{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_10642/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_10642","id":"gutenberg_10642","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10642","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Civilization","Social problems","Sociology","World War I"],"text":"TOWARDS THE GREAT PEACE\n\nBY\n\nRALPH ADAMS CRAM, LITT.D., LL.D.\n\n\n\n1922\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nFor the course of lectures I am privileged to deliver at this time, I\ndesire to take, in some sense as a text, a prayer that came to my\nattention at the outset of my preparatory work. It is adapted from a\nprayer by Bishop Hacket who flourished about the middle of the\nseventeenth century, and is as follows:\n\n    _Lord, lift us out of Private-mindedness and give us Public\n    souls to work for Thy Kingdom by daily creating that Atmosphere\n    of a happy temper and generous heart which alone can bring the\n    Great Peace._\n\nEach thought in this noble aspiration is curiously applicable to each\none of us in the times in which we fall: the supersession of narrow and\nselfish and egotistical \"private-mindedness\" by a vital passion for the\nwinning of a Kingdom of righteousness consonant with the revealed will\nof God; the lifting of souls from nervous introspection to a height\nwhere they become indeed \"public souls\"; the accomplishing of the\nKingdom not by great engines of mechanical power but by the daily\noffices of every individual; the substitution in place of current\nhatred, fear and jealous covetousness, of the unhappy temper and\n\"generous heart\" which are the only fruitful agencies of accomplishment.\nFinally, the \"Great Peace\" as the supreme object of thought and act and\naspiration for us, and for all the world, at this time of crisis which\nhas culminated through the antithesis of great peace, which is great\nwar.\n\nI have tried to keep this prayer of Bishop Hacket's before me during the\npreparation of these lectures. I cannot claim that I have succeeded in\nachieving a \"happy temper\" in all things, but I honestly claim that I\nhave striven earnestly for the \"generous heart,\" even when forced, by\nwhat seem to me the necessities of the case, to indulge in condemnation\nor to bring forward subjects which can only be controversial. If the\n\"Great War,\" and the greater war which preceded, comprehended, and\nfollowed it, were the result of many and varied errors, it matters\nlittle whether these were the result of perversity, bad judgment or the\nmost generous impulses. As they resulted in the Great War, so they are a\ndetriment to the Great Peace that must follow, and therefore they must\nbe cast away. Consciousness of sin, repentance, and a will to do better,\nmust precede the act of amendment, and we must see where we have erred\nif we are to forsake our ill ways and make an honest effort to strive\nfor something better.\n\nFor every failure I have made to achieve either a happy temper or a\ngenerous heart, I hereby express my regret, and tender my apologies in\nadvance.\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nLECTURE\n\n          INTRODUCTION\n\n    I.    A WORLD AT THE CROSSROADS\n\n   II.    A WORKING PHILOSOPHY\n\n  III.    THE SOCIAL ORGANISM\n\n   IV.    THE INDUSTRIAL PROBLEM\n\n    V.    THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY\n\n   VI.    THE FUNCTION OF EDUCATION AND ART\n\n  VII.    THE PROBLEM OF ORGANIC RELIGION\n\n VIII.    PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY\n\n          APPENDIX A\n\n          APPENDIX B\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTOWARDS THE GREAT PEACE\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nA WORLD AT THE CROSSROADS\n\nFor two thousand years Christianity has been an operative force in the\nworld; for more than a century democracy has been the controlling\ninfluence in the public affairs of Europe and the Americas; for two\ngenerations education, free, general and comprehensive, has been the\nrule in the West. Wealth incomparable, scientific achievements\nunexampled in their number and magnitude, facile means of swift\nintercommunication between peoples, have all worked together towards an\nearthly realization of the early nineteenth-century dream of proximate\nand unescapable millennium. With the opening of the second decade of the\ntwentieth century it seemed that the stage was set for the last act in\nan unquestioned evolutionary drama. Man was master of all things, and\nthe failures of the past were obliterated by the glory of the imminent\nevent.\n\nThe Great War was a progressive revelation and disillusionment. Therein,\neverything so carefully built up during the preceding four centuries was\ntried as by fire, and each failed--save the indestructible qualities of\npersonal honour, courage and fortitude. Nothing corporate, whether\nsecular or ecclesiastical, endured the test, nothing of government or\nadministration, of science or industry, of philosophy or religion. The\nvictories were those of individual character, the things that stood the\ntest were not things but _men._\n\nThe \"War to end war,\" the war \"to make the world safe for democracy\"\ncame to a formal ending, and for a few hours the world gazed spellbound\non golden hopes. Greater than the disillusionment of war was that of the\nmaking of the peace. There had never been a war, not even the \"Thirty\nYears' War\" in Germany, the \"Hundred Years' War\" in France or the wars\nof Napoleon, that was fraught with more horror, devastation and\ndishonour; there had never been a Peace, not even those of Berlin,\nVienna and Westphalia, more cynical or more deeply infected with the\npoison of ultimate disaster. And here it was not things that failed, but\n_men._\n\nWhat of the world since the Peace of Versailles? Hatred, suspicion,\nselfishness are the dominant notes. The nations of Europe are bankrupt\nfinancially, and the governments of the world are bankrupt politically.\nSociety is dissolving into classes and factions, either at open war or\nmanoeuvering for position, awaiting the favourable moment. Law and order\nare mocked at, philosophy and religion disregarded, and of all the\nvaried objects of human veneration so loudly acclaimed and loftily\nexalted by the generation that preceded the war, not one remains to\ncommand a wide allegiance. One might put it in a sentence and say that\neveryone is dissatisfied with everything, and is showing his feelings\nafter varied but disquieting fashion. It is a condition of unstable\nequilibrium constantly tending by its very nature to a point where\ndissolution is apparently inevitable.\n\nIt is no part of my task to elaborate this thesis, and still less to\nmagnify its perils. Enough has been said and written on this subject\nduring the last two years; more than enough, perhaps, and in any case no\nthinking person is unaware of the conditions that exist, whatever may be\nhis estimate of their significance, his interpenetration of their\ntendency. I have set myself the task of trying to suggest some\nconstructive measures that we may employ in laying the foundations for\nthe immediate future; they may be wrong in whole or in part, but at\nleast my object and motive are not recrimination or invective, but\nregeneration. Nevertheless, as a foundation the case must be stated, and\nas a necessary preparation to any work that looks forward we must have\nat least a working hypothesis as to how the conditions that need\nredemption were brought about. I state the case thus, therefore: That\nhuman society, even humanity itself, is now in a state of flux that at\nany moment may change into a chaos comparable only with that which came\nwith the fall of classical civilization and from which five centuries\nwere necessary for the process of recovery. Christianity, democracy,\nscience, education, wealth, and the cumulative inheritance of a thousand\nyears, have not preserved us from the vain repetition of history. How\nhas this been possible, what has been the sequence of events that has\nbrought us to this pass?\n\nIt is of course the result of the interaction of certain physical,\nmaterial facts and certain spiritual forces. Out of these spiritual\nenergies come events, phenomena that manifest themselves in political,\nsocial, ecclesiastical transactions and institutions; in wars,\nmigrations and the reshaping of states; in codes of law, the\norganization of society, the development of art, literature and science.\nIn their turn all these concrete products work on the minds and souls of\nmen, modifying old spiritual impulses either by exaltation or\ndegradation, bringing new ones into play; and again these react on the\nmaterial fabric of human life, causing new combinations, unloosing new\nforces, that in their turn play their part in the eternal process of\nbuilding, unbuilding and rebuilding our unstable and fluctuant world.\n\nUnderlying all the varied material forms of ancient society, as this\ndeveloped around the shores of the Mediterranean, was the great fact of\nslavery: Persia, Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, all were\nsmall, sometimes very small, minorities of highly developed, highly\nprivileged individuals existing on a great sub-stratum of slaves. All\nthe vast contributions of antiquity in government and law, in science,\nletters, art and philosophy, all the building of the culture and\ncivilization that still remain the foundation stones of human society,\nwas the work of the few free subsisting on the many un-free. But\nfreedom, liberty, is an attribute of the soul and it may exist even when\nthe body is in bondage. The slaves of antiquity were free neither in\nbody nor in soul, but with the coming of Christianity all this was\nchanged, for it is one of the great glories of the Christian religion\nthat it gave freedom to the soul even before the Church could give\nfreedom to the body of the slave. After the fall of the Roman Empire,\nand with the infiltration of the free races of the North, slavery\ngradually disappeared, and between the years 1000 and 1500 a very real\nliberty existed as the product of Christianity and under its protection.\nSociety was hierarchical: from the serf up through the peasant, the\nguildsman, the burgher, the knighthood, the nobles, to the King, and so\nto the Emperor, there was a regular succession of graduations, but the\nlines of demarcation were fluid and easily passed, and as through the\nChurch, the schools and the cloister there was an open road for the son\nof a peasant to achieve the Papacy, so through the guilds, chivalry, war\nand the court, the layman, if he possessed ability, might from an humble\nbeginning travel far. An epoch of real liberty, of body, soul and mind,\nand the more real in that limits, differences and degrees were\nrecognized, accepted and enforced.\n\nThis condition existed roughly for five centuries in its swift rise, its\nlong dominion and its slow decline, that is to say, from 1000 A.D. to\n1500 A.D. There was still the traditional aristocracy, now feudal rather\nthan patriarchal or military; there was still a servile class, now\nreduced to a small minority. In between was the great body of men of a\ndegree of character, ability and intelligence, and with a recognized\nstatus, the like of which had never been seen before. It was not a\nbourgeoisie, for it was made up of producers,--agricultural, artisan,\ncraft, art, mechanic; a great free society, the proudest product of\nChristian civilization.\n\nWith the sixteenth century began a process of change that was to\noverturn all this and bring in something radically different. The\nRenaissance and the Reformation worked in a sense together to build up\ntheir own expressive form of society, and when this process had been\ncompleted we find still an aristocracy, though rapidly changing in the\nquality of its personnel and in the sense of its relationship to the\nrest of society; a servile class, the proletariat, enormously increased\nin proportion to the other social components; and two new classes, one\nthe bourgeoisie, essentially non-producers and subsisting largely either\non trade, usury or management, and the pauper, a phase of life hitherto\nlittle known under the Christian regime. The great body of free citizens\nthat had made up the majority of society during the preceding epoch, the\nsmall land-holders, citizens, craftsmen and artists of fifty different\nsorts, has begun rapidly to dissolve, has almost vanished by the middle\nof the seventeenth century, and in another hundred years has practically\ndisappeared.\n\nWhat had become of them, of this great bulk of the population of western\nEurope that, with the feudal aristocracy, the knighthood and the monks\nhad made Mediaevalism? Some had degenerated into bourgeois traders,\nmanagers and financeers, but the great majority had been crushed down\nand down in the mass of submerged proletariat, losing liberty,\ndegenerating in character, becoming more and more servile in status and\nwretched in estate, so forming a huge, inarticulate, dully ebullient\nmass, cut off from society, cut off almost from life itself.\n\nI must insist on these three factors in the development of society and\nits present catastrophe: the great, predominant, central body of free\nmen during the Middle Ages, their supersession during the sixteenth,\nseventeenth and eighteenth centuries by a non-producing bourgeoisie, and\nthe creation during the same period of a submerged proletariat. They are\nfactors of great significance and potential force.\n\nTowards the end of the eighteenth century the industrial-financial\nrevolution began. Within the space of an hundred years came all the\nrevelations of the potential inherent in thermo-dynamics and\nelectricity, and the invention of the machines that have changed the\nworld. During the Renaissance and Reformation the old social and\neconomic systems, so laboriously built up on the ruins of Roman tyranny,\nhad been destroyed; autocracy had abolished liberty, licentiousness had\nwrecked the moral stamina, \"freedom of conscience\" had obliterated the\nguiding and restraining power of the old religion. The field was clear\nfor a new dispensation.\n\nWhat happened was interesting and significant. Coal and iron, and their\nderivatives--steam and machinery--rapidly revealed their possibilities.\nTo take advantage of these, it was necessary that labour should be\navailable in large quantities and freely subject to exploitation; that\nunlimited capital should be forthcoming; that adequate markets should be\ndiscovered or created to absorb the surplus product, so enormously\ngreater than the normal demand; and finally, it was necessary that\ndirectors and organizers and administrators should be ready at the call.\nThe conditions of the time made all these possible. The land-holding\npeasantry of England--and it is here that the revolution was\naccomplished--had been largely dispossessed and pauperized under Henry\nVIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth, while the development of the wool-growing\nindustry had restricted the arable land to a point where it no longer\ngave employment to the mass of field labourers. The first blast of\nfactory production threw out of work the whole body of cottage weavers,\nsmiths, craftsmen; and the result was a great mass of men, women, and\nchildren without defense, void of all rights, and given the alternative\nof submission to the dominance of the exploiters, or starvation.\n\nWithout capital the new industry could neither begin nor continue. The\nexploits of the \"joint-stock companies\" invented and perfected in the\neighteenth century, showed how this capital could easily be obtained,\nwhile the paralyzing and dismemberment of the Church during the\nReformation had resulted in the abrogation of the old ecclesiastical\ninhibition against usury. The necessary capital was forthcoming, and the\nfoundations were laid for the great system of finance which was one of\nthe triumphant achievements of the last century.\n\nThe question of markets was more difficult. It was clear that, through\nmachinery, the exploitation of labour, and the manipulations of finance,\nthe product would be enormously greater than the local or national\ndemand. Until they themselves developed their own industrial system, the\nother nations of Europe were available, but as this process proceeded\nother markets had to be found; the result was achieved through\nadvertising, i.e., the stimulating in the minds of the general public of\na covetousness for something they had not known of and did not need, and\nthe exploiting of barbarous or undeveloped races in Asia, Africa,\nOceanica. This last task was easily achieved through \"peaceful\npenetration\" and the pre\u00ebmpting of \"spheres of influence.\" In the end\n(i.e., A.D. 1914), the whole world had so been divided, the stimulated\nmarkets showed signs of repletion, and since exaggerated profits meant\nincreasing capital demanding investment, and the improvement in\n\"labour-saving\" devices continued unchecked, the contest for others'\nmarkets became acute, and world-politic was concentrated on the vital\nproblem of markets, lines of communication, and tariffs.\n\nAs for the finding or development of competent organizers and directors,\nthe history of the world since the end of medievalism had curiously\nprovided for this after a fashion that seemed almost miraculous. The\ntype required was different from anything that had been developed\nbefore. Whenever the qualitative standard had been operative, it was\nnecessary that the leaders in any form of creative action should be men\nof highly developed intellect, fine sensibility, wide and penetrating\nvision, nobility of instinct, passion for righteousness, and a\nconsciousness of the eternal force of charity, honour, and service.\nDuring the imperial or decadent stages, courage, dynamic force, the\npassion for adventure, unscrupulousness in the matter of method, took\nthe place of the qualities that marked the earlier periods. In the first\ninstance the result was the great law-givers, philosophers, prophets,\nreligious leaders, and artists of every sort; in the second, the great\nconquerors. Something quite different was now demanded--men who\npossessed some of the qualities needed for the development of\nimperialism, but who were unhampered by the restrictive influences of\nthose who had sought perfection. To organize and administer the new\nindustrial-financial-commercial r\u00e9gime, the leaders must be shrewd,\ningenious, quick-witted, thick-skinned, unscrupulous, hard-headed, and\navaricious; yet daring, dominating, and gifted with keen prevision and\nvivid imagination. These qualities had not been bred under any of the\nMediterranean civilizations, or that of Central Europe in the Middle\nAges, which had inherited so much therefrom. The pursuit of perfection\nalways implies a definite aristocracy, which is as much a goal of effort\nas a noble philosophy, an august civil polity or a great art. This\naristocracy was an accepted and indispensable part of society, and it\nwas always more or less the same in principle, and always the centre and\nsource of leadership, without which society cannot endure. It is true\nthat at the hands of Christianity it acquired a new quality, that of\nservice as contingent on privilege--one might almost say of privilege as\ncontingent on service--and the ideals of honour, chivalry, compassion\nwere established as its object and method of operation even though these\nwere not always achieved, but the result was not a new creation; it was\nan institution as old as society, regenerated and transformed and\nplaying a greater and a nobler part than ever before.\n\nBetween the years 1455 and 1795 this old aristocracy was largely\nexterminated. The Wars of the Roses, the massacres of the Reformation,\nand the Civil Wars in England; the Thirty Years' War in Germany; the\nHundred Years' War, the Wars of Religion, and the Revolution in France\nhad decimated the families old in honour, preserving the tradition of\nculture, jealous of their alliances and their breeding--the natural and\nactual leaders in thought and action. England suffered badly enough as\nthe result of war, with the persecutions of Henry VIII, Edward VI and\nElizabeth, and the Black Death, included for full measure. France\nsuffered also, but Germany fared worst of all. By the end of the Thirty\nYears' War the older feudal nobility had largely disappeared, while the\nclass of \"gentlemen\" had been almost exterminated. In France, until the\nfall of Napoleon III, and in Germany and Great Britain up to the present\nmoment, the recruiting of the formal aristocracy has gone on steadily,\nbut on a different basis and from a different class from anything known\nbefore. Demonstrated personal ability to gain and maintain leadership;\ndistinguished service to the nation in war or statecraft; courage,\nhonour, fealty--these, in general, had been the ground for admission to\nthe ranks of the aristocracy. In general, also, advancement to the ranks\nof the higher nobility was from the class of \"gentlemen,\" though the\nChurch, the universities, and chivalry gave, during the Middle Ages,\nwide opportunity for personal merit to achieve the highest honours.\n\nThrough the wholesale destruction of the representatives of a class that\nfrom the beginning of history had been the directing and creative force\nin civilization, a process began which was almost mechanical. As the\nupper strata of society were planed off by war, pestilence, civil\nslaughter, and assassination, the pressure on the great mass of men\n(peasants, serfs, unskilled labourers, the so-called \"lower classes\")\nwas increasingly relaxed, and very soon the thin film of aristocracy,\nfurther weakened by dilution, broke, and through the crumbling shell\nburst to the surface those who had behind them no tradition but that of\nservility, no comprehension of the ideals of chivalry and honour of the\ngentleman, no stored-up results of education and culture, but only an\nage-long rage against the age-long dominating class, together with the\ninstincts of craftiness, parsimony, and almost savage self-interest.\n\nAs a class, it was very far from being what it was under the Roman\nEmpire; on the other hand, it was equally removed from what it was\nduring the Middle Ages in England, France and the Rhineland. Under\nmediaevalism chattel slavery had disappeared, and the lot of the peasant\nwas a happier one than he had known before. He had achieved definite\nstatus, and the line that separated him from the gentry was very thin\nand constantly traversed, thanks to the accepted system of land tenure,\nthe guilds, chivalry, the schools and universities, the priesthood and\nmonasticism. The Renaissance had rapidly changed all this, however;\nabsolutism in government, dispossession of land, the abolition of the\nguilds, and the collapse of the moral order and of the dominance of the\nChurch, were fast pushing the peasant back into the position he had held\nunder the Roman Empire, and from which Christianity had lifted him. By\n1790 he had been for nearly three centuries under a progressive\noppression that had undone nearly all the beneficent work of the Middle\nAges and made the peasant class practically outlaw, while breaking down\nits character, degrading its morals, increasing its ignorance, and\nbuilding up a sullen rage and an invincible hatred of all that stood\nvisible as law and order in the persons of the ruling class.\n\nFiltering through the impoverished and diluted crust of a dissolving\naristocracy, came this irruption from below. In their own persons\ncertain of these people possessed the qualities and the will which were\nimperative for the organization of the industry, the trade, and the\nfinance that were to control the world for four generations, and produce\nthat industrial civilization which is the basis and the energizing force\nof modernism. Immediately, and with conspicuous ability, they took hold\nof the problem, solved its difficulties, developed its possibilities,\nand by the end of the nineteenth century had made it master of the\nworld.\n\nSimultaneously an equal revolution and reversal was being effected in\ngovernment. The free monarchies of the Middle Ages, beneath which lay\nthe well recognized principle that no authority, human or divine, could\ngive any monarch the right to govern wrong, and that there was such a\nthing (frequently exercised) as lawful rebellion, gave place to the\nabsolutism and autocracy of Renaissance kingship and this, which was\nfostered both by Renaissance and Reformation, became at once the ally of\nthe new forces in society and so furthered the growth as well as the\nmisery and the degradation of the proletariat. In revolt against this\nnew and very evil thing came the republicanism of the eighteenth\ncentury, inspired and directed in large measure by members of the fast\nperishing aristocracy of race, character and tradition. It was a\nsplendid uprising against tyranny and oppression and is best expressed\nin the personalities and the actions of the Constitutional Convention of\nthe United States in 1787 and the States General of France in 1789.\n\nThe movement is not to be confounded with another that synchronizes with\nit, that is to say, democracy, for the two things are radically\ndifferent in their antecedents, their protagonists, their modes of\noperation and their objects. While the one was the aspiration and the\ncreation of the more enlightened and cultured, the representatives of\nthe old aristocracy, the other issued out of the same _milieu_ that was\nresponsible for the new social organism. That is to say; while certain\nof the more shrewd and ingenious were organizing trade, manufacture and\nfinance and developing its autocratic and imperialistic possibilities at\nthe expense of the great mass of their blood-brothers, others of the\nsame social antecedents were devising a new theory, and experimenting in\nnew schemes, of government, which would take all power away from the\nclass that had hitherto exercised it and fix it firmly in the hands of\nthe emancipated proletariat. This new model was called then, and is\ncalled now, democracy. Elsewhere I have tried to distinguish between\ndemocracy of theory and democracy of method. Perhaps I should have used\na more lucid nomenclature if I had simply distinguished between\nrepublicanism and democracy, for this is what it amounts to. The former\nis as old as man, and is part of the \"passion for perfection\" that\ncharacterizes all crescent society, and is indeed the chief difference\nbetween brute and human nature; it means the guaranteeing of justice,\nand may be described as consisting of abolition of privilege, equality\nof opportunity, and utilization of ability. Democracy of method consists\nin a variable and uncertain sequence of devices which are supposed to\nachieve the democracy of ideal, but as a matter of fact have thus far\nusually worked in the opposite direction. The activity of this movement\nsynchronizes with the pressing upward of the \"the masses\" through the\ndissolving crust of \"the classes,\" and represents their contribution to\nthe science of political philosophy, as the contribution of the latter\nis current \"political economy.\"\n\nIt will be perceived that the reaction of the new social force in the\ncase of industrial organization is fundamentally opposed to that which\noccurred in the political sphere. The one is working steadily towards an\nautocratic imperialism and the \"servile state,\" the other towards the\nfluctuating, incoherent control of the making and administering of laws\nby the untrained, the uncultivated, and the generally unfit, the issue\nof which is anarchy. The industrial-commercial-financial oligarchy that\ndominated society for the century preceding the Great War is the result\nof the first; Russia, today, is an exemplar of the second. The working\nout of these two great devices of the new force released by the\ndestructive processes of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth\ncenturies, simultaneously though in apparent opposition, explains why,\nwhen the war broke out, imperialism and democracy synchronized so\nexactly: on the one hand, imperial states, industry, commerce, and\nfinance; on the other, a swiftly accelerating democratic system that was\nat the same time the effective means whereby the dominant imperialism\nworked, and the omnipresent and increasing threat to its further\ncontinuance.\n\nA full century elapsed before victory became secure, or even proximate.\nRepublicanism rapidly extended itself to all the governments of western\nEurope, but it could not maintain itself in its primal integrity. Sooner\nhere, later there, it surrendered to the financial, industrial,\ncommercial forces that were taking over the control and direction of\nsociety, becoming partners with them and following their aims, conniving\nat their schemes, and sharing in their ever-increasing profits. By the\nend of the first decade of the twentieth century these supposedly \"free\"\ngovernments had become as identified with \"special privilege,\" and as\nwidely severed from the people as a whole, as the autocratic governments\nof the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, while they failed\nconsistently to match them in effectiveness, energy and efficiency of\noperation.\n\nFor this latter condition democracy was measurably responsible. For\nfifty years it had been slowly filtering into the moribund republican\nsystem until at last, during the same first decade of the present\ncentury, it had wholly transformed the governmental system, making it,\nwhatever its outward form, whether constitutional monarchy, or republic,\nessentially democratic. So government became shifty, opportunist,\nincapable, and without the inherent energy to resist, beyond a certain\npoint, the last great effort of the emergent proletariat to destroy, not\nalone the industrial civilization it justly detested, but the very\ngovernment it had acquired by \"peaceful penetration\" and organized and\nadministered along its chosen lines, and indeed the very fabric of\nsociety itself.\n\nNow these two remarkable products of the new mentality of a social force\nwere facts, but they needed an intellectual or philosophical\njustification just as a low-born profiteer, when he has acquired a\ncertain amount of money, needs an expensive club or a coat of arms to\nregularize his status. Protestantism and materialistic philosophy were\njoint nursing-mothers to modernism, but when, by the middle of the last\ncentury, it had reached man's estate, they proved inadequate; something\nelse was necessary, and this was furnished to admiration by\nevolutionism. Through its doctrine of the survival of the fittest, it\nappeared to justify in the fullest degree the gospel of force as the\nfinal test, and \"enlightened self-interest\" as the new moral law;\nthrough its lucid demonstration of the strictly physical basis of life,\nthe \"descent of man\" from primordial slime by way of the lemur or the\nanthropoid ape, and the non-existence of any supernatural power that had\ndevised, or could determine, a code of morality in which certain things\nwere eternal by right, and other than the variable reactions of very\nhighly developed animals to experience and environment, it had given\nweighty support to the increasingly popular movement towards democracy\nboth in theory and in act.\n\nIts greatest contribution, however, was its argument that, since the\ninvariable law of life was one of progressive evolution, therefore the\nacquired characteristics which formed the material of evolution, and\nwere heritable, could be mechanically increased in number by education;\nhence the body of inheritance (which unfortunately varied as between man\nand man because of past discrepancies in environment, opportunities, and\neducation) could be equalized by a system of teaching that aimed to\nfurnish that mental and physical training hitherto absent.\n\nWhether the case was ever so stated in set terms does not matter; very\nshortly this became the firm conviction of the great mass of men, and\nthe modern democracy of method is based on the belief that all men are\nequal because they are men, and that free, compulsory, secularized,\nstate-controlled education can and does remove the last difference that\nmade possible any discrimination in rights and privileges as between one\nman and another.\n\nIn another respect, however, the superstition of mechanical evolution\nplayed an important part, and with serious results. Neither the prophets\nnor the camp-followers seemed to realize that evolution, while\nundoubtedly a law of life within certain limits, was inseparable from\ndegradation which was its concomitant, that is to say, that as the\nrocket rises so must it fall; as man is conceived, born and matures,\neven so must he die. The wave rises, but falls again; the state waxes to\ngreatness, wanes, and the map knows it no more; each epoch of human\nhistory arises out of dim beginnings, magnifies itself in glory, and\nthen yields to internal corruption, dilution and adulteration of blood,\nor prodigal dissipation of spiritual force, and takes its place in the\nannals of ancient history. Without recognition of this implacable,\nunescapable fact of degradation sequent on evolution, the later becomes\na delusion and an instrument of death, for the eyes of man are blind to\nincipient or crescent dangers; content, self-secure, lost in a vain\ndream of manifest destiny they are deaf to warnings, incapable even of\nthe primary gestures of self-defense. Such was one of the results of\nnineteenth-century evolutionism, and the generation that saw the last\nyears of the nineteenth century and the first part of the new, basking\nin its day dreams of self-complacency, made no move to avert the dangers\nthat threatened it then and now menace it with destruction.\n\nWhen, therefore, modernism achieved its grand climacteric in July, 1914,\nwe had on the one hand an imperialism of force, in industry, commerce,\nand finance, expressing itself through highly developed specialists, and\ndictating the policies and practices of government, society, and\neducation; on the other, a democracy of form which denied, combated, and\ndestroyed distinction in personality and authority in thought, and\ndiscouraged constructive leadership in the intellectual, spiritual, and\nartistic spheres of activity. The opposition was absolute, the results\ncatastrophic. The lack of competent leadership in every category of life\nfinds a sufficient explanation in the two opposed forces, in their\norigin and nature, and in the fact of their opposition.\n\nIn the somewhat garish light of the War and the Peace, it would not be\ndifficult to feel a real and even poignant sympathy for two causes that\nwere prominent and popular in the first fourteen years of the present\ncentury, namely, the philosophy that based itself on a mechanical system\nof evolution which predicted unescapable, irreversible human progress,\nand that religion which denied the reality of evil in the world. The\nplausibility of each was dissipated by the catastrophic events though\nboth still linger in stubborn unconsciousness of their demise. The\nimpulse towards sympathy is mitigated by realization of the unfortunate\neffect they exerted on history. This is particularly true of\nevolutionary philosophy, which was held as an article of faith, either\nconsciously or sub-consciously, by the greater part of Western society.\nNot only did it deter men from realizing the ominous tendency of events\nbut, more unhappily, it minimized their power to discriminate between\nwhat was good and bad in current society, and even reversed their sense\nof comparative values. If man was indeed progressing steadily from bad\nto good, and so to better and best, then the vivid and even splendid\nlife of the last quarter of the nineteenth century, with its headlong\nconquest of the powers of nature, its enormous industrial development,\nits vast and ever-increasing wealth in material things, must be not only\nan amazing advance beyond any former civilization but positively good in\nitself, while the future could only be a progressive magnifying of what\nthen was going on. \"Just as\" to quote Mr. Chesterton's admirable Dr.\nPelkins, \"just as when we see a pig in a litter larger than the other\npigs, we know that by an unalterable law of the Inscrutable, it will\nsome day be larger than an elephant...so we know and reverently\nacknowledge that when any power in human politics has shown for any\nperiod of time any considerable activity, it will go on until it reaches\nthe sky.\"\n\nNothing but a grave inability to estimate values, based on a\npseudo-scientific dogma, can explain the lack of any just standard of\ncomparative values that was the essential quality in pre-war society.\nExtraordinary as were the material achievements of the time, beneficent\nin certain ways, and susceptible in part of sometime being used to the\nadvantage of humanity, they were largely negatived, and even reversed in\nvalue, just because the sense of proportion had been lost. The image\nwhich might have stimulated reverence had become a fetish. There were\nvoices crying in the wilderness against a worship that had poisoned into\nidolatry, but they were unheard. Progressively the real things of life\nwere blurred and forgotten and the things that were so obviously real\nthat they were unreal became the object and the measure of achievement.\n\nIt was an unhappy and almost fatal attitude of mind, and it was\nengendered not so much by the trend of civilization since the\nRenaissance and Reformation, nor by the compulsion and cumulative\ninfluence of the things themselves, as by the natural temper and\ninclinations and the native standards of this emancipated mass of\nhumanity that, oppressed, outraged and degraded for four hundred years\nhad at last burst out of its prison-house and had assumed control of\nsociety through industrialism, politics and social life. The saving\ngrace of the old aristocracies had disappeared with the institution\nitself: between 1875 and 1900 the great single leaders, so fine in\ncharacter, so brilliant in capacity, so surprising in their numbers,\nthat had given a deceptive glory to the so-called Victorian Age, had\nalmost wholly died out, and the new conditions neither fostered the\ndevelopment of adequate successors, nor gave audience to the few that,\nanomalously, appeared. It is not surprising therefore that the new\nsocial element that had played so masterly a part in bringing to its\nperfection the industrial-financial-democratic scheme of life should\nhave developed an apologetic therefor, and imposed it, with all its\nmaterialism, its narrowness, its pragmatism, its, at times, grossness\nand cynicism, on the mind of a society where increasingly their own\nfollowers were, by sheer energy and efficiency, acquiring a predominant\nposition.\n\nI am not unconscious that these are hard sayings and that few indeed\nwill accept them. They seem too much like attempting that which Burke\nsaid was impossible, viz., to bring an indictment against a people. I\nintend nothing of the sort. Out of this same body of humanity which _as\na whole_ has exerted this very unfavourable influence on modern society,\nhave come and will come personalities of sudden and startling nobility,\nmen who have done as great service as any of their contemporaries\nwhatever their class or status. Out of the depths have come those who\nhave ascended to the supreme heights, for since Christianity came into\nthe world to free the souls of men, this new liberty has worked without\nlimitations of caste or race. Indeed, the very creations of the emergent\nforce, industrialism and democracy, while they were the betrayal of the\nmany were the opportunity of the few, taking the place, as they did, of\nthe older creeds of specifically Christian society, and inviting those\nwho would to work their full emancipation and so become the servants of\nGod and mankind. By the very bitterness of their antecedents, the\ncruelty of their inheritance, they gained a deeper sense of the reality\nof life, a more just sense of right and wrong, a clearer vision of\nthings as they were, than happened in the case of those who had no such\nexperience of the deep brutality of the regime of post-Renaissance\nsociety.\n\nTrue as this is, it is also true that for one who won through there were\nmany who gained nothing, and it was, and is, the sheer weight of numbers\nof those who failed of this that has made their influence on the modern\nlife as pervasive and controlling as it is.\n\nWhat has happened is a certain degradation of character, a weakening of\nthe moral stamina of men, and against this no mechanical device in\ngovernment, no philosophical or social theory, can stand a chance of\nsuccessful resistance, while material progress in wealth and trade and\nscientific achievement becomes simply a contributory force in the\nprocess of degeneration. For this degradation of character we are bound\nto hold this new social force in a measure responsible, even though it\nhas so operated because of its inherent qualities and in no material\nrespect through conscious cynicism or viciousness; indeed it is safe to\nsay that in so far as it was acting consciously it was with good\nmotives, which adds an element of even greater tragedy to a situation\nalready sufficiently depressing.\n\nIf I am right in holding this to be the effective cause of the situation\nwe have now to meet, it is true that it is by no means the only one. The\nemancipation and deliverance of the downtrodden masses of men who owed\ntheir evil estate to the destruction of the Christian society of the\nMiddle Ages, was a clamourous necessity; it was a slavery as bad in some\nways as any that had existed in antiquity, and the number of its victims\nwas greater. The ill results of the accomplished fact was largely due to\nthe condition of religion which existed during the period of\nemancipation. No society can endure without vital religion, and any\nrevolution effected at a time when religion is moribund or dissipated in\ncontentious fragments, is destined to be evacuated of its ideals and its\npotential, and to end in disaster. Now the freeing of the slaves of the\nRenaissance and the post-Reformation, and their absorption in the body\npolitic, was one of the greatest revolutions in history, and it came at\na time when religion, which had been one and vital throughout Western\nEurope for six centuries, had been shattered and nullified, and its\nplace taken, in the lands that saw the great liberation, by Calvinism,\nLutheranism, Puritanism and atheism, none of which could exert a guiding\nand redemptive influence on the dazed hordes that had at last come up\ninto the light of day.\n\nIn point of fact, therefore, we are bound to trace back the\nresponsibility for the present crisis even to the Reformation itself, as\nwell as to the tyranny and absolutism of government, and the sordid and\nprofligate ordering of society, which followed on the end of\nMediaevalism.\n\nSo then we stand today confronting a situation that is ominous and\nobscure, since the very ideals and devices which we had held were the\nlast word in progressive evolution have failed at the crisis, and\nbecause we who created them and have worked through them, have failed in\ncharacter, and chiefly because we have accepted low ideals and inferior\nstandards imposed upon us by social elements betrayed and abandoned by a\nworld that could not aid them or assimilate them since itself had\nbetrayed the only thing that could give them force, unity and coherency,\nthat is, a vital and pervasive religious faith.\n\nThere are those who hold our case to be desperate, to whom the\ndisillusionment of peace, after the high optimism engendered by the vast\nheroism and the exalted ideals instigated by the war, has brought\nnothing but a mood of deep pessimism. The sentiment is perhaps natural,\nbut it is none the less both irrational and wicked. If it is persisted\nin, if it becomes widespread, it may perfectly well justify itself, but\nonly so. We no longer accept the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination,\nwe believe, and must highly believe, that our fate is of our own making,\nfor Christianity has made us the heirs of free-will. What we will that\nshall we be, or rather, what we _are_ that shall we will, and if we make\nof ourselves what, by the grace of God, we may, then the victory rests\nwith us. It is true that we are in the last years of a definite period,\non that decline that precedes the opening of a new epoch. Never in\nhistory has any such period overpassed its limit of five hundred years,\nand ours, which came to birth in the last half of the fifteenth century,\ncannot outlast the present. But these declining years are preceding\nthose wherein all things are made new, and the next two generations will\nsee, not alone the passing of what we may call modernism, since it is\nour own age, but the prologue of the epoch that is to come. It is for us\nto say what this shall be. It is not foreordained; true, if we will it,\nit may be a reign of disaster, a parallel to the well-recognized \"Dark\nAges\" of history, but also, if we will, it may be a new and a true\n\"renaissance,\" a rebirth of old ideals, of old honour, of old faith,\nonly incarnate in new and noble forms.\n\nThe vision of an old heaven and a new earth was vouchsafed us during the\nwar, when horror and dishonour and degradation were shot through and\nthrough with an epic heroism and chivalry and self-sacrifice. What if\nthis all did fade in the miasma of Versailles and the cynicism of trade\nfighting to get back to \"normalcy,\" and the red anarchy out of the East?\nThere is no fiat of God that fixes these things as eternal. Even they\nalso may be made the instruments of revelation and re-creation. Paris\nand London, Rome, Berlin and Washington are meshed in the tangled web of\nthe superannuated who cannot escape the incubus of the old ways and the\nold theories that were themselves the cause of the war and of the\nfailure of \"modern civilization,\" but another generation is taking the\nfield and we must believe that this has been burned out of them. They\nmay have achieved this great perfection in the field, they may have\nexperienced it through those susceptible years of life just preceding\nmilitary age. It does not matter. Somehow they have it, and those who\ncome much in contact in school or college with boys and men between the\nages of seventeen and twenty-five, know, and thankfully confess, that if\nthey can control the event the future is secure.\n\nIn the harlequinade of fabulous material success the nations of \"modern\ncivilization\" suffered a moral deterioration, in themselves and in their\nindividual members; by a moral regeneration they may be saved. How is\nthis to be accomplished? How, humanly speaking, is the redemption of\nsociety to be achieved? Not alone by change of heart in each individual,\nthough if this could be it would be enough. Humanly speaking there is\nnot time and we dare not hope for the divine miracle whereby \"in the\ntwinkling of an eye we shall all be changed.\" Still less by sole\nreliance on some series of new political, social, economic and\neducational devices; there is no plan, however wise and profound, that\ncan work effectively under the dead weight of a society that is made up\nof individuals whose moral sense is defective. Either of these two\nmethods, put into operation by itself, will fail. Acting together they\nmay succeed.\n\nI repeat what I have said before. The material thing and the spiritual\nforce work by inter-action and co\u00f6rdinately. The abandonment or reform\nof some device that has proved evil or inadequate, and the substitution\nof something better, changes to that extent the environment of the\nindividual and so enables him more perfectly to develop his inherent\npossibilities in character and capacity, while every advance in this\ndirection reacts on the machinery of life and makes its improvement more\npossible. With a real sense of my own personal presumption, but with an\nequally real sense of the responsibility that rests on every man at the\npresent crisis, I shall venture certain suggestions as to possible\nchanges that may well be effected in the material forms of contemporary\nsociety as well as in its methods of thought, in order that the\nspiritual energies of the individual may be raised to a higher level\nthrough the amelioration of a hampering environment, and, with even\ngreater diffidence, others that may bear more directly on the\ncharacter-development of the individual. In following out this line of\nthought I shall, in the remaining seven lectures, speak successively on:\nA Working Philosophy; The Social Organism; The Industrial and Economic\nProblem; The Political Organization of Society; The Function of\nEducation and Art; The Problem of Organic Religion; and Personal\nResponsibility.\n\nI am only too conscious of the fact that the division of my subject\nunder these categorical heads, and the necessities of special argument,\nif not indeed of special pleading, have forced me to such particular\nstress on each subject as may very likely give an impression of undue\nemphasis. If each lecture were to be taken by itself, such an impression\nwould, I fear, be unescapable; I ask therefore for the courtesy of a\nsuspension of judgment until the series is completed, for it is only\nwhen taken as a whole, one paper reacting upon and modifying another,\nthat whatever merit the course possesses can be made apparent.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nA WORKING PHILOSOPHY[*]\n\n    [*This lecture has been very considerably re-written\n    since it was delivered, and much of the matter it then contained\n    has been cut out, and is now printed in the Appendix. These\n    excisions were purely speculative, and while they have a certain\n    bearing on the arguments and conclusions in the other lectures,\n    might very well be prejudicial to them, and for this reason it\n    has seemed better to remove them from the general sequence and\n    give them a supplementary place by themselves.]\n\nThe first reaction of the World War was a great interrogation, and the\ntechnical \"Peace\" that has followed brings only reiteration. Why did\nthese things come, and how? The answers are as manifold as the\nclamourous tongues that ask, but none carries conviction and the problem\nis still unsolved. According to all rational probabilities we had no\nright to expect the war that befell; according to all the human\nindications as we saw them revealed amongst the Allies we had a right to\nexpect a better peace; according to our abiding and abounding faith we\nhad a right to expect a great bettering of life after the war, and even\nin spite of the peace. It is all a _non sequitur,_ and still we ask the\nreason and the meaning of it all.\n\nIt may be very long before the full answer is given, yet if we are\nsearching the way towards \"The Great Peace\" we must establish some\nworking theory, if only that we may redeem our grave errors and avoid\nlike perils in the future. The explanation I assume for myself, and on\nwhich I must work, is that, in spite of our intentions (which were of\nthe best) we were led into the development, acceptance and application\nof a false philosophy of life which was not only untenable in itself but\nwas vitiated and made noxious through its severance from vital religion.\nIn close alliance with this declension of philosophy upon a basis that\nhad been abandoned by the Christian world for a thousand years, perhaps\nas the ultimate reason for its occurrence, was the tendency to void\nreligion of its vital power, to cut it out of intimate contact with\nlife, and, in the end, to abandon it altogether as an energizing force\ninterpenetrating all existence and controlling it in certain definite\ndirections and after certain definite methods.