upon his critics might recall the story of the Western editor who said of a man in his small town, "Bill Jones is so dirty and shiftless that he is not fit to live with pigs." On being asked at the point of a revolver to retract, he said in the

next issue of his newspaper: "We said last week that 'Bill Jones is not fit to live with pigs.' We apologize. He is fit to live with pigs." If the editor of the "Britannica" had said, not that Mr. Baker was a politician, but that he was

an

unsuccessful politician, he would come nearer the truth.

All of which leads us to suggest that in the dog-days everybody should try to keep cool and wait with patience for the regenerating frosts of November.

E ought to be murdered!"

This is what his neighbor's wife thought, and said, as she watched him, conscious that the eyes of the town were upon him, as he returned to work before the settlement of the strike.

"The women are worse than the men to talk, more radical." So said the wife of a farmer who had moved to town.

I wanted to know how the people of Hillyard think and feel after two months with the railway shopmen on strike and with no immediate prospect of settlement in sight. So I spent a day talking it over with a minister, a banker, the Ford man, a farmer, a striker, a merchant, and anybody else that I could scare up a conversation with. Hillyard is a railway town-intermountain division point on the Great Northern and location of extensive car shops-just outside Spokane.

The man "who ought to be murdered" had gone to work under force of necessity, conviction, or persuasion, perhaps all three, and doubtless deeply troubled about questions of loyalty to himself, the union, and the company. But he found himself in deeper trouble than before; for when he appeared in the shops for work the strike-breakers looked upon him as England looked upon Benedict Arnold. He was a traitor to his union and his class.

"What in hell are you doing here?" he was asked. "We are strike-breakers. You don't belong with us." And they made it so intolerable for him that he was glad to quit and informed his friends of the union-friends no longer -that "he saw things differently now." He had forfeited the respect of his striking neighbors and was held in contempt by the strike-breakers. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, a man takes his social standing, if not his life, in his hands when he tries to break into that situation.

This is only one of the little hells created by the labor war now in progress on the Western roads. Newspaper reports indicate that the same situation, or worse, obtains in other division

towns.

An old man, long an employee of the company and with a pension coming soon, kept his job in the conviction that he had earned the right. His sons struck, and now they "don't speak." Men and women who are ordinarily

frank and outspoken in their opinions have "shut up." They will not discuss the situation. They "don't want to get into trouble with their neighbors." "Scabs" or strike-breakers live in the "shacks" or cottages provided by the company, mingle very little with the townspeople, and go strictly about their business when they do. They are paid in cash, so that they do not need to ask the banks or stores to cash checks. No one has been molested in a physical way, but there are many methods by which pickets, strikers, and even women and children can make life a social misery for any one who is a "traitor to his kind." Scab signs are posted in numerous places, in stores and windows of homes:

Don't Be a Scab

A scab is the most contemptible thing on earth (and more)

Be a Man

Pickets are seen singly and in pairs at all the entrances to the yards as well as at all street corners. Every man who looks like a worker is tackled without ceremony to learn his business or destination, and is made decidedly uncom fortable in his mind if he intends to work for the company. One young farmer, unshaven and looking a little rough, dismounted from the street car, was approached and asked his intentions. "None of your d- business,"

he shot back. "I don't ask you where you are going and what you're going to do."

One merchant said: "If it were not for the pickets, the strike would not last a week. Most of the men were not in favor of it, to begin with. There was no dissatisfaction here. They were called out by the unions. But the pickets make it so uncomfortable for a man that he can't stand the gaff."

A peculiar psychology exists. Among the strikers there is a tacit respect for the man who is frankly out for his own interests, as they see it. Thus old men who are nearing their pension age are permitted, or even asked, to retain their jobs. Superintendents and bosses down to but not including the "straw bosses" are supposed to be identified with the company; they are not permitted to join the unions and they are for the most part respected. At least they are not held in contempt as traitors to labor. The line is drawn at the "straw" or sub

boss who is a member of the union and who, if he keeps his job, is called a scab.

