over every section of society, although the greater portion of those affected. would indignantly repudiate the charge and are quite unaware of the source from which their ideals of life are derived. This so-called philosophy appears to have originated with some of the minor thinkers of ancient Greece, but its influence upon modern society arises from its revival and wide diffusion during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The three great thinkers, Galileo, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Huggens and Sir Isaac Newton in the seventeenth, appear to have been the first among physicists to foresee the possibility of elaborating an approximate representation of inanimate nature in the form of a mechanism, or mechanical model, working under definite established laws capable of being ascertained from observed phenomena. The model devised by them was largely extended by other workers, notably by Laplace in his great work on The Mechanism of the Heavens, in the eighteenth century.

The Decay of Feudalism.

Not one of these great thinkers fell into the error of imagining that such a model could ever provide a complete representation, nor that it could dispense with creative intelligence as antecedently necessary for the existence of such an ordered scheme. This antecedent necessity was, however, lost sight of by many thinkers of lower grades in the course of the eighteenth century, and many of them were minds of undoubted depth and acuteness. It was the writings of these men that revived the socalled philosophy of Materailism, and its widespread acceptance in the higher circles of society, especially in France,

led to the decay of the grand principle of feudalism, the essential inseparability of privilege and responsibility. The duties of the landlord to his tenants were lost sight of; and the principle that the property owner was entitled to use but not to abuse his possessions was replaced by the idea of absolute ownership of the right to the abuse as well as to the use of property. This it was which led to the French Revolution and to the destruction of feudalism. In England it led to the industrial abominations of the Manchester School of Economics, as it was called. These principles spread over the civilized world, and although they are now discredited, their bitter fruits are still with us.

Materialism Out of Date.

One of the consequences of the French Revolution was a wide diffusion of the doctrines of Materialism, and this was largely aided by the fact that, owing to the continued success with which the mechanical model was extended to cover various brands of physical science, the attitude of men of science was largely materialistic throughout the greater part of the nineteenth century, although the materialistic tenets were repudiated by philosophy and by every one of the great physicists who stood in the first rank of thinkers. The advance in scientific knowledge during the last few decades, however, has made it plain, not only to the leaders, but to every instructed student of physics that the mechanical model of Nature is nothing more than a first approximation to a representation of the real Universe. Materialism, and therefore also Atheism, have now disappeared from the region of thought. They have, however, unfortunately, largely found

acceptance amongst the ignorant, as the discarded fashions of Fifth Avenue ultimately descend to the Bowery.

The fruits of Materialism are, unhappily, far more difficult to eradicate than its pseudo-philosophy, and their complete destruction will only be achieved after long continued and strenuous effort. Nevertheless, we need not despair of success in the campaign before us, for we now have all the forces of science, of philosophy, and of religion ready to be marshalled against them, and these forces are already playing their several parts in the rapid development of the ethical ideal of the State which is so noteworthy a characteristic of sincere political thought at the present time.

Tracking Down Socialism.

The tracking down of Socialism to its roots embedded in Atheistic Materialism shows that its first and most fundamental menace is the Ethical Menace, and this is the aspect of Socialism which the British Socialist, at any rate, is least anxious to conceal. We have seen that leader of the British Social Democratic party, and who is known by his admirers. as "The Philosopher of British Socialism," is one of the most outspoken. In his Essays in Socialism, a work addressed to Socialists, he writes:

"The saying of Tridon, subsequently repeated by Bebel (the leader of the German Social Democratic party) and others, to the effect that Socialism stands for a system of life and thought expressing itself in economics as communism, in politics as republicanism, and in religion as atheism, embodies in a few words a large measure of truth."

He adds, however, a remarkable cyniccal qualification:

"It may be convenient for Socialists with a view to election expediency to seek to confine the definition of Socialism to the economic issue, abstracted from all the other issues of life and conduct."

The German Socialist Journal Vorwaerts expresses itself with equal cynicism:

"We must guard against compromising ourselves before the people by declaring what we really wish; this would be a want of tactics."

The tactics of this magazine, and of the Anti-Socialists generally, must be to give all the prominence possible to the features which the Socialists are SO anxious to conceal. We have seen that Socialism is absolutely incompatible with Democracy, for as we are told by President Butler of Columbia University:*

Bosses Under Socialism.

"The cornerstone of Democracy is natural inequality, its ideal the selection of the most fit." Socialism, on the other hand, demands the absolute and slavish subjection of the mass of the people to the Socialist bosses. The suppression of personality which is essential to the permanence of a Socialist State will begin by the suppression of man's highest expression of personality, the spiritual faculties, and therefore, Socialism is essentially and necessarily Atheistic, for with the suppression of the spiritual faculties man would necessarily lose every trace of of religious aspiration-would cease to have any ideal higher than his own body and mind; his highest self would have disappeared. Moreover, the process of destruction of the self, or personality, would not yet be complete.

*True and False Democracy, pp. 56, 57.

SOCIALISM is a philosop by madden OCIALISM is a philosophy made up So

since the world began. If I can prove this if I show, by those through whom it speaks and by what it says, that it does not lead the soul of man upward but downward; that its morality is the morality of the beast; its science the cast-off speculations of gropers after light who died generations ago; its logic, idiotic laughter, and its principle evil, I shall have demonstrated that Socialism is bad for a municipality.

What Lunn Would Do.

At heart, I imagine, Dr. Lunn and I have similar sentiment. It is only in the head that we differ. He hates the brutality that rides roughshod over the weak, but he would smash the law, while I would enforce the law; he turns for relief to the red flag of the International, while I look to the institutions that have prospered under the red, white and blue flag of this land, which Abraham Lincoln called "a nation under God." He would tear to pieces the constitution of our republic, and I would crush the men who violate the provisions of our constitution. He sees an economic system, wracking human beings, and I see men violating the laws of their God and their Country.

This is the gulf between Socialism and individualism. Individualism holds each man to a moral responsibility; Socialism weakens the individual sense of responsibility and creates a vague, indefinite, blind and irresponsible determinative, at the door of which it places the blame for all the woes of this world. Its greatest professors make this factor universal in its influence? Pure monists, they believe in the existence of nothing but matter and assert boldly the all-comprehensive effect of what they have denominated "economic determinism."

A Divided Allegiance.

Dr. Lunn is naturally a little bit mixed about this because his allegiance is divided. He, as a Christian minister and Socialist prophet attempts to realize the impossible dream of a soldier obeying two opposing generals at the same time. He has attained a dualism inconceivable outside a nightmare. He is a Christian and a Socialist; a minister of God and a preacher of Marx, who asserts. that no God exists; he takes off his hat to two flags; and with uncannily-consistent inconsistency, uphold two flicting propositions-one that the will of God is determinative, the other that the vagaries of economics are determinative.

I have read as many of Dr. Lunn's sermons and speeches as I can find, and this is what I read: that there are certain sins committed by men which meet with his heart-whole disapprobation. He is conscientiously opposed to robbery. He hates murder-at least that kind of murder that kills men and women by overwork and starvation. These are the two points upon which he expresses himself with clearness and with a passionate ring that is re-echoed in the hearts of all men who are not brutes. What else he says is the veriest mist of words-a fog of idealism produced by the mixture of Marxian Socialism and Christian philosophy.

Crime Long Condemned.

on

Now, robbery and murder were condemned before Dr. Lunn was born; before Marx was born; before economic determinism was enunciated; before the materialistic conception of history was conceived. High on the mountain an intelligent, just, personal God prohibited these crimes, and down from the mountain came Moses to show the Israelites the tables of stone on which he had written the divine commands: "Thou shalt not kill;" "Thou shalt not steal." There were other things written these tables, some trace of which we might expect to find in the message of a Christian minister, but they jar with every precept of Socialism-"Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother;" "Thou shalt not lie;" "Thou shalt not bear false witness;" "Thou shalt not commit adultery;" "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods;" "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." These are the commandments for which Socialism proposes to substitute a new conception of morality. Socialism teaches

covetousness as hardly less than a sacred duty, for Socialism differs from all other political movements that the world has known, in that it voices no cry for human freedom. Its whole tendency is compulsory. "A compulsory education without breakfast," said Dr. Lunn to the Unity Child Welfare Society, according to the Brooklyn Eagle, "is tyranny." That is not true. It is just a catch phrase. How much more true is it, of people who believe in God and pay school taxes, that compulsory education, without God, is tyranny? Such specific governmental changes as Socialism advocates in its national platform in this country are, as the platform itself says in its concluding paragraph:

"A preparation of the workers to seize the whole powers of government, in order that they may therefore lay hold of the whole system of industry and thus come to their rightful inheritance."

An Appeal To Greed.

Its whole appeal is to greed; its sole promise is of material wealth; it holds no suggestion that is not sordid. There is not a single appeal to unselfishness. "Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's goods," is the sum and substance of its commandments.

Ages ago men in this world groped for light. The experience of every tribe that peopled the world was an approximation of the truth with respect to the creation and the governance of the universe. Then, revealed religion swept away the mist and definitely limned the perfect plan of the Creator.

Now comes a philosophy declaring, as a first premise, that the blazing heavens contain nothing but matter;