{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45701/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45701","id":"gutenberg_45701","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45701","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Teaching & Education","Christianity -- 20th century"],"text":"THE BROSS LIBRARY\n\n  VOLUME XI\n\n\n\n\n  THE BROSS LIBRARY\n\n\n  THE BIBLE: ITS ORIGIN AND NATURE\n    Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D.\n\n  THE BIBLE OF NATURE.\n    J. Arthur Thomson, M.A.\n\n  THE RELIGIONS OF MODERN SYRIA AND PALESTINE.\n    Frederick J. Bliss, Ph.D.\n\n  THE SOURCES OF RELIGIOUS INSIGHT\n    Josiah Royce\n\n  THE WILL TO FREEDOM, or the Gospel of\n  Nietsche and the Gospel of Christ\n    Rev. John Neville Figgis, D.D.\n\n  FAITH JUSTIFIED BY PROGRESS\n    H. W. Wright, Ph.D.\n\n  BIBLE AND SPADE\n    John P. Peters, Ph.D., Sc.D., D.D.\n\n  CHRISTIANITY AND PROBLEMS OF TO-DAY\n    By Various Authors\n\n\n  _BROSS PRIZE VOLUMES_\n\n  THE PROBLEM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n    James Orr, D.D.\n\n  THE MYTHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS.\n    Rev. Thomas James Thorburn, D.D.\n\n\n\n\n  THE BROSS LECTURES ... 1921\n\n\n  CHRISTIANITY AND\n  PROBLEMS OF TO-DAY\n\n  LECTURES DELIVERED BEFORE\n  LAKE FOREST COLLEGE\n  ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE LATE\n  WILLIAM BROSS\n\n\n  CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS\n  NEW YORK ... 1922\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1922, BY\n  THE TRUSTEES OF LAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY\n\n  Printed in the United States of America\n\n  Published September, 1922\n\n\n  [Illustration: Scribner Press Seal]\n\n\n\n\n  THE ADDRESSES IN THIS VOLUME WERE DELIVERED AT\n               LAKE FOREST COLLEGE\n             NOVEMBER THIRD TO SIXTH\n      ON THE OCCASION OF THE INAUGURATION OF\n               HERBERT McCOMB MOORE\n                 AS PRESIDENT OF\n              LAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY\n\n\n\n\n  CONTENTS\n\n                                                          PAGE\n\n  FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION                              1\n      BY JOHN HUSTON FINLEY, LL.D., L.H.D.\n\n  JESUS' SOCIAL PLAN                                        27\n      BY CHARLES FOSTER KENT, PH.D., LITT.D.\n\n  PERSONAL RELIGION AND PUBLIC MORALS                       47\n      BY ROBERT BRUCE TAYLOR, D.D., LL.D.\n\n  RELIGION AND SOCIAL DISCONTENT                            75\n      BY PAUL ELMER MORE, LITT.D., LL.D.\n\n  THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AS FACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL\n    POLITICS, WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO FAR-EASTERN\n    PROBLEMS                                               107\n      BY JEREMIAH W. JENKS, PH.D., LL.D.\n\n\n\n\nFROM GENERATION TO GENERATION\n\nBY\n\nJOHN HUSTON FINLEY, LL.D., L.H.D.\n\nThere are many Hebrew legends which have gathered about that early\nfigure on the dim edge of history, Enoch, the son of Jared,--not\nthe Enoch, son of Cain (after whom the latter named the city that\nhe builded in the land of Nod), but the Enoch of whom the Biblical\nrecord is simply that he lived so many years, \"walked with God and\nwas not, for God took him.\" According to one of these legends he was\nthe first great teacher, inventor, and scientist of the race and the\nfirst to attempt to pass on, in a systematic way, from generation to\ngeneration, the wisdoms of human experience and divine revelation.\nFor, having been forewarned that the earth would be destroyed once by\nfire and once by water, he erected two pillars (that came to be known\nas \"Enoch's Pillars\") on which he caused to be inscribed \"all such\nlearning as had been delivered unto or invented by mankind.\" \"Thus,\"\nthe legend adds, \"it was that all knowledge and learning were not\nlost, for one of these pillars remained after the flood.\"\n\nHere have we the primordial illustration of that subjective mystery\nof the mind's desire which is ever pushing out beyond the verge\nof the known, and which is not content until it has tried to tell\nthe next generation what it has learned, and has found expression\nobjectively in such institutions as this and in such systems of\neducation as to-day cover great portions of the earth.\n\nThere is a subsidiary legend about this primal teacher, inventor\nof sewing, and scientist (whose first text-book was one of these\npillars) that has further pertinency. It is said of this patriarch,\nwho did not die (and who may thus be said to personify the generic\nideal teacher, in that his influence persists as if he were living),\nthat he visited heaven once before his final translation, in order\nthat he might be prepared to teach his fellow men upon his return\nto earth. (This would seem to impart a theological training, such\nas your new president has had--at any rate, instruction in sacred\nthings.) He was lifted to the abode of the archangels, who, it is\nsaid, not only arrange and study the revolutions of the stars, the\nchanges of the moon, and the revolutions of the sun, \"but also\narrange teachings and instruction and sweet speaking and singing of\nall kinds of glorious praise.\" What better or more enchanting picture\nof an ideal institution for the preparation of teachers, established\nfrom the foundation of the earth! A curriculum in which science is\ninterspersed with sweet speaking and singing by archangels! \"Bring\nfirst,\" said the Lord, \"the books from the store place and give\na reed to Enoch and interpret the books to him.\" And so it was\nthat this first university, with an archangel for its president,\ninstructed its first earth pupil. For thirty days and thirty nights\ndid the archangel instruct intensively (the legend has it, \"his lips\nnever ceased speaking\") while Enoch wrote down \"all the things about\nheaven and earth, angels and men and all that it is suitable to be\ninstructed in.\"\n\nAnd when the course of instruction was ended and Enoch had filled\nthree hundred thirty-six note-books (this sounds very like a modern\nuniversity lecture course), the Lord said: \"Go thou with them upon\nthe earth.... Give them the works written out by thee and they shall\nread them and shall distribute works to their children's children and\nfrom generation to generation and from nation to nation.\"\n\n\"From generation to generation and from nation to nation.\" Here was\nthe command given to the first schoolmaster. So Enoch went back to\nearth and began wide-spread education--even kings and princes coming\nwith multitude to be instructed, as a result of which \"Peace reigned\nover the whole world for two hundred and forty-three years.\" His\npedagogical influence extended over the whole of the little Biblical\nearth in its physical scope, and all that was known of angels and men\n(that is, the \"supernal and temporal\") was embraced in his curriculum.\n\nI have evoked this golden legend (for it should be included among the\ngolden legends of the race), a legend which is not as familiar as the\nstories that have come down from the mythological days of Greece and\nRome, and I have copied it to illuminate, as with a golden letter,\nmy page, in the story of the inauguration of this new Enochian\npresident.\n\nWe have an intimation in this legend of the rich curriculum that\nshould be presented for the training of those who are to incarnate\nthe best that the race has aspired to and striven for in one\ngeneration (and there is nothing more important than their broad,\nthorough training) and to carry on those supreme gifts to the next\ngeneration. A recent report of the Carnegie Foundation says, in its\nsummary of a survey of the professional preparation of teachers, that\nif \"training of any sort can provide men and women who are equipped\nand willing to serve youth as youth should be served, their service\nis pre-eminent\"--and it is \"altogether a more difficult service than\nany other to render well.\"\n\nI remember to this day my feelings as a college student at Knox, when\nthe president of the college, Doctor Newton Bateman, whom Abraham\nLincoln called his \"little friend, the big schoolmaster\" of Illinois,\nspoke in chapel of the qualities and knowledges which a teacher\nshould possess. They were so far beyond what I, an awkward farm boy,\ncould hope to attain as to give me a sense of guilt that I had ever\nattempted to teach even a district school, and to confirm me in my\npurpose to enter another field of work. But as I look back now, I\nrealize that the \"little friend\" of Lincoln out here on the prairies\nwas but saying what educational surveys and foundation studies are\nsetting forth in ponderous volumes. And long, long back of my prairie\nschoolmaster, another was saying in the so-called Eternal City words\nthat should be written in flaming letters on the walls of every\nlegislative hall and every banquet-room. Indeed, I am not sure that\nwe need others than these on our Enochian pillars, if only they were\nheeded by the nation:\n\n    For not alone they are useful to the State who defend the\n    accused, bring forth candidates for office and cast their\n    vote for peace or war, but they who encourage the youth\n    [the teacher was ranked with the senator] who in so great\n    a scarcity of good teachers instruct the minds of men in\n    virtue [there was a great scarcity of good teachers then\n    as now, but who knows what the eternal influence of some\n    unknown teachers of to-day may be, for the greatest of world\n    teachers was then going, as the record has it, \"among the\n    villages of Galilee, teaching\"] and hold them back from\n    running after wealth and luxury [for so it was in the first\n    century, as in this] and teach what is meant by honesty,\n    patience, bravery, justice, contempt of death and how much\n    freely given good there is in a good conscience.\n\nHow difficult it is to prescribe the training for this high office of\nincarnation and instruction is best intimated in the answer which the\npresident of a Missouri normal school gave when asked the question as\nto how teachers can be best taught: \"This is a question which only\nangels can answer.\" But we do, indeed, need educational archangels\n(as the legend of Enoch intimated) as the teachers of our teachers.\nAnd there are many of us who have reason to thank the Lord that here,\nin this valley, even, in some of its little prairie colleges, there\nwere and are such archangels who revealed things about heaven as well\nas earth, and angels as well as men. One of them, who was my teacher,\nis to be the next speaker.\n\nBut my thought is rather of the _transmission_ to the new generation,\nas a whole, of what--to paraphrase George Edward Woodberry--has been\nbuilt out of the mystery of thought and passion of the past, as\ngeneration after generation has knelt, fought, faded, and given the\nbest \"that anywhere comes to be\" to the souls of Enochian urge to\ncarry on, \"letting all else fall into oblivion.\"\n\nAs the most primitive and picturesque visualization of the curriculum\nof this bequest of the race mind of one generation to the next, the\npillars of Enoch stood on the verge of history against the Eastern\nsky of our civilization's dawn. They have crumbled, or they lie\nburied in sands that have hidden their wisdoms. The excavator's spade\ncould uncover no more interesting record than that which would tell\nus what this great teacher thought should be saved from flood and\nfire out of the experience of the race.\n\nI have tried to imagine what was written there. It must have been a\nvery meagre list to have all been written in the large letters or\nsymbols of primitive speech on a single column. But the earth was\nthen young to human eyes. (It has since grown so aged as to have\nits years counted by the thousands of millions.) And man was but\ncome upon it, or so he then thought. When I was a college student, I\nsupposed that he came in the year 4004 B.C., but now we are informed\nthat he has been here hundreds of thousands of years. Even so, in\nthose days he was still living in what I have called the perinikian\nage; that is, in the age when he had conquered only the near, an\nage when the angels even were very near the earth and walked with\nman. The ideal being in that period was a creature with wings. I once\nturned to my Greek lexicon to discover how many _far_ words there\nwere in that perinikian period, whose world the Greeks had somewhat\nextended, and I found sixty-seven columns of \"peri\" (near) words and\nonly about five, as I recall, of the \"tele\" (far) words, for the\nearth was only that which was within reach of the naked eye, the\nunaided voice. It was without the far-travelling printed word.\n\nOut upon the shores of Phoenicia, in the days of the war, I imagined\nCadmus, the legendary father of letters, who is reputed to have\nborne the alphabet to the Western world out of the Orient, as not\nentirely certain that he had blessed humanity with this last means\nof far conquest, in this our day of higher mobility and greater\ntransmissibility of ideas. I seemed to hear him say:\n\n       \"When I witness all the ravage\n          Of my alphabetic lore,\n        See the neolithic savage\n          Waging culture-loving war,\n        Using logarithmic tables\n          To direct his hellish fire\n        Preaching philosophic fables\n          To excuse his mad desire;\n        See pure science turned to choking,\n          Shooting, drowning humankind;\n        Hear a litany, invoking\n          Hate in God's benignant mind;\n        See the forest trees transmuted\n          Into lettered pulp, while man\n        With a brain deep-convoluted\n          Takes the place of primal Pan,\n        And instead of finding pleasure\n          In a simple life, with song,\n        Spends his planetary leisure\n          Reading of a world gone wrong--\n        Seeing, hearing this, I've wondered\n          'Mid this murder, greed and fret,\n        Whether I had sinned or blundered\n          Giving man the alphabet.\"\n\nBut when one becomes reflectively conscious of what the world's\nliterature has added to the few sentences upon Enoch's pillars,\nbeginning with the Book of Books, the one book that man cannot be\nwithout, one has a reassuring answer for Cadmus. Indeed, I found\nit myself in the Christian literature that was collected in a city\njust north of Tyre and Sidon, awaiting the end of the war, for its\nscattering throughout all that region on whose edge the pillars once\nstood (as I have seen the columns of old Heliopolis, the city once\n_so_ beloved of the sun that he hastened over the eastern hills to\nspend his cloudless days about it, and lingered upon the Lebanon\nMountains as long as possible in the summer afternoon, reluctant to\nleave the sight of it).\n\nThere has recently been published by a Princeton professor of biology\nan essay which would seem to intimate that great progress has not\nbeen made since those pillars were set up somewhere beyond the\nEuphrates; for his contention is that human evolution has reached\nits end; that for at least ten thousand years there has been no\nnotable progress in the evolution of the human body, and that there\nhas been no progress in the intellectual capacity of a man in the\nlast two or three thousand years--that all we can do now is to lift\nthe mass to the height of the most perfect individual. I cannot\nassent to this, for I see man upon his way from God to God, while\nsumming the race that's been, _ever_ giving glimpses of a diviner\ngrace than has evolved (or will, if we accept the teaching of the\nbiologic mind that sees his evolution at an end)--than has evolved,\n_but_ will, for soul is bound to mould such body as its needs require\nto bear it toward the goal it seeks; else why were clay uplifted to\nthis height if it can never reach the higher height, the image it\nwould make of God in man?\n\nBut whether the biologist be right or I, we agree that it is the\nconstant obligation of the living generation to try to lift mankind\ntoward whatever highest height the individual has reached or can\nreach--and it is not a local, a parochial, a provincial, or even a\nnational obligation, but a world obligation, in this tele-victorian\nage--from generation to generation, from nation to nation. As\nMr. Wells has put it, it is a dream not alone of \"individuals\neducated,\" but of a world educated for the sake of all mankind.\n\nBut long before Mr. H. G. Wells put before the world the suggestion\nof a fundamental world curriculum (it was even before the Great War\nhad made the need more manifest), it came to me that the curricula\nof the elementary schools of the nations of the earth should be\nanalyzed to discover just what each nation was attempting to teach\nits children through formal education, and then that the residuum,\nafter the purely local matter was eliminated, should be synthesized\ninto a single body of knowledge (\"delivered to or invented by\nmankind\"), which should embrace what the race as a whole seemingly\nthought it most vitally important to transmit out of its experience\nto those who were to follow.\n\nOnce that were had, we should then call upon the greatest minds of\nthe earth--the Enochs of to-day--to confer as to what this minimum\nfor every child should be; for mere mental inertia, pride, prejudice,\nthe force of habit and such causes have prevented that curriculum\nfrom keeping up with the accumulation of fundamental truth as it has\nbeen brought into the luminous circle of the knowledge of some, at\nany rate, of the race, from the encircling darkness.\n\nThese pillars must stand in the clear sight of all the children of\nthe earth, so that every child and youth may have advantage of all\nthese race lessons and come to know them by heart (_i.e._, in their\nhearts), if there is to be progress toward a goal, which, if it were\nnot beyond our present reach, would be a mean one, and if it were\nnot ultimately attainable, would be Tantalian, for it is the law of\nprogress that one generation shall stand on the shoulders of the one\nthat went before.\n\nWhen the captive king, Croesus, was asked by the victorious king,\nCyrus, why he went to war, he answered that he had been directed to\ndo so by the oracle, and he then volunteered the remark: \"For no man\nin his senses would prefer war to peace; since in peace the sons bury\ntheir fathers, whereas in war the fathers bury their sons.\" This is a\nbiologic law, and it conditions intellectual and spiritual progress\nas well. The sons must bury their fathers not only by outliving them\nbut by _outdoing_ them.\n\nThis is so obvious that I should apologize for repeating it more\nthan two thousand years after it was recorded (by Herodotus, as I\nrecall), except for the fact that the world has not heeded it. As\na distinguished university president said a few nights ago in my\nhearing, the world needs a \"bath in the obvious.\" While I should not\ncharacterize the perusal of H. G. Wells's _Outline of History_ as\ntaking this sort of an ablution (so far as some of his conclusions\nare concerned), I think that he was justified in giving more space\nto this remark of Croesus and the incidental circumstances of its\nrelation than he gave to certain whole periods of national or race\nexistence. It is the caption that should be written at the top of our\nworld Enochian pillars.\n\nAnd I should write below it that utterance of President Fisher, of\nEngland's Board of Education, made in the midst of the war, when the\ndays were darkest:\n\n  \"Education is the eternal debt which Maturity owes to Youth.\"\n\nAnd beneath that I should put, I think, the lines of Gilbert Murray,\nwhom I saw the same day, taken from the lips of Hecuba:\n\n                    \"God, to Thee\n        I lift my praise, seeing the silent road\n        That bringeth justice ere the end be trod\n        To all that breathes and dies.\"\n\nWhat should be written in detail below these captions, I should\nlet a great international committee recommend--a committee with\nplanetary consciousness which could let each people continue the\nexcellence that has \"grown habitual to its being,\" and yet include\nsuch instruction in the excellence of others as to abate the hatreds\nthat now divide the men of the earth, even as they were divided by\ntheir misunderstandings in that early post-Noachian period when Eber,\nthe son of Shelah, named his boy Peleg, \"because in his day the earth\nwas divided,\" and the children could no longer read the lessons upon\nEnoch's pillars.\n\nI travelled the entire length of this line during the war, from the\nedge of the desert on the farther edge of which Enoch's pillars\nstood to the North Sea. From the Mount of Olives I heard and saw the\nbeginnings of the battle of Armageddon--not an allegorical battle,\nbut the literal battle, for when I made my way to Headquarters down\non the plain of Sharon, General Allenby, coming out of his map-room,\nsaid: \"I have just had word that my cavalry are at Armageddon. The\nbattle of Armageddon is on.\" And a few nights after I walked through\nthe broken entanglements of wire across that plain, past the Mount,\nas the dawn came, where our Lord is said by some to have delivered\nwhat we call the Sermon on the Mount, on to Nazareth, the little city\nwhich a Denver paper referred to familiarly as \"Christ's home town.\"\nAnd I thought the thousand years of peace referred to in the Book of\nRevelation had come.\n\nBut I have since travelled over a great part of that way--the\nlong, long way, let us not forget, by which we have come out of\ncaptivity--and I found that, while the barbed-wire entanglements\nhave been cleared from most of the fields and the trenches had been\nfilled, the entanglements, suspicion and hate, were still keeping\nnations apart, even without guns and bombs and poisonous gas.\n\nI was the first American to make the journey across Asia Minor after\nthe Armistice. Starting from the vicinity of the Tower of Babel,\nwhich stood amid \"the whole earth of one language and one speech,\"\nand which sought to reach the heaven until the builders were suddenly\nunable to understand one another's speech and were dispersed,\ngibbering and gesticulating and quarrelling, over the earth--starting\nfrom the neighborhood of that Scriptural memory, I travelled for days\nthrough homeless misery and physical want and mental hate, which I\nfelt were but the sequel\u00e6 of the world disease, and would soon pass.\nBut conditions are, if anything, worse than when I passed that way.\nIt is only the mercy and ennobling philanthropy of Americans that are\npreventing the extermination or degradation of a race.\n\nBut I have more lately travelled over nearer sections of that long\nway back to the cradle of the race and of Christian civilization.\nWithin the year I have walked, or ridden by ship or train or\nairplane, all the way from the west coast of Ireland to the then\nclosed door of Russia and along its then impenetrable western wall\ndown to Hungary and back. Alas! the separating, the estranging\nhatreds are still there.\n\nBarriers and entanglements, visible and invisible, were upon every\nborder all the way across Europe. Unspeakable inconveniences, often\nhardships, had to be endured by the ordinary traveller in these zones\nof suspicion and antipathy and hate, till I came to think of the\ncountries they separated as the \"United Hates of Europe.\"\n\nWhat I wish to bring out of this all is not our local obligations,\nour interstate and intranational obligations, but our world\nobligations, which we share with others--the obligations to see that\nall the children of the earth have a chance to escape from those\nhatreds into the best things of the race as a whole.\n\nIn my mid-European travels I came one day to the country where\nCopernicus had developed the new theory of the universe. There I had\nan experience which lifted my thought into the broader view which\nignored barriers and entanglements. It was a journey in an airplane\nthat rose high above boundaries and connected Warsaw with Prague and\nStrasbourg and Paris. It was the morning of Pentecost Day that I made\nthe journey--the day which celebrates the coming together of people\nfrom many nations and their understanding one another and being\nunderstood because of the cloven tongues that descended upon them.\nAs we flew over the prairies of Poland that beautiful, clear spring\nSunday morning, I could see the shadow of the plane as of a cloven\ntongue flying beneath us from village to village, and even over the\ndisputed territory of Upper Silesia. This was the symbolic prophecy\nof the new sort of understanding, the unifying fabric woven by such\nshuttles that must by their woof replace the separating entanglement\nof suspicion and hatred if Europe, and so the world, is to survive\nsomething worse than fire or flood.[1]\n\nBefore I began the airplane journey from Warsaw I went to take\nmy last look at the statue of Copernicus, whose conception of a\nheliocentric universe is the capital event in modern thought. At the\nfoot of the Vosges Mountains, which I crossed a day or two later into\nFrance, there is the little village of St. Di\u00e9, where, in a book on\nthe Ptolemaic System, the name America was first put on the printed\npage, and on a world map. America was baptized into the Ptolemaic\ncosmos, but its inhabitants (after the aborigines) dwelt from the\nfirst in a Copernican universe, wanderers in an infinity of space,\n\"with a shuddering sense of physical immensity.\"\n\nEurope could not readily forget the geography of its infancy and\nchildhood and maturity, but America began its God-fearing settlement\nwith an astronomy of infinite distances, with a cosmography in which\nit was itself infinitesimal, and with a geography partaking of the\nsky, as well as of the sea and land.\n\nWith this Copernican consciousness of the universe, America should be\nthe least provincial, and Americans the most \"universe-minded\" of all\nthe inhabitants of the earth.\n\nIsolate we have indeed been as a people, but not provincially nor\nnarrowly nor proudly isolate. We kept out of the partisan Ptolemaic\nconcerns of Europe, but when the freedom of mankind was threatened,\nAmerica's policies leaped to the world horizon of her interest in\nhumanity. Our America has had from the first a cosmic view, a concern\nfor all mankind. \"All men\" are included in its national creed. It\nis only those who would narrow our horizon of sympathy and bring\na Ptolemaic sky over our heads again that it has in its doctrine\nexcluded.\n\nSo it is not by accident, I think, that we have put the stars in\nthe field of our flag. They are cosmic symbols gathered from the\nimmeasurable universe, not from pieces of earth and stretches of\nwater, which together make up what we are accustomed to call,\nwhatever our origin, \"our native land\"--a people of clearly\ndefined national personality, but of planetary consciousness and\nof interdependent destinies.\n\nBut in this land of Copernicus, where \"the capital event of modern\nthought\" occurred, I found that only two million eight hundred\nthousand children of school age out of four million six hundred\nthousand had any schooling whatever. It was hoped by the minister\nof education that by 1928, if only the fear of a new partition of\nPoland could be removed and credits found, they might make some most\nelemental provision for the rest--_and this only because so many of\nthe young men of Poland had perished in the World War that the coming\ngeneration would be a smaller one_. I could present statistics of\nlike import for other European states. They would all support my\nthesis, that since we have had a World War for freedom, we should\nhave a world plan for giving the children who have suffered in this\ndivided earth (the millions of \"Pelegs\") an elemental chance to enjoy\nthat freeing of the soul which is, with the unity of mankind, the\nideal end of the state.\n\nA plan which I proposed some time ago, and which I have now taken\ncourage of the support in modified form by men of large financial\nand organizing experience to defend, is that the Allied debts be\nmade a permanent trust fund, to be administered for the education of\nthe children of all peoples, so far as they can be so applied. The\nproposal has been characterized as \"good business,\" not to demand\nthe full payment of these debts with interest of that which we\nloaned, but spent largely at home, and after we entered the war.\nThe fundamental thought on which I should base the proposal is that\nthe world, as a whole, owes something to the children who have no\nfair chance in it because of what those upon whom they are naturally\ndependent have sacrificed for the good of the world as a whole.