What has been deemed, however, in Christianity the most unrealizable ideal is that which may be called pacifism—­to resist not evil, to turn the other cheek, to agree with your adversary while you are in the way with him.  “I come not,” said Jesus, in one of those paradoxical statements hitherto so difficult to understand, “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.”  It is indeed what we are fighting for—­peace.  But we believe today, more strongly than ever before, as democracy advances, as peoples tend to gain more and more control over their governments, that even this may not be an unrealizable ideal.  Democracies, intent on self-realization and self-development, do not desire war.

The problem of social science, then, appears to be to organize human society on the principles and ideals of Christianity.  But in view of the fact that the trend of evolution is towards the elimination of commercial competition, the question which must seriously concern us today is—­What in the future shall be the spur of individual initiative?  Orthodoxy and even democratic practice have hitherto taken it for granted—­in spite of the examples of highly socialized men, benefactors of society—­that the average citizen will bestir himself only for material gain.  And it must be admitted that competition of some sort is necessary for self-realization, that human nature demands a prize.  There can be no self-sacrifice without a corresponding self-satisfaction.  The answer is that in the theory of democracy, as well as in that of Christianity, individualism and co-operation are paradoxically blended.  For competition, Christianity substitutes emulation.  And with democracy, it declares that mankind itself can gradually be rained towards the level of the choice individual who does not labour for gain, but in behalf of society.  For the process of democracy is not degrading, but lifting.  Like Christianity, democracy demands faith, and has as its inspiring interpretation of civilization evolution towards a spiritual goal.  Yet the kind of faith required is no longer a blind faith, but one founded on sane and carefully evolved theories.  Democracy has become a scientific experiment.

In this connection, as one notably inspired by emulation, by the joy of creative work and service, the medical profession comes first to mind.  The finer element in this profession is constantly increasing in numbers, growing more and more influential, making life less easy for the quack, the vendor of nostrums, the commercial proprietor of the bogus medical college.  The doctor who uses his talents for gain is frowned upon by those of his fellow practitioners whose opinion really counts.  Respected physicians in our cities give much of their time to teaching, animating students with their own spirit; and labour long hours, for no material return, in the clinics of the poor.  And how often, in reading our newspapers, do we learn that some medical scientist, by patient work, and