網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

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 "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

1914

STORING UP GOOD READING

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 "l'ère 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

Betty," with its repulsive studies of senile sensualism. Age is a protection from contamination. Dr. Holmes once said that it made no difference if a man is spoiled after he is eighty! The last two decades of the century in a man's life are disinfected, and there was a large grain of truth in the remark of one of the most charming old men of our time: "When one has passed ninety, he may say or do what he chooses." Most readers would not save Balzac for old age, not because he describes corruption with such power, but because he is not companionable. The air of the workshop hangs around too many of his stories. The sinewy strength, tempered and subdued to the uses of art, which many French writers use with consummate skill, was beyond his reach, and, great as he was, he is not a companion for those hours when one wants to feel the nearness of life without being weighed down by it; when art is invited to sit by the fire for the joy and freedom that it brings rather than for its power of instruction. In the awful slaughter at Syracuse, so nobly described by Thucydides, those Greeks who could recite passages from Euripides were spared even in the madness of victory! There are many who are sorry that they have not "laid up" a few stories of Thackeray for old age, as our ancestors once stored their cel

lars against the barrenness and severity of the winter months. Thackeray was not a temperamental optimist; he was not given to the telling of romantic falsehoods about life; on the contrary, he has not escaped the accusation of cynicism. It is a lesson to those who look, in this confused world, for the justice which comes from complete understanding, that this great and tender-hearted man of genius should be accused of cynicism by the literalists, and of sentimentalism by the realists.

But, aside from all disputes about his view of human nature, Thackeray is one of the most companionable of writers. That he was "clubable" everybody knows; that he is a choice spirit for slippered ease and the open fire is known by all who have lived long enough to understand him. Thackeray has a style of extraordinary individuality, but its informality, its apparent ease, its intimate, confidential air, mislead only those who confuse manner with mannerism and art with artifice. The author of "Vanity Fair " lays no burden on his readers, because he keeps his tools out of sight; he is always at ease and at leisure; whether you agree with him or not, his presence is welcome if you have invited distinguished people to meet him; and if you happen to be alone with him you count yourself especially fortunate.

THE COMMENT OF A MILITARY MAN

T

BY A WEST POINT GRADUATE

HE war that is being waged between Germany and the Allies to-day, as would be the case in any other war between any of the civilized nations, is simply a problem that has been solved by the general staff of every nation. The result of each solution depends somewhat on the assumptions made, but predictions made by general staff students as to the outcome of any modern war are practically the same. In the great problem that is being worked out in Europe to-day there is but little difference except in minor details from what military experts had predicted would occur. Many of these predictions have been proved fairly uncanny in their accuracy, the daily work of the German armies on the French frontier being almost exactly as foretold by our best students of

war.

Some unknown quantities have been injected into the problem that have changed results-retarded results somewhat, and may hasten the final solution. For example, France undoubtedly figured that Germany would respect Belgian neutrality; practically all other military experts calculated that the German attack on France would be made exactly as it has been made, but did not count on the fierce resistance made by the Belgian army, nor did many figure that England would land troops on the Continent. These two unknown quantities thrown into the German problem have placed her armies from eight to fourteen days behind her schedule. Another unknown quantity has been omitted from the problem-Italy. All the war mathematicians counted Italy and her army and navy with the Triple Alliance.

1914

THE COMMENT OF A MILITARY MAN

This also will change dates in the terrible programme.

It is quite probable that even with the above changes the Germans will invest and, possibly, occupy Paris. The taking of many Belgian and French strongholds to date indicates two things-an overwhelming attack in which the new German siege gun and the eleven-inch siege mortars must have been used in large numbers, and a lack of the qualities of the badger and woodchuck on the part of the French. Paris is the strongest fortified city on earth-or thought to be. The Germans may capture it, but it is not believed that a German army would occupy Paris in this war if her fortifications were in the hands of either the English or the Rússians.

Whether the Germans occupy Paris or the Russians capture Berlin will have little immediate effect on the ultimate solution. Bull Run did not defeat the North. The South fought for two long years after Gettysburg and Vicksburg. The loss of great battles and important cities will not end this war. The loss of their capitals would be a blow to the pride of both nations and would have a certain moral effect on the mass of the inhabitants; but the only thing that will end this titanic struggle will be that which brought the Civil War to a close-the cutting off of supplies of food and munitions of war and the complete exhaustion and practical annihilation of the armies of one side or the other. Which is it going to be? France and England and Russia can wage bitter war for months, or even years, after Paris is captured; Germany can fight many terrible battles after Berlin is in the hands of the Russians.

From a disinterested and unprejudiced study of this most interesting problem, taking into consideration the preparedness for war of the contestants, the length of time necessary for the Allies to mobilize their full strength, the question of equipping reserves, the manufacture of munitions and material of war, the transportation of food and troops, and especially the personal equation of all the nations engaged, it is not seen how the war can ultimately end other than disastrously to Germany. The world is mistaken if it thinks that England went into this struggle without being fully determined to fight to the death if necessary to win. Fortunately for England—and the Allies-probably the finest type of the British bull dog soldier she has ever produced is in the saddle-Kitchener.