\n\nThe rather complete failure of our many modern and ingenious\ninstitutions, the failure of institutionalism altogether, is due far\nless to wrong theories underlying them, or to radical defects in their\ntechnique, than it is to this false philosophy and this progressive\nabandonment of religion. The wrong theories were there, and the\nmechanical defects, for the machines were conditioned by the principle\nthat lay behind them, but effort at correction and betterment will make\nsmall progress unless we first regain the right religion and a right\nphilosophy. I said this to Henri Bergson last year in Paris and his\nreply was significant as coming from a philosopher. \"Yes,\" he said, \"you\nare right; and of the two, the religion is the more important.\"\n\nIf we had this back, and in full measure; if society were infused by it,\nthrough and through, and men lived its life, and in its life, philosophy\nwould take care of itself and the nature of our institutions would not\nmatter. On the other hand, without it, no institution can be counted\nsafe, or will prove efficacious, while no philosophy, however lofty and\nmagisterial, can take its place, or even play its own part in the life\nof man or society. I must in these lectures say much about institutions\nthemselves, but first I shall try to indicate what seem to me the more\nserious errors in current philosophy, leaving until after a study of the\nmaterial forms which are so largely conditioned by the philosophical\nattitude, the consideration of that religion, both organic and personal,\nwhich I believe can alone verify the philosophy, give the institutions\nlife and render them reliable agencies for good.\n\nFor a working definition of philosophy, in the sense in which I use it\nhere, I will take two sayings, one out of the thirteenth century, one\nfrom the twentieth. \"They are called wise who put things in their right\norder and control them well,\" says St. Thomas Aquinas. \"Philosophy is\nthe science of the totality of things,\" says Cardinal Mercier, his\ngreatest contemporary commentator, and he continues, \"Philosophy is the\nsum-total of reality.\" Philosophy is the body of _human_ wisdom,\nverified and irradiated by divine wisdom. \"The science of the totality\nof things\": not the isolation of individual phenomena, or even of groups\nof phenomena, as is the method of the natural sciences, but the setting\nof all in their varied relationships and values, the antithesis of that\nnarrowness and concentration of vision that follow intensive\nspecialization and have issue in infinite delusions and unrealities,\n\"Philosophy regards the sum-total of reality\" and it achieves this\nconsciousness of reality, first by establishing right relations between\nphenomena, and then, abandoning the explicit intellectual process, by\nfalling back on divine illumination which enables it to see through\nthose well-ordered phenomena the Divine Actuality that lies behind,\ninforming them with its own finality and using them both as types and as\nmedia of transmission and communication. So men are enabled by\nphilosophy \"to put things in their right order\" and by religion \"to\ncontrol them well,\" thus becoming indeed worthy to be \"called wise.\"\n\nNow, from the beginnings of conscious life, man has found himself\nsurrounded and besieged by un-calculable phenomena. Beaten upon by\nforces he could not estimate or predict or control, he has sought to\nsolve their sphynx-like riddle, to establish some plausible relation\nbetween them, to erect a logical scheme of things. Primitive man, as\nWorringer demonstrates in his \"Form Problems of the Gothic,\" strove to\nachieve something of certitude and fixity through the crude but definite\nlines and forms of neolithic art. Classical man brought into play the\nvigour and subtlety and ingenuity of intellect in its primal and most\ndynamic form, expressed through static propositions of almost\nmathematical exactness. The peoples of the East rejected the\nintellectual-mathematical method and solution and sought a way out\nthrough the mysterious operation of the inner sense that manifests\nitself in the form of emotion. With the revelation of Christianity came\nalso, and of course, enlightenment, which was not definite and closed at\nsome given moment, but progressive and cumulative. At once, speaking\nphilosophically, the intellectual method of the West and the intuitive\nmethod of the East came together and fused in a new thing, each element\nlimiting, and at the same time fortifying the other, while the opposed\nobscurities of the past were irradiated by the revealing and creative\nspirit of Christ. So came the beginnings of that definitive Christian\nphilosophy which was to proceed from Syria, Anatolia and Constantinople,\nthrough Alexandria to St. Augustine, and was to find its fullest\nexpression during the Middle Ages and by means of Duns Scotus, Albertus\nMagnus, Hugh of St. Victor and St. Thomas Aquinas.\n\nIt is an interesting fact, though apart from my present consideration,\nthat this philosophical fusion was paralleled in the same places and at\nthe same time, by an aesthetic fusion that brought into existence the\nfirst great and consistent art of Christianity. This question is\nadmirably dealt with in Lisle March Phillipps' \"Form and Colour.\"\n\nThis great Christian philosophy which lay behind all the civilization of\nthe Middle Ages, was positive, comprehensive and new. It demonstrated\ndivine purpose working consciously through all things with a result in\nperfect coherency; it gave history a new meaning as revealing reality\nand as a thing forever present and never past, and above all it\nelucidated the nature of both matter and spirit and made clear their\noperation through the doctrine of sacramentalism.\n\nIn the century that saw the consummation of this great philosophical\nsystem--as well as that of the civilization which was its expositor in\nmaterial form--there came a separation and a divergence. The balanced\nunity was broken, and on the one hand the tendency was increasingly\ntowards the exaggerated mysticism that had characterized the Eastern\nmoiety of the synthesis, on the other towards an exaggerated\nintellectualism the seeds of which are inherent even in St. Thomas\nhimself. The new mysticism withdrew further and further from the common\nlife, finding refuge in hidden sanctuaries in Spain, Italy, the\nRhineland; the old intellectualism became more and more dominant in the\nminds of man and the affairs of the world, and with the Renaissance it\nbecame supreme, as did the other qualities of paganism in art as well as\nin every other field of human activity.\n\nThe first fruit of the new intellectualism was the philosophy of Dr.\nJohn Calvin--if we can call it such,--Augustinian philosophy, misread,\ndistorted and made noxious by its reliance on the intellectual process\ncut off from spiritual energy as the sufficient corrective of\nphilosophical thought. It is this false philosophy, allied with an\nequally false theology, that misled for so many centuries those who\naccepted the new versions of Christianity that issued out of the\nReformation. The second was the mechanistic system, or systems, the\nprotagonist of which was Descartes. If, as I believe, Calvinism was\nun-Christian, the materialistic philosophies that have gone on from the\nyear 1637, were anti-Christian. As the power of Christianity declined\nthrough the centuries that have followed the Reformation, Calvinism\nplayed a less and less important part, while the new philosophies of\nmechanism and rationalism correspondingly increased. During the\nnineteenth century their control was absolute, and what we are today we\nhave become through this dominance, coupled with the general\ndevitalizing or abandonment of religion.\n\nAnd yet are we not left comfortless. Even in the evolutionary philosophy\nengendered by Darwin and formulated by Herbert Spencer and the Germans,\nwith all its mistaken assumptions and dubious methods, already there is\nvisible a tendency to get away from the old Pagan static system reborn\nwith the Renaissance. We can never forget that Bergson has avowed that\n\"the mind of man, by its very nature, is incapable of apprehending\nreality.\" After this the return towards the scholastic philosophy of the\nMiddle Ages is not so difficult, nor even its recovery. If we associate\nwith this process on the part of formal philosophy the very evident, if\nsometimes abnormal and exaggerated, progress towards a new mysticism, we\nare far from finding ourselves abandoned to despair as to the whole\nfuture of philosophy.\n\nNow this return and this recovery are, I believe, necessary as one of\nthe first steps towards establishing a sound basis for the building up\nof a new and a better civilization, and one that is in fact as well as\nin name a Christian civilization. I do not mean that, with this\nrestoration of Christian philosophy, there we should rest. Both\nrevelation and enlightenment are progressive, and once the nexus of our\nbroken life were restored, philosophical development would be\ncontinuous, and we should go on beyond the scholastics even as they\nproceeded beyond Patristic theology and philosophy. I think a break of\ncontinuity was effected in the sixteenth century, with disastrous\neffects, and until this break is healed we are cut off from what is in a\nsense the Apostolical succession of philosophical verity.\n\nBefore going further I would guard against two possible misconceptions;\nof one of them I have already spoken, that is, the error so frequent in\nthe past as well as today, that would make of philosophy, however sound,\nhowever consonant with the finalities of revealed religion, a substitute\nin any degree for religion itself. Philosophy is the reaction of the\nintellect, of man to the stimuli of life, but religion _is_ life and is\ntherefore in many ways a flat contradiction of the concepts of the\nintellect, which is only a small portion of life, therefore limited,\npartial, and (because of this) sometimes entirely wrong in its\nconclusions independently arrived at along these necessarily\ncircumscribed lines.\n\nThe second possible error is that philosophy is the affair of a small\ngroup of students and specialists, quite outside the purview of the\ngreat mass of men, and that it owes its existence to this same class of\ndelving scholars, few in number, impractical in their aims, and sharply\ndifferentiated from their fellows. On the contrary it is a vital\nconsideration for all those who desire to \"see life and see it whole\" in\norder that they may establish a true scale of comparative values and a\nright relationship between those things that come from the outside and,\nmeeting those that come from within, establish that plexus of\ninteracting force we call life. As for the source of philosophic truth,\nFriar Bacon put it well when he said \"All the wisdom of philosophy is\ncreated by God and given to the philosophers, and it is Himself that\nillumines the minds of men in all wisdom.\" It is a whimsical\njuxtaposition, but the first pastor of the Puritans in America, the Rev.\nJohn Robinson, testifies to the same effect. \"All truth,\" he says, \"is\nof God ... Wherefore it followeth that nothing true in right reason and\nsound philosophy can be false in divinity.... I add, though the truth be\nuttered by the devil himself, yet it is originally of God.\" There are\nnot two sources of truth, that of Divine Revelation on the one hand,\nthat of science and philosophy and all the intellectual works of man on\nthe other. Truth is one, and the Source is one; the channels of\ncommunication alone are different. But truth in its finality, the\nAbsolute, the _noumenon_ that is the substance of phenomena, is in\nitself not a thing that can be directly apprehended by man; it lies\nwithin the \"ultra-violet\" rays of his intellectual spectrum. \"The\ntrammels of the body prevent man from knowing God in Himself\" says\nPhilo, \"He is known only in the Divine forces in which He manifests\nHimself.\" And St. Thomas: \"In the present state of life in which the\nsoul is united to a passable body, it is impossible for the intellect to\nunderstand anything actually except by turning to the phantasm.\"\nReligion confesses this, philosophy constantly tends to forget it,\ntherefore true religion speaks always through the symbol, rejecting,\nbecause it transcends, the intellectual criterion, while philosophy is\non safe ground only when it unites itself with religion, testing its own\nconclusions by a higher reality, and existing not as a rival but as a\ncoadjutor.\n\nIt is St. Paul who declares that \"God has never left Himself without a\nwitness\" and the \"witness\" was explicit, however clouded, in the\nphilosophies of paganism. Plato and Aristotle knew the limitations of\nman's mind, and the corrective of over-weaning intellectuality in\nreligion, but thereafter the wisdom faded and pride ousted humility,\nwith the result that philosophy became not light but darkness. Let me\nquote from the great twelfth century philosopher, Hugh of St. Victor,\nwho deserves a better fate than sepulture in the ponderous tomes of\nMigne:\n\n\"There was a certain wisdom that seemed such to them that knew not the\ntrue wisdom. The world found it and began to be puffed up, thinking\nitself great in this. Confiding in its wisdom it became presumptuous and\nboasted it would attain the highest wisdom. And it made itself a ladder\nof the face of creation.... Then those things which were seen were known\nand there were other things which were not known; and through those\nwhich were manifest they expected to reach those that were hidden. And\nthey stumbled and fell into the falsehoods of their own imagining.... So\nGod made foolish the wisdom of this world; and He pointed out another\nwisdom, which seemed foolishness and was not. For it preached Christ\ncrucified, in order that truth might be sought in humility. But the\nworld despised it, wishing to contemplate the works of God, which He had\nmade a source of wonder, and it did not wish to venerate what He had set\nfor imitation, neither did it look to its own disease, seeking medicine\nin piety; but presuming on a false health, it gave itself over with vain\ncuriosity to the study of alien things.\"\n\nPrecisely: and this is the destiny that has overtaken not only the pagan\nphilosophy of which Hugh of St. Victor was speaking, but also that which\nfollowed after St. Thomas Aquinas, from Descartes to Hobbes and Kant and\nComte and Herbert Spencer and William James. The jealously intellectual\nphilosophies of the nineteenth century, the materialistic and\nmechanistic substitutes that were offered and accepted with such\nenthusiasm after the great cleavage between religion and life, are but\n\"the falsehoods of their own imaginings\" of which Hugh of St. Victor\nspeaks, for they were cut off from the stream of spiritual verity, and\nare losing themselves in the desert they have made.\n\nMeanwhile they have played their part in shaping the destinies of the\nworld, and it was an ill part, if we may judge from the results that\nshowed themselves in the events that have been recorded between the year\n1800 and the present moment. Just what this influence was in determining\nthe nature of society, of industrial civilization and of the political\norganism I shall try to indicate in some of the following lectures, but\napart from these concrete happenings, this influence was, I am\npersuaded, most disastrous in its bearing on human character. Neither\nwealth nor power, neither education nor environment, not even the\ninherent tendencies of race--the most powerful of all--can avail against\nthe degenerative force of a life without religion, or, what is worse,\nthat maintains only a desiccated formula; and the post-Renaissance\nphilosophies are one and all definitely anti-religious and\nself-proclaimed substitutes for religion. As such they were offered and\naccepted, and as such they must take their share of the responsibility\nfor what has happened.\n\nI believe we must and can retrace our steps to that point in time when a\nright philosophy was abandoned, and begin again. There is no\nimpossibility or even difficulty here. History is not a dead thing, a\nthing of the past; it is eternally present to man, and this is one of\nthe sharp differentiations between man and beast. The material monuments\nof man crumble and disappear, but the spirit that built the Parthenon or\nReims Cathedral, that inspired St. Paul on Mars' hill or forged Magna\nCharta or the Constitution of the United States is, _because of our\nquality as men,_ just as present and operative with us today, if we\nwill, as that which sent the youth of ten nations into a righteous war\nfive years ago, or spoke yesterday through some noble action that you or\nI may have witnessed. It is as easy for us to accept and practice the\nphilosophy of St. Thomas or the divine humanism of St. Francis as it is\nto accept the philosophy of Mr. Wells or the theories of Sir Oliver\nLodge. No spiritual thing dies, or even grows old, nor does it drift\nbackward in the dwindling perspective of ancient history, and the\nfoolishest saying of man is that \"you cannot turn back the hands of the\nclock.\"\n\nIt is simply a question of will, and will is simply a question of desire\nand of faith.\n\nManifestly I cannot be expected to recreate in a few words this\nphilosophy to which I believe we must have recourse in our hour of need.\nI have no ability to do this in any case. It begins with St. Paul, is\ncontinued through St. Augustine, and finds its culmination in the great\nMediaeval group of Duns Scotus, Albertus Magnus, Hugh of St. Victor and\nSt. Thomas Aquinas. I do not know of any single book that epitomizes it\nall in vital form, though Cardinal Mercier and Dr. De Wulf have written\nmuch that is stimulating and helpful. I cannot help thinking that the\ngreat demand today is for a compact volume that synthesizes the whole\nmagnificent system in terms not of history and scientific exegesis, but\nin terms of life. Plato and Aristotle are so preserved to man, and the\nphilosophers of modernism also; it is only the magisterial and dynamic\nphilosophy of Christianity that is diffused through many works, some of\nthem still untranslated and all quite without coordination, save St.\nThomas Aquinas alone, the magnitude of whose product staggers the human\nmind and in its profuseness defeats its own ends. We need no more\nhistories of philosophy, but we need an epitome of Christian philosophy,\nnot for students but for men.\n\nSuch an epitome I am not fitted to offer, but there are certain rather\nfundamental conceptions and postulates that run counter both to pagan\nand to modern philosophy, the loss of which out of life has, I maintain,\nmuch to do with our present estate, and that must be regained before we\ncan go forward with any reasonable hope of betterment. These I will try\nto indicate as well as I can.\n\nChristian philosophy teaches, in so far as it deals with the\nrelationship between man and these divine forces that are forever\nbuilding, unbuilding and rebuilding the fabric of life, somewhat as\nfollows:\n\nThe world as we know it, man, life itself as it works through all\ncreation, is the union of matter and spirit; and matter is not spirit,\nnor spirit matter, nor is one a mode of the other, but they are two\ndifferent creatures. Apart from this union of matter and spirit there is\nno life, in the sense in which we know it, and severance is death. \"The\nbody\" says St. Thomas, \"is not of the essence of the soul; but the soul,\nby the nature of its essence, can be united to the body, so that,\nproperly speaking, the soul alone is not the species, but the\ncomposite\", and Duns Scotus makes clear the nature and origin of this\ncommon \"essence\" when he says there is \"on the one hand God as Infinite\nActuality, on the other spiritual and corporeal substances possessing an\nhomogeneous common element.\" That is to say; matter and spirit are both\nthe result of the divine creative act, and though separate, and in a\nsense opposed, find their point of origin in the Divine Actuality.\n\nThe created world is the concrete manifestation of matter, through\nwhich, for its transformation and redemption, spirit is active in a\nconstant process of interpenetration whereby matter itself is being\neternally redeemed. What then is matter and what is spirit? The question\nis of sufficient magnitude to absorb all the time assigned to these\nlectures, with the strong possibility that even then we should be\nscarcely wiser than before. For my own purposes, however, I am content\nto accept the definition of matter formulated by Duns Scotus, which\ntakes over the earlier definition of Plotinus, purges it of its elements\nof pagan error, and redeems it by Christian insight.\n\n\"Materia Primo Prima\" says the great Franciscan, \"is the indeterminate\nelement of contingent things. This does not exist in Nature, but it has\nreality in so far as it constitutes the term of God's creative activity.\nBy its union with a substantial form it becomes endowed with the\nattributes of quantity, and becomes Secundo Prima. Subject to the\nsubstantial changes of Nature, it becomes matter as we see it.\"\n\nIt is this \"Materia Primo Prima,\" the term of God's creative activity,\nthat is eternally subjected to the regenerative process of spiritual\ninterpenetration, and the result is organic life.\n\nWhat is spirit? The creative power of the Logos, in the sense in which\nSt. John interprets and corrects the early, partial, and therefore\nerroneous theories of the Stoics and of Philo. God the Son, the Eternal\nWord of the Father, \"the brightness of His glory and the figure of His\nSubstance.\" \"God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten,\nnot made, being of one substance with the Father: by Whom all things\nwere made.\" Pure wisdom, pure will, pure energy, unconditioned by\nmatter, but creating life out of the operation of the Holy Spirit on and\nthrough matter, and in the fullness of time becoming Incarnate for the\npurpose of the final redemption of man.\n\nNow since man is so compact of matter and spirit, it must follow that he\ncannot lay hold of pure spirit, the Absolute that lies beyond and above\nall material conditioning, except through the medium of matter, through\nits figures, its symbols, its \"phantasms.\" Says St. Thomas: \"From\nmaterial things we can rise to some kind of knowledge of immaterial\nthings, but not to the perfect knowledge thereof.\" The way of life\ntherefore, is the incessant endeavour of man sacramentally to approach\nthe Absolute through the leading of the Holy Spirit, so running parallel\nto the slow perfecting of matter which is being effected by the same\noperation. So matter itself takes on a certain sanctity, not only as\nsomething susceptible, and in process, of perfection, but as the vehicle\nof spirit and its tabernacle, since in matter spirit is actually\nincarnate.\n\nFrom this process follows of necessity the whole sacramental system, in\ntheology, philosophy and operation, of Christianity. It is of its\n_esse;_ its great original, revolutionary and final contribution to the\nwisdom that man may have for his own, and it follows inevitably from the\nbasic facts of the Incarnation and Redemption, which are also its\nperfect showing forth.\n\nPhilosophically this is the great contribution of Christianity and for\nfifteen centuries it was held implicitly by Christendom, yet it was\nrejected, either wholly or in part, by the Protestant organizations that\ncame out of the Reformation, and it fell into such oblivion that outside\nthe Catholic Church it was not so much ignored or rejected as totally\nforgotten. Recently a series of lectures were delivered at King's\nCollege, London, by various carefully chosen authorities, all\nspecialists in their own fields, under the general title \"Mediaeval\nContributions to Modern Civilization,\" and neither the pious author of\nthe address on \"The Religious Contribution of the Middle Ages,\" nor the\nlearned author of that on \"Mediaeval Philosophy,\" gave evidence of ever\nhaving heard of sacramental philosophy. It may be that I do them an\ninjustice, and that they would offer as excuse the incontestible fact\nthat Mediaevalism contributed nothing to \"modern civilization,\" either\nin religion or philosophy, that it was willing to accept.\n\nThe peril of all philosophies, outside that of Christianity as it was\ndeveloped under the Catholic dispensation, is dualism, and many have\nfallen into this grave error. Now dualism is not only the reversal of\ntruth, it is also the destroyer of righteousness.\n\n\nSacramentalism is the anthithesis of dualism. The sanctity of matter as\nthe potential of spirit and its dwelling-place on earth; the humanizing\nof spirit through its condescension to man through the making of his\nbody and all created things its earthly tabernacle, give, when carried\nout into logical development, a meaning to life, a glory to the world,\nan elucidation of otherwise unsolvable mysteries, and an impulse toward\nnoble living no other system can afford. It is a real philosophy of\nlife, a standard of values, a criterion of all possible postulates, and\nas its loss meant the world's peril, so its recovery may mean its\nsalvation.\n\nNow as the philosophy of Christianity is purely and essentially\nsacramental, so must be the operation of God through the Church. This\n\"Body of Christ\" on earth is indeed a fellowship, a veritable communion\nof the faithful, whether living or dead, but it is also a divine\norganism which lives, and in which each member lives, not by the\npreaching of the Word, not even by and through the fellowship in living\nand worship, but through the ordained channels of grace known as the\nSacraments. In accordance with the sacramental system, every material\nthing is proclaimed as possessing in varying degree sacramental\npotentiality, while seven great Sacraments were instituted to be, each\nafter its own fashion, a special channel for the inflowing of the power\nof the Divine Actuality. Each is a symbol, just as so many other created\nthings are, or may become, symbols, but they are also _realities,_\nveritable media for the veritable communications of veritable divine\ngrace. Here is the best definition I know, that of Hugh of St. Victor.\n\"A sacrament is the corporeal or material element set out sensibly,\nrepresenting from its similitude, signifying from its institution, and\ncontaining from its sanctification, some invisible and spiritual grace.\"\nThis is the unvarying and invariable doctrine of historic Christianity,\nand the reason for the existence of the Church as a living and\nfunctioning organism. The whole sacramental system is in a sense an\nextension, in time, of the Redemption, just as one particular Sacrament,\nthe Holy Eucharist, is also in a sense an extension of the Incarnation,\nas it is also an extension, in time, of the Atonement, the Sacrifice of\nCalvary.\n\nThe Incarnation and the Redemption are not accomplished facts, completed\nnineteen centuries ago; they are processes that still continue, and\ntheir term is fixed only by the total regeneration and perfecting of\nmatter, while the Seven Sacraments are the chiefest amongst an infinity\nof sacramental processes which are the agencies of this eternal\ntransfiguration.\n\nGod the Son became Incarnate, not only to accomplish the redemption of\nmen as yet unborn, for endless ages, through the Sacrifice of Calvary,\nbut also to initiate and forever maintain a new method whereby this\nresult was to be more perfectly attained; that is to say, the Church,\nworking through the specific sacramental agencies He had ordained, or\nwas from time to time to ordain, through His everlasting presence in the\nChurch He had brought into being at Pentecost. He did not come to\nestablish in material form a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, or to provide\nfor its ultimate coming. He indeed established a Spiritual Kingdom, His\nChurch, \"in the world, not of it,\" which is a very different matter\nindeed, as the centuries have proved. His Kingdom is not of this world,\nnor will it be established here. There has been no _absolute_ advance in\nhuman development since the Incarnation. Nations rise and fall, epochs\nwax and wane, civilizations grow out of savagery, crest and sink back\ninto savagery and oblivion. Redemption is for the individual, not for\nthe race, nor yet for society as a whole. Then, and only then, and under\nthat form, it is sure, however long may be the period of its\naccomplishment. \"Time is the ratio of the resistance of matter to the\ninterpenetration of spirit,\" and by this resistance is the duration of\ntime determined. When it shall have been wholly overcome then \"time\nshall be no more.\"\n\nSee therefore how perfect is the correspondence between the Sacraments\nand the method of life where they are the agents, and which they\nsymbolically set forth. There is in each case the material form and the\nspiritual substance, or energy. Water, chrism, oil, the spoken word, the\ntouch of hands, the sign of the cross, and finally and supremely the\nbread and wine of the Holy Eucharist. Each a material thing, but each\nrepresenting, signifying and containing some gift of the Holy Spirit,\nreal, absolute and potent. So matter and spirit are linked together in\nevery operation of the Church, from the cradle to the grave, and man has\never before him the eternal revelation of this linked union of matter\nand spirit in his life, the eternal teaching of the honour of the\nmaterial thing through its agency and through its existence as the\nsubject for redemption. So also, through the material association, and\nthe divine condescension to his earthly and fallible estate (limited by\nassociation with matter only to inadequate presentation) he makes the\nSpirit of God his own, to dwell therewith after the fashion of man.\n\nAnd how much this explains and justifies: Man approaches, and must\nalways approach, spiritual things not only through material forms but by\nmeans of material agencies. The highest and most beautiful things, those\nwhere the spirit seems to achieve its loftiest reaches, are frequently\nassociated with the grossest and most unspiritual forms, yet the very\nsplendour of the spiritual verity redeems and glorifies the material\nagency, while on the other hand the homeliness, and even animal quality,\nof the material thing, brings to man, with a poignancy and an appeal\nthat are incalculable, the spiritual thing that, in its absolute\nessence, would be so far beyond his ken and his experience and his\npowers of assimilation that it would be inoperative.\n\nThis is the true Humanism; not the fictitious and hollow thing that was\nthe offspring of neo-paganism and took to itself a title to which it had\nno claim. Held tacitly or consciously by the men of the Middle Ages,\nfrom the immortal philosopher to the immortal but nameless craftsman, it\nwas the force that built up the noble social structure of the time and\npoised man himself in a sure equilibrium. Already it had of necessity\ndeveloped the whole scheme of religious ceremonial and given art a new\ncontent and direction through its new service. By analogy and\nassociation all material things that could be so used were employed as\nfigures and symbols, as well as agencies, through the Sacraments, and\nafter a fashion that struck home to the soul through the organs of\nsense. Music, vestments, incense, flowers, poetry, dramatic action, were\nlinked with the major arts of architecture, painting and sculpture, and\nall became not only ministers to the emotional faculties but direct\nappeals to the intellect through their function as poignant symbols. So\nart received its soul, and was almost a living creature until matter and\nspirit were again divorced in the death that severed them during the\nReformation. Thereafter religion had entered upon a period of slow\ndesiccation and sterilization wherever the symbol was cast away with the\nSacraments and the faith and the philosophy that had made it live. The\nbitter hostility to the art and the liturgies and the ceremonial of the\nCatholic faith is due far less to ignorance of the meaning and function\nof art and to an inherited jealousy of its quality and its power, than\nit is to the conscious and determined rejection of the essential\nphilosophy of Christianity, which is sacramentalism.\n\nThe whole system was of an almost sublime perfection and simplicity, and\nthe formal Sacraments were both its goal and its type. If they had been\nof the same value and identical in nature they would have failed of\nperfect exposition, in the sense in which they were types and symbols.\nThey were not this, for while six of the explicit seven were\nsubstantially of one mode, there was one where the conditions that held\nelsewhere were transcended, and where, in addition to the two functions\nit was instituted to perform it gave, through its similitude, the clear\nrevelation of the most significant and poignant fact in the vast mystery\nof life. I mean, of course, the Holy Eucharist, commonly called the\nMass.\n\nIf matter is _per se_ forever inert, unchangeable, indestructible, then\nwe fall into the dilemma of a materialistic monism on the one hand,\nManichaean dualism on the other. Even under the most spiritual\ninterpretation we could offer--that, shall we say, of those today who\ntry to run with the hare of religion and hunt with the hounds of\nrationalistic materialism--matter and spirit unite in man as body and\nsoul, and in the Sacraments as the vehicle and the essence, but\ntemporally and temporarily; doomed always to ultimate severance by death\nin the one case, by the completion of the sacramental process in the\nother. If, on the other hand, the object of the universe and of time is\nthe constant redemption and transformation of matter through its\ninterpenetration by spirit in the power of God the Holy Ghost, then we\nescape the falsities of dualism, while in the miracle of the Mass we\nfind the type and the showing forth of the constant process of life\nwhereby every instant, matter itself is being changed and glorified and\ntransferred from the plane of matter to the plane of spirit.\n\nIf this is so: if the Incarnation and the Redemption are not only\nfundamental facts but also types and symbols of the divine process\nforever going on here on earth, then, while the other Sacraments are in\nthemselves not only instruments of grace but manifestations of that\nprocess whereby in all things matter is used as the vehicle of spirit,\nthe Mass, transcending them all, is not only Communion, not only a\nSacrifice acceptable before God, it is also the unique symbol of the\nredemption and transformation of matter; since, of all the Sacraments,\nit is the only one where the very physical qualities of the material\nvehicle are transformed, and while the accidents alone remain, the\nsubstance, finite and perishable, becomes, in an instant of time and by\nthe operation of God, infinite and immortal.\n\nIt is to sacramentalism then that we must return, not only in religion\nand its practice, but in philosophy, if we are to establish a firm\nfoundation for that newer society and civilization that are to help us\nto achieve the \"Great Peace.\" Antecedent systems failed, and subsequent\nsystems have failed; in this alone, the philosophy of Christianity, is\nthere safety, for it alone is consonant with the revealed will of God.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nTHE SOCIAL ORGANISM\n\nSociety, that is to say, the association in life of men, women and\nchildren, is the fundamental fact of life, and this is so whether the\nassociation is of the family, the school, the community, industry or\ngovernment. Everything else is simply a series of forms, arrangements\nand devices by which society works, either for good or ill. Man makes or\nmars himself in and through society. He is responsible for his own soul,\nbut if he sees only this and works directly for his soul's salvation,\ndisregarding the society of which he is a part, he may lose it, whereas,\nif he is faithful to society and honourably plays his part as a social\nanimal with a soul, he will very probably save it, even though he may\nfor the time have quite ignored its existence. Man is a member of a\nfamily, a pupil under education, a worker and a citizen. In all these\nrelationships he is a part of a social group; he is also a component\npart of the human race and linked in some measure to every other member\nthereof whether living or dead. Into every organization or institution\nin which he is involved during his lifetime--family, school, art or\ncraft, trade union, state, church--enters the social equation. If\nsociety is ill organized either in theory or in practice, in any or all\nof its manifestations, then the engines or devices by which it operates\nwill be impotent for good. Defective society cannot produce either a\ngood fundamental law, a good philosophy, a good art, or any other thing.\nConversely, these, when brought forth under an wholesome society, will\ndecay and perish when society degenerates.\n\nIn its large estate, that is, comprehending all the minor groups, as a\nnation, a people or an era, society is always in a state of unstable\nequilibrium, tending either toward better or worse. It may indeed be of\nthe very essence of human life, but it is a plant of tender growth and\nneeds delicate nurture and jealous care; a small thing may work it\nirreparable injury. It may reach very great heights of perfection and\nspread over a continent, as during the European Middle Ages; it may sink\nto low depths with an equal dominion, as in the second dark ages of the\nnineteenth century. Sometimes little enclaves of high value hide\nthemselves in the midst of degradation, as Venice and Ireland in the\nDark Ages. Always, by the grace of God, the primary social unit, the\nfamily may, and frequently does, achieve and maintain both purity and\nbeauty when the world without riots in ruin and profligacy.\n\nI have taken the problem of the organization of society as the first to\nbe considered, for it is fundamental. If society is of the wrong shape\nit does not matter in the least how intelligent and admirable may be the\ndevices we construct for the operation of government or industry or\neducation; they may be masterly products of human intelligence but they\nwill not work, whereas on the other hand a sane, wholesome and decent\nsociety can so interpret and administer clumsy and defective instruments\nthat they will function to admiration. A perfect society would need no\nsuch engines at all, but a perfect society implies perfect individuals,\nand I think we are now persuaded that a society of this nature is a\npurely academic proposition both now and in the calculable future. What\nwe have to do is to take mankind as it is; made up of infinitely varied\npersonalities ranging from the idiot to the \"super-man\"; cruel and\ncompassionate, covetous and self-sacrificing, silly and erudite, cynical\nand emotional, vulgar and cultured, brutal and fastidious, shameful in\ntheir degradation and splendid in their honour and chivalry, and by the\nfranchise of liberty and the binding of law, facilitate in every way the\nprocess whereby they themselves work out their own salvation. You cannot\nimpose morality by statute or guarantee either character or intelligence\nby the perfection of the machine. Every institution, good or bad, is the\nresult of growth from many human impulses, not the creation of\nautocratic fiat. But growth may be impeded, hastened, or suspended, and\nthe most that can be done is to offer incentives to action, remove the\nobstacles to development, and establish conditions and influences that\nmake more easy the finding of the right way.\n\nNow it seems to me that the two greatest obstacles to the development of\na right society have been first, the enormous scale in which everything\nof late has been cast, and second, that element in modern democracy\nwhich denies essential differences in human character, capacity and\npotential, and so logically prohibits social distinctions, and refuses\nthem formal sanction or their recognition through conferred honours. In\nquestioning the validity and the value of these two factors, imperialism\nand social democracy, and in suggesting substitutes, I am, I suppose,\nattacking precisely the two institutions which are today--or at all\nevents have been until very recently--held in most conspicuous honour by\nthe majority of people, but the question is at least debateable, and for\nmy own part I have no alternative but to assert their mistaken nature,\nand to offer the best I can in the way of substitutes.\n\nThe question of imperialism, of a gross and unhuman and therefore\nabsolutely wrong scale, is one that will enter into almost all of the\nmatters with which I propose to deal, certainly with industrialism, with\npolitics, with education, with religion, as well as with the immediate\nproblem of the social organism, for not only has it destroyed the human\nscale in human life, and therefore brought it into the danger of\nimmediate destruction, but it has also been a factor in establishing the\nquantitative standard in all things, in place of the qualitative\nstandard, and this, in itself, is simply the antecedent of well-merited\ncatastrophe. In considering the social organism, therefore, we must have\nin mind that this is intimately affected by every organic institution\nwhich man has developed and into which he enters in common with others\nof his kind.\n\nThe situation as it confronts us today is one in which man by his very\nenergy and the stimulus of those cosmic energies he has so astonishingly\nmastered, has got far beyond his depth. I say man has mastered these\nenergies; yes, but this was true only of a brief period in the immediate\npast. They now have mastered him. It is the old story of the\nFrankenstein monster over again. Man is not omnipotent, he is not God.\nThere are limits beyond which he cannot go without coming in peril of\ndeath. An isolated individual here and there may become super-man,\nperhaps, though at grievous peril to his own soul, and it is conceivable\nthat to such an one it might be possible to live beyond the human scale,\nthough hardly. If one could envisage so awful a thing as a community\nmade up entirely of super-men, one might concede that here also the\nhuman scale might be exceeded without danger of catastrophe. With\nsociety as it is, and always will be, a welter of defectives and\ngeniuses in small numbers and a vast majority of just plain men, with\nall that that implies, the breaking through into the imperial scale is\nsimply a letting in the jungle; walls and palings and stockades, the\ndelicate fabrics of architecture, the clever institutions of law, the\nthin red line of the army, all melt, crumble, are overcome by the onrush\nof primordial things, and where once was the white man's city is now the\neternal jungle, and the vines and thrusting roots and rank herbage blot\nout the very memory of a futile civilization, while the monkey and the\njackal and the python come again into their heritage.\n\nAlexander and Caesar, Charles V and Louis XIV and Napoleon and Disraeli\nand William III could function for a few brief years beyond the limits\nof the human scale, though even they had an end, but you cannot link\nimperialism and democracy without the certainty of an earlier and a more\nignominious fall.\n\nI have already spoken of the malignant and pathological quality of the\nquantitative standard. It is indeed not only the nemesis of culture but\neven of civilization itself. Out of this same gross scale of things come\nmany other evils; great states subsisting on the subjugation and\nexploitation of small and alien peoples; great cities which when they\nexceed more than 100,000 in population are a menace, when they exceed\n1,000,000 are a crime; division of labour and specialization which\ndegrade men to the level of machines; concentration and segregation of\nindustries, the factory system, high finance and international finance,\ncapitalism, trades-unionism and the International, standardized\neducation, \"metropolitan\" newspapers, pragmatic philosophy, and churches\n\"run on business methods\" and recruited by advertising and \"publicity\nagents.\"\n\nGreater than all, however, is the social poison that effects society\nwith pernicious anaemia through cutting man off from his natural social\ngroup and making of him an undistinguishable particle in a sliding\nstream of grain. Man belongs to his family, his neighbourhood, his local\ntrade or craft guild and to his parish church: the essence of wholesome\nassociation is that a man should work with, through and by those whom he\nknows personally--and preferably so well that he calls them all by their\nfirst names.\n\nAs a matter of fact, today he works with, through and by the individuals\nwhom he probably has never seen, and frequently would, as a matter of\npersonal taste, hesitate to recognize if he did see them. He belongs to\nthe \"local\" of a union which is a part of a labour organization which\ncovers the entire United States and is controlled in all essential\nmatters from a point from one hundred to two thousand miles away. He\nvotes for mayor with a group of men, less than one per cent of whom he\nknows personally (unless he is a professional politician), with another\ngroup for state officers, and with the whole voting population of the\nUnited States, for President. If he goes to church in a city he finds\nhimself amongst people drawn from every ward and outlying district, if\nhe mixes in \"society\" he associates with those from everywhere, perhaps,\nexcept his own neighbourhood. Only when he is in college, in his club or\nin his secret society lodge or the quarters of his ward boss does he\nfind himself in intimate social relations with human beings of like mind\nand a similar social status. He is a cog in a wheel, a thing, a point of\npotential, a lonely and numerical unit, instead of a gregarious human\nanimal rejoicing in his friends and companions, and working, playing and\nquarreling with them, as God made him and meant him to be and to do.\n\nOf course the result of this is that men are forced into unnatural\nassociations, many of which are purely artificial and all of which are\nunsound. It is true that the trade union, the professional society, the\nclub are natural and wholesome expressions of common and intimate\ninterests, but they acquire a false value when they are not balanced and\nregulated by a prior and more compelling association which cuts, not\nvertically but horizontally through society, that is to say, the\nneighbourhood or community group. The harsh and perilous division into\nclasses and castes which is now universal, with its development of\n\"class consciousness,\" is the direct and inevitable result of this\nimperial scale in life which has annihilated the social unit of human\nscale and brought in the gigantic aggregations of peoples, money,\nmanufacture and labourers, where man can no longer function either as a\nhuman unit or an essential factor in a workable society.\n\nIt is hard to see just how we are to re-fashion this impossible society\nin terms even nearly approaching the normal and the human. It is\nuniversal, and it is accepted by everyone as very splendid and quite the\ngreatest achievement of man. It is practically impossible for any one\ntoday to conceive of a world where great empires, populous cities, mills\nand factories and iron-works in their thousands, and employing their\nmillions through their billions of capitalization, where the stock\nexchange and the great banking houses and the insurance companies and\nthe department stores, the nation-wide trade unions and professional\nassociations and educational foundations and religious corporations, do\nnot play their predominant part. Nevertheless they are an aggregation of\nfalse values, their influence is anti-social, and their inherent\nweakness was so obviously revealed through the War and the Peace that it\nhas generally escaped notice.\n\nThere seem but two ways in which the true scale of life can be restored;\neither these institutions will continue, growing greater and more\nunwieldy with increasing speed until they burst in anarchy and chaos,\nand after ruin and long rest we begin all over again (as once before\nafter the bursting of Roman imperialism), or we shall repeat history (as\nwe always do) only after another fashion and, learning as we always can\nfrom the annals of monasticism, build our small communities of the right\nshape and scale in the very midst of the imperial states themselves, so\nbecoming perhaps the leavening of the lump. This of course is what the\nmonasteries of St. Benedict did in the sixth century and those of the\nCluniacs and the Cistercians in the eleventh, and it is what the\nFranciscans and Dominicans tried to do in the fourteenth century, and\nfailed because the fall of the cultural and historic wave had already\nbegun.\n\nThe trouble today with nearly all schemes of reform and regeneration is\nthat they are infected with the very imperialism in scale that has\nproduced the conditions they would redeem. Socialism is now as\ncompletely materialistic as the old capitalism, and as international in\nits scope and methods. Anarchy is becoming imperial and magnificent in\nits operations. Secular reformers must organize vast committees with\nintricate ramifications and elaborate systems supported by \"drives\" for\nmoney which must run into at least seven figures, and by vast and\nefficient bureaus for propaganda, before they can begin operations, and\nthen the chief reliance for success is frequently placed on legislation\nenacted by the highest lawmaking bodies in the land. Even religion has\nnow surrendered to the same obsession of magnitude and efficiency, and\nnothing goes (or tries to, it doesn't always succeed) unless it is\nconceived in gigantic \"nation-wide\" terms and is \"put across\" by\nefficiency experts, highly paid organizers, elaborate \"teams\" of\npropagandists and solicitors, and plenty of impressive advertising. A\ngood deal can be bought this way, but it will not \"stay bought,\" for no\nreform of any sort can be established after any such fashion, since\nreform begins in and with the individual, and if it succeeds at all it\nwill be by the cumulative process.\n\nI shall speak of this element of scale in every succeeding lecture, for\nit vitiates every institution we have. Here, where I am dealing with\nsociety in itself, I can only say that I believe the sane and wholesome\nsociety of the future will eliminate great cities and great corporations\nof every sort. It will reverse the whole system of specialization and\nthe segregation and unification of industries and the division of\nlabour. It will build upward from the primary unit of the family,\nthrough the neighbourhood, to the small, and closely knit, and\nself-supporting community, and so to the state and the final unifying\nforce which links together a federation of states. In general it will be\na return in principle, though not in form, to the social organization of\na Mediaeval Europe before the extinction of feudalism on the Continent,\nand the suppression of the monasteries and the enclosure of the common\nlands in England.\n\nThe grave perils of this false scale in human society have been\nrecognized by many individuals ever since the thing itself became\noperative, and every Utopia conceived by man during the last two\ncenturies, whether it was theoretical or actually put into ephemeral\npractice, has been couched in terms of revolt away from imperialism and\ntowards the unit of human scale. In every case however, the introduction\nof some form of communism has been the ruin of those projects actually\nmaterialized, for this in itself is imperialistic in its nature.