\n\nMy original proposal was that the principal should be cancelled as it\nwas so spent, but Judge Lovett, president of the Union Pacific, has\nproposed merely the application of the interest at a moderate rate\nannually to this purpose if and when it can be paid, though he has\ngiven it a broader scope--putting education last--the care of widows,\norphans, and crippled first--but ultimately it should all be devoted\nto education.\n\nA ten-billion dollar war debt converted (as a thanksgiving offering\nfor deliverance from something worse than the world knows even at its\nworst to-day) into a perpetual trust fund for the children of the\nworld, especially for those who have come \"trailing clouds of glory\"\ninto a part of the world where they haven't a chance to come into the\nheritage of their generation.\n\nFive hundred million dollars a year (an incredible number of Austrian\ncrowns, Russian roubles, or Polish marks (if indeed the interest\ncould be paid at the rate of five per cent)) which would give an\nelementary-school training to ten million children each year--as many\nchildren as are born each year into the world. And this interest\ncould be paid if armaments were unnecessary.\n\nTen million children a year taught the best that has been \"delivered\nunto or invented by mankind\" (as listed in the world curriculum)\nand led in their tuition toward the conscious unity of the\nrace--planetary consciousness!\n\nHas a more stirring opportunity ever been offered to any people than\nis ours in the refunding of the great war debt, in such a way as\nto make it a blessing to the next generation instead of a crushing\nburden to the tax-paying generation that now goes bent with its\nburdens across Europe? If we were to demand our pound of flesh we\nshould deserve the future fate of those in the \"Inferno\" who went\neternally about weighed with cloaks of lead that were covered by a\nveneer of gold.\n\nSome of the principal might be used to buy books in which these\nmillions of children might enter into the common possession of the\nrace (perhaps in a common language), free of scorn of other nations,\nand so never know the hatreds which estranged their fathers; and\nsome might be spent for the syndicated material of which Mr. Wells\nspeaks--the knowledges of those things which would help them to find\ntheir particular place in the cosmos.\n\nAgain, a part of the principal might be spent (and cancelled as a\ndebt when so spent) in building schoolhouses where none can otherwise\nbe built for a generation or two. These would be modern Enochian\npillars--for what is a schoolhouse, after all, essentially but the\nvery thing that Enoch caused to be erected--at any rate, when the\nteacher is in the schoolhouse furnished with the knowledge of the\nrace mind?\n\nEven so, there would be enough left to provide for millions of\nplanetary pupils in perpetuity.\n\nIt would be the greatest foundation ever established upon earth for\nthe salvation of civilization.\n\nMany years ago, when as a young college president in this valley\nI was speaking at a real-estate dinner in Chicago, I recalled how\nan ancient city was saved by the fact that it had so many score\nthousand children who could not tell their right hand from their\nleft hand--and also much cattle. Innocent children and cattle saved\nNineveh for a time, but not permanently. If the prophet Jonah were\nalive to-day he would know that the doom he preached finally came\nupon the city. He sleeps (or so the tradition is) in a village but\nsix or eight miles from Bethlehem, that might have seen the star if\nit had been awake on the night when it came and stood over the place\nwhere the young child was. He would know if he, himself, were awake\nthat it is only children who have learned the lessons of the race who\nhave the power of world salvation--children who have also learned by\nheart the lessons of the two great commandments.\n\nYears ago I was ploughing corn on a hot June day on an Illinois\nprairie when I heard a sound in the air above me, which one unused to\nthe country might have thought the thrumming of a choir celestial.\nBut with a farm boy's instinct I divined that it was a swarm of bees,\neven before I saw the little cloud moving over the field toward the\nwoods two or three miles away. I did what any farm boy would have\ndone if he could leave his team. I followed the swarm, throwing up\ndust and clods of earth, and making all possible noise, with the\nresult that I brought the swarm down upon the branch of a tree at the\nedge of the field. Then at evening I got a hive, lured them into it,\nand then carried them home, where they made honey for the season.\n\nSo if we follow these ideals, which may seem at first but some\nmillennial rhetoric, and bring them down to earth, we may find a\nway to sweeten the bitter bread of millions of children in other\nlands--and yet have enough and to spare for our own, in spite of the\nreports which I have been hearing to-day from those same corn-fields,\nwhose bountiful crops the farmers cannot sell, though others are\nstarving.\n\nBut let us take courage of the way we have already come, since Enoch\nreared his pillars in the pre-Noachian days. The children of Israel\nwere required to keep each year the feast of the tabernacles, during\nthe seven days of which they were commanded to leave their homes and\ngo out and live in booths or tents, not for a holiday, but that they\nmight be kept mindful of the fact that their fathers came out of\ncaptivity. I have often thought that it would have a very wholesome\neffect if all the world could keep such a feast, and this would\nbe its proclamation, as I have drafted it, though not in the usual\nform:[2]\n\n        \"This shall ye do, O men of earth,\n         Ye who've forgotten your far birth,\n         Your forebears of the slanting skull,\n         Barbaric, brutal, sluggard, dull,\n         (Of whom no portraits hang to boast\n         The ancient lineage of the host)--\n         Ye who've forgot the time when they\n         Were redolent of primal clay,\n         Or lived in wattled hut, or cave,\n         But, turned to dust or drowned by wave,\n         Have left no traces on Time's shores\n         Save mounds of shells at their cave doors\n         And lithic knives and spears and darts\n         And savage passions in our hearts;\n         This shall ye do: seven days each year\n         Ye shall forsake what ye hold dear;\n         From fields of tamed fruits and flowers,\n         From love-lit homes and sky-built towers,\n         From palaces and tenements\n         Ye shall go forth and dwell in tents,\n         In tents, and booths of bough-made roofs,\n         Where ye may hear the flying hoofs\n         Of beasts long gone, the cries of those\n         Who were your fathers' forest foes,\n         Or see their shadows riding fast\n         Along the edges of the past;\n         All this, that ye may keep in mind\n         The nomad way by which mankind\n         Has come from his captivity,\n         Walking dry-shod the earth-wide sea,\n         Riding the air, consulting stars,\n         Driving great caravans of cars,\n         Building the furnace, bridge and spire\n         Of earth-control and heav'n desire,\n         Rising in journey from the clod\n         Into the glory of a god.\n\n         This shall ye do, O men of earth,\n         That ye may know the crown\u00e9d worth\n         Of what ye are--and hope renew,\n         Seeing the road from dawn to you!\n         Then turning toward the pillared cloud\n         Ahead, or pillared fire, endowed\n         With prescience of a promised goal\n         See still a highway for the soul.\"\n\nAnd along the way at intervals stand the Enochian schools, colleges,\nand universities, giving instruction in the best that the human\nrace has learned \"from generation to generation and from nation to\nnation.\"\n\n\n\n\nJESUS' SOCIAL PLAN\n\nBY\n\nCHARLES FOSTER KENT, PH.D., LITT.D.\n\nJesus of Nazareth was so many-sided that each man and each age have\nfound in him the qualities in which they are most interested. He\nhas with truth been characterized as prophet, poet, philosopher,\nphysician, and saviour of men. In the eyes of his contemporaries\nhe was pre-eminently the teacher of the masses, the healer of the\nsick, and the friend of sinners. The ascetic Middle Ages saw in him\nonly the man of sorrows, and pictured him as sad and an\u00e6mic. To the\nProtestant reformers and the Puritans he was the supreme protestant\nagainst the sins of mankind. The discerning thinkers of our present\nsocial age are beginning to recognize in him the great social\npsychologist, who not only analyzed the ills of society but also\nprovided for them a potent cure.\n\nThe majority of men, however, fail to appreciate Jesus' social\nteachings, because they think of him as far removed from the complex\nsocial programme presented by our highly developed civilization; but\nthe enlightened historian well knows that between the first century\nin which Jesus lived and our own there are many startlingly close\nanalogies. In Jesus' day the old racial and national bonds had been\nlargely destroyed and many ancient traditions and customs had been\nrudely shattered or else cast aside. Men were sharply divided into\nclasses separated by clashing interests. Industrial slavery held\ngreat masses of men in a bondage that was both physical and moral.\nHerded together in congested districts of the great cities that had\nsuddenly sprung into existence, they lived a life that was in many\nrespects worse than that of the beast. Lax divorce laws and looser\nmarital relations had undermined the integrity of the home. A great\nwave of social immorality was destroying the physical and spiritual\nhealth of the individual and of society.\n\nAt the same time mankind was beginning to feel its unity and to work\nout its problems in universal terms. The yearning for brotherhood\nand for vital bonds that would bind each man to his fellows was\nstrong. Consciously or unconsciously men everywhere were seeking for\na satisfying philosophy of life that would afford them peace and\nhappiness in this life and a definite hope of even greater joy in the\nrealm beyond. They were also longing for a social organization that\nwould give them freedom and an opportunity for each to live his life\nto the full. Dissatisfaction with the outworn social programmes of\nthe past was expressed on every side. The expectancy of a dawn of a\nnew day was almost universal.\n\nPractically every type of social programme known to us to-day was\nfound in that old Roman world. Rome, in name still a republic, was\nin reality an imperial monarchy, ruled absolutely by the will of\none man. It was a typical representative of the ancient autocratic\nidea of government. The old Hebrew commonwealth, like the city\nstates of Greece, was only a memory of the past, but it stood for\nthe democratic ideal--the rule of the people, by the people, for\nthe people--in which the ultimate authority was vested in a popular\nassembly. Subject to the rule of Rome, the later Jewish hierarchical\nform of government still survived in Jerusalem as a representative\nof that peculiar type of social organization in which religious\nand temporal authority are blended. The rule of the rabble, to be\ninstituted by violence and revolution and maintained by force, found\nits protagonists in those bloody, relentless Bolshevists of the first\ncentury, the Zealots. They only waited the leader and the opportunity\nto fly at the throats of their Roman masters and to make a mad\nattempt to overthrow all existing forms of government. On the ruins\nof society they wished to set up a Jewish state that would rule the\nrest of mankind with a rod of iron.\n\nDown along the rocky banks of the brook Kedron, less than fifteen\nmiles from Jerusalem, lived the Essene brotherhoods. They represented\nthe purest type of communistic socialism. All property was held in\ncommon. The results of the labor of each went into the common store.\nAll shared alike their possessions. It was also a nobler communism\nthan we know to-day, for its chief aim was not the division of the\nproducts of human enterprise, but the lofty and unselfish ideals of\nserving and uplifting humanity.\n\nThe learned scribes and Pharisees were dreaming of a far different\ntype of world state: one that was to be suddenly and miraculously\nestablished. Jerusalem was to be its capital and a Jewish Messiah its\nhead. The faithful martyrs who had died for their religion were to\nbe reincarnated to share its glories. The heathen nations were to be\nsubdued and the rule of Israel's God was to be recognized throughout\nthe whole earth.\n\nOnly a few humble students of the prophets and psalmists were quietly\nworking and hoping for a society in which justice, good-will, and\nmutual helpfulness were to be the compelling bonds and the will of\nGod the guiding authority. Autocracy and democracy, hierarchy and\nanarchy, communistic socialism and nationalistic theocracy each found\nenthusiastic devoted supporters in that vast laboratory of social\nexperimentation in which Jesus lived. Every type of social programme\nthat we know to-day was there represented.\n\nDid he have a social plan, and was it adapted to the needs of the\ntwentieth as well as to those of the first Christian century? The\nrecords of Jesus' work are so fragmentary that they have given to\nmost readers the impression that he was simply an itinerant preacher\nand teacher without definite plan and method. Paul is ordinarily\nregarded as the great organizer who gave Christianity its corporate\nform. A more careful study of the facts, however, reveals a clearly\ndefined aim and a systematic, comprehensive plan underlying all of\nJesus' work.\n\nIt is important to remember that for more than three-fourths of his\nlife Jesus was an active business man and, therefore, in close touch\nwith the economic and social life of his age. He was a son of Joseph,\nthe _techn\u00f4n_, that is, the constructor or builder. It is probable\nthat the early death of Joseph left Jesus, the eldest son, in charge\nof this family firm of builders. The names of four other sons are\ngiven. This added responsibility would mean that Jesus was not only a\nmanual laborer himself but was also accustomed to directing the work\nof others. The conclusion that he was a master builder, who knew the\nimportance of a definite plan and method and of carefully counting\nthe cost, is confirmed by many of his teachings. \"Who of you, if he\nwishes to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the costs\nto see whether he has money to complete it? Or what king, on going to\nwar with another king, does not first sit down and deliberate whether\nwith ten thousand men he can withstand the one who is coming against\nhim with twenty thousand?\"\n\nNo one laid greater stress on foresight than did Jesus. At every\npoint he reveals familiarity with system, method, and organization.\nIn this respect he is more like the modern Occidental than the\nOrientals of his day. His detailed directions to his disciples, when\nhe sent them out two by two to extend the bounds of his work, are\nmodels of business efficiency. \"Take nothing but a staff,\" which\nmakes long journeys on foot comparatively easy. \"Take no extra\nbaggage,\" which impedes progress. \"Do not stop to greet any one on\nthe road,\" for the elaborate Oriental greetings often consumed hours\nof precious time. Commanded to take no food, they were dependent upon\nthat Oriental hospitality which opened wide the door and the heart of\nthose whom the disciples were to reach and to help. \"Stop only at the\nhomes where you receive a hearty welcome,\" for there only can you do\nefficient work. \"Be content with the entertainment provided, and do\nnot go from house to house,\" for in this way will you avoid wasteful\ndistraction. \"Go out two by two,\" for this is the best unit in doing\neffective work (as our modern drives have amply demonstrated).\nDirectness, economy, and practical efficiency characterize each\nof these commands. The principles underlying them are everywhere\naccepted as standard in the scientific business world of to-day.\n\nJesus, as portrayed in the earliest records, was not an impractical\ndreamer nor a wan ascetic, as ordinarily pictured in art and in\npopular imagination, but a practical man of affairs with definite\nplans and systematic methods of carrying them into execution.\n\nThe evidence that Jesus has a definite social plan is cumulative and\nconvincing. From the beginning of his public appearance his thought\nand activities were shaped by it. It is the background of that\ndramatic story of the temptation, which comes straight from the lips\nof Jesus himself. Though its language is highly figurative, the story\nthrows a flood of light upon Jesus' purpose. The first temptation\nsuggests the vigor with which he rejected the natural inclination to\nyield to the instinctive desire for ease and self-indulgence and\nto use his divine powers for his own happiness rather than that of\nsociety. The second and third temptations deal with the methods to\nbe used in carrying out his far-flung social programme. Should he\nuse sensational devices and by some miraculous act, such as throwing\nhimself down from the temple heights, gratify the popular demand for\ndivine credentials? Or should he realize his plan by compromise?\n\nThe breadth of his social outlook is clearly disclosed by this third\ntemptation; from the first his plan included \"all the kingdoms of\nthe world and their glory.\" The tempting thought came to him that\nthese could easily be brought under his benign sway, if he would but\nset aside his lofty ideals, if he would but be silent regarding the\ncrimes of the ruling powers, if he would but give up his exalted\nconception of the rule of God and fulfil the current national\nexpectations that were beating strong in the hearts of the multitudes\nthat thronged about him. As the event proved, they were eager to hail\nhim as the popular Messiah. His temptation to bow down to Satan is\nvividly illustrated in the dramatic scene where Peter professes his\nfaith in Jesus as the Messiah, and then tries to dissuade him from\ngoing up into Jerusalem to face shame and probable death. \"Away with\nyou, Satan,\" is Jesus' vehement exclamation, \"for you are thinking\nthe thoughts of man, not of God!\" This striking incident makes it\nvery clear that in the mind of Jesus there was a definite, practical\nplan, far different from that which obsessed his race and in the end\nlured them on to their ruin in the tragic years of 69 and 70. So\neager was he to see its early adoption, not only by his race but by\nall nations, that short cuts and even compromises were to him very\nreal temptations. But his social plan was so clearly defined that the\nspecious doctrine that the end justifies the means could not swerve\nhim. He had no desire to build a social structure that would rise and\nfall like the thousands that have been reared before and since--what\nHenry Adams describes as \"the perpetual building up of an authority\nby force and the perpetual appeal to force to overthrow it.\"\n\nJesus' words to Peter, \"On this rock I found my community,\" indicated\nthat he was seeking to build a structure that would endure, because\nit was built on the solid rock of reality and in accordance with the\ndivine purpose. For this reason he keenly appreciated the importance\nof building on the right foundations and with the right material.\nThe major part of his time and energy was devoted to preparing these\nmaterials. Hence his intense interest in the saving and remaking of\nmen and women. Peter, the rock, was typical of the social citizens\nthat he was seeking to develop and out of which he planned to build\nhis new society.\n\nLike Zoroaster, Confucius, and Gautama Buddha, Jesus was not content\nwith presenting merely an abstract social programme. He was eager to\nincarnate it in flesh and blood, so that men could see it with their\neyes and participate in it. With all the enthusiasm and energy of his\nkinetic personality, he went about laying the foundations for the\nnew society. This aim alone explains why at first he left Galilee,\nwent down into Judea, and allied himself with that courageous herald\nof the new social order, John the Baptist. When the opposition of the\nJewish leaders and the cruel relentlessness of Herod Antipas closed\nthe doors of Jerusalem and Judea to Jesus he returned to Galilee\nbut not to Nazareth. He chose instead, as the scene of his future\nwork, the great Jewish metropolis of Capernaum. Its choice as the\ncentre of his public activity is exceedingly significant. Jesus was\nby birth and training a peasant. He always felt most at home among\nthe tree-clad hills. City life had none of the attractions for him\nthat it had for Paul, the cosmopolitan. Going to a great city was\nfor Jesus a daring adventure. He went to Capernaum because it was\nthe largest centre of Jewish population in northern Palestine. As\nthe present ruins indicate, it extended for four or five miles along\nthe northern shores of the Sea of Galilee, from the point where the\nJordan enters the lake on the north to the borders of the plain of\nGenneseret to the northwest. Across the Jordan was Bethsaida, and a\nfew miles to the north, at the head of a rocky gorge, was Chorazin,\nanother of the many populous suburbs of the greater Capernaum.\n\nIn this huge metropolis were crowded \"the lost sheep of the house of\nIsrael\" whom Jesus came to seek and to save. Jesus went down into the\nsickness and crime-infected slums of Capernaum to transform them and\nto make them the homes of happy, co-operating men and women. In that\nlarge, typical suburban centre he aimed to establish the fraternal\ncommunity that was to be the corner-stone of the new social order\nthat he hoped would ultimately include \"all the nations of the world.\"\n\nHe also chose the greater Capernaum because it was the focal\ncentre from which the great international highways radiated in all\ndirections. Past its western suburbs ran the main caravan road from\nEgypt and Philistia to Damascus and Babylonia. Other roads ran\nsouthward to Jericho and Jerusalem. Another great highway ran past\nit from Arabia northwestward across the plain of Genneseret to Tyre\nand Sidon, and then on to Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. It is\nevident that Jesus, not Paul, initiated early Christianity's broad\npolicy of establishing fraternal communities in the great strategic\ncentres, and from there extending their influence to the smaller\ncities and towns, and thence to the surrounding country districts.\nThis was clearly a part of his social plan, and the spread of these\nChristian communities to Jericho, Damascus, C\u00e6sarea, and Antioch\nwithin the first decade after his death confirmed its practical\nwisdom.\n\nIn Capernaum Jesus found all types of men, women, and children. Here\nwere presented superlative needs and superlative possibilities. Here\nevery phase of the social problem was in evidence. Here were the\nrich and poor, learned and ignorant, honest and dishonest, happy and\nunhappy, reputable citizens and outcasts, the well and the sick.\nWith each of these classes Jesus came into intimate contact. From\nevery rank he drew the followers who became members of the fraternal\ncommunity that he was seeking to found. A social plan that succeeded\nin the greater Capernaum had world-wide possibilities. That great\nmetropolis, with its population of perhaps a quarter of a million,\nwas a fitting laboratory for the world's greatest social psychologist.\n\nInto this great field Jesus threw himself with untiring zeal and\nenthusiasm. His final words, as he left it to escape the treachery\nof the Pharisees and of Herod Antipas, indicate clearly that he had\nhoped to transform this huge city into one great fraternal community:\n\"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For had the marvellous\ndeeds that have been performed in you been done in Tyre and Sidon,\nthey would have repented in sackcloth and ashes; I tell you it will\nbe better for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.\nWill you, Capernaum, be exalted to the sky? No, you will go down to\ndestruction. For had the marvellous deeds performed in you been done\nin Sodom, it would have remained standing until this day.\"\n\nTo-day the site of the greater Capernaum is an uninhabited ruin. A\ndread silence has settled down upon it. Yet no student of history\ncan for a moment doubt the implication of Jesus' pathetic words.\nCapernaum might to-day and through the intervening centuries and\nfor all time have been \"exalted to the sky\" had its citizens in\nthe first Christian century responded to their great opportunity.\nThen and there the problems common to all human society might have\nbeen solved. There the whole world might have beheld the glorious\nvision of a vast city in which sin and sickness and suffering had\nbeen banished, and love and loyalty and zeal to serve the common\ncause bound all together into one great fraternal community. There\nthe students of all nations and ages might have studied in concrete\nform the principles and laws that lie at the foundation of a perfect\nsociety. Within even the limits of the first century the Capernaum\nplan might have been transplanted and developed in all the great\ncities of the earth.\n\nFrom the moment that Jesus entered Capernaum he went to work to\ngather about him and train a band of helpers that would effect the\ngreat transformation. He did not make the mistake of many later\nsocial creators of trusting merely to external organization. He began\nby remaking men and by training individual citizens. He personally\nselected each of his helpers and first freed their bodies from\ndisease, their minds from error and prejudice, and their hearts\nfrom hate and jealousy. In turn he filled their minds with a broad,\npractical philosophy of life and their hearts with faith and love\nand the desire to co-operate. After he had trained them by careful\nteaching and thorough apprenticeship, he sent them forth under his\ndirection to become fishers of men--that is, to attract and train\ndefinite men and women, so that they also might be prepared to become\nworthy citizens in the fraternal community.\n\nThe plan was as simple as it was practical. It was in perfect accord\nwith all the laws, natural, social, and psychological, that later\nscientific study has disclosed. That it met at once with partial\nsuccess is an established historic fact, for of the five hundred\ndisciples to whom Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 15:6, probably the\ngreat majority, if not all, belonged to the Capernaum community.\nBut it is equally clear that Jesus' success at Capernaum was not\ncommensurate with his hopes and that his relative failure was\ndue to that which the Infinite has made a basic principle in the\nuniverse--the freedom of the human will. The convincing common\nsense, the radiant sympathy and love, and the attractive social plan\nof the Master Teacher were not able to conquer the fixed habits\nand prejudices and hatreds of a majority of the inhabitants of the\ngreater Capernaum. The wooden orthodoxy and the narrow jealousy of\nthe Pharisees led them to block and undermine, rather than support\nhis work. The opposition of these acknowledged religious leaders\nconfused the minds of the people. How electrical and far-reaching\nwould Jesus' great social experiment have been, had it met with the\nimmediate success he craved, only the imagination can picture. That\nfrom Capernaum might have gone forth mighty influences that would\nhave quickly transformed human society as a whole is not beyond\nthe realm of practical possibility, for the world was closely knit\ntogether in the first Christian century and nothing is more potent\nin society than practical demonstration. Even as it was, the social\nleaven that Jesus placed in greater Capernaum spread with remarkable\nrapidity, so that before the close of the first Christian century\nfraternal communities were found not only in Damascus, C\u00e6sarea, and\nAntioch, but in all the great cities and even the remote provinces of\nthe Roman Empire.\n\nThe strength of Jesus' social plan lay in its simplicity. Society in\nthe first century, as at present, had become hopelessly complex. The\nindividual was but a spoke in the wheel of things. He was so enmeshed\nin a rigid social organization that he had few opportunities for\nspontaneous self-expression. Jesus quietly set aside all this complex\nsocial machinery and substituted a simple neighborhood organization,\nso simple that its members were unconscious of any organization at\nall. The warm, fraternal spirit of the fraternal community, which was\nsimply an extension of the high ideals and traditions of the Jewish\nhome, provided the atmosphere that every man, and especially \"the\nlost,\" the millions of detached men, women, and children in the old\nRoman Empire, were craving. In these Christian communities they found\nfriendship and good-will. If they were needy, here they were sure\nof help. If they were sad, they found sympathy and comfort. If they\nstumbled and fell, they were tenderly lifted up, given counsel, and\nguided in the way of life.