Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
74 P ourrcu. lDEA LS o n T HE BIBLE .
law or common law as d is t inct from the imperial law imposedfrom without
,this ideal naturally grew in attractiveness .
I n regard t o the idea ls that vied with each other for recogn ition in Israel ’s foreign policy , they inev itably followed from thefundamental conceptions o f w hat the nation ’s ow n l ife should be .
The ideal o f Dav id wa s t o take possession o f a ll lands tha t Yahwemight give him through successful battles, and to rule the subjugated peoples w ith a scepter o f iron . He understood as well as theAssyrian monarchs the art of holding conquered provinces incheek through summary punishment , and o f preventing rebellionthrough colonization . How attractive this imperialistic ideal wasmay be seen from the fact that
,five hundred years later, a man
so differen t from Dav id as Deutero-Isa iah stil l pictured theEgyptians and t he Sabaeans as doing slave-service for Yahwe ’sfavorites , and licking the dus t o f their feet .” It is also evideuced by the ardent hope for a world-empire and the uttercontempt f or other nations that many Hasmonaean psalmsbreathe .
A ma rked contras t to this is the ideal set forth in Jer . xxx ., m i
,
a w ork o f the early Persian period . Here self-government as apeople and a peacefully gained prosperity attract the exiles homeand produce a natural growth that
,as evidence of Yahwe ’s love,
creates an inner disposition to obey his law.
But even where there w as no dream of conquest , and peaceful expansion would have been preferred
,the patriotic ideal of
independent statehood was a potent force . F or this men wouldw illingly face the Assyrian hosts and the Roman legions , for thisthey would endure the horrors of the siege
,the hardships of the
battle,the dangers o f exile or extinction . This ideal rendered
the weak strong,particularly when the struggle for l iberty was
against a people o f al ien speech , alien customs, and alien religion .
If,nevertheless
,prophe ts
,priests . and statesmen abandoned it
and strenuously opposed every effort to gain national independence , the cause wa s no t cowa rdice or lack o f affection fortheir native land
,but rather a national ideal that placed right
eousnes s above freedom , a life in harmony with Yahwe’s will
above the pomp and pride and prosperity o f sovereign statehood .
A man,like Jeremiah no doubt weakened the hands o f the men
o f w ar, yet he w as neither a poltroon nor a traitor . He wasloyal t o his people and true t o his ideal
,though its contrast to
popular ambitions fanned by time-serv ing prophets cast uponhim t he appearance o f d isloyalty . llis a ttitude wa s essentiallythe same as tha t o f Nehemiah . w h o ind ignantly repelled theinsinuation tha t he w as working f or nat ional independence .
Great as is the d itTerencc be tween the interests o f Nehemiah andthose o f the pries thood . the absence o f a king by the side o f thehigh-priest in the I
’rics t s
’
( lode is an ind ication o f the same sentiment . Why should no t the “ Moses procla imed in the Persianage have a kingly ideal , as well as the “ Moses ” found in the
PROFESSOR NATHAN I EL SCHMIDT. 5
d ays of Josiah ? Thus,when Jesus counseled the payment of
taxes to Caesar and forbade his disciples to say that he was theMessiah i t was because “ the righteousness of the Kingdom ofHeaven appeared to him vastly more important than the inde
p endence of the state, and because in his ideal of society lords didnot exercise authority, but those who served were counted great .Wh ere a state has for its rivals other states that are sub
s tan t ially its equals, it may depend upon its own resources . Thecase becomes different when it seeks to maintain its independenceagainst a great conquering power . Then strength lies in comb ination ; while the interest of the conqueror is served by division .
Alliances are made for mutual protection . War may be stavedo ff and the aspirations for world-power checked by diplomacy.
H ad Marduk-apal-iddi n been successful in marshaling all theforces of Egypt and Ethiopia
,Arabia and Syria
,Armenia and
Susiana against Sin -achi—irba,Assyria would never have become
the power ‘
i t was in the first half of the seventh century. W itht h e aid of Damascus Judah might reconquer Israel
,or Israel
crush the Davidic kingdom . The Assyrians might prove valuablea l lies against the Aramaeans
,or the Egyptians against Assyria .
A league with Alexandria or Rome might bring relief fromSeleucid tyranny. What could the little Jndasa do alone againstthe great powers of the world ? The only question would bew ith which power it would be wisest to ally one’s self . Hencewe find two political parties in Samaria as well as in Jerusalemat the time of Hosea and Isaiah ; one leaning on Egypt, theother on Assyria . But whatever the ally was
,the political ideal
of strength through uni on was the same .To these entangling alliances many great prophets and states
men were opposed . They were dangerous politically. HadMarduk-apal-iddin been able to realize his ideal, i t would simplyh ave meant that the Chaldaean empire would have come a centurye arlier. Aramaeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Romans wereas willing to help the under dog in Syria as the capitalists ofJerusalem in Nehemiah’s time were to help the farmers by takingmortgages on their lands and accepting the value of theird aughters in the slave market in lieu of interest on kind ad
vances . Out of alliances grew rights —that is,new demands
until the helper had helped himself to all there was . Anotherobj ection to such alliances was that they drew the attention awayfrom the inner condit ions
,while rendering these worse
through the multiplication of horses and chariots and the increased burdens of taxation . The rej oicing over some petty vict ories at Lodebar and Karnaim,
says Amos,made men forget
t hat Israel was being ruined by the venality of judges, the cupidity of the rich
,and the superstition and immorality of the cult .
But the deepest cause of dissatisfaction with this foreign policywas that it Opened the door to foreign influences that threatenedt o obliterate the national character with its religious and social
VOLUME 1 .
PROCEEDIN G S
OF T HE
NEW YORK ST AT E
CONFERENCE OF RELIG ION
NOVEMBER,1900
NEW YORK
P ubliabed by T HE NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF RELIG ION
3 1 2 W EST 54TH ST .
THOMAS W HITTAKER
2 a 3 BIBLE HOUSE
T HE N EW YORPUBLICLIBRAR
saw s , LENOXw eT ween FOUNDAT GON G .
1 905
COPY R I G HT ED BY TH E
N EW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF RELIGION .
TH E MERSHON COMPAN Y PR ESS.RAHW AY , N . J.
PRE FATORY.
The New York State Conference of Religion was organi zed in1 899 by a large number of persons belonging to eleven differentdenominations . Its General Comm ittee now includes membersof fifteen denominations . T h e practical aim and range of its int erest are thought to be sufficiently represented by the subjectspresented i n the programme . Its bond Of union is not in a common formula
,but in the one spirit which is variously expressed
in diff erent religious forms . Its purpose is to promote thelargest practicable junction of religious forces for the furtheranceof those fundamental religious
,moral
,and social interests which
are vital to the stability of the Commonwealth .
In issuing this volume the Executive Committee believe that itcontains matter of permanent value both for the religious consciousness and the religious conscience . They gladly acknow l
edge the generally friendly tone and appreciative judgment ofthe religious j ournals in edi torial references to the Conference .
Any exception to this which has been observed can be reasonablyattributed only to a persistent ignoring of the statements officially made in successive circulars . Such misrepresentations areso fairly answered by an editorial in the Christian Work ” ofNovember 29
,1 900
,that its concluding paragraph deserves to
be quoted here :We expect that not a few will be found among the zealous
sectarians to rise up and say that this Conference of Religion w asa Christless body
,that it was made for the undermining of true
faith rather than the promotion of it . We would say ratherthat the true spirit of Christ
,which is t h e Spirit of love and
service,was the chief and foremost characteristic of the Con
ference,and that the faith which finds its highest and noblest
expression in life and deed was the very faith that inspired itall .”
The rules of the Conf erence provide that no resolution ormotion shall be entertained in th e public assemblies and requireall business to be transacted in the meetings of the General orthe Executive Committee . The prescribed time-l imi t is thirtyminutes for addresses announced on the programme
,ten mi nutes
for speeches opening a discussion,and for other speeches five
minutes .
CONTENTS.
1 . T HE STATE CONFERENCE OF RELIGION,I T S IDEAL
,PROPAGANDA
,
AN D AIMS .
The R ev. Leigh ton W illiams of N ew York,
The R ev. Thomas R . Slicer o f N ew York,
2. ETH ICAL PROGRE SS IN T HE N INETEENTH CENTURY.
T h e R ev. J. M. W hiton , P h . D .,o f N ew York,
Mr. Henry D . Lloyd o f Chicago,Ill.,
3. RELIGION T HE LIFE OF GOD IN T HE SOUL OF MAN.
D iscuss ion
A ddressD i scussion
6. DEMAND S ON A NATION CONSCIOUS OF A MORAL MISS ION.
P ap ers
D iscussion
P ap er
The R ev. W . C . Gannett o f R oches ter, N . Y .,
Professor W alter R auschenbusch of R ochester,
T HE POSSIB ILITIES OF COMMON W ORSHIP.
The R ev. R . H. Newton,D . D .
,of N ew York,
T h e R ev. Henry Berkowitz, D . D . ,o f P h ila
d elphia,P a.
,
Swami Abh edananda,D r. W hiton,President Gates,The R ev. E. J . C . Moran,Swami Abh edananda,D r. Berkowitz
,
T he R ev. James G . D itmars,
5. POLITICAL IDEALS OF T HE B IBLE.
P rofessor N. Schmid t o f Cornell University,The R ev. L. W . Batten, P h . D . ,
D r. W hiton,Dr. Harris
,
The R ev. LeightonWilliams,
The R ev. P ercy S . Grant o f N ew York,P resident B . P. R aymond
,D . D .
,LL. D.
,of
W esleyan University,P rofessor Henry R andall W aite,
7 . DANGEROUS CLASSES IN A REPUBLIC.
Dr. Fred . Howard W ines, Assistan t D irectorOf the Census
,W ashington
,
vi CONTENTS
P ap er Presiden t G . A . Gates,D . D . ,
o f Iowa College,
1 04
D iscuss ion : Mr. Ernest H. CI o sby , 1 1 1
8. RELIGION VITAL T o DEMOCRACY.
The R ev. W ashington Gladden,D . D .
,o f
Columbus,Ohio
,
9. EEL I G I O’
U S EDUCATION IN T HE PUBLIC SCHOOLS .L et ter The R ev. Lyman Abbo tt , D . D . , o f N ew York, 1 25
1 0. EDUCATION BY CHURCH AN D SCHOOL IN SOCIAL R IGHTEOUSNESS .
Hon . Simeon E . Baldwin , o f N ew Haven,
P I eSiden t J. M . Taylor, D . D .,O f Vassar College,
D r. W hiton,
The R ev. John L. Scudder,
Hon . S . E . Baldwin ,The R ev. C . F . D ole ,Professor Na thaniel Schmid t
,
Mrs . G eo. E . Spencer,The R ev. J . B . Greene,Dr. W hiton
,
The R ev. F . J. C . Moran;The R ev. Leighton W illiams,
1 1 . T HE UNORGANIZED EEL I G I OU S FORCE S.
The R ev. Charles F . Dole o f Boston, Mass ,
The R ev. Algernon S . Crapsey ,D . D . , Of R ochester
,N . Y .
,
D iscuss ion : The R ev. S . Z . Batten,
The Rev. W alt e I Laidlaw ,
The R ev. H. Symond s,
1 2. THE IDEAL COMMONW EALTH AS THE K INGDOM OF GOD .
P ap ers : Mr. Edwin Markham o f Brooklyn, N . Y .,
Professor Thoma s C . Hall, D . D .,o f Union
Seminary , N. Y . ,
D iscuss ion : P rofessor R auschenbusch,The R ev. G . A . Carstensen
,
1 3. T HE UNUSED POW ER OF THE CHU ECI IES IN POLITICS .
P ap ers : Hon . B iI d S . Coler o f N ew Y O I k , 1 83
The R ev. Al fred W . W i shart o f Trenton N . J . 1 87
D i scuss i on : The R ev. Leigh ton W illiams, 1 95
1 4. TIIE MESSAGE OF TH IS CONFERENCE T o T IIE CHURCHES .
P ap ers : The R ev. E . S . Tipple , P lI . D .,o f N ew Y O I k
,1 97
The R ev. Josiah St I ong ,D . D .
,o f N ew Y O I k 20 1
A ddresses : The R ev. T . R . Slice I , 205
The R ev. M . I I . I larI is, P h . 206
ORGANIZATION OF T HE CONFERENCE .
Mrs . Mariana W. Chapman,Brooklyn
,N . Y
Rev. F . M . Davenport, Kingston, N. Y .
William A . Duncan,Ph . D .
,Syracuse
,N. Y .
Hon . Seymour Dexter,Elmira
,N . Y.
Mr. Thomas M . Debevo ise, New York.
Rev. James W . A . Dodge,P eekskill
,N. Y .
Dr. Lysander D ickerman,New York .
Rev. Joachim Elmendorf,D . D .,
New York.
Rev. Charles H . Eaton,D . D .
,New York .
Rev. Howard Wilbur Ennis,Brooklyn
,N . Y.
Rev. Samuel E . Eastman,Elmira
,N. Y .
Rev. George P . Eckman,Ph . D .
,New York .
Rev. A . H . Fish, Islip, L. 1 .
Rev. John P . Forbes,Brooklyn, N . Y .
Dr . Frank Fuller,New York .
Dr. P orter Farley,Rochester
,N. Y .
P rofessor Charles P . Fagnani,N ew York.
Rev. James E . Freeman,Yonkers, N . Y.
Rev. Edward O . Flagg,D . D .
,LL. D .
,New York .
Rev. W. C . Gannett,Rochester, N. Y .
Rev. Gustav G ot th eil, D . D .
,New York .
P rofessor Edward H . Griggs,New York .
Rev. 0 . P . Gifford,D . D .
,Buffalo
,N . Y.
Rev. Rudolph Grossman,D . D .
,New York .
Mr . Samuel Greenbaum,New York .
Mr. Albert J. Glass,P oughkeepsie
,N . Y .
Rev. William Ell iot G riffis, D . D .,Ithaca
,N. Y .
Dr . E . R . L . Gould, New York .
! Rev. Jesse L. Hurlbut, D . D .,New York .
Rev. M . H . Harris, Ph . D ., New York .
Rev. Samuel Van Vracken Holmes, D . D ., Bufialo
, N. Y
Rev. C . S. Harrower, D . D ., Carmel, N. Y .
Hon . Abram S . Hew itt,N ew York .
Mr. Dyer B . Holmes,New York .
Mr. W. A . Hubbard,Jr.,
Rochester,N . Y .
P rofessor Arthur S. Hoyt,D . D .
,Auburn
,N. Y .
Mrs . Louise Seymour Houghton,New York .
George W. Harris,Ph . D .
, Ithaca, N. Y .
Mr. Benjamin D . Haicks , Old W estbury, Queens County,Rev. J . W. Hegeman
, Ph . D .
,New York .
Rev. William S . Hubbell,D . D .
,New York .
Mr. Bolton Hall,New York .
Mr. M . S . Isaacs,New York .
Rev. John A . Ingham,Irvington-ou-Hudson, N. Y .
Rev. Charles E. Jefferson, D . D .
,New York .
Mr. William M . Jackson, New York .
Rev. J . B . Kenyon , Litt. D ., Syracuse, N . Y.
! P rofessor Albert Leonard, Syracuse , N . Y .
'Rev. Charles Edward Locke, D . D ., Buffalo, N. Y.
ORGANIZATION OF T HE CONFERENCE .
Rev. Walter Laidlaw,Ph . D .
,New York .
Rev. Max Landsberg, D . D .,Rochester
,N . Y .
Charlton T . Lewis,Ph . D .
,New York .
'Mr. James V. Lott,Brooklyn
,N . Y .
Rev. Henry Mottet,D . D .
,New York .
Mr . Lasalle A . Maynard,New York .
Rev. D . W . Morehouse,New York .
Rev. Edmund M . Mills,New York .
Rev. Donald Sage Mackay,D . D .
,New York .
Rev. Nelson Millard,D . D .
,Rochester
,N . Y .
Rev. Arthur F . Mabon, Tarrytown, N . Y .
Rev. H . P ereira Mendes, D .
~ D .
,New York.
Rev. Ernest Melvill e, Fort Edward, N . Y .
P rofessor Richmond Mayo-Sm ith,New York.
Rev. Francis J . Clay Moran,B . D .
,New York .
Rev. A . C . McG iff ert,D . D .
,New York .
! Rev. Samuel McComb, M . A .,New York .
Rev. Duncan J. McMillan,D . D .
,New York .
Mr . Fulton McMah on,New York .
Mr . Horace McG uire,Rochester
,N . Y .
Rev. R . Heber Newt on,D . D .
,New York .
Rev. Frank Mason North,D . D .
,New York .
Mr . T . M . O sborne,Auburn
,N . Y .
Rev. D . H . Overton,Brooklyn
,N . Y .
‘Rev. Madison C . P eters,D . D .
,New York .
Rev. John P . P eters,D . D .
,New York.
Rev. Horace P orter, Brooklyn, N . Y .
Mr . J . C . Pumpelly, New York .
Rev. J. M . Ph ilput t , D . D ., New York .
P rofessor T . Harwood P attison, D . D .
,Rochester
,N. Y .
Rev. H . H . P eabody,D . D .,
Rome,N. Y .
Mr . Frank Presbrey, New York .
Rev. William E. P ark,D . D .,
Gloversville,N . Y .
Rev. J. W. Phillips,D . D .
,Binghamton, N . Y .
Rev. Lindsay P arker, D . D .,Brooklyn
,N. Y .
Rev. Ulysses G . B . P ierc e,Ithaca
,N . Y .
Mr . Edward B . Rawson,New York .
Hon . Th eodore Roosevelt,Albany
,N . Y .
“
Rev. W. S . Rain sf ord,D . D .,
New York .
Dr. Rossiter W . Raymond,Brooklyn
,N. Y .
Rev. John T . Rose,Cazenovia
,N . Y .
Rev. Josiah Strong,D . D .
,New York .
Rev. Henry A . Stimson,D . D .
,New York .
Rev. Henry M . Sanders,D . D .
, New York .
P rofessor Theodore F . Seward,New York .
Rev. Minot J . Savage,D . D .
,N ew York .
Rev. D . M . Schlesinger,D . D .
, Albany, N . Y .
Mr . Theodore B . Starr,New York .
Rev. Thomas R. Slicer,New York.
4 ORGAN IZ ATION OF T HE CONFERENCE.
Mr . Gustav Schwab, New York .
Rev. J . Silverman,D . D .
,New York .
P rofessor Nathaniel Schmidt, Ithaca, N . Y.
P resident Augustus H . Strong, LL. D ., Rochester, N . Y .
Rev. Karl Schwarz, Syracuse, N . Y .
Mr. Henry W . Sprague, Buffalo, N . Y .
Rev. J. W . A . Stewart, D . D .
,Rochester, N. Y .
Rev. Charles W. Tomlinson, Huntingt on, L . I .
Rev. E. S . Tipple, Ph . D .,New York .
P resident James M . Taylor, D . D .
,LL . D .
,Poughkeepsie
,N .
TProf essor Moses Coit Tyler, Ithaca, N . YMr. Frank Tilford
,New York .
Rev. J. G . van Slyke, D . D .,Kingston
,N . Y .
Rev. Merle St . C . Wright,New York .
! Rev. Stephen S . Wise,New York.
Henry Randall Waite,Ph . D .
,New York .
Hon . Everett P . Wheeler,New York .
Mr. Thomas Whittaker, New York .
Rev. Denis Wortman,D . D .
,Saugerties
,N . Y .
Rev. S . T . W illis,New York .
Rev. J . C . W ilson,Brooklyn
,N. Y .
Mr. Frederick E . W il lits,Glen Cove
,L . I .
Mr . John Seely Ward,Jr.
,New York .
! Professor B . I . Wheeler,Ithaca
,N. Y .
Hon . Andrew D . White,Ithaca
,N. Y .
Rev. W illiam Burnett Wright,D . D .
,Buffalo N. Y .
Rev. W . T . Wotton,Mount Morris
,N . Y .
Rev. Dani el M . W il son,Brooklyn
,N. Y .
Rev. Theodore C . W illiams,Tarrytown
,N . Y.
Honorary Members .
Rev. Timothy Richard, Shanghai, China ; Rev. Paul Sabatier,Chan t egrillet , France .
Executive Commi ttee.
J. M. Whiton,Ph . D .
,Chairman
,28 West 1 28th Street
,N ew
York ; J . Coleman Adams,D . D . ; J . K. Allen
,D . D . ; Rev. S . T .
Carter ; Rev. W. C . Gannett ; M . I I . I Iarris , Ph . D . ; Mr. L. A .
Maynard ; Henry Mottet, D . D . , R. I I . Newton, D . D . ; H . M .
Sanders , D . D . ; Rev. T . R. Slicer ; Josiah Strong, D . D . ; E . S .
Tipple,Ph . D . ; Mr . Thomas Whittaker
,Treasurer
,2 and 3 Bible
House,New York ; Rev. Leighton W ill iams , General Secreta ry,
Amity House,31 2 W . 54th Street
,New York .
PROCEEDIN G S O F T HE F IRST PUBL IC MEET
IN G OF T HE NEW YORK STATE CON FER
ENCE O F REL I G ION .
Pursuant to announcement the Conference convened at theChurch of the Holy Communi on, New York City, November 20,1 900
,at P . M.
,the Chairman
,Rev. J . M . Whiton, Ph . D .
,of
New York,presiding. In declaring the first meeting of the Con
ference open,the Chairman announ ced that the proceedings of
this and the successive sessions would take place according to the
p rinted programme . The devotional services of the session wereconducted by the Rev. Henry Mottet
,D . D .
CHURCH OF THE HOLY COMMUNION,TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 20.
I . T HE STATE CONFERENCE OF RELIGION,I T S IDEAL
,
PROPAGANDA,AN D AIMS .
F irs t P aper.
REV. LE IGHTON W ILLIAMS,N EW Y ORK.
It has fallen to my lot to state,as the representative of the
Executive Committee,something of the nature
,constituency,
basis,and aims of this Conference of Religion . As the result of
s omewhat extended,but entirely unofficial
,correspondence
,a cir
cular letter was‘
prepared and issued on Christmas Day,1 898,
Signed by five men,—each of them representing a different and
important denomi nation,—inviting suggestions from leading
clergymen and laymen of the State regarding the advisability ofa Conference of Religion . It was suggested in this letter thats omething more than toleration in religion should mark the at
t itude of churches toward one another—a spirit of reciprocation in religion and in inter-religious co-operation . This cironlar met wi th a very large and favorable response from alld enominations and from all parts
"
of the State . The next step inthe movement was a meeting in this city in May
,1 899
,at which
o ver thirty gentlemen were present—members of ten religious
6 T HE STATE CONFERENCE OF RELIGION.
denominations . After a three-hours’ conference it was heartilyand un animously resolved to hold a State Conference of Re ligion .
The basis of the Conference was declared to be “Religion with
its many theologies ; one practical aim,the realization of a higher
righteousness,together with frank and friendly recognition of
adm itted differences of thought .” An Executive Committee was .appointed to prepare for such Conference . The Conference w as .
organized on the model of the Episcopal Church Congress and
t h e Baptist Congress,with a General Commi ttee of those inter
est ed in actively supporting the movement,and a smaller (th e
Executive) commi ttee, elected by them . There are now aboutone hundred and seventy persons on our General Committee
,
representing fifteen religious denominations,viz .
,Episcopalians
,
P resbyterians, Congregationalists, Unitarians, Baptists, Methodist s
, Hebrews, Reformed, Universalists, Friends, D isciples of'
Christ, French P rotestant, Independent, Volunteers of America,and Salvation Army .
The Committee have framed the programme which is beforeyou . The character of the topics and the personality of th espeakers requi re no word of explanation or apology. The programm e speaks for itself . The Committee have experienced veryl ittle difficulty in framing the programme . The movement hasseemed to commend itself to a large number of the ablest menin all denominations from the first
,and our invitations have met
with favorable response in every instance . Even where men havenot been able to accept
,it has been with strongly expressed re
gret and for unavoidable reasons .All thinking men
,says P rofessor Sanday of Oxford, are
coming to be of on e religion, and observation fully justifies thisstatement . If religion has in it the elements of reality theremust be eventually
,as men grow more Open-mi nded
,a growing
consensus of Opinion on the basis of the ascertained facts of re
ligious experience . This grow ing unity of religious opinion and’
.
practice is manifesting itself in many movements of our time .
Most of these have been in the field of practical endeavor and'
ph ilan thrOpic enterprise, but there is need also for union on the.
though t side, and of opportunities for the interchange of thoughtand Opinion
,and for frank and free discussion both Of
'
agreements and disagreements . The Church Congress amongEpiscopalians
,the Baptist Congress among Baptists, have done a
useful work ; and this movement is the extension of the same ideato a wider field . Religion w as once largely a matter of external
forms and ceremonies,and in some measure stil l is and must
always continue to be so . The religious emotions and aspirations .
demand some outward expression,and this expression takes shape
in some ritual or ceremonial . But with growing light men are
moving on from mere ceremonialism to the recognition of a clearthough t
-bas is for emotion , and as the resul t we have the creeds ,confes sions
,and other formal statements of religious belief. But:
REV. LE IGHTON W ILLIAMS .
t hese, again, have relied too much on an external authority, andwith the growth of clear religious experience men are comi ng torest on the internal witness of the D ivine Spirit in thought andconscience, rather than on external standards, and as that Spirit isone
,so religious experience is essentially one
,and in this essent ial
un ity we find the possibility and the h Ope for eventual religiousunity among spiritually min ded men . Not an enforced unityM posed from without
,but a volun tary un ity inspired from
within .
The di stin ction between religion and theology is recognizedin all churches . It is regularly acted on in all churches
,and in
none more than those which are equipped with theological creeds .The P resbyterian Church
,for instance, though stringently exact
ing theological conformity of all its mi nisters and Off icers, receives applicants for membership simply upon the fundamentalso f religion
,without any theological condi tions . It has long been
a matter of common knowledge and remark that religion uni testhose whom theology di vides . Those most seriously di vided thusare now proceeding to get together for the proposed State Conference of Religion on such grounds of unity as they find in areligious spirit of endeavor for moral and social betterment .They expressly affirm that they do thi s without compromise oftheir admitted di fferences in theology .
”
And now a word before I close, from my own standpointthat of an orthodox Christian . It has been assumed hastily bysome that there are elements in the orthodox view of Christian itywhi ch make it impossible for an orthodox Christian to unite withthose not so classed in any form of rel igious association . Thi s isnot the Opinion of the orthodox supporters of this Conference .
They do not believe it to be the attitude enjoined by the MasterHimself and exemplified in His own example, nor do they believeit to be the attitude inspired of the Spirit to-day, or justified bythe Christian Scriptures . And if any look for the triumph of
so-called orthodox ” Opini ons, can they anticipate that triumphon any other groun d than that they are true Opinions ? And ifthey are essentially true Opinions
,will not their truth vindi cate
itself? The ark of God needs no defense . Truth is mi ghty andwi ll prevail
,and it is only those who are conscious of an inse
curi ty in the basis of their faith who h ave reason to hold aloof andfear progress of di scussion . Said one of the most eminent ofour orthodox leaders, I am heartily in favor of this Conference,just because I am so intensely evangelical .”
I may be permitted to repeat what I have elsewhere writtenregarding the posit ion of so-ealled orthodox supporters of thisConference :
! Dr. Whi ton’
s T imes letter, June 15, 1 899.
8 T HE STATE CONFERENCE OF RELIGION.
The Master Himself looked for the hour when all menshould worship the Father in spiri t and in truth
,for the Father
seeketh such to worship H im .
’ That one spiritual faith is now’
dawning on the world with rapidly growing brightness,and t o
some of us that which seems its greatest hindrance is that whichoffered itself as the bitterest foe of our Lord during the days of .
His earthly ministry—the separatism and traditionalism of thosewho regarded themselves as the orthodox party
,and who Opposed
the present workings of the Divine Spirit in their day becausethey failed to realize them as proceeding from the same sourcewhence had come the inspiration of the writings which they re
garded as the completed revelation of the will of God.
“ We believe in the oneness of true religion,and that th e
reality of that religion is everyw here witnessed to by its practicalfruits, but we do not confound true religion with self-styledorthodoxy . Holding many of us ourselves the views of Christiandoctrine which entitle us to be called orthodox
,we yet recognize
the possibility of persons holding those views who have not in i
them the reality of religion,and the possibility of others in whom
that real ity may exist,and who may yet be unorthodox in many
of their opinions . True religion is the life of God in the soul,
and the Master Himself explicitly said that the presence of thatlife would be known by its fruits . Wherever
,therefore
,we see
the fruits, we do not hesitate to affirm the presence of the life .
Our Conference is not to be held on the invitation of men‘ whose main religious inspiration is hatred of Christianity
,
’ buton the invitation of well-known Christian men . We do believe inthe value of ‘ frank and friendly discussion
,
’ and in this beliefwe but follow the guidance and practice of the best and greatestof the leaders of the Christian faith from the time of St . Pauldown . We seek to find a cure for the soul’s diseases in a renewing of its life,
’ and in that effort we are glad to welcome -the co
operation of all seeking the same end,nor would we forbid any
because he followeth not with us,remembering the words of the
Master,
‘ Forbid him not,for he that i s not against me is for
me .
’ In all this we trust that we are still loyal to Jesus Christ,
and that in all our actions and words and spirit we shall makeevident that we have been with Jesus and learned of Him .
In closing this address I cannot refrain from expressing th epleasure
,in which al l will heartily unite
,that the first session
of this Conference,bringing together so many devout men in
the unity of the spirit and t h e bond o f peace from various commun ion s, is h eld in th e Church named in honor o f the One HolyCommunion of th e Holy Spirit , and hallowed by the fragrantmemory of the sainted Dr. Muhlenberg, orthodox in faith andcathol ic in sympathy
,and w h o may be entitl ed above others t o .
be ha il ed as the chief forerunn er o f this movement .
1 0 T HE STATE CONFERENCE OF RELIGION.
o f moral l ife . There is a moral and an immoral life . I doubt ifthere is any such thing as a life amoral, or not moral . There iso nly one use of the word good among the same kinds of creatures . A good horse
,and a good house
,and a good man
,are not
the same kind of good . But a good man,and a good woman
,and
a good will, and a good G od, are all the same kind of good . Therei s,therefore
,to our thinking, only one kind Of good among
c reatures or beings of the same nature ; and it is because web elieve that good can never be evil under any conditions , fromthe ultimate reality whom we call God to the least of all thatShares His life, that we believe that we can unite for good endsin the name of the good God by the uni on of our good-will .In the third place
,there is only one way to love God and man .
‘There is no variation in that procedure . There is no way ofloving God and hating your brother. We have a very early andbrutal statement in the New Testament concerning that . Theapostle in writing the epistle that is called John
,says
,
“ If aman say I love God and hateth his brother
,he is a liar .”
‘That is the way it sounds in English,and the Greek is no less
explicit . It is a singularly frank statement,
“ If a man say helove God and hateth his brother
,he is a liar. For if a man love
not his brother whom he hath seen,he cannot love God whom
he hath not seen .
” It is the splendid realism of that statementthat leads us to say that there is only one way of loving God andloving man .
In the fourth place,there is only one way to worship God . The
postures are many,the places are a multitude
,the ritual is most
!d iverse, the statements are as various as the temperaments thatmake them . But under all the statements
,behind all the postures
in all the places,it is true as from the beginning,
“ God is aspirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spiritand in truth ; for the Father is Seeking such to be His worshipers .” This is the divine search for the divinely moved w orship, and away back in the third century one of the least eruditeof the Fathers of the early Church
,Tertull ian, said, The soul
divines what is divine .
” Tertullian said many a foolish thing ,but we know he uttered a truth when he said, The soul divineswhat is divine .” So we say there is only one way to worship G od ,and the statement from John’s gospel that I have just quotedi s paralleled by that splendid
,age-old statement ,
“ Thou shaltl ove the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy souland with all thy mind ; and thou shalt love the other as thyself .
”
When any movement gathers up the forces o f human Strengthin tide s so strong that it pours itself out at the feet o f God
,the
ebb from that high level finds the needy places o f human life ;then is demonstrated the unity o f moral passion in terms of
moral performance .Finally
,there is only one way to treat rel igious differences . The
w orld has tried a great many ways and none o f them have suc
REV. JAMES M . W H ITON,PH . D . 1 1
ceeded . It burned the heretic,and out of the ashes a man went
up to God and took his place in history, radiant with the illumination of the very fires that consumed him . They tried suppres
sion of difference of opini on ; and the last trial, and the hardesttrial of all to bear, is the trial of toleration ; to be permitted tod i ffer . Nobody wants that now . We have got to the point wherethe walls are so low that we can see across and rej oice in thef ertility Of the fields on the other side . There are many of usin this movement who feel that every wall occupies a space thatought to be cultivated, and that there is really good ground atthe base of the wall where something might be planted and
g row ; and perhaps we could delimit the fields as on a tennis-courtthe grass is left a little longer on the lines about the courts ; butit is not long enough to trip the players .This Conference means that there is only one way to treat re
ligious differences . It is not by toleration ; it is not by persecution ; it is not by repudiation ; it is not by repression . It is bySpiritual sympathy. I want to see what the other man sees . Iprobably shall not like it when I see it ; but I want to see it , allthe same . I want to find out why he likes it, what makes it sointeresting
,what it is in his temperament and the thing he sees
that come together and make h im so much better a man than Icould be under the same conditions
,than he could possibly be
under any other conditions . So the great distinction of unity asdi versified from uniformity is that we come to speak of spiritualsympathy . We do not feel each other’s pulse to see if the otherman is quite well ; but we look into the other man
’s eyes to findwhich way he is looking
,and then try to get the same View ; and
s o,with wider horizons
,we enlarge the scope of our purpose and
o f our spiritual endeavor .
II . ETHICAL PROGRESS IN THE NINETEENTHCENTURY.
F irs t P aper.
REV . JAMES M. WH ITON,PH . D .
From the sidewalk by the south wall of Trinity churchyardt h e passer-by reads among the graves the name of AlexanderHamilton
,the organizer of our national finances . It may recall
t hat even fifty years after Hamilton was slain by Burr in a duelon the W eehawken sho re
,a Massachusetts representative felt
himself constrained by an influential opinion at Washington toaccept a challenge to mortal combat with his fellow-congressmanf rom South Carolina .
In 1 81 8,in a Massachusetts town where I was inducted into
t h e ministry half a century later, temporary booths,erected near
1 2 ETHI CAL PROGRESS IN T HE N D IET REN T H CEN T t .
the Congregati onal Ch urch , dispensed ardent Spirits for the re
freshment of the crowd assembled there at the ordi nation of anew pastor.I have had in my possession bills of sale
,by which
,a f ew years
before that incident, a minister of the Gospe l in N ew Jerseyconveyed legal title t o th e own ership of human chattels, negromen and women .
Such remini scences suffice t o remin d us of a fact th at we areall aware of—the standard bo th of private and public moral s ishigher at the end of the century than at its beginning . T o-davas in the prehistoric days of Greece
,of whi ch Homer sang,
W e vaunt ourselves as greatly better than our fath ers w ere .
Yet t o—day what the Lord said to Israel,when Canaan w as but
half mastered, mus t be said to u s : There remaineth yet verymuch land to be possessed . If we record great progress made,it is to ins pire eff ort for great progress sti ll required .
In attemptin g to desc ribe in half an hour the advance thatonly a volum e could adequately rec ord
,we may regard it in tw o
aspects : 1 . Extens ively in an enlargement of the field of ethi calconduct
,taking in new areas of human life
,new subjects of ethi
cal relations,new classes of persons and act ions . 2. I n tensively
in a more thorough cultivat ion of the fields previously till ed ,substitut ing subsoil plowi n g for surface plowing
,profounder
moral vi ews f or shall ower .
1 . The ext ens ive aspect of ethi cal progres s is the more obvioust o t he popul ar Vi ew,
as in the temperance reform and the an tislavery reform . The most sali ent advance , however, is in thatrenaissance of Christian Mis sions for whi ch our century is notless conspicuous than for the n ew births of science . I f thetheological prejudi ces whi ch adhere to the subjec t can be putaside
,i f the uni form testim ony of the di plomatic representati v es
of Great Britain and the United States in Oriental lands can beaccepted as bett er than the snap-judgments of globe-trott ers
,if
the educati onal institutions and the medi cal reli ef f or hum ansufferin g whi ch mi ssionaries have carried can be fairly estimated
,
no landmark of ethical progress is more indi sputable and impress iv e than thi s spontaneous upris ing to distribute the be stthings o f Ch ri stendom to uplif t and purify and enrich the lifeof the lowest and the needi est nati ons . Yet many among us st illregard it w ith an apathy that puts them at a l ower ethical levelthan the poe t of pagan Rome . I am a man ,
” said he ; nothin gthat touches a man fails t o touch me .”
T h e world-embrac ing human interest which thus illustrate sthe extens iveness o f ethical progres s appears also in its embraceo f those formerly regarded as s ocial outcasts . The whole field o f
penology has been taken under ethical treatment . So barbarousw as the criminal law of England at the beginn ing o f this century
anv. Jam s H . w a rrox,PH . 1 3
t hat pickpocket s and shoplif ters were put to death . I t w as alsoa capital offense there for a soldi er or a sailor to beg wi thout apass from a magis trat e or commander . Not only hav e thesesanguinary laws been abolished, but the whole theory of judi cialpuni shm ents
,whether human or di vine
,h as been e thi cally born
an ew. Ins tead of a vin di ctive a reformat ory purpose h as beensubsti t uted, regarding the criminal not as an outcast to betormented
,but as a lost one to be reclaimed . Formerly a hell
,
the prison is n ow , at least in theory, a hospit a l, wi th moral andrel i gious influences a s chi ef among it s reformatory appliances .Yet even now how short our practi ce is of adopted theory many acounty j ail t es tifies t o our shame . T w o other notable extens ionsof the ethi cal field in the last quarter-c entury can here only beput on record—the Social Settlement and the University Ext ension ; the former introducing into the ethi ca l relati on of neighbors
,and the latt er into that of pupil s
,large numbers formerly
outside .In 1 856 the leading nati ons of Europe agreed to abolish
privat eering, our Governm ent declin i ng the compact only because it di d not go to the full an d logic al ext ent of gran ting immuni ti es to private propert y at sea equal wi th those granted ont h e land . The formati on of the Red Cross Society
,in 1 864
,
and the immuni ti es granted to it by c ivili zed states for its mi tigations of the sufferings of war
,mark another concession of ethi
cal rights to the public enemy . The work of the P eace Soc iety,
wi th its outcome in the progress of inte rnational arbitrati on,
signalized espec ially by the recent P eace Conf erence at TheHague, has brought us seemingly wi thin sight of the comingtrans formation of the public enemy into a peaceful litigant incourts of international law—thus brin ging the man across t h esea into the same ethi ca l relati onshi p as the man across t h e
street . The sini ster phenomena that blot thi s record,the bar
bari ti es st ill perpet rate d in the name of civili zati on,must be
conf essed wi th shame, but the backward eddi es must not be mistaken for the onward current .Still other clear signs of ethi cal progress in an extensi ve vi ew
appear in the t ran sfer of lott eries from the clas s of respectableto the class of criminal enterprises the result
,in thi s country
,
of more than sixty years’ struggle
,crow ned wi th victory in 1 893
over the last enemy in Loui siana . They appear in the lifting of
c ivil disabili ti
es from classes previou s ly deni ed civil right s,as
Catholics ti ll 1 829,and Jews ti ll 1 858
,in P arliament
,and
, now ,
in perhaps half of our States,of atheist s in courts of jus ti ce .
They appear in a long series of l egi slati ve acts in c ivili zed count ries by whi ch the rights of women and chi ldren
,cruelly in vaded
by greedy employers,have been taken un der the shi eld of law .
Th ey appear more conspicuous ly in the large provis ions of publi ccharity f or the indigent sick
,for the insane
,f or helpless chi l dren
an d other unfortun ates . The muni ficen t educati onal endowments
1 4 ETHICAL P RO G RESS i N T EE N INETEENTH CENTURY.
for which our country is admired by the world proceed from im
pulses which are predominantly ethical . The outermost rim ofthe ethical field has been reached in the taking even of dumbanimals into an ethical relationship, as claimants of the rightswith which the Father both of men and of sparrows has investedthe humblest of his sentient creatures .2. We now turn from the extensive to t h e intensive aspect
of ethical progress, where the advance consists not in the eu
largement, but the better cultivation of the field,improvement
upon the ideas and achievements of our predecessors . Extensively, ethical progress has appeared mainly in the enlargemento f practical philanthropy. Intensively
,it appears to have been
mainly,yet by no means wholly
,in the ethicizing of theory in
those Opposite hemispheres of thought that are concerned withtheology on one hand and economics and civics on the other .
In theology the ethical advance has been immense,if we reckon
with its leaders,and not with the loitering rear-guard, wi th
whom,rather than wi th the van, some scientific men have a
curious preference for battle . The potentate theory and thepotter theory of God are fast yi elding to the paternal theory.
That intellectual errors about G od are morally guilty, a fallacythat has subj ected many a pure soul to cruel ostracism
,or worse
,
the last quarter-century has dispatched to the company of itstwin
,the witchcraft delusion . Schemes of peace with God, so
called plans of salvation ” based on a forensic and fictitiousrighteousness not our own
,but legally transferred to us from a
substitute,are giving place to convictions that there is no real
salvation or peace with God but what there is of righteousness inpersonal character of Jesus’ type . The unethical conception ofthe Bible
,in which sundry relics of pagan superstition and bar
barism in the primitive period of religious development werefancied to be integral parts of a divine revelation
,has been super
seded , except in the cyclone cellars of the Church . D ivine I nspiration has obtained recogn ition of its true ethical character,as an enlightening and morally renewing influence , in place ofthe unethical estimate of it as a certificate of infallibility of nopractical use except to infall ible readers . And last
,but not l east
,
that frightful dogm a of an endless punishment hereafter, which ,for the first time in history
,was made an articl e of religion in the
year 544 at the instance of the Greek emperor Justinian , hasgiven place
,except in a few mummified creeds awaiting the
dertaker’s leisure , to the ethical belief that
“ whatsoever a mansoweth that shall he also reap .
” The conception o f D ivine judgment itself has been ethicized , from a vindictive to a restorativework
,in which judgment becomes a halfway house on the road
o f salvation, where the sobered sufferer may, if only he will ,change cars from the down-grade to th e t i p
-grade . The wholeconception o f human life, as related to G od , has undergone anethical tran s formation
,and the best work for this has been done
,
EEv. JAMES M . W E I T ON , PH . D. 1 5
impartial critics confess,by the theological heretics
,whose fruits
,
if not their praise,abound throughout the churches . Man
,in
stead of being reduced to that ethical nonentity ” which med iaeval theology made him,
as a creature naturally incapable of
aught but moral oflen siveness to God,the prize of an unearthly
struggle between the powers of divine grace and satanic malign ity, has been restored by the ethical progress of this century tohis natural ethical value as the subj ect of a divine education, achil d of God
,to be trained for the knowledge of his Father
through service to his brother men .
With this service the department of economics has much todo . Here
,also
,as in the department of theological thought,
the intensive progress of theory is conspicuous . Yet it has notbeen so marked in statement as in the wider acceptance of statements long since made . The passionate but silenced claims ofJohn Ball and Joss Fritz
,the slaughtered peasants of Wyclif’s
and Luther’s time,are advanced now from university chairs and
cathedral stalls . The natural-right doctrines of the French physiocrat s of the eighteenth century, swept away by the cyclone of
revolution, have inspired since the middle of this century thenow rapidly growing school of Christian Socialists, reckoni ngchurchmen and economists of the highest eminence among itsleaders . The very definition of economics has been significantlyethicized : it is no longer the science of mere wealth, which re
duced man,as Ruskin said
,to a mere “ cove
‘
tous machine, fitto sit for the portrait of a lost soul
,but
,as P rofessor Ingram
says,in the “ Encyclopedia Britannica
,
” of wealth as concernedwi th the maintenance and evolution of society. Facts correspond somewhat to this definition
,and are destined to a larger
correspondence . By a long series of measures in this centurythe privileged classes of England
,says Mr . Grant Allen
,have
been enfranchising and equipping the unprivileged to competewith them . The two facts most indicative of the progressiveleavening of economi c theories and methods by ethical princi plesare these : (1 ) In a period of unprecedented accumulations ofwealth in a few hands the attention of scientific economists isnow most given to the problems of equitable distribution . (2)The princely benefactions of many immensely wealthy men indicate the consciousness that such di stribution is due
,and is better
made by them than for them .
In civics also progress has been made intensively,though prac
tice is as yet even less conformed to eth ical'
t h eory than ineconomics . The exaggerated assertion of natural rights
,in
h erit ed from centuries of conflict with tyrants for a freedom inw hich citizenship was valued more for it s worth to the individualt han i t s w orth to society
,is being duly balanced by the discovery
that individual rights are not an end,but a means ; that citizen
ship is not a personal asset,but a public trust ; that Democracy,
as P rofessor MacCunn says,has missed its mark if it has nothing
1 6 ETH ICAL PROGRESS I N T HE N INETEENTH CENTURY.
but rights to insist on . In many a group of promoters of goodcitizenship ; in the civil service reform,
initiated in Great Britainin 1 855
,and much more feebly here in 1 872; in the stronger re
gard given by religious teachers to civic obligations as religiousduties
,may be seen the slow ripening of the doctrine with which
our fellow-citizen Francis Lieber balanced the extreme individualism of the Jeff erson ian period
,by declaring that there are no
rights without duties, and no duties without rights . Yet thisc lear trend of nineteenth-century civics toward the primacy ofcivic duties, as the end for which civic rights exist, is entitled tobe called progress only so far as it succeeds in marrying thenineteenth-century extensions of individual freedom to the truthproclaimed by the philosophers of classic Greece
,that the free
man is free only that he may the better serve the interests of theCommonwealth .
In view,now
,of this necessarily concise and incomplete record
,
I dare say that there has been more ethi cal progress,both exten
sive and intensive,during the nineteenth century than during all
the eighteen centuries preceding. I have said nothing of themultiplying books on ethics theoretical and practical
,nothing of
the ethical-culture movement,so promising
,especially for pro
voking healthy emulation in religious societies, which have sometimes seemed to forget that ethics must be taught as appliedreligion . That there are deplorable gaps to be filled in the lineof progress may be frankly confessed by the most hopeful . Conspicuous evil s menace the foun dation of society in the family .
The home is W idely desecrated by the lax treatment of the marriage relation and the vile housing of many poor . There is nosmall moral anarchy both in business and in politics . Yet many oft he dark areas are not now so black as formerly. No bank now fails ,as in the time of the wild cats
,
” with in outstandingnotes and in specie for their redemption . And the darkest areas of to-day confront a growing public rebuke . A publicsentiment spreads
,which Dean Hodges has expressed in saying
that “Economics
,l ike theology
,is of l ittl e use but for charac
ter. The ethical forces which have e ffected such progress aswe have recorded are at work with a growing momentum
,and
justify an optimistic outlook upon the twentieth century.
Finally,none should fail to note the significance with which
the subject of ethical progress appears on the programme of thisConference, as a preface to its various topics of practical religiousinterest . This is doubly significant . It means : ( 1 ) That thevery conception of ethics has been deepened in our time . Totalk now of “ mere ethics is antiquated . Ethic s is no longer ascience of mere rules and behavior, but the science of moralnature . As such
,it has to c oncern itself not merely with the
moral nature found on this speck o f a planet,but also with the
moral nature which inhabits the universe,“ the Ancient o f Days ,
”
and our relation t o him . Thus ethics has become, nay must be ,
1 8 B'
I'
I I ICA I. PROGRESS I N T IIE N INETEENTH CENTURY.
se lling age—the age o f (Jarlyle
’
s cash nexus —tbc h ighestplaces have been w on and t h e most money has been made by t heart ists Wagner, ltuskin ,
and Millet , w ho are mos t a t variancewith this pro fessed principle o f t he age . They are the repre
sen tat ive men o f t he art world in it s three greatest d iv is ions :l ite rary express ion , mus ic , and painting. Very significant willseem t o a later day the economic apprecia tion which we h avegi ven ltus kin
,Wagner, Mille t—e very one o f them protestants
agains t t h e dominant principle o f our socia l life . We pride ours elves particularly upon the accuracy with which we gauge thingsby their money value .
Ruskin has for h is real subj ect t he ethics o f the common li fe,
though he professed t o be talking a rt . I will put up with th isstate o f things , passi vely , no t an hour l onger,
” he says , speakingo f the social injus tice about him and it s results o f social miseDivining that we can have an ideal art and an ideal society on yby having an ideal indus try , ltuskin betook himsel f to wri tingtreatis es about production
,d istribution , and exchange , much to
the amazement o f t he mlite world which could no t help readinghim,
but has never umfers tood him .
Millet d id no t ge t t h e money h is pictures made , but h isAngclus
”represents t he highest quota tion yet established for
pictures as merchandise . Wagner—he , too , d id no t ge t themoney ; but no music has been answered by t he j ingl e o f more
guincas and dollars and marks and francs than those h is notessent pouring into the pocke ts o f irnprcsarios and prima-donnasand high tenors . Wagner, t he revolutionis t, arrested and exiledin 1 848 ! He tells us i t is only in the people that w e can look forthe artists o f the future . He wrote in tone language—which is ,he tells us
,the beginning and end o f al l language—the myths o f
t he Nibelungen , as we know from him ,in t he hope that through
allegory and illusion,the paths by which the people most eas ily
reach the truth , h e might awaken us to ecstasies o f repentanceand amendment. lie sought thus t o enlist us in the war which ,in h is words
,
“ real human na ture is waging against its crueloppressor
,modern civilisation
,
”—w il.h“ its d is tilla tion o f its
sweet perfumes out o f t he people, -with “i t s conve rs ion o f the
people into the ill-smelling re fuse o f society ,
” —wi th its cruel ,inhuman doc t rines o f t he rights o f priva te prriperty,
” —with “its
childhood d riven t o heali ll-des t roying and excessive toil ,”—with“it s workingmen allowed t o be men only to the ex ten t whichcapital icrmits ,
” —~wi th its constant labor killing bo th body andsoul, W i thout j oy o r love
,often almos t withou t a im .
”
Mille t expressed wi th h is brush t he same sympa thy with the
pco do. He sough t t o gl ori fy t he common lo t o f immunity and
to i ring together t he hea rts so far disparted by t he extremes o f
want and wealth . “is shrewd contemporaries saw well what hewas doing , and atta cked him fiercely as an enemy o f the established order—vs Socialis t . The message o f the aspirations of
MR. HEN RY nnmannsr LLOYD. 1 9
labor and th e bro therhood in t o which labor must weld all menwhich Millet brought is iden ti cal in its social significance w iththat which Wagner thundered w ith his pen and his bat on .
The mone y and th e fam e that our day has given llusk iu’
s
books and Mille t'
s pea sants and Wagner'
s operas are t he indexo f t h e response w hich t hese new masters have awakened .
Never w as th e. courage o f the poet and the scholar t o deal w ithcont emporary questions o f social w rong and social remedy so
cl ear as in our t imes . The universal consciousn ess of the peoplet ell s th em a crisis is at han d . T h e crisis w hich t h e people now
see our l it erary men saw tirs t . and faithfully have they beenuttering t o us their w arnings . w i th a higher t h an literarv inspiration .
Crises of society go in pairs—t he crisis of thought and t he
crisis of action .—no t side by side . but one before the o ther. driven
t andem . fi rst th e crisis o f Rousseau . th en the crisis of Mi rabeau : first. the crisis of G arrison . then the crisis of Lincoln : firstth e crisis of Ruskin . C
‘
arlvle. Maurice . Victor Hugo .Henry George . Tenny son . George Sand . Harrie t Mart ineau .
Shelley . George Eliot . Wagner . Millet . Mazzini . iyron . Dickens ,Bellamy . Tolstoi . Whitman . How ell s . Emerson . and Low ell . nowt o be t h e crisis of the martyrs . th e saviors . th e brothers . perhapsalready born . but as yet unrevealed .
The. poet. i s th e creator; and these poets . followi ng th e breakof day w ith their double. n otes of rebuke and inspiration . havebeen singing int o th e heart o f the nineteenth centur y a sweeterlife f or th e. twentieth . That. these men . w ith this message . are the.great men of the nineteen th centur y i s the firs t and greatestfact of our ethical progress .
(2) The city that is at. unity w i th itself .We talk of som e. coming reconstruction o f soci ety . but it is now
going on . Whil e w e dream of U t opia . Alt ruria is aw akeningunder our hands and becoming Actualia. There mus t. be a changesome. day . ever y one say s : th e change is t o-dav.
The sham e Christendom feels f or it s cit i es is the ac t ive sideof th e new ideals of social self-interest an d social sympath y generat ed by t h e el ectrical contact o f t h e mul t itudes concentratedby modern civ iliza t ion . 1 w ould like t o destroy a large part o fEdinburgh and the w hol e of New York . Ruskin say s in an
ecstasy of indigna t ion . But. th e people . practical . peace-l ov ing.
and logical , do no t w ish t o destroy . but t o crea te . T he new li fe
stirring in the cities of th e w orld . reaching as far as Jerusalemand Damascus
,is the emergence into ac t ion of the highest social
that is . ethical—ideals at the points o f greatest. social pressure .The batt le o f Marathon w as fought. by slaves unchained from
their masters’
doorpos t s . and af ter th e battle w as w on f or themas t ers the y led th eir slaves b ack t o t h e doorposts . But t h e
modern ci t y is ent ering upon a new era w hich w ill have it thatall shall be free—free from disease . dirt . pauperism , ignor an ce .
20 ETH I CAL P ROG RESS IN THE N INETEENTH CENTUR Y .
hunger, fear. If w e are to have t h e poor always w i th us, themodern city is resolved that they shall not be paupers, as a previons age would not let t h e poor remain serfs, and t h e age beforethat relieved the poor of slavery, and t h e age before said the poorcaptive should not be slaughtered .
When a poor child falls sick in Glasgow of scarlet fever or someo ther contagious disease t h e c ity takes it up in i ts great armsand takes up with it th e whole family if need be
,puts them
in sunny rooms in its contagious-diseases hospital,and all t h e
resources of science, all t h e in strumentalities of organi zed socialsympathy and self-interest, doctors , nurses, and medicines, are
about th e bedside of t h e child . There, among th e flowers andtrees and waters of a beautiful park, th e modern battle of Marathon is fought—not by slaves for their masters, but by all f or all .When th e victory is won these guests of t h e city go regretfullyaway, actually sorry to leave a pest-house.
T h e richest property-owner in t h e city of N ew York is th ec ity itself, with its parks, schools, streets, water-works , l ibraries .T h e greatest corporation in t h e city is th e municipality, everyvoter and taxpayer a stockholder . Beneath all th e evil that challenges th e reformers there is, in th e inner spirit and deed of ourmodern cities, a well-developed beginning of a life following andnearing t h e ideal .One summer day I saw a man fall in th e streets of Chicago
overcome by t he heat . An officer paid by th e c ity to watch forjust such mi shaps to his brother men gave th e alarm to th enearest police station through a street-corner telephone providedf or that purpose. In a f ew momen ts w e heard th e ambulancewagon coming as fast as th e horses could run . Four policemenlifted t h e sufferer upon a stretcher, and in another momen t theywere gone to put him under t h e care of a physician kept by t h ecity to heal t h e sick. There was no question whether h e was aChicagoan
,whether h e was an American
,whether h e was a voter ,
whether h e was a taxpayer, whether h e was orthodox . Thoughpoor and a stranger, perhaps even a criminal, Chicago put out
its hand to save him . Here is h e that is chief as h e that dothserve. This is th e message o f rel igion . T he churches preach itand t h e c ities practice it .London establ ishes its own public-works department, puts a
stop t o th e sweating o f th e men who work for th e city, givesthem th e eight-hours day and th e l iving wage, and builds itssewers cheaper than by the con tractor . In this t h e city fulfillst he parable of t h e l iving wage in t he story of t h e lord w ho paidthose who came in at t h e eleven th hour as much as those w ho
wen t in at t he first hour:Glasgow builds laundries f or its washerwomen where, in co
Operation ,through t he medium o f t h e mun icipality, they can do
in a f ew hours and for a few cents what would cost,if done indi
vidually,many times as much .
MB . HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD . 2 1
A factory in Boston advertised for five hundred men to workfor eighty
‘
cents'
a day . At th e time t h e city of Boston wasemploying several thousand men as day laborers in its streetcleaning department at two dollars a day for a day of nine hours .As Mayor Quincy told t h e National Mayors
’ Conven tion,“ An
individual can get rich by taking t he labor of his fellow-men f or
eighty cents a day,but Boston could only get poor by mak ing its
citizens poor .”‘When London displaces th e slum landlords with municipal
houses it w rites sun shine and san itation in to its leases and usespart of it s ground for a park in which to give its tenants democratic flowers and music . When Glasgow and Leeds and Blymouth took municipal possession of their street railways theybettered t h e service, reduced t h e fares , raised th e wages, and
shortened th e hours of t h e men . These public bodies tookcognizance of t h e public good . Last of all
,t h e latest report s
show that in doing this these cities have made a profit . T h e
parallel l ines of social self-in terest and social sympathy have met .
In these things these towns looked to t h e equalization of w elfare in place of t h e concentration of wealth
,luxury
,and power .
Under t h e higher ideals,which t h e commun ity sees by t h e mere
fact of its being a commun ity , th e street-car business, t h e gasbusiness
,t h e tenemen t-house busin ess, t h e employmen t of labor
are lifted above business and become an eff ort in doing as youwould be done by—an in stallmen t of applied Christiani ty . T h e
cities have always been t h e clearing-houses of thought and
liberty, as wel l as of other commodities,and this movemen t of
s ocial ethics,logi cally and n aturally, first manifests itself in these
centers .T he argumen t against all this is that democracy is a failure, thatrel igion is dying
,that governmen t is an evi l and th e people are
bad . T h e air is blue with talk of degeneration—degen eration inreligion, democracy, society. To th e man in a balloon it is th eearth that seems to move, not h e . T h e pessimi st is t h e man in
t he balloon,declaring that t h e everlasting hills of democracy and
rel igion are afloat . While pess imists in church and statet alk of t h e failure of democracy and th e decay of rel igion, th epeople are starting toward a n ew realization of both . T h e on lymen w ho despair of democracy are those who never understoodi t or those w h o have wronged it . Those who preach t he decayof religion might cure their pessimi sm by doing more Optimism .
T here is n o pessimism in Tammany about Tammany.
T h e passion of avarice which would like t o p ull down all ourmutualities, from th e city gas-works of Philadelphia to t h e Bost on Common and t h e Lake Fron t Park of Chicago, from th e
Battery of N ew York to t h e In terstate Commerce Commission ,
can be overcome only by a higher and ho l ier passion ,and this
p assion is rising among t h e people whose spokesmen are Ruskin,
Wagner, and Emerson . A passion of economic brotherhood,in
22 ETH ICAL P RO G RESS IN T HE N INETEENTH CENTURY.
co-operation ,social settlements, t h e labor movement, trades
’
un ion s,public own ership, village commun ities, i s rising to meet
this passion o f acquisition—a passion o f all f or all again st th epassion o f a f ew f or themselves . T h e passion o f diamond-cutdiamond —th e diamond rule i s being overcome by t h e passiono f do ing as you would be done by—t h e Golden Rule .
Distingui shed clergymen shake their heads over t h e specterthey see o f democracy without rel igion . Democracy is religion .
I t is by all f or all,and that, w e have it on our highest authority,
is “t h e law and t h e prophets .” We are at our hol ie st when w e
meet in common effort f or t h e common good . Sel f-governmen tis t h e largest and best o f t h e churches
,f or it provides th e on ly
institution by which th e law of love can be made part of t h e dailyroutine o f t h e life of all .T h e sal ien t fact of modern life i s t h e gathering momen tum of
this mun icipal ethical movemen t . Men are in th e streets makingcampaign speeches for mun icipal election s from Bible texts , demanding that Boston
,Chicago
,N ew York
,and London l ike
Jerusalem,be each built as a city that is at unity with itself
,no
longer left d ivided into warring camps of misery and magn ificence.
(3) An Industrial Realization of our Faith .