The unions practically control the situation, and public opinion, where it is opposed to the strike, is silent or finds only an underground expression. Business men who hold this position will, when approached, make an out-and-out declaration of sympathy for the strikers, and then, having paid tribute to "safety first," will, if conversation is extended, gradually reveal their true attitude, which is about as follows:

The strike was unjustified and not desired by the substantial men in the unions, but forced by the "higher ups." Jewell is accused of having "hidden out" for a few days after the strike was declared. Admissions of wrongs on both sides are admitted. It is war, and we will have to pay the bill. The strike is a poor method of settling a dispute and does not really determine the rights and wrongs of the question, any more than war does. Seniority, which is now the only bone of contention, cannot in fairness be granted. The President blundered when he suggested that the companies yield this point.

Farmers and those whose business is with farmers are the only ones who bluntly and frankly come out in opposition to the strike. The farmers' interest has been jeopardized. They are facing serious loss and inconvenience right now, with the possibility of greater or total loss in some instances as the result of the transportation tie-up. Milk sours on the sidings on account of delays and the bottom has fallen out of the perishable-fruit market. Hence the farmers are outspoken in condemnation of the unions, the companies, and the Government in its failure to deal with the situation strongly. Hopes of a farmer-labor bloc have been shoved some distance into the future. A farm laborer expressed sympathy for the strikers, and then said: "But there are some things about the unions that ain't right. If a man goes to work in the shops, they call him a scab. But these strikers go out and take my farm jobs away from me. I call them scabs just as much as the strike-breakers." A house painter, when the strike came on, found himself underbid and his business taken from him.

Strikers think that public opinion is gradually shifting to them. I am afraid it is the public opinion of their own cir

cle and of the business that is dependent upon them, a part of which, at least, is not wholly outspoken. The public that stands "apart" watching the fight is quite impartial, criticising both sides and generally disgusted with two men whose interests are ultimately identical fighting each other and shifting the cost upon the spectator.

One of the striking shopmen, while defending his own position with evident sincerity but taking for the moment the position of the "suffering public," said with conviction: "The situation is intolerable and fearfully expensive. It should never have been allowed to occur, and there should be some Government agency with power to prevent its ever occurring again."

The original causes of the strike were:

Proposed wage cuts. Not strenuously opposed by the men.

Proposal to pay overtime only after ten hours. This threatened the eighthour day, and was opposed.

Proposal to let out certain work by piece or on contract to non-union shops. This threatened the existence of the unions; to force down quality and increase accidents; to make work more irregular in the shops. Also opposed.

These contentions were granted by the roads when the Government interposed. Seniority was injected into the dispute by the refusal of the men to go to work after a certain date. By seniority is

meant the preference of older employees over the newer ones, together with certain pension accumulations. The right of an older employee to "bump" a later arrival seems to be regarded as worth more than the pension. Some did not know what their pension rights were.

Seniority is now the only thing that stands in the way of settlement, and strikers say that they will never go back to work without these rights. "Such a situation," they say, "would be intoler able." They say also that they have "millions" back of them, and that they do not need to go to work for a long time. The "Big Five"-engineers, firemen, conductors, brakemen, and maintenance of ways unions-are contributing liberally for the support of the strikers.

The leading minister, a Congregationalist, is frankly and openly in sympathy with the strikers. He thinks that the responsibility for so managing things that industrial peace is possible clearly lies with the management of the roads. The great question at issue, he thinks, is not the daily wage, the eight-hour day, or the existence of the union, but the question of interrupted or seasonal employment. The daily wage is sufficient if work were constant. The irregularity of employment keeps the town constantly on its "uppers." Failure of the church and other social agencies for good is due in large measure to uncertainty of income. The contract-letting

proposal of the roads promised to increase this uncertainty and irregularity. The unions of course emphasize the danger to their organizations, but the minister is probably right. The union leaders are afraid for their jobs. There is a feeling that with a proper settlement of the troubles the unions would go out of existence.

The impatience of the public with the present war is in part due to the conviction that no one gains anything by it and that it is in no way an approach to a solution. There is in the Northwest one signal example of peace in an industry which before the war was "all shot to pieces" with radicalism, I. W. W.-ism, and sabotage. The lumber industry is at peace in the Northwest to-day largely on account of the influence of the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen, under the management of Norman F. Coleman, former college professor, Christian gentleman, and industrial statesman. They have brought into the business the principle of representation, and the entrance of the men into the problems of management and the entrance of management into the problems of the men has made peace possible through understanding. It makes profit sharing possible without calling it that and is a device to do away with the evils of absentee landlordism, so inevitable where capital is furnished by stockholders who live everywhere, as is the case with the railways.

