God-can dwell only in righteousness and judgment.

SHALL THE UNITED STATES

BUY SHIPS?

A bill has been introduced into Congress by Congressman Alexander, of Missouri, which provides for the creation of a private corporation to own and operate deep-sea or foreigngoing ships. Fifty-one per cent of the stock is to be owned by the United States Government; and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Postmaster-General, and the Secretary of Commerce are to be the voting trust to control this fifty-one per cent of stock. If the bill passes, the Government will furnish the money to this new corporation to buy some ships. It is an interesting coincidence that the bill limits the amount of money supplied by the Government for purchasing the ships to be operated by this new corporation to thirty million dollars, a sum a little greater than it is rumored that the North German Lloyd Line will accept for its ships.

Private advices from Washington justify us in the belief that the general principles of the Alexander Bill have the approval of the National Administration.

The arguments for this bill are very inconclusive. The objections to it are very serious. They are three: economic, political, ethical.

The Economic Objection. The objections to the Government ownership and operation of great railway lines apply with equal force to the Government ownership and operation of steamship lines. We affirm the right of the people to do what they can do better for themselves than can be done for them by private enterprise; we therefore affirm their right to own and operate railway and steamship lines. But such ownership and operation is a novel experiment, and the present is no time for trying such experiments -no time, because the civilized world is engaged in a great war, and the whole strength of the United States Government should be employed in keeping out of the war, and in reducing to a minimum the evils which it unavoidably inflicts upon our people; no time because, until we have definitely decided whether we will attempt the regulation or the dissolution of great combinations, it is not wise to enter on the experiment of Government ownership and operation.

The Political Objection. The United States

Government should avoid any action which might involve her in strained relations with the warring Powers. The Government ownership and operation of merchant vessels might easily involve us in such strained relations. Under international law, in time of war the merchant ships of a neutral power may be stopped on the high seas and searched for contraband. If the United States buys and owns, in whole or in part, merchant vessels, and this international right were exercised by a French, English, or German cruiser, the fact would arouse a feeling of resentment in the American people. That feeling might be unreasonable, but it would exist, and it would be much more likely to exist if the ship arrested were owned and operated by the United States Government than if it were owned and operated by private enterprise. The average American would not expect the Government to act as insurer of all private vessels, but it would be hard to persuade him that it ought not to protect its own vessels, in which as a taxpayer he would be shareholder.

The Ethical Objection. The United States Government has declared its neutrality. The President has urged the people to maintain the spirit of neutrality even in their public and private discussions. The Administration has carried the doctrine of neutrality further than it has ever been carried before in the history of the world; for it has expressed officially its disapproval of a loan of money by private bankers to the French nation, engaged in this war. To affirm that for the Government to encourage private enterprise to provide France with money by a loan violates neutrality, but that for the Government itself to provide Germany with money by a purchase does not violate neutrality, seems to The Outlook a palpable inconsistency. It is reasonable to suppose that the Administration has considered this objection and would not give its sanction to this bill without the consent of England and France previously obtained, and it is reported that England and France have cordially corsented to the purchase of German ships for which it provides. It is quite possible that England believes that to deprive Germany of these ocean steamships until she can build anew will inflict an injury on German commerce greater than the benefit to Germany of the thirty million dollars paid to her now. But the American people do not know that the approval of either France or England has

1914

been obtained, and they ought to know of that approval before they give their sanction to this bill. They ought not to act on a rumor or a supposition.

Notwithstanding these objections, the United States Government might perhaps be justified in buying the German ships in New York harbor, if they were necessary to the performance of some great National duty or the protection of some great National interest. If we had no other means of bringing home thousands of Americans marooned abroad, or no other means of sending our breadstuffs abroad and avoiding for ourselves that surplus of useful material which is only less disastrous than a famine, we might be justified in an experimental and hazardous policy. But such a necessity does not exist. England has cleared the sea of hostile cruisers. English, French, and Italian ships are crossing the ocean in comparative safety. Americans abroad suffer some serious inconveniences in their voyages, but there is transportation enough for those who are able to pay, and the American Government can by temporary charter or by army transports provide homecoming for the comparatively small number who find themselves stranded abroad without

money or credit. Nor does there appear to be a serious lack of vessels to carry to Europe the breadstuffs which we have to sell. It is true that the large German mercantile fleet has been put out of commission, but it is also true that there are few or no steerage passengers to come from Europe to America, and tlat breadstuffs cannot be sent with safety to Belgian or German ports, and it may be gravely doubted whether the lessened commercial fleet is not entirely adequate to provide for the lessened commerce with Europe.

