JJC 252 .B3 1909 "batten, Samuel Zane, 1859- The Christian state -B "52.17 The Christian State Christian State The state. Democracy and Christianity THE GRIFFITH & ROWLAND PRESS PHILADELPHIA BOSTON CHICAGO ST. LOUIS ATLANTA DALLAS Copyright 1909 by A. J. ROWLAND, Secretary Published May, 1909 TO THE MEMORY OF MY father ano (mother FOR THEIR DEVOTION IN CHRISTIAN LIVING AND THEIR EXEMPLIFICATION OF CHRISTIAN CITIZENSHIP THIS BOOK IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED CONTENTS Page Introduction 9 Chaptek BOOK I. THE STATE I. The Nature of the State 17 II. The Origin of the State 35 III. The Functions of the State 54 IV. The Ideal of the State 79 V. The Forms of the State 100 BOOK II. DEMOCRACY VI. The Beginnings of Democracy 115 VII. The Drift Toward Democracy 142 VIII. The Advantages of Democracy 166 IX. The Perils of Democracy 185 X. The Unfinished Tasks of Democracy 216 BOOK III. CHRISTIANITY XI. The Relation of Church and State XII. The State and Its Religion XIII. The Problems of the Modern State.... XIV. The Programme of a Christian Society. XV. The Realization of the Christian State 294 327 360 402 INTRODUCTION . The supreme interest of mankind is the progress and perfection of the human race. In this higher interest all lower interests are involved, and toward this great end all lesser ends must contribute. In this all-inclusive process all other processes appear as incidents and means, and by this final result all systems and sciences must be valued. It follows that whatever factor in life concerns man's welfare and has relation to his progress is a proper subject of human inquiry. This is all the justification that is needed for the study before us. There are three great outstanding facts and phenom- ena of our modern world which overtop all others, and are most potent in life. The first great fact is the State, that familiar, dominant, all-inclusive institution of man's social life. The State in some form is a uni- versal phenomenon, and its influence is as masterful as fate. It has always held a large place in the life of man, y but in these modern times it claims the whole foreground of his interest. It has everywhere played a leading role . in the drama of human progress, and signs multiply that its power is destined to wax rather than to wane. The second great fact is Democracy, the steady, irre- sistible, world-wide coming up of the people out of ob- scurity into authority. Democracy as a name is old indeed, but democracy as a fact is a modern phenomenon. But be it modern or not it is one of the most significant and certain tendencies of our time. In some lands it is only a suggestion ; in others it is at best an approximation ; but in all its complete realization it is only a question of time 10 INTRODUCTION and application. The democratic drift is a world gravita- tion, and one of the potent movements of the age. The third great fact is Christianity, the system of life and truth and motive of Jesus of Nazareth. Men's con- ceptions of Christianity differ widely and their interpre- tations run the whole gamut of possible variety. But Christianity itself is one thing, and men's definitions of it are quite another. Christianity is the most potent force ' in our modern civilization. The world dates its chro- nology from the birth of its Founder; its terms have become a part of our common speech, and it is not with- out meaning in world history. The State is a universal i phenomenon, democracy is a universal drift, and Chris- tianity, its followers believe, is the universal religion. This suggests a natural and important question : " Is 4 there any vital and necessary relation between these three great phenomena ? " Philosophy, we are told, is the art of thinking things together. Is it possible for one to , think together these three great facts, the State, de- mocracy, and Christianity? These questions are among the most fateful questions of the time, and upon their right solution depend a hundred issues in man's life and progress. Through their neglect great loss has already come, and through their wrong solution great calamity may result. But these questions have hardly come, as yet, into the foreground of human inquiry. Aspects of these phenomena have been considered, and each of these great facts has been studied ; but so far as I am aware no one has considered each fact in its relation to the others. The inquiry before us, it is believed, has a timeliness and a value for reasons which may be briefly stated. The signs of the times indicate that the great strug-v gles of the future are to be fought within the boundaries of the State. Current movements in human society show impending changes in our social and political institutions. INTRODUCTION II The foundations of all human institutions are being ex- amined with pick and shovel, and everything is challenged to show its warrant for continuance. Human society has begun to investigate itself, with the result that a chain of problems constitutes man's horizon. The interrogation mark is the sign manual of the age. The word, problem/ is the most recurrent word in every language to-day. As might be expected, men are taking different atti-^ tudes toward the problems presented, and this greatly complicates the issue. Some are trying to hush men's fears by declaring that the evils of society are greatly exaggerated ; and they close their homily by saying that all things will come right in time. At any rate, some of these things are inevitable — and perhaps necessary — in an imperfect society. And, anyway, they say, nature's processes cannot be hurried. Others, going to the op- posite extreme, are demanding the overthrow of all exist- ing institutions and the creation of a new social order. The old must go before the new can appear. Still others, and probably the largest class, stand confused, realizing that something is wrong, and that something must be done, and yet without any sense of direction or pro- gramme of action. With all these, of whatever class ory party, there is the foreboding that vast changes are im- pending in our Western civilization of which no one is clairvoyant enough to see the end. And beyond all these differences, there is the conviction that a part of this something to be done must be done in and through the State, and that it is to the State that we must look for help. In a word, there is the conviction that there must / be a wide extension of State activity into man's social and industrial life. And this means that the State is becoming one of the media of the new social conscious- ness that is growing, and that it must assume many new functions and exercise many new powers. INTRODUCTION But while these demands are being made upon the State some embarrassing questions are being asked con- cerning the State itself. What is its place in the economy of life ? What is its mission and what are its functions ? But even more disturbing questions are asked : By what right does the State exist at all and make its demands? Has not the time come to abolish all present political in- stitutions and make a new beginning in human progress? Of one thing I am persuaded — and this persuasion is based upon years of earnest thought upon the questions of citizenship and of practical effort in behalf of reform — that one of the great needs of this present time is some large conception of the State, its meaning, its functions, its relation to man's progress, and its place in the purpose of God. However it may have been, and however it may be, now when men are coming to social self-consciousness and are asking why the State is here, and what is its destiny, the great need is some sense of direction in social action and a clear vision of the goal. " Where there is no vision the people perish." In these days the number of brave and thoughtful men is rapidly growing. In every community, large or small, there are groups and associations of reformers studying the ques- tions of the day and bent on change. In many cities there is a growing demand for better government and more worthy conditions. But the one who will take the pains to investigate will find, alas, that too often these men are considering some little task with small conception of the total task which confronts society. They are working for a better city, and yet few have vision of what a city should be. They want better government and worthier conditions without always knowing when government is good and what conditions should exist. In short, they want a better world, but they do not know where to begin nor how to proceed. Under these circumstances the great INTRODUCTION 13 need is some human synthesis, some social ideal, which shall both show men the direction of progress and shall marshal them as one host to build the City of God. To r understand the special task of one man we must know its relation to the total task of mankind. To know how to use that mighty agency of human progress, the State, we must know-something of the meaning and mission of the State. In fine, the great need of to-day is some adequate, conception of the State, its nature and functions, some definite sense of the direction of human progress, and some clear understanding of the relation of Christianity to the whole life of man. And this suggests the thesis with which we are con- cerned in this study. It is easy for one who is interested in some special line to suppose that his interest should be the concern of all. Be this as it may, it is impossible to overestimate the importance of this subject or exaggerate its relation to man's social progress. In his day John Bunyan rendered the individual an incalculable service in that he interpreted the soul to itself and made it know its calling, its duties, its dangers, and its destiny. But the interpretation of the " Pilgrim's Progress," clear and scriptural as it is in its personal aspects, does not satisfy either the mind or the heart of the modern man. In the j providences of God and the processes of history the age of the social man is dawning, and the social problem is becoming urgent. The man who can now interpret the , State to itself, who can make society know its mean- ing, its functions, its tasks, and its goal, who can interpret this modern phenomenon known as democracy and can show its relation to human progress, who can show the , real relation of the State to the kingdom of God and can indicate the lines of effort for the divine potencies of the gospel, will render mankind an even greater service. Th of #»? writer has fulfilled more than a fraction of this 14 INTRODUCTION great task he is not vain enough to suppose. But that he has indicated some of the factors entering into the prob- lem he may confidently believe. The fact is, this is a task that will require the combined efforts of generations of men fully to approximate. That the author has tried to see things clearly and has blinked no difficulty he may modestly claim. This is probably all that may be expected of any man in any one generation. That great changes are imminent in our modern world, that a new age is struggling to the birth, that a new order of society is impending, that political institutions are still evolving, and that the State must assume some new func- tions, the signs of the times indicate and the most dis- cerning men believe. What will be the attitude of Chris- tian men in this time of crisis? Will they misread the signs and take an attitude of opposition and suspicion ? What will be the relation between the democratic move- ment and the Christian spirit? What will be the out- come of the formative forces that are now at work in society? These are some of the fateful sphinx questions of to-morrow, and upon their right solution depend a hundred issues. Will Christian men see to it that the age is Christian in spirit and method? Will the citizens of the democratic State see to it that the social and political institutions of the future are motived by the mind of Christ? Will the Church and the State work with each supplementing the other, or at cross purposes? Finally, will the State become the medium through which the people shall co-operate in their search after the kingdom of God and its righteousness? The answer to these questions lies still in the future ; and though we may not forecast the result, we may yet hope for the best. This is certain, that if Christianity fails here it will spell a most tragic failure. If Christianity succeeds here, it will win a most momen- tous victory and will gain the allegiance of mankind. Book I. The State A State contains in itself, if I may so speak, the perfection of independence; and it is first founded that men may live, but continued that they may live happily. — Aristotle, Politics, Bk. I, Chap. z. The State — the greatest institution on earth — elevates every- thing that appertains to it, every duty, interest or measure, into great importance, for the simple reason that it affects all, and, what with its direct and indirect operation, it very materially influences the moral well-being of every individual. . . The State with its laws and government affects materially the manhood of all living in it. Good laws elevate men; bad laws, if persisted in for a series of years, will degrade any society. —Francis Lieber, Political Ethics, Vol. I, Sec. XXXVIII. Honesty, morality, religion, and education are the main pillars of the State, for the protection and promotion of which govern- ment was instituted among men. — Commonwealth vs. Douglas, 100, Ky., 116. Affirmed by 168 U. S. Rep., 488. The social order, the national sentiments, the governmental regulations influence immeasurably every soul that comes within their reach. More and more men are coming to see that the State has a moral end, and that the real work of citizens con- sists in so shaping institutions and framing legislation that con- ditions may be secured favorable for the development of noble characters. . . Politics is the science of social welfare, and has at heart the achievement of a social order in which the ideals of humanity shall be realized. — Batten, The New Citizenship, pp. 245, 246. The State is, in one view, a piece of machinery produced by the social process, but the justification for its existence is its continued furtherance of the process. . . The State never is, but is always becoming. This is true because the persons composing the State never are, but are always becoming. A process is going on, is our most general way of telling the essential truth about a person or a society. — Small, General Sociology, p. 240. THE NATURE OF THE STATE HAT we call the State is a recognized force V V and factor in the life of all peoples. In the study of history we find men at all stages of mental and social development, but we never find them without polit- ical institutions. If savage means a people without a settled form of government, without laws, and without a religion, says Max Miiller, then, go where you like, you will not find such a race (" Nineteenth Cen.," Jan., 1885). In the study of sociology also we find peoples at all levels of progress, but if there has ever been a people without some form of social and political life, we have no record of its existence. Everywhere we find men associated in some way, submitting to some public authority, and exercising certain powers through an agency termed government. The forms of their social life may vary, the scope of authority may differ among different peoples, and the functions of these governments may run the gamut of variety, but beneath all appearances and differ- ences there are constant elements and essential resem- blance. The State is a universal phenomenon. The State makes many demands upon its citizens and exercises wide control. In its worst forms, the State may override the individual and may become an intolerable tyranny ; it may treat men as means to its own ends ; it may compel them to hold their lives, their fortunes, and their happiness at the will of another; in fine, it may affirm that men have no rights as against the State. In its best forms the State asks the service of all in its behalf ; B i8 THE CHRISTIAN STATE in the form of taxes it requires a portion of every man's income ; by the right of eminent domain, which it asserts is older and deeper than any individual right, it may claim a part of his estate ; and in times of danger and need it may ask him to lay his all upon its altar. In the Grecian States, in their palmiest days, the State was every- thing, and the person counted for little (De Coulanges, "The Ancient City," pp. 297, 298). In the most demo- cratic States, in these modern times, the State is the unit and the final worth of man is his value to society. In view of all this, as rational beings we should consider the right of the State to be, and should be able to conceive clearly its nature. What then is this institution, so universally known as the State? What is its essential nature, and what are its constant characteristics? And by what right does it exist and assert its authority? The moment we ask these questions our perplexity be- gins. For " The conception which prevails generally among the men of our time of the State, its nature, and the part it has to play, is singularly confusing and con- fused. . . When it approaches this theme, which has so weighty a bearing on human destinies, their thought loses itself in mist and fog" (Beaulieu, "The Modern State," p. 1). In this chapter we are concerned with the nature of the State; in other chapters we shall con- sider its functions and its goal. Clear thought here will help us all the way, while confusion here means increas- ing confusion at the end. It is evident that any concep- tion of the State, to be adequate, must be one that will disclose its nature and characteristics ; it must be one too, that will contain justification of the right of the State to be and exercise authority ; and it must contain a satisfac- tory statement of the attributes with which a State is en- dowed and by which it is distinguished from other corpo- rations (Willoughby, " The Nature of the State," p. 6). THE NATURE OF THE STATE 19 Such an inquiry has its difficulties, for the reason that the forms and functions of the State have varied so greatly. But with it all we. shall find certain constant and irre- ducible elements, and these are worthy of careful con- sideration. We are not concerned primarily with the exterior features of the State; our chief concern is with its ultimate nature and essential quality. These former characteristics are interesting, and Bluntschli has analyzed them with great discrimination. Thus we are told that in every State we find a number of men combined, hold- ing a permanent relation to the soil, and bound together in a more or less firm cohesion ; in all States we find a dis- tinction between the governors and the governed ; and in every State we find the people associated in some organic whole (Bluntschli, "The Theory of the State, Bk. I, chap. i). These last characteristics are vital, and these we must consider in detail. I. The State is the Political Organization of the People. There are three great institutions which in some form, are universal — the Family, the Church, and the State. These three institutions cover the entire range of human life, and their perfection implies its perfection. Each has its functions, though they all occupy much the same sphere. Each has its distinctive mission in the economy of life, yet they all work toward the one common end. In any complete and synthetic view of man and society, these institutions must be considered, and their relation to one another determined. It is not necessary to our pur- pose, however, that we enter upon a discussion of the family and the church, for that would carry us too far afield. And yet, to form an adequate conception of the State, we must note some of the distinctions that exist in the fundamental life and organization of these institu- tions. By marking the contrasts each may be more clearly defined. 20 THE CHRISTIAN STATE Thus the family, the Institute of the Affections, is the medium through which the person begins to be. It is the channel through which the stream of human life flows on. The church, the Household of Faith, is the agency through which divine and quickening influences are brought to bear upon the unfolding life. Through it man is brought to God, and the human spirit is lifted up into fellowship with the divine Spirit. The church is con- cerned primarily with the work of informing the mind, training the conscience, stirring the affections, and direct- ing the will. The State, the Institute of Right Relations,, is the means through which the environment of life is de- termined. It is the chief function of the State to provide and conserve the conditions of human existence, and thus make it possible for each life to attain its fullest development. These three institutions, though essential to man and representing vital factors of his being, yet have a differ- ent basis of organization and assume a different form. The family is in a real sense necessary to man, for it is in the family that he begins and completes his life. He who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and ordained that a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they twain become one flesh (Matt. 19 : 4). But implied in this very distinction and involved in the very relation of husband and wife is one element all important, and that is love. In the most real sense, it is love that draws the man and the woman together ; it is love that creates the family ; it is in love that the family has its potency and its life. In the most real sense, therefore, the family may be called the commonwealth of the affections ; in the poetic and sig- nificant words of Mazzini it may be called the heart's fatherland. The church no less than the family is necessary to man, THE NATURE OF THE STATE 21 and grows out of his great needs. It is true that what we call the church is more or less limited to Christian peoples ; but the church, which represents the religious life of man, is found in some form in every land. For wherever we find man we find him observing certain religious forms and creating definite religious institutions, and these in a general way represent what we may call the church. We are here concerned with the developed and differ- entiated idea as it exists in Christian lands in the Chris- tian church. This church, we find as we consider it, is a voluntary organization. It is true that among the earlier peoples of the world the institutions of religion were re- garded as fixed, not to be created by man nor to be changed by him. It is true also that in many divisions of Christendom the church is regarded as a necessary in- stitution, in that membership in it is determined for man, and not by him. Thus in some communions the child is baptized in infancy into the church, and without any choice of his own is " made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." But it must be observed that in all of these churches some- thing depends upon the will of the person himself; for as he comes to maturity he is expected to ratify this action of his sponsors, and thus his church life is the expression of his own personal choice. In many divisions of Chris- tendom special emphasis is laid upon this element of personal choice, and membership in the church is wholly a voluntary matter. A man is not born into the church as he is born into the family or the State, but he is re- born into it through his own personal faith. But — and this is the one thing that concerns us here — the church in its life and organization depends wholly upon its appeal to man's reason and its harmony with his will ; or, it may be said that the church is the visible form of man's faith in Christ and the organized expression of the divine 22 THE CHRISTIAN STATE life. The church has not always been true to its essential idea, and has sometimes approximated the State in its methods ; it has more than once employed other agencies than the persuasives of the gospel, and has sought the arm of the State in making its wishes effective. But more and more the best men in all communions are coming to see that this is contrary to the mind of Christ and is in contravention of the very idea of the church. The church is a voluntary organization; it has its foundations in the faith of men, and it may be called the household of faith and the building of the Spirit. The State, while quite as necessary to man as either of these institutions, has yet a different basis, and depends upon other factors. Wherever we go we find the State in some form, and the man who does not wish to be a citizen must consort with savages or leave the world. He is born into the State, and he must accept its political institutions. He may not find himself in harmony with the institutions and policies of the State, and may refuse to vote or accept office, but none the less he is subject to its authority, must pay his quota of taxes, and must conduct himself in an orderly manner. This means that the State represents other factors than those of affection and faith. It may be said that the State will flourish best where it has both the affection and confidence of all its citizens; but the State is concerned with other interests than the family and the church, and may employ very different machinery. The State has to do with rights, and in a way depends upon these. But rights imply duties; a duty is always the obverse of a right. The State that would maintain rights must also enforce duties ; and this means a government that can make its decrees effective. To secure these human rights and to enforce these corollary duties governments are instituted, and are just in so far as they hold the THE NATURE OF THE STATE 23 balance even. This does not tell the whole story, and is not a full definition, but it is true so far as it goes. This means that the State is concerned with what may be called the civic and political interests of man ; that it exists to secure for men their rights, and that its authority must be employed in defending those rights ; it means, in a word, that the State is the political organization of the people, with powers sufficient for its task. The State may > be considered as society in its corporate capacity and as exercising a definite control over the lives of its mem- bers ; that is, " The State is the politically organized national person of a definite country " (Bluntschli, " The Theory of the State," Bk. I, chap. i). II. The State is the Organ of the Political Conscious- ness. In his great treatise on politics, Aristotle, " The father of them who know," lays down the dictum that man is by nature a political being; and the man who is naturally and not accidentally unfit for human society is either below or above the human stage (" Politics," Bk. I, chap. ii). Thus the Cyclops reviled by Homer are proved to be less than human in that they have neither courts nor markets, and live as solitary as a bird of prey : No laws have they ; they hold No councils. On the mountain heights they dwell In vaulted caves, where each man rules his wives And children as he pleases; none give heed To what the others do. —Odyssey, IX : 136-140 With keen analysis Aristotle shows that there is in all normal persons an instinct which impels them to some form of political organization ; and he who first estab- lished civil society was the cause of the greatest benefit to mankind. This primary affirmation of the Stagirite subsequent thinking has not invalidated, but rather con- 24 THE CHRISTIAN STATE firmed. For which reason every State is a work of nature. The fact is, some form of human society is to be found among every people that is truly human, and in a large way it may be said that a people is to be ranked as high or low in the scale of life according to the degree in which the art of living together has been learned and political institutions have been developed. Men, as we know them, are made for fellowship, and they can attain perfection of being only through association with their kind. One man, says the German proverb, is no man. Could a man grow up with lifeless nature, with- out human association of any kind, says a modern psy- chologist, " there is nothing to indicate that he would become as self-conscious as is now a fairly educated cat " (Royce, "Studies of Good and Evil," p. 208). It is easier for the rose to grow without soil and to bloom without sunshine than for man to unfold his possibilities and to become man without human fellowship. In the development of political thought, various views have been advanced to account for the State, and to define its essential nature. Some of these views, with reference to the origin of the State, we shall notice in the next chapter. Not one of these views, as we shall see, is satis- factory; the only views which are at all adequate are those which assume that man is a social and political being, possessing a consciousness and instinct which seek and find expression in association and institutions of political life. An illustration of the growth of the State may be found in the history of many of the American commonwealths. A number of immigrants from different lands move into a new territory and settle there. At first the families are few and scattered, and do what seems right in their own eyes. But the day comes when these isolated settlers become established and begin to find one another out. THE NATURE OF THE STATE 25 Now men begin to feel the need of some formal organ- ization which shall represent the common life and con- serve the common good. Each man has an impulse toward association. Each man in his place looks up and sees another. In some way they will seek to express their mutual life and become united in political relations. This instinct for fellowship, this consciousness of kind, at once finds expression and realization in certain associations and institutions. Men have an instinct which impels them to seek association ; they are conscious of mutual rights and duties ; in this instinct and consciousness we find the forces that draw men together and create the State. Thus when these persons come together to form some association and to create some government they do not have to begin at the beginning. In the persons that com- pose the State consciousness of their oneness exists, and this becomes explicit and objective in the political organ- ism. Call it what we will — the sense of kinship, the > consciousness of kind, the instinct of fellowship — the fact is, there is that which leads man to seek out his fellows and to associate with them. The State is the expression of this human fellowship, and becomes the organ of the political consciousness. III. The State is the Institute of Right Relations. " A State," so Plato reports Socrates, " arises, as I conceive, out of the needs of mankind ; no one is self-sufficing, but all have many wants. Can any other origin of a State be imagined ? " ' None,' replied Adeimantus. " ' Then, as we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose, and another for another ; and when these helpers and partners are gathered together in one habitation, the body of inhabitants is termed a State? " ' True,' he said " (" The Republic," Bk. II). 