\nCommunism implies the standard of the gross aggregate, the denial of\nhuman differentiation and the quantitative standard, as well as the\nelimination of private property and the negation of sacred\nindividuality. Its institution implies an almost immediate descent into\nanarchy with a sequent dictatorship and autocracy, for it is the\nreversal of the foundation laws of life. Such reversals cannot last,\nnothing can last that is inimical to flourishing life; it may triumph\nfor a day but life itself sloughs it off as a sound body rids itself of\nsome foreign substance through the sore that festers, bursts and, the\nseptic conditions done away with, heals itself and returns to normal.\n\nNow the inhuman scale has produced one set of septic conditions in\nsociety while what is commonly called \"democratization\" has produced\nanother. We have a bloated society, but also we have one in which a\nfalse theory has grown up and been put in practice, in accordance with\nwhich an uniformity of human kind has been assumed which never has\nexisted and does not now, and in the effort to enforce this false theory\nthe achievement of distinction has been impeded, leadership discouraged\nand leaders largely eliminated, the process of leveling downward carried\nto a very dangerous point, the sane and vital organization of society\nbrought near to an end and a peculiarly vicious scale and standard of\nsocial values established. I have urged the return to human scale in\nhuman associations, but this does not imply any admixture of communism,\nwhich is its very antithesis, still less does it permit the retention of\nthe theoretical uniformity and the unescapable leveling process of\nso-called democracy.\n\nBefore the law all men are equal, that is, they are entitled to\neven-handed justice. Before God all men are equal, that is, they are\ngranted charity and mercy which transcends the law, also they possess\nimmortal souls of equal value. Here their equality stops. In every other\nrespect they vary in character, capacity, intelligence and potentiality\nfor development along any or all these lines, almost beyond the limits\nof computation. A sane society will recognize this, it will organize\nitself accordingly, it will deny to one what it will concede to another,\nit will foster emulation and reward accomplishment, and it will add\nanother category to those in which all men are equal, that is, the\nfreest scope for advancement, and the greatest facility for passing from\none social group into another, the sole test being demonstrated merit.\n\nI am prepared at this point to use the word \"aristocracy\" for we have\nthe thing even now, only in its worst possible form. The word itself\nmeans two things: a government by the best and most able citizens and,\nto quote a standard dictionary \"Persons noted for superiority in any\ncharacter or quality, taken collectively.\" There is no harm here, but\nthe harm comes, and the odium also, and justly, when an aristocratic\ngovernment degenerates into an oligarchy of privilege without\nresponsibility, and when socially it is not \"superiority in character or\nquality\" but political cunning, opulence and sycophancy that are the\ntouchstones to recognition and acceptance. The latter are the antithesis\nof Christianity and common sense, the former is consonant with both and,\nparadoxical as it may seem, it is also the fulfilling of the ideals of a\nreal democracy, since its honours and distinctions imply service, its\nrelations with those in other estates are reciprocal, it is not a closed\ncaste but the prize of meritorious achievement, and it is therefore\nequality of opportunity, utilization of ability and the abolition of\nprivilege without responsibility.\n\nMen are forever and gloriously struggling onward towards better things,\nbut there is always the gravitational pull of original sin which\nscientists denominate \"reversion to type.\" The saving grace in the\nindividual is the divine gift of faith, hope and charity implanted in\nevery soul. These every man must guard and cherish for they are the way\nof advancement in character. But society is man in association with men,\nin a sense a new and complex personality, and the same qualities are as\nnecessary here as in the individual. Society, like man, may be said to\npossess body, soul and spirit, and it must function vitally along all\nthese lines if it is to maintain a normal and wholesome existence.\nSomewhere there must be something that achieves high ideals of honour,\nchivalry, courtesy; that maintains right standards of comparative value,\nand that guards the social organism as a whole from the danger of\nsurrender to false and debased standards, to plausible demagogues, and\nto mob-psychology.\n\n\nThe greater the prevalence of democratic methods, the greater is the\ndanger of this surrender to propaganda of a thousand sorts and to the\ndominance of the demagogue, and the existence of an estate fortified by\nthe inheritance of high tradition, measurably free from the necessity of\nengaging too strenuously in the \"struggle for life,\" guaranteed security\nof status so long as it does not betray the ideals of its order, but\nopen to accessions from other estates on the basis of conspicuous merit\nalone, such a force operating in society has proved, and will prove, the\nbest guardian of civilization as a whole and of the interests and\nliberties of those who may rank in what are known as lower social\nscales.\n\nBut, it may be objected, such an institution as this has never existed.\nEvery political or social aristocracy in history has been mixed and\nadulterated with bad characters and recreant representatives. There\nnever has been and never will be a perfect aristocracy. Quite true;\nneither has there ever been a perfect democracy, or a perfect monarchy\nfor that matter. As men we work with imperfections, but we live by\nfaith, and our sole duty is to establish the highest ideals, and to\ncompass them, in so far as we may, with unfailing courage, patience and\nsteadfastness. The _ideal_ of democracy is a great ideal, but the\n_working_ of democracy has been a failure because, amongst other things,\nit has tried to carry on without the aid of true aristocracy. If the two\ncan be united, first in ideal and in theory, then in operation, our\npresent failure may be changed into victory.\n\nWhat, after all, does this imply, so far as the social organism is\nconcerned? It seems to me, something like this. First of all,\nrecognition of the fact that there are differences in individuals, in\nstrains of blood, in races, that cannot be overcome by any power of\neducation and environment, and can only be changed through very long\nperiods of time, and that these differences must work corresponding\ndifferences in position, function and status in the social organism.\nSecond, that since society automatically develops an aristocracy of some\nsort or other, and apparently cannot be stopped from doing this, it must\nbe protected from the sort of thing it has produced of late, which is\nbased on money, political expediency and the unscrupulous cleverness of\nthe demagogue, and given a more rational substitute in the shape of a\npermanent group representing high character and the traditions of\nhonour, chivalry and courtesy. Third, that character and service should\nbe fostered and rewarded by that formal and august recognition, that\nsecure and unquestioned status, and those added opportunities for\nservice that will form a real and significant distinction. Finally, that\nthis order or estate must be able to purge itself of unworthy material,\nand also must be freely open to constant accessions from without,\nwhatever the source, and for proved character and service.\n\nI fear I must argue this case of the inequality in individual potential,\nthat inequality that does not yield to complex education or favourable\nenvironment, for it is fundamental. If it does not exist, then my\nargument for the organization of society along lines that recognize and\nregularize diversity of social status and functions, falls to the\nground. I affirm that, the doctrine of evolution and modern democratic\ntheory to the contrary, it does exist and that the mitigating influence\nof education, environment and inherited acquired characters, is small at\nbest.\n\nLet us take the most obvious concrete examples. There are certain ethnic\nunits or races which for periods ranging from five hundred to two\nthousand years have produced _character_, and through character the\ngreat contributions that have been made to human culture and have been\nexpressed through men of distinction, dynamic force, and vivid\npersonality. Such, amongst many, are the Greeks, the Jews, the Romans,\nthe Normans, the Franks, the \"Anglo-Saxons,\" and the Celts. There are\nothers that in all history have produced nothing. There are certain\nfamily names which are a guarantee of distinction, dynamic force, and\nvivid personality. There are thousands of these names, and they are to\nbe found amongst all the races that have contributed towards the\ndevelopment of culture and civilization. On the other hand, there are\nfar more that have produced nothing distinctive, and possibly never\nwill.\n\nWhat is the reason for this? Is it the result of blind chance, of\naccidents that have left certain races and families isolated in stagnant\neddies from which some sudden current of a whimsical tide might sweep\nthem out into the full flood of progress, until they then overtook and\npassed their hitherto successful rivals, who, in their turn, would drift\noff into progressive incompetence and degeneracy? Biology does not look\nwith enthusiasm on the methods of chance and accident. The choice and\ntransmission of the forty-eight chromosomes that give to each individual\nhis character-potential are probably in accordance with some obscure\nbiological law through which the unfathomable divine will operates. Now\nthese chromosomes may be selected and combined after a fashion, and with\na persistence of continuity, that would guarantee character-potential,\nfor good or for ill, through many generations, or they might be so\nvaried in their combinations that no distinct traits would be carried\nover from one generation to another. As a matter of experience all these\nthree processes take place and are recorded in families of distinct\nquality, good, bad and indifferent. If the character-potential is\npredetermined, then manifestly education and environment can play only\nthe subordinate part of fostering its development or retarding it.\n\nIn the same way the character and career of the various races of men are\ndetermined by the potential inherent in the individuals and families\nthat compose them, and like them the races themselves are for long\nperiods marked by power and capacity or weakness and lack of\ndistinction. There are certain races, such as the Hottentot, the Malay,\nthe American Indian, and mixed bloods, as the Mexican peons and\nMongol-Slavs of a portion of the southeastern Europe, that, so far as\nrecorded history is concerned, are either static or retrogressive. There\nare family units, poverty-stricken and incompetent, in Naples, Canton,\nEast Side New York; or opulent and aggressive in West Side New York, in\nBirmingham, Westphalia, Pittsburgh, that are no more subject to the\ncultural and character-creating influences of education and\nenvironment--beyond a certain definite point--than are the amphibians of\nAfrica or the rampant weeds of my garden.\n\nThis is a hard saying and a provocative. The entire course of democratic\ntheory, of humanitarian thought and of the popular type of scientific\nspeculation stands against it, and the Christian religion as well,\nunless the statement itself is guarded by exact definitions. If the\ncontention of the scientific materialist were correct, and the thing\nthat makes man, and that Christians call the immortal soul, were but the\nresult of physical processes of growth and differentiation, then slavery\nwould be justifiable, and exploitation a reasonable and inevitable\nprocess. Since, however, this assumption of materialism is untenable,\nand since all men are possessed of immortal souls between which is no\ndistinction in the sight of God, the situation, regrettable if you like,\nis one which at the same time calls for the exercise of a higher\nhumanitarianism than that so popular during the last generation, and as\nwell for a very drastic revision of contemporary political and social\nand educational methods.\n\nThe soul of the man is the localization of divinity; in a sense each man\nis a manifestation of the Incarnation. Black or white, conspicuous or\nobscure, intelligent or stupid, offspring of a creative race or bound by\nthe limitations of one that is static or in process of decay, there is\nno difference in the universal claim to justice, charity, and\nopportunity. The soul of a Cantonese river-man, of a Congo slave, of an\nEast Side Jew, is in itself as essentially precious and worth saving as\nthe soul of a bishop, of a descendant of a Norman viking or an Irish\nking, or that of a volunteer soldier in the late armies of France or\nGreat Britain or the United States.\n\nHere lies absolute and final equality, and the State, the Law, the\nChurch are bound to guard this equality in the one case and the other\nwith equal force; indeed, those of the lower racial and family types\nclaim even more faithful guardianship than those of the higher, for they\ncan accomplish less for themselves and by themselves. But the\nfundamental and inescapable inequality, in intellect, in character, and\nin capacity, which I insist is one of the conditioning factors in life,\nis vociferously denied, but ruthlessly enforced, by the people that will\nbe the first to denounce any restatement of what is after all no more\nthan a patent fact.\n\nA little less enthusiasm for shibboleths, and a little more intelligent\nregard for history and palpable conditions, will show that the assumed\nequality between men \"on the strength of their manhood alone,\" the\nsufficiency of education for correcting the accidental differences that\nshow themselves, and the scheme of life that is worked out along\ndemocratic lines on the basis of this essential (or potential) equality,\nare \"fond things vainly imagined\" which must be radically modified\nbefore the world can begin a sane and wholesome building-up after the\ngreat purgation of war.\n\nThat equality between men which exists by virtue of the presence in each\nof an immortal soul, involves an even distribution of justice and the\nprotection of law, without distinction of persons, and an even measure\nof charity and compassion, but it does not involve the admission of a\nclaim to equality of action or the denial of varied status, since\nrace-values, both of blood and of the _gens_ enter in to establish\ndifferences in character, in intelligence and in capacity which cannot\nbe changed by education, environment or heredity within periods which\nare practical considerations with society. If we could still hold the\nold Darwinian dogmas of the origin of species through the struggle for\nexistence and the survival of the fittest, and if the equally august and\nauthoritative dogma of the transmission by inheritance of acquired\ncharacteristics were longer tenable, then perhaps we might invoke faith,\nhope and patience and continue our generous method of imperilling\npresent society while we fixed our eyes on the vision of that to come\nwhen environment, education and heredity had accomplished their perfect\nwork. Unfortunately--or perhaps fortunately--science is rapidly\nreconsidering its earlier and somewhat hasty conclusions, and the\nconsensus of the most authoritative opinion seems to be that we must\nbelieve these things no longer. Failing these premises, on which we have\nlaboured so long and so honestly and so sincerely, we are again thrown\nback on the testimony of history and our own observation, and with this\nreversal we also are bound to reconsider both our premises and the\nconstitution of those systems and institutions we have erected on them\nas a foundation.\n\nThe existence of a general law does not exclude exceptions. The fact\nthat in the case of human beings we have to take into consideration a\npowerful factor that does not come into play in the domain of zo\u00f6logy\nand botany--the immortal soul--makes impossible the drawing of exact\ndeductions from precedents therein established. This determining touch\nof the divine, which is no result of biological processes, but stands\noutside the limitations of heredity and environment and education, may\nmanifest itself quite as well in one class as in another, for \"God is no\nrespecter of persons.\" As has been said before, there is no difference\nin degree as between immortal souls. The point is, however, that each is\nlinked to a specific congeries of tendencies, limitations, effective or\ndefective agencies, that are what they have been made by the parents of\nthe race. These may be such as enable the soul to triumph in its earthly\nexperience and in its bodily housing; they may be such as will bring\nabout failure and defeat. It is not that the soul builds itself \"more\nstately mansions\"; it is that these are provided for it by the physical\nprocesses of life, and it is almost the first duty of man to see that\nthey are well built.\n\nAgain, the soul is single and personal; as it is not a plexus of\ninherited tendencies, so it is not heritable, and a great soul showing\nsuddenly in the dusk of a dull race contributes nothing of its essential\nquality to the issue of the body it has made its house. The stews of a\nmill town may suddenly be illuminated by the radiance of a divine soul,\nto the amazement of profligate parents and the confusion of eugenists;\nbut unless the unsolvable mystery of life has determined on a new\nspecies, and so by a sudden influx of the _\u00e9lan vital_ cuts off the line\nof physical succession and establishes one that is wholly new, then the\nbrightness dies away with the passing of the splendid soul, and the\nestablished tendencies resume their sway.\n\nThe bearing of this theory on the actions of society is immediate.\nThrough the complete disregard of race-values that has obtained during\nthe last two or three centuries, and the emergence and complete\nsupremacy in all categories of life of human groups of low potential,\ncivilization has been brought down to a level where it is threatened\nwith disaster. If recovery is to be effected and a second era of \"dark\nages\" avoided, there must be an entirely new evaluation of things, a new\nestimate of the principles and methods that obtained under Modernism,\nand a fearless adventure into fields that may prove not to be so\nunfamiliar as might at first appear.\n\nSpecifically, we must revise our attitude as to immigration, excluding\nwhole classes, and even races, that we have hitherto welcomed with open\nhands from the disinterested offices of steamship companies: we must\ncontrol and in some cases prohibit, the mating of various racial stocks;\nfinally we must altogether disallow the practice of changing, by law,\none race-name for another. This process is one for which no excuse\nexists and unless it can be brought to an end then, apart from certain\nphysical differentiations on which nature wisely insists, we have no\nguaranty against the adulteration that has gone so far towards\nsubstituting the mongrel for the pure racial type, while society is\nbound to suffer still further deception and continued danger along the\nlines that have recently been indicated by the transformation of\nTreibitsch into \"Lincoln,\" Braunstein into \"Trotsky\" and Samuels into\n\"Montague.\"\n\nFor its fulfillment, then, and its regeneration, the real democracy\ndemands and must achieve the creation and cooperation of a real\naristocracy, not an aristocracy of material force either military or\ncivil, nor one of land owners or money-getters, nor one of artificial\ncaste. All these substitutes have been tried from time to time, in Rome,\nChina, Great Britain, the United States, and all have failed in the end,\nfor all have ignored the one essential point of _character_, without\nwhich we shall continue to reproduce what we have at present; a thing as\ninsolent, offensive and tyrannical as the old aristocracies at their\nworst, with none of the constructive and beneficent qualities of the old\naristocracies at their best.\n\nThat race-values have much to do with this development of character I\nbelieve to be true, but of far greater efficiency, indeed the actual\nmotive force, is the Christian religion, working directly on and through\nthe individual and using race as only one of its material means of\noperation. Democracy has accomplished its present failure, not only\nbecause it could not function without the cooperation of aristocracy,\nbut chiefly because, in its modernist form, it has become in fact\nisolated from Christianity. All in it of good it derives from that\nCatholic Christianity of the Middle Ages which first put it into\npractice, all in it of evil it owes to a falling back on paganism and a\ndenial of its own parentage and rejection of its control. I shall deal\nwith this later in more detail; I speak of it now just for the purpose\nof entering a caveat against any deduction from what I have said that\nany natural force, of race or evolution or anything else, or any formal\ninstitution devised by man, ever has, or ever can, serve in itself as a\nway of social redemption. I am anxious not to overemphasize these things\non which the development of my argument forces me to lay particular\nstress.\n\nFor those who can go with me so far, the question will arise: How then\nare we so to reorganize society that we may gain the end in view? It is\na question not easy of solution. Granted the fact of social\ndifferentiation and the necessity of its recognition, how are we to\nbreak down the wholly wrong system that now obtains and substitute\nanother in its place? It would be simple enough if within the period\nallowed us by safety (apparently not any too extended at the present\nmoment) a working majority of men could achieve, in the old and exact\nphraseology, that change of heart, that spiritual conversion, that would\nbring back into permanent authority the supernatural virtues of faith,\nhope, and charity, and that sense of right values in life, which\ntogether make almost indifferent the nature of the formal devices man\ncreates for the organization of society. Certainly this is possible;\ngreater miracles have happened in history but, failing this, what?\n\nOne turns of course by instinct to old models, but in this is the danger\nof an attempt at an archaeological restoration, a futile effort at\nreviving dead forms that have had their day. In principle, and in the\nworking as well, the old orders of chivalry or knighthood strongly\ncommend themselves, for here there was, in principle, both the\nmaintenance of high ideals of honour courtesy and _noblesse oblige,_ and\nthe rendering of chivalrous service. Chesterton has put it well in the\nphrase \"the giving things which cannot be demanded, the avoiding things\nwhich cannot be punished.\" Moreover, admission to the orders of\nknighthood was free to all provided there were that cause which came\nfrom personal character alone. Knighthood was the crown of knightly\nservice and it was forfeited for recreancy. Is there not in this some\nsuggestion of what may again be established as an incentive and a\nreward, and as well, as a vital agency for the reorganization of\nsociety?\n\nKnighthood is personal, and is for the lifetime of the recipient. Is\nthere any value in an estate where status is heritable? If there is any\nvalidity in the theory of varying and persistent race-values, it would\nseem so, yet the idea of recognizing this excellence of certain families\nand the reasonable probability of their maintaining the established\nstandard unimpaired, and so giving them a formal status, would no doubt\nbe repugnant to the vast majority of men in the United States. I think\nthis aversion is based on prejudice, natural but ill-founded. We resent\nthe idea of privilege without responsibility, as we should, but this,\nwhile it was the condition of those aristocracies which were operative\nat the time of the founding of the Republic, was opposed to the\nMediaeval, or true idea, which linked responsibility with privilege. The\nold privilege is gone and cannot be restored, but already we have a new\nprivilege which is being claimed and enforced by proletarian groups, and\nthe legislative representatives of the whole people stand in such terror\nof massed votes that they not only fail to check this astonishing and\ntopsy-turvy movement, but actually further its pretensions. The\n\"dictatorship of the proletariat\" actually means the restoration of\nprivilege in a form far more tyrannical and monstrous than any ever\nexercised by the old aristocracies of Italy, France, Germany and\nEngland. Much recent legislation in Washington exempting certain\nindustrial and agricultural classes from the operation of laws which\nbear heavily on other classes, and some of the claims and pretensions of\nunionized labor, tend in precisely the same direction.\n\nIt is not restoration of privilege I have in mind but rather in a sense\nthe prevention of this through the existence of a class or estate that\nhas a fixed status dependent first on character and service and then on\nan assured position that is not contingent on political favour, the bulk\nof votes, or the acquisition of an inordinate amount of money. Surety of\nposition works towards independence of thought and action and towards\nstrong leadership. It establishes and maintains certain high ideals of\nhonour, chivalry, and service as well as of courtesy and manners. If the\nthings for which the gentlemen, the knighthood and the nobility of\nEurope during the Christian dispensation were responsible were stricken\nfrom the record there would be comparatively little left of the history\nof European culture and civilization.\n\nAfter all, is it merely sentimentalism and a sense of the picturesque\nthat leads us to look backward with some wistfulness to the days of\nwhich the record is still left us in legends and fairy-tales and old\nromance, when ignorance and vulgarity did not sit in high places even if\narrogance and pride and tyranny sometimes did, and when the profiteer\nand the oriental financier and the successful politician did not\nrepresent the distinction and the chivalry and the courtesy and the\nhonour of the social organism man builds for his own habitation? The\nidea of knighthood still stirs us and the deeds of chivalry and the\ncourtesy and the honour of the social Knights of the Round Table,\nCrusaders and knights errant, the quest of the Holy Grail, rescue and\nadventure, the fighting with paynims and powers of evil, still stir our\nblood and arouse in our minds strange contrasts and antinomies. Princes\nand fair chatelaines in their wide domains with castle and chase and\ndelicate pleasaunce, liege-men bound to them by more than the feudal\nties of service. All the varied honours of nobility, vitalized by\nsignificant ritual and symbolized by splendid and beautiful costumes.\nCourts of Love and troubadours and trouv\u00e8res, kings who were kings\nindeed, with the splendour and courtesy and beneficence of their\ncourts--Louis the Saint and Frederic II, Edward III and King\nCharles--above all the simple rank and high honour of the \"gentleman,\"\nthe representative of a long line of honourable tradition, no casual and\npurse-proud upstart, but of proud race and unquestioned status, proud\nbecause it stood for certain high ideals of honour and chivalry and\nloyalty, of courtesy and breeding and compassion. All these old things\nof long ago still rouse in us answering humours, and there are a few of\nus who can hardly see just why they are inconsistent with liberty and\nopportunity, justice, righteousness and mercy.\n\nSomehow the last two generations, and especially the last ten years,\nhave revealed many things hitherto hidden, and as we envisage society as\nit has come to be, estimating it by new-found standards and establishing\nnew comparisons through a recovery of a more just historical sense, the\nquestion comes whether it is indeed more wholesome, more beautiful, more\nnormal to man as he is, than the older society that in varying forms but\nalways the same principle, had held throughout all history until the new\nmodel came in, now hardly a century ago.\n\nI do not think this wistful and bewildered looking backward is\nparticularly due to a new desire for beauty, that comeliness of\ncondition that existed then and has now given place to gross ugliness\nand ill-conditioned manners and ways. Rather it seems to me it is due to\na sense of irrationality and fundamental injustice in the present order,\ncoupled with a new terror of the proximate issue as this already is\nrevealing itself amongst many peoples. We resent the high estate,\npurchasable and purchased, of the cynical intriguer and the vulgar\nprofiteer, of the tradesman in \"big business,\" the cheap prophet and the\npathetic progeny of \"successful men\" fast reverting to type. We know our\ncity councils and our state legislatures and our houses of congress, we\nknow our newspapers, their standards and the motive powers behind them,\nand what they record of the character and the doings of what they call\n\"society men and women.\" Above all we know that under the ancient\nregime, in spite of manifold failures, shortcomings and disloyalty,\nthere was such a thing as a standard of honour, a principle of chivalry,\nan impulse to unselfish service, a criterion of courtesy and good\nmanners; we look for these things now in vain, except amongst those\nlittle enclaves of oblivion where the old character and old breeding\nstill maintain a fading existence, and as we consider what we have\nbecome we sometimes wonder if the price we have paid for \"democracy\" was\nnot too extortionate.\n\nAbove all, we are tempted to this query when we think of our vanishing\nstandards of right and wrong, of our progressive reversal of values, of\nour diminishing stock of social character. We tore down in indignant\nrevolt the rotten fabric of a bad social system when it had so far\ndeclined from its ideal and its former estate that it could no longer be\nendured, and we made a new thing, full as we were with the fire of\ndesire for a new righteousness and a new system that would compass it.\nPerhaps we did well, at least we hardly could have done anything else;\nbut now we are again in the position of our forefathers who saw things\nas they were and acted with force and decision. There are as many counts\nagainst our society of plutocrats, politicians and proletarians, mingled\nin complete and ineffective confusion, as there were against the\naristocracies, so called, of the eighteenth century. Perhaps there are\nmore, at least many of them are different, but the indictment is no less\nsweeping.\n\nOur plan, so generous, so liberal, so high-minded in many ways, has\nfailed to produce the results we desired, while it has worked itself out\nto the point of menace. It is for us to see these facts clearly, and so\nto act, and so promptly, that we may not have to await the destroying\nforce of cataclysm for the correction of our errors.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nTHE INDUSTRIAL PROBLEM\n\nThe solution of the industrial and economic problem that now confronts\nthe entire world with an insistence that is not to be denied, is\ncontingent on the restoration, first of all, of the holiness and the joy\nof work. Labour is not a curse, it is rather one of the greatest of the\nearthly blessings of man, provided its sanctity is recognized and its\nperformance is accomplished with satisfaction to the labourer. In work\nman creates, whether the product is a bushel of potatoes from a space of\nonce arid ground, or whether it is the Taj Mahal, Westminster Abbey or\nthe Constitution of the United States, and so working he partakes\nsomething of the divine power of creation.\n\nWhen work is subject to slavery, all sense of its holiness is lost, both\nby master and bondman; when it is subject to the factory system all the\njoy in labour is lost. Ingenuity may devise one clever panacea after\nanother for the salving work and for lifting the working classes from\nthe intolerable conditions that have prevailed for more than a century;\nthey will be ephemeral in their existence and futile in their results\nunless sense of holiness is restored, and the joy in production and\ncreation given back to those who have been defrauded.\n\nBefore Christianity prevailed slavery was universal in civilized\ncommunities, labour, as conducted under that regime, was a curse, and\nthis at length came home to roost on the gaunt wreckage of imperialism.\nThereafter came slowly increasing liberty under the feudal system with\nits small social units and its system of production for use not profits,\nmonasticism with its doctrine and practice of the sanctity of work, and\nthe Church with its progressive emancipation of the spiritual part of\nman. Work was not easy, on the contrary it was very hard throughout the\nDark Ages and Mediaevalism, but there is no particular merit in easy\nwork. It was virtually free except for the labour and contributions in\nkind exacted by the over-lord (less in proportion than taxes in money\nhave been at several times since) from the workers on the soil, and in\nthe crafts of every kind redeemed from undue arduousness by the joy that\ncomes from doing a thing well and producing something of beauty,\noriginality and technical perfection.\n\nThe period during which work possessed the most honourable status and\nthe joy in work was the greatest, extends from the beginnings of the\ntwelfth century well into the sixteenth. In some centuries, and along\ncertain lines of activity, it continued much longer, notably in England\nand the United States, but social and industrial conditions were rapidly\nchanging, the old aristocracy was becoming perverted, Lutheranisms,\nCalvinism and Puritanism were breaking down the old communal sense of\nbrotherhood so arduously built up during the Middle Ages, capitalism was\nousting the trade and craft guilds of free labour and political\nabsolutism was crushing ever lower and lower a proletariat that was fast\nlosing the last vestiges of old liberty. The fact of slavery without the\nname was gradually imposed on the agricultural classes, and after the\nsuppression of the monasteries in England work as work lost its sacred\ncharacter and fell under contempt. With the outbreak of industrialism in\nthe last quarter of the eighteenth century through the institution and\nintroduction of \"labour-saving\" machinery and the consequent division of\nlabour, the factory system, the joint-stock company and capitalism, this\nnew slavery was extended to industrial workers, and with its\nestablishment disappeared the element of joy in labour.\n\nFor fifty years, about the blackest half-century civilization has had to\nrecord, this condition of industrial slavery continued with little\namendment. Very slowly, however, the workers themselves, championed by\ncertain aristocrats like the seventh Earl of Shaftsbury against\nprofessional Liberals like Cobden, Bright, and Gladstone in England,\nbegan to loosen the shackles that bound them to infamous conditions, and\nafter the abrogation of laws that made any association of workingmen a\npenal offense, the labour unions began to ameliorate certain of the\nservile conditions under which for two generations the workman had\nsuffered. Since then the process of abolishing wage-slavery went slowly\nforward until at last the war came not only to threaten its destruction\naltogether but also to place the emancipated workers in a position where\nthey could dictate terms and conditions to capital, to employers, to\ngovernment and to the general public; while even now in many parts of\nEurope and America, besides Russia, overt attempts are being made to\nbring back the old slavery, only with the former bondsmen in supreme\ndictatorship, the former employers and the \"bourgeoisie\" in the new\nserfage.\n\nThe old slavery is gone, but the joy in work has not been restored;\ninstead, those who have achieved triumphant emancipation turn from\nlabour itself with the same distaste, yes, with greater aversion than\nthat which obtained under the old r\u00e9gime. With every added liberty and\nexemption, with every shortening of hours and increase of pay,\nproduction per hour falls off and the quality of the output declines.\nWhat is the reason for this? Is it due to the viciousness of the worker,\nto his natural selfishness, greed and cruelty? I do not think so, but\nrather that the explanation is to be found in the fact that the\nindustrial system of modernism has resulted in a condition where the joy\nhas been altogether cut out of labour, and that until this state of\nthings has been reversed and the sense of the holiness of work and the\njoy of working have been restored, it is useless to look for workable\nsolutions of the labour problem. The _fact_ of industrial slavery has\nbeen done away with but the sense of the servile condition that attaches\nto work has been retained, therefore the idea of the dignity and\nholiness of labour has not come back any more than the old joy and\nsatisfaction. Failing this recovery, no reorganization of industrial\nrelations, neither profit-sharing nor shop committees, neither\nnationalization nor state socialism, neither the abolition of capital,\nnor Soviets nor syndicalism nor the dictatorship of the proletariat will\nget us anywhere. It is all a waste of time, and, through its ultimate\nfailure and disappointments, an intensification of an industrial\ndisease.\n\nWhy is it that this is so? For an answer I must probe deep and, it may\nseem, cut wildly. I believe it is because we have built up a system that\ngoes far outside the limits of human scale, transcends human capacity,\nis forbidden by the laws and conditions of life, and must be abrogated\nif it is not to destroy itself and civilization in the process.\n\nWhat, precisely has taken place? Late in the eighteenth century two\nthings happened; the discovery of the potential inherent in coal and its\nderivative, steam, with electricity yet unexploited but ready to hand,\nand the application of this to industrial purposes, together with the\ninitiating of a long and astounding series of discoveries and inventions\nall applicable to industrial purposes. With a sort of vertiginous\nrapidity the whole industrial process was transformed from what it had\nbeen during the period of recorded history; steam and machinery took the\nplace of brain and hand power directly applied, and a revolution greater\nthan any other was effected.\n\nThe new devices were hailed as \"labour-saving\" but they vastly increased\nlabour both in hours of work and in hands employed. Bulk production\nthrough the factory system was inevitable, the result being an enormous\nsurplus over the normal and local demand. To organize and conduct these\nprocesses of bulk-production required money greater in amount than\nindividuals could furnish; so grew up capitalism, the joint-stock\ncompany, credit and cosmopolitan finance. To produce profits and\ndividends markets must be found for the huge surplus product. This was\naccomplished by stimulating the covetousness of people for things they\nhad not thought of, under normal conditions would not, in many cases,\nneed, and very likely would be happier without, and in \"dumping\" on\nsupposedly barbarous peoples in remote parts of the world, articles\nalien to their traditions and their mode of life and generally\npestiferous in their influence and results. So came advertising in all\nits branches, direct and indirect, from the newspaper and the bill-board\nto the drummer, the diplomatic representative and the commercial\nmissionary.\n\nEvery year saw some new invention that increased the product per man,\nthe development of some new advertising device, the conquest of some new\nterritory or the delimitation of some new \"sphere of influence,\" and the\nrevelation of some new possibility in the covetousness of man. Profits\nrose to new heights and accumulating dividends clamoured for new\nopportunities for investment. Competition tended to cut down returns,\ntherefore labour was more and more sustained through diminished wages\nand laws that savagely prevented any concerted effort towards\nself-defense. Improvements in agricultural processes and the application\nof machinery and steam power, together with bulk-production and\nscientific localization of crops, threw great quantities of\nfarm-labourers out of work and drove them into the industrial towns,\nwhile advances in medical science and in sanitation raised the\nproportion of births to deaths and soon provided a surplus of potential\nlabour so that the operation of the \"law of supply and demand,\" extolled\nby a new philosophy and enforced by the new \"representative\" or\ndemocratic and parliamentary government, resulted in an unfailing supply\nof cheap labour paid wages just beyond the limit of starvation.\n\nAt last there came evidences that the limit had been reached; the whole\nworld had been opened up and pre-empted, labour was beginning to demand\nand even get more adequate wages, competition, once hailed as \"the life\nof trade\" was becoming so fierce that dividends were dwindling.\nSomething had to be done and in self-defense industries began to\ncoalesce in enormous \"trusts\" and \"combines\" and monopolies.\nCapitalization of millions now ran into billions, finance became\ninternational in its scope and gargantuan in its proportions and\nominousness, advertising grew from its original simplicity and na\u00efvet\u00e9\ninto a vast industry based on all that the most ingenious professors\ncould tell of applied psychology, subsidizing artists, poets, men of\nletters, employing armies of men along a hundred different lines,\nexpending millions annually in its operations, making the modern\nnewspaper possible, and ultimately developing the whole system of\npropaganda which has now become the one great determining factor in the\nmaking of public opinion.\n\nWhen the twentieth century opened, that industrialism which had begun\njust a century before, had, with its various collateral developments,\nfinancial, educational, journalistic, etc., become not only the greatest\nforce in society, but as well a thing operating on the largest scale\nthat man had ever essayed: beside it the Roman Empire was parochial.\n\nThe result of this institution, conceived on such imperial lines, was,\nin the field we are now considering, the total destruction of the sense\nof the holiness of labour and of joy in work. It extended far beyond the\nlimits of pure industrialism; it moulded and controlled society in all\nits forms, destroying ideals old as history, reversing values, confusing\nissues and wrecking man's powers of judgment. Until the war it seemed\nirresistible, now its weakness and the fallacy of its assumptions are\nrevealed, but it has become so absolutely a part of our life, indeed of\nour nature, that we are unable to estimate it by any sound standards of\njudgment, and even when we approximate this we cannot think in other\nterms when we try to devise our schemes of redemption. Even the\nsocialist and the Bolshevik think in imperial terms when they try to\ncompass the ending of imperialism.\n\nUnder this supreme system, as I see it, the two essential things I have\nspoken of cannot be restored, nor could they maintain themselves if, by\nsome miracle, they were once re-established. The indictment cannot be\nclosed here. The actual condition that has developed from industrialism\npresents certain factors that are not consonant with sane, wholesome and\nChristian living. Not only has the unit of human scale in human society\nbeen done away with, not only have the sense of the nobility of work and\njoy in the doing been exterminated, but, as well, certain absolutely\nfalse principles and methods have been adopted which are not susceptible\nof reform but only of abolition.\n\nOf some of these I have spoken already; the alarming drift towards\ncities, until now in the United States more than one-half the population\nis urban; the segregation of industries in certain cities and regions;\nthe minute division of labour and intensive specialization; the abnormal\ngrowth of a true proletariat or non-land-holding class; the flooding of\nthe country by cheap labour drawn from the most backward communities and\nfrom peoples of low race-value. Out of this has arisen a bitter class\nconflict and the ominous beginnings of a perilous class consciousness,\nwith actual warfare joined in several countries, and threatened in all\nothers where industrial civilization is prevalent. With this has grown\nup an artificially stimulated covetousness for a thousand futile\nluxuries, and a standard of living that presupposes a thousand\nnon-essentials as basic necessities. Production for profit, not use,\nexcess production due to machinery, efficient organization, and surplus\nof labour, together with the necessity for marketing the product at a\nprofit, have produced a state of things where at least one-half the\navailable labour in the country is engaged in the production and sale of\narticles which are not necessary to physical, intellectual or spiritual\nlife, while of the remainder, hardly more than a half is employed in\nproduction, the others are devoting themselves to distribution and to\nthe war of competition through advertising and the capturing of trade by\ningenious and capable salesmen. It is a significant fact that two of the\ngreatest industries in the United States are the making of automobiles\nand moving pictures.\n\nIt is probably true to say that of the potential labour in the United\nStates, about one-fourth is producing those things which are physically,\nintellectually and spiritually necessary; the remaining three-fourths\nare essentially non-producers: they must, however, be housed, fed,\nclothed, and amused, and the cost of this support is added to the cost\nof the necessities of life. The reason for the present high cost of\nliving lies possibly here.\n\nLest I be misunderstood, let me say here that under the head of\nnecessities of life I do not mean a new model automobile each year,\nmoving pictures, mechanical substitutes for music or any other art, and\nthe thousand catch-trade devices that appear each year for the purpose\nof filching business from another or establishing a new desire in the\nalready over-crowded imaginations of an over-stimulated populace.\nParticularly do I not mean advertising in any sense in which it is now\nunderstood and practised. If, as I believe to be the case, production\nfor profit, rather than for use, the reversal of the ancient doctrine\nthat the demand must produce the supply, in favour of the doctrine that\nthe supply must foster the demand, is the foundation of our economic\nerror and our industrial ills, then it follows that advertising as it is\nnow carried on by billboards, circulars and newspapers, by drummers,\nsolicitors and consular agents, falls in the same condemnation, for\nexcept by its offices the system could not have succeeded or continue to\nfunction. It is bad in itself as the support and strength of a bad\ninstitution, but its guilt does not stop here. So plausible is it, so\nessential to the very existence of the contemporary r\u00e9gime, so knit up\nwith all the commonest affairs of life, so powerful in its organization\nand broad in its operations, it has poisoned, and continues to poison,\nthe minds of men so that the headlong process of losing all sense of\ncomparative values is accelerated, while every instinctive effort at\nrecovery and readjustment is nullified. How far this process has gone\nmay be illustrated by two instances. It is only a few months ago that a\nmost respected clergyman publicly declared that missionaries were the\ngreatest and most efficient asset to trade because they were unofficial\ncommercial agents who opened up new and savage countries to Western\ncommerce through advertising commodities of which the natives had never\nheard, and arousing in them a sense of acquisitiveness that meant more\nwealth and business for trade and manufacture, which should support\nforeign missions on this ground at least. More recently the head of an\nadvertising concern in New York is reported to have said: \"It is\nprincipally through advertising that we have arrived at the high degree\nof civilization which this age enjoys, for advertising has taught us the\nuse of books and how to furnish our homes with the thousand and one\ncomforts that add so materially to our physical and intellectual\nwell-being. The future of the world depends on advertising. Advertising\nis the salvation of civilization, for civilization cannot outlive\nadvertising a century.\"\n\nIt is tempting to linger over such a delectable morsel as this, for even\nif it is only the absurd and irresponsible output of one poor, foolish\nman, it does express more or less what industrial civilization holds to\nbe true, though few would avow their faith so whole-heartedly. The\nstatement was made as propaganda, and propaganda is merely advertising\nin its most insidious and dangerous form. The thing revealed its\npossibilities during the war, but the black discredit that was then very\njustly attached to it could not prevail against its manifest potency,\nand it is now universally used after the most comprehensive and\nfrequently unscrupulous fashion, with results that can only be perilous\nin the extreme. The type and calibre of mind that has now been released\nfrom long bondage, and by weight of numbers is now fast taking over the\ndirection of affairs, is curiously subservient to the written word, and\nlacking a true sense of comparative values, without effective leadership\neither secular or religious, is easily swayed by every wind of doctrine.\nThe forces of evil that are ever in conflict with the forces of right\nare notoriously ingenious in making the worse appear the better cause,\nand with every desire for illumination and for following the right way,\nthe multitude, whether educated or illiterate, fall into the falsehoods\nof others' imaginings. Money, efficiency, an acquired knowledge of mob\npsychology, the printing press and the mail service acting in alliance,\nand directed by fanatical or cynical energy, form a force of enormous\npotency that is now being used effectively throughout society. It is\nirresponsible, anonymous and pervasive. Through its operation the last\nbarriers are broken down between the leadership of character and the\nleadership of craft, while all formal distinctions between the valuable\nand the valueless are swept away.\n\nI have spoken at some length of this particular element in the present\ncondition of things, because in both its aspects, as the support of our\npresent industrial and economic system and as the efficient moulder of a\nfluid and unstable public opinion, it is perhaps the strongest and most\nsubtle force of which we must take account.