When I was in Japan last year the ex-Minister of Education, Baron Kikuchi, asked me to translate four ese characters taken from the book in which, as I said, fucius taught this State religion of his. The four characters were Mio. yi (^^_^fo^C) . I translated them as the Great Principle of Honour and Duty. It is for this reason that the ese make a special distin between -fuism and all other religions by calling the system of teag taught by fucius not a chiao (^_the general term in ese fion with which they desigher religions, such as Buddhism, Mohammedanism and Christianity_but the ming chiao (^ ^C)_the religion of Haierm chum tzu chih too (^ ^.$lM) ieags of fucius, translated by Dr. Legge as "the way of the superior man, " for which the equivalent in the European languages is moral law_means literally, the way_the Law of the Gentleman. In fact, the whole system of philosophy and morality taught by fucius may be summed up in one word: the Law of the Gentleman. Now fucius codified this law of the gentleman and made it a Religion, _a State religion. The first Article of Faith in this State Religion is Mia yi_the Principle of Honour and Duty_which may thus be called: A Code of Honour.
In this State religion fucius taught that the only true, rational, perma and absolute basis, not only of a State, but of all Society and civilisation, is this law of the gentleman, the sense of honour in man. Now you, all of you, even those who believe that there is no morality in politics_all of you, I think, know and will admit the importance of this sense of honour in men in human society. But I am not quite sure that all of you are aware of the absolute y of this sense of honour in men for the carrying on of every form of human society; in fact, as the proverb which says: "There must be honour even among thieves, " show_even for the carrying on of a society of thieves. Without the sense of honour in men, all society and civilisation would on the instant break down and bee impossible. Will you allow me to show you how this is so? Let us take, for example, such a trivial matter as gambling in social life. Now unless mehey sit down to gamble all reise ahemselves bound by the sense of honour to pay when a certain colour of cards or dice turns up, gambling would on the instant bee impossible. The merts again_unless merts reise ahemselves bound by the sense of honour to fulfil their tracts, all trading would bee impossible. But you will say that the mert who repudiates his tract be taken to the law-court. True, but if there were no law-courts, what then? Besides, the law-court_how the law-court make the defaulting mert fulfil his tract? By force. In fact, without the sense of honour in men, society only be held together for a time by force. But then I think I show you that force alone ot hold society permaly together. The poli who pels the mert to fulfil his tract, uses force. But the lawyer, magistrate or president of a republic_how does he make the poli do his duty? You know he ot do it by force; but then by what? Either by the sense of honour in the poli or by fraud.
In modem times all over the world to-day_and I am sorry to say now also in a_the lawyer, politi, magistrate and president of a republic make the poli do his duty by fraud. In modem times the lawyer, politi, magistrate and president of a republic tell the poli that he must do his duty, because it is for the good of society and for the good of his try; and that the good of socie