26 THE CHRISTIAN STATE A simple and primitive condition of life may not need much in the way of a political organization. The early settlers in some of the American States, it is said, cared little for the protection of government, and felt well able to get along without it. Each man depended upon himself and his trusty rifle. At best, such a Stateless con- dition is possible only so long as families are widely scat- tered. As soon as men come into closer relations and society becomes more complex, some organization or in- stitute of right relations becomes necessary. Robinson Crusoe and his man Friday can get along very well on their solitary island without a government, so long as Crusoe is master and Friday is servant, and there is no one else to encroach or interfere. But the moment Crusoe returns to civilized life, that moment his relations are multiplied and the State becomes necessary. Life, according to the best definition, is a matter of relationships. The higher the life the larger the number of these and the more complex they become. Modern society, as we know it, is complex and intricate, and the dependences of man upon man are manifold. It must be evident that these relations cannot be left to individual caprice. The relations of man with man must be just and right, or they become intolerable. In a modern city where life touches life at a thousand points, and where each man is dependent upon his fellows, it is necessary that there be some power or authority over and above the individuals which shall define and adjust the relations existing among them. The strong must not be allowed to tyrannize over the weak. It is clear that men must not be left to shift for themselves, with each taking all he can get and keeping all he has secured. There are a thousand and one questions concerning the things that are more or less in common, such as streets and paving, fire and police protection, transportation and communica- THE NATURE OF THE STATE 27 tion, that must be defined in charters and ordinances. In brief, there are certain rights which each person *f may claim as a member of society, and these rights may be defined as " the organic whole of the outward condi- tions of a life according to reason." In the history of political progress much has been said about the rights of man, and great revolutions have been fought to obtain these rights. In any complete account of the State, it is necessary that these rights be considered and their nature determined. It would be necessary also to show that these rights are social things, and that their very conception by man implies an order of social rela- tions. This work has been done most thoroughly by' Thomas Hill Green, in his " Principles of Political Obliga- , tion," and by Professor Ritchie, in " Natural Rights." This inquiry reveals the fact that every right implies a ■ duty. To assert that one is a person with rights society is bound to respect, is to assert that he is a person with duties society may require. Thus we are led inevitably to the conception of man, with mutual rights and duties ; and also to the conception of the State as the organ through which these rights and duties are defined and enforced. It is possible for one to deal with these rights and duties, but it seems better to deal directly with human relations as more vital and personal. And inasmuch as rights and duties rest upon human relations, it is better to deal directly with the relations themselves. These human relations are woven into the very warp and woof of man's life. The State finds that there are certain relations which men sustain to one another in society, and then it attempts to define and safeguard these relations. It does not create these relations, it does not even create the consciousness of them. There is a sense in which we may define a civil law as the legal for- mulation of a social custom. The law implies a custom 28 THE CHRISTIAN STATE and a consciousness ; it defines what is found in this cus- tom and consciousness ; it delimits and sanctions these ; it defines what each person owes the other; it pledges itself to safeguard these relations of men so far as they are in justice and truth ; it puts the stamp of its authority upon them and makes them obligatory; and it punishes the person who violates and dishonors them. The law of the State is thus the pledge of security and fair dealing; it defines the rules of social conduct which each member of society shall observe in his dealings with others ; it throws over these relations the mantle of its protection and sets upon them the stamp of its approval. There are certain relations in which men stand to one another, as husbands and wives, fathers and children, friends and neighbors, masters and employees, taxpayers and officials, which are before and above all governments. These relations of man with man, however, must be correlated and adjusted or they become intolerable. The rights with which man is endowed and the duties which he must fulfil must be defined and safeguarded, or they will be overrun and neglected. The purpose of the State, through its institutions and laws, is to interpret and define these relations, to throw over them the mantle of its pro- tection, and to hallow them with its authority. In what we call the State we have the substitution of a general, beneficent, definite, universal will for an uncertain, arbi- trary, personal, fractional will. As members of society each man consents to have his interests interpreted and measured by the common will and welfare, instead of his personal and special will and wish. In case of a conflict of wills and interests, each agrees to settle the questions at issue by an appeal to this common interest and verdict. -The nature of the State in this part of our definition is now becoming clear. It is the Institute of Right Rela- tions ; and it becomes the guarantee to each man that his THE NATURE OF THE STATE 29 rights shall be conserved, and his proper status in society maintained. IV. The State is the Partnership of Men in all Good.- . Very different conceptions of the nature of the State have been promulgated from time to time. These conceptions range from the very lowest minimum of State action to the highest point of social control. These conceptions may be briefly considered, as a kind of background against which we can see the whole picture. 1. It has been maintained that the State is a jural so- ciety. In the early stages of their associated life men feel the need of some authority which shall protect their rights and shall maintain justice. And so it comes about that men create some forms of political control which shall maintain their private interests and maintain peace. The State, in this conception, is a great policeman whose / sole function it is to prevent disorder. The State is also a judicial authority whose business it is to adjust differ- ences. Beyond these functions the State can claim no authority. It is needless to multiply names, but some great reputations are associated with this conception. Thus, Herbert Spencer declares that the State is simply a com- mittee of management, and it has no intrinsic authority; its authority is given by those appointing it ; and it has just such bounds as they choose to impose ("The Man versus The State," p. 411). Macaulay, in his essay on Gladstone's " Church and State," maintains that the pri- mary end of government is the protection of persons and property ; he thinks " that government should be organ- ized solely with a view to this end." This conception, it may be said, is true so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough ; in fact, it ignores those very things which have been most conspicuous in the life of all great States. It thinks of the State as a vast machine driven by the forces of public and private interest — a sort of huge insurance 3Q THE CHRISTIAN STATE society, the taxes being the premium (Lilly, " First Principles in Politics," p. 29). 2. It is maintained that the State is an economic society. This view, it may be said, has had few exponents in the past, in theory at least, but it is finding many defenders to-day in practice. In this view the State is an organi- zation for the promotion of man's physical and commercial well-being, and when this is conserved the State has ful- filled its office. Man cannot live without property, and this property must be protected. Human well-being is promoted by trade, and trade must be extended. The State in this conception furnishes the conditions in which each man can best advance his material interests. It is * evident that this is the conception of the State which holds the first place in the mind of the average statesman to- day. An examination of the measures that come before the modern Congress or Parliament or Reichstag, will reveal the fact that an increasing proportion of these measures are concerned with the economic interests of the people. There are many who insist that the State has little to do with other matters, such as education and morality ; such things must be delegated to private indi- viduals and voluntary associations. 3. Included in these conceptions, and yet rising far be- yond them, we find the conception of the State as a part- nership of men in all good. Aristotle, than whom no clearer political thinker ever lived, maintained that civil society was not founded for the sake of preserving and increasing property. " Nor was civil society founded merely in order that its members might live, but that they might live well. . . It is evident then that a State is not a mere community of place, nor established for the sake of mutual safety or traffic. A State is a society of people joining together with their families and their children to live well, for the sake of a perfect and independent THE NATURE OF THE STATE 31 life" ("Politics," Bk. Ill, chap. ix). The same thought runs through the masterly oration of Pericles, delivered over the Athenians who fell in the Pelo- ponnesian war. All through this oration, which may well be the model of its kind, there runs the conception of the State, not as a mere dwelling-place for men, nor as a provision for their material well-being alone, but as the sphere of highest activity. The great words of Burke emphasize the same truth, and are worthy of careful consideration. " The State ought not to be con- sidered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little tempo- rary interest and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with reverence ; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science ; a partnership in all art ; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection " ("Reflections on the Revolution in France"). The State we find is the one organ great enough and varied enough to express and correlate the varied powers and talents of mankind, the one medium through which all men can co-operate in their search after social perfection. The State is the only organ through which - the people can act as a unit in their pursuit of righteous- ness, and it is the only medium through which they can act together in the organization of their common life in truth. The Earl of Shaftesbury, like many another man, had found in himself the desire to help his fellows in their struggle after better things. How could he make his desire most effective and himself most helpful? By personal work with individuals he might have inspired and saved a soul here and there, but by working for the enactment of better laws regulating factories and mines, 32 THE CHRISTIAN STATE by bringing the power of Parliament to bear upon abuses and wrongs, and by enlisting the whole life of the nation on behalf of the downmost man, he made the goodness and wisdom, the power and love of the whole nation the means of uplifting and helping the weaker and more backward. There must be some medium through which men can work in giving themselves for society. The State is the only organ great enough to express the varied powers of man, the only medium through which men can co-operate in the attainment of the social perfection. V. The State is the Realization of Man's Rational Life. This end, the realization of man's rational life, is the one end in view. Alan is a being of relationships, and he is what he is through fellowship. " Individuality does not come first and society next as a product. Society is fundamental, and is an essential condition for self- consciousness. However contradictory it may sound, it is nevertheless the fact, that there could be no self without many selves. Self-consciousness is a possible attainment only in a world where it already exists. Per- sonality at every stage involves interrelation " (Jones, " Social Law in the Spiritual World," p. 58). " To be a person one must be a conscious member in a social order. Man is what he is because he is a member of society. It is impossible to be a person without being in a broad sense a member of society, a citizen of a State, for it is through the organized life of the world that one comes to himself" (Jones, ibid., p. 74). The State, it is thus seen, has a most vital relation to the development of personality. The individual comes to self-consciousness in and through social fellowship. Freedom, morality, personality, and perfection, the things that give meaning and dignity to life, are all developed and realized in and through the social organism. Freedom can be realized not in individual caprice, but in social THE NATURE OF THE STATE 33 control. Morality can be realized not in individual iso- lation, but in social relationships. Personality can be realized not in individual independence and self-living, but in social dependence and social living. Perfection can be realized not in individual self-seeking, but in social self- sacrifice. In the State, there are secured and maintained for the person the sphere and conditions of his highest personal development in freedom and morality. The State brings the wisdom and the strength of all to bear upon the weakness and ignorance of each, that each may become wise with the wisdom and strong with the strength of all. Paradoxical as it may seem, the State, by its social control, secures to each member the largest measure of personal freedom, as the State, through its social organization, provides the field for the realization of the largest measure of morality. The individual comes v to self-realization as he sacrifices himself for the common life. He that findeth his life for himself shall lose it; but he that loseth his life in the State, shall find it. There can be no conception of a right without a con- sciousness of common interests on the part of the members of a society. And there can be no realization of a right except in and through the social organism. The person and the State exist in organic and vital relations with one another, and in the fulfilment of these relations the normal development of each is secured. The State is not some- thing external and formal, something apart from the essential life of man, some arbitrary and conventional compact for securing the private rights of individuals; it is something organic and vital, the necessary medium and vital organism through which life itself is conserved and realized. In a word, man is here to fulfil the purpose of God and to realize his own rational life, and the State is one of the agencies through which this purpose is realized. 34 THE CHRISTIAN STATE We are now in a position to gather up the threads and weave them into a full conception. There are certain necessary and vital conditions of man's life in society, and there must be some institution which shall concern itself primarily with these conditions. There is in all men a political and social consciousness which draws them together, and tends ever to express itself in social and political forms. There are certain necessary relations that subsist among men, and these must be interpreted and safeguarded. Men have certain interests, personal, jural, economic, and political, but over and above these there is what may be called the vital interest. There are among men various associations for various purposes, economic, educational, social, religious; that life may be- come a unity and society may have peace, there must be some synthesis which shall include these partial inter- ests, and some association which shall correlate all lesser associations. And last of all, since the supreme interest of man is the promotion of human welfare, and since true progress is only possible through the co-operation of all for the sake of all, there must be some agency which shall represent the interests of all, and shall be a medium for their mutual sacrifices and services. This organization and association and agency and medium is what we may call the State. The State is thus " a microcosm of the whole human process. The State is the co-operation of all the citizens for the furtherance of all the interests of which they are conscious. . ." The State embraces all other associations of persons. " All lesser associations find their correlation within the State " (Small, " General Sociology," pp. 226, 227). II THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE IN the study before us, we are concerned not alone with the outward and visible stages through which the State has passed in its progress from beginning to ma- turity; but we are concerned as well with its primary causes, and are interested in knowing the social forces that bring men together. These outward and visible stages can be traced with comparative ease in the history of any of the great States. But these inner and causative forces must be found rather in the nature of man and the meaa- ing of society. The fact is one thing, and the cause of the fact is quite another. It is through the knowledge of the fact, however, that we are led back to the knowledge of its causes. And it is through the knowledge of the fact and its causes that we are led on into a knowledge of its meaning and end. When this is attained, knowledge has fulfilled its task, and the way is prepared for action. The theories that have been advanced from time to time to explain the origin of the State are simply innu- merable and deal with all aspects of the question. But beneath all this diversity, it is found that these theories arrange themselves in certain more or less definite classes. These characteristic and outstanding views we may now briefly consider. I. The State as a Divine Creation. This is the earliest view, and it is the view that has had many advocates all through the centuries. According to this conception the State is the creation of God, either direct or indirect, and so it may be regarded as the human revelation of his 35 36 THE CHRISTIAN STATE divine government. Among the earliest peoples of whom we have clear knowledge, the Semites, we find this con- ception in full expression even in the most primitive times. In this conception every human being, simply by virtue of his birth, became a member of what we call natural society. " This circle into which he was born was not simply a group of kinsfolk and fellow-citizens, but em- braced also certain divine beings, the gods of the family and of the State, which to the ancient mind were as much a part of a particular community ... as the human mem- bers of the social circle " (W. Robertson Smith, " The Re- ligion of the Semites," p. 29). If a god was spoken of as father and his worshipers as his offspring, the meaning was that the worshipers were literally of his stock. In all cases also where the god was addressed as king and the worshipers called themselves his servants, it was implied that the supreme guidance of the State was in his hands (W. Robertson Smith, ibid., p. 30). In all these concep- tions the social organization and the religious system rest upon the same common foundation, and no distinction is made between them. This means that the social order has a religious basis, and that the god of the people is the creator of their political relations. This conception lay at the basis of the Jewish State, and finds expression all through the nation's history. Lawgivers and prophets emphasize the thought that it was Jehovah who had made Israel to be a people ; it was Jehovah who had called Abram and had guided the fathers of the nation ; it was Jehovah who had led them out of Egypt and had given them a law for their national life; it was Jehovah who was their sole and rightful king, and it was his law that they were to obey. Lawgiver and judges may be given from time to time, but these are the spokesmen and representatives of Jehovah ; the law- giver is to hear the word at Jehovah's mouth and speak THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 37 it to the people; and the judge is charged to judge right- eously, for the judgment is the Lord's. When the people at last demand a visible king who shall reign over them and lead their armies, Jehovah declares that they have not rejected merely his representative, but " they have re- jected me that I should not be king over them " ( I Sam. 8:7). When at a later time the people, through their representatives, declared, We have no king but Caesar, Judaism was guilty of a denial of God, of blasphemy, of apostasy. It committed suicide (Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," Vol. II, p. 581). It is not necessary to consider the various forms of this theory. With many modifications, it was the one adopted by the Romans to account for the origin of their State ; and it was the view of the Greeks and Egyptians, and in fact of practically all nations of the world. It may be said in criticism of this view that no State can be found whose origin is clearly a divine creation. This view is formulated late in the life of a people to account for its existence and as a reason for fidelity to the gods. It has given occasion for all sorts of pretensions and usur- pations on the part of human rulers. On the one hand it has given rise to priest rule, which always and everywhere has produced evil results ; and on the other hand it has given validity to the assumption of the divine right of kings and has been used to uphold the powers that be. II. The Patriarchal Theory. One of the most plausible and prominent theories of the State is that known as the patriarchal theory. In this view it is maintained that whatever social organization existed originated in kin- ship. " The Patriarchal theory of society is the theory of its origin in separate families, held together by the authority and protection of the eldest valid male descend- ant " (Maine, " Early Hist, of Inst.") . " The original bond of union and the original sanction of magisterial authority 38 THE CHRISTIAN STATE were one and the same, namely, real or feigned blood relationship. In other words, families were the original units of social organization " (Wilson, " The State," pp. 2, 3). By degrees, and driven by hard necessity, these families spread over new territory, and came into contact with other families and groups. " All the evidence we possess, says Westermarck, tends to show that among our earliest human ancestors the family, not the tribe, formed the nucleus of every social group, and in many cases was itself perhaps the only social group" (" History of Hu- man Marriage," p. 538). In this social group the father ruled as king and priest, and as long as the father lived there was no majority for the sons. Their lives and their property were at the disposal of the absolute father- sovereign, and all who would live in the family must accept his authority. This made a firm and compact group which meant safety and protection to all within its circle. " Such a group naturally broadens out in the course of time into the house or gens, and over this too, a chief kinsman rules " (Wilson, ibid., p. 7). New mem- bers may be admitted into this house, through a real or assumed blood-kinship, but they are all subject to the same authority. As time passes and the father of the family dies, his people deify him, and this becomes a new bond of union. The family is now a religious brother- hood, worshiping some common hero who has become a god, and thus the bond of blood is strengthened by the sanctions of religion. In course of time this house or gens broadens out, and comes into contact with other houses or groups. In the struggle that follows one or the other must go down, and here we observe two things : Sometimes this conquered gens finds some blood-kinship with the conquerors, in which case the weaker is absorbed by the stronger. Sometimes, however, the weaker is reduced to subjection, and we have the beginning of a THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 39 servile class in the tribe. But this new group becomes a tribe, or clan. And this same process is continued and one tribe absorbs others, and these again unite to form the State. By and by this composite tribe obtains a local habitation and a name, and becomes a settled nation. " The family was the primal unit of political society, and the seed-bed of all larger growths of government " (Wil- son, "The State," p. 13). The patriarchal family is no doubt one of the earliest forms of family life. The book of Genesis carries us back to the early times, and shows us this form of the family in full development. The patriarchal government was no doubt one of the earliest forms, and traces of it are to be found in many lands. The father had the right to govern his household ; authorship was the root of author- ity. In the early Semitic family the father was supreme over his household, even in questions of life and death. In the early Roman empire the father retained a pro- prietary right in his gens or household, and with this the State had little or nothing to do. Without attempting a formal discussion or criticism of this theory, it may be said that it fails to account for the State itself. It has to do with the forms through which the State passes in its growth, but it does not account for the causes and forces that create the State. By no possible means could the State have de- veloped out of the small unit called the family. The two institutions are different in essence, as the rights and powers which belong to the State wholly tran- scend those that inhere in the family. The right of the father to govern his household grows out of the fact of authorship ; but this authority is necessarily limited to his children, and cannot be extended over aliens. Just so far as it is extended over others it conflicts with the unity 0* the family, and finds its justification in some other fact 40 THE CHRISTIAN STATE than in authorship. There may be some resemblance be- tween the father's rule over his children and the State's authority over its members ; but it has not been shown that any actual State has grown out of the family. " The evidence of history shows that where society has not passed beyond the development of the family, there has been no national existence" (Mulford, "The Nation," P- 39)- III. The Theory of Conquest. The origin of the State has been found in the conquest of the weaker by the stronger. According to this view, the State is the product of force. This theory, it may be said, has had many ex- ponents, and it is finding wide currency in these times. Thus Plutarch ascribes this saying to Brennus the Gallic king : " The most ancient of all laws, which extends from gods to the beasts, gives to the stronger rule over the weaker " (" Life of Camillus "). In these later times Count Tolstoy opposes the State conception of life on the ground that the State is a usurpation. " Without the aggrandizement of self and the abasement of others, with- out hypocrisies and deceptions, without prisons, fortresses, executions, and murders, no power can come into exist- ence or be maintained" (Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You," p. 242). As government begins in usurpation and self-aggrandizement, so it continues in social tyranny and oppression. This view is also advocated by many modern sociolo- gists, and in a way seems to be the sociological theory. " It is a commonplace of history that the unceasing agglomer- ation of communities has never been due to