Beginning with a f ew shillings, in Rochdale, in 1 844, th e co
operative societies o f Great Britain have now done a busines sof over five thousand mill ion s of dollars and have added t enmillion s a year f or forty years t o t h e wages of the workingpeople . They do an annual business o f three hundred and fiftymillion s of dollars . Some o f t h e finest bui ldings in Great Britainare th e co-operative wholesale stores o f Glasgow
,Man chester,
and other cities . Co-operation has w on t h e right t o be coun tedt h e most importan t social movemen t of our day, outside o f pol itics . There are factories and workshops, and there are now com
ing to be even farms,planned
,set up, operated, and managed by
w orkingmen’s brain s
,money
,and morals .
T he co-operation o f these workingmen i s no t for themselvesalone . Capital takes its place as a wage-earner along with labor,and bo th , after receiving their earn ings—interest f or th e one andwages f or t h e other—share in th e profits or losses . Both sharealso in t h e ownership and management . Even th e consumer isrecogn ized as one o f t h e con stituents , and shares in th e profitsh e brings , and can share in th e con trol by becoming a s tockholder.There i s no woman question . Women can be seen at th e work
ing benches w h o sit as d irectors in t he board o f t h e factory inwhich they are wage-earners . Some town s are already almostwhol ly co-operative
,able practically t o vote almost unanimously
anything they desire whenever th e day comes in their judg men tfor a co-operative
plolit ics . And th e co-operative census is swell
ing rapidly everyw ere . This co-operative movemen t, a fter fiftyyears of struggles and failures, has now had fifty years o f l iving
MB . HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD. 23
prosperity, and a greater prosperity is coming into plain view .
It has achieved an economic footing of a hundred million s ofd ollars . Among its leaders have been some of t he bes t men and
t h e best thinkers of our time . At least one-sixth of th e population of Great Britain is enlisted in its ranks .Within a f ew years t h e continent of Europe has been over
spread with a network of co-operative banks working among t hepoor
,inaugurated by th e philanthropist Schultze-Deli t sch and t h e
Burgomaster Raff eisen . There are thousands of them, and theirdeposits and loans amoun t to hundreds o f million s o f dollars .They are t h e most successful , t h e safest , and t h e best banks int h e world, and their social and moral results are a marvel .Priests confess that t h e co-operative bank has done more t o
evangel ize th e people than all their min istrations . Where t h epeople’s banks come in
,hovel s and mortgages disappear ; t h e
usurers have to leave t he country ; t h e tavern -keepers fail ; t h eil literate, though a grandfather, learns to write . T h e HungarianD iet sent a deputy, Professor Von Dobransky, t o investigatethese banks . I have seen a new world, h e said a world ofbrotherhood and mutual help, where everyone is th e protectorand assister of his neighbor .”
T h e programme of co-operation,English and European,
looks forward,and con sciously
,to nothing short of a thorough
going social recon struction .
“ We must make men as well asmoney and We must help our brothers is their daily bread,and T h e helping hand is their favorite emblem . Every dollarof profits in t h e labor-copartn ership movement before it is divided must first pay its contribution to t h e fund for schools
,
l iterature,and lectures , to help spread this gospel of self-help
by each-other help which these simple people do not think thems elves smart enough t o get taught out of endowmen ts made bypirates . Archbishops do not hesitate to say in public that t h eapplication of th e Golden Rule to t h e affairs of l ife is impract icable, but here it is being attempted and achieved by workingmen , peasan ts , shopkeepers, and enthusiasts .T h e co-operative movemen t is an established rel igion ,
f or it.
i s
not a method of business merely, but an ideal of conduct and at heory of human relation s . Without cathedrals, creed, ritual, orpriests
,it has not on ly openly professed , but has successfully in
st itut ionalized t h e Golden Rule in Business . T h e Golden Ruleindividualized is much , but c ivilization comes only from t h e
Golden Rule in stitutionalized .
Operating in t h e world of economics this movemen t rejects t h eorthodox principle of individual self-interest ; it den iesthat “ business is business ”
and preaches that busin ess isbusiness and politics and religion .
“Co-operation
,
” GeorgeJacob Holyoake has said
,is business saddled with morality.
”
It is something even finer . With its co-Operative fe stivals, flowershows, parks, and summer invalid homes
‘
, co-operation is business
24 ETH ICAL PROGRESS IN T HE N INETEENTH CENTURY.
democratizing itself, garlanded, dan cing, and set to music, to th eT en Commandmen ts and to t h e Golden Rule .
In co-operation w e see million s o f men organ izing hundreds ofmi ll ion s of capital into successful business under t h e ethics andeconomics of each-other help and all-th e-world help as well asself-help . Here is applied brotherhood ; here a political economyof t h e kind that seeks wealth for itself by creating wealth f orothers . I n this labor copartnership th e new con science has
reached industry ,and th e people have risen to th e capacity of a
new blush—th e economic blush .
Imperfect and anything but a religious or ethical fact these co
operative efforts no doubt would seem to many ; yet th e l ineageof these efforts carries their origin straight back t o th e Churchand its religion and to th e inspiration of men l ike Charles Kingsley, Tom Hughes, F . D . Maurice, James Martineau, andRe ifeisen . These prosaic stores and factories and mills and people’s banks are th e revelations of religion made a working reality .
Through t h e health-catchin g of en thusiasm t h e temperature of
th e people has risen to t he temperature of t h e en thusiast . His
dreams have become their realities,and his pioneer ecstasy h as
become th e daily experience of th e multitude .
“ It is a realpiece of th e kingdom of God actually arrived,
”an Oxford clergy
man said,after visiting one of these co-operative towns . T h e
Bishop of Durham, pointing out that co-operation converts t h efactory into a society and creates a spirit of industrial patriotism
,
says Co-operation is th e industrial realization of our faith .
”
(4) T h e realization which is th e most ethical because t h e mostdemocratic .There was a revival of religion in N ew Zealand in 1 890, a re
vival of that kind of religion w e call democracy . It has been th edestiny of N ew Zealand—th e fairest coun try th e sun shines upon ,
inhabited by th e purest blend of Anglo-Saxon people to be foundanywhere—to illustrate, first
,in their intensest forms, th e evil s
of t h e modern social system,and second
,to illustrate th e po ssi
bility of social redemption by th e peaceful Anglo-Saxon methodsof debate
,election
,and law .
Though th e youngest o f nations,N ew Zealand was by 1 890
th e oldest in economic in iquity and sin . In th e cities there weresoup-kitchen s and shelter sheds and rel ief works and crowds ofunemployed darken ing in to mobs . In th e coun try th e courthouseswere ful l o f foreclosures and th e roads were tramped by an
unending succession of able-bodied men seek ing work and not
finding it, in a coun try so new that almost all th e work still remained t o be done . Through t h e seaports an exodus of th e mostvigorous blood of t h e colony was streaming forth to find in othercoun tries th e Opportun ity denied it in its own . T he concentration of land and capital had gone t o an in credible exten t. T h e
land system was worse even than that of Irel and,f or th e land
lords were not only absen tees,but absentee corporations . T he
26 ETH ICAL PROGRESS IN T HE N INETEENTH CENTURY.
T h e bitterest cry o f t he modern world, that of t h e idle menand women asking to serve and to be served, is a prayer that isanswered in N ew Zealand . Everyone there is established in that“ right t o work which is t h e basis of every other right .T h e T en Commandmen ts do n ot merely tel l us to abstain from
work on t h e seven th day, but order us on t h e other six days todo all our work and t h e on ly social institution s under whichthat commandmen t can be obeyed, even partially
,in any Chris
tian community of our day are those o f N ew Zealand . N ew
Zealand has made a practical beginning with an ideal that woulddefine Democracy as t h e social use of all th e resources of n atureby all t h e faculties of man f or th e good of all t he people .
”T h e
un employed are taken from the cities and given work, are taughtto work if they don ’t know how, are taught co-operation
,are
furn ished land,seeds, tools, money, homes ; and all this is done
with such practical wisdom that there is no touch of charity .
T h e men pay for everything except th e helping hand of t h e democracy, and they pay f or that because th e tramp thus made taxpayer begin s with t h e first stroke of work h e does to createwealth t o be taxed, to do for others what has been done for him .
T h e wives and children of t h e men ,wherever practicable
,are sent
with them,for it is th e policy of th e N ew Zealand democracy to
keep t h e famil ies of t h e workingmen together .In t h e dark con tinen t of labor and capital N ew Zealand has
adopted and bettered t h e labor legislation of other coun tries forshops and factories
,and has made a forward step which will
probably be con sidered by t h e next De Tocqueville th e mostimportan t advance in t h e art of governmen t—t h e life togetherin our century . It being un iversally acknowledged by th e ethicalsense of t h e whole world that arbitration is a duty
,th e N ew
Zealanders have said that this duty must be observed,and they
have in stituted public arbitration—what is common ly called,to
d iscredit it, compulsory arbitration, but which is no more com
pulsory than everything done by law is compulsory . Taxationis compulsory ; sanitation is compulsory ; education is compulsory ;th e use of th e courts
,instead of th e vendetta , i s compulsory. In
commun ities which establish public baths out o f th e proceeds o ftaxation ,
w e wash each other’s feet by compulsion .
N ew Zealand is t he on ly country in th e world where, for six
years, there have been no strikes and no l ockouts . T he old songo f t he shirt is a “ lost chord in N ew Zealand . By t h e subst itut ion o f debate f or war
,vast con tinents o f anger, hatred , and
violence have been sunk beneath t h e sea forever . It is a countryof extensive manufacturing in terests , and during these six yearso f peace all th e indus tries o f N ew Zealand have been prosperedbeyond precedent .T he pan ic o f 1 893 laid hal f o f Austral ia in financial ruin .
When t he people o f N ew Zealand saw i t coming they used theirorgan ized brotherhood , th e great mu tual ity o f a democratic state ,
MB . HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD. 27
t o guaran tee to every depositor, borrower, and lender th e uni n t errup t ed solven cy of t h e credit machinery of t h e colony, and th e
p an ic of 1 893 has not yet reached N ew Zealand .
They gave woman t h e suffrage as a matter of course . Theyclaimed t h e right to tax h er; they must give h er th e right to taxthem . To t h e old and worn-out working men and women N ew
Zealand, first of all peoples,has gi ven a n ational old-age pen sion .
F or those wh o have worked f or them from t h e heyday of their
y outh and strength to old age, th e people of N ew Zealan d willnow work in their turn ,
young N ew Zealand paying its debt toOld N ew Zealand . T h e aged tramp di sappears from th e highway,and this guaran tee t o virtuous and industrious old age naturallystrengthen s virtue and industry . T h e old-age pen sion er n eed n ot
be sinless ; even hein ous crime is overlooked if more than twen tyfive years old .
“ T h e people know how to forgive, on e of itss tatesmen said .
T h e N ew Zealand doctrine is th e ethical on e, that that governmen t is best which govern s best, not least. In their reforms theyhave not on ly followed th e l ine of least resistan ce, but th e line of
most assistan ce . They make th e governmen t a partnership ofall t h e people in many practical ways—in finan ce
,in production ,
in t h e developmen t of new industries . It is th e firm of Governm en t Co .,
Un limi ted.
To get capital for farming, for manufacturing, for new enter
p rises, t h e people borrowed mon ey in London on t h e security ofgovernmen t in large sums, million s of pounds, at th e low rate atwhich governmen ts can borrow
,and they are lendin g it to each
o ther again in sums t o suit,at t h e London rate, plus only th e
co st of t h e Operation . T h e railroads are run at cost—n ot forprofit
,but for t h e mutual developmen t of t h e people’s interests .
There are many varieties of Wingless birds in N ew Zealand, butt h e most int eresting of them all are t h e capitalists who did n ot
t ake flight when these things were done, as they had sworn theywould do
, but stayed and shared t h e wonderful prosperity whichh as fol lowed . F or thi s fraternalism has paid f or itself manyt imes over, and N ew Zealand to day is th e most prosperous count ry in th e world .
Perfect “ realization s in politics of our faith,t o adopt t h e
Bishop of Durham’s phrase,these are n ot
,on ly approximate ; but
t h e religion of our Western en ergy has escaped from th e n otion so f
“ perfection,
” “ Nirvan a,
”eternal rest,
” which sprang fromOrien tal indolen ce . Progress is our word, n ot perfection . Man
ki n d prays t o t h e All-perfect Father,
”but as it utters th e word
t h e indomitable within whispers that if God should stop at perf ect ion man would pass Him by. N ot to pray, but to produce ;n ot t o believe
,but t o will ; n ot t o worship, but to create ; not to
rule,but t o love, are th e infin it ives of t h e n ew con scien ce .
Faulty and in sign ifican t these co-operation s, labor movements,mun icipalizations
,and democratic in stallations of political love
28 ETH ICAL PROGRESS IN THE N INETEENTH CENTURY .
surely are. But,however short of perfection their spirit and
performance may be,ethics
,religion , are of their very warp and
woof. When you and I are ready to make such tran slations as .
these of our creed in to deed,when w e are ready f or this sacrifice
of becoming commonplace, laborious, practical, and criticizableby all t h e professors of perfection, then , and not till then, shallw e kn ow t h e true j oys of “
t he realization of our faith —and
till then w e shall remain mere dandy ethicals and dilettantepietists .
. R Ev. W. C. GANNETT. 29
ASSEMBLY HALL,UNITED CHARITIES BUILDING,
WEDNESDAY,NOVEMBER 21 .
T h e Conferen ce re-assembled at A. M.
,under t h e presi
deney of Rev. S . T . Carter of Huntington,L. I .
III . RELIGION THE LIFE OF GOD IN THE SOUL OF“
MAN.
F irs t P aper.
REV. W. C . G AN N ETT, ROCHEST ER, N . Y.
Last ni ght our subjects took us to t h e world of need andservice . This morning
’s subject leads us to t h e cloister. An d
this is well . It is n ot that w e forget that w e are in N ew York,
w ith its Eas t Side,and its Hall
,and its Crusade ; nor that th e
fire around th e burning boy in Colorado has sunk to ashes in our
mind ; nor that th e echoes from th e Philippines ring fain t ; northat t h e spectacle of Christian armies in t h e East gathering likeeagles to their prey, is a ma tter of n o momen t : it is not becausew e forget these things
,but because i t is impossible to forget
! them,that it i s well t o turn aside in to th e quiet
,even into t h e
secret place of t h e Most High within our being, and, f or a portion of our time
,t o thin k together of th e Life of God in th e Soul
of Man .
iPass into that thought, if youwill, through t h e thought of th el ife of God in th e body of man . T h e fact about our body is notthat w e do certain things ourselves, and Nature other things,but that every least thing w e do Nature does wi th us
,and that
h er part is th e greater part of t h e deed . We raise our hand—sunforce does more than w e in that hand-lift . We Speak a wordNature h as more than w e t o do with that sound-making. We
take a step—sun-force,’
again,and gravitation contribute more
than w e to that pitch forward . Every act is done by t h e Company, th e Infin ite and Fin ite, and th e great Silen t Partner, t h egreat Power-not-ourselves
,is t h e one whose co-operation with
man,th e noisy mite of a partner, effects t h e deed .
Even so it is with t h e things of th e soul. I shall defend no
defin ition ; hardly bring di scussion ; shall offer little more thanrecord or report . I assume th e soul and G od : th e soul
,a liv
ing, finite un it, thinking, loving, willing, electing betweenmotives, choosing acts, endowed with power t o in crease it s
powers, but conditioned always, environed everywhere, permeatedthrough and through , by th e Universal Life from which it isinseparate .
30 RELIGION THE LIFE OF GOD IN THE SOUL OE MAN .
If asked, in place of definition , for illustration of this Lifeo f G od within t h e soul
,I should n ot dwell first and most on
great personalities , nor on great crises of experience . T h e summer f orce reveals itself in cyclones and in mornings that are all
one heart o f June, but best and most in that change whichquietly, hourly greens th e grass-blades in a thousand valleys andlures to bud and blossom all t h e forests . So best w e see and feelt he l ife of G od in common happen ings in t he soul . L et me
name five of these common happenings,each one an arch-illus
t rat ion of that life .
(1 ) T h e first is t he transparen tly acting conscience of the chi ld .
Think of t h e downy-headed cub that is laid in th e mother’sthankful bosom at its birth, inchoate and incompact and irresponsive . Mean ing what ? A soul ? If so
,how sign ified ? and
when and whence arrived to be compan ion of this helpless body’sdestiny ? Three years pass, five years
,and that child is now ami ra
cle o f meaning, a being visibly compact of budded in stincts, all
tendrils,all response ! And what is that red Spot on its ch eck ?
T h e Sign that t h e Father-God is about his sparrow-work . T he
little soul has fallen from its n est in t h e tree of th e knowledgeo f good and evil—but not without t h e Father . That red spotalready comes more quickly there than it comes on th e parent ’scheek. We may have taught our child something about rightthings and wrong
,but w e certain ly never taught it t he power t o
blush at its wrong. We say to it,You ought who taught it
to understand our word ? T h e Living God has been before us ;yea, before its very birth was spending time t o weave withint h e fibers o f its structure th e meaning of th e august Ought . Andif your child
,so sensitive
,be also happy in its paren tage, your
home i s going t o know for a f ew years t h e most beautiful spectacle on earth—a soul tran sparently lived in by that Power whichmakes Christs ready f or their cross . Your l ittle Transcendentalist will be teaching you more of right and wrong than you fee lable t o teach it . T h e real sain t in th e house, t he holy one
,—that
is,t h e one most respon sive to t h e Ought so far as yet revealed,
i s often t h e little maid, or even t h e l ittle boy, from five t o twelve
years old . Stanley Hall is right,I doubt not , with his stages o f
child developmen t and his moralities that wait on adolescence ;but so was Jesus right . And many an awed and grateful parentfeels that h e understands just what Jesus mean t, when he sai d ,Of such is t h e Kingdom of Heaven .
”
(2) T he second illustration o f th e life o f G od within the soulI s love. Another common happen ing . And I mean all forms oflove—that o f child t o mother, and o f mother t o child ‘ that o f
brother and sister; that o f th e two whose very name is loversand that o f th e tw o for whom t h e name w ins ever deepening meaning as t he years o f blended l ife go on ; th e love , also ,
that spreadsitself in widening circles o f t he n eighbor
,and in deepen ing cur
ren ts,un til those in th e world who need love most ge t mos t o f it
REV. W . c . GANNETT. 3 1
from us . Love, in all its varieties, a mystic j oy . Love t h e mostexpan sive, most t ran sfiguring force in soul-growth . Love that,in every form
,is th e un selfing force, and
, therefore, t h e mostself-making force . Love that individualizes t h e soul by un iversalizing it .
(3) T h e third illustration of t h e life of G od in t h e soul i s s inth e ful l drama of it . A drama so comm on that everyone isShakspere for it . I n every act of that inward drama I mark th epresen ce of th e other actor—there are never more than two,one’s Self and God . First act
,th e silen t en tran ce, and t h e recog
n it ion ,of ideals, God-sen t . Next,—it i s a street-scen e very likely
—th e sudden hearing of th e Voice, God’s Ought .” Next, th e
m oment of th e Fall—t h e con scious, free-will choice of t h e l owerin stead of th e higher course, th e two being seen by us as higherand as lower : God’s life being in that fall, because it is in thatpower t o choose
,t h e very power that makes man man and child
of God . Then what ? T h e ache of shame, t h e inward painworse than t he outward swineries ; shame, which is t h e bran dof God upon us
,marking us as his
,although w e make our bed
in hell ; shame which is t h e Christ of God descen ding in to hellt o save us . Then what ? T h e slow, disciplin ing journ ey of re
pen tance, t h e j ourney which is wrestle all t h e way, t h e journ eyback to God . Then what ? T h e peace of th e completed self-surrender . We call it “ God’s forgiven ess —i t is t h e etern al lawof welcome for th e pen iten t arriving at t h e homestead gate .
Then what ? Then th e most wonderful thi ng of all—th e resultw e dare not n ame to ourselves till years have tested it as true
,
and then can only n ame with bated breath and humblest gratitud%th en
,an actual cubit added to t h e stature of our soul
by that experien ce of sin and its full conquest,God helping us !
We recogni ze what Brown ing’s poten t five words mean,Sin s that
saint, when Shriven ! When shriven—n ever un til then . Northen t o a man’s own consciousn ess ; to him th e word is only“ saved,
” “ redeemed ; but h e knows well that h e is n earer tot h e angel . Sin
,t h e ful l drama
,i s it n ot t h e common est experien ce
of t h e soul? And is it n ot , throughout, an experien ce of th e lifeo f God ? T h e story of Jesus’ temptation and victory—let us hopeit is a page from your Spirit’s diary and min e . T h e story of th eProdigal—our experien ce is certainly th e real that there is
parabled .
(4) But th e fourth illustration of t h e life of God in t h e soulis this very condition—sain tship . I mean t h e experien ce of th e
disciplin ed soul , whose very face reports t h e chiseling, refiningprocesses that have gon e on within ; th e experien ce of th e men
and women who have m et many temptation s, sometimes fallingbefore them,
but growingly their con queror,un til t h e days he
'
come organized victory . A multitude of such soul s walks thisearth of ours, although, as just said, not one of them kn ows thath e
,or sh e
,is of th e band . They think they are God’s little ones ;
32 RELIGION T HE LIFE OF G OD IN T HE SOUL OF MAN .
and so they are . He dwelleth with them, who dwelleth in t h ehigh and holy place
,
”but with them also who are of a humble
and a contrite heart . They have their struggles still, as new
ideals from G od , his messages, dawn on them . They havelearned much through disappointmen t and failure. Sorrow haslighted the ir way . Death has opened t h e secrets of deathlessness t o them . T h e burden s borne for other people have strengt hened them . They keep daily t h e outward
,trysts of service with
men . They are never far from t h e tryst with God in th e cloisterso f a qui et heart .Here, of course, would be t h e place to speak of th e world
’ssaviors
,t h e great Emmanuels of history
,whose lives have
christened saintship . But to still keep to that which is a common happening
,let me point, rather, to t h e fac t that all saints ,
w ith such Emmanuels in their greater measure, increase the personality of man . I am come that they might have life, and thatthey might have it more abundantly
,
” said Jesus . So feel ,humbly, all th e master-souls . In themselves they reveal t h epower of soul-growth ; but more than that, they radiate th e powerand kindle it in others . It is their fun ction ; t h e l ife of Godworks through them to that end .
Through such soulsGod
,stooping
,shows sufficient of his light
F or us i’ t h e dark to rise by . And I rise .
(5) And this power in the soul to grow ,to increase personali ty,
is our last illustration of th e Great Life that worketh hitherto ,making t h e man -child glorious . Soul-growth is a matter of t h erealized ideal . Ever t h e ideal rises in th e soul, as th e old isorganized into character . Tireless th e climb of aspiration, because the ideal , t he God
’s Perfect,is unexhausted, inexhaustible ;
like Space, h orizoned only by un seen reaches of itself . But t h e
method of realizing t h e ideal is as simple as t h e ideal itself ismystic in its nature . T h e law is simply—loyalty to t h e seenRight of th e moment . “ Just to be good—that is en ough
,
”t o
enlarge, and con stan tly enlarge, t h e scope of personality . Sel fabandonmen t to th e seen ideal , with self-expenditure for others ,that love already spoken of, forges
“ self .” Unmaking makes .That is th e great paradox o f Jesus , you know : He that losethhis l ife doth save it .” And whose word more than his reveals th esecret of th e life o f G od in man ?
With time t o spare, h ow surely one would be drawn on t o speako f history and o f evolution as expression s o f this l ife : history .
that is but individual experience writ large ; and evolution,that
,
in turn ,i s history writ large .
Is all this “ mystic ” ? Certainly i t is . Poor is that fact,
nay ,impo ssible t he fact wi thin this un iverse o f ours , that is no t
bedded in,enfibered with , mystery . Most poor o f all
,t he facts
34 RELIGION THE LIF E or GOD IN T HE SOUL OF MAN .
And religi on, religi on, is but th e consciousnes s of all this—t he
con scious ness of t h e life of G od in one’s own soul . There are
all degree s an d grades of such con sciousnes s . T h e growth isfrom t h e uncon scious t o t h e con scious experience . Religion atits best i s an ever-growing con s ciousness of God’s li fe in one’ sown . I and t h e Father are one is t h e humblest word a mancan utt er, when but an o ther version of t h e prayer,
“N o t my
will . but Thin e ! ” Wit h that prayer mean t,t h e other phrase is
ample fact .
Is t h e G od of whom I speak t hus, personal,—is h e impersonal ?
If personal, w e only know thi s t erm must cover all impersonali t y . I f Imperson al ,” t hat term mus t cover all implied inpersonality . T h e question is not answered but is lost .
L e t us then ,by way of summary
,rec ite what w e ma y ca ll t h e
creed of t h e Lif e of God in t h e Soul of Man . In two articles itmi ght read : W e believe in G od, t h e One, t h e Eternal, t h e life andlight and t h e law an d t h e love in dwellin g in all things .
We believe in t h e Soul, an d it s kin shi p wi t h God .
I f more expanded and exp li cit, t hu s—every art icle blendin g stillth e two great n am e s of G od and Soul :W e be lieve in Evolution
,as t h e lif e of God un folding its elf
in t h e universe ; t hrough rock, flower,brute
,ascending to man,
and to higher man,and to higher t han man .
W e believe in Con scien ce, as t h e voice of“Ought
,God’s Ought,
in t h e indi vidual soul ; and regard sm shame,and hell , on th e
one hand ; repen t an ce, forgi ven ess , regenera t ion salvation , and
heaven,on t h e other ; as successive experiences o f t he soul that
depart s from,and returns to
,its law of t h e inward Ought .
We beli eve in I ns piration,as th e instreaming into t h e soul of
light and power from G od . In genius,in t h e vi sion of new
ideals,in t h e tran sfigurat ion of sorrow to peace and of bodi ly
weakness to spiri tual might, w e see effects of an inspirati on asfresh and as wi de and as certain as morn in th e ski es . I n th e
Bibles o f man ,old Scriptures and n ew ,
w e see records of suchinspiration .
W e beli eve in Prayer as t h e soul s conscious commun ion witht h e indwelling G odAnd believing thus in Conscience , In s piration , Pra yer w e be
lieve in In carn at ion—G od man ifest in t h e flesh ; man ifes t in allmen
,and mos t in t h e heroes and prophets and sain ts o f t h e
race ; manifest in Jesus as one man true t o what is in vou and
1 1] me .
”
We be lieve in t h e law o f Cause and Effect in this l ife an d inall l ives ; that good and evil invariably cam their own recom
pen se w ithin,and final ly without , t h e soul
‘no good th ing be
ing failure, and no evil thing success .W e believe in Vicarious Atonement , a s God
’s method o f l iftingth e races t o nobler and happier life by so in terknitting theirmembers in joy and in pain that nothing can l ive and noth ing
PROFESSOR WALTER BAU SCHEN BCSCH . 35
can d ie t o itself ; Jesus’ death on t h e cross being one glorious
type of thi s uni versal law .
W e believe in Deathlessnes s,—in t h e impossibil it y of extin ctionf or t h e soul t hat partakes in its nature of t h e nat ure of God .
We believe that True Living is t h e work ing toge t her with G odto further hi s glorious ends . An d w e fin d that such li vingwakes in us assuran ce of G od
,of t h e soul , of life everlastin g, and
faith that all things work together for t h e Vict ory of Good .
Second P aper.
PROFESSOR WAL TER BAU SCHEXBU SCH,ROCHESTER
,N . Y .
Our theme is th e personal reli gious life . T h e formula inwhi ch t h e theme is stated seems to call f or a dis cus sion of th e
deeper, philosophi cal aspects of th e religi ous life . And t h e character of thi s audience both permi ts and deman ds a frank cons id
crati on of those quest ions con cernin g th e religi ous lif e whi chweigh most heavily on th e faith an d thought of our own day.
T h e scope of our programm e seems t o m e very signifi can t .
Doubtless those w h o drafted it mean t to in clude wi t hin its c ircumf erence t h e most pressin g rel igi ou s interest s of our time .
But of th e seven session s this is t h e only one devot ed to thosequestion s that used t o be th e chief and almost exclus ive topicsof di scussion in religi ous assemblies . All th e other session s dealwith social salvat ion . It is another indi cati on h ow profoun dlyt h e best minds of our gen eration are absorbed in t h e salvation oft h e common li fe of our n ati on and race . This is especially trueof t h e religious leaders . An d justly ; for th e fart her w e get
beyond theori es and really try to t ran sform th e social lif e,t h e
more do w e realize that t h e social problem i s in t h e last resort 3religious p roblem . I f w e are to climb over th e watershed t o th epromis ed land, w e n eed more hon es ty, a st ifier sen se of justi ce,and more devotion to th e public weal ; w e need more genuinemoral heroism in t h e leaders of t h e attack, and a n obler ethi calWeltan schauung and a li veli er warmth of brotherhood in all . But
when ce i s this in cremen t of moral forces t o come? Men do n ot
become more moral by saying : Go to,let us be more moral .”
Instinctively m en turn t o religion as t h e gen erator of moral force .
Even t h e critic isms about th e churches express that consciousn ess . No on e whi ps a dead horse for not pullin g th e cart out oft h e mud . So w e are t o-day inquiring f or a religious ideal largeenough to include social as well as indi vidual salvation ,
and forways and mean s of makin g t h e laten t forces of religi on operati ve in publi c lif e.
But with thi s n ew and domi nan t interest in our t hought th epersonal reli gious li fe has been somewhat overshadowed . Withmany
,I fear, th e religious habits and t h e intercourse wi th G od
36 RELIGION THE LIFE O F GOD IN THE SO UL OF MAN.
have waned as t he social in terest grew . There is less personalappeal in sermon s . Revivals have declined, no t only becausepeople are less susceptible
,but because preachers have lost con
vict ion . With others there is, perhaps, no loss in religious life,but their thought is deflected toward t he new problems . This isin a measure my own case . When I began on t h e task your commi t t ee assigned to me
, I found that while I had been busy clearing t h e forest on t h e hill
,t h e bottom-lands where my fathers
raised abundant harvests had been lying fallow,and plowed hard
like new -ground .
We must no t neglect t he personal rel igious l ife and th e tre
mendous problems of individual destiny . There are two objectsof salvation
,t he race and t h e individual . If w e insist that saving
t h e individual does not necessarily save t he common life,let us
remember that saving th e common life does not save t he individual either.Goethe says : Mankind is always progressing, but man is al
ways t he same . Every n ew soul presents a new problem of redemption . T h e souls filled with t h e l ife of God are t h e fountain s fromwhich all l ife-giving impulses flow out into t h e l ife of society .
But a human soul is of eternal value for its own sake,and no t
merely for t he effect it may have on society, just as our childrenare dear to us apart from any work they may do .
My thoughts have turned main ly to th e strength and value ofth e rel igious instinct in man, and t o t h e objective justificationf or that in stinct in Nature ; on t h e in stinct that seeks God and on
the G od that satisfies t h e instinct .I need not remind you of t he strength of t h e religious inst inct
in t h e past of our race . It has been one of th e driving-wheels ofhistory . And th e fact that men still go to church
,in spite of t h e
crudeness of much of th e thought furnished to them,in spite o f
t he monotony of prayer meetings,t he meagerness of worship
,
and t h e wealth of attraction s elsewhere,goes far to justify the
assertion that man is in curably religious . Even t h e faintest reenforcemen t of t he spiritual l ife is seized w ith pathetic eagerness ; and when some really strong religious soul gives utteranceto original experiences, th e general heart-hunger is unmistakable .
Even when men leave t h e churches they still seek rel igion . Findout what really moves them in t h e philosophy or poetry or sociology which now i s their highest good, and youwill find it is something at least bordering on rel igion . Many men are reluctant t otalk o f rel igion ,
not because they are indifferen t t o it, but because it takes hold o f them so strongly that they are afraid o f
violating t he urban ity required in our social intercourse .
T he happiness fel t when t h e religious instinct is satisfiedproves and brings t o our con sciousness t h e intensity o f the desire .
I n its supreme momen ts religious j oy is as complete and allpo ssessing as the passion o f love . And when i t has become t hepermanent possession o f a soul i t sheds a quiet radiance over al l
PROFESSOR WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH . 37
things and gives a relish to life which is comparable, s o far asI have experienced, on ly t o th e j oy of doing good work, whichcomes at times t o t he intel lectual and artistic worker . Otherpleasures charm most in t h e pursuit and leave us sated soon afterw e have taken possession . We are always goaded on by un sat isfied desires . Love, money, and honor are fairest in t h e distance .
-I t does n ot seem to be so with religi ous joy ; t h e less so, th e morepurely religious it is . I t does contain t h e desire for n ew andlarger experiences
,but not because t h e old have palled . There
is no un rest in it . T h e express ion I have found peace is,of
course, a stock expression,but it does express what is t h e over
whelming personal feeling in first en tering into religious j oy.
It seems to be th e universal testimony of those who have madepersonal test of it that t h e j oy o f religious satisfaction is beyondanything else that life holds .
‘And as t h e happiness in gain ing it is great,so is t h e pain in
losing it . Doubtless many have shared t he feel ing of Romanesin t h e closing words of his Candi d Examination of Theism ”
“ Forasmuch as I am far from being able to agree wi th thosewho affirm that th e twilight doctrine of th e new faith is a desirable substitute for t h e wan ing splendor of th e old
,
’ I am not
ashamed to confess that with this virtual negation of God th euniverse to me has lost it s soul of lovel iness ; and although fromhenceforth t h e precept t o ‘ work while it is day ’ will doubtlessbut gain an intensified force from t h e terribly intensified meaning of th e words that ‘
t h e night cometh when no man can work,
’
yet when at times I think, as think at times I must, of t h eappalling contrast between t h e hallowed glory of that creedwhich once w as mine, and th e lonely mystery o f existence as now
I find i t—at such times I Shall ever feel it impossible to avoidt he sharpest pang of which my n ature is susceptible .
”
We have probably all felt t h e poignan t sense of want and losswhen our rel igious life declined and w e remembered our first lovefrom which w e had fallen ; or when t h e gray mist of doubt creptbetween us and th e face of our God, and w e feared that our faithmight be lost t o us forever . At such times t h e words of t h ePsalmist did not seem overdrawn : AS t h e heart pan teth afterth e water brooks
,so panteth my soul after thee, O G od ! My
s oul thirsteth for God,for th e l iving God .
F or those wh o have never had a vigorous and conscious re
ligious l ife, there is no con trast between past and presen t t omake them realize their loss . Hard work
,good health
, aestheticpleasure, and moral en thusiasm do give a large measure of satisfaction . Y et many non-rel igious men probably have their hoursof wi stful homesickness
, especially when they watch others whohave what they lack . This surmise rece ives confirmation fromt h e facts observable in nation s or classes that have lost theirreligious faith . Life there seems to lose its savor ; Weltschmerz
increases ; there is disgust for mankind, proneness to despair, and
38 RELIGION T HE LIFE O F GOD IN T HE SOUL OF MAN .
increasing frequency in th e act o f suicide and t he contemplationo f it . T h e resoluteness of life is sapped .
Other powerful cravings leave a sen se of degradation afterthey are satisfied . I n our really religious moments
,on t h e other
hand,w e are con scious that now our life i s at its best and thi s
impression holds good in t h e retrospect . There i s a Sin ister resen tmen t in us against tho se w h o mini ster t o our debasing inst inct s . But for those w h o have called forth or n ourished th erel igious l ife in us w e cherish a peculiarly tender gratitude anddevotion . If they were previously bound to us by friendship or
family affection,w e were con scious of t h e infusion of a hallowing
influence that ennobled th e old relation .
In t h e time o f. his rel igious chaos Robertson o f Brighton stillheld fast to one conviction : “ It must be right to do right .That is t h e fixed poin t of modern philosophical discussion s t oot h e sacrosan ct ity of t h e moral impul se . Whatever threatenthat stands impugned . Now
,however much w e may lamen t th e
feebleness of t h e influen ce o f religion on t h e social morality ofour time and even doubt if there is any influen ce at all , w e are
n o t in doubt o f its influence on our personal life . W e rememberthat our religious dedication was syn onymous with a dedicationto righteousness . I t raised and established our moral ideal s andre-en forced our w ill . And any decline o f our spiritual l ife , if itlasted long enough
,brought in its train a corresponding decline
in ourmoral vigor . Our ideals paled ; our l ove f ormen grew chill ;and selfishn ess and calculation took possession .
T h e common judgment o f mankind indorses that experience .
I n spite o f all disappo in tmen ts men Still believe in rel igion as acon stitutive elemen t in moral character and as a cause for trust .Am ong larger minds w e observe a profound concern lest religionbe lost t o us . They know that w e have no Scien tific basis f or our
ethics,and that if our morality should slip down from its re
ligious bas is t o a merely utilitarian basis, i t would be a landslidethat would burv many of th e most precious possession s of civilizat ion .
So deep-seated and influen tial i s t he rel igious l ife in man . And
does al l this rest on an illusion ? There i s no other instan ce inorgan ic life o f a strong and general in stinct pointing at nothing.
There must be some objective reality to correspond t o these inward motions o f t h e soul . Can our highest joys and our deepestwoes
,th e aspirations in us which w e and others judge t o be th e
n oblest , t h e influence which strengthen s our mo ral l i fe and l iftsit beyond sel f-seck ing—ean all this be adequately explained ast h e flickering recrudescence o f aboriginal ancestor-worship ?
But however deeply w e may feel this instinct in ourselves andin th e pas t and presen t o f t he race , i t is no t easy f or t h e modernman t o believe in t he objective real ity that would justify t h e
religious l ife . Y ou remember,perhaps , that exquisite passage
in t h e diary o f G eorge Fo x : And I wen t into the vallev o f
PROFESSOR WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH . 39
Beaver,and as I went I preached repentan ce to th e people . And
one morning, sitting by t he fire, a great cloud came over me and
a temptation beset me . And it was said : All things come byNature.
’ And t h e elemen ts and th e stars came over me .
And as I sat still and let it alone, a living hope arose in me,and
a true voice, which said :‘ There is a living G od who made all
things .’ And immediately th e cloud and th e temptation van ishedand Life rose over all, and my heart was glad and I praised th eLiving God .
” That is our condition . Even when w e havepreached repen tance to t h e people
,th e elements and t h e stars
come over us . And it is a vaster un iverse and a more relentlessmarch of th e con stellation s than th e great Quaker knew. Whent h e world was small
,and when good and evil came without ap
parent cause,it was easy to believe in a tribal God, dwelling on
y onder hilltop and blessing harvest and flock of those who paidHim tribute . But t h e world has grown so large . Even th e greatness of our globe would have appalled t h e savage, but this greatsphere has come to look tiny to us . We look dizzily into th eabyss of th e Milky Way and our imagin ation flutters along th eendless systems of systems like a butterfly over t h e combers oft h e Atlan tic . T h e immensities themselves take up t h e cry of th eancient scoffers : Where is now thy G od ? ” As Vivien buriedMerlin in a charm o f woven paces and of waving hands
,
”so
Scien ce seemed for a time to imprison our spirits with a rhythmice
gchan tmen t of fateful law and an inexorable w eb of cause and
e ect .
But Slowly w e are winn ing our way out . Our God has grownimmeasurably larger, but our thoughts are growing great to meetHim . That universal law of causality which pressed us down ,
will yet lift us up . Why should there be any causing at all ? Inwhat common un ity are cause and effect imbedded that they can
s o act on each other ? And why is t h e law of causality universal ?Wh ence this uniformity of law and this unity of th e world ? Ifcustom had not blun ted our feel ing f or it
,w e should realize that
as on e of th e most marvelous facts in th e universe . It is one oft h e closest approaches that scien ce has made to th e idea of God .
T h e old argumen t from design has collapsed before th e doctrine of natural selection . In stead of a great Art ificer sittingd own to contrive and create th e tiger’s teeth for its prey andt h e squirrel’s teeth f or its nut , w e have an in cessan t strugglefor existence, weeding out all forms whose teeth were n ot welladapted f or their food . T h e eviden ces of a design ing mindseemed gone from n ature . T h e grammar of th e un iverse waswithout any particles expressing purpose
,and on ly rich in causal
c onstructions .But further thought has shown us that t h e element of design
h as only receded and is waiting f or us at th e beginn ing of allthings . Nature is a cosmos . But is it by chan ce that all physical causes have united in producing a gen eral order of nature?
40 RELIGION THE LIFE OF GOD IN THE SOUL OF MAN.
If t h e tiger’s and squirrel’s teeth were not especially contrivedfor them, yet t h e primitive molecules and cell s must have beenso constituted that they finally resulted in th e tiger and squirrel .N ow
,th e persisten t force which finally produced these results
has run through an infin ite network o f physical relations . How,
then,was it guided along th e precise channel in which it would
produce just these variation s ? T h e teleological argument hasonly been shifted to t h e imm en sities of nature as a whole ; andthough it is much harder to comprehend there, it seems to me to
have tremendous power when it is comprehended .
T h e world is not a Shifting mass of phenomena . It h as it sunity and coherence by resting in an ultimate Real ity, which ist h e cause of all causation, and in that Cause there are direction,purpose
,and imm easurable intelligen ce .
But is this Cause mind ? Is i t a personality in any sen se l ikemine? In observing t h e fly on my window
,t h e distance between
my eyes is a sufficient base t o subtend th e parallax ; for th e moont h e radius of t h e earth is ample ; but when astronomers first triedto measure t he parallax of a fixed star
, th e whole diameter of t h eearth ’s orbit seemed to give no result . Can our l ittle humannature give any clew or measurement to determine the natureof t h e great Real ity that upholds t h e un iverse ? We are sen sibleof t h e audacity of t h e idea . Y et th e human soul is th e on lybasis w e have for th e parallax of G od . And w e remember thatth e attempt to measure th e distan ce and movements of fixedstars
,which failed at first
,succeeded at last
,and that to-day w e
determin e even t h e substances composing them by t he iden tityof their lines in t h e spectrum with th e lines of earthly substances .Our only direct knowledge of causation i s derived from our own
activity when w e are causes . Our sen ses report only time and
space relation s ; our mind adds t h e con ception of causality fromits own con sciousness . T h e only energy w e really know is willenergy. It is true
,our imagination refuses t o conceive an infin ite
personality,but on th e other hand neither can this great Reality,
which is a unity in th e midst of change and a source o f in t elli o
gent activity,be conceived by us except as in some way like our
own minds .But suppose that G od i s Mind , ye t a n ew question arises t o
l acerate us . T h e old teleol ogy directed attention t o th e evidencesof th e wi sdom and goodness o f G od , and they were many . T he
doctrine o f t he struggle f or existence has revealed th e aecompanying awful waste of life
,th e contrivances for inflicting pain ,
t h e general reign o f fear in th e sentien t world , t h e precision withw hich violation s o f physical laws are pun ished as compared withth e hesitating and uncertain retribution for moral tran sgression s .And so th e question arises : is G od moral at all
,or is be extra
moral ? Is h e an intell igence so transcend ing ours that what w ereverence as our moral nature i s o f no more value t o him and
no more find s a coun t erpart in h im than the function ing o f our
42 RELIGION THE LIFE OF GOD IN THE SOUL OF MAN.
nyson faced these facts o f th e waste of life in nature that h ecried :
I falter where I firmly trod,And falling with my weight of caresUpon t h e great world’s altar-stairsThat slope through darkness up to God
,
I stretch lame hands of faith, and grepe,‘And gather dust and chaff, and callT o what I feel is Lord of all
,
And faintly trust t h e larger hope .
And when w e thus reel under t he first shock of new doubts ;when our ow n spiritual life is low and t h e inward oracle in our
soul is almost dumb,w e do well to realize how much we owe to
social religion . T h e accumulated deposit of t h e spiritual l ife oft h e past, th e inspired utterances of stronger souls, t he in st i tut ional edifice and th e history of th e Church, and t he living con
tact wi th devoted souls reassure us and carry us safely throught h e vulnerable period of our spiritual metamorphosis .And so w e con template with profound aw e this trembling
c ompass-n eedle pointing out into eternity,th e rel igious life in
our souls . It contradicts our worldly common sense, crowdsback our most imperious passion s
,thwarts our ambitions ,
humbles us in the dust,sets us unending tasks and rewards us
with a crown of thorn s . And yet w e love it, reverence it, desirei t ; and no dearer gift could come to us than absolute certitudethat all it tel ls us is truth .
It gives unity to our intellectual comprehension of t h e un iverse . It lends grandeur to th e scattered and fragmentary purposes of our l ife by gathering them in a single all-comprehending aim—th e Kingdom of God
,which is th e hallowing o f his name
and t he doing o f his w ill . It guarantees that our aspiration s arenot idle dreams nor our sacrifices fruitless toil, but that they are o fGod and through G od and un to God, and shall have their fulfillmen t and reward . When t h e vast world numbs us with a sen seo f helplessness and ignorance
,prayer restores our sense o f worth
by t he con sciousn ess of kinship with t he Lord o f all. Even whenour strength is broken ,
when our hopes are frustrated and natureSeems to cast us aside
,a brother to th e Shrivel ing worm
,w e can
trust and wait . By holding up t h e will o f t he Holy One as t h e
norm o f action and character,religion spurs us on t o endless
growth . I t deepens t h e seriousness o f our temptations by thethought that w e s in no t only against ourselves and our neighbors
,but again st t he Spirit o f Love and G oodness : “ Against
thee,thee only have I sinned .
”And in turn i t makes our vic
tories more glories by t h e knowledge that in us his saving willh as once more found completer expression .
REV. R . HERER NEWTON, D. D . 43
T h e wind that blows, th e birds that sing, and the crimsonflood of life and nourishment that throbs in our pulses are all
part of the great cosmic life. T h e force of God is in th e movements of matter and th e thrills of organic life . But they all actas they must .In t he ocean of th e universe floats t h e little bark of human
personality, part of it all, and yet an entity in itself . It knows ;it wills ; it is conscious of itself over against t he world, and eveno ver against God . More and more clearly th e thoughts of Godare mirrored by t h e reflecting in tellect of man
, il luminated byGod’s own mind
,t h e light of God in t h e soul of man .
But to th e human personality comes a fain t and far call,sweeter than t h e rhythm of th e spheres, th e voice of th e Fathero f spirits call ing to his child . Our souls give an swer by eternallonging and homesickness . T h e husks o f necessity, which w e
s hare with th e beasts, drop from our hands, and w e l ong for t heb read of freedom and peace in t h e etern al habitation s of ourFather. An d with that conscious turning to God, w e leaves lavery and en ter sonship . We have realized religi on . We l ive ;yet no longer w e ; it is now th e life of God in th e soul of man .
IV. THE POSSIBILITIES OF COMMON WORSHIP.
F irs t P aper.
REV. R . HEBER N EW T ON,D . D .
,N EW YORK.
T h e possibilities of common worship are t he possibilities ofd eveloped intellectual and spiritual life. No worship in common is
p ossible between men who are unevolved intellectually and spiritually. Undeveloped men
,intellectually and spiritually
,must wor
ship,if they worship at all
,within n arrow limitation s—th e limita
tion s of th e family, the tribe, th e clan , t h e city, th e state, th e den omination
,th e religion . As men evolve in tellectually and spirit
ually they grow out of th e limitation s which n arrow and confinet heir worship within social
,political
,and sectarian bounds—they
grow large en ough to comm ingle their aspirations and reverencesi n t h e recogn ition of something common below all diversities ofcreed and cult . T h e measure of th e possibility of common worship is, therefore, t h e measure of th e possibility of common life .
It is of supreme import ance for man that h e Should worshipsomewhat and somewhere . T h e final condemn ation of a man
b efore th e bar of th e soul is th e sen tence which Emerson passedupon Gibbon T h e man had no shrine .
”T he man who has no
shrine, no altar of reverence and ven eration and aspiration—w oe
b etide h im ! That h e should worship somewhat and somewhere,even though within th e n arrowest limitation s of t he narrowestm ind—this is t h e supreme desideratum for lif e .
44 THE POSSIB ILIT IES OF COMMON W ORSH IP.
In t he beginning, and always in th e inn ermost essentials, w orship
,as w e now understand i t ,—Spiritual reveren ce, aspiration,
up-look
,commun ion with t h e divine, —this must be an individual
affair,an experience of th e soul within itself . Thou
,when thou
prayest, enter into t h e secret place of thee,and when thou hast
shut t h e door upon thee pray to thy Father which is in th e secret .”
T h e Hindoos, of whatever sectarian denomination,have a com
mon recognition of t h e supreme sanctity of what they call T h eChosen Path . Members of all t h e varying sects of India sharealike in th e recognition of this supreme function of religion . Itmeans that each man shall
,within t h e silence of his ow n soul,
meditate upon, adore, and aspire after that ideal of l ife whichseems to him t h e truest and th e highest .Therefore, worship must always, in its inn ermost essen tials,
be s omething peculiar to th e individual man . For this highestworship h e needs no temple
,no mosque
,no synagogue
,no church .
But,just because t h e innermost essen tial of worship is indi
vidual,internal
,spiritual—therefore
,in it there i s t h e possibility
of most immediate and direct and un iversal fell owship . I n thatmyriads of H indoos
,under difieren t sectarian forms and wi thin
different sectarian fel lowships, alike walk, within th e soul, T h eChosen Path, they therein declare th e fellowship of all who pursuethis way of life. Whatever may separate them in other respects,they are therein one—one in t h e Spirit .T h e man
,therefore, who truly worships , in th e innermost re
cesses of his being,worships th e inn ermost reality of all being
that man is participating in t h e common worship,loved by all
spiritual beings who share a common spiritual life . I n thissupreme ritual of t h e soul h e must recogn ize a fellowship whichtranscends all time, all space, all boundaries of thought, all limit at ions of fellowship
,ecclesia stical and national and racial—must
kn ow him self one with all who love God—th e Infin ite and EternalGoodn ess .Man is
,however, a social being. He cann ot live apart from all
‘
his fellows . He cannot follow a purely individual life .
“T h e :
Chosen Path h e can walk within t h e inn ermost recesses of hisown soul . When h e comes out therefrom to commingle with h isfellows h e must seek some fellowship with them,
in matters Spiri tual as in matters pol itical
,social
,econ omic
,and artistic—as s
in all t h e relation s o f man with man . He must seek,therefore
,
some comm on worship,out of t he necessities of a common life
whatever th e limitation s of that common l ife, however small andpetty it may be .
Worship , as w e first find it,historically, w as l imited by th e
common life of the family, th e tribe, th e clan , th e city, th e state.
T he members of these ascending social groups had a common
worship . They had a common worship because they h ad a common l ife . There was a blood-bond between t h e members o f thegroup . T he recogn i tion of th is blood-bond made possible t he com
REV. R.HERER N EWTON, D . D. 45
munal worship . They had th e same god . T h e same ritual w as
p rescribed for th e worship of this god . T h e same needs werefelt by all t h e members of t h e commun ity .
Beyond this social group there was no affil iation, no fellowship
,because there was no blood-bond . T h e members of t h e
l ittle community were alien s t o th e members of all other commun it ies . Each other commun ity had its own special god
,it s
own prescribed ritual, its own peculiar n eeds . T h e possibil itiesof common worship were rigidly confined to th e common life .
There w as no dream of any fellowship beyond it .From those ancien t historic groupings
,up through all th e de
velOpmen t s of modern civilization , t h e possibilities of commonworship have ever been foun d in th e possibilities of common life.
Where common life was recogn ized, a common worship has beenfelt to be possible . Where n o common life was recogn ized
,there
h as been no recogni tion of th e possibility of any common worship .
Thus,in t h e manifold religious division s of our modern world,
t h e limitation s of common worship are precisely th e limitationsof th e recognized common alty in rel igion ,
—and there has beenfellowship in thought and in spirit
,t h e participation in a com
mon creed and a common cult,just in so far there has been th e
sen se of a common brotherhood .
“
As th e sense of a common life grows and expands,th e sense
of ’
a possible common worship grows and expands with it .T h e l ittle man in th e l ittle sect feels that h e can worship with
his other little brothers because they are brothers in t h e one truefaith
,in th e on e true l ife . He cannot recogn ize th e possibility
of any common worship between his own sect,which holds t h e
exclusive monopoly of di vin e truth and divin e life,and any other
sect,which is an alien to t h e household of God . As h e grows out
of these swathing bands of rel igion ,and comes to recogn ize that
truth is held in common by other sects and other rel igions,that
t h e life of t h e soul is shared in common by other sects and byother religions, h e grows to recognize th e possibility of commonworship .
In t h e recognition of t he common life,mental and Spiritual
,
there is a recogni tion of t h e common worship open to all who :
share that comm on life .
“ Howbeit, that is not first which isspiritual
,but that which is natural
,and afterwards that which is
sp iritual . Therefore, in t h e beginn ing, h e must have his littlesect, his petty denomination—th e first social grouping ; markedand bounded by th e recognized fratern ities of thought and feeling, of temperament and tradition
,of education and habit
,of
t h e whole mental and spiritual outlook . T h e l ittlest sect,t h e
pettiest church, t h e smallest den omination, th e feeblest religion,i s an attempt at something bigger than any individual, an effortf or some socializing of th e soul . We may look upon its limitat ions and pity it ; upon its narrowness and condemn it . Relativet o t h e larger life of th e spiritual cosmos
,how insignificantly
46 THE POSSIBILITIES OP COMMON WORSH IP.
small t h e biggest of these sects o f rel igion seem ! None the less,each is, as already said, an effort toward something bigger thant h e mere man himself . It is an aspiration
,an eff ort for some
common worship .
T h e l ittle man will be conten t always within t h e l ittle church .
T he provincial soul will need no traveling forth from the provincial sect . But , as t h e soul grows within th e pettiest denomination
,it must reach out to other denomination s—that is , to
other souls between whom and itself there is t he recogn ition ofsomething common in the spiritual life
,whatever the separation
of t h e outer life may be . A man may be measured,always
,in his
intellectual and spiritual development,by t he poss ibility o f his
reaching out from his own fold and clasping t he hands of hisbrother souls in other folds . T h e mere sectarian , t he mere denominat ionlist , th e mere churchman will never want to go outs ide of his own pen
-fold . But t he soul swelling with t he l ifeof G od
,t he recogn ition o f something common between all true
souls,will be ever longing for some expression of th e sen se of
fellowship which has awakened within h im toward his brothersthe brothers of t he blood-bond o f th e family of God .
So this grow ing soul w il l be glad o f t he opportunity of worshi ping with others , under other forms, in other rituals . As
opportun ity comes , h e wi ll be thankful to forsake a while hisown conventicle
,and take part in t he worship of some other
cult . T h e l ittle man ,when h e wanders into a strange place of
worship,where other forms are used than those familiar to him
s elf,will see only that which is repellent to his thought
,his feel
ing, only that which calls forth his pity or his aversion ,only that
which prompts his harsh condemnation . T h e big man, th e man
who has grown in his soul , wi ll find,before the strangest and
most alien shrine, t he sen se of t he Divine Presence awaken ingt he sen se of t he commonalty o f t h e soul made in t he image of
t h e Divine, th e spiritual fellowship . He will see, bel ow and
within th e forms that are alien and repellent , something to ad
mire,to revere, t o recogn ize as divine . T he cockney on a
specially conducted Cook’s tour will stand in St . Peter’s , w ithhis hat upon his head , un til t h e verger knocks it o ff ; stark upright while t he whole throng is kneel ing on t h e marble floor, cont emp tuously smiling at th e idolatry o f these Papists , falling on
their knees at t h e tinkling o f th e silver bell . T he grown soul w illfeel and act as Lowell did in Chartres Cathedral :
I turned and saw a beldame on her knees ;With eyes astray she told mechan ic beadsBefore some shrine o f saintly womanhood ,Bribed intercessor with the far-o ff JudgeSuch my first thought
,by kindlier so on rebuked ,
Pleading for whatsoever touche s l ifeWith upward impulse : be He nowhere else .
REv. R . HEBEE NEWTON ,D. D. 47
God is in all that liberates and l ifts,I n all that humbles, sweeten s, and consoles :Blessed t h e natures shored on every SideWith landmarks of hereditary thought !Thrice happy they that wander not lifelongBeyond near succor of th e household faith,T h e guarded fold that shelters, not confines !Their steps find patien ce in familiar paths,Printed with hope by loved feet gone beforeO f paren t
,child
,or lover
,glorified
By simple magic of dividing Time .
My lids were moistened as t h e woman knelt,And -was it will
,or some vibration faint
Of sacred Nature,deeper than t h e will
My heart occultly felt itself in hers,Through mutual intercession gen tly leagued .
Browning teaches t h e same lesson,in th e beautiful parable of
fellowship in religion called Christmas Eve . He stands in th evestibule of th e little Mount Zion Chapel
,as t h e common folk
from th e vicinity crowd into it, of a rainy even ing. T h e hopeless commonness of these people
,as they press by him out of t h e
dripping rain into th e steamy chapel,—how vividly h e pictures
it ! He tries to take part in t h e worship,but finds nothing ap
pealing to him . It is all repellen t to his every taste . T h e droning of t h e hymns, t h e can t of th e commonplace sermon ,
h e canstand them n o longer, and so goes forth into t h e night
,to be
alone with nature . T h e storm has cleared . What wonder thatth e starry can opy of t h e boundless heavens affects his soul insharp contrast to th e pettiness of th e surroundings in which h ehas just been ! He gi ves himself up to t h e commun ion of h issolitary soul wi th t h e Infin ite Being revealed in nature. A formlustrous and lovely h e discerns before h im,
recognizable at once .
He himself, with his human air,On th e narrow pathway just before.
I saw th e back of him no more;He had left th e chapel then
,as I .
Jesus had been worshiping with these commonplace folk intheir commonplace ritual . Had h e left them
,too
,in di sgust at
t h e un spirituality of their worship ?T h e scene changes . Browning finds himself before th e great
basilica of St . Peter . He hears and sees th e splendors of th emost ornate ritual of earth . T h e Christ passes within to joint he worship of th e Roman Mass
,as h e had joined th e s ervi ce of
Mount Zion Chapel . Unable t o worship in th e chapel conventicle,h e had been left by Jesus outside the door .”
48 T HE POSSIBILITIES OF COMMON WORSH IP .
Y es, I said, that h e will goAnd sit with these in turn
,I know.
Recogniz ing t h e blind and selfish lim itations which had prevented him from worshiping in Mount Zion Chapel, h e aspiresfor something better HOW
"
DO these men praise Him?He will raise my voiceUp to their point of praise .
I see t h e error.”
Again t h e scene changes . He finds himself looking in uponthe lecture hall o f a German university. An emaciated professoris lecturing upon t h e tale of th e Christmas-tide . He resolvesaway t h e story into legend and myth . All that which to th eChristian seems most precious
,most sacred
,disappears in this
crucible of criticism . T h e Christ who had led him,h e does not
find by his side :
Can it be that h e sits in side?Is th e vesture left me to commun e with ;Could my soul find aught t o sing in tune with,Even at this lecture if sh e tried?”
On ce more th e scene changes . He finds himself back in MountZion Chapel
,on t h e bench,
“ bolt upright,
” as if h e had n everleft it .T h e Christmas Eve in that hot
,close
,steamy chapel had
brought him,in a dream, an experience, which now, that h e
found himself awake there, taught him t h e lesson :
Better had knelt at th e poorest streamThat trickles in pain from th e straitest rift,For t h e less or t h e more is all God’s gift ;He blocks up or breaks wide th e gran ite seam .
And here is there water, or not, to drink ?
I put up pencil and j oin chorusTo Hepzibah Tune
,without further apology,
T h e last five verses of th e third section ,
Of th e seventeen th hymn in Wh i tefield ’
s Collection,
T o conclude with t h e Doxology .
”
Are th e possibil ities o f common worsh ip t o be l imited by suchindividual and occasional participation in t he rel igious servicesof other denomination s than our own ? Do such individual andoccasional f rat ern izings express t h e limits o f spiritual brotherhood ? I s there a blood-bond between souls o f di ff erent types ,
50 THE POSSIBILITIES OF COMMON WORSH IP.
t he one flowering of th e tree . He who recogn izes this, and knowsthat all men are his spiritual brothers in th e blood-bond of the
soul, h e must see th e possibilities of a common worship among
all who call themselves t h e “ friends and lovers of G od .