I

N addition to the large loans America is making to Europe our statesmen are giving advice also. Lately Governor Cox, Mr. Frank Vanderlip, and Colonel House have been more or less interviewed. They are full of warning to Europe and suggested American financial intervention.

I am not sure that they are telling all they know. Here are the plain, unvarnished facts:

We haven't any free gold for Europe; what we have is pledged as security for the Federal Reserve paper money and as security for the depositors in the member banks. I have before me a letter from the Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, dated August 14, saying that the last statement of the combined liabilities of the Federal Reserve system and the bank deposits of the member banks showed that the "reserves" (that is, gold and silver) were less than fourteen per cent of such liabilities, and that the present reserves "are not higher than they should be."

Ours is not the only gold reserve in the world. Switzerland, Holland, ScanCinavia, France, and England have much gold. They hold it aloof, as they should,

instead of wasting it on a vain attempt to counteract the torrent of inflation now deluging Europe.

America believes in legitimate democ racy, but she has reason to question the credentials of so-called democracies which make no attempt to keep their word. It is because Europe doubts the promise of Germany, Poland, Austria, and others to pay that their paper money is hardly worth its weight as rags. The first step in a wayward course is always the vital and tragic one; the others follow along in the same direction in spite of the protests of a weakened will to do otherwise.

It is absolutely impossible for the weak Socialistic Governments of Germany and Austria to stop issuing paper money.

The remedy, after all the dodging and side-stepping of theorists and practical politicians, is:

1. A new and strong government that will keep expenditures within income.

2. The creation of a reserve (on a gold basis) by such taxes and capital levy as may be necessary.

3. New paper currency to be issued against this reserve and redeemed when demanded.

4. The present worthless paper money to be called in and exchanged for the new currency on a fixed basis of 1,000 or 10,000 to one, as the case may be. We must start with a strong government. Czechoslovakia has pointed the

way.

You may ask, "What has Germany got to make a reserve out of?" Why, export credits and the present gold reserve of the Reichsbank, amounting to around $250,000,000. That is much more than the entire gold value of the 200,000,000,C00 paper marks or more in existence.

There are plenty of assets in all these countries which can be used for reserves, but there is no use trying to use them until the amount of paper money is limited.

A change from the present control to a strong control may mean revolution; it may mean reversion to monarchies. I am not concerned about the name. I only point out the one and only remedy. If some of the present so-called democracies go down, it will be small loss to the world. This old earth will continue to revolve, and a new and better govern ment by the people and for the people may appear. W. C. GREGG. London, England, August 20, 1922.

W

'HO is the founder of Christianity-Jesus Christ or Paul?

Lay readers may be surprised to learn that some theological scholars are quite seriously discussing this question, and that books have been written upon it. One or two scholars, more eager for novelty than for truth, have even claimed that Jesus Christ never existed. Others, more rational, think that Jesus Christ gave the religion but Paul gave the theology, and that the two are not consistent. Those who hold to this view in any of its forms must reckon with Professor Machen's book.1 He is apparently as familiar with the Greek language as with the English and with life in the first century as with life in the twentieth. In his volume, a series of lectures delivered in the Union Theological Seminary of Princeton to theological students, he is an expert speaking to those who hope to become experts. Much of his volume would be interesting only to students of the Greek Testament. Its criticism of the New Testament is minute, almost microscopic, the work of a careful, able, and conscientious scholar.

But he seems to me more successful in his examination of details than in his mastery of great principles. Thus he puts emphasis on unreal antitheses. "Jesus for Paul," he says, "was primarily not a Revealer but a Saviour." Might he not be a Saviour because he was a Revealer? Again: "Jesus, according to Paul, therefore, was not a teacher but a Redeemer." And yet it is Paul who declares that Jesus came teaching us that we should live soberly, righteously, godly, looking for the appearing of God. Professor Machen lays great stress upon the contrast between the supernatural and the rationalistic interpretation of the Gospel and upon the recognition both by Paul and by the Gospel of its supernatural character. But he scarcely recognizes the possibility of an opinion which is gaining currency in the churches, and perhaps still more outside the churches, of the mystical character of Christianity. If its mystical character be recognized, it is seen to be both a supernatural and a rational religion; for mysticism involves a personal experience of and companionship with a supernatural Person, and as a human experience it is capable of rational investigation and interpretation.