the mutual attraction of peoples. . . Not sentiment, but invariably force or the dread of force has called into being that most extensive of co-operations, the State " (Ross, " Social Control," p. 18). "The earliest state-building forces are greed and fear ; that is, groups ally themselves in order to THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 4T make or to resist attack. People dread the enemy, and hence cheerfully submit to the yoke of the war leader. They tremble before the predatory, and therefore rally around a power that can make law respected. These fear- forces are strongly seconded by the love of power which impels the masterful to supply more government than is needed. In time the absolute State arises in all its grim- ness and men start back in affright before the Franken- stein they have created" (Ross, "The Foundations of Sociology," p. 175). Under such circumstances, a few wise and strong men who will agree to maintain order and repel the aggressors, are allowed to seat themselves in the saddle. Around these strong men, be they few or many, the great mass of the people gather themselves. Thus a little group is formed, compact and strong, that soon subdues any opposing groups. The great and grow- ing mass of evidence shows, says Professor Ross, that " the historical State, has in almost every instance taken its origin in the violent superposition of one people upon another. Born in aggression and perfected in exploitation, the State, even now, when it is more and more directed by the common will, is not easy to keep from slipping back into the rut it wore for itself during the centuries it was the engine of a parasitic class " (Social Control," p. 386). It must be confessed that governments have given too much reason for this theory of the State. But we are searching for origins, and are concerned not alone with results, but with causes. This view lies open to very serious objection, and it cannot stand in the light of all the facts. We may grant that might has been the basis of many of the governments of the world thus far, but this might does not serve as an adequate foundation of the State. For, what causal necessity is there between might and right? Force may have produced certain govern- ments and sustained them for a time, but upon force alone 42 THE CHRISTIAN STATE no great State has ever been built. Superior force and physical power can never add themselves up and yield a right. " Every polity, however rude, requires the ideas of right, and of law for the maintenance of right. Might, without these ideas, would not give rise to a common- wealth, but to a gang of robbers ; to anarchy plus the sword" (Lilly, "First Principles in Politics," p. 19). Besides, the theory before us fails to go to the root of the matter, and the doctrine contradicts itself at the most vital points. For one thing it recognizes only masters and slaves, and is thus a flagrant contradiction of human free- dom. For another thing " it contradicts the idea of Right or Law, which manifestly has a spiritual and moral sig- nificance ; mere physical force ought to serve right and, if it pretends to be right, it has risen against its proper master " (Bluntschli, " The Theory of the State," p. 293). And last of all, it assumes that the fact of authority creates the sentiment of obedience, whereas the sentiment of obedience itself justifies authority. It is sometimes said that priestcraft — to take a somewhat parallel illustration — is the creator of religion ; that the priests have invented religion to justify their claims and to keep the people in submission. But this explanation is a complete inversion of the facts ; for the presence of a priesthood is an evidence of religion among the people, and it is this religious sentiment that tolerates the assumptions of the priests. In like manner the strong aggressor may usurp the authority of the State and may rule with a high hand ; but the political instinct of the people accepts this usurpa- tion, and the tyrant appeals to this sentiment in justifica- tion of his claims. This sentiment exists in men, other- wise they would not submit to the authority of one man. " A monarch is not remarkable for bodily strength or in- tellect, and yet millions permit themselves to be ruled by him. To say that men permit themselves to be governed THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 43 contrary to their interests, ends, and intentions, is pre- posterous, since men are not so stupid. It is their need, and the inner power of the idea which urge them to this, in opposition to their seeming consciousness, and retain them in this relation" (Hegel, "The Philosophy of Right," sec. 281). Again: "Often it is imagined that force holds the State together, but the binding cord is nothing else than the deep-seated feeling of order which is possessed by all" (ibid., sec. 268). IV. The Social Contract. This theory is one of the most subtle and significant ever framed. During the last two hundred years no theory of the State has been more widely accepted, or exerted a more potent influence over political action. Some of the most illustrious names are connected with this theory, as Hobbes and Locke, Grotius and Kant, Rousseau and Jefferson ; in exposition and application of this theory there has been created a litera- ture of incomparable power and richness ; men have ap- pealed to it against governments and in behalf of revolu- tion ; and two most significant documents, the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, are simply the formulations of this theory. It is not necessary for our purpose to attempt to trace the rise and development of this theory. It may be said, however, that it was sug- gested by Thomas Hooker in his " Ecclesiastical Polity," in 1594; and Locke finds its underlying ideas plainly expressed in a speech of King James to Parliament in 1609. Professor Willoughby shows that the whole feudal system of the Middle Ages was saturated with the ideas of this social contract. But the names of three men must / . forever be associated with the development and illustra- tion of the theory, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. It is assumed in this theory that men existed in what is called a state of nature, and that they were free, happy, 44 THE CHRISTIAN STATE and prosperous. In this state men were all equal, and all possessed certain natural and inalienable rights. Thus Rousseau declares in the opening chapter of " The Social Contract," that " Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." This man, in some ways one of the most potent personalities of the eighteenth century, was him- self little more than an echo, putting into clear and un- derstandable and popular terms the thoughts and theories of other and greater thinkers. It had been assumed by Locke and Hobbes that men at first had lived in a state of nature, and they were more or less happy and contented. But this state of nature, free and desirable as it was in many respects, yet had some serious drawbacks and dis- advantages. Among these latter were the aggressions which men inflicted upon their fellows, and which seri- ously interfered with their happiness and prosperity. In this state of nature all men felt free to follow their own inclinations and interests without any respect to the rights and preferences of their neighbors. But such a state with all of its advantages, was a state of mutual fear and cease- less strife, and in such a condition there could be no law, and no justice. These men, dwelling in a state of nature, early felt the need of combination and co-operation for certain social and commercial purposes. These men voluntarily agreed to form a social State for the protec- tion of their rights and the effectuation of certain definite ends. The time came, however, when these men entered into covenant with one another and adopted certain rules and laws for their governance and security. But these laws and rules cannot execute themselves, and so it is necessary that certain men be chosen as rulers in the State who shall represent its authority and execute its decrees. According to Rousseau " The public force then requires a suitable agent to concentrate it, and put it in action according to the directions of THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 45 the general will, to serve as a means of communication between the State and the sovereign, to effect in some manner in the public person what the union of soul and body effects in a man." This is, in the State, the function of the government, and is improperly confounded with the sovereign of which it is only the minister. What then is the government? An intermediate body established between the subjects and the sovereign for their mutual correspondence, charged with the execu- tion of the laws and with the maintenance of liberty, both civil and political (" Social Contract," Bk. Ill, chap. i). The various exponents of the theory differ somewhat in many details, and in none more markedly than in the question of sovereignty, but they all agree in this, that the source of all sovereignty is in the people themselves. Each man, by a natural and im- prescriptible right holds a certain proportion of sover- eignty, and the sovereignty of the State is simply the sum of these individual wills. Locke claims that this original compact between the members of the State must be renewed from generation to generation in the person of every citizen when he comes to the age of discretion. In Rousseau the distinction between sovereign and gov- ernment is hopelessly confused, and " while he makes government but the servant for executing the will of the State, he makes this will practically identical with the popular demand. The permanence of all government ,and its authority is thus practically destroyed" (Wil- loughby, " The Nature of the State," p. 79). This view has had a marked influence upon the thought and life of mankind since Rousseau's time. It may be said to lie at the basis of the Revolution in France, and it finds expression in the Constitution of the United States ; it is also the working theory in the democratic States of to-day, both in America and in Europe. This 4 6 THE CHRISTIAN STATE theory did good service in opposing the arbitrary and monarchical governments which claimed to rule by divine right without being answerable in any way to the people. To attempt a formal criticism of it is not necessary, for this work has been well done by others. " Natural Rights," by Professor Ritchie, and " The Nature of the State," by Professor Willoughby, may be named in this connection. There are, however, several counts in the indictment that may be here noted. For one thing, this theory rests upon a wrong interpre- tation of the facts of life and the nature of man. One may search history through and he will not find an instance of any State, however small or large, that has ever been formed in this way. The theory presupposes individuals as contracting, when the researches of Maine and others show that in early times law was applicable not so much to the individual as to the family, and that in fact, in those early times the individual as such counted for almost nothing. " In addition to this, there is, of course, a manifest absurdity in conceiving a sufficient mental qualification for such a formal act on the part of a people in the very first stages of civilization " (Willoughby, " The Nature of the State," p. 117). The theory also rests upon a complete misinterpreta- tion of the nature of man. In the first place no such men as this theory assumes have ever been found. On the contrary, everything confirms the statement of Prof. Max Miiller that, " Go where you will, no people is ever found without some form of government, with laws and religion, and the beginnings at least of a civil society." " As far as we go back in the paleo-ethnology of man- kind," says Kropotkin, " we find men living in societies — in tribes similar to those of the highest mammals. . . So- cieties, bands, or tribes — not families — were thus the primitive form of organization of mankind and its THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 47 earliest ancestors. This is what ethnology has come to after its painstaking researches" (Kropotkin, "Mutual Aid," p. 79). In human history, whatever has been found that is great and admirable and free has been found in governed communities. In nothing is the progress of a people in the scale of life so accurately measured as in the degree of their social co-operation and governmental control. Men who approximate the state of nature as it is called, are destitute of the things that make life worthy and admirable. There is another most fatal objection that may be filed against this theory. It assumes that men in a state of nature possess rights which are antecedent to any social order, and that men create the State that these rights may be conserved. But it is a delusion to suppose that what are called innate rights existed apart from society. For the very consciousness of the individ- ual and his rights implies a social consciousness and a social order. That is, the very conception of a person who claims rights for himself, assumes that there are other persons against whom he makes his claims. The very conception of the right implies that these persons are re- lated in some way. It is in and through the relation and inter-relation of members of a social order that the per- son comes to self-consciousness and learns to conceive of certain rights as belonging to his personality. The very ability to discuss and classify rights implies a society in which men are becoming conscious of the relations in which its members stand to one another. This social contract theory falls to the ground at its first steps, and utterly fails to explain the facts of life. And last of all, the theory fails to account for the consciousness which impels men to form political associ- ations. Either there was a political consciousness prior to the contract or there was not. If the consciousness is 48 THE CHRISTIAN STATE prior to the contract, the theory is disproved at the very beginning. If the contract is the cause of the conscious- ness, the theory is also negatived, for this implies rational action without reason and social fellowship without social consciousness, which are both absurd. It is very evident that no contract between individuals can possess a political character unless there is already present a social consciousness that is above and before the contract . itself. No number of individual wills can add themselves up and yield a common will. No surrender of any num- ber of personal rights can produce a social and political right. The State, which is the organ of the political con- sciousness of its members, cannot by any possibility, come into being out of the consciousness of isolated indi- viduals. In the words of Bluntschli : " For practical politics this doctrine is in the highest degree dangerous, since it makes the State and its institutions the product of individual caprice, and declares it to be changeable ac- cording to the will of the individuals then living. . . It is to be considered, therefore, a theory of anarchy rather than a political doctrine" ("The Theory of the State," Bk. IV, chap. ix). V. The Natural Sociability of Man. This is the view of Bluntschli and others, and, with variations and modi- fications, it is the view that is more or less prevalent to-day. The author named declares that it is not enough to refute the current speculative theories, but we must en- deavor to discover the one common cause of the rise of States. This common cause he thinks we find in human nature, which besides its tendency to individual diversity, has in it tendencies of community and unity. " Thus the inward impulse to society produces external organization of common life in the form of manly self-government — that is, in the form of the State" (The Theory of the State," Bk. IV, chap. x). THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 49 This social tendency, we are told, works at first in- stinctively and unconsciously. The many look up, half with trust and half with fear, to a leader by whose cour- age and genius they are impressed, and whom they honor as the supreme expression of their community. At first this consciousness of community is found chiefly in the leaders of the people, but in time it extends itself among the more intelligent classes, until at last it permeates the lower orders in society and becomes active and effective in all. v This view has many things in its favor, and it approxi- mates the true conception. It recognizes the necessity of the State, and it grounds the State in the nature of man. It declares that the State is the natural and ap- pointed work of man, and it recognizes the fact that it is a potent agency of progress in society. " The State is the fulfilment of the common order, and the organization for the perfection of the common life in all public mat- ters " (Bluntschli, "The Theory of the State," Bk. IV, chap. x). So far as it goes, therefore, this theory is satis- * factory enough, but it does not fully solve the problem before us. For " to speak of the State as naturally cre- ated, makes of it an entity independent of man, uncreated by him, and as such, not requiring justification in his eyes. . . To say that political authority is natural neither answers the question as to how its empirical manifesta- tion is brought about, nor shows the manner in which its control over the individual is harmonized with the latter's natural freedom" (Willoughby, "The Nature of the State," pp. 33, 34). This brings us to the last view as to the origin of the State. VI. The Origin of the State in the Nature of Man and the Purpose of God. In the statement of this view several things are to be noted. The first is what may be D 50 THE CHRISTIAN STATE called the fact of organic solidarity. The crowning dis- v/covery of this modern age, says President Moss, is the unity of the universe, the oneness of all things visible and invisible in one great system of matter and force and law. The world, it is becoming more and more evident, is an organic totality, and all things move together because all things are linked together. One thing is as it is because all other things are as they are. " It is a mathematical fact," says Carlyle, " that the casting of this stone from my hand changes the center of gravity of the universe." The entire universe is one great system, and atom is linked with atom and star is bound to star by ties that are most real. But the facts of the physical and material world are only so many parables of human life and its relations, and from the one we may learn much concerning the other. When we come to the study of man we find that this fact of solidarity becomes most real and important. Man, by the very constitution of his being, is a creature of relationships ; in fact, it is in and through these relation- ships that he comes to maturity and power. It is impos- sible to be a person without being in a true sense a mem- ber of society, for it is in and through the life of others that man comes to be himself. The law is written : You cannot live by yourself alone and be a man at all. The Creator has so linked the race together that no man can give the race the slip and rise into perfection by him- self. In the most real sense, it is true that we are mem- bers one of another and dependent the one upon the other. The whole race is bound together in a solidarity of interests and responsibilities in which the one and the many are mutually means and ends. Adopting the figure of the apostle we may say that " The whole body of hu- manity fitly framed and knit together through that which every person supplieth, according to the working in due THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 51 measure of each several part maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love." The second thing is this : that in all living beings there is an instinct and impulse toward association, and this is the most fundamental fact in life. It would be interest- ing to trace the beginnings of this instinct among the lowly forms of life, for it is found in the rudiments at least in creatures that are far down in the scale. The fact is, this principle of association is practically coeval with life itself and is rooted in the very nature of things. But we are considering the origin of the State, and so we are concerned more intimately with what may be called the subjective factors in the making of States; that is, those instincts and impulses which draw men together and lead them to unite in social institutions. And the more we study this aspect of the question the more real and potent these factors appear. If one were searching for the beginnings of the political State it would be necessary to search far down among the social instincts of lowly creatures, for these instincts are every- where present with this difference : among the lowly creatures we find the instinct of mutual aid and the forms of social life; but we find also that this is unconscious and instinctive. But when we come to the world of man we find all this changed ; for the tendency which among ani- mals appears as an impulse and instinct more or less unconscious and automatic, among men appears as an im- pulse and appetency more or less conscious and rational. Because man is man, by nature a social and political being, some form of society is inevitable. The form that this society shall assume at any time or in any place will depend upon many incidental factors, and will vary ac- cording to the degree and quality of this sense of human fellowship and social obligation. The form of the State in any age and land is thus the expression of the political 5^ THE CHRISTIAN STATE consciousness of the people, and we can measure the quality of this consciousness by the form which the State assumes. In fulfilment of their strongest imperatives, men have given expression to their political consciousness and founded political institutions. They have done this more or less unconsciously and spontaneously, but in all they have been working in harmony with the purpose of God in the world and with the meaning of their own nature. The State, like all other vital things, is a growth and not a manufacture. And since man is by nature a social and political being, the idea of the State is grounded in his very constitution and its formal appearance is only a question of time. And since man is a vital being, the idea of the State is itself a process of growth. Thus the idea of the State, which is implicit in man's constitution, be- comes explicit in and through the processes of history and the unfoldings of life. The idea creates the form and finds expression through it, and the form conserves and perpetuates the idea. Adopting the figure of Hegel we v may say that " the idea of God and the will of God are the factors that enter into the making of society; the one is the warp and the other is the woof in the vast arras web of universal history" (Hegel, ''Philosophy of History," Introduction). The idea of the State hence takes shape slowly, being hindered or retarded by circum- stances, such as nationality, intellectual development, and above all, religion. And thus we find that man is by nature a social and political being; that some form of social fellowship and political co-operation is implicit in his very nature ; that the State itself becomes explicit in and through a natural process of development ; that in the earlier stages this process may be more or less instinctive and unconscious, but in all the higher stages it is furthered and quickened THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 53 by man's conscious choice and rational co-operation ; and that thus the State is here in fulfilment of the purpose of " God and has its justification in the nature of man himself. In this conception of the origin of the State, we find that all of the causes that were named in the other theories have been more or less at work. There is a soul of truth in each of these theories, but they all err by defect in that they take a part for the whole and consider results that are much larger than their causes. This view, however, gives us the two things that we need for all clear and rational thought. It gives us at once the origin of the State and the justification for its existence. It grounds the State in the very nature of man and the purpose of God, and it contains a justifica- tion for its existence in the very nature of life itself. Ill THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE THE determination of the true functions of the State is one of the urgent and practical problems of our time. There could be no greater misfortune to society, than for men to proceed blindly, without any clear vision of the ends they are to seek and the methods they are to employ. This inquiry is all the more important in view of the growing complexity of society and the widening range of State activity. In the world as we find it, there is an ever-increasing diversity and differentiation, and we see society breaking up into distinct trades and classes, with the most minute division of labor and the most rigid delimitation of trades. Everything indicates that this process is to continue even more widely. But there is also an ever-increasing inter-relation and interde- pendence, and we are discovering that every man needs his neighbor and is dependent upon his co-operation. This imposes new responsibilities upon political ma- chinery and makes new demands upon modern statesmen. The State is slowly but surely extending its activity and multiplying its functions ; and this process is likely to continue and even widen. There are those who view this tendency with alarm and declare that man is forging for himself the chains of a new slavery. There are others who regard it with unmixed satisfaction, and in fact, de- mand a much wider extension of State action. Between these two extremes stands a third class uncertain which course to take, whether to array itself with the former or with the latter. 54 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 55 The right conception of the State will give us the key to the true interpretation of the functions of the State. There are two methods that may be followed in this study. One may follow the historical and empirical method, and may consider the functions of the various States of the world ; he may then compare these, noting those more or less recognized in all and rejecting those tha/: seem sporadic and isolated. By this process he may obtain results suggestive and possibly helpful. But this process is questionable at best; for no two peoples have the same characteristics and conditions, and the method most effective in one set may be wholly unworkable in different conditions. And this method fails to meet all the demands of life, for it takes no account of the ideal element in society. To know what is good for the State we must have some ideal of the State and some concep- tion of its mission. According to the teachings of so- ciology, " That is good for me, or for the world around me, which promotes the ongoing of the social process. That is bad for me, or for the world around me, which retards the ongoing of the social process " (Small, " General Sociology," p. 676). This means that we must have some conception of the meaning and end of the social process in order to appraise any method or func- tion of the State. The other possible method for us is to adopt or to devise some ideal of the State and its func- tions, and then seek to bring the actual State up to the ideal standard. This method has its advantages, but at best it is questionable and may be unreal. States are growths and not manufactures. In view of this, it is possible that the better method of study is one that shall combine the two methods. We seek to know what are the functions now performed by the most advanced States ; we seek to discover how far the State can promote certain great ends ; and then with some ideal of the true 56 THE CHRISTIAN STATE end of the State we inquire what are the functions that it must perform in order to fulfil its highest aims. In the development of political thought many attempts have been made to determine the essential functions of the State. It is needless to multiply quotations, but a few of the more significant statements may be given. " The powers that be are ordained of God," says the Apostle Paul. The ruler is the deacon of God unto men for good; rulers are set for the punishment of evil- doers and the praise of them that do well (Rom. 13 : 1-4). In old Rome a simple motto glittered upon the walls that in a way summed up all the legislation of that people : " Salus populi suprema lex," " the safety of the people is the supreme law." Aristotle, the father of po- litical science, declares that a State " exists for the sake of life ; and not for the sake of life only, but for the sake of good life. . . Whence it may be inferred that virtue must be the serious care of the State which truly deserves the name" (" Politics," Bk. Ill, sec. 9). In the preamble of the Constitution of the United States, we have the great words, " We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." In the Bills of Rights of many of the States of the Union this same purpose is affirmed in somewhat different language : " To safeguard and promote the three main pillars of the State, morality, religion, and edu- cation." These statements are definite enough so far as they go, but for purposes of careful thought it is necessary that they be analyzed and classified more accurately. In the progress of political thought many attempts have been made to arrange the functions of the State under THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 57 certain definite categories. Thus we have them divided into Primary and Secondary Functions; we have them arranged in Essential and Non-essential Functions ; we have them grouped into Positive and Negative Functions ; and so on indefinitely. These divisions are all more or less unsatisfactory, for the reason that they are arbitrary and introduce false distinctions; any real function of the State is primary, essential, and positive. These divisions are unsatisfactory for the further reason that they sub- ject the lower interests of man to the care of what are called the primary and essential functions, and commit the more immaterial and spiritual interests to the keeping of the secondary and non-essential. Other writers have sought to classify these functions with reference to the varied interests of men and the different branches of government ; and we have what are called the Police Functions, the Legislative Functions, the Judicial Func- tions, the Educational Functions, and the Economic Functions. These classifications have much in their favor, and, for purposes of study, are very useful. But they " cut things in two " and introduce divisions that are unreal and possibly mischievous. For these reasons this classification is suggested: The Defensive, the Con- servative, the Socializing, and the Promotive Functions. I. Defensive Functions. In all States that deserve the name the guaranteeing of human security has been re- garded as fundamental and essential. In early times it is quite possible that this need of protection was one of the chief factors in the making of the State. Even in later times the need finds clear expression in political constitutions. Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States among other things, declares that government exists to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity and provide for the common defense. Here is a clear recognition of the State's duty to provide for 58 THE CHRISTIAN STATE the common welfare. The State is the true unit, and each member is defended by it. The State has not always been true to its calling in this respect, for governments have sometimes been little other than organized oppres- sion, and have shown scant regard for either justice or tranquillity. And yet governments, even the worst, have done something for human welfare, and the worst government has been better than no government at all. But this term, the Defensive Functions, demands further analysis ; it is not a simple term. We find that the State - sustains a double relation to its citizens : first to those who are without and secondly to those within its fold. Toward those without, the State appears as the de- fender and guardian of its members in person, life, property, and security. In its early stages this is about the only function assumed by the State ; but it is a func- tion everywhere recognized as fundamental. In all primitive societies the principle of solidarity is most fully operative, and in a real sense the individual is lost in the tribe. Any aggression against a member of the tribe is an aggression against the tribe itself, and it must be resented by the tribe in the person of its ruler. This, as we know, is not by any means the only function recognized in modern States, but it is a function which every State worthy of the name is ready to assert in clearest terms. A citizen of this republic, e. g., be he missionary or trader, who has been admitted into any foreign country may always appeal to the home govern- ment for protection, and the home government is bound to extend such protection. But the State also assumes the function of protecting its members from one another. It exists that it may guarantee to its weakest and lowliest member the secure possession and enjoyment of all his rights and privileges. These, that may be called the police functions of the State, THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 59 are quite generally recognized in all States that are well ordered. Here we find that the individual members sur- render to the government the duty of protection, and the State accepts this responsibility and holds all its resources in pledge for its fulfilment. All experience shows that this work of insuring protection against aggression and securing redress for wrong done, cannot be left wholly to individual action and private initiative. Where wrongs are left to private redress a system of revenge and retaliation obtains, and the vendetta never ends. In addition, each person is a member of the State, and any wrong done the person is an attack upon the State. Hence, the State which assumes the protection of its mem- bers, must assert its authority and must insure its own existence by dealing with the offender. Besides all this the punishment which overtakes the wrong-doer must not be inflicted in a spirit of revenge; it must be visited on the malefactor in the name of the people and for common security. This work of defense against the outer world and the maintenance of justice within its borders, are the two most elementary and irreducible functions of the State. Where these two forms of service are not performed by the government we have a condition of anarchy and not a civilized State. But this defensive function of the State has a much wider scope. The State is the natural guardian of those who are unable to protect themselves, and this lays many new responsibilities upon it. There are those who ad-^ vocate the doctrine of non-interference by the State, and in the name of scientific naturalism assert that the indi- » vidual must be left to fight his battles for himself. It is only in and through this struggle for existence that each can prove his fitness for survival ; and to keep alive those who are unfit is to fly in the face of the whole cosmic 6o THE CHRISTIAN STATE order. This being so, the functions of the State should be kept at the lowest minimum, and we must see to it that the State does not interfere with the stern but be- neficent processes of nature. That is to say, the State has no duty whatever to defend the weak and unfit from themselves and from others, beyond the general police functions of government. Such a view as this, it must be said, is at variance with the best thought of the world, and is based upon an utter misreading of the facts. Out in the jungle there is indeed a struggle for existence, and unfailingly the unfit go down. But human society is higher than the wild jungle melee for the simple reason that human society is subject to the sway of mental and moral principles. The authority of the State must be directed, therefore, in all spheres in which men need protection. The State that fully recognizes its duty in the direc- tion of defense, will not allow conditions to exist which make it impossible for any class of people to realize the innate possibilities of their being. Thus, in the early years of the nineteenth century, it was found that the condition of thousands of mill operatives and mine work- ers was utterly and deplorably bad. The Earl of Shaftes- bury and his colleagues in England clearly saw that there was here a great wrong against the life of these people. He plainly stated in his speeches and reports that there were thousands of persons in the land, who were utterly unable to defend themselves against these conditions, and so they were wholly unable to rise into a more worthy life. These persons by themselves could not change the economic conditions that virtually enslaved them and de- barred them quite hopelessly from any inheritance in life. The State, so the earl maintained, must intervene by its authority and must protect these helpless ones. Remedial measures were enacted despite bitter opposi- THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 6l tion ; and the authority of the British Parliament exerted in proper legislation, ameliorated the condition of millions of English workers and made it possible for them to maintain their standing in society and become self- respecting citizens. The State is the natural defender of the person against aggression ; it is charged with the maintenance of justice between man and man ; and it must protect the weak and helpless against any forces and conditions that would hurt and oppress them. II. Conservative Functions. In order that men may live in security and society may fulfil its mission, there must be some authority that shall safeguard the neces- sary conditions. This agency is the State, and this conservation is a necessary part of its mission. That the State is charged with the conservation of the physical conditions of the people is quite generally recognized. Thus the government is charged with the protection of the streams from pollution and their pres- ervation. The man whose home is by the riverside cannot be allowed to use that river as he pleases, for the simple reason that his conduct must not be allowed to imperil the common safety. Nothing can be more plain than the duty of the State to conserve the sanitary conditions of the territory subject to its authority. The management of all matters pertaining to public sanitation and general healthfulness cannot be left to the individual initiative of the citizens themselves. As an illustration we may consider the matter of public health. There are those who insist that all such matters shall be left to the individual citizens to manage as they will, either by voluntary associations or by individual action. But suppose for a moment that this is left to free indi- vidual and voluntary control. It may happen that a num- ber of people who do not see the necessity for drains and sewers refuse to co-operate. Nay, worse; they will not 62 THE CHRISTIAN STATE allow the sewer to cross their property in order to reach the river, and they refuse to abate the nuisance that is causing their neighbors discomfort. In this case it is evident that unless some conservative and coercive power can be employed, human security is at an end and human society is practically impossible. It is argued by the friends of political non-intervention, that persons so act- ing must be left severely alone to reap the consequences of their ignorance and stubbornness. That may be the most effective way, so far as they are concerned, but it may prove entirely too expensive for the other members of society. Again, clear thought recognizes that the climatic con- ditions of a country must be preserved, so far as they are under human control. The watercourses must be kept free from pollution ; the arable land must not be unduly injured, greed and short-sightedness must be op- posed ; in short, the general conditions of life must be safeguarded. No generation is an end in itself. Each is the heir of the past and the parent of the future. Prudence would seem to dictate that the men of every generation should give careful attention to those means and measures that are likely to improve the natural conditions of life and make it easier for the generations that are to come. The person is for a single generation, but " the State is for all generations. . . The State being the representative of social permanence, it ought to see that the general conditions of existence do not deteriorate among its people ; this is the minimum which can be asked of it; what would be better still would be that it should improve them" (Beaulieu, "The Modern State," p. 202). The earth has been given to the children of men, and no generation can claim the exclusive title to it. But the physical conditions of a people are not the only ones that influence them. The welfare and happiness of THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 6 3 men depend most intimately upon the economic and industrial conditions that prevail, and here the State has a clear duty. In every community there is a large class who possess no real inheritance in society, and are sadly handicapped in the race of life. It is not necessary here to consider whether this condition has come about wholly through the fault or the misfortune of the parties in question. In either case it would seem that the State has a clear duty. For the State must see to it that no section or class shall be allowed to deteriorate, either physically or economically. In case higher reasons do not prevail, there are lower reasons that should convince. We are all bound together in a solidarity of interests and responsibilities, and whatever endangers one en- dangers all. If the deterioration of the people has come about through excessive toil, low wages, and defective industrial conditions, the State must do what it can to remedy these defects. If the handicap that is upon a large section of the community has come about through control of natural resources by a few, the monopolization of the avenues of industry and the crowding of the weaker to the wall, the State must exert its authority to give all a fair opportunity. This means that the State which will conserve human conditions will see to it that all begin the race of life on a footing of equality. There is a growing tendency among political and sociological thinkers to question whether the present cruelty and waste in human society through irresponsible monopoly and uncontrolled compe- tition are not fraught with evil consequences. Professor Marshall maintains that " the present extreme inequal- ities of wealth tend in many ways to prevent human facul- ties from being turned to their best account." " The fact is," as Benjamin Kidd points out, " a large pro- portion of the population in the prevailing state of so- 6 4 THE CHRISTIAN STATE ciety take part in the rivalry of life only under conditions which absolutely preclude them, whatever their natural merit or ability, from any real chance therein. They come into the world to find the best positions not only already filled but practically occupied in perpetuity " (Kidd, " Social Evolution," p. 232). In view of this, it is evident that the old Laissez Faire doctrine is entirely out- grown. The State that would fulfil its higher mission, must do what lies in its power to equalize opportunity and conserve the interests of the weaker as well as those of the strong. In many ways this conserving function of the State is recognized by all modern progressive governments. In fulfilment of this function there are certain principles of all intelligent legislation. Thus, where natural par- entage is manifestly defective or inefficient, the State intervenes and assumes the guardianship of the children. The State will not allow obscene pictures to be sold whose tendency is clearly to degrade. In the rightful exercise of its authority the State may remove the sources of physical contagion, and may employ its machinery to secure safe and sanitary conditions. It may forbid the entrance into the country of diseased cattle, and may even encourage intelligent and profitable cattle-raising. It may prohibit the prize-fight and the lottery ; it may also prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. In short, it may do whatever lies within its power to secure safe and healthful conditions for all the people within its jurisdiction. According to a significant decision of the United States Supreme Court, " No legislation can barter away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. Governments are organized with a view to their preserva- tion, and cannot divest themselves of the power to provide for them." THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 65 A State, in the judgment of Aristotle, is the collective body of the citizens sufficient in themselves for all pur- poses of life ("Politics," Bk. Ill, chap. i). The true end of the State, as defined by Bluntschli, is " the develop- ment of national capacities, the perfecting of the national life, and finally its completion." Therefore, it cannot control private life in what is essentially individual, but only so far as that life is affected by the common nature of all men and by the common necessities (" The Theory of the State," p. 325). There are those who make light of State action, and declare that everything must be left to the control of private parties and voluntary associations. No doubt there are many things which should be left to individual initiative ; there is no mystic chemistry in the State by which man's folly can be transmuted into social wisdom. " The State, as a matter of fact, invents nothing, and never has invented anything " (Beaulieu, "The Modern State," p. 83). At best, it is the social machinery through which men act in bringing about certain social results, and by the nature of the case it suffers from the defects of all machines. But while all this is true, while many things may be left to private initiative, it is evident that there are many important interests which would be neg- lected if left in private hands. The fact is, humanity has progressed thus far by not letting things take their own course, but by directing them by intelligent and moral ends. " The history of progress is the record of the gradual diminution of waste. The lower the stage the greater is the waste involved in the attainment of any end. . . When we come to human society, the State is the chief instrument by which waste is prevented. The mere struggle for existence between individuals means un- ■y checked waste. The State by its action, can in many cases, deliberately and consciously, diminish this fearful E 66 THE CHRISTIAN STATE loss. By freeing the individual from the necessity of a perpetual struggle for the mere conditions of life, it can set free individuality and so make culture possible. An ideal State would be one in which there was no waste at all of the lives, the intellects, and the souls of individual men and women" (Ritchie, "Principles of State Inter- ference," p. 50). III. Socializing Functions. There is another large class of functions, performed alike by the lowest as well as by the highest States, that can best be described by the term Socializing Functions. By socializing func- tions of the State we mean the harmonization of all inter- ests therein and their conscious co-operation in behalf of social progress (Small, "General Sociology," chap, xxiv). In a sense this class of functions includes all those that have been named or that may be named ; but in a most true sense also this class of functions involves aspects of social activity that are not considered in any of the other categories. Whatever promotes social bet- terment comes within its province. In society as we find it there are all kinds of individuals and classes, and these, because of their divergent interests, are more or less in a chronic state of conflict. How can this struggle between individuals and interests be limited to the smallest degree? How can they be so correlated and harmonized that social peace may take the place of social conflict? And how can all these be so guided and directed that they all shall work together for the perfec- tion of the social process? These questions are among the most fundamental and practical that man can consider, and upon their right solution depend many issues in social progress. There are two directions in which this socializ- ing function of the State may be noted, the socializing of individuals and the harmonizing of interests. Under the first division may be classed all those efforts of the State THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 67 to define the relations of man with man and to train them in the divine art of living together. The primary interest of every man, as of every animal, is the sheer effort to keep alive. One of the inevitable forms of this interest is what may be called the food interest, and this is as true of cave men as of modern philosophers. But there are other interests that assert themselves, and so we have a list that runs along the whole scale of human life. Life, as we know it, may not be a free fight, with every living being fighting with every other, but life in one aspect at least may be de- scribed as a struggle for existence, with the survival of the fittest. The amount of food that is available at any one time for beast or man is wofully limited, and hence there is a constant competition for the choicer portions. There are not enough warm places in the sun for all to enjoy themselves, and so there is a constant struggle for place. In the lower ranges of life these forces act in a more or less instinctive and unconscious way. But when we enter the world of man we find that this socializing process is more or less under the direction of conscious and moral powers. In a colony of ants the various members arrange themselves in an instinctive way with little or no initiative of their own. In a hive of bees the same process is seen, and while the order is most wonder- ful, it is yet almost wholly instinctive, if not automatic. But when we come to a human group or tribe we find that a new factor is at work, and this acts in a more or less conscious and rational way in establishing some modus vivendi. This factor or agency is what may be called the State. The State which we have defined as the organ of man's political consciousness is thus one of the agencies whereby the socialization of man's life is promoted. Thus the State serves a useful purpose in socializing and civilizing 68 THE CHRISTIAN STATE the individuals ; that is, it develops within them a con- sciousness of kind, and promotes the social process. The State, however sadly it may have failed in its mission, has yet done much to repress and discourage the indi- vidualistic and unsocial impulses of men and to encourage and foster the social and sociable impulses. Its service in these directions cannot well be overestimated. Under the second division of this subject are compre-. hended all those efforts of the State to adjust the different classes of conflicting interests, and thus to secure the wel- fare of all. " In the beginning," says Professor Small, " were interests." " An interest is a plain demand for something regardless of everything else." " An interest is unequivocal, intolerant, exclusive" (Small, "General Sociology," pp. 196, 201). We have seen that the various individuals in society have various interests of their own, and each tends to seek that interest which to him seems most important at the time. But as we look at human society, we find that these individuals arrange themselves in groups and classes and parties, according to the inter- ests that are represented, and whereas before we had a conflict of individuals, now we have a conflict of groups and parties. This warrants the conclusion that " the social process is a continual formation of groups around interests, and a continual exertion of reciprocal influ- ence by means of group action" (Small, ibid., p. 209). It is needless to describe in detail the groups and parties and classes that form themselves around certain interests and become their representatives and defenders. These interests, as described by Ratzenhofer and Small, range through the whole gamut of human life from the universal interest of sustenance, through the kinship interest, the national interest, the creedal interests, the pecuniary interests, the class interests ; and these last again divide and subdivide into many minor interests of THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 6y manufacture, trade, capital, culminating in the rank in- terests and corporate interests (Small, "General Soci- ology," p. 252). Professor Ross groups these interests somewhat differently into the economic, the political, the religious, and the intellectual interests, but he declares that these are the interests which constitute in effect the chief history-making forces (Ross, " Foundations of Sociology," p. 170). We find as the culmination of this process that is going on in society that " The various institutions, political, ecclesiastical, professional, indus- trial, etc., including the government, are devices, means, gradually brought into existence to serve interests that develop within the State" (Small, ibid., p. 233). In order that men may live together at all, and that society may become possible, these conflicting and clash- ing interests must be correlated and harmonized. That this may be done there must be some agency or institu- tion comprehensive enough to represent all these diverse interests. This agency, it is evident, must be something more than the agency of some one interest ; it must be in the most real sense the representative of all. This agency of the common interest, this representative of the common life, is nothing less than the State, and the special function of the State in representing and harmonizing all interests we may call the socializing function. Thus " The State is a union of disunions, a conciliation of con- flicts, a harmony of discords. The State is an arrange- ment of combinations by which mutually repellent forces are brought into some measure of concurrent action." " The State is a working compromise between the un- socializing and the socializing possibilities of individual selfishness " (Small, ibid., pp. 252, 332). This socializing function of the State is second to none in importance, and deserves more consideration than it has hitherto received. In its exercise the State can do much to mitigate the 7o THE CHRISTIAN STATE severity of the social struggle and to conserve the inter- ests of the weaker. In every society there are persons who are unsocial and selfish, who seek their own interests without any reference to the interests of others. This selfish spirit may manifest itself in many ways ; it may appear in the outlaw who commits aggression by physical force; it may appear in the monopolist who corners the necessaries of life. It may incarnate itself in some cor- poration or institution or system, ecclesiastical or economic, that regards its own interests as chief and tries to bend all others thereto. Under such circum- stances the State has a very clear duty and an important function. It is the duty of the State to protect its mem- bers from aggression, be that aggression individual or corporate; it is its duty to make it possible for the just man to compete on fair terms with all other men. Thus far in the history of human thought this socializing func- tion of the State has had a somewhat restricted applica- tion, but the time has come when it must be exercised in many new directions. It has been assumed that the State will protect its members from physical force ; that it will protect its members in reputation and property ; and, in a general way, it may be said that the State has fulfilled this part of its office. It is, however, more and more be- 1 coming evident that the State must protect its members from aggression of a more subtle and cruel character; that it must exert a more socializing and civilizing influ- ence in society. - There are two impulses, never stronger than to-day, that are pretty constant in human nature — the love of money and the love of power. These impulses lead to combinations and corporations, the representatives of certain great and controlling financial interests. The man who would live and trade must either come into these combinations or he must accept the hard option of com- THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 71 peting with the almost certain prospect of ultimate ex- tinction. In view of this, it is evident that the State has a most important function to fulfil in socializing the competing interests of society and in elevating the plane of social action. It can establish a legal plane of compe- tition and can provide standing-ground for every man. It can define the conditions under which manufacture and trade must be conducted, and thus make it possible for the moral man to compete on fair terms with all others. It can socialize the whole life of man by restraining ag- gression and make it possible for the just and moral man to maintain his footing. It lies within its proper function to determine the character of such competitive action as shall take place, to define the terms on which all economic action shall be conducted, and to make it possible for the most conscientious and social members of society to com- pete on the human plane and not on the jungle plane. " The matching of strength against weakness is contrary to fighting codes ; equal armor and equal weapons were the rule of knighthood" (Professor J. B. Clarke, "The Philosophy of Wealth," p. 165). "It is utterly illogical to say that aggrandizement by physical force should be forbidden, while aggrandizement by mental or legal fic- tion should be permitted. It is absurd to claim that in- justice committed by muscle should be regulated, while that committed by brain should be unrestricted " (Ward, " Psychic Factors of Civilization," p. 322). This socializing function of the State is second to none in importance, and it promises to play a much larger part in the future than in the past. It is probable that this function will be manifested in a greater extension of State action in the realms of man's social and industrial interests. Thus far these realms have been very jealous of their own prerogatives, and have resented all State action as an interference with their rights. But it is 72 THE CHRISTIAN STATE becoming increasingly evident that the State cannot allow its authority to be denied in this way ; nor can it tolerate any influences and interests that are clearly un- social and destructive in their tendencies and actions. The State must determine the plane on which men shall live and trade and compete; it must persuade or compel the different