The proposal to have the Government buy, own, and operate merchant ships might perhaps be defended if such purchase were one step toward the re-establishment of an American merchant marine. But it is not such a step. The purchase and operation of merchant vessels by the United States Government would do nothing to encourage private capital to purchase and operate merchant vessels. On the contrary, it would discourage purchase and operation by private enterprise. Private capital is never inclined to compete with the Government; the industry which the Government takes up private capital lets fall. The express companies are allowing the United States Government to carry the small packages, and are devoting their energies to

121

building up a business with the larger and weightier packages which the Government does not carry. The United States Government would not stimulate private factories by establishing and operating factories with the capital of the people. The way to prevent the development of private ownership and operation of a merchant marine is for the Government to own and operate a merchant marine on the people's account.

The Outlook has heretofore pointed out the fact that the American Nation is in some respects the most independent nation on the globe. Three things are necessary for lifefood, shelter, and clothing. The people of the United States, thanks partly to their National policy, thanks partly to the variety of their soil, climate, and products, are able to provide for themselves food from their prairies, shelter from their forests, clay banks, and iron mines, and clothing from their cottonfields and flocks of sheep. But they are almost wholly dependent upon foreign nations for their means of international intercourse. The present war has brought home to all the people this fact. It is an opportune time to take up the question how we shall make ourselves as independent of foreign nations for our international intercourse as we are independent of them for food, shelter, and clothing. But it is a very inopportune time to try experiments supposed to be called for by temporary exigencies, but having no relation to a wellorganized and enduring National policy.

THE FUNDAMENTALS OF

CHRISTIANITY

A committee in Chicago is publishing a series of small volumes entitled " The Fundamentals," meaning the fundamentals of Christianity. The expense of the publication is provided by two laymen whose names are not given to the public. The publishersTestimony Publishing Company, 808 North La Salle Street, Chicago-announce that "all English-speaking Protestant pastors, evangelists, missionaries, theological professors, theological students, Young Men's Christian Association secretaries, Young Women's Christian Association secretaries, Sunday-school superintendents, religious lay workers, and editors of religious publications throughout the earth, who so desire, are entitled to a free copy of each volume of 'The Fundamentals."" The contributions to

this series of volumes are made by eminent scholars of America and Great Britain. They all represent, though from somewhat different points of view, the conservative school of theology. With some of the positions taken in some of these papers The Outlook is in hearty agreement, from others we as heartily dissent.

But whether we agree or we dissent, we do not believe that the system of doctrines presented, or any system of doctrines, can properly be called "the fundamentals" of the Christian religion. To be specific, we do not believe that such topics as 66 The Biblical Conception of Sin," "At-One-Ment by Propitiation," "Fulfilled Prophecy a Potent Argument for the Bible," however important, can properly be called "fundamentals of Christianity." These are not the topics which the Bible itself represents as "fundamentals."

The foundation of the Christian religion was laid by Moses at Mount Sinai. He gave to the children of Israel ten commandments or principles of life which may be summarized thus: Reverence for God; honor for parents; preservation of certain allotted time for ministry to the higher life; regard for the four fundamental rights of man; and all rendered from the heart cordially, not from fear reluctantly. And Moses told Israel that if they obeyed these fundamental commands they would be a nation of priests. In the fundamentals furnished by Moses nothing is said of temple, priest, sacrifice, or theological doctrine.

Years passed away. Israel had not obeyed these commands. They were confronting national punishment, and in their dread asked, What should they do? "Wherewith," said Israel," shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? . . Shall I come before him with burnt offerings? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" Micah answered, repeating the message of Moses : "What doth the Lord require of thee," said he, "but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Again years passed. Jesus Christ came. The people brought to him the question which they had brought to Moses and to Micah : What are the fundamentals? They were perplexed by the contending claims of different schools. Some put Sabbath observance first; some, regulations respecting ceremonial washings; some, the synagogue services;

some, the sacrificial system of the Temple. Jesus Christ answered them: That love to God and love to man were the two great commandments; that there were no other commandments greater than these; that on these depended all the law and the prophets. These two commandments are, acccording to him, the fundamentals of Christianity.