\n\nHere the deepest yearnings of their hearts were satisfied, for they\nwere taught to listen to the inward voice. The Master himself set\nthe example of devoting many hours in his crowded ministry to prayer\nand meditation. Under his guidance they learned to enter the inner\nchamber of their souls, and there to gain peace, joy, and inspiration\nfrom communion with him who reveals himself to all who seek him in\nsincerity and truth.\n\nThe fraternal community enabled each member to gratify his higher\ndesire for self-expression. Jesus also had the marvellous power\nof arousing these desires. The needs and work of the community\ngave each member, however great or however humble be his gifts,\nabundant opportunity to use them. The humblest could enjoy the\nproud consciousness of serving the community, even if it be only in\nserving the food at the common meal. Those who possessed the gifts of\nteaching or preaching or healing had ample opportunity to use them in\na social environment that was receptive and appreciative. If the task\nbe outside and attended with danger, those who served were always\nsure of warm support and sympathy within the community.\n\nMark tells us that the life of the fraternal community that Jesus\nfounded at Capernaum was characterized by a joyousness that aroused\nthe harsh criticisms of the captious Pharisees. They complained that,\nunlike John the Baptist, Jesus never taught his followers to fast.\nThe Master acknowledged the charge, and likened their lives together\nto one continuous wedding-feast. When we recall that a wedding-feast\nwas the one event in the ancient East that brought joy and recreation\nand amusement to all members of the community, we begin to gain\na true conception of the charm of that community life which Jesus\ndeveloped, and to understand why it appealed to young and old alike.\nHere recreation and religion were perfectly blended. Here every man\nfound physical, mental, and spiritual life, and that in abundant\nmeasure. Had not the Pharisees, as Jesus said, persistently blocked\nthe door, the masses would undoubtedly have sought admission to the\nfraternal community in great numbers, for we are told that the common\npeople heard him gladly.\n\nJesus was not content merely to open wide the door to all who were\nseeking fellowship and inspiration to fuller living. From the first\nhe began to train his disciples that they might go forth on a mission\nof healing, preaching, and teaching. His social plan included an\naggressive, organized missionary propaganda. He not only himself\nsought the lost, but also trained and taught his followers to do the\nsame. This fact explains not only the tremendous drawing, but also\nthe kinetic power of early Christianity.\n\nTo-day every individual is consciously or unconsciously longing for a\nfraternal community in which he can find sympathy, good-will, and an\nopportunity to serve his fellow-men. Capital and industry are groping\nfor a common basis of justice and co-operation, where they can forget\ntheir present destructive feuds and hatreds and join in conserving\ntheir mutual interests and in discharging their obligations to\nsociety. All the nations of the earth are eager to perfect an\nagreement which will eliminate the horrible wastage of hate and war\nand enable them to dwell together as one great family. The Christian\nChurch is also seeking a way in which it may adequately meet the\ncrying needs of the individual and of society.\n\nIs it not possible that Jesus' social plan is the true and only way\nso to adjust the individual to his environment that he will find that\nwhich he is seeking? Is it not possible that Jesus' plan provides the\nonly practical way to eliminate the disastrous hatreds and wastage\nof modern industry, and to bring capital and labor into effective\nco-operation? Is it not possible that his idea of the fraternal\ncommunity is the only satisfactory solution of our international\nproblems? Is it not true that his simple social plan represents the\nhistoric commission of the Christian Church, and that the Church's\npresent divisions and most of its complex machinery are only\nimpedimenta? Is it not possible that a whole-hearted effort to carry\nthrough his social plan in this plastic twentieth century might unite\nnot only his nominal followers, but also the many who are not now\nreckoned as members of his fold? Upon the answers that the leaders\nof this generation make to these fundamental questions depends\nthe future of our civilization. To the leaders in our Christian\ninstitutions of learning we look to-day for affirmative answers.\n\n\n\n\nPERSONAL RELIGION AND PUBLIC MORALS\n\nBY\n\nROBERT BRUCE TAYLOR, D.D., LL.D.\n\nThe last quarter of a century has seen a vast change in the general\nattitude toward organized religion. To some extent that change has\nhad its points of pause and punctuation; we could tell where one\nparagraph ended and another began. In thought, a Robertson Smith\nor a Briggs case marked a period. The real range of a theological\ndebate can never be measured by the resolution of an ecclesiastical\nassembly. Its main repercussion is upon the crowd, which becomes\ngradually conscious of the significance of the issue. The great\nchange has come, however, almost without observation, and it may be\nsaid to have affected religion rather than theology. It has shown\nitself in lessened church attendance, and in the challenging of the\nright of the church to assume the monopoly of religious interest. The\nreduction in the number of men seeking to find their life-work in the\nChristian ministry is a grave feature; for the temper of the martyr\nand the soldier is not dead among us and the call for sacrifice has\nalways in it a peculiar ring and compulsion. The Christian ministry\nis a great and noble calling, in which a man, if he is to have any\nhappiness in his work, must deliberately put the world behind his\nback. But that particular form of sacrifice is losing its urgency.\nThe war revealed, to those who were actively engaged in it, not\nso much a changed condition as unpleasant actualities in the old\ncondition. It became wofully apparent that religious instruction had\nnot penetrated as deeply as the religious organizations had imagined.\nOne never knew whether to wonder most at men's ignorance of what\nthe Christian Church should have been teaching them, or at their\nindifference to some matters which the peace standard of domestic\nethics regarded as vital, or at their continual and magnificent\ngaiety of spirit, their glorious comradeship, their mastery of fear.\nThe war showed how little conventional religion stood for. It also\nmade it plain that the great words of the Gospel--joy, peace, love,\nrighteousness, sacrifice--were of the very heart of high conduct as\nmen understood high conduct, face to face with death, in those most\ndesperate conditions.\n\nIf one asks oneself what it is that has been going on beneath the\nsurface to bring about so profound a change in religious outlook, one\nmay say that it has been the challenging of the seat of authority in\nreligion. In organized religion there have been two main conceptions\nof the seat of authority.\n\nThe Romanist and high-church view is that authority lies in the\nChurch, in its continuity of tradition and in its possession of\nsacramental power. If men are to be left to their own devices there\nwill be anarchy in religion. But if they will but look back to the\nvery foundations of Christianity, they will find a body of truth\nsteadily handed down, and an efficacy communicated by the laying\non of episcopal hands, transmitted from one generation to another.\nThey will find a divinely guided history of councils and creeds\nthrough which the deposit of truth has been safeguarded; and the\ndoubter may commit himself with certainty to this system, which\nis the embodiment not only of divine truth but of human wisdom and\npractical knowledge. A Scottish Presbyterian is not predisposed to\nfavor such a conception, but one has to admit its power. The majority\nof mankind are neither able nor willing to examine a long course\nof church history for themselves, and a strong, dogmatic assertion\nand a definite historical position have a vast power with a certain\nconservative and clinging and devotional type of mind. There are\nmany people who have not sufficient intellectual daring to wrestle\nconstantly with things for themselves. They want certainty. And\nso Newman and Adelaide Procter and many other equally pure souls\nhave found rest in this obedience to authority. There is, however,\nparticularly in this new land, a different temper springing up. The\ncommunity spirit seeks inclusion rather than exclusion. It tries\nto use different gifts without judging between them. It will not\nnullify categories; it will simplify them. The question of apostolic\nsuccession, except where men are still held to belief in it by\necclesiastical authority, is ceasing to be an issue, just because\nthis practically minded world does not see any such monopoly of\nspiritual power in one particular church. And, with regard to the\npermanence of any creed, we are in an atmosphere which tends more\nand more to utter its faith in the language of the day. A man may\nbe very near to his Lord and yet unable to discern his Lord in\nthe Athanasian Creed. The process is too long which requires that\nthe believer search back through all those centuries of tangled\nhistorical stuff before he finds his Master. He does not need to be\neither a prophet or the son of a prophet who declares confidently\nthat the sacramentarian, historically exclusive, miraculous, sanction\nof religion is likely to become less and less powerful.\n\nIs, then, the seat of authority for religion in the claims of Holy\nScripture? This has been the appeal of the Reformed churches. At\nthe Reformation, when the assertion was again made of the rights\nof the human spirit to come directly into fellowship with Christ,\nScripture of necessity took a place of new importance. It was the\nroad of direct access to God. One can understand how, after being\nbound in the chains of the Roman Catholic Church, men and women\nfound in Scripture the glorious liberty of the children of God. Is\nit any wonder that they brooded over it until even the translations\nthemselves seemed to be the very breath of the Almighty? But the\nearliest and greatest of the reformers had no such cast-iron view\nof verbal inspiration as afterward came to prevail, in its turn\nto become a tyranny just as exacting as the old. Both Luther and\nCalvin knew far too much of religious history and of the Bible to\nbe led into any such unbending position. Luther, for instance, had\nhis pronounced views upon the Epistle of James, which he would\nhave excluded from the Canon. He was well aware of the doubt which\nhad prevailed as to the canonicity of the splendid Epistle to the\nHebrews. The preacher of to-day is not wise who neglects Calvin on\nthe Psalms and Calvin on Isaiah; but Calvin saw clearly that there\nwere Aramaic elements in the 139th Psalm, and that the ascription of\nit to David was impossible. Gradually, however, what was really the\nrecord of a revelation came to be regarded as the revelation itself.\nIt is not the New Testament which reveals God. It is Christ who\nreveals God, and it is the New Testament which gives the story of the\nincarnation of the Most High. In the post-Reformation days, however,\nwhen the Reformation, as a mighty revival of personal religion, was\ngiving place to the time when men were trying to state in logical\nand philosophical form those wonderful experiences which they had\nlived through of the power of the Holy Spirit, the Bible came to\nbe used as though it were a collection of proof-texts. A creed is\nobviously the product of the time when the first overwhelming flood\nof enthusiasm has passed, and men have begun to reason about the\nexperiences through which they have lived. Thus, in the seventeenth\ncentury the doctrinaire view of Scripture stiffened. There was no\nattempt to understand the history underlying this great library of\nsacred writings. So truculent a book as Esther was believed to be,\nevery word of it, the breathing of the Almighty, because it found\nitself within the sacred boards, while so glorious a record as First\nMaccabees was ranked with any other piece of secular history because\nits date precluded its inclusion within the Canon. There was no\nknowledge of the fact that the early narratives of Genesis had a\nrelationship to the Babylonian cosmogony; that, the Septuagint being\nwitness, there had been widely varying texts of the Book of Jeremiah;\nthat the Hebrew text of Hosea was in places in such confusion that\nanything more than a conjectural translation was impossible. The\ngeneral and well-founded belief that Scripture was the Word of God\nwas stretched until it became a new legalism, until it covered\nevery word of the Authorized Version, and, in the minds of many,\nevery comma of the splendid translation. That was an inflexible, an\nuncritical, an unscholarly position that was perilous. In the minds\nof multitudes it linked the truth in Jesus with some conundrum about\nCain's wife. It put the great causes of religion at the mercy of the\nnegative and unbelieving critic. Many of us remember still the shock\nit was to our faith when we found that Scripture was being examined\nby the ordinary methods of critical and linguistic analysis; and yet\nwe now realize that it is through this liberty that our faith has\nbeen re-established and set foursquare to all the winds that blow.\n\nThe present condition of things is that, while scholars have made\nthe adjustment in their own minds, the great majority of believing\npeople have not. That distinction between the revelation and the\nrecord of it is a delicate and subtle thing compared with the direct\nand unsophisticated view that every word within the boards that\ncontain Holy Scripture is absolutely inerrant, in the most literal\nsense of the term. Piety and intellectual acumen do not always go\ntogether. Those who know out of a long experience what Scripture has\nbeen to them, in strengthening and comfort, are jealous with a godly\nzeal when they think they see heedless hands laid upon the ark. And\nso some good people have tried to beat back the tide by accusing\nscholars of unbelief, and again and again the attempt has been made\nto control the teaching in theological colleges in the interest of\na particular theory of inspiration. The result is that the teaching\nof the pulpits has often become suspect by men poles apart in their\ngeneral view. Some, clinging to the old ways, have been looking for\nheresy; others, feeling the new breath, have been wondering whether\nthe preacher was frank. There has thus been unsettlement of a most\nprofound character, and it is unsettlement upon a really first-class\nissue. The Protestant world as a whole has yet to be brought to\nunderstand that the believer's faith in his Lord is something that\nwill be affected in no way by a discussion of the question whether\nthe sun did actually stand still upon Gibeon. Such a faith rests on\nsomething much more precious than the authority even of the written\nWord; it rests on the witness of the spirit of the believer to the\nrevelation of God as he finds it in Christ.\n\nIf, on the one hand, this unsettlement has caused pessimism and\ndistress on the part of those who cannot see that a living faith is\nbound to be a growing thing, an organism and not a crystal, it has\nbrought about a very different attitude on the part of many others,\nwho feel that certain obvious religious duties are incumbent upon\nthem, even if they may never be able to solve for themselves such\nquestions as modern scholarship has raised. The social and business\nlife of to-day has one fine feature, unfortunately quite dissociated\nfrom the Christian Church, although created largely by Christian\npeople. Men, immersed in business and professional life, have yet\nreligion in their hearts; they know the need, for their own spiritual\nhealth as well as for the good of the community, of guarding against\nthe tendency to selfishness and absorption in gain. And so we have\nspringing up everywhere Rotarian Clubs and Kiwanian Clubs and many\nother organizations of similar kind, which foster a genial and kindly\nrivalry in well-doing. Once a week men gather and refuse to admit\nthat they are growing old. They laugh and are happy. They are looking\naround for some good thing to do. Is it an industrial training home\nfor boys, away among the mountains, in the best of surroundings, far\nfrom the city streets; is it the installation of a new hot-water\napparatus in their city hospital--to take two instances known to\nme of the activities of a Rotarian and a Kiwanian Club--they throw\nthemselves into the effort with zeal, and get, as surely they should\ndo, joy for themselves in the securing of joy for others. Behind\nit there lies the feeling that whatever the uncertainties of faith\nmay be, there are certain duties incumbent upon all who love their\nkind. It is better to be unselfish than selfish, better to be glad\nthan frowning, better to come out of your isolation and know your\nneighbor and competitor than to retire into your shell and imagine\nall kinds of evil about his persistent activities. Such a movement,\nspreading with somewhat of the fire of a crusade, is just another\nevidence of the working of the Holy Spirit, another proof that\nreligion is the most pronounced and permanent bent of the human mind.\nWhere the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, and the Spirit\nwill always manifest himself in varying modes.\n\nWhat we are faced with to-day is not the destruction of religion\nbut the change in its form and outlook. The permanent thing in the\nChristian religion, the unique thing, is that it has been the attempt\nto set forth Jesus of Nazareth. Everything else has been temporal,\nbut that has been permanent. As men look back over history they see\nthat many expressions of that loyalty have become antiquated, and\nhave, without any active hostility on the part of reformers, simply\nceased to be. The human mind has no longer regarded them as adequate.\nThe study of a doctrine such as the Atonement is the best of all\nevidence for the fact. On so great a truth the greatest thinkers of\nall times have exercised themselves, and the statements made of the\ndoctrine have been made in terms intelligible to the men of the age\nin which they were made. Books which deal with the subject of the\nAtonement are invariably stronger on their historical and critical\nthan on their constructive sides. It is easy to understand now\nthe defects of so great and permanent a book as Anselm's _Cur Deus\nHomo_, or, leaping over many hundreds of years, to question the\nadequacy of the statements of Robertson of Brighton, or of MacLeod\nCampbell. Even the greatest writers, when they deal with eternal\ntruth, the Apostle Paul himself being witness, write in the language\nof their time for the men of their time, and are influenced in their\nstatements by the ideas that are in the air in their time. The truth\nitself is a matter of Christian experience, whether it be taught\nby the old women of Bedford to John Bunyan, or by the thoroughly\nequipped scholar of to-day to a student who has all his senses\nexercised to receive the truth. But, while medi\u00e6val thought has few\ngreater names than that of Anselm, _Cur Deus Homo_ is now studied\nexactly like Faraday's _Researches_, only as a matter of history.\nHuman thought has left Anselm behind.\n\nTo the trained thinker, of course, this position is the merest\ncommonplace. The wine of divine truth is ever new, and it has to be\nput into new bottles. He does an infinite disservice to faith who\nstrives to tie it indefinitely to particular statements. The heresy\nof yesterday may be the orthodoxy of to-day, and the orthodoxy of\nto-day the exhausted formula of to-morrow. The men of this generation\nread with amazement the attacks of the sixties on Darwin, attacks\nso full of acerbity, so reckless in their bandying of evil charges\nand in their ascription of anti-religious motives. And to-day, while\nthe biologist may still debate the particular issue, we know that\nthe conception of continuity and development has been of enormous\nservice in every range of thought. The first debates on the _Origin\nof Species_ have given place to a general conception. Einstein,\nin the same way, may influence profoundly not only physical but\ntheological and ethical problems.\n\nAnd so those who to-day have faith in a living and personal Christ\nmust not lose courage, even if they do find the envelope in which\nthat faith was wrapped being torn asunder. This particular envelope\nmay have served its turn. We have this treasure in earthen vessels.\nWe may ask as a matter of intellectual curiosity as to the form in\nwhich men expressed their belief some centuries ago, but the vital\nthing for us is that to-day we shall have such a form as shall be\nintelligible and arresting for us and our contemporaries. Wherever\nthe Spirit of Christ is quick there will always be the double process\nin action, the challenging of old forms and the creation of new. The\nspeech in the process may vary from generation to generation, but\nthe process itself is a symptom of life. The desire for change is\nno evidence of impiety; it may be the setting forth of the prophet.\nThe ages which are the ages of godlessness are those in which there\nhas been no challenging of the accepted thing. In social as in\nreligious life there are always multitudes whose motto is \"Leave\nwell alone.\" The position is a complete begging of the question.\nIs the situation really \"well\"? Many to-day in the Old Country sigh\nfor the industrial conditions of forty years ago, when labor was\nsubservient and cheap, and when taxation was low. At that time it\nnever seemed to occur to any one that there was something wrong\nwith a system in which one-third of the population of a great city\nlike Glasgow lived in houses of one room, where women went barefoot\nthroughout the winter months, where the question of the next meal\nwas an insistent one with tens of thousands. Because the system had\nexisted so long, the sufferers under it did not challenge it, while\nthose who profited by it had no sense of the anomaly of a situation\nwhich worked comfortably for them. It was not that men were heartless\nor unbelieving. They were tender in their affections and quick\nwith their charities. But the existence of this condition of great\nwealth alongside of abject poverty and degradation was regarded\nwith the inevitableness of fate. It existed and therefore it was\naccepted. It had the sanction of age and was not to be challenged.\nThe public conscience was not awake. There was no vision and the\npeople perished. The last seven years have wrought a mighty change.\nApart from any immediate economic issue there has been an alteration\nin the general attitude toward the question of wages. A community\nis not stable in its ordering nor is it genuinely prosperous if one\nmain element in its financing is the maintenance of vast industries\nby labor so cheap as to be always upon the verge of destitution. The\neconomic considerations are not the only ones, nor indeed are they\nthe primary ones. A healthy and contented population is real wealth.\nA generation ago our cities emptied their filth into the rivers and\nlakes at their doors, and then used dredges to remove the sludge.\nNow, under new methods, unclean products are purified by chemical or\nbacteriological processes; the effluent is clean and innocuous, and\nthere is no need for dredging. A great deal of the social rescue work\nand philanthropy of past years has been a beginning at the wrong end.\nDrunkenness and an iron social system manufactured the criminal, the\nwastrel, the lunatic, and we dealt with the waste product. Now we are\ntrying to keep our rivers clean.\n\nA change of similar character, but even more rapid in its operation,\nis taking place in our thoughts of religion. It is coming about\nrather by the opening of the eyes than by any special process of\nreasoning or by any definite challenging of old methods. We are\nbecoming not a little wearied of the tyranny of organization. We\nare afflicted by \"drives\" of all sorts; by vast conceptions of \"the\nworld for Christ in this generation,\" while the streams of Christian\nthought are all the while running shallower and more shallow, with\nless and less power to drive anything. In the States, as in Canada,\nthere have been great campaigns for funds which also tried to be\ncampaigns for spiritual results. It has been discovered to be an\neasier thing to raise money than to quicken the spirit. Life remains\nas materialistic and as worldly as before, and the temperature is\ndropping as with the coming of an east wind on the Maine coast.\nTheologically in both countries we are still inclined to fight for\na former condition of things which, as a matter of fact, has ceased\nto have power. It is our burden, as it is our glory, to stand in\ndifficult days. We shall all the sooner come to grips with the real\nissue if we understand that it is our business to set forth the\nundying Christ as we know him, and not to resuscitate, if that were\npossible, the forms and phrases and intellectualisms of an age that\nis gone. Back to Christ is the necessity--not the Christ of the\nCreeds compounded with the technical terms of Greek philosophy or\nthe juristic outlook of Roman law, but the Christ of the Gospels.\nAny religious awakening which is going to move the common weal will\nbegin in a revival of personal religion. Public morals are what\npersonal religion makes them. The power-house is more vital than\nthe transmission-plant. Wherever one looks it is to find that great\npublic movements have had their origin in the hearts of consecrated\nmen and women. Religion does not suffer by changing its form; it will\nfounder if it be not ever related afresh to Jesus.\n\nIt may be taken for granted that an inquiring age like this will\nnever submit itself to an intellectual position which presents itself\nmerely on the ground of authority. The Reformation won the right to\nthink, and in this we shall not be less than our fathers. Whatever we\nbelieve must be in harmony with our reason and our experience. This\ndoes not mean that those who exercise this right to think are become\nrationalists. We know ourselves everywhere to be surrounded by the\nevidences of a divine purpose: for us the things which are not seen\nare eternal. We find in the history of to-day--in the history of\nthose past seven tangled and tragic years--clear manifestations of\nthe hand of God. But we believe that in the interpretation of Jesus\npersonal experience must always have a major part. Our faith must be\nsomething not merely personal to ourselves but of which we can give\nsome sort of account to others. Christ spoke no more incisive word\nthan this: \"Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it\nthee of me?\"\n\nThere can be no question as to the dire need there is of such\nan awakening by which men and women may once again be turned to\nspiritual things. War is, under all conditions, and even when waged\nfor the purest of motives, an unmitigated evil. The saddest things\nin war are not the deaths in action. Abnormal conditions, which bring\ntogether millions of men in a cause in which the sense of personal\nresponsibility is merged in the sacrifice for a general purpose,\nproduce abnormal results. The old moorings are lifted. The old\nrestraints, so largely the result of environment and of local opinion\nand knowledge, cease to operate. The sense of \"mine\" and \"thine\" is\nloosened. Continence ceases to be a primal virtue. The idle become\nyet more idle and the reckless yet more reckless. And if the results\nupon the men who have seen service have been thus evil, the effects\non the stay-at-home community have been even more evil because less\ngross. Money has been made in great quantity by those who have no\nsense of the stewardship of wealth, and has been displayed with\nan aggressiveness that only embitters the way of simple and modest\npeople. If the morals of men have deteriorated, women may well\nconsider whether their fashions of dress have not contributed largely\nto the general demoralization. There were periods when lewdness\nadvertised itself by its garb and indecency wore a uniform. It is\nnot possible now to draw any large generalizations. The pungent\ndefinition of the modern novel as the kind of book that no nice\ngirl would allow her mother to read may or may not be justified,\nbut a glance through the pages of the cheap American story magazine\nwill leave no one in uncertainty as to the kind of thing that is\napparently most marketable. Any one to-day who takes a grave view of\nmoral and religious conditions need not be afraid of being counted a\nmisanthrope. Public life will always reflect not inaccurately private\nconditions. If ever there was a time when those who name the name of\nChrist required to reflect the character of Christ it is now.