interests of society to subordinate their spe- cial interest to the one common interest; in a word, it must do all in its power to harmonize and socialize the divergent elements of society and to train them all in the divine art of living together. IV. Promotive Functions. The State has an impor- tant function to fulfil in promoting the welfare of man. According to Aristotle a State " exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only. . . Whence it may be inferred that virtue must be the serious care of a State which truly deserves the name " (" Poli- tics," Bk. Ill, Sec. 9). According to Locke " The end of government is the good of mankind." According to the Apostle Paul civil authority is appointed of God for the good of man (Rom. 13 : 1-6). It is not necessary to consider in detail the many things that the State may do in behalf of human progress, but a few lines of action may be suggested. The State can do much to promote social well-being by removing the obstacles that hinder and disqualify men for free development. It is clearly the duty of the State to make possible a free, worthy, human, and moral life for all its members. The State is called to consider not only the best interests of the largest number, but the highest interests of the whole number. It is clearly its duty to create conditions which shall give every person a fair fighting chance for life and happiness. Again, the State can do much in promoting human well-being by providing that every person shall have a THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 73 fair standing in society. Every child born into the world has a claim to the common inheritance of earth, air, and water; it has birth-right to a fair chance for life, property, and happiness, and any society that ignores these claims and rights is essentially unjust. There is one principle that we need to keep in mind in all our discussion of this question, that no man in any generation is to do anything that shall narrow the range of opportunity or mortgage the inheritance of succeeding generations. " The freedom to do as they like on the part of one set of men may in- volve the ultimate disqualification of many others, or of a succeeding generation, for the exercise of rights " (Green, " Principles of Political Obligation," Sec. 210): The men of one generation may justly complain if by the action of a preceding generation they are obliged to begin the race of life seriously handicapped. The obverse of this is true, and the men of the present generation should hence take thought for the generations that are to come, and should seek to create conditions which shall make for human equality and social peace. The State and not the individual is the representative of this permanent life of a people, and hence it follows that the State must hold the balance even between the generations and give each its due. Once more : there are many things that the State can do in a more direct and positive way in promoting human well-being. Removing obstacles is not by any means the only thing. It is becoming an accepted principle among all progressive peoples that the State may exercise its authority in promoting education, in spreading intelli- gence, and in fostering philanthropy. It must be said, however, that on this question there is a marked differ- ence of opinion among social and political thinkers. Thus we have those who take the extreme position, with Her- bert Spencer, that the State has nothing to do with such 74 THE CHRISTIAN STATE matters, and whenever it meddles here it transcends its sphere. There are others who take the opposite extreme and maintain that it is both the right and the duty of the State to provide for the full education of all its members, in both intellectual and moral life. The true course seems to lie between these extremes, and teaches that the State has the right and the duty to maintain for its citizens the conditions under which the free exercise of their faculties is possible (Lilly, " First Principles in Politics," p. 59). But the State may do much more than this and still maintain this middle course ; in fact, the more ad- vanced States to-day are doing much more than provide the mere rudiments of an education. The welfare of the people is the chief concern of the just government, and that this welfare may be promoted it is necessary that the material interests of the people be considered. Not only so, but the State needs qualified and trained men for all departments of its life and service in civil affairs, in industrial, and military life. In order that these ends may be fully and generally secured the State may fairly and justly establish departments of forestry and com- merce, of labor and education ; it may establish and en- dow normal schools and State universities, and it may create bureaus of charities and corrections, and may print and disseminate literature bearing upon all the questions of national and social welfare. There are four principles — social axioms they ought to be called — that may be of service : The effort of society should always be greatest where the need is sorest. The State that is under obligation to punish and restrain the criminal is under equal obligation to remove the causes which make the criminal. The State that confesses its obligation to care for its dependent and defective members should confess the equal obligation to prevent the continuous creation of such dependent and THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 75 defective classes. The method of prevention is a great deal cheaper and easier than the method of reformation, and it is also more Christian and more hopeful. A few suggestions in application of these principles may be offered. For one thing, the State must encourage all those investigators who are seeking to know the causes of dis- ease and crime. We must know the causes of these dis- tressful phenomena of society, the criminal, the tramp, the insane, the idiotic ; we must seek to remove the causes of these things, and we must labor to secure a larger proportion of sane, healthy, well-endowed, morally dis- posed people in the community. The State must put its resources in pledge in behalf of its weakest and least promising members that they may be lifted up into strength and fitness. In this work the wise State will co-operate with all the other agencies of man-making, such as the family and the church, that human life may be touched and influenced on all sides. The unfit must not be allowed to remain unfit, but must be transformed. But more important than this, society must take adequate precautions against the needless multiplication of these dependent and defective members. The State must go behind results and must seek to change causes, and this work it cannot evade nor deny. That is, the State must now employ its resources and exert its authority in crea- ting conditions that will prevent the making and multiply- ing of the weak and the defective. This is a great under- taking, and it may require long generations for the most advanced society to approximate the goal. But it is something to know the direction in which progress lies, ,and to consider what brings man nearer to the true standard. The progress of man and the perfection of society are the supreme concern of the State. Growing out of all this is the function of the State in 7 6 THE CHRISTIAN STATE promoting the moral welfare of its people. All clear thought recognizes that the national character is the resultant and outcome of individual character ; for the quality of the elements determines the quality of the mass. Now, since this is true, even to truism, it would seem that the State which has any concern for its own moral character and social stability, must concern itself very intimately with the moral life of its citizens. At the same time it must be remembered that it can do little in a direct way to achieve these results; it can decree moral statutes, but it cannot create the moral will ; it can create certain social machinery, but it cannot manufacture moral character. There is no civil enactment and political ma- chinery that can generate moral life and build a righteous society out of unrighteous men. In view of this there are many men who maintain that the State can do nothing whatever to promote human virtue and morality ; the machinery of the State is too coarse, they assert, for such delicate work, and hence the State would better limit itself to its true and proper functions. Herbert Spencer was never more clearly in the right than when he said that there is no form of government that can bring golden conduct out of leaden instincts. But a more careful consideration of all the factors will show that there are many things that the State can do and should do, in behalf of the moral life of its people. No one claims that it is possible to make men good by law ; but every one with any discernment knows that it is easily possible for the State to deal with conditions that make it doubly difficult for men to be good at all. The State can make it possible for men to live and labor on the moral plane ; the State can remove the artificial barriers which society erects and can equalize opportunity for all; the State can remove the stumbling-blocks that are placed in the way of men and abolish the agencies that THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 77 are clearly demoralizing; the State can apply the moral law to the civil organization of society and can seek to prepare every person for full citizenship. Thus far the primary, defensive, police functions of the State have bulked very large in the thoughts of men, and it has done a great work in these directions. In the more progressive modern States other functions have been recognized also, and much attention has been given to educational matters and to economic questions. But it is becoming more evident every day that there are whole ranges of functions beyond these, and men are beginning to consider what may be called the social and moral func- tions of the State. Men are beginning to see that the functions of the State are not negative and defensive only, to restrain the evil-doer and to punish crime, but pro- motive and positive also, to direct social progress and to further human well-being. As time goes by these nega- tive functions will more and more sink into the back- ground, and these positive functions will more and more fill the foreground. Herbert Spencer maintains that the State must prepare for its own decease, and must hasten the day when it will be unnecessary. On the contrary, as humanity advances toward its goal and society be- comes more complex, the State will become more and more necessary, and will fulfil other functions that are now unrecognized. " The State," says Bluntschli, " is not an arrangement for the purpose of taming the evil passions. It is not a necessary evil, but a necessary good. Only by the realization of the State can peoples and humanity, taken collectively, manifest their real in- ward unity and attain to free corporate existence. The State is the fulfilment of the common order, and the or- ganization for the perfection of common life in all public matters" ("The Theory of the State" p. 302). "The true functions and aims of the State," he maintains, " are 78 THE CHRISTIAN STATE the development of the natural capacities, the perfecting of the national life, and finally its completion " (ibid., 321). The time is coming when, in the words of Ruskin, " men may indeed begin to take serious thought whether among national manufactures that of souls of a good quality may not at last turn out a quite leadingly lucrative one" ("Unto This Last," Essay II). IV THE IDEAL OF THE STATE HE conception of the State is one thing, and the A ideal of the State is quite another. The conception has to do with the formal nature and essential character- istics of actual States. The ideal of the State, on the other hand, presents a picture in the splendor of imagin- ary perfection, as not yet realized, but to be striven for (Bluntschli, " The Theory of the State," p. 15). Hence, in speaking of the ideal of the State we mean that ideal which men cherish, which they regard as the perfect goal, and which they seek to have realized. In these later times men are gaining what has been called the sense of humanity, and society is coming to what may be described as social consciousness. In the natural order we find that the process of development below man has gone forward in a more or less uncon- scious and instinctive way. But with the advent of man a new factor is introduced, and this changes the whole result. Now the process of human progress is more or less subject to the conscious and rational action of man -himself. The human race as we know it, is in process of becoming ; the lowest members have indeed risen far above the animal stage ; but the highest members have not yet attained the final goal. Man, civilized and rational — that is, man moral and self-conscious, stands midway in the process, himself the maker of his own destiny. Man, social and political, as we find him in the more civilized lands to-day, is leaving the things that are behind and is reaching unto the things that are before. His greatest 79 8o THE CHRISTIAN STATE need is some social ideal and human synthesis which shall give meaning to his life and direction to his efforts. In the development of political and social thought many attempts have been made to define the relations of man with man, to indicate the goal of the State, and to formu- late some ideal of human society. The views and ideals of the State that have prevailed may be classified under four heads: the Anarchical, the Individualistic, the Social-j istic, and the Fraternal. These four types have many representatives in the world to-day, and one or more of them lies at the basis of every system of political philos- ophy and every programme of State action. I. The Anarchistic. Type. This word anarchy in itself is destitute of evil content. It has come to be the synonym of disorder and riot, of lawlessness and crime, but this is reading into the term our own ideas. Used in its primary and literal meaning it denotes merely a state of society without any recognized and authoritative government. As defined by Professor Huxley anarchy is that form of society in which the rule of each individual by himself is the only government recognized ("Col. Essays," I, p. 393). Persons of very different mental and moral worth hold the anarchical theory of society, and these may be divided roughly into two groups. There are, first, the revolutionary anarchists who avow as their aim the overthrow and annihilation of all govern- ments and States. The exponents of this creed bear dif- ferent names, but they agree in certain main particulars. In Russia they were known recently as Nihilists, and now as Red Hundreds; in France and Belgium as Red Inter- nationals ; in England and the United States as Anarchists. According to Bakunin, the father of nihilism, the first mission of the disciples of this new gospel is the destruc- tion of every lie known to man. The first is God. The second lie is right. Might invented the fiction of right THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 8l in order to insure and strengthen her reign : " When you have freed your minds from the fear of a God, and from that childish respect for the fiction of right, then all the remaining chains which bind you, and which are called science, civilization, property, marriage, morality, and justice, will snap asunder like threads. Let your own happiness be your only law. But in order to get this law recognized and to bring about the proper relations which should exist between the majority and the minority of mankind, you must destroy even-thing that exists in the shape of State or social organization. . . Our first work must be the destruction and annihilation of everything as it now exists. You must accustom yourselves to destroy even-thing, the good with the bad ; for if but an atom of this old world remains the new will never be created " (Speech of Michale Bakunin at Geneva, in 1868). The nihilists, it may be said, represent the extreme wing of the anarchical party, and throw chief emphasis upon the work of destruction. Other anarchists are not so pro- nounced in their appeal to force for the destruction and abolition of even-thing that exists in the form of State institutions and social control. But, none the less, they affirm that all social regulation is wrong in principle and subversive of human welfare, and hence must be ended as speedily as possible. Some anarchists, it ought to be said, regard this negative work of destruction as the clearing of the ground for what they call the new and better order of society. The State, as it now exists, they all claim, is an unnecessary evil, and hence government must be completely destroyed. They insist that some form of social co-operation will be evolved in due time that will be better than the present tyrannical system ; but they all insist also that whatever government may exist in the good time coming must be entirely voluntary, and must exert no coercion over the individual. 82 THE CHRISTIAN STATE There are, secondly, what may be called the philosoph- ical anarchists, of whom there are many varieties in the world. They all agree in this particular at least, that all forms of government are unnecessary and evil, and should be repudiated. In this category are to be found some men and women of great literary and artistic power, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Prince Kropotkin, Maxim Gorky and Count Tolstoy, Karl Marx and Leonid Andriew. Some of these, it may be said, are confessed socialists, but they also believe that the present order of society is wrong and must be ended. They differ, how- ever, from the more destructive anarchists in the main in their contention that this change must come about by more peaceful means. One of the foremost advocates of this view of society is the Russian nobleman, Count Leo Tolstoy. In the name of humanity and Christianity Tolstoy frames his indictment against the State-conception of life, and in the name of Christ and reason he pro- nounces the State an unnecessary evil. The State may cease to be, he maintains, and man will lose nothing but his chains and his wrongs, while humanity will gain im- measurably in security and happiness. Li many respects this titled Russian, who for the sake of the truth in Jesus as he sees it, has given up his title and is living the life of a peasant, is a standing rebuke to the easy-going and complacent lives of men who call themselves followers of the Son of man. In Russia — in fact, throughout all Europe — this man has millions of disciples, and many of these are preaching his doctrines with an increased emphasis and a terrible persistency. In America also there are many disciples of this doctrine, and in every city there are groups of men who are preach- ing the new gospel of freedom from the wrongs and usurpations of governments. But with it all one must admit that the writings of Tolstoy are full of crude and THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 83 perverted interpretations of Scripture, and are based upon a wrong reading of the facts of life. Society cannot be resolved into an anarchy of good individuals, where each may be left free to do that which is right in his own eyes without any supervision and direction. His objec- tions to the State grow out of a narrow and limited acquaintance with the various governments of the world. Tsarism, which is irresponsible monarchy raised to the last power and maintaining itself by the sanctions of religion, furnishes the ground for his indict- ment. But there are governments in the world against which hardly one of his objections applies, and where they apply at all the evil grows out of the misuse of government and is not an essential element in government itself. It must be remembered that governments are human institutions and they must partake more or less of the imperfections which are characteristic of the human nature that controls them. In a simple and select condition of society it might be possible for men to live without government of any kind, but in a complex society the weak and backward members would be left without any adequate safeguards. Tolstoy would probably answer, as others have done, that there should be no weak and backward members ; this may be, but they do exist, and some account must be taken of them. One may agree with Tolstoy that much would be gained by giving morality and religion a larger place in human life, but moral and religious appeals are slow and uncertain with many men. " Society is not an open common in which profane feet are left to tread all plants into the mire ; it is at liberty to set up suitable safe- guards for every good and beautiful thing" (Bascom, "Social Theory," p. 297). The good which is won for the weaker is of greater moment than the liberty which is taken from the bad. Men may complain of governments, 8 4 THE CHRISTIAN STATE but the fact remains that the best goods of life are found in governed communities. According to the doctrines of anarchy, of the better sort, the absence of all government does not mean the absence of all association. The more enlightened an- archists, of whom there are many, simply mean the ab- sence of enforced association and compulsory submission. If an individual does not wish to co-operate no restraint shall be employed; he must be left to reap the beneficent or baleful results of his freely chosen course. But society need not suffer because of this, for it is maintained that the more orderly in a community may combine against the disorderly to secure order and justice. For very primitive and simple conditions this might prove satis- factory, but it would fail utterly in an advanced and com- plex society. The moment a majority began to enforce their decrees against the disorderly minority, that mo- ment we have the beginnings of government. The mi- nority are coerced ; they are not free to do as they please, and this compulsion is none the less real though it proceed from a voluntary society rather than a political govern- ment. Again, it is evident that such a voluntary association does not provide adequate safeguards for the weaker and more backward members of- society. The confirmed anarchist will at once answer that in this ideal order, there will be no such weak and backward persons. But, we must deal with things as they are. The weak and backward brothers are here, and some account must be taken of them. To leave them to struggle alone in the battle of life, to stand by unconcerned while they are trodden under foot on the plea that they are unfit and should not survive, is to abandon every human instinct and revert to the jungle plane of life. Nay, even in the jungle, as one of these foremost apostles of the anarchical THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 85 gospel shows, we find the beginnings of mutual aid and co-operation (Kropotkin, "Mutual Aid"). The sane philosophical anarchists will admit that some voluntary association among individuals is necessary if man is to live in peace and to make progress. Many of them advocate such associations, but maintain that they must be wholly voluntary. But any kind of associ- ation will find that it must either resort to compulsion in some cases or go wholly out of business. According to the anarchists' first commandment : Thou shalt not allow any man to interfere with the liberty of any other ; every man may mind his conduct or mend his drains as he pleases. Thus the efforts of the good-intentioned many will be negatived by the ignorance or selfishness of the few. It is evident that these associations must possess some compulsory power. But the moment there is as- sociation and compulsion there is the beginning of the political State (Huxley, "Administrative Nihilism"). " As a system of rational politics, anarchism is without a logical basis. While it denies the right or utility of political action in general, it opens the way to the intro- duction of a compulsion that is not to be distinguished from it in essence, and which is in addition arbitrary and incapable of limitation or regulation according to precise principles" (Willoughby, "The Nature of the State," 320). II. The Individualistic Type. In this conception the State is regarded as a necessary evil. This type of State differs from the foregoing in little except in degree, but this difference must be noted. According to those who advocate this type, men as we find them are more or less imperfect and evil, and hence many of their wayward desires and unsocial im- pulses must be curbed and repressed by governmental power. Because of the fraud and violence of men a 86 THE CHRISTIAN STATE State which shall control the unruly and ill-disposed be- comes necessary. Thus Herbert Spencer shows that through co-operation into which men have gradually risen, benefits have been secured to them which could not be secured in their primitive state ; and that as an in- dispensable means to this co-operation political organiza- tion has been and is advantageous " (Spencer, " Princi- ples of Sociology," Sec. 442). But as society develops, as men become more moral and religion is diffused, the importance of the State will diminish till ultimately it will reach the vanishing-point. This view, it may be said, shades off on the one side into anarchism, and on the other into later ideas of State action. This view has had many advocates in ancient and in modern times, and strangely enough the Christian thinker and the most thoroughgoing agnostic are often found in the same school. In view of the weakness and imperfec- tion of men some form of State protection is necessary, otherwise the strong and vicious will aggress upon the weak and humble. But it is held that the State's use of force while necessary in the present, is itself an evil, and is opposed to the loving and merciful spirit of Christianity. The Christian theologians who hold this view are many and influential. Thus Channing says : " In heaven noth- ing like what we call government on earth can exist, for government here is founded in human weakness and guilt. The voice of command is never heard among the spirits of the just. Even on earth the most perfect government is that of a family, where parents employ no tone but that of affectionate counsel, where filial affection reads its duty in the mild look, and finds its law and motive in its own pure impulse " (" Works," p. 361). In other writings he takes a somewhat higher view of the functions of government ; but none the less he regards it as a questionable good and a necessary evil. It is THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 87 maintained by those who hold this conception that Chris- tianity aims to make good individuals, and when this end is secured the State becomes wholly unnecessary. It is a temporary expedient for meeting a temporary need, and it will disappear as the kingdom of God comes. It is rather significant that the Christian theologians who maintain this view should be supported in their con- tention by the most thoroughgoing agnostics. Conspicu- ous among these may be named John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer. The former represents the transition from the extreme doctrines of individualism to the more social conception of man. But none the less he throws great emphasis upon the individualistic idea and looks with suspicion upon the State. With him liberty has a negative sense and consists in " being left to one's self." "All restraint qua restraint is an evil" ("On Liberty," Chap. V). The great exponent of this view is Herbert Spencer who, from first to last, has been a defender of the individualistic conception of man. In his " Social Statics " he says : " Have we not shown that government is essentially immoral ? . . Does it not exist because crime exists, and must government not cease when crime ceases, for very lack of objects on which to perform its func- tions? " And again he says, " It is a mistake to consider that government must last forever. . . It is not essential, but incidental. As amongst Bushmen we find a State antecedent to government, so may there be one in which it shall have become extinct." In his " Principles of Sociology " he shows that some temporary benefits accrue from State action, but after all it is an open question whether the disadvantages do not offset the benefits. He shows further that while the political organization facili- tates co-operation, " yet the organization formed impedes further growth . . ." (" Principles of Sociology," Vol. II, sec. 447). In " Man versus the State " we have an elabo- 88 THE CHRISTIAN STATE rate attempt to defend the individualistic conception of man by exposing the sins of legislators and the coming slavery. The same conceptions are set forth also by other writers no less eminent. Thus Professor Freeman says: " As for discussions about an ideal form of government, they are simply idle. The ideal form of government is no government at all. The existence of government in any shape is a sign of man's imperfection " (" Hist. Essays," Fourth Series, p. 353). "The State ought to render itself useless," says M. Jules Simon, " and to prepare for its own decease." It may be conceded that these criticisms are salutary and should be taken to heart by rash statesmen who hope to hale in the millennium by governmental statutes. It may be admitted also that governments have been guilty of many usurpations, and have committed many colossal blunders. But it is an open question whether the worst evils of bad governments are not