\n\nWith a system so prevalent as imperial industry, so knit up with every\nphase of life and thought, and so determining a factor in all our\nconcepts, united as it is with two such invincible allies as advertising\nand propaganda, it is inconceivable that it should be overthrown by any\nhuman force from without. Holding it to be essentially wrong, it seems\nto me providential that it is already showing signs of falling by its\nown weight. Production of commodities has far exceeded production of the\nmeans of payment, and society is now running on promises to pay, on\npaper obligations, on anticipations of future production and sale, on\ncredit, in a word. The war has enormously magnified this condition until\nan enforced liquidation would mean bankruptcy for all the nations of the\nearth, while the production of utilities is decreasing in proportion to\nthe production of luxuries, labour is exacting increasing pay for\ndecreasing hours of work and quality of output, and the enormous\nfinancial structure, elaborately and ingeniously built up through\nseveral generations, is in grave danger of immediate catastrophe. The\nwhole world is in the position of an insolvent debtor who is so deeply\ninvolved that his creditors cannot afford to let him go into bankruptcy,\nand so keep him out of the Poor Debtor's Court by doling out support\nfrom day to day. Confidence is the only thing that keeps matters going;\nwhat happens when this is lost is now being demonstrated in many parts\nof Europe. The optimist claims that increased production, coupled with\nenforced economy, will produce a satisfactory solution, but there is no\nevidence that labour, now having the whip-hand, will give up its present\nadvantage sufficiently to make this possible; even if it did, payment\nmust be in the form of exchange or else in further promises to pay,\nwhile the capacity of the world for consumption is limited somewhere,\nthough thus far \"big business\" has failed to recognize this fact. At\npresent the interest charges on debts, both public and private, have\nreached a point where they come near to consuming all possible profits\neven from a highly accelerated rate of production. Altogether it is\nreasonable to assume that the present financial-industrial system is\nnear its term for reasons inherent in itself, let alone the possibility\nof a further extension of the drastic and completely effective measures\nof destruction that are characteristics of Bolshevism and its\nblood-brothers.\n\nAssuming that this is so, two questions arise: what is to take the place\nof imperial industry, and how is this substitution to be brought about?\n\nI think the answer to the first is: a social and industrial system based\non small, self-contained, largely self-sufficing units, where supply\nfollows demand, where production is primarily for use not profit, and\nwhere in all industrial operations some system will obtain which is more\nor less that of the guilds of the Middle Ages. I should like to go into\nthis a little more in detail before trying to answer the second\nquestion.\n\nThe normal social unit is a group of families predominantly of the same\nrace, territorially compact, of substantially the same ideals as\nexpressed in religion and the philosophy of life, and sufficiently\nnumerous to provide from within itself the major part of those things\nwhich are necessary to physical, intellectual and spiritual well-being.\nIt should consist of a central nucleus of houses, each with its garden,\nthe churches, schools and public buildings that are requisite, the\nmanufactories and workshops that supply the needs of the community, the\nshops for sale of those things not produced at home, and all necessary\nplaces of amusement. Around this residential centre should be sufficient\nagricultural land to furnish all the farm products that will be consumed\nby the community itself. The nucleus of habitation and industry,\ntogether with the surrounding farms, make up the social unit, which is\nto the fullest possible degree, self-contained, self-sufficient and\nself-governing.\n\nCertain propositions are fundamental, and they are as follows: Every\nfamily should own enough land to support itself at need. The farms\nincluded in the unit must produce enough to meet the needs of the\npopulation. Industry must be so organized that it will normally serve\nthe resident population along every feasible line. Only such things as\ncannot be produced at home on account of climatic or soil limitations\nshould be imported from outside. All necessary professional services\nshould be obtainable within the community itself. All financial\ntransactions such as loans, credits, banking and insurance should be\ndomestic. Surplus products, whether agricultural, industrial or\nprofessional, should be considered as by-products, and in no case should\nthe producing agency acquire such magnitude that home-consumption\nbecomes a side issue and production for profit take the place of\nproduction for use.\n\nAll this is absolutely opposed to our present system, but our present\nsystem is wasteful, artificial, illogical, unsocial, and therefore\nvicious. I have said enough as to the falsities, the dangers and the\nfailures of bulk-production through the operations of capitalism, the\nfactory system and advertising, but its concomitant, the segregation of\nindustries, is equally objectionable. To ship hogs 1,500 miles to be\nslaughtered and packed in food form, and then ship this manufactured\nproduct back to the source from which the raw material came; to feed a\ngreat city with grain, potatoes and fruits coming from 1,000 to 3,000\nmiles away, and vegetables from a distance of several hundred miles,\nwhile the farms within a radius of fifty miles are abandoned and barren;\nto make all the shoes for the nation in one small area, to spin the wool\nand cotton and weave the cloth in two or three others; to make the\ngreater part of the furniture in one state, the automobiles in a second\nand the breakfast food in a third, is so preposterous a proposition that\nit belongs in Gulliver's Travels, not in the annals of a supposedly\nintelligent people. The only benefit is that which for a time accrued to\nthe railways, which carted raw materials and finished products back and\nforth over thousands of miles of their lines, the costs of shipment and\nreshipment being naturally added to the price to the consumer. The\npenalties for this uneconomic procedure were borne by society at large,\nnot only in the increased costs but through the abnormal communities,\neach with its tens of thousands of operatives all engaged in the same\nwork and generally drawn from foreign races (with the active\nco-operation of the steamship lines), and the permanent dislocation of\nthe labour supply, together with the complete disruption of the social\nsynthesis.\n\nWith production for profit and segregation of industries has come an\nalmost infinitesimal division and specialization of labour. Under a\nright industrial system this would be reduced, not magnified. The\ndignity of labour and the joy of creation demand that in so far as\npossible each man should carry through one entire operation. This is of\ncourse now, and always has been under any highly developed civilization,\nimpossible in practice, except along certain lines of art and\ncraftsmanship. The evils of the existing system can in a measure be done\naway with the moment production for use is the recognized law, for it is\nonly in bulk-production that this intensive specialization can be made\nto pay. Bulk-production there will always be until, and if, the world is\nreorganized on the basis of an infinite number of self-contained social\nunits, but in the ideal community--and I am dealing now with ideals--it\nwould not exist.\n\nAllied with this is the whole question of the factory method and the use\nand misuse of machinery. It seems to me that the true principle is that\nmachinery and the factory are admissible only when so employed they\nactually do produce, in bulk operations, a better product, and with less\nlabour, than is possible through hand work. Weaving, forging and all\nwork where human action must be more or less mechanical, offer a fair\nfield for the machine and the factory, but wherever the human element\ncan enter, where personality and the skilled craft of the hand are given\nplay, the machine and the factory are inadmissible. The great city,\ncreation of \"big business,\" segregation of industries, advertising,\nsalesmanship and a hundred other concomitants of modernism, have built\nup an abnormal and avaricious demand for bulk-production along lines\nwhere the handicraft should function. It becomes necessary--let us\nsay--to provide a million dollars worth of furniture for a ten million\ndollar hotel (itself to be superseded and scrapped in perhaps ten years)\nand naturally only the most intensive and efficient factory system can\nmeet this demand. Rightly, however, the furniture of a community should\nbe produced by the local cabinet makers, and so it should be in many\nother industries now entirely taken over by the factory system.\n\nFor the future then we must consciously work for the building upward\nfrom primary units, so completely reversing our present practice of\ncreating the big thing and fighting hopelessly to preserve such small\nand few doles of liberty and personality as may be permitted to filter\ndownward from above. This is the only true democracy, and the thing we\ncall by the name is not this, largely because we have bent our best\nenergies to the building up of vast and imperial aggregates which have\ninevitably assumed a complete unity in themselves and become dominating,\ntyrannical and ruthless forces that have operated regardless of the\nsound laws and wholesome principles of a right society. Neither the\nvital democracy of principle nor the artificial democracy of practice\ncan exist in conjunction with imperialism, whether this is established\nin government, in industry, in trade, in society or in education.\n\nIf we can assume, then, the gradual development of a new society in\nwhich these principles will be carried out, a society that is made up of\nsocial units of human scale, self-contained, self-supporting and\nself-governed, where production is primarily for use not profit, and\nwhere bulk-production is practically non-existent, the sub-division of\nlabour reduced to the lowest practicable point, machinery employed to a\nmuch less extent than now, and the factory system abolished, what\norganic form will labour take on in place of that which now obtains? It\nis possible to forecast this only in the most general terms, for life\nitself must operate to determine the lines of development and dictate\nthe consequent forms. If we can acquire a better standard of comparative\nvalues, and with a clearer and more fearless vision estimate the rights\nand wrongs of the contemporary system, rejecting the ill thing and\njealously preserving, or passionately regaining, the good, we shall be\nable to establish certain broad, fundamental and governing principles,\nand doing this we can await in confidence the evolution of the organic\nforms that will be the working agencies of the new society.\n\nI have tried to indicate some of the basic principles of a new society.\nThe operating forms, so far as industry is concerned, will, I think,\nfollow in essential respects the craft-guilds of the Middle Ages. They\nwill not be an archaeological restoration, as some of the English\nprotagonists of this great revolution seem to anticipate, they will be\nvariously adapted to the peculiar conditions of a new century, but the\nbasic principles will be preserved. Whatever happens, I am sure it will\nnot be either a continuation of the present system of capitalism and\nprofit-hunting, or nationalization of industries, or state socialism in\nany form, or anything remotely resembling Bolshevism, syndicalism or a\n\"dictatorship of the proletariat.\" Here, as in government, education and\nsocial relations, the power and the authority of the state must decline,\ngovernment itself withdrawing more and more from interference with the\noperation of life, and liberty find its way back to the individual and\nto the social and economic groups. We live now under a more tyrannical\nand inquisitorial regime, in spite of (partly perhaps because of) its\ndemocratic forms and dogmas, than is common in historical records.\nNationalization or state socialism would mean so great a magnifying of\nthis condition that existence would soon become both grotesque and\nintolerable. We must realize, and soon, that man may lose even the last\nsemblance of liberty, as well under a nominal democracy as under a\nnominal despotism or theocracy.\n\nThe guild system was the solution of the industrial problem offered and\nenforced by Christianity working through secular life; it presupposed\nthe small social and industrial unit and becomes meaningless if\nconceived in the gigantic and comprehensive scale of modern\ninstitutions. \"National guilds\" is a contradiction in terms: it takes on\nthe same element of error that inheres in the idea of \"one big union.\"\nIn certain respects the Christian guild resembled the modern trade\nunion, but it differed from it in more ways, and it seems to be true\nthat wherever this difference exists the guild was right and the union\nis wrong. Community of fellowship and action amongst men of each craft\ntrade or calling is essential under any social system, good or bad, and\nit would be inseparable from the better society that must sometime grow\nup on the basis of the unit of human scale, for these autonomous groups,\nin order to furnish substantially all that their component parts could\nrequire, would have to be of considerable size as compared with the\nlittle farming villages of New England, though in contrast with the\ngreat cities of modernism they would be small indeed. In these new\n\"walled towns\" there would be enough men engaged in agriculture, in the\nnecessary industrial occupations, in trade and in the professions to\nform many guilds of workable size, and normally these guilds would\nneither contain members of two or more professions or occupations, nor\nthose from outside the community itself. The guild cannot function under\nintensive methods of production or where production is primarily for\nprofit, or where the factory system prevails, or where capitalism is the\nestablished system, or under combinations, trusts or other devices for\nthe establishing and maintenance of great aggregates tending always\ntowards monopoly. However much we may admire the guild system and desire\nits restoration, we may as well recognize this fact at once. The\nimperial scale must go and the human scale be restored before the guild\ncan come back in any general sense.\n\nI am assuming that this will happen, either through conscious action on\nthe part of the people or as the result of catastrophe that always\novertakes those who remain wedded to the illusions of falsity. On this\nassumption what are these enduring principles that will control the\nguild system of industry in the new State, however may be its form?\n\nThe answer is to be found in the old guilds, altars, shrines, vestments\nand sacred vessels were given in incredible quantities for the\nfurnishing and embellishment of the chapel or church; funds also for the\nmaintenance of priestly offices especially dedicated to the guild.\n\nClosely allied with the religious spirit was that of good-fellowship and\nmerrymaking. Every sort of feast and game and pageant was a part of the\nguild system, as it was indeed of life generally at this time when men\ndid not have to depend upon hired professional purveyors of amusement\nfor their edification. What they wanted they did themselves, and this\ncommunity in worship and community in merrymaking did more even than the\nmerging of common material interests, to knit the whole body together\ninto a living organism.\n\nIn how far the old system can be revived and put into operation is a\nquestion. Certainly it cannot be adopted as a fad and imposed on an\nunwilling society as a clever archaeological restoration. It will have\nto grow naturally out of life itself and along lines at present hardly\npredicable. There are many evidences that just this spontaneous\ngeneration is taking place. The guild system is being preached widely in\nEngland where the defects of the present scheme are more obvious and the\nresulting labour situation--or rather social situation--is more fraught\nwith danger than elsewhere, and already the restoration seems to have\nmade considerable headway. I am convinced, however, that the vital\naspects of the case are primarily due to the interior working of a new\nspirit born of disillusionment and the undying fire in man that flames\nalways towards regeneration; what the ardent preaching of the\nenthusiastic protagonists of the crusade best accomplishes is the\ncreation in the minds of those not directly associated with the movement\nof a readiness to give sympathy and support to the actual accomplishment\nwhen it manifests itself. Recently I have come in contact here in\nAmerica with several cases where the workmen themselves have broken away\nfrom the old ways and have actually established what are to all intents\nand purposes craft-guilds, without in the least realizing that they were\ndoing this.\n\nI think the process is bound to continue, for the old order has broken\ndown and is so thoroughly discredited it can hardly be restored. If time\nis granted us, great things must follow, but it is increasingly doubtful\nif this necessary element of time can be counted on. Daily the situation\ngrows more menacing. Capital, which so long exploited labour to its own\nfabulous profit, is not disposed to sit quiet while the fruits of its\nlabours and all prospects of future emoluments are being dissipated, and\nit is hard at work striving to effect a \"return to normalcy.\" In this it\nis being unconsciously aided by the bulk of union labour which,\nencouraged by the paramount position it achieved during the war,\ninfluenced by an avarice it may well have learned from its former\nmasters, as narrow in its vision as they, and increasingly subservient\nto a leadership which is frequently cynical and unscrupulous and always\nof an order of character and intelligence which is tending to lower and\nlower levels, is alienating sympathy and bringing unionism into\ndisrepute. In the United States the tendency is steadily towards a very\ndangerous reactionism, with a corresponding strengthening of the radical\nelement which aims at revolution, and that impossible thing, a\nproletarian dictatorship. It is this latter which is rampant and at\npresent unchecked in Europe, and this also is a constant menace to the\nsuccess of those sane and righteous movements which take their lead from\nthe guild system of the Middle Ages. A third danger, but one which is\nconstantly on the decline at present, partly because of the general\ndisrepute of governments and partly because of the enormous accessions\nof power now accruing both to reactionism and radical revolutionism, or\n\"Bolshevism,\" is state socialism or nationalization, which leaves\nuntouched all the fatal elements in industrialism while it changes only\nthe agents of administration. The complete collapse of able and\nconstructive and righteous leadership, which is one of the startling\nphenomena of modernism, has left uncontrolled the enormous energy that\nhas been released during the last three generations, and this is working\nblindly but effectively towards a cataclysm so precipitate and\ncomprehensive that it is impossible not to fear that it may determine\nlong before the sober and informed elements in society have accomplished\nvery much in the recovery and establishment of sound and righteous\nprinciples and methods.\n\nOf course we can compass whichever result we will. We may shut our eyes\nto the omens and let matters drift to disaster, or we may take thought\nand council and avert the penalty that threatens us; the event is in our\nown hands. It is as criminal to foresee and predict only catastrophe as\nit is to compass this through lethargy, selfishness and illusion. We are\nbound to believe that righteousness will prevail, even in our own time,\nand believing this, what, in general terms will be the construction of\nthe new system that must take the place of industrialism?\n\nI have already indicated what seem to me the fundamental ideas as: the\nsmall social unit that is self-sustaining; production primarily for use,\nco\u00f6peration in place of competition; a revived guild system with the\nabolition of capitalism, exploitation and intensive specialization as we\nnow know these dominant factors in modern civilization. In the\napplication of these principles there are certain innovations that will,\nI think, take place, and these may be listed somewhat as follows:\n\nLand holding will become universal and the true proletariat or landless\nclass will disappear. It may be that the holding of land will become a\nprerequisite to active citizenship. Industrial production being for use\nnot profit, the great city becomes a thing of the past, and life is\nrendered simpler through the elimination of a thousand useless and\nvicious luxuries; those employed in mechanical industries will be\nincalculably fewer than now, while those that remain will give only a\nportion of their time to industrial production, the remainder being\navailable for productive work on their own gardens and farms. The\nhandicrafts will be restored to their proper place and dignity, taking\nover into creative labour large numbers of those who otherwise would be\nsacrificed to the factory system. Where bulk production, as in weaving\nand the preparation and manufacturing of metals, is economical and\nunavoidable and carried on by factory methods, these manufactories will\nprobably be taken over by the several communities (not by the state as a\nwhole) and administered as public institutions for the benefit of the\ncommunity and under conditions and regulations which ensure justice and\nwell-being to the employees. All those in any community engaged in a\ngiven occupation, as for example, building, will form one guild made up\nof masters, journeymen and apprentices, with the same principles and\nmuch the same methods as prevailed under the ancient guild system.\nFluctuating scales of prices determined by fluctuating conditions of\ncompetition, supply and demand, and power of coercion, will give place\nto \"the fair price\" fixed by concerted community action and revised from\ntime to time in order to preserve a right balance with the general scale\nof cost of raw materials and cost of living. A maximum of returns in the\nshape of profits or dividends will be fixed by law. The community itself\nwill undertake the furnishing of credits, loans and necessary capital\nfor the establishing of a new business, charging a small rate of\ninterest and maintaining a reserve fund to meet these operations.\nPrivate banking, insurance and the loaning of money on collateral will\ncease to exist.\n\nI dare say this will all sound chimerical and irrational in the extreme;\nI do not see it in that light. Its avowed object is the supersession of\n\"big business\" in all its phases by something that comes down to human\nscale. It aims to reduce labour and divide it more evenly by making the\ngreat mass of non-producers--those engaged in distribution,\nsalesmanship, advertising, propaganda, and the furnishing of things\nunnecessary to the bodily, intellectual and spiritual needs of\nman--actual producers and self-supporting to a very large extent. It\naims at restoring to work some sense of the joy in creation through\nactive mind and hand. It aims at the elimination of the parasitic\nelement in society and of that dangerous factor which subsists on wealth\nit acquires without earning, and by sheer force of its own opulence\ndominates and degrades society. It does not strike at private ownership,\nbut rather exalts, extends and defends this, but it _does_ cut into all\nthe theories and practices of communism and socialism by establishing\nthe principle and practice of fellowship and co\u00f6peration. Is this\n\"chimerical and irrational\"?\n\nMeanwhile the \"walled towns\" do not exist and may not for generations.\n\"Big business\" is indisposed to abrogate itself. Trade unionism is\nfighting for its life and thereafter for world conquest, while the\nenmity between capital and labour increases, with no evidence that a\nrestored guild system is even approximately ready to take its place.\nStrikes and lockouts grow more and more numerous, and wider and more\nmenacing in their scope. The day of the \"general strike\" has only been\ndelayed at the eleventh hour in several countries, and a general strike,\nif it can hold for a sufficient period, means, where-ever it occurs and\nwhenever it succeeds, the end of civilization and the loosing of the\nfloods of anarchy. There is hardly time for us patiently to await the\nslow process of individual and corporate enlightenment or the\nspontaneous development of the autonomous communities which, if they\nwere sufficient in number, would solve the problem through eliminating\nthe danger. What then, in the premises, can we do?\n\nThere are of course certain concrete things which might help, as for\ninstance the further extension and honest trying out of the \"Kansas\nplan\" for regulating industrial relations; the forming of \"consumers\nleagues,\" and all possible support and furtherance of co\u00f6perative\nefforts of every sort. There are further possibilities (perhaps hardly\nprobabilities) of controlling stock issues and stock holdings so that\ndividends do not have to be paid on grossly inflated capitalization, and\nfixing the maximum of dividends payable to non-active stockholders.\nEqually desirable but equally improbable, is the raising of the level of\nleadership in the labour unions so that these valuable institutions may\nno longer stultify themselves and wreck their own cause by their unjust\nand anti-social regulations as to apprentices, control of maximum output\nand its standard of quality, division of labour with ironclad\ninhibitions against one man doing another's work and against one man\ndoing what six men can do less well, and as to the obligation to strike\non order when no local or personal grievance exists. Most useful of all\nwould be a voluntary renunciation, on the part of the purchasing public,\nof nine-tenths of the futile luxuries they now insanely demand, coupled\nwith the production by themselves of some of the commodities which are\neasily producable; in other words, establishing some measure of\nself-support and so releasing many men and women from the curse of\nexistence under factory conditions and giving them an opportunity of\nliving a normal life under self-supporting circumstances. This, coupled\nwith a fostering of the \"back to the farm\" movement, and the development\nof conditions which would make this process more practicable and the\nlife more attractive, would do much, though in small ways, towards\nproducing a more wholesome and less threatening state of affairs.\n\nBack of the whole problem, however, lies a fallacy in our conception of\nexistence that must be eliminated before even the most constructive\npanaceas can possibly work. I mean the whole doctrine of natural rights\nwhich has become the citadel of capitalism in all its most offensive\naspects, and of labour in its most insolent assumptions. The \"rights\" of\nproperty, the \"right\" to strike, the \"right\" to collective bargaining,\nthe \"right\" to shut down an essential industry or to \"walk out\" and then\npicket the place so that it may not be reopened, the \"right\" to vote and\nhold office and do any fool thing you please so long as it is within the\nlaw, these are applications of what I mean when I speak of a gross\nfallacy that has come into being and has stultified our intelligence\nwhile bringing near the wrecking of our whole system.\n\nNeither man nor his community possesses any _absolute_ rights; they are\nall conditioned on how they are exercised. If they are not so\nconditioned they become privilege, which is a right not subject to\nconditions, and privilege is one of the things republicanism and\ndemocracy and every other effort towards human emancipation have set\nthemselves up to destroy. Even the \"right to life, liberty and the\npursuit of happiness\" is conditioned by the manner of use, and the same\nis true of every other and unspecified right. I do not propose to speak\nhere of more than one aspect of this self-evident truth, but the single\ninstance I cite is one that bears closely on the question of our\nindustrial and economic situation; it is the responsibility to society\nof property or capital on the one hand and of labour on the other, when\nboth invoke their \"rights\" to justify them in oppressing the general\npublic in the pursuit of their own natural interests.\n\nDuring the Middle Ages, just as the political theory maintained that\nwhile a king ruled by divine right, this right gave him no authority to\ngovern wrong, so the social theory held that while a man had a right to\nprivate property he had no right to use it against society, nor could\nthe labourer use his own rights to the injury of the same institution.\nPower, property and labour must be used as a _function_, i.e., \"an\nactivity which embodies and expresses the idea of social purpose.\"\nUnless I am mistaken, this is at the basis of our \"common law.\"\n\nAs Mediaevalism gave place to the Renaissance this Christian idea was\nabandoned, and increasingly the obligation was severed from the right,\nwhich so became that odious thing, privilege. Intolerable in its\ninjustice and oppression, this privilege, which by the middle of the\neighteenth century had become the attribute of the aristocracy, was\ncompletely overthrown, in France first of all, and a new doctrine of\nrights was enunciated and put in operation. Unfortunately the result was\nin essence simply a transforming of privilege from one body to another,\nfor the old conception of social purpose, as the necessary concomitant\nof acknowledged rights, did not emerge from the shadows of the Middle\nAges; it had been too long forgotten. The new \"rights\" were exclusively\nindividualistic, in practice, though in the minds of the idealists who\nformulated them, they had their social aspect. Their promulgation\nsynchronized with the sudden rise and violent expansion of\nindustrialism, and as one country after another followed the lead of\nEngland in accepting the new system, they hardened into an iron-clad\nscheme for the defence of property and the free action of the holders\nand manipulators of property. Backed by the economic philosophy of\nLocke, Adam Smith, Bentham and the Manchester School, generally, and the\nevolutionary theories of the exponents of Darwinism, and abetted by an\nendless series of statutes, the idea of the exemption of property\nholders from any responsibility to society for the use of their\nproperty, became a fixed part of the mental equipment of modernism.\nPrecisely the same thing happened politically and socially. Rights were\npersonal and implied no necessary obligation to society as a whole; they\nwere personal attributes and as such to be defended at all costs.\n\nNow the result of this profound error as to the existence, nature and\nlimitation of these personal rights has meant simply the destruction of\na righteous and unified society which works by co\u00f6peration and\nfellowship, and the substitution of individuals and corporate bodies who\nwork by competition, strife and mutual aggression towards the attainment\nof all they can get under the impulse of what was once praised as\n\"enlightened self interest.\" In other words--war. The conflict that\nbegan in 1914 was not a war hurled into the midst of a white peace, it\nwas only a military war arising in the centre of a far greater social\nwar, for there is no other word that is descriptive. Rights that are not\ncontingent on the due discharge of duties and obligations are but\nhateful privilege; privilege has issue in selfishness and egotism, which\nin turn work themselves out in warfare and in the hatred that both\nprecedes and follows conflict.\n\nThe net result of a century and a half of industrialism is avarice,\nwarfare and hate. Society can continue even when avariciousness is\nrampant--for a time--and warfare of one sort or another seems\ninseparable from humanity, at all events it has always been so, but\nhatred is another matter, for it is the negation of social life and is\nits solvent. Anger passes; it is sometimes even righteous, but hatred is\nsynonymous with death in that it dissolves every unit, reducing it to\nits component parts and subjecting each of these to dissolution in its\nturn. Righteous anger roused the nations into the war that hate had\nengendered, but hate has followed after and for the moment is\nvictorious. Russia seethes with hatred and is perishing of its poison,\nwhile there is not another country in Europe, of those that were\ninvolved in the war, where the same is not true in varying degrees;\nhatred of race for race, of nation for nation, of class for class, of\none social or industrial or economic or political institution for\nanother. This, above all else, is the disintegrating influence, and\nagainst it no social organism, no civilization can stand. Unless it is\nabrogated it means an ending of another epoch of human life, a period of\ndarkness and another beginning, some time after the poison has been\nworked out by misery, adversity and forced repentance.\n\nIt is this prevalence of hatred, reinforced by avarice and perpetuated\nby incessant warfare, that negatives all the efforts that are made\ntowards effecting a correspondence between the divided interests that\nare the concomitant of industrialism. Strikes and lockouts, trades\nunions and employers' associations as they are now constituted and as\nthey now operate, syndicalism and Bolshevism and proletarian\ndictatorships, protective tariffs and commercial spheres of influence,\npropaganda and subsidized newspapers are all energized by the principle\nof hate, and no good thing can come of any of them. Nor is it enough to\nwork for the re-establishment of justice even by those methods of\nrighteousness, and with the impulse towards righteousness, which are so\ndifferent from those which are functioning at present along the lines of\ncontemporary industrial \"reform.\" Justice is a \"natural\" virtue with a\nreal place in society, but the only saving force today is a supernatural\nvirtue. This, amongst other things, Christ brought into the world and\nleft as the saving force amongst the race He had redeemed and in the\nsociety reconstituted in accordance with His will. This supernatural\nvirtue is Charity, sometimes expressed in the simpler form of Love, the\nessence of the social code of Christianity and the symbol of the New\nDispensation as justice was the symbol of the Old. Just in so far as a\nman or a cult or an interest or a corporation or a state or a generation\nor a race, relinquishes charity as its controlling spirit, in so far it\nrelinquishes its place in Christian society and its claim to the\nChristian name, while it is voided of all power for good or possibility\nof continuance. Where charity is gone, intellectual capacity, effectual\npower, and even justice itself become, not energies of good, but potent\ncontributions to evil. Is this supernatural gift of charity a mark of\ncontemporary civilization? Does it manifest itself with power today in\nthe dealings between class and class, between interest and interest,\nbetween nation and nation? If not, then we have forfeited the name of\nChristian and betrayed Christian civilization into the hands of its\nenemies, while our efforts towards saving what is left to us of a once\nconsistent and righteous society will be without result except as an\nacceleration of the now headlong process of dissolution.\n\nI am not charging any class or any interest or any people with exclusive\napostacy. In the end there is little to choose between one or another.\nLabour is not more culpable than capital, nor the proletarian than the\nindustrial magnate and the financier, nor the nominal secularist than\nthe nominal religionist. Nor am I charging conscious and willful\nacceptance of wrong in the place of right. It is the institution itself,\nindustrialism as it has come to be, with all its concomitants and\nderivatives, that has betrayed man to his disgrace and his society to\ncondemnation, and so long as this system endures so long will recovery\nbe impossible and regeneration a vain thing vainly imagined. Charity,\nthat is to say, fellowship, generosity, pity, self-sacrifice, chivalry,\nall that is comprehended in the thing that Christ was, and preached, and\npromulgated as the fundamental law of life, cannot come back to the\nworld so long as avarice, warfare and hate continue to exist, and\nthrough Charity alone can we find the solution of the industrial and\neconomic problem that _must_ be solved under penalty of social death.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nTHE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY\n\nIn these essays, which look towards a new social synthesis, I find\nmyself involved in somewhat artificial subdivisions. Industrial, social\nand political forces all react one upon another, and the complete social\nproduct is the result of the interplay of these forces, co\u00f6rdinated and\nvitalized by philosophy, education and religion. To isolate each factor\nand consider it separately is apt to result in false values, but there\nseems no other way in which the subject, which is essentially one, may\nbe divided into the definite parts which are consequent on the form of a\ncourse of lectures. In considering now the political estate of the human\nsocial organism it will be evident that I hold that this must be\ncontingent on many elements that reveal themselves in a contributory\nindustrial system, in the principles that are embodied in social\nrelationships, and in the general scheme of such a working philosophy of\nlife as may predominate amongst the component parts of the synthetic\nsociety which is the product of all these varied energies and the\norganic forms through which they operate.\n\nPolitical organization has always been a powerful preoccupation of\nmankind, and the earliest records testify to its antiquity. The\nregulation of human intercourse, the delimiting of rights and\nprivileges, protection of life and property, the codifying of laws,\nvague, various and conflicting, the making of new laws and the enforcing\nof those that have taken organic form; all these and an hundred other\ngovernmental functions, appeal strongly to the mind and touch closely on\npersonal interests. It is no wonder that the political history of human\nsociety is the most varied, voluminous and popular in its appeal. At the\npresent moment this problem has, in general, an even more poignant\nappeal, and no rival except the industrial problem, for in both cases\nsystems that, up to ten years ago, were questioned only by a minority\n(large in the case of industry, small and obscure in the case of\ngovernment) have since completely broken down, and it is probable that a\npolitical system which had existed throughout the greater part of Europe\nand the Americas for a century and a half, almost without serious\ncriticism, has now as many assailants as industrialism itself.\n\nThe change is startling from the \"Triumphant Democracy\" period, a space\nof time as clearly defined and as significant in its characteristics as\nthe \"Victorian Era.\" Before the war, during the war, and throughout the\nearlier years of the even more devastating \"peace,\" the system which\nfollowed the ruin of the Renaissance autocracies, the essential elements\nin which were an ever-widening suffrage, parliamentary government, and\nthe universal operation of the quantitative standard of values, was\nnever questioned or criticised, except in matters of detail. That it was\nthe most perfect governmental scheme ever devised and that it must\ncontinue forever, was held to be axiomatic, and with few exceptions the\nremedy proposed for such faults as could not possibly escape detection\nwas a still further extension of the democratic principle. Even the war\nitself was held to be \"a war to make the world safe for democracy.\" It\nis significant that the form in which this saying now frequently appears\nis one in which the word \"from\" is substituted in place of the word\n\"for.\" It is useless to blink the fact that there is now a distrust of\nparliamentary and representative government which is almost universal\nand this distrust, which is becoming widespread, reaches from the\nBolshevism of Russia on the one hand, through many intermediate social\nand intellectual stages, to the conservative elements in England and the\nUnited States, and the fast-strengthening royalist \"bloc\" in France.\n\nIn many unexpected places there is visible a profound sense that\nsomething is so fundamentally wrong that palliatives are useless and\nsome drastic reform is necessary, a reform that may almost amount to\nrevolution. Lord Bryce still believes in democracy in spite of his keen\nrealizations of its grievous defects, because, as he says, hope is an\ninextinguishable quality of the human soul. Mr. Chesterton preaches\ndemocracy in principle while condemning its mechanism and its workings\nwith his accustomed vigour; the Adamses renounce democracy and all its\nworks while offering no hint as to what could consistently take its\nplace with any better chance of success, while the royalists excoriate\nit in unmeasured terms and preach an explicit return to monarchy.\nMeanwhile international Bolshevism, hating the thing as violently as do\nkings in exile, substitutes a crude and venal autocracy, while organized\nlabour, as a whole, works for the day when a \"class-conscious\nproletariat\" will have taken matters into its own hands and established\na new aristocracy of privilege in which the present working classes will\nhold the whip-hand. Meanwhile the more educated element of the general\npublic withdraws itself more and more from political affairs, going its\nown way and making the best of a bad job it thinks itself taught by\nexperience it cannot mend.\n\nIt is useless to deny that government, in the character of its\npersonnel, the quality of its output, the standard of its service and\nthe degree of its beneficence has been steadily deteriorating during the\nlast century and has now reached, in nearly every civilized country, a\ndeplorably low level. Popular representatives are less and less men of\ncharacter and ability; legislation is absurd in quantity, short-sighted,\nfrivolous, inquisitorial, and in a large measure prompted by selfish\ninterests; administration is reckless, wasteful and inefficient, while\nit is overloaded in numbers, without any particular aptitude on the part\nof its members, and in a measure controlled by personal or corporate\ninterests. The whole system is in bad odour for it is shot through and\nthrough with the greed for money and influence, while the cynicism of\nthe professional politician and the low average of character,\nintelligence and manners of the strata of society that increasingly are\nusurping all power, work towards producing that general contempt and\naversion that have become so evident of late and that are a menace to\nsociety no less than that of the decaying institution itself.\n\nConfronted by a situation such as this, the natural tendency of those\nwho suffer under it, either in their material interests or their ideals,\nis to condemn the mechanism, perhaps even the very principles for the\noperation of which the various machines were devised. Some reject the\nwhole scheme of representative, parliamentary government, and, failing\nany plausible substitute, are driven back on some form of the soviet, or\neven government by industrial groups. Those that go to the limit and\nreject the whole scheme of democracy are in still worse plight for they\nhave no alternative to offer except a restored monarchy, and this, the\n_terminus ad quem_ of their logic, their courage will not permit them to\navow.\n\nIt is a dilemma, but forced, I believe, by the fatal passion of the man\nof modernism for the machine, the mechanical device, the material\nequivalent for a thing that has no equivalent, and that is the personal\ncharacter of the constituents of society and the working factors in a\npolitical organism. There was never a more foolish saying than that\nwhich is so frequently and so boastfully used: \"a government of laws and\nnot of men.\" This is the exact reversal of what should be recognized as\na self-evident truth, viz, that the quality of the men, not the nature\nof the laws or of the administrative machine, is the determining factor\nin government. You may take any form of government ever devised by man,\nmonarchy, aristocracy, republic, democracy, yes, or soviet, and if the\ncommunity in which this government operates has a working majority of\nmen of character, intelligence and spiritual energy, it will be a good\ngovernment, whereas if the working majority is deficient in these\ncharacteristics, or if it makes itself negligible by abstention from\npublic affairs it will be a bad government. There is no one political\nsystem which is right while all others are wrong. The monarchy of St.\nLouis was better than the Third Republic, as this is better than was the\nmonarchy of Louis XV. The aristocracy of Washington was better than the\ndemocracy of this year of grace, as this in itself is better than the\nlate junker aristocracy of Prussia. You cannot substitute a machine in\nplace of character, you cannot supersede life by a theory.\n\nThis does not mean that the form of government is of no moment, it is of\nthe utmost importance for I cannot too often insist that the organic\nlife of society is the resultant of two forces; spiritual energy working\nthrough and upon the material forms towards their improvement or--when\nthis energy is weak or distorted--their degeneration; the material forms\nacting as a stimulus towards the development of spiritual energy through\nassociation and environment that are favourable, or towards its\nweakening and distortion when these are deterrents because of their own\ndegraded or degrading nature. If it is futile to look for salvation\nthrough the mechanism, it is equally futile to try to act directly and\nexclusively on the character of the social constituents in the patient\nhope that their defects may be remedied, and the preponderance of\ncharacter of high value achieved, before catastrophe overtakes the\nexperiment. Life is as sacramental as the Christian religion and\nChristian philosophy; neither the spiritual substance nor the material\naccidents can operate alone but only in a conjunction so intimate that\nit is to all intents and purposes--that is, for the interests and\npurposes of God in human life--a perfect unity. However completely and\neven passionately we may realize the determining factor of spiritual\nenergy as this manifests itself through personal character, however\ndeeply we may distrust the machine, we are bound to recognize the\nparamount necessity of the active interplay of both within the limits of\nlife as we know it on the earth, and therefore it is very much our\nconcern that the machine, whether it is industrial, political,\neducational, ecclesiastical or social, is as perfect in its nature and\nstimulating in its operations as we are able to compass.\n\nIn the present liquidation of values, theories and institutions we are\nbound therefore to scrutinize each operating agency of human society, to\nsee wherein it has failed and how it can be bettered, and the problem\nbefore us now is the political organism.\n\nNow it appears that in the past there have been just two methods whereby\na civil polity has come into existence and established itself for a\nshort period or a long. These two methods are, first, unpremeditated and\nsometimes unconscious growth; second, calculated and self-conscious\nrevolution. The first method has produced communities, states and\nempires that frequently worked well and lasted for long periods; the\nsecond has had issue in nothing that has endured for any length of time\nor has left a record of beneficence. Evolution in government is in\naccord with the processes of life, even to the extent that it is always\nafter a time followed by degeneration; revolution in government is the\nthrowing of a monkey-wrench into the machinery by a disaffected workman,\nwith the wrecking of the machine, the violent stoppage of the works, and\nfrequently the sudden death of the worker as a consequence. The English\nmonarchy from Duke William to Henry VIII, is a case of normal growth by\nminor changes and modifications, but its subsequent history has been one\nof revolutions, six or seven having occurred in the last four hundred\nyears; the scheme which now holds, though precariously, is the result of\nthe great democratic revolution accomplished during the reign of Queen\nVictoria. The free monarchies of Europe which began to take form during\nthe long period of the Dark Ages and pursued their admirable course well\nthrough the Middle Ages, were also normal and slow growths; but the\nrevolutions that have followed the Great War will meet a different fate,\nseveral of them, indeed, have counted their existence in months and have\nalready passed into history.\n\nIf we are wise we shall discount revolutions for the future, for nothing\nbut ill is accomplished by denying life and exalting the ingenious\nsubstitutes of ambitious and presumptuous Frankensteins; the result is\ntoo often a monster that works cleverly at first, and with a semblance\nof human intelligence, but in the end shows itself as a destroyer. Our\ntask is to envisage, as clearly as possible, the political systems\nestablished amongst us, note their weaknesses either in themselves or in\ntheir relationship to society as it is, and then try to find those\nremedies that can be applied without any violent methods of dislocation\nor substitution; always bearing in mind the fact that the energizing\nforce that will make them live, preserve them from deterioration, and\nadapt them to conditions which will ever change, is the spiritual force\nof human personality, and that this force comes only through the\ncharacter qualities of the individual components of society.\n\nNow in considering our own case in this day and generation there are\nfirst of all two matters to be borne in mind. One is that we shall do\nwell to confine our inquiry to the United States, for while the defects\nwe shall have to point out are common to practically all the\ncontemporary governments of Europe and the Americas, our own enginery is\ndifferent in certain ways, and our troubles are also different between\none example and another. After all, our immediate interest must lie with\nour own national problems. The other point is that in criticising the\nworkings of government in America we are not necessarily criticising its\nfounders or the creators of its original constitutions, charters, and\nother mechanisms. The Constitution of the United States, for example,\nwas conceived to meet one series of perfectly definite conditions that\nhave now been superseded by others which are radically, and even\ndiametrically different. The original Constitution was a most able\ninstrument of organic law, but just because it did fit so perfectly\nconditions as they were four generations ago, it applies but\nindifferently to present circumstances, and even less well than the\nFounders hoped would be the case; for the reason that the amendments\nwhich were provided for have seldom taken cognizance of these changing\nconditions, and even when this was done the amendments themselves have\nnot been wisely drawn, while certain of them have been actually\ndisastrous in their nature, others frivolous, and yet more the result of\nephemeral and hysterical ebullitions of an engineered public opinion.\nThe same may be said of state constitutions and municipal charters,\nwhich have suffered incessant changes, mostly unfortunate and\nill-judged, except during the last few years, when a spirit of real\nwisdom and constructiveness has shown itself, though sporadically and as\nyet with some timidity. The reforms, such as they are, are largely in\nthe line of palliatives; the deep-lying factors, those that control both\nsuccess and failure, are seldom touched upon. The necessary courage--or\nperhaps temerity--is lacking. What is needed is such a clear seeing of\nconditions, and such an approach, as manifested themselves in the\nConstitutional Convention of the United States, for in spite of the many\ncompromises that were in the end necessary to placate a public opinion\nnot untouched by prejudice, superstition and selfishness, the great\ndocument--and even more the records of the debates--still brilliantly\nset forth both the clear-seeing and the lofty attitude that\ncharacterized the Convention. Had these men been gathered together\ntoday, even the same men, they would frame a very different document,\nfor they took conditions and men as they were, and, with an\nindestructible hope to glorify their common sense, they produced a\nmasterpiece. It is in the same spirit that we must approach our problem\nof today.