Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/366

 348 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

demanded a hearing, as specially accredited apostles of social righteousness. Christian sanity, in dealing with social questions, involves, on the one hand, the most patient study of the fun- damental ethics disclosed in the New Testament, and, on the other hand, thorough analytical study of the complexities of our modern social conditions. To revert to the main illustration of this paper, no man has a right to say what Jesus would call "fair distribution" among modern men, till our knowledge of cause and effect in our present industrial system reveals to us clearer theorems of fairness and unfairness under present relations.

But the zealots say : " This gives no chance for social ideals ! This does not allow us to exhort men to do the better things that they know ! " Men of the impetuous type that I have in mind demand: "Is the 'law of love' no index of social duty? May we not exhort men, 'Do to others as you would have them do to you ' ? " I answer, yes, of course, and no one will denounce more stoutly than I any violation of these laws. No one will exhort more loyally than I for obedience to these social princi- ples. But let us not throw dust in each other's eyes, while we are professing to show what these laws reveal.

An illustration occurs to me from Dr. Mitchell's Hugh Wynne, Quaker. The father, the mother, and the rich aunt each sin- cerely loved Hugh, the hero of the story. The father's love followed one set of judgments, and he did what he could to spoil his son by over-severity. The aunt's love obeyed another set of judgments, and she did what she could to spoil the boy by over-indulgence. The mother's love listened to a third sys- tem of judgments, and she was in a fair way to make both evil influences effective by irresolute and inconsistent mediation. What was the trouble ? Love was the law of each. Why did not love direct the three persons alike and rightly ? Because there is a difference between the feeling of love and \he prin- ciple of love and the programme of love. This difference is what our zealous agitators in the name of Christian righteous- ness do not understand.

The feeling of love may be described as the sentiment of devotion to the good of its object. This feeling alone is literally