” As anexpression o f this recogn ition of spiritual un ity among men ofdifferen t religion s, there ought to be at least occasional servicesof worship
,participated in, as it were formally, by representatives
of our various great religion s ; thus t o testify that below all otherdifferences there i s a common substratum of unity, in th e common aspirations and reveren ces .This was t h e dream of a great man of England
,some centuries
ago—a man at on ce among t h e leading statesmen of his day, and
among t h e n oblest characters of all days . In a little work whichh e wrote
,sketching t h e forms and features of th e ideal com
munity of which h e dreamed, un to which h e aspired and forwhich h e labored in old England
,h e thus drew this vision of th e
comm on worship o f “ Utopia ”:
There are several sorts of rel igion,n ot only in diff eren t parts
of th e island,but even in every town . Y et t h e greater and
wiser sort of them worship none of these,but adore one eternal,
invisible,infin ite, and incomprehen sible Deity. Those
among them that have not received our religion,do not fright
any from it,and use none il l that goes over to it . He
(U t opus) judged it not fit to determine anything rashly, andseemed to doubt whether those diff eren t forms of rel igion mi ghtnot all come from God, who might inspire men in a differentmanner, and be pleased with this variety.
“ Though there are many differen t forms of religion amongthem
, yet all these, how various soever, agree in th e main point,which is th e worshiping th e D ivine Essen ce ; and , therefore, therei s nothing to be seen or heard in their temples in which th e sev
eral persuasion s among them may not agree ; f or every sect performs those rites that are pecul iar to it in their private houses,nor is there anything in t h e public worship that contradicts t heparticular ways of those di fferent sects . N or are there anyprayers among them but such as every one of them may usewithout prejudice to his own opin ion . Both priests andpeople offer up very solemn prayers to God in a set form of words ;and these are so composed that whatsoever is pronounced by th ewhole assembly may be likewise applied by every man in part icular to his own condition .
”
T h e man w ho thus wrote was a Roman Catholic . Can w e notreach even now in to th e largenes s o f h is vision ?Once, at least, in our modern world , has th e vision of Sir
Thomas More been realized . In th e Parl iament of Religions ,hel d in Chicago in connection with t he World ’s Fair
,there were
representatives o f nearly every great form of religion on th e
earth . Well-n igh every branch of the Christian Church was repU tOp ia,
”Sir Thomas More.
REV. R. HERER NEWTON, D. D . 5 1
resented—th e Roman Church and th e Greek Church, and everyvariety of Protestan tism . T h e great religion s of th e East wererepresen ted, too : Mohammedan ism,
Buddhism, Hindoo ism,
and others . It is impossible to conceive of a more hetero
gen eous religious gathering than was this ! How wide t h e
intellectual differen ces of these representatives of earth’s re
ligion s was plain ly shown in t h e statemen ts made upon that platform . Each of these represen tatives of t h e great religion s of t h eearth was in earnest in his conviction s—ready to surrender no
one of them . Y et,in t h e Spirit that prevailed on that occasion
- th e recogn ition of th e common blood-bond of all souls as th echildren of th e All-Father—it was foun d wholly practicable thatall these men of various races and creeds and cults should un itedaily in one form of prayer Our Father which art in Heaven .
”
It was worth all that Parliament cost, of mon ey and of labor,to see
,once upon t h e earth
,t h e represen tatives of well-nigh all
t h e religi ons of th e earth affirm thus th e possibilities of a common worship .
So th e N ew York State Con ference of Religion , in plann ingfor its first session
,took early in to con sideration t h e subject of
t h e possibil ity of comm on worship . A special committee w as
appointed to consider this subject . That committee reported lastspring
,urging t h e importance of t h e element of worship in our
sessions . It was felt by that commi ttee that th e wider th e int ellectual differences represen ted in our Con feren ce th e greatert he need of our coming together in th e spirit, for worship . Thatsubcommi ttee reported a draft for a leaflet of common worship,embracing selections from t h e Old and th e N ew Testamen t, af ew choice passages from t h e Sacred Books of t h e East
,a dozen
or so of noble collects,and as many catholic-spirited hymn s . T h e
Executive Comm it tee referred th e report back to t h e special commit t ee, with instruction s and power t o enlarge con siderably thisform for use in our Conferen ce . T h e summer’s work upon thish int resulted in a Book of Common Worship
,prepared by this
special commi ttee,under t h e authorization of t h e Executive Com
mi t t ee—specimen pages of which are used in t h e sessions of thi sConference . T h e book its elf includes th e choicest passages oft h e Old and N ew Testaments, with a number of selections fromRabbinical Comm entaries on t h e Old Testamen t, and a con siderable an thology of th e Sacred Books of t h e East, representing allth e great extan t religi on s, as well as some of th e religion s ofantiquity ; n early a hun dred collects or short prayers drawn fromt h e offices of t h e Greek and Roman Churches
,from t h e
“ Usesof th e Church of England
,and from t h e liturgies of other great
Churches, together with prayers of private in dividuals of all
branches of t h e Christian Church,orthodox as wel l as heterodox,
selections from t h e offices of th e Jewish Church, and a representatien of th e theistic worship of India ; and fin ally, some seventyfive hymns drawn from all sources . This book is put forth as
52 THE POSSIBILITIES OF COMMON WORSH IP.
an object-lesson in t h e possibil ities of common worship . It isbel ieved that it can be used in our Con feren ce by all who are
represented in it . If it can be used, acceptably, it is a demons trat ion of th e possibilities of common worship .
Wh at can be done in one in stance can be done in other instances . Other representative gatherings of t h e varied forms ofrel igion upon our shores can un ite in some such common worship—thus confessing t h e common faith underlying all creeds, t h ecommon life breathing through all souls .Criticisms
,of course, will be made upon this book, and upon
t h e effort of which it is an imperfect expression . T he ultraconservative will turn to t h e Christian collects , embodied in thisBook of Common Worship
,and point out t h e fact that th e
formula usually con cluding Christian prayers is omitted . It ist h e wont in Christian churches to conclude prayers with somesuch expression as “ in t h e name of Jesus Christ,” or
“ for t h esake of Jesus Chris t
,
” or “ through Jesus Christ .” For obviousreasons
,in a gathering representing Judaism as well as Chris
t ianity, such a form cannot be used . I S this a surrender of anything vital in Christian ity ? L et it suffice to poin t out th e factthat this formula was of late growth in Christian l iturgics . T h e
earlier liturgi es either did n ot have it, or on ly used it occasionally.
There was no standard rule as to its use . Some of t h e noblestprayers of t h e earliest Christian liturgies were wholly withouti t—as will be seen in our own Book of Common Worship . We
return to t h e primitive usage of Christian ity . And, if primitiveChristian ity be th e n eares t to original Christian ity—th e Christ ian ity of t h e Christ—then surely w e cann ot be far wrong in following this example. T h e Lord and Master of all Christian staught His disciples to pray thus : Our Father which art inHeaven . That prayer con cluded without th e formula evolvedin later ages . If it is a formula vital to Christ’s Christian ity,why did He not teach it ? If so unessen tial to Christ’s Christ ian ity, can it be essen tial to our Christianity ? I n reality
,th e
c on ception of this Christian formula, as un iversally n ecessary,i s a total misconception of one of th e great words and thoughtso f Jesus : Whatsoever ye Shall ask in my name it shal l be givenyou .
” That does not mean th e mere repetition of th e name ofChrist . As every pious Jew can tel l our Christian s , t h e name ist h e symbol of his character . Then do w e pray in t h e name ofJesus when w e pray in th e spirit o f Jesus , in t h e l ight of th et ruth o f Jesus . To pray any o therwise than after th e patterno f th e spirit o f Jesus, according to t h e mind that was in Jesus ,that is t o fail in using th e name o f Jesus—that and that alone.
Surely th e truth o f Jesus,th e spiri t o f Jesus
,i s found in a com
mon worship among al l w h o are th e sons o f His Father and our
Father,His G od and our G od . So w e are
,in t he deepest and
truest sense, praying in t h e name o f Jesus,when w e look around
among al l t he children of earth and say : Whoso doeth the will
REv. R . HEHER NEWTON, D. D. 53
o f my Father which is in Heaven, th e same is my brother and
my sister .T h e possibili ties of common worship—by a changed emphasis,
w e change t h e light in which w e are regarding t h e topic . Acommon worship holds possibilities for th e common life of mano f supreme importan ce . All earnest souls are dreaming of re
ligious unity. Un ity is t h e great generalization of our age . All
things are tending toward it . Rel igion feels t h e un iversal trend .
It is becoming synthetic . It is draw ing together, from all part sof t h e earth . Christian s are everywhere praying again thatprayer of their Master that they all may be one. Men are
everywhere praying that prayer in its largest sen se—that theyall
,all t h e children of earth
,as they are children of th e All
Father,may be one. How is Christian unity to be achi eved ?
Surely not by working from without within,in any scheme of
e cclesiastic un ification . T h e l ines of hopeful effort toward Christian un ion are, in my judgment, three . First
,intellectual effort
to discern t h e reality of that common Christian ity underlying allcreeds . Every great liberalizing factor in our modern Christ endom is making thus for un ity—as, by winn owing th e temporalf rom t h e etern al in all sects, it is driving us all back upon th eessentials of faith .
Second,practical co-operation
,wherein th e churches come
t ogether as facing th e common problems of social life,desiring
in comm on to establish th e Ki ngdom of God, t h e D ivine Order .Each church is finding that th e problems of intemperan ce, andimpurity
,and dishonesty
,and political corruption
,and all th e
other problems of our organi c life which it faces, are faced byevery other church . Each church is fin ding itself helpless to
grapple with these problems alon e. As t h e churches all cometo realize that in th e grappling with these problems is their truew ork—th e bui ld ing up of th e Ki ngdom of God upon earth—theywill draw together
,as they are now drawing together ; waiving
all di fferences,setting aside all contrari eties of opini on , holding
in t h e background all that separates them,that they may work
in common for th e common need of man . Most practical andhopeful th is l ine of effort toward Christian unity !On e lin e of effort toward Christian unity remains . T h e recog
nit ion of t h e common spiritual life among all who call thems elves Christian s ” will lead increasingly to some form of common worsh ip . Whatever our differen ces concern ing intellectualOpini ons and practical phi lanthropy
,all true souls must feel
that there is but one love of God,and of th e Christ hid in God,
within them all . Expression of this in worshi p is t h e best conf ession of t h e oneness of our spiritual life—th e spiritual life out
of whi ch all rel igion s grow. T h e con fession of this is th e conf es
s ion of essen tial uni ty as already existin g—e stablished in th e
very nature and con stitution of th e soul. In t h e very nature oft hings, therefore, all Christian s find themselves one when they
54 T HE POSSIB ILITIES OF COMMON WORSH IP.
can worship together . T h e things that divide them must be thethings of lesser importance : intellectual opinions
,temperamental
tastes,habits of l ife, et c. Until w e can see eye to eye in tel
lectually, and un til w e can agree enough as to what needs to bedone for t h e world to pul l all together in social reform—w e canat least come together, n ow and then
,in t h e sublimities of a
comm on worship, and thus con fess that w e are one in Christ .Is this all ? Again , back of th e common Christian ity is the
common humanity . What is true of common worship for Christ ian i ty, i s true, in a larger sense, of common worship for humanity . Vast though th e intellectual differences be between th e greatreligion s of t h e earth ; varied as th e temperamen tal tastes ofdifferen t races may be; diverse as th e cults and creeds of earthmay thus appear—when w e come to worship, w e are all one
,and
w e kn ow ourselves one in that w e can worship together . Suchworship together is thus t he confession of th e common spirituall ife which is th e root and fount of all religion
,out of which all
rel igion s grow.
As Matthew Arnold said : Worship must uni te,not divide
men .
Thus to worship is t o an swer t h e Chris t’s prayer—Even so,are
w e one, 0 Jesus, in th e life and l ove of Thy Father and our
Father, Thy G od and our God .
Second P aper.
RABB I HEN RY BERKOWI TZ, D . D .
,PHILADELPH IA.
T h e worship in our syn agogues mounts to a climax in words o fth e l iturgy that will
,I bel ieve , most fit t ingly characterize t h e
spirit and aspiration of this Con feren ce .
“ We firmly pray thatt h e day may come when all men Shall invoke Thy name, whencorruption and evil shall give way to purity and goodness ; whensuperstition shall no longer en slave t h e minds
,nor idolatry blind
th e eyes ; when all created in Thine image shall recognize thatthey are brethren
,so that, one in spirit and one in fellowship,
they may be forever un ited before Thee .
A favorite in scription on t h e en trance of Jewi sh sanctuaries ,throughout t h e world
,i s t h e inspiring word of th e Prophet Isaiah
(lvi . My house shall be called a house of prayer f or al l t h enations .” At t h e dedication of every Jewish house of worship,i t is customary t o repeat that sublime universal istic prayer whichw as uttered by King Solomon at t h e dedication of his Temple
(2 Chron . vi) .Jewish life has thus been permeated from most ancien t dayswith t h e deathless hope and striving for commun ity of worshi pamong th e children of men . It i s
,therefore
,with a heart-leap
RABB I HEN RY BEREOW I T z , D. D . 55
o f j oy that I respond to your cordial invitation to consider with
you, in this notable gathering, the possibil ities of common worship . All t he inspiration s of th e mighty history and tradi tionsof a glorious past lay upon me their mandatory in junctions t oc ontribute whatever may be in my power toward t h e realizationo f this lofty dream of th e prophets and sages of Israel .At t h e World’s Parliament of Rel igions in Chicago and kindred
gatherings, t he Jew has been most eager and arden t to addstrength to t h e movemen t which looks to th e fraternization ofall faiths . For ages w e have stood
,as it were, at t h e doors of
t h e councils,synods, and con feren ces of t h e con servators of re
ligion . We knocked and knocked in vain,but w e never lost
patience nor gave up hope . As w e bend our heads to catch t hetokens that come out of th e darkness of t h e past, w e hear th ecries of bleeding martyrs, suffering on t h e rack of th e Inquisition ; w e coun t t h e tears of myriads of victims of n ameless tortures, w e see th e lurid reflection of t h e fires that consumed our
holy books and holy men . Even in t h e presen t, th e air is rentwi th sobs and moan s of t h e outcast wanderers and exiles ofRussia and Rouman ia, fleeing from t h e rod of th e persecutor .But
,thank God ! th e dawn ing light of t h e twen tieth century is
in our eyes and t h e gladsome message of brotherhood,at least in
this Western home of ours, is ringi ng in our ears . Our heartsare so ful l of j oy and exultation that to our quickened fancyeverything seems possible, even community of worship
,despite
th e multiplicity of churches and differences of creeds .Nor do w e come to this task empty-handed. T he Jew has
already given much that makes for community of worship . T he
object of worship among civil ized men i s not one of th e monstrousdeities of Asia or Egypt, neither t h e Phoeni cian Baal, th e GreekZeus, nor t h e Roman Jupiter, but Jehovah, who through Israe lwas revealed as t h e Maker of heaven and earth, t h e Father of allhuman kind
,t h e morally Perfect and Holy On e, t h e Eternal God,
w h o is merciful and compassion ate, long-suffering, of boundlessgoodness and truth ; keeping mercy for thousands, forgivinginiquity
,transgression
,and sin (Ex . xxxiv .
T h e gen ius of th e Jew has created no small Share of themethods of worship by which th e human creature seeks to approach t h e Creator . T h e in stitution of th e Sabbath, which isone of t h e most blessed possession s of man kind, is t h e gift of th eJew as are also th e embodimen ts of t h e great universal andfun damental religi ous conviction s of t h e soul in t h e sublimefestivals wh ich commemorate t h e moral accoun tability of man
Pen tecost ; t h e doctrine of th e freedom of con scien ce—Passover ;t h e moral regeneration of th e individual and t h e race—AtonementDay. In one form or another these have served as t h e modelsf or like institutions among other churches .T he Jew has given t o t h e world th e Bible . T h e common text
book of rel igion ,t h e necessary basis of all commun ity of worship,
56 THE POSSIBILITIES OF COMMON WORSH IP.
is thus proffered by t h e Jew . That Book of Books treatsthroughout of t h e universal source and impulse of worship, t h egreatness and boun ty of God and th e littleness of man .
This is th e dual theme on which t h e voice of Israel has rungall t h e changes of th e most masterful eloquence in Deuteronomy
T h e farewell orations and songs of Moses —and in t h e passionat e addresses of t h e Prophets . On this theme it has soundedt h e ful l gamut of all t h e tones that swept th e Psalmist’s lyre.
At times th e sense of hum il ity is so deep that t h e voice sinks t ot h e mournful wail : What is man
, 0 G od, that Thou art mindful of him,
or t h e son of man,that Thou thinkest of h im ? ”
(Psalms cxliv . Then th e exultation at t h e thought of man’sdignity and divine possibilities is so in ten se that it rises t o t h eexclamation : “ Thou hast made him but a little less than t h e
angels ; Thou hast crowned him with glory and honor (Psalmsviii .Like a bird on th e wi ng, soaring from earth to heaven and de
scending on ly t o soar again ,does th e soul flutter between th e
highest, th e most ecstatic,and t h e lowest
,th e most depressing
emotion s . Not on e phase of all th e varying changes of sentimentbut finds its expression through th e voice of Israel
,speak ing
through th e l iving pages of t h e great literature of t h e Scriptures . What gives them their undying influence is th e fact thatthey palpitate with t h e fullest expression th e world possesses oft h e reality of God’s being, His n earness
,His justice and love .
Read th e Psalms of trust (cxxi . , t h e hymns of praise (ciii .,of thanksgiving (cxxxvn 1 .
,cx1 1 1 .
,repen tance (IL) ;
and joyous hope and you wil l realize that,however their
creeds may differ, Jew ,Christian
,and Moslem alike rej oice in th e
use of th e Psalms as their common liturgy, because t h e commonemotions of th e hum an heart, t h e common-sense conviction s oft h e human mind, and t h e sweet confidences in which t h e s oulwhi spers its yearn ings, its doubts, and hopes—all these are nowhere else so fully and freely expressed as in th e lyrics firstchan ted by th e lips of Israel’s prin cely bard .
T h e rel igious gen ius of th e Jew found expression also in thecreative products of rite and ceremonial
,music and song
,
majestic symbolism and reverent san ctuary . These gifts are so
importan t and of so vital a character that they have largely become t h e common possession of all mon otheistic religions andhave been accepted, in more or les s modified forms
,by cat hredral
,
mosque, and church, as t h e best and sincerest expression of th e
religious sentimen ts of t h e human race .
To measure t h e value of these gifts , try to think of what theworld would be without G od , t he Sabbath and festivals , th eBible
,and especially th e Psalms . With these commun ity o f w or
ship,in a large measure, already exists
,and th e possibility of
more and more unison in worship becomes realizable.
On a recent ocean voyage when t h e excitement attendan t on a
58 THE POSSIB ILITIES OF COMMON WORSH IP.
moral conviction,rooted in a vivid and all-absorbing love of the
ideal which w e name God .
Strong individuality characterizes groups of worshipers as wel las indi viduals . If among t h e Christians
, t h e Friends, for instan ce, were to surrender their well-defined individuality, it wouldundoubtedly mean a loss to t h e total development of Christianity.
Much of t h e objection to the Jew is,after all
,a tribute to th e
strong individuality of t he people which persists in loyalty to itsprin ciples, despite t h e cruelest opposition . T h e Jew in thisblessed land of Opportun ity eventually puts off t he foreign garmen ts of bad habits
,unrefined manners, and degrading supers t i
tion s which h e acquired in Asiatic,Teutonic, Roumanian, or
Celtic lands . But h e stanchly refuses to brand his fathers withdisgrace, or himself with cowardice by th e surrender of a singleessential principle or quality of his true character. He resistst h e strong en ticemen ts which allure him to weakly sacrifice thedistin ctive traits and talents which indi vidualize th e Jewishgenius .Personality is an essen tial factor of sincere worship . Wor
ship,to be real and soulful
,must be an undi vided and unqualified
offering of self at t h e altar of God .
When I commune with my Creator I must come to Him withmy whole heart . Everything that goes in to th e make-up of mysoul-l ife must strive to utter itself in th e ardor of devout worshi p .
I cannot undo my past, nor change my personality out of anyconsideration of uniformity. I must pray
,praise, and sing with
th e whole of my being and in such form as is demanded by myeducation, my tastes, my degree of refinement and culture, myartistic capabilities, my aesthetic temperament
,my history and
tradi tions, my experien ces and hopes . Those who stand on th e
same plane with me, sharing all these things wi th me and form
ing thus an individualized community, will worship in common .
Ours is a common heritage,a common hope
,its form of utterance
t h e outgrowth of common j oys and sorrows, t h e outpouring of aneed altogether our own, which is too precious and too sacred tous to be bartered away at any price .
T he same is true of you and your commun ion . Agreementand identity of outer form in worship are possible only wherethere i s agreement in all t h e elements and forces that enter intoand call for expression .
But true commun ity is far deeper than any formula . It liesin
“t h e one spirit which is variously expressed in different re
ligious forms,” to borrow th e words o f th e clear and admirable
ann ouncemen t of this Conference . It requires,in th e first place,
a right attitude toward truth . Its primary demand is a surrender o f th e hateful and hoary fallacy o f th e ages that it is criminal f or one man t o apprehend truth in a manner different fromanother . Error is no s in
,and yet all rel igious dissensions and
persecutions have scourged as c riminals those who ventured to
SWAM I ABHEDAN AN DA . 59
d iffer from the authorities of ruling Churches in t h e statemento f religious truth and in its expression through worship . Freed om in th e search after truth and in t h e formulation Of truthmust precede any consideration of any common elements inworship .
T h e second condition prerequis ite to any approximation towardun iversal worship must be th e final and absolute surrender ofthat hideous doctrine which still rests like a haunting nightmareo n some of th e noblest of t h e race—t h e doctrine of exclusives alvation . There must be a giving up on th e part of each rel igionof t h e presumptuous claim that it alone has such a firm andabsolute possession of all truth that it need never change
,whereas
all those who differ from it are in error and are hopelesslyd oomed to endless tortures . This is t h e fatal claim which hi therto has slain every impulse of fratern ity and justified everyform of fratricide among those who claimed to be worshipers oft h e same God .
Fin ally,a true commun ity of worship must be based in th e
un qualified freedom of con scien ce . Higher than eccles iasticalauthority must stan d t h e everlasting rule of right . It is unnecessary for me in this presence, at this time, to enter in to anyd emon stration of th e fact that there has been too often a woefulconfli ct between t h e authority of ecclesiasticism and th e authorityo f con scien ce . These evils, and all others that have tended tokeep men apart and to divide them into contending factions int h e name of religion, must be eliminated if men are to come intot h e realization of their human brotherhood
,n ot as a fine theory,
but as a practical reality. Un less w e come together as brothersin th e fellowship o f good will
,how dare w e face th e common
Father in common worship ?Our aim Should be to labor for this deeper bond of rel igious
uni on . What w e should strive for is n ot commun ism in,but
c ommun ity of,all rel igion s ; not a un iversal worship of dul l un i
f ormity,but un ity of worship
, each seeking in his own way tocultivate and strengthen t h e forces of rel igion (so long at warwi th each other), in order to marshal them into one federateda
pd un ited service of God by a higher con secration to t h e service
0 man .
DISCUSSION .
SWAMI ABHEDAN AN DA,NEW YORK .
I have be en allowed on ly a. f ew minute s to d iscuss these deepsubjects which have taken age s in t h e East an d cen turies in t h e
West. I will simply ask some question s , an d leave tho se que stionsw i th y ou f or correct an swer, which should b e based upon log ic,s cien ce , an d philosophy.
T h e subject is “Religi on t h e Lif e Of G od in t h e Soul Of Man .
T his suggests tw o que stion s . I n t h e first place , W hat is t h e n ature OfG od , an d What is t h e n ature o f t h e soul ? Is G od personal or im
60 THE POSSIB ILITIES or COMMON WORSH IP.
person al ? Doe s He dwel l in t h e un iverse or out side t h e un iverse ? I s .
He extra-co sm ic, or in tra-co smi c , or both ? Doe s He dwe ll within usor n o t ? Then an other question arise s with regard t o t h e life o f G od ?
Has G od life l ike ours, or is H e t h e source o f all life ? Is G od t h e
efficien t Cause alon e , or t h e e fficien t an d material Cause o f t h e un i
verse ? Then regarding t h e n ature o f t h e soul,t h e que stion arises ,
Was it created by G od ? D id G od create t h e soul out o f n othing, or
did it ex i st before t h e birth o f t h e body ? If s o , where an d h ow didit exi st? Is it etern al or n o t ? By etern ity d o w e mean an en dlessstate which h as a. beginn ing ? If soul h ad a beginn in g, h ow can it b eimmortal ? Because that which has a beginn ing must have an en d ;this i s t h e law o f n ature . If soul was created , was it created sin fulor divin e ? Is t h e soul divin e by its birthright or sin ful ? T h e firstspeaker said that h e be li eved in in spiration .
” What doe s it mean ?If G od dwe lls within us h ow can there b e any in spiration ? It mustb e exp iration . As Emerson says, “ In spiration i s
!the disclo sure o f
t h e higher soul within us .
”But if t h e higher soul dwe ll s already in
us , h ow can w e expect in spiration from out side ?T h e first speaker said h e be lieved in t h e deathlessn e ss o f t h e soul.
T h e question arises,Is deathlessn e ss po ssible when t h e soul i s sub
j ect t o birth ? Is it n ot true that deathlessn e ss pre suppo se s birthlessn ess ?T h e first speaker be li eves in t h e law o f cause and eff ect. T h e
question ari se s whether cause i s outside o f e ffe ct or in t h e e ff ect.If cause lie s in e ffect, h ow can t h e cause o f t h e un iverse b e out sideo f it? T h e cause o f our s in i s n ot any evil spirit outside o f us , butit i s within us . What doe s t h e word s in
” mean ? Sin i s n othin gbut se lfishn ess caused by our ign oran ce of t h e true n ature or divi n e spirit within us .
T h e first s pe aker be lieve s in vicarious atonemen t. Can any soulwhich i s divin e by its birthright b e saved by some other be ing? ’
Was crucifix ion o f t h e Son o f G od n ecessary f or t h e salvation o f
human souls ?Then t h e speaker says h e believe s in w alkin g together with G od ,
I f G od i s all in all , if He i s soul o f our soul , life o f our life , h ow can
w e walk with G od , an d h ow can w e walk without be ing con stan tlyatten ded by G od an d con stan tly in commun ion with him ? Even a;sinn er can n ot walk without be ing moved by t h e will an d power o f
G od , if w e live an d move an d have our be ing in H im . On t h e con
t rary , if G od doe s n o t dwel l in us He i s n o longer infin ite ; but fin itean d limited .
T h e secon d speaker has brought up t h e deep problem whether G odi s moral or n o t . What d o w e mean by morality ? How can w e sayG od i s moral ? Thes e question s I am giving t o you t o discuss .T h e secon d speaker said , “
T h e bas i s o f ethics i s e ither social or
private utility.
”But if w e examin e carefully w e fin d that utilit ari an
ethics i s n o ethics at all . It has a much deeper foun dation . T h et rue basis o f e thics i s n o t utili ty , n ot simply do ing good t o socie tyor human ity, but it lie s deep in t h e soul o f our soul s. Jesus t h eChrist struck t h e foundation o f e thics when h e said , Love thyn e ighbor as thyse lf .” Wh y shall w e love our n eighbor as our Se lf ?T h e explan ation i s n o t in t h e B ible . T h e Vedas have explain ed it bysaying, Because w e are one with our n e ighbor in Spiri t. If w e hurtor in jure our n e ighbor w e in jure our Se lf or Spirit.” It is t h e un ityo f spirit. There lies t h e so lution o f t h e true bas is o f ethics, and n ot
i n social or private utili ty.
PRESIDENT GEORGE A . GATES. 61
REV . J . M. WH ITON, PH . D ., N EW YORK.
What have I t o say i s historic . T w o hun dred an d fifty years agoa boy was born in a town on t h e east coast o f Scotlan d . At t h e ag e
o f , I think , twen ty-three h e became min ister o f a little parish churchat a place called Auchterless . T w o or three years later h e became aPro fe ssor o f D ivini ty at Aberdeen Un iversity, an d died at t h e age of
twen ty-eight. At t h e ag e o f twen ty-seven h e published a book . Iti s n otable f or be ing t h e earlie st, I think , in which t h e phraseo f our topic occurred in t h e English lan guage . T h e title o f that bookwas, Re ligion t h e L ife o f G od in t h e Soul o f Man .
” I ho ld in myhan d t h e biography o f that m an , H enry Scougal. He was t h e pupilof Archbishop Le ighton , that sain tly soul of t h e Church o f Scotlan d.
T h e book fe ll in to t h e han ds o f t h e mother o f John an d Charle sWesley. When John We sley was in doubt about t h e re ligious life,that book was re commen ded t o him . H e read it, an d t h e e ff ectappeared in his life . When Whitefie ld, We sley’ s co-laborer, was likewise in t h e m idst o f re lig ious doubt, that book was given t o him,
an d was t h e mean s o f open ing his eye s t o t h e marve lous life o f G od
as a light shin ing within his ow n soul . This I think o f sufficien tn ote t o justify these remarks, that so young a m an , o f s o brief ex
p eri en ce , should have origin at e d in t h e En glish-speak in g world s o
p owerful an influen ce as that which appears in t h e testimony o f t h e
whole Methodist Church t o t h e witn ess o f t h e in dwe lling o f t h e Spirit.
PRESIDENT GEORGE A . GATES, IOWA COLLEGE.
Wh ether all t h e on e hun dred an d fifty Prote stan t denomin ation sare represen te d here , I d o n o t
‘ kn ow . It is said that there are thatnumber in ex i sten ce . There may b e on e hun dred an d fi f t y
-on e by thi stime , f or quite like ly a fresh on e has been hatched out somewherewhile w e have been sittin g here together. Anyhow such a gatherin gas this i s sure ly wise . W e cann o t kn ow each other better but t o
respect each other more . Phillips Brooks has well said that Familiari t y doe s n ot breed con tempt,” ex cept among con temptible people .
From t h e beginn in g t h e ton e o f this Con feren ce has been deep an d
earn est. T o hear such discussion s o f t h e presen t subject as w e havejus t listen ed t o , from such wide ly diff eren t po in ts o f view, i s in sp iring . I n otice that several have in dicated the ir in terest in thi s matterby sen ding up the ir n ames, that they may take part. I shall, therefore , perhaps, we ll meet t h e Committee ’s invitation t o open t h e gen
eral discussion by re lating t w o bits o f experien ce .
I rece ived a letter a little while ago from a m an , w h o i s do in g somere ligious an d soc ial work in a rough Western town in t h e lumber re
gion , where there are all den omin ation s, but chiefly n o den omin ation .
He is a Con gregation al min ister, Prote stan t from crown to heel, buth e said : “ I have become thoroughly con vin ced from abun dan t ex
p eri en ce that, however I may look upon certain doctri n e s an d form s
o f t h e Roman Catholic Church as superstition—an d they must lookso t o m e with my pres en t views—n everthe le ss, t h e mass an d con
f ess ional d o f or a large number o f people what n o in te llectual appeal ,n o powerful sermon , n o aesthetics o f worshi p could po ssibly d o f or
them .
” T hi s i s a bit o f te stimony from out o f t h e heart o f a man ’s
experien ce , whom I know t o b e as radical as any radical Prote stan tamong us . It is n oteworthy . On e o f our pro fe ss ors in Iowa Co llegei s won t t o say, “ I care very little about what m en have asserte d ,
asseverated, sworn to , an d fought f or in t h e past ; but if I can get a
bit o f te stimony from an honest soul, I value tha Such i s thi sman
’s te s timony.
6 2 THE POSSIBILI TIES OF COMMON WORSH IP.
It can d o us Protes tan ts n o harm to think about that, perhapss tudy it pro foundly, with po ssible sympathy rather than who lly withprejudice . Is any on e Of us narrow en ough t o imagin e that e itherPro te sta n tism or Roman Catho licism i s t h e ultimat e eccle siasticalembodimen t O f t h e Christian spirit ? Both are on ly tran sien t forms
o f Chri stian ity.
I n a co llege I kn ow, where on e Of t h e o fficers must leave prettys oon , his co lleague s came together t o presen t t o him that token asO ld as Homer
,a loving cup , as typifying t h e re lation s that had ex iste d
between this o n e an d his fe l low-workers . On e said, “L e t us no t
make it who lly a hilarious occasion , but le t us put win e in t h e cupa n d drink O f it toge ther.
” It was agreed , though some thought itwould b e almo st profan e . A s t h e little me eting moved along an ds pon tan eously deve loped its in heren t spirit, here is what happened.
A young m an w h o had be en un til re cen tly an in structor in ourgreatest un iversity in America, coming west with something Ofsuperciliousn ess in his view o f western in stitution s , w h o had o n lybeen with us about t w o mon ths, ro se an d said , This cup i s verilybe come a sacram en t. As n ever before I realize t h e mean ing Of t h esacramen t o f t h e Ho ly Communi on .
”An d every heart pre sen t sai d
“ Amen .
” My on ly Object in relating thi s in ciden t i s that it illustrate s this fact : Common worship i s both cause an d e ffect.W e perhaps adequate ly kn ow that common worship produce s re
lig ious f e llowship . This is true in spite O f t h e fact that t h e pre sen tdisassociate d worship , i n differen t ways an d in d istin ct compani esholding divergen t Opin ion s, breeds utterly irration al prejudice s and
ho stilitie s. It is easy f or frail human ity un con sciously t o allowmere diff eren ces Of thought an d man n er t o degenerate in to activeoppo sition s . N o on e in te n ded t o have it so . It i s a drift. N evert h e
less, on e chief purpo se in worshiping together, however narrow t h e
c ircle , i s n o t on ly t o hon or G od,but to cultivate re lig ious fe llowship .
But d o w e realize , on t h e other hand , h ow easily an d naturally anygenuin e fe llowship rise s in to worship ? Real human fellowship hasat t h e heart o f it a ho ly prin ciple . Any measure Of fe llowship d e
m an ds some degree o f outgo ing o f se lf in to in terest in an other. T h e
pro founde st human fe llowship is veri ly a ho ly thing. Is thi s n o t t h e
historic an d scien tific gen e si s o f t h e Church ’ s in stitution Of t h e Ho lyCommun ion ? May w e n o t thus think o f Jesus laying ho ld on thisun iversal f act an d spiritually baptizing it in to visible an d formalservice in that Kingdom o f G od which h e came t o promote upon t h e
e arth ? This great rite Of t h e Church become s thus in our thought an atural an d organ ic part Of all human lif e .
What w e are all seeking after here , “ common worship,” i s an
e ffect, t h e cause Of which is t h e actually ex isting an d n ever-to -becrushed-out de sire f or brotherhood . This e lemental human n eed iti s that has made all sacraments . T h e heart-hunger f or fellowshiph as y et o ther commun ion s t o create f or itse lf. These t oo shall b en o le ss Ho ly. I n this large confiden ce w e may live and work andwait.
REV . FRANCIS J . CLAY MORAN,B . D . , N EW YORK .
Th ere i s a mo st de lightful harmony betwee n t h e addresse s o f las te ven ing o n Ethical Progre ss i n t h e N in e teen th Cen tury ,” an d th isbeauti ful subject brought be fore us to day, T h e Li f e Of G od in t h e
Soul O f Man .
”An d there came before my mind ’s ey e a picture O f
that wonderful scen e o n t h e Moun t O f Tran sfiguration , when t h e
Master, with Mo se s an d Elias represen ting t h e an cien t past, m e t
to gether, an d just be low t h e moun ta in t h e d isciples were struggling,
as m any are n ow struggling with t h e great and terrible social problems Of t h e ag e . There had be en brought t o t h e disciples a d eaf and
SWAMI ABHEDAN AN DA . 63
dumb boy , an d they tried t o cast out t h e evil spiri t an d could no t
d o it. T h e Mast er cam e down f rom all t h e glory t o t h e foot o f t h emoun tain , and when t h e disciple s complain ed that they h ad n o t
been able to d o what they expecte d , just as w e are all complain ingabout what w e have t o d o in this great City Of N ew York, t h e Mast ersaid, “ This kin d cometh n o t forth , but by prayer an d fasting.
”
Prayer f or what? What did He say would b e given H is disciple s whenHe le f t them ? When I g o away I will sen d t h e Comforter un to you,
an d h e wi ll lead y ou in to all truth .
” Is it n o t on e Of t h e reason s t oday that our works seem s o hope less an d our life sometimes so frig idan d co ld , because w e are n o t plead ing t h e promise that He will g ivethat Spirit t o all w h o seek H im wherever they may b e , as was be autifully expre ss ed by t h e Rabbi just n ow in that won derful pape r. Imay say further that during t h e last season Of t h e great feast Of t h eJewish Church it has been my privi lege t o visit several Of the irsynagogue s, an d I con fe ss I n ever fe lt n earer G od in my life thanwhen I heard t h e prayers Off ered up in tho se synagogue s. It isthat Spirit Of G od w e have all t o pray f or,
—t o ask that H e Shouldm an if e st H is power in greater measure .
On e last thought. An Old writer, w h o wrote some hun dreds o f
years ago , in speaking Of con scien ce says that con scien ce i s o f n o
use t o a m an un til it is illum in ated . He take s t h e i llustration Of am an go ing out in to his stables t o g et something at n ight. As h e goe sout t o t h e stable h e take s down from a n ail a lan tern , carrie s it in tot h e stable , an d swing s it about, but there is n o light. Why ? T h e
glass slides are there , t h e candle i s there , but h e has forgotte n t o
l ight i t . SO man’s co n scien ce must b e illumin ated by t h e Spirit Of
G od t o judge between right an d wron g.
L et my las t word b e , then—whatever your creed , whatever yourchurch , pray f or t h e p ow er o f t h e Spirit Of G od on all m en .
SWAMI ABHEDAN A N DA .
I h ave been reques ted t o say a f ew words on t h e Hi ndoo idea Ofun ity in worship . T h e H in doo s be lieve that there is on e G od . Fromvery an cien t time s t h e be lief h as been that G od is o n e
,but t h e me an s
o f atta in ing G od -con sciousn e ss or Of realizing G od are many. I nRig Veda, t h e mo st an cien t Scripture s Of t h e world , w e fin d thisexp re ssion
“ That which ex ists i s On e ; m en call it by vari ousn ames .” Again in t h e Bhagavadgita w e read : T h e Lord says
, Higherthan I there i s n on e ; all these sects are strung in m e as pe arls in a
thread . I am like that in tern al thread which passe s through all:t h e pearl s an d gems in a garlan d an d ho lds them to gether.
” Again ,
H e says : Who soever comes t o m e through whats oever path Of t e
ligi on I reach him ; all p eople are struggling in diff eren t paths which:
ultimate ly lead t o Me t h e Etern al Truth . When I was a b oy I'
learn ed a prayer, which is a very common prayer amongst t h eH in doo s . It will show h ow liberal t h e H in doo s are in the ir ideas o f .
worship . Oh , Lord, as rivers rising from diff eren t moun tain s , rumcrooked or straight, toward on e ocean
,so all these various sects an di
creeds an d den omin ation s Of diff eren t re lig ion s, ri sing from diff eren tstan dpo in ts, run , crooked or straight, toward Thee , t h e Infin ite Oceano f Ex isten ce , In te lligen ce , Bliss, an d Love .
”
Que stion : I would like t o ask Dr. Berkowitz what h e mean s bus ing twice , I think, t h e term , dul l un iformity f or just t hat kin dOf service which , I understan d , t h e Committee h as preparedt h e book t o expre ss . I n this book , I take it, there are just suchb eautiful prayers as h e himse lf read , as we ll as beautiful Psalms an d
64 THE POSSIB IL ITIES or COMMON WORSH IP.
various other expression s meeting t h e very varied an d deepe st n eedsOf human n ature . N ow it puzzle s m e a little just t o k now what h emean s by characterizing that kin d Of service as a service o f
“ dullun i formi ty .
”
DR . BERKOWITZ.
I desire t o b e un derstoo d in using that phras e Simply to refer t o t h efact that there ex ist in t h e world a. multitude Of forms f or t h e
exp ression Of t h e re ligi ous sen timen t, because each is t h e outpouringOf some strong individual apprehen sion Of h ow G od should b e ap
p roach ed . W e are gathered together here on a common platform,
an d I admire its expre ssion i n this work O f common worship ; it i s abe autiful thing ; it satisfies a part Of my be ing, and a part Of all ourbeings, I think. But I cann o t forget that when I come t o worshipG od there are also o ther f orms which are a part o f my religi ous life ,an outgrowth Of my individuality an d my history as a Jew ,
which In eed . While I come hither with a full heart, where there i s ablending o f re ligious sen timents, I must in candor admit that th eyd o n ot fully express everything that is in m e , an d d o n o t , I think,
fully express t h e n eed o f o thers , n either Of t h e Catho lic , n or t h e
differen t sects Of Prote stan tism, nor Of t h e H in doo . While eager t o
blen d together on such occasion s as thi s an d emphasize t h e truthsw e ho ld i n common , w e dare n o t , in sin cerity an d truth t o ourselve s ,ignore that which con stitute s t h e special n eed Of each . I d o n o t wishto b e un derstood as using t h e dull un iformity te rm in any sweepingsen se Of disapproval . I on ly wish t o make a plea f or what I be lievet o b e s o very imp ortan t in t h e history Of man kin d , an d that i s our
ow n individuali ty. W e may ri se above it, as w e d o to d ay,an d be
o f an d with our fe llow-m en in that gran d commun ion which fil ls ourhearts with s o much exalted reveren ce ; w e may, when occasion calls,worship with our fe llow-m en in on e form, but w e must also n o t
forget that w e are in dividuals an d n eed t h e other expression as we ll .It has been well said , if on e uni versal mon archy would b e acalamity t o t h e world, on e un iversal religi on would b e f ar more so .
T h e in d ividuality Of t h e faiths an d the ir to leran ce towards eacho ther con stitut e true liberty .
Un ion Of spirit an d fe llowship, n o t mere un if ormity Of outward ex
pre ssion , con stitute s t h e true commun ity o f worship .
REV . JAMES G . DITMARS, BROOKLYN, N. Y .
I am free t o say that if I had been able to an ticipate t h e expositorypart o f t h e Rabbi ’s address, this expo sito ry speech would n o t havebeen uttered . I desire t o emphasize t h e very thoughts that have beenemphasized in this latte r part Of t h e discussion ,
—individuality, i f n otidios yn crasy Of person al worship in t h e n ame Of t h e one true G odand Father o f us all .There has , however, come up a thought which emphas ize s a statemen t that I heard made a f ew n igh t s ago
—that t h e so-called Lord’sPrayer ”
w as n o t a Christian prayer at all . I n o n e sen se I think thisi s in accord wi th t h e fact quoted by Dr. N ewto n , that that prayercould b e uttered in spirit an d word at a Congress o f Religion s . ButI cann ot think that it was, as t h e speaker I have re ferred to intimate d that i t was , a Jewish prayer, an d n o t a Christian prayer. Ihave n o t y e t con sented t o that dictum . However, it may b e more
true than I have been ac customed to think . Jesus t aught thatprayer t o H is disciples in t h e early part o f H is min istry . At thattime there was n o severan ce betwee n Himse lf an d H is co—labo rers i nt h e land Of Pale stine . When t h e separation was approaching, He
said,
“ If y e shall ask anything in my name , that will I d o .
"
66 POLITI CAL IDEALS OF T HE BIBLE .
ASSEMBLY HALL,UNITED CHARITIES’ BUILDING,
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21 .
T h e Con feren ce reassembled at P . M., under th e presidency
of Rev. Thomas R . Slicer of N ew York .
V . POLITICAL IDEALS OF THE BIBLE .
I . THE OLD TESTAMENT .
PROFESSOR N AT HAN IEL SCHM IDT,CORN ELL U N I VERSI TY.
T h e political life of a people is on ly one phase of its gen eralsocial developmen t . In distin ction from other social conditions :and activities of spon taneous growt h, it may be regarded as manifest ing itsel f solely in th e fun ction s of purposely constitutedsociety . These fun ctions may terminate within th e body politicitself or extend their action to other similarly con stituted organizat ions . I n th e former case, politics is concerned with th e constitut ion of th e governmen t, t h e con trol and direction of Social lifeby legislative, administrative, and judicial action, t h e methods ofexpressing th e will of th e people, and t h e balance of power betweenconflicting parties . In t h e latter case, it deal s with th e relationsof t h e state to other s tates, involving mutual rights and Obligations
,alliances and treaties, suzerainty and dependence, diplomacy
and war .As all political action is purposive rather than spontaneous
,
t here are, of necessity, not on ly political aims, but also politicalideals . T h e practical politician may seek only an immediate end
without looking beyond to its correlation with any higher and’
more comprehen sive scheme of social and political amelioration .
Y et what h e aims at accomplishing must appear to him as desirable. However narrow and selfish
,it is a part of his ideal . T h e
true statesman cherishes l ofty ideals and faithfully endeavors todirect th e political forces t o their realization , without losing sightof th e importan ce o f even t h e smallest step in t h e right d irectionand realizing th e limitation s imposed upon him by th e materialat hand . T h e prophet
,on th e other hand , may empty his soul
'
in one piercing cry o f despair and denunciation,because t h e light
of th e ideal that shines within him deepen s th e darkness o f t h e :
world without ; or h e may proclaim th e vision h e has seen ; painting in glowing colors, again st th e background o f what is . th ebetter things that are to be . In either case, th e intensity of hisfaith may render him forgetful Of th e d istance between th e ideal
'
PROFESSOR NATHAN IEL SCHM IDT. 67
and the actual and t h e many steps that mus t be taken to reacht h e promi sed good . Even th e philosopher, with his keen sense oft h e un iformity of nature and his scanty sympathy with en thu
siasms that on ly end in disen chantmen t, cannot do wi thout hisown ideals . It is from t h e level of these that h is criticism ofexisting conditions proceeds .It is evident, however, that these ideals vary greatly with t h e
personal standpoin t of those who entertain them,and that t h e
variation becomes still more marked if followed through manycen turies of national history.
Now, th e Hebrew Bible is a collection of writings composed in
t h e course of a thousand years, from th e eleven th to t h e firstcentury before our era. For th e period preceding th e thirdcentury it represents practically all that has survived of a nationalliterature ; for t h e subsequent generations it represents what inth e end w as deemed by th e synagogue most worthy of preservation . T h e reason for their survival l ie s ultimately in th e character of these books . In most instances they are t h e monumentsof mighty movements in t h e national life
,bringing to th e front
new religious and political forces . T h e political ideals of manyminds and many parties in diff erent ages have left their imprintupon th e sacred writings of an cien t Israel . They Often go farapart
,one writer ardently longing for what another unsparingly
condemn s . Where tw o prophets, statesmen, or ph iIOSOph ers differ,it i s at times extremely difficult to decide which position is mostjustifiable historically and of greatest intrinsic value. But a com
parat ive study is ever fruitful of suggestions . In spite Of allchanges
,t he great forces in human life are so persistent, t h e con
dit ion s Of society remain so fundamentally th e same, and th eproblems arising out of them are s o similar
,that t h e ideals of
one age touch very closely those of another and continue to havetheir importance and to exercise their power .In t h e last an alysis, progress is due to t h e proper balancing of
Opposite forces . This end is achieved in human society, not somuch by conscious compromise of ideals, as by th e natural actionof divergent tenden cies as inevitable and necessary as is
,in
nature’s economy,t h e interplay of th e centripet al and th e cen
trifugal forces. To understand t h e political l ife of an cientIsrael, it is therefore desirable to Observe t h e con trasting idealsof domestic g overnment and foreign policy th e Hebrew Biblereveal s .Already th e earliest monumen t of Hebrew literature
,t he Song
of Deborah , brings before us a political ideal . It is t hat of aconfederacy of independen t tribes linked together simply by thebonds of kinship, wi th its implied Obligations of assistance andrevenge. Evidences of kinship are t h e common cult and th e
common descent it indicates . All clans that worship Yah'
Or
Yahw e should come to th e aid of Yahwe like heroes.His n ame,
Israel,“t h e Fighting El ”
is upon them, as on the earlier,
‘
a'nd
68 POLIT ICAL IDEALS OF THE B IBLE .
therefore ancestral, tribe that Mer-n-Ptah smote. Such a political organization is in harmony with t h e tendencies of t h e time,as t h e Hittite, Phoen ician , and Philist ine confederacies Show,and it is powerfully aided by th e geographical position of Syriaand its pecul iar conformation . But, in t h e case of Israel, it remains an ideal merely. Yahwe and Israel do not mean enough toReuben and Gilead
,Asher and Dan, to move them to action . Out
o f th e t en tribes con sidered by t h e author as belonging to Israelonly th e three hil l tribes—Ephraim
,Machir
, and Ben j ami n—re
spond to th e call of th e immedi ately threatened tribes of th eplain
,Zebulon
,Issachar
,and Naphtali .
How impossible i t was to bring about polit ical unity in thisway is seen in every story from t h e period of t h e judges .Whether th e chiefs call themselves kings or “ judges,
”
words of practically th e same meaning, they can rally only theirimmediate clans, and are impoten t against a firmer organiz ationl ike that of t h e Philistines .It is altogether natural, therefore, that a new political ideal
should arise, and th e earlier narratives Show very plainly that it sprophet was Samuel. It is t h e ideal of a national kingdom . T he
king would derive his powers from t h e con sent of t h e tribes .But h e would also be t h e vicegerent of Yahwe, th e executor ofYahwe’s will as revealed by the oracles . And h e would bringdel iveran ce from foreign Oppression and national unity . T he
day of Gibeah when Saul was made king realized a part of thisideal, i t led to political independence and to th e establishmento f an empire. Saul del ivered Israel from th e Philistines . Davidfashioned out of diff erent elements a Judaean kingdom,
and addedto it Israel by compact : Edom,
Moab,and Ammon by conquest .
Solomon organi zed th e empire,substituting administrative pre
cinct s and royal Officials for th e old tribal organ ization, andenhanced its glory by th e buildi ng of temples and palaces . Event h e reaction against t h e Solomoni c regime did not carry with itt h e abandonmen t of th e national ideal . Israel and Judah re
mained k ingdoms of th e type set by David and Solomon as
long as they were independent states . In spite of t h e pressureof t h e Aramaean kingdom of Damascus and t h e more dangerousattack of Assyria
,Israel held its own among th e nations for
over two hun dred years, and this was in a large measure due tosuch kings as Jeroboam I .
,Omri, Ahab, Jehu, and Jeroboam .
In a more inaccessible position,t h e l ittle tribal kingdom of Judah
was able to maintain itself over three hundred and s ixty years,for which not a little credit belongs to k ings like Asa, Jeh oshaphat
,Uzziah
,Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah .
But as represen tatives of Yahwe th e kings failed to satisfy theprophets . Their wealth and power alienated them from th e peo
ple Of Yahwe, caused them to disregard t h e right whose
guardi ans they were, led them into close touch with foreignn ations and made them tolerant o f their customs
,and fostered
PROFESSOR N ATHAN IEL SCHM IDT. 69
expensive tastes that could only be gratified by Oppressive taxat ion . Saul failed to Od er Agag as a human sacrifice to Yahwe,but h e did not forget to enrich himself with t h e best of th e booty.
Therefore Samuel looked about for an other king better fittingh is ideal, having first himself performed t h e priestly function of
hewing t he Amalekite to pieces before Yahwe in Gilgal . Davidrobbed a poor man of th e only wife h e had and then caused th ehusband to be murdered . Therefore, h e was severely rebuked byNathan . Solomon allied himself with Hiram
,had a royal temple
built upon Phoenician models by Tyrian workmen, interferedwith the time-honored rights of t h e tribal chiefs, and made t h eburden s of taxation unendurable. Hence prophets like Ahia j oinhands with t h e ultimately successful rebel Jeroboam . Ahab commi t t ed the judicial murder of Naboth to secure his vineyard
,
built ivory palaces and a Melkart temple for h is Tyrian queen,and Opened t h e country to Phoenician civilization
,even to th e
detriment of th e simpler Yahwe cult . For these reason s Micaiahd enounced him,
and Elij ah predicted his death and murdered h isMelkart priests . An unknown prophet found sufficien t causefor announ cing his overthrow in h is len ien t treatment of Benhadad. Prophets like Elisha and Jeh onadab found in Jehu aman after their own heart
,who did not shrink from t h e murder of
kings and t h e assassination of priests . A century later Hoseaexpected a Divine judgmen t upon Israel for these bloody deedsof Jehu in t h e plain of Jezreel. He has ceased to look for anideal king. T h e in stitution itself seems to h im a source of evil .From t h e day of Gibeah dates t h e sin of Israel .” T h e breeches
of t h e commonwealth are not to be repaired by t h e an ointingof kings and princes .” What can kings do but make speeches,swear oaths that they do not keep, conclude allian ces, and turnth e adm ini stration of justice into a poison ? ” To learn righteousness and mercy Israel must be brought into different surroundings
,into a condition resembling that of their fathers in
th e desert and in Goshen ; in t h e absen ce of those twin promotersof corruption
,royalty and sacrificial cult . Only in such an en
vironmen t would Yahwe be able to speak to their heart. T h e
exile is a divine necessity. I n this Amos agrees independen tlywi th Hosea, though h e less distin ctly attacks th e principle thant h e man . With splendid scorn Isaiah faces h is king, announcingthat th e danger from Damascus and Samaria so much feared byAhaz will indeed pass in less than a year
,but that th e removal
o f these buffer states will only make th e Assyrian blow more t errible—a blow so fierce as to leave but a decimated population,in reduced circumstances, to learn th e distinction between rightand wrong. Micah, too, expects th e destruction Of t h e state.
Jerusalem wi l l be plowed as a field.
” And Jeremiah den ouncesking after kin g, and proclaims th e down fall of dynasty, state,and cult as an inevitable necessity. SO uniform w as thi s pro
ph et ic opposition to th e kingly rule that t h e Deuteronomist
70 POLITICAL IDEALS OF THE BIBLE.
sought with t h e authority of Moses to check its worst abuses,and Samuel himself, t h e great king-maker, was at length repre
sented (1 Sam . viii .) as having objected to the monarchy h e introduced as a real apostasy from Yahwe. This Opposition to t hemonarchy has been explained as th e fruit of a positive nomadi cideal . Where such an ideal existed there was a total abstinencefrom t h e use of cereals and wine, and a preference for living intents, that never characterized t h e prophets . Peoples deportedto foreign lands, or l iving as subjects of foreign princes amid th eruins of their sanctuaries
,do not become nomads
,but they are
without kings of their own and are unable to carry on a sacrificial cult . Under such circumstances it may be hoped that th el ove of Yahwe and Israel that had expressed itself in mistakenforms will lead t o a more adequate kn owledge and a readier recognit ion of t h e D ivine will, to a true theocracy .
It is this theocratic political ideal that saved th e people aftert he crushing blow of 586, as t h e royal ideal had saved it five cen
turies before. I n t h e ideal of th e restored commonwealth thatEzekiel drew up th e prince i s scarcely more than a wealthyparishioner, expected to c ontribute l iberally to th e sanctuary .
That a foreign prince can do as well . Deutero-Isaiah lookedupon Cyrus as Yahwe’s king
,who would bui ld his temple. As
for Israel, was h e not Yahwe’s prophet , his chosen servant, whose
business it was to teach all parts Of th e great world-kingdomth e manner in which th e one god of all th e world should be w orsh iped
? T h e law for which th e islands wait is Israel’s possession ;its enforcemen t makes Israel a priest-state. T he theocracy becomes a hierarchy, and th e high priest t h e political head of th estate . Aaron i s t h e ideal rather than David ; and t h e son ofJesse can hold his own only by devel oping in to a hymn-writerand an organ izer Of t h e temple worship . With such a politicalideal there is no cause for fear, though oceans roar, and mountains quake
,and an Alexander rolls his chariots over th e earth .
Does it matter wheth er taxes go to Susa or to Alexandria , whenstrangers come from distant lands t o keep th e feast o f tabern acles, and acceptable sacrifices are offered to th e God of Heavenby his chosen people ?But th e royalist sen timent lived side by side with this prevail
ing priestly ideal . Jeremiah and Ezekiel Show in what veneration Jeh oiach in was held . His elevation , in 561 , by Amil Mardukfrom a dungeon to t h e king’ s table can scarcely have failed t oarouse th e hopes o f his compatriots . It is altogether possiblethat when h is son Sin-apal-uzur (Sanabassaros, Senassar, Sheshbazzar) , t h e later governor o f Judaea , w as born, h e was greetedby poets as th e child upon whose shoulders th e government wouldonce res t and who would establish again t h e Davidic dynasty,
1
As an ideal king h e would be worthy Of bein called Pelé ya ‘ s, el-gibbor,abi ed . sar salom "because h e would plan wise y, fight like a god , distributegenerously of th e booty and bring prosperity .
PROF ESSOR NATHAN IEL SCHMIDT. 7 1
and as “t he shoot of the stock of Jesse, th e fruitful bran ch from
his root who would live as a pious and wise man and reign withequity and justice. It is certain that Jeh oiach in ’
s grandson,Zerubbabel b . Shealtiel
,who w as governor in th e beginning of
Darius’ reign , was th e center of ardent hopes . T h e golden crownfor his coronation day was sen t by Babylonian Jews, and keptfor t h e occasion . In visions Zechariah saw th e consecrating oilon Zerubbabel’s head , and th e end Of t h e Persian empire. Itwas probably when t h e world shook with th e preparations fort h e G rc o-Persian war that t h e author of Jer. xxx .
,xxxi . ex
pressed his confidence that th e Davidic dynasty would be re
established, and th e nation al independen ce and prosperity drawt h e exiles home as wel l as induce a willing obedience to t h e law.
At times t h e royalist hope would lay hold of a masterful personality outside of th e Davidic fami ly, as in th e case of Nehemi ahin t h e reign of Artaxerxes ii . But th e power of th e house ofDavid
,vying with that of th e house of Levi
,was such as to ren
der it natural to look for a leader t o this noble family. Part icu
larly would this be true after th e Seleucid conquest of Palestine,in t h e period characterized by t h e conflicts between T obiadae and
On iadae,Hellenists in t h e city and conservatives in th e coun try. T o
this period probably belong some passages appended to Micah,Zechariah
,and Jeremiah
,expressing t h e hope that some member
of t h e old royal fami ly may be seated upon th e throne of hisfathers
,and
,of course
,be victorious
,judge wisely, and bring
prosperity.
It was a new political ideal, however, that was destined t ocarry t h e day. This w as th e ideal Of t h e theocratic sovereign,t h e priest-king after t h e order of Melchizedek . Del iveran cefrom th e persecutions of Antiochus Epiph an es came, not througha patrician of t h e Davidic family, nor through a high priest Oft he old l ine, but through a simple country priest . Jonathan was
high priest since 1 53 by th e grace of Alexan der Balas ; Simonindependent prin ce and high priest sin ce 1 41 by t h e people’scon sent and t h e grace of God (1 Mace. xiv .
,PS. Aristo
bulus assumed t h e t itle of king in 1 03. A glowing eschatologi calhope cast its luster over these reigns . A ruler like Simon, whois at t h e same time priest and prince, may expect by god-givenvictories to conquer t h e world (PS. A John Hyrcanus maywel l feel himself divin ely called to con quer Shechem and subdueEdom (P s . If Aristobulus is Yahwe’s king—his son
,sitting
upon his divinely established thron e —why should h e n ot crusht h e nation s that refuse to recognize th e God of Heaven as apotter does hi s ill-shapen vessels
,and why should not his queen be
decked in Ophir gold and have daughters of kings for h er bridesmaids (Pss . ii . and Even in defeat, an Alexander Jannaausmay certain ly plead th e promi se to David of th e perpetuation ofh is dynasty for himself F or did h e not occupy by Yahwe’sgrace t h e thone of David, and was h e not called to reign in
72 POLITICAL IDEALS OF THE B IBLE .
Yahwe’s name over th e nations of t h e world (PS. T he
conquests of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus actuallybuilt up a kingdom n ot less extensive than that of David ninehundred years before .
Y et , with all its brillian cy, this ideal did not satisfy all . T h e
hope that had braced t h e Maccabman heroes was too vast forhuman efforts, and beside it t h e realization seemed at best butuny. Dan iel ” had seen in a vision th e tran sfer in Heaven oft h e world-kingdom to “
one l ike a human being —/i . a , anangel—and had learn ed that this signified t h e passing of th epower over th e nation s from Greece to th e people of t h e MostHigh
,
” i . a , Israel . But whatever victories were w on,this ideal
was not realized by t h e Hasmonaean prin ces . T h e kingdom thatHeaven bestows on whomsoever it pleases did not come
,th e uni
versal theocracy un der Jewi sh leadership remained a dream .