\n\nSuppose, then, we come to Jesus and ask ourselves what were the\ncharacteristics of the life he lived and the faith he taught, should\nwe not set down some broad and simple issues which current religious\nlife might well be reminded of?\n\n1. _The Joy That He Brought._\n\nWhen our Lord came it was to a world which was shrouded with the idea\nof demons and vindictive spiritual powers. That dark time between\nthe close of the Old Testament period and the beginning of the New\nhad been a forcing ground for all such thoughts. The powers of evil\nwere serried ranks over against the power of God, and in the hands\nof those powers of evil Pilate and Herod were mere puppets. St. Paul,\nfor instance, speaks of the wisdom of God, and then he adds: \"Which\nnone of the princes of this world knew, for had they known it, they\nwould not have crucified the Lord of Glory\" (1 Cor. 2:8). \"It was\nnot of Pontius Pilate and of Herod that Paul was speaking, but of\nthings far more awful and far more powerful--thrones, dominions,\nprincipalities, and powers--as he calls them elsewhere the world\nrulers of this darkness, and at their head is the prince of the power\nof the air\" (Glover, _Jesus in Experience_, page 1).\n\nNot only on the side of the Jews was this terror of hidden and\nrevengeful and incalculable powers felt. The Greek-speaking world\nhad become permeated by Mithraism with its hierarchies of evil\npotentates, and as a result men lived in gloom and in a temper\nwhich made the propitiation of the unseen a main element in their\nreligion. This was swept away not so much by what Jesus said as by\nwhat he was, and the New Testament, as the result, is the most joyous\nof books. Our Lord revealed the Father; there was none between the\nFather and himself. He was the Door; not only were there no other\ndoors, but there was no necessity for other doors. He came to give\nlife and more abundant life. He linked himself deliberately with\nthose Old Testament Messianic passages which declared that there was\nliberty for those who were in bondage. He overstepped the inhibitions\nand prohibitions of ecclesiasticism. He took the Jewish law, and,\nreaching through the letter to the spirit, he tore off the accretions\nwhich had overlain the original purifying and liberating purpose. He\ndeclared the spiritual manhood of believers and invited those who\ncast in their lot with him to take up their great inheritance.\n\nIt is in the setting forth of Christ that the New Testament is\nself-evidencing. No theory as to its origin and descent is needed\nto guarantee its inspiration. The evidence of experience goes to\nshow that the New Testament has power within itself. It is the\nword of God because it effectively conveys the message of God. Its\nglow, its simplicity, is due to this, that it was written by men\nwho had just come through an overwhelming religious experience, an\nexperience differing in kind but related in each case to the same\nsupreme Source. In the case of a great work of art we are able to\ntrace an origin and an evolution. The development may be rapid but\nthere is demonstrable sequence between the Byzantine art and Giotto,\nbetween Giotto and the great Umbrians. In pure literature the master\ndoes not arise like some volcano from the midst of a plain. He has\nhis predecessors in form, and his rivals differ only in degree.\nBut in the case of a religious movement, the first burst is the\nmost powerful, the first vision the most clear. Every effect must\nhave an adequate cause. What Cause was it which made of these plain\ndisciples literary and religious figures of incomparable power and\ndignity? Who of mortals can have taught the writer of the Fourth\nGospel the interpretation that he has to hand on to us? The power\nof the written Gospel is due to the unique power that was at work\nin these men's hearts. After they were gone other Christian writers\narose, better equipped in scholarship, and men of true piety as well,\nbut they have left nothing that can be mentioned in the same breath\nwith those narratives of the life of Christ, with the torrent of the\nApostle Paul. Those who were nearest the source received most of the\nlight. No naturalistic explanation has ever done anything to solve\nthe riddle of those New Testament writings. An exercised Christian\nexperience carries the truth. Almost all of those to whom we owe the\nNew Testament died violent deaths, but their hearts were filled with\nsinging, and their tribulations were matters only of joy. Base the\ninspiration of the Scriptures on their universal and ever youthful\nexperience, and nothing can move the authority of the Gospels. Rest\nit on some theory of verbal inerrancy, and it is shaken by every\nnegative critic. The vital question with regard to the New Testament\nis whether it does or does not reveal Jesus as God in the flesh.\nIf it does this, then every other question as to the mere harmony\nof this account and that becomes almost irrelevant. We can admit\nand must admit the human element. God works through personalities,\nnot through colorless nonentities. Every experienced Christian is a\nseparate instrument, giving forth a separate tone. And men rejoice in\nthe New Testament because other men two thousand years ago rejoiced,\nand their gladness and release still sound true.\n\nThose who grasp this thought enter into the glorious liberty of the\nchildren of God. To-day all kinds of demons, even though they may not\ncall themselves such, are supposed to be holding the ground between\nthe truth-seeker and Jesus. It may be the general dread of life\nwhich always sees the possibilities of doom in to-morrow; it may be\nsome carrying over into the spiritual sphere of an analogy from the\nphysical law of causation; it may be some visualizing of the past,\nwhich makes reparation appear to be a prerequisite of any approach\nto a new life. Alas, reparation is no longer possible for most of\nthe moral and spiritual failures, and in any case the kind of man\nwe have become is a much more important matter than the mistakes\nwhich may come back to us on the selective wings of memory. And then\nthere are other fears which deal not so much with spiritual things\nas with material and personal conditions. Not a few are haunted by\ntheir own suspicious natures. No man is to them wholly spontaneous\nor open-handed. The motive behind the generous or the brotherly thing\nmust be sought, and that motive is invariably found to be something\nmean or selfish. How can there be any joy in the heart when there\nis this suspicion of one's fellow? And others are dogged by their\nanxieties about their own ill health. One's memories of the Riviera\nare sufficient to induce one to view Christian Science with a kindly\neye. Those who have had the easiest of lives and endless leisure\nin which to indulge their whims cannot use the gifts they have by\nreason of the overstrain they would incur! As if life were worth\nhaving on the terms of a constant hypochondria. And others again\nare haunted by their fear for their own reputation. They have to\ndress in a certain way, walk with a certain gait, live in a certain\ntype of house, spend money at a certain rate, choose their friends\namong those who will be useful to them, speak the safe and colorless\ntheory when epigram is on their tongue and provocativeness in their\nheart--all because they have to maintain a reputation. Yet, _He_\nmade himself of no reputation, and because He sought only to live in\ndependence on his Father He had no fear, no divided mind, no anxiety,\nonly joy and peace in believing.\n\nIs not the recovery of that joy something that the Christian Church\nand the Christians within the church are crying out for. It is so\nevidently one of the first-fruits of fellowship with Christ, and how\nreally rare a gift it is! St. Francis had it because, like the birds\nhe loved, he leaned only upon God. Some men in war, having given\nthemselves wholly to a cause that they believed to be of God, learned\nthe quiet of having the world behind them. We who are burdened about\nso many things, so anxious to assume the right attitude, to maintain\nthe conventional opinion, to insure against every conceivable\nmisfortune of worldly estate, how can we know the joy of living free,\nthe release of casting the burden upon the great Burden-bearer? The\nstoic taught the Roman to endure by denying the presence of pain.\nHis strength was in his passive receptivity. But Christ Himself felt\npain, dreaded pain, was distressed by pain in the house of His\nfriends; and, moved thus by the sombre and unkind things in life,\nHe yet had an undisturbed peace. If the church is to regain its hold\nupon men, it must be composed of joyous Christians. Only then will\nthere be removed those misapprehensions which have made for such\nmultitudes the thought of religion the thought of gloom. Only thus\nshall we be conquerors through Christ who loved us.\n\n2. _The Faith Which He Possessed._\n\nAlthough it is two years since its publication, Mr. Lytton Strachey's\n_Eminent Victorians_ still leaves a bad taste in the mouth.\nMr. Strachey made it his business to destroy the halo around some\nwell-known and long-venerated heads. He spoke what he believed to\nbe the truth, not always in love, about Thomas Arnold and Florence\nNightingale and General Gordon and others. He suggested that Gordon\nhad been intemperate, and that some of his daring had been due to\nthis fact. To read the insinuation was to remember the day, nearly\nforty years ago, when Gordon, at a few hours' notice, stepped out\nof London and took his road for Khartoum and death and an immortal\nname. The magic of the story is felt beyond the bounds of the British\nEmpire. A real hero is the possession of all mankind, and the thought\nof this one solitary and God-possessed soldier setting out alone\nby sheer personality to quench the rebellion that had spread over\nhalf a continent will always make the blood of the lethargic and\nthe stay-at-home run a little faster. But that temper, if we could\nonly grasp it, is essentially the temper of religion, and it means\nthe possession of peace. The materialism of our day has overshot all\nour conceptions of peace, and we identify peace with comfort and a\nsubstantial bank balance and a fortification against the vicissitudes\nof chance. No wonder that the venture and the happiness have gone out\nof faith, which is the trust in the centuries as against the years,\nin the unseen instead of in the seen. There is little to be gained\nby society congratulating itself in its victory over alcohol if all\nthe time it judges all success by outward and obvious standards. As\nthings are, it is regarded almost as a crime not to have made money,\nand the doom of the \"unsuccessful\" is not pity but reprobation. How\nis it that, in a universe in which we believe that the fundamental\nfactors are spiritual, such a conception should have come to rule!\nSimply because we have forgotten the rock from which we have been\nhewn, and have made a God after our own image. \"He granted their\nrequest but sent leanness into their souls\" (Ps. 106:15). We have\nhad our reward. Is it any wonder that church life is stagnant? Why\nshould it be otherwise if such conceptions virtually rule? Faith\nis become a comfortable dogma instead of a living conviction. The\npopular conception of faith implies no sacrifice. The faithful do not\nlive in any way which marks them off from the faithless. Generally\nspeaking, they pursue the same interests, follow out the same policy\nof insuring against most of the inevitable risks of life. Godly and\nungodly alike, they meet the demand of charity, and are not wholly\nunmindful of their duty to their neighbors. But that the Christian\nChurch should be composed of people who truly are casting their\nburden upon the Lord is an unknown conception. Nor can they ever\nthink of themselves launching off like Gordon on a quest that was\ninspired simply by belief in a command of God, as the realization\nof a need, by faith in an ideal.\n\nIf the church of to-day is uninteresting and without appeal to\nyouth, the reason may very well be found in the lack of any thought\nof a living faith. Our Lord depended absolutely upon the Father.\nThe Father's will was his will, and as the result quiet dwelt with\nChrist. But his was no prudential service. Peace had its willing\nprice. \"Peace be unto you ... and when he had thus spoken he showed\nthem his hands and his side\" (John 20:19, 20).\n\nPublic life will rise no higher than its source in personal religion.\nA quick sense of the brotherhood of man led to the antislavery\nmovement. The removal of the merely penal idea in punishment has\nled to the new treatment of criminals. Every religious revival may\nbe traced by changes in public administration. A new grasp of the\nmeaning of faith, as the leading by God out into the wilderness,\nwill draw out of their pessimism and social ineptitude men and women\nwho loathe the publicity and mud-slinging of public life and have\nhitherto stood apart from it. If, however, they come to it out of\nan awakened conscience, they will step forth, not as unwilling\nrecruits, obeying the uninspiring call of mere duty, but as crusaders\nto strive for the kingdom of God upon earth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe great aim of this and of every day is definite and in itself\nsimple--to make spiritual things real. Each man has to understand\nhis dependence upon a world which he cannot control, which was before\nhe was and will endure when he has gone, a world in which right\nrules inevitably and finally, where the secrets of all hearts are\nknown. And then, having recognized with all its implications his\nplace in this kingdom of the spirit, he has to play his part through\nthe institutions of civilized life, the church, the state, the\nmunicipality, in making this unseen life an actuality in the region\nof things mundane. But first things come first. The social interest\ndoes not create the clean heart. The power of Christ alone can do\nthat. The Salvation Army is a mighty factor in moral uplift but it\nhad its origin in Methodism and in the Christian experiences of a\ngodly man and of a still more God-inspired woman. Those churches are\nnot wrong or out of date which lay stress on the relationship of the\nbeliever to his Lord. That, after all, is the fundamental thing, the\nsource out of which all wider and more impersonal movements flow.\nEvangelical faith is not outgrown. It never can be outgrown. It\nneeds, it is true, constant restatement. The living phrases of one\ngeneration become almost certainly the catchwords of the next. It\nis not only the right but the duty of each generation of exercised\nChristians to state its belief in its own way; and those who are\nolder must have faith in those who are young and allow them to tell\ntheir story in their own words. It was a great friendship which\nexisted between D. L. Moody and Henry Drummond. The older man was\nself-educated, brought up to a religious belief that was under attack\nby scholars and scientists. The younger man was both a scholar and a\nscientist, a setter forth of new views of things. But it was Drummond\nwho was chosen by Moody to follow up his work, to gather together the\nresults of the missions. For Moody, \"the greatest of living humans,\"\nas Drummond called him, saw that they were both striving for the same\nthing, actually saying it in different words. They both have had\ntheir reward in the affection of countless men and women who think\nof them as messengers of the new life. But an awakened soul is the\nbeginning of things. He who has been truly aroused to the life of God\nwill not be slack in the life of man.\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION AND SOCIAL DISCONTENT\n\nBY\n\nPAUL ELMER MORE, LITT.D., LL.D.\n\nA couple of years ago one of the most distinguished of our social\nphilosophers, Professor John Dewey, of Columbia University, was\ninvited to lecture at the Imperial University of Japan, and, having\ndelivered his message in Tokyo, proceeded to China, where he was\nwelcomed eagerly by the younger malcontents as an exponent of Western\nideas. The character of these ideas which our collegiate missioner\ncarried across the Pacific Ocean may be learned from the little\nbook since published by him under the title of _Reconstruction\nin Philosophy_. His thesis, indeed, is simple almost to na\u00efvet\u00e9.\nHitherto, he avers, philosophy and religion have been nothing but\nan attempt to \"identify truth with authoritative dogma.\" And this\nattempt has a double aspect, theoretical and practical. On the one\nhand, mankind is prone to forget the evils of yesterday and to gloat\nin memory over the good, so that by the combined force of memory and\nimagination the past remains with us as a kind of idealized dream,\na lovely, impalpable curtain hanging between our vision and the hard\nrealities of the present. From such an iridescent dream has grown the\nphilosophical and religious belief in an immaterial world of ideas,\na glamorous make-believe under whose sway \"we squirm,\" as Mr. Dewey\nsays in his pragmatic style, \"dodge, evade, disguise, cover up, find\nexcuses and palliations--anything to render the mental scene less\nuncongenial,\" and so to escape the actualities that confront us.\nBuddha, Plato, Jesus, and the other great masters and doctors of the\nlife unseen were merely juggling with words and leading us nowhere;\nthe discipline of character proposed by them and their offers of\nsupernatural peace were a fraudulent perversion of the facts of human\nexperience. The only true knowledge is that which comes to the farmer\ntoiling at his crops, and to the carpenter laboring with his tools;\nthe real facts of life are those that we can see and smell and taste\nand handle, and, so far as I can understand Mr. Dewey, such things\nalone.\n\nThat is the theoretical aspect of the reconstruction of philosophy\nproposed by our tender-hearted materialist; and the practical aspect\nis like unto it. Existing forms of government, established order,\nproperty, the church, institutions generally, draw their support\nfrom the idealizing illusions of memory and imagination; they are in\ntruth the dead hand of the past clutching the throat of the living\npresent. Throughout all the ages preceding the advent of Mr. Dewey,\nor by a gracious inclusion anterior to Francis Bacon, it has been\nthe task of philosophers and religious leaders to find reasons for\nthe existence of such institutions on ideal grounds, and to justify\nthose who profit from them at the expense of the masses. Religion\nand philosophy have been simply the servile allies of the predatory\nclasses of society. The hope of the world is in the new gospel of\npragmatic materialism.\n\nI trust I have not misrepresented Mr. Dewey's teaching. Indeed, with\nan individual teacher I should have no quarrel, were he not in a\nposition of authority; but it is another matter when such doctrines\nare spreading out from a lecture-room all over the country, and, as I\nhear from Chinese friends, are persuading the young reformers of the\nFar East that the only salvation for their people lies in adopting\nthe crudest materialism of Western civilization, and in emancipating\nthemselves from all that philosophy and religion hitherto have meant\nto the Occident as well as to the Orient. At least here is a matter\nto consider.\n\nNow in one sense Mr. Dewey's theory of religion--I use this word\npreferably, since the classical forms of philosophy which he would\nreconstruct belonged essentially to the field of religion--in one\nsense this theory is so far from being revolutionary that it has\nbeen current almost from the inception of human thought. Plato knew\nthat the religious temper was naturally reverential of the past\nand conservative in its influence. It was, indeed, for this reason\nthat he gave to religion and to a philosophy of the unseen world so\nthorough a control over the polity of his state. Polybius, the Greek\nhistorian of Rome, not only recognized this function of religion,\nbut went so far as to maintain that even the palpable fictions\nof superstition should be upheld as a safeguard against political\nanarchy. \"Since the multitude,\" he argues, \"is ever fickle and\ncapricious, full of lawless passions, and irrational and violent\nresentments, there is no way left to keep them in order but the\nterrors of future punishment, and all the pompous circumstance\nthat attends such kinds of fictions. On which account the ancients\nacted, in my opinion, with great judgment and penetration, when they\ncontrived to bring in these notions of the gods and of a future state\ninto the popular belief.\" And on this basis Polybius goes on to show\nhow the power and permanence of Rome were connected with a national\nmorality grounded in irrational beliefs, whereas the inquisitive\nrationalism of Greece was the cause of her ethical and political\ndecline. Livy's annals of Rome are inspired throughout by the same\nidea, though without the tincture of scepticism that pervades the\nphilosophy of the Greek historian. The city on the Tiber, Livy\nthought, grew mighty and conquered the world because of her faith in\nthe gods and in that mystical Fatum which presided over her destiny,\nand kept her, through all the formal changes of her government, true\nto her original _\u00eathos_. \"You will find,\" he writes, \"all things\nhave prospered for those who follow the gods, while adversity dogs\nthose who spurn them--_invenietis omnia prospera evenisse sequentibus\ndeos, adversa spernentibus_.\" So, for Tacitus, religion was, as\nhe expresses it in his epigrammatic way, _instrumentum regni_.\nChristianity, though it altered much, maintained this same view.\nThe greatest preacher of the ancient church, Chrysostom, was fond of\npointing to the connection of religious humility, mother of all the\nvirtues, with the principle of orderly subordination, on which, as\non the golden chain of divine law, depended the stability of society\nand the happiness of the people.\n\nBut I must not fatigue you with examples. Passing on to the\neighteenth century, one finds the politico-religious thought of\nEngland and France dominated by the Polybian notion that religion\nwas imposed more or less deliberately on the people by their masters\nas an instrument of government, only with this important difference,\nthat in England the imposition was commonly regarded even by the\nmore radical deists and freethinkers as a salutary and necessary\nfraud, whereas across the channel a more logical and less prudential\nhabit of speech led the bolder spirits at least to spurn the whole\nfabric of traditional religion as an impediment to liberty and\nprogress. It was characteristic of the British mind, then as it has\nalways been, to stop short of final conclusions and to be tolerant\nof a certain penumbra of illusion about the ultimate principles of\nlife, a trait which has resulted on the one hand in the national\nwillingness \"to muddle through,\" and, on the other hand, in a deeper\nsense of spiritual mysteries. Bolingbroke, atheist or deist, as\nyou choose to call him, would take the position frankly that the\ntruths of scepticism are for the enlightened few who, as Aristotle\nsaid, have learned from philosophy to do voluntarily what other men\ndo under compulsion. Religion, to Bolingbroke and his class, was\nsimply an integral part of that marvellous fiction, the British\nConstitution. \"To make a government effectual to all the good\npurposes of it,\" he says, \"there must be a religion; this religion\nmust be national, and this national religion must be maintained in\nreputation and reverence.\" And a little later in the century one of\nthe correspondents of that admirable and very British gentleman,\nSir William Pepys, condemns Gibbon for divulging to the public the\nsort of scepticism which he might have enjoyed lawfully in his\ncloset. \"I agree,\" avows our correspondent, \"that no man should 'take\nthe bridle out of the mouth of that wild Beast Man' (as Bolingbroke\nwrites to Swift).... Tho' a man may be allowed to keep poisons in his\ncloset, he shall not be permitted to vend them as cordials.\" (Which,\nso far as I know, is the first attempt recorded in history to evade,\nprophetically, the Eighteenth Amendment of our own Constitution.)\nNothing is more characteristic of the ruling temper of England than\nthe fact that this same Gibbon, he who had expended his wit and his\nvast erudition in \"sapping a solemn creed with solemn sneer,\" in\nhis old age should have confessed admiration for Burke's chivalry,\neven for his \"superstition,\" and should have planned a dialogue of\nthe dead, wherein Lucian and Erasmus and Voltaire were to be heard\ndiscussing the danger of shaking the ancient faith of the people in\nreligious institutions.\n\nBut the French mind could not rest in this severance of logic and\npractice. To their more incisive and less humble way of thinking,\ntrue was true and false was false, and to confound the boundaries\nof truth and falsehood was only to pay homage to canting hypocrisy.\nThere was no distinction for them between an illusion and a plain\nlie, nor would they rest satisfied with a suppression of truth as\nknown to individual reason, in order to leave room for a practical\nfaith as taught by public experience. So it happened that the\n_philosophes_ as a body were not theoretical sceptics merely but\nmilitant atheists. If, as La Mettrie believed, \"the soul is an\nempty word of which no one has any idea,\" if men are no more than\nblind \"moles creeping in the field of nature,\" then, o' God's name,\nout with the truth of it; society can only profit from universal\nknowledge of the facts. In like manner a Holbach will take up the\nold theory of Polybius, but without the Polybian and the British\n\"reserve.\" \"Experience,\" he says, \"teaches us that sacred opinions\nwere the real source of the evils of human beings. Ignorance of\nnatural causes created gods for them. Imposture made these gods\nterrible. This idea hindered the progress of reason.\" And again:\n\"An atheist ... is a man who destroys chimeras harmful to the human\nrace, in order to lead men back to nature, to experience, and to\nreason, which has no need of recourse to ideal powers to explain\nthe operations of nature.\"\n\nAnd the French view has prevailed, or threatens to prevail, as\ncourageous views inevitably tend to supplant timid views, however\ntrue it may be that courage in such matters may sometimes be another\nname for insensibility, not to say conceit. So Leslie Stephen,\nwriting of the eighteenth century in England, with a sneer that\ncontrives to combine the French boldness with the British reserve,\ndeclares that \"the church, in short, was excellent as a national\nrefrigerating machine; but no cultivated person could believe in\nits doctrines.\" And at last Mr. Dewey, perhaps the most influential\nteacher to-day in America, is renewing the old cry and persuading\nour young men that religion is a fallacy of the reason devised\nto maintain the more fortunate classes in their iniquitous claims,\nand that progress and democracy are bound up with the materialistic\npragmatism that emanates from his own chair of reconstructed\nphilosophy.\n\nNow, it will be clear from these illustrations, which might be\nmultiplied indefinitely, that the classic philosophy, the philosophy\nof idealism properly so called, which underlies all religion, whether\nPlatonic or Christian, has been regarded by most thinking men from\nancient times to the present day as a conservative, or at least\nas a regulative, force in society. But thinking men have differed\nprofoundly in their valuation of such a force. Those who hold this\nphilosophy to be true are naturally undivided in their opinion\nthat its social function is beneficial; but those sceptically and\nmaterialistically inclined, to whom the spiritual world of Plato\nand St. Augustine is merely an insubstantial fabric wrought out of\nthe discontent of mankind with the actualities of life, have been\ndivided in their attitude. By some this dream of the unseen, though\na deception, has been accepted as necessary for the ordered welfare\nof society; the enlightened few might indulge their superiority of\ndoubt, but without the restraining content born of superstition the\nturbulent desires of the masses would throw the world into anarchy\nand barbarism and universal misery. That was the prevalent attitude\nof ancient rationalism; and it is still common enough to-day among\nthose who have a condescending respect for the church as a useful\nally of the police court. To others, a rapidly growing number, it\nseems that the spirit of content engendered by religion, if based\non a falsehood, must be detrimental to the progress of mankind.