President Lowell's Baccalaureate Sermon to the class of 1921, given in Appleton Chapel at 4 P. M. on Sunday was taken from the following texts:

Isaiah V: 21, 22

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!

Wisdom VII: 24

The multitude of the wise is the welfare of the world.

The first of these texts is a denunciation: the second is a promise. The statements, however, are only two different aspects of a single truth. No one thinks that he is himself putting darkness for light, evil for good, or bitter for sweet; but every one is sure that some other people are doing so, and, at the present time, that many people are doing it in a very exaggerated and dangerous way. Great numbers of good men and women are seriously alarmed today at ideas that are being propagated and they think that by shutting their own ears and the mouths of others the danger can be escaped. They remind one of the people in Kingsley's Water Babies, who walked backwards saying "Don't tell us!" But surely the way to overcome a wrong opinion is not to silence it, but to show its falsity.

The world is in confusion,--the natural result of the turmoil of thought, the ebullition of feeling that accompany and follow a great war. Men's minds are like the sea after a storm, where, although the wind has gone down, the billows still roll and break, irresistible in their huge mass, and threatening to founder even the ship that has ridden out the gale. Conditions have not yet returned to a normal state; nor has the world adjusted itself to them. In such a state of bewilderment, of misunderstandings, of cross purposes, what is needed? The answer is clear thinking.

Must Think Profoundly

Of course every one believes that he thinks clearly himself. So did the little Scotch girl, who said "Grandmother, all the world is daft but thee and me, and I think thee a little queer sometimes." No one really thinks clearly unless he has thought long and profoundly; unless he comprehends the point of view of those who do not agree with him; unless he has found out the limitations of his own principles; for all theories, principles, maxims, and rules of human conduct can be carried ad absurdum. They all have their proper limits, because at some point they come into conflict with other principles not less true and not less limited. A doctor, for example, is sent for by a patient whose life may depend on how soon medical attendance arrives. The doctor's obvious duty is to go as quickly as possible. He goes in his auto at the utmost speed, and in doing so runs over and kills a child. Clearly we must revise the statement of the doctor's duty. He must go as quickly as is consistent with due care not to run over someone else.

Within a few days I have been reading Professor Hart's selection of Lincoln's speeches and letters. In running through them one is impressed by the careful limitation he constantly places upon the principles that he believed most intensely. He thought slavery morally wrong, but while unflinchingly opposed to its extension to the territories he would not countenance attacks upon it in the State because he was of opinion that there it was protected by the Constitution. The principle that slavery being wrong should be opposed was limited by another principle that the Constitution and laws should be upheld; and he never advocated abolition by force until he felt justified in doing so on the ground that it was a proper military measure in carrying out his constitutional duty to preserve the union. In reading his writings one sees that this was not the result of political foresight, but of integrity and clearness of thought. One principle did not blind him to another, for he perceived both and therefore the limitations each imposed upon the other.

Let us take the principle of patriotism, the desire to promote by all possible means the prosperity of the country, the nation, the people to which one belongs. Few men are ready to deny the validity, the importance, the invaluable moral obligration of that principle. Even in the groups of men which, before the war, proclaimed the superior obligation of class solidarity, or so-called internationalism, there were few men who failed, when the war came, to take the part of the nation to which they recognized that they belonged. There had been an expectation that the socialists in Germany would refuse to support their Government and thus prevent war; but when the war came, that did not happen. In some cases, as in Alsace-Lorraine for example, the people, or many of them, did not consider that they belonged to the country that held sway over them; but that is another question, the question to what nation patriotism is due.

Are there any limitations to the principle of patriotism? Is dishonesty, for example, is the breaking of solemn treaties, is ruthless inhumanity to a weaker neighbor, justified by a belief that it will conduce to the prosperity of one's own people? Is a nation morally right in seizing anything it can obtain by force or fraud, or has it a duty to deal fairly with others, and respect their rights? Would Cain have acted properly if, instead of being a single individual, he had been fifty millions to Abel's twenty-five millions and had called himself a nation? Is a nation under any more obligation to abstain from acts against other nations which, if committed by a private individual, would make him an object of general abhorrence, and perhaps bring him to the gallows? Is abstaining from such things the limit of its moral obligation, or does it have any positive duties to others? In short, does the Golden Rule have any application among nations?

Beware of Unsound Opinions

Treitschke proclaimed the doctrine that there can be no moral obligation superior to the national interest, and many Germans adopted his ideas in whole or in part. I think it may be argued that if this conception of the State, or something akin to it, had not been prevalent in Germany it would not have been possible for any men, however close to the source of authority, to have led Germany into the war. It may at least be urged that it was this attitude of mind which furnished the backing for the attempt to take advantage by war of the situation in Europe, for invading Belgium in violation of the Treaty, and for the wanton destruction of the means of recuperation in France. If it be true that the Great War was a natural result of the principle that there is no moral obligation superior to the national interest, then the blame for the ghastly suffering endured, and for all that has been suffered since and will be for years to come, lies not only with those who taught that doctrine and those who acted upon it, but also with those multitudes of great and small who accepted it and by so doing swelled the tide of popular opinion that made the war possible. Observe, I am not expressing an opinion on any of these questions. In this place it would hardly be proper for me to do so. I am merely seeking to insist upon the responsibility of every man for his opinions by pointing out how his personal opinions go into the great scales in which the destinies of mankind are balanced.

If it be true that the war came because the people of Germany in their opinions put evil for good, darkness for light and bitter for sweet, then we can only say of the calamities that have come upon their country as Lincoln said of the woes of the Civil War, "True and just are thy judgements altogether." We can add with him. "Let us judge not that we be not judged"; or rather let us beware that by harboring in our minds unsound opinions we fall not into like condemnation.