Topics of the times

Front matter

Cornell University Library

The original of tliis bool< is in tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text.

Part I. Lectures

PAQB.

I. The Conflict Between Labor and Capital, . . . 13

II. An Exposition of Nationalism 31

ni. Truths and Errors of Henry George's Views, • . . . 44 IV. The Savages of Civilization, 68

V. Popular Ideas of Poverty, ...... 83

VI. Reduction of the Hours of Labor, 94

VII. The Negro in America, ....... loi

Vm. The Bible in the Public Schools, 112

Part II. Sermons

I. Our Country : Its Character and Destiny (A Thanksgiving

Day Discourse) 120

II. The Sabbath Question, 129

III. Criticism of the Bible 139

IV. Did the Fish Swallow Jonah? 150

V. What's the Use of Praying ? 162

VI. What is the Evidence of Life After Death ? . . -173

VII. The God-FiUed Man, 185

Vin. Unshaken Religious Beliefs, 196

IX. Should We Have Creeds? 207

Preface

There are two radically different ideas of the Church and the Pulpit. By many the Church is considered a sort of "fire escape," an institution established for the purpose of savings men from a distant burning prison. The clergyman is regarded as a sort of religious policeman, whose duty it is to hold up before sinners pictures of hell to scare them into doing their duty. He must scourge them into the straight and narrow way with the thong of fear. In other words the Church and the Pulpit are supposed to deal with the future world, not with this, at least not primarily with this.

Religion is separated, or at any rate distinguished from Morality, and it is taught that "a man maybe a moral man, a very moral man, and yet go to hell."

On the other hand, many think that Jesus came to save His people from their sins (Matthew i. ii); to intellectually, socially, morally and religiously regenerate and elevate men in this world ; to save them from the hell of a depraved soul, and from the consequences of such depravity here and hereafter ; to convert earth into paradise. They, therefore, hold that the Church and the Pulpit have something to do with the moral aspect of every question, political, social or scientific ; that the best way to prepare men for the neixt life is to make them better in this. They hold that Religion and Morarlity are twin-sisters. Religion is Morality heightened by emotion ; morality based on belief in and love of God and love of man. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this : To visit the fatherless and the widows, and all sufferers in their affliction and relieve them if possible, and keep oneself unspottfed from sin. The clergyman, therefore, should denounce lO TOPICS OF THE TIMES.

political corruption and industrial slavery, and social degradation, and scientific disbelief, as well as " preach Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. " Indeed, the man who preaches "orthodox theories " of the Atonement, the Incarnation, etc., etc., and leaves unpreached the great moral truths of the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount, will find himself at the last day in that large company who will cry " Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name done many wonderful things ? " But He will answer: "I never knew you." And when I speak of preaching the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount, I don't mean preaching them in general, apologetic terms, but I mean applying them to thesolution of particular problems, regardless of whom they offend, regardless of the loss of popularity, position and salary. We hear any amount of talk in the Pulpit about "oppression of the poor^nd the elevation of the lower classes," but the man who has railroad magnates or coal kings in his congregation is decidedly weary about denouncing the evils of monopolistic corporations, trusts and combines ; but this is precisely what he ought to do, and the more of such men he can get in his congregation, the more strongly should he preach against such evils. Of course, he need not and should not descend to personal abuse, and he should not be indiscriminating in his censure, but he should be bold and honest and faithful, as a minister of Christ. Such a preacher may expect to incur odium, as Christ did, but what of that ? He will be accused of desiring to create " a sensation. " It is impossible to preach on living issues without being accused of sensationalism. On the other hand, if a preacher confines himself to a reiteration of platitudes, commonplaces, he will be called a "fogy." Choose, then, between sensationalism and fogyism, and for the sake of Truth, do not choose the latter. Of course the old men and women will call your sermons "lectures," and will probably stay away from church, but thinking men and women will come to hear you, and after all it is thinkers who move the world.