\nOr perhaps their position might be expressed more accurately by\nreversing the terms. They would not say that religious content is\nfalse and therefore must be detrimental; but, rather, religious\ncontent is inimical to progress and therefore must be false.\n\nI am not here before you to-day to determine the truth or falsehood\nof the ideal philosophy which supports religious institutions;\nthat is a question which for the present we may waive. We will not\ndiscriminate between those who hold this philosophy to be true and\nthose who regard it as an illusion, but an illusion necessary for\nthe preservation of society. The line for us is drawn between those\nwho, for whatever reason, cling to a religious philosophy of the\nunseen and those who denounce such a philosophy as a check to the\nprogress and prosperity of the race. And you will see at once that\nthe issue between these two classes has been sharpened for us of\nthe present day by the intrusion into sociology of a new theory of\nexistence--new at least in its scope and claims. I mean the great\nand all-devouring doctrine of evolution.\n\nNow the evolutionary philosophy, by which we have become accustomed,\nrather prematurely perhaps, to test all problems of truth and\nutility, has many aspects and follows various lines of argument. What\nit means to the working scientist is one thing, and what it means to\nthe metaphysician may be quite another thing; but when it intrudes\ninto the field of sociology, and more specifically when it lays its\ngrasping hand upon that part of sociology which attempts to weigh\nthe value of religious belief, you will find it almost inevitably\ntaking the note so clearly defined in pages of Mr. Dewey's typical\nbook. Evolution is identified with progress, progress is measured\nby increased power to satisfy physical wants, and the effort to\nincrease this power is conditioned on dissatisfaction with material\nconditions. Oh, I know that many evolutionary sociologists will demur\nagainst the reduction of their theories to a crudely materialistic\nformula; but many of them will not, and I am sure the formula\ndoes not misrepresent the real conclusions of their doctrine. It\ncomes down to this: Physical progress has its source in physical\ndiscontent, and, by an extension of terms, social progress has its\nsource in social discontent; and any doctrine which dulls the edge\nof this discontent is thereby an obstacle in the path of individual\nand racial welfare. Discontent is motion and the striving for better\nthings, it is life; content is just stagnation and death. And here\nlies the charge against religion. By drawing off the mind to the\ncontemplation of those so-called eternal things that are not visible\nto the bodily eyes or palpable to these fleshly hands, by injecting\nspiritual values into this present life and raising hopes of\nother-worldly happiness, religion, together with the whole range of\nillusory philosophy on which it is nurtured, throws the feelings of\nphysical discomfort out of the centre into the further margin of the\nfield of vision, into the penumbra, so to speak, of insignificance,\nwhile it imposes a stillness of content upon the naturally restless\nsoul of man. In such a mood the past, out of which the oracles of\nfaith seem to sound by some miracle of memory, acquires a tender\nsanctity, and the institutions of tradition are often invested with\na reverence and awe which easily flow into vested rights. If the\nreligious mood were really to prevail, they say, then society would\nsink into the slothful decay described by old Mandeville in his\n\"Fable of the Bees,\" that terrible poem which the modern humanitarian\nwould abhor as a black parody of his doctrine, but which in good\nsooth told the facts of a materialistic sociology once for all:\n\n        All Arts and Crafts neglected lie;\n        Content, the Bane of Industry,\n        Makes 'em admire their homely Store,\n        And neither seek nor covet more.\n\nWhat shall be said of these contrasted views? I think first of all\nwe must say that the issue is confused by an ambiguity lurking in\nthe terms employed. And this is no new thing. It is, in fact, one of\nthe curiosities of our human warfare that the most bitter disputes\non the most fundamental questions often go round about in a circle\nbecause the two parties to the dispute do not see that the same word\nmay be used in different senses. So it is certainly of content and\ndiscontent; and a man's attitude may very well be determined by his\nunderstanding or misunderstanding of the double meaning of these\nwords. Cardinal Newman, perhaps the keenest psychological analyst\nof the past century, has insisted on this distinction in one of his\nsermons:\n\n    To be out of conceit with our lot in life is no high\n    feeling--it is discontent or ambition; but to be out of\n    conceit with the ordinary way of _viewing_ our lot, with\n    the ordinary thoughts and feelings of mankind is nothing\n    but to be a Christian. This is the difference between\n    worldly ambition and heavenly. It is a heavenly ambition\n    which prompts us to soar above the vulgar and ordinary\n    _motives_ and _tastes_ of the world, the while we abide _in_\n    our calling; like our Saviour who, though the Son of God and\n    partaking of His Father's fulness, yet all His youth long\n    was obedient to His earthly parents, and learned a humble\n    trade. But it is a sordid, narrow, miserable ambition to\n    attempt to _leave_ our earthly lot; to be wearied or ashamed\n    of what we are, to hanker after greatness of station, or\n    novelty of life. However, the multitude of men go neither\n    in the one way nor the other; they neither have the high\n    ambition nor the low ambition.\n\nIf that sounds oversubtle, or if the preacher's assumptions seem\nto beg the question, let us drop the pulpit jargon and look at\nthe distinction as it works out practically in the lives of two\nhighly useful members of society, the plumber and the college\npresident. Suppose a plumber is called into your house on a raw day\nof January to tinker up a disordered pipe in the cellar. Probably\nthat plumber is discontented; indeed, I cannot imagine how a plumber\ncan be anything but discontented. Nevertheless, his discontent may\nbe either one of two very different sorts. He may be grumbling to\nhimself because he has to work at a cold and dirty job, while you\nare enjoying your newspaper up-stairs over a warm and cosey fire.\nIn that case his discontent may take itself out in slighting his\ntask and wasting your time and lengthening his bill. These things\nare said to happen. And he may even carry his discontent into a view\nof the organization of society which expresses itself in very hardy\npolitics. But suppose now that his discontent takes another form.\nImagine him content with his lot as a plumber, even proud of it, but\ndissatisfied with the common reproach of slackness and extortion,\nambitious to excel in his profession. I do not cite such a plumber\nas a probability; but all things are possible in a Bross lecture. At\nany rate, such a paragon would be worthy of succeeding to that famous\nchair of the Harvard faculty once occupied by a gentleman whom the\ntrustees hired as the Plumber professor of Christianity, but whom\nthe undergraduates irreverently dubbed the Christian professor of\nplumbing.\n\nAnd so the other end of the scale, the college president. He too\nis said sometimes to be discontented; and again his discontent may\nassume either one of two forms. He may be ambitious of size and\n_r\u00e9clame_ for his institution, and may measure his dignity by the\nnumber of students over whom he presides. His alumni are likely\nto encourage him in this, and I have myself known the head of an\nancient university in the East who used to scan the catalogues of\nthe great Western institutions year by year with bitter jealousy and\nheart-burning as their register of students gradually approached his\nown, and then shot beyond it. Inevitably such discontent leads to a\nlowering of standards, mitigated by the pious belief that that form\nof education is noblest which is desired by, and accessible to, the\nlargest number of paying candidates. Thus a debasement of education\nbecomes identified in his mind with social service. But one can\nimagine another kind of discontent, which should pursue just the\nopposite course. Its standard would be qualitative, not quantitative,\nand it would fear the temptation of size, not the murmurs of\nambitious alumni. It would look for its reward not in a swelling\nregistration or spreading houses or additional courses of study,\nbut to its success in attracting the better minds and the stronger\ncharacters and in directing these in the narrow and tried paths. It\nmight even go so far--though this is confessedly a fairy-tale--as\nto lay a rough, restraining hand on that most corrupting nurse of\nmaterialism in our schools, professional athletics.\n\nHowever it may be with the plumber and the college president, clearly\nthese words, content and discontent, are replete with ambiguity;\nthey are consequences rather than motives of conduct, and we cannot\nsafely argue upon them until we lave looked more closely into the\nsprings of action which control respectively the religious and the\nnatural life. And here I must beg you to indulge me in a bit of\npedantry. Our English speech, with all its practical efficiency, has\nnever developed a very precise ethical terminology, and so to get at\nthe distinction I have in mind I am going to ask you to consider two\nrather outlandish-sounding Greek words which were much in use among\nthe early moralists of our era. One of them is _tapeinophrosyn\u00ea_, the\nother is _pleonexia_.\n\n_Tapeinophrosyn\u00ea_ is a compound word, meaning primarily lowness of\nmind; it embraces the idea of humility and meekness, but neither\nof these conveys its full significance. St. Paul uses it in the\nEpistle to the Ephesians, where it is translated specifically\n\"lowliness,\" but its force really runs through the whole passage:\n\"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk\nworthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness\n(_tapeinophrosyn\u00ea_) and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one\nanother in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the\nbond of peace.\" Paul had in mind the saying of Christ recorded in\nthe Gospel of Matthew, where an equivalent phrase is rendered \"lowly\nin heart\": \"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden,\nand I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me;\nfor I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your\nsouls.\" And the first of the Beatitudes contains the same idea in\nslightly different language: \"Blessed are the poor in spirit (_i.e._,\nthe lowly in heart), for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.\" This,\nthen, is the virtue, or, rather, as Chrysostom calls it, the mother\nof the virtues, which was upheld by the fathers, without exception\none might almost say, as the basis of Christian character and the\nmotive of religious living--_tapeinophrosyn\u00ea_. And the result of\nsuch a virtue, as it works itself out through character into content\nand discontent, is readily seen. It lays the axe at the very root\nof that restlessness, that uneasy ambition, that natural instinct\nof jealousy, that covetousness forbidden in the Tenth Commandment.\nIt goes even further than that. You may have observed that the\nblessing bestowed in Matthew on the \"poor in spirit,\" in Luke is\ndirected simply to the \"poor,\" or \"beggars,\" as the word might be\ntranslated. Now Luke, it is fair to say, introduced a disturbing\nelement into religion by his habit of giving this materialistic\nturn to spiritual graces. But it remains true, nevertheless, that\nthis glorification--the word is scarcely too strong--of poverty, or\nat least of the freedom from material possessions, as in itself a\nstate of blessedness, is a note not only of all the Gospels but of\nmost of the other great religious books that have moved the world.\nAlways Chrysostom, to refer again to the model Christian preacher,\nconnects humility with the twin virtue of charity. And charity, as\nhe commends it, is not so much an act of giving out of sympathy for\nthe sufferings of the needy and downtrodden--though this feeling\nis not absent--as it is a voluntary act of surrendering our worldly\npossessions in the belief that in themselves they may be a snare to\nthe spirit. For Chrysostom, in a very literal sense of the word,\nit was more blessed to give than to receive. If religion suffered\ndiscontent to abide in the heart of a man, it would not be because\nhe owned too few of this world's goods, or felt humiliated by his\nrelative rank in society, but because the world was too much with\nhim. For true content he should look to treasures laid up elsewhere\nand to riches that the eye of the flesh could not count.\n\nSo much for the religious motive of humility. _Pleonexia_, the\ndriving force of the natural man, might be defined as its exact\nopposite. Etymologically, as an ethical term, _pleonexia_ means\nsimply the reaching out to grasp ever more and more, whether this\nimpulse show itself in the grosser appetite for possessions, or\nin the ambition to overtop others in rank and honors, or in that\nuniversal craving which Hobbes regarded as the state of nature:\n\"A general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless\ndesire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.\" To call\nthis the natural state of man might seem to involve a libel against\nboth nature and man, but by natural, as you see, is meant only the\ncondition of mankind if all those restraints were excluded which we\nhave defined as religious. And such a liberty has never lacked its\nadvocates as being not only the natural but the rational, even the\nideal rule of conduct. It would be easy to prove this by abundant\ncitations from modern writers; indeed, the name of Nietzsche leaps\nto one's lips; but as I have already trespassed on your patience by\nthe introduction of Greek terms into my definitions, I will presume\nfurther by going for my illustrations to the people who coined the\nexpression. In one of the dialogues of Plato, then, you may hear a\nrespectable citizen of Athens rebuking Socrates for his fantastic\nnotions of conduct, and arguing for what was really the popular code\nof morality:\n\n    The makers of laws are the many weak; and they make laws and\n    distribute praises and censures with a view to themselves\n    and to their own interests; and they terrify the mightier\n    sort of men, and those who are able to get the better of\n    them, in order that they may not get the better of them; and\n    they say that dishonesty is shameful and unjust; meaning,\n    when they speak of injustice, the desire to have more\n    (_pleon echein_) than their neighbors, for knowing their own\n    inferiority they are only too glad of equality.... I plainly\n    assert that he who would truly live ought to allow his\n    desires to wax to the uttermost, and not to chastise them;\n    but when they have grown to their greatest he should have\n    courage and intelligence to minister to them and to satisfy\n    all his longings. And this I affirm to be natural justice\n    and nobility. But the many cannot do so; and, therefore,\n    they blame such persons, because they are ashamed of their\n    own inability, which they desire to conceal, and hence they\n    say that intemperance is base.\n\nThis is manifestly the Hobbian view of the natural state of man,\nthought out long before Hobbes, not to mention the naturalists\nof our own day. And it was not theory only, but practice. Turn\nto Thucydides's _History of the Peloponnesian War_, which Hobbes\ntranslated, and from which, though this is not generally known,\nHobbes borrowed the principles that stirred up the seventeenth\ncentury as Nietzsche troubled the nineteenth. Read there the famous\ndebate between the envoys of Athens and the magistrates of Melos.\nThe Athenians are advising the Melians, whose racial affinity was\nwith Sparta, to submit their city to the empire of Athens; and to the\nMelians' argument from justice they reply with cold-blooded candor:\n\n    \"We tell you this, that we are here now both to enlarge our\n    own dominions and also to confer about the saving of your\n    city....\" \"But will you not accept?\" plead the Melians,\n    \"that we remain quiet, and be your friends (whereas before\n    we were your enemies), and take part with neither.\" \"No,\"\n    reply the Athenians, \"for your enmity doth not so much hurt\n    us as your friendship would be an argument of our weakness,\n    and your hatred of our power, amongst those whom we bear\n    rule over.... As for the favor of the gods, we expect\n    to have it as well as you; for we neither do nor require\n    anything contrary to what mankind hath decreed either\n    concerning the worship of the gods or concerning themselves.\n    For of the gods we think according to the common opinion;\n    and of men that for certain, by necessity of nature, they\n    will everywhere reign over such as they be too strong for.\n    Neither did we make this law, nor are we the first that use\n    it made, but as we found it, and shall leave it to posterity\n    forever, so also we use it.\"\n\nSuch was the philosophy of the natural man in ancient Greece, and\nsuch is the philosophy of the natural man to-day, however it may be\ndisguised and glossed over; it is based on the instinctive motive\nof _pleonexia_, the \"perpetual and restless desire of power after\npower, that ceaseth only in death.\" I need not dwell on the kind\nof discontent it begets in the soul, a discontent intrinsically\nand totally opposite to that which accompanies the purely religious\nmotive.\n\nBut you will say that these principles of conduct and the feelings\nthat go with them are mere abstractions, fictions of the analytical\nreason; no man is, or can be, purely religious as I have defined the\nterm, or purely naturalistic. And that is true, is in fact the point\nat which I am aiming. On the one hand, no man can utterly uproot the\nnatural impulses out of his soul; and if a few men in a generation\napproach anywhere near it, the saints and martyrs and lonely sages,\nthey are by their virtues cut off from the common life of mankind.\nWere all men, or even a considerable proportion of men, at any\ntime to overcome the natural discontent that drives us on to seek\ngreater possessions and higher honors and more power, then, surely,\nall ambition and invention would die, the wheels of progress would\nslacken and stop, civilization would fail, and society would sink\nback into barbarism, so far at least as we measure civilization and\nbarbarism by physical standards. Such would be the issue of \"content,\nthe bane of industry.\"\n\nOn the other hand, it will be said, and by none more loudly than by\nthe champions of sentimental naturalism who belong to Mr. Dewey's\nschool, that the picture of the man controlled by the \"perpetual and\nrestless desire of power,\" and by that alone, is a pure caricature\nof human nature. Even a Napoleon, they will say, who might stand for\nthe model of such a monstrosity, yet had thought for the glory of\nhis land, and was a great reformer of laws and institutions. So, too,\nthe Athenian envoys in Thucydides, cynical as were their confessions\nof the desire of power to rule their own people and all peoples,\nnevertheless were compelled to mix some honey in their gall, and\ntried to persuade the Melians that the hegemony of Athens would be\nprudently exercised and would promote the well-being of her subject\nstates.\n\nSuch an objection we readily grant. It is perfectly true that the\ncreature in whom the instinct of greed and the lust of power should\nreign without modification or mitigation would be no man at all, but\na ravening beast of prey. Both the religious man and the natural\nman, as I have portrayed them, are avowedly abstractions, at least\nto the extent that no society could exist if composed of either type\nin its purity. They are abstractions, but they are made such by\nabstracting one of the two contrasted impulses that do reign together\nin virtually every human breast, and by showing what would result\nif one of these impulses were so allowed an unhampered sway over a\nman's conduct. And now and then, in some rare individual, the one or\nthe other of these types has been realized almost in its purity, the\nreligious type in a St. Francis of Assisi, with his ideals of poverty\nand chastity and obedience, the natural type, if not in a Napoleon\nor an Alexander, yet in certain notorious criminals who have raged\nthrough life with the ferocity of a starving wolf.\n\nThe truth we must recognize is that both these motives exist in the\nhuman heart, and that the conduct of man, not as the saint would see\nhim in the cloister nor as the evolutionist would see him in the\njungle, but as we see him in the market-place and the theatre and\nthe courts and the home--that the conduct of man is a resultant from\nthese two contrary impulsions.\n\nNow, it is fair to say that religion has always recognized the\nlegitimacy of another standard of life besides the one peculiarly\nits own. It has seen clearly that the ideal of poverty and chastity\nand obedience, which would uproot altogether the natural instincts,\nis possible for very few men, and that the attempt to enforce such\na standard absolutely on society at large would result in a world\nof hypocrisies, if it did not actually run counter to the command\nof the Creator. So the Christian Church, even in its most ascetic\ndays, admitted that property and marriage and prestige were the\nnormal condition of life; and Buddhism drew up two distinct tables\nof law, one for the religious state pure and simple, the other\nfor the mass of mankind who are engaged in practical affairs. But\nboth Christianity and Buddhism held that the natural instincts\nwere ruinous if left to themselves, and that they became salutary\ninstruments of welfare only when limited and softened and illuminated\nby a law not of themselves.\n\nOn the contrary, it is of the very essence of naturalism that it\nshould admit no standard but its own. To a naturalist and materialist\nof the true type all the ideal philosophy of the past, with the\nreligion which grows out of it, is a lying cheat of the imagination\nand corresponds to nothing real in the nature of things; its peace\nis a pitiful sham cherished by those who are too cowardly to face the\nfacts; its promise to mitigate the harsher passions of greed is only\na cunning pretext devised to blind the dispossessed of their rights\nand to fortify the owners of wealth and power in the unmolested\nenjoyment of their criminal advantages. From the very beginning the\ndouble standard of things spiritual and material has been the foe\nof progress, and only then will justice and peace and prosperity\nprevail, when the deceptions of priest and philosopher are swept\naway and our vision of material values, as known to the scientist in\nhis laboratory and to the blacksmith at his forge, is not confused\nby false lights. This, I repeat, is no caricature of the sort of\nnaturalistic pragmatism that is sweeping over the world.\n\nI would not imply that all these enemies of religion, or even those\nof them who are most influential to-day, are conscious advocates of\na pitiless egotism or believe that the repudiation of religion would\nthrow mankind into that anarchy of internecine warfare which Hobbes\ndescribed as the state of nature, or which Nietzsche glorified as\nthe battle-field of the superman. It is rather the mark of modern\nnaturalism that it is plastered up and down, swathed and swaddled,\nmasked and disguised, with sentimentalisms. A Dewey, for instance,\nwields his influence over the young and troubled minds of our\ngeneration because he stands forth as a reformer with a precious\npanacea for the calamities of history. It is the dream of another\nrealm, such reformers declare, that has riveted upon us the chains\nof lethargy and despair; shatter these, let men become aware of their\nreal nature, let them see that the only truth is to recognize this\nlife as all they have, and that their only hope of happiness is to\nget together and increase the physical comforts of existence--let\nthis once come to pass, and at last a peace born of universal\nbenevolence will settle down upon this long-vexed planet. Sympathy,\nthey maintain, is a natural instinct of the heart, as surely as the\nlust of power and possessions; rather, it is the genuine basis of\nnature, and of itself will control the other natural instincts if\nunhampered by false ideals. That is a pretty faith; but is it true?\nNo doubt the human heart is swayed by sympathy and benevolence; but\nare these the qualities of the natural man? I will not go into the\nanswer given to this question by the religious minds from Plato down\nto Cardinal Newman, who all with one accord assert that sympathy\nand benevolence of an active sort do not spring up from the soil\nof nature, but result from the reaching down, so to speak, of a\nhigher principle into the lusts of the flesh. They all maintain,\nwith one voice, that the only effective bond of union, whether it\nbe of friendship or of society, is through our perception of oneness\nin the spirit. Mercy droppeth down as a gentle dew from heaven. I\nwill not argue from this thesis, because it would carry us into the\nbrier patch of metaphysics. But history and science both would seem\nto enforce the bitter conviction that at the best the instinct of\nnatural sympathy is a fragile and treacherous support against the\nassaults of a restless and perpetual desire of power. Greece learnt\nthis, to her frightful ruin, when she followed the law of nature as\navowed by the Athenians at Melos; and to-day we have rediscovered\nit in the same desolation of war. That, I fear, is the lesson of\nhistory. And science has no different lesson. Indeed, by the natural\nman I would signify precisely the realization, if such were possible,\nof the principle of natural selection and the survival of the\nfittest by which the world is governed as the scientist, the natural\nphilosopher, as he used to be called, sees it when he eliminates the\nreligious idea from his view. I mean nothing more than what Huxley,\nthe protagonist of evolutionary philosophy, meant when, in his essay\non _The Struggle for Existence_, he thus described the law of nature\nas actually seen in operation:\n\n    From the point of view of the moralist, the animal world is\n    on about the same level as a gladiator's show. The creatures\n    are fairly well treated, and set to fight--whereby the\n    strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest live to fight\n    another day. The spectator has no need to turn his thumbs\n    down, as no quarter is given. He must admit that the skill\n    and training displayed are wonderful. But he must shut\n    his eyes if he would not see that more or less enduring\n    suffering is the meed of both vanquished and victor. And\n    since the great game is going on in every corner of the\n    world, thousands of times a minute; since, were our ears\n    sharp enough, we need not descend to the gates of hell to\n    hear\n\n        \"sospiri, pianti, ed alti guai,\n\n        *       *       *       *       *\n\n        Voci alte e fioche, e suon di man con elle\"\n\n    --it seems to follow that, if this world is governed by\n    benevolence, it must be a different sort of benevolence from\n    that of John Howard.\n\nAnd I think, if you look closely into the social theory based on the\nnaturalistic, or let us say the purely economic, view of life, you\nwill find that beneath its mask of sentimental sympathy the reality\nis a face of greed and animal rapacity. According to this theory,\nprogress is a result of discontent. Because men are discontented\nwith their present state they push out for something better. And no\ndoubt in a half-way that is true. But when discontent is associated\nwith material standards alone, and purchasable comfort, and worldly\nopportunity, or, to put the matter in its most favorable light, when\nsuccess and the goal of achievement are measured by the pleasures,\nhowever you may refine them, and by the pride of a few brief years\nof physical existence, beyond which there is nothing, and when for\nfailure in these no compensation is held out, no supernatural hope,\nno refuge of peace, here and now, such as the world cannot give--when\nthe driving force of progress is so presented, what is there in the\nnature of things to offer in the long run any effective resistance\nto the innate desire of power after power that ends only with death?