Paul is regarded as the theologian of the Apostolic Church. His was certainly the most philosophical mind in the Church in that era. In a notable passage he has given what may properly be regarded as the earliest of all Christian creeds. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”:

Thus Moses, Micah, Paul, and Jesus Christ all concur in teaching that the fundamentals of the Christian religion consist, not in a system of doctrines, but in a new and divine life; in reverence and righteousness, in doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God; in living soberly, righteously, godly, and hopefully; in one word, in love, in all its various phases, experiences, and activities. To substitute as the fundamentals of Christianity a system of doctrines for this life of love is not to promote the life of the spirit, it is to dwarf and deaden the life of the spirit. It is to deflect men's minds from right living to scholarly thinking. It is practically to deny that Christianity is a universal religion and make it a form of philosophy. Doing justly, loving mercy, living reverently and hopefully, is something which can be understood by the scholar in his library, by the cook in the kitchen, by the child in the playground. But that atonement is by propitiation, or that the future coming of Christ will be "visible bodily local," or that the grace of God is "a certain attitude or act of God toward man," are propositions which, however important they may appear to the scholar in his library, are not likely to be understood by the cook in the kitchen or the child in the playground. We believe in careful theological thinking. We regard theology as the highest type of philosophy. But philosophy is not religion and careful theological thinking is not fundamental to religion.

It is true that the Christian religion not only declares what God requires of his chil

dren, but it also declares what God will do for his children, and this declaration what God will do for his children is as essential to the welfare and the peace of humanity as the declaration of what God requires of his children. But, to take advantage of his gifts, not understanding but obedience is necessary-and nothing but obedience. Food is necessary to life, but it is not necessary that the child should understand the processes of digestion in order to live. Medical treatment is sometimes necessary to life, but it is not necessary that the patient should understand the nature of the medical treatment to which he submits. It is only necessary that the child should eat the food which his father gives him, that the patient should receive the medicine which the doctor prescribes for him. What God does for his children is perhaps nowhere in the Bible more tersely or beautifully described than in the One Hundred and Third Psalm: "Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, who healeth all thy diseases, who redeemeth thy life from destruction, who crowneth thee with loving-kindness and tender mercies, who satisfieth thine age with good, so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's." It is not necessary to understand how it is that God bestows these gifts on his children in order to receive them with a loving, trustful, and obedient heart.

The fundamentals of the Christian religion are not doctrines of incarnation, atonement, Trinity, inspiration. The fundamentals of the Christian religion are the desire to possess a spirit like the spirit of Christ, and to live a life of love, service, and sacrifice like the life of Christ.

STORING UP GOOD READING

A man who has spent his life in the society of the best books once expressed regret that he had not saved some of Balzac's novels for his old age. The author of " Père Goriot" has many admirers; it is doubtful if he has many lovers. He is not one of the Frenchmen with whom one gets on intimate terms easily; he is too portentous a personage; everybody recognizes his genius, but they are few who would feel at ease with him before an open fire. Everything about him was prodigious, even his largely imaginary debts. He was a mighty workman, as was Zola. "Cousin Pons " and "The Magic Skin" bear the traces of such heavy-handed toil

123

that the very act of reading them seems to invoke the spirit of toil rather than that sense of freedom which breathes from the greatest literature and makes it a gate of escape from the littleness of things. The conscientious, laborious writer is an impressive figure in an age of slothful and slipshod writing; but even the man of toil must keep his tools out of sight if he would make our leisure hours companionable and fleeting. One is never quite at ease with a man in his workshop; the visit seems an intrusion and the time taken from the busy man seems like a theft. Is it not Alexander Smith who says that one must always read Milton in evening dress? A fugue of Bach's played on a great organ takes one out of the pettiness and confusion of things, but it is not to be enjoyed without some preparation of the spirit. The "Fifth Symphony," on the other hand, is not less great, but, at least for most people, it is more accessible. Bach could play and Beethoven could toil mightily; but the artist is greatest when his toil takes on the joy, the spontaneity, and the freedom of play.

Flaubert was, even more than Balzac or Zola, a writer who took infinite pains, who plied the file in the light of the midnight lamp with tireless and relentless zeal; but his hand was not so heavy nor his manner so oppressive as the hand and manner of the authors of "The Magic Skin" and of Nana;" his method was more academic, his interest in perfection of workmanship was more absorbing than his interest in life. Balzac did not escape the materialism of his time; on the contrary, he loved it and delighted to describe it; he reveled in imaginary luxury; our great fortunes would have given him unmeasured joy; a thousand millions would have inspired him to the point of ecstasy. He takes almost as much pleasure in making catalogues of objects as Whitman did in enumerating railways, steamboats, tools, occupations; but Balzac had immense power and he had the sense of tragedy in life, and so he escaped the snare of materialism.

But one would hardly choose Balzac for the companion of the years in which, however valiant and active the spirit remains, life has brought a certain fatigue and a lessening of the strain is welcome. It is not a question of morality; age is safe from vice even when alluringly portrayed in fiction; the old man who has sufficient grace to enjoy good writing will not suffer from reading "Cousin