\n\nNow in considering the situation that confronts us, we find certain\nrespects in which either the methods are bad, or the results, or both.\nThere is no unanimity in this criticism, indeed I doubt if any two of us\nwould agree on all the items in the indictment, though we all might\nunite on one or two. I can only give my own list for what it is worth.\nIn the first place we, in common with all the nations, have drifted into\nimperialism of a gross scale and illiberal, even tyrannical working. We\ncould hardly do otherwise for such has been the universal tendency for\nmore than an hundred years. By constant progression municipal\ngovernments have absorbed into themselves matters that in decency, and\nwith any regard for liberty, belong to the individual. Simultaneously\nour state governments have followed the same course, infringing even on\nthe just prerogatives of the towns and cities, while, more than all, the\nnational government has robbed the states, the cities and the citizens\nof what should belong to them, until at last we have an imperial,\nautocratic, inquisitorial, and largely irresponsible government at\nWashington that is the one supreme political fact; we are no longer a\nFederal Republic but an Imperialism, in which is centralized all the\nauthority inherent in the one hundred and ten millions of our population\nand from which a constantly diminishing stream of what is practically\ndevolved authority, trickles down through state and city to the\nindividual in the last instance--if it gets there at all! This I believe\nto be absolutely and fatally wrong. In the first place, human society\ncannot function at this abnormal scale, it is outside the human scale,\nfor in spite of our pride and insolence there are limits on every hand\nto what man can do. In the second place, I conceive it to be absolutely\nat variance with any principle of republicanism or democracy or even of\nfree monarchy. It is at one only with the imperialism of Egypt, Babylon,\nRome and the late Empire of Germany. In a free monarchy, a republic, or\na democracy, the pyramid of political organism stands, not on its point\nbut broad-based and four-square, tapering upward to its final apex. A\nsane and wholesome society begins with the family--natural or\nartificial--which has original jurisdiction over a far greater series of\nrights and privileges than it now commands. From the family certain\npowers are delegated to the next higher social unit, the village or\ncommunal group, which in its turn concedes certain of its inherent\nrights to the organic group of communities, or states, and finally the\nstates commit to the last and general authority, the national\ngovernment, some of the elements of authority that have been delegated\nto them. The principle of this delegation from one organism to another,\nis common interest and welfare; only those functions which can be\nperformed with more even justice and with greater effectiveness, by the\ncommunity for example, than by the family, are so delegated. In the same\nway the several groups commit to their common government only so much as\nthey cannot perform with due justice and equity to the others in the\nsame group. In the end the national government exists only that it may\nprovide for a limited number of national necessities, as for example,\ndefence against extra-national aggression, the conduct of diplomatic\nrelations with foreign powers, the maintaining of a national currency\nand a national postal service, the provision of courts of last resort,\nand the raising of revenue for the support of these few and explicit\nfunctions.\n\nThe first step, it seems to me, towards governmental reform, is\ndecentralization, with a return to the States, the civic communities and\nthe individual citizens of nine-tenths of the powers and the\nprerogatives that have been taken from them in defiance of abstract\njustice, of the principles of free government and of the theory of the\nworkable unit of human scale. In a word we must abandon imperialism and\nall its works and go back to the Federal Republic.\n\nThe second cause of our troubles lies, I believe, in the institution of\nuniversal suffrage founded on the theory (or dogma) that the electoral\nfranchise is an inalienable right. This doctrine is of recent invention,\nonly coming into force during the \"reconstruction period\" following the\nWar between the States, when it was brought forward by certain leaders\nof the Republican party to justify their enfranchisement of the negroes\nin the hope that by this act they could fix their party in power to\nperpetuity. In any case, the plan itself has worked badly, both for the\ncommunity and for many of the voters. It is of course impossible for me\nto argue the case in detail; I can do hardly more than state my own\npersonal belief, and this is that the question is wholly one of\nexpediency, and that the question of abstract justice and the rights of\nman does not enter into the consideration. I submit that the electoral\nfranchise should again be accepted as a privilege involving a duty, and\nnot as a right inherent in every adult person of twenty-one years or\nover and not lunatic or in jail. This privilege, which in itself should\nconfer honour, should be granted to those who demonstrate their capacity\nto use it honestly and intelligently, and taken away for cause.\n\nThe acute critic will not be slow to remind me that this proposition is\nsomewhat beside the case and that it possesses but an academic interest,\nsince we are dealing with a _fait accompli._ This is of course perfectly\ntrue. The electoral franchise could be so restricted only by the\nsuffrages of the present electorate, and it is inconceivable that any\nlarge number, and far less, a majority, of voters would even consider\nthe proposition for a moment. For good or ill we have unrestricted adult\nsuffrage, and there is not the faintest chance of any other basis being\nestablished by constitutional means. Something however can be done, and\nthis is a thing of great value and importance. What I suggest is\nconcerted effort towards a measured purification of the electorate\nthrough the penalizing of law-breakers by temporary disfranchisement. It\nis hardly too much to assume that a man who deliberately breaks the law\nis constructively unfit to vote or to hold office, at all events,\nconviction for any crime or misdemeanour gives a reasonable ground for\ndepriving the offender of these privileges, at least for a time. The\nlaw-breaking element, whether it is millionaire or proletarian, is one\nof the dangerous factors in society, which would lose nothing if from\ntime to time these gentry were removed from active participation in\npublic affairs. If, for example, any one convicted of minor offenses\npunishable by fine or imprisonment were disfranchised for a year, if of\nmajor offenses, for varying and increasing periods, from five years\nupwards, and if a second offense during the period of disfranchisement\nworked an automatic doubling of the time prescribed for a first offense,\nI conceive that the electorate would be measurably purified and that\nregard for the law would be stimulated. In one instance I am persuaded\nthat disfranchisement should be for life, and that is in the case of\ngiving or accepting a bribe or otherwise committing a crime against the\nballot; this, together with treason against the state, should be\nsufficient cause for eliminating the offender from all further\nparticipation in public affairs. If the electorate could be purified\nafter this fashion, and if more stringent laws could be passed in the\nmatter of naturalization of aliens, together with iron-clad requirements\nthat every voter should be able to speak, read and write the English\nlanguage, we should have achieved something towards the safeguarding of\nthe suffrage.\n\nThe third weakness in our system, and in some respect the most\ndangerous, as it is in all respects the most pestiferous, is the\ninsanity of law-making. All parliamentary governments suffer from this\nmalady, but that of the United States most grievously, and this is true\nof the national government, the states and the municipalities. It has\nbecome the conviction of legislative bodies that they must justify their\nexistence by making laws, and the more laws they pass the better they\nhave discharged their duties. The thing has become a scandal and an\noppression, for the liberties of American citizens and the just\nprerogatives of the states and the cities, as vital human groups, have\nbeen more infringed upon, reduced, and degraded by free legislation than\never happened in similar communities by the action of absolute monarchs.\nIt is a folly that works its insidious injury in two ways; first by\nconfusing life by innumerable laws ill-advised, ill-drawn, mutually\ncontradictory, ephemeral in their nature, inquisitorial in their\nworkings; second, by creating a condition where any personal or factious\ninterest can be served by due process of law, until at last we have\nreached a point where liberty itself has largely ceased to exist and we\nfind ourselves crushed under a tyranny of popular government no less\noppressive than the tyranny of absolutism. Nor is this all; the mania\nfor making laws has bred a complete and ingenious and singularly\neffective system of getting laws made by methods familiar to the members\nof all legislative bodies whether they are city councils, state\nlegislatures or the national congress, and this means opportunities for\ncorruption, and methods of corruption, that are fast degrading\ngovernment in the United States to a point where there is none so poor\nas to do it reverence. The whole system is preposterous and absurd,\nbreeding not only bad laws, but a widespread contempt of law, while the\npersonal freedom for which democracy once fought, is fast becoming a\nmemory.\n\nThe trouble began as a result of one of the elements in the American\nConstitution which was the product not of the sound common sense and the\nlofty judgment of the framers, but of a weak yielding to one of the\ndoctrinaire fads of the time that had no relationship to life but was\nthe invention of political theorists, and that was the unnatural\nseparation of the executive, legislative and judicial functions of\ngovernment. The error has worked far and the superstition still holds.\nWhat is needed is an initiative in legislation, centred in one\nresponsible head or group, that, while functioning in all normal and\nnecessary legislative directions, still allows individual initiative on\nthe part of the legislators, as a supplementary, or corrective, or\nprotective agency. No government functions well in fiscal matters\nwithout a budget: what we need in legislative matters is a legislative\nbudget, and by this phrase, I mean that the primary agency for the\nproposing of laws should be the chief executive of a city, or state or\nthe nation, with the advice and consent of his heads of departments who\nwould form his cabinet or council.\n\nUnder this plan the Governor and Council, for example, would at the\nopening of each legislative session present a programme or agenda of\nsuch laws as they believed the conditions to demand, and in the shape of\nbills accurately drawn by the proper law officer of the government. No\nsuch \"government\" bill could be referred to committee but must be\ndiscussed in open session, and until the bills so offered had been\npassed or refused, no private bill could be introduced. A procedure such\nas this would certainly reduce the flood of private bills to reasonable\ndimensions while it would insure a degree of responsibility now utterly\nlacking. There is now no way in which the author of a foolish or\ndangerous bill which has been enacted into law by a majority of the\nlegislature, can be held to account and due responsibility imposed upon\nhim, but the case would be very different if a mayor, a governor or the\nPresident of the United States made himself responsible for a law or a\nseries of laws, by offering them for action in his own name. Certainly\nif this method were followed we should be preserved in great measure\nfrom the hasty, confused and frivolous legislation that at present makes\nup the major part of the output of our various legislative bodies. One\nof the greatest gains would be the reduction of the annual grist to a\nsize where each act could be considered and debated at sufficient length\nto guarantee as reasonable a conclusion as would be possible to the\nmembers of the legislative body. The deplorable device of instituting\ncommittees, to each of which certain bunches of bills are referred\nbefore they are permitted to come before the house, would be no longer\nnecessary. This system, which became necessary in order to deal with the\nenormous mass of undigested matter which has overwhelmed every\nlegislature as a result of the present chaotic and irresponsible\nprocedure, is perhaps both the most undemocratic device ever put in\npractice by a democracy, and the most fruitful of venality, corruption\nand injustice. It is unnecessary to labour this point for everyone knows\nits grave evils, but there seems no way to get rid of it unless some\ncurb is placed on the number of bills introduced in any session. The\nBritish Parliament is not necessarily a model of intelligent or capable\nprocedure, but where in one session at Westminster no more than four\nhundred bills were introduced, at Washington, for the same period, the\ncount ran well over twelve thousand! Manifestly some committee system is\ninevitable under conditions such as this, but under the committee system\nfree government and honest legislation are difficult of attainment.\n\nOne would not of course prevent the proposal of a bill by any member of\nthe legislature, indeed this free action would be absolutely necessary\nas a measure of protection against executive oppression, but this should\nbe prohibited until after the government programme had been disposed of.\nAfter that task was accomplished the legislature might sit indefinitely,\nor as long as the public would stand it, for the purpose of considering\nprivate bills, and these could be referred to committees as at present.\nThe chances are, however, that the government programme would cover the\nmost essential matters and what would remain would be the edifying\nspectacle of Solons solemnly considering such questions as the minimum\nlength of sheets on hotel beds, the limitation in inches and fractions,\nof the heels of women's shoes, the amount of flesh that could be legally\nexposed by a bathing suit, or the pensioning of a Swedish Assistant\nJanitor,--all of which are the substance of actual bills introduced in\nvarious State legislatures during the session last closed.\n\nAnother grave weakness in our system is the election by popular vote of\nmany judicial and administrative officers, coupled with the vigorous\nremnants of the old and degrading \"spoils system\" whereby many thousands\nof strictly non-political offices are almost automatically vacated after\nany partisan victory. I cannot trust myself to speak of the infamy of an\nelective judiciary; fortunately I live in a state where this worst abuse\nof democratic practice does not exist, and so it touches me only in so\nfar as it offends the sense of decency and justice. In the other cases\nit is only a question of efficient and intelligent administration. There\nis an argument for electing the chief executive of a city, a state or\nthe nation, by popular vote, and the same holds in the case of the lower\nhouse of the legislature where a bi-cameral system exists, but there is\nno argument for the popular election of the administrative officers of a\nstate. There is even less,--if there can be less than nothing--for the\nchanges in personnel that take place after every election. Civil service\nreform has done a world of good, but as yet it has not gone far enough\nin some directions, while its mechanism of examinations is defective in\nprinciple in that it leaves out the personal equation and establishes\nits tests only along a very few of the many lines that actually exist. I\nwould offer it as a proposition that no election should in itself affect\nthe status of any man except the man elected, and, in the case of a\nmayor or governor or the President, those who are directly responsible\nto him and to his administration for carrying out his policies; and\nfurther, that the voter, when he votes, should vote once and for one man\nin his city, once and for one man in his state, and once and for one man\nin the nation, and that man, in each case, should be his representative\nin the lower branch of the legislative body. Choosing administrative\nofficials by majority vote, and the election of judges for short terms\nby the same method, are absurdities of a system fast falling into chaos.\nThe maintenance of a bi-cameral legislative organization, with the\nchoosing of the members of both houses by the same electorate is in the\nsame class, a perfectly irrational anomaly which violates the first\nprinciples of logic and leads only to legislative incompetence, and\nworse. The referendum is of precisely the same nature, but this already\nhas become a _reductio ad absurdum,_ and can hardly survive the\ndiscredit into which it has fallen. In any reorganization of government\nlooking towards better results, these elements must disappear.\n\nAs a matter of fact, government has come to occupy altogether too large\na place in our consciousness; naturally, for it has come to a point\nwhere it pursues us--and overtakes us--at every turn. Democracies always\ngovern too much, that is one of their great weaknesses. Elections,\nlaw-making, and getting and holding office, have become an obsession and\nthey shadow our days. So insistent and incessant are the demands, so\nartificial and unreal the issues, so barren of vital results all this\npandemonium of partisanship and change, the more intelligent and\nscrupulous are losing interest in the whole affair, and while they\nincreasingly withdraw to matters of a greater degree of reality those\nwho subsist on the proceeds gain the power, and hold it. At the very\nmoment when the women of the United States have been given the vote,\nthere are many men (and women also) who begin to think that the vote is\na very empty institution and in itself practically void of power to\neffect anything of really vital moment. I am not now defending this\nposition, I only assert that it exists, and I believe it is due to the\ndegradation of government through the very modifications and\ntransformations that have been effected, since the time of Andrew\nJackson, in a perfectly honest attempt at improvement.\n\nThe best government is that which does the least, which leaves local\nmatters in the hands of localities, and personal matters in the hands of\npersons, and which is modestly inconspicuous. Good government\nestablishes, or recognizes, conditions which are stable, reliable, and\nthat may be counted on for more than two years, or four years, at a\ntime. It has continuity, it preserves tradition, and it follows custom\nand common law. Such a government is neither hectic in its vicissitudes\nnor inquisitorial in its enactments. It is cautious in its expenditures,\nefficient in its administration, proud in maintaining its standards of\nhonour, justice and \"noblesse oblige.\" Good government is august and\nhandsome; it surrounds itself with dignity and ceremony, even at times\nwith splendour and pageantry, for these things are signs of self-respect\nand the outward showing of high ideals--or may be made so; that is what\ngood manners and ceremony and beauty are for. Finally, good government\nis where the laws of Christian morals and courtesy and charity that are\nsupposed to hold between Christian men hold equally, even more\nforcefully, in public relations both domestic and foreign. Where\ngovernment of this nature exists, whether the form is monarchical,\nrepublican or democratic, there is liberty; where these conditions do\nnot obtain the form matters not at all, for there is a servile state.\n\nAt the risk of being tedious I will try to sketch the rough outlines of\nwhat, in substance, I believe to be that form of civil polity which,\nbased on what now exists, changes only along lines that would perhaps\ntend towards establishing and maintaining those ideals of liberty, order\nand justice which have always been the common aim of those who have\nstriven to reform a condition of things where they were attained\nindifferently or not at all.\n\nThe primary and effective social and political unit is the \"vill\" or\ncommune; that is to say, a group of families and individuals living in\none neighbourhood, and of a size that would permit all the members to\nknow one another if they wished to do so, and also the coming together\nof all those holding the electoral franchise, for common discussion and\naction. The average American country town, uninvaded by industrialism,\nis the natural type, for here the \"town meeting\" of our forefathers is\npracticable, and this remains the everlasting frame and model of\nself-government. In the case of a city the primary unit would be of\napproximately the same size, and the entire municipality would be\ndivided into wards each containing, say, about five hundred voters.\nThese primary units would possess a real unity and a very large measure\nof autonomy, but they would be federated for certain common purposes\nwhich would vary in number and importance in proportion to the closeness\nof their common interests, from the county, made up of a number of small\nvillages, to the city which would comprise as many wards as might be\nnumerically necessary, and whose central government would administer a\ngreat many more affairs than would the county. The city would be in\neffect a federation of the wards or boroughs.\n\nThe individual voter would exercise his electoral franchise and perform\nhis political duties only within the primary unit (the township or ward)\nwhere he had legal residence. At an annual \"town meeting\" he would vote\nfor the \"selectmen\" or the ward council who would have in charge the\nlocal interests of the primary unit, which would be comprehensive in the\ncase of a township, necessarily more limited in the case of a ward.\nThese local boards would elect their own chairmen who would also form\nthe legislative body of the county or the municipality. At the same town\nmeeting the voter would cast his ballot for a representative in the\nlower legislative body of the state. In the smaller commonwealths each\ntownship or ward would elect its own representative, but in states of\nexcessive population representation would have to be on the basis of\ncounties and municipalities, for no legislative body should contain more\nthan a very few hundred members. Nominations in the town meeting should\nbe _viva voce,_ elections by secret ballot. Legislation should be\nprimarily on the initiative of the selectmen or ward council, and voting\nshould be _viva voce._ With the exercise of his privilege of speaking\nand voting at the meetings of his primary unit, the direct political\naction of the citizen would cease.\n\nThe secondary unit would be the county or the city. Here the legislative\nbody would consist of the presiding officers of the township or ward\ngovernments. The sheriff of a county or the mayor of a city would be\nchosen by these legislative bodies from their own number and should hold\noffice for a term of several years, while the local governments, and\ntherefore the legislative bodies of the county or the city, would be\nchosen annually. The chief executive of a county or city would appoint\nall heads of departments who would form his advisory council, and he\nwould also frame and submit annually both a fiscal and a legislative\nbudget.\n\nThe tertiary unit is the state, which is a federation of the counties\nand cities forming some one of the historic divisions of the United\nStates. The legislature would as now be composed of two chambers, one\nmade up of representatives of the primary units, holding office for a\nbrief term, and a second representing the secondary units and chosen by\ntheir governing bodies for a long term. The logic of a bi-cameral system\ndemands that the lower house should represent the changing will of the\npeople, the upper, in so far as possible, its cumulative wisdom and the\ncontinuity of tradition, while, as already stated, the whole principle\nis vitiated if both houses are chosen by the same electorate. The chief\nexecutive should be chosen by the legislative chambers in joint session,\nfrom a panel made up of their own membership and the heads of the county\nand city governments. He should hold office for a long term, preferably\nfor an indeterminate period contingent on \"good behaviour.\" In this case\nhis cabinet, or council of the heads of departments, would of course be\nresponsible to the legislature and would resign on a formal vote of\ncensure or \"lack of confidence.\" The Governor would have the same power\nof appointment, and the same authority to present fiscal and legislative\nbudgets as, already specified in the case of a mayor of a city. No\n\"commissions,\" unpaid or otherwise, should be permitted, all the\nadministrative functions of government being performed by the various\ndepartments and their subordinate bureaux.\n\nThe national government is the final social and political unit, though\nit is conceivable that with a territory and population as great and\ndiversified as that of the United States, and bearing in mind the great\ndiscrepancy in size between the states, something might be gained by the\ninstitution of a system of provinces, some five or six in all, made up\nof states grouped in accordance with their general community of\ninterests, as for example, all New England, New York, Pennsylvania, New\nJersey and Delaware; the states of the old Confederacy, those of the\nPacific Coast, and so on. The point need not be pressed here, but there\nare considerations in its favour. In any case the nation as a whole is\nthe final federal unit. Here the lower legislative house would consist\nof not more than four hundred members, allocated on a basis of\npopulation and elected by the representative bodies of the primary units\n(the townships and city wards) as already described. The members of the\nupper house would be elected by the legislative bodies of the several\nstates on nomination by the Governor. The chief executive of the nation\nwould be chosen by the two legislative bodies, in joint session, from\namongst the then governors of the several states. He should certainly\nhold office for \"good behaviour,\" and his cabinet would be responsible\nto the legislature as provided for in the case of the state governments.\n\nI do not offer this programme with any pride of paternity; probably it\nwould not work very well, but it could hardly prove less efficacious\nthan our present system under conditions as they have come to be. This\ncannot continue indefinitely, for it is so hopelessly defective that it\nis bound to bring about its own ruin, with the probable substitution of\nsome doctrinaire device engendered by the natural revolt against an\nintolerable abuse. If only we could see conditions clearly and estimate\nthem at something approaching their real value, we should rapidly\ndevelop a constructive public opinion that, even though it represented a\nminority, might by the very force behind it compel the majority to\nacquiesce in a radical reformation. Unfortunately we do not do this, we\nare hypnotized by phrases and deluded by vain theories, as Mr.\nChesterton says:\n\n\"So drugged and deadened is the public mind by the conventional public\nutterances, so accustomed have we grown to public men talking this sort\nof pompous nonsense and no other, that we are sometimes quite shocked by\nthe revelation of what men really think, or else of what they really\nsay.\"\n\nWe do, now and then, confess that legislation is as a whole foolish,\nfrivolous and opportunist; that administration is wasteful, incompetent\nand frequently venal; that the governmental personnel, legislative,\nadministrative and executive, is of a low order in point of character,\nintelligence and culture--and tending lower each day. We admit this, for\nthe evidence is so conspicuous that to deny it would be hypocrisy, but\nsomething holds us back from recognizing the nexus between effect and\ncause. Unrestricted immigration, universal suffrage, rotation in office,\nthe subjection of many offices and measures to popular vote, the\nparliamentary system, government by political parties--all these customs\nand habits into which we have fallen have arrived at failure which\npresages disaster. They have failed because the character of the people\nthat functioned through these various engines had failed, diluted by the\nlow mentality and character-content of millions of immigrants and their\noffspring, degraded by the false values and vicious standards imposed by\nindustrial civilization, foot-loose from all binding and control of a\nvital and potent religious impulse or religious organism.\n\nIt is the old, vicious circle; spiritual energy declines or is diverted\ninto wrong channels; thereupon the physical forms, social, industrial,\npolitical, slip a degree or two lower out of sympathy with the failing\nenergy, and these in their turn exert a degrading influence on the\nwaning spiritual force, which declines still further only to be pulled\nlower still by the material agencies which continue their progressive\ndeclension. Theories, no matter how high-minded and altruistic, cannot\nstand before a condition such as this, for self-protection decrees\notherwise even if the higher motive of doing right things and getting\nright things just because they _are_ right, does not come into effective\noperation. The evil results of the institutions I have catalogued above\nare not to be denied, and the institutions themselves must be reformed\nor altogether abandoned, in the face of the loud-mouthed exhortations of\nthose who now make them their means of livelihood, and even at the\nexpense of the honest upholders of theories and doctrines that do credit\nto their humanitarianism but have been weighed and found wanting.\n\nI am anxious not to put this plan for the reform, in root and branch, of\nour political institutions, on the low level of mere caution and\nself-defense. The motive power of this is fear, and fear is only second\nto hate in its present position as a controlling force in society. We\nshould have good government not because it is economical and ensures\nwhat are known as \"good business conditions,\" and promises a peaceful\ncontinuance of society, but because it is as worthy an object of\ncreative endeavour as noble art or a great literature or a just and\nmerciful economic system, or a life that is full of joy and beauty and\nwholesome labour. The political organism is in a sense the microcosm of\nlife itself, and it should be society lifted up to a level of dignity,\nmajesty and nobility. The doctrine that in a democracy the government\nmust exactly express the numerical preponderance in the social\nsynthesis, and that, if this happens to be ignorant, mannerless and\ncorrupt, then the government must be after the same fashion, is a low\nand a cowardly doctrine. Government should be better than the majority;\nbetter than the minority if this has advantage over the other. It should\nbe of the best that man can compass, resting above him as in some sort\nan ideal; the visible expression of his better self, and the better self\nof the society of which he is a part. If a political system, any\npolitical system, produces any other result; if it has issue in a\nrepresentation of the lowest and basest in society, or even of the\ngeneral average, then it is a bad system and it must be redeemed or it\nwill bring an end that is couched in terms of catastrophe.\n\nReform is difficult, perhaps even impossible of attainment under the\nexisting system where universal, unlimited suffrage and the party system\nare firmly intrenched as opponents of vital reform, and where\nrepresentation and legislation take their indelible colour from these\nunfortunate institutions. It must freely be admitted that there is no\nchance of eliminating or recasting either one or the other by the\nrecognized methods of platform support and mass action through the\nballot. It comes in the end to a change of viewpoint and of heart on the\npart of the individual. No party, no political leader would for a moment\nendorse any one of the principles or methods I have suggested, for this\nwould be a suicidal act. The newspaper, irresponsible, anonymous,\ndirected by its advertizing interests or by those more sinister still,\nyet for all that the factor that controls the opinions of those who hold\nthe balance of power in the community as it is now constituted, would\nreject them with derision, while in themselves they are radically\nopposed to the personal interests of the majority. The only hope of\nlifting government to the level of dignity and capacity it should hold,\nlies in the individual. It is necessary that we should see things\nclearly, estimate conditions as they are, and think through to the end.\nWe do not do this. We admit, in a dull sort of way, that matters are not\nas they should be, that legislation is generally silly and oppressive,\nthat taxation is excessive, that administration is wasteful and reckless\nand incompetent, for we know these things by experience. We accept them,\nhowever, with our national good-nature and easy tolerance, assuming that\nthey are inseparable from democratic government--as indeed they are, but\nnot for a moment does any large number think of questioning the\nprinciple, or even the system, that must take the responsibility. When\ndisgust and indifference reach a certain point we stop voting, that is\nall. At the last presidential election less than one half the qualified\nvoters took the trouble to cast their ballots, while in Boston (which is\nno exception) it generally happens that at a municipal elections the\nballots cast are less than one-third the total electorate. I wonder how\nmany there are here today who have ever been to a ward meeting, or have\nsat through a legislative session of a city government, as of Boston for\nexample, or have listened to the debates in a state house of\nrepresentatives, or analyzed the annual grist of legislative bills, or\nhave sat for an hour or two in the Senate or House at Washington. Such\nan experience is, I assure you, illuminating, for it shows exactly why\npopular government is what it is, while it forms an admirable basis for\na constructive revision of judgment as to the soundness of accepted\nprinciples and the validity of accepted methods.\n\nOur political attitude today is based on an inherited and automatic\nacceptance of certain perfectly automatic formulae. We neither see\nthings clearly, estimate conditions as they are, nor think a proposition\nthrough to the end: we are obsessed by old formulae, partisan \"slogans\"\nand newspaper aphorisms; the which is both unworthy and perilous. Let us\nsee things clearly for a moment; if we do this anything is possible, no\nmatter how idealistic and apparently impracticable it may be. Is there\nany one who would confess that character and intelligence are now a\nhelpless minority in this nation? Such an admission would be almost\nconstructive treason. The instinct of the majority is right, but it is\ndefective in will and it is subservient to base leadership, while its\npower for good is negatived by the persistence of a mass of formulae\nthat, under radically changed conditions, have ceased to be beneficient,\nor even true, and have become a clog and a stumbling block.\n\nI may not have indicated better ideals or sounder methods of operation,\nbut the true ideals exist and it is not beyond our ability to discover a\nbetter working system. Partisanship cannot reveal either one or the\nother, nor are they the fruit of organization or the attribute of\npolitical leadership. They belong to the common citizen, to you, to the\nindividual, and if once superstition is cast out and we fall back on\nright reason and the eternal principles of the Christian ethic and the\nChristian ideal, we shall not find them difficult of attainment; and\nonce attained they can be put in practice, for the ill thing exists only\non sufferance, the right thing establishes itself by force of its very\nquality of right.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nTHE FUNCTION OF EDUCATION AND ART\n\nWhen, as on occasion happens, some hostile criticism is leveled against\nthe civilization of modernism, or against some one of its many details,\nthe reply is ready, and the faultfinder is told that the defect, if it\nexists, will in the end be obviated by the processes of popular\neducation. Pressed for more explicit details as to just what may be the\nnature of this omnipotent and sovereign \"education,\" the many champions\ngive various answer, depending more or less on the point of view and the\npeculiar predilections of each, but the general principles are the same.\nEducation, they say, consist of two things; the formal practice and\ntraining of the schools, and the experience that comes through the use\nof certain public rights and privileges, such as the ballot, the holding\nof office, service on juries, and through various experiences of the\npractice of life, as the reading of newspapers (and perhaps books), the\nactivities of work, business and the professions, and personal\nassociation with other men in social, craft, and professional clubs and\nother organizations.\n\nWith the second category of education through experience we need not\ndeal at this time; it is a question by itself and of no mean quality;\nthe matter I would consider is the more formal and narrow one of\nscholastic training in so far as it bears on the Great Peace that,\nthough perhaps after many days, must follow the Great War and the little\npeace.\n\nAnswering along this line, the protagonists of salvation through\neducation pretty well agree that the thing itself means the widest\npossible extension of our public school system, with free state\nuniversities and technical schools, and the extension of the educational\nperiod, with laws so rigid, and enforcement so pervasive and impartial,\nthat no child between the ages of six and sixteen can possibly escape.\nThis free, compulsory and universal education is assumed to be\nscrupulously secular and hedged about with every safeguard against the\ninsidious encroachments of religion; it will aim to give a little\ntraining in most of the sciences, and much in the practical necessities\nof business life, as for example, stenography, book-keeping, advertising\nand business science; it will cover a broad field of manual training\nleading to \"graduate courses\" in special technical schools; the\n\"laboratory method\" and \"field practice\" will be increasingly developed\nand applied; Latin, Greek, logic and ancient history will be minimized\nor done away with altogether, and modern languages, applied psychology\nand contemporary history will be correspondingly emphasized. As for the\nstate university, it will allow the widest range of free electives, and\nas an university it will aim to comprise within itself every possible\ndepartment of practical activity, such as business administration,\njournalism, banking and finance, foreign trade, political science,\npsycho-analysis, mining, sanitary engineering, veterinary surgery, as\nwell as law, medicine, agriculture, and civil and mechanical\nengineering. I am curious to inquire at this time if education such as\nthis does, as a matter of fact, educate, and how far it my be relied\nupon as a corrective for present defects in society; or rather, first of\nall, whether education of this, or of any sort, may be looked on as a\nsufficient saving force, and whether general education, instead of being\nextended should not be curtailed, or rather safeguarded and restricted.\n\nI have already tried to indicate, in my lecture on the Social Organism,\ncertain doubts that are now arising as to the prophylactic and\nregenerative powers of education, whether this is based on the old\nfoundation of the Trivium and Quadrivium under the supreme dominion of\nTheology, or on the new foundation of utilitarianism and applied science\nunder the dominion of scientific pedagogy. While the active-minded\nportion of society believed ardently in progressive evolution, in the\nsufficiency of the intellect, the inerrancy of the scientific method,\nand the transmission by inheritance of acquired characteristics, this\nsupreme confidence in free, secular, compulsory education as the\ncure-all of the profuse and pervasive ills of society was not only\nnatural but inevitable. I submit that experience has measurably modified\nthe situation, and that we are bound therefore to reconsider our earlier\npersuasions in the light of somewhat revealing events.\n\nWe may admit that the system of modern education works measurably well\nso far as intellectual training is concerned; _training_ as\ndistinguished from development. It works measurably well also in\npreparing youth for participation in the life of applied science and for\nmaking money in business and finance. Conscientious hard labour has been\ngiven, and is being given, to making it more effective along these\nlines, and almost every year some new scheme is brought forward\nenthusiastically, tried out painstakingly, and then cast aside\nignominiously for some new and even more ingenious device. The amount of\neducation is enormous; the total of money spent on new foundations,\ncourses, buildings, equipment--on everything but the pay of the\nteachers--is princely; the devotion of the teachers, themselves, in the\nface of inadequate wages, is exemplary, and yet, somehow the results are\ndisappointing. The truth is, the development of _character_ is not in\nproportion to the development of public and private education. The moral\nstanding of the nation, taken as a whole, has been degenerating; in\nbusiness, in public affairs, in private life, until the standards of\nvalue have been confused, the line of demarcation between right and\nwrong blurred to indistinctness, and the old motives of honour, duty,\nservice, charity, chivalry and compassion are no longer the controlling\nmotive, or at least the conscious aspiration, of active men.\n\nThis is not to say that these do not exist; the period that has seen the\nretrogression has recorded also a reaction, and there are now perhaps\nmore who are fired by the ardent passion for active righteousness, than\nfor several generations, but the average is lower, for where, many times\nin the past, there has been a broad, general average of decency, now the\ndisparity is great between the motives that drive society as a whole,\nand its methods of operation, and the remnant that finds itself an\nunimportant minority. Newspapers are perhaps hardly a fair criterion of\nthe moral status of a people--or of anything else for that matter--but\nwhat they record, and the way they do it, is at least an indication of a\ncondition, and after every possible allowance has been made, what they\nrecord is a very alarming standard of public and private morality, both\nin the happenings themselves and in the fashion of their publicity.\n\nNo one would claim that the responsibility for this weakening of moral\nstandards rests predominantly on the shoulders of the educational system\nof today; the causes lie far deeper than this, but the point I wish to\nmake is that the process has not been arrested by education, in spite of\nits prevalence, and that therefore it is unwise to continue our\nexclusive faith in its remedial offices. The faith was never well\nfounded. Education can do much, but what it does, or can do, is to\nfoster and develop _inherent possibilities,_ whether these are of\ncharacter, intelligence or aptitude: it cannot put into a boy or man\nwhat was not there, _in posse,_ at birth, and humanly speaking, the\ndiversity of potential in any thousand units is limited only by the\nnumber itself. Whether our present educational methods are those best\ncalculated to foster and develop these inherent possibilities, so varied\nin nature and degree, is the question, and it is a question the answer\nto which depends largely on whether we look on intelligence, capacity or\ncharacter as the thing of greatest moment. For those who believe that\ncharacter is the thing of paramount importance--amongst whom I count\nmyself--the answer must be in the negative.\n\nNor is an affirmative reply entirely assured when the question is asked\nas to the results in the case of intellect and capacity. There are few\nwho would claim that in either of these directions the general standard\nis now as high as it was, for example, in the last half of the last\ncentury. The Great War brought to the front few personalities of the\nfirst class, and the peace that has followed has an even less\ndistinguished record to date. We may say with truth, I think, that the\nlast ten years have provided greater issues, and smaller men to meet\nthem in the capacity of leaders, than any previous crisis of similar\nmoment. The art of leadership, and the fact of leadership, have been\nlost, and without leadership any society, particularly a democracy, is\nin danger of extinction.\n\nHere again one cannot charge education with our lack of men of\ncharacter, intelligence and capacity to lead; as before, the causes lie\nfar deeper, but the almost fatal absence at this time of the\npersonalities of such force and power that they can captain society in\nits hours of danger from war or peace, must give us some basis for\nestimating the efficiency of our educational theory and practice, and\nagain raise doubts as to whether here also we shall be well advised if\nwe rely exclusively upon it as the ultimate saviour of society, while we\nare bound to ask whether its methods, even of developing intelligence\nand capacity, are the best that can be devised.\n\nAnother point worth considering is this. So long as we could lay the\nflattering unction to our souls that acquired characteristics were\nheritable, and that therefore if an outcast from Posen, migrating to\nAmerica, had taken advantage of his new opportunities and so had\ndeveloped his character-potential, amassed money and acquired a measure\nof education and culture, he would automatically transmit something of\nthis to his offspring, who would start so much the further forward and\nwould tend normally to still greater advance, and so on _ad infinitum,_\nso long we were justified in enforcing the widest measure of education\non all and sundry, and in waiting in hope for a future when the\ncumulative process should have accomplished its perfect work. Now,\nhowever, we are told that this hope is vain, that acquired\ncharacteristics are not transmitted by heredity, and that the old\nfolk-proverb \"it is only three generations between shirtsleeves and\nshirtsleeves,\" is perhaps more scientifically exact than the\nevolutionary dictum of the nineteenth century. Which is what experience\nand history have been teaching, lo, these many years.\n\nThe question then seems to divide itself into three parts; (a) are we\njustified in pinning our faith in ultimate social salvation to free,\nsecular, and compulsory education carried to the furthest possible\nlimits; (b) if not, then what precisely is the function of formal\neducation; and (c) this being determined, is our present method\nadequate, and if not how should it be modified?\n\nIt is unwise to speak dogmatically along any of these lines, they are\ntoo blurred and uncertain. I can only express an individual opinion.\n\nIt seems to me that life unvaryingly testifies to the extreme disparity\nof potential in individuals and in families and in racial strains,\nthough in the two latter the difference is not necessarily absolute and\npermanent, but variable in point of both time and degree. In individuals\nthe limit of this potentiality is inherent, and it can neither be\ncompletely inhibited by adverse education and environment nor measurably\nextended by favourable education and environment. Characteristics\nacquired _outside_ inherent limitations are personal and non-heritable,\nhowever intimately they may have become a part of the individual\nhimself.\n\nIf this is true, then the question of education becomes personal also;\nthat is to say, we educate for the individual, and with an eye to the\npart he himself is to play in society. We do not look for cumulative\nresults but in a sense deal with each personality in regard to itself\nalone. I think this has a bearing both on the extent to which education\nshould be enforced and on the quality and method of education itself,\nand though the contention will receive little but ridicule, I am bound\nto say that I hold that _general_ education should be reduced in\nquantity and considerably changed in nature.\n\nIf the limit of development is substantially determined in each\nindividual and cannot be extended by human agencies (I say \"human\"\nbecause God in His wisdom and by His power can raise up a prophet or a\nsaint out of the lowest depths, and frequently does so), then the\nquantity and extent of general education should be determined not by a\nperiod of years and the facilities offered by a government liberal in\nits expenditures, but entirely by the demonstrated or indicated capacity\nof the individual. Our educational system should, so far as it is free\nand compulsory, normally end with the high school grade. Free college,\nuniversity and technical training should not be provided, except for\nthose who had given unmistakable evidences that they could, and probably\nwould, use it to advantage. This would be provided for by\nnon-competitive scholarships, limited in number only by the number of\ncapable candidates, and determination of this capacity would be, not on\nthe basis of test examinations, but on an average record covering a\nconsiderable period of time. It is doubtful if even these scholarships\nshould be wholly free; some responsibility should be recognized, for a\ngood half of the value of a thing (perhaps all its value) lies in\nworking for it. A grant without service, a favour accepted without\nobligations, privilege without function, both cheapen and degrade.\n\nLet us now turn to the second question, i.e., what precisely is the\nfunction of formal education. For my own part I can answer this in a\nsentence. It is primarily the fostering and development of the\ncharacter-potential inherent in each individual. In this process\nintellectual training and expansion and the furthering of natural\naptitude have a part, but this is secondary to the major object which is\nthe development of character.