\nWhat equal counterpoise will you set against that instinct of\n_pleonexia_ which reaches out for ever more and more?\n\nPhilosophy is full of mockeries. These honorable gentlemen who\nare teaching a pure naturalism in the schoolroom, who denounce\nthe content of religion and other-worldly philosophy as a base\nacquiescence, who in the restlessness of an itching egotism go out as\nmissionaries to the people of the far Orient, may deceive themselves\nand may try to deceive us; their language may be sleek with the\nsentiment of brotherly love, but strip off its disguise, and the\nsocial theory they are proclaiming will leer forth in its true face\nas an incentive not to progress but to the anarchy of the jungle.\nThese men are distilling into society a discontent that knows no\nsatisfaction, that must engender only bitterness of disappointment\nand mutual distrust and hatred, and that in the end, if not checked\nby other motives, will bring about internecine warfare and a suicide\nof civilization of which the hideous years through which we have just\npassed are a warning admonition. And these teachers have the field\nto-day. We applaud them for their pretensions of philanthropy, even\nwhen we doubt the utility of their philosophy. We are browbeaten\nby the volume of their noisy propaganda. We are mealy-mouthed and\nafraid to speak out in open denunciation, even when secretly we burn\nwith indignation at the baseness of their words. We sulk in silence,\nas if we had nothing to say. Meanwhile they have had the field to\nthemselves, and the world every day is more filled with fear and\ndisquiet.\n\nThere is no danger that by opposing other views of life to this\ninsolent naturalism we shall put an end to that normal discontent\nwith material conditions which may be a necessary incentive to\nnatural and social progress. Certainly, however it may have been\nat other times, we need apprehend no such danger now. In a world\nmanifestly distracted and blown from its moorings, in a society\nseething already with envy, it is not the part of wisdom to sow\nbroadcast words that are calculated to inflame discontent into\npassionate hatred or sullen despair. That way leads to madness. What\nwe need is rather a clearer perception of, and a firmer insistence\non, those immaterial values which it is within the power of every\nman to make his own, whatever may be the seeming injustice of his\nmaterial condition. We need rather to emphasize the simple truth\nthat poverty is not the only, or indeed the worst, of mortal evils,\nthat happiness does not consist mainly in the things which money can\nbuy, that the man of narrow means may enrich himself with treasures\nwhich only he can give to himself, and which no one can take from\nhim, that the purest satisfaction is in the sense of work honestly\ndone and duties well met, and a mind and conscience at ease with\nitself. Even to the very poor, if such must be, religion may offer\nmanifold compensations. \"Blessed be ye poor,\" it was said, \"for yours\nis the kingdom of God.\" Shall we say that these words were spoken in\nignorance or jest or mockery? I think not. We for the moment may have\nlost the key to their meaning, we may have listened to teachers who\nturn them into ridicule; nevertheless, they are true words, rich with\na gift of solid content.\n\nBut it is not the less fortunate and the poor alone, or I might even\nsay chiefly, who need to hear the precepts which the new philosophy\nis drowning with its clamorous tongue. If the home of theoretical\nmaterialism is in the lecture-rooms of philosophy, the home of\npractical materialism is in the offices of Wall Street. If there is\nany truth that needs to be reiterated to-day, it is the simple truth\nthat a man may heap up riches and increase his power indefinitely,\nand command all the visible sources of pleasure, and still be a poor,\nmean creature, a mere beggar in the veritable joys and honors of\nlife. He that has many possessions needs be a strong man to escape\ntheir strangling grip. They wrap him about, they color all his\nthinking, they hang like a heavy curtain, as it were, between himself\nand his soul. You have heard the saying: \"It is easier for a camel\nto go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the\nkingdom of God\"; that is a hard lesson, but in reality it is only an\nOriental way of expressing what Plato had taught long before in the\nAcademy: \"Neither when one has his heart set on gaining money, save\nby fair means, or even is at ease with such gaining, does he then\nbestow gifts of honor upon his soul; rather, he degrades it thereby,\nselling what is precious and fair in the soul at the price of a\nlittle gold, whereas all the gold on the earth and under the earth\nis not equal in value to virtue.\" That is the invariable lesson of\nreligion and the idealistic philosophy. Certainly, it is a truth we\nshall not recover by listening to the words of the new naturalism. It\nis not by a philosophy that preaches social discontent as the means\nof progress, and measures content by material values, however it may\ndisguise the banality of its aims in a sentimental philanthropy--it\nis not by such a philosophy that justice and mercy and humility shall\nbe imposed upon the natural pride of those who have the larger share\nof this world's goods.\n\nIt is true that religion, or religious philosophy, as its friends and\nfoes have seen from the beginning, is an alleviator of discontent and\na brake upon innovation; but the content it offers from the world\nof immaterial values is a necessary counterpoise to the mutual envy\nand materialistic greed of the natural man, and the conservatism it\ninculcates is not the ally of sullen and predatory privilege but of\norderly amelioration.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AS FACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, WITH\nESPECIAL REFERENCE TO FAR-EASTERN PROBLEMS\n\nBY\n\nJEREMIAH W. JENKS, PH.D., LL.D.\n\nRESEARCH PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, AND\nDIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF ORIENTAL COMMERCE AND POLITICS, NEW YORK\nUNIVERSITY\n\n(NOTE.--This address was delivered on November 4, 1921, before the\nConference on Limitation of Armaments and Far Eastern Questions\nbegan its work. It is now published some months after the Conference\nwas held. Readers who are familiar with the work of the Conference\nwill be interested in noting how far the Governments concerned\nfollowed the principles laid down in the address. Most will probably\nagree that no other important international conference dealing with\nquestions of this type has come so near following the principles of\nJesus' teachings here laid down as did the Conference at Washington.\nCertainly it will be of interest to those who read the address to\ncompare its principles with those followed by the conferees.)\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\nNo other political event of the past year has awakened so great\ninterest and hope as the calling by President Harding of the\nConference on Limitation of Armaments and Far-Eastern Questions.\nThe greatest statesmen of Europe, America, and the Far East have\navowed their belief in the supreme significance to world civilization\nand political and industrial progress of such a conference, and the\nsincerity of their statements is proved by the caliber of their\nrepresentatives.\n\nSecretary Hughes has expressed the desire that leading Christian\nbodies in the United States be active in presenting their views to\nthe public and to the members of the conference, in the hope that\nthereby the influence of a powerful public opinion may be exerted\nalong the noblest lines. It seems peculiarly fitting, therefore,\nand in full accord with the spirit of the Bross Foundation, that an\nattempt be made to search out the bearings which the teachings of the\nfounder of the Christian religion may have upon the solution of these\nmost important political problems. Moreover, if we are to be just and\nhelpful, his teachings must be analyzed and treated not as religion\nand therefore sacred, but as psychology and political or social\nscience, as are those of Aristotle or Kant or Herbert Spencer.\n\nAny careful student of the New Testament recognizes at once that\nhowever deep Jesus laid the philosophical foundation of his life-work\nin human nature, his teachings dealt directly with the day-by-day\npractical activities of the individuals with whom he talked. His\ndirect appeals to his hearers were so to change their outlook\nupon life as to make of them new creatures. They were to do their\nlife-work in a new and better way, and the final outcome of this\nchanged, wiser, and loftier mental and spiritual attitude on the part\nof great masses of people was to be a new type of society, a better\nworld which he designated the Kingdom of God.\n\n\nII. JESUS' FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS\n\nThrough the years of his ministry Jesus met and discussed the issues\nof life and society with many thousands of people. We have the\nrecords giving an account of his sayings in many specific cases and\nof the marvellously illuminating illustrations of his principles\nof living contained in his parables. Moreover, the account of his\nlife and his dealings with his contemporaries--friends, critics, and\npersecutors--illustrates better, perhaps, even than his teachings his\nfundamental principles of living. A careful analysis of the various\ntopics which he discussed and of the accounts of his acts will show\nthat there were a few principles which are absolutely basic, and\nwhich are of such a nature that as they entered the consciousness\nof men they changed their lives; and in consequence, in the course\nof the centuries that have followed, they have wrought a very\nconsiderable transformation in society.\n\nOur international problems to-day, both economic and political, have\nto do primarily with men's motives and purposes. If men and nations\ncan attain the right spirit toward one another and toward their\nown duties, the most difficult problems are well on the way toward\nsolution. It is worth while then to analyze with care the principles\nof living of this greatest moulder of human motive.\n\n\nIII. TRUTH\n\nThe first of these principles to be enumerated is \"TRUTH,\" taking the\nword in its most comprehensive sense.\n\nIn the light of our modern social studies every one must concede that\ntruth is the greatest social virtue, and a lie the greatest social\nsin. It may well have been the case in barbarous times that fear was\nthe binding force that held society together and that caused its\ndifferent members to function; but there can be no doubt that in\nmodern society, both economic and political, confidence is the chief\nessential factor to any effective functioning. It is a commonplace\namong business men that modern business rests upon credit, and that\ncredit depends absolutely upon the confidence that men will live up\nto their contracts, and that a man's word, however given, must be\nkept literally and rigidly. Trickery and deception may win temporary\ngains, but no great permanent business can be built except on the\nbasis of fair dealing. Good measure and the qualities represented by\nstrict accuracy in the maintenance of standards are all required if a\nbusiness is to succeed. Even advertising is now conducted with strict\nregard for truth. In politics, too, as well as in business, truth\npays in the long run, as even the diplomats are beginning to concede.\nTruth, too, means seeing straight as well as talking straight.\n\nThere is perhaps no more striking characteristic of Jesus' mental\nattitude toward truth than his clarity of vision, the keenness of\nhis insight into the real meanings of things. He did not believe in\n\"cleansing the outside of the cup or of the platter and leaving the\ninside untouched.\" He did not think that a courteous manner and fair\npromises revealed the character of a man. \"As a man thinketh in his\nheart, so is he.\" He did not believe in long prayers that recite the\nvirtues of the petitioners. God looks into the heart as Jesus did and\nsees the man as he is.\n\nMoreover, in his interpretation of the law he was not content with\nthe mere word. He must understand the purpose and significance of\nthe law. Life and life's activities were with him not matters of\nform; they were matters of purpose and intent. When criticised for\nviolation of the law regarding the Sabbath Day, he recognized to the\nfull the sanctity of the day, but claimed that the purpose and not\nthe form of the deed determined its sanctity. \"The Sabbath was made\nfor man and not man for the Sabbath.\" If the purpose of one's acts\nis the uplift of humanity or the bringing of comfort to a suffering\nsoul, the deed is good, the Sabbath is not broken. These traits\nof Jesus show clarity of mental vision and mental integrity, the\nultimate essence of truth. He does not necessarily condemn the moral\nintegrity of those who keep the letter of the law in good faith, not\nseeing its spirit; but he does say that they do not know the truth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAside from this, however, no other sin of humanity seems so to arouse\nhis righteous indignation as does wilful misrepresentation, conscious\nhypocrisy. \"When ye pray, ye shall not be as hypocrites: for they\nlove to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the\nstreets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they\nhave received their reward\" (Matt. 6:5).\n\n\"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint\nand anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of\nthe law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have\ndone, and not to have left the other undone.... Woe unto you, scribes\nand Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres,\nwhich outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead\nmen's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly\nappear righteous unto men, but inwardly ye are full of hypocrisy\nand iniquity\" (Matt. 23:23, 27, 28).\n\nJesus recognized also how imperative is the need of a clear statement\nof thought and opinion, if one is to deal honorably and successfully\nwith others. Not only does he condemn profanity in the taking of\noaths, but he goes still farther than that. \"Let your speech be, Yea,\nyea; Nay, nay; and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one\"\n(Matt. 5:37). Throughout his teachings we see how direct and clear\nare his own statements, so that it is impossible, if one considers\nthose to whom he was speaking and the circumstances under which his\nwords were uttered, to misunderstand his meaning.\n\nNevertheless, there seems to be equal evidence that he saw the need\nof suiting his words to the occasion and to the people with whom\nhe was dealing, in order to secure the best effect for what he was\nsaying. \"If thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault\nbetween thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy\nbrother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more,\nthat at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be\nestablished. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church:\nand if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as\nthe Gentile and the publican\" (Matt. 18:15-17).\n\nObserve the skill with which Jesus dealt with his questioners when\nthey attempted to corner him in argument. When the chief priests and\nelders asked him by what authority he did those things, he responded\nby saying: \"I also will ask you one question, which if ye tell me,\nI likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The\nbaptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men? And they\nreasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he\nwill say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall\nsay, From men; we fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet\"\n(Matt. 21:23-26).\n\nWhen the Pharisees inquire whether it is \"lawful to give tribute unto\nC\u00e6sar or not,\" he shows them their Roman coins with the image and\nsuperscription of C\u00e6sar and replies, \"Render therefore unto C\u00e6sar\nthe things that are C\u00e6sar's; and unto God the things that are God's\"\n(Matt. 22:21).\n\nWith all of his insistence upon absolute uprightness and\ntruth-telling and plainness of speech, we find no hint of a lack of\ncourtesy or kindness, or of diplomacy in the best modern American\nsense of that much-abused word. The direct, truth-telling, open\ndiplomacy that is imperative upon a democratic government like the\nUnited States, where it is impossible to have secret treaties or for\nany great length of time even confidential understandings between\nnations that are not public in their character, is quite in accord\nwith the teachings of Jesus; whereas the secret treaties such as\nthose that led to grave misunderstanding on the part of the United\nStates when it entered the Great War are directly contrary to the\nspirit and practice of Jesus' teachings. It is not sufficient to\ncall such practice of a secret diplomacy \"discreet,\" which would be\nproper; but often, as in the cases mentioned, where vital interests\nof others are involved, such treaties lead to direct deception, and,\nin consequence, to injurious practices. Indeed, it is often because\nof the unjust nature of such treaties that the attempt is made to\nkeep them secret.\n\nIn the farewell visit with his disciples just before his betrayal,\nJesus showed them how throughout the period of their discipleship he\nhad been gradually teaching them as they were able to understand. He\nhad not taught them all his life principles to begin with, because\nthey were not yet ready to receive all of the truth. And even in this\nlast discourse, when he was rehearsing for the disciples the nature\nof his relations with them and their relations with the world, he\nstill gave them to understand that only as they became equipped to\nreceive the truth could all the truth be given them. \"I have yet many\nthings to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when\nhe, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the\ntruth....\" (John 16:12, 13).\n\nIn his final words to them he expressed his conviction that he had\nalready so put his principles of life and action into the minds of\nmen that through their gradual fruition in the future there would be\ngiven unto us a new earth, a new society, and he concluded: \"These\nthings have I spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the\nworld ye have tribulation: but be of good cheer: I have overcome the\nworld\" (John 16:33). His task had been completed. He was confident\nthat his principles in time would conquer and give the world peace.\n\n\nIV. THE WORTH OF THE COMMON MAN: INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY\n\nThe greatest single contribution that Jesus made to social and\npolitical science was his insistence upon the worth of the common\nman. That is practically a declaration of the moral equality of all\nmature individuals, rich and poor, bond or free, a declaration of\ntheir duty to make their own decisions on questions of right and\nwrong, and in consequence the recognition of the responsibility which\neach must bear for the conduct of his own life.\n\nThis was a new philosophy that Jesus brought into the world. No one\nof the great teachers among the Greek philosophers had dreamed of\nsuch a doctrine. In the _Republic of Plato_ and in the writings of\nAristotle we find, indeed, a type of republican form of government,\nbut in that government the rulers are to be the intellectual\naristocrats, the philosophers, while the great mass of the common\npeople are to be subservient. Among the ancient Hebrews, even in the\ndays of the kingdom, there was more than an inkling of a democracy.\nThe common man had many rights which were protected by the law,\nbut he had relatively few responsibilities. If he obeyed the law\nas that law was given him by the priests, he was doing right. The\nresponsibility did not rest upon him to interpret the law. And in the\ndays when Jesus lived, the priests and the commentators prescribed\nin minute detail the application of the law to life: the clothing\nwhich should be worn, the food that should be eaten, the work that\nshould be done on the Sabbath--all the minute forms of religious\nceremonial were matters of prescription which the common man need not\nthink about. He was to do as he was told. How revolutionary, then,\nwas this doctrine that Jesus taught of the infinite worth of the\nindividual human soul!\n\n\"Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they\nreap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them.\nAre not ye of much more value than they?\" (Matt. 6:26).\n\nAnd again: \"If God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which\nto-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much\nmore clothe you, O ye of little faith?\" (Matt. 6:30).\n\n\"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall\nfall on the ground without your Father: but the very hairs of your\nhead are all numbered. Fear not therefore; ye are of more value than\nmany sparrows\" (Matt. 10:29-31).\n\nBut with this doctrine of individual worth is combined, of necessity,\nthe principle of individual responsibility. Each man is to decide\nfor himself what his life shall be, and his punishment or reward at\nthe hands of God, that is, the development or degradation of his own\ncharacter and soul are dependent upon his determining decision.\n\n\"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and\nrust consume, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up\nfor yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth\nconsume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where\nthy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.... No man can serve\ntwo masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or\nelse he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God\nand mammon\" (Matt. 6:19-21, 24).\n\n\"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and\nshall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven:\nbut whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in\nthe kingdom of heaven\" (Matt. 5:19).\n\nThen again: \"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world\nand lose his own soul?\" And it is his individual decision that\ndetermines.\n\nThis development through the bearing of responsibility demands, of\ncourse, independence of judgment. We have already noted how in his\nown life, in interpreting the ancient laws and in determining his\ncourse of action, Jesus held himself independent of the decisions or\ninterpretations of the laws as given by others. He must think out by\nthe light of his own reason, independently, his course of action. He\nlikewise expected his disciples, as he sent them on their mission,\nto judge and determine their own actions.\n\nBut if I demand from others the right to think independently and to\ndetermine my own line of action, it is, of course, imperative upon\nme to grant that same right of independent action to my fellow men.\nI ought not to insist upon my right to bear my own responsibilities\nwithout being tolerant of the rights of others; and Jesus nowhere\nin his teachings or life shows any lack of tolerance. Perhaps the\nmost striking incident of this trait of character is found in the\nbroad-minded way in which he dealt with the woman taken in adultery.\nWith ironical scorn for her hypocritical accusers he said: \"Let him\nthat is without sin among you first cast a stone.\" And then he gives\na judgment as merciful as it is just. \"Neither do I condemn thee; go\nand sin no more.\" So long as repentance and determination for right\nliving in the future is secured, forgiveness can be granted. There\nmust be no prejudice about formal rules or customs.\n\nIn his scornful condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, he always\nplaced the emphasis not upon any difference of opinion, but upon\ntheir hypocrisy and cruelty. A difference of opinion need not be\ncondemned, but hypocrisy, falsity in mind and heart, is worthy of\nthe utmost contempt and punishment.\n\nNo person who bears responsibility can safely make decisions without\nproper study of his problems and preparation for his work. Jesus'\nlife and teachings exemplify this principle completely. So much\nemphasis has been placed by many Christian teachers and writers upon\nthe divine nature of Jesus that many assume that there was given him\nall knowledge and wisdom in some superhuman way entirely different\nfrom that by which ordinary human beings attain their knowledge and\nbases of judgment. Such persons apparently overlook the fact that\nif that were true Jesus could not have been tempted in all points as\nwe are. From the evidence given in the New Testament, Jesus, when a\nboy of twelve years of age, showed a remarkable precocity and mental\ngrasp of the deep problems of life in his discussions with the wise\nmen in the Temple. Nevertheless, he did not venture upon teaching in\nany formal way and making public his convictions regarding life and\nsociety until he was some thirty years of age. Moreover, there was a\nprogressive development in his views and plans for the redemption of\nhumanity. During his period of preparation, he made himself master of\nthe Hebraic law and the writings of the leading commentators upon it.\nEvidently, also, while he was working at his trade of carpenter, and\npresumably also as master carpenter and contractor and citizen, he\nhad been studying and reflecting most deeply upon the traits of human\nnature as manifested in the people whom he met and those with whom he\nhad come in contact through his work and studies. When he began his\npublic ministry, he had at his command the most profound knowledge\nof human motive and of human nature possessed by any of the great\nteachers of history. While he left us no formal analytical discussion\non psychology, and probably never made one, as did Aristotle or\nImmanuel Kant or William James, none of them had more completely\nunderstood the ways in which human hearts and minds are to be touched\nand convinced so as to change their entire nature. It is not too\nmuch to say that as regards the practical working knowledge of human\nnature and the way in which it is to be influenced and changed,\nJesus Christ is the greatest social psychologist of history. He had\nmade himself such by long and patient study during a period of from\neighteen to twenty years of preparation.\n\n\nV. LOVE: WELFARE OF HUMANITY: GOLDEN RULE\n\nThe third great principle laid down by Jesus for the conduct of life\nis love: devotion to the welfare of others.\n\nThis principle had been enunciated by all of the great religious\nteachers, but never before had it been so emphasized as by Jesus. The\nBuddha had taught kindness and mercy, and among the Buddhists even\nto-day it is not uncommon for people to make gifts to the community,\nsuch as bridges or rest houses by the wayside, or public buildings,\nin order \"to acquire merit.\" Likewise Confucius and the Hebrew\nlawgivers teach mercy and kindness and devotion to the welfare of the\ncommunity. Nowhere, however, in all literature have we quite the same\nrange of touching human sympathy as is expressed in the parable of\nthe Good Samaritan, or quite the same direct guide to human action as\nin the Golden Rule. Most Christian teachers, indeed, have spoken of\nthis principle of love as the cardinal principle of Jesus' teachings,\noften as if it were almost the sole principle of social import;\nwhereas, far-reaching as it is, the principle was not so new in\nsocial science as that of individual responsibility.\n\nThe social value of this principle is most clearly demonstrated\nby recognizing the fact that Jesus apparently made the welfare of\nhumanity the basis of his ethical teachings, his test of right and\nwrong. And that is perhaps, on the whole, the best test that can be\napplied to individual or social action to-day. Much has been said\nby Christian teachers, and by the teachers of other religions, of\nthe Law of God; and the test of what is right and wrong has seemed\nto be either some specific commands, such as, for example, the Ten\nCommandments of the Hebraic law, or other pronouncement of priestly\ndoctrine; but Jesus, in his interpretation of the ancient law, sought\nfor a fundamental principle which was to be applied to individual\nhuman action by the individual himself. In his declaration, \"The\nSabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath,\" in his parable\nof the Good Samaritan, in his condemnation of the Pharisees for their\nhard-heartedness, in his enunciation, indeed, of the Golden Rule\nitself, we find various ways in which the truth that whatever tends\nto benefit humanity is right and whatever tends to injure humanity\nis wrong is made the basis of judgment.