125

England has control, not only of the Channel, but of all the oceans, and is free to transport her war levies from Australia, Canada, and India. We may yet see the strange spectacle of a quarter of a million Indian troops fighting in France; and as this is an age of wonders, little Japan might loan a few hundred thousand men to the Allies, just to get even with the Kaiser for 1893.

If the Allies were possessed of the wellnigh perfect system of organization and supply that the German General Staff has evolved for the armies of Germany, the latter would not be so near Paris. Had we such a system and war was declared, it would work something as follows: In New York City, for instance, every man belonging to the various reserves ordered out would report at once to the storehouse where his equipment is kept. Giving his name to a clerk, he is handed a bundle of clothing; this contains two field uniforms complete-two coats, two pairs of trousers, two pairs of leggings, two pairs of marching shoes, one hat, two suits of underclothes, four pairs of socks, housewife, blankets, blanket-roll, etc. All articles are of the correct size, selected, tried on, and put away for this soldier, with his name tag on the bundle. It also contains a brass tag bearing his official number, which he wears next his body, suspended from his neck by a cord. He then repairs to a dressingroom, puts on a uniform, makes up his fieldroll with all the other articles, ties up his civilian clothing, and hands it to the clerk to put away for him. The man would then go to his armory, either the same building where his outfit is kept or elsewhere, and draw his rifle, belts, and ammunition, and would then be ready to march with his company or regiment to entrain. In the cities regiments would be ready to march in from four to six hours. In country districts it would take from twelve to twenty-four hours.

Germany has a complete field outfit ready for every able-bodied man by name, and every man knows where to go to get it in the least possible time after the call goes forth. She probably had two millions of men on the way to her frontiers within twenty-four hours after war was seen to be inevitable. Going to the frontier in Germany is like going to Albany or Montauk Point from New York. Every able-bodied man in the Empire is a trained soldier. In being able quickly to equip and mobilize her reserves for defensive or offensive warfare Germany is far ahead.

The rapidity with which the Germans have reduced and captured the forts around Liège, Namur, and other fortified cities that were in their way would indicate that they must have a large number of heavy caliber siege guns and mortars with the attacking force. They must use at least nine-inch guns and eleven-inch mortars. The guns have their own carriages, and their transportation over the excellent roads of Europe is a simple matter. The taking of the siege mortar with an invading army is more difficult, and the German transport service must resort to the use of large platforms on wheels which they move over the macadam roads by steam or motor engines, or, what is more likely, they are probably four-tracking the railway supply lines, thus enabling the artillery force to mount this heavy ordnance on huge platforms laid on flat cars and moved at will into position where it can be unloaded and planted for attack. The effective range of these siege mortars is from six to nine miles; they throw an armor-piercing shell which weighs about eight hundred pounds, and it can be readily seen that a rain of these interesting missiles would make any but the hardiest troops desire a change of station, especially as their accuracy of fire at seven miles is within a few feet.

Both sides have undoubtedly suffered enormous losses, but our newspapers should avoid the ridiculous and exaggerated statements that have been appearing recently. One day last week the papers stated that the Germans

had destroyed three Russian corps of 120,000 men and had captured 70,000. In the complete rout of the Russian army at Mukden the Japanese captured only about 30,000, and in the Civil War the North lost in killed but a little over 100,000 in the whole four years. It would be a human impossibility to destroy 120,000 men in one battle. A loss of twenty per cent in killed and wounded is about all that seasoned troops will stand before giving way, and ten per cent is a frightful loss.

The newspapers recently printed a despatch saying that the French were impressed by the coolness of the British soldiers under fire because they went into battle smoking their pipes.

This is no uncommon occurrence in both the British and American armies. In hard service of any kind parade-ground discipline is largely laid aside, and especially in battle a soldier is allowed to do almost anything that will keep up his nerve, keep him going towards the enemy and keep his rifle popping.

He can smoke, swear, or even take a drink if he can get it, so long as he keeps going in the right direction. It is a common thing to see American soldiers smoking under fire, and "Dutch courage" is a common nickname for liquor. In the fight at El Caney, Santiago, Cuba, in 1898, the story was told that General Chaffee had half of his cigar shot away by a Spanish sharpshooter, at which discourtesy the General expressed his opinion of that Spaniard in no uncertain

terms.

GERMANY AND TURKEY

BY A RETIRED OFFICER OF THE GERMAN ARMY Some critics have said that Germany is inciting Turkey to enter the European conflict against the Allies because she is willing to stoop to anything to win. The following article is of interest because it defines the alliance of Germany and Turkey as a perfectly natural one. The author is a widely traveled and highly accomplished officer of the German army now living in the United States, having reached the age of retirement. His argument is that, if the Allies win, Turkey looks forward to a loss of Constantinople. But he does not make it clear how Turkey can preserve Constantinople—except in a very nominal and pro forma way— if Germany dominates Europe.-THE EDITORS.

A

SEEMINGLY new factor has recently entered into European calculations of the war. The German battle

ships in the Mediterranean, the Goeben and the Breslau, took refuge in the Dardanelles;

reports said they were sold to Turkey; even the price was named. Then we read news of German sailors and ammunition sent by way of Bulgaria to Constantinople; next of 800 German officers and men going the same

« 上一頁繼續 »