Rather this kingdom prepared for t h e holy people remained inHeaven, because th e people was not prepared for it . From thisview-point th e Pharisees attacked t h e Sadok ite rulers, as latepsalms show
,but also directed their efforts to prepare th e people
by obedi en ce to t h e law for t h e coming of t h e kingdom.
Whether Caesar or a native prince receives t h e taxes becomes amatter of less con cern when such a great transformation of t h eworld is expected . That is fundamentally t h e attitude of Johnt h e Baptist and Jesus as wel l . Jesus, however, saw, not in outward obedience to what was said to men of old, but in an
inner disposition to accept th e evident truth and to do t h epresent duty
,t h e proper preparation for t h e Kingdom of
Heaven .
But while some said to themselves : Seeing that this orderof things is doomed to pass away
,what manner of men ought w e
to be? ” others eagerly inquired in what mann er t h e kingdomwas to come . Might not some of those heroes that had myst eriously di sappeared from earth , like Enoch and Moses, E lij ahand Jeremiah
,return with t h e adven t of t h e celestial kingdom ?
Above all,might not th e Messiah be kept in some heaven ly realm
in readiness for his appearance on earth ? Each extraordi narypersonality was closely watched with th e possibility in view thath e might prove t o be an identifiable eschatological magnitude .
A patriotic political leader would almost of necessity find hisactions shaped by, or at least in terpreted in th e light of
,t h e
national hope . There is no reason to doubt th e sincerity of aTheudas or a Simon bar Koziba . There is something sublimeas well as pathetic in th e unequal rivalry of these representativesof a petty, subject people with t h e divin e Caesar for t h e kingdomo f th e world . Jesus disavowed Messian ic pretensions
,because
His ideal was w idely different . He proclaimed th e coming of t h e
Kingdom of Heaven . But it is on ly natural that His d isciples,attracted by His wonderful personality, should proclaim His return as king Messiah .
74 POLITICAL IDEALS or THE B IBLE.
law or common law as distinct from the imperial law imposedfrom without
,this ideal naturally grew in attractiveness .
In regard to t h e ideals that vied with each other for recogn ition in Israel’s foreign policy, they inevitably followed from th e
fundamen tal conception s o f what t h e nation’s own life should be .
T h e ideal of David was to take possession of all lands that Yahwemight give him through successful battles
,and to rule t h e subju
gated peoples with a scepter of iron . He understood as well as t h eAssyrian monarchs t h e art o f holding conquered provinces incheck through summary punishment
,and of preven ting rebel lion
through coloniz ation . How attractive this imperialistic ideal wasmay be seen from t h e fact that
,five hundred years later, a man
so difl’eren t from David as Deutero-Isaiah stil l pictured t h e
Egyptian s and th e Sabaean s as doing slave-service for Yahwe’sfavorites, and licking t h e dust of their feet .” It is also evi
denced by the ardent hope for a world-empire and th e uttercon tempt for other nations that many Hasmonaean psalmsbreathe.
A marked contrast to this is th e ideal set forth in Jer. xxx .
, xxxi .,a work of t h e early Persian period . Here self-governmen t as apeople and a peacefully gained prosperity attract th e exiles homeand produce a n atural growth that
,as evidence of Yahwe’s love
,
creates an inner disposition t o Obey his law.
But even where there was no dream of conquest, and peaceful expan sion would have been preferred, t h e patriotic ideal ofindependen t statehood was a poten t force . For this men wouldwillingly face t h e Assyrian hosts and the Roman legions, for thisthey would endure t h e horrors of th e siege, t h e hardships of th ebattle
,t h e dangers of exile or extinction . This ideal rendered
t he weak strong, particularly when th e struggle for l iberty wasagainst a people of alien speech, alien customs, and alien religion .
If,nevertheless, prophets, priests, and statesmen abandoned it
and strenuously Opposed every effort to gain national inde
pendence, t h e cause was not cowardice or lack of affection fortheir native land
,but rather a national ideal that placed right
eousness above freedom, a life in harmony with Yahwe’s wi ll
above th e pomp and pride and prosperity of sovereign statehood .
A man,like Jeremiah no doubt weakened th e hands o f the men
of war,”yet h e was neither a poltroon nor a traitor . He was
loyal t o his people and true to his ideal , though its contrast t opopular ambition s fanned by time-serving prophets cast uponhim th e appearance o f disloyalty . I l is attitude was essen tiallyth e same as that o f Nehemiah . w ho indignantly repelled t he
in sinuation that h e was working f or national independence .
G reat as is th e difference between t he interests o f Nehemiah andthose Of th e priesthood, th e absence o f a king by th e side o f t he
high-priest in the Priests ’ Code i s an indication o f the same sentimen t . Why should no t th e Moses proclaimed in th e Persianage have a kingly ideal , as well as t h e
“ Moses ” found in the
PROFESSOR NATHAN IEL SCHM IDT. 5
d ays of Josiah ? Thus,when Jesus coun seled t h e paymen t of
taxes to Caesar and forbade his disciples to say that h e was th eMessiah it was because “
th e righteousness of th e Ki ngdom ofHeaven appeared to him vastly more important than t h e inde
p endence of t h e state, and because in his ideal of society lords didnot exercise authority, but those who served were counted great .Wh ere a state has for its rivals other states that are sub
s tant ially its equals, it may depend upon its own resources . T h e
case becomes different when it seeks to main tain its independen ceagainst a great conquering power . Then strength lies in comb ination ; while th e in terest of th e conqueror is served by di vision .
All ian ces are made for mutual protection . War may be stavedO ff and th e aspiration s for world-power checked by diplomacy .
H ad Marduk-apal-iddi n been successful in marshaling all t h eforces of Egypt and Ethiopia, Arabia and Syria, Armen ia andSusiana against Sin-achi-irba
,Assyria would n ever have become
the power it was in t h e first half Of t h e seven th century. Witht he aid of Damascus Judah might recon quer Israel
,or Israel
crush t h e Davidic kingdom . T h e Assyrians m i ght prove valuablea llies against t h e Aramaeans
,or th e Egyptian s against Assyria .
A league w ith Alexandria or Rome might bring relief fromSeleucid tyranny. What could t h e l ittle Judaea do alone again stt h e great powers of t h e world ? T h e on ly question would bewith which power it would be wisest to ally one’s self. Hencew e find tw o political parties in Samaria as well as in Jerusalemat th e time of Hosea and Isaiah ; one leaning on Egypt, t h eother on Assyria . But whatever th e ally was, t h e political idealof strength through uni on was t h e same .
To these entangling allian ces many great prophets and statesmen were opposed . They were dangerous politically. HadMarduk-apal-iddin been able to realize his ideal, i t would simplyhave meant that t h e Chaldaean empire would have come a centuryearlier. Aramaean s and Assyrian s, Egyptian s and Romans wereas willing to help t h e under dog in Syria as th e capitalists ofJerusalem in Nehemiah’s time were to help t h e farmers by takingmortgages on their lands and accepting t h e value of their
“daughters in th e slave market in l ieu of in terest on kind ad ~
van ces . Out of alliances grew rights —that is,n ew demands
until th e helper had helped himself to all there was . An otherobjection to such alliances was that they drew th e atten tion awayfrom t h e inn er conditions
,while rendering these worse
t hrough th e multiplication of horses and chariots and t h e in
creased burden s of taxation . T h e rej oicing over some petty vict ories at Lodebar and Karn aim,
says Amos,made men forget
t hat Israel was being ruin ed by t h e ven ality of judges, th e cupidity of th e rich
,and t h e superstition and immorality of th e cult .
But th e deepest cause of dissatisfaction with this foreign policywas that it Opened th e door to foreign influences that threatenedt o obliterate th e nation al character with its religious and social
76 POLITICAL IDEALS OF THE BIBLE .
peculiarities . Better to stand alone against t h e hosts of Assyriaand trust in Yahwe
,better to carry a heavy tribute to Babylon or
Susa and l ive at home according to Yahwe’s will,better to endure
t h e Roman taxgatherer and wait f or th e Kingdom of Heaven,than t o risk th e most precious possessions of Israel at th e gameOf in ternational politics !Whether t h e state seeks to expan d by conquest, main tain it s
independence in single combat with its rivals,or guard its inter
ests through Offen sive and defen sive allian ces,there must be
war and preparation for war. But war is such a clumsy expression of tribal justice and such a fruitful source of corruptionthat, in Spite of its apparent necessity, th e marked indi vidualismand th e deep moral sen se of t h e prophets of Israel could notallow it a permanen t place in their political ideal . Two wayswere thought of in which war could be abolished . One w as
through war,th e other through arbitration . In Isa . ix . 1 -7
t h e idea is clearly that war will cease as a con sequen ce of th e '
tremendous military power of t h e prince that has just been born .
A king who is n ot only skilled in statecraft, but a very god of afighter and has plenty of spoil t o distribute, evidently establishespeace and prosperity through t h e sword . It is the power of h isarms that extends t h e boundaries Of his k ingdom and causes th e '
former oppressors to give up a useless struggle and to burn infire their shields and lances, bows and arrows . T h e thoughtthat war might be made so terrible that it would destroy itselfi s hinted at in this passage . Quite a different con ception of th emanner in which war might be done away with is found in I sa.
i i . 2-4,a late passage also inserted in th e Book o f Micah . Here
all nation s of th e earth come up to th e Yahwe-temple in Jerusalem t o get legislation applicable to their in ternational relationsand to have their difficulties arbitrated . This arbitration rendersunnecessary th e resort to arms, and also t h e learn ing of th e tradeo f war which necessarily conduces t o th e practice o f war. T he :
idea of in ternational legislation , arbitration , and disarmamen ti s here plain ly suggested , scarcely marred by such unessen tialfeatures as t h e location of t h e world’s capital at Jerusalem and
'
th e appoin tment o f th e oracle-givers of a single people as th esupreme court of mankind .
These political ideas o f th e Hebrew Bible should be studied‘
with a discriminating judgment as t o t h e relative value of eachand of each group . When th e alloy of what is only temporarilyand locally justifiable is gen tly removed, they may materially aid
'
in purifying our own ideals,whether these he th e resul t of a
preponderatingly con servative, or a preponderatingly progressive, .
natural disposition .
REv. L. w . BATTEN ,PH . D. 7 7
II . THE NEW TESTAMENT .
Address .
REV . L . w . BATT EN,PH . D .
,N Ew YORK.
Judging from th e inscription which was put upon t h e Cross tosign ify t h e accusation upon which Jesus of Nazareth had beenconvicted—“ This is Jesus
,t h e King Of t he Jews —it would
seem that, at least in someon e’S mind, there was a political ideal
for which Jesus was respon sible, and a po litical organ ization ofwhich He in some way claimed to be t h e head . As a matter offact w e know that our Lord never plead gui lty to that charge ;it was rather th e result of desperation . Every sort of effort wasmade t o find some ground on whi ch this man mi ght with someshow of justice be put to death . I suppose that Pilate in h isdespair w as ready to catch hold of any utteran ce that wouldanswer at Rome. If th e papers turned in to th e Roman Empiresaid that Jesus claimed to be a king, probably there would notbe any questions asked .
But nothing was further from th e mind of Jesus than th esettin g up of a political ideal . T h e very momen t one turn s t ot h e N ew Testam ent—I will not say th e moment h e turns to it,but t h e momen t h e turn s from it—h e must reach thi s conclusion ;that there is no such thing there . T h e N ew Testament presentsabsolutely no political ideals . I say that without hesitation
,and
it is really th e thesis that I wish to establish this aftern oon . Itmay be disappointing to some
,but I cannot help that
,because I
believe it t o be th e fact .T h e question comes, Why is that so ? And th e answer seems
perfectly easy . We must not forget that when Jesus Christ .
began to preach,that is, at th e very beginn ing of what w e call
t h e N ew Testament times, th e Jewish nation had lo st its political independence, and that independence had been lost for six
hun dred years . From 586 B . C.,when Jerusalem fell
,that inde
pendence w as never really regained. There were spasmodi cefforts to regain it, l ike that in th e Maccabaean age, but th e re
sult s were absolutely nothing,so far as anything permanent w as .
con cerned . Think what that means ! Six hundred years is a
l ong time. It does not look so when it is so far back and so faraway. But just think for a moment of our own n ational l ifeFor us everything seems to be as settled as th e everlasting hills,s o far as our liberty and independence are concerned. We nevercan think o f anything else, and yet as a nation w e are only a.
l ittle over a hundred years Old . N ow t h e effect of that centuryof independence is felt everyw here ; n ot only among students ofour political life, but every laboring man, every boy and girl onour streets is full of it . T h e air w e breathe i s full of it. Re
7 8 POLITICAL IDEALS OF THE B IBLE.
member that in the time of Christ t h e Jewish people for six
hundred years had had no political independen ce . Their politicalideals had been very largely crushed out . We could find them inJewi sh life here and there in a certain sort of way
,but they were
not,as a matter of fact, very pronounced even in such cases .
T h e Jewish conception (to take now for a moment n ot t h e
N ew Testament conception,but th e Jewish conception of th e
N ew Testament time) was really that of the existence Of a statethat was entirely outside of t h e Church . T h e great mass ofJews had long ago given up th e idea o f developing a pol iticallife . Of course there was a hope that survived, and will probablysurvive as long as there is a faithful Jew
‘
on t h e face of'
theglobe, and that is likely to be for a very long time . But theyhad long given their attention not to t h e developmen t of th eChurch along state lines
,but to t h e developmen t of rel igion along
lines not political .So it was—w e see t he s ituation perfectly well—that when they
were determined to destroy Jesus, they came and demanded thatPilate should be t h e executioner
,—t h e appeal was not to th e
Jewish,but to t h e Roman state . By their own law h e ought to
di e. They didn ’t care anything about whether Pilate could finda Roman law by which h e might die . They recogn ized t h e factthat they had no power to put him to death, and considered thatth e Roman state, which was outside themselves and hostile t othemselves, should be t h e executioner . That is a con ception Of
things which has n ever been lost from that day to this .I venture to thin k that that is t h e con ception curren t in th e
mi nds of most Christian people . I do not know of any betteril lustration of that idea that th e Church is something outside ofth e state, than th e recen t occurren ce in this c ity which has madea great deal of commen t and stir in political circles—BishopPotter’s letter to th e Mayor . T he Bishop called upon th e Mayorto remedy a certain condition of things . Nobody f or a momen tbel ieved that it was th e Bishop’s place to remedy t h e evil s . Itwas th e Mayor’s place . It was perfectly eviden t what th eBishop’s reply must be when th e city authorities called upon himto turn prosecutor . T h e Bishop would undertake n o such office .
It did not bel ong to th e Church , it belonged to th e state .
That is t h e ideal con ception Of t h e rel ation between th e
Church and t h e state that was held largely by t h e Jews in th e
time o f our Lord . Because i t was so , because t h e idea of a pol itically independen t power had been so long efl
'
aced . i t was utterlyimpossible under such circumstan ces tha t there should be anyideal .F or t h e ideal , after all, is based upon t he actual . You can tel l
to a certain extent what any people’s ideals will be, by kn owing
t h e real . An ideal can only be explained by knowing th e real .N ow t h e great change that came about shows t h e truth o f allthat I am saying . Think for a momen t o f t h e change that came
REv. L . w . BATTEN, PH . D. 7 9
about that led to such a great struggle when the Roman Empirebecame Christian . Then
,on ce more, there seemed to be an
Opportunity for t h e cropping out,or th e taking on in a new form,
of t h e Old Jewi sh ideal of a united church and state . So thatstruggle wen t on f or a long time, but it is n ot part of my subjectt o dwell on that . It is true that in th e time following th e con
version oi Rome there was a great struggle going on which cont inued for many centuries . Attempts were made by a great manymen to try to bui ld up a political ideal, or a political actuality,founded upon t h e N ew Testamen t ; but I do not know of anyplace where one can find a stranger perversion and twi sting of
a number of passages in t h e N ew Testamen t .I want to say something in th e way of facts to prove this state
ment that I have made that there is no political ideal in t h e N ewTestament . I wan t to examine in a hurried and imperfect wayt h e attitude our Lord takes toward t h e state . I n th e first placeit i s recognized as a hostile force . That attitude Jesus showsin a great many instances . It was shown ,
in fact,before He w as
able to take any hand in t h e matter Himself . Think of th emeaning of th e flight into Egy pt . His parents were obliged totake Him out of th e lan d t o which He bel onged, in whi ch He was
born,to save His life . This is typical of His attitude all through
His l ife . Y ou remember that,when John t h e Baptist was seized
and put in prison, our Lord did n ot come out even with so muchas a letter to th e powers that be, but retired in to Galilee . He
realized perfectly wel l that th e hostile hand might go out farenough to include Him . When t h e time came, He was perfectlywilling t o place Him self in its way, but when John t h e Baptistwas imprison ed that time was n ot yet come . He did n ot attemptto beg t h e l ife of his forerunn er, but simply retired in to Galilee .
When t h e n ews came t o Him some time later,that John t h e
Baptist had actually been beheaded, on ce more He took refugein flight
,and retired into t h e desert .
He shows t h e same feeling toward t h e state again when ,
in telling His di sciples who were to carry on t h e work duringHis lifetime and afterward what they were to expect
,He told
them they would suffer persecution,not on ly at t h e hands of
family, friends, and t h e Jewish Church, but above all at th ehands of th e Roman state . He shows from beginning to end aclear knowledge that th e state i s a power that is hostile toH im, and finally He s imply surrenders Himself to that hostilepower .T h e singular thing is, I think, that it i s done wi thout any great
protest . We speak a great deal in this day about l iving under abad governmen t—and G od lm ow s no one can l ive where I do without realizing h ow bad it is . We must n ot forget that Jesus l ivedunder a government that w as just as bad as any American cityor State t o-day. It w as a mass of corruption from th e top to t h ebottom . What w as Jesus’ attitude toward all that ? It is ex
80 POLITICAL IDEALS OF THE B IBLE.
t raordinary,—this silen ce of Jesus about t h e corrupt political
l ife about H im . I have already alluded to t h e imprisonment ofJohn . Y ou remember that when they brought t he tidings t oJesus that His faith ful forerunner had di ed a martyr’ s death,He turned to t he people, and said, What went ye out into t h ewilderness to see ? ” He then goes on to bear high testimony tot h e noble character and zealous work of John t h e Baptist, buthas n ot a single word in condemn ation of that horrible
,brutal
murder . He is absolutely silen t in regard to that part of t h esubject . There was one time when He does seem to have hadsomething very positive to say. Y ou remember a message wasbrought Him from Herod by those very will ing messengers
,t h e
Pharisees . They came and said,
“Y ou had better get out Of
this country,because Herod is going to destroy you. They, n o
doubt, were anxious to have Him go out of that coun try, because they thought He would be more l ikely to find t h e sort ofreception they hoped for Him in Judaea . Jesus answers with aword usually represented as being essentially contemptuous :G O tell that fox .
” I doubt very much if t h e idea is so muchcontempt as cunning. He understands perfectly wel l t he wholesignificance of t h e t rick, and says : “ Tel l him I have my workto do to-day and to-morrow
,and I shall stay here un til that work
i s done .
There are some striking instances of t he doctrine of nonresistance which our Lord preached . It takes a great deal ofingenuity and interpretation to get as far rid of them as I amafraid a great many are trying to do . All He has to say aboutthat applies just as much to th e state as to th e individual . Therewas a time when He seemed to Show that He might have moment swhen He felt th e n eed of dependen ce upon a strong arm in timesof danger . He advises His disciples to sel l their coats to buyswords
,and they tell Him they have two swords, and He says
they are sufficient . N ow it i s eviden t that Jesus had no notionat that moment o f resistance, whatever He may have mean t byadvis ing th e disciples to trade their coats for swords . It is perf ectly evident that He Himself was not coun ting very much ond efen se
,or He scarcely would have been conten t with tw o swords
in t h e hands of a dozen men . When one of them, quite mi sunstanding his Master’s meaning, started to use one of thoseswords h e w as promptly rebuked, and told that that was not hismission ; that men w h o took t h e sword would die by it .There is another case where Jesus shows His attitude . He said
dis tinctly at t h e time of His trial that there might be certainconditions upon which His disciples would fight . But those con
d it ion s did not exist . He says, If my kingdom were o f thisworld then would my servants fight . Y ou remember th e timewhen some o f t h e people , in one of the outbursts o f pol iticalambition I have Spoken o f
,supposed He was t he proper person
to be th e Messian ic king, and proposed t o force that position
82 POLITICAL IDEALS OF THE BIBLE .
great wrong, but you occupy that position, as you execute youroffice, by virtue of th e power of God .
” That is exactly th e position of th e apo stles . St . Paul and St . Peter exhort their con
verts t o a faithful obedien ce t o civil power . That power was justas hostile to them as to our Lord . It was hostile to Paul, t oPeter, and to t h e other disciples . It was hostile t o every personwho had ackn owledged allegian ce to Jesus of Nazareth . He
thereby made himsel f an object o f suspicion,of hatred , to th e
state . They were coun seled,nevertheless
,to go on in their
obedience .
This is n ot in tended to mean that w e can stand apart and
ignore t h e existen ce of th e state. Jesus came t o establish th eKingdom of Heaven
,and t h e Kingdom of Heaven was like leaven
put into th e meal . I thin k th e duty of th e Christian is to go on
trying to establish that Kingdom of Heaven, and if w e ever succeed in getting th e Kingdom of Heaven just a l ittle bit started,f or in stance, in this city, there never will be occasion f or such arebuke as that which was admin istered t o our Mayor th e otherday.
DISCUSSION .
REV . J . M. WH ITON, PH . D .,N EW YORK.
I fill this gap in an emergen cy. I wish t o say that t h e rea son w e
fin d an in terest i n in quiring in to t h e po litical ideals o f t h e Bible i s,that w e believe that w e are re spon sible f or t h e realization o f political ideals, an d that this i s a condition in which t h e early Christian san d t h e Jews o f Je sus’ time did n o t fi n d themse lve s . N OW it i skn own t o y ou,
with re f eren ce t o t h e f eeling o f re spon sibility f or t h erealization o f political ideals , that so great an authority as JohnStuart Mill has warn ed us that it i s in vain to look t o Chri stiansource s f or ideals o f civic virtue , sin ce they are n o t there . He saysthat f or these ideals y ou must refer t o Athen s an d Rome , t o Aristo tle ,
an d t h e great masters o f po litical scien ce in pagan lan ds . I thinkthat Mr. Mill , an d tho se w h o agree with him , have overlooked on e
fac t—tw o facts , rather. First, that there were very clear con ception so f pol itical re spon sibility f or t h e realization o f po li t ical ideals amon gt h e prophets o f Israe l . Second , that Je sus in H is min istry quietlyto ok over, ad opte d , an d se t H i s seal t o , all that t h e prophets hadadvan ced . T h e prophets , as y ou kn ow, con stituted , in t h e clas sicaltime s o f prophecy, what w e Should n ow call t h e oppo sition party .
"
an d what Macaulay says o f t h e Oppo sition party under t h e Stuartkings , that they ran t h e ri sk o f paying f or the ir fide lity t o t h e
k ingdom with the ir heads, was true also o f t h e prophets . They didn o t min ce ma t t e rs in the ir oppo sition , as t h e first chapte r o f Isaiahi s witne ss : “
Hear t h e word o f t h e Lord , y e rulers o f Sodom ; giveear un to t h e law o f our G od
, y e people o f Gomorrah . T o what p erpo se i s t h e multitude o f your sacrifice s un to m e ? saith t h e Lord .
Bring n o more vain oblatio n s un to m e ; in cen se i s an abominationunto m e .
” These are scathing words ; t h e id eal s o f t h e prophe ts are
thus con spicuous in t h e pages o f Isaiah , Jeremiah , an d the ir come ers . Th ey were t h e faith ful guardian s o f t h e right s o f t h e poo r.
ey upheld a just and equal admin i stration o f law. They stoodf or t h e repre s sion o f greed , o f exto rt ion , o f every form o f monopo ly
REV. M . H. HARRIS, PH . D . 83
w hich aims to deprive others of the ir rights. Witne ss tho se wordso f Isaiah by which h e den oun ces tho se w h o formed great propertie swhich absorbed t h e houses an d lands o f t h e people , thus crowdingthem out o f t h e land . W oe t o them w h o jo in house t o house , thatlay field t o field , till there b e n o room .
” The se , as we ll as o ther so cialan d ethical teachings o f t h e prophets, Jesus quietly to ok over, whenHe said that H e came n o t t o de stroy, that is , t o abo lish , but t o
fulfi ll—to roun d out , t o complete , t h e teachin gs o f t h e prophets .
There fore He has quite e stopped Mr. Mill from saying that f or civicvirtue s w e have n o Christian source s at all . Christian source s in thatrespect are t o b e foun d in t h e Old Te stamen t, no t in th e N ew .
Con sider t h e reason f or that. It has been we ll de scribed in whath as been stated—t h e great con trast between t h e de spotic state in
which Jesus an d H i s disciple s carried on the ir min istry, an d t h e
comparative ly free state in which H i s forerun n ers , t h e prophets,who se work He built upon an d adopted , carried on the ir min istry .
W e can form some idea o f it by suppo sing that a mission ary goe sfrom this country t o Austria, where there are some American miss ionaries laboring. An other goe s t o Franc e ; but in Fran ce t h e con dit ion s are comparatively free ; i n Austri a they are just t h e reverse .
T h e miss ion ary i s ham pered in t h e desp o tici c oun try . H e can not Openhis mouth on certain subjects without en tai lin g t h e n ece ssity o f
be in g Silen ced altogether. Th at, I . thi nk , i s sufii cden t reason f or
t h e silen ce o f Je sus an d H i s apo stles , un der a governmen t whichcrucified t h e on e and beheaded , t h e o thers .1 They were obliged to
confin e themse lve s t o tho se prin ciple s which would gradually un dermin e this despo tic governmen t ; and at t h e con summation o f t h e age
(no t at t h e e n d o f t h e world , as people sometime s misread it) , in ,thefulfillmen t o f t h e appo in ted time , t h e obstruction s would ‘
b e sweptaway, an d. a /con dition o f freedom w ould b e in troduced , in which t h eold prophetic vo ice could b e heard as free as ever. T h e practicalcon sequen ce i s that in thi s on e particular w e have ‘ a singular in
stan ce in which,in stead o f a progress o f ! doctrin e , there is a regre ss
o f doctrin e . Christ ian writers are accustomed t o speak o f t h e
progress o f doctrin e from t h e Old Te stamen t t o t h e N ew Te stamen t,an d it is we l l illustrat ed t o an yon e w h o will“ Simply compare t h e
Decalogue with t h e Sermon on t h e Moun t. There i s a. man ife stprogress . But here w e have just as mani fe st regre ss . Con sequen tly,it seems t o m e a great an achron ism f or any Christian m an, any freeman , in a republi c where every m an is , in so f ar as on e m an can be , arepo sitory o f sovereign power, to
‘ con ten t himse lf with referring t o
tho se condition s in which t h e ap o stle said , L e t every soul b e subjectun to t h e higher powers : h e that resisteth t h e power, w i t h s tan d et h
t h e ordin an ce o f G od .
”Remember that tho se last words were t h e
words employed by an ap o state church , i n“
t h e time o f t h e Stuartkings, to en force t h e doctrine that whoeve r re sisted t h e royal willin curred t h e pen alty o f en dle ss hell. It seems , then , that t h e old
Co lony o f N ew ‘Haven , after all , whe n they adopted provision ally t h elaws Of Mo se s, as t h e laws o f t h e State un til a suitable code couldb e en acted , Showed t h e true histo ric spirit, although they d id: n o thave a very correct
'
p erspe ctive . It i s t o Israe l , t o t h e Ho ly Scripturesof Israe l , that w e must go f or our po litical ideals, an d tho se are justas truly Christian Scriptures “as is t h e N ew Te stamen t itse lf.
REV. M. H . HARRIS, PH . D ., NEW' YORK.
On e o f t h e d iff eren ces‘
be t w een t h e po litical ideals o f t h e Old and
N ew Testamen t is t h e great diff eren ce in; those t w o literature s. W e
cann o t Speak o f them on en tire ly Sim ilar'
lin es . (I say Old Testament ;adopting t h e popular expres sion Of con trast, though it is a te rm
84 POLITICAL IDEALS OF THE B IBLE .
which t h e Jew n ever quite willingly uses . T h e Christian theory isthat by t h e coming o f t h e Me s siah t h e Old Mo sai c law was abrogated ,an d that, there f ore , t h e Jewish te aching was “
o ld in t h e sen se OfObso lete . Y ou can understan d that t h e Jew ‘ can n ot quit e ho ld thatpo sition an d con tinue t o be a Jew . So w e d o n o t us e t h e exp ression ,
Old I n t h e first plac e it is much mo re bulky. Itrepresen ts t w o or three groups o f literature .
First, a historic literature . It i s t h e history Of a people f or many ,many cen turies . If w e could summarize t h e political ideal s o f t h e
m en who se writings reached t h e high-water mark o f Jewish Scripture , t h e prophets , I think w e would summ arize them in this way :F irst, demo cracy—t h e prophets all took t h e part o f t h e people asagain st royalty an d nobility ; secon dly, an attempt (o f course , withint h e limitation s Of t h e times ) t o break down t h e barriers be tween t h e
Jews an d o ther n ation s . Y ou remember Amo s said to Israe l, to tho sew h o thought themse lves God ’s people t o t h e ex clusion o f o ther p eoples , I redeemed Israe l ( t h e prophet always spe aks in t h e n ame
o f G od ) ,“ I redeemed Israe l f rom Egypt
,but I also redeemed t h e
Philistin e s from Caphtor an d t h e Syrian s from Kir. An d so f ar fromy ou Jews suppo sing that because you better un derstan d G od thanthe se other people , you will , therefore , b e g iven greater con sideration an d mercy ; just because you un derstan d G od bette r, will G od allt h e more strenuously visit upon you your sin s .Further, t h e Me ssiah doctrin e Shows t h e evo lution Of an idea
through t h e Jewish Scripture s . First, t h e idea is simply that o f apo litical head , a n atural king. T h e word “ Me ssiah ” mean s “
on e
an o in ted,” an d t h e kin g was appo inted by pouring t h e ano inting O il
on his head . Y ou remember David says o f Saul , Shall I put forthmine han d again st t h e Lord ’s an o in te d ? As time wen t on , an d itbecame less an d less po ssible f or t h e Jew t o realize tho se idealspo litically, h e came t o hope that h e might realize them religiously,s o that w e s ee a gradual progression o f t h e doctrin e o f t h e Messiah .
At first it w as simply a po litical creed ; it gradually became a re
l ig ious creed . T h e Me ssiah was n o longer a de scen dan t o f D avid,w h o would simply restore Israe l t o i t s kingdom , but a re ligi ousruler
,a m an w h o would bring all peo ple t o a be lief in G od .
REV . L EI G H’I
‘
ON WILLIAMS, N EW YORK.
I wan t t o put what I have t o say in to four propositions . By wayo f preamble t o the se propo sition s , I assume t h e correctn ess o f t h e
an alysis o f t h e Old an d N ew Te stamen t material g iven by t h e t w o
introductory addresse s o f t h e aftern oon .
First, then ,assuming that, t h e sugge stion that I make by way o f
t h e first propo sition i s that t h e Kingdom o f G od may b e understood t o mean t h e right social order, and i s t h e order which oughtt o Obtain among m en .
Second . This ideal i s n o t political in t h e sen se that i t i s t o b e
realized through t h e sta t e , con ce ived o f as a governmen t by force .
It is n o t po litical i n t h e n arrow sen se o f t h e word .
Third . It come s by vo lun tary accepta n ce brought about by Spiri tual influen ce .
Fourth . There i s thus in t h e K ingdom o f G od t h e un ion o f t h e
spiritual an d so cial id ea].
T here i s n o time t o d i scuss the se four propo sitio n s . I will Simplysay that they are propo sitio n s toward which , I h Op e , all o f us are
tend ing, an d I hope they are such as obtain g en erally t h e as se n t o f
care ful stud e nts o f t h e N ew Te stame n t as we ll as t h e Old Te stamentScripture s and o f t h e po l itical , social , an d philo sophic te nden cie s o f
our time . W e think w e have here t h e un ion o f t h e Spiritual and
86 DEMANDS ON A NATION CONSCIOUS OF A MORAL M ISSION .
of reason and love as in struments in t h e hands of indi vidualswithout ofiicial san ction .
I . A people and its governmen t may each have a sen se of moralobligation to other races and governments . As a matter of fact
,
such moral respon sibility is fel t among nation s f or each other .W e cannot laugh t h e idea of moral mission out of court because t h e mere phrase suggest s conscien tious pretentiousnessand n arrowness
,and has been th e watchword of cranks and
bigots . T h e European women in China thought they had a moralmission to stop foot-binding. Accordingly they formed an antifoot binding league.
”T h e Chinese women
,not to be behindhand
in moral mission s,started an an ti-waist binding league .
” We
laugh,but they were both right . T h e social nuisance, with hi s
mission t o correct every abuse h e can poin t out,must not be
driven away,but must be converted into a useful reformer.
Nations, too, have suffered in reputation because they allegedmoral causes for their public action . Fran ce call s England hypocritical . We
, who un derstand t h e Anglo-Saxon conscien ce and itstaint of selfishn ess
,are kinder to it . T h e Englishman’s conscien ce
i s all right ; but h e makes a bagman out of it to extend his trade .
England is not hypocritical,but econ omical and thrifty—sh e
l ikes to ki l l two birds with one Bible .
Governmen ts sometimes have a quicker and keen er sense ofin ternation al responsibility than th e people, but usually it is th eother way . How magnificen t was th e martyrdom of t h e cottonOperatives in Lan cashire, during our Civil War, who preferred t ostarve because there was n o cotton for them to work with, ratherthan to have plen ty when it could be purchased on ly by England’srecognition of th e Southern Conf ederacy and Slavery.
We feel , moreover, that t h e world i s an organ ism and must develop by t h e force of some un ity of moral purpose. No nationcan live to itsel f successfully . It finds itself
,as its strength in
creases through commerce, to be in moral con tact with thosenations
,however remote and small , with which it trades . T h e
people feel this t ie more individually . They call i t brotherhood,
which implies th e organism of t h e family. Our study of natureand history
,as wel l as our deeper moral perceptions , has taught
us this organ ic in terdependen ce of human society. If th e movemen t of an atom in nature’s laboratory thrill s every other atomin t h e un iverse, cert ainly w e are compelled t o think of moralbeings a s having as in timate and as impressive a relation ship .
That w e have awakened t o such moral respon sibility throughtrade as well a s through t h e preaching o f Christ’s religion doesnot condemn t h e resul t, but makes it a part of n ature
’s teaching.
T h e needs o f sel f-defen se, even prior t o t h e needs of producingwealth
,brought men together ; and wh atever brings men together
gives rise to a feel ing of common dependen ce and respon sibility .
When,as happen s t o be t h e case in America, a coun try is
founded upon great moral principles, then by th e very terms o f
REV. PERCY STICKNEY GRANT. 87
it s birth, it is boun d to have a sense of moral mission . Its veryexistence is a mission to establish its ideas, which it has declaredto be more valuable than life itself .II . There are, tod ay, scien tific standards by which t h e value
o f moral purpo ses can be estimated . T h e weak point in a moralmission ” has always been its individualism . T h e person whoh ad i t , t h e n ation who had it, in sisted upon being judge of i tstruth and right . Every horror from t h e Inquisition to th e
assassination of Humbert has been t h e result of an ex-cathedm
declaration of what con stituted moral respon sibility. A mobthinks a negro ought to be lyn ched, and it lyn ches him . T h e
revolution ist thinks a king ought t o be killed, and h e kills h im .
’
A number of priests think a thinker ought to d ie, and they burnhim . We declare that all these fan atics made ghastly mistakes .A moral position to-day can be labeled good or bad with more
success than in t h e past . Our comparative s tudy of institutions,our knowledge of sociologi cal prin ciples, our general survey oft h e whole field of material and social evolution ,
enable uS to saywhether one in stitution is better than an other—on e principlehigher and more efficien t
,and what t h e general tenden cies are
con sequen tly,whether t h e gi ven moral position is calculated to
help or harm,to forward or to put backward. I am in clined to
make much of our abil ity to gauge moral values by th e aid ofevolution ary methods . This, you will say, gives relativity tomorals . Y es
,it does . And t h e sooner w e act in t h e mission field
and in th e field of political reform upon that basis,th e more ad
van ce w e shall make . Our good is on ly bettering t h e past .Not only have indi vidual estimates of moral values produced
horrors of cruelty at th e hands of those who were guided bythem
,but a laissez-faire doctrin e of indi fference has been preached
from t h e text of t h e sufficiency of individual moral standards .L et th e Chinese alone
,they are sin cere in their belief and are
,
therefore,as good as w e . Every grade of moral in telligen ce has
been defended upon this principle,that one man ’s moral stan dard
w as as good as an other’s . At last w e can an swer any sort ofprivate ethics, whether of t h e indi vidual, th e Church, or th e na
t ion, by poin ting to t h e great methods of social progress and byshowing th e effective springs of that progress . Everyone admitsthat electric light is better to see by than a tallow dip . Whenyou produce your moral tallow dip, and I see beside it a moralmethod a hundred times as lumin ious , I have an accurate standardof choice .
When w e look at moral values as relative,and when w e see that
w e have been taught them by their practical benefits,w e find that
it is no argumen t again st moral tuition that t h e in strumen t ofthat tuition is imperfect . We are bade n ot t o take pupils inth e art of governmen t
,or dare t o coach Cuba, Hawaii, and th e
Philipp ines un til w e have reformed and perfected our own
governmen t . All govern ors,teachers
,spiritual pastors and
88 DEMANDS ON A NATION CONSCIOUS OF A MORAL M ISSION.
masters are imperfect . Must t h e father wait to be whath e wan ts to be in personal and intellectual culture and morality before h e can train his son ? Mus t t h e teacher be aMommsen before h e can have a class in Roman history ?Must t h e N ew York alderman be an Aristides or a George Washingt on before h e can give us pure water and clean streets ? Lifei s everyw here ruled by t h e imperfect . You can only ask it to bewiser or better than what it rules .
'III . Consciousness of moral mi ssion carries with it th e respon
sibility for action . In th e first place,any moral earnestness must.
exp ress itself in action or must eventually perish . Action,as a
moral method,keeps alive t h e fires o f moral zeal, but i t adds
also to moral enlightenment . Action has always a return gif t t othought ; for deeds enrich t h e men tal states that producedthem . An act is not l ike fireworks
,explosive and perhaps
beautiful,but perishing as it shows its heart . Action is a seed,
which produces a handful of seeds to put in place of th e one
you plant . Besides this you think of morality in terms of conduct . Your mission is not moral un less it can extort action from
you, un less it can make your behavior according to the terms ofi t s desire.
No great thought can occupy you unless even tually it actsitself out . By th e laws of your nature your mi ssion, if it continnes to exist in your inner life, will eventually show itself inaction . I will not add that “
th e ought in n ature declares to
you and me that th e end w e see h er striving for w e shouldactively forward.
IV. This action springing from moral earnestness , sanctionedby a kn owledge and comparison of moral values
,while often in
volving force and governmen tal co-Operation ,is best carried out
by that sweet reasonableness Matthew Arnold considered th eflower of Christianity
,and which in our attitude describes th e
blended use of reason and love .
I am wel l aware that in th e arena of moral or political reformsin Africa, in Luzon, in N ew York, w e are dealing with men , notalone with ideas .
T h e moral question ’S ollus plain enough ;
I t’s jes th e human natur
’ side that’s tough .
Wut ’s best t o think mayn’t puzzle me nor you,
T h e pinch comes in decidin ’wut to du.
Ef you read history, all run s smooth as grease,Cos there th e man ain t nothin ’ more’
n idees ;But come t o make it, ez w e must t o-day,T h e idees h ev arms an ’ legs an’ stop the way.
But w e to-day ought to know all this , better than Lowel l didfifty years ago . Our scientific knowledge of th e gradualemergence of th e higher out of th e lower, step by step, makes
90 DEMANDS ON A NATION CONSCIOUS or A MORAL M ISSION .
your pile, yet at each step you have said there was none. Throw
as much reason and love with each grain of force into your pileas you can . There will then be n o rule of force
,but force wi l l
keep its necessary place .
I will adm it that when I was in th e Orient last win ter I had avision of what un aided love could do, that was very persuasive.
But un aided love must be wil ling to di e without raising ahand . F ew can ask their fellows for such a sacrifice withoutleading th e way themselves . Our anti-imperialist friends, and
those diplomats who would have no gunboats sen t to missionariesin peril—perh aps will lead in th e crusade of reason and love . Iam afraid they are not prepared for so stern a logic . Like Portiathey will say :
If to do were as easy as to know what were good to dochapel s had been churches, and poor men’s cottages princespalaces . I can easier teach twenty what were good to do ,
than be one of t h e twen ty to follow mine own teaching.
At any rate let us not be ashamed of our vision,or “ seal
up vision and prophecy.
” I saw how much love there was in th eworld—good human love —mi ssion ary for natives
,natives for
mi ssionaries . T h e children in t h e insurgen t villages in Luz oncalled out pret tily to our ofli cers : Good day,
” “ Howdo .
”T h e dear Bout an s as Mark Twain calls them
,
smile at you out of the ir noble faces, high in t h e Himalaya . My VI sion was of an army of men matching that loveand util iz ing it . Already much has been done by th e repre
sentat ives of God’s love,as un derst ood through Christ . More
can be done. Why should not all kinds of knowledge be sen t ,”
be m iss ionized by laymen who have it ? Half t h e missionaries toHawaii were teachers and prin ters . Why should not electrician s
,
l ike Dr . Hamlin,or physicists
,or chemists
,or botan ists
,or me
chan ics,or nurses, or kindergartners, l ive in th e missionary com
poun d and work for t h e advan cemen t of th e order of l ife—first
t he natural ; afterw ard that which is spiritual . A hundredthousand such missionaries could do what a million soldiers couldnot do . T h e best Asia has received from Europe came from th e
mi ssionaries . If these thousands were to d ie, my vision saw otherstaking their places
,un til th e world should be won by gifts of
reason and l ove to t h e mind and love of God .
Second P aper.
PRESIDEN T B . P . RAYMON D,D . D .
,LL . D .
,WESLEYAN UN IVERSI T Y.
If w e are conscious o f a moral mission,that consciousness is
our richest possession . What are prol ific prairies,mountain s of
copper,forests of timber
,mines o f coal and iron
,o f Silver and
PRESIDENT B . P. RAYMOND, D. D . ,LL. D. 9 1
g old compared to that treasure. All things w e could possess aren ot to be compared to this . But have w e this con sciousness ofa moral miss ion ? In his History of European Morals Leckywrites :
“T h e Christian civilizations are as in ferior to t h e Pagan in
i ntellectual and c ivic virtues as they are superior to them in
h umanity and chastity.
” In writing of Fran ce,Matthew Arnold
says : If t h e dangerous moral disease goes on , whatever political combination s may be tried
,and whether France gets colonies
or not,and whether sh e allies herself with this nation or with
that,things will on ly go from bad to worse with h er; sh e will
more and more lose h er powers of soul and spirit, h er in tellectualproductiveness, h er skil l in coun sel, h er might for w ar, h er formidableness as a f oe, h er value as an ally, and t h e l ife o f thatfamous state will be more and more impaired, un til it perish .
And this is that hard but true doctrine of th e sages and prophets,of t h e inexorable fatality of Operation, in moral failure of th eun soun d majority
,to impair and destroy states .
I n his lecture on Numbers, Mr. Arnold tell s us that in ad emocratic commun ity like this
,with its newness, its magnitude,
its strength,its life of busin ess
,its sheer freedom and equality,
t he danger is in th e absence of t h e disciplin e of respect : in hardn ess and materialism,
exaggeration and boastfulness ; in a falsesmartness
,a false audacity, a wan t of soul and del icacy. What
s oever thin gs are elevated—whatsoever things are nobly serioushave true elevation -that perhaps is t h e maxim which
p oints to where t h e failure o f t h e un sound majority, in a greatd emocracy like yours, will probably lie .
”
L ecky’s words poin t to a weakness which, in h is Opinion, is
characteristic of all t h e Christian civilization s . Arnold puts h isfinger upon th e sore spot in our civilization . It is in t he unsound majority . I t is in our failure to appreciate th e things thatare elevated
,th e things that are nobly serious .
How many of t h e fifteen million ballots cast in t h e last elect ion were vitalized with a moral purpose ? We have a large venalvote . It is a constant men ace . We have a very large vote thate xpresses l it tle more than party loyalty or some vaguely conceived personal advantage. And yet this class is n ot al togetherwanting in sen sitiveness to th e common weal , or in sen sitiveness
“to t h e obligation upon th e n ation to secure that weal . We havet h e remnant sound and strong
,that votes for righteousn ess .
Assyria, Rome, Athens, and Judah perished,although they had
their remnant, because t h e remnan t was n ot equal to t h e task ofrecovering th e unsoun d majority. T h e implication of Mr .Arnold’s view is that w e are quite likely to follow th e same road,and that because,
“T h e Etern al has attached t o certain moral
causes t he safety or ruin of states .”
If w e are conscious of a moral mission it would seem to be thefi rst duty to instruct, to deepen and rationalize that moral con
9 2 DEMANDS ON A N ATION CONSCIOUS OF A MORAL MISSION .
sciousness . It is as yet superficial . T h e average citizen has avery “ feeble and fluctuating hold upon t h e prin ciples whichunderlie t h e nation . That t h e nation i s t h e form of a moralorder as surely as is th e family or t h e Church ; that conformi tyto that moral order in a political act is just as binding as suchconformity in t h e family
,has not been brought clearly to th e
consciousness of t h e great body of t he people . Why is it thatmen , many of whom are hon orable in their ordinary relation sw ith their fellow-men—they pay their grocer, they do a fairday’s work for their employer
,they would help lift a n eigh
bor out o f t h e slough at con siderable self-sacrifice,—why is
it that many such men will sel l their ballots to th e highestbidder ?They have no such sense of th e moral order in t h e polit ical
realm as they have of a moral order in other relations . Why isit that men who are high-min ded and true in every other rel a ’
tion connive at political corruption without compun ction ? Isit because they think that success won even at such a cost isbetter than failure? They do not feel that they are under th estress of a moral order when they enter t h e field of politics . Whyi s it that men who are punctil ious in all other financial relations ,who, were it made to appear that they had knowingly defraudedyou of a dollar
,would shun you upon th e street
,and hang their
heads in shame,will cheat t he governmen t out of hundreds of
thousands and suffer n o tw inge of conscien ce ? It is because,when they pass from th e realm of business life into th e realm of
t h e state,they assume either that th e moral order does not hold
there, or, if it hold, it is of an entirely differen t character . Butif th e nation have a moral mission it i s because it is an expressionof a moral life, and because t h e moral order holds throughoutits realm . It is eviden t that w e n eed a much more profoun dphil osophy of th e state.
In order to get an in sight in to th e national life w e might ask :Who is th e citizen ? What is th e mean ing of citizen ship ?
All persons born and naturalized in t h e Un ited States andsubject to th e jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of t h e UnitedStates and of th e States wherein they reside .
” But this definitionis about as near empty as it could possibly be . To be born on
American soil is a privilege,and t o have become an American
citizen by t h e magic o f naturalization is also a privilege. Butneither t h e l ocal ity o f one
’s birth,nor th e process o f natural iza
tion gives any clew t o citizen ship ; th e term is still mean inglessand empty . A well-buil t
,black and Shaggy New foundland might
almost fulfil l th e conditions thus far. Does th e term stand thenf or no national ideas or principles ? Has it no spiritual con ten t?Is it good only f or a certificate o f birthplace
,or a set o f naturali
zat ion papers ? W e must find a deeper meaning f or citizenship ;o therwise it i s worthless t o the citizen and mean ingless t o th enation . We need a profounder study of the nation of which th e
94 DEMANDS ON A NATION CONSCIOUS or A MORAL MISSION.
of ecclesiastical parties, and t he war of sections, stands t h enation, Argus-eyed, vigilant of t he rights and th e interests of men .
L et this principle be forgotten , and fancy that th e inspiringSpirit back o f all is active in t h e interests of unrighteousness .With that fan cy, could it be realized, you lay a train of explos iveswhich would blow th e fabric of society to atoms . Rememberthis principle well and t he talent of every man finds Opportun ity,every home security
,and every citizen protection ,
as surely inValparaiso as in Brooklyn . There has been a kind of subcon
sciousness of this truth among all t h e nations of hist ory . Mrs .Brown ing’s words in Mother and Poet ” ring true both to th eheart of th e mother and to t h e sacredness of th e nation as SheSings :
To teach them—I t stings there ! I made them indeedSpeak plain t h e word country. I taught them
,no doubt
,
That a country’s a thing men should die for at need .
”
T h e nation thus conceived gives mean ing to all t h e sacrificethat has been made to preserve it . Conceive it to be but th eleproused thing indicated by th e emptiness of an e lection day
,and
why should a man die f or it ?Who
,then, are t h e c itizen s ? I n an empty and superficial
sen se,th e whole body o f th e people ; to all born upon t h e s oil ,
and all naturalized citizens,t h e law guarantees rights and privi
leges . But these guaran tees are on ly forms which are supposedto be filled up with a spiritual content ; it is presupposed that th echild born on t h e soil wil l feel t he throbbing life of t he nationin th e sw ing of his cradle and learn it from his mother’s songs ;i t i s presupposed that th e alien, naturalized, will thereby be bornagain
,and that
,as h e swears allegiance to h er laws and devotion
to h er interests,h e will feel t h e thril l of our national life . T h e
citizen must feel n ot only t h e impulse of our business life, n ot
alone t h e fierce passion o f partisan politics,but also th e breath
o f that spirit of patriotism which should lead th e German farmeron t h e distan t prairie
,whenever h e reads of n ational peril or
n ational dishonor from whatever quarter it may come, to lookto t h e condition of his fowling piece. He is t he citizen
,in fact ,
w h o feel s t h e national Spirit . He and h e alone knows th e meaning of citizen ship . He who feel s this spirit is a c itizen
,not on ly
by virtue of t h e extern al in sign ia of birth or of naturalization ,
but by virtue o f t h e fact that h e fills out t h e otherwise emptyform o f citizenship with an ethical con tent . T he spell is uponhim
,and with pride h e says, I am an American citizen .
”
This is th e gospel that must be preached if w e are t o deepenand con serve this moral consciousnes s . T h e n ation is more thana busines s conven ience . Neither t h e family nor t h e Church can
take its place . T he old Hebraic theocracy had t o give w ay
t o t h e demands o f those forces that work eternally in man, and
PRESIDENT B . P. RAYMOND, D . D . ,LL. D. 95
t o grow those political forms which make possible th e highestlife of th e family, t h e Church, th e school, and all other essen tialforms of a progressive moral life . Y ou may have observed thatt here are men who take alarm at th e suggestion of a moral mission for t h e nation . It is true that th e momen t you talk aboutmorals you in troduce an autocrat . He must have right of way.
Perhaps they fear th e autocrat . But are morals so dangerous inpolitics ? Or are politics a menace to th e people when t h e moralimplications and t h e moral mission are el iminated ? We may wel lrecall Arn old’s language : T h e Eternal has attached to certainmoral causes th e safety or ruin of states .But how are w e to deepen and propagate thi s consciousn ess ?
T h e an swer is this : by t h e use of con crete argumen ts .“ In 1 856 there w as of personal property over
and above t h e banking and trus t company capital which paidtaxes in N ew York State . This had in creased by in1 896. Y et everybody kn ows that person al propert y in th e Stateof N ew York has in creased enormously in th e last forty years .” Af ew years ago a study was made of 1 07 estates, taken at random int h e State of N ew York and ranging from to“ These 1 07 estates disclosed person alty to th e appraiser aggre
gating and yet t h e deceden ts, th e year before thei rrespective deaths
,had been assessed in th e aggregate on personal
property to th e amoun t of Here is wholesale evasionof taxation . Thirty-four of th e estates escaped taxationaltogether
,and t h e tax varied from two-tenths of one per cent .
to n early ni neteen per cen t .”(See article in th e
“ Forum ” forMay
,1 897 , by Comptroller Roberts .) Charles Sumn er has said
that “ nothing is settled un t il it is settled right .” This is notright . What these men failed to pay other men were compelledto pay. There is need of a deepen ing of th e moral consciousnessof th e citizen .
Another il lustration, and that from on e of t h e so-called trustsof our time
,will serve to raise another aspect of this question . I
assume that th e following statements are essen tially correct . T h e
Standard Oil Trust has a capital stock of some .
part of this is water ; it pays about this year in dividends, and it is putting up th e price of oil.Two vi ews may be taken of this situation . One is that 1 0 men
in a communi ty of t en thousand people may get possession of gas ,water
,oil
,coal
,or any other necessity and then raise th e price
at w ill . This view is justified if it can be shown that t h e com
mon weal is best secured in this way. If this be t rue,then w e
must say t o th e state : Hands off ! T h e highest interests wil lbe secured by t h e collision of forces now at work, and th e conflictof minds in th e field .
T h e second view is that there is an in equity in th e distributionof products which must be remedied by t h e action of t h e state.
It is in this view that th e moral consciousness of th e people is
96 DEMANDS ON A NATION CONSCIOUS OF A MORAL M ISSION .
at work . T h e inequity appears in t he fact that 1 0 families, cons isting of 40 persons
,roll in luxury and waste million s, while
9960 person s,children of brain s and promise, lack facil ities for
t h e largest and best life . It cann ot be claimed that any remedyhas been found. But there i s widespread conviction that there isinequity . I t is in t h e system . Time and experimen t must provide a remedy . A moral consciousness demands th e best possiblecondition s for every citizen . It is not claimed that these 1 0
m en are“ sinners above all that dwell at Jerusalem ; they are
o ften men of t h e highest charact er and greatest benevolence .
And so were many of t h e slave-holders of th e South,but t h e
system worked iniquity, and t h e present sys tem works an in equitywhich must be remedied .
There are some encouraging signs in t h e utterances of thinkersin various fields . T h e economi st is far more respon sive to moralpressure than h e was a f ew years ago . Caird writes on th e
Moral Aspects of t he Economical Problem ”in
“ Time” forJanuary, 1 888. I n his “ Introduction to Social Philosophy
,p .
8, Mackenzie calls attention to th e fact that n ot on ly in actualbusin ess competition are moral con sideration s forgotten
,but
even in th e writings of theoretical econ omists .” In his suggestivelittle book en titled
,Growth of Nation ality in th e United
States,Dr . Bascom writes : “
T h e moral elemen t proved itselffrom t h e economic
,social
,and civil elements involved in it
! slavery] and baffled us con s tantly in every effort to dividethem .
” Why ? “ You cannot circumscribe a moral prin ciple .
”
Wherever two persons meet,t h e moral law is presen t and it s
claims are imperious . We have passed th e hour when men canbe classed as persons and chattels, or person s and things . T he
imperson al rel ation is no longer to lerable. And it is intolerablebecause of th e worth of th e indi vidual, because of th e genesis ofa social con science. T h e moment you lift th e individual aboveth e level of th e thing or th e chattel, that moment personal relations assert themselves and have rightful dominan ce everywhere,and no law or custom can maintain rational footing that doesnot recognize them .
This relation of econom ies to ethics, and th e pressure of ethical considerations upon t h e theoretical economist, have vital relat ion s t o th e nation . How about the econ omic side of our civicduties ? May w e not defraud a corporation ? On ly if w e may defraud th e individuals concerned ? T h e state i s n ot a person , but
i ts citizens are, and th e failure in obligations to th e state alwaysresults in in justice to men and women . A concrete case wi ll makethis statement clear .T h e moral purpose of th e nation must make itsel f felt
in securing t o th e individual th e right to work as wel l as th e rightto strike . T h e violations o f this right have been about as grossas any that coul d be men tioned . Reason and persuasion are legitimat e weapons, but not brickbats and clubs .
98 DEMANDS ON A NATION CONSCIOUS OF A MORAL M ISSION.
portan t con cern s o f our social lif e . There was a time in our coun trywhen t h e Church an d t h e public schoo l walked hand in hand ; whent h e schoo lmas ter gave to thos e w h o came under his tuition impression s that were brought forth n o t o n ly out o f ordin ary te xt-books,books which are in us e at all time s , but great truths born o f his ow n
deep study o f t h e Word o f G od . Tho se were days when m en weremade in our public schools w h o took position s o f highest usefuln e ssin af ter-lif e be cause they were stalwart repre sen tatives o f t h e n oble stqualitie s o f manhood . There came an other time when t h e publicschoo l an d re ligious teaching—J may go further an d say, when t h e
public schoo l an d anything like e ffective an d sufficien t moral teaching
—were practically divorced ; an d t h e beginn ing o f that time w as .
marked by a decaden ce in t h e moral life o f t h e n ation . I d o n o t
hesitate t o make this statemen t. Facts will vin dicate its truth ; an d
w e may here fi n d a suffi cien t reason f or what was aptly characterizedsome years ago by a noble clergyman in this city as t h e dry rot
in po litics—t h e disappe aran ce t o so large an exten t from our po litical life o f tho se high moral con sideration s which ought t o governm en when they cast their ballots, when they take the ir place s ino ffi cial station s , an d in t h e discharge o f all o f the ir obligation s ascitizen s. T h e spirit o f m ercenary i sm , o f mercan tilism, t h e spiritwhich forgets t h e high things in lookin g at t h e low things o f life ,has en tered in to t h e po litics o f t h e n ation t o such an exte n t thatt o-day w e have t h e spectacle o f commun itie s throughout t h e coun trystruggling almo st hope lessly in t h e to ils o f con dition s which ex istso le ly as t h e re sult o f a gen eration -long n egle ct o f t h e highe stduties o f citizen ship . W e cann o t expe ct that t h e day will ag ai ncome when G od -fearing teachers will un ite re ligious with secularin struction , an d go among the ir pupils carrying with them in the irhearts an d upon the ir lips t h e n oble truth s which are brought forthfrom t h e Word o f G od , in t h e same mann er as they did o f old . W e
can hope , however, that there Shall come on ce again into all o f ourschoo ls , an d through our schoo ls, in to t h e life o f t h e n ation , more
o f t h e spirit o f moral n obility ; that w e shall regard t h e pos sessiono f this spirit as o ne o f t h e highest qualification s in tho se w h o teach ;an d that teachers thus qualified shall in spire our youth with t h e
same spirit. N o t un til our schoo ls an d our home s are pervaded withsuch influen ce s will t h e “
d ry ro t” disappear from po litics , an d th e
life o f t h e n ation b e con tro lled by t h e high purpo se which w e long ‘
to s ee triumphan t. I n plac e o f t h e direct an d forcible relig ion s influen ce which i s n o longer po ssible , w e can have suitable
,sufficien t,
an d e ff ective moral teaching in all o f our schoo ls ; an d this i s one o ft h e things which seem to m e t o b e mo st n ece ssary in ord er thatour citizen s may b e equipped f or t h e successful discharge o f t h e
Obligation s an d burden s which are t o d evo lve upon them in t h e coming days .On e thought more . T h e pres en ce here o f so many citizen s, repre
sen ting all sects an d all creeds , i s a hope ful Sign . I be lieve that iti s out o f t h e hearts , t h e lives , an d t h e influen ce o f tho se w h o represen t t h e be st growth o f t h e con scien ce—t h e re ligious e lemen t in m an ,
that in human n ature which is spiritually in clin ed an d which reachesaf ter t h e things which are high an d heaven ly ; i t i s out Of t h e
influen ce of those w h o have some relig ious be lief, faith , and higha spiration , that w e are t o look f or t h e regen eration o f t h e n ation .
Such gatherings as this en courage us t o look f or this re sult, as w ellas f or t h e d ay when
I n t h e un ity o f ho ly aims and noble d eed s.Men shall forget t h e very name s o f s ects and creeds .
DR. FREDERICK HOWARD WINES. 99
ALL SOULS’ UNITARIAN CHURCH, WEDNESDAY,
NOVEMBER 21 .
T h e Conference reassembled at P . M.,under th e presidency
of Rev. Josiah Strong, D . D .,of N ew York .
VII . DANGEROUS CLASSES IN A REPUBLIC .