Therefore, let none of the popular objections to the' modern idea of the Church and Pulpit deter you from acting upon it. " Modern idea," did I say ? Why, it is as old as th# prophets of Israel. Old Samuel, and Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and all their noble band, boldly de-

PREFACE. II

nbuneed the' political and social evils of their time, and the great " court preachers " of the Christian Church did the same. What we must do is to revive their idea of the function of the Church and Pulpit, and follow their example, and this is being done to a great extent. The clergyman is paying less attention^ to the women and more attention to the men ; he is doing less' "pastoral visiting" and more "pastoral work ; " he is putting aside theological dogmas, and considering the problems of life ; he is ceasing~to deal in pious platitudes and preaching " a muscular Christianity ; " he is trying to get men to come to church and pray on Sunday ; but he is trying more earnestly to make them do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before their God and fellowmen during the week ; and it is because I wish to help forward this good work, in my humble way, that I have published this little volume of lectures and sermons. They are examples of the sort of preaching which I think our age needs, but in offering them to the public, I beg leave to say :

They are intended to be popular discussions of the great problems considered. ' They are by no means intended to be exhaustive or original. I have not aimed to say anything new or startling, but while I do not claim originality for this book, I may say that I have made the ideas of others used herein my own : they have not been swallowed without being digested. 'While, therefore, the materials of the book are derived, they bear my image and superscription, which my friends will recognize ; they are cast in my own mental mold. Originality after all is a relative term. A man is original to some people and decidedly unoriginal to others. I am original to many ■''eople ("chiefly fools ! "), but to Solomons I am an archaic echo. This book is not written for Solomons, and should one by mistake happen to take it up, I beg him to read no farther than this passage. My aim has been, chiefly, to find the truth in other' people's ideas, and to present it in a popular manner to those who have had less leisure for reading and studying than I have, and if I have done this, I have done all I desired.

Furthermore : The book is not "a learned work." I say this because my short experience as a writer convinces me that "origmality" and "learning" are considered indispensable prerequisites to authorship by many critics, even if (especially if) the critics themselves are not original and learned. I nevet knew what an ignoramus I was until I wrote a boolc, and therefore I humbly admit that I am not learned, and no production of mine can bear the desirable stamp of erudition ; but as learning no less than originality is relative, as a man may be very "deep" to shallow minds and very learned to the uneducated, perhaps I may get a hearing and a reading, since the Solomons are decidedly in the minority in these degenerate days. At any rate, some of my friends who heard these lectures and sermons were good enough to assure me that they were worthy of publication, and therefore I venture to offer fhem to the public. They have, of course, been thoroughly revised, much of the original matter being omitted and some new matter added.

Howard MacQueary.

TOPICS OF THE TIMES.

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL.

The conflict between labor and capital is at least three thousand years old. In an ancient document we have an acc'ount of such a conflict which reads like a socialistic novel of the present day. The parties concerned were a wealthy country gentleman who owned large tracts of land and large flocks of sheep and herds of cattle, and a noble outlaw, who, at the head of a body of bandits, lived in the caves of the mountains on which the rich man's flocks browsed. The scene of this story lay in the East, in a country bordering the Mediterranean Sea, where the shepherd's life is peculiarly delightful and peculiarly dangerous — delightful because of the rich pastures and sunny skies — dangerous because robber bands prowl through the country and are apt to make severe inroads on the flocks. Now, on the occasion referred to, the herdsmen of our wealthy lord drove his flocks far away from his residence into the mountains, where the band of outlaws were hiding ; but the leader of the band, being more noble than men of this class usually are, not only restrained his men from committing depredations upon the flocks, but he actually protected them from the attacks of other robbers lurking in those parts. Soon the time for shearing the sheep came round, and our bandit chief then sent several of his followers to the wealthy sheep-owner asking that he requite their services with a few pieces of mutton. But my lord the 'sheep-owner replied, " Who is this fellow that he should make such a demand of me ? There be manyservants nowadays that break away from their masters ! Shall I then take my bread and my water and my flesh that I killed for my shearers, and give it unto men whom I know not whence they be ? No ! get you gone ! " So the young man returned to the chief and told him the result of his request. "Well," he exclaimed, "come, boys, gird ye on every man his sword," and we will show this fool who are masters and who are servants."

So they sallied forth, four hundred strong, armed to the teeth, to take by force what they had failed to get by peaceable means. But lo, on the way they met the wife of my lord the sheep-owner, coming with a body of servants and ladened asses, bringing a large supply of bread and wine and mutton and raisins and figs. And she fell on her face before the outraged chieftain, beseeching him to accept her peace-offering and do no violence to her fool of a husband. Her beauty and her generosity melted the heart of the noble outlaw and he gladly accepted her bounty and invoked a blessing upon her for preventing him from shedding of blood. Meanwhile, her husband, who knew nothing of his wife's conduct, was feasting and drinking with his friends ; as a result of his carousal he was taken ill the next morning and died in ten days ; and then his beautiful wife married the bandit chief, of course.