There are two conceptions of religion: one obedience to law, the other spontaneous life. Every teacher realizes the difference between the pupil who is not interested in music but conscientiously practices her hour a day and the pupil

1 The Origin of Paul's Religion. By J. Ger ham Machen, D.D., Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Princeton minary. The Macmillan Company, New York.

PAUL

BY LYMAN ABBOTT

who loves music and enthusiastically practices in her eager desire to acquire the capacity to play. Every pupil recognizes the difference between a teacher who sets her pupils tasks and sees that they are accomplished and the teacher who inspires in her pupils a love for learning and a desire to acquire it. Obedience to law was the religion of Pharisaism in the first century and of Puritanism in the eighteenth. The religion of spontaneous life is well expressed in a saying attributed to Augustine, "Please to do right, then do as you please."

Paul was brought up in the religion of the Pharisees "as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless." But he was not satisfied. The conscientious legalist never is satisfied. Though he has kept all the commandments from his youth up, his soul still cries out within him, "What lack I yet?" What he lacks is spontaneity of life. And life is always a gift; it is never self-created.

When Paul discovered this difference between law and spontaneous life and accepted the gift of life, he became possessed with an irresistible passion to give it to others. He became an evangelist. He has been studied by philosophers as though he were a philosopher.

He was not a philosopher; that is, he was not interested to give the world a new system of theological thought. He was the herald of a new life; and he had an overmastering desire to give to others the life which Jesus Christ had given to him. He traveled from province to province proclaiming the glad tidings. He was an orator, and wherever he could get an audience there he found a pulpit-a Jewish synagogue, a Greek schoolroom, a Roman forum, the public street, a prison yard, anywhere. everywhere. As soon as he had kindled a flame of devotion in the hearts of a few disciples he left them to give their message to their fellow-men and traveled on to lay new foundations in a new field. He was a pioneer as well as a missionary, and it was his ambition to preach where no one had preceded him. His epistles are not theological treatises written by a philosopher interested in framing a philosophy of religion. They are the letters of an evangelist, warm with the enthusiasm of an ardent soul, written to give counsel, warning, and encouragement to little fraternities which had been gathered by his labors and looked to him as their spiritual father.

Inspired by his faith, which was much more than a doctrine, Paul was not content to remain in Jerusalem and make of Christianity a Jewish sect. The Christian life was God's gift to the

whole world, and he went out into the world, in spite of bitter opposition, within as well as without the churches, to give this gift to the Gentiles, as to the Jews. Circumcision was a Jewish ceremony as old as the Jewish nation; but when he found that it interfered with his mission to the Gentiles he simply discarded it, as General Booth subsequently discarded the sacraments when he found that they interfered with his mission to the outcast in London. When Paul was criticised for so doing, he simply replied: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." He was not an Anarchist, or what the theologians call an Antinomian; he recognized the value of law as a standard of character, as a restraint on lawlessness, and as one of the fruits of the new life. But it was not medicinal. Brought up in the strictest sect of the Pharisees and familiar with its phraseology from his youth up, he used the language of Pharisaism to overthrow Pharisaism, the language of legalism to destroy the spirit of legalism, and he sought to substitute therefor the freedom of a life of faith and hope and love freely given and to be joyfully accepted.

The Greeks were more interested in speculative philosophy than they were in spiritual life. Paul seems to have feared lest he should be mistaken for the founder of a new school of philosophy, and he protested. "The Greeks," he said, "seek after wisdom, but we preach a Messiah crucified, to the Greeks foolishness." It is pathetic that the Church which he did so much to create has done what he feared-developed a system which they call by his name, "Pauline Theology."

He proclaimed a Messiah who was a Saviour because he was a Revealer. The Messiah he preached revealed the true nature of God-a God who came to seek and to save that which was lost, a missionary God, a life-giving God, a God whose righteousness rightens all who accept his gift of life. There is no evidence that Paul ever saw Jesus. There is no evidence that he had ever seen before his conversion any of those fragmentary narratives of which, subsequent to his conversion, the present Gospels were composed. His faith in the Messiah was a mystical faith. In one of his letters he gives an account of his conversion. "It pleased God," he says, "to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen." Hisfaith was not derived from, though it was confirmed by, what he later learned of the earthly life and tragic death of Jesus.

Christianity, according to Paul, says