F irs t P aper.
DR . FREDERICK HOWARD WINES,ASSIST ANT D I RECT OR OF T HE
CEN SU S,WASHIN G T ON
,D . C.
I am not sure that I understand precisely what is mean t by th esubject on which I have been asked to Speak T h e DangerousClasses .” I know n o dangerous classes . Dangerous individualsI know . A thi ef is dangerous to property . A pauper is a socialparasite . A man who is insane i s often dangerous, though t h emajority of th e in sane are personally harmless en ough . If onethief is dangerous, two thieves are more dangerous than one.
Have w e any clearly defined notion in mind, when w e speak of
social classes ? Or does this expression as commonly used meananything more than a certain number of people who in certainparticulars resemble each other more or less ?We have probably a much more exact con ception of th e signifi
cation of t h e phrase “ social evil .” A social evil is a social cond ition which involves pain or loss or peril to t h e communi ty .
Crime,pauperism
,and in san i ty are social evil s, th e three great
social evils . These are,however
,abstractions . They mean noth
ing, except as they are embodi ed in individuals . Probably,when
w e speak of th e dangerous classes,
w e have in mind thosegroups of un fortunates who seem to our imagination to be t h econcrete representatives of these evils
,who are their immedi ate
victims, whose number is t h e measure of their extent, and bywhose agen cy th e contagion of physical
,intellectual, and moral
imbecility is propagated .
My life work has afforded me opportun ities to see more of theseso-called classes, and to learn more about them,
than most menever do . T h e more I kn ow
,th e more I realize th e truth of Solo
mon’s sayi ng,“ He that increaseth knowledge, in creas eth sor
row .
” If I should attempt to describe to you their peculiaritiesand habits
,I should not kn ow where to begin ,
and I fear that Ishould not know when to leave off. T h e f ew minutes allotted t ome do not admit of entering upon so large a theme, and it is
1 00 DANGEROUS CLASSES IN A REPUBLIC.
doubtful whether information on this subject has much practicalvalue for a popular audience .
This much,however, may here be said, that crime, pauperism,
and insanity are so many different manifestation s of human weakness . T h e ranks of t h e great army enrolled beneath these banners are recruited from men and women of enfeebled body, mind,and will . To this cause their failure in life is to be attributed .
T heir lack of normal power to resist trial and temptation may be
congenital and due to heredi ty, or acqui red and t h e result ofenvironmen t . What does it matter which ? From th e point ofView of practical Christian philanthropy
,what an amazing
amount of breath is wasted in th e controversy over t h e comparative influence of environm ent and heredity in t h e production ofsocial types ! This discussion is of import ance principally on ac
coun t of its relation t o th e prevention of th e growth of socialevil s and to t h e cure of their victims . We can change th e environment of a child, but w e cann ot alter his heredi ty. Practical philan thropy, therefore, proceeds almost wholly by a change of environmen t ; while there is a visionary philanthropy which dreamsof possible control of heredity, in th e interest of posterity, bystate regulation of marriage, or by th e extermination of de
generates . A cruel use i s made of the Darw in ian hyp othesis,when it is sought to apply the doctrine of t h e destruction of th eunfit to human beings, and to justify neglect of t h e unfortunateand miserable
,on th e ground that their preservation is a menace
t o th e race . I think that,if I had time, I could Show this appli
cation of th e theories of evolution to be unscientific . It is cert ainly un christian . T h e apostle Paul was a firm bel iever in th e
solidarity of th e race, but h e said, Much more those members oft h e body
,which seem to be more feeble
,are necessary .
”
We all know from experien ce and observation th e weakness ofth e pauper . L et us draw a sharp l ine of dist inction between th epauper and t h e poor. Poverty is not a social evil . Weal th maybe . Poverty is no disgrace
,if it be th e result of adverse circum
stances and not of indolence and lack of thrift . For our sakes th eLord Jesus Christ became poor . But pauperism is something diff eren t . T h e pauper is an in competen t man or woman, and hisinability t o do anyt hing
,or to do anything well
,is th e ultimate
cause of h is misfortun es .Most men do not come in to close contact with crim inals, and
therefore do not kn ow that the great maj ority of prisoners areunbalanced, if not imbecile, as many of them are . They are ignoran t
,especially dcficien t in th e knowledge which enables a man to
earn his own l iving. They have distorted views of life, are unable to forecast t h e future, or to perceive th e relation betweencause and effect, and their moral sen sibil ities are so blun ted thatthey apprehend but dimly
,i f at all
,the distinction between right
and wrong.
T he popular notion o f insanity is that it is a furious madness,
1 02 DANGEROUS CLASSES IN A REPUBLIC.
t h e exception,not th e rule . They are not normal
,but abnormal .
It is plain,however, that a social parasite in a fashionable club is
more dangerous than if h e were I n an almshouse,because in an
almshouse t h e influen ce of his example would be eliminated ; andthat an undetected thief
,a thief at large, is more dangerous than
a thief in custody. T h e safety of t he commun ity is promoted bylocking up thieves, and keeping them locked up .
T h e really dangerous class is th e criminal class . Its membership is more highly organi zed than is commonly supposed . T h e
want of intell igen ce in its rank and file i s supplemented by a veryhigh degree of intell igence in its leaders
,and t h e lack of money
with which to carry on criminal enterprises is supplied by capitalist s in league with crime. T h e most pitiful aspect of th e situation is tha t these leaders and capitalists exploit their dependen tsf or their own profit, compelling them to as sume t h e risks and bearth e con sequences of misdeeds f or which their employers are re
sponsible . I have even known a man hired to serve a term in th epeniten tiary in th e place of his prin cipal .There i s a clas s of crimes with which th e criminal law has not
devised an y successful methods o f dealing,n amely
,corporate
crimes,t h e acts of no individual
,but of a fictitious person created
by law,with powers
,rights
,and privileges not gran ted to indi
viduals,but without correlative obligation s ; at least, they are not
enforced . Perhaps th e time will come when corporation s as suchwill be held to criminal as wel l as civil account f or t h e wrongs ofwhich they are sometimes guilty, and when t h e individuals composing them will not be permitted to escape l iability for their cor
porat e misdeeds . Perhaps , t oo, a time will come when t h e mutualrespon sibilities of employers and employed, o f capital and labor
,
wil l be better defined and regulated by law than n ow,when one of
three things will take place . E ither t h e right of capital to combinewi ll be restricted
,or t h e right of labor to combin e will be recog
n ized and protected, or capital and labor will be united in one
larger combination,on a democratic, not a tyrann ical, basis .
Among th e criminals of higher grade, w h o , if their number weresufficiently great
,would accomplish t h e overthrow of th e republ ic,
are to be included all men who utilize t h e forces of evil for theirown aggrandizemen t, who seek to make their fortune by pandering to vice in any of its multiplied forms , who seek to advan cetheir personal in terests at t h e expen se of th e public service , orwho bel ieve in carrying election s by bribery, and show their faithby their works . I n a republic , where th e people are th e foun taino f political power, t h e purchase and sale o f votes i s implicit treason . With those just named w e must include such business men
as depend for their enrichment upon misrepresentation and fraud,upon corrupt combinations
,upon un just and unequal charges f or
goods furn ish ed or services rendered , upon th e evasion of legit i
mate customs duties an d real and personal taxes ; also such em
ployers of labor as take any unfair advantage of their employees,
DR. FREDERICK HOWARD WINES. 1 03
s ubject them to unn ecessary hardships and risks, rob them of theirwages, or deprive them of t he Opportunity to work, when it is intheir power to give them remunerative employment . D ishonesty,which is t he will ful failure to give an equivalent for all that one
gets, is th e worm at th e root of our national life. T h e men whopractice it sucess fully, without exposure and without punishmen t,are t h e real enemies of th e republic . They, if anyone, constitutet he class
,
which w e have most to fear .I have no superstitious confiden ce in t h e efficacy of legislation
as a remedy for social evils . It has a certain education al value .
It is good,so far as it i s rational and just
,and so far as it is sup
ported by public opin ion and sen timen t ; but it i s powerles s to alterhuman nature . I have less faith than I wish I had in spasmodi c,intermi tten t
,occasional eff orts to bring about social reforms .
They are too Often followed by a severe reaction . Y et t h e ou
ward. movement of t h e race toward higher ideal s of life and theirfuller realization is rhythmical
,and th e tide of Christian c iviliza
t ion rises, year by year, in spite of th e recession of th e successivew aves which beat upon t h e shore . But our hope is, after all, int h e slow growth of t h e sent imen t of righteousness in t h e community at large . T h e spirit of righteousness is th e spirit of just ice and of love . Love worketh no ill to his n eighbor, thereforel ove is th e fulfilling of t h e law. Love is t h e essen ce of rel igion .
Love i s th e great moral force . Its presen ce or absen ce determinest h e form of social organi sms and regulates social customs . It isnot without significan ce that w e speak of th e dangerous classesin a republic
,
” because w e have been trained to con ceive of t h eRepublic as a brotherhood
,in which th e equal manhood and equal
p olitical rights of all it s citizen s are recogni zed in i t s fundamen tallaw. It is built upon t h e foundation of equi ty between man andman, but equi ty is n othing but justice, and justice is but anothername for love . T h e dangerous Classes in a republic,
”is there
fore an expression signifying all person s,of every ran k
,station
,
and condition whatsoever, who sin again st love ; all who demandor take by force from others that to which they have no equi tableclaim ; all men and women
,t h e ruling Spirit o f whose l ife is selfish
n es s, whether that selfishn ess man ifests itself in t h e relation s ofbusiness, of politics, o f society, or even of t h e Church .
Th ere are other speakers to follow, and I must n ot trespassl onger upon your time . T h e remedy for unrighteousn ess is righte ousn ess ; and for t h e want of love, it is love . T h e Church is th ecustodian of moral and religious truth . It is
,or should be, th e
exemplar of righteous living,and a center of un selfish regard for
th e rights and th e n eeds of all m en . We n eed n ot regret that ith as no political power . Its members have, and it is their duty tomake use of it . Its fun ction is educational . It needs to cultivate an ideal and to uphold and insist upon it before th e world .
If t h e ideals of Moses and Jesus are accepted by th e American
1 04 DANGEROUS CLASSES IN A REPUBLIC.
people, they have th e practical genius which wil l enable them to
apply them to our social and political life .
He who loses his head in battle i s unfit to be a soldier, or at sea,a sailor . He who bel ieves that th e devil is stronger than God isa moral coward and a traitor t o t h e cause of righteous n ess . I bel ieve, not in progressive degeneration and decay, but in th e pro
gressive betterment of indi vidual character and social condi tions .Make your fight
,and never despair of th e republic ! Trust in God
t o redeem and regen erate even our municipal governments .
Second P aper.
PROFESSOR G EORG E A. G AT ES,D . D .
,IOWA COLLEG E.
As the race is constituted of di fferent peoples, so society is madeup of classes . It is inevitable
,perhaps not wholly deplorable,
that there are classes . Differen ce of in terests need not meanopposition of in terests . T h e advan tages of variety are not dependen t on bell icose strife. It is not easy t o see how there can beprogress without varieties of in teres t
,differences of tempera
ment , divergent purposes . Interesting emulation may realizeitself best not in inimical competition, but in some sort of realco-operation . Classes may wel l be a relative necessity to progress .They need n ever be hostile to each other
,much less dangerous, in
any large social sense .
What do w e mean by dangerous ? Dangerous to what or whom ?T h e range of this discussion should be such that w e mean dan
gerous to th e very stability of society, or more specifically for usdangerous to t h e perpetuity of t h e Republic . Visiting a hospitalfor t h e in sane and noticing t h e large freedom from restrain t andt h e free intercourse of large bodies of men
,I asked what hindered
their combining and organi zing disastrous rebellions . T h e superin t enden t smiled at my inn ocence, saying : In sane people are tooselfish and individualistic ; i . e.
,too an ti-social
,to combine.
” Inother words
,they are not a dangerous class because they are t oo
mean t o be a class at all . Prerequisites to a dangerous class arein tell igen ce enough to organi ze wisely and powerfully ; moralcharacter en ough to sacrifice indi vidual desires t o a common end ;and a persisting loyalty t o t h e organ ization . If that be true
,w e
are in position at on ce to con sider a modification of t h e ordinaryconception of th e con tent of th e term , dangerous classes . As th ephrase i s used its immediate suggestion is : t h e ignoran t, th evicious
,t h e criminal , t h e utterly poor.
But th e ignoran t are not primarily dangerous , e ither as individuals or as a class . They are not really a clas s
,but only a scat
t ered large number of people . They can be only secondarily dan
gerous, in that t h ey furn ish th e material with which danger maybe wrought by agencies outside themselves . Illiteracy or s tu
1 06 DANGEROUS CLASSES I N A REPUBLIC .
that was an ugly passage in t he trail, and some blood stains wereleft there by wounded feet . 1
But even grant that the French Revolution was a typ ically “dan
gerons event, wherein was t h e danger, and where is its analogyin a republic ? T h e an swer leaps into th e eyes . T h e danger isin an Oppressed class . If there be an oppressed class or oppressedclasses
,there lurks danger, profoun d, far-reaching, fundamentally
real .But that danger, again be it noted, is of secondary nature .
They are victims . They do not choose to be members o f th e oppressed clas s
,to suffer dangerous in justice . T h e primary danger
must be sought elsewhere, viz .,in t h e Oppressing class . Here at
last w e draw nearer t h e heart of th e matter. T h e members of anOppressing class are not t h e victims, but th e authors of oppression . They do not suffer oppression
, but create it . They havenot been put in to an Oppressing class . They choose it del iberatelyand fiercely perpetuate it . T h e French Revolution w as not
caused,but only occasioned
,by those who made real it s latent
power. T h e causative cause was th e selfish and heart less ladiesand gen tlemen who cumbered t h e ground and as paras ites suck edt he blood of t h e people . It ought to be clear that it is oppressionthat is t h e danger. T h e danger is that of explos ion
,sure to re
sul t from adequate Oppression .
But in a democracy, where Demos votes and reigns , h ow canOppress ion be
,or being
,h ow can it be carried far enough to make
imminent an explos ion in revolution ? Direct,n aked, Oppression
perhaps could not be . But s omething analogous may be. Thatsomething is exploitation . A people nomi nally free , who couldnot for a year be Open ly oppressed, may be indefin itely exploited
,
if it be skillful ly en ough done . Exploitat ion in our modern commercial order of soulless corporations is t h e successor in directline of O riental and mediaeval tyranny. It is th e most effec
tive, secret, hence safe, tyranny that has ever yet appeared on
earth .
T h e very condition of freedom makes exploitation easy. For,w here all are free to do as they like, there is l iberty too to exploitt h e people, just as far and as long as t h e people wil l submit .T h e most successful trick of t h e exploiter is to con fuse or com
plicate t h e issue . Demos imag ines h e votes as h e pleases and
therefore reigns . He does no such thing. He is voted, and
therefore is ruled . T h e same old spirit that loves power and
luxury finds or makes a way,even in a nominal republic, to ex
‘ What illogical judgments w e have o f violent death 1 Three thousandFrench aristocrats ; are they worth more than fifteen thousand American youthd ead in t he Philippines T h e one h as been th e horror o f t h e race for a hundred years t h e otherw e are using (that
’s t h e word ) to ge t—to—to purchase ,
t o—to—well , just what are w e trying t o w in with these thousands o f lives ?Those three thousand heads o f F rench aristocrats that came o if wereprominent they were no t so very valuable .
PROFESSOR GEORGE A . GATES,D . D . 1 07
p loit , i . e.
,oppress, t h e people . Now
,th e only power that h as
any permanen t interest in us ing t h e people is t h e plutocraticSpirit . Not a word need be said against money ; but every arraignment may stand against t h e domin ation of mon ey in public affairs .In God’s great day that is coming w e shall n ot use men to makemon ey ; w e shall use mon ey to make men .
” T h e del iberate pur
p ose t o use men to make money,that is
,to exploit on e’s fellow
men in stead of to serve them,is in itself individual or social or
p olitical or nation al or in ternational damn ation. Whoever doesit rejects Christ, denies t h e fatherhood of God, repud iates t hebrotherhood of man . T h e on ly fun damentally dangerous class ina republi c is made up of those who have three qualit ies : in t elligen ce enough to unite their interest s in to a class ; patien ce en oughand loyalty to each other to stay together ; selfishn es s enough tostifle t h e finer instin cts of Christian manhood . Power, in t elligen ce
,selfishness
,may be named t h e trinity on t h e throne of dan
ger in a republic .
So,then
,even Professor Sumner of Yale, an ultra-conservative
touching all attempts at social reform,nevertheless says : T he
coming political struggle is to be between plutocracy and democracy .
A man of so con servative a temper as Albert Shaw,and one who
cultivates s o restrained a use of language, puts h is name to t h estatemen t that men who bribe
,di rectly or indirectly
,t h e law
makers of mun icipalities,or commonwealths, or th e nation ,
inorder to obtain public fran chises
,are t h e blackest crimin als in
America .
”
Note that it is not th e bribed, t h e con scien celess, or weak orwicked coun cilman
,State or national legislator, who accept s t h e
bribe ; it is t h e briber, to whom is applied that gen tle phrase, th e
blackest crimi nal in America .
” We grow sober and horrified beyond words over t h e crime of th e man who
,to gratify a fierce pas
sion , outrages, then murders that sweetest of all God’s creatures
,
a little maid child . We are stricken wi th a deeper horror at t h emen w h o calmly stan d aroun d that crimin al and burn him to slowd eath, thus sinking themselves beneath any beast that flies
,walks
,
swims , or crawls . We are appalled at th e long list of cruel andawful crimes by which men repudiate all claim to t h e name of
human . But here stands up a man of sober,careful
,educated
trained mi nd and names as th e blackest criminal in Americat h e in telligent, persistent, selfish, respectable horror w h o deliberately bribes t h e represen tative of “
t h e people t o repudi ate hisduty, break his oath, let go his c ivic hon or, in order t o en able t hebriber to exploit t h e people to his own private end of putt ing ,
money into his pocket .I n order to get a judgmen t wider than my own, I wrote to
several men asking their opin ion as to who cons titute th e dan
g eron s classes in a republic .
1 08 DANGEROUS CLASSES IN A REPUBLIC.
So con servative a man as Dr. A . W. Small of Ch icago Uni vers itysays : T h e most vicious type of dangerous person I could pointout i s t h e man who has power in t h e industrial world, and uses itin th e spirit of ‘
T h e people be damned .
’ I do not pers onallybelieve that th e number of this class is great . But t h e presentcondi tion s of competition are such that many who are not at heartof this class think themselves obliged to act as if they were, in.
self-defen se.
A strong preacher in t h e chief city of Wisconsin names :as a dangerous class : T h e monopolistic class ; men w ho
are not only unscrupulous in regard to methods and means of acquiring wealth
,but aim to secure such an advantage over their.
fellows as to prevent them from having an equal chance withthemselves .”
Pres ident Northrup of Minn esota State University, afterreferring to t h e ordinary use o f the phrase, dangerousclasses
,
” says : “ I am, however, quite aware that there may be
dangerous classes of intelligent and selfish people, whos e greedand power to feed their greed may make them in a far wider fielddangerous to t he welfare of t h e people .
”
Professor Pearson of Carleton College, Minnesota, to whom Iwrote because h e is ultra-conservative in every matter, says h ejudges men not in class or mass, but as individuals ; then adds :He i s a dangerous man who does not love h is neighbor as himself. T he selfish man or woman is dangerous .” One would comment : Y es
,but dangerous in a large social sense in proportion t o
intelligence and power, s o that their selfishness is gratified in t hedegree in which they efficiently combine into a “ class .” T h e
merely stupidly selfish small and mean man or woman is not socially dangerous .Dr . Graham Taylor, a man capable of givin g expert judgment
,
is neatly to the point : Those who buy and sell special privilegesin t he form of law are the dangerous classes par excellence. Theyare pull ing t h e very foundation s out from under everything . I tis notable that this man, whose l ife i s almost wholly given toworking in and with those who are commonly called th e dangerousclas ses , making his fami ly home among them—does not evenmention them . It probably did not OOcur to him
,i t would be so
absurd .
All my notes of inquiry were an swered with utmost courtesy ,except one . Mr . George Gun ton of this city replies thusgraciously : That is a subject that is discussed from time to timein our magazine and lecture bulletin s . I can hardly be expectedto take time t o give a special d iscourse upon the subject f or one
who does not take th e trouble t o read either .”
T w o men,Dr. Patrick, Professor o f Philosophy in Iowa State
University, and Mr. J . E . Faulkner, president o f th e TradesAssembly of Denver, a good representative o f t h e labor union s
,
both emphasize th e grave and wide danger in th e editorial class,
1 1 0 DANGEROUS CLASSES IN A REPUBLIC .
refuse to put forth th e very bottom truth they know. If these bevenal or timorous, then is th e very perpetuity Of th e Republic indanger. If this Republic ever does, temporarily or permanently,go over in to an empire, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, or a plut ocracy
,it wil l be because imperial ists or aristocrats or oligarchs or
plutocrats have bought or scared th e teachers and preachers andwriters of th e Republic . Here is our “ dangerous class
,those
who dare to run t h e awful risk of holding back t h e truth that isin them
,or modi fying it or coddling it . T h e truth and th e whole
truth needs no defen se ; it only asks to be proclaimed . Much maydepend upon t h e manner of its proclamation . To Speak th etruth in love i s still a divine injun ction . Even then it may be
costly to utter it . It always has been so . Most things cost thatare worth while . There is at th e long last only one thing morecostly, not to tell t h e truth . Here
,then
,is t h e substance of t h e
matter . Nothing can in th e end make or break the Republic butapathy. Other forms of government may get on in t h e apathyof t h e people ; th e governmen t will run itself along, whatever t h epeople do or do not do or think or feel . Not so a republic . Courage and high passion are in th e last analys is one. Without courage no republic can live. Apathy is t h e Opposite of courage . Ift h e teachers are brave ; and th e preachers will preach true religionand th e relentless whole of it in full and fearless application ofit ; and th e editors wi l l all Speak their real mi nds, there wil l be aSpirit of courage engendered among th e people that will make anythreatened danger to t h e Republic a passing triviality. So t h eway is t h e same old way of t he Cross ; sacrifice for God and t h etruth
,and for th e people that they may be saved .
My theme is an ungracious one ; i t was given me . It is a muchpleasanter task to set forth smooth things . One mus t no t , h owever
,shi rk from voicing th e truth . I have endeavored t o keep
free from hateful person alities or Objurgations toward any clas s .Have I invited any into t h e confessional ? I have gone in withmy own class before them .
It is a dreadfully ugly fact that it was not t h e mob that crucifiedJesus . They wanted to make Him King . They strewed flowersand waved palm branches before Him . T h e mob never cried :“ Crucify him
,
” till t h e Church’
s ecclesiastics, and Pilate’s an d
Herod’s politician s,told th e mob to do so .
G od help us ! but it may be w e o f t he re spectable classes whoare exposed t o t h e danger of “ cruc ifying Him afresh .
”T h e
pol ice justices and highest pol iticians , successors t o pretorium andempire
,who stand before t h e people as represen tatives of govern
ment ; ministers in churches and teachers in college and uni vers ity, successors t o t h e function o f scribe and Pharisee
,w e it is ,
w h o,un less w e are true and brave and faith ful t o all t h e people ,
whose servan ts w e are ; unles s w e are ready f or t h e great privilegeof sacrifice o f ourselves or our class- no t neces sarily the sacrifice
MR. ERNEST H . CROSBY. 1 1 1
of loss,which were easy, but even for th e sacrifice of service and
use, w hi ch is immeasurably harder ; un less w e, set to save, can see
t h e power and t h e beauty and th e glory of th e Messian ic attitudetoward our high calling under God ; unless w e are an oin ted, whichby interpretation is christen ed
,Chris t-ed, —w e shall in t h e end
come to some judgment day when our shameful sin will stand discl osed . That day of revealing may not lie beyond this life, butmay speedi ly come .
But Peace ; come away !”
L et us gird ourselves f or our taskin h Ope ; h Ope because God has never lacked those t o j oin hi scause, even when that cause involved some Calvary
,if on ly th e
call be clear and high . We cannot but bel ieve, as w e lookbroadly at t h e movemen ts of thought and course of events
,that
a republic is t h e ideal form of human society, because on ly so canthere be a realized f amilydom of G od . Not God t h e King in a
kingdom,but God th e father in a fami ly con stituted of th e un i
versal brotherhood of man,must be t h e social embodimen t of t h e
Christian spirit .It seems to me that Jesus sought to found th e ideal condition of
human life, to be realized in an ideal state, infi nitely more than tofoun d any church . Life h e taught
,larger concept than either
church or s tate, in a un iversal human society, in which th e one
all-in cluding law of love Shall reign . This is for th e Jew fulfill
ment ; of all rel igions and all rel igion goal ; for t h e Christian realizat ion . It is t h e dream of poets of every time and clime
,th e
vision of every seer ; t h e actualization of every prOph et ic voice’s
cal l—whenMen
,th e world o’
er,
Shall brothers be .
”
DISCUSSION .
MR . ERN EST H . CROSBY, N EW YORK.
1 am s o accustomed on occasion s o f this kin d n ot t o have as muchtime as I wan t that I was particularly careful in makin g preparationf or my ex temporan eous remarks thi s even ing, t o have them occupyt h e space Of t en minutes, which I was to ld would b e allotted to m e .
N OW I am to ld I have t o speak twen ty-five minute s, s o if my remarksare n ot quite as so lemn as they might be , y ou will un derstan d t h e
reason . I doubt my power to speak on t h e subject twen ty-five m inute s, having prepared on ly f or t en minute s. It i s still more diffi cultbecause there is n othing really left f or m e t o say, but “ Amen
” t o
both t h e addre sses y ou have listen ed t o .
If I were a detective an d were asked by my chief t o apprehen dt h e ringleaders o f t h e dangerous classe s in t h e R epublic
,I would
n ot go t o t h e Ten derlo in district ; I would n o t go t o t h e Bowery or
t h e East Side ; I would n ot go t o t h e almshouse or t h e in san e asylum ,
or Blackwe ll’s Island . I would n ot even go t o Po lice headquarters. I th ink I should station myse lf , Or Should have station edm yself, at t h e door Of t h e Chamber o f Commerce dinn er last n ight.Or s till better, I think I Should have put myse lf on t h e curb-ston e ,
1 1 2 DAN GEROUS CLASSES I N A REPUBLIC.
t w o weeks ago , at t h e sound-money parade . I be lieve I should haveh ad an Opportun ity there o f finding at least some o f t h e m en , w h o .
quite innocen tly and ignoran tly, I assume , are really t h e leaders o f
t h e classe s that are mo st dangerous in a republic . I take it, as t h eo ther speakers have this even ing, that t h e dangerous classes in arepublic are tho se that are dangerous to t h e Republic . Lun atics an d
paupers an d ordin ary crimin als are dangerous in all kinds o f n ation s,an d n ot very dangerous at that. I d o n o t kn ow whether it evero ccurred t o y ou, but an ordinary crime is almo st as good as asermon . It shocks everybody . It make s them really better. I kn owwhen I s ee a m an humpbacked an d ben t over, it always makes m e
stan d up straighter, take in a good breath , an d t ry t o have a bett erfigure than I had be fore . Y ou read about an ordinary, vile murder.
It is t h e best kind o f sermon again st murder that could be preached .
T h e crimes dangerous t o a republic or any o ther coun try are tho sewhich t h e great mass o f people applaud . Tho se are t h e dangerouscrimes .N ow what is t h e danger t o t h e Republic ? Y ou have been told
already, in t h e words O f that most con servative m an , i n many ways ,at any rate , Pro fessor Sumn er o f Yale Co llege . It is t h e conflict o f
pluto cracy with democracy. T h e dan ger to this coun try is p lu
t ocracy . I d o n o t thin k w e fee l that f act as deeply as w e Should .
I have go t some figure s here—O n ly a f ew —from Dr. Spah r’s
book on T h e D istribution o f Wealth .
” On e p er cen t. o f t h e familiesin this coun try ow n more than half o f t h e wealth . Suppo seBen jam in Franklin were here t o—n ight, or Thomas Jeff erson ,
an d h e were to ld that. What would w e expect t o hear from him ?Is that n o danger t o t h e Republic ? Seven -e ighths o f t h e families inthis coun try ( think what a. mass that i s ! ) h old on ly on e-e ighth Of t h ewealth . An d I kn ow perfectly we ll that that con dition o f things isgetting more an d more accen tuate d every year. T h e showing twen tyyears ago would have been infin ite ly better. W e kn ow t h e accumulation Of wealth is go ing on by leaps an d bounds. Every year it b ecome s concen trated in larger sums an d in f ewer han ds. It is no t
n ecessary t o prove that t h e poor are growing poorer. I d o n o t suppose that is t h e fact. T h e fac t is that an aristo crac y o f extreme lypowerful and rich people is growi ng up . Do w e wan t such an aristo cracy ? Our an cestors did n o t . They fought in Englan d an d in
thi s coun try f or hun dreds o f years , from t h e time o f King Johnperhaps even be fore that—f or t h e purpo se o f securing a cert aindegree o f liberty an d power an d equality f or themse lves and eachindividual among themse lves . I kn ow some people w h o argue n ow
that all w e wan t is pro sperity. W e d o n ot care h ow it come s . W e
would like t o have it trickling down f rom t h e strong box o f some
body up above us . I d o n o t be lieve in that kin d o f pro sperity. Iwould rather have a dollar a day as a freeman than five do llars aday as anybod y e lse ’s hen chman . That i s t h e true Anglo-Saxo ns irit.pAn o t h er strange idea that pe ople have g o t in to the ir minds is that
t h e Anglo -Saxon s g o t the ir great fame an d reputation by taking awayt h e rights o f other people . This is n o t s o . They go t the ir great fame
by standing up f or the ir ow n rights . It i s on ly in this way that w e
can keep up t h e reputation o f t h e Anglo-Saxon race . As soon aspeople begin t o take away t h e rights o f other people they beg in t o
lo se the ir ow n . W e are in very serious danger o f be ing caught in thisvulgar kin d Of trap . I wan t to spend a little time t o Show you thatw e have some righ t s that w e d o n o t e njoy, that w e ough t to standup f or quite as vigorously as our an ce stors did f or the irs .L e t us study a little t h e me thods by which these ac cumulatio n s
o f wealth are brought together. I n almost every case y ou Wi ll s e e
th at they ari se from a mo n opo ly created by law ; that they are arti
1 1 4 DAN GEROUS CLASSES IN A REPUBLIC .
t h e invento r, a l t h ough t h e paten t law n ever do es reward t h e in
ven t or ; it reward s s omebody w h o has alread y clean ed t h e inven torout . Still t h e idea i s a very good on e . But h ow i s it with t h e te lephon e monopo ly ? I t ought t o have run out a year ago . Why didn ’tit run out ? Why is it that it h as some fift e en o r twe n ty years more
t o run ? Because some complian t clerk i n t h e Paten t Office failed t oput some paper on record , SO that t h e fifte en o r twenty years n everbegan t o run at all un til about a year ago . T h e Be ll Te lephon eCompany has g ot t h e mon opo ly n ow f or a great many more years .It is a fraud from t h e word go .
Take a familiar kin d o f land mon opo ly, which con ce rn s t h e use o f
our public streets. If I had t h e t ime I could spe nd a hal f hour on
that subject alon e . T h e gas compan ie s using our stre ets charge p erf ect ly extortion ate rate s . N obody can compete with them . It is t h esame with t h e tro lley lin e s,—with thi s Fourth Avenue tro lley lin et hat goe s by this door ; f or this part Of t h e lin e it doe s n o t pay an ything to anybody un der t h e sun
,an d f or t h e rest o f it very little . I
wen t w ith o thers t o Albany a couple o f years ago to work in favoro f t h e Corporation Fran chise Act, whi ch simply requires that the secorporation s ( in cluding gas compan ie s, tro lley-lin e compan ie s , an d
others ) that us e our stree ts should pay on t he ir watered stock—the ircapita l which they have n ever paid f or—should pay t h e same t ax
that y ou an d I pay on our person al property. I h ad n o t t h e remote stidea that t h e bill would ever pass . That is t h e kin d o f bill I generally go up about. But I wen t up t o appear before t h e Sen atean d t h e Assembly Committee , kn owing they wouldn ’t pay any atte ntion t o m e . T h e bill n ever would have passed , if it h ad n o t been f or
Govern or Roo seve lt. It was a. piece o f common decen cy an d hon e sty,but it n ever would have passed if it h ad n o t been f or Governor Roo seve lt an d Senator Ford , w h o took some in terest in it. T o my mind , itwas by f ar t h e fin est thing that Govern or Ro o seve lt ever did . Iwonder h e n ever talks about it.Our an ce stors made a little trouble on e hun dred an d twen ty years
ago about a little tiny tuppenny t ax on t ea . I don ’t suppose anybodywould have ever fe lt it in t h e world . I t was almo st a ridiculous thingt o say anything about. But they d id n o t be lieve i n t h e prin ciple Oftaxation without repre sen tation . I w on d er h ow long Sam Ad ams o r
Ben jamin Frank lin would have paid five cen ts f or a three -ce n t ridein on e o f our street cars , an d hung on by t h e strap when they hadpaid f or a seat without tryi ng to g e t up some kin d O f an un p arlia
men tary disturban ce .
T h e Metropo litan Traction Company h as at least eighty million so f watered stock, on which I un dersta n d it pays seven p er cen t. ; thatis
, on a value which w e have given them , an d f or which they n everpaid a cen t. I S n o t this taxation w i th out repre sen tation ? It i s t h esame w ay with t h e ga s compan ie s an d other compan ie s .
I remember some years ag o looking in to t h e Bro oklyn Trolley Company. I am n o t very go od o n sta t istics . but y ou can take what Isay as be ing true in a gen era l way . which is more than you can sayo f mo st people . I t is no t very fre sh i n m y memory , but I think t h e
real value o f this company ’s plan t . som e years ag o , wasthough it w as capita l ized
,I think . a t The n there was a
little , on e-mi l e -lo ng company i n Mo nta g ue Street, w hich w as capit aliz ed at T o thi s they lease d t h e who l e o f t h e re st o f t h e
system—I don ’t h ow many mile s—but t h e l ittle Mon tag ue Stree tCompany to ok t h e who le . Then they we n t d own t o We st V irg ini aand organ ized a company there . an d that company bought theseshare s, amoun ting t o o f t h e Mon ta g ue Stre e t lin e . which h adalread y leased al l t h e o the r tro lley lin e s o f Bro okly n . Y ou d o n
’t nud ers tand it ? I d o n 't understand it myse l f . I t i s l ike t h e thre e -cardm onte game a t Coney Island , N ow you see it, an d n ow y ou d o n
’t."
MR. R RN Rs'
r R . CROSBY. 1 1 5
Y ou n ever put your finger on t h e right card . They wan te d to mi x
up t h e who le busin e ss s o that n obody would know h ow much it co st,in order that they might make 20, 50, 1 00 per cen t. in dividen ds, an d
n obody b e t h e wiser. That give s y ou a little idea o f h ow the sethings are don e . Water i s a very pretty word . Watered sto ck .
Doe sn ’t that soun d n ice ? T h e o n ly water about watered stock is t h e
sweat o f other people ’s brows . That is all there i s o f it. Y ou cann otg e t mon ey without earn ing it, un less somebody e lse earn s it withoutge tting it
,an d all o f y ou pious people w h o ge t dividen ds in t h e
Metropo litan Company every three mon ths or s ix mon ths are simply,in many case s, taking away t h e reward o f somebo dy e lse ’s labor.
Y oumay say, Wh at shall w e d o about it? But that is t h e fact. Thatis t h e way in which t h e great mon opo listic busin esse s o f our coun tryare built up . F or that reason I say t h e mon opo lists con stitut e t h e
really dangerous class in thi s coun try . I would like t o te ll a littlesto ry about a. tro lley company, t o show h ow great mon opo list s treatt h e common laboring m an . Laboring m en have great confiden ce inlegislation . They g ot a bill pas sed that n o railway compan y in N ew
York and Brooklyn should eaact more than t en hours’ work a dayf rom its employee s . T h e trolley line s in Brooklyn , like almo st everyother lin e in t h e city, paid no atten tion to t h e law . T h e m en had towork f or e leven hours or e leven hours an d a half—i t made n o diff eren ce h ow long. T h e employee s in Brooklyn determin ed t o test thatquestion an d have it perfectly clear. They wen t before Judge Moore
o f t h e Coun ty Court in Brook lyn , an d said , See here , w e wan t t h edire ctors o f this company arre sted an d fin ed , because t h e law saysthey shan ’t exact more than t e n hours ’ labor a day from the ir m en ,
an d they are exacting e leven hours ’ labor from them .
” Judge Moore
ren dered a decision in which h e ruled t h e case out on t h e groun dthat t h e company did n o t exact more than t en hours a day, becauset he men w ere at libert y to go anyw here else t o w ork i f t h ey w an ted to.
T hat was his decision . Do w e won der that there i s some fee lingag ain st courts an d t h e dire cto rs o f compan ie s under such circumstan ce s ?There is n o en d t o this taking o f t h e public resources o f t h e Stat e
an d using them as private property. W e have seen h ow t h e RamapoCompany tried t o g e t po sse ssion o f all t h e rivers an d lakes in thisState . W e have seen a company, in fact, formed t o take po sse ssiono f N iagara Falls, an d us e that tremen dous power. On ce g e t a cor
p orat ion t o water its stock with N iagara Falls , an d I don ’t ex actlykn ow where t h e system is go ing t o en d .
How are w e go ing to put an en d t o t h e ex i sten ce o f dangers o f
this ki n d ? N o t by pun ishin g people f or do in g what mo st o f us
would d o un der t h e same circumstan ce s , but by do in g all w e can t o
put be f ore t h e people a n ew ideal, an d by legislation makin g it impossible f or people t o succeed in ro llin g up wealth in this way . Ifw e could t ax t h e un earn ed in cremen t out o f t h e lan d , if w e could t axt h e water out o f stock , it se ems t o m e that would b e a beg in n ing int h e right direction . F ar more importan t, if w e could ho ld up t h e
ideal that t o b e hon e st an d hon orable a m an must have on ly what h eearn s , an d n othing more . If w e could on ce preach some such idealas that, I think w e should fin d that w e were advan cing in t h e rightdirection . Our busin e ss ideal n ow is, G et all y ou can f or n othin g.
T h e more y ou can g et f or n othing t h e more succe ssful y ou are . Thatshould b e replaced by th e idea l o f on ly getting what w e are h on
es t ly en titled t o . I f my work is wort h a year, le t m e haveit ; but don ’t make it po ssible f or m e t o succeed in getting anythingoutside o f that As lon g as t h e Wall Street ideal, Grab all
y ou can g et ,” is t h e n ation al idea], just so long w e are go ing to have
t h e great problem o f t h e mon opo list class an d t h e pauper class . Iti s n o t a mere coin ciden ce that Wall Street an d Tammany Hall are in
1 1 6 RELIGION V ITAL TO DEMOCRACY.
t h e same city. T h e t w o things go toge t her. Wall Street is t h e princ ipal seat Of t h e disease o f making mon ey at t h e expen se o f otherpeople . Fourteen th Street is n o thing but a bo i l on t h e surface . Its eems more un sightly
,but it mere ly shows that t h e o ther thing ex i st s
ben eath t h e surface .
L e t us d o what w e can t o raise up another ideal . Mo st Of us are
t oo old to undertake t o apply it in our ow n live s ; but le t us showthat w e think t h e proper thing f or people t o d o is t o confin e thems e lve s t o the ir ow n earn ings , an d n o t make it t h e great Object o f
the ir lives t o g e t away t h e earn ings o f o ther people .
VIII . RELIGION VITAL TO DEMOCRACY.
REV. WASH I N G T ON G LADDEN, D . D .
,COLUMBUS, OHI O .
T h e Opinion is not n ew that religion holds a vital relation to all
good government . T h e Hebrew Scriptures make this truthcentral, but it is not peculiar to them . A city,
” says Plutarch,“ might more easily be foun ded without territory than a statewithout a belief in God .
” Memorable, also, are th e firs t words ofPlato’s great work upon T h e Laws .” They are spoken in dial ogue by three men who are walking in Crete on a summer’ s dayto the cave and temple of Zeus :
Athenian : Tel l me,Stranger, is God or a man supposed to be
t h e author of your laws ?Clein ias : God, Stranger ; in t h e truest sense they may be said
to be th e work Of God ; among us Cretans the author of them hasbeen supposed to be Zeus ; but in Lacedaemon, as our L acedaemonian friend wil l tell you, they say that Apollo is their lawgiver .
“ Athenian : And do you bel ieve, as Homer says, that Minoswen t
,every ninth year, to convers e with his Athenian sire, and
made laws for your cities in accordance with his sacred words ?Clein ias : Y es
,that is our tradition .
”
I n“T h e Republic , also
,it will be remembered that Plato,
while mercilessly wielding th e scalpel of the higher criticism upont h e Homeric tales
, yet strongly main tain s that t h e true knowledgeo f t h e true God is an essen tial element in th e education by whichth e c itizen is prepared f or th e service Of th e state .
Whatever may be t h e form Of th e state, therefore, it has longbeen assumed that rel igion lies at its foundation . T he powersth at be,
” says Paul,
are ordained of God ; there is no power buto f G od .
” That was ann ounced as th e Christian doctrine of governmen t in t he days when Nero was Emperor at Rome .
“ Man,
” said Aristotle ,“ is a pol itical an imal . ”
T he instin ctswith which h e i s endowed create pol itical society, and establishsome measure of order and subordination . In responding tothese natural impulses h e is , in some d im way, obeying his Creator,and there is, therefore, a religious element in the rudes t and wors t
1 1 8 RELIGION V I T AL TO DEMOCRACY.
uncon stitutional movemen ts, and exposes th e state to t h e uttermost insecurity and con fusion . It is to be considered
,therefore
,
a theory Of anarchy rather than a political doctrin e .
”
It is thus eviden t that a purely man-made governmen t, whetherit be monarchy or democracy, lacks th e prin ciple Of unity and perman ence . Something deeper and stronger than t h e human willmust hold t h e state together or i t wil l soon fall in to fragments .W e have had something too much of this atomistic philosophy inall our national politics . While it was not t h e impelling cause of
t h e secession of t h e Southern States,it furn ished t h e logical justi
ficat ion for that secession . It cost this n ation a mi llion lives andseveral billion s Of treasure to stamp it out . T h e expendi ture w asnot extravagant if only w e have learn ed that th e bon d of a nation’sl ife i s somethin g stronger than t h e consenting wills Of its individual citizens .T h e recognition o f this deeper relation ship is essential to t h e
welfare Of all forms of political society, but more imperative in ademocracy than in any other form Of th e state . Under amonarchy t h e unity of t h e people is symbolized by a hereditarydynasty ; in a republic there is no such visible sign Of th e bondthat holds t ogether th e generations . T h e Queen Of Englandrepresents to all h er subjects a thousan d years of history ; t h eblood of Alfred and th e Saxons
,Of William and th e Norman s
,Of
Plantagenet and T udor and Stuart and Hanoverian is flowing inh er veins . T h e nation over which sh e rules is th e same nation thatwas ruled by Edward th e Con fessor and all th e Edwards, by HenryBeauclerc and all t h e Hen rys ; it is th e England Of Crecy and P oictiers and Trafalgar and Waterloo
,and t h e Queen is a living wit
ness to its un ity . N O wonder that h er personality is a spell t oconjure with ; loyalty to h er is a kind o f religion .
In a democracy such symbols are absent, and there is all th emore need of th e recogni tion of th e deeper and more sacred bondwhich binds all peoples together . For that bond exists ; it is t h efundamental fact Of our n ational life, and w e ought to ow n it andrej oice in it . We have not in America t h e l iving emblem Of our
unity, but w e have th e spiritual fact, and it i s needful that w e
should get acquain ted with that . There i s no hereditary dynastyto which our loyalty may cling, but there is an inner principle of
unity—a law written upon t h e heart of th e n ation whose authori tyw e must neither gain say nor ignore . For Elisha Mulford ’s wordsare true :
T h e origin Of t h e n ation i s n ot in t h e will of th e indi vidual ,nor in t h e will of th e whole, but in th e higher will w ithout whicht h e whole can have no being, and its continui ty is n o t in t h e
changing in terest Of men,but in t he vocation which in a widen ing
purpose from th e fathers t o th e children j oin s th e generation s o fmen
,and i ts un ity is not in t h e concurrent choice Of a certain
number of men , but in th e Divine purpose in history which bringst o one end th e unnumbered deeds Of unnumbered men .
”
RRv. WASH INGTON GLADDEN, D. D . 1 1 9
T h e evolutionary philosophy enables us to grasp and hold,as
never before, t h e truth of th e D ivine immanen ce . T h e fact thatGod is in this world is becomi ng visible to many thoughtful men ;
t h e vast s ignifican ce which is thus given to t h e whole Of n atureand l ife w e are beginning dimly to discern . But th e truth thatt h e con structive elements Of political society are divin e elements ;that t h e social order not less than th e natural order is t h e out
working Of t he Divine purpose ; that in t h e state as well as in th eplant there is a stream o f tenden cy by which it strives to fulfillt h e law Of i ts being—this is a truth Of which w e have not
,as yet ,
made much accoun t . Our doctrin e of political society is largelyd eistical . Its G od is wholly external to th e machi ne—one who,in Carlyle’s phrase, having woun d up t h e un iverse, contents Himself with sitting on t h e outside Of it and seeing it go . T hat Hehas any practical or vital relation to th e ad airs o f human governmen t is n ot con ceived by many American s .T h e mon arch is apt at least to feign that h e reign s by th e will
o f God . With some Of them n o doubt it is more than feigning ;th e Emperor of Germany, erratic as his conduct Often seems
,is
clearly possessed by t h e conviction that h e has no power that doesnot come t o him from God and that his business is to know God’swill and do it . T h e only trouble in this case is a misgiving thatt h e organ Of revelation may be defective ; that there may be errorin discern ing th e wi ll Of G od ; that th e royal in terpreter of t h eDivine decrees sometimes sees, as in a blurred mi rror, dimly, t h epurposes Of th e Most High . That difficulty always exists
,under
all forms of governmen t . Moses made mistakes—serious andfatal on es—and so did Samuel and David—in spired int erpreterst hough they were supposed to be
,Of th e Divine w il l . We have
n o warrant f or bel ieving that any indi vidual mon arch or lawgiverwil l be infallible . Y et it is th e right thing for every man onwhom such responsibility falls to recogni ze th e Source Of all sovereign ty and righteous rule, and to seek to kn ow His will and toconform to it . T h e Emperor Of Germany is perfectly right inhis theory ; and while h e may Often blun der sadly in his attemptsto re-enact and enforce th e law of God
, yet there is more hopefor th e governmen t o f a monarch who is actuated by this sincerepurpose than for that Of a republic which has no sen se Of anyD ivine vocation
,and which assum es that there is no authority
s ave that which resides in individual human wills,and in such
compacts as they may choose to form . T h e people, like th e
mon arch,may err in their interpretation Of th e will of God, but it
is w oe to them if they do not care to know it . F or a devoutmonarchy there is s ome hope ; for an atheistic democracy there isnone .
I S it fair t o speak Of American democracy as atheistic ? N O
loyal American would make any such accusation . In their originour in stitution s were fundamen tally rel igious ; t h e Colon ies, inmany cases, were theocracies, rather than democracies . Nor has
1 20 RELIGION vI T AL T o DEMOCRACY.
t he idea Of some D ivine supervision of our affairs ever whollyforsaken th e thoughts o f t h e people. But th e con ception of t h erelati on o f G od to th e concern s of th e state has probably beenthat Of occasional or frequent interpositions t o reward us f or our
good deeds or t o pun ish f or our transgres sions . T h e business ofgovernment, l ike t h e greater part Of our concern s, has been re
garded as belonging in t h e secular realm ; and t h e secular realm isunder th e Operation of n atural law
,that is
,the law Of competition
,
th e law Of t h e strongest . Authority is derived from human volition, and where human wills do not agree, they must be counted,and t h e authority given to th e majority . This i s t h e workingtheory of our democracy ; w e do not, in practice, look beyond th ewill Of t h e individual voter ; w e assume that he is t h e final depository Of power . Governments,
”w e say
,derive their just
powers from th e consent Of t he governed .
” This is our practicalinterpretation of our political sovereignty and political Obligation .
We are not theoretical atheists,but there i s not much room f or
G od in our politics any more than in business . Indeed th e prevalent notion is that politics and rel igion are separate realms, andthat it is not only unseemly, but positively mischievous, to try tounite them . For any abiding sen se Of th e presence Of God in ourpolitical life, or of t h e n eed Of kn owing His will and working withHim,
w e search in vain through current politics . There is,there
fore,w e mus t sorrowfully confess, a great deal Of practical atheism
in t he prevailing conceptions Of t h e American people respectingtheir political affairs . Evidence Of this may be seen :
( 1 ) In t h e emphasis placed upon t h e suffrage and citizenship asa right rather than a duty. That i s th e idea which is alwaysuppermost in all our political discussions . T he suffrage is calledth e elective franchise—and th e thought is always fixed upon it asa personal possession or privilege . What is mine by right I mayuse as I please ; if I fail to use it, i t i s nobody
’s concern but mine ;I may dispose Of it for my own advantage ; i t i s not far to th e conelusion that I may sel l it
,if there i s a market. Precisely th e same
thing is true, of course, Of Official fun ctions . T he right to holdoffice is easily interpreted as th e right to use th e power which theoffice gives me for my own emolument . T h e emphasis placedupon citizenship as a right thus leads by a straight path t o th ecorruption and bribery by which our governments Of all gradesare now s o sadly vitiated .
T h e entire conception is fundamentally defective , and it arises,as wi l l be seen at once, from the failure to recogn ize t h e D ivineagency in th e structure of the state . If G od i s th e real Ruler ofall nations
,if t he fi rst principle of political wisdom is to find out
His will and do it, then the sufl'
ragc i s not primarily a right, buta duty
,and citizen ship is not a franchise, but a trust for the
exercise o f which I am directly responsible to Him .
(2) Another evidence o f this practical atheism is the growinglack Of respect for law . N o one can deny that this is among the
1 22 RELIGION V ITAL TO DEMOCRACY .
fossor Giddings , begin with liberty, irrespective Of fraternity,
and expect that liberty will then develop into fraternity andequality. It is more likely to develop into t h e widest inequal ityand burning hatreds . If
,however, w e first have frat ernity, w e
can also have liberty. Men wh o are l ike-minded can live together on a basis of mutual agreements without any coercivepower above them to keep them in order . Men of diff eringnationalities and faiths
,if also of discordant minds
,can l ive and
work together for a common purpose only when a coercive powermain tain s order among them . Fraternity
,then, must be ante
ceden t to liberty and not liberty to fratern ity,if liberty and fra
t erni ty are to coexist .”
Now it is manifest that t h e growth Of mon opoly is th e deni alof fraterni ty ; and those who have ceased to bel ieve in th e brotherhood of man give t h e clearest evidence that they do n ot bel ievein th e fatherhood Of God . He that loveth not his brother whomh e hath seen cannot love God whom h e hath not seen .
”
T h e tendencies which I have pointed out show us what losses ademocracy suffers and to what dangers it exposes itself when i tfails to recognize in its practical affairs th e rel igious truths onwhich its life is founded . And they also suggest to us by con
trast what gain s might come to this n ation if only th e greattruths Of religion were recognized as vital elemen ts of its lif e .
Wh at a change would pas s upon all our civic l ife if through th erecognition of God in th e national l ife w e should come to thinkof citizen ship and Off ice-holder, not as personal rights, but as
duties owed by us t o‘
G od in t h e building up Of His Kingdom onth e earth ! And what a sen se of th e sacredness of law would takepossess ion of t h e hearts of t h e people, if legislators understoodthat their bus iness was to discern God’s purposes and shape theirstatutes, as nearly as they could, in accordan ce with them ; and ift he people felt that these laws were attempts to express , howeverimperfectly
,in human words th e Eternal Reas on ! And what a
great peace would fall upon t h e stormy deep of partisan politicsif men on ly felt that God is here, fulfilling His great purposes inth e ongoings of our political l ife, even making t h e wrath of man
to praise Him,and using now,
as He has always used, imperfectmen to accomplish His great design s ! Above all, what a new
sense Of t h e essential significance of democratic government wouldtake possession Of th e minds Of th e people, if they could see thatit is simply t h e logical expression of t h e doctrine of th e D ivineFatherhood and th e human brotherhood ; and that thus t h e verycorner stone of democracy is religion !If
,as Professor Giddings so strongly says, fraternity rather
than liberty is th e primary fact of democracy, then democracymust have its basis in religion ; for it is absurd to talk aboutbrotherhood where there i s no Fatherhood . How can all men be
brothers un less they have a common Father, and h ow can theyseparate their fraternal love from their fil ial reverence ? All talk
REV. WASH INGTON GLADDEN, D . D. 1 23
o f fraterni ty which den ies or ignores th e Eternal Fatherhood iscant or hypocrisy. If love is not th e heart of t h e un iverse, allsuch terms are meaningless .It is eviden t that t h e recognition of these truths as fun da
m ental in governmental scien ce would result in revolutioniz ingour customary ways of thinking about political affairs .
"
And itis n ot less eviden t that such a radical change of thought is neededif democracy is to be saved from disin tegration . T h e atomi sticphilosophy has introduced into our pol itical life th e seeds of di ss olution ; i t is time that w e were seeking for con ception s morecon structive .
It may be asked whether th e tradi tional dread Of th e uni on ofchurch and state i s a groun dless fear ; if there is n ot danger hereagainst which w e should be on our guard . Y es
,there is danger in
all alliances between political and ecclesiastical in stitutions .What might be true if t h e Church were on e
,I cann ot tell
,but
t here is no ecclesiasticism on earth to-day which is n ot a meref ragment—a sect ; none which represen ts t h e spiritual side Of th e
Kingdom of God. And it is eviden t that th e state can have nothing to do with any of these conten ding sects . T hey make ford ivision rather than uni ty ; th e state cann ot recogni ze any Of
them . It is not ecclesias ticism or sectarianism which is vital tot h e state ; it is rel igion—th e spiritual facts which underlie all th e
c reeds .“As a mere economic formula
,says Richard Wh iting, de
mocracy mus t ever fade Off in to Bellamy visions of a glorifiedP oughkeepsie with superior drains . T h e undergroun d system oft h e human being is t h e thing that w e mus t first set right . With~out rel igion
,how is man
,t h e essen tially rel igious animal
,to face
t h e most tremendous of all problems—social jus tice ? ReligionGuyan ’s n atural in tern al energy for all good coming straightfrom th e heart of all being and translating itself into action by itsown exuberance of vitality—is his breath of life . Such progressas he has made has ever been in accordan ce with such rel igion ash e h as had . Poor as they may have been, they have been ade! quate in their hour
, and this scien ce moves by experiment, like th erest . What is essential in it is what has least changed : Love,justice, brotherhood—ever the voice has whispered these or proclaimed them in trumpet tones . Only th e systems are t h e thingsthat have had their day .
It is my profound belief that nothing but th e recogni tion oft hese truths, with th e change of mind which they must bring, wi lls ave our democracy from decay. Some power is needed to frontand overcome t h e influences which are now as-sailing t h e veryf oundation s of t h e state . I do not bel ieve that any help can come
f rom t h e economic motives to which w e are won t t o make appeal,o r from th e theories which mak e indi vidual rights and interestst h e source of social justice. There is nothing in all this to callf orth enthusiasm or to warrant sacrifi ce . There is nothing here
1 24 RELIGION V ITAL T o DEMOCRACY.
worth fighting and dying for. Something there must be in th e
appeal that t h e democracy makes to it s citizen s which is deeperthan self-in terest, and diviner than th e will of th e majority. Ifw e can bel ieve that I n t h e n ation
,n ot less truly than i n t h e indi
vidual,it Is God that worketh ; that there Is a Power n ot ourselves,
that makes for righteousness in t h e ongoings of t h e state ; thatthere i s a moral ideal toward which He is leading us and whi ch itis our business to discern and realize ; that thus, if w e are humbleand reverent and obedient to t h e Light that lighteth every man
,
w e may be cO-workers with God in t h e building of His Kingdomin th e world
,then there are motives t o be drawn from th e l ife of
'
t h e state that are higher than mere expedien cy, that appeal tofaith and imagination and sel f-devotion
,—to all t h e nobler pos e
sibilit ies of th e soul,—and are able to make men heroes,patriots,
martyrs for t h e comm onwealth . For such a n ation, surely, somewould even dare to die—not merely on th e battlefiel d fightingagains t an invading enemy
,but in t h e lists of c ivic duty resisting
t h e far more dangerous foes that lurk wi thin t h e hous ehold .
Until reform takes on th e essen tial characteristics of religionin its recogn ition of a “ mystery in t h e affairs of state,
” deeperthan t h e con sent of individual wills ; in its devotion to a moralideal
,as supreme above all momen tary choices, and in its willing
ness to sacrifice present gains for future well-being—there can
be no clear assurance of saving health to t h e nation .
1 26 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHOOL .
(6) T h e foundation of any true morality is th e recognition oft h e reality of moral laws which man has not made and cann otunmake, which are superior to and independen t of th e humanwi l l . D ivine laws, I call them . T h e public school
,if it is to make
lgoodcitizen s, must train boys and girls to be loyal to these di vine
aws .
These are t he principles for which I should con tend if it werepossible for me to be present with you on Thursday morni ng.
As it is, I s imply throw them out in concrete and con cise formfor free discussion .
With sincere regret that I am prevented from taking part inthat di scussion myself
,bel ieve me
,
Yours very truly,
LY MAN ABBOTT .
X . EDUCATION BY CHURCH AN D SCHOOL IN SOCIALRIGHTEOUSNESS .
HON . SIMEON E. BALDWI N,LL . D .
,N EW HAVEN , CON N .
T h e subject on which I have been asked to address you is onethat seems to invite s ome inquiry into th e fundamental notionsOf conduct .Social Righteousness ? Is there
,then , a righteousness which
is not social ? I think w e must admit that t h e Church, at least,of a former generation might have declared that there was . Itwas righteousness toward God at which men were to aim—toaim
,though it was hopeless of attainmen t . It was a personal,
indi vidual thing ; an affair largely Of th e mind and heart.Modern theology, if I mistake not
,looks upon righteousness
toward G od as invo lving ,perhaps as being, righteousness toward
our neighbor,and this neighbor is everyon e with whom w e come
into relation .
Social righteousness is not th e righteousn ess Of society, butthis righteousness Of its members toward each other .It is t h e more importan t, as a subject of inquiry, and Of prac
tice,because society itself proceeds on a different principle .
Every political communi ty, every organ ized governmentalsociety
,i s organ ized selfishn ess . It looks out for its own in
tercets first . It puts them above everything else .
You ow e your neighbor a just debt . Y ou ow e th e state , th ecounty
,the c ity, also a tax . This tax must be paid first . If you
do not pay it, you may be sent to jail, l ike a criminal . Y oumus t
HON . SIMEON E . BALDWIN,LL . D. 1 27
pay it, t o th e last dollar, though it exhausts your entire means,
and leaves you with n othing to meet youro th er obligations . Ifyou are thrown in to bankruptcy
,t h e same result follows . T h e
bankrupt court wil l order th e t ax paid, whatever other obligationsmay go unpaid .
Y ou have a house, dear as t h e residen ce of your father beforeyou . T h e state thinks that a street could be improved by sweepingyour house away . It must go . Y ouwill get what it con siders i t smon ey value, in deed ; but part with it you must . There is noroom for choice on your part ; no right of yourt o make a price.
T h e government is lookin g out for its own interest,and that
only.
This attitude of society toward i t s members is right . But iti s right on ly because society is somethin g which exists for th egood of all its members
,and it is selfish in their behalf . If it
were t o show favor to one,it would wrong th e rest . If it wai ves
a right, as to on e, it waives that in t h e enforcement of which all
t h e others have an in terest . It is a trustee ; and trustees cannotbe gen erous with trust fun ds .I regard this state selfishness. as inherent, and properly in
heren t,in t h e very idea of free governmen t . It is t h e condition
of th e only co-operation between its members which is pract ically possible.