You recognize in this story the history of David and Nabal. It is written in the twenty-fifth chapter of the First Book of Samuel, and I submit it not only reads like a novel but it is most suggestive on the subject in hand. Indeed it reveals both the causes and the cures of all labor trouble, (i.) We remark that the first cause of this conflict between labor and capital was the contrast between the condition of David and that of Nabal. It was the contrast between the rich man and Lazarus. Nabal had abundance and to spare : David had nothing — not even a shelter for his head save a hole in the ground, and he had six hundred men following him and depending upon him for support. Moreover, his straitened circumstances were not due to any fault of his, but rather to the jealousy and injustice and cruelty of his king — Saul. It is no wonder, then, that he should seek food from his wealthy neighbor, whose flocks he had not only not injured but had actually protected. Now, this state of things has ever preceded a social revolution. When Rome was tottering to her fall, we are told, "a whole population might be trembling lest they should be starved by the delay of an Egyptian corn ship from Alexandria, while the upper classes were squandering a fortune on a single banquet, drinking out of myrrhine and jewelled vases worth thousands of dollars ; and feasting on the brains of peacocks and the tongues of nightingales. Over a large part of Italy most of the free-born population had to content themselves, even in winter with a tunic ; and the luxury of a toga was reserved only, by way of honor, to the corpse. Yet at this very time the dress of Roman ladies displayed an unheard of splendor. One, it is said, was seen dressed for a betrothal feast in a robe entirely covered with pearls and emeralds, which had cost the amazing sum of over two million dollars ; and this was known to be less expensive than some others.

In the history of the French Revolution of the last century we have the same contrast in the conditions of the rich and the poor. An eminent abb6 of the time and a leader in the revolution, exclaimed in the National Assembly : "What is the Third Estate ? Everything. What has it hitherto been in the body politic ? Nothing. What does it demand.? To be something." Whatever exaggeration there may be in this statement, due to the passion of the orator, it certainly points to the fact that the great mass of the French people were slaves to the upper-classes and had no recognized political rights worthy of mention.

In our country to-day we have a similar state of things : — on the one hand immense fortunes — the greatest ever known — on the other, the most abject poverty. "There are worlds and worlds," says Mr. George, "even within the bounds of the same city. The man who comes into New York with plenty of money, who puts up at the Windsor or Brunswick, and is received by hospitable hosts in Fifth Avenue mansions, sees one New York. The man who comes with a dollar and a half, and goes to the fifteen or twenty-five cent lodging house sees another. On the one hand are those to whom life, with its round of balls, parties, theatres, flirtations and excursions, is a holiday, in which, but for invention of new pleasures, satiety would make time drag. But this bright world is very different from that of the old woman who, in the dingy lower street.

sits from morning to night beside her little stock of apples and candy : and from that of girls who stand all day behind counters and before looms, who bend over sewing machines for weary, weary hours, or who come out at night to prowl the streets. Never since great estates were eating out the heart of Rome has the world seen such enormous fortunes as are now rising : and nevermore utter proletarians."

What is true of New York is true of all our large towns and cities. Dives and Lazarus lie down together, the one at the gate with the dogs, the other in the mansion with his sweet wife and dear children and congenial friends. But shall we, therefore, conclude that a great revolution is brewing like that which destroyed Rome and rent the French Monarchy asunder? We cannot say positively, but we may say that it is not at all necessary — that it is not yet too late to prevent such a catastrophe. We remember that Abigail stepped in between David and Nabal and averted the threatened destruction of the fool, and we may hope that the spirit of Abigail is broad in our land to-day and is sufficiently strong to settle our industrial troubles.

2. The second cause of the conflict between David and Nabal was the social superiority which the wealthy debauchee asserted over the noble-chieftain. He assumed that because he was rich he was made of better clay than David was. He therefore exclaimed in much haughtiness, ' ' Who is this David, and who is the son of Jesse 1 There be many servants now-a-days that break away every man from his master." The fact was, David had been anointed king over Israel, and his reduction to a bandit's life was due to the injustice and cruelty of Saul, not to his inherent inferiority. All his pride, all "The old Adam " in him therefore, was aroused by this insulting reply of Nabal and he very naturally proposed to show him who was who. Now we hear a great deal of talk about "the dignity of labor" and " the brotherhood of man " in our day. The politician is very suave in his address and very cordial in his grasp of the working man's hand— just before the election ; the clergyman paints beautiful pictures of the Nazarene Carpenter and "love in a cottage," and very fervently calls the working men "dear brethren" on Sunday, but unlike his Master he is not so ready on Monday to go and dine with the publicans and sinners. He enjoys much more a chat over the wine glass with the refined, wealthy.