\n\nThis principle of Jesus would generally, I believe, be accepted for\nthe basis of individual action. Of course, customs, habits, laws\nhave so passed judgment upon most of our every-day acts that we do\nnot need to stop to argue with ourselves the question as to whether\nstealing or killing other human beings or bearing false witness are\nfor the benefit of humanity or for its detriment. We know it, we\nfeel it; custom has made it instinctive; and yet our laws make very\nclear the distinction between murder and the execution of the death\nsentence or killing in self-defense; and the basis of the distinction\nis, of course, the welfare of the community.\n\nMany writers, however, especially perhaps some of the leading German\njurists, have drawn a sharp distinction between personal ethics and\ngovernmental ethics, arguing that though it may be wrong for an\nindividual to lie, it is entirely proper for a government to deceive,\nif by so doing its own immediate welfare can be promoted. Along the\nsame line is argued the justification for wars, seizure of territory\nof weaker peoples, and other acts of government that throughout all\nhistory have been assumed to be right, or passed over with little\ncondemnation.\n\nOn this point again there can be no question that this broad\nprinciple, the promotion of the welfare of humanity at large, comes\nthe nearest of any test of right and wrong that has been, probably\nthat can be, discovered. This makes no distinction between underlying\nprinciples of governmental ethics, personal ethics, international\nethics. The differences, whatever they may be, lie in the different\ninfluences that are brought to bear by the acts of an individual in\nhis private and in his governmental capacities. It is, however, not\ndifficult ordinarily to make the distinction.\n\nWhatever the varying conditions may have been that guided\ngovernmental actions in the upward progress of civilization, the\nbest test, perhaps, of national morality and of a higher civilization\nis that as time goes on the principles which should guide individual\naction in a society shall more and more become the rules by which\ngovernmental action within the society and also in international\nrelations shall be guided. The higher civilizations, in their\ndealings with one another, and especially in their dealings with\nweaker peoples, should base their actions more and more upon truth,\ndevelopment of the individual through responsibility, the Golden Rule.\n\n\nVI. THESE PRINCIPLES OF ACTION PRODUCE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT\n\nIf we review hastily these principles of personal action which\nare really the summary of the most important of Jesus' social\nteachings, we note that in enunciating these principles Jesus laid\nthe foundations of democracy. He dealt the death-blow to imperialism,\neven to a benevolent despotism. When the mature individuals in a\ncommunity deal truthfully and frankly with one another, when they\nfeel a keen sense of individual responsibility for their actions,\njudging those actions with independence of spirit, with tolerance\nfor the same independent judgment on the part of others, with the\nconsciousness that they must study and prepare themselves for the\nbearing of their responsibilities, and when they also feel that they\nmust devote themselves with all that they have and all that they are\nto the promotion of the welfare of the community at large, we have\nthe ideal democracy. Is not this true? I have asked many thoughtful\nstudents of government whether or not these principles are the\nfundamental principles of popular self-government, and whether any\nother principles besides these are needed to be brought into play\nin order to give us popular self-government of the best type; and\nso far I have found no one who denied these to be the principles of\ndemocracy or who had anything to add to these principles. If, then,\nthese are the principles of Christianity, if these are the complete\nsummary of Jesus' fundamental teachings, is it not the fact that\nJesus, although not dealing directly with government, is nevertheless\nthe founder of democracy, of self-government? It is certainly true\nthat before his day the various attempts that had been made toward\nthe establishment of republics or of democratic governments did not\nrecognize the worth of the common man. In all of the earlier attempts\nthat had been made there was a substantial equality of rights among\nthe so-called better classes in the community; but the great masses\nof the serving classes, of the working classes, if not slaves were\nat least not supposed to bear the responsibilities of guiding the\naffairs of the community. Even in Great Britain, until after the\ngreat reform acts of the middle of the last century, there was no\nreal democracy.\n\nMoreover, the chief difficulties in democracy arise from the fact\nthat we do not have in the great mass of our citizens in any\ncommunity by any means a universal acceptance of these principles\nof Jesus. Although these are the principles of the ideal democracy,\nnot until these principles are accepted and acted upon by the great\nmasses of individuals in the community shall we have a perfect\ndemocracy. To improve our governments, therefore, if we are to\naccept Jesus' guidance in our actions, our efforts should be devoted\nprimarily not so much to increasing the power of individuals in the\ncommunity or to weakening the power of leaders, as to increasing,\non the part of our individual citizens, the capacity for wise,\nindependent self-judgment and bearing of responsibility through\nincrease of knowledge and increase of the spirit of unselfishness.\n\nThis leads us naturally to a brief consideration of the principle\nof self-determination on the part of nations and peoples, which has\nbeen so much discussed since the Great War. Perhaps there has been\nno other watchword that has been more misused in its application to\ngovernments and peoples than that of self-determination, but if we\nnote carefully the way in which Jesus applied these rules that have\nbeen enunciated, we shall find the key to a wise and just application\nof this principle of self-determination. What limitations did Jesus\nplace upon the principle?\n\nWhen he said, \"Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid\nthem not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God\" (Mark 10:14,\n15); and again (Mark 9:35-37), \"If any man would be first, he shall\nbe last of all, and servant of all. And he took a little child, and\nset him in the midst of them: and taking him in his arms, he said\nunto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in\nmy name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not\nme, but him that sent me\"--he clearly had in mind the humility and\nreceptivity of children, their eagerness to learn, and had no thought\nat all that they should decide for themselves what to do. He seems\nthroughout his teachings quite in accord with the teachings of Paul\nin his epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, that children should\nobey their parents, and that it took mature men, measuring up to\nthe spiritual stature of Christians, to decide their own beliefs\nand actions. It is, of course, recognized in the laws and customs,\nas well as in the good judgment of all peoples, that children are\nnot yet persons in the legal sense of the word. The same principle\napplies to weak-minded individuals. One of the great problems of\nself-government is to determine at what age or at what stage of\ndevelopment people are to be considered competent to make decisions\nfor themselves, and, in governmental matters, for other members of\nthe community. In America we have assumed that at twenty-one years of\nage people may properly be asked to take that responsibility. In some\nother countries twenty-five years is assumed as the proper age. In\nmost countries, before people are allowed to act as representatives\nto pass on the making of laws, a still more advanced age, and, in\nconsequence, a greater degree of maturity, is required.\n\nWhat is only good judgment and common sense as applied to children\nis also good judgment and common sense, and good Christianity, in\naccordance with the teachings of both Jesus and St. Paul, as applied\nto certain peoples where the majority are so untrained or incapable\nthat they cannot judge. It is not at all a question of social status.\nThe extreme radical change that Jesus made was in that field. Jesus\ntaught that there were no people born better than others, or in a\nruling class, who could remove responsibility from any individual\nfor deciding his own beliefs and determining his own actions. On\nthe other hand, there is no reason for thinking that Jesus in any\nparticular fostered the doctrine that any individual or small group\nof whatever degree of immaturity of judgment should under all\ncircumstances be allowed to determine their own acts or their own\nform of government, and especially to control their relations with\nother peoples.\n\nA second limitation upon the privilege of self-determination is, of\ncourse, the rights and the welfare of others. While we are to decide\nour own actions in accordance with the spirit of Jesus, we should\nimpose upon ourselves the limitation that we will not act contrary to\nthe interests of others or contrary to the welfare of the community,\nand this same principle would properly apply in any democratic\ncommunity or state. While it is right for them to seek their own\ndevelopment, people should avoid injury to other peoples or races,\nand resistance to such injury is justified. Jesus did not hesitate\nto denounce the Pharisees for their unjust treatment of others, nor\nto expel forcibly from the Temple those who were desecrating its\nprecincts to the detriment of the faithful.\n\nI have heard the parable of the Good Samaritan cited by extreme\npacifists as an argument against all war, and have heard Jesus\ncharacterized as \"The Great Pacifist.\" In addition to the present\nparable, I have sometimes wished that he could have left us another\nin which he depicted the scene a little earlier, just at the time\nwhen the wayfarer was struggling in the hands of the robbers. The\npriest might well have shrunk from a contest. Pleading to himself\nthat it would ill become one of his cloth to be involved in a wayside\nbrawl, he would pass by on the other side. The Levite, too, arguing\nto his conscience that the victim was a stranger to whom he was under\nno obligation, and that, at any rate, the robbers were too many,\nwould pass by on the other side. But the Good Samaritan, seeing only\na neighbor--though a total stranger--in dire distress at the hands\nof scoundrels, would hurl himself like a bolt into the fray. And if,\nafter deadly conflict, he too lay robbed, bleeding, and sore by his\nneighbor's side, there would be no glimmer of regret in his heart;\nbut as each helped the other to bind up his wounds, their hearts\nwould rejoice that each had found a friend in a good fight for the\nright.\n\nThe main difficulty in the application of the principle of\nself-determination is, of course, the apparent conflict of interests\nand benefits that occurs at times. Judgment should be rendered as\nnearly as possible by a consensus of opinion of the least prejudiced\nand best informed and most unselfish, disinterested observers.\nIt is in exactly this field that we look forward to an ultimate\ninternational court of nations to which such questions as are\nformally justiciable may be put, and to a council of nations that\nmay discuss, determine, and formulate the opinions of the nations\non questions that are political in their nature. We may look forward\nto a time when such a decision rendered by such a court or such\na council will be practically self-enforcing through the public\nopinion of the world. In the meantime, however, it should be a\nmatter for the consciences of the statesmen of all of the different\nnations to settle this question with the spirit of Jesus and in the\nlight of experience. Most thoughtful people of the present day, if\ntheir interests are not immediately concerned, would concede that\nthe welfare of humanity and the progressive development, not only\nmaterially but also intellectually and spiritually, of the most\nbackward individuals and peoples would be furthered by limiting the\nextent to which they may determine their own actions, especially so\nfar as they concern other peoples through international relations.\nHeretofore such questions have been decided by the nations that had\nthe greater power to enforce their will. Cases could be selected\nwhere the nation from whom the right of self-determination has\nbeen taken was probably better able to judge wisely its own acts\nthan the dominating power. On the other hand, probably far more\ninstances could be cited where the limitation for a time of the\nself-determining power in international matters has been beneficial\nto humanity. The right principle and the Christian principle would\nseem to be that an effort should be made to develop the capacity for\nself-determination on the part of backward peoples, and to withhold\nthe power of self-determination in matters which involve deeply the\ninterests of others, until such self-determining capacity has been\ndeveloped to a degree to make its use safe for other peoples and\nnations. Doubtless as a practical matter for some time to come it\nwill be the will of the stronger power in individual instances that\nwill settle this question of the degree of self-determination that\nshall be granted and its application; but eventually the world court\nor council which has been mentioned may determine such matters in\ndefault of agreement among the peoples immediately concerned.\n\n\nVII. PROBLEMS OF THE FAR EAST\n\nWith the preceding discussion of principles as manifested by the\nteachings of Jesus Christ, we may consider briefly their application\nto the problems of the Far East and the limitation of armaments.\n\nThe three countries most concerned are Great Britain, the United\nStates, and Japan. Of these, the first two claim to be Christian, and\nshould therefore be willing to follow the teachings of the Founder\nof their religion. The third claims that her aim is to take the best\nfrom the civilization of the other two, and, wherever possible,\nto improve it. If all of them are really sincere and a correct\nanalysis has been made of Jesus' teachings, they may well prove to\nbe satisfactory bases for discussion and agreement. If the powers\ncan agree, the conference will be a success.\n\nAll of the problems of the Far East, from the point of view of the\nUnited States, seem to be centred about Japan, her acquisitions\nof territory, her claims regarding her interests and rights, her\nattitude toward other nations and the proper methods of procedure;\nand, on the other hand, from the point of view of Japan, one might\nin like manner assert that the problems of the Far East seem to be\ncentred about the United States, her acquisitions of territory, her\nclaims regarding her interests and rights, her attitude toward other\nnations, and the proper methods of procedure.\n\nIt is frequently stated by those who are discussing the nature of\nthe forthcoming conference that the great problem of the Far East\nis China, and minor problems are Siberia and the islands of the\nPacific; while still others speak of immigration and racial equality\nas the most important problems to be discussed. It will readily\nbe seen, from our point of view, that if we eliminate Japan as an\nactive factor, the other problems would not be of so serious import\nfor international discussion, especially in connection with the\npossible limitation of armaments; whereas from the point of view of\nJapan, if the United States were eliminated as an important factor,\nsuch discussions would be of minor import. She could take care of\nthe difficulties herself. There seems to be a conflict of views\nmainly between Japan and the United States, with Great Britain and,\nto a less degree, the other nations invited as vitally interested\numpires, whose voices will largely decide, and who wish not to offend\neither Japan or America.\n\nA complete discussion of these vital problems would involve careful\nand sympathetic consideration of questions that differ widely in\nform and nature, yet may be greatly simplified by the application\nof these principles of Jesus to their solution. Such a study would\ninvolve a sketch of the political history of the Far East since the\nChina-Japan War, with notice taken of earlier conflicts over China,\ngiving motives and methods of aggressions of various nations with\ntheir results; the marvellous expansion of Japan in both territory\nand influence, with a judgment as to her real needs for territory\nand materials and consideration of satisfying these needs; and the\npresent and probable effects upon the world of the continuation of\nher policies; a similar study of the acquisition of territory and\nextension of influence in the Far East of the United States, Great\nBritain, and the other nations, and the probable future effects of\nthe continuation of their policies--all to be judged in the light\nof these principles of Jesus: truth; development of personality of\nindividual human beings; the Golden Rule, care for the welfare of\nhumanity as the test of right and wrong.\n\nTo-day I may only indicate the method and nature of such study, and\nlet each follow out the thought to a conclusion.\n\n1. Truth: While every care should be taken to be courteous and\nconsiderate and just to all, if Jesus' principles are right the\nfuture policies of the nations must discourage militaristic methods\nof deceit and trickery, propaganda of falsehood, secret diplomacy\nthat is misleading, and the employment of force or threats, except\nin war. This can best be done by taking action which shows that such\nmethods do not succeed and will not be tolerated in international\nrelations. An \"open-door\" policy freely entered into (and this\nhas been repeatedly affirmed by all) must be kept by all, and, if\nnecessary, enforced by joint action. Promises regarding territory and\ntreaties entered into freely must be kept, while those extorted by\nforce should be considered invalid.\n\n2. The spread of democracy in the sane sense of the word must be\nrecognized and encouraged. World history under the teachings of\nJesus shows this trend, and the outcome of the World War makes it\nclear that imperialism cannot survive. All nations must recognize\nthis fact, and kings and emperors must retain their thrones by\nbecoming the leaders of their peoples, whom they will train to\nassume responsibility. The nations whose spirit and policies are\nmost intelligently and most sincerely devoted to developing stable\nself-government among their peoples must extend their influence, and\nthose with other views must change or their governments will in no\nlong time perish. Again, it is practically certain that any policy\nthat is at variance with this principle will certainly lead to war\nin the not distant future--not to peace. These facts should have\ninfluence in the conference in determining future policies.\n\n3. The policy should be encouraged of promoting the welfare of weak\nand backward peoples, not by selfish exploitation, but by aiding them\nto fit themselves for the responsibilities of self-government in all\nways practicable, while not encouraging a movement toward a weak\nindependence that would endanger the peace of the world.\n\n4. All these questions must be handled--if the teaching and practice\nof Jesus are to be followed--in the light of reason and common sense\nand the practicable. To attempt to reverse actions of generations\nago, whatever our views as to their justice then, might well do\nmore harm than good. The annexations of Hong Kong, Indo-China, the\nPhilippine Islands, Corea, are questions that cannot and ought not\nto come before the Washington conference. The ways in which the\ndifferent nations have administered those territories may well be\nfactors in determining what further opportunities should be given\nto the nations concerned. On the other hand, questions of grave\nimportance are still pending and others involving the same principles\nmay well arise.\n\n(_a_) All the nations represented at the conference have formally\nagreed to the open-door policy in China. If that policy has been\nviolated by any of the powers, the facts should be clearly brought\nout and recognized. On the basis of these facts, measures should be\ntaken to insure a strict observance of that policy in the future.\nPresumably international inspection by international commission,\nincluding, of course, China as a party, probably as chairman, or\npossibly international control, will be needed in certain particulars.\n\n(_b_) The treaties between China and Japan in 1915 and 1918 (which\nChina claims were obtained by threats and show of force against a\nfriendly power in time of peace) have not been recognized by the\nUnited States as valid so far as they concern the rights of America\nor American citizens, or the territorial integrity or the sovereignty\nof China, or the principle of the \"open door.\" These treaties involve\nthe extension of power and influence of Japan in Manchuria, Inner\nMongolia, and Fukien province of China, as well as her official\ninfluence with the Chinese Government and the entire question of\nShantung province and Japan's hold on Kiao Chow. The United States\nGovernment as well as China have consistently refused to consider\nthese questions closed. They should now be considered and settled in\naccordance with the principles laid down. The truth should be fully\nbrought out and recognized; measures should be taken looking toward\nthe best development of the peoples concerned, so as to fit them for\nself-government in due time. As fast as possible they should be given\nthe responsibility of self-determination. If not ready now, steps\nshould be taken to prevent them from oppression or loss of their\nterritory, while they are encouraged to find their way.\n\n(_c_) The welfare in the long run of the peoples concerned, the\nwelfare of humanity through them, should be the test of right and\nwrong in making these decisions and working out these plans. In case\nof differing opinions, based not on self-interest but on sincere\nconviction, if the history of twenty centuries is to count, the\nopinion should prevail of those nations whose practices have followed\nmost nearly the principles of Jesus.\n\nThe same tests may be applied to conditions in Siberia, to Yap, and\nthe islands of the Pacific whose status has not yet been agreed to\nby all the powers, and to the other problems raised by conditions\nin China.\n\nTwo questions more raised by Japan at different times may be briefly\ntouched upon: Oriental immigration into Western countries and the\nrace problem. Can the New Testament help on these?\n\nJapan claims that she is already overpopulated; that the countries\nto which her people wish to go object to their coming, and that\nthe countries to which they might go (Formosa, their own northern\nislands, Hokkaido and Saghalien, Siberia, Manchuria) are not suited\nto them. The facts are naturally that they wish to go to countries\nwhose standards of living are higher than theirs. Then they have the\nadvantage in competition. But such advantage is at the expense of\nthose countries, whose standards will be lowered. They do not wish to\ngo to countries whose standards are lower than theirs. The advantage\nin competition would then be against them, as experience in Corea and\nManchuria has shown, and they must lower their standards to succeed.\nThat they are naturally unwilling to do. For the same reason they\nexclude Chinese and Corean laborers from Japan in actual practice.\nIn my judgment they are wise in so doing.[3]\n\nIt is the common economic conflict of standards of living where the\nfittest, in the sense of the ones who will produce the most at the\nlowest rates, because they have diligence and thrift, and are willing\nto live on lower standards, survive, and those who insist upon\nhigher standards must go. It is perfectly evident, and to my mind\nentirely proper and in strict accord with the spirit of the teachings\nof Jesus, that every effort should be made to maintain the higher\nstandards to the utmost extent possible, and that the methods of\ncompetition that should be admitted in connection with the principles\nof expansion should be those which would further the welfare\nof the populations, including the opportunities for developing\nintellectually, and gradually exercising more and more of a capacity\nfor a self-determination of policies. This would not exclude Japanese\nfrom Corea or Manchuria, if they will deal fairly with those peoples.\nOn the other hand, the nations that object to the admission of the\nJapanese on the grounds that their coming in large numbers will lower\ntheir standards of living and introduce a type of civilization that\non the whole they feel to be lower than their own, are not therefore\nunchristian, provided proper methods of exclusion are followed.\nJapan is likewise fully justified in adhering to her policy of\nexcluding from her own territory those laborers, especially Chinese\nand Coreans, who, if allowed to come in large numbers, because of\ntheir lower standards of living, would lower the standards of living\nand the opportunity, in consequence, for cultural development of the\nJapanese people.\n\nAs the Japanese Government has insisted upon limiting the competition\nof some foreign corporations that were obtaining too much control of\ncertain industries in Japan (such as the American Tobacco Company),\nand insisted upon rigid control of the foreign companies doing\nbusiness there, so it seems fully justified for the Chinese and those\nsympathetic with them to object to the dominating control by the\nJapanese, at the expense of the natives and of foreign competitors,\nof the territory of Kiao Chow, of the administration of the South\nManchurian Railway, if the charges of discrimination are true, and\nof the methods of administration of Corea. I am not raising now\nthe question of the legal right in any of these cases, but of the\nChristian principle of improving the welfare of the masses of the\npeoples of the countries concerned through the opportunities for\ndeveloping to the highest degree the individuals.\n\nGoing now to the question of what the Japanese can do to maintain\ntheir own standards and improve them, unless they are allowed\nto enter freely in large numbers the territories of those whose\nstandards of living are higher, three suggestions may be made:\n\nFirst, they may become, at home, as they have already shown their\ncapacity to become, more of an industrial nation, in which case the\nincrease in the density of the population would be an advantage in\ncompetition rather than a disadvantage, and in which--owing to the\nrapid improvement of industrial conditions--the standards of living\ncould be improved rather than lowered. The best illustrations of\nthe success of this policy are found in Great Britain and Germany,\nboth of which improved very rapidly with an increasing density of\npopulation.\n\nThe second suggestion is that in the countries readily open to\nJapanese immigration, where the population is not so dense as in\nJapan, _i.e._, in certain parts of Corea and Manchuria, in Hokkaido,\nand in other countries that might be mentioned (other parts of\nChina and Siberia), a similar policy might well be followed. This\ndoes not mean political control, which is not necessary, but\nJapanese immigration. If they will undertake economic and industrial\ndevelopment, there will be room for a large and increasing population.\n\nA third suggestion has to do with the very rapid increase in the\npopulation of Japan, owing to the high birth-rate. It is well known\nthat in countries where the standard of living is rapidly rising,\nthe birth-rate rapidly falls. This is a normal consequence of\nthe increased care for their children, their training and their\neducation, on the part of parents, with their own improved standards\nof living and the desire to give to their children the best which is\npossible. If Japan improves her industrial standards, unless there\nare some special efforts made either through religious influence\nor governmental influence to the contrary, the birth-rate will\nnormally decrease. A militaristic nation wishes a high birth-rate, an\nindustrial nation gets a low rate. Already there has been discussed\nin Japan, by their most thoughtful citizens, the question of birth\ncontrol and the inculcation of the knowledge regarding sane and\nproper methods of birth control among the more ignorant classes of\nthe population. It is a question that may well be given thoughtful\nconsideration not only in Japan but in other countries.