The Dallas express. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1893-1970, 1921-03-05
ences cannot repeal the moral law.

ers, or Is 1t the fiat of nature and
Natures God commanding obedience
from all men, under the sanction of
inevitable penalties. Let us waive
questions as to weight of authority,
and reason out OF the matter for
ourselves.
Whence comes our moral or ethi-
cal conception? Briefly let me sum-
Marie.
First, the Theological School rests
the foundation of morals on the
Divine Commandments or Revela-
tons. which quickens the conscience.
God spake through Moses, prophets,
and the Christ.
Second, The Psychological school
traces the source OF morals to an
instant or sense that is mate in the
mind, itself, the conscience.
The philosopher. and Metaphy-
stefan, Emanuel Kant, reasoned back
to his celebrated postulate of a cat
egorial imperative called duty.
Third, The utilitarian school, ev-
Olives morals from human experience,
sancti0ning as good or right, that
conduct which has proven Injurious
to organized society. Thus Great
ing and developing the conscience
by successive stages of experimental
knowledge.
Herbert Spencer thus evolves his
system of utilization ethics until It
almost lowered into the duty of the
Golden Rule.
Prof. Huxley discussing the scien-
tific doctrine of causation says, the
safety of morality lies in real and
living belief on that fixed order of
nature which sends social disorgani-
zation upon the track of immortality,
as surely as it sends physical dis
ease after physical trespassers.
Now my friends, 1t is not neces-
sary for you or me to determine how
much of truth there is in these
schools Of thought. Enough for us
to know that all three reach sub
stantially the same conclusion as to
the right of conduct for men.
By different routes, they arrive
at the same goal. In reasoning
they are three. In acting they are
ONE, but here is subject on which
religion and science are in full ac-
cord, namely, that the moral law is
the wisest and best rule of human
conduct.
Moral Law.
Now does the same moral law ap-
ply to the States and Nations as 1t
does to individuals? :, Or are there
two codes of morality? One for in
dividuals, and another for aggrega-
ton of individuals? Can you prac-
tice fraud as collective body of
citizens and still preserve your per-
sonal integrity as an individual cit
izen? Are there any moral rules
which Wilson the President, must
observe, that Wilson the citizen, can
ignore?
] might quote the opinions of
many learned men as authority for
the doctrine that moral duties are
as obligatory upon States and Ma
tions as upon individuals.
But again, shall waive authori-
ty and reason out my own conclus-
ion. shall test the question by
the standards of the three schools
of thought named a while ago.
II we assume that the Theologi-
cal school is correct, X is manifest
that there cannot be a code of pub
lie morals different in principles and
application from the code OF pri-
vate morals. God must deal with
individuals and nations alike, be-
cause the former are the responsible
units to the latter.
If we assume the psychological
ifest that the conscience, being in
nate mental quality, from individual
to collective functions.
If we assume that Unitarian
School is correct, 1t ought to be
equally as clear that the rule of
conduct which experience has proven
to be beneficial as between individ-
uals is also beneficial as between
States and Nations under the like
conditions.
1t is said that one of the most
noble tributes ever paid to Glad
stone was that he applied the NOR
al law to British politics.
Present day Statesmen might pro-
fit by this example, and thereby
give a grand and splendid lift to
the educational and religious adj
vancement of black men in the
union.
Men Of real moral principles, COM
mand the spontaneous homage of
mankind. They are the main stays
of organized human society and
have always been the leaders of re
ligious and educational thought. This
is what we Texans regard as mans
duty to man, and believing that the
great A. ~. e. church stands and
contends for these ideals. we gladly
and most cheerfully welcoma the
heads Of this Church to the great
state of Texas.
EARLY HISTORY OF AFRICAN
METHODIST.
But Bishops and my Christian
friends, 1t is not the ideals of Tex
as people upon which wish to
dwell. We wish to draw your at
tention to the Early History of
planting the A. M. Il. Church on
Texas soil. 1t is this In which we
glory. When, where and by whom.
was the 'irst A. M. Il. Church es-
tablished in Texas is so far as
know clad in doubt: but this is
quite certain Bishop Cain above all
must be given credit of planting the
A. NJ. Il. Church firmly on the
soil Of Texas.
If we call the roll of those VINO
were foremost in the ranks o. AT
rican Methodism end led the mighty
host 40 years in Texas, you will
find, Revs. A.. Grant, j. f. Bradley,