\n\nThis is not in accordance with the practice or the theory of recent\ntimes, and in this fact lies one of the prime causes of failure. The one\nthing man exists to accomplish is character; not worldly success and\neminence in any line, not the conquest of nature (though some have held\notherwise), not even \"adaptation to environment\" in the _argot_ of last\ncentury science, but _character;_ the assimilation and fixing in\npersonality of high and noble qualities of thought and deed, the\nfurtherance, in a word, of the eternal sacramental process of redemption\nof matter through the operation of spiritual forces. Without this,\nsocial and political systems, imperial dominion, wealth and power, a\nfavourable balance of trade avail nothing; with it, forms and methods\nand the enginery of living will look out for themselves. And yet this\nthing which comprises \"the whole duty of man\" has, of late, fallen into\na singular disregard, while the constructive forces that count have\neither been discredited and largely abandoned, as in the case of\nreligion, or, like education, turned into other channels or reversed\naltogether, as has happened with the idea and practice of obedience,\ndiscipline, self-denial, duty, honour and unselfishness; surely the most\nfantastic issue of the era of enlightenment, of liberty and of freedom\nof conscience.\n\nAs a matter of fact character, as the chief end of man and the sole\nguaranty of a decent society, has been neglected; it was not disregarded\nby any conscious process, but the headlong events that have followed\nsince the fifteenth century have steadily distorted our judgment and\nconfused our standards of value even to reversal. By an imperceptible\nprocess other matters have come to engage our interest and control our\naction, until at last we are confronted by the nemesis of our own\nunwisdom, and we entertain the threat of a dissolving civilization just\nbecause the forces we have engendered or set loose have not been curbed\nor directed by that vigorous and potent personal character informing a\npeople and a society, that we had forgot in our haste and that alone\ncould give us safety.\n\nFormal education is but one of the factors that may be employed towards\nthe development of character; you cannot so easily separate one force in\nlife from another, assigning a specific duty here, a definite task\nthere. That is one of the weaknesses of our time, the water-tight\ncompartment plan of high specialization, the cellular theory of\nefficiency. Life must be seen as a whole, organized as a whole, lived as\na whole. Every thought, every emotion, every action, works for the\nbuilding or the unbuilding of character, and this synthesis of living\nmust be reestablished before we can hope for social regeneration.\nNevertheless formal education may be made a powerful factor, even now,\nand not only in this one specific direction, but through this, for the\naccomplishing of that unification of life that already is indicated as\nthe next great task that is set before us; and this brings me to a\nconsideration of the last of the questions I have proposed for answer,\nviz.: is our present system of education adequate to the sufficient\ndevelopment of character, and if not, how should it be modified?\n\nI do not think it adequate, and experience seems to me to prove the\npoint. It has not maintained the sturdy if sometimes acutely unpleasant\ncharacter of the New England stock, or the strong and handsome character\nof the race that dwelt in the thirteen original colonies as this\nmanifested itself well into the last century, and it has, in general,\nbred no new thing in the millions of immigrants and their descendants\nwho have flooded the country since 1840 and from whom the public schools\nand some of the colleges are largely recruited. It is not a question of\nexpanded brain power or applied aptitude, but of character, and here\nthere is a larger measure of failure than we had a right to expect. And\nyet, had we this right? The avowed object of formal education is mental\nand vocational training, and by no stretch of the imagination can we\nhold these to be synonymous with character. We have dealt with and\nthrough one thing alone, and that is the intellect, whereas character is\nrather the product of emotions judiciously stimulated, balanced (not\ncontrolled) by intellect, and applied through active and varied\nexperience. Deliberately have we cut out every emotional and spiritual\nfactor; not only religion and the fine arts, but also the studies, and\nthe methods of study, and the type of text-books, that might have helped\nin the process of spiritual and emotional development. We have\neliminated Latin and Greek, or taught them as a branch of philology; we\nhave made English a technical exercise in analysis and composition,\ndisregarding the moral and spiritual significance of the works of the\ngreat masters of English; we minimize ancient history and concentrate on\nEuropean history since the French Revolution, and on the history of the\nUnited States, and because of the sensitiveness of our endless variety\nof religionists (pro forma) text books are written which leave religion\nout of history altogether--and frequently economics and politics as well\nwhen these cannot be made to square with popular convictions; philosophy\nand logic are already pretty well discarded, except for special\nelectives and post-graduate courses, and as for art in its multifarious\nforms we know it not, unless it be in the rudimentary and devitalized\nform of free-hand drawing and occasional concerted singing. The only\nthing that is left in the line of emotional stimulus is competitive\nathletics, and for this reason I sometimes think it one of the most\nvaluable factors in public education. It has, however, another function,\nand that is the coordination of training and life; it is in a sense an\n_\u00e9cole d'application,_ and through it the student, for once in a way,\ntries out his acquired mental equipment and his expanding character--as\nwell as his physical prowess--against the circumstances of active\nvitality. It is just this sort of thing that for so long made the\n\"public schools\" of England, however limited or defective may have been\nthe curriculum, a vital force in the development of British character.\n\nAt best, however, this seems to me but an indifferent substitute, an\ninadequate \"extra,\" doing limitedly the real work of education by\nindirection. What we need (granting my assumption of character as the\n_terminus ad quem_) is an educational system so recast that the formal\nstudies and the collateral influences and the school life shall be more\ncoordinated in themselves and with life, and that the resulting stimulus\nshall be equally operative along intellectual, emotional and creative\nlines.\n\nIt is sufficiently easy to make suggestions as to how this is to be\naccomplished, to lay out programmes and lay down curricula, but here as\nelsewhere this does not amount to much; the change must come and the\ninstitutions develop as the result of the operations of life. If we can\nchange our view of the object of education, the very force of life,\nworking through experience, will adequately determine the forms. It is\nnot therefore as a meticulous and mechanical system that I make the\nfollowing suggestions as to certain desirable changes, but rather to\nindicate more exactly what I mean by a scheme of education that will\nwork primarily towards the development of character.\n\nNow in the first place, I must hold that there can be no education which\nworks primarily for character building, that is not interpenetrated at\nevery point by definite, concrete religion and the practice of religion.\nAs I shall try to show in my last two lectures, religion is the force or\nfactor that links action with life. It is the only power available to\nman that makes possible a sound standard of comparative values, and with\nphilosophy teaching man how to put things in their right order, it\nenters to show him how to control them well, while it offers the great\nconstructive energy that makes the world an orderly unity rather than a\ntype of chaos. Until the Reformation there was no question as to this,\nand even after, in the nations that accepted the great revolution, the\npoint was for a time maintained; thereafter the centrifugal tendency in\nProtestantism resulted in such a wealth of mutually antagonistic sects\nthat the application of the principle became impracticable, and for\nthis, as well as for more fundamental reasons, it fell into desuetude.\nThe condition is as difficult today for the process of denominational\nfission has gone steadily forward, and as this energy of the religious\ninfluence weakens the strenuosity of maintenance strengthens. With our\n157 varieties of Protestantism confronting Catholicism, Hebraism, and a\nmass of frank rationalism and infidelity as large in amount as all\nothers combined, it would seem at first sight impossible to harmonize\nfree public education with concrete religion in any intimate way. So it\nis; but if the principle is recognized and accepted, ways and means will\noffer themselves, and ultimately the principle will be embodied in a\nworkable scheme.\n\nFor example; there is one thing that can be done anywhere, and whenever\nenough votes can be assembled to carry through the necessary\nlegislation. At present the law regards with an austere disapproval that\nreflects a popular opinion (now happily tending towards decay), what are\nknown as \"denominational schools\" and other institutions of learning.\nThose that maintain the necessity of an intimate union between religion\nand education, as for example the great majority of Roman Catholics and\nan increasing number of Episcopalians and Presbyterians, are taxed for\nthe support of secular public schools which they do not use, while they\nmust maintain at additional, and very great, expense, parochial and\nother private schools where their children may be taught after a fashion\nwhich they hold to be necessary from their own point of view. Again,\nstate support is refused to such schools or colleges as may be under\nspecific religious control, while pension funds for the teachers,\nestablished by generous benefactions, are explicitly reserved for those\nwho are on the faculties of institutions which formally dissociate\nthemselves from any religious influence. I maintain that this is both\nunjust and against public policy. Under our present system of religious\nindividualism and ecclesiastical multiplicity, approximations only are\npossible, but I believe the wise and just plan would be for the state to\nfix certain standards which all schools receiving financial support from\nthe public funds must maintain, and then, this condition being carried\nout, distribute the funds received from general taxation to public and\nprivate schools alike. This would enable Episcopalians, let us say, or\nRoman Catholics, or Jews, when in any community they are numerous enough\nto provide a sufficiency of scholars for any primary, grammar, or high\nschool, to establish such a school in as close a relationship to their\nown religion as they desired, and have this school maintained out of the\nfunds of the city. This is not a purely theoretical proposition; after\nan agitation lasting nearly half a century, Holland has this year put\nsuch a law in force. From every point of view we should do well to\nrecognize this plan as both just and expedient. One virtue it would\nhave, apart from those already noted, is the variation it would permit\nin curricula, text books, personnel and scholastic life as between one\nschool and another. There is no more fatal error in education than that\nstandardization which has recently become a fad and which finds its most\nmechanistic manifestation in France.\n\nOf course this need for the fortifying of education by religion is\nrecognized even now, but the only plan devised for putting it into\neffect is one whereby various ministers of religion are allowed a\ncertain brief period each week in which they may enter the public\nschools and give denominational instruction to those who desire their\nparticular ministrations. This is one of the compromises, like the older\nmethod of Bible reading without commentary or exposition, which avails\nnothing and is apt to be worse than frank and avowed secularism. It is\nputting religion on exactly the same plane as analytical chemistry,\npsychoanalysis or salesmanship, (the latter I am told is about to be\nintroduced in the Massachusetts high schools) or any other \"elective,\"\nwhereas if it is to have any value whatever it must be an ever-present\nforce permeating the curriculum, the minds of the teachers, and the\nschool life from end to end, and there is no way in which this can be\naccomplished except by a policy that will permit the maintenance of\nschools under religious domination at the expense of the state, provided\nthey comply with certain purely educational requirements established and\nenforced by the state.\n\nI have already pointed out what seems to me the desirability of a\nconsiderable variation between the curriculum of one school and another.\nThis would be possible and probably certain under the scheme proposed,\nbut barring this, it is surely an open question whether the pretty\nthoroughly standardized curriculum now in operation would not be\nconsiderably modified to advantage if it is recognized that the prime\nobject of education is character rather than mental training and the\nfitting of a pupil to obtain a paying job on graduation. From my own\npoint of view the answer is in a vociferous affirmative. I suggest the\ndrastic reduction of the very superficial science courses in all schools\nup to and including the high school, certainly in chemistry, physics and\nbiology, but perhaps with some added emphasis on astronomy, geology and\nbotany. History should become one of the fundamental subjects, and\nEnglish, both being taught for their humanistic value and not as\nexercises in memory or for the purpose of making a student a sort of\ndictionary of dates. This would require a considerable rewriting of\nhistory text books, as well as a corresponding change in the methods of\nteaching, but after all, are not these both consummations devoutly to be\nwished. There are few histories like Mr. Chesterton's \"Short History of\nEngland,\" unfortunately. One would, perhaps, hardly commend this\nstimulating book as a sufficient statement of English history for\ngeneral use in schools, but its approach is wholly right and it\npossesses the singular virtue of interest. Another thing that commends\nit is the fact that while it runs from Caesar to Mr. Lloyd George, it\ncontains, I believe, only seven specific dates, three of which are\npossibly wrong. This is as it should be--not the inaccuracies but the\ncommendable frugality in point of number. Dates, apart from a few key\nyears, are of small historical importance; so are the details of palace\nintrigues and military campaigns. History is, or should be, life\nexpressed in terms of romance, and it is of little moment whether the\nnarrated incidents are established by documentary evidence or whether\nthey are contemporary legend quite unsubstantiated by what are known\n(and overestimated) as \"facts.\" There is more of the real Middle Ages in\nMallory's \"Mort d'Arthur\" than there is in all Hallam, and the same\nantithesis can be established for nearly all other periods of history.\n\nThe history of man is one great dramatic romance, and so used it may be\nmade perhaps the most stimulating agency in education as character\ndevelopment. I do not mean romance in the sense in which Mr. Wells takes\nit, that is to say, the dramatic assembling and clever co\u00f6rdination of\nunsubstantiated theories, personal preferences, prejudices and\naversions, under the guise of solemn and irrefutable truth attested by\nall the exact sciences known to man, but romance which aims like any\nother art at communicating from one person to another something of the\ninner and essential quality of life as it has been lived, even if the\nmaterial used is textually doubtful or even probably apocryphal. The\ndeadly enemy of good, sound history is scientific historical criticism.\nThe true history is romantic tradition; the stimulating thing, the tale\nthat makes the blood leap, the pictorial incident that raises up in an\ninstant the luminous vision of some great thing that once was.\n\nI would not exchange Kit Marlowe's\n\n  _\"Is this the face that launched a thousand ships\n  And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?\"_\n\nfor all the critical commentaries of Teutonic pedants on the character\nand attributes of Helen of Troy as these have (to them) been revealed by\narchaeological investigations. I dare say that Bishop St. Remi of Reims\nnever said in so many words \"Bow thy proud head, Sicambrian; destroy\nwhat thou hast worshipped, worship what thou hast destroyed,\" and that\nthe Meroving monarch did not go thence to issue an \"order of the day\"\nthat the army should forthwith march down to the river and be baptized\nby battalions; but _there_ is the clear, unforgettable picture of the\ntimes and the men, and it will remain after the world has forgotten that\nsome one has proved that St. Remi never met Clovis, and that he himself\nwas probably only a variant of the great and original \"sun-myth.\"\n\nClosely allied with the teaching of history and forming a link as it\nwere with the teaching of English, is a branch of study at present\nunformulated and unknown, but, I am convinced, of great importance in\neducation as a method of character development. Life has always focused\nin great personalities, and formal history has recognized the fact while\nshowing little discretion, and sometimes very defective judgment, in the\nchoices it has made. A past period becomes our own in so far as we\ntranslate it through its personalities and its art; the original\ndocuments matter little, except when they become misleading, as they\nfrequently do, when read through contemporary spectacles. Now the great\nfigures of a time are not only princes and politicians, conquerors and\nconspirators, they are quite as apt to be the knights and heroes and\nbrave gentlemen who held no conspicuous position in Church or state. I\nthink we need what might be called \"The Golden Book of Knighthood\"--or a\nseries of text books adapted to elementary and advanced schools--made up\nof the lives and deeds (whether attested by \"original documents,\" or\nlegendary or even fabulous does not matter) of those in all times, and\namongst all peoples, who were the glory of knighthood; the \"parfait\ngentyl Knyghtes\" \"without fear and without reproach.\" Such for example,\nto go no farther back than the Christian Era, as St. George and St.\nMartin, King Arthur and Launcelot and Galahad, Charles Martel and\nRoland, St. Louis, Godfrey de Bouillon and Saladin, the Earl of\nStrafford, Montrose and Claverhouse, the Chevalier Bayard, Don John of\nAustria, Washington and Robert Lee and George Wyndham. These are but a\nfew names, remembered at random; there are scores besides, and I think\nthat they should be held up to honour and emulation throughout the\nformative period of youth. After all, they became, during the years when\nthese qualities were exalted, the personification of the ideals of\nhonour and chivalry, of compassion and generosity, of service and\nself-sacrifice and courtesy, and these, the qualifications of a\ngentleman and a man or honour, are, with the religion that fostered\nthem, and the practice of that religion, the just objective of\neducation.\n\nMuch of all this can even now be taught through a judicious use of the\nopportunities offered instructors in English, whether this is through\nthe graded \"readers\" of elementary education, or the more extended\ncourses in colleges and universities. Very frequently these\nopportunities are ignored, and will be until we achieve something of a\nnew orientation in the matter of teaching English.\n\nNow it may be I hold a vain and untenable view of this subject, but I am\nwilling to confess that I believe the object of teaching English is the\nunlocking of the treasures of thought, character and emotion preserved\nin the written records of the tongue, and the arousing of a desire to\nknow and assimilate these treasures on the part of the pupil. I am very\nsure that English should not be taught as a thing ending in \"ology,\" not\nas an intricate science with all sorts of laws and rules and exceptions;\nnot as a system whereby the little children of the Ghetto, and the\noffspring of Pittsburgh millionaires, and the spectacled infant elect of\nBeacon Hill may all be raised to the point where they can write with\nacceptable fluency the chiseled phrases of Matthew Arnold, the cadenced\nLatinity of Sir Thomas Browne, the sonorous measures of Bolingbroke or\nthe distinguished and resonant periods of the King James Bible. Such an\naim as this will always result in failure.\n\nThe English language is the great storehouse of the rich thought and the\nburning emotion of the English race, and all this, as it has issued out\nof character, works towards the development of character, when it is\nmade operative in new generations. There is no other language but Latin\nthat has preserved so great a wealth of invaluable things, and English\nis taught in order that it all may be more available through that\nappreciation that comes from familiarity. There is no nobler record in\nthe world: from Chaucer down to the moderns is one splendid sequence of\ncharacter-revelations through a perfect but varied art, for literature\nis also a fine art, and one of the greatest of all. Is it not fair to\nsay that the chief duty of the teacher of English is to lead the student\nto like great literature, to find it and enjoy it for himself, and\nthrough it to come to the liking of great ideas?\n\nIn the old days there was an historical, or rather archaeological,\nmethod that was popular; also an analytical and grammarian method. There\nwas also the philological method which was quite the worst of all and\nhad almost as devastating results as in the case of Latin. It almost\nseems as though English were being taught for the production of a\ncommunity of highly specialized teachers. No one would now go back to\nany of those quaint and archaic ways digged up out of the dim and remote\npast of the XIXth century. We should all agree, I think, that for\ngeneral education, specialized technical knowledge is unimportant and\nscientific intensive methods unjustifiable. For one student who will\nturn out a teacher there are five hundred that will be just simple\nvoters, wage-earners, readers of the Saturday Evening Post and the New\nRepublic, members of the Fourth Presbyterian Church or the Ethical\nSociety, and respectable heads of families. The School of Pedagogy has\nits own methods (I am given to understand), but under correction I\nsubmit they are not those of general education. Shall I put the whole\nthing in a phrase and say that the object of teaching English is to get\nyoung people to like good things?\n\nYou may say this is English Literature, not English. Are the two so very\nfar apart? English as a language is taught to make literature available.\n\"Example is better than precept.\" Reading good literature for the love\nof it will bring in the habit of grammatical speaking and writing far\nmore effectively than what is known as \"a thorough grounding in the\nprinciples of English grammar.\" I doubt if the knowledge of, and\nfacility in, English can be built up on such a basis; rather the laws\nshould be deduced from examples. Philology, etymology, syntax are\nderivatives, not foundations. \"Practice makes perfect\" is a saying that\nneeds to be followed by the old scholastic defensive _\"distinguo.\"_\nPractice in reading, rather than practice in writing, makes good English\ncomposition possible. The \"daily theme\" may be overdone; it is of little\nuse unless _thought_ keeps ahead of the pen.\n\nI would plead then for the teaching of English after a fashion that will\nreveal great thoughts and stimulate to greater life, through the noble\nart of English literature and the perfectly illogical but altogether\nadmirable English language. The function of education is to make\nstudents feel, think and act, after a fashion that increasingly reveals\nand utilizes the best that is in them, and increasingly serves the uses\nof society, and both history and English can be so taught as to help\ntowards the accomplishment of these ends.\n\nThere is another factor that may be so used, but I confess I shall speak\nof it with some hesitation. It is at present, and has been for ages,\nentirely outside the possibility even of consideration, and in a sense\nthat goes beyond the general ignoring of religion, for while Catholics,\nwho form the great majority of Christians, still hold to religion as a\nprime element in education, there are none--or only a minority so small\nas to be negligible--who give a thought to art in this connection. I\nbring forward the word, and the thing it represents, with diffidence,\neven apologetically: indeed, it is perhaps better to renounce the word\naltogether and substitute the term \"beauty,\" for during the nineteenth\ncentury art got a bad name, not altogether undeservedly, and the\ndisrepute lingers. So long as beauty is an instinct native to men (and\nit was this, except for very brief and periodic intervals, until hardly\nmore than a century ago, though latterly in a vanishing form), it is\nwholesome, stimulating and indispensable, but when it becomes\nself-conscious, when it finds itself the possession of a few highly\ndifferentiated individuals instead of the attribute of man as such, then\nit tends to degenerate into something abnormal and, in its last estate,\nboth futile and unclean. In its good estate, as for example in Greece,\nByzantium, the Middle Ages, and in Oriental countries until the last few\ndecades, beauty was so natural an object of endeavour and a mode of\nexpression, and its universality resulted in so characteristic an\nenvironment, it was unnecessary to talk about it very much, or to give\nany particular thought to the educational value of the arts which were\nits manifestation through and to man, or how this was to be applied. The\nthings were there, everywhere at hand; the temples and churches, the\npainting and the sculpture and the works of handicraft; the music and\npoetry and drama, the ceremonial and costume of daily life, both secular\nand religious, the very cities in which men congregated and the villages\nin which they were dispersed. Beauty, in all its concrete forms of art,\nwas highly valued, almost as highly as religion or liberty or bodily\nhealth, but then it was a part of normal life and therefore taken for\ngranted.\n\nNow all is changed. For just an hundred years (the process definitely\nbegan here in America between 1820 and 1823) we have been eliminating\nbeauty as an attribute of life and living until, during the last two\ngenerations, it is true to say that the instinctive impulse of the race\nas a whole is towards ugliness in those categories of creation and\nappreciation where formerly it had been towards beauty. Of course the\ncorollary of this was the driving of the unhappy man in whom was born\nsome belated impulse towards the apprehending of beauty and its visible\nexpression in some art, back upon himself, until, conscious of his\nisolation and confident of his own superiority, he not only made his art\na form of purely personal expression (or even of exposure), but held\nhimself to be, and so conducted himself, as a being apart, for whom the\nlaws of the herd were not, and to whom all men should bow.\n\nThe separation of art from life is only less disastrous in its results\nthan the separation of religion from life, particularly since with the\nformer went the separation of art (and therefore of beauty) from its\nimmemorial alliance with religion. It was bad for art, it was bad for\nreligion, and it was worst of all for life itself. Beyond a certain\npoint man cannot live in and with and through ugliness, nor can society\nendure under such conditions, and the fact is that, however it came to\npass, modern civilization has functioned through explicit ugliness, and\nthe environment it has made for its votaries and its rebels\nindifferently, is unique in its palpable hideousness; from the clothes\nit wears and the motives it extols, to the cities it builds, and the\nstructures therein, and the scheme of life that romps along in its\nruthless career within the sordid suburbs that take the place of the\nonce enclosing walls. And the defiant and segregated \"artists,\" mortuary\nart museums, the exposed statues and hidden pictures, the opera\nsubsidized by \"high society,\" and the \"arts and crafts\" societies and\nthe \"art magazines\" and \"art schools\" and clubs and \"city beautiful\"\ncommittees, only seem to make the contrast more apparent and the\ndesperate nature of the situation more profound.\n\nIt is a new situation altogether, and nowhere in history is there any\nrecorded precedent to which we can return for council and example, for\nnothing quite of the same sort ever happened before. It is also a\nproblem of which formal education must take cognizance, for the lack is\none which must somehow be supplied, while it reveals an astonishing\n_lacuna_ in life that means a new deficiency in the unconscious\neducation of man that renders him ineffective in life; defective even,\nit may be, unless from some source he can acquire something of what in\nthe past life itself could afford.\n\nIndeed it is not merely a negative influence we deal with, but a\npositive, for, to paraphrase a little, \"ugly associations corrupt good\nmorals.\" Youth is beaten upon at many points by things that not only\nlook ugly, but are, and as in compassion we are bound to offer some new\nagency to fill a lack, so in self-defence we must take thought as to how\nthe evil influence of contemporaneousness is to be nullified and its\nresults corrected.\n\nI confess the method seems to me to lean more closely to the indirect\ninfluence rather than the direct. It is doubtful if \"art\" can really be\ntaught in any sense; the inherent sense of beauty can be fostered and an\ninherent aptitude developed, but that is about all. As for the building\nup of a non-professional passion for art I am quite sure it cannot be\ndone, and should hardly be attempted, and very likely the same is true\nof the application of beauty.\n\nText books on \"How to Understand\" this art or that are interesting\nventures into abstract theory, but they are little more. We must always\nremember that art is a result, not a product, and that sense of beauty\nis a natural gift and not an accomplishment. On the other hand, much can\nbe accomplished by indirection, and by this I mean the buildings and the\ngrounds and the cultural adjuncts that are offered by any school or\ncollege. The ordinary type of school-house--primary, grammar or high\nschool--is, in its barren ugliness and its barbarous \"efficiency,\" a\nvery real outrage on decency, and a few Braun photographs and plaster\ncasts and potted plants avail nothing. Private schools and some\ncolleges--by no means all--are apt to be somewhat better, and here the\nimprovement during the last ten years has been amazing, one or two\nuniversities having acquired single buildings, or groups, of the most\nastonishing architectural beauty. In no case, however, has as yet\ncomplete unity been achieved, while the arts of painting, sculpture,\nmusic and the drama, as vital and operative and pervasive influences,\nlag far behind, and formal religion with its liturgies and ceremonial,\nits constant and varied services and its fine and appealing\npageantry--religion which is the greatest vitalizing and stimulating\nforce in beauty is hardly touched at all.\n\nBad art of any kind is bad anywhere, but in any type of educational\ninstitution, from the kindergarten to the post graduate college, it is\nworse and less excusable than it is elsewhere, unless it be in\nassociation with religion, while the absence of beauty at the\ninstigation of parsimony or efficiency is just as bad. I am firmly\npersuaded that we need, not more courses of study but more beautiful\nenvironment for scholars under instruction.\n\nI have touched cursorily on certain elements in education which need\neither a new emphasis or an altogether new interpretation; religion,\nhistory, art, but this does not mean that the same treatment should not\nbe accorded elsewhere. There are certain studies that should be revived,\nsuch as formal logic, there are others that need immediate and complete\nrestoration, as Latin for example, there are many, chiefly along\nscientific and vocational lines, that could well be minimized, or in\nsome cases dispensed with altogether: one might go on indefinitely on\nthis line, however, weighing and testing studies in relation to their\ncharacter-value, but certainly enough has already been said to indicate\nthe point of view I would urge for consideration. Before I close,\nhowever, I want to touch on two points that arise in connection with\ncollege education, if, even for the sake of argument, we admit that the\nprimary object of all formal education is the \"education\" of the\ncharacter-capacity in each individual.\n\nOf these two, the first has to do with the college curriculum, but I\nneed to devote little time to this for the principle has already been\ndeveloped and applied in a singularly stimulating and lucid book called\n\"The Liberal College,\" by President Meiklejohn of Amherst, to which I\nbeg to refer you. The scheme is a remarkable blending of the prescribed\nand the elective systems, and provides for the freshman year five\ncompulsory studies, viz.: Social and Economic Institutions, Mathematics\nand Formal Logic, Science, English and Foreign Languages; for the\nsophomore year European History, Philosophy, Science, Literature, and\none elective; for the junior year American History, History of Thought\nand two electives, and for the senior year one required study,\nIntellectual and Moral Problems, and one elective, the latter, which\ntakes two-thirds of the student's time, must be a continuation of one of\nthe four subjects included in the junior year. It seems to me that this\nis a singularly wise programme, since it not only determines the few\nstudies which are fundamental, and imposes them on the student in\ndiminishing number as he advances in his work, but it also provides for\nthat freedom of choice which permits any student to find out and\ncontinue the particular line along which his inclinations lead him to\ntravel, until his senior year is chiefly given over to the fullest\npossible development of the special subject. The fad for free electives\nall along the line was one of those curious phenomena, both humorous and\ntragic, that grew out of the evolutionary philosophy and the empirical\ndemocracy of the nineteenth century, and it wrought disaster, while the\nironclad curriculum that preceded it was almost as bad along an opposite\nline. This project of Dr. Meiklejohn's seems to me to recognize life as\na force and to base itself on this sure foundation instead of on the\nshifting sands of doctrinaire theory, and if this is so then it is\nright.\n\nFor after all there is such a thing as life, and it is more potent than\ntheory as it also has a way of disregarding or even smashing the\nmachine. It is this force of life that should be more regarded in\neducation, and more relied upon. It is the living in a school or a\ncollege that counts more than a curriculum; the association with others,\nstudents and teachers, the communal life, the common adventures and\nscrapes, the common sports, yes, and as it will be sometime, the common\nworship. It is through these that life works and character develops, and\nto this development and instigation of life the school and college\nshould work more assiduously, minimizing for the moment the problems of\ncurricula and pedagogic methods. If I am right in this there is no place\nfor the \"correspondence school,\" while the college or university that\nnumbers its students by thousands becomes at least of doubtful value,\nand perhaps impossible. In any case it seems to me self-evident that a\ncollege, whatever its numbers, must have, as its primal and essential\nunits, self-contained groups of not more than 150 students segregated in\ntheir own residential quad, with its common-room, refectory and chapel,\nand with a certain number of faculty members in residence, the whole\nbeing united under one \"head.\" There may be perhaps no reason why,\ngranting this unit system, these should not be multiplied in number\nuntil the whole student body is as great as that of a western state\nuniversity today, but to me the idea is abhorrent of an \"university\"\nwith five or ten thousand students all jostling together In one inchoate\nmass, eating in numerical mobs, assembling in social \"unions\" as large\nas a metropolitan hotel and almost as homelike, or taking refuge for\nsafety from mere numbers in clubs, fraternities and secret societies. A\ncollege such as this is a mob, not an organism, and as a mob it ought to\nbe put down.\n\nI said at the outset of this lecture that we could not lay the present\nfailure of civilization to the doors of education, however great its\nshortcomings, for the causes lay deeper than this. I maintain that this\nis true; and yet formal education can not escape scatheless, for it has\nfailed to admit this decline while acknowledging the claim set up for it\nthat it could and would achieve this end. Certainly it will incur a\nheavy responsibility if it does not at once recognize the fact that\nwhile it can not do the half that has been claimed for it, it can do far\nmore than it is doing now, and that in a very large degree the future\ndoes depend for its honour or its degradation on the part formal\neducation is to perform at the present crisis. To do this it must\nexecute a _volte face_ and confess that it can only develop inherent\npotential, not create capacity, and that the primary object of its\nactivities must be not the stall-feeding of intellect and the practical\npreparation for a business career, but the fostering and the building up\nof the personal character that denotes the Christian gentleman. I do not\nthink that I can do better for a conclusion than to quote from the\n\"Philosophy of Education\" by the late Dr. Thomas Edward Shields.\n\n\"The unchanging aim of Christian education is, and always has been, to\nput the pupil into possession of a body of truth derived from nature and\nfrom Divine Revelation, from the concrete work of man's hand and from\nthe content of human speech, in order to bring his conduct into\nconformity with Christian ideals and with the standards of the\ncivilization of his day.\n\n\"Christian education, therefore, aims at transforming native instincts\nwhile preserving and enlarging their powers. It aims at bringing the\nflesh under the control of the spirit. It draws upon the experience and\nthe wisdom of the race, upon Divine Revelation and upon the power of\nDivine grace, in order that it may bring the conduct of the individual\ninto conformity with Christian ideals and with the standards of the\ncivilization of the day. It aims at the development of the whole man, at\nthe preservation of unity and continuity in his conscious life; it aims\nat transforming man's native egotism to altruism; at developing the\nsocial side of his nature to such an extent that he may regard all men\nas his brothers; sharing with them the common Fatherhood of God. In one\nword, it aims at transforming a child of the flesh into a child of God.\"\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nTHE PROBLEM OF ORGANIC RELIGION\n\nIf philosophy is \"the science of the totality of things,\" and \"they are\ncalled wise who put things in their right order and control them well,\"\nthen it is religion, above all other factors and potencies, that enters\nin to reveal the right relationships and standards of value, and to\ncontribute the redemptive and energizing force that makes possible the\nadequate control which is the second factor in the conduct of the man\nthat is \"called wise.\" Philosophy and religion are not to be confounded;\nreligion is sufficient in itself and develops its own philosophy, but\nthe latter is not sufficient in itself, and when it assumes the\nfunctions and prerogatives of religion, it brings disaster.\n\nReligion is the force that relates action to life. Of course it has\nother aspects, higher in essence and more impalpable in quality, but it\nis this first aspect I shall deal with, because I am not now speaking of\nreligion as a purely spiritual power but only of its quality as the\ngreat coordinator of human action, the power that establishes a right\nratio of values and gives the capacity for right control. Whether we\naccept the religion of the Middle Ages or not; whether we look on the\nperiod as one of high and edifying Christian civilization, or as a time\nof ignorance and superstition, we are bound to admit that society in its\nphysical, intellectual and spiritual aspects was highly organized, and\ncoordinated after a most masterly fashion. It was more nearly an unit,\nfunctioning lucidly and consistently, than anything the world has known\nsince the Roman Empire. Whatever its defects, lack of coherency was not\none of them. Life was not divided into water-tight compartments, but\nmoved on as a consistent whole. Failures were constant, for the world\neven then was made up of men, but the ideal was perfectly clear-cut, the\nprinciples exactly seen and explicitly formulated; life was organic,\nconsistent, highly articulated, and withal as full of the passion of\naspiration towards an ultimate ideal as was the Gothic cathedral which\nis its perfect exemplar.\n\nThe reason for this coherency and consistency was the universal\nrecognition and acceptance of religion as the one energizing and\nstandardizing force in life, the particular kind of religion that then\nprevailed, and the organic power which this religion had established;\nthat is to say, the Church as an operative institution. So long as this\ncondition obtained, which was, roughly speaking, for three hundred\nyears, from the \"Truce of God\" in 1041 to the beginning of the\n\"Babylonian Captivity\" of the Papacy at Avignon in 1309, there was\nsubstantial unity in life, but as soon as it was shaken, this unity\nbegan to break up into a diversity that accomplished a condition of\nchaos, at and around the opening of the sixteenth century, which only\nyielded to the absolutism of the Renaissance, destined in its turn to\nbreak up into a second condition of chaos under the influence of\nindustrialism, Puritanism and revolution.\n\nSince the accomplishment of the Reformation, this function of religion\nhas never been restored to society in any degree comparable with that\nwhich it maintained during the Middle Ages. The Counter-Reformation\npreserved the institution itself in the Mediterranean lands, but it did\nnot restore its old spiritual power in its entirety. Amongst the peoples\nthat accepted the Reformation the new religion assumed for a time the\nauthority of the old, but the centrifugal force inherent in its nature\nsoon split the reformed churches into myriad fragments, so destroying\ntheir power of action, while the abandonment of the sacramental system\nprogressively weakened their dynamic force. As it had from the first\ncompounded, under compulsion, with absolutism and tyranny, so in the end\nit compromised with the cruelty, selfishness, injustice and avarice of\nindustrialism, and when finally this achieved world supremacy, and\nphysical science, materialistic philosophy and social revolution entered\nthe field as co-combatants, it no longer possessed a sufficient original\npower either of resistance or of re-creative energy.\n\nReligion is in itself not the reaction of the human mind, under process\nof evolution, to certain physical stimuli of experience and phenomena,\nit is supernatural in that its source is outside nature; it is a\nmanifestation of the grace of God, and as such it cannot be brought into\nexistence by any conscious action of man or by any of his works. On the\nother hand, it can be fostered and preserved, or debilitated and\ndispersed, by these human acts and institutions, and in the same way man\nhimself may be made more receptive to this divine grace, or turned\nagainst it, by the same agencies, the teachings of Dr. John Calvin to\nthe contrary notwithstanding. This is part of the Catholic doctrine of\nfree-will as opposed to the sixteenth-century dogma of predestination\nwhich, distorted and degraded from the doctrine of St. Paul and St.\nAugustine, played so large a part in that transformation of the\nChristian religion from which we have suffered ever since. God offers\nthe free gift of religion and of faith to every child of man, but the\nrecipient must cooperate if the gift is to be accepted. The Church, that\nis to say, the supernatural organism that is given material form in time\nand space and operates through human agencies, is for this reason\nsubject to great vicissitudes, now rising to the highest level of\nrighteousness and power, now sinking into depths of unrighteousness and\nimpotence. Nothing, however, can affect the validity and the potency of\nits supernatural content and its supernatural channels of grace. These\nremain unaffected, whether the human organism is exalted or debased. The\nsacraments and devotions and practices of worship, are in themselves as\npotent if a Borgia sits in the chair of St. Peter as they are if a\nHildebrand, and Innocent III or a Leo XIII is the occupant; nevertheless\nevery weakening or degradation of the visible organism affects, and\ninevitably, the attitude of men towards the thing itself, and when this\ndeclension sets in and continues unchecked, the result is, first, a\nfalling away and a discrediting of religion that sometimes results in\ngeneral abandonment, and second--and after a time--a new outpouring of\nspiritual power that results in complete regeneration. The Church, in\nits human manifestation, is as subject to the rhythmical rise and fall\nof the currents of life as is the social organism or man himself,\ntherefore it is not to be expected that it will pursue a course of even\nexaltation, or maintain a status that is impeccable.\n\nNow the working out of this law had issue in a great decline that began\nwith the Exile at Avignon and was not terminated until the Council of\nTrent. In the depth of this catastrophe came the natural and righteous\nrevolt against the manifold and intolerable abuses, but, like all\nreforming movements that take on a revolutionary character, reform and\nregeneration were soon forgotten in the unleashed passion for\ndestruction and innovation, while the new doctrines of emancipation from\nauthority, and the right of private judgment in religious matters, were\nseized upon by sovereigns chafing under ecclesiastical control, as a\nprovidential means of effecting and establishing their own independence,\nand so given an importance, and an ultimate victory that, in and by\nthemselves, they could hardly have achieved. In the end it was the\nsecular and autocratic state that reaped the victory, not the reformed\nreligion, which was first used as a tool and then abandoned to its\ninevitable break-up into numberless antagonistic sects, some of them\nretaining a measure of the old faith and polity, others representing all\nthe illiteracy and uncouthness and fanaticism of the new racial and\nsocial factors as these emerged at long last from the submergence and\nthe oppression that had been their fate with the dissolution of\nMediaevalism.\n\nMeanwhile the Roman Church which stood rigidly for historic Christianity\nand had been preserved by the Counter-Reformation to the Mediterranean\nstates, continued bound to the autocratic and highly centralized\nadministrative system that had become universal among secular powers\nduring the decadence of Mediaevalism, and from which it had taken its\ncolour, and it kept even pace for the future with the progressive\nintensification of this absolutism. This was natural, though in many\nrespects deplorable, and it can be safely said that adverse criticism of\nthe Catholic Church today is based only on qualities it acquired during\nthe period of Renaissance autocracy and revived paganism; qualities that\ndo not affect its essential integrity or authority but do misrepresent\nit before men, and work as a handicap in its adaptability and in its\nwork of winning souls to Christianity and re-establishing the unity of\nChristendom. Fortunately this very immobility has saved it from a\nsurrender to the new forces that were developed in secular society\nduring the last two centuries, as it did yield to the compulsion of\nthose that were let loose in the two that preceded them. It has never\nsubjected questions of faith and morals to popular vote nor has it\ndetermined discipline by parliamentary practice under a well developed\nparty system, therefore it has preserved its unity, its integrity and\nits just standard of comparative values. On the other hand, it has held\nso stubbornly to some of the ill ways of Renaissance centralization,\nwhich are in no sense consonant with its character, that it has failed\nto retard the constant movement of society away from a life wherein\nreligion was the dominating and coordinating force, while at the present\ncrisis it is as yet hardly more able than a divisive Protestantism to\noffer the regenerative energy that a desperate case demands.\n\nI do not know whether secular society is responsible for the decadence\nof religion, or the decadence of religion is responsible for the failure\nof secular society, nor does it particularly matter. What I am concerned\nwith is a condition amounting to almost complete severance between the\ntwo, and how we may \"knit up this ravelled sleeve\" of life so that once\nmore we may have an wholesome unity in place of the present disunity;\nfor until this is accomplished, until once more religion enters into the\nvery marrow of social being, enters with all its powers of judgment and\ndetermination and co-ordination and creative energy, just so long shall\nwe seek in vain for our way out into the Great Peace of righteous and\nconsistent living.\n\nOf course there is only one sure way, one method by which this, and all\nour manifold difficulties, can be resolved, and that is through the\nachieved enlightenment of the individual. As I have insisted in each of\nthese lectures, salvation is not through machinery but through the\nindividual soul, for it is life itself that is operating, not the\ninstruments that man devises in his ingenuity. Yet the mechanism is of\ngreat value for even itself may give aid and stimulus in the personal\nregenerative process, or, on the contrary, it may deter this by the\nconfusing and misleading influences it creates. Therefore we are bound\nto regard material reforms, and of these, as they suggest themselves in\nthe field of organized religion, I propose to speak.\n\nNo one will deny the progressive alienation of life from religion that\nhas developed since the Reformation and has now reached a point of\nalmost complete severance. Religion, once a public preoccupation, has\nnow withdrawn to the fastnesses of the individual soul, when it has not\nvanished altogether, as it has in the case of the majority of citizens\nof this Republic in so far as definite faith, explicit belief,\napplication, practice and action are concerned. In the hermitage that\nsome still make within themselves, religion still lives on as ardent and\nas potent and as regenerative as before, but in general, if we are to\njudge from the conduct of recent life, it is held, when it is accepted\nat all, with a certain formality, and is neither cherished with\nconviction nor allowed to interfere with the everyday life of the\npractical man. As a great English statesman remarked in the last\ncentury, \"No one has a higher regard for religion than I, but when it\ncomes to intruding it into public affairs, well, really--!\"\n\nThe situation is one not unnaturally to be anticipated, for the whole\ncourse of religious, secular and sociological development during the\nlast few centuries has been such as to make any other result improbable.