Whatever industries may be nationalized,to use th e phrase
of t h e day, must be di rected and conducted, says Socialism,by th e
rule of monopoly. T h e government has long nationalized t h email service
,and to do it effectively it has made competition by
private en terprise a crimin al offen se . It h as long assumed th ecare and main ten an ce of hi ghways
,but t h e public complain
,and
justly, if it pays its laborers more than such m en can earn inother employments . If railroads are to be nation alized
,competi
tion must be excluded and th e direction vested in a f ew stronghands
,with high wages for th e men that run t h e business
,and
low wages, comparatively, for t h e men that run th e trains .Frederick Den ison Maurice was t h e head of th e l ittle band of
true-hearted Englishmen who,fifty years ago
,set out to reconst i
tute human society on t h e basis and in t h e name of ChristianSocialism . But what did h e mean by it ? To make co-Operation ,
in any n ew sen se, a fun damen tal law ? Far from it . He w as
seeking t o Christian ize socialism ; to dig down ben eath t h e sur
face,and find i t s roots . T h e friends and foes
,h e said
,of existin g
political society were at war because they started from t h e samevicious premi ses ; because they tacitly assumed it t o be based on
what w as conn ected with land,goods
,money
,labor—on subjects
of possession . Was it so ? N o,h e insisted . Human relation s
not on ly should be, but do lie, ben eath all these. It w as subetituting property relations for hum an relations as th e foun dation sof society that made it weak, and by glorifying things struck att h e dign ity of man .
1 28 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHOOL.
There is much in this critic ism of Maurice on modern politics .Patriarchal society, feudal society, th e social constitut ion ofJapan down to our own generation, avoided any such error . T h e
personal relation was th e controlling one. But was this principleadequate to respond to th e demands of advan cing civilization?Civilization makes property. It creates new property relations :new affections, therefore ; n ew motives
,new ideals . Loyalty to
a chief gives way to obedi ence to law . Is t h e new sen timent,after all, less noble than t h e old?But
,be this as it may, this quality of t h e modern state, this
organized selfishness of human government,which is as absolute
in a republic as under a despotism,is one which no individual
,no
man acting for himself can safely share .
It was a saying of t h e Hopkinsians of th e last cen tury, that alls in is selfishness . Whatever other poin ts they may have beenmistaken in
,there they were right . Society, as to those who
compose it, involves self-sacrifice . No member of it can liveunto himself, or die unto himself . Each is in some sort dependenton every other .In the beginnin gs of society, when th e family has grown into
a tribe,th e t ie of blood still binds all together . In t h e society
o f modern civilization this has disappeared, and some other motive to mutual good offices must be supplied . There is th e moreneed for it
,also
,because now th e laws of political scien ce and
political econ omy are better understood . They are pitiless laws .Inexorably
,silently, irresistibly, they drag down t h e weak and
ignorant, and elevate t h e wise and prudent . Inexorably, silently,irresistibly, they concentrate power and wealth in comparativelyf ew hands
,and divide th e community in to a small number of
employers and a large number of laborers .It is not impossible that th e day may come when what is now
t he dream of Socialism may be accomplished, and th e s tate bec ome again, what th e patriarchal chief once was, th e sole em
ployer and distributer of capital . If so,t h e state will still be
forganized selfishness, for on no other basis could it exist . Itmust treat all with an equal hand, and so to do it must showfavor
,be generous, to n one .
But as things are and will remain , in our day, knowledge andwealth and power will be in each community t h e possession of af ew individuals, free, in most respects, to enjoy them at their
p leasure, and to abuse them at their pleasure .
Social righteousness demands of these men to hold themselvestrustees of what God has thus given them—to recognize dutiesowed to their fell ow-c itizens beyond such as may be prescribedb law.yI t equally demands of the mass of th e people a loyal exercise
of their powers, such as they are, in t h e same spirit as a public
trust .“ Every man ’s l ife
,
” said Dr. Bushnel l , is a plan of God for
1 30 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHOOL.
To one who would thus bring social righteousn ess before h is .
pupils,next to th e N ew Testament, biography will, I think, he
t h e main rel ian ce ; poetry following closely after .F or t h e N ew Testament must come always first ; and of t h e
N ew Testamen t, t h e Four Gospel s, which give t h e story for whicht h e rest is l ittle but a gloss .He wh o Spake as n ever man spake kn ew how to teach . He .
kn ew how to frame t h e Simple parable that,with a f ew strong
touches, gives in a sen ten ce what a volume of elaborate moralscience could not adequately express . Who can ever forget th estory of t h e Good Samaritan ,
and th e lesson for him that standsout in every line of it . He h as been th e priest ; h e has been th eLevite ; h e perhaps has been th e robber ; but when ,
when can h esay that h e was th e Samaritan ,
doing good to those who despised him,
and doing it on t h e n atural impulse of unstudi ed‘
philanthropy ?We may not be able to teach th e N ew Testamen t in our public
schools . In some States their Con stitutions forbid it . I n allthere will always be scholars w h o would receive any instructionfrom that source with di slike and suspicion . To give it would '
strengthen also th e movemen t toward special parochial schools ;that is, toward separating one large class of American youthfrom th e rest.But teachers can refer to it and to its place in th e l iterature
of th e world, in a way that will send t h e intelligent boy to look .
at it for himsel f.In th e higher Stages of public education
,when freedom of elec
tion has been reached, it is, of course, easy to form classes for ‘
defin ite investigation into th e character and history of Christiandoctrine.
But it is time to turn to what th e Church, on e of whose special'
functions it is to give such teaching, can best do to make iteff ective in th e promotion of social righteousness .And here w e strike an element of weakness not met with in th e
school .T h e school, and by t h e school I mean all that stands for gen
eral public education, is familiar with t h e true prin ciples—or
what t h e times accept as t h e true principles—of political science '
and political econ omy . T h e pulpit—and by this I mean th e general body of ministers of religion, of all den omination s—t hepulpit is not .T h e train ing of th e min i stry un til recent years has been away
from such fields of study,and even in recent years th e courses '
in those subjects given or attempted in our theological seminarieshave been treated
,and perhaps justly
,as o f comparatively Slight
importance.
It may be th at our Protestant churches are in faul t for noth aving taken up earl ier this work of giving instruction in s ocial ?scien ce and Social ethics .
HON. SIMEON n . BALDWIN, LL. D. 1 3 1
I regard it as by no means impossible that social righteousness,on t h e basis of Christ’s teachings, may be a leading subject ofstudy in t h e Sunday-schools of th e comi ng cen tury. Many of
you, no doub t, have seen t h e thoughtful paper of ProfessorButler of Columbia on Religi ous In struction and it s Relationto Education
,
” read in this city last year, under t h e auspices oft h e Sun day—school Commission of t h e Episcopal diocese of N ew
York . Recognizing th e in ability of th e American state to teachreligion in its schools, h e in sists that th e churches must teach itin theirs
,and that th e Sunday school must be tran sformed into
something larger, with salaried teachers, and thorough coursesof education in subjects outside of those to which it now confinesit s attention, but hardly less importan t than they, to one whowould be a Christian citizen
,that is
,a Christian able to perform
hi s civic duties as a Christian should .
But , let us to-day look at things as they are, and ministers asthey are
,and congregation s as they are .
No topic should be th e subject of pulpit teaching,upon which
th e preacher is not wel l informed. No propositions,I will ven
ture to affirm, should be announ ced from t h e pulpit,as scien tifi c
truth,to which all intelligent and candid men in th e audience
cann ot be expected to give their assent .To apply this to th e case in hand
,let us take th e law of wages .
What regulates th e rate to be paid by each employer ? I s it th ecost of subsistence? Is it t h e amoun t of th e wages fund, at th etime? Is it th e law of supply and demand ? Is it to be fixed inbad times by each employer for himself
,according to h is mean s
,
at th e cost of his accumulated capital ; or in view of what otherspay, or sales will justify ?These are not new problems . It was John th e Baptist’s first
business to advise th e soldi ers of Herod whether to be contentwith their wages . He took up th e question from th e moral ratherthan t h e econ omic side. It w as t h e side h e kn ew most about.T h e pulpit always will know more of moral laws than of
economic laws . It does its best work, it seems to me, when it fol
lows th e example of Christ as a teacher,—and He had th e teacher’ s
art as no man h as had it before or since, —and lays down generalprinciples of righteousness, rather than precise rules of conductin particular cases .L et th e preacher, as th e teacher in school and college, strive
to throw what is best in him into his people. Part of his opportun ity l ies in th e pulpit—during an hour
,or half an hour a week .
Part of it is in th e long stretch of time between Sundays ; underno church roof ; in th e fami liar intercourse of man and man .
Which is th e greater part ? Which is th e better part ? I do notkn ow. For some men probably one ; for others, another . Butt his I know. No man can inculcate social righteousness to anyurpose, or with any practical eff ect, who does not keeph e bounds of h is kn owledge . He cann ot build without founda
1 32 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHOOL.
tions . He cannot influence unless h e deserves to influence . Ifh e talks to bus iness men about their business duties, to proi ess ioual men about their professional duties, h e speaks of subjectsof which he knows much less than they, save from a single pointof view—th e moral point—th e Christian poin t . T h e closer h ekeeps to that, t he surer h e will be to h it t h e mark .
In a word, th e prin ciples of social righteousness can be taught,must ever be taught by th e Church . Their particular applicationmay be made t h e subject of pastoral advice and counsel in part icular cases ; but rarely, if ever, of pulpit discourse .
These principles may be taught also in our schools,but it must
be then w ith reference t o t h e ethical rather than th e Christians tandpoint, and they will seldom be effectively taught exceptthrough t h e personal influence of an in spiring teacher, exertedless in the classroom than through the classroom,
less in what h esays to all than in what here one and there one hears betweent h e spoken words ; less in th e cold work of formal recitation orlecture, than in t h e freer intercourse of one of those chan ce conversat ions in street or house or playground
,which often serve to
shape a human life. Chan ce,shall w e call them? Rather let us
humbly own that do what man will to shape t h e times and seasonsto his ends
,what h e does best is often (may w e not say always ?)
done when h e does not know it ; done because it is t h e time ands eason appointed to that end by an all-knowing God .
Address .
PRESIDEN T JAMES M. T AYLOR,D . D .
,LL . D .
,VASSAR COLLEG E.
I must say wi th Judge Baldw in that I have had some difficultyin telling just what phase of this many-sided subject to consider,and I may say to you that I think I have prepared three differentaddresses upon this topic, and w as only saved from presenting toyou a consideration of th e possibilities of teaching religion in thestate schools, or rather of teaching morals in t h e state schoolswithout a definitely religious basis, by observing at a late moment that t h e programme committee had prepared another topicf or that very discussion . However, I am sure about certainphases of this question
,and upon those I shall proceed to speak .
T h e duty is perfectly clear, —th e duty of th e Church to teachand insis t upon th e principles of its faith ; th e duty of th e Christ ian school to emphasize t h e teachings of t he Church , and th eduty of th e state school to insist upon those principles of conduct which
,however ultimately grounded upon rel igious bases ,
have still a sufficiently proximate basis in t h e experience and re
quirement s of society . Whatever t h e Church and school succeedin giving of training to the young, intellectual or rel igious , theyfail in their high mission if they do not succeed in cul tivating a
1 34 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHOOL.
citing examples in this di rection and that, that seem to overthrowth e Special point one may make in a broad general ization . Y et
I venture to say that th e more w e examine th e spirit of our
generation ,t he more w e shall come to feel that this iron in t h e
blood has been lacking,that this in sistence upon downright law
and duty has been wanting . In one of his last essays Emersonsaid that this is an ungirt generation
,and said it
,I think
,with
truth . We have been seeking for happiness . We have been making pleasure t h e great aim of life . We must, forsooth, make l ifeagreeable
,as if it were not t h e teaching of scien ce and religion
and experien ce that t h e bes t life does n ot come out of easydrifting wi th events . We must make education pleasant to t h eyoung
,and while doubtless there has always been th e necessity
of doing just that,w e have been in danger, and are to-day in
danger,of taking out th e very core of its strength by striving
to make everythin g so Simple that th e strength which is cultivatedby overcoming difllcult ies is lost . Our l iterature and our art l ikewise are adapted too often to th e same receptive state of a mindthat is easily appealed to by th e n atural presen tation of passionor th e passionate presentation of nature, and w e fail to cultivate t h e positive
,aspiring spirit which deman ds in its literature
viril ity,and in its art
,soul
,and which seeks th e deeper truths
whi ch shall be a blessed tax upon its powers to discover andenjoy . I n our very religious life, even
,w e have become easy
,and
th e power of a congregation that can l isten for more than halfan hour to an intellectual presentation of th e basal t ruths of it sfaith is unusual . We need law in life. Life without it is invertebrate
,and social righteousn ess but a chan ce impulse. T he
growt h of moral forces in this world h as been a gradual emergence from impulse, a gradual overcoming of instin ct, th e masteryof Nature in stead of t h e following of Nature . No social righteousn ess was ever long main tained on a theory of utilitarianism,
or by any theory of life which makes happiness i t s chief aim,
and none ever will be saved by an emphatic teaching of t h emajesty o f duty and t h e inevitabil ity of moral law .
I wish to make a Single application of that truth before Ipass to another principle . Social unrighteousness in our own dayh as been largely cultivated—social unrigh teousness, mark youby th e sort of literature and art that w e have fostered, and by th ecultivation of a l iberty
,so-called, of t h e press, in regard to t h e
general publication of all th e vilest facts of th e world’s wholel ife . It is all along this line of least resistan ce
,th e expression of
t h e abounding lawlessness . If w e are ready to bring up our children in acquain tance with every form of vice
,if w e choose to
give to them a literature that familiarizes them with every kindof human passion ,
i f w e wish to cultivate in their minds th e ideathat human life i s mostly l ived along th e l ines of th e basaltemptations, if w e encourage an art which appeals to every Sen
suouS feel ing in th e name of real ism,if w e welcome into our
PRESIDENT JAMES M . T AY L OR, _D . D .
, LL. D. 1 35
homes and to th e reading of our households th e newspaperswhi ch abound in th e record of foulest crimes, and in th e fullestdescription of all these vilest passion s of t h e t ime —then w e neednot expect to advan ce our generation in social righteousness . Iam aware that much may be said for th e newspapers of America .
I read th e other day in a newspaper a defense of itself for publish ing t h e shocking detail s of one of t h e most shocking crimesof recen t weeks, and it was a defen se . I do not say a sufficien t def en se
,n or do I think it . But it was a defen se by a man
, I bel ieve,who mean t to do th e best toward his generation , from th e poin to f view of t h e newspaper . But in t h e last thirty years th e re
s traints have been swept away —swept away from our households,swept away from th e offices of t h e pres s, swept away from ourl iterature in very large measure—until upon th e tables of our
homes,in t h e hands of our youn g men and youn g women
,are
foun d books from which w e woul d have turned away a generationago, or which w e would n ever have dared to have open ly in our
possession . Now,this is one of th e most serious dangers to our
y outh, and it bears out what I have just said regarding th e relaxati on of this respect for law . We cannot bring up our children infamiliarity with such things and have growth in social righteousness . T h e first demand, therefore, in th e cultivation of Socialrighteousness by church and state is th e growth of that old spirito f respect for law
,and th e growth in our households of th e belief
that w e are bound to watch over t h e reading of t h e youn g, andt h e art which appeals to them
,and even
,if need be, to forbid
t heir indulgen ce in certain literature . I think most of us havecome to feel that it is rather dangerous interfering with th e
liberty of children,but I bel ieve that even here there may come a
reaction and w e may have a duty.
It may be but an extension of this that I cite as asecond general principle
,wi th which I must deal very
briefly,t h e necessity of maintaining one moral life
,one ethics
for public and private l ife . To my own mind this seemsextremely importan t. One may illustrate easily from anyc onven tional standard
,social
,professional
,comm ercial
,political .
We all know that there are certain standards, for example, inregard to minor matters in business life that business men wouldh ardly ven ture to apply to their private dealings . We know thati s true of profession al standards very Often . T h e instance thatstirs us all con tinually is
,of course, th e political standard—th e
standard, that is, which men take in relation to t h e state. Ifw e talk with practical politic ian s
,
”—and they are n ot so bad as
w e often picture them,but are men with conven tion al stan dards
on political matters, —they an swer your challenge as to lying orstealing (they are n ot called by those names , of course) , or libelousassertions regarding opponents
,with th e statemen t that pract i
cal politics ” must move along these lines , and w e are dealingw ith Simple, actual facts, and must deal with them as they are .
1 36 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHO OL .
Now,to my own mind it seems clear that, if w e are to develop
social righteousness, there must be a return in school and churchto a firmer insistence upon t h e Single ethical code for privateand public life
,and that w e shall do a large service in this di
rection if w e can say that a thief is a thief,whether h e steals
money for himself or whether h e steal s a State for his party, and aliar is a liar, whether h e l ies individually to an individual, or
for t h e sake of h is '
party to t h e coun try. Cato said it many,many centuries ago, T h e burgess who steal s a l oaf is sent t oj ail, and the burgess who steals a state gets glory and renown .
”
And there i s nothing new under th e sun ! T h e same fact ex
plains both,—th e possibility of a double con science, of two codes
of conduct, of two moral standards ; and if w e are to advancet h e cultivation of social righteousness w e must unify these two .
We must bring men to face th e fact that there is only one morallaw
,one righteousness, and one conscien ce.
I pass to a third principle. AS I have just remarked, w e are
all familiar with t h e convention s of life . If w e examine ourselvescarefully
,w e find that w e all come within th e circle of one or
another convention, commercial, political, social, professional . I t
is very hard to break through them by reason, especially as lifebecomes maturer, for what prejudi ce has fixed reason unfixes
with great difficulty . Nor is denun ciation very poten t . I doubtwhether w e accomplish much by denun ciation of curren t unrighteousness . Un questionably it is necessary, but n ot half so usefulas w e sometimes think . There is a better way .
Nothing so stimulates men to do their best,or so arouses them
to put under their feet t h e mean ,unworthy
,and sinful a s t he
pressing on th e heart of a high ideal . There i s a generous,broad
,optimistic Side to t h e l ife of this generation
,and t h e ideal
finds it. That has been th e strengt h,after all
,of every great
moral movemen t and every great religious movemen t . T h e
Christian religion has owed its power always and everywhere t othis exaltation of a personal ideal, never to its creeds, never t oits articles
,never to its formularies, never to its organized
churches,but to its power to hold up a life, absolutely human , yet
fleckless, flawless,Sinles s—that has been t h e power of the Chris
tian faith . That is th e power of every church to-day. LivingChristian ity i s its best message t o th e world . It i s men andwomen rather than their theories of education
,th e men and
women who use th e enginery of education,who leave their stamp
upon t h e characters of t h e coming men and women . It is t h eideal of a personal righteousness, pressed upon men
’s hearts un tilthey feel their own unrighteousness
,that lifts them and exalts
them,that makes them worthier to meet t h e demands of a
higher life, that crushes in them meann ess and unworthiness . Iknow of no better illustration in history of that truth than t h eevents which took place in England a century and a half ago .
Y ou remember those conditions in t h e middle of t h e eighteenth
1 38 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHO OL .
afte r t h e N ew Te stamen t, first biography, an d then poetry . Thatreminds m e o f a remark o f t h e great Maste r o f Ballio l , w h o said thatt h e time was coming when e thics would b e chiefly taught bybiography . An d n o on e can question t h e justice o f that observationw h o remembers w hat h e h as read o f t h e moral enthusiasm, t h e
moral in spiration , gen erated by that n oble book o f t h e an cien t world,that c lassic sti l l read amon g us ,
“ Plutarch ’s Live s . ” That is am ode l that w e n e ed to copy with such emen dation s an d enlargemen tsas this cen tury requires .With re feren ce t o on e or t w o observation s in t h e address o f Dr.
Taylor, I wish t o re late an in ciden t. T h e dual standard o f moralityh e justly an imadverted on . I have a. shameful as we l l as a con sp icu
ous illustration o f that aff orded by a. con versation , several years ag o ,
which a Sen ator o f t h e State o f N ew York had with R ev. Dr. Parkhurst o f this city. T h e Sen ator said to Dr. Parkhurst (an d I wish t osay, before I re late t h e con versation , that I re f erred t h e prin ted reportt o Dr. Parkhurst, an d asked him t o correct it where it was in correct ;I speak, therefore , f rom Dr. P ark hurs t
’s ow n revision o f t h e conversa o
tion ) ,“ We ll, t h e first que stion that arise s in my mind , when any
bill come s up f or con sideration in t h e Sen ate—an d I suppose it ist h e same with all t h e rest o f us in t h e Senate —i s
,How will my atti
tude t o this bill affect my po litical pro spects ? ”N ow t h e n a’
ivetewith which such a con fe ssion was made t o such a m an as Dr. Parkhurs t is a sufficien t illustration o f t h e seared con scien ce which thi sdouble standard o f morality produces . T h e Sen ator did n o t reflectthat h e took precise ly t h e same groun d that Ben edict Arn o ld tookin 1 7 7 7 , when h e wen t as f ar up t h e N orth R iver as there was at thattime any good position , an d took t h e be st that o ff ered on t h e rivera t We st Po in t. T h e que stion that pre sen ted itse lf before his min dwas, h ow his han dling o f that po st o f trust might aff ect him—mightaff ect his ow n material advan cemen t. He acted accordingly—as
cording to t h e views o f t h e base trai to r—an d so ld his coun try f orgo ld . T h e same treason f or which t h e American pe ople have coupledt h e n ame o f Ben edict Arn o ld with t h e n ame o f Judas , is comm ittedby every m an in public life w h o ac t s upon t h e prin ciple which t h e
Senato r con fessed t o Dr. Parkhurst was his prin ciple o f ac tion .
REV . JOHN L . SCUDDER, JERSEY CITY, N. J .
N o on e can look a t our industrial system t o-day without realizingthat there are many forms o f social unrighteousn e ss . Al l t h e in
dus t rial problems o f t h e ag e have a moral bearing ; therefore , everysocial problem has a right t o be discussed f rom t h e pulpit. I havebriefly jo tted down here a f ew o f the se so cial problems , an d will verybriefly in dicate the ir moral bearing.
Y ou are all aware that a n ew human right has come in to t h e world ,o r i s just emerging upon t h e h orizon o f human con sciousn ess ;n ame ly, t h e right t o labor. T h e m an w h o has n o opportun ity to
labo r become s des pon den t, sometime s indefin ite ly lazy , an d sometime splunge s in to d issipation . I t is certa in that every m an in this worldh as t h e right t o gain a living ; o r i f h e has n o t this right t o -day, h ewill have it in t h e n ear future . On e reason w h y h e doe s n o t have itt o -day i s that t h e wealthier class h ave acquired large ly t h e machineryo f t h e coun try , an d t h e us e o f this mach in ery inure s t o the ir ben efit.A manufacturer, f or e xample , h as fi ve hun d red hands . H e in troducesmachin e s in to h is factory that throw out o f employmen t a largenumber o f these han d s . They g o t o an other facto ry t o fi nd work ,
but can n o t g e t it, because o ther machin ery h as been in troduced there .
They n ece ssari ly fall into t h e vast army o f t h e un employed . N ow
t h e Government ought t o give every m an an opportun ity t o work at
REv. JOHN L . SCUDDER . 1 39
a min imum wage o f at lea st a day. I f that were don e , w e
would have n o more o f this patron age that come s in t h e f orm o f
c harity from t h e rich, who se wealth is acquired by securing a disproportion ate share o f t h e profits o f labo r. But h ow shall the segovernmen tal employees b e paid ? L e t t h e Governmen t tax t h e richm en , an d gather funds wherewith t o pay t h e po or m en . I f t h e richm en are taking more than the ir share o f t h e profit they shouldb e more heavily taxed .
But I have n o t time t o discuss this in tere sting an d urgen t question .
Suppo se w e look at an other social problem. Tho se w h o are s o f ortu
n ate as t o have some thing t o d o are n owadays work ing t oo long. Iread on ly a short time ag o that t h e Bohemian cigar-makers in thisc ity were workin g seven te en hours a d ay . What opportun ity has am an working at that rate f or se lf-improvemen t? T h e n atural resulto f such a lif e i s gravitation t o t h e saloon . HOW many children are
working t o -day w h o ought t o b e in schoo l ?Then , there is t h e evil o f overcrowding. It is we ll-n igh impo ssible
t o brin g up people with good morals in crowded ten emen ts . How
s hall w e stop this nuisan ce ? T here is on ly on e way. Make rapidtran sit cheap. There is on ly on e way t o g e t that, an d that i s t o put itin t h e han ds o f t h e Governmen t. Mak e lan d cheaper, so that a m an
c an ge t out o f t h e city, an d buy a lo t upon which h e can put a littlehouse an d en joy himse lf . I be lieve t h e Governmen t will d o this int h e n ear future .
Ano ther burn ing que stion is governmen tal repre ssion or con tro lo f all trusts . This is n o t on ly an econ omic question ,
but a moralque stion , an d it is rapidly coming t o t h e fron t in this rapid age w e
l ive in .
These are very briefly a f ew o f t h e problems. N ow a word in re
g ard t o t h e en larged opp ortun ity o f t h e min istry to discuss thesevarious problems . W e stan d in a n ew era t o-day, an d are allowedt o discuss the se matt ers from t h e pulpit. W e have be en suff eringf or a long time from t h e theory that min isters should n ot preachanything but t h e simple Go spe l . Custom preven ted t h e clergyfrom applying t h e Gos pe l t o many of t h e burn in g problems o f t h e
age . They were compe lled t o deal with things evan gelical an d
evange listic . I am glad t o say that t h e people w h o ho ld this n arrowidea are growing fewer. T o -day in place o f t h e simple Go spe l w e
have applied Christian ity. T h e simple Go spe l ” m an i s like a.floun der, with t w o eyes on t op o f his head , en abling h im t o look up ,
but n o t down . N OW , t h e time has come when w e are go ing t o lookup and down at t h e same time . W e heard t oo much in t h e past aboutt h e hereaf te r, an d n o t en ough about t h e here .
” Formerly min isterswere like horse s with blin ders on . They could s ee n e ither t o t h e
“
right n or t o t h e le f t—on ly straight ahead , y ea, even t o etern ity.
N ow t h e blin ders have come o ff , an d they can look aroun d them aswe ll as in fron t. T h e people w h o occupy our pews are more in tere s t ed in t h e pre sen t than in t h e distan t future . I heard o f a Sun dayschoo l teacher, w h o said t o on e o f h er boys , N ow , Johnn ie , i f y ou
“will b e a good b oy you will go t o H eaven an d have a man sion in t h e
skie s .”An d John n ie said , “
I’ve had all o f that kin d o f man sion I
wan t. I live in t h e t op story o f a ten emen t house .
”I n this ag e it
is idle f or us t o say t o in te lligen t m en , Th ere i s compen sation in”
H eaven f or all t h e trials an d tribulation s an d in justice o f this mortall if e .
” They will say t o you,
“ Why don ’t you t ry t o dimin ish someo f these trials an d make t h e world better f or us t o live in ? Our
churche s are large ly atten ded by t h e middle classe s , an d min istershave lo st the ir fear o f rich m en
,f or which I devoutly thank G od .
I n thi s age there i s a risin g tide o f socialistic sen timen t both outs idea n d in side t h e Church . Min i sters are n ot readin g theo logy s o much
1 40 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHOOL.
to-day as they are studying socio logy. They are thinking more an d
more about these things, an d preaching about them . I n days pastt h e workingman reminds m e o f t h e poo r fe llow w h o wen t down fromJerusalem to Jericho an d fe ll amon g thieves, w h o wounded him an d
stripped him o f his garmen ts an d left him half-dead . T h e Prie st andt h e Levite looked at him, sympathized with him ,
but wen t on the irway . T h e Samaritan n o t on ly sympathized, but he lped t h e poor f ellow , boun d up his wounds, put h im on hi s ow n beast, an d carriedhim to t h e inn . T h e Samaritan t o-day is t h e labor un ion . I am sorry
“
t o say that in time s pas t min isters have been t oo timid t o ad vocateopen ly t h e cause o f t h e in dustri ally down-trodden. They sympat h iz ed , but they passed on . I be lieve t h e time h as come f or t h e
Church o f G od to take t h e po sition o f t h e labor uni on an d be come
t h e champion o f t h e oppre ssed , w h o , in our civilization , are verynumerous .On e word in regard t o t h e con ception o f t h e min istry. It h aslarge ly changed . T h e priestly idea is very rapidly dyi ng out in t h e
world, f or which w e are all pro foundly thankful . There i s anothercon ception of t h e min i ster, n ame ly, that o f t h e prophet—preacher,”t h e man w h o fears n obody, w h o has t h e courag e o f his con viction s ,an d will Speak out upon all the se great social problems, which are
agitating t h e breas ts o f all thinki ng people t h e world over. Clergym en to -day are n o longer pretty orn amen ts f or an aftern oo n tea ,
favored gue sts at t h e ladies’ sewing-circle , ho ly bric—a-brac, inn ocen tlittle kitte n s with the ir eye s y e t glued together, an d un able t o s e e
t h e light o f day . T h e m in ister o f t h e twen tieth cen tury will be t h eco lon e l o f a regimen t, with an en thusiastic people t o follow whereh e lead s. Y ou remember Dr. Ben tley, t h e mini ster o f Salem, w h o ,
when old Iron side s was driven in to Marblehead Bay by three Britishfrigates, said, as h e dismissed his con gregation f or t h e d ay ,
Brethren , w e have served t h e Lord in t h e foren oon . This afte rnoo nw e will serve our coun try.
” He took up his musket, his congregationfo llowed him
,an d they wen t t o w ar. I would like t o s ee a little more
o f that martial Spirit in t h e min istry t o-day. I be lieve it i s comingbe cause t h e people w h o attend our churche s demand it. I be lievet h e time will come when t h e churche s will sustain t h e same re lationt o the se great problems that they did t o t h e que stion o f slavery.
Abraham Lin co ln said that t h e buttress o f t h e an ti-slavery cause wast h e churche s o f America, e spe cially t h e churche s o f t h e N orth . Therei s a n ew an ti-Slavery movemen t in this world
,an d t h e churches are
gradually lin ing up upon t h e proper Side . When they all movetogether, as they will in t h e coming century, then w e can Sing indeed and truth, that song which w e n ow Sin g by way o f prophecy :
Like a mighty army move s t h e Church o f G od ;W e are not divided , all on e body w e .
”
When that time comes , when w e stand Side by side , and shoulderto Shoulder, then I believe t h e Kingdom o f Heaven w e speak so
much about w ill b e e stablished here upon earth .
Que stion asked. How can w e teach regard f or t h e prin ciple o flaw when children cannot but detect unrighteousn ess in our partielar laws ? ”
1 42 HU U CA T I ON BY CHURCH AN D SCHOOL .
laying down what seems t o m e t h e simplest prin ciple Of common
sen se —that there was n o way in which children ins en sibly, but
e ff ective ly, g e t t h e teachings o f re ligi on bett er than through t h e
committing Of beautiful Psalms, verses , an d hymn s . Pre siden t Eliotmen tion ed , f or in stan ce , Longfe llow ’s “ V illage Blacksmith ,” where ,as h e said , there is t h e distin ct teaching o f certain e lemen ts O f re
lig ion . It is n ot labe led as such , but t h e chi ld gets t h e pure e sse n ceo f re ligion . On e o f my boys came home some time ago , an d said h eh ad been s e t t o learn Longf e llow ’s
,
“ Building o f t h e Ship .
” Thereagain was high , en n obling teaching in verses that h e might carrywith him as long as h e l ived—civic teaching an d re ligious , t o o . Itwas all t h e better that h e did n o t kn ow it by that n ame . T h e fac tis, t h e amoun t o f really re ligious material that w e have i n our schoo lsi s more than I be lieve anyo n e realize s . I n t h e best schoo l s with t h e
be st teachers , they are con stan tly using material that is full Of t h espirit o f re ligi on . Why , there i s n o modern literature o f t h e bestclas s that i s n o t suffused with t h e spirit o f re ligion ! There are mercy,pity
,peace , and love in such high teac hing as t h e great masters in
literature gi ve us , an d these masters are con stan tly used in our
public schoo l s in brie f se lection s. Is no t this,in t h e highe st sen se
o f t h e word, B ible ? It is that which characterize s t h e B ib le ; it i sthat which con tain s t h e spirit o f t h e B ible ; an d does anyon e in thisroom doubt that in the se be st se le ction s such as comman d t h e in
t ere s t o f t h e boys an d girls, there i s much more re ligion than therewould b e in reading passag es Of t h e same length from t h e Book o f
Chron icle s or t h e Song Of So lomon ?
I might go f urther. This Con feren ce , through its Book o f Common
Worship , gi ves y ou a little sugge stion o f h ow w e might perhapsprepare f or use in t h e schoo ls certain ex ce llen t common material ,in which all t h e various elemen ts o f our population that are repre
sen ted in t h e public schoo ls could un ite . If w e can d o this f or a Conferen ce o f various Re ligion s , I do n o t s ee why w e might n o t , an d mayno t , d o it f or our children .
I wan t e specially t o po in t out t o y ou that re ligion i s in t h e
schoo l s in a very sign al way, very e ff e ctive ly, through t h e pre sen ceo f re ligi ous-min ded m en an d women w h o are teachers . There i s justas much re ligion in t h e schoo ls (an d n o more ) as there i s o f re ligionin t h e min ds o f t h e teachers w h o have t h e care o f t h e schools .Have these teachers t h e great e ssen tial prin ciple s o f re ligi on ? Havethey t h e spirit o f justice , kin dlin ess , mercy, hum ility, mode sty ? Havethey trust ? Have they t h e hope ful temperamen t? Give us n o pe ssimists in our schoo ls , an d least o f all things , t o read se lection sfrom t h e Bible ! Give us t h e teachers w h o have t h e atmo sphere o f
hope an d good-will . Such teachers o n ly can carry t o t h e childrent h e spirit o f re lig i on . There are multitude s o f such teachers in t h e
public schoo l s . I spoke t h e o ther day in Bo ston t o a group o f t h e
sub -masters o f t h e city. It was interesting to watch tho se m en ; t o
s ee their re spon se t o everything which appealed t o t h e n oblen ess inthem . Many o f them were m en w h o had t h e highe st aims in the irteaching, w h o were in the ir schoo l s f or t h e service o f their scho lars .N ow le t us s ee what teachers with just that sort o f spirit o f which
w e have spoken , t h e religious spirit, t h e will t o serve an d help , withfaith an d hope an d love in the ir hearts—what they will d o with t h e
material which they have . I n t h e first place , there are all t h e time
opportun ities an d occasion s in which t h e highe st teachings o f justicean d fide lity an d truth and t h e idea o f service can b e in culcate d . Iremember some years ag o talking with a m an w h o sa id that hiswhole lif e h ad been influen ced an d en n obled by t h e work o f such ateacher
,t h e rather f amous Master Sherwin o f t h e Bo sto n H igh
Schoo l . Some o f y ou may have studied Sherwin ’s Arithmetic . Mas
REV. C. F. DOLE . 1 43
t er Sherwin was always on t h e watch, this m an said , f or opportun it ie s t o g e t in his high-min ded work , an d h e was con stan tly train inghis boys in goodn e ss . I have heard Of an other m an w h o would stopa recitation f or hal f an hour or an hour at a time , t o talk over some
prin ciple Of justice that h ad arisen ; sometime s about what hado ccurred in t h e le sson ; sometime s about some happen in g in t h e
schoo l . The se occasion s are con stan tly occurring. T h e boys will throwston es an d break t h e street lamps . Here i s t h e Opportun ity f or t h e
master w h o i s on t h e watch f or it, t o te ach t h e boys that they are
breakin g the ir ow n lamps ; that t h e lam ps are common property.
Why should any b oy , w h o i s n o t a traitor to t h e go od Of his city,break his ow n stre et lamps ? T h e good master i s all t h e time usingsuch occasion s as this .Then ,
again ,take t h e habitual temper an d attitude o f a teacher.
I n ever shall forge t, as lon g as I live , t h e kin dn ess Of t h e highschoo l master w h o fitte d m e f or co llege . Though h e was n ever paidf or it, h e used con stan tly t o return f or an hour at a time afte r schoo lin order t o he lp a little clas s o f t w o or three boys t o d o t h e workf or which h e had n o le isure in schoo l hours . There was an objectle sson , t o last as long as I live , Of gen erous , faithful, unpaid , frien dlyservice . Was n o t that re ligi on ? I remember t h e Oppo sit e kin d o f
object-le sson in t h e co llege tutor, w h o obviously was using his pos ition simply as what they call a “
p ot-bo iler,” t o en able himse lf t o
g e t an education in law. H e clearly was n o t teaching f or our sake s .
Take again t h e us e which teachers are making o f t h e diff eren tschoo l studie s . A teacher w h o n o t on ly is a goo d chemist, but w h o
i s a re ligi ous m an ,—I mean
,w h o has a sen se Of t h e won der an d
marve l an d beauty o f t h e laws through which t h e crysta ls are
made—is un con sciously an d sure ly po in ting t h e way Of t h e pupils,n o t simply t o learn ing t h e chemical f ormulas , but t o t h e beauty an d
t h e goo dn ess in t h e works Of G od . So with t h e teacher w h o takes upbo tan y . Sh e is n o t simply an alyzing flowers . That would mean but
little ; but sh e use s t h e Opport un ity, without te aching on e sectarianw ord , t o gi ve t h e great thought o f t h e un ity Of law, through whichall things are boun d together ; sh e commun icate s h er sen se o f t h e
beauty an d wonder Of that law o f un ity in t h e large an d in t h e small .N ow , take t h e study o f history an d t h e us e Of books upon civic
education . H ere i s an Oppo rtun ity f or t h e te acher w h o has reveren ce f or law t o gi ve it t o his children . H e cann ot gi ve it un le ss h ehas it. N O on e can ever gi ve re ligion in any o f its forms un le ss h ehas it. Suppo se , then , h e has reveren ce f or law . Is this reveren cemere ly f or human law ? Our American history as a n ation beganwith d isrespect f or such law . Our fore fathers in Bo ston had n o re
spect whatever f or t h e law that impo sed t h e t ea t ax upon them . B e
cause th ey had n o respe ct whatever f or that kin d o f law, but hadre spe ct f or justice an d right
,t h e n ation was born . N ow you have
con stan tly t o guard children in showing them t h e diff eren ce betweenrespe ct f or law as m an made it, an d law as justice an d right—thatis , as divin e . This distin ction ought t o en ter in to t h e disciplin e o f
every schoo l . Y ou kn ow there are schoo l s in which t h e experimen thas been mad e o f allowing t h e scho lars t o make the ir ow n laws . T h e
teacher will refer que stion s t o his scho lars an d say ,
“ Wh at d o y ou
t hink o f that rule ? DO y ou wan t it ? DO y ou think it fair an d
just ? L et us talk it over an d s ee i f it i s fair, an d i f so w e will allObey it. Or, if there i s anything un fair or un righteous about it, thenw e d o n ot wan t it.” Is n ot this a teachin g o f re ligi on ?Take again t h e idea o f t h e state . I was much in tere sted in what
t h e first speaker said thi s morn ing . I think I agree with him en tire lyin what h e se ems t o m e t o mean t o say ; as regards t h e in ability o ft h e state t o d o gen erous things f or i t s people . He said that t h e
1 44 EDUCATION BY CHU RCH AND SCHOOL.
state must b e a sort o f selfish organ ization . I rather wish h e hadn o t used t h e word se lfish .
” I d o n o t think that w as n ece ssary t o
his m ean ing. T h e st ate stan ds f or justice sure ly ; but it stan ds also ,
does it no t , f or t h e highe st and mo st e ffi cien t social—that is, mutual—service ? It st ands also f or a thoroughly gen erous spirit, even in
d o ing justice . T h e ideal Of t h e democracy is that state where w e are
all boun d together i n re lation s o f serving an d Of be ing served .
Sometime s w e are be ing served, an d sometime s w e have t o serve .
When w e pay our tax e s w e have t o serve . When t h e city m en sweepour streets or carry away our as he s , then w e s ee t h e o ther side o f
t h e re lation . T h e state ex ists f or both things . What is t h e diff eren cebe tween th e selfish stat e an d t h e Christian—i f you wan t t o us e t h eword “ Christian -commonwealth ? T h e differen ce is in t h e attitude . T h e attitude o f every person in t h e truly civilized state is thatof one w h o wan ts t o give t h e utmo st po ssible service . He is go ing t ob e just, but even when h e pays his just due s an d taxes h e alwayskeeps t h e attitude o f on e w h o doe s it willin gly, o f on e w h o paysinto his ow n ex chequer ; h e always keeps t h e temper Of goo d-willand cheerfuln e ss . This is e ssen tially t h e spirit o f demo cracy. L e t
t hat temper po sses s t h e m en Of t h e state , an d it wil l b e a thoroughlyc ivi lized commonwealth , in which n o in justice anywhere can b e don e .
So f ar as t h e schoo ls are in t h e han ds Of m en an d women w h o havecaught this idea, w h o have come , t o us e t h e old words , “
N o t t o b e
m in istered un to , but t o min ist er, w h o fin d t h e deve lopmen t an d
realization o f the ir ow n as we ll as o f t h e social life in obeyi ng t h e
law o f good-wi ll, t h e boys an d girls in t h e schoo ls will be po ssessedw ith t h e same spirit, as fire catche s from fire . As the se boys an d
gi rl s grow up an d take ho ld o f t h e man agemen t Of t h e state , as theyvote an d are vo ted f or, as they serve in o ffice in behalf Of the irfe llows
,be ing m en an d women w h o wish n o t to b e min istered
un t o , but t o min ister,”w e shall have re ligion in t h e schoo ls , an d
re ligi on also in t h e state ; w e shal l have what used t o b e called t h e
Kingdom Of G od ,”t h e ag e Of righte ousn e ss an d good-will .
PROFESSOR NATHANIEL SCHMIDT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY.
T h e evils again st which it i s propo sed t o in troduce into our publi cschoo ls re ligi ous education are the seI n t h e first place , there is a wide-spread ignoran ce con cern ing t h e
Hebrew an d Christian Scripture s on t h e part o f tho se w h o go throughour public schoo ls .I n t h e secon d place , there i s a lax ity o f moral con duct, a loo sen ing
o f moral san ction s also seen among tho se w h o have come throughour public schoo ls .I n t h e third place , there i s a man ifest lack Of reveren ce f or G od an d
ho ly things .N ow , on t h e first po in t, I think that no on e will dispute with m e
that there i s a tremen dous ignoran ce abroad . Co llege graduate s are
perhaps as in te lligen t as any o ther class in a commun ity ; but out o f
on e hundred co llege graduate s I d o n o t think y ou could pick out five
that would b e able t o te ll what are t h e distin ctive me ssage s o f tho sethree epoch-making utteran ce s in an cien t Israe l—t h e prophecy o f
Amo s, t h e prophecy o f Deute ro-Isaiah , an d t h e Epistle o f Paul t o t h e
Galatian s . N ow,it i s po ssible f or m en t o go through our scho o l s
an d b e regarded as liberally educat ed , w h o kn ow practically nothin gabout t h e very foundation s upon which our We stern civilization rests .This is certain ly a very deplorable fact.
1 46 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHO OL .
I w ould like to have tex t -bo oks, in which brief referen ce s were g ivent o larger works , s o that tho se w h o were curious might kn ow. But Id o obje ct again st having children grow up , as o ften they d o ,
havingn o in struction but that gi ven by un train ed Sunday-schoo l teachers,forced t o teach what they themse lve s d o n o t kn ow, an d preven ted byt h e system from imparting that which they know better.
MRS. GEORGE E . SPENCER, N EW YORK .
I look upon thi s gathering as t h e mo st magn ificen t fruit O f t h e
n in eteen th cen tury . It is with t h e teachers that t h e respon sibilitylie s . Perhaps I had be tter ann oun ce myse lf as a teacher Of t h e d e
velOpm en t Of thought an d Of con cen tration Of t h e min d , an d mypupils are grown people . Be ing a specie s o f spe cial ist, I have t o
descen d t o minutiae in t h e things I teach , an d I take n o mon ey un le ssI produce re sult s . T h e things I teach are simply t h e keys whichOpen o ther pe ople ’s thoughts, an d I have something t o say.
First o f all I have be en de lighted with every thin g that has beensaid
, and particularly with t h e thoughts o f Dr. Lyman Abbott. Ihave also been de lighted with t h e earn estn e ss an d en thusiasm Of t h espeakers, particularly t h e gen tleman w h o was s o deeply in terestedin t h e presen t subject, or t h e subject Of t h e presen t time , Socialism,
an d with t h e en thusiasm o f t h e last speaker. But I disagree witht h e last speaker. I be lieve religion can b e taught an d h as a rightto b e taught an d should b e taught, an d should b e among t h e classeso f t h e public schoo ls , an d my be lie f i s foun ded n o t in my ow n
thought s o much as in my practical experien ce among t h e class t owhich I am d evoting my le isure
,t h e crimin al class. I fin d m en w h o
are crimin als w h o have n ever heard o f this idea. A m an go ing upf or his fourth term said, “ I will have t o take my medicin e .
” He
looked a man ly fellow. I said, What is t h e cause o f it, John ?Oh , I just wen t wron g an d fell in to t h e w ay o f it. T h e last time Ithought I would n ever d o it again , but I could get n o work t o d o .
” Isaid , I make a law f or y ou an d make a law f or myse lf. I couldstarve , but I could n o t steal . What would y ou d o if your room-mateshould take something from your po cke t? “ I would strike him .
"
That is what t h e law has don e t o y ou.
” He said , I n ever thoughto f t hat before .
I fi n d among liberal thinkers m en w h o be lieve in do ing that whichi s best f or themse lve s as it i s best f or those about them . They are
fi n e fe llows . They be lieve in se lf-deve lopmen t. They decry Chri stbecause they associate t h e n ame o f Chri st with dogmas , an d n o t witht h e fin est prin ciple Of governmen t upon which a governmen t couldever b e foun ded . F or Chri st has in itiated t h e broad prin ciple o f
governmen t that philan thropy i s forcing t h e world t o take up n ow—t h e prin ciple o f brotherhood . I be lieve also in t h e re spon sibility o f
teachers just as Alfred t h e Great did . He n ever troubled himse lf withcrimin als , but h e hung twe lve un just judges , an d there n ever w as
such a po litical revolution .
Just on e word more , because , h aving spoken o f t h e condition , Imust say what I be lieve t o b e , and what my ow n experien ce teachesm e t o b e t h e remedy f or that con dition . A s t h e state w ill n o t teachreligion , I believe that w e should have teachers w h o will give duevalue t o t h e t eaching O f Buddha, Con fucius, an d t h e highe st teacher ,
Christ ; showing what a fi n e thing it is n o t t o d o to another whaty ou would n o t have that other d o t o y ou, but h ow much finer, h owmuch more G od -like t o d o t o others what y ou would have them d o
t o you,as t h e affirmative i s always finer than t h e n egative . 80 let
R Ev. J . M . WH ITON. PH . D. 1 47
Christ’s life an d teac hing b e he ld up as t h e fine st prin ciple Of governmen t, an d teach children reveren ce f or a law which is foun ded upont h e ho liest law o f N ature .
REV . J . B . GREENE, NEWBURGH, N. Y .
If these meetings should con tinue much longer I am afraid all mythun der would b e sto len . I thought I had somethin g t o say un ti lBrother Do le spoke . I wan t t o reaffi rm just on e po in t. There was arugged Scotch sain t an d pro foun d philo sopher, Th omas Carlyle ,w h o said, “
Re ligion can n o more b e taugh t t o m en than it can b e
inherited by them,
”and I think h e was right from his stan dpo in t
and defin ition o f re ligi on . It depen ds en tire ly upon what y ou defin ere ligion to b e . If re ligion b e what it has been assumed t o b e in thisme eting, t h e life o f G od (conscious ly ) in t h e soul o f m an (I d o n o t
think t h e word “ con sciously ” was used , but I wan t t o emphasizeit) , you cannot te ach that t o m en . Re ligion is begotten in t h e humansoul by a religious soul , whether it b e by t h e soul o f m an
,or whether
it b e by G od . If you on ly ho ld up a sufli ci en t ly high moral ideal t ohuman souls ( such an ideal as Je sus made a reality ) , in t h e light o f
that ideal they wi ll s ee h ow f ar short they come o f t h e ideal , an d
they will begi n t o hunger an d thirst f or it. That is n atural . If youcan on ly create t h e hunger f or diviner thin gs, t h e Di vin e Spirit wi llassuage that hunger, an d you have a re ligi ous soul.It is en tire ly true that re ligion in t h e common schoo l s i s vastlycommon er than y ou have an y idea, an d you can on ly g et re ligioninto t h e schoo ls by having re lig ious t each ers . T h e difficulty I fi n d i sthat t h e m en w h o look after t h e teachers are simply practical po lit ician s . T h e schools o f thi s State are large ly man aged by li ttlepeddling po litician s in t h e citie s an d town s . I wan t a revo lution i n
that direction . I was marve lously in spired by t h e speech Of Dr.
Taylor. I think it is something f or every on e Of us t o take homean d med itate on .
REV . J , M . WHI TON, PH . D .,N EW YORK.
I wish t o take this half-do llar f or my tex t. I suppose that anything that i s issued by t h e Governmen t with t h e Governmen t stampis a legitimate subject Of exp lan ation in t h e public schoo ls. W e fi n d
that there are thirt een stars on this bit Of silver. I can imagi n e t h epupils asking t h e teacher what those thirt e en stars mean . Of courseh e te lls them . I fin d also an effigy Of a win ged creature suppo sed t orepre sen t an eagle , but which, perhaps , looks more like a turkeybe ing prepared f or t h e Thanksgiving feast, an d in its talon s it carrie swhat has be en in terprete d t o mean an Olive bran ch , an d also a sheafof arrows . I suppo se it would b e legitimate f or t h e teacher t o explainthat. Then there is t h e legen d , E Pluribus Unum ,
” which t h e eag lei s carrying up t o t h e empyrean . That must b e explain ed . I suppo se ,also , when t h e boys an d girls are begin n ing t o read in mon o syllables ,and spe ll out , “
I n G 0 d w e t r u s t,” they might ask t h e teacherwhat that mean s . But t h e teacher’s mouth i s sealed—that is , bytho se w h o say that re ligi on must n ot b e taught in t h e public schoo l s .T h e t eacher, I should suppo se , was logically boun d t o fo llow up t h e
exp lanation s previously gi ven by te llin g them w h o G od is, an d
whether o ther fo lks , as we l l as We , may trust i n him, an d why w e
1 48 EDUCATION BY CHURCH AND SCHOOL.
may trust, an d on what condition s w e may trust, e tc . But no ; thatwould be teaching re ligion . Such is t h e futility t o which tho se w h o
say re ligion can n o t b e , an d must n o t b e taught are reduced by t h eargumen t o f every half-do llar that they han dle . N ow , if it is saidthat re ligious teaching has f ailed in Germany, I say it has n o t . Itis taught as Lutheran ism , which is n o t t h e same as re ligion . I wouldalso say that, although e thics has much t o d o with re ligi on , an d
there i s n othing Of value in re ligi on that is n o t ethical , y e t ethics isn o t s o complete ly an d who lly iden tical with re ligi on that there is n o
diff eren ce between them. W e must go beyon d ethics t o teach re
ligi on , in order that w e may have an ethics that will stan d . T h e
di fficulty, it seems t o m e , by t h e argumen t o f t h e silver half-do llar,i s n o t whether re ligi on should b e taught in t h e public schoo ls , buth ow you can g e t it t aught in t h e public schoo ls. H ere histo ry comest o our aid . When t h e Reformation in Englan d began in t h e sixteen thcen tury, preaching was in troduced in to t h e churches
,but t h e clergy
were woe fully ignoran t, an d could n e ither pray n or preach ; so aBook o f Prayer was made f or them t o supply t h e in ability t o pray ;and a Book Of Homilie s was prepared f or them, so that they mightread t h e re ligi ous in struction furn ished by competen t m en . W e
have don e that same sort o f thing here . I ven ture t o say, whatwhat has been don e here in preparing a Book o f Common Worshipcan b e don e by tho se w h o wish to prepare a tex t-book f or re lig iousteaching in t h e public schoo l s. While I agree with tho se w h o say thatre ligion i s spirit an d n ot form , that there is but on e re ligi on , thoughmany re ligi on s , an d that re ligi on , as spirit, is in capable o f be ingcommun icated ex cept by spiritual con tact ; y e t re ligi on can certain lybe in terpreted , an d must b e in terpreted , if it i s n ot t o remain avague an d n ebulous something that nobody can defin e in forms Ofinte lligen t lan guage . Thus our Master, t h e supreme re lig iousTeacher, was n o t con t en t with simply livin g re ligion , but h e alsotaught it, so f ar as his disciples were able t o rece ive it. Therefore ,I say, re ligion can b e taught in t h e public schoo ls . Un less w e are
prepared t o go back on our presen t silver co in age , it must b e
taught, an d n obody w ill‘
ob j ect , ex cept some people like tho se in
Chicago , w h o , w e have late ly been in formed , have thrown out o f t h e
schoo ls a book o f re ligi ous teaching agreed upon by m en like CardinalGibbon s and t h e late Profe ssor Swing.
REV. FRANCIS J. CLAY MORAN, B . D ., N EW YORK.
There are t w o po ints on ly which I wish t o discuss.T h e first i s an evil that every m an or woman w h o goe s about t h estreets o f t h e cities an d village s o f this broad lan d must recogn ize .
It is t h e growing increase o f vi le pro fan ity an d indecen t languageamong t h e children . On ly last Sunday morn ing I was on my way t opreach—n o t in this city—an d I passed s ix or seven n ice boys from ten
t o fourteen years o f age , and I think I n ever heard in my lif e suchfi lth an d such pro fan ity as came f rom tho se boys ’ lips . I could n o t
stop , f or I was due t o preach . All over t h e citie s, all over t h e village s ,this is growing . I wro t e , on ly a f ew days ago , t o a promin en to ffi cial , t o call his atten tion t o this question Of reform in t h e city ,an d I said that one thing sh ould b e brought bac k in t h e regulation so f this city Of N ew York . I n 1 635 t h e first burgher guard or po liceguard w as appo in ted , an d in t h e regulation s o f h i s appo in tmen t, t h efirst clause read “
N o burgher guard shall us e pro fane languaget o citizen s when h e i s on duty . N ow I have heard a policeman swearat a poor man on t h e Bowery , w h o w as asking a que stion that any
1 50 EDUCATION BY CHU RCH AND SCHOOL.
would all agree they could thoroughly support. W e might get t h ee thical an d spiritual e lemen t in to t h e schoo l s somewhat in that way.
W e have also tried t o po in t out in this Con f eren ce that there i s a
social re ligion in which w e are all agreed theoretically , y et it is n o t
be ing preached in t h e public schools . T h e social righteousn e sspreached this morn ing i n t h e first t w o addre sse s i s t h e social righte ousn es s that ought t o b e active ly preached in t h e public schoo ls .
N O right -thinking m an,whether Roman Catho lic , Jew , or Prote stan t
w ould dissen t from that.
REv. CHARLES F . DOLE . 1 5 1
ASSEMBLY HALL,UNITED CHARITIES ’ BUILDING,
N EW YORK,NOVEMBER 22.
T h e Conference reassembled at P . M.,under th e presidency
Of Rev. J . K . Allen,D . D .
,of Tarrytown
,N . Y .
XI . T HE UNORGANIZED RELIGIOUS FORCES .
REV. CHARLES F . DOLE, JAMAICA PLAIN ,MASS.
I cannot really find any unorganized forces Of rel igi on . Forcei s a form Of life ; and it seems to be everywhere t h e nature of forceto move in t h e lines Of order, to construct, to work out organi zation . Here
,for example, is t h e vast and mysterious force of
e lectricity. DO w e think of it as an amorphous mass, a merereservoir from which w e draw supplies for our dynamos ? N O.
It exi sts in orderly motion . Gravitation itself is not more trulyinvolved in th e very organi zation Of th e universe . I shall assume,then
,that when w e speak Of th e unorganized forces Of rel igion,
w e really mean those religious forces which w e do not happen tohave installed upon our various ecclesiastical dynamos . Theyare t h e forces which exist apart from or outside Of churches ; theySimply do not fall under t h e conven tional or traditional nam eso f rel igion .
This will be clearer when w e state what w e understand religionto be. May w e not call it t h e highest form of th e l ife Of God
,
as this life shows itself in th e s ouls Of men ? It is in man’s senseO f trust ; it is in reveren ce and in admiration for all beautifulthings ; it is in an infin ite faith in hum an progress ; it is in justice,f aithfulness, and th e marvelous pressure of con scien ce ; it is t h ezest for truth
,t h e hunger for righteousness, th e en thusiasm for
humanity, th e sight of gleaming ideals, t h e deathless h Ope ; it iswhatever binds us together and constitutes us of one nature withGod . It is that which gives us moral and. spiritual growth and
d evelopment . Its highest n ame is t h e name of God—Love orGood Will . Wh ere love is
,there God must be
,and t h e life-forces
Of rel igion therefore are present .L et me il lustrate what I mean . Abraham Lincoln ,
Mazzini,G aribaldi—all had superabundan t humanity
,faith
,idealism .
Shal l w e call Pope Pio Nono,or L eo XIII .
,or Emperor William
(either t he grandson or th e grandfather), or th e Russian Czar—all
1 52 THE UNORGAN IZ ED RELIGIOUS FORCES.
heads of great churches—rel igious, and not much more call thethree patriots, lovers of l iberty, and lovers of goodness men of religion ? A busy man of affairs told me that
,happening to be in
Chicago and going to hear Mr. Salter, t h e Lecturer to t h e Societyof Ethical Culture, h e was moved even to tears by th e lofty spiri tof th e address . Could any Lord Bishop’s sermon in a cathedralmore truly convey th e power of religion ?We kn ow certain people who are extremely rel igious in con
ven t ional ways, who frequen t churches, enter into t h e emotionalside of a communi on service, and perhaps experience there transports of feel ing. A woman on ce told me that sh e never wantedanyone to come into h er pew at this service . There is a type ofreligion which may exist
,almost devoid of human sympathy .
Which,now, is t h e higher religion—that which lingers in t h e
childish beginnings of fetichism and superstition, or again is satisfied with personal ecstasies
,or that which
,as a N ew Testament
writer says,consists in visit ing th e fatherless and widows in their
affliction,and in keeping one’s self unspotted from t h e world?
I said that religion,being a life-force
,is always organ izing itsel f
and building up society . Thus,there i s th e rel igion of th e home .
It is not without Significance that in th e Old days it had it s cult .What else is it except t h e life of God in th e soul of man thatbuilds up the primal organism of th e fami ly ? What is it but th ereligion of th e home which comm ands men to toil and women tosuffer for love’s sake, and children
’s children to defy temptationrather than soil an honorable name ? Faith
,h Ope, and love are
in th e religion of t h e home,forever bui lding and bind ing
together .There is a religion of th e commune, th e village, or th e neighbor
hood . I t organ izes men for defen se and mutual support . Its.priests and ministers
,w hether baptized or not, will watch night
after night in th e houses of th e sick and Share in the supportof orphan children .
There i s a religion of t h e club, th e mutual benefit society, theMasonic lodges
,and th e numerous orders which characterize
civilized society everywhere . Men will often tell you that theirlodge is their church . Often there is a simple ritual . What ismore than th e ritual—men are pledged to help one another. Y ou
will hear it said that there is more helpfulness among th e mem
bers of th e lodge, or club, than in th e Church . What if th e club
(for example, th e Reform club) exists for public service, and th eChurch exists for itsel f ? Wh at if t h e l odge or order developsun selfishness , and th e Church leaves men con tent to be selfish ?Here, again are t h e labor union s . Gran t that they make many
mistakes . But they doubtless at times exhibit th e spirit of th emartyrs
,who also made frequent mistakes . Krapotkin tell s us
that h e knew bodies of Fren ch Socialists wh o were denying themselves thei r customary cheap w ine in order to serve t h e brotherhood with their savings . It is rel igion that binds th e multitude as ;
1 54 THE UN ORGAN IZED RELIGIOUS FORCES.
secret of Christianity anything other than this consummate re
ligion of th e high-minded citizen and t h e statesman ?I have only been able to hin t at t he forms—moral, spiritual,
invisible, but most real and eternal—in which th e very life of Godmanifest in th e s oul of man moves
,works
,builds up, and
organizes itself all around us in our modern life . It was neverso active or int ense, it was never so intelligently constructive, fort h e reason that it never before had so much in telligent humanmaterial, endowed with th e heritage of generations of experience,through which to play . It is t h e universal religion of human ity.