immeasurably better than the inevitable evils of no government at all. It may be granted that the State makes many mistakes, and is often guilty of oppression and wrong, and that in a way its administration stands in the way of man's higher progress. But this neither proves that the State in itself is an evil, nor that it will disappear in the course of time. There are two serious objections to this individualistic view of the State. First, some form of government is found among every people that has made even the beginnings of progress. And it is also found that there is a direct relation between the general condition of the society and the amount of State action. " The history of progress is the record of a gradual diminution of waste. . . When we come to human society, the State is the chief instru- ment by which waste is prevented. The mere struggle for THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 8 9 existence between individuals means unchecked waste. The State, by its action can, in many cases, consciously and deliberately diminish this fearful loss; in many cases by freeing the individual from the necessity of a perpetual struggle for the mere conditions of life, it can set free individuality and so make culture possible. An ideal State would be one in which there was no waste at all of the lives and intellects and souls of individual men and women" (Ritchie, " Prin. of State Interference," p. 50). For another reason this conception of the State is de- fective, as it rests upon a wrong reading of the facts of life. By nature man is a social being, and some form of social organization is natural to him. By nature also man is a political being, and hence some form of political organization is necessary to him. Government would have been necessary had man not sinned ; the State is needed for the sake of the good as well as for protection from the bad. They wrong the State who call it an evil, though they may qualify it with the adjective necessary. " Without civil society," says Burke, " man could not by any possibility arrive at the perfection of which his nature is capable, nor even make a remote and faint approach to it" ("Reflect, on Revolution in France"). The atomic and individualistic conception of mankind be- longs to a phase of thought that is doomed to pass away. Humanity is a great whole in which the person is but a member, and as in the human body each member is for all and all are for each, so also in human society. The social and political State thus grows out of the very constitution of man, and is the medium through which the social consciousness finds expression and the social welfare is promoted. " There is no such thing as prog- ress, or culture in the isolated individual, but only in the group, in society, in the ethnos. Only by taking and giving, borrowing and lending, can life either improve or 90 THE CHRISTIAN STATE continue" (Brinton, "Basis of Social Relations," XV). III. The Socialistic Type. It is not too much to say that the remarkable growth of socialism is the most sig- nificant sign of the times. In Germany and Russia, in Britain and America, the new doctrines are making their way. In these lands efforts have been made by various parties and from many sides to discount these doctrines and to stay their onrush, but thus far all such efforts have proved utterly vain. At this stage of its development, as might be expected, men look upon this new movement with very different feelings. Some persons find in socialism a new Messiah and anticipate through it the regeneration of the world. Many others stand in doubt, seeing some good in it, and yet sadly torn by conflicting emotions. They are greatly moved by the socialistic indictment of modern civilization and cannot deny its main counts; they feel the wrongs of the world which socialism dissects with such a merci- less hand ; but withal they cannot accept the socialistic programme, and fear that they must wait for another Messiah. Not a few both fear and. hate socialism and see in it nothing less than the antichrist of Scriptures and the plague of human kind. Both from the side of the Church and the State men fear socialism and see in it the great menace of our times. From the side of the church men view its spread with alarm. Nor is this wholly groundless, for socialism, as preached by some of its apostles, scorns the church and discounts all religion. The leaders of socialism, many of them at least, are avowed enemies of the church, and they do not hesitate to speak their words of scorn. From the side of society also men fear socialism and see in it the beginning of a new slavery; they cannot accept its programmes, and they see in it a leveling down of the race to the status of its lowest members. THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 91 Now, whatever one may think of socialism matters little ; but it is a force that must be reckoned with in the days to come. The fact is, socialism is something far deeper than a mere surface discontent ; it is something more than the dreaming of a lot of wild visionaries ; it contains both an indictment and a programme, and these should be considered ; it may not be necessary to accept the programme, but it is folly to ignore the indictment. Modern society, as the most careful and conservative students declare, presents some features which may well awaken fear and cause despair. Some years ago Pro- fessor Huxley declared that if there is no hope of a large improvement of the condition of the human family, " I should hail the advent of some kindly comet which should sweep the whole affair away, as a desirable consum- mation." What then shall we do in such a time as this? It is certain that socialism cannot be met and answered by misrepresentation and denunciation. It is no less certain that it cannot be met by putting on blinders and refusing to see the things that are wrong and unjust in mod- ern society. Fearful churchmen and timid statesmen may try to ignore socialism or they may combine to oppose it. They may pass stringent laws against the socialistic propaganda, and may seek to stay its force by a subtle persecution. But in spite of it all, nay, rather, in a certain sense because of it all, socialistic doctrines will grow among the people, and socialistic programmes will obtain a larger following. But what then is socialism? This term socialism is one not easily defined, for the reason that there are all shades and degrees of socialistic thought, from the more extreme materialistic socialism of Labriola and Marx, to the moderate Christian socialism of Maurice and Rausch- enbusch. Not only so, but the socialistic programme 9 2 THE CHRISTIAN STATE shades off into the most pronounced communism on the one hand, or into the mild doctrines of the Fabian Society on the other. And once more, among the advocates of socialism are found men who approximate the doctrines of anarchism on the one hand, and others who believe in the widest extension of State action, though it may be an exaggeration to say that socialism is a very Proteus, possessing almost as many aspects as exponents (Lilly, "First Principles in Politics," p. 124). The author named agrees with Professor Luigi Cossa in his com- plaint that " classification has a hard road to travel when it enters the tangle of jarring socialistic sects." It is not easy to find any one definition that is comprehensive enough to cover the whole doctrine in all its varying views. There are, however, certain constant factors, and these constitute the essential elements. In a general way it may be said that socialism repre- sents a state of mind and a definite programme. In the first sense it describes a tendency and an aspiration; it includes the views and efforts of those who seek to bring about a gradual betterment in human conditions. Thus a noted advocate of this view (Proudhon) when asked by the magistrate, " What then is socialism ? " replied : " Every aspiration after the betterment of mankind." " In that case," said the magistrate, " we are all socialists." " That is what I have always maintained." To this cate- gory belongs the definition of Roscher, who says that it includes " those tendencies which demand a greater re- gard for the common weal than consists with human nature." The avowed aim of the Christian socialists of England, according to their organ, " The Christian So- cialist," is " to diffuse the principles of co-operation by the practical application of Christianity to the purposes of trade and industry." The great thinkers in economics and politics have all been socialists in this general sense. THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 93 The term socialism, in the latter sense, however, has a much more definite and restricted meaning, and this is quite explicit. " The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference with property undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, the limitation of the prin- ciple of laissez faire in favor of the suffering classes, radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property as regulated by free competition " (Kirkup, "Encyc. Brit.," Vol. XXII, p. 205). In the midst of the varying theories that go by the name of so- cialism there is a kernel of principle that is all essential. That principle is of an economic nature, and is most clear and precise. To avoid the evils of the unrestricted concentration of capital in a few hands, with the subjec- tion of the great mass of workers; to prevent the eco- nomic anarchy that results, with the degradation of the working-man and his family ; to secure a more just and equitable distribution of the means and appliances of hap- piness, socialists propose that land and capital, which are the requisites of labor and the sources of all wealth and culture, should become the property of society, and be managed by it for the general good (Kirkup, ibid., p. 206). The word thus connotes "an industrial society, which in the main features is sufficiently clear and precise. It is not a theory which embraces all departments of social activity, but is confined to the economic department, deal- ing with others simply as connected with this and in- fluenced by it" (Ely, "Socialism and Social Reform," p. 8). "The totality of these industrial relations con- stitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis upon which the legal and political superstructure is built, and to which the definite forms of social consciousness correspond" (Labriola, "Materialistic Conception of History," p. 49). Two distinctive characteristics we find in the socialistic 94 THE CHRISTIAN STATE conception. In the socialist teaching the State is supreme, y and the person exists for the sake of society. In the realm of trade and industry this control is absolute, and the person has little or no initiative. Here individual initia- tive is reduced to the minimum and State action is raised to the maximum. In the socialistic programme the chief emphasis is thrown upon economic and industrial inter- ests, and these are the chief concern of the State. " The essence of the theory consists in this associated produc- tion with a collective capital with the view to its equitable distribution. In the words of Schaeffle, ' the Alpha and Omega is the transformation of private capitals into a united collective capital'" (Kirkup, " Encyc. Brit.," Vol. XXII, p. 206). The basis of society, socialists maintain, is economic, and involves a fundamental change in the process of production and distribution. However, while the leading exponents of socialism ad- mit this, they yet maintain that all the other interests of life will be conserved. " All the other theories so often connected with it and so important in relation to religion, philosophy, marriage, patriotism, etc., are with regard to socialism non-essential. At the same time it will be seen that an economic change, such as that contemplated in socialism, would most powerfully affect every other department of human life" (Kirkup, ibid., p. 220). Socialism, in its more logical forms, insists that the State is a necessary good. It is necessary and is destined to play a much larger part in the drama of social develop- ment and human progress. It is good and is destined more and more to fulfil its beneficent functions. In this respect this type of society is in harmony with the last type, the fraternal, though it differs widely from that type in certain essential respects. This term socialism is a comparatively modern one, but the idea connoted by the term is undoubtedly ancient. THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 95 In a brilliant lecture Bernard Bosanquet has shown that socialistic features " in the way of a very positive relation, not a merely protective relation, between the life of the private citizen and the action of the public authority, were for good or for evil essential to ancient commu- nities." In all of the Greek cities, many socialistic elements iWere to be found, and the claim is made that these were largely responsible for the wonderful progress that was achieved (" Essays and Addresses," chap. iii). This type of society has many illustrations among the nations, though of course it has not always borne its modern name. The empire of Russia and the republic of France, much as they differ in detail, belong to this type of society. In the United States also many socialistic features are to be found, as in the protective tariff and the postal system. In all of these instances we have a maximum of State control and a minimum of individual initiative, and this is characteristic of the type. The State is practically every- thing, and the individual has value just so far as he serves the State. Now, it may be said that the most thoughtful stu- dents of social affairs are ready to confess that the so- cialistic indictment of modern economic life in its main counts is essentially just. They also concede that certain elements of the socialistic programme must find illustra- tion in future social changes. Whatever may be its de- fects or its advantages, it is inspired by a great and wide human sympathy that makes it most acceptable to the modern man. And however materialistic may be its aims and programmes, it does insist that every man shall have a true inheritance in society and the gains that have come to humanity. This ideal has played a large part in the drama of the world's history thus far, and it promises to play a leading role in the near future. As a protest against the errors and excesses of the individualistic 96 THE CHRISTIAN STATE type of society it is worthy of all honor. As an effort to solve some of the problems of production and distribu- tion it is engaging the attention of an ever-increasing number of students. It is probable that whatever may be the form of society in the near future, it will more and more approximate the socialistic type. Schaeffle comes to the conclusion that " The future belongs to purified socialism " ; and in this conclusion we may heartily . concur. But the socialistic ideal fails in several important respects. For one thing, it does not sufficiently honor the personalities of men, and it makes light of individual initiative. In whatever form it has appeared there is something arbitrary and mechanical about it. The social- istic State is only possible where opposites are denied and extremes are suppressed, and where a certain mechanical and artificial uniformity is maintained. Socialism is a doctrines of averages; and men are human beings, not merely units in an average or atoms in a compound. So- cialism means a social levelling and that a levelling down ; and the opportunity for untrammeled individual develop- ment is the best product of any civilization (Andrews, "Wealth and Moral law," p. 94). The type of society that we seek, the only type that humanity can finally accept, must recognize the distinctions and extremes, and must then unite them in some vital and harmonious whole. In another respect the socialistic type fails, in that it does not give us a high and human and spiritual concep- tion of man and of society. In this conception man is regarded chiefly as an economic being, whose industrial wants are the basic facts of his life. Marx and Rod- bertus, Loria and Labriola, all throw the chief emphasis upon the economic aspects of life. The whole conception of life and society, of welfare and progress, is material- istic ; and all other interests and relations of man and THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 97 society are construed in terms of material well-being. This conception, as Mazzini pointed out with such acute- ness and force, " mutilates man by taking from him both head and heart, and reduces him to a purely physical and fleshly being" ("Thoughts on Democracy in Europe," V). It is evident that the State in this conception is not the whole people organized in a co-operative capacity in the interests of the whole man. It is evident rather that it is the machinery of the State employed in behalf of certain economic and material interests to the complete exclusion of all the higher interests of society. IV. The Fraternal Type. Before we enter upon a consideration of this type of society it may be permis- sible to say a word about another that has played a large part in the drama of social development and is now sometimes confused with the fraternal type. The paternal State, as it may be called, has had many repre- sentatives among the nations, and strenuous efforts are made even now to establish it in some lands. In this type of society the State is a kind of parent or guardian, whose business it is to govern men, to think for them, and to prescribe their mode of living. It is maintained that the great majority of the people are un- able to govern themselves, and so this must be done for them. It is maintained also that the majority are incom- petent to solve the problems of thought, and so the State, through its auxiliary, the church, must do their thinking for them. This type of society was the prevalent one in all the great empires of the past — Egypt and Persia, China and Peru. It was the prevailing type in Europe for many centuries, in France and Russia, in Italy and Spain. The Jesuits attempted to found it among the Indians of Paraguay, but with results that were sadly disappointing. It is this type that seems to be the domi- nant one in the mind of the Emperor of Germany at the G 9 8 THE CHRISTIAN STATE present time. This type seems to be the ideal in the minds of such acute thinkers as Carlyle and Ruskin, who be- lieve in the wisdom of the few but have scant patience with the mistakes of the many. The idea of an infallible church is implied in this conception, a church that shall be all-dominant, that shall have power to enforce its decrees and compel men to keep in the straight and nar- row way. We are told there are tendencies at work in society that are creating this type, and in the coming age there will be established a benevolent feudalism in the foremost nations of the world. We here notice briefly the fraternal type of the State, while later we shall discuss its essential elements more in detail. In this type we find that mankind is conceived of as a great unity and fellowship. Persons therein are brothers who regard each others' interests and co- operate for the common welfare. This bond of brother- hood wrought into the very nature of man and not dependent upon any social contract or human volition, is the ground and guarantee of liberty and equality. In this type the State is a social solidarity with a corporate existence ; it is a moral person with a corporate will that is formulated in constitutions and laws; it is a social brotherhood in which each person has a place, and for whose welfare the State is concerned. In this type the government rests upon the consent of the governed; it represents the opinions and the interests of all the citizens, and it is the medium of the mutual sacrifices and services of all the people. The whole being of man is taken into account; in a word, we have a confession of brotherhood in all the relations of human life. The individualistic type of State recognizes the ele- ments and extremes of humanity, but it has no middle term to combine and harmonize them. The socialistic type denies and excludes the extremes, and in denying THE IDEAL OF THE STATE 99 them it denies the distinctions of human kind, and copies only the unity of the middle. The fraternal type recognizes the distinctions and extremes of mankind, and it provides a unifying principle which combines them all into a vital and harmonious whole. This type em- bodies all that is good and vital in the paternal type in that it teaches those that are strong to bear the in- firmities of the weak, and those who possess much to hold their resources in trust for the common good. In a word, the fraternal type of society — which is the Christian type — is the one type that satisfies the demands of reason and conscience and provides a stable and ade- quate basis for social and political States. Attempts have been made from time to time to realize this ideal, but thus far all such attempts have been on a small scale, and have been short lived. In the early Jerusalem church there was a partial and transient reali- zation of this ideal : " And all that believed were together and had all things in common ; and they sold their pos- sessions and goods and parted them to all according as any man had need (Acts 2 : 44). The Franciscans and Quakers each in turn sought to realize the fraternal type of society. The Covenanters of Scotland cherished the vision of a consecrated land of saints ruled by a cove- nanted king loyal to Christ, and pledged to seek the inter- ests of all the people. The Puritans, in their day, hoped the time might speedily come when England might become a land of saints, " a pattern of holiness to the world, and the unmatchable paradise of the earth." Though all of these particular efforts failed in their immediate object, yet the ideal itself has lived, and through all the years it has gained strength and significance. And it still lives to inspire the prophetic soul of the world and to be the architectonic principle of the Christian State that is to be. V THE FORMS OF THE STATE IN our study thus far we have found that while the State is natural and necessary to man, the State itself becomes explicit in and through a process of develop- ment, and that the form which the State assumes depends upon many conditioning factors. The process carried forward in the world, so far as we can read it, is the building up of a society that shall realize the thought of God. The life of God is seeking to get itself reborn into the life of humanity, and men are called to organize life according to this divine purpose. Thus the State, which is implicit in the will of God, takes shape slowly, being hastened or retarded by the will of man and the forces of society. It is possible to view this process of universal history from within or from without, from above or below. Thus we may say human history is the progressive disclosure of the purpose of God in human affairs ; or we may say that human progress is the conscious realization of that purpose on the part of man. Thus we find, however, that these two factors meet and blend in the creation of the social and political State. From the beginning of political thought various efforts have been made to frame a classification of States. Those who are interested in this may consult such writers as Aristotle and Bluntschli, Rousseau and Willoughby, Guizot and Lieber. However, many of these classifica- tions are more or less arbitrary and artificial; they are external and formal, and do not sufficiently consider the 100 THE FORMS OF THE STATE IOI spirit which lies back of the form. Thus, some would classify States according to the degree of governmental action — that is, into despotic and free governments, with their variations. Others again would classify them ac- cording to the various powers exercised ; that is, legal, paternal, and socialistic. Still others would view them historically ; that is, as ancient, classical, medieval, and modern. And still others would divide them according to the possession or non-possession of some selected feature ; that is, whether they possess a written or an un- written constitution, whether the sovereign is hereditary or elective, and whether the executive power is in the hands of one or many. There is, however, as it seems to me, a method of classification that embodies all that is good in all of these systems, and yet deals with the ele- ments that are most distinctive. The classification which we shall adopt is one that is based upon the diffusion of political consciousness with the active participation of the people in the affairs of government. Under four forms it is possible to classify practically every State that has yet appeared in the world. These four classes of States, the theocratic, the monarchical, the aristocratic, and the democratic, are the great historical forms, and they are all deserving of careful study. This classification in its main details is a very ancient one, and takes us back to the very beginnings of political thought. Thus in Herodotus, the father of history, we find three of these forms described with tolerable ac- curacy, and their merits appraised with remarkable judg- ment ("Herodotus," Bk. Ill, Sec. 82, 83). A century later Aristotle practically adopts the same classification, only with a difference. In his treatise we have four forms of government — monarchy, aristocracy, polity, or free State, and democracy, as the corrupt form of polity. Another form is suggested at a later time by 102 THE CHRISTIAN STATE Josephus, that is theocracy, which is used to describe the Jewish State (" Contra Apion," Bk. II, Sec. 17). These classifications have stood the test, and form the categories of our thought to-day. I. Theocracy. It is fitting that Josephus, who probably coined the word, should be allowed to define its meaning. By theocracy he means a government whose authority and power are with God, whose will is the sole law of the nation. This law covers the whole range of life, and leaves nothing of the very smallest consequence to the pleasure of the person himself. It is made known to men through legislators and priests who serve as representa- tives of Jehovah, and consequently never think of speak- ing on their own authority. It has often been pointed out that theocracy, as a form of the State, belongs to the early stages of the human race. In every land where it is possible to trace the primitive State we find that this form of government has pre- vailed. In most cases the gods were regarded as the parents of the people, and hence their authority was supreme. In the most real sense they were honored as the creator of the tribe, or people, and the people hence placed themselves under their protection and govern- ment. Among all ancient peoples this same fact is seen, though of course, with wide variations and modifications (De Coulanges, " The Ancient City," passim). Perhaps the most notable illustration of this form of the State is to be found in the history of the people of Israel. In this history we have the conception of Jehovah as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and as the God and King of the people themselves. He it is who called Abram from Ur of the Chaldees, and gave him the promise of an inheritance in the new land. He it is who led the fathers out of the bondage of Egypt and established them in the land of Canaan. He it is who THE FORMS OF THE STATE 103 raised up Moses to be a deliverer and lawgiver, speaking through him and giving the people the Two Tables of the Law. He it is also who, when the people were troubled and enslaved by neighboring peoples, raised up a deliverer and wrought great wonders, thus proving himself to be their King. " The whole soil of the Promised Land is the property of Jehovah, and the various families only held it as tenants. In recognition of the divine ownership a tenth of the produce of the land and flocks had to be given to the tabernacle for the maintenance of the priests " Bluntschli, Bk. VI, chap. vi). In common with all Sem- ites there were three things which the Israelites asked of their God, and believed themselves to receive — help against their enemies; counsel by oracles or soothsayers in matters of national difficulty ; and a sentence of judg- ment when a case was too hard for human decision (W. Robertson Smith, " The Religion of the Semites," p. 64). It is easy to see how, under such circumstances, a priesthood should arise which should stand between God and the people. Because of their relation to God on the one hand and the people on the other, they were sacro- sanct beings, and their words carried irresistible weight. Thus it came about that the priesthood in nearly every ancient nation was practically supreme, making and un- making rulers and laws, and dominating thought and life in the minutest details. It is easy, also, to see how, under such circumstances, a kingship should flourish, basing its claims to human loyalty and submission upon its alleged relations to the God of the nation. An appeal to history will show that theocratic governments have usually been the most autocratic and despotic tyrannies ; they have been the upholders of caste and slavery, and they have cast a malign spell over thought and life. For this reason theocracy, as a form of government, has not 104 THE CHRISTIAN STATE been highly regarded by students of political science, and one must confess that this suspicion is not without cause. There is one aspect of this form of government that we may notice as germane to