\nI already have tried to show what seem to me the destructive factors,\nsecularly and sociologically. As for the factors in religious\ndevelopment that have worked towards the same end, they are, first, the\nshattering of the unity of Christendom, with the denial by those of the\nreformed religions of the existence of a Church, one, visible and\nCatholic and infallible in matters of faith and morals; second, the\ndenial of sacramental philosophy and abandonment of the sacraments (or\nall but one, or at most two of them) as instruments of Divine Grace;\nthird, the surrender of the various religious organisms to the\ncompulsion of the materialistic, worldly and opportunist factors in the\nsecular life of modernism. The truths corresponding to these three\nerrors are, Unity, Sacramentalism and Unworldliness. Until these three\nthings are won back, Christianity will fail of its full mission, society\nwill continue aimless, unco\u00f6rdinate and on the verge of disaster, life\nitself will lack the meaning and the reality that give both joy in the\nliving and victory in achievement, while the individual man will be\ngravely handicapped in the process of personal regeneration.\n\nIt is not my purpose to frame a general indictment against persons and\nmovements, but rather to suggest certain ways and means of possible\nrecovery, and in general I shall try to confine myself to that form of\norganized religion to which I personally adhere, that is to say, the\nAnglican or Episcopal Church, partly because of my better knowledge of\nits conditions, and partly because whatever is said may in most cases be\nequally well applied to the Protestant denominations.\n\n_The unity of the Church._ It is no longer necessary to demonstrate this\nfundamental necessity. The old days of the nineteenth century are gone,\nthose days when honest men vociferously acclaimed as honourable and\nglorious \"the dissidence of dissent and the protestantism of the\nProtestant religion.\" Everyone knows now, everyone, that is, that\naccepts Christianity, that disunion is disgrace if not a very palpable\nsin. The desire for a restored unity is almost universal, but every\neffort in this direction, whatever its source, meets with failure, and\nthe reason would appear to be that the approach is made from the wrong\ndirection. In every case the individual is left alone, his personal\nbeliefs and practices are, he is assured, jealously guarded; all that is\nasked is that some mechanical amalgamation, some official approximation\nshall be effected.\n\nFree interchange of pulpits, a system of reciprocal re-ordination, a\n\"merger\" of church property and parsons, an \"irreducible minimum\" of\ncredal insistencies these, and others even more ingeniously\ncompromising, are the well-meaning schemes that are put forward, and in\nthe process one point after another is surrendered, as a _quid pro quo_\nfor the formal and technical capitulation of some other religious group.\n\nIt is demonstrable that even if these well-meaning approximations were\nreceived with favour--and thus far nothing of the kind has appeared--the\nresult, so far as essential unity is concerned, would be _nil._ There is\na perfectly definite line of division between the Catholic and the\nProtestant, and until this line is erased there is no possible unity,\neven if this were only official and administrative. The Catholic (and in\nrespect to this one particular point I include under this title members\nof the Roman, Anglican and Eastern Communions) maintains and practices\nthe sacramental system; the Protestant does not. There is no reason,\nthere is indeed grave danger of sacrilege, in a joint reception of the\nHoly Communion by those who look on it as a mere symbol and those who\naccept it as the very Body and Blood of Christ. Protestant clergy are\nurged to accept ordination at the hands of Anglican bishops, but the\nplea is made on the ground of order, expediency, and the preservation of\ntradition; whereas the Apostolical succession was established and\nenforced not for these reasons but in order that the grace of God,\noriginally imparted by Christ Himself, may be continued through the\nlines He ordained, for the making and commissioning of priests who have\npower to serve as the channels for the accomplishing of the divine\nmiracle of the Holy Eucharist, to offer the eternal Sacrifice of the\nBody and Blood of Christ for the quick and the dead, and to remit the\npenalty of sins through confession and absolution. If the laying on of\nhands by the bishop were solely a matter of tradition and discipline,\nneither Rome nor the Anglican Communion would be justified in holding to\nit as a condition of unity; if it is for the transmission of the Holy\nGhost for the making of a Catholic priest, with all that implies and has\nalways implied, then it is wrong, even in the interests of a formal\nunity, to offer it to those who believe neither in the priesthood nor in\nthe sacraments in the Catholic and historic sense.\n\nThe conversion of the individual must take precedence of corporate\naction of any sort. When the secularist comes to believe in the Godhead\nof Christ he will unite himself with the rest of the faithful in a\nChurch polity, but he will not do this, he has too much self-respect,\nsimply because he is told by some ardent but minimizing parson that he\ndoes not have to believe in the Divinity of Christ in order to \"join the\nchurch.\" When a Protestant comes to accept the sacramental system, to\ndesire to participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the altar, to make\nconfession of his sins and receive absolution, and to nourish and\ndevelop his spiritual nature by the use of the devotions that have grown\nup during nineteen hundred years, he will renounce his Protestantism,\nwhen his self-respect would not permit him to do this just because he\nhad been assured that he need not really change any of his previous\nbeliefs in order to ally himself with a Church that had better\narchitecture and a more artistic ceremonial, and locally a higher social\nstanding. When Anglicans or the Eastern Orthodox come to believe that a\nvernacular liturgy and a married priesthood and provincial autonomy are\nof less importance than Catholic unity, and when Roman Catholics can see\nthat the same is of greater moment than a rigid preservation of\nRenaissance centralization and a cold _\"non possumus\"_ in the matter of\nOrders, then the way will be open for the reunion of the West, where\nthis operation cannot be affected by formal negotiations looking towards\nsome form of legalistic concordat.\n\nThe evil heritage of the sixteenth century is still heavy upon us, and\nthis heritage is one of jealousy and hate, not of charity and\ntoleration. It is an heritage of legalism and technicalities, of\nself-will and individualism, of shibboleths that have become a dead\nletter, of prejudices that are fostered on distorted history and the\npropaganda of the self-seeking and the vain. The spirit of Christ is not\nin it, but the malice of Satan working upon the better natures of men\nand justifying in the name of conscience and principle what are\nfrequently the workings of self-will and pride and intellectual\nobsession. This is the tragedy of it all; that Protestants and Anglicans\nand Roman Catholics are, so far as the majority are concerned, honestly\nconvinced that they are right in maintaining their own divisiveness; in\nperpetuating an hundred Protestant sects on the basis of some variation\nin the form of baptism or church government or the method of conversion;\nin splitting up the Catholic Church because of a thousand year old\ndisagreement as to a clause in the Creed which has a technical and\ntheological significance only, or because one sector is alleged to have\nadded unjustifiably to the Faith while the other is alleged to have\nunjustifiably taken away. Self-will and lack of charity, not love and\nthe common will as these are revealed to the world through the Divine\nWill of Christ, are working here. The momentary triumph of evil over\ngood, the passing victory that yet means the banishment of religion from\nthe world, and the assurance of disaster still greater than that which\nis now upon us unless every man bends all his energies to the task of\nmaking the will of God prevail, first in himself, and so in the secular\nand ecclesiastical societies in and through which he plays his part in\nthe life of the world--these are the fruits of a divided Christendom.\n\nI honestly believe that the first real step towards reunion would be a\nprompt cessation of the whole process of criticism, vilification and\nabuse, one of the other, that now marks the attitude of what are known\nas \"church periodicals.\" Roman, Anglican, Protestant, are all alike, for\nall maintain a consistent slanging of each other. I have in mind in\nparticular weekly religious papers in the United States which maintain\ndepartments almost wholly made up of attacks on Roman Catholicism and\nthe derision of incidents of bad taste or illiteracy in the Protestant\ndenominations, and others which lose no opportunity to discredit or\nabuse the Episcopal Church and the Protestant denominations, and finally\na curiously malevolent newspaper representing the worst type of\nProtestant ignorance and prejudice, which exists on its libelous and\nindecent and dishonest assaults on Catholicism wherever it may be found.\nThese are not alone, for the condition of ascerbity and nagging is\npractically universal. It merely echoes the pulpit and a portion of the\ngeneral public. We all know of the so called \"church\" in Boston that is\nthe forum of \"escaped nuns\" and \"unfrocked priests,\" but in many places\nof better repute the sermon that bitterly attacks Christian Science, or\n\"High Church Episcopalianism,\" or the errors of Protestantism generally,\nor the \"usurpations of Rome\" is by no means unknown, while elsewhere\nthan in Ireland, the public as a whole finds much pleasure in bating any\nreligion that happens to differ from its own,--or offends its sense of\nthe uselessness of all religion. Let us have a new \"Truce of God,\" and\nfor the space of a year let all clergy, lecturers, newspapers, religious\njournals, and private individuals, totally abstain from sneering and\nill-natured attacks on other religions and their followers. Could this\nbe accomplished a greater step would be taken towards the reunion of\nChristendom than could be achieved by any number of conferences,\ncommissions, councils and conventions.\n\nIt was the will and the intent of Christ \"that they all may be one, that\nthe world may believe that Thou hast sent Me,\" and in disunity we deny\nChrist. There is no consideration of inheritance, of personal taste, of\ninterests, of intellectual persuasion that can stand in the way of an\naffirmative answer to this prayer. Every man who calls himself a\nChristian and yet is not praying and working to break down the self-will\nand the self-conceit that, so often under the masquerade of conscience,\nhold him back from a return, even if it is only step by step, to the\noriginal unity of the Catholic Faith, is guilty of sin, while it is sin\nof an even graver degree that stands to the account of those who\nconsciously work to perpetuate the division that now exists.\n\n_Sacramentalism._ The stumbling block, the apparently impassable\nbarrier, is that which was erected when belief was substituted for\nfaith; it is the intellectualizing of religion that has brought about\nthe present failure of Christianity as a vital and controlling force in\nman and in society. The danger revealed itself even in the Middle Ages,\nand through perhaps the greatest Christian philosopher, and certainly\none of the most commanding intellects, the world has known: St. Thomas\nAquinas. In his case, and that of the others of his time, the intellect\nwas still directed by spiritual forces, the chiefest of which was faith,\ntherefore the inherent danger in the intellectualizing process did not\nclearly reveal itself or come into actual operation, but with the\nRenaissance and the Reformation it stood boldly forth, and since then as\nmind increased in its dominion faith declined. The Reformation, in all\nits later phases, that is to say, after it ceased to be a protest\nagainst moral defects and administrative abuses and became a\nrevolutionary invention of new dogmas and practices, was the result of\nclever, stupid or perverse minds working overtime on religious problems\nwhich could not be solved or even apprehended by the intellect, whether\nit was that of an acute and highly trained master such as Calvin, or\nthat of any one of the hundred founders of less savage but more curious\nand uncouth types of \"reformed religion.\"\n\nWhat we need now for the recovery and re-establishment of Christianity\nis not so much increased belief as it is a renewed faith; faith in\nChrist, faith in His doctrine, faith in His Church. We lost this faith\nwhen we abandoned the sacraments and sacramentalism as superstitions, or\nretained some of them in form and as symbols while denying to them all\nsupernatural power. If we would aid the individual soul to regain this\nlost faith we could do no better than to restore the seven sacraments of\nthe historic Christian faith, and Christian Church to the place they\nonce held for all Christians, and still hold in the Roman Catholic\nChurch, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and (with limitations) in the\nAnglican Church. Faith begets faith; faith in Christ brings faith in the\nsacraments, and faith in the sacraments brings faith in Christ.\n\nIt is disbelief in the efficacy of the sacraments and in the sacramental\nprinciple in life that is the essential barrier between Protestantism\nand Catholicism, and until this barrier is dissolved there can be\nneither formal unity nor unity by compromise. This is already widely\nrecognized, and as well the actual loss that comes with the denial and\nabandonment of the sacraments. There is in the Presbyterian church of\nScotland a strong tendency towards a reassertion of the full sacramental\ndoctrine; the \"Free Catholic\" movement throughout Great Britain is made\nup of Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, and other\nrepresentatives of Evangelical Protestantism, and it is working\nunreservedly for the recovery and application of all the Catholic\nsacraments, with the devotions and ritual that go with them. Dr.\nOrchard, the head, and a Congregational minister, maintains in London a\nchurch where, as a Methodist member of the \"Free Catholic\" organization\nwrote me the other day, \"the Blessed Sacrament is perpetually reserved\nand 'High Mass' is celebrated on Sundays with the full Catholic\nceremonial.\" In my own practice of architecture I am constantly\nproviding Presbyterian, Congregational, and even Unitarian churches, by\nrequest, with chancels containing altars properly vested and ornamented\nwith crosses and candles, while the almost universal demand is for\nchurch edifices that shall approach as nearly as possible in appearance\nto the typical Catholic church of the Middle Ages. Of course some of\nthis is due to a revived instinct for beauty, that almost sacramental\nquality in life which was ruthlessly destroyed by Protestantism, and\nalso to a renewed sense of the value of symbol and ritual; but back of\nit all is the growing consciousness that, as Dr. Newman Smythe says,\nProtestantism has definitely failed, or at least become superannuated;\nthat the essence of religion is spiritual not intellectual, affirmative\nnot negative, and that the only measure of safety lies in a return\ntowards, if not actually to, the Catholic faith and practice from which\nthe old revolt was affected. It is a movement both significant and full\nof profound encouragement.\n\nHere then are two tendencies that surely show the way and demand\nencouragement and furtherance; recovery of the sense of Christian unity\nin Christ and through an united Catholic Church, and the re-acceptance\nof sacramentalism as the expression of that faith and as the method of\nthat Church. I feel very strongly that wherever these tendencies show\nthemselves they must be acclaimed and cherished. The Protestant\ndenominations must be aided in every way in their process of recovery of\nthe good things once thrown away; Episcopalians must be persuaded that\nnothing can be wrong that leads souls to Christ, and that therefore they\nmust cease their opposition to Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament\nexplicitly for adoration, to such devotions as Benediction and the\nRosary simply because they have not explicit Apostolic sanction, or to\nvestments, incense and holy water because certain prescriptive laws\npassed four hundred years ago in England have never been repealed. Above\nall is it necessary that the Episcopal Church should declare itself\nformally for the reinstitution of the seven Catholic sacraments, with\nthe Mass as the one supreme act of worship, obligatory as the chief\nservice on Sundays and Holy Days, and both as communion and as\nsacrifice. In this connection there is one reform that would I think be\nmore effective than any other, (except the exaltation of the Holy\nEucharist itself) and that is the complete cessation of the practice of\ncommissioning lay readers and using them for mission work and clerical\nassistance. A mission can be established and made fruitful only on the\nbasis of the sacraments, and chiefly on those of the Holy Eucharist and\nPenance. It is not enough to send a zealous and well intentioned layman\nto \"a promising mission field\" in order that he may read Morning and\nEvening Prayer and some sermon already published. What is needed is a\npriest to say Mass and hear confessions, and nothing else will serve as\na substitute. How this is to be accomplished, now when the candidates\nfor Holy Orders are constantly falling off in number, with no immediate\nprospect of recovery, is a question. Perhaps we may learn something from\nthe old custom of ordaining \"Mass priests,\" without cure of souls and\nwith a commission to celebrate the Holy Mysteries even while they\ncontinue their own secular work in the world. For my own part I am\npersuaded that the best solution lies in the establishing of diocesan\nmonasteries where men may take vows for short terms, and, during the\nperiod of these vows, remain at the orders of the bishop to go out at\nany time and anywhere in the diocese and to do such temporary or\nperiodical mission work as he may direct.\n\n_Unworldliness:_ I have referred to the great falling off in the number\nof candidates for the priesthood in the Episcopal Church; the same\nphenomenon is apparent in all the Protestant denominations, so far as I\nknow, but it has not shown itself in the Roman Catholic Church. This\ndefection parallels the falling-off of membership in the various\nchurches (except again the Roman Catholic) in proportion to the increase\nin population. We are told that the diminution of the ministry is due to\nthe starvation wages that are paid in the vast majority of cases, and of\ncourse it is true that where a married clergy is allowed, men who\nbelieve they have a calling both to ministerial and to domestic life\nwill think twice before they follow the call of the first when the\npecuniary returns are such as to make the second impossible, which is,\ngenerally speaking, the situation today. To obviate this difficulty many\nreligious bodies have recently established pension funds, but even this\nform of clerical insurance, together with the increase that has been\neffected in clerical stipends, has shown no results in an increase of\nstudents in theological seminaries and in candidates for Orders. The man\nwho has enough of faith in God and a strong enough call to the ministry\nof Christ, will answer the call even if he does think twice before doing\nso. The trouble lies, I believe, in the very lack of faith and in a\nfailure of confidence in organized religion largely brought about by\norganized religion itself through the methods it has pursued during the\nlast two or three generations. There is a widespread belief that it is\ncompromising with the world; that it is playing fast and loose with\nfaith and discipline in a vain opportunism that voids it of spiritual\npower. Even where distrust does not reach this disastrous conclusion,\nthere is a growing feeling of repugnance to the methods now being\nadopted in high quarters to \"sell religion\" to the public, as is the\nphrase which is sufficient in itself to explain the falling away that\nnow seems to be in process. The attempt to win unwilling support by the\nmethods of the \"institutional church,\" the rampant advertising, so\nfrequently under the management of paid \"publicity agents\"; the setting\napart of half the Sundays in the year for some one or other special\npurpose, usually the raising of money for a specific and frequently\nworthy object; the \"drives\" for millions, the huge and impressive\norganizations, \"scientifically\" conducted, for rounding up lapsed\ncommunicants, or doubtful converts, or cash and pledges for missions, or\npensions, or the raising of clergy stipends; the \"Nation-wide Campaign,\"\nthe \"Inter-Church World Movement\"; these--not to speak of the growing\npolicy of \"making it easy\" for the hesitant to \"come into the church\" by\nminimizing unpopular clauses in the Creeds or loosening-up on\ndiscipline, and of attracting \"advanced\" elements by the advocacy and\nexploiting of each new social or industrial or political fad as it\narises--are strong deterrents to those who honestly and ardently hunger\nfor religion that _is_ religion and neither social service nor \"big\nbusiness.\"\n\nChrist said \"you _cannot_ serve both God and mammon,\" and this is one of\nthe few cases where He stated a moral condition as a fact instead of\nindicating the right or the wrong possibility in action. Organized\nChristianity has for some time been trying to render this dual service,\nand the penalty thereof is now on the world. This consideration seems to\nme so important and so near the root of our troubles, and not in the\nfield of organized religion alone, that I am going to quote at length\nfrom the Rev. Fr. Duffy of the American \"Society of the Divine\nCompassion.\" What he has said came to me while I was preparing this\nlecture, and it is so much better than anything I could say that for my\npresent purpose I make it my own.\n\n\"To the thoughtful person, and the need of reformation will appeal only\nto the thoughtful person, it must on reflection become abundantly\nevident that the chief necessity of our times in the religious world is\nthe recovery of Faith. Probably lack of the true measure of Faith has\nbeen the story of every generation, with few exceptions, in the long\nhistory of Christianity, but there possibly never has been a time when\nmen talked more of it and possessed less than in our own day. * * * *\"\n\n\"Christianity is a new thing of splendid vision for each and every\ngeneration of men, unique in its promise and unapproached in its\nattraction. And yet how small a factor we have made it in the world's\nmoulding compared with what it might be. We have not achieved a tiny\npart of what we might have achieved, because we lack the essentials of\nachievement; Faith and Faith's vision. Obsessed, after centuries of\ndiscussion and persecution, with the notion that faith is made up of\nmere belief, we have lost the secret of that victorious power that\novercomes the world, and are weakly dependent upon the world's means for\nwhat spiritual operation we undertake. And so content have we grown with\nthings as they are, that what they might be comes only as a dream that\npasses away quickly with the night; blind to our appalling\nmoney-dependency in modern religion, satisfied that the Kingdom of\nHeaven is as nigh to us as is possible under present conditions of\nsociety, we practically have substituted for the theological virtues,\nFaith, Hope and Charity, the ascending degrees of belief, resignation,\nmoney. This is partly due to our religious inheritance and partly to\nmental and spiritual sloth which dislikes the effort of thinking,\npreferring easy acquiescence in conditions that are the resultants of\nblinded vision. For dependency upon money is not something merely of the\npresent, but a condition in the spiritual sphere that is largely a\nproduct of a long past. The really inexcusable thing is our willingness,\nin a day of greater light and knowledge, to close our eyes to the true\nnature of the unattractive, anaemic thing we _call_ faith, which would\nbe seen as powerless to achieve at all, if taken out of the soil of\nmaterial means in which it has been planted.\"\n\nHe then gives various instances of methods actually put in practice\namongst the churches and denominations which indicate the renunciation\nof faith and an exclusive reliance on worldy agencies and he then\ncontinues:\n\n\"The Joint Commission on Clergy Pensions, appointed by the General\nConvention of 1913, made as the basis for apportionment, not the\nservices of self-denial of, but the amount of stipend received by, the\nclergy eligible for pension, thus penalizing the priest who, for the\nlove of God, sacrificed a larger income to accept work in the most\nneeded places where toil is abundant and money scarce. It must be\nevident, of course, that the motive of the Commission is not an\nendorsement of the blasphemous gospel of Success, by adding penalty to\nthe self-denying clergy; what is painfully obvious is their apparent\nunbounded confidence that there are no clergy sufficiently foolish to\nsacrifice stipend at the call of faith's venture! And since the\nArmistice, the only real activity in organized religion has been a\nseries of \"drives\" for vast sums of money, in most cases professionally\ndirected.\n\n\"A consideration of a few facts such as the forgoing must readily\nconvince even the most unimaginative person that whatever power faith\nmight have had in the past, it counts for little today; that its\nsecrets, its very meaning have been forgotten. Otherwise there could not\nbe this extraordinary exaggeration of the place of money in spiritual\noperation, and the unblushing, tacit admission that mammon, which Christ\nso warned against, had been recognized as the master of spiritual\nsituation, instead of the willing servant and useful adjunct of faith it\nwas designed to be in the Christian vision. Indeed they all speak of\nthat, largely unconscious, atmosphere of distrust of God which is so\nall-prevailing among Christian people today. If the great, positive vice\nof the age is covetousness, the great negative one is distrust of God;\nthe two invariably go together as parts of a whole--one is the reverse\nside of the other--for, it is not that we _must_ not, or _ought_ not,\nbut that we \"_cannot_ serve God and mammon.\" And this atmosphere is one\nin which faith cannot exist, it is stifled, crushed, killed, except it\nbreathe the pure, sweet air of God, with which it can alone surround\nitself when human hearts will.\n\n\"It is not surprising that out of such conditions should grow false\nvalues, and that spirituality should be measured by the world's\nstandard. Thus we have fallen into the vicious habit of adjudging\nqualifications for spiritual leadership among the clergy by the amount\nof their stipends, and measuring their potentialities for usefulness in\nthe Kingdom of God by the amount of their yearly incomes; among the\nlaity, the men of power are ever the men of material means, whom we\npermit to play the part of Providence in feeding and sustaining the\nChurch from large purses, the filling of which will not always bear\nclose investigation, and the really successful parish is always the one\nthat, no matter what its spiritual condition, rejoices in abundant\nmaterial means. So evident is it that the means of spiritual life have\nbeen so confused with the purely material, that it occasions no surprise\nwhen a neighbourhood having changed from the residence district of the\ncomparatively well-to-do to the very poor, the vestry feels bound to\nconsider the moving of the church to a more 'desirable' quarter.\n\n\"These, of course, are hard facts to face, and it is not strange that we\nshould seek to evade them by a false optimism that thinks evil is\neliminated by merely contemplating good. The point is, _they must be\nfaced,_ and at a time when there is some evidence of a little awakening,\nit must more and more force itself into the consciousness of the\nthoughtful that the dead spiritual conditions of today are due to the\nshifting of faith from God to material things as the means of achieving.\nThe only hope lies in the apparent unconsciousness of the error. This is\ninvariably the atmosphere that prevails when ecclesiastical history\nrepeats itself in corruption; it had been true of more than two or three\ngenerations, though obviously unseen save by a few of those contemporary\nwith the times, that in Jerusalem, 'the heads thereof judge for reward,\nand the priests teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for\nmoney; yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say: Is not the Lord among\nus? None evil can come upon us.' Corporate unconsciousness, in greater\nor less measure, of these conditions, may influence the degree of guilt,\nbut never can acquit of the sin. And the cold, naked truth is that today\nwe stand almost helpless before a world of peculiar problems.\n\n\"What is there here to reflect the _power_ and _might_ of Christianity,\nsuch as the early Church, especially, possessed, and subsequent\ngenerations, in times of great faith, really knew so much of--the power\nto heal the sick, to cast out devils, to achieve wonders out of Christ's\npoverty, to experience the thrilling joy of religion in the ever-abiding\nDivine Presence, and witness the marvels of faith in the conquering of\nthe world? How is it we are no longer able to communicate the secrets to\nthe suffering world which are able to transmute the people's want into\nGod's plenty, and attract and hold the hearts of men with the joys of\nthe Vision Splendid? Why is it that hope has given way to resignation,\nthat the preaching of forgiveness has been dwarfed by the insistence\nupon penalty, that distinct evils in the physical sphere are attributed\nto God and, because of that, held up to religious estimation as good;\nthe day of miracles is regarded as belonging to a far distant past, the\nanswering of prayer looked upon as the exception instead of the rule,\nand the old melody of joy in religion exchanged for the wail of despair\nin an interpretation of 'Thy will be done' that is only associated with\nhuman calamity? The reply is as simple as, to the thoughtful person, it\nis obvious: we have lost knowledge of a living, vital, conquering faith\nthat is rooted in God Himself, and have satisfied the hunger of human\nsense by placing trust in the things of the earth which we see and\ntouch, and in so doing lost the power spiritually to achieve.\n\n\"Now we can only approach, in the hope of a day of better things, the\ngreat practical and intellectual problems of our times from the\nstandpoint of faith's recovery, for it is only in their relationship to\nfaith they can be viewed intelligently by the Christian. And it will be\nfound that at the root of all our difficulties and all our\nnegligences--so many of them unconscious--and as the cause of our vain\nexpediencies and attempts to justify the corporate spiritual situation,\nis the absence of vital faith and a _whole_ obedience to which God alone\nhas conditioned results. We need sorely to reconsider what faith really\nis, and when we have recovered in some measure that knowledge of it in\nexperience, which declared its unspeakable worth in the early Church and\nin later periods of ecclesiastical history which stand out before all\nothers, we shall look back upon our past distrust of God and His\npromises with shame and wonderment, and proceed to revise our\ncataloguing of spiritual values and degrees of sin. For the really\ndestructive thing, _before all others,_ is a weakened faith that\ncompromises in a half obedience to Christ and a search for earthly\nprops. The work of Satan has even been the prompting of distrust of God\nin the human family, just as the work of redemption means so largely the\nre-establishing of it in the Person of Jesus Christ. From the first\ntemptation of man to the present moment, all the forces of evil have\nconcentrated upon breaking man's trust in God and His promises; every\nsin has had that as its ultimate end, and every disaster, ill and trial,\nin the world and individual life, is subtly presented by the enemy of\nGod and man (knowing our haziness of vision), so as to place the\nappearances against the Creator in a blind disregard for the created;\njust as in the life of the Incarnate Son all the great power of the\nforces of darkness were brought to bear unsuccessfully upon the snapping\nof His faith in His Father--from the time He was tempted to believe\nHimself forgotten, when hungering and physically reduced in the\nwilderness after His long fast, until the dreadful cry of dereliction\nfrom the Cross at the very end.\n\n\"The call for reformation today, then, is to the doing of things left\nundone, the search for and recovery of almost lost spiritual powers that\nalone lastingly can achieve for God and hasten man's salvation. And this\nrequires the venture and daring that breaks from the world, withdraws\nfrom compromise, and that, rightly estimating the character and attitude\nof God, refuses longer to believe Him the author of evils we resignedly\naccept today by calling them good; and instead, claims the powers of the\nDivine promises for the utter destruction of the world's ills by a\nstrict dependence upon spiritual forces and weapons for the\naccomplishment of results. Above all, this means a change and reform in\ncorporate conduct as the end of repentance, for the present almost total\ndisregard of the laws and principles of Christian living as given in the\nSermon on the Mount.\"\n\n\nThese are hard sayings and strong doctrine, but will any one say they\nare not true? The weakening of religion, with the consequent decline of\ncivilization, is ultimately to be traced back to _organized_ religion,\nnot to religion itself, and still less to any inherent defects in\nChristianity. Where organized religion has failed it deserved to fail,\nbecause it countenanced disunion, forsook the saving sacraments, and\nfinally compromised with worldliness and materialism. With each one of\nthese false ventures faith began to weaken amongst the mass of people\nuntil at last this, which can always save, and alone can save, ceased to\nhave either the power or the will to force the organism to conform to\nthe spirit. If we have indeed accomplished the depth of our fall, then\nthe time is at hand when we may hope and pray for a new outpouring of\ndivine grace that will bring recovery.\n\nThere are wide evidences that men earnestly desire this. I have already\nspoken of the great corporate movements towards unity, and these mean\nmuch even though they may at present take on something of the quality of\nmechanism instead of depending on the individual and the grace of God\nworking in him. The \"World Conference on Faith and Order,\" the just\neffected federation of the Presbyterians, Methodists and\nCongregationalists in Canada, above all the eirenic manifesto of the\nBishops at the last Lambeth Conference, all indicate a new spirit\nworking potently in the souls of men. Concrete results are not as yet\nconspicuous, but the spirit is there and a beginning has been made. Even\nmore significant is the wide testimony to the need for definite,\nconcrete and pervasive religion that is daily given by men whose names\nhave hitherto been quite dissociated from matters of this kind;\nscientists, educators, men of business and men of public life. It may be\ntestimony in favour of some new invention, some synthetic product of\ncurious and abnormal ingredients; as a matter of fact it frequently is,\nand we confront such remarkable products as Mr. Wells has given us, for\nexample. The significant thing, however, is the fact of the desire and\nthe avowal; if we have this I think we may leave it to God to see that\nthe desire is satisfied in the end by heavenly food and not by the\nnostrums of ingenuity. For the same reason we may look without dismay on\ncertain novel phenomena of the moment. In their divergence from \"the\nFaith once delivered to the Saints\" and left in the keeping of the\nChurch Christ founded as a living and eternal organism through which His\nSpirit would work forever, they are wrong and therefore they cannot\nendure, but each testifies to the passionate desire in man for religion\nas a reality, and no one of them comes into existence except as the\nresult of desperate action by men to recover something that had been\ntaken from them and that their souls needed, and would have at any cost.\nEach one of these strange manifestations is a reaction from some old\nerror that had become established belief or custom. No one who holds to\nhistoric Christianity is interested in them, but those who have found\nreligion intellectualized beyond endurance and transformed either by\nmaterialism or rationalism, seek for the mysticism they know to be a\nreality (to employ a paradox) in the ultra mysticism of Oriental cults;\nthose who revolt against the exaggeration of evil and its exaltation to\neminence that rivals that of God Himself, which is the legacy of one\npowerful movement in the Reformation, rush to the other extreme and deny\nthe existence of evil and even the reality of matter, while spiritism,\nthe most insidious, perilous and fatal of all the spiritual temptations\nthat beset the world at this time, gains as its adherents those who have\nbeen deprived of the Catholic belief in the Communion of Saints and have\nbeen forbidden to pray for the dead or to ask for their prayers and\nintercessions.\n\nHowever strange and erroneous the actual manifestation, there is no\nquestion as to the reality and prevalence of the desire for the recovery\nof spiritual power through the channels of religion. It shows itself, as\nit should, first of all in the individual, and it is only recently that\norganized religion, Catholic or Protestant, has begun to show a\nsympathetic consciousness and to take the first hesitant steps towards\nmeeting the demand. Because of this the seekers for reality have been\nleft unshepherded and have wandered off into strange wildernesses. The\ncall is now to the churches, to organized religion, and if the call is\nheeded our troubles are well on the road to an end. If the old way of\njealousy, hatred and fear is maintained, then humanly speaking, our case\nis hopeless. If the older way of brotherhood, charity and\nloving-kindness is followed the future is secure in the Great Peace.\nNothing is wrong that leads men to Christ, and this is true from the\nSalvation Army at one end of the scale to the Seven Sacraments of\nCatholicity at the other. The world demands now not denial but\naffirmation, not protest and division but the ringing \"Credo\" of\nCatholic unity.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nPERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY\n\n    Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of\n    Hosts.\n\nWe have tried to approach each subject in this course of lectures in the\nspirit of peace, and the greatest contributory factor in the achieving\nof the Great Peace is the individual himself, on whom, humanly speaking,\nrests the final responsibility. \"Not by might, nor by power, but by My\nSpirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.\" Not by majestical engines and curious\ndevices and mass-action, nor yet by an imposed human authority enforced\nby arms and the law, but by the Holy Spirit of God working through the\nindividual soul and compelling the individual will. Peace is one of the\npromised fruits of the Holy Spirit, and like the others is manifested\nthrough human lives; therefore on us rests the pre\u00ebminent responsibility\nof showing forth in ourselves, first of all, those things we desire for\nothers and for society.\n\nWe have experienced the Great War, we endure its aftermath, and amidst\nthe perils and dangers that follow both there is none greater than that\nwhich attaches to exterior war, viz., that the attention of both\ncombatants is focussed on the faults and the weaknesses and the crimes\nof the opponent, with the result that both become destructive critics\nrather than constructive examples. Chesterton rightly says, \"What is\nwrong with the critic is that he does not criticise himself * * * rather\nhe identifies himself with the ideal.\" Seeing evil in others and\nflattering one's self is the antithesis of the spirit that would lead to\nthe Great Peace, for in that spirit the field of warfare is transferred\nfrom the external to the internal, and the interior contest, which alone\nestablishes lasting results, necessitates a recognition of our own error\nand the need of amendment of our own life.\n\nIf our modern devices have failed; if the things we invented with a high\nheart and high hope, in government, industry, society, education,\nphilosophy have in the end brought disappointment, disillusionment, even\ndespair, it is less because of their inherent defects than because the\nindividual failed, and himself ceased to act as the sufficient channel\nfor the divine power which alone energizes our weak little engines and\nwhich acts through the individual alone. There is no better\ndemonstration of this essential part played by the personal life of man\nthan the fact that God, for the redemption of the world, took on human\nform and became one Man amongst many men. There is no better\ndemonstration of the fact that it is through the personal lives of\nindividuals that the Great Peace is to be achieved, both directly and\nindirectly, than the fact that peace, the gift of the Holy Spirit, was\npromised to the individual man, by Christ Himself, as the legacy he left\nto his disciples after His Resurrection and Ascension. Since then the\nworld has been under the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, the \"Guide and\nComforter\" that was promised, even though it has blindly and from time\nto time rejected the guidance and therefore known not the comfort. The\nOld Law of \"Thou shalt not\" was followed by the New Law of \"Thou shalt,\"\nand this in turn by the law of the third Person of the Trinity which\ndoes not supersede the dispensations of the Father and of the Son, but\nfulfills them in that it affords the spiritual power, if we will, to\nabide by the inhibitions and to carry out the commands.\n\nOur search is for peace, the Great Peace, \"the Peace of God which\npasseth all understanding,\" and we shall achieve this for ourselves and\nfor the world only through ourselves as individuals, and so for the\nsociety of which we are a part, and in so far as we bring ourselves into\ncontact with the Spirit of God. There is deep significance in the fact\nthat the first time Christ used the salutation \"Peace be unto you,\" was\nafter His resurrection. It would seem that this special gift of the Holy\nSpirit had to be withheld from man until after the human life of God the\nSon had been brought to an end in accomplishment, for He says \"Peace I\nleave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth give I\nunto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.\" \"It\nis expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter\nwill not come unto you: but if I depart I will send Him unto you. When\nHe, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.\" \"Ye\nshall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.\"\n\nIt is the spirit that quickeneth. After God had revealed the Law and\ngiven to us the great redeeming and atoning Life, He saw that we had\nneed of a further manifestation before we should be able to keep the law\nand live the life. Therefore the Holy Spirit was sent to quicken us and\ngive us power to do what we had both heard and seen. Today we accept the\nmoral law, we recognize the perfection of Chirst's life, but we need to\nbe reminded again that the power to be \"sons of God\" is present with us\nif we will but use it. As this power is a spirit it can only be\napprehended spiritually; when our minds and hearts are set on material\nthings, even on good material things, the \"still small voice\" of the\nspirit remains unheard: but if we listen first to that inward voice and\nthen use the means of grace afforded us, we are enabled to lift up our\nhearts and minds to the Creator and then to use in His service all the\nmaterial universe which is also His creation. We can not get a right\nphilosophy by working for right philosophy, but only by living in the\nright relationship as individuals: then as a by-product of religion a\nright philosophy will come. We can not get a right industrial system by\nsearching for a right industrial system, but if we show forth in our\nlives the Christian virtues, a right industrial system will come as one\nof the by-products of religion. So with each one of our so-called\n\"problems.\" Life rightly lived has no problems. This is a hard saying\nfor an intellectual age whose temptation is to trust in its own power\nrather than in the power of God, but \"except ye become as little\nchildren\" and walk by faith and not by sight the Kingdom of God is\nwithheld. A soldier who suffered in the late war, and out of his\nsuffering found peace, says, \"Christ's hardest work is to teach the\nwise: Those who are entrusted with authority and responsibility will be\nthe least prepared to make the venture of the Spirit, however much they\nmay believe in it. They are sacrificing least now: they will have to\nsacrifice most when the Spirit comes. They have so much to unlearn:\nchildren and working men have so little. The whole of our world today is\nrooted and grounded in intellect. Our machinery, our institutions, our\ngreat systems, the entire body of enterprise is governed by brains. It\nis this that will alter. Just behind intellect there is a vision that is\npurer, keener, more powerful than the vision of your eyes, than the\nhearing of your ears, than the touch of your hands. This world is being\ntransformed into another which comes into being at our spiritual touch.\nThe world needs something personal, something from the heart. It is sick\nto death with the cold machinery of the intellect. But before men see\nthis they must change their view of life, they must _be born again._ The\nscientists, the historians and theologians, the philosophers, have made\nthe universe too big. It is not a big place: it is very tiny. Life is so\nsimple, really. Our wise men have made it so difficult, so ugly. It is\nonly children who can see the risen Christ; children, perhaps, out of\nwhom seven devils have been cast. The world needs not critics, but\nteachers, and children are waiting everywhere to teach, but men,\nshutting the windows of their souls, try rather to mould these little\nones to fit into the vacant spaces of their own stupid world. Are not\nchildren the true artists? They won't tolerate anything but Beauty. They\nsee Beauty everywhere, not because it is there, but because they want it\nthere. Everything they touch turns into something far more precious than\ngold: every word they utter is a song of praise. You are almost in\nheaven every time you look into the eyes of a child.\" Remember, please,\nthese are the words of a man who has faced the horrible realities of\nmodern warfare, and so do not dismiss them as mere poetry, or with\nNicodemus' question, \"How can a man be born again?\", but listen to a\nmodern interpretation of the answer to that question:--(\"The Life\nIndeed.\") \"We must be born again even to see the spiritual kingdom, must\nbe born of water and the spirit to enter its gates at all. So to his\nlittle audience of disciples Our Lord says it is not an affair of\nlegislation, of discovery, of which men say, 'Lo here, lo there! but the\nkingdom of heaven is _within you._ Why a second birth? This is a second\nbirth because it must needs supervene at a point where two elements can\nwork together, the element of an appealing, vitalizing spirit from the\nunseen and the element of free human choice. Being of the spirit, it is\nthe birth into freedom: it is the soul emerging from its prison into the\nopen air of liberty and light and life.\" Note the element of free\nchoice. Our first birth is outside our choice and the gifts are\nunconditioned; our second birth, when again we become as little\nchildren, demands our response to the Holy Spirit and our persevering\ncooperation with Him to make His influence effectual for ourselves and\nfor the \"communion of saints\" and the corporate religion into which the\nSpirit also baptizes us. In a recent sermon a bishop of the Episcopal\nChurch says, \"This is the creed of the Church--the Divine Father and\nForgiveness: the Divine Son and Redemption: the Divine Spirit and\nAbundant Life. Therefore the Church still insists upon the creation of\nmoral rectitude and spiritual character as the end and purpose of\nreligion, aye, as the basic problem underlying all questions relating to\nhuman life--social, industrial, civic, and political. The Church still\npreaches the gospel of the Grace of God, the obligation and blessing of\nworship, the meaning and virtue of the Christian Sacraments.\" Also \"My\nbrethren, we shall not be content to criticize and find fault with our\nown age and time, but rather we shall pray for the power to see within\nits questionings, unrest and discontent--aye, its recklessness and\napparent failures--the strivings of the Spirit of God. But each man has\nto voice for himself the conviction of the reality of the spiritual\norder and the spiritual life. Therefore, let us believe in and practice\nthe worship of God, 'praying always' as St. Paul says, 'with all prayer\nand supplication in the Spirit,' or as St. Jude says, 'building up\nyourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit.'\"\n\nLet us accept this suggestion and try to find in the unrest of our own\ntime evidences of \"the strivings of the Spirit of God,\" waiting our\nperception and response. The soldier of the Great War, having faced\ndeath and imprisonment and suffering in many forms says, \"compared with\nthe depth of good in the world the evil is shallow.\" The first evidence\nof good in our own day is the almost universal discontent with evils and\nthe desire to find a better way. The humility which recognizes that so\nwidespread a condition cannot be the fault of any one nation or group\nbut is rather the responsibility of each one of us, is cause for hope.\nSome of us believe that war can breed only war, hatred only hatred; that\ngovernments cannot make peace, but can only cause cessation of open\nhostilities, and that the real peace, the Great Peace, must await the\naction of the Spirit. This Spirit, of love and forgiveness, breeds love\nand forgiveness, indeed is far more potent than the spirit of hate.\nBecause of this very strength and potency its evidences are not so\nimmediately apparent, but they are deeper-rooted. Perhaps in this\nmaterial sphere we human beings must see, and to a certain extent\nexperience, hate, before we can really know love, and consciously and\nfreely choose it. When that choice is made, when we, knowing all that\nhate and evil and malice can accomplish, yet deliberately choose to love\nour enemies, we have slain the Adversary and made hate and evil\npowerless. Of course we have not power of ourselves to do this but only\nthrough the grace of God. When we try God's way, not waiting for the\nother person to reform or to be generous or to speak gently or to\nforgive, then and only then do we deserve the name of Christians; then\nand only then are we walking in love; then and only then are we really\npraying effectually \"Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it\nis in Heaven.