It is t h e divine force which constructs th e temple of c ivilization .
All that is worthy to last in th e walls of t h e structure is Of re
ligion . Where religion—I mean,conscience
,faith
,hope, good
will—goes out , disintegration begins . I s not the whole garneredlesson of t h e cen tury that rel igion is not in a closet, a cloister,or a sanctuary ; it is not for one day of th e week only ; it is not fora priestly class or a moiety Of those who profess its n ames ; it isnot a meager segment of l ife
,adjoin ing t h e land of th e shadow
Of death ; but it rules all life and constitutes life ; it is that whichmakes health and manhood, both for th e individual and for allmen ; it is that which raises human society into what Fel ix Adlercalls th e City of Light
,
” or, as h is own forefathers called it,T h e Kingdom of God .
I have tried so far to clas s together some of th e great unconven t ional forces of rel igion, outside ecclesiastical limi ts, and tointerpret their significance . This wealth of rel igious force hashardly yet been recognized, much less estimated and developed .
I t might now be asked very pertinen tly, What use is there forchurches any longer ? I bel ieve there was never such genui neand crying need f or t h e right kind of church .
In t h e first place,men need th e Church in order fairly to de
velOp and to bring to con sciousness th e real religiousness whichis in them . Everywhere are men and women who think that theyhave no religion, and even perhaps account themselves infidels .
Have they then no fidel ity, no trust in th e laws of th e uni verse,no devotion to their duties, no warm humanity? We want toshow t h e tired mother and housekeeper that it is h er rel igion ,born of God
,which keeps h er brave and cheerful f or th e sake of
h er husband and children . We want to Show th e skillful railroadengineer, or th e pilot who guides th e great ocean liner throught h e fogs, that it is veritable rel igion that bids h im be prompt,faithful
,and sober, as a man under bonds for human l ives in
trusted to his charge . We want men to know that every throb Of
human sympathy in their souls is t h e call of God , sacred as thatwhich th e prophet was once supposed to hear in th e mystic darkness of a shrine . T h e religion of th e home
,of t he shop or trade,
of th e order, t h e brotherhood or th e un ion, of t h e teacher and t h eman of science, of t h e reformer or th e statesman, is indeed an
arc of th e Divine c ircle. T h e Church must Show each man how
REv. CHARLES F. DOLE . 1 55
h is l ittle arc fits into th e majestic whole . It must Show each
p rivate l ife in what a royal un iverse it holds c itizens hip . Everysoul of us needs at times to be heartened and comf orted by t h eprofounder sen se of t h e universal relations . It is as if w e re
freshed ourselves at th e foun tains of being . T h e religion of th eh ome
,t h e Sh Op, our chosen profession, t h e neighborhood, th e c ity,
t h e nation,blazes more effectively in our hearts for our catching
s ight of t h e whole which all t h e parts go to create.
It f ort ifies my soul to knowThat, though I perish, Truth is so ;That h ow soe’
er I stray and range,Whate’
er I do,Thou dost n ot change .
I steadi er step when I recallThat if I slip
,T hou dost not fall .
I n f act all our private and lesser ideals need to be ren ewed andinvigorated by th e sight of th e uni versal ideals which w e all share .
Secondly, t h e Church exists, or ought to exist, for th e un ion ofall classes and condition s of men . DO not tel l us that sectarianismi s a good and ideal thing . T h e Church is t h e las t place where w ec ome to emphasize our differences of thought . It is not well forBaptists and Presbyterian s
,for Trinitarians or non-Trinitarians
always to flock by themselves . Neither is this wel l for proh ibit ion ist s
,single taxers or s ocialists . Men thus become narrow ,
i ntolerant, and dogmatic . Cannot their truth bear fresh air?L east of all is it wel l for th e rich and poor to flock apart . Thereis need of one place where men may meet upon t h e ground of certain grand common faiths, hopes, and ideals . My ne ighbor and Imay not vote alike, but it is none t h e less good for us both to takeo nce in a while th e highest attitude, together . It is t h e hospitable attitude
,it is th e attitude of modesty, it is th e attitude of
t hose who wish to be shown what is right . We may not thinkalike about th e mighty problem of human destiny. But it is needful for us to be filled with th e same spirit ; I mean th e spiritO f reveren ce, Of trust, of h Ope, of hum ani ty. We may not expressour individualistic ideals in t h e same formulas . It is good fore ach and all to be set to look t h e way of our highest ideals, and torefresh our souls with a common inspiration . T h e Church shouldd is solve all bittern ess or suspicion
,and lift us for a little whi le
above our differen ces in contemplation of t h e things which allmen at their best believe—at least hope . It is not a good churchunless it does this .
T h e tidal wave of deeper soulsIn to our inm ost being rolls
,
And lifts us unawaresOut of all meaner cares .
1 56 THE UNORGAN IZED RELIGIOUS FORCES.
Thirdly,th e Church exists t o in terpret life and its hard mys
taries . Who is not at times overpowered with th e brooding sen seof t h e unkn own and illimitable ocean of being . Is it a mysteryof darkness or of l ight
,o f final death or life eternal ? How is it .
that man asks these wondering question s ? All th e history of religion is t h e story of man
’s successive steps toward an swering thesequestions in th e terms of a D ivin e. universe . T h e Hebrew Psalms .
Rest in th e Lord, Wait patien tly on him,
”T h e Lord is my
Light and my Salvation -are th e early prophetic utterances of'
t h e soul of man in its splendid quest to know God . Never, I believe, at any time, had t h e Church such beautiful and reasonablewords of harmony
,recon cil iation
,and in terpretation of th e mys
t eries of life .
I n short,th e Church is
,or ought to be
,in reality th e people’
s
un iversity . It takes all th e detached fragmen ts of human l ifeand experien ce and tran slates them together into un ity . Thisis t h e highest office of a un iversity . T h e Church should performt h e Office of teaching grown men ,
paren ts, and teachers th escien ce of th e things which abide,
“th e things that are more
excellen t .”
Fourthly, th e Church exists to minister comfort to t he lonelyand sorrowful . What is h er secret ? Sh e l ifts men out of theiri solation and th e selfishness of grief . Sh e relates them togetherin a broad fellowship or brotherhood
,wherein all are called both
to suffer and to rej oice . Sh e sets forth t h e ideal of a l ife in whicht h e highest j oy and th e most serene con tent dwell in harmonywith strenuous endeavor, warm sympathy
,and th e courageous
overcoming of disappoin tmen t and pain .
Again,t h e Church exists to give t h e youth a n ew
,higher, and
more effective training in all t h e ideal things . There was neversuch a demand and never s o Splendi d material for this kind ofservice . Our presen t Sunday-school methods are but a feeblebeginning of th e true task of th e ethical and rel igious educationof th e young. All t he best educators agree that education is
futile which does not rear th e youth to be sincere, honorable ,high-minded
, publica spirit ed, reverent, lovers of men,earnest and
d evoted,th e children of th e light .
On ce more,t h e Church exists f or a common worship
,much
needed by busy and weary people . What do w e mean by worship ?N ot a conventional reiteration o f pious and decorous words
,nor
t he singing of hymn s o f adoration t o G od . These forms may ormay not be th e mean s of worship . We mean something far deeperand more practical than what is usually called worship . We
mean that higher temperature Of man ’s spirit in which h e rises t osay T hy kingdom come ; Thy will be done or
,to paraphrase
,
May justice be done , t h e truth be spoken ; th e good will be donein this world
,h ere and now,
and through us . Stern i s th e test Ofall worship . Does th e good will possess and rule us ? Do w e goforth from th e church door with friendly in tent toward every soul
1 58 THE UNORGAN IZED RELIGIOUS FORCES.
To this end I have brought my n otes in visible form,whi ch I
now beg to lay before you. First,I call your attention to a
plucked and fading flower, picked up from where it had beenthrown to be trodden under th e passing feet of men . Next
,I
show you a grow ing plan t, in all t h e strengt h and beauty Of itslife
,and after that I ask you to look upon a handful of seed, all
that remains of an apple that has been eaten for food ; and last andmost precious, and, because most precious, wrapped in t h e cleanestlin en that wifely provide-nee could furn ish
,I hold before your
eyes a glas s con taining t h e first note of th e di scourse of th e afternoon .
T h e contents of this glass were taken from t h e gutters ofyour streets last ni ght when t h e rain was falling—all exceptt h e top dressin g of it
,which is a handful of soil rescued from
un der t h e broom of th e sweeper,who was sweeping it away. This
which you now see is th e most precious of all t h e things which Ihave shown you, because in it lies th e possibility of all t h e others ;in it is th e possibility of th e seed, of t h e plan t, and of th e flower .It is t he richest form of inorgani c or unorganized matter, and ist h e primal source of all organized vegetable life ; and as all an imall ife is sustained and nourished by t h e herb of t h e field and th efruit of t h e ground
,this which you now see is indirect ly th e s ource
Of all animal as well as of all vegetable existence.
T hi s powerful unorgan ized force of nature needs th e protectionof t h e glass and t h e covering of linen, because it i s unclean to t h etouch and unpleas ant to th e eye ; it is, moreover, unsavory to t h etas te and offensive to th e smell . So vile is it t o every sense ofman that h e cannot abide its presence ; h e tries in every way to ridhims elf of it because
,in th e form in which you see it
,it is not only
o ff ensive, but dangerous . If it is left in th e s treet it breedsd isease and death . Cons equently
,its removal is a work of neces
sit y, which has from t h e first employed th e energi es and con
sum ed th e wealth of your cities . Here, in N ew York, millions ofdollars are spent in an effort to destroy it .But there is just one thing you can never do with it . You can
never suppress nor destroy one particle o f it . This matter,vile
as it i s,has one attribute in common with t he holy God . Like
H im it is indestructible, having t h e gift of eternal existence .
In his efforts t o dispose of this refuse of th e street man has beenguilty o f a lack of wisdom that is sad and appalling. Here
,in
this great city of N ew York, th e authorities thought to rid themselves of it by throwing it in to t h e waters of t h e lower bay, untilyour wise men found that, instead of di sposing of it, it was disposing of them . T h e heavier parts were forming a bar or bank undert h e waters of th e bay, dangerous to every Ship going out or coming in to t h e harbor, while th e l ighter parts , being washed ashore ,l ittered t h e beach and made th e finest bathing places near th ecity unfi t for use . After all their efforts men had not destroyednor suppressed one particle of this refuse from t he street. They
REv. ALGERNON S. CRAPSEY , D . D. 1 59
had only changed its place and made it more dangerous to th e lif eand prosperity of t h e city than it had ever been before .
It was not un til comparatively recent times that th e greatcities Of t h e world began to discover t h e true n ature and use oft hese sweepings from t h e street . What is t h e source of diseaseand death in one place is t h e cause of health and life in an other .This vile
,n oxious element which I hold up to your gaze—so use
less and so dangerous in t h e street—when spread upon th e fieldwi ll give new greenness to t h e grass, clothe th e earth wi th flowers,and en rich th e trees so that they will bring forth frui t abun dantly .
Thus w e see that while w e cann ot suppress or destroy one particleof this refuse w e can con vert it, and make it th e source of life and
beauty to all th e world . If w e sow in this t h e seed of th e hi gherlife
,w e will have t h e frui t of th e higher life . It is th e un organ
ized force of l ife, needing only to be touched by t h e organi z ingpower of th e seed or th e root t o take on itself every form of gloryand of beauty of which th e world of plant and of tree is capable .
Now this is a parable of that moral refuse which is to be foundin every place where men are gathered together, and which is th esource of moral and spiritual disease and death . I have in t h epast f ew days gon e about th e streets of this great city of N ew
York and have visited its various haun ts of vice, and in them,
s trange to say,I have foun d th e richest and most powerful form
of unorgani zed religious force in th e world . Here are those greatprimal human passions which lie at th e base of all human and Divine lif e . This vi ce is for th e most part unorgani zed virtue .
These men and women are t h e stuff, vile though they be, out ofwhi ch saints and heroes are made .
T h e nature and use of this element of human life h as all alongbeen strangely mi sunderstood . T h e leaders of church and stateh ave thought to suppress it by violence and have gone out agai nstit wi th fire and sword. Even tod ay you are in this city engagedin one of those spasmodi c virtuous attempts to get rid of it . Y ouare organi zing a crusade against vice and are seeking its destruction . T h e present effort at suppression is foredoomed t ofailure . T h e method of violence has been tried for ages without success . This element has resisted th e destructive forces ofsociety and is all around us to-day. W e can shut it up in prisons,w e can drive it from one place to an other
,but w e cannot sup
pres s it .T h e one wise word which I have heard lately was in t h e lett er
of a policeman written to one of th e newspapers . He said ineffect, Why, thi s which you good people are making such a fussabout has been in th e world ever sin ce th e Book of Deuteronomywas written .
” Wh y, bless his soul ! these primal un organ izedpassions of th e human soul were in existence ages before th e language in which t h e Book of Deuteron omy is written w as in exist sence . T h e same wise man says
,If w e drive this from t h e
streets, w e drive it into t h e houses,” which is very true . Vice
1 60 THE UNORGAN IZED RELIGIOUS FORCES.
under such circum stances Is not destroyed ; it is only concealed .
A city may appear beautiful outwardly and at th e same t ime befull of dead men ’s bones and all un cleanness .”
These great primal passion s, which in their un organized formare so dangerous to our peace and prosperity
,are in reality t he
source of al l life . They are t h e basic forces of th e world in whichw e l ive . Without these terrible forces, as in their wild state theyseem to be, w e ourselves would not be here. We are born of themand live by them .
T h e Divine will con cerning them is that they shall be not destroyed, but , as far as possible, con verted . We see to-night somepoor woman flitting about t h e streets of our c ity
,or some man
prowling after his prey, and w e send after these t h e Officer oft h e law with his club . They mean to us simply a menace to ourc ivil ization
,but to One who could see better than w e these had
in them t h e possibility of th e highest and most beautiful spirituall ife . Of t h e flitting woman He made t h e Magdalene
,last at t h e
cross and first at t he sepulcher, and of t h e prowling man th e
pen itent thief, first of Christian saints to en ter t he Paradise ofGod.
Here w e have t h e secret of th e whole matter . We cannotsuppress nor des troy this un organized form or force of l ife , but w ecan convert it . We can sow in it th e seed of t he higher life, andthat seed will lay hold of these base elemen ts and by t h e organ iaing power of its root will re-create them and form them in its ownlikeness of life and health and beauty.
This is exactly what t h e great Master Of th e Spiritual life, th eLord Chr i st
,did . When He came to set up th e Kingdom of God
in t h e world He found t h e strongest forces of that kingdom not
among those who thought themselves righteous , and who were s ocons idered by th e world, but among t h e social outcasts , t h e so
called vicious e lemen ts Of society. He became t h e Friend ofpublican s and sinners
,and of such as these made t he Kingdom of
Heaven .
It seems strange that at this late day w e should still be ign orantof t h e fact sin is in t h e world not to be pun ished
, but to beforgiven ; and vice is here not to be suppressed, but t o be eon ~
verted . This is th e fundamen tal doctrine of th e rel igion whichw e profess . Jesus came not to call th e righteous
,but sinners t o
repentan ce. And His method of conversion was t h e simple one
of planting in t h e heart th e seed of t h e higher life, sending downin to it th e roots of a transforming love . He Himself was thatseed and root . He went where th e sinners were and
,sitting in
their midst as their friend, He transformed them by H is presence .
He did not preach them sermons telling them h ow vile they were .
He simply loved them,and by loving purified them . He gave
them t h e seed and t h e root of th e n ew l ife .
And every great religious movement has followed this method .
It has gone down first in to th e lowest places of th e world, into
1 62 THE UNORGAN IZED RELIGIOUS FORCES.
Show in our rel igious life t h e same courage which th e soldiermanifests on t h e field of battle, t h e same daring which th e
finan cier exhibits in every great speculation, s o s oon will w e beable to gain th e victories of war and finance in t h e region of moralsand religion . And unles s they can do this
,presen t organizations
are doomed . A church that is converting no sinners is making nosaints . A tree that draws nothing from t h e vileness of earth hasno power to draw life and beauty from th e air .L et us remember that t h e first great unorganized force of re
ligion is human nature ; its sins, its sorrows, its passions, it s .
failures, it s fears, i t s ign orance, those are th e basic source of allt he rel igious l ife that ever has been or ever will be in t h e world.
These,vile in themselves, enrich t h e root of t h e tree of life
that it may bear its twelve manner of frui ts,and that it s leaves
may be for th e healing of th e nations . Now,leaving th e root of
’
religion hidden in th e ground that it may do its work t here of'
organiz ing th e basal elements of human life into it s higher forms,
let us turn our attention to this growing plant, for it also tell s ofa great un organi zed force of religion .
T h e salient feature of t h e plant is not its root,but its leaf .
After th e root i s once firmly fixed in t h e earth and enriched by t h esoil it sends i t s s tem out int o th e light
,and th e stem buds and
breaks fort h into th e leaf, and th e leaf lays hold of t h e great unorganized forces of t h e air and makes use of them for t h e perfecting of it s l ife . T h e organizing power of t h e leaf is as necessary ast h e organizing power of t h e root ; th e one draws up from th e
earth,t h e other draws down from heaven . T h e one feed-s upon
t h e primal, bas ic passion s of man, th e other upon his divine as pirations . T h e leaf seeks for l ight as surely as t h e root seeks fordarkness, and upon th e free play of th e leaf depend th e health andl ife of th e plant .T h e leaf of th e Spiritual plant organizes spiritual truth into '
l iterature, creeds, l iturgies, forms of thought and forms of worship that act most powerfully upon th e spiritual l ife and are
necessary to that life. Without this organizing power of th e leafthere would be no spiritual life whatever. T h e leaf and th e rootact together to produce t h e great tree . All that w e see of th e
immense variety of spiritual life in th e world—Gods and goddesses, forms of faith and modes of worship, churches and denominations
, sects and h eresiesw -are t h e outcome of th e combinedwork of th e root and leaf organizing th e earth and th e air intoth e organi c forms of th e religious or spiritual l ife of man . And
'
it i s no . more necessary that th e root should be in t h e soil thanthat th e leaf should be in th e air . It must be ever breathing innew life from heaven . Shut th e leaf from t h e air
,or cut it away,
and th e tree languishes and dies . Every tree has its yearly generation oi leaves, and each generation adds to th e strength , theform
,and t h e beauty of th e tree . To say that a tree shall be no
greater than it is, that no new branch es shall shoot forth from it s
REv. ALGERNON s . CRAP SEY , D. D . 1 63
stem,that it shall clothe itself with no new beauty, is to deny th e
organizing power of t h e leaf and to condemn th e tree to stagnation and to death . And this failure to recogn ize th e unorganiz edforces of t h e air, and t h e organ izing power of th e leaf, is one greatreason Of t h e decay and death of religious organizations . Whenan organization can no longer l ive in t h e great out -of—doors andcan no longer breathe in that wonderful air of truth in which t h esoul of man lives, then that organi zation is doomed . Nothingcan save it from death . This is t h e reas on of th e gradual failureof that great organization known among men as th e CatholicChurch . It is t h e glory and th e strength of Catholicism that ithas kept its roots down deep in th e soil of humanity . It has it shome with th e poor and th e outcast and th e sinner . It knowshow to deal wi th these as no other religious organ ization has everknown . In this it is divine. T h e failure of Catholicism is not th efailure of th e root
,but t h e failure of th e leaf . It has gone down
into primitive catacombs and shut itself in mediaeval cloisters anddenied itself to t h e spirit of truth, and so has cast itself Off fromth e great life of th e air which human ity is breathing, and wi th ‘
out which humani ty cannot live . T h e great intellectual lifewhich is ours to-day has been compel led to take organic form out
s ide of Cath olicism . T h e science and th e l iterature in which th emodern world finds th e highest expression of its religious lifeow e li ttle or nothing to th e Catholic Church, and that Church iscompel led to seek its knowledge at th e l ip s of those whom itcalled unholy and profane .
And alas ! ecclesiastical Protestantism, not content with losingth e organizing power of th e root, is s triving to get rid of theorgani zing power of th e leaf as well . It is forbidding its childrent o breathe th e fresh, pure air of heaven .
“ Breathe,” it cries,
the air of th e Sixteenth or s even teen th centuries, but never th eair of th e nineteenth or twentieth . Feed on t h e dogmatics ofLuther and Calvin
,but not on th e science of Newton, Humboldt,
and Darwin .
” T his effort of ecclesiastical Protestantism to shutitself up in its own formularies means its speedy extinction .
Ecclesiastical Protestantism has no deep root in th e soil of humanity to prolong it s days
,as has Catholicism. It was born of
t h e air, and in th e air it must l ive . When it ceases to be free,it ceases to be.
As modern religion is afraid of th e earth, so it seems to dreadth e air. It says to th e eager mind of youth, Do not think
,be
cause you are pretty sure to think wrongly.
” And then th e
eager mind of youth irreverently calls it a fossil and goes onthinking just th e same
,and th e great ecclesiastical organization s,
bereft of their leaves, began to wither and to die.
Now I think w e have glanced at th e two great un organi zed religious forces, th e one to be found in th e passions and t h e otherin th e aspirations of men ,
and f or each of these w e have an or
ganizing power—th e organizing power of th e root and th e organ
1 64 THE UN ORGAN IZED RELIGIOUS FORCES.
izing principle of t h e leaf ; the one drawing up from the soil andth e other drawing in from t he air, and w e have seen that if w eare to have a perfect organ ization it must be by having th e rootsdeep and t h e leaves broad and wi de. When that day comes, as itis coming, when w e shall have our roots down
,our bran ches up
ward and outward,and our leaves ful l and fresh, then shall w e
have a process by which w e can re-create and regenerate mankind .
It is a proces s that is going on all th e time : it never has ceas ed andit never can cease . We can only hinder it a little bit ; w e cannotput an end to it .Time would fail me to tell of th e flower that blooms for a
while and then fades and falls away . It is th e product and the
g lory of t h e plant, and has in it th e promise of other plants thatare to come after . I can only say in passing that every livingorgan ism must bring forth th e beauty of t h e flower and t h e powerOf t h e seed . When it ceases to flower and does not n ourish itss eed
,then it has ceased to serve its purpose and merely cum-bers
t h e ground until it is cut down and cast away . But this has tod o with another subject than that which now engages ourattention . I only mention it that w e may follow th e lowes t formOf unorganized rel igi ous force up t o its highest form of organi zedbeauty
,that w e may follow it from th e fi lth of t h e st reet to t he
lovel iness of t h e rose,from th e slime Of sin to th e beauty of holi
ness .Perhaps, in clos ing, you will let me illustrate th e progress of
my own spiritual life by tracing th e process backward . We havehere th e flower picked up from t he street, worn last night, perhaps
,by some beauty who added beauty to beauty by placing this
in h er bodice . It begins to fall and to fade . Its life is nearlyover. T O-morrow it will be thrown aside and cast out . It will goback again to become a part of th e basal principle of existence ;but here it is, and it came from a plan t, and th e plant from th e
seed, and t h e seed was nourished by th e soil . My own spirituall ife was awakened by the flower . Born in th e dust of aridProtestantism
,I came in contact with Catholic devotion
,and saw
th e beauty and glory of it . It was a marvelous thing. I remember t h e very first t ime that I entered in to a church where reverence prevailed
,and where t h e Holy Scriptures were read as if they
were indeed a revelation from Almighty God,and it was a reve
lation to t he soul of a boy . It w as t h e beauty of express ion thatfirst charmed t h e youthful mind, and led it to love beauty of expression, and to find in it th e man ifestation of th e D ivine Life .
And then was I born o f t he straitest sect of our rel igion , a HighChurch ritualist . But as the boy went on
,h e followed th e flower
to its source in th e plant, and h e began to love the great plantthat bore t h e flower
,and that sustained it with its great and al
most eternal l ife . Then he foll owed th e plan t down until h ecame to t he seed of the truth , and h e began to love the seed of thetruth more than h e loved t h e plant that sprang from th e seed .
1 66 THE UNORGAN IZED RELIGIOUS FORCES.
j ori t y Of men ,as I have said , have a keen an d in exorable con
scien ce , an d up t o t h e measure Of the ir light are seeking t o b e t rue .
Men are devoted t o t h e truth ; they are con secrated t o G od ; theywan t t o live as ever in t h e Great Taskmaster’s eye . But , alas ! thisforce o f con scien ce i s un organ ized an d in defin ite ; thi s great forceo f con scien ce i s n ever mas sed an d brought t o bear upon any greatproblem o f society or n eed Of human ity . Y ou have all watched t h elightn ing on a summer
’s n ight, as it played over t h e face Of t h ewho le sky . It was on ly she et-lightn ing, t oo diffused t o d o muchdamage . But le t that diffused e lectricity gather itse lf up into a thund erb olt—n ow it has Titan ic power an d wi ll tear t h e oak or ren dt h e rock. T h e world is full Of e lectricity, an d t h e who le un iverse i stremulous with power. But no t un til thi s e lectricity is con eent rat ed and harn e ssed will it tran smit man
’s thought an d light h i sdwe lling. T h e force o f con scien ce i s diff used all over our lan d , butmuch o f it is sheet-lightn ing, d iffused, vague , re sultless. There i senough con scien ce an d con secration in t h e various re ligious bodie sin our lan d t o turn t h e world upside down an d right Side up . Butit i s diffused an d un organ ized ; it does n ot gather itse lf up in tospiritual thun derbo lts .3. There i s also t h e f orce Of in dividuality. Infin ite w i sdom n everduplicate s in n ature or in m an . Every m an i s a peculi ar creature , aSpecie s all his ow n . W e are all Odd numbers . “ How manym embers have y ou in your church ? in quired on e pastor o f another.
T w o hundred an d some Odd ; but h ow man y have you?”
Oh , Ihave t w o hundred—an d all Odd .
”Each o f y ou can in terpret t h e
parable f or himse lf. There are diversitie s o f g ifts, but t h e Sam e
Spirit. I am , as y ou may know, a member Of a re lig ious bod y, an d
be lieve,Of course , that all w h o agree with m e are just a little n earer
t h e abso lute truth than t h e m en w h o d o n ot agre e with me . Butat t h e same time , I rejo ice that w e are no t all Baptists. F or t h e
n eeds o f m en are man ifo ld ; t h e taste s an d aptitude s o f m en are
varied . That all m en may b e reached an d w on , that t h e who le truthmay be revea led , that t h e full-orbed Kingdom may be sought, it i sn ecessary that there be diversities o f gifts an d dif f eren ces Of admini s t rat ion . T h e mo st un fortun ate thing that could b e devised in ourday would be a un iform cree d f or all m en , a s e t form o f worshi pf or all congregation s, a pre scribed organ ization f or all bodie s. Allthis might b e t h e perfection o f mechan ism, but it would b e t h e end
o f all l ife an d spon tan e ity .
4. There is t h e force o f organ ization itse lf . I n Ameri ca alon e thereare some on e hundred an d n in ety thousan d religi ous organi zation s O fon e faith and an other. Each organ ization i s more or less comple tew i thin itse lf, with its ow n m achin ery an d method . Each organ ization comman ds t h e allegian ce Of a number o f adheren ts . Suppos ethat there could b e a corre lation of organ ization s in behalf o f t h eKingdom Of G od !T h e n eed Of a clo ser organ ization o f all re ligious bod ie s is tooObvious t o require any extended commen t. It i s t oo late in t h e dayt o question t h e n ece ssity an d t h e advan tage o f such organ ization .
N umbers , con scien ce , in dividuality, and mean s alon e coun t f or little .
What i s t h e diff eren ce between an army an d a m ob ? An army i s an
organ ized m ob ; an d a m ob i s an un organ ized army. A m ob may w in
in a Skirm ish , but it take s an arm y t o w in in a cam paign . Wh at i st h e secre t o f England ’s success in India? Organ ization . After allorgan ization i s but t h e me thodical arrangemen ts f or securi ng defin itere sults . T w o men working in harmony can accomplish f ar more
than t h e same t w o m en working in i so lation . I n t h e divi ne arithmeticit i s declared that one Shall chase a thousand , and t w o Shall put te nthousand t o flight. Tw ice on e ,
” according t o t h e divin e arithmetic,equals t en .
”One thing is certain beyond peradventure : T h e un
REv. SAMUEL ZANE BATTEN. 67
o rgan ized religi ous forces Of our land are n o t producing more than afraction o f po ssible results . T h e evils o f division are seen mostmarkedly in our citie s . Thus f ar in t h e history o f re lig ion suspicionrather than co-Operation , jealousy rather than love , have marked t h ere lation s between t h e differen t re ligious bodies . As a con sequen cee ach re ligious body has its ow n con stituen cy, an d all beyon d thisc harmed circle are forgott en . Beyon d t h e little circle s o f our diff ere n t bodie s there lie s t h e great world that somehow is n eglected .
Each body regards its parish as con termin ous with i t s congregation ,
a n d it hardly dare s to go beyon d f or fear o f be ing accused o f
proselyting. Beyon d the se congregation s there lie s a great sectiono f hum an ity that is unreached an d un churched. T h e churches become rivals f or t h e po ssession o f coveted fie lds, an d they cultivatetho se portion s o f t h e commun ity that yie ld t h e largest fin an cial return s . This harlotry o f t h e churches with t h e mon ey classe s i s on e
o f t h e most ominous an d braz en efi ron t eries o f t h e pres en t time .
Un der our pre sen t un organ iz ed , waste ful, compe titive system t h e
c itie s o f America are slowly, but sure ly, go ing t o t h e devi l.T h e work to b e don e in our world , in order t o prepare f or t h e
comi ng Of God ’s Kingdom , i s very great. N othing but a un ion o f allt h e re ligi ous force s can ever bring in that Kingdom. Tod ay w e are
con fronted wi th all kinds Of evils,social , industrial , po litical , in ter
n ation al . Mo st n ece ssary is it t hat there b e a un ion o f all w h o
love in behalf o f all w h o suff er. T h e weekly day Of rest is be ingun derm ined ; t h e saloon power is becoming more firmly in tren chede very year; po litical corruption i s most flagran t an d shame le ss ; grea tindustrial wrongs cry un to Heaven f or redre ss . T h e force s Of t e
ligion an d ri gh teousn e ss pres en t a broken an d un certain fron t t o t h ee nemie s o f society . Suppo se that there could b e an organ iz ation o f
t h e re ligi ous forces Of America in behalf Of certain righteous and
progressive measure s . I n on e year’s time they could accomplishwon ders beyond our dreams . Some years ago when t h e ChristianEndeavor Conven tion m et in Mon treal , t h e Mayor Of t h e city, a Roman
Catho lic, we lcomed t h e de legat e s . He said : “T h e time is coming
when t h e battle must b e between all re ligi on s an d n o re ligi on .
The se words o f t h e goo d Mayor are worthy Of bei ng made t h e
watchword o f this Con feren ce . T h e time h as come when t h e battlei s betw een all re ligi on s an d n o re ligi on . What can w e do in ord er t ob ring to pass a better state Of things ?1 . T h e first thing is t o upho ld every such eff ort an d m ovem en t as
this Con feren ce o f Re ligion . T h e things that un ite us are more and
mightier than t h e things that separate us . T h e first thi ng i s f orus to learn t o respect t h e other man ’s be li ef, an d t o call h im brother.
Aristo tle used t o say : Hear t h e other side . Much Of our Oppositiongrows out Of our ignoran ce . Faith in G od i s a prin ciple Of un ionand n o t a prin ciple o f division . Un less w e can come together in thisway an d con fer, w e h ad better stop calling ourse lve s be lievers in G oda t all. Coming together in this way w e will seek t o emphasize po in tso f agreemen t rather than po in ts o f diff eren ce .
2. Th en w e must come back t o first prin ciple s and learn an eww hat is t h e work given us t o d o . T h e Church , any church , i s but amean s t o an en d ; t h e Church that become s an _
end in it self has ceas edto be true . T h e busine ss o f t h e Church is n ot to make an d defen dcreed s ; it is n o t t o main tain an d ad van ce certain ordi n an ce s ; n o , i t s
first an d on ly busin es s is t o build m en up in righteousne ss, an d t o
b ring in t h e Ki ngdom Of G od . I like that defini tion Of t h e Churchgi ven us by Thomas Arn o ld : T h e true an d gran d idea o f a churchi s that o f a society f or making m en like Christ, earth li ke Heaven ,
a n d t h e kingdoms Of this world t h e K ingdom Of our G od .
”An d I
like also that defin ition o f John Ruskin : “T here is -a true church
w herever on e hand meets ano ther helpfully ; an d that i s t h e on ly
1 68 THE UNORGAN IZED RELIGIOUS FORCES.
Ho ly Mother Church which ever was or ever shall b e .
”I n behalf o f
some creed or some f orm Of worship w e n ever can un ite ; but in b e
half O f t h e Ki ngdom o f G od , t h e Kingdom o f R ighte ousn e ss an d Peaceand Gladn e ss in t h e Ho ly Spirit w e can un ite , w e must un ite .
3. W e must seek a clo ser co -operation o f all t h e re ligious bodie s inbehalf o f t h e Kingdom o f G od . W e must first o f all dimin ish t h e
wi cked waste o f m en an d mon ey in t h e presen t competition o f t h e
churches . There will b e time en ough f or us t o talk over our diff ere n ces O f cre ed when t h e Kingdom o f G od is come . Un til that time
le t a man be lieve in his ow n creed with all his heart ; but le t h imkn ow that his creed is a false an d harmful on e if it keeps hi m fromloving his brothers an d co-Operating with them. Y ou may recallt h e sto ry that is to ld Of Dr. Rodgers Of Lon don , Hang Th eo logyRodgers , as h e was called . On e day h e atten ded a con feren ce Ofworkers, called t o con sider t h e n eeds o f a section Of t h e city. Whenever some plan o f work was propo sed some person at on ce raised an
Objection , theo logi cal or econ omical . Rodgers sto o d it as lon g as h ecould an d then said : “
Hang theo logy ; hang econ omics ; le t us gett o work . I n t h e great things w e are on e ; w e must n o t allowt h e little thi ngs t o divide us an y longer. When t h e Kingdom o f G od i sfully come it will b e time f or us t o sett le all such mi nor que stion sas apo sto li c succe ssion , forms Of ordin an ce s, and statemen ts o f
doctrin e .
REV . WALTER LA IDLAW, PH . D N EW YORK,
Secretary Of t h e Federation o f Churches an d Chri stian Workers i nN ew York City.
T h e catalogue o f un organ ized re ligi ous force s has been en largedthis aftern oon in a way which everyon e w h o accepts t h e theo logyo f t h e divin e imman en ce must approve . Phillips Brooks said thatt h e Church w as like many mediaeval citie s in clo sed by walls . Whenon e en deavored t o state t h e population Of any o f t h e s e cities h e
w as confin ed , strictly speaking, t o t h e population within t h e walls .But many Of t h e se citie s overflow ed the ir stony boun daries , an d t h e
true population o f them was more than t h e Offi cial population . Sim
i larly , Phillips Brooks said , “ is t h e real Church larger than t h e
registered Church ; an d it is true that t h e unorgan ized re ligi ousforces in clude many organ ization s other than churche s strictly so
called .
N everthe le ss , I be lieve , as t h e las t spe aker has said,that t h e great
n eed Of our time , an d t h e first work t o b e don e , fo llowing t h e
common -sen se order,i s t o take t h e organ ization s which are p ro
f e s s ed ly re lig ious an d endeavor t o organ ize them ; an d I be lieve thatit is also true that that ought t o b e attempte d along t h e lin e s o f
least re sistan ce ; that , in other words, it i s t h e mo st pruden t thin g,when such organ ization i s attempted ,—while n ever in imical t o an yo ther forms Of faith ,
—firs t o f all t o attempt, i n a city like N ew
York , t o produce among its Prote stan t organ ization s that co -o pe ration which can b e produced , I am glad t o say , along t h e lin e s o f
l ittle re sistan ce .
T h e catalogue o f tho se un organ ized re ligi ous force s in N ew York,I am sorry t o say, i s growing every year. Within t h e n in ete en thcen tury forty type s o f Prote stan tism began work in N ew York City .
Be fore that time there were on ly t en . W e have h ad four time s asmany kinds o f Pro te stan tism introduced in thi s city in t h e cen turywhich i s clo sing as in t h e t w o preced ing cen turie s o f N ew York life .
Profe ssor Giddings h as shown us t h e pro found truth that con scious
1 70 T HE IDEAL COMMONWEALTH AS T HE K INGDOM OF G OD .
that Society, that a repre sen tative should be sen t from us , if po ssible ,f or this society t o rece ive such a repre sen tative or de legat e . T h e
Secretary, Mr. Leighton Williams, very kindly indeed brought t h ematte r be fore t h e Commi tte e
,an d w e were in vited . W e e lected as
delegate , our Pre siden t,’
Dr. Chown , w h o con sen ted at first t o go , butaf terward f oun d that a press ing engagemen t o f another kin d wouldpreven t him from go ing. I regret very much that h e i s n ot with you,
f or h e is a mo st admirable speaker, an d much better able than myse lft o bring t o y ou words o f cheer an d we lcome .
I should like t o make on e remark with regard t o something sai dby Mr. Batten , which struck a sympathetic chord in my breas t. I t
w as th is : that w e n eed to emphasize at t h e pre sen t time—I supposeall here pre sen t are do ing s o—w e must emphasize agreemen ts , an d
lay aside , as much as w e can , our diff eren ces . T h e circle Of our
agreemen ts, I be lieve (and I suppo se there are large diff eren ce s o f
opin ion among tho se here represen ted ) , is very much larger than t h e
circle Of disagreemen ts . So w e must emphasize those agreemen tst o t h e utmo st Of our power. I am remin ded o f a story about Dr.
Pusey, t h e great leader o f t h e H igh Church movemen t in Englan d,and Dean Stan ley . Dr. Pusey said o f Dean Stan ley, that h e w as ablet o s ee agreemen ts, but was no t able t o s ee disagreemen ts . Whent h e remark w as repeated t o Dean Stan ley
,h e said it was t h e greatest
complimen t that ever had been pai d him.
XII . THE IDEAL COMMONWEALTH AS T HE KINGDOMOF GOD .
!
F irst P aper.
MR. EDWIN MARKHAM,BROOKLYN ,
N . Y.
We have been taught to look for a heaven afar in somespiritual space in t h e universe, and to expec t it as something towhich w e are going. There is doubtless such a heaven, but thisis not th e heaven that is t h e burden Of Jesus’ words . He lookedfor a Fraternal Commonwealth that should be th e politicalrealization Of the Sermon on th e Mount .He told not Of a kingdom to which w e are to go, but of a
kingdom that is to come to us . Thy Kingdom come, thy willbe done on earth —this is the prayer . We are told to pray forth e Kingdom on earth, and, Of course, this means to work for it .For if a man does not work for what h e prays for, h e afiron t s
G od .
But where are t h e elements Of this kingdom . They are al
ready here—all around us . Now, this very hour, w e are in th emidst of th e raw materials Of heaven . We are daily tramplingthem under our feet . We are walking right over th e shiningwalls Of t he N ew Jerusalem ; w e are casting to the right handand t o th e left t h e pillars and th e paving stones Of t h e HolyCitX11 the material s Of heaven are here, or they are nowhere.
Copyrighted forEdwin Markham, and all rights reserved.
MR. EDWARD MARKHAM. 1 7 1
Every day w e are castin g away the pearls Of the heavenly gate.
T hose pearls are love and afiect ionat e justice. They are the
G olden Rule and t h e economics Of t h e Kingdom Of Heaven .
All w e need to do is ‘ to dramatize love ; put it into expression ;let it speak ; let it move . We have committed th e Golden Ruleto memory ; w e now need to comm it it to life .
Was Christ philosophical in demanding that th e Kingdomshould be built on earth ? Indeed He was ; Chris t proves Himselfin this to be t h e supreme philosopher and statesman of th e world .
He saw th e shaping force Of s ocial condition s . He saw that t h ehuman babe, for in stan ce, is dependen t on i ts social environmen tfor t h e evolution of t he human quality .
On e proof Of this is foun d in t h e fact that if a boy infant iss tolen by wolves, and adopted by a female wolf as one Of h er
cubs, he will learn to suck from h er breast ; h e wil l grow up witht he young wolves as brothers and sisters ; h e will run on all fours ;h e will whin e
,bark
,and growl for a language —t h e slum babies
g row like th e dump piles they live among : th e angels grow whitelooking on t h e Throne .
T h e state is th e fabric Of t he moral order Of th e world . It ist h e organ through which, in a large way, w e are to express th ew il l Of God
,which is affection ate justice or righteousness . T he
will of God is th e will Of th e Common Welfare .
God wishes to express t h e D ivine order in t h e total Of humanl ife. But
“the state is t h e total Of hum an life as organized in
time and space.
”
T h e Righteousn ess Of God is secular . Pure religion is notcause nor end ; it is means . Its cause is God, it s end is God in
p lay—God active in factory and clearing house. T rue religi onnever rests un til it makes t h e Secular its goal .We have talked Of Brotherhood for centuries . But mere senti
ment is not enough . We cann ot hold G od with a dream . T he
supreme need Of th e world is to find a material basis for Brotherhood . Government must be made t h e organ Of Fratern ity.
T h e study Of t h e social order, then ,should be t h e chi ef con
cern Of t h e rel igi ous man . For what is religion ? Religion is, atb ottom
,a social bon d—a bon d that binds all men into one Prac
t ical Brotherhood in God. A man becomes rel igious only whenh e comes into brotherly relations w ith hi s fellows, not forgettinghis hairy and feathered kinsfolks of th e field and sky .
All Christ’s words have reference to this social ideal thatshould end in t h e Ki ngdom that is to come on earth . This is . t hemean ing of th e N ew Birth—that w e must strive to be born outof our brute individualism in to t h e social spirit—out Of ourbrute in heritance into our D ivin e inheritance—out of Satanservice into people-service—out of selfhood into oth erh OOd . Andon ly t h e Kingdom
,t h e Fraternal Commonwealth, furnishes an
o rgan for this new spirit—furnishes a proper organ for th e ex
pression Of t h e Christ spirit in things .
1 72 T HE IDEAL COMMONWEALTH AS T HE KI NGDOM OF G OD .
Nothing short Of this will an swer. We have tried substitutes,but they fail . We have tried charity-giving
,but
,worthy as this
work is,it is not t h e one thing n eedful . T h e world needs justice,
affectionate justice. It needs t h e extin ction Of all privatemon opolies and special privilege.
We have tried th e churchificat ion Of th e world,but despite
t h e service rendered by t h e Church in th e past, it is not t h e idealOf Christ . Saint John
,looking into th e great future, saw th e
Kingdom on earth,th e N ew Jerusalem
,and h e says that h e saw
no temple there. Y ea,th e public order n eeds to be tran sformed in to
a co-operative or Fraternal Commonwealth, wherein every hearthshall be an altar and every labor a sacrament .NO
,verily ; mere philanthropy, n oble as it is, i s not t h e thing
whi ch Christ lived to reveal and died to vindi cate. Philanthropyis but th e hyssop on th e sponge l ifted to th e l ips Of hum anity on
t h e cross . But Christ comes to take humanity down from the ;
cross .Now
,men everywhere are asking, Where i s God ? ” They see
no God because they see no social providen ce . Millions and generat ions go down in squalor
,disease, poverty, and misery. SO
men are asking, Where is God ? ”T h e answer is, God is where:
men find Him .
” H is providence is where men organ ize providence . God is in t h e world in th e natural material s Of providencein th e essences and properties and potencies Of providence. Butthere is no providence ready-made for men . L et men find providence where men found t h e steam engine and th e telegraph ;where they found t h e reaper and th e printing press . L et men
organize providence in society,and t h e world will have a provi
dence . Providence is laten t : let us bring it forth by evolution .
Providence on earth has to conquer its own ground . L et men'
co-operate with God and t h e kingdom of order wil l descend. Aman must co-Operate with God if h e wishes an answer to his ownprayer. T h e institutions around us speak th e will Of th e race. .
By their fruits ye shall know them .
” Men need a new willt h e wi ll Of th e Social Conscien ce .
SO I prophesy th e coming of the Social Man to bui ld t h e socialkingdom . He will be a practical Christian—th e one who reallydoes th e will of t h e Father. He will be th e divine flower Of t h eages . He will move in th e power of th e social passion . He will
‘
reject sel f-riches , sel f-distin ction , self-dominion ,in h is pursuit
Of th e common good . He will recogn ize th e people as the extension Of his own body . He will recognize God and so will recognizet he all . There will be no favoritism . If a man should say N ow
I will be just ; now I will be benevolent and should thereuponfe ed all th e worthy in a city, all but one—in that rejected one God
‘
i s rejected . He did th e deed in his own name,and not in th e
name of t he Father of All .This practical Christian i s coming—h e i s coming to do th e
Father’s will,to build t he social kingdom . And w e are told that
1 74 T HE IDEAL COMMON WEALTH AS T HE K INGDOM OF G OD .
any just appreciation of the spirit out Of which the word growsmust lead us to take definite positions in regard to some theoriesOf government . T he very conception of a commonwealth, orcommon welfare,
” involves emphasis upon t h e value Of t h e in
dividual . N0 true conviction of the reality Of a comm onwealthcan underestimate th e duties
,rights
,and responsibilities Of each
individual soul . If, then, an aristocracy duly takes true accoun t ofthese rights and respon s ibilities
,if it exists not because Of simple
superior force, whether physical or intellectual, but by innatesuperior goodness, there is in theory an aristocratic commonwealththat deserves examination as a possible ideal .Such
,however, have not been the aristocracies submi tted to our
critic ism as ideals, and far less have th e actual aristocracies ofhistory in any measure fulfilled these condi tions . Brutal concep t ions Of government, as resting on Sheer force, have foun dtheir advocate in Thomas Hobbes . He expected out Of th e mireOf war
,ignorance, passion, and jealousy to evolve peace, good will,
and essential just ice by t h e establishmen t Of an absolute tyrannythat would exchange these things for humble submission to th etyran t . Hobbes did not deny ethical and ideal elements as aimsOf s ociety ; h e did, however, practically deny them as elemen ts int h e human life out of which society grows . Plato’s aristocracy in“T he Republic” as frankly treats human
‘
beings as means to ends ,not in or Of themselves, as does Thomas Hobbes . This is whatno honest believer in a commonwealth can do . For Plato th eslave and lower-class worker exist that an order may be upheldfrom which professedly they reap no j oy. T h e philosopher isalso a servant Of th e social whole, but h e Obtains t h e highest rewards Of l ife even while h e serves . T h e cardinal weakness
,alike
in Plato and in Aristotle, is this treatment Of men as means toends apart from themselves, and in which ends they have no lot .Commercial aristocracy or plutocracy has no supreme exposi
tor such as intellectual aristocracy has in Plato, or military arist ocracy has in Thomas Hobbes . Its substantial faith has, however,been frankly and clearly set forth by Nitzsche in his philosophyOf power . According to much popular thought tod ay about t h edinner-tables Of t h e comfort able, and in th e smoking-rooms Ofmen’s clubs
, th e average individual is thought Of as a poor, ineffic ient person ,
whose only use is to build up t h e commercial structure in whose supremacy consists th e national glory. If little boysmust toil in dark mines , hungry in body for food, in mind for instruction
,and in soul for God, that w e may triumph in our con
tracts to build t h e bridges Of th e Soudan , t h e fault is with Godwho did not make men equal , and not wi th our ambitions or ourideals . These relatively helples s thousands must perish to enablet h e clever and th e capable to build up a commercial structuresuch as th e world must envy and admire . According to this philosophy th e many exist , not as immortal ends in themselves , notas individuals with divine possibil ities and divine responsibilities
,
PROFESSOR THOMAS 0 . B AL L , D . D . 1 75
but as means to th e ends Of th e f ew highly gifted and largelyendowed whose conquest in a fierce battle constitutes their patentof nobility. T h e King is th e man who can (Carlyle), and capacityconstitutes it s own morality (Nitzsche 61
,
“Jenseit s von Gut undBbse It is no hypocrisy for real capacity to be a demagogueat a political mass meeting
,—to talk Of patriotism, the flag, and
duty—if only, when it comes to real action, capacity is ever foun dtrue to th e fundamental faith of commercial supremacy at anycost of tradition
,faith, t ruth, principle, and right as th e stupid
leaderless mob regard these things . According to this philosophycapacity has certain duties . These are mainly to self, but loyaltyto those who are in th e way of advancing that self belongs to enlightened self-interest . Even a Show Of pity and a certain realtenderness to those once hopelessly out Of th e way as competitorsbelongs to th e morals Of an aristocracy 263 Nitzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Bose but it must be watched or it will leadto “ pauperization Of th e many,
” or,worse yet , to softening that
soul-fiber Of th e f ew needed in th e ruthless confli ct Of th e morrow(loc . According to this teaching all th e institutions Of th eday may be used as means to th e supreme end which this mainphil osophy sets forth .
This philosophy is fearfully afraid Of socialism,and pretends
that its dread is foun ded upon respect for th e individual . I t s
constant warning is against “ paternalism ” in government . I t s
instinctive fear is not, however, Of“ paternalism ”
; for th e one
lesson it is forever dinni ng into men’s ears is faith in th e capablef ew
,and it is never weary Of pointing to th e successes gained
when that faith h as been yielded . Its real struggle will be wi than organized self-conscious fraternity that will refuse to bow tot h e false gods Of commercial triumphs and will steadily main taint h e faith that men are ends in themselves, and that to use themas means is blasphemy against God . It is quite impossible t osay what will be t h e outward forms Of government when fraternalism comes to it s inheritance . We can only be sure that th enew wine will not be poured into Old bottles
,and that th e com
monw ealth will in i ts triumphs mock t he Objections of t h e un bel ieving, and outdo th e daydreams Of th e faithful .SO far as aristocracy means t h e subjection of th e ends of many
to th e ends of f ew , or Of even some to others, so far th e ideal commonw ealth cannot be an aristocracy. SO far as democracy mean sun organized and selfish individualism
,SO l ong it is and will be th e
helpless prey Of a bastard ari stocracy.
Jesus came proclaiming neither socialism nor individual ism .
Hi s faith was based upon a sure hope Of th e ultimate supremacy OfGod our F ather. It was this conception Of God, neither as an
omnipotent sovereign nor yet as abstract law ; neither as supremeRuler nor yet as a
“ Power not ourselves that makes for righteousness
,
” but as a personal and tenderly attached father to a
weak and erring race Of children, that gives color and character
1 76 THE IDEAL COMMONWEALTH as THE K INGDOM OF GOD .
to all t h e thought Of Jesus . It is t h e substitution Of other andpagan thoughts Of God that has corrupted and debas ed our so
called Chris tian philosophies, social economies, and theologies .T h e Kingdom of G od , as Jesus un derstood it, cannot be
di vorced from this fun damental thought Of God . T h e supremacyOf t h e D ivine l ife in t h e affairs Of men
,not as a supremacy Of
power or Of judgment,but Of healing love
,lies at t h e very root Of
t h e teachin gs of t h e early Gospels . That commonwealth,then
, is
alone ideal in which this redemptive fatherly love finds fullest andfreest expression . Paternalism is out Of place if by that w e meanthat any small portion Of th e commun ity, however selected, is totake God’s place, and lord it over God’s heritage . T he philosOphy Of commercial supremacy is t ruly paternal when at itsbest . It really hopes to use a part of what it has wrun g fromman as machines to raise men up socially as dependent children .
N ot so,however, would w e read Jesus Christ . Only that social
organ ization will give largest expression to t h e Ki ngdom Of Godin which t h e only inequality w il l be that Of Older and wiserbrothers to younger and less gifted members Of a family. T O our
great shame t h e beautiful word charity has been s o hopeless lydegraded by the intrusion of false con ceptions Of human relationsthat w e mus t seek for some other term to describe active love andsympathy. Real charity has still to busy itself with t he wounded
,
t he bruis ed, and th e fallen in life’s hard battle, but its chief tas k
to-day ought to be th e seeking out and removing th e caus es of oursocial sickness . T h e disasters that chiefly interest a teacher Of
morals are not s imply t h e physical discomfort s Of our unorganizedcommercial life . These press heavily on all classes . T h e uglin ess Of our streets, t h e disorder in our muni c ipal affairs, t h e pettytyrannies from which not even t h e most powerful wholly escapethese things are but signs of h ow far 03 is yet t h e Kingdom Of
God. What,however, most should weigh on us is t he debauchery
and moral ins olence Of those whom our existing social confusionleaves without t h e norma l restraints Of an associated life . Greatpower and great poverty render men irresponsible . Fierce and
rapacious fish are now known to live and hunt at great oceandepths . T he enormous weight Of water makes a pressure on allsides which holds them compac t and active as they pursue theirl ife . Wh en
,however , that pressure is removed
,and they are
brought near th e surface of t h e water, they become so expandedand t he tis sue so soft that any scientific examination is well-nighimposs ible . T he fearful extremes Of our existing
,and indeed o f
nearly all existing,social states produce a like effect . Nero
might easily have had t he moral fiber t o be a useful Roman citizenin it s better days , but h e was hopelessly corrupted by irresponsiblepower . TO-day t he enormous wealth gathered in t he hands o f af ew does but l ittle harm to those w ho toiled f or i t . T he acquirement Of it has given a certain moral d iscipline Of no ordinaryk in d . T he danger Of irrespons ible power is seen in the second
,
1 78 THE IDEAL COMMONWEALTH AS THE K INGDOM OF GOD .
He strove with t h e capable and th e powerful . They rejected Him,
and fishermen were installed in their places . Will th e strong andcapable
,will th e religious leadership in pew and pulpit forever
repeat th e mi stakes Of nineteen hundred years ago ? Will w eever go on tithing min t and anise and cum in
,and leave un done
t he weightier matters Of t h e law, judgmen t, jus tice, an d faith ?Organ ized charity has its place, but it is t h e m int and anise and
cum in . W e will always have th e blind,th e helpless, t h e hope
lessly dependent with us, but t h e main duty Of tod ay is to s topmaking by th e wholesale blindness
,helplessness
,and hopeless
dependency.
Men in th e Middle Ages discovered th e great truth that powerand comfort could be a menace to their souls
,and they stripped
themselves Of these with an Often splendid heroism . We n eed t olearn to-day that power and comfort and un checked capacity maymenace th e souls Of t he commun ity, and w e must be ready f or anysacrifi ce Of apparent self-in terest if thereby there i s a reasonableh Ope of bringing in th e Kingdom .
T h e cry Of God Almighty now to this our beloved Republic isto seek out t h e forms Of lov ing justice at any cost of self-sacrifice,and to make them t h e forms Of an ideal commonwealth . Mistakesw e will make . Losses w e wi l l endure
,but th e search is life
et err
é
a
P
I, and t h e refusal is sure death . What must w e do to be
saveL et powerful
,experienced
,railroad men really di scuss the
question Of private or public ownership Of railroads,not on per
sonal or economi c groun ds, but on t h e high moral groundwhich form Of ownership will most promote or make possible aholy brotherhood .
L et skillful and far-sighted manufacturers debate free tradeand t h e tariff, not on t h e basis of self-interest, however enlightened, but on th e basis Of it s moral effect . Were holy brotherhoodand political purity advanced by th e di scussion s at Washington?L et shrewd financiers really weigh th e quest ions of our curren cy
from the standpoint Of l oving righteousn ess, apart from classinterest and temporary condi tion s .L et lawyers treat th e bar as th e vestibule of th e Holiest of
Holies and make their legal work t h e Search after forms of truerighteousness .L et theologians turn from t h e catch-words Of sect and party
,
and consider,independently Of denominational advantage, th e
fun damental questions Of holy brotherhood with Jesus Christ .
We l ook for guidan ce from t h e strong and clear-Sighted on theseand kindred topics . At th e same time those Of us who are l ooking for th e glorious appearance Of Our Lord and Saviour in t h eaffairs Of men cannot, dare not accept conclusions confessedlybased on so-called economi c, business , or practical reasonings andwh ich exclude our deepest faith . We try at least to make our
PROFESSOR THOMAS C. HALL, D . D. 1 79
main busin ess th e establishment of God’s Ki ngdom, and are surethat
,if w e find it
,all these th ings will be added unto us .
Again and again t h e seemi ngly natural leaders of society havebetrayed us . Nay, they have crucified our Lord Of Glory and puthim to an Open shame . Y et God has not abandoned Hi s Kingdom . It is comi ng. Out of th e stones He raises up children tofaithful Abraham . T h e weak things Of this world have againand again conf ounded t h e mighty. Wesley
,pitted against th e
whole Established Church,changed t h e face Of English life .
Luther dared L eo X . and th e princes Of Europe. Paul wi thstood Nero
,and Jesus braved t h e world . T h e heralds Of that
coming Kingdom are s oun ding t h e message in our ears . T h e
call is now as ever to t h e strong and capable to sprin g to theirnatural leadershi p in righteousness and true holiness . God w illraise us up leaders . For us it i s to work
,to labor
,and to pray in
sure faith and in aboun ding j oy. T h e Kingdom is among us .
T h e Kingdom has come ni gh unto us . T h e ideal commonwealthwill yet incarnate God in t h e associated life as completely as Jesusincarnated th e divine in th e single hum an life .
T h e greatest step in advance taken for generations by churchlythought is t h e movement toward a social Chri stiani ty. T h e
proclamation Of a Kin gdom Of God on earth was t h e main proclamation of Jesus . We have, for th e most part, confined ourselvesto tellin g men how they may save their souls . Jesus said thath e who lost his s oul for Hi s sake would find it . T h e communallife Offers th e widest Opportuni ty for th e real salvation of men
body, mind, and soul. T h e ideal comm onwealth will make visiblet h e salvation of God in h is supremacy in t h e affairs Of men .
Th is i s th e only Imperialism in which t h e followers Of Jesus orth e believer in Jehovah or t h e Son Of our common Father Shouldhave any in terest . T h e tri umph Of a God-fearing democracy willonly be complete when i t s life reflects t h e indwelling of th eD ivin e Spirit
,when its streets are th e highways Of God, and it s
institutions are th e humble expressions Of th e eternal laws Of
God’s righteousness .Slowly th e democracy is coming to self-consciousness . T h e
birth pangs Of t h e Fren ch Revolution and th e Civil War mark buts tages in its self-mani festation . It is for all of us who profess tohave ideals, and who pretend to be religious teachers, to make t h eKin gdom Of God th e proclamation of hope and warning. ThatKin gdom has not been vainly prayed for by thousan ds Of gen erations of them that love God
,both Jew and Gentile . It is
cominglin its Imperial beauty of Holiness . It is f or us to make
i ts pat S straight,and to prepare t h e way Of Jehovah .
1 80 THE IDEAL COMMONWEALTH A s THE K INGDOM OF GOD .
DISCUSSION .
PROFESSOR WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH, ROCHESTER, N. Y.
T h e que stion has just been handed up t o t h e Chairman : Whatis t h e Kingdom o f G od ? After all t h e di scussion s w e have had , w e
still raise t h e question , What i s it? ” I d o n o t won der that thatquestion is raised . T h e con ception Of t h e Kingdom Of G od is bafflingon ac coun t o f its size . It is t h e largest and mo st comprehen sive con
cep t ion in all our re ligi ous lif e an d termin o logy . On that accoun tw e fi n d s o many diff eren t in terpre tation s Of it, an d all Of them are
right t o some exte n t and all wrong by defect ; they leave out
some e lemen t. A l low m e very briefly t o outlin e t o you some Of t h edefini tion s given in history .
On e great defin ition has been that t h e Kingdom Of G od is t h eorgan ized Church . That is t h e defin ition given by t h e great Catho li cChurch—that t h e grea t organ ized Church i s t h e Kingd om o f G od ,and contain s in itse lf all t h e redemptive will Of G od . That con ceptionh as , I be lieve , b een reje cted by history. W e are movin g away fromit faster an d fast er. W e kn ow that every in stitution is at timesapo state from i t s ideals—in fact, may become ho stile to t h e ideal swhich first formed it. But that con ception ex ercised tremen dous swayin history sin ce Augustin e . It fashion ed t h e hi story o f t h e M iddleAge s, and is still active ly at work.