CONFLICT BE TWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL. ly

educated employer than he does "hard tack" and a glass of milk in the humble lodging of his employee. Of course it is not so in every case. There are noble exceptions arnong both the clergy and laymen. There are men who will lift their hat to the working man and his wife at other times than election days, and there are clergymen who not only preach but practice the fraternity of Jesus. But unquestionably, these are exceptions ; else working men would love the parson and the politician more than they do. The opinion is widespread and is based on facts, that whatever may be the "dignity of labor " theoretically, yet money gives one power, position, and even character. Hence the young woman looks out for a "good catch " and the broken down aristocracy of England and France come to America in search of heiresses. The parson and the politician, the employer and the employee, all seek wealth, and when they get it they generally speak of others as theit "servants," even though they may have royal blood flowing through their veins. And this is as true of working men who become rich as those who inherit their wealth. Indeed, we have all doubtless known of men, who have "risen in life" and who make the very worse kind of employers and the most unbearable snobs. But this sort of thing arouses the very devil in men who know that whatever may be their misfortunes, their blood is as pure, their clay is as good, as that which sits in cushioned chairs, sleeps on golden bedsteads, drives in a coach and four and swills wine from silver decanters. Working men and women are getting tired of being called "servants" and "hands" — mere machines to enrich others — and so they are beginning to cease to respect those who treat them as Nabal treated David, and we need not wonder if they feel tempted to bring fools to their senses by hard knocks. Don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating such a method of procedure. I am only stating facts, and maintaining that as long as money instead of character is made the basis of social superiority — as long as the relation of "master" and "servant "is emphasized — as long as the wealthy employer passes his "hands" on the street as he would a crowd of dogs — so long must there be a feeling of spite and ill-will. Only by a recognition of the dignity of man as man, only by the acknowledgment of the fact that his employees are co-workers, partners with him, can any pleasant relation between empioyer and employed exist. Don't infer from this that I am a Socialist, for I am not. Socialism is too much of a machine system to suit men, but it rests on a grand truth — a truth proclaimed nineteen centuries ago by the Nazarene Carpenter — the truth of man's unity and brotherhood.

3. A third and indeed the most important cause of the conflict between David and . Nabal was a failure on the part of both to recognize certain rights. David was right in believing that he should be rewarded for his services, but he was wrong in employing force to get such remuneration. On the other hand, Nabal cannot be utterly condemned for not seeing at once the reasonableness of David's demands. He argued thus : "I pay my laborers what I promise them. I never asked this David to guard my flocks : he did it of his own accord. Why, then, should I pay for services I never engaged.? Shall I take my bread and my water and my flesh that I have killed for my regularly employed laborers and give it unto men, whom I know not whence they be.?" David's demand, therefore, appeared to him an extravagant and insolent One, provoking unfeigned astonishment and indignation. He considered it an invasion of his rights — a dictation with respect to the employment of that which was his own. Recollect, too, that this view of the irresponsible right of property was not NdbaTs invention. It was the view probably entertained by all his class. It had descended to him from his parents, and hence he could not be expected to see things just as David saw them. David undoubtedly had a »Jora/ right although he had no legal x\g\iX (to use a modern distinction), to a portion of the stuff he had protected, and Abigail, with the keen conscience of the woman, saw this at once, and hastened to satisfy the just demands of David. But Nabal could not see this, and his modern representatives are quite as thick-headed. They "do business, don't you know 1 " They don't carry a Bible around in their pockets, or paste up a copy of the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount in their shops and offices. They don't object to hearing the preacher expound these great truths in the pulpit on Sunday, but he must not come into their offices Monday morning and urge them to apply the principles he had advocated the day before. The " business-man " thinks that the Ten