\" We have tried the way of the world, the way of reprisals,\nthe way of distrust, and, thank God, we are none of us satisfied with\nthe results. Perhaps now we may be ready to try the way of God by making\nthe great adventure of faith, each one in his own person; faith in\nhimself and faith in the future. The way of the world has bred fear that\nhas issue in hate, and hate that has issue in fear; but the better way,\nthat of faith, breeds trust that has issue in fellowship, and fellowship\nthat has issue in trust. There is no problem of labour, of politics, of\nsociety that is insoluble if once it is approached in the spirit of\nfaith and fellowship and trust, but none of these is susceptible of\nsolution where the controlling motives are hate, distrust and fear. The\nmodern policy of centralization and segregation has resulted in dealing\nwith men as groups and not as individuals. When, for example, iron-bound\ncults (they are no less than this) meet as \"capital\" and as \"labour,\"\nboth merge the individuality of their members in a thing which has no\nreal or necessary existence but is an artificial creation of thought\noperating under the dominion of ephemeral, almost accidental conditions.\nAs a member of an \"interest\" or a cult, where humanity and personality\nare, so to speak, \"in commission,\" a man does not hesitate to do those\nthings he would never think of doing for himself, knowing them to be\nselfish, cruel, unjust and uncharitable. A case in point--if we need\none, which is hardly probable since they are of daily occurrence--is the\npending contest between the mine operators and mine workers in Great\nBritain, where both parties, with Government thrown in, are guilty of\nmaintaining theories and perpetrating acts for which an individual would\nbe, even now, excoriated and outlawed. The Irish imbroglio is another\ninstance of the same kind.\n\nIn a personal letter from a consulting engineer who has had unusual\nopportunities, by reason of his official position, to come closely in\ncontact with the conditions governing industry and finance both in\nAmerica and Europe since the war, I find this illuminating statement of\na matured judgment. \"As a practical matter, and facing the issue, I\nwould preach the practice of de-centralization in government and\nbusiness which will in time develop the individual and accomplish the\ndesired end. * * * Decentralization should be carried to such an extent\nthat the units of business would be of such size that the head could\nagain have a personal relation with each individual associated with him.\n* * * With the personal relation again established, unionism as at\npresent practiced would again be unnecessary, and the unions would\nbecome once more guilds for the development and advancement of the\nindividual.\" It is this nullification of the human element, of the\nperson as such, the introduction of the gross aggregate with its\nartificial corporate quality, and the attempt to establish a\ncorrespondence between these unnatural things, the whole being\nintensified by the emotions of fear, distrust and hate, which produces\nthe contemporary insistence on \"rights\" and the rank injustice, cruelty\nand disorder that follow the blind contest. To quote again from the\nsoldier who achieved illumination through the recent war, \"My friends,\nthere is no protection of rights in heaven. When we speak of rights we\nare blinded by the light of this world of rule and order and\nintellectual conceits. It is not justice we need, it is mercy.\"\n\nIf we honestly endeavour to bring about something more nearly\napproaching the Kingdom of God on earth, we should do well to achieve a\nlittle more of the quality of child-like trust which knows that through\nthe petition to father or mother, or to a guardian angel, or directly to\nGod, the result will surely follow. We long passionately to see a good,\n_our_ good as we see it, accepted here and now, but whatever we offer,\nno mater how righteous or how salutary, is but a small part of the great\ngood, a limited and partial showing forth of only one element, while the\nfinal and comprehensive good is the result of many contributions, and in\nthe end is not ours, but God's, and by His overruling providence it may\nlook very unlike what we had predetermined and anticipated. Moreover,\nthe condition even of our own small good becoming effective, is _faith,_\nand neither sight nor action. There is a faith that can move mountains,\nand it is faith in fellowship, in the underlying, indestructible good in\nman, above all in the desire and the intent of God to deal mercifully\nwith us and beyond the dictates of justice and the claims of our own\ndeserts. When we know and accept this power of faith, placing it above\nthe efficiency of our own feeble works, then indeed we may become the\npatient, hopeful, joyful and faithful Christians we were intended to be,\nand therefore the creators of the spirit of peace. Nothing permanent can\nbe achieved except in co\u00f6peration with God; any work of man alone (or of\nthe devil) has in it the seed of decay and must perish, This knowledge\nrelieves us of the gloomy responsibility of destroying or trying to\ndestroy every evil thing we see or think we see. If it is really evil it\nis already dying unless nourished by evil within ourselves. Here is a\nBuddhist legend which has a lesson for each of us--\"The watcher in the\nshrine of Buddha rushed in to the Holy Fathers one morning with tidings\nof a horrible demon who had usurped the throne of our Lord Buddha. The\nFathers ran to the throne room, each one more infuriated than the other,\nand declaimed against the insolence of the demon, who grew huger and\nmore hideous at every angry word that hurtled through the air. At last\narrived the oldest and most saintly of the monks and threw himself on\nhis knees before the demon and said, \"We thank thee, O Master, for\nteaching us how much anger and wrath and jealousy was still hidden in\nour hearts.\" At every word he said, the demon grew smaller and smaller\nand at last vanished. He was am Anger-Eating Demon, and anger-rousing\nwords and even thoughts of ill-feeling nourished him.\n\nThe belief that in comparison with the depth of good in the world the\nevil is shallow may also be expressed in the statement that God is Lord\nof Eternity while the devil is prince only of this world. As this evil\nspirit has power, and as a part of this power is the ability to appear\nas an angel of light, so to deceive us, we are bound by\nself-examination, constantly indulged in, to scrutinize those things, so\ncommon in our own lives we do not notice them, which may be but the\nillusions of this spirit of darkness showing as a fictitious spirit of\nlight: Hurry and carelessness both in thought and in action;\nsnap-judgment at short range; compromise with the spirit of the time in\nthe interest of \"good business,\" \"practical considerations\" or \"sound\npolicy\"; worship of the doctrine of \"get results,\" acceptance of the\nhorrible principle: that it is every man's business to \"sell\" something\nto another, from a patent medicine or \"gilt edged\" bonds to a new\nphilosophy or an old religion; the estimating of values by size, number,\ncost. It is common parlance among Christian people to speak of what a\nman \"is worth\" meaning how much money he has. We speak of a man's\n\"making a living\" meaning only how much money he makes, when by making\nonly money he would be killing his living. Do we not speak of the call\nof a missionary from an unshepherded flock to a large city parish as a\ncall to \"a wider sphere of usefulness\"? When you or I conceive of any\npiece of work as \"important\" is it not because it involves either great\nnumbers or great sums of money? Then we hear much today of the need for\nleaders. The need could not be exaggerated, but does not this lack\nexist, in part, because we have forgot that the Christian's first duty\nis to be a follower, and that only from amongst real followers can God\n(not man, least of all the man himself) raise up a leader? These are\nsmall matters, you may say, but \"straws show which way the wind blows,\"\nand the spirit, like the wind, manifests itself first in small matters.\nEvery life is made up largely of small things, \"the little, nameless\nunremembered acts of kindness and of love\" which some one has called\n\"the noblest portion of a good man's life.\"\n\nWith this brief glance at some of the possible manifestations of the\nspirit of evil which we believe to be temporary and therefore of\nsecondary importance only, let us consider some of the requisites of the\nChristian life as exemplified in the life of Christ, especially those of\nwhich we need to be reminded today. We have already spoken of that\nchild-likeness which takes the faith simply and applies it to the common\nthings of daily life--Christ's life of ministry, of good works (which\nwas, in proportion to the time given to preparation for activity and\npreaching, of very short duration), full of injunctions to those who\nwere with him to \"tell no man\"; therefore the good works which are done\n\"in His likeness\" must not be done in public. If we are \"seen of men,\"\nverily we have our reward. Christ's life ended in apparent failure, in\nignominious death on the cross. The world worships today's success and\nimmediate publicity, the Christian, to be worthy of his Lord, must\naccept apparent failure and must offer his best work in secret: \"And my\nFather which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.\" A touching poem\nof Francis Thompson's pictures the marveling of a soul on his rewards in\nParadise which, in his humility, he thinks undeserved. The man asks of\nGod:\n\n  _O when did I give Thee drink erewhile,\n     Or when embrace Thine unseen feet?\n   What gifts Thee give for my Lord Christ's smile,\n     Who am a guest here most unmeet?_\n\nand is answered\n\n  _When thou kissedest thy wife and children sweet\n    (Their eyes are fair in my sight as thine)\n   I felt the embraces on My feet.\n    (Lovely their locks in thy sight and Mine.)_\n\nA necessary reminder of the fact that for each of us, charity, which is\nlove, begins at home, and that we love and serve God best in His holy\nhuman relationships--if we love not our brother whom we have seen how\ncan we love God whom we have not seen?\n\nAgain, the individual Christian life must, like its Great Original,\nsuffer for others. When we suffer as a result of our own wrongdoing we\nare but meeting our just reward; but if patiently and humbly and\nvoluntarily we bear pain, even unto death, for others, we are\ntranscending justice, the pagan law, and exemplifying mercy, the\nChristian virtue. No sensitive soul in this generation, conscious of the\nsacrifice of the millions of young lives who \"stormed Heaven\" in their\nwillingness to die that others might live, can doubt this. The essence\nof love is sacrifice; voluntary, nay eager sacrifice. Before our Blessed\nLord died He was mocked and ridiculed, He suffered physical hardship,\nfalling under the weight of the cross, and He was lifted up, crucified,\nto suffer the ignominious death of a felon. He was made a spectacle for\nthe jests and laughter of the multitude. In our own time and amongst\nourselves, except for periods of war, there is little necessity for\nphysical suffering for our faith, but the need to endure ridicule is as\ngreat as ever, perhaps even greater because of the absence of physical\nsuffering. Since we are trying to apply these things in small and simple\nways to the individual life let us each one consider how much moral\ncourage it takes to defend Christian virtues when they are sneered at\nunder the guise of \"jokes.\" Let us exercise charity by not quoting\ninstances, but let us be watchful of our laughter and our fellowship,\nwhich are both gifts of God, and see that we do not confuse pagan\npleasure with Christian joy, the evil sneer with the tender recognition\nof the absurd in ourselves and in others. It is Mr. Chesterton again who\npoints out the fact that the pagan virtues of justice and the like which\nhe calls the \"sad virtues\" were superseded, when the great Christian\nrevelation came, by the \"gay and exuberant virtues,\" the virtues of\ngrace, faith, hope and charity; and who says, \"the pagan virtues are the\nreasonable virtues, and the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity\nare in their essence as unreasonable as they can be. Charity means\npardoning what is unpardonable or it is no virtue at all. Hope means\nhoping when things are hopeless or it is no virtue at all. And faith\nmeans believing the incredible or it is no virtue at all.\" If you say\nthis is a paradox I reply: it must be so, since it requires faith to\naccept a paradox. The realm of reason is the one in which we walk by\nsight, and of this fact our age in its pride of intellect has need to be\nreminded. If Christ be not the Son of God, and His revelation of the\n\"faith once delivered\" be not the divine and final guide, fulfilling,\ncompleting and at the same time reversing every other ethic, religion\nand moral code, then these things be indeed foolishness, for there is no\nexplaining them on the ground of logic or philosophy. But if, by the\ngift of grace, we have faith, we remember \"I thank Thee, Father, that\nThou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and has revealed\nthem unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.\"\n\nAgain, and if as persons we are to grow in relationship to a personal\nGod, we must both speak and listen to our Father; in other words we must\nuse the great dynamic of prayer. \"More things are wrought by prayer than\nthis world dreams of.\" We are told that one of the requisites of the\nreally good talker is to be a good listener; the apparently good talker\nis in reality a monologuist. In our prayer-life today do we recognize\nsufficiently the need for _listening_ to God? We are perhaps ready\nenough to ask for blessings and mercies, but that is only a part of the\nfull life of prayer which must include also thanksgiving, lifting of the\nheart and mind, and quiet listening or interior prayer. There was an age\nin the world when this interior prayer was so much more joyful and\nnatural a thing than the world of matter that it had to be taught \"to\nlabour is to pray.\" Today, when we accept the necessity of labour, and\neven worship activity for its own sake, do we not need to be reminded\nthat to pray is to labour? If you doubt this, try to make that\nconcentrated form of prayer known as meditation, out of which springs a\nresolve and determination to do better; try to do this faithfully for\nfifteen minutes a day and it may prove the hardest work you have ever\nundertaken. A great servant of God has said, \"I believe no soul can be\nlost which faithfully practices meditation for fifteen minutes a day.\"\nNor must we forget that in this work of prayer we are companioned by the\nHoly Spirit, the Peace-maker, Who maketh intercession for us \"with\ngroanings which can not be uttered\" and \"Who leads us ever gently but\nsurely into that closer communion with God whose result is life more\nabundant.\" After prayer it is easier to realize that \"to be spiritually\nminded is life and peace\"; it is easier to obey the injunction \"And\ngrieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby ye are sealed unto the day of\nredemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and\nevil speaking be put away from you, with all malice, and be ye kind one\nto another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God, for\nChrist's sake, hath forgiven you.\" And for those that seek after peace\nit must be _all_ wrath, _all_ anger and _all_ evil speaking which are\nput away: This leaves no room for what the world calls \"just wrath\"\n\"righteous anger,\" or speaking evil of evil doers. Let us call to mind\nthe incident in the early life of St. John, afterwards the great\ndisciple of love, when he wanted to call down wrath on the wicked\ninhabitants of a city and was rebuked by Our Lord who said, \"Ye know not\nin what spirit ye speak.\" After love had supplanted wrath, and the good\nspirit had taken the place of the evil in St. John's heart, he was sent\nto convert the people he would have destroyed. Yes, it is the spirit\nthat matters, the wrath that is wrong and that must be put away before\nwe can love God or our neighbour as ourself, for the fruit of the Spirit\nis love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,\nmeekness, temperance.\n\nWhen we understand that the object of life and of education is the\ncreation of a spirit and not the doing of things, we are freed from the\ntyranny of results in this world as a final test and come to realize\nthat judgment belongs only to God Who as a Spirit judges the effort.\n\nOf course this does not mean that we are freed from the moral law, that\ncertain evil things in ourselves and in others are not always the\nresults of an evil spirit, but rather that in addition to avoiding and\nshunning those things which are obviously evil, we must with equal care\navoid doing even good things in a bad spirit. The commandments still\nstand, the moral law is abated not one jot, but in Christianity and in\nChristianity alone are we given power to fulfill the law and to add the\nnew commandment, the summing up of them all, of love to God and man. No\nhuman soul comes into the world without some desire to be good, because\neach human soul is a child of God. To each one, not blinded by pride\n(and surely it should be easy in these days to be humble) comes, sooner\nor later, the realization of his own inability of himself to do what he\nwould, the need for a power outside himself, the power which is\navailable and of which we have heard \"I am come that ye might have life\nand more abundantly.\" Let us examine how the apostles set about living\nthis abundant life. In Dr. Genung's \"The Life Indeed\" we read, \"One and\nall they made it a matter of the spirit that is the man, but the spirit\nthey recognized was not an abstraction, or a theory, but a present\nPerson and helper who was witnessing with their spirits. St. John makes\nthe matter equally definite: 'The Son of God,' he says, 'was manifest\nthat he might destroy the works of the Devil,' and St. Paul, mindful of\nthe inner subtleties of the conflict, warns his readers that Satan has\nchanged his tactics and has transformed himself into an angel of light.\nI am not sure that we have gained greatly by letting our notions of\nspiritual life grow dim and abstract. Perhaps for this very reason the\nrebellious, negative, designing spirit that is so prone to invade the\nhearts of us all is the more free to gain a foot-hold and go about\ncontrolling the tone of our life. There is real advantage in bringing\nthe large issues of life to a point where not only our mind but, as it\nwere, our senses, can lay hold on them. It is the impulse of\nsimple-minded men like those early disciples, and if we continue\nstraight-seeing we do not outgrow it. What makes these views of life so\ndeep is not that they are less simple than those of others, but that\nthey are more simple. To St. John the reality that has come to win the\nworld is not the promise of salvation, or prophecy of an eventual life\neternal, but just life without modification or limitation, life\nabsolute, full-orbed, pulsating through worlds seen and unseen alike. 'I\nam the Life,' he makes Christ say, not, 'I am working to secure it.' St.\nJohn it is who preserves to us that conception of eating the Flesh and\ndrinking the Blood of the Son of Man. No philosopher in the world, we\nmay roundly say, would ever have put it so, and yet how effectually is\nthus revealed what it means to get the power of the new life thoroughly\nincorporated with our blood and breath. He it is who identifies the most\ninner values of life with the simplest acts and experiences, reducing it\nto terms of eating bread and drinking water, and walking in daylight,\nand bearing fruit like the branches of a vine and following like sheep\nthe voice of a shepherd, and entering a door and finding pasture.\"\n\nLet us cease trying materialistic and intellectual means for supplying\nthe power to live the spiritual life and let us each one establish the\nneedful relationship with the true source of power. May our time not be\nlikened to the Oriental traveler, who, appreciating the convenience and\nforce of electricity as seen in a room he occupied, fitted his palace,\non his return, with a set of elaborate fixtures and was surprised to\nfind no illumination therefrom! We are torches who can not shine in\nthemselves, but who, when connected with the great central Source of\nPower, the Blessed Trinity in its three glorious manifestations, can\nshow forth the light of the world. Christians should be torch bearers,\nand the true torch bearer lights not his own path so much as the path of\nthose who come after him. And this brings us to the fundamental reason\nfor personal responsibility. Our motive in seeking personal\nrighteousness it not, as might hastily be thought, because of a selfish\ndesire to save our own souls, or to withdraw either here or hereafter\nfrom other souls, but for \"their sakes\" to sanctify ourselves; for the\nlives we live today create the spiritual atmosphere of tomorrow.\n\nFrom Spain come the following suggestive thoughts in regard to the value\nof the person. \"The individual is the real purpose of the universe. We\nmay seek the hero of our thought in no philosopher who lived in flesh\nand blood, but in a being of fiction and of action, more real than all\nthe philosophers. He is Don Quixote. One cannot say of Don Quixote that\nhe was strictly idealistic. He did not fight for ideas: he was of the\nspirit and he fought for the spirit. Quixotism is a madness descended\nfrom the madness of the cross; therefore it is despised by reason; Don\nQuixote will not resign himself to either the world or its truth, to\nscience or logic, to art or aesthetics, to morals or ethics. And what\ndid he leave behind him? one may ask. I reply that he left himself, and\nthat a man, a man living and immortal, is worth all theories and all\nphilosophies. Other countries have left us institutions and books: Spain\nhas left soul. St. Theresa is worth all institutions whatever, or any\n'Critique of Pure Reason.'\"\n\nYes, this is I think the lesson we have to learn, now at this turning\npoint in history with the epoch of intellect crumbling about our ears,\nand the great World's Fair of multiplied, ingenious mechanisms we have\ncalled \"modern civilization\" at a point of practical bankruptcy. It is\nthe spirit that counts, the soul of \"man living and immortal,\" and only\nthrough our own living, and the spiritual force that we can command, and\nthrough ourselves apply, shall we be able to compass that social\nregeneration that is the only alternative to social degeneration and\ncatastrophe. The man who does not live his belief is powerless to redeem\nor to create, though he were a Solon, a Charlemagne, a Napoleon or a\nWashington; the man who lives his belief, even if he is a mill-hand in\nFall River, is contributing something of energizing force to the task of\nre-creation. \"Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the\nLord of Hosts.\"\n\nFantastic and paradoxical as it may seem to link together Don Quixote\nand St. Theresa, I am not sure that we could do better than to accept\nthem as models. The loud laughter of an age of intellectual ribaldry and\nself-conceit dies away and the gaunt figure of the last of the Crusaders\nstill stands before us heroic in his childlike refusal of compromise,\nhis burning compassion, his deafness to ridicule. In a sense we must all\nbe ready to accept the jeering and the scorn that were poured out on the\nKnight of La Mancha, if like him we are to fight, even foolishly, for\nthe things that are worth fighting for--either that they may be\ndestroyed, or restored. And with St. Theresa we must be willing to\nendure obloquy, suspicion, malice, if like her we live in faith,\nsubjecting our will to the divine will, and then sparing nothing of\nourselves in the labour of saving the world for God in the twentieth\ncentury as St. Theresa laboured to save it in the sixteenth century.\n\nThe call today is for personal service through the right living that\nfollows the discovery of a right relationship to God. Not a campaign but\na crusade; and the figures of St. Louis and St. Francis and St. Theresa,\ntogether with all the Knights and Crusaders of Christendom, rise up\nbefore us to point the way. We would find the Great Peace, the world\nwould find the Great Peace also, but\n\n  _The way is all so very plain\n  That we may lose the way._\n\nWe have been told: \"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His\nrighteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you, for your\nHeavenly Father knoweth ye have need of these things.\" If we go forth on\nthis new and knightly quest--quest indeed in these latter days, for the\nHoly Grail, lost long since and hidden away from men--we may, by the\ngrace of God, achieve. Then, \"suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye,\" and\nbefore we are aware, for \"the Kingdom of God cometh not with watching,\"\nwe and even the world, shall find that we have compassed the Great\nPeace, and if we do not live to see it, yet in our \"certain hope\" we\nshall know that it will come, if not in our time, yet in God's good\ntime; if not in our way, yet in His more perfect way.\n\nIn these lectures I have from time to time, and perhaps beyond your\npatience, criticised and condemned many of those concrete institutions\nwhich form the working mechanism of life, even suggesting possible\nsubstitutes. In ending I would say as in beginning; this is not because\nsalvation may be found through any device, however perfect, but because\nthis itself, by reason of its excellence on the one hand or its\ndepravity on the other, is, under the law of life, contributory to the\noperation of the divine spirit (which is the sole effective energy) or a\ndeterrent. I have tried at long last to gather up this diffuse argument\nfor the supremacy of spiritual force as it works through the individual,\nand to place it before you in this concluding lecture. Perhaps I can\nbest emphasize my point thus.\n\nThe evil of the institutions which now hold back the progress that must\nbe made towards social recovery and the Great Peace, is far less the\nquality of wrongness in themselves and the ill influence they put in\noperation, than it is the revelation they make of personal character. It\nis not so much that newspapers are what they are as that there should be\nmen who are pleased and content to make them this, in apparently honest\nignorance of what they are doing, and that there should be others in\nsufficient number to make them profitable business propositions by\ngiving them their appreciation and support. It is not so much that\ngovernment should be what it is as that character should have so far\ndegenerated in the working majority of citizens that these qualities\nshould show themselves as a fixed condition, and that there should be no\nbody of men of numerical distinction, who regard the situation with\nsentiments much more active than those of indifference and amused\ntoleration. It is not so much that the industrial situation should be\nwhat it is, as that there should be on both sides moral wrong, and that\nthis condition could not have come about, nor could it still be\nmaintained, except through character degeneration in the individual. It\nis not so much that many forms of religion are what they are, as it is\nthat they should progressively have become this through their exponents\nand adherents, and that there should be so many who are still willing to\ndefend them in this case.\n\nEvery ill thing reveals through its very quality the defects of the\nindividual man, and as upon him must rest the responsibilities for the\nfault, so on him must be placed the responsibility for the recovery. The\nfailures we have recorded, the false gods we have raised up in idolatry,\neven the Great War itself, are revelations of failure in personal and\nindividual character. We may recognize this, but recognition is not\nenough. We may found societies and committees and write books and\ndeliver lectures, but corporate action is not enough, nor intellectual\nassent. There is but one way that is right, sufficient and effective,\nand that is the right living of each individual, which is the\nincarnation and operation of faith by the grace of God.\n\nIt is my desire to close this course of lectures not with my own words\nbut with those of one of the great personalities revealed by the war.\nFirst, however, I wish to say this. If there is any thought or word in\nwhat I have said that seems to you true, then I ask you to use it not as\na matter for discussion but as an impulse toward personal action. If\nthere is anything that is of the nature of explicit error, then I pray\nthat the Spirit of Truth may make deaf your ears that you hear not, and\nblot out of your memory the record of what I have said. If there is\nanything that is not consonant with the Christian religion, as this has\nbeen revealed to the world and as it is guarded and interpreted by the\nChurch to which these powers were committed, then I retract and disavow\nit explicitly and _ex animo._\n\nThere are two great spiritual figures that have been revealed to us\nthrough the Great War: Cardinal Mercier, the great confessor, who held\naloft the standard of spiritual glory through the war itself, and Bishop\nNicholai of Serbia who has testified to eternal truth and righteousness\nin the wilderness the war has brought to pass. It is with his inspired\nwords that I will make an ending of the things I have been impelled to\nsay.\n\n\"Christ is merciful, but at last He comes as the Judge. * * * He comes\nnow not to preside in the churches only but to be in your homes, in your\nshops, to be everywhere with you. He wants to be first; He has become\nlast in Europe, * * * Civilization passes like the winds, but the soul\nremains. Christianization is the only good and constructive\ncivilization. Americanization without Christianization means Bolshevism.\nEurope is suffering today for her sins. Christ has forgiven seventy\ntimes seven, and now it seems that He is the Judge, turning away,\nrejected, leaving Europe and going through the gate of Serbia to Asia.\nPray for us. * * * Send us not your gold and silver for food so much as\nsend us converted men. Convert your politicians, your members of the\npress, your journalists, to preach Christ.\n\n\"Christ is choosing the perfect stones, the marble of all the churches,\nto complete His mystical body in Heaven. He thinks only of one Church,\nmade from those true to Him of all the churches here. Civilizations are\nmoving pictures, made by man. Without God they perish. The soul, the\nspirit, lives. The war is not against externals; the war is against\nourselves.\"\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\n\nFrom the point attained in the lecture on \"A Working Philosophy,\" a\npoint I believe to be clearly indicated by Christian philosophy and\nsharply differentiated from that of paganism or modernism, I would\nadventure further and even into a field of pure theory where I can\nadduce no support or justification from any other source. Speculation\nalong this line may be dangerous, even unjustifiable; certainly it\nintroduces the peril of an attempt to intellectualize what cannot be\napprehended by the intellectual faculty, an effort which has been the\nobsession of modernism and has resulted in spiritual catastrophe. On the\nother hand we are confronted by a definite and plausible system worked\nout by those who were without fear of these consequences, and while this\nalready is losing something of its common acceptance, it is still\noperative, indeed is the only working system and consistent theory of\nthe majority of thinking men outside the limits of Catholicism. I think\nit wrong both in its assumptions and its inferences, and it certainly\nplayed a deplorable part in the building up of the latest phase of\nmodern civilization, while its persistence is, I am persuaded, a barrier\nto recovery or advance. This theory, which has gradually been deduced\nfrom the wonderful investigations, tabulations and inferences of Darwin,\nTyndall, Huxley, Spencer and others of the great group of British\nintellectuals and scientists of the nineteenth century, is known under\nthe general title of Evolution.\n\nThe following suggestions are offered with extreme diffidence, and only\nas uncertain and indeterminate approximations. In some respects they\nseem not inconsistent with the most recent scientific research which\nalready is casting so much doubt on many of the assumed factors behind\nevolution and on the accepted methods of its operation. The true\nsolution, if it is found, will result from the cooperation of\nscientists, philosophers and theologians, illuminated by the fire of the\nDivine Wisdom--Hagia Sophia--for in such a problem as this, almost the\nfinal secret of the Cosmos, no single human agency acting alone can hope\nto achieve the final revelation, while all acting together could hardly\nescape falling into \"the falsehoods of their own imaginings\" if they\nrelied solely on their unaided efforts in the intellectual sphere.\n\nAssuming then that life is an enduring process of the redemption of\nmatter through the interpenetration of spirit, what is a possible method\nof action? To explain what I mean I must use a diagrammatic figure, but\nI admit this must be not only inadequate but misleading, for instead of\nthe two dimensions of a diagram, we must postulate three, with time\nadded as a vital element, and, I dare say, a \"fourth dimension\" as well.\nConfessing inadequacy in the symbol, let us conceive of a space divided\ninto four strata. The lowest of these is the primary unknowable, the\nregion of pure spirit, pure spirit itself, the creative energy of the\nuniverse, the unconditioned Absolute, in the terms of Christian\ntheology, Almighty God. The second is the plane of matter, an area of\npotential, but in itself inert and indeterminate. The third is the space\nof what we call life in all its forms, the area in which the\ntransformation and redemption take place. The fourth is the ultimate\nunknowable, that is to say, that which follows on after life and\nreceives the finished product of redemption.\n\n[Illustration: DIAGRAM NO. 1. The interpenetration of Matter by Spirit.\n_x,_ The primary Unknowable; _x',_ the ultimate Unknowable; _[Greek:\nalpha],_ the plane of Matter; _[Greek: beta],_ the plane of Life.]\n\nNow there is eternally in process a penetration of the stratum of matter\nby jets of the _\u00e9lan vital_ from the realm of pure spirit, each as it\nwere striving to detach from the plane of matter some small portion,\nwhich is transformed in its passage through life and achieves entrance\ninto the ultimate unknowable, when the process of redemption is, for\nthis small particle, completed. Always, however, is exerted the\ngravitational pull of matter, and the energy that drove through, instead\nof pursuing a right line, tends to bend in a parabolic curve, like the\ntrajectory of a cannon ball. In the completion of the process some\nportion of redeemed matter \"gets by,\" so to speak, but other portions do\nnot; they return to their source of origin and are reabsorbed in matter,\nbecoming subject to the operation of future interpenetrating jets of\nspiritual energy. The upward drive of the _\u00e9lan vital_ constitutes what\nmay properly be known as evolution, the declining fall the process of\ndevolution or degeneration. Evolution then is only one part of the\ncosmic process, it is inseparable from degeneration.\n\nThis process holds in the case of individuals, of families, of races, of\nstates and of eras, or definite and completed periods of time. As man is\nbegotten, born, developed to maturity and then is brought downward to\nthe grave, so in the case of races and nations and the clearly defined\nepochs into which the history of man divides itself. There is no\nmechanical system of \"progress,\" no cumulative wisdom and power that in\nthe end will inevitably lead to earthly perfection and triumph. For\nevery individual there is the possibility of spiritual evolution within\nthe time allotted that will open for him the gates that bar the\nfrontiers of the world of reality and of redemption that lies beyond\nthat world of earthly life which is the field of contest between\nunredeemed matter and redeeming spirit, of contest and of victory--or of\nfailure. In the case of races and nations and epochs there is the same\nconflict between material factors and spiritual energy; the same\ncrescent youth with all its primal vitality, maturity with its assurance\nand competence, and the dying fall of dissipating energies. In each case\ndeath is the concomitant of life but there is always something that\nlasts over, and that is the spiritual achievement, the precious residuum\nthat remains, defying death and dissolution, that infuses the plane of\nlife with its redemptive ardour, and is the heritage of lives that come\nafter, acting with the sacramental agencies of religion in co\u00f6peration\nwith God Who ordained and compassed them both, in that great process of\nredemption and salvation that is continually taking place and will\ncontinue until matter, and time which is but the ratio of the resistance\nof matter to the redeeming power of spirit, shall be no more.\n\nI confess the hopelessly mechanical quality in this vain attempt to put\ninto words something that by its very nature must transcend all modes of\nexpression that are intellectually apprehendable. Taken literally it\nwould be entirely false and probably heretical from a theological point\nof view, as it certainly is more than inadequate as a philosophical\nproposition. It is intended only as a symbol, and a gross symbol at\nthat, but as such I will let it stand.\n\nNow if there is indeed a possible truth hidden somewhere within somewhat\nclumsy approximations, it must modify some of our generally accepted\nideas. The life-process will appear, not a slow, interrupted, but\nsubstantially forward development from lower and simpler organisms to\nhigher and more complex, with the end (if there be an end), beyond the\nvery limits of eternity, but rather a swift creation of some of the\nhighest forms through the first energy of the creative force, with the\nthrowing off of ever lower and lower forms as the curve of the\ntrajectory descends. So through a mass of low and static vitality comes\nthe sudden and enormous power that produces at the very beginnings of\nour own recorded history of man, the almost superhuman intelligence and\ncapacity of the Greeks and the Egyptians. So each of the definite eras\nof civilization opens with the releasing of great energies, the\nrevealing of great figures of paramount character and force. So,\nconversely, as the energy declines, men appear less and less potent and\nin a descending scale. This is the case with the Greek states, with the\nRoman Republic and the Empire, with Byzantium, with\n\nMediaevalism, and with our modern era. I do not know of any other theory\nthat claims to explain the perpetual and rhythmical fluctuations of\nhistory, as violent in their degree as they are approximately regular in\ntheir rhythm.\n\nFollowing the idea a little further, it may even appear that many of the\nlower, and particularly the more distorted, forms of animal life,\ninstead of being abortive or undeveloped stages in a continuous\nevolutionary progress, are actually the product of a diminishing energy,\nstages in a process of degeneration, and therefore leading not upward to\never higher stages of development having issue at last in a completed\nperfection, but rather downward to ultimate extinction. Geology records\nthis process in sufficient quantity, so far as many members of the\nanimal kingdom are concerned, and we, in our own day, have seen the\nextinction of the dodo as well as the threatened disappearance of other\nspecies. Creeping and crawling creatures too, that we could crush with\nthe heel, are but the last and puny descendants of mighty and terrible\nmonsters that once rolled and crashed through the fetid forests of the\ncarboniferous era. So there are races of men today, amongst others the\npygmies of Africa and the Australian bushmen, as well as some nearer in\na certain degree to the dominant races of the world, whom large-hearted\noptimists regard as stages of retarded development, capable, under\ntutelage, of advance to a level with the Caucasian, but who, in this\nview of the case, would be but the weakening product of the \"dying fall\"\nof the energy that produced the Greek, the Semite and the Nordic stocks.\n\nSo in the last instance, the ape and the lemur and all their derivatives\nmay be, not records of some of the many stages through which man has\npassed in his process of evolution, sidetracked by the upward rush of\none highly favoured or fortunate line, nor yet an abortive branch from\nthe common trunk from which sprang both man and ape, but rather the last\ndegradation of a primaeval energy, producing in its declension these\nstrange caricatures of the Man in whose production it found its\nachievement. In other words, the old evolutionary idea is exactly\nreversed, and those phenomena once looked on as passed stages of growth,\nbecome the memorials of a creative process that has already achieved,\nand is now returning, with its fantastic manifestations in terms of\ndeclining life, even to that primordial mystery whence it had emerged.\n\nGranting this theory, the search for the \"missing link,\" whether in the\ngeological strata below those that revealed the Piltdown skull, or in\nthe fastnesses of Central Asia, is as vain a quest as it has always\nbeen. Primaeval man, as he is grudgingly revealed to us, may have been\nthe degenerate remainder of an earlier and fully developed race whose\nrecords are buried in the sunken fastnesses of some vanished Atlantis or\nLemuria, as the races of the South Sea Islands may be less metamorphosed\nremnants of the same stock. Into this infinitely degraded residuum of a\nvanished race entered the new energizing force when the divine creative\nenergy came once more into operation, in the fullness of time, and the\nMinoan, the Egyptian and the Greek came almost in an hour to their\nhighest perfection. So through the unnumbered ages of the world's\nhistory, God has from time to time created man in His own image, out of\nthe dust of the earth, and man so made \"a little lower than the angels\"\nhas, also in time, fallen and forfeited his inheritance. Yet the process\ngoes on without ceasing, and in conformity with some law of divine\nperiodicity; but it is _Man_ that is created in the beginning, of his\nfull stature, even as is symbolically recorded in the Book of Genesis;\nnot a hairy quadrumana that by the operation of the laws of natural\nselection and the survival of the fittest, ultimately and through\nendless ages, and by the most infinitesimal changes, becomes at last\nPlato and Caesar, Leonardo and Dante, St. Louis and Shakespeare and St.\nFrancis.\n\nNow in this process of the interpenetration of matter by spirit there\nmust be a certain periodicity, if it is a constant process and not one\naccomplished once and for all time in the very beginnings of the world.\nThis rhythmical action, which is exemplified by every phenomenon of\nnature, the vibratory process of light, sound, heat, electricity, the\npulsation of the heart, the motion of the tides, has never escaped the\nobservation even of primitive peoples, and always attempts have been\nmade to determine its periodicity. May it not be infinitely complex, as\nthe ripple rises on the wave that lifts on the swell of the underlying\ntide? Certainly we are now being forced back to a new consideration of\nthis periodical beat, in history at least, for now that our own era,\nwhich came in by the power of the Renaissance and the Reformation and\nreceived its final energizing force through the revolutions of the\neighteenth century and the industrial revolution of the nineteenth, is\nso manifestly coming to its end, we look backward for precedents for\nthis unexpected debacle and lo, they appear every five hundred years\nback as far as history records. 500 B.C., Anno Domini; 500 A.D., 1000\nA.D., and 1500 A.D. are all, to the point of very clear approximation,\nnodal points, where the curve of the preceding five centuries, having\nachieved its crest, curves downward, and in its fall meets the curve of\nrising energy that is to condition the ensuing era. The next nodal\npoint, calculated on this basis, comes about the year 2000. Are we not\njustified, in plotting our trajectory of modernism, in placing the crest\nin the year 1914, and in tracing the line of fall from that moment?\n\nI have plotted this curve, or series of curves, after a rough and ready\nfashion (Diagram No. 2) and though the personal equation must, in any\nsubjective proposition such as this, enter largely into account, I think\nthe diagram will be accepted in principle if not in details, and not\nwholly in its relationships. I have made no effort to estimate or\nindicate comparative heights and depths, giving to each five-hundred\nyear epoch a similar level of rise and depth of fall. Perhaps the actual\ndifference here would, rightly estimated, be less than we have been led\nto believe, though certainly few would lift the Carolingian crest to the\nlevel of that of Hellenism or of the Middle Ages, nor assign to the end\nof this latter period as low a fall as that accomplished during the\ntenth century in continental Europe.\n\n[Illustration: DIAGRAM No. 2. The rise and fall of the line of\ncivilization; showing also the nodal points at the Christian Era and at\nthe years 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 (?)]\n\nIn a third cut (Diagram No. 3) I have roughly indicated in conventional\nform a phenomenon which seems to me to show itself around the nodal\npoint when a descending curve of energy meets and crosses the descending\nline. As the _\u00e9lan vital_ that has made and characterized any period\ndeclines, it throws off reactions, the object of which is if possible to\narrest, or at least delay, the fatal _glissade._ These are, in intent\nand in fact, reforms; conscious efforts at saving a desperate situation\nby regenerative methods. Trace back their lines of procedure, and in\nevery case they will be found to issue out of the very force which is\neven then in process of degeneration, therefore they are poisoned at the\nsource and no true or vital reforms, for the sudden energy that urges\nthem is, after all, in no respect different from that which is already a\nfailing force.\n\n[Illustration: DIAGRAM No. 3. The reactions thrown off by (a) the\ndescending line of vital force, (b) by the ascending line.]\n\nThis, I conceive, is why today the multitudinous and specious \"reforms,\"\nwhich beat upon us from all sides, and find such ready acceptance in the\nenactments of law, are really no reforms at all, since each one of them\nis but an exaggeration or distortion of the very principles and methods\nthat already are bending downward the curve of our progression until it\ndisappears in the nether-world of failure, as did those of every\npreceding epoch of equal duration. An example of what I mean is the\nastute saying, frequently heard nowadays: \"The cure for democracy is\nmore democracy.\"\n\nNow while one curve descends and throws off its reformative reactions in\nthe process, the other is ascending, preparatory to determining the\ncoming era for its allotted space of five centuries. In this process it\nalso throws off its own reactions, but these are for the purpose of\nlifting the line more rapidly, bringing its force into play before its\ndetermined time. These also are exaggerations, over-emphasized qualities\nthat are inherent in the ascending force, and they are no more to be\naccepted as authoritative than are the others. They have their value\nhowever, for they are prophetic, and even in their exaggeration there is\nthe clear forecast of things to be. Trace them in turn to the source.\nWhat is their source? The new power issues out of obscurity and its\ncharacter is veiled, but we can estimate it from the very nature of the\nexaggerated reactions we _can_ see. If something shows itself, in\nsociology, economics, politics, religion, art, what you will, that is\nespecially a denial of what has been a controlling agency during the\npast four or five hundred years: if it is by common consent impractical\nand \"outside the current of manifest evolutionary development,\" then,\nshorn of its exaggerations, reduced to its essential quality, it is very\nprobably a clear showing forth of what is about to come to birth and\ncondition human life for the next five hundred years. This, I suppose,\nexplains the comprehensive return to Medievalism that, to the scorn of\nbiologists, sociologists and professors of political economy, is\nflaunting itself before us today, at the hands of a very small minority,\nin all the categories I have named, as well as in many others besides.\n\nA glance at the diagram will show a curious pattern round about the\nnodal point. One may say that the reactions are somewhat mixed. Quite\nso. At this moment we are beaten upon by numberless reforms, both\n\"radical\" and \"reactionary.\" Materialism, democracy, rationalism,\nanarchy contending against Medievalism of twenty sorts, and strange\nmysticisms out of the East. Which shall we choose, _if_ we choose, and\ndo not content ourselves with an easier inertia that allows nature to\ntake its course? It is simply the question; On which wave will you ride;\nthat which is descending to oblivion or that which has within itself the\npower and potency to control man's destiny for the next five hundred\nyears?\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B\n\n\nCERTAIN BOOKS SUGGESTED FOR COLLATERAL READING\n\n\nADAMS, HENRY Mont Saint-Michel and Chartres.\n\nADAMS, HENRY Degradation of the Democratic Dogma.\n\nBAUDRILLART, A. Catholic Church, Renaissance and Protestantism.\n\nBELL, BERNARD IDDINGS Right and Wrong after the War.\n\nBELLOC, HILAIRE The Servile State.\n\nBRYCE, VISCOUNT Modern Democracies.\n\nBULL, PAUL B. The Sacramental Principle.\n\nCHESTERTON, G.K. Orthodoxy.\n\nCHESTERTON, G.K. What's Wrong with the World.\n\nCHESTERTON, G.K. The Napoleon of Notting Hill.\n\nCONKLIN, E.G. The Direction of Human Evolution.\n\nCRAM, R.A. The Nemesis of Mediocrity.\n\nCRAM, R.A. Walled Towns.\n\nCRAM, R.A. The Ministry of Art.\n\nCRAM, R.A. The Great Thousand Years.\n\nFAGUET, E. The Cult of Incompetence.\n\nFERRERO, G. Europe's Fateful Hour.\n\nFIGGIS, J.N. Civilization at the Cross Roads.\n\nFIGGIS, J.N. The Will to Freedom.\n\nFIGGIS, J.N. Political Aspects of St. Augustine's \"City of God.\"\n\nGENUNG, J.F. The Life Indeed.\n\nGRAHAM, STEPHEN Priest of the Ideal.\n\nHARRISON, McVEIGH Daily Meditations.\n\nHUBBARD, A.J. The Fate of Empires.\n\nIRELAND, ALLEYNE Democracy and the Human Equation.\n\nLeBON, G. The World in Revolt.\n\nMEIKLEJOHN, ALEXANDER The Liberal College.\n\nMORRIS, WILLIAM The Dream of John Ball.\n\nPECK, W.G. From Chaos to Catholicism.\n\nPENTY, A.J. Old Worlds for New.\n\nPENTY, A.J. The Restoration of the Guild System.\n\nPHILLIPPS, L. MARCH Form and Colour.\n\nPHILLIPPS, L. MARCH Europe Unbound.\n\nPORTER, A. KINGSLEY Beyond Architecture.\n\nPOWELL, F.C. A Person's Religion.\n\nRAUPERT, G. Human Destiny and the New Psychology.\n\nSHIELDS, THOMAS E. The Philosophy of Education.\n\nTAWNEY, R.H. The Acquisitive Society.\n\nWALSH, JAMES J. The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries.\n\nWALSH, JAMES J. Education, How Old the New.\n\nWORRINGER, W. Form Problems of the Gothic.\n\nDeWULF, M. History of Mediaeval Philosophy.","title":"Towards the Great Peace","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":68961}