our purpose. In a theo- cratic State the government is wholly external and formal. It is something that comes down upon men rather than something that rises through men; hence there is little or no political self-consciousness on the part of the people ; no man feels any responsibility for the affairs of State. The ruler is regarded as a supernatural being who is raised above men by nature, and they have but one duty in life — to know and do his will. II. Monarchy. This is probably the most widely recognized form of the State. But it is not easy to frame a satisfactory definition for the reason that a pure form is seldom found. Historically it has shaded off into theocracy on the one hand and into aristocracy on the other. A monarchy is the term usually employed to de- scribe a government in which the sovereign power is in the hands of one man, but as a matter of fact there are States termed monarchical in which the nominal head — as in England — possesses only a semblance of supreme power. Thus also the term is used to describe an auto- cratic and irresponsible despotism, as in the old empires of Peru and China; and it is likewise applied to the constitutional and limited monarchy of Germany and Japan. Those who are interested in the study of these varying forms of monarchy may find an informing dis- cussion in " The Theory of the State," by Bluntschli. and " Introduction to Political Science," by Seeley. In a broad sense monarchy describes a form of govern- ment in which sovereignty resides in one person. This person may not always be sovereign in the sense that all political power is in his hands, but he represents sover- THE FORMS OF THE STATE 105 eignty in a special sense, and the decrees of government are always issued in his name. This is so in such a constitutional and democratic government as Great Britain, where it is called " The Majesty's government " ; and it is true of such an autocratic monarchy as Russia, where the czar claims the final sovereignty. In an auto- cratic government the one person is supreme, and the authority of a subordinate is delegated and conferred authority. In many of the great empires of the past this form of government prevailed, and we find autocracy raised to the nth power. In the modern world, however, there are few States of this class, since a new spirit is abroad working mighty changes. Thus Russia is some- times denominated an autocratic State with one man as the supreme and sole authority. But even in Russia there is no such thing as pure monarchy, for the czar is dependent upon the officers of State, and practically at least Russia is a beaurocracy. Still less is Russia an absolute monarchy since the establishment of the third Duma, which has successfully exercised parliamentary rights. In addition, no czar, however strong or despotic, would dare to disregard too far the interests or traverse too rudely the wills of the silent millions. Russia may be described as an autocratic monarchy limited by the pa- tience and loyalty of her people. In other States the monarchical form of government is found in varying degrees. There is what is called limited and constitutional monarchy, where the dignity and power of the monarch are limited and regulated by constitutions either written or unwritten. In Great Britain we have a constitutional monarchy without any written constitu- tion beyond certain charters and declarations ; but none the less there are certain recognized conventions that are binding upon all, sovereign and people alike. We have here also a Parliament composed of two houses, one 106 THE CHRISTIAN STATE hereditary or appointive — the House of Lords and Bish- ops ; and the other the House of Commons, chosen by the direct vote of the people. In the case of disagree- ment between these two houses the House of Commons may appeal to the people, and if by their votes they sus- tain it the House of Lords and even the king himself would yield. The king names the prime minister, who selects his own cabinet, and so long as Parliament ac- cepts the policy of the cabinet, all goes well ; but in case Parliament refuses to accept this policy and " to uphold the government," that moment the prime minister resigns and another is named by the king, whose policy is more in accord with the will of the people. Parliament is really supreme and can make and unmake cabinets ; it can ac- cept or reject the royal counsels; in fact, it can dethrone kings and determine succession. As a matter of fact, while the throne of England is a hereditary monarchy, the sovereign has not so much real authority as the President of the United States. III. Aristocracy. This is a government of the few and by the best. " The ideal principle of aristocracy is the rule of the nobler elements of the nation over the sub- ordinate masses. The way in which these nobler ele- ments are estimated and exalted varies in different States " (Bluntschli, "The Theory of the State, Bk. VI, chap, xvii). In some instances these so-called nobler ele- ments have based their prerogatives upon the possession of effective power, the masses of the people being held in subjection. In some cases these prerogatives are based upon the ownership of the land, and here a few hold the lives and fortunes of the great mass and use them at their own pleasure. In some cases these prerogatives are based upon nobility of blood and birth. Aristocracy, as the name implies, is a government by the best, but aristocracy, as it has appeared in history, THE FORMS OF THE STATE I07 has not always merited this high title. Aristotle, in his day, described the perversion of aristocracy, which he calls the rule of the few, the rich, the strong, the self- assertive, and not the rule of the wisest, the noblest, the best. All forms of government are liable to abuse and perversion, but this form is especially prone to degener- ation. An aristocracy, however constituted, easily and quickly becomes jealous of its dignities and prerogatives. Aristocracies have usually glorified the past, and thus have always resisted change. They seek to preserve the eternal order and resent the aspirations of the people as an infringement of their special privileges. In every State in which an aristocratic element is found — and it is found in every State in some form or other — this element is always the defender of things as they are, and always the opposer of things as the people think they ought to be. Thus, from one cause and another, it has come about that men have become very suspicious of either aristocracy or oligarchy, and as a result no pure example of this form of the State has survived later than the middle of the nineteenth century. As a matter of fact, however, the aristocratic element holds a large place in all modern progressive States. As human society becomes more complex the problems of government become more difficult ; and the various de- partments must be manned by experts. Not every man can fill the office of attorney general, or secretary of State ; picked men are required for these offices, and for many others. As a matter of fact, even in the most democratic government, large powers must be delegated to special men, the true aristoi in the nation. No govern- ment, in its executive and judicial departments at least, can be run by a debating society ; in all of these positions, and in many others, the best results will come from trained and qualified men. This has been recognized by io8 THE CHRISTIAN STATE all the keenest minds of the ages; and it is emphasized in later times by such men as Carlyle and Mazzini and Ruskin and Emerson. These men, it may be said, had no use for kings and sham aristocrats, but they were clear-sighted enough to see that the many were unpre- pared for the higher offices of State. There are many in the world to-day who assert that the governments of the world are becoming increas- ingly oligarchic; that is, they are falling under the in- fluence and sway of the rich and strong. That this is not wholly without basis we shall see in a later chapter ; but that the world will long tolerate any such government all history disproves. The whole tendency of the day is from class government and not toward it. IV. Democracy. This form of the State has been known for twenty-five centuries at least, and at first sight seems very easy to define. The attempt, however, proves it by no means so simple a matter. The term democracy is an old one, being known to Herodotus, and everything indicates that it was a common term. There were so-called democracies in ancient Greece, but these older conceptions differed widely from our modern ideas. Not only so, but in some of the most democratic countries in the world, as in Switzerland and the United States, there are such restrictions and limitations that in some aspects these governments may be described as aristocra- cies in both form and spirit. In Switzerland the privi- leges of citizenship are limited to certain classes of men, and in the United States women are not regarded as full citizens. In Switzerland there is a limitation of the franchise, and in the United States the government is strictly representative. Thus, even in the most modern and democratic States we find certain aristocratic ele- ments. And thus all forms of government shade off into others by imperceptible degrees. The government of THE FORMS OF THE STATE 109 every State in the civilized world possesses some elements of other forms. There is another thing that should be noted in the use of this term democracy. Aristotle, who gives us the first full and formal classification of States, does not give democracy a very honorable place. He regards it as the perverted and degenerate form of polity, which he defines as a government where the citizens at large direct their policy to the public good (" Politics," Bk. Ill, chap, vii). With him monarchy, aristocracy, and polity are the three true forms of the State, while despotism, oligarchy, and democracy are the perversions of these. The polity of Aristotle was a constitutional State under the control of the free citizens, who met in ecclesia to discuss and frame measures for the public good. But in these States, as he saw them, it happened often that some popular orator and unprincipled demagogue in an adroit and sophistic address appealed to and carried the crowd with him against the better judgment of the more thought- ful citizens. Then the democracy, the common people, overstepped the bounds of polity or public good, and sup- ported only such measures as appealed to individual interests and the passing whim. In consequence of this inevitable tendency in democracy, Xenophon declares that in his native city the lot of the wicked and foolish was better than that of the wise and good. In later times the term democracy stands for every form of popular government. In the foremost demo- cratic States, written constitutions have been adopted, in many respects conforming to the polity of Aristotle. From one cause and another the term has been cleared of some of its unsavory associations, and has become the accepted title of that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the mass of the people. Perhaps the most familiar and characteristic definition is no THE CHRISTIAN STATE that of President Lincoln, in his Gettysburg address, " government of the people, by the people, and for the people." There is one aspect of this general question that is germane to our purpose here, and this may be noted. The man who believes in the rationality of the universe believes that there is some great purpose that is being wrought out in the processes of history. This purpose is nothing less than the coming of God's kingdom in the earth and the building up among men of the City of God. Through the ages man has painfully and slowly apprehended the purpose that is being wrought out in the world, and hence he has imperfectly and haltingly learned the art of self-direction and conscious co-opera- tion. But with it all, through all the generations, man has slowly and surely come to self-consciousness and has progressively learned the art of self-government. As this self-consciousness grows it manifests itself in vari- ous ways, and by the nature of the case it creates around itself various forms for its expression and use. In a large sense it may be said that the historic forms in which the State has appeared among men are the revelations and realizations of this political self-consciousness of the people. In view of this, the various forms of the State con- sidered have a vital significance and a world meaning. In a theocracy there is little or no political self-conscious- ness on the part of the rank and file of the people, and consequently no man is held responsible for the affairs of State. In a monarchy, where one man is supreme, the average man has no conception of personal freedom, as he has little political self-consciousness. In an aristocracy a few men are free, but the great mass of the people think of themselves as subjects, and not as sovereigns, and so have little sense of political obligation. In a THE FORMS OF THE STATE III democracy or free State, the people think of themselves as sovereign, are becoming more or less conscious of political ties, and begin to feel the obligation to co- operate consciously for the common weal. The form of government is the expression of the political self-con- sciousness of the people, and the growth of this political ^consciousness is revealed and measured in the institutions of society and the enactments of government. It can readily be seen that the democratic or free State belongs to the advanced stages of human freedom and develop- ment, that it is only possible where men are conscious of the political ties that bind them together, and are learning to co-operate and sacrifice for the common weal. It is just here that we perceive the difference between democracy and the other forms of the State. Why have men, in Western lands at least, learned to call the govern- ment of one man a tyranny and the government of all men a blessing ? This is why : In the one case the gov- ernment is something arbitrary and external, something imposed upon the people from without ; in the other case it is personal and voluntary, the freely chosen limitation of the people themselves, by themselves, for the sake of the common good. And this gives us the very essence of the democratic conception, and with this we are here content. There are two things which every student of political affairs needs to keep in mind, whatever may be the form of the State in which men live. The first is this : that in every State, whatever may be its form of government, there are certain tasks and problems that are practically the same. " Understand then, once for all, that no form of government, provided it be a government at all is, as such, to be either condemned or praised, or contested for in anywise, but by fools. But all forms of government are good just so far as they attain this one vital neces- 112 THE CHRISTIAN' STATE sity of policy — that the wise and kind, few or many, shall govern the unwise and unkind ; and they are evil so far as they miss of this, or reverse it " (Ruskin, " Munera Pulveris," Sec. 125). The other fact is this : that the form of the government is the expression of the political life and consciousness of the people, and is probably that form for which the people at that stage are best adapted. At any rate it is manifest that the higher and later forms are ill adapted to men in a lower stage of civilization, with a faint social consciousness, and with little experience in self-govern- ment and political co-operation. As in nature, so in so- ciety; as the life of the tree rises from the ground and pushes out toward the branches, the tree itself changes and grows to adapt itself to the new conditions and to conserve the new life ; so in society, as the social con- sciousness unfolds and men learn the divine art of living together, new forms of society are created and new po- litical institutions are framed as the expression and realization of the new life within. Book II. Democracy H The idea of legally establishing inalienable, inherent, and sacred rights of the individual is not of political but religious origin. What has been held to be a work of the Revolution was, in reality, a work of the Reformation and its struggles. Its first apostle was not Lafayette, but Roger Williams who, driven by a powerful and deep religious enthusiasm, went into the wilderness in order to found a government of religious liberty, and his name is uttered by Americans even to-day with deepest respect. — Jellinek, Rights of Man and of Citizens, p. 77. The idea of democracy is not, if we look below the surface, so much a form of government as a confession of human brother- hood. It is the equal recognition of mutual obligations. It is the confession of common duties, common aims, common respon- sibilities. True democracy — and in this lies its abiding strength — substitutes duties for rights. This substitution changes the center of gravity of our whole social system, and brings the promise of stable peace. — Brooke Foss Westcott, The Incarnation and Common Life, P- 349- When wilt thou save the people? O God of mercy, when? The people, Lord ! The people ! Not thrones and crowns, but men. God save the people; thine they are; Thy children, as thy angels fair, Save them from bondage and despair. God save the people ! — From Ebenezer Elliott. It is therefore in the highest degree illogical to argue that the State can never extend its powers. It is the organ of social consciousness, and must ever seek to obey the will of society. Whatever society demands it must and always will endeavor to supply. If it fails at first it will continue to try until success at last crowns its efforts. If it is ignorant it will educate itself, if in no other way by the method of trial and effort. — Lester F. Ward, Psychic Factors of Civilization, pp. 302, 303. This Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. — Introduction to Wycliffe's Bible, 1384. VI THE BEGINNINGS OF DEMOCRACY HE story of democracy is one of the most fascinating x that has ever been told. In a large sense it repre- sents the long struggle of the human spirit to emancipate itself and to become its own master. In a true sense also it defines the purpose that is being wrought out in human society and the process by which it is being realized. The term democracy is an old one, as old at least as the time of Herodotus. And the familiar use of the term by the historian proves that it had behind it a consider- able antiquity. It is sometimes said, however, that de-'j mocracy is a Christian product, and that democracy as a fact is the child of the Reformation. And it is quite possible, indeed, that this contention can be sustained. There is here no contradiction, for the more carefully we study the rise and development of the democratic movement, the more clearly we see that there has been a preparation for the event itself, and this preparation created the atmosphere in which the new movement grew. There are several lines of investigation that may be followed by any one who would discover the beginnings of democracy. Thus, he may go through history and note where democratic institutions have appeared and seek to correlate these and show their relation to our modern institutions. Again, he may go through the nations and observe the transfer and transit of power and sovereignty from the one to the few, and from the few to the many, noting also the causes and results of these outward po- "5 n6 THE CHRISTIAN STATE litical changes. In this way he may gain a r very clear idea of the democratic movement, and may note the many racial contributions toward the one great end. And once more, he may study the process whereby the limitations and restrictions that are upon men, whether political, religious, or social, are removed and they become full free citizens in the State. And last of all, he may follow the progress of mankind, going behind the actual forms and institutions of the hour and watching the self- consciousness of man as it grows and unfolds, and be- comes at last the modern social and political consciousness of the foremost peoples. It is possible that the one who would discover the true causes and beginnings of democ- racy must follow all of these lines, and must then combine their results. The most important factor for our purpose is the last, and we are here concerned primarily with that growing self-consciousness which has produced such great changes in society and has made democracy in- evitable. I. The Foregleams of Democracy. Herodotus records a discussion of three Persians concerning the relative merits of the various kinds of government. While this discussion may be the historian's own invention, it yet indicates that the idea was a somewhat familiar one. A century later Aristotle devotes a large part of his work on " Politics " to a consideration of this form of govern- ment, and many things indicate that there were many democratic States in his age. The great days of Grecian life, the times when hope was young and genius flourished, were the days in which democracy was more or less regnant. It is possible to go to the history of several of these Greek States and find a very close relation be- tween the democratic spirit and the productions of human genius. In his " History of European Morals," Lecky considers what he calls one of the anomalies of historv THE BEGINNINGS OF DEMOCRACY 117 " that within the narrow limits and scanty population of the Greek States should have arisen men who, in almost every conceivable form of genius in philosophy, in epic, dramatic, and lyric poetry, in written and spoken elo- quence, in statesmanship, in sculpture, in painting, and probably also in music, should have attained almost or altogether the highest limits of human perfection (" His- tory of European Morals," Vol. I, p. 418). And from his studies in hereditary genius Galton concluded that " the ablest race of which history bears record is unquestionably the ancient Greeks, partly because their masterpieces in the principal departments of intellectual activity are still unsurpassed, and partly because the population which gave birth to the creators of these masterpieces was very small" ("Hereditary Genius," p. 329). And be it re--, membered that these Greek States at the hour of their greatest greatness were democratic, in the ancient sense I of the term at least. But while the term democracy is an old one, we find that democracy in the modern sense of the term was wholly unknown in the ancient world. Thus Thirlwall says : " The term democracy is used by Aristotle some- times in a larger sense, so as to include several forms of government, which, notwithstanding their common char- acter, were distinguished from each other by peculiar features ; at other times in a narrower, to denote a form essentially vicious, which stands in the same relation to the happy temperament to which he gave the name polity, as oligarchy to aristocracy, or tyranny to royalty " ("Historian's History of the World," Vol. Ill, p. 179). A study of ancient records will show that no philosopher or statesman in ancient Greece ever conceived of the sovereignty of the people universal and imprescriptible, but one and all based citizenship in the State upon the possession of certain privileges and prerogatives. This Il8 THE CHRISTIAN STATE must be said, however, that these Grecian experiments, voicing as they did a splendid aspiration after life and liberty, remained to fructify the thought of man and to produce great results in far-off ages. The contribution of Rome to the democratic movement is comparatively small, and at best is indirect. It is true that the early life of Rome was more or less democratic, and there were times when this form of government seemed about to be established. This is certain, that in the history of Rome we have repeated illustrations of the transit of power from the one to the few and from the few to the many. Thus, in the early days of the republic, we find that the commons are made an order in the State and have judges of their own (" Historian's History of the World," Vol. V, p. 113). For many gen- erations the plebs complained of the patricians, and at last they revolted against them and gained formal recog- nition in the State. In the fifth century B. C. the pa- tricians and the Senate yielded, and a new compact was devised which gave the plebeians official representatives and made them an independent body (" Historian's His- tory," ibid., p. 126). Once more, there was a great move- ment in behalf of popular government in the time of the Gracchi, a movement, be it said, that did much to pro- mote democracy, and that gave birth to some noble ap- peals from the people. In the time of Sulla the last ves- tige of democracy disappeared, never more to show itself in Rome till the mighty empire had crumbled into ruins. Thus the history of the Roman republic is the progres- sive decline of the people from a monarchy through a modified democracy, ending at last in an absolute des- potism. One of the most significant contributions to this move- ment is made by the Germanic peoples, especially those occupying the portions of the Continent known as Fries- THE BEGINNINGS OF DEMOCRACY 119 land and the Rhine land. Julius Caesar gives a few vivid descriptions of these peoples, but the graphic pages of Tacitus bring them before us with remarkable distinct- ness. To rebuke the vices of his own age and people it is possible that the historian has added some high colors to the picture, but none the less the picture is a significant one. Motley's summary is followed in its main details. The German system, he says, while nominally regal, was| in reality democratic ; for with the Germans the sover-( eignty resided in the great assembly of the people. There were slaves, indeed, but in small numbers, consisting either of prisoners of war, or of those unfortunates who had gambled away their liberty in games of chance. Their chieftains, although called by the Romans kings, were in reality generals, chosen by universal suffrage. The same assembly elected the village magistrates and decided upon all important matters of war and peace. All State affairs were in the hands of this fierce democracy. Any authority that the chieftains possessed was a dele- gated authority, and it was an authority to persuade rather than to command (Motley, " The Rise of the Dutch Republic," Vol. I, Sec. 2, 5). Thus John Fiske is partially justified in the statement that American history does not begin with the Declaration of Independence or even with the settlement of Jamestown and Plymouth; but it descends in unbroken continuity from the days when stout Arminius, in the forests of northern Germany, successfully defied the might of imperial Rome (Fiske, " American Political Ideas," p. 7). It is true that many of these traits were lost to a degree at least, and in course of time monarchical rule obtained among the various Germanic peoples. But the transfer of these democratic ideas to England in the early times where there was soil for them to grow in and produce results in far-off times is here in point. 120 THE CHRISTIAN STATE It is in England, therefore, that we find those ideas at work which are prophetic of coming changes ; and it is in England that we find soil congenial for democratic ideas, at least in the early stages of their growth, for it was in England that we witness what has been fittingly called " The Coming up of the Serfs " (Hosmer, " Hist, of Anglo-Saxon Freedom"). It was in England that we find a transit of power from the one to the few, and from the few to the many. And every step of this double process can be clearly traced in the form of charters and constitutions which admitted the people to a share in government and guaranteed them certain privileges be- fore the law. The constitutional history of England is an important chapter in the progress of democratic gov- ernment. The history of the English Parliament epito- mizes the history of England from the primitive German Assembly to the modern House of Commons. From the earliest times we find that there was some form of representative government. And " never was the govern- ment concentrated in the hands of the king alone ; under the name of the Wittenagemot, of the Council or the Assembly of the Barons, and after the reign of Henry III of the Parliament, a more or less numerous and influential assembly composed in a particular manner, was always associated with the sovereign" (Guizot, "Rep. Gov.," Par. II, Lec. i). There were times when this assembly was somewhat subservient to despotism, but withal it had a voice in the government and represented the mass of the people. When men are able to think and when they are free to speak, some form of govern- ment is only a question of time. The Great Charter which the barons wrested from King John contained some provisions which had wide application, and which produced far-reaching results. " The rights which the barons claimed for themselves they claimed for the THE BEGINNINGS OF DEMOCRACY 121 nation at large." This charter, reaffirmed at various times and interpreted anew in each generation, illustrates the transit of power from the few to the many, and marks the consciousness that is growing in the minds of the people. There was one other factor that had some influence upon the movement, and in a real way prepared the minds of men for the new ideas. This factor was the various guilds and associations of all sorts that sprang up in Europe all through the Middle Ages. These guilds were of various kinds, religious and social, though many of them seem to have been craft guilds in the strict sense of the term. In early Roman times such guilds were known, and Plutarch enumerates nine functions that they per- formed (" Encyc. Brit.," " Guilds "). Throughout Europe during all the Middle Ages these guilds flourished, and they did much to develop in men a consciousness of kind and to efface certain artificial distinctions. The great body of the citizens, in many places, were enrolled in these guilds, and as their position and wealth improved they sought to wrest the control of the town's resources from the patricians ; thus the common people gained a new sense of humanity, and thus they made their voice heard in the affairs of government (Bax, " German Society of the Middle Ages," pp. n, 210). Through membership in these guilds men ceased to be mere specimens of the hu- man race, and became instead authorized constituents of human society. Thus Lotze is justified in the conclusion that " the guild marks an undoubted advance of the human race" (" Microcosmus," Vol. II, p. 230). It is possible that, when the full story of democracy is told, the contribution of these guilds will not be an insignificant one. Perhaps the most fateful factors in the whole move- ment were the associations that were formed among the peasants, and which led to some important results. 