Commandments have as little' to do with business as the United States Senator said they had to do with politics. They do very well to preach about, but the minister who steps into the office of a wealthy parishioner of his and urges him to adopt those principles in his business, will be politely reminded of the fact that "he knows nothing about business." He would better go up to the house and »talk to the ladies, or go home and say his prayers, and prepare his sermon and let " business men " run the shops ! And these modern Nabals must be partially excused on the ground oi false education. They have been taught that " competition is the life of trade" — that "wages are governed by the law of supply and demand " — that they must, therefore, buy their labor in the cheapest market, and that they are not responsible for the cheapness of labor. This miserable political economy — this false and immoral teaching, — has been pounded into their minds from the cradle up, and has furnished the governing principles of business for generations, and we cannot therefore be surprised if they treat David's demand as an invasion of their rights — a dictation to which they must not submit. Shallow people often say it matters little what one believes I It makes a tremendous difference what one believes ! A man who believes the theories just alluded to will never be convinced of the justice of the laborers' demand, but, like Nabal, will spurn it from him with astonishment and indignation.

Such, then, are three of the prime causes of the conflict between labor and capital. The existence of great wealth side by side with abject poverty, which begets the conviction in the mind of the masses that there is a screw loose somewhere in the social machinery. How often do we hear a poor man say, as he looks at his wealthy neighbor's fine residence, etc., " It doesn't seem right that a few men should be so rich and the many so poor ! " This is not simply an expression of envy, but it is a condemnation of the social and industrial system. Then the pride and arrogance of the wealthy toward the poor, and the application of false economic or " business principles " so-called instead of great moral maxims in industrial affairs, contribute still more largely to the production of a conflict

What are the remedies P

(i.) Shall it he force, such as David employed? God

20 TOPICS OP THE TIMES.

forbid ! As Professor Richard T. Ely, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore — a friend of the working men — says : " It is high time for those men to keep quiet, who, little in heart and mind, have no better remedy for social ills than physical force. They fail absolutely to understand the age in which they live, and will involve us all^ in ruin if allowed to execute their savage plans."

(2.) Shall we, then, adopt the Socialist's program — the joint control of land and capital, worked by associated labor ? That is, shall we make land and the means of production common (public) property and the State the one and only employer, and distribute the products either according to the needs or the deeds of the individual workers ?

Judging from the enormous sale of Mr. Bellamy's book ("Looking Backward"), we must conclude that thousands of the best minds of our day think that this is the panacea for our social ills. But as already stated, I consider Socialism too much of a machine system. It would not allow the freedom to the individual that it promises, and I for one don't want to be a mere pin or screw fixed in one place in the great social machine. Mr. Bellamy's picture is very attractive, in some respects, especially in the dignity assigned to labor and the universal plenty it offers, but it is much easier to draw such a sketch on paper than it is to make it work in practice ; and I dare say that the people of the twentieth or the twenty-fifth century will find the machine offered quite as unmanageable as we do.

(3) Shall we, then, adopt the Anarchist's proposition : — abolish all laws and make every man a law unto himself? Yes, we may do that — when the millennium comes! But if we were to do it now I for one should beg to be transported at once to Mars or some other planet ! The Anarchists are too good for this world, and should all be sent immediately to Heaven ! In all seriousness; the Anarchist believes that we can get along without law, and that it should therefore be altogether abolished ; but much as I love the Gospel, I fear that, human nature continuing as it is, the Gospel must be spiced with law for some centurieb to come — perhaps less law than we now have, or, at least with better law, but still we must have some law — the only question is. What and Where P

(4.) Shall we, then adopt Henry George's theory — abolish private ownership in land by the appropriation of its economic rent as taxes ? This would be a comparatively simple solution of the social problem, and much may be said in its favor. But many of us cannot agree with Mr. George that the ownership of land is in itself criminal, nor can we see that the adoption of the Single Tax would remove all our social ills. We hold that labor spent upon land gives the same title to it that labor spent upon the materials of a house gives to it, and Mr. George admits that labor spent upon a house makes it ours. We also admit that our present methods of taxation are about as unjust and iniquitous as they could be, but we fail to see how any method of taxation could cure all of our industrial evils. Now it must not be inferred from this glance at Socialism, Anarchism and Georgeism that I don't appreciate the high intellectual and moral character of such men as Mr. Bellamy, Ml. Hugh Penticost and Mr. George, or that I consider their theories altogether irrational and impracticable : far from it ! I have the utmost respect and admiration for these men, for their motives and aims, and I doubt not that many of the reforms they advocate would be practicable and beneficial — only I think that none of these systems taken as a whole, contains remedies for all our social ills. We want a system larger than any of these, which will comprehend all their truths and exclude their errors, but that system is yet unborn.