated church historian, Professor Harnack, in November of last year, consented to accept the position. During the half-year while the search for a president was going on, the possibilities of the future were carefully considered. It was proposed by some to dissolve the Congress and give its work to one of the other organizations which had inscribed social reform upon their banners-the Society for Social Politics, whose leader is Professor Schmoller, or, better still, the Society for Social Reform, which was founded by the former Prussian minister, Freiherr von Berlepsch, in the year 1901. The conviction was frequently expressed that the Congress had fulfilled the greater part of its task; that there was no urgent reason for its continuance; there was much discouragement among the leaders, and the difficulties were great.

Apparently the obstacles have been for the time overcome; for while such a man as Harnack stands at the head of the Congress there will be no lack of celebrated orators and enthusiastic hearers. The Congress may live for a decade on the world-wide 'Translated by C. R. HENDERson.

fame of its president. Whether the internal difficulties can be overcome is a question.

In order to understand these difficulties we must recall the course of the development of the Congress during the thirteen years of its existence. What did it seek to achieve? What has actually been done? What can we assert to be the result of its labors ?

The Congress was founded at Whitsuntide in the year 1890. That year was the beginning of a new internal policy in Germany. It was the year in which William II. began to act as his own chancellor. On March 20 he had dismissed Prince Bismarck; on October I the so-called "Socialist Laws" expired, and Social Democracy was no longer a crime; on February 4 William II. had already published his social message, in which he promised to further the demands of the workingmen for legal protection; and at the same time he called Freiherr von Berlepsch to be his minister. In brief, it seemed that after the oppressive measures of Bismarck a time of conciliation had arrived, and of social help and reform. The highest church authority in Prussia, the Prussian superior church council, urged the clergy to give attention to the social question, and to go into the assemblies of the socialists and discuss with them religion and patriotism.

Out of this hopeful sentiment the Evangelical Social Congress was born. Clergymen and laymen came together to form a society which should aid the church to co-operate in the social reform movement, to prepare the way and to clarify thought. In Germany every work of this kind meets obstacles, not only in conflicting social views, but also in the divisions of theological doctrines, the splitting of scientific theology into various schools, and the deep chasm which sunders almost all ecclesiastical groups. The historical and critical labors of theological science and the traditional creed of the popular church hinder common practical work and keep alive suspicion. It was a great and promising beginning for the Evangelical Social Congress that the leader of scientific theology, Professor Harnack, and one of the chief leaders of the orthodox clergy, Court Preacher Stöcker, joined hands. It was upon Stöcker's proposal that the Congress adopted the

broad platform on which men of almost all tendencies could stand. For president a member of the middle party, a layman, was

chosen.

The fundamental idea of all tendencies was: "to investigate the social conditions of our people without prejudice, to test them by the standard of the moral and religious requirements of the gospel, and to make this gospel itself more fruitful for our economic life." That was the goal. In what way it could be reached, to what particular program it might lead, there was no generally accepted opinion. It was precisely the purpose of the congress to clarify the fundamental thought, and work a way toward particular practical measures.

Has this end been attained during the thirteen years of the life of the Congress? Is there any unified evangelical-social program? Are there demands on which all Evangelical Christians can unite? And has legislation at any point been set in motion by means of the discussions of the Congress? All these questions must today be answered in the negative. Even more: the only result of the work of the Congress has been the proof that an evangelical-social program for specific Christian social measures, derived from the nature of Christianity by a necessary logic, is impossible. Various and conflicting as have been the themes and arguments of the discussion, all come to the conclusion that an economic program cannot be deduced from Christianity; that Christianity cannot be used to further the present industrial order nor to destroy socialism. "Christianity is independent of the economic system, and is consistent with any form of economic life. The economic order has its own laws and is independent of Christianity" (Professor Kaftan, 1893). “To oppose the economic ends for which workingmen strive, under the leadership of Social Democracy, in the name of Christianity, would be un-Christian" (Professor Herrmann, 1892). It remains to the church and the pastors, as the representatives of the Christian point of view, to remind men that the development of morai personality should not suffer under social wrongs; they should call attention to such evils as obstruct the development of a moral life; but it is outside the peculiar duty of the church

and of Christianity to point out the particular methods of improvement. "In respect to special social-economical measures (state ownership, land reform, labor hours, price regulations, taxation, insurance, labor unions, etc.) the church cannot form a party, nor compel its members to take a side; since a decision of these questions demands expert knowledge which has nothing to do with Christianity, and the power of the state is required" (Harnack, 1894). "Since the social life has its own laws, and is conditioned by the general conditions of life and culture, the church must leave the problem of social measures to those whose special training makes them responsible" (Pastor von Soden, 1896).

These expressions interpret the fundamental idea of the Congress, that the economic life of the present should be helpfully influenced by the forces of the Gospel. These powers cannot be transformed into a fixed program; the church cannot be used as a political party for pushing a reform. The only practical duty remaining is the care of parish life and the testing of social conditions by moral principles. A working program for action the Congress no longer has; it is now only a society for formulating ethical instruction, for awakening conscience and sympathy; but not a group for carrying out a plan of action.

This was a necessary order of development. At the first many of the members were eager to proceed at once to some practical effort; but this impulse did not find expression after the second session. Ever more decisively was the purely inspiring and ethical character of the goal of the Congress emphasized. A principal reason was the broad platform which the Congress was compelled to adopt if it did not at once dash itself on the rocks of partisan interests. But this very ecumenical character made practical effort impossible. Whoever will represent socialpolitical demands must plunge into the strife of political parties and defend his measures. Very soon we should have been driven to Social Democracy, because no other party had taken up the desired measures. But the un-Christian factor in Social Democracy made this impossible; and the participants in the Congress remained members of their own political parties. The