T h e secon d con ception o f t h e Kingdom Of G od is that of evangelical Prote stan tism , n ame ly , that t h e Kingdom o f G od i s t h e Invisible Church ; n o t any outward organ ization , but t h e great commun ionOf all spirits w h o be lieve in G od an d have something Of t h e life o f
Je sus Chri st in them . This idea has an immen se amoun t Of truth init, y e t it errs , f or on e thing, by be ing individualistic . It has regardmain ly to t h e indi vidual soul an d i t s salvation . Tod ay w e in si stthat t h e Kingdom o f G od i s a social con cepti on , an d w e in sist truly.
Another thing which is defective in thi s defin ition is that it em
p h as izes mere ly t h e spiritual life o f m an , while t h e Kingdom o f
G od ,according t o its historic defin ition , is large ly e thical . I n t h e
con ception con veyed by t h e teaching Of t h e prophets and o f Je sus ,w e fin d t h e emphasis placed on righte ousn e ss . That ethical e lemen ti s omitte d from this defin ition . A third def ect is that it hallowso n ly a part Of our life , and leave s large portion s Of our life untouched by t h e re ligious ideal . This is what I would call t h e compartmen t theory ”
o f lif e . It is built up like a che st Of drawers ,where y ou have each e lemen t Of life in its separate drawer an d pullit out as it i s n eeded . Here i s your re ligi ous life ; yonder yourpo litical ideals . Y ou act according t o on e theory as a citizen , an d
according t o an other as a Chri stian . W e must n o t , dare n o t , have thatdivision o f life an y longer. There is on e great Christian ideal ; it isone an d in divisible , like G od . L e t us have a con ception o f t h e Kingd om o f G od which embrace s all our l if e .
T h e third con ception i s t h e e schato logical idea, t h e apocalypticidea , t h e idea Of t h e “ second coming.
” It postpon e s t h e Kingdomo f G od t o t h e future . It is t h e idea that w e are n ow living in t h e
period O f t h e Church , an d some time o r o ther w e shall en te r in to t h e
period o f t h e Kingd om o f G od . I should cal l that t h e po stpon emen t theory .
” That i s also d e f ective f or various reason s . F or on e
thing it con tradicts t h e te aching o f Je sus Christ. I am convincedthat He Opposed t h e catastrophic idea. O f t h e Kingdom O f G od whicht h e Jews he ld . It also contrad icts t h e great tenden cy o f modernthought, which in sists on organ ic deve lopmen t. These n ine te en
1 82 THE IDEAL COMMONWEALTH A s THE K IN G DOM OF GOD .
million s w h o love mon ey . DO you think that i s true ? Is that t h ematerial con ception which w e have to day ? I S n ot this Con feren ce atleast a humble protest again st it ? Doe s it n ot raise a doubt as t owhether that i s true ? Thi s material con ception i s at on ce t h e perilan d t h e glory o f t h e coming cen tury, but on e w h o will throw himsel fin to it, with t h e idea that our kingdom is a theocracy as we ll as a
republic , will fin d t h e way back t o his Father’s house , in which therei s boun dle ss Opportun ity f or en dless service .
HON . BIRD s . COLER. 1 83
BRICK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, NEW YORK,THURS
DAY,NOVEMBER 22.
T he Conference reassembled at P . M., un der the presidency
Of Rev. M . H . Harris, Ph . D.,Of N ew York.
XIII . THE UNUSED POWER OF THE CHURCHES INPOLITICS .
F irs t P aper.
HON . BIRD s . COLER, COMPT ROLLER OF N EW YORK CIT Y.
T he Church Should work to save m en as well as souls . This
great moral force must be broad enough to work for human ity,to civilize, to educate, to strive for better civic and material condi t ions . It should be a fortress f or t h e protection of all material
good on earth as wel l as th e gate through which w e mus t passto a better existence . T h e world is cold
,calculating, practical,
unsentimental, and th e creed that promises so much after deathshould produce something tangible and substantial in life.
There is a place for th e Church in politics and public affairs .That fact will not be denied except by those politicians who fearthat good influences would crowd them out before they couldreform . Therefore
,t h e only question undetermined and Open
t o argument is : “ Where and how can th e Church influence beapplied to accomplish th e greatest good ?”
'I n my Opini on,the place for th e Church as an organized force
in temporal affairs is not in t h e ward meeting, th e political conven t ion
,or th e party coun cil . Its influence Should be exerted
beneath and beyond those partisan and factional units in ourpolitical system . In our rush and struggle for material advancement in this coun try w e have become a people Of action rathert han a thinking people . We are prone to hasty criticism and cond emnat ion Of that whi ch displeases us . We judge results in steadOf seeking causes
,therefore our public judgments are Often
erroneous . Wh en w e con clude that our n ational governmen t isunsatisfactory w e condemn th e policy Of
"
the party in power . Ifour city governments become immoral and corrupt, all wrongdoing is promptly charged against th e alleged, or visibly responsible person, party, or faction . When conditions become unbearsble w e have in the past followed t h e simple rule Of turn ing out
one party and putting in an other—merely changing servan tsw i thout cleanin g house.
This method has never reformed a party or a politician, and it
1 84 THE UNUSED POWER OF THE CHURCHES IN POLITICS.
never wil l produce permanent good government in city, nation,or State . Under our political system governmen t cannot longremain better orworse than th e power, th e citizenship, that createsit . When our political condi tions are bad and our public servicecorrupt or in competent, th e real fault lies beyond partisan policyor factional organization, deep-rooted in un taught and misguidedpublic sentimen t . I n that broad
,neglected field Of public Opin
ion ,perverted by false teaching, Or its moral sense blunted by
precept and example —there is t h e place for Church influencein politics . There
,at t h e very foundation Of civic and political
conditions upon which th e leaders in public aff airs must build areign Of hon esty or a ruin Of corruption
,th e righteous man Of
t h e Church and th e honest man Of politics may go forth together,and sow th e seeds Of morality and intelligence wi th confidencethat t h e ultim ate harvest will be good governmen t .A citizenship in which honesty and intel ligen ce predominated,
when aroused and wisely led, never yet placed in Offi ce or longendured a corrupt administration . T O better a bad political condi tion in a city or state it i s only necessary to un ite all th e decentand honest people in a common cause . In Christian countries .there are neither cities nor states, kingdoms nor principal ities,where t h e bad men outnumber th e good ; and when bad government prevails it i s because th e SO-ealled good and intelligent citizens are negligen t Of their rights and their power, and th e influ
en ce of th e Church is dorman t or misdirected .
T O improve civic and political condi tions t h e Church mustreach t h e masses, and reach them in th e guise Of a patient, practical agency for material improvement . I intend no di srespector levity when I say that I do not bel ieve you can win one votefor good government by telling a man his chances Of going t oHeaven will be improved if h e votes a certain t icket on electionday . But you can in time win un l imited thousands Of voteswhen you convince th e masses of th e people that honest and int elligen t city government means better material conditions f orthem ; better education and Opportunity for their children ; betterassociation s and surroundings
,greater cleanlines s
,better health ,
more parks, more l ibraries, and all th e other public improvementsthat wil l make th e city a brighter and better place in which t ol ive . T O make them bel ieve all thi s youmust first teach them abetter understanding Of their duties, rights, and powers as citizens . Teach them that they are en titled to t h e same honesty andindustry in t h e public service that is exacted Of them in privateemployment . Make them understand that so long as they voteignorant and dishonest men into O ffi ce
,th e irrespon sible appoint
men t Of extraordinary committees wil l neither regenerate publicmorals nor punish Oflicial corruption . Honesty alone aecom
plish es l ittle in governmental affairs ; intelligence must be com
bined with honesty .
I have heard it asserted that social , moral, and political con
1 86 THE UNUSED POWER OF T HE CHURCHES IN POLITICS.
t he construction Of great c ities in this country tend to createt h e people into classes . I n one class w e find th e men Of wealth,property
,and education ; in another, w e have t he so-called mid
dle class ” upon whom t h e foundation Of our government rests ,and then w e have t he poorer class—those whose Opportunitieshave been limited, whose environments have been such as to denythem th e advantages Of a common-school or supplemental education, and whose religious welfare has also been neglected . Theseare t h e ones that w e should reach out to help to educate andmake better citizen s ; but all Of our bad citizen s are notamong t h e uneducated classes ; in fact, t he most dangerous person in th e commun ity is t h e highly educated man Of great abil ityw ho uses his talents not for t he good Of t h e community as a
whole, but to advance t h e private interests Of himself and thoseh e represents , at t h e cost Of t he public rights Of t h e people .
Wh at organization in any community is better prepared to undertake that importan t work than t he Church ? What organizedforce can exert a greater influence ? Out Of thi s chaos of class int h e great cities w e must develop and main tain a reasoning,thinking
,conservative medium
,if our system Of government is
t o endure . Nations and cities cann ot stand still . They must goforward or backward
,develop or decay . It is t he history Of na
tions and governments, w e might say t h e fate Of humanity, thatdeclin e begin s with division Of th e people into unchangeableclasses . When property, virtue, and intelligence are monopolizedby t h e f ew , revolution and destruction are in sight . T he blightOf decay fell upon ancien t Rome with t h e disappearan ce of t hemiddle clas s . With t he division of t h e population into noblesand serfs
,came th e decline Of th e Empire . Christian civilization
should not forget t he lesson s Of Pagan empires and republics .In maintain ing relation s and understandings between the
classes that wil l forever safeguard our cherished civil ins titutions ,there is a field for t he Church in American politic s second inimportance only to t h e eternal salvation Of t he human race.
There is no other organized force so wel l equipped for t he work.
Wh en t he Church en ters politics , let it study t he methods of t hepractical politician s and imitate that which is good and servicesble . T he politician begins down among th e people in a bare roomor t he Open air and works up to a club . T he Church too Oftenbegin s with a club and works down t o a failure . Begin at th ebottom
,l ike the practical man O f pol itics . Bring the man Of
property and education and the man o f toil together somewhere,somehow
,not as representatives Of antagon istic classes
,but as
citizens and voters whose interests in public a ffairs are identical .L et them meet as man and man
,and when they know and under
stand each other t he one will be a better citizen and t he other abetter Chri stian ,
because Of t h e new acquaintance .
L e t th e Church and t h e Church influence extend a friendly helpful hand t o t he level O f th e masses , t o l ift them up a little by t he
R Ev. ALFRED WESLEY WISHART. 1 87
ladder of practical ways and material things, and when you havemade them better c itizen s they will save you from bad government
,and youwill find it much easier t o save their souls .
Second P aper.
REV . ALF RED WESLEY WI SHART,TREN TON ,
N . J.
T h e purification of politics is an organ ic part of th e general
p rogress of civilization . It is n ot a defin ite problem which societycan solve and then go to sleep . Good governmen t is a progressiveideal . T h e standard of justice and of righteousness changesfrom century t o cen tury
,keeping step with th e march of con
s cien ce and in telligen ce . If t h e churches wish to aid in this pro
g ressive social movement they must prepare for a long, arduousstruggle, t h e end of which n o man can see . Temporary defeatsand bitter disappointmen ts attend t h e work t o be done .
There is n o short cut to t h e complete realization of t h e Kingdom of G od on earth . Glittering panaceas that promise so muchand perform so little must be cast aside . Grand—stand plays,rhetorical pyrotechni cs
,partisan harangues on t h e Sunday before
election in which th e terms hell and t h e devil ”are much in
evidence,min isterial resolution s unan imously carried and unan
imously f orgot t ten t en minutes after—all these substitutes forgenuin e
,self-denying toil should be spurned as unworthy of
seri ous men .
Organ ized Christian ity has no con sisten t and intelligent principle of fostering good citizen ship . Valuable time and strengthare wasted in trying to get th e n ame of God into t h e Con st itut ion , when there are multitudes w h o need t h e life of God in theirs ouls . Catchy and popular reform movements stampede Christ ian people in one direction to-day
,only to find them shamefully
di vided on a more vital issue to-morrow. They rush in to t h esoup-kitchen business in hard times
,but they do not grapple with
t h e problem of industrial justice which is with us all th e time .
They are generous supporters of slum mission s and of a gospelthat ign ores th e influen ces of heredity and environmen t . But
t h e social settlemen t,with its residen ts a vi tal part of t h e com
mun ity, en tering in to t h e joys and sorrows of th e poor, and
creatin g spheres of righteous influence—that receives scan tcourtesy
,and its claims are dismissed with t h e sn eer,
“ Soup,
Soap,and Salvation .
”
T h e Church fights th e saloon,but sh e fails t o provide a subst i
t ute which will have its helpful features and n on e of its destructive ones . It goes further, an d refuses t o believe that t h es aloon has any social fun ction whatever. Mass meetings are helda t critical po ints in political activities . There is a great and
1 88 T HE U NU SED POWER OF T HE CHURCHES IN POLITICS.
spontaneous outburst of righteous wrath,and a sweeping victory
for t h e moral forces is gained . T h e defeated politician s, expecting such incidents occasionally, crawl in to their cyclone cellarsun til t h e storm passes over. It is sure to do so .
A great work done, th e good citizens fold their hands in blissful slumber . One by one t h e corrupt politicians with cautiousstep tip-t oe their way back t o power and to spoil . T h e good citizens never gave thought to t h e condition s which brought on th ecrisis . They were goaded by th e blustering tyranny of t h e bossesinto doing something. But that done
,they ignored t h e state of
social morals and public opinion which makes. corruption possible,and which continued to exist after th e spasmodic reform movement had Spent its force .
In N ew Jersey, twelve years ago, th e moral forces un ited upona local option bill . It was passed by a Republican legislature .
T he l iquor element forthw ith j oined hands with t h e Democraticparty . T h e temperance man returned unto his political partyor fell back into his old habit of indifference to good government . T h e moral forces that pleaded with a political party t opass its measure straightway deserted that party and divided .
T h e result was a Democratic majority in th e legi slature and arepeal of th e local-Option law one year after its passage .
Therefore must w e recogn ize th e fact that rel igious peoplehave much to learn before they can utilize effectively th e tremendous power dormant in th e churches . Y et it is not strangethat this i s true . Christian men have to learn, like other men .
Their desire to be useful does not involve th e intelligencerequisite to true service. We have made too much of mere feeling, which tells us nothing about th e facts of l ife or h ow w e can
do th e most good. There is no greater n eed to-day than patientand thoughtful investigation in to th e facts of social and politicall ife . We inherit t h e prejudi ces and t h e ign oran ce of th e past .Mediaeval dogmas still en slave many a useful man . T h e Obligat ions of social service and th e social significan ce of th e Gospelare far from being generally understood, much less acknowledgedin th e conduct of men . There is much division of Opin ion as toth e fun ctions of th e Church . We must feel our way along. Timeand experiment are necessary h ere, as in all progress .There i s another reason why churches should not be discour
aged . T h e purification of politics is but th e problem of humanredemption in its political aspects
,and that problem n o sane man
expects to solve quickly or easily . T h e real evil s of t h e presen tday are not th e product of this cen tury ; they are t h e survival sof past ages . They are here because w e have not outgrown them .
They are n ot th e creation o f pol itical bosses intent on destroyingour republic . They are primarily traceable to th e fact thathuman nature i s still SO much under t h e dominion of selfishnessand o f ignorance . T he more this i s true . t he less have w e causefor despair
,th e less should w e pin our faith to panaceas . T he
1 90 T HE UNUSED POWER OF T HE CHURCHES IN POLITICS.
must wait until t h e reform ranks contain only honest,intelligen t
,
and good men before a reform movemen t should be supported .
But they do argue that it is unwise for churches t o san ction apol itical movemen t simply because it is labeled “ reform .
” Theyalso raise a practical and a serious question
,viz .
,Is it in t h e in
t erest s of good government, even under t h e most extraordinary
circumstan ces,for churches to take t h e field for or again st any
candidate for political office ?Nothing should be permitted to obscure t h e real issue . Our
warfare is not against pol itical candidates, but again st a low stateo f social and political morals expressed in a corrupt politicalsystem . T h e overthrow of Croker in N ew York and Ashbridgein Philadelphia will be followed by t h e rise of other bosses justas bad, or worse, if that is possible, unless w e go to th e root oft h e difficulty.
For t h e churches to mistake t h e vital issue, by taking sides ina quarrel of bosses for political patronage and power
,is to invite
con fusion,distrust
,and a positive loss of influence .
In some respects,in th e cities at least, there are not two great
parties . There is only on e —t h e American Masquerading Party .
This party is composed of so-called good citizen s, blinded by partisan sh ip , and marching shoulder to shoulder with t h e most vulgarrascals in t h e community . They deride reform and independen cein pol itics . They object to their dear pastor meddling in politicsas beneath t he dignity of his sacred office. Their professions ofl ove for t h e flag and for th e Constitution are merely hypocriticalpreten ses
,to disguise their cowardly conn ivan ce at t h e crime of
others or their own participation in t h e spoils . This system ofpolitical debauchery that threatens political freedom and civicrighteousness must be destroyed . This type of political life
,this
sordid,selfish
,and cowardly spirit is our real f oe.
A wise man on ce said , when there was talk of war betweenEngland and America
,that th e security of Boston again st t h e
British navy lay in th e fact that Boston was not a locality, buta state of mind . With equal truth it may be urged that th ehighest efficien cy of th e churches in pol itics lies not in machin ery ,e ither ecclesiastical or political, but in a state of mind . Goodand intell igen t men may safely be left to find ways and mean s tofight pol itical corruption , provided that th e prOper state Of mindhas been developed .
This proper state Of m ind invol ves a broader view o f t h e Gospelthan that generally taugh t . N o min ister w h o h as i t wil l boast ,as some do ,
that h e know s n o th ing about politic s, and pride him
s elf in h is h oly isolat ion from t h e filth o f pol itics . It involves abelief in t h e actual and poten tial goodness o f t h e common peo
ple . I t i s based on t h e convict ion that this is God ’s world , no
part o f it belonging t o t h e devil as h is exclus ive and permanentpo ssession . T h e greatest unused f orce in t h e churches t o-day i s
t he pow er o f Christian ministers w h o po ssess t h e capacity f or
REV. ALFRED WESLEY WISHART. 1 9 1
s ocial service,who are respected and loved by their people, but
who confine themselves within dogmatic barriers and leave democracy t o find its way along as best it may. If they had th eproper state of mind t h e world and t h e Church would soonfeel t h e pulsations of t h e n ew l ife
,and th e common people would
welcome with joy friends of progress, s o worthy of confidence,s o un selfish in motive, and s o competent to lead t h e forces ofsocial and political reform .
Jacob A . Riis says t h e reform work must begin at t h e top .
Mr. Bird S . Coler think s w e must begin at t h e bottom . Neitherof these views is true to t h e exclusion Of th e other . Mostpreachers would not begin at all if they waited to begin at t h etop
,for they minister to t h e bottom . Others have a splendid
opportun ity to reach th e top, but utilize it in growling at th ebottom . We shall speak of each of these methods later, but n oww e wish to emphasize th e necessity of beginn in g with one’s self.Is it not true that t h e culpable neglect of social and political
problems by mi nisters, their indi vidualistic gospel, their lack ofsympathy with th e great social movement, does more to delay th etriumph of social righteousn ess than th e positive tran sgression so f many rascals ? How Often in history have morbid pietists andfossil ized ecclesiastics stood before th e gateway of a n ew era, re
fusing to enter themselves and keeping others out ? How Oftenhave churches taken t h e side of absolutism against the people,and befriended in tel lectual and political slavery ?
‘Anyone who has mingled much with th e common peopleknows that t h e average minister has little influen ce over t h eaverage voter. Notwithstanding t h e heroic labors of many min ~
is ters and churches to improve social condition s in t h e great:cities, an impression exists that organ ized Christianity is n ot det ermined at all hazards t o take t h e side of equal justice and civic
righteousness in matters political . As Professor Walter Rauschenbusch puts it : Men feel that th e Church by inefficiency and
‘
cowardice is respon sible for t h e social ills un der which they suffer .That is a tribute to t h e latent moral power of t h e Church . Therei s no such feeling toward any other organ ization .
” There ismuch to be said on t he other side of that question
, but t h e point .
is that multitudes of men outside th e Church cherish that feeling.
One reason for this att itude is that t h e common man has movedami d shadows and abstractions long en ough . He is weary of
‘
glittering generalities and turns away hungry from a repast of'
dry theological bon es . He wan ts a gospel that touches his dailylife
,that takes cognizan ce of sweat shops
,dirty streets, and ex
cessive hours of labor. He demands that th e watchwords ofmodern civilization, Liberty, Equality, and Fratern ity
,
”be
translated into terms of life, and that they be made th e workingprinciples of in dustrial and p olitical relation ships . He wan tst h e Church to be his friend
,to realize his burdens
,and to help
h im in his struggles . He is not altogether a wise, fair, discrin fi
1 92 THE UNUSED POWER OF THE CHURCHES IN POLITICS .
nating, and righteous individualu th is common man . All th emore reason why t h e followers of Jesus should help him .
T h e first duty of th e churches is to banish t he false impression s cherished by t h e great mass o f voters, and to show themthat t h e churches bel ieve in th e Gospel of Jesus
,and mean t o
practice it . We can wield no influence over th e common peopleun til w e convince them that w e love them . When w e condemnpolitical abuses w e must convince the voters that w e are readyto take as much interest in their daily lives
,for unselfish reasons ,
as politicians do for party purposes . To accomplish all this thereis n othing so effective as t h e exhibition of t h e Christ-l ife, whichis t he self-denying life, t he life of brave devotion to t he commongood .
“T h e man who is will ing to d ie becomes t h e master of
t h e world .
”
Importan t as clubs and societies are, they pale into insignifican ce compared with t h e power of consecrated individuality .
T h e man of unfaltering allegian ce to truth,of in telligen t sympa
thy, of s incere and earnest spirit,who rej oices in tribulation and
never shirks responsibility—h e is t h e man of power, t h e man theChurch needs . Be that man before you try to organize reformmovements of any kind .
What are some of t h e things that min isters with th e rightstate of mind can do ?First
,attack th e double standard of ethics which is th e curse
of th e country . As a rule people recognize and defend th e rightin social matters non-political . It is not difli cult to procure th econdemn ation of men who do wrong in such affairs . But this isnot true in social matters political . Another standard of moralsprevails here . T h e application o f th e Gospel to politics is praet ically denied by th e conduct and moral judgments of men wh o
in other circles are really good and honest men . It is not easyto secure t h e public condemnation of political rascals, unlesstheir offenses smel l rank to Heaven, and even then it i s no easytask—witness N ew York City and Philadelphia . That banefuldistin ction between th e sacred and the secular is partly responsible for this state of affairs . T he position of many ministers, thatpolitics and rel igion are to be kept distinct , is another cause.
T h e idea prevails that the Christian may divide his life into twoparts
,in one of which h e is bound to Obey God, and in th e other
h e may obey t he devil if h e only keeps out of jail . T h e greatestobstacle I have en countered in my efforts to get men to respectt h e Christian ideal in politics is th e corrupt political l ife ofpromin ent church members . These men by virtue of their intelligence, wealth, and social position are far more dangerous toAmerican institution s than coarse and commonplace politicians .It is within th e power o f the churches t o change this state of
affairs . Plain, vigorous , and practical preaching will do much toarouse t h e conscience and force corrupt church members to quittheir wickedness or get out of t he churches . It is not enough
1 94 THE UNUSED POWER OF THE CHURCHES IN POLITICS.
Thirdly, th e churches Should lead th e way in movements thatm in ister to th e material welfare of t h e working classes . T h e
people are receiving many valuable lesson s in good cit izenshipin t h e struggle for clean homes and streets
,parks
,playgroun ds,
and public schools . A powerful bond of fellowship between t h echurches and t h e masses can be created through a display of genuine interest by th e churches in th e l iving and working condition s of th e common people. Here is a field in which no chargeof partisan politics can be made against th e churches . T h e
modern man has no use for a church that cares nothing abouthis home
,t h e education of his children , and his daily labor . G et
close to t h e common people by co-Operating with them in everyhonest struggle to improve th e environment in which they liveand labor.Fourthly, a magnificent but practically un occupied field lies Opento ministers and Christian laymen in t h e various labor organizations . It is not in t h e least necessary that one should bel ieve in allt he principles and methods of trades un ions before h e can be of
'
service to workingmen in civic affairs . T h e fact is that th e majority of men in t h e common walks of life are beyond our reachunless w e go to them . I have found them hungry for instruction . They do not want to be flattered, they welcome honestand manly criticism . They are eager for th e friendship and t h e !
sympathy of t h e Christian clergy . It will be an education to anymi nister to frequent their gatherings and to Speak words of counsel to them. T h e importance Of this work can hardly be undulymagnified .
These men are th e commanding power at th e polls . Theyneed kindly, intelligen t, and brave coun sel . We can never movewith power until they march with us . G O to them !Fifthly
,cultivate t h e friendship of th e newspaper fraternity .
T h e pulpit is too prone to condemn bad j ournalism and to ignoreth e good that newspapers are doing. There are brave, alert ,l arge-minded j ournalists, men of genuine sympathy and vital
,if
’
not ecclesiastical, faith in God and in th e possibilities of humannature. T h e Church should seek an allian ce with th e press . We
‘
should have conferences l ike this one, with newspaper men on
th e programme . Many ministers have a low Opinion of newspaper men
,but I doubt if it is any lower than th e j ourn alists
’
regard for t h e average minister. We may resen t this statement,and
,perhaps , my own Observation s and experience do not warran t
so broad a declaration . But nevertheless I bel ieve it to be anun fortunate fact . It should not be so . T h e tremendous influenceof t h e press as a l iberalizing and guiding agency is one of the
most notable features o f modern society . It can be a powerfulal ly to every clergyman w h o wishes t o speak to thousands insteado f hundreds .L et t h e min ister bel ieve in th e essential manhood and high
principles o f th e newspaper reporter and editor . It is true that
REv. LE IGHTON WILLIAMS. 1 95
there is not much churchly piety or mediaeval faith among thesemen
,but perhaps they have something better . At all events seek
out these men . Appeal to t h e best side of their natures . Fosterin their soul s a desire to use their in telligence and their broadexperience for t he uplifting of human ity . T h e tendency of areporter’s life i s to make a machine of him . H is personality issunk in t h e printed page . Give him th e benefit of your lovingsympathy and your own zeal for social betterment . I believethat you will be surprised at t h e response hi s soul will make t oyour manly appeal .After all, there i s n othing mysterious or supern atural about
the power of Christian s in a commun ity. It is merely joyous,sympathetic
,honest comradeship . Form filaments of personal
friendship, bonds of tender and faithful fellowship, that makefor social un ity and power, that bridge th e gulf between classes,that make th e counsel and t h e leadership of good men and womenrespected and followed . Christ set us t h e great example . His
power over human hearts is not t h e power of organizations or
creeds or theologi es . It is t h e power of an honest, loving, brave,and pure soul . T h e world believes His spirit was genuine—therefore His hold on t h e con scien ce and t h e intelligen ce of mankindis vital . That is th e only real power. It is futile to seek th econtrol of human society in any other way .
D ISCUSSION .
REV. LEIGHTON WILLIAMS, NEW YORK.
I did n ot expect t o speak at this time , but t h e Chairman has askedm e t o d o s o—I suppo se in re feren ce t o some experien ce I have hadalong this lin e . I am willing t o speak, just t o add te stimony Of alittle personal experien ce .
Quite a number o f years ago a young Englishman en tirely unknownin this city, who se acquain tan ce I had made in a little group Of tho seintere sted in social question s at t h e Cooper Un ion , came t o s ee m e ast o t h e po ssibility o f ge tting up some con feren ces in t h e in terest o f
good governmen t. T h e re sult was that this m an , Mr. Scudamore ,
better kn own sin ce t o us all here in N ew York , an d Dr. To lman , Dr.
Strong’s associate , a brother min i ster, an d myse lf , formed a. smallcommittee , an d some con f eren ce s were he ld in our Amity H all , t h ebasal idea o f which was , Measure s rather than Men ; Po sitive Progre ssrather than N egative Re f orm . W e started out on this broader lin e o f
sympathy, determin ed w e would n ot b e an ti-Tammany, n or an tianything e lse . T h e first thing w e did w a s t o go t o t h e T ammanyclub acro ss t h e way an d ask the ir leader t o support our con feren ces.He did s o wi th a de legation o f about fifty m en , w h o atten d regularly , an d w h o gave us t h e support Of the ir p resen ce f or on e thing,an d t h e support Of con curren ce an d goo d faith all through . W e madeit our busin ess t o discuss every form Of po sitive good in t h e publicsphere in this city, bringing on our platf orm m en w h o were repre
s en t at ive s o f all partie s—m en in Office as we l l as out o f office . Itwas fashion able at that time f or reformers t o select t o speak On
public que stion s m en w h o had had n o e xperien ce , w h o kn ew n othingabout the se matters ex cept in theory, but w h o perhaps had writtenpamphlets or papers upon them . It was an inno vation t o ask m en
holding public Office t o speak at such con feren ces . But w e broke
1 96 THE UNUSED POWER OF THE CHURCHES I N POLITICS.
through that idea, and po in te d out that many Of t h e best thingsthat had happen ed to our city had happen ed under admin istration sn o t con sidered idea l , an d that many undesirable things had happe n ed un der admin istration s suppo sed t o b e reform admin istration s ,an d that t h e re sults w e were seeking were po sitive result s . F or
in stan ce , take t h e building o f t h e great Brooklyn Bridge . It doesn ’tmatter t o-day un der what admini stration that bridge was built,perhaps w e d o n o t remember; but t h e bridge itse lf is something w e
glory in , an d which those w h o wi l l come after us will glory in .
So w e s e t be f ore us t h e idea Of po sitive progre ss rather thann egative re form . Y ou have heard our Comptro ller state it f or us
again t o-n ight. My ow n experien ce heartily bore out his words,when h e said that some Of t h e district leaders in this city were reallybetter citizen s, better kn own by t h e people in the ir districts , an d
a ctually accomplished more than half t h e churches . He might haveput t h e proportion higher. Some Of tho se m en whose n ames are
n o t men tion ed usually in an audien ce like this, except by way Ofabuse , have actually done f or t h e city—no matter what may b e some
o f t h e corrupt e lemen ts in the ir characters—have actually achievedf or this city Of ours ben efits in which w e are all participan t s , f orwhich w e n ever thank them n or credit them . Some time ago , on ac able car, I had a conversation with a Senator w h o is best kn own bysome e lements in his career that might n ot b e pleasan t t o thisaudien ce . But in talking o f his ow n career in a thoroughly Open way,an d Speaking Of it with some gratification , h e to ld what h e h ad
accomplished f or our part o f t h e city, an d t h e things h e could po in tt o that h e h ad don e ‘
f or our part Of t h e City o f N ew York wereresults in which any m an might glory . I suppo se very f ew m en ,
very f ew members Of this church , perhaps, could have run over sucha catalogue as h e was able t o recall in a con versation in a f ew m inute s on a street car. Before w e can g et what w e ought t o have int h e po litics Of N ew York City , w e must get over that class fee ling an d
caste fee ling an d party fee ling that so pro scribe m en who se heart sare as white as w e would dare t o hope ours might b e .
An other po in t t o which I would like t o refer is my experien ce withlabor organ ization s . I here also heartily con cur in t h e statemen t Oft h e Comptroller that some Of t h e wise st an d mo st un se lfish m en are
t o b e foun d among t h e working classe s . I be lieve that y ou will fi nd
that among t h e poor pe ople , as t h e Comptro ller said , s o f ar fromthe ir being all evil, are t o b e foun d some o f t h e best qualities o f
human ity . T h e workingman , w h o i s t h e se lf-supporting m an , w h o
be lieve s in an hon est live lihood, has t h e least de sire t o take whatdoe s n o t be long t o him ; has t h e least de sire t o profit by mere speen ~
lation , adding n othing t o values , which is an other n ame f or robbery.
Perhaps that sounds like an extreme stat emen t,but there is n o t a
m an pre sen t here t o -n ight, I ven ture to affirm , w h o can defin e t h ed i ff eren ce betwe en spe culation an d gambling. I am afraid that i s avery positive statemen t, but i s there on e o f y ou w h o would like m e
t o take it back ? W e be lieve in making an hon e st living. T h e worki ngm an be lieve s in it, t oo . T h e be tter-clas s workingman i s a m an
w h o be lieve s in ho n e stly do ing something that is worth somethingto t h e world , an d f or which t h e world , there fore , is willing to payhim a mode st live lihood . There fore , w e ought to con sider what isgood f or t h e workingman t o b e good f or all . W e ought to come
together with this faith , expre ssed s o abundan t] during t h e se ssion sOf ye sterday and t o -day, that a repub l ic o r a em ocracy
—cal l it bye ither n ame—i s a bro therhood , an d that frate rn ity is t h e basal fee li ng ; so that anything that divides us e ither on party lines , o r clas sl in e s, o r on industrial lin e s , i s some thing w e have firs t g o t t o g e t rido f be fore w e can g e t th i s unused power out Of t h e Church and in tot h e l ife o f t h e city and State .
1 98 THE MESSAGE OF TH IS CONFERENCE TO THE CHURCHES.
that pretty ? Pretty ? Of course i t w as pretty ; but how in th eworld could anyone see that when Niagara
,supernally majestic
,
w as scarce a stone’s throw beyond. Some souls are adjusted onlyf or t h e medi ocre, th e commonplace, having eyes they see not .They can see a penny, but they fail to see th e bush that burn s and
yet is not consumed . They can see a jot or a tittle of t h e law,
but they have no eyes for t h e weightier matters . This is th emi croscopic vision or t h e near-sightedn ess of t h e flesh
,and it is
just this sort of a vision which most of th e churches have had .
We have been content to see only what was near at hand,our own
theology, our own form of worship, our own successes,when th e
vast opportun ities of t h e Kingdom of Heaven should have fil ledour vision
,or when t h e vast evils of society should have summ oned
to Christian cO-Operation . How like a Chinese pain ting much o f
our work must look to those who kn ow something about relativevalues, there has been so little sen se of perspect ive in our best endeavors . T o use th e words Of Lowell
,w e have not been able t o
dist ingui sh between th e blaze of a burning tar-barrel and th e finalconflagrat ion of all things . T h e results of this lack of ecclesi
ast ical and spiritual perspective are all too apparent . SO th e firstword of this Conference to t h e churches is, to see things in th eKingdom of God upon th e earth as they really are .
T h e next suggestion which I would make to th e churches is ast o attitude. T h e reformation under Luther was a reformation of
doctrin es . T h e reformation under Savonarola was a reformation of morals and doctrines, as was t h e evangel ical revival of th eeighteenth cen tury . T h e reformation of th e present century hasbeen a revival of interest in th e Bible and of t h e study of t h e contents of th e Book . T h e reformation of th e twentieth century willbe a revival of interest in each other . Why not ? We havemuch in common . As Schiller says in h is William Tell
,
”
Tho’ mountain ridge and lake divide our boundsAnd every canton’s ruled by its own laws
,
Y et are w e but one race, born of one blood,And all are children of a common home .
”
I want to express my profound conviction that spiritual un ity o f
bel ievers al ready exists . I n th e Talmud i s t h e story of many pilgrims who came to t h e gate o f a great city . Each was hungry and
thirsty , each spoke in a different language, and said one word .
They looked angrily at one another, and i t Seemed as if they werecoming t o blows . Hastily t h e keeper Of t h e gate sen t f or aninterpreter . He l isten ed t o each o ne , smiled , and said : “ Givet h em grapes ; each in his ow n tongue has asked f or them . T h e
language of this Conf erence i s an unive rsal lang uage . True,as at
Pen tecost , every man hears in h is ow n tongue , wherein h e w as
born . Parthian s,and Modes
,and Elamite s
,and th e dwellers in
Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and
REv. E . s . TIPPLE , PH . D . 1 99
A sia,Phrygia
,and Pamphylia
,in Egypt, and in t h e parts of Libya
about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretesand Arabians, w e do hear them Speak in our tongues t h e wonderful works of God .
” This is th e test and measure of spiritualuni ty
,hearing every man in his own tongue t h e voice of th e Spirit
o f G od . Trained in differen t schools , speaking perhaps a di fferen t theological language, or using different theological termin at ion s
,t h e members o f t h e great Christian bodies, swayed by similar
motives, their hearts thrilled by t h e same pervasive, regnant love,are waking to t h e blessed con sciousness of Spiritual fraterni ty .
Thi s is t h e on ly possible groun d of Christian un ion at th e presen thour . It surely cann ot be posited in liturgy or in any form ofchurch government . Nor can t h e basis of un ion be in Credos orAve Marias . How can w e make t h e Bible, even , t h e ground ofunion
,when almost any doctrin e can be read into t h e Bible and
then out of it, as Sw ift so forcefully shows in hi s Tale of a T ub .
There will never be un ity of theological opini on while this worlds tands . Why should w e desire it ? T h e only uni ty worthy Of
God or man,as Phillips Brooks on ce said, is an other sort . These
are his words : “T h e real un ity of Christendom is n ot t o be foun d at
last in iden tity Of organ ization,nor in iden tity of dogma—both
O f these have been dreamed of,and have failed—but in t h e uni ty
of Spiritual con secration to a comm on Lord .
” I bel ieve th e
greatest contribution whi ch this Con ference can make to t h echurches is not a theory of church un ion
,but t h e witness of a
fratern al spirit . This is t h e message that ye heard from t h e
beginni ng, that w e Should love one another (1 John iii .
T h e third word to t h e churches is that of practice, or of relat ion to each other. W e must get together . I n t h e presence of acomm on menacing f oe w e are to un ite ourselves for effective at
tack . T h e forces of evil are uni ted against t h e forces of good.
Why should n ot t h e one question which w e ask of any church orindividual be th e question which Jehu asked that Old Arab chi ef,Jehonadab, whose servi ces h e desired, Is thine heart right as myheart is with thy heart ? If it be
,give me thine hand .
” On th eday before t h e battle of Trafalgar Nelson took Collingw ood andRotherdam
,who were at variance
,to t h e spot where they could see
t h e fleet opposed to them .
“ Yonder,
” said t h e admi ral, are
your enemies . Shake hands and be good friends .” CharlesKin gsley on ce wrote to a Baptist
,My dear frien d
, go on and dothat
,n amely
,talkin g t o men of their sins
,and whether you call
yourself Baptist or Buddhist,I shall welcome you as one who is
doing th e work of God and fighting in th e battle of th e Lord,who
makes w ar in righteousn ess . On e of th e words wi th which w e
enter t h e twentieth cen tury is federation . Federation is meantt o be a working union of Christian forces
,arrayed again st a com
mon f oe . It di ffers from church un ity in this : Church un ity hast o do w ith principles ; church federation with practice ; th e one
with bel ief, t he other with behavior ; t h e on e is a bond on paper
200 THE MESSAGE OF TH IS CONFERENCE T o THE CHURCHES.
“
and in theological statement, th e other is th e leaguing of Christ ian people of all shades of religious bel ief against an arrogantand wily foe . As Dean Hodges says, Effective blows are strucknot with extended fingers
,but with t h e good
,hard
,solid fist . T h e
divided church threatens th e devil with th e Roman Catholic fin
ger and th e Congregational finger and th e Baptist finger and th eMethodist finger and t h e Episcopal thumb, and h e faces th e assaultwith great serenity. He knows by long experience that that bloww ill n ot hurt . When t h e un ited Church assails h im h e will be
gin to meditate retreat .” Brethren all your strength is in your
union ; all your danger is in discord .
T h e Church of God on earth is th e Church Militant . We are
waging a holy war,as John Bunyan says . We have no right to
exis t unless w e exist as an aggressive force.
“ Is not my wordlike as a fire, saith t h e Lord, like a hammer, which breaketh t h erock in pieces .” T h e Prin ce of Israel said to His disciples, thatHe had not come to bring peace upon t h e earth
,but a sword .
And as He was about t o leave those chosen to carry on his work,He said to them that, if they were without a sword, they were t osell their outer garments an d get swords . T h e stirring hymns ofth e Christian Church are its war songs . They tell of armor
,of
conflict,of victory. We are to destroy t h e works of t h e devil,
utterly destroy them . As when t h e sacred banner of Fran ce,—th e
great scarlet flag, embroidered with golden lilies, called th e Ori
flamm e, was hoisted, as when the green standard of t h e Prophet inth e Turkish Empire was raised, it was a declaration that t h e warwas to be a war of extermination, s o federation means that w e are
united in a war which is to be un to th e death . Sir WalterRaleigh said when but a lad, If there are any good wars I will goto them .
” There are plen ty of them these glorious days . T h e
saloon present s a solid front . Wh y should not th e Church ?Political corruption exists as a menace to good governmen t .Why should not th e Church , as one man, strike agains t it ? Everyin terest of t h e Kingdom of God upon earth demands that w eshall get together . I have said that I believe spiritual unity al
ready exists . Now let us show t h e world and the enemies of righteousness upon th e earth that w e are one in faith ; and that w e are
one wi thout compromise of opin ion s , without sacrifice of essential beliefs, wi thout doing violence t o our d istinct Opin ion s or
churchly practices ; w e are one in t h e face o f a common danger,
one in l ine of battle , one in persisten t eff ort to make t h e city asafe place in which t o l ive
,one in desire to cause th e waste place s
Of our villages and country d istricts t o blossom as t he rose,one
in supreme desire to bring this world t o G od .
I n a book by a French writer published some time ago there is astriking passage in which is described t h e thril l which sweptthrough a group of French prisoners in that terrible September o f1 870
, when from th e endless lines o f camp-fires which marked thebivouac of hundreds of thousands of men in t he val ley o f th e
202 THE MESSAGE OF TH IS CONFERENCE T o THE CHURCHES,
el iminated, and that there is beginning to emerge one great worldreligion . It does n ot signify that t h e intel lectual camera has lostits focus and truths are blurred . It does n ot mean that theological sys tems have lost form and defin ite outlin e and are beingblended in to on e another ; that there are n o longer sharp
,well
defined differen ces . I suppose that th e brethren who have partici ated in this Con ference see as distinctly t h e differences between various and Opposing systems of theology and of religionas do our friends w h o perhaps would have deemed thems elvescompromised by participating in this Con ference . Nor does thisConferen ce mean , if I interpret it correctly, that t h e breth renwho have participated in it hold t h e truth lightly
,that they are
in any measure disloyal to t h e truth as they see it . I imagineth at w e are as loyal to t h e truth as were our ecclesiastical forefathers, who loved t h e truth , as they saw it, wel l enough to sufferfor it and t o make other people suffer for it .What
,then ,
is t h e true in terpretation of t h e Conferen ce ?
What is its message ? It means,not a belittling of truth
,but
rather a larger and more worthy conception of truth . I bel ieve itmean s w e are beginn ing to see that t h e truth is so vast that noon e man
,n o one church
,can grasp it all . I remember a f ew years
ago in Chicago,in a church Of a denomination represen ted in this
Conferen ce, I heard th e officers of t h e denomin ational City Missionary Society make a plea for their treasury ; and one of themsaid
,Brethren
,w e
,and w e alone ! referring to their own denomi
nation] have t h e truth and th e whole truth . What a del ightfulframe of mind ! What sublime self-satisfaction ! What in t olerant—and I may add intolerable—intellectual peace ! I do notbelieve that t h e members o f this Conference have any sympathywith such self-satisfaction ,
with t h e bel ief that w e have graspedall truth . I think w e sympathize rather with Dr. Butler ofTrin ity College in th e advice h e gave to his studen ts when h e
said, Young men,let us not be dogmatic . We are n one of us
infallible,not even th e youngest .” We are discovering that great
truths are spheres, th e whole of which cannot be seen at one timefrom on e poin t . Moreover
,every man is on ly a fraction of a man .
It requires many m inds to encircle a great truth and to see it onall sides . Di fferen ces of view may resul t from differences in t hepoin t of view. Many theological diff erences are no t necessarilyconflicting ; they may supplemen t one another. I would notimply that al l creeds are equally true . Of tw o con tradictoryproposition s one must be fal se . But though I bel ieve a man
’stheology is mistaken and dangerous , that does no t preclude co
operation f or t h e gen eral go od ,o r even fellowship . I bel ieve this
Con feren ce signifies that , impo rtant as is truth . l i fe is more thanbelief. I think w e are coming t o see that conduct interpretscharacter more truly than creed ,
and character is,after all, t h e
only true basis o f. fellowship . I think w e may more confiden tlyin fer correct bel ief from a correct l i fe than w e can infer correct
R Ev. JOSIAH STRONG , D. D. 203
l ife from a correct belief . If I hold in my hand a fig, I may be
quite sure that it sprang from a fig tree ; but if I see yonder a figtree
,I cannot be quite sure that it will produce figs . It may be
barren .
We are also coming t o appreciate th e fact that un iformity of
belief is n ot necessary—indeed, is not possible, and has not beenpossible since t h e race arrived at its in tellectual majority. Ifm en really think , they thin k differently. Indeed, not on ly isun iformity of belief impossible
,I go so far as to say it is unde
s irable . We must not forget that Western civil ization, with it sincomparable superiority
,was evolved or differen tiated from
Eastern through t h e developmen t and conflict of diff erent ideasand ideals . I would not have everybody bel ieve as I believe, if Icould. I might be easily recon ciled to having a maj ori ty agreewith me
, but I would n ot have everyone think as I do, if I could,f or I should be very confiden t that there would be n o moreprogress of thought in th e world until there had been developed adifference of bel ief .This Con feren ce, if I in terpret its message correctly, signifies
that w e are getting a larger,better
,truer basis of fellowship than
that of creed . T h e basis t o which I refer is two thousand yearsOld . F or He whom many of us del ight t o call Master said,Whosoever —and that is one of th e great circles of truth whichis all-in clusive ; which embraces every cen tury, every race, and, letme add
,every rel igion whosoever doeth t h e will of my Father
which is in Heaven ,t h e same is mv brother . There
,it seems to
me,' is t h e true basis of fellowsh i p and of co-operation . Jesus
Christ gave in on e word t h e basis of fratern ity : Whosoever doethth e will of my Father -which is in Heaven .
” Whether h e belongto my particular sect or not ; whether h e be Protestan t, orthodox ,or un orthodox ; whether h e be Catholic, Jew ,
Zoroastrian,Brah
m in,Buddhist
,or Con fuc ian ; whatever, whoever, h e may be, if h e
does th e will of my Father which is in Heaven,th e same is my
brother . N o man n eeds a broader basis of fellowship than that ;and
,good friends
,I do not dare t o make a n arrower basis of f el
low sh ip than that . T o refuse fellowship t o on e whom Christ accep t s is to disfellowship Christ Himself .
Again,it seems t o me that this Con feren ce sign ifies a somewhat
diff eren t and more worthy con ception o f t h e mean ing of life ; thatlife is n ot a journey through a wildern ess
,t h e great object being
to reach on e’s destination in safety . I f or On e bel ieve that Bunyan ’s conception of life
,as illustrated by th e “ Pilgrim’s Prog
ress,”was radically wrong
,w as radically un christian . T h e world
i s getting a n ew social ideal . W e are beginn ing t o see visions o fa perfected civilization—far away
,t o be Sure, but ever drawing
n earer . T h e Kingdom of G od fully come in t h e earth was t h esocial ideal of Jesus . He said in t h e Un iversal Prayer
,
“ ThyKingdom come , and then added immediately
,Thy will be done
in earth as i t is in heaven .
”T h e latter sentence in terprets the
204 T HE MESSAGE OF TH IS CONFERENCE T O T HE CHURCHES.
former . T h e Kingdom Of G od will be fully come in th e earthwhen God’s will is perfectly don e in t h e earth as it is in heaven .
God’s will i s law. That will cannot be perfectly don e un til all t h elaws o f body
,of mind
,of t h e Spiritual life
,and of t h e social life
are obeyed on earth as G od’s will is obeyed in heaven, i . a , per
f ectly. T hat will be t h e realization,th e full coming, o f th e King
dom o f G od in th e earth,th e realization o f Jesus ’ social ideal
,th e
crown and consummation of a perfected civilization . I think thisis to be t h e n ew con ception of life ; and h e is an unworthy man
with an unworthy conception of life who is indi fferen t t o condit ions around him , who is inten t, as a pilgrim,
on fleeing from th e
City of Destruction and gain ing his own personal destination insafety.
Lord Shaftesbury was once talking with Frances Power Cobbsin regard to t h e w rongs o f working girls . With tears in his eyesand with a trembling voice
,h e said t o h er
,When I think that I
am growing Old and that I have not long t o l ive, I hope it is no twrong, but I cannot bear to die and leave th e world with so muchwretchedness in it . T h e wretchedne ss from which SO manywould fain flee was precisely that which held him to t he earth .
He would fain stay so long as h e could relieve any measure of t h e
world’s w oe . That,t o my mind, is a far n obler con ception of l ife
than that which is presented in Bunyan’s “ Pilgrim’s Progress . ”
L e t us not be impatient f or heaven .
“ He that believeth shallno t make haste .
” Heaven will keep . T h e longer I live th e moreI see in life worth living for.Just one word in conclusion . This is a Conference o f Rel igion
—a Conferen ce of men w h o be lieve in t h e rel igious life, w h o bel ieve in th e spiritual elemen t which is th e basis of all rel igion .
It is a Con feren ce of men w h o believe that G od is in t h e world,that He is in t h e world transforming it that His own ideal maybe realized
,
That one far-Off divine even t,
To which th e whole creation moves,
th e n ew heaven s and th e new earth , which are th e Kingd om fully come . It is a Con ference o f men ,
if I mistake no t ,
w h o hold that G od is t h e most tremendous fact in t h e un iverse ;that God is th e greatest fact in every life , whether o f individualor o f state , and therefore that t o ign ore this greatest factor in theplan o f l ife is un scien ti fic and wrong . I t i s therefore a Conference o f Religion ,
seeking t o bring t h e great fundamental trutho f all rel igion t o a reality
b
at work among men,t o apply it no t
simply t o ind ividuals but t o s ociety,t o governmen t, t o all in sti
tut ions , t o all human relationships . And do w e n o t in this count ry particularly need t o have emphas is laid upon this fact , becausrwith us
,as n owh ere else
,have men emphasized t h e separation
church and state . and been led into th e error o f thinking that th .t
POT SCRIPT .
Two mon ths after t h e mating of t h e Conference an article
referring to it appeared in re editorial pages of t h e Outlookf or January 1 9
,1 901 . Th argumen t it presents
,more clearly
than any that has been note in t h e press elsewhere , for religious
eo-operation as comprehens '
e as that of t h e Conferen ce seems
t o justify its reproducti on age . T h e disappointment, caused by
a mi schan ce which prevemd Dr. Abbott from appearing,as
expected,upon t h e plat f or. of t h e Conferen ce , finds partial
compensation in th e opporin itv t o subjoin t o its Proceedings
this con tribution from h is m :
T HE L IMITS OF EL I G I OU S CD-OPERAT ION .
Aff irmation s of t h e unit “ f t h e religi ous spirit under all di
versit ies of religious f ern "
-1ave become increasingly frequen t
sin ce t h e historic occasion e which it foun d impressive utteran ce
in th e Parliament of Religms . Such affirmation s,however
,do
not seem likely to take muc hold of t h e public mind, unless t heyresult in s omething more T actical than an in terchange Of fra
tern al addresses,or even art icipat ion in t h e common worship
which is t h e n atural ut t era : e of a comm on religious life . Cer
tain it is,that th e act iv : o-operation man ifested in mission
fields has demonstrated i s un ity of Christian den omination s
more convin cin gly than a t h e fratern ity exhibited“
on home
platforms .
I n this point Of view,t o recent conven tion s have not only
st rikin gly illustrated t h e 3al spiritual un ity which underl ies
differen t den omin ation s Of he Christian Church, and even di ff er
en t religion s, in cludin g SCH-3 not avowedly Christian, but they
have also done much h im t han conven tions avowedly designed
f or t h e purpose of promnng un ity by di scussin g it, both t o
exemplify t h e un ity w hi cli lready exists and t o strengthen and
develop it without diScussrg it . T h e first of t h ese'
convent ions
206 T HE MESSAGE OF TH IS CONFERENCE T O TIIE CHURCHES.
Address .
REv . M. II . HARR IS, P I I . D . , N EW YORK .
What I would gather f rom Dr. Strong’ s fi n e in spiring m e ssage i sthis : That this Con f ere n ce would n o t b e Sign ifican t i f i t simp lywere a kindly un ion O f peop l e O f diff eren t Christian an d Jewi shden omin ation s w h o d o n o t care very much about re l igion anyway ,
w h o d o n o t be lieve pro f oun dly in the ir ow n o r in o ther cre eds . 1
d o n o t care very much f or t h e l ib era l ity O f a m an w h o doe s n o t b e
lieve much in his ow n f aith . H e may ca l l that “ l ibera l . ”I t d e serve s
a l e ss worthy n ame . This un ion i s va luable on ly i f it i s a. un ion o f
people t o wh om re ligio n i s; vital . If, then , th i s Con f eren ce mean s aclo ser fe l l owship be twe en very Christian s an d very Jews , w h o i n
t he ir d i fferen t ways be lieve pro f oun d ly in th e ir pro f e ssed Faiths ,then is this Con fere n ce magn ificen t.
908 POSTSCRIPT.
was the Ecumenical Missionary Coun cil held last spring ; thesecond was t h e N ew York State Conference o f Rel igion held af ew weeks ago . T h e first was distinctively Protestan t and
evangel ical ; th e latter was not even exclusively Christian . And
t he con trast between these two assemblies illustrates also t h el imi ts within which Christianity not only may but must be ex
elusive, and t h e field in which it not on ly may but ought to beco-operative with other religions .T h e inspiration w hich comes from faith in a personal God
cannot be given by a pantheistic faith . T h e defin it eness of faithwhich comes from belief in th e historical manifestation of God
in Jesus Christ cannot be furnished by a religion which is purelyrationalistic or purely mystical . T he vigor and vividness of hope
which belongs to a faith in immortal ity historically attested byt he resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot be furnished by a rel igion
which has no faith in immortality,or no other faith than such
as is born of th e intolerable sorrow of a life without anticipations
beyond th e grave . In preaching th e Gospel, therefore—that is,in tell ing th e glad tidings that God has made himself known t o
men,and in so doing has brought life and immort ality to light
t h e Christian cann ot,in th e nature of th e case
,co-Operate with
those who have no such glad tidings -to give to others . He must
be exclusive in his ministry because,much to h is regret, h e is
exclusive in his possession . He has a j oyous faith to give which
others have not ; therefore they cannot join with him in giving
it . This is what is meant by t he o f t -misunderstood declaration
that there is,none other name under Heaven given among men
whereby w e may be saved .
” Christian faith does,in fact
,give a
succor from present loneliness which untheistic faith cannot give ;a h Ope in sorrow which neither rationalism nor mysticism has
ever given or can ever gi ve, and both an ideal of life and an in
spiration to life which t he conscience alone cann ot give .
But there is a large realm o f moral life in which all rel igi ons
may co-operate . This is th e truth exemplified by t he N ew York
State Conference o f Religion . Like its predecessor t he Parlia
men t of Religion s, it strongly affirmed t he oneness o f t h e re
ligious spirit, and still more exemplified it impressively with its
Book o f Common Worship . This,however
,on ly as th e necessary
basis f or something furth erfl -namely,a oneness o f religious
action,co-operan t for practical ends in social l ife , through a
deepen ing o f moral consciousness and a revival o f moral earnest
P osrscmrr. 209
ness . A better life, both personal and social, with its motor-force
in religious zeal f or t h e promotion o f every desirable reform re
ceived t he main emphasis from its spokesmen . N or this in
merely generalized statements,but with much plain speaking as
t o t h e weak points t o be strengthened and the sore Spots to be
healed . It cannot be doubted by those w h o take cognizance o f
t h e work to be done f or t h e moral preservation and elevation of
t he commun ity, and of th e varieties of faith both within and
without the Christian Church,that it is very desirable, and indeed
is almos t essen tial,that in this work not on ly all Christian de
n omination s,but also all religious men
,should co-operate . As a
sign of t h e tendency toward such co-operation f or social, politi
cal, and moral reform,in efforts tran scending and in some sen se
disregarding all theological lines,all cathol ic spirits may wel l
welcome such a gathering as this Convention . There is nothing
disloyal to Christian ity in co-operating with men o f other re
ligion s in work in which all can co-operate,any more than there
is disloyalty to on e’s own denominat i on ln co-Operating with men
of other denomination s in work in which all Christian s can co
operate . There is one very simple rule f or determining what
are t h e l imits of religious co-operation : Always be ready t o co
operate with anyone who honestly seeks t h e end you are seeking
and is willing t o co-operate with you in its accomplishment .
ommon ore p
p repareo foruse in the fl aw work State G ontcrence
of Religion
1 6mo p ag es Cloth
THIS vo lume is t h e outgrow th o f a be l ie f. on t h e part o f t h e Stat e Conference , int h e po ss i b i l i t ie s o f common w ars/zip . I t is pub l i sh ed w i t h t h e h ope no t o n ly t h at i tmay b e found use ful in t h e se s s ions o f t h e Con f erence , but a lso t h at o t h er Sta t e
Con ferences and s im i lar gat h ering s may make use o f it ; th a t ind epend en t re l ig ioussoc ie t ie s may perh aps find i t h e l pful in t h e d eve lopm e n t o f t h e ir w orsh ip ; and t h at
it may prove a s p iri tua l a id and com fort t o many ind iv idua ls in th e ir ow n priva t eus e . T h e se lect ions from t h e Jew i sh and Ch ri s t ian Scripture s h ave been mad e from
e i t h er t h e K ing Jam e s or t h e Rev i sed Vers ion. a s h as s eemed be s t in each ca se ; t h e
re spon s ive read ing s from t h e Old Tes t amen t be ing t aken from se lect ions used in t h eSynagogue w orsh i p .
T he read ing : from t h e e t hn ic scri pture s h ave. in t h e maj ori ty o f case s . be e n takenfrom t h e ed i t ion o f t h e Sacred Books o f t h e Eas t i s sued und er t h e g enera l ed itorsh ipo f Pro f . MAX MfiL L ER .
T he prayers h ave bee n s e lect ed f rom Jew i sh o ffi ce s and from various e arlyCh ri st ian l i turg ie s , from t h e o ffice s o f t h e Eas t ern and o f t h e Roman Church . from t h e
Book o f Common Prayer, and from man y priva t e source s .
I n a ch o ice o f t h e hymns . t h e fre e s t range o f s e lec t ion h as been tak en , a lw ay skeep ing in m ind t h e one a im—th e aw aken ing o f t h e sp iri t o f bro t h erl iness among t h e
ch i ldren o f th e Al l Fath er.
CON TEN T S
1 . SCR I PT URE R EAD IN G S. z . PRAYERS.
A . H e brew and Ch ri s t ian Scri pture s . A . Co l lec t s o f Ca t h o l ic ity .
a . Ca t h o l ic i t y in R e l ig io n . B . Co l lect s o f Et h ica l and Sp iri tua l6. Et h ica l and Spiri tua l R e l ig ion . R e l ig ion .
c. R e l ig io n in Soc ie t y and t h e St a t e . C. Co l lec t s o f Re l ig io n—Soc iety and
d . R e s po n s ive R ead ing s . t h e St a t e .
B . ET HN IC SCR I PT U RES (H indu. P e r D . Bene d ict ions .
s ian . Ch ine se , Eg yp t ian . Bud d h i s t , 3. H YMN S.
Grec ian. Roman , Moh amme d an ) . A . H ymns o f Ca t h o l ic i t y .
a . Ca t h o l ic i t y in R e l ig io n . B . H ymn s o f Na tura l . E t h ica l. and
0. E t h ica l and Spiri tua l R e l ig ion . Sp iri tua l Re l ig ion .
6 . Re l ig ion in Soc ie ty and t h e Stat e . C. H ymns o f Re l ig ion—Soc iety and
t h e State .
W e t h ank t h e comm i t t ee fo r a no ble pi ece o f w ork t h a t must bear frui t in o ne
w a y o r ano t h e r. W e t h an k t h e G . P. Put nam h ouse fo r i t s ch arac t e ri s t ic e ne rg y.a rt i s t ic sk i l l . m e n t a l h o s pi ta l i t y. and h ig h e r re lig ous ze a l . f o r put t ing t h i s boo k i n t ow o rt h y t ype . a bo o k w h ich be lo ng s t o no d e nom ina t io n , but w h ich comm e nd s i t s e l ft o t h e m i n i s t e rs and cong rega t ions o f all d enom inat ions and o f all confess io ns o fre l ig i o n .
"—Um'
ly .