\n\nIt is, however, urged frequently that the Japanese cannot expand\nindustrially unless they are in a position to secure the raw\nmaterials for their industries that are not produced in Japan itself.\nThis is the usual defense that is given for many of the aggressive\nacts of Japan in securing control of coal and iron mines in various\nparts of China. Other nations, such as France, Great Britain, the\nUnited States, have imported large quantities of the essentials\nfor industrial development, such as the raw materials mentioned,\nand petroleum and food-supplies, without feeling the necessity of\npolitical control. For decades the population of Great Britain, it\nhas been known, could not survive many months without the importation\nof large quantities of foodstuffs, while her cotton industry has\nbeen dependent upon the United States for its raw material for many\ndecades. There would be no objection whatever to Japan importing coal\nand iron ore and other products from China in as large quantities as\nshe needed in the ordinary course of business for the support of her\nindustries; and if her policy were an industrial one rather than a\npolitically imperialistic one, her industries would be as safe as are\nthose of Great Britain. They would be much safer than during the last\nyears, when their acts have produced the Chinese boycott.\n\nFrom the viewpoint of the United States, the difficulty in the\nJapanese expansion has been the apparent insistence on the part\nof her friends that she must have for her protection a political\ncontrol over raw materials while her competitors along certain lines\nare satisfied with industrial access to raw materials; and also\nher insistence upon forcing her people into competition where they\nwould lower the standards of living of other nations when they might\nreadily find plenty of opportunity for work at higher standards,\nthough it would require capital, to the benefit of not only\nthemselves but of the populations who would welcome them.\n\n\nVIII. RACIAL EQUALITY\n\nThese considerations bring up also, as the Japanese Government itself\nbrought up at the Paris Peace Conference and frequently elsewhere,\nthe questions of racial equality and the statement so frequently\nmade that any discrimination between races, by immigration laws, for\nexample, is unchristian.\n\nIt is highly important that we understand with the greatest clearness\nthe spirit of the teachings of Jesus in connection with the question\nof race and race equality. At the beginning of Jesus' ministry he\napparently felt that his message was first and chiefly to the Jews.\nThat was natural, and quite possibly it appeared the most expedient\ncourse for the rapid spread of his vital principles of living. There\ncan be, however, no doubt, as shown for example in the parable of\nthe Good Samaritan and in the spirit of his teachings throughout,\nthat Jesus believed and taught that all individuals of whatever\nrace were equally precious in the sight of God, and that all would\nbe equally citizens in his kingdom if they possessed and manifested\nhis spirit as shown in his life and teachings. It is no less clear,\nhowever, that with his marvellous insight into the realities of life,\nhe recognized as accurately and completely as any thinker possibly\ncan, the differences between classes, professions, sects, and races,\nand the influence of these differences upon social life. Samaritans,\nPharisees, Sadducees, Jews, and Gentiles are recognized as different\ntypes, to be dealt with according to their differences in type. In\nother words, Jesus recognized social facts as they were and acted\nin accordance with those facts, so as best to improve the welfare of\nall. This is the spirit of his teachings. No sane, intelligent person\ndenies the fact that the differences between Negroes, Japanese,\nJews, Anglo-Saxons, Arabs, Chinese, Hindus, Hottentots, are very\nmarked. No Christian doubts that any member of any of these races\nwho knows and follows the teachings of Jesus is equally a Christian,\nand equally worthy and precious in the sight of God; and yet with\ntheir great differences in social and political customs and habits\nof living, it is equally clear that if the attempt were made for\nthem all to mingle with each other in close association, even with\nthe best intentions and the best Christian spirit, there would be\nbrought about inevitably a great loss of effective energy, not\nto say great friction. When one considers still further that the\nracial differences are so great in many instances that there is\nan instinctive objection on the part of the different races toward\nthe most intimate association of married life, with the consequent\nmingling of blood and mental and temperamental as well as physical\ntraits, it is evident that from any effort to bring these races\ntogether into close personal association without cordial willingness\non the part of both races so to associate, there is certain to arise,\nunder present conditions at any rate, friction that will not promote\nbut will seriously retard the welfare of both races concerned. If the\nsituation is such that one dominates the other, creating a servile\nrace, that is clearly contrary to the spirit of Jesus' teachings,\nand the objection to such association, if the spirit of Christianity\nprevails, would be as great on the part of the dominating as of the\nservile race.\n\nPromotion of the welfare of all the races is the spirit of Jesus'\nteachings. It is idle as well as contrary to the teachings of Jesus\nto close one's eyes to facts of race differences and of the practical\neffects of those race differences upon the associations between\nthe races. When those facts are clearly seen, it is in accord with\nthe spirit of Jesus' teachings so to adjust those relations as to\npromote the welfare of all, not of any one race at the expense of\nthe others. Where racial differences are so marked that association\nis not acceptable to both races, there is no equality of treatment\nin forcing them to associate or in permitting one to force itself\nupon the other. Equality of treatment will demand that each race or\neach nation shall be allowed to determine for itself what other races\nshall be admitted to close association.\n\nIt therefore seems that the Japanese, as well as the Americans and\nthe Canadians, have been wise in controlling with great care the\nimmigration of other races and the conditions under which business\nshall be done in their countries by the peoples of other races and\ncountries. The equality of the races that should be demanded is the\nrecognition of the equal right of all to determine for themselves\nwithout injuring the rights or welfare of others what method will\nbest promote the interests of all and the equal personal respect\nin which each individual of a different race should be held for\nthe personal qualities that he himself possesses and cultivates.\n\nWhile there is doubtless much race prejudice, most of the pleas of\nthe Japanese that their exclusion from certain countries because of\ntheir race is a declaration of a belief in their inferiority seems\nrather a special plea to arouse sympathy and feeling than a statement\nof fact. They are excluded (_a_) because their industrial standards\nof living are such that their admission in large numbers will tend to\ninjure the welfare of the community industrially, and (_b_) because\nthe difference in race is so marked that their coming in large\nnumbers is likely to promote social friction, and thus to injure the\ncommunity politically and socially. In many instances these effects\nmight well be brought about because of the recognition of their\nsuperior industrial, mental, and political accomplishments in certain\nlines. They do well to control their own country so as to prevent\ninjury to it. It is in accordance with the spirit of Jesus that the\nsame principle of promoting the welfare of the community be followed\nin other countries.\n\nIn saying these things I wish not to be misunderstood. I believe\nthat the greatest benefits can come from close associations between\nthe nations, industrially and politically, from very frequent and\nclose associations in the way of visiting and of travelling and of\ninternational co-operation, so that good traits, good qualities,\nnoble attainments of each nation may be as widely spread as possible\namong the other nations. I believe also that the Christian spirit\nof recognition of these good qualities and of the individual\nexcellencies of all nations should be recognized. The principles\nlaid down are made merely to suggest the ways in which the Christian\nspirit of co-operation can best be attained by avoiding unnecessary\nfriction wherever possible.\n\nIt is entirely possible that in the course of time, through the\nspread of international culture, there will be a gradual mingling\nof customs which will promote a much greater degree of association\nthan now, but it is certainly not only unwise but it is unchristian\nto attempt to force association where friction is bound to be the\ninevitable result. It would seem as if the sensitiveness of nations\nwould lead them rather to avoid making themselves the cause of\nfriction than to insist upon creating it.\n\n\nIX. METHODS OF JAPAN\n\nThe chief problem of the Pacific so far as Japan is concerned has\nbeen caused by the methods that the Japanese Government has followed\nin promoting what they believe with all sincerity to be their\ninterests. I have no desire to blame the Japanese Government for\nits policies. Under the conditions, it seems to me that they have\nbeen normal. In 1916, before the United States entered the Great\nWar, but after Japan had expelled the Germans from Shantung, seized\ncontrol of that territory, forced upon China the twenty-one demands,\nand insisted under threat of war upon the acceptance of all of them\nbut the fifth group, while holding that for future consideration, a\nleading Japanese statesman said to me that Japan saw in the Great\nWar an opportunity for promoting her own interests. He advised the\ngovernment to select the very best men to take advantage of that\nopportunity to make Japan as great a state as possible. It was a\nnormal spirit for a Japanese patriot.\n\nAnother Japanese statesman of high standing at about the same time\nsaid to me that it was natural that the Japanese Government should\nbe militaristic: her constitution had been modelled after that of\nGermany; her armies and the officers of her armies had been trained\nby Germans; her army was modelled after the German army; all of the\ngreat strides forward that had made her one of the great powers\ninstead of a small nation had been won by armies (Corea, control\nover Manchuria, the victory over Russia, and her great influence\nin the councils of the nations); what more natural than that she\nshould believe in militarism and in German methods! Yet he personally\nthought those methods should be stopped. One need not blame the\nJapanese statesmen for the policy which they followed, but it is our\nbusiness in this discussion to question whether these methods are now\nin accord with the teachings of Jesus, and whether it is incumbent\nupon the rest of the world, especially the Christian world, to\nencourage the continuance of those methods or to put what obstacles\nit can in their way. I have just given the testimony of two leading\nJapanese statesmen, testimony given to me personally. Many instances\ncould be cited in the writings of Japanese statesmen to the same\neffect, and no careful student of history of the last twenty years\nwill deny the facts.\n\nThe conference at Washington, in its consideration of the problems\nof the Far East, should face facts in the bold clear-seeing spirit of\nJesus. Japan secured the control of Corea by violation of treaties,\ndeception of the rest of the world, and the employment of force.\nShe cannot deny this now. I think the question of Corea should not\nbe raised now, but it gives a basis for judgment. These same methods\nwere followed in the extension of her control over Manchuria and in\nsuch measure of control as she has in Shantung and other parts of\nChina. Japan's government of Corea has doubtless in many respects\nbeen better than the government by the Corean monarchy, and this\nin spite of universal testimony that the Corean revolts of the last\nyear have been largely caused by the cruelty and despotic methods\nof Japanese administrators. The annexation of Corea by Japan was\nassented to by all of the leading nations of the world really because\nthe previous government had been so inefficient and corrupt that it\nwas believed that the welfare of the nation would be promoted by the\nannexation. Some of the nations who had promised in their treaties to\nuse their influence to protect Corea against aggression from outside,\nbefore acting should have investigated with greater care than they\ndid both the conditions surrounding the annexation and the prospects\nfor the future; but, however that may be, if the Japanese Government\nwere now to administer Corea with the welfare of the Coreans in\nmind, with the purpose of enabling them to develop their own feeling\nof responsibility so that as rapidly as possible they might be\ngranted, in their internal affairs at any rate, the principle of\nself-determination, most people would believe that whatever the past\nmay have been, the present and the future would be as nearly as\npracticable in accordance with the spirit of Jesus' teachings, and\nwould readily assent. If, however, cruelty and coercion continue,\nthe decision would be the opposite.\n\nThe other questions regarding the open door in Manchuria, Shantung,\nthe Pacific islands, have not as yet been universally accepted as\nsettled. They are questions still to be settled. The methods that\nhave been followed for years, practically up to the present time,\nhave been those of force and fraud in the countries themselves, and,\nso far as it was practicable, deception by means of propaganda in\ncountries abroad. These statements are made, not with any bitterness\nor blame, but merely as facts necessary for judgment, based on\noverwhelming testimony of practically all foreigners who are in a\nposition to know the facts and of the liberal Christian thinkers\namong the Japanese themselves.\n\nIs it for the welfare, morally and spiritually, as well as\nindustrially, of these countries and of the rest of the world, that\nthese practices be permitted to continue, or would the Christian\nnations be following more clearly the teachings of Jesus if they\nwere to insist that these methods should stop? The nations assembled\nin the conference at Washington will follow the teachings of Jesus\nif they give to Japan the opportunity to promote the welfare of her\ncitizens along all lines that will tend to inculcate in them the\nspirit of the Christian teachings; and they are also the teachings\nof Confucius and the Buddha and other great teachers. We ought not\nto attempt to force Christianity upon Japan. That would be unwise,\nunjust, and unchristian. There should be encouraged among them not\nonly mercy and justice, but also the spirit of individual thinking,\nindividual self-determination, just as rapidly as they can be trained\nenough to accept that responsibility; and the welfare of the other\npeoples who have been under their influence can certainly best be\npromoted by the adoption of international policies enforced by the\ninfluence of the united nations that shall prevent fraud and force\nfrom triumphing, but shall secure to the peoples concerned and\nthe nations interested full and free opportunities for a greater\nself-development.\n\n\nX. LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS\n\nIf the spirit of Jesus characterizes the conference and if these\nprinciples should be accepted by all, the question of the limitation\nof armaments, speaking from the point of view of the United States,\nwould be easy. It would be merely a question of proportion among\nsmall numbers. From the point of view of Japan, the question may\nwell be asked whether the United States is willing to follow this\nsame spirit. The reply to the question is to be found simply in the\nfacing of the facts. Are the proposals of Secretary Hughes in this\nspirit? Has the United States attempted to seize unjustly or to\noppress the native peoples in Cuba, in Porto Rico, in the Hawaiian\nIslands, in the Philippine Islands, in China, or elsewhere? The\ninefficient Cubans were given a start toward self-government, were\nset upon their feet industrially and were given the opportunity of\nself-determination as regards all matters in which they could not\ninjure the rights or the welfare of others. Similar statements may\nbe made with an equal degree of truth with reference to Porto Rico,\nthe Hawaiian Islands, Philippine Islands, China. While doubtless\nmany individual mistakes may have been made, the spirit of the\nadministration in all these countries, by the universal testimony of\nthose who know, including the Filipinos themselves, shows that the\nspirit has been in accord with the teachings of Jesus.\n\nThe Japanese claim they fear, and doubtless in many instances they\nsincerely do fear, that the United States is aggressively attempting\nto gain control of the Pacific. Any one conversant with the facts\nknows that it wishes simply the promotion of the welfare of the\npeople concerned, including the welfare of its own citizens, by\nfair, peaceful, industrial methods, in accord with the spirit of\nself-determination of the peoples themselves just so rapidly as they\nare able to assume that power.\n\n\nXI. OUR GOVERNMENT IN THE CONFERENCE\n\nWhat is the position that our government should take in the\nconference? While exercising all due courtesy and exhibiting every\ncare possible for the feelings of those in attendance, it should\nstill have the Christian courage to face the facts as they have been\nand as they are, and to insist upon it that all the nations present\nsee those facts and, basing their actions upon those facts, adopt so\nfar as possible the Christian methods that will promote the welfare\nof all the peoples of the Far East, including Japan, so far as these\nproblems of the Conference are concerned. If this is done, it does\nnot mean that Japan's future or China's future is endangered. It\nmeans that every militaristic policy must be abandoned, but that the\nindustrial, social, and even political future of all the nations,\nincluding Japan, will be better secured than can be possible in any\nother way. It will mean that the welfare of the inhabitants of China,\nincluding Manchuria and Shantung, of Siberia and of the islands of\nthe Pacific, will be promoted by encouraging in every way possible\ntheir industrial development, by protecting them if necessary by\njoint international influence against aggression from without, and so\nfar as possible by encouraging within those countries policies which\nwill secure order, peace, and the development of the individuals\ntoward acquiring a capacity for self-government which they seem to\nhave been attaining so far only to a most unsatisfactory degree.\n\nAbove all, the guiding spirit, with its clear-sightedness and rigid\nadherence to practical conditions as they are, should be the spirit\nof peace and righteousness.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BROSS LECTURES\n\nThe Bross Lectures are an outgrowth of a fund established in 1879 by\nthe late William Bross, lieutenant-governor of Illinois from 1866 to\n1870. Desiring some memorial of his son, Nathaniel Bross, who died in\n1856, Mr. Bross entered into an agreement with the \"Trustees of Lake\nForest University,\" whereby there was finally transferred to them the\nsum of forty thousand dollars, the income of which was to accumulate\nin perpetuity for successive periods of ten years, the accumulations\nof one decade to be spent in the following decade, for the purpose\nof stimulating the best books or treatises \"on the connection,\nrelation, and mutual bearing of any practical science, the history\nof our race, or the facts in any department of knowledge, with and\nupon the Christian Religion.\" The object of the donor was to \"call\nout the best efforts of the highest talent and the ripest scholarship\nof the world to illustrate from science, or from any department of\nknowledge, and to demonstrate the divine origin and the authority of\nthe Christian Scriptures; and, further, to show how both science and\nrevelation coincide and prove the existence, the providence, or any\nor all of the attributes of the only living and true God, 'infinite,\neternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness,\njustice, goodness, and truth.'\"\n\nThe gift contemplated in the original agreement of 1879 was finally\nconsummated in 1890. The first decade of the accumulation of interest\nhaving closed in 1900, the trustees of the Bross Fund began at\nthis time to carry out the provisions of the deed of gift. It was\ndetermined to give the general title of \"The Bross Library\" to the\nseries of the books purchased and published with the proceeds of the\nBross Fund. In accordance with the express wish of the donor, that\nthe \"Evidences of Christianity\" of his \"very dear friend and teacher,\nMark Hopkins, D.D.,\" be purchased and \"ever numbered and known as\nNo. 1 of the series,\" the trustees secured the copyright of this work,\nwhich has been republished in a presentation edition as Volume 1 of\nthe Bross Library.\n\nThe trust agreement prescribed two methods by which the production of\nbooks and treatises of the nature contemplated by the donor was to be\nstimulated:\n\n1. The trustees were empowered to offer one or more prizes during\neach decade, the competition for which was to be thrown open to\n\"the scientific men, the Christian philosophers and historians of\nall nations.\" In accordance with this provision, a prize of $6,000\nwas offered in 1902 for the best book fulfilling the conditions of\nthe deed of the gift, the competing manuscripts to be presented\non or before June 1, 1905. The prize was awarded to the Reverend\nJames Orr, D.D., professor of apologetics and systematic theology in\nthe United Free Church College, Glasgow, for his treatise on \"The\nProblem of the Old Testament,\" which was published in 1906 as Volume\nIII of the Bross Library. The second decennial prize of $6,000 was\nawarded in 1915 to the Reverend Thomas James Thorburn, D.D., LL.D.,\nHastings, England, for his book entitled \"The Mythical Interpretation\nof the Gospels,\" which has been published as Volume VII of the Bross\nLibrary. The announcement of the conditions may be obtained from the\npresident of Lake Forest College.\n\n2. The trustees were also empowered to \"select and designate any\nparticular scientific man or Christian philosopher and the subject on\nwhich he shall write,\" and to \"agree with him as to the sum he shall\nreceive for the book or treatise to be written.\" Under this provision\nthe trustees have, from time to time, invited eminent scholars to\ndeliver courses of lectures before Lake Forest College, such courses\nto be subsequently published as volumes in the Bross Library. The\nfirst course of lectures, on \"Obligatory Morality,\" was delivered\nin May, 1903, by the Reverend Francis Landey Patton, D.D., LL.D.,\nPresident of Princeton Theological Seminary. The copyright of the\nlectures is now the property of the trustees of the Bross Fund. The\nsecond course of lectures, on \"The Bible: Its Origin and Nature,\"\nwas delivered in May, 1904, by the Reverend Marcus Dods, D.D.,\nProfessor of Exegetical Theology in New College, Edinburgh. These\nlectures were published in 1905 as Volume II of the Bross Library.\nThe third course of lectures, on \"The Bible of Nature,\" was delivered\nin September and October, 1907, by Mr. J. Arthur Thomson, M.A.,\nRegius professor of Natural History in the University of Aberdeen.\nThese lectures were published in 1908 as Volume IV of the Bross\nLibrary. The fourth course of lectures, on \"The Religions of Modern\nSyria and Palestine,\" was delivered in November and December, 1908,\nby Frederick Jones Bliss, Ph.D., of Beirut, Syria. These lectures\nare published as Volume V of the Bross Library. The fifth course\nof lectures, on \"The Sources of Religious Insight,\" was delivered\nNovember 13 to 19, 1911, by Professor Josiah Royce, Ph.D., of Harvard\nUniversity. These lectures are embodied in the sixth volume. Volume\nVII, \"The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels,\" by the Reverend\nThomas James Thorburn, D.D., was published in 1915. The seventh\ncourse of lectures, on \"The Will to Freedom,\" was delivered in\nMay, 1915, by the Reverend John Neville Figgis, D.D., LL.D., of\nthe House of the Resurrection, Mirfield, England, and published as\nVolume VIII of the series. In 1916 Professor Henry Wilkes Wright, of\nLake Forest College, delivered the next course of lectures on \"Faith\nJustified by Progress.\" These lectures are embodied in Volume IX.\nIn 1921, the Reverend John P. Peters, Ph.D., of Sewanee, Tennessee,\ndelivered a course of lectures on \"Spade and Bible.\" These lectures\nare embodied in Volume X. The present volume is comprised of lectures\ndelivered November 3 to 6, 1921, before Lake Forest College, on the\noccasion of the inauguration of the President.\n\n                                                 HERBERT McCOMB MOORE,\n                                _President of Lake Forest University_.\n\nLAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Mr. Frank Vanderlip has expressed the same view in his\n    _What Next in Europe_: \"The prerequisite for that is\n    a change of spirit, and I believe we can do a great deal\n    to allay the suspicions, the hatreds and the selfishness\n    of European people. We can help them see the necessity for\n    unity; help them apprehend the terrible cost of selfishness.\n    They must understand that the reconstruction of Europe is a\n    comprehensive task. Only united effort, and a recognition\n    that the welfare of individual nations can be achieved\n    through general international good-will, can accomplish it.\n    We could largely aid in developing such a spirit.\n\n    Our first duty, as Mazaryk said, is to understand!\"\n\n[2] Published in _Scribner's Magazine_.\n\n[3] A few facts should be kept in mind: (_a_) Some Japanese\n    writers as well as foreigners claim that Japan is not at\n    all overpopulated now, considering that she is becoming\n    an industrial nation. Japan proper has 394 inhabitants to\n    the square mile; England and Wales, 618; Belgium, 665;\n    Netherlands, 534; Italy, 332; Germany, 325. (_b_) Japan has\n    urged claims on Shantung of which the density of population\n    is 525 to the square mile. Of course she has not desired to\n    settle that country, only to control and manage its mines,\n    railroads, ports, commerce--and this would give practically\n    political control. (_c_) Certain writers claim that the\n    Japanese soil is not now properly cultivated to produce the\n    best results agriculturally. Large preserves are held out\n    of cultivation in crown lands, as was done earlier in Great\n    Britain and Germany. The people are expert in rice culture\n    and wish to eat rice. They might use to excellent advantage\n    much other land than they do, land entirely suitable for\n    other food production, though not for rice.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:\n\nPunctuation has been standardised.\n\nItalic text has been denoted by _underscores_ and bold text by\n=equal signs=.\n\nCharacters in small caps have been replaced by all caps.\n\nNon-Latin characters have been given an English transliteration:\n    'oe' ligature --> oe\n\nThis book was written in a period when many words in the text had\nnot become standardized in their spelling or hyphenation. These have\nbeen left unchanged while obvious typographical mistakes have been\nrepaired. Other changes are noted below:\n\n    Pg  89 - 'Plummer' replaced with 'Plumber'\n             (hired as the Plumber professor)\n    Pg 102 - 'benevelence' replaced with 'benevolence'\n             (governed by benevolence)","title":"Christianity and Problems of To-day: Lectures Delivered Before Lake Forest College on the Foundation of the Late William Bross","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":38818}