122 THE CHRISTIAN STATE Then came the Renaissance, in some respects one of the most splendid and prophetic movements of the Christian centuries. For two hundred years and more, now here, now there, we find many stirrings of the hu- man mind, many indications that man is about to awake to a new life. About the middle of the fifteenth century, following the fall of Constantinople, many men with a wonderful literature, wandered through western Europe to sell their wares and to become teachers of the nations. The words of the great masters of old, those words that burn and throb with a passion for liberty and light, found prepared minds everywhere and produced marvelous results. The Renaissance was in a sense a revival of learning, but it was much more than this. It gave men new thoughts; it stirred their minds and filled them with questionings ; it awoke in them new aspirations and turned their attention to wrongs that had too long been neglected. The latter half of the fifteenth century is one of the great creative epochs of the world's life, and there is hardly an age that can compare with it. This brings us to the beginning of the sixteenth century with the world prepared for some great new movements. While we nowhere find democracy in any sense of the word, we yet find that the world is prepared for its appearance, and channels are grooved in which the new streams may run. II. The Rise of Modern Democracy. At various times and by various men efforts have been made to trace the beginnings of our modern democratic ideas, liberty, equality, and fraternity. It has been claimed by some that these great ideas have been created by skepticism and unbelief, and consequently that we must find their origin in such men as Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau and Paine. Discussion of this position is not needed, were there space. Such specialists as Borgeaud and Jellinek, Oscar THE BEGINNINGS OF DEMOCRACY 123 Straus and Professor Ritchie, all agree in this, " that the idea of legally establishing inalienable, inherent, and sacred rights of the individual is not of political, but of religious origin (Jellinek, " Rights of Man and of the Citizen," p. 77). The " Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen," by the French Assembly in 1789, it is sometimes supposed, is but the formulated exposition of the ideas of Rousseau and his school.; But Jellinek has shown most conclusively that the principles of the " Contrat Social " are at enmity with every declaration of rights, and consequently that we must look elsewhere, even to America, for the real sources of these declarations. For the high-sounding phrases of the French Declaration are " for the most part copied from the American Declaration or Bills of Rights," of Virginia and other States (Jellinek, chap. iii). And in America the ideas that find expression in these Decla- rations and Bills can be traced back in an unbroken line to the great ideas of the Reformation. In the i ..trues t f °7 ligion rests upon this conception of God and his relation to man, and every religion contains some conception of God's being and defines some aspect of his purpose in the world. Hence it follows that religion is the highest and best conception that man can form of the world and its meaning, and contains his largest and most compre- hensive ideal for life and for society. And that particular form of religion known as Christianity is especially im- portant both in its personal and its social aspect, for the reason that it is the highest and purest form of religion in the world, and contains the highest and purest concep- tion of man and society. 2. In all right political thought there must be some metapolitical element. That is, there must be some con- ception over and above the present order that shall give man a sense of direction and shall furnish a standard against which to measure present policies. It will be granted that the State exists for the promotion of human welfare and good life. But what is human welfare? And when can we say that good life is attained? The Declaration of Independence affirms that men are en- dowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But why are such things good? The utilitarian view of the State affirms that we must seek the greatest good of the greatest number. Be it so ; but what then is the greatest good? It is said that those things are good for man which tend to promote fulness of life, as those things are evil which tend to detract from that ful- ness. Be it so ; but then we must ask, what is meant by this fulness of life? Before we can answer any of these questions it is evident that we must have some conception of man in his nature and his possibilities. And the same questions may be asked with reference to human society and to social programmes. What is the true goal of 3 o8 THE CHRISTIAN STATE society? What movements may be classed as progress, and what must be considered as loss? When human in- terests conflict, as they do in every society, which shall have the supremacy ? We cannot know whether a certain measure makes for the welfare of society till we know what man is and have brought all of his interests into con- sideration. The fact is, man has interests that can neither be measured by the foot rule of expediency, nor fully defined in any statistical tables. The relation of religion to the State is important, whatever may be the type of that religion, but it is doubly important when that religion is Christianity. For " its far-reaching importance lies not so much in its directly political assertions, as in that siiprapolitical or metapo- litical element which it introduced into the world, by which we mean that which precedes the political as its presupposition, that which lies outside and beyond it as its aim and object, and by which the political element is to be pervaded as by its soul, its intellectually vivifying principle. The metapolitical element consists in the duly proportioned view of man, of human nature, and of the ultimate object of human life ; and the true metapolitic is in our opinion that Christian view of the world and of life which throws an entirely new light upon the State, by placing it in relation with a kingdom which is not of this world, and thus forcing it to recognize its own position as a mere medium, as destined to subserve this more exalted kingdom " (Martensen, " Christian Ethics, Social," sec. 45). In the Christian conception of the kingdom of God on earth we have a great social ideal which includes the lives of men and the societies of earth, and in this ideal we see the relation between the progress of the State and that great purpose which is being worked out in the world. In the last analysis politics is faith in action, and progress is applied religion. THE STATE AND ITS RELIGION 309 3. In this true metapolitic we find those great principles which shall guide the State in its efforts to promote social welfare. The State that is true to itself is seeking to promote life and is seeking to create conditions which shall make for the development of society. No institu- tion, no power on earth so holds in its grasp the weal or woe of mankind as the State. The social order, the national sentiments, the governmental regulations, the social environment influence immeasurably for good or ill every soul within their reach. The State is the nursery of men, and unless noble men are being produced every great end of the State is thwarted. Politics is the science of social welfare, and has at heart the achievement of a social order in which the person shall be developed and the ideals of humanity shall be realized. In the last analysis the true wealth of States is to be measured, not in terms of material resources, but in the growth of moral ideals. And in the last analysis it will appear that all material resources, such as wealth, property, and food, have value in so far as they minister to the spiritual life of man. In themselves these things have no value, but for what they will accomplish in man and for society they acquire an infinite value. Even economics go out at last into theology. There is a gospel ring in the words of Ruskin : " The wealth of a man consists in the number of things he loves and blesses, and in the number of things he is loved and blessed by." The true use of material resources is found in their power of ministering to the mental and moral and spiritual life of man. In the final count government is essentially a moral and spiritual process ; and in the ultimate analysis it is directed not to material, but to spiritual ends. 4. Again, in this true Christian metapolitic, we find those great principles which shall guide men in the fram- ing of laws. We shall assume at this stage of our study 3io THE CHRISTIAN STATE that the State has some great end to serve, and that this end is the development of man and the promotion of human welfare. That the State may fulfil its end, laws must be enacted and executed, and in the last analysis these laws are but the definition and interpretation of the social ideal. What now is the source of authority in the State? This question lies at the foundation of all law. What is the standard of social right? There must be some standard of right, otherwise we are turned adrift on the wide sea of moral uncertainty. There must be some reason why the members of a State should submit to the law that is over them, if they are to be rational creatures, and the State is other than an absolute autoc- racy. There must be for man some supreme rule of right, some supreme standard of conduct, both for men and for States. Our preferences are no standard, and our interests create no right. No number of personal prefer- ences can ever add themselves up into an adequate and satisfactory public standard, as no amount of compromise and expediency can ever formulate itself into a final and authoritative will. There can be nothing in the mass that was not in the elements. By no transmutations and ma- nipulations of interests and preferences can we bring out the product of a human right and a political authority. Always and everywhere the men who have opposed tyranny have appealed to an authority and standard beyond the will of man and higher than his preference. If we deny this right of appeal by denying the existence of an Appellate Court, we have made way for usurpation and tyranny. If we admit this right of appeal, we thereby admit that there is a right and will higher than the will of one man or of any number of men. Not one man, not one million of men can make a right or constitute a final authority. The decision and decree of the million, if freely expressed and fairly registered, may establish a THE STATE AND ITS RELIGION 31 1 strong presumption in favor of right, and may be accepted as a working standard of right. And this means that there must be something over and above us all which we all accept and to which we all may appeal. Thus we are driven by the most inexorable logic to declare our allegiance to the Christian metapolitic. 5. Finally, in this Christian conception of the State, we find those principles that can adjust the competing inter- ests of men and bring them into social peace. The one who may endeavor to harmonize these clashing interests and decide some of the questions at issue will find himself handicapped by the fact that the parties to the con- troversy have each a different standard of ethics, and neither litigant will recognize the validity of the other's code. It is needless to say that these conflicts of men, these clashings of interests can never be adjusted by the power of one interest to assert itself against all com- petitors; neither can they be adjudicated by any patched-up truce or temporary compromise. It is evident that we never can have social peace till some way can be found of harmonizing all of these interests and of giving each its due. The one need of society is a great central tribunal of moral judgment to which all may appeal, and where each may receive due consideration. This means that there must be some conception of man, some ideal of society, some standard of right, some supreme synthesis that shall include all lower ideals and be the final authority. No one has more clearly stated the difficulties that arise because of these conflicting interests than Mazzini, and no man has more clearly shown the service which Christi- anity can render to society by providing men with this human ideal and social synthesis. " Suppose the interests of one individual temporarily opposed to those of an- other, how will you reconcile them, except by appealing 312 THE CHRISTIAN STATE to something superior to all rights? . . Suppose an indi- vidual revolting against the bonds of society; he feels himself strong ; his inclinations, his faculties, call him to a path other than the common; he has a right to develop them, and he wages war against the community. Con- sider well what argument can you oppose to him con- sistently with the doctrine of rights?" ("Democracy in Europe," II). Considerations of utility, he justly shows, are not sufficient, for appeals to enlightened self-interest only add to the confusion. Repudiating his opinions or suppressing them by force is foolish and tyrannical. It may be said that each man should desire not alone his own well-being, but the well-being of society ; each man should learn to subordinate his own wishes to the rational will of all. "Should? And why? Do you not see that you are appealing to another principle — to a religious principle ? Do you not see that you have invoked something superior to all the individualities that constitute your society; something superior to all laws that you can promulgate in the name of utility?" (ibid.). The one principle which is superior to all other principles is the religious principle. Thus " to attain our object we must go back to principles ; must reattach the nations which now go about groping their way in empty space to the laws of progress ; to humanity ; to God." And this is the very thing that Christianity aims to do; this is the very service that it renders society. In a word, it pro- vides us with an ideal and synthesis large and compre- hensive enough to include all the lesser ideals and interests of man ; it contains those great principles of social right and justice which can harmonize the conflict- ing interests of society and can adjust the relations of the one and the many. III. Religion and the Social Forces. It is evident that some power or influence is needed which shall unite men THE STATE AND ITS RELIGION 313 in social fellowship, which shall induce them to take thought for the common life and to subordinate their preferences to the common welfare. In view of the large place that the average man is called to occupy in the demo- cratic State, it is evident that the need of this power and influence is greatly accentuated. Democracy, we have agreed, is the confession of human brotherhood ; it is the recognition of common aims and the confession of mutual obligations; and democracy is hence simply impossible without faith and fraternity and self-sacrifice. 1. Various attempts have been made to define and classify these social forces and influences. A brief con- sideration of the difference between the social machinery involved and the social forces operative through that machinery may enable us to appreciate the problem be- fore us. In all times men have placed great reliance upon such purely external and material means as the sword and the machinery of government. This study is concerned with the State in its relation to man's life and to social progress. To set a low estimate upon government — the organized agency of the State — is to deny our very thesis and convict ourselves of solemn trifling. The State, we believe, is one of the most important agencies of man's life, and has a most marked influence upon social welfare. It is the only institution that represents the whole people, and is the only agency through which they can co-operate in their search after progress. But we need to keep in mind a distinction which is vital, a distinction which, if heeded now, will save us from much confusion in the end. The State is the people organized in a political capacity in behalf of the common good ; and this means the co-operation of all in behalf of the common welfare. The government is the machinery of the State; and government is thus a means and not a source of power. 314 THE CHRISTIAN STATE Government, as such, is wholly ineffective and impotent ; it invents nothing, and never has invented anything ; like all other machinery, it produces results that bear a direct relation to the power communicated. Organization is necessary that the best results may be achieved, and the machinery of the State is of untold value. But the real function of government is transmissive, and not origi- native. When used as a transmitter and distributor of power, it is capable of immeasurable results. The ma- chinery of government of itself and by itself is weak and impotent, and its real power depends upon those social forces which use it as an agency and work through it as a means. The real forces of society we see lie behind the machinery of government and work through it. Efforts have been made to analyze and define the nature of these forces that operate in society and work through the State. What are the motives that determine men's conduct? What are the forces that mold society? It has been assumed that knowledge of the right, intellectual ideas, enlightened self-interest, the greatest good of the greatest number, are the great desiderata; and given these, all other things will follow. The best sociological thought is thrown fairly against these assumptions. In his " Psychic Factors of Civilization," Professor Ward has shown that the intellect is not a social force at all, but simply a directing agency, and that the real forces are psychic, being such things as desires and emotions of various kinds and degrees (" Psychic Factors," pp. 222, 55). With these conclusions agree such investigators as Professor Ross, who declares that sociology is chiefly a psychical science. " Its causes are to be sought in mental processes, its forces are psychic forces, and no non-psychic factors should be recognized until it is shown just how they are able to affect motive and choice " ("Foundations of Sociology," p. 161); and Professor THE STATE AND ITS RELIGION 315 Small, who says that " the sociologists have done their part to show that the most significant factors of life are the work of mind, and not the grinding of machinery." " At the same time we must protest against the tendency to accept interpretations in terms of mental action, which is merely a process analogous with a mechanical process. The real explanation must be found in the spiritual initi- ative, which is superior to mechanical causation " (" Gen. Sociology," p. 639). In like manner all attempts to find the moving forces of society in such considerations as self-interest and utility signally fail at the crucial point. We may grant that man is a being susceptible to pleasure and pain ; we may admit that a constant effort on his part is to seek the one and to avoid the other ; we may say that true wis- dom is shown in the pursuit of useful and pleasurable things both for self and for others, and we may also affirm that nothing is really good for society that is bad for the individual. But when we watch the principle of utility as a power of social action we find that it fatally breaks down and refuses to work. As Mazzini has said in such eloquent words, " there are no arguments that can convince a man that his utility consists in sacrificing a part of his enjoyments for the common enjoyment. In the name of utility who will say to a people, ' In the name of thy own advantage, sacrifice thyself! In the name of thy well-being, die! "' (" Democracy in Europe," III). There was at the bottom of the cup of hemlock which Socrates drank, something more than a calculation of pleasure or disappointed expectation. We speak sometimes of the power of ideas, and place great reliance upon their dissemination among the people. There is a grave danger here, and error at this point leads to bitter disappointment in the end. Professor Ward has shown with keen insight that ideas alone are not suffi- 316 THE CHRISTIAN STATE cient, and that the soul is the great transforming agent, the power behind the throne of reason in the evolution of man (" Psychic Factors," p. 49). Long ago other teachers recognized this ; thus Confucius writes : " I have made vain efforts to put men who wish to walk in it, on the way to wisdom; not succeeding, I have no recourse but tears." And Marcus Aurelius cries, " Protest till you burst, men will go on all the same." Right ideas, cor- rect principles are important, yea, they are necessary, but when standing alone they are wholly impotent and ineffective. But let them be filled with conviction and emotion, let them be thrilling and throbbing with moral and spiritual fervor, and they are the mightiest forces beneath the sun and become the potency of world-wide results. The more closely we study the facts of life, and the less we are misled by symbols, the more clearly do we see that the real forces that move men and operate in society are psychic and spiritual forces. Man, in the last analysis, is a psychic and spiritual being, and not a me- chanical and physical being. External pressure and ma- terial conditions may have much to do with his life, but they influence him just so far as they affect his thought and persuade his will. The ideas of others, the com- mands of his masters, may have much to do with the color of his thought and the bent of his life, but in and of themselves they have no power over him. The com- mon assumption that there are some mystic and objective powers in the world that in some strange and occult way exert a kind of external and irresistible pressure upon men, controlling their wills and shaping their lives with- out their knowledge or consent, is one that cannot stand for a moment in the light of modern psychology. The fact is, the real powers that work in man and in society, the powers that are potent and effective, are not abstract THE STATE AND ITS RELIGION 317 and objective powers, but psychic and spiritual. They are such powers as work in men and through men ; that is, such powers as can inform the mind and quicken the conscience, that can enchain the affections and arouse the will ; they are such forces as reside in the brave heart, the steady purpose, and the unflinching hand ; in a word, they are psychic, moral, spiritual, religious forces. In the last analysis it thus appears that the real powers of life and society are those very powers that find their highest and fullest expression in what we call religion. 2. The moment we consider the essential nature of religion, that moment we see its great potency as a social force. By religion, as we have seen, we mean the sense of man's relation to the invisible and divine Ruler of the world. Religion may or may not be concerned primarily with the belief in another life ; thus we find that the religion of the ancient Hebrews was almost wholly destitute of this belief; at least it was not by any means a primary and commanding feature of their religion. But religion always rests upon a belief in God, and is inspired with a sense of obligation to do his will; and religion always represents man's highest conception of the world and his highest conviction of duty. In the purest form of religion, as we believe — that represented by the religion of Jesus of Nazareth — the central place is given to the great conception of God as Father and man as child. And implied and involved in it all, woven into the very warp and woof of the Christian system, we find the con- ception of a divine society on earth, fashioned according to the will of God and filled with the spirit of Christ. In its essence, as Fairbairn shows, it is a mighty plan, splendid in its efficiency for the construction from the base upward, of a humanity or a society, that shall in all its parts, through all its members, and in all their relations, express and articulate the righteous will of God (Fair- 3i8 THE CHRISTIAN STATE bairn, *' Religion in His. and Mod. Life," p. 141). Thus the various lines of investigation converge at the one point, and we see that religion is the most potent force that can work in man and in society. The forces that are needed in society are psychic and spiritual forces, and in religion we find the very forces that are required to make men social beings and to inspire them to labor for the common welfare. 3. The study of history shows that religion is the chief factor in human life and social progress. In saying this we are not blind to the evils and miseries that have been caused by religion, nor do we forget that it has been one of the chief instruments in man's oppression and en- slavement. We do not refuse to read those pages which tell how religion has been used to suppress men's aspi- rations and to make them satisfied with their masters. We do not forget either how religion has been associated with the most gross and cruel superstitions, and has filled the mind of man with named and nameless terrors. The fact is, there are no wrongs and cruelties that cannot be traced back either directly or indirectly to religion. But this story of the perversion of religion, black as that story is, bears testimony to the potency of religion in the life of man. The perversion of the greatest good is the worst evil, and the very abuses of religion testify to its immeasurable potency. In the highest form of religion, that represented by Christianity, we find few of these negative and objectionable features, while it is filled with those that are positive and inspiring. Of course, the social and political value of any religion will depend in the last analysis upon the character of the religion itself. In this respect Christianity has an im- measurable advantage over all the other religions of the world, for the reason that it is unique in several aspects. For one thing, it gives us the highest and worthiest con- THE STATE AND ITS RELIGION 319 ception of man ; for " There is no religion which regards with such respect the individuality of man, and seeks so sympathetically to guide, foster, and develop it, and eventually assigns to it a destiny so glorious " (Dennis, " Christian Missions and Social Progress," Vol. I, p. 419). Not only so, but Christianity gives in the clearest and most positive terms the conception of human brother- hood. Beneath the shadow of the name of Father there is no place for caste and class, with all the pernicious and divisive influences that flow from these things. In addi- tion to all this, it embodies the highest and purest con- ceptions of human life and duty, and sets before men great ethical principles which are both essentially rational and sufficiently authoritative. And as the consummation and culmination of all, it is a fountain of great and conquering motives, a reservoir of fertilizing and fructi- fying streams of impulse and aspiration. It is the foun- tain of those impulses and imperatives which lead men to unselfish service and to social self-sacrifice, and in this respect it is worthy of all honor. An appeal to history, with reference to the influence of religion, will yield some suggestive results. Among all the great nations of the past the religious factor is the most prominent in the people's life. That of the peoples of old, Greece, Rome, Egypt, Israel, cannot be understood either in its beginnings or in its development with religion ignored. Look where you will in the wide field of history, says Prof. J. R. Seeley, you find religion, whenever it works freely and mightily, either giving birth to and sustaining States, or else raising them up to a second life after their destruction. It is not too much to say that it has been the chief State-builder, and national character is the result of its influences ("Natural Re- ligion," pp. 188-201). 4. This is not all. Society at bottom rests upon self- 320 THE CHRISTIAN STATE sacrifice, and the degree of self-sacrifice is the degree of social stability. Progress in the last analysis is self- sacrifice, and the degree of self-sacrifice is the degree of progress. That society may endure and progress it is necessary that men begin to subordinