This fundamental change in our way of looking at the life of man is bound to abolish the ancient landmarks and bring confusion for a time.  Out of the new conception, i.e., out of the idea of evolution, has sprung the tumult as well as the strength of our time.  The present age is moved with thoughts beyond the reach of its powers:  great aspirations for the well-being of the people and high ideals of social welfare flash across its mind, to be followed again by thicker darkness.  There is hardly any limit to its despair or hope.  It has a far larger faith in the destiny of man than any of its predecessors, and yet it is sure of hardly anything—­except that the ancient rules of human life are false.  Individualism is now detected as scepticism and moral chaos in disguise.  We know that the old methods are no longer of use.  We cannot now cut ourselves free of the fate of others.  The confused cries for help that are heard on every hand are recognized as the voices of our brethren; and we now know that our fate is involved in theirs, and that the problem of their welfare is also ours.  We grapple with social questions at last, and recognize that the issues of life and death lie in the solution of these enigmas.  Legislators and economists, teachers of religion and socialists, are all alike social reformers.  Philanthropy has taken a deeper meaning; and all sects bear its banner.  But their forces are beaten back by the social wretchedness, for they have not found the sovereign remedy of a great idea; and the result is in many ways sad enough.  Our social remedies often work mischief; for we degrade those whom we would elevate, and in our charity forget justice.  We insist on the rights of the people and the duties of the privileged classes, and thereby tend to teach greed to those for whom we labour, and goodness to those whom we condemn.  The task that lies before us is plain:  we want the welfare of the people as a whole.  But we fail to grasp the complex social elements together, and our very remedies tend to sunder them.  We know that the public good will not be obtained by separating man from man, securing each unit in a charmed circle of personal rights, and protecting it from others by isolation.  We must find a place for the individual within the social organism, and we know now that this organism has not, as our fathers seemed to think, the simple constitution of a wooden doll.  Society is not put together mechanically, and the individual cannot be outwardly attached to it, if he is to be helped, He must rather share its life, be the heir of the wealth it has garnered for him in the past, and participate in its onward movement.  Between this new social ideal and our attainment, between the magnitude of our social duties and the resources of intellect and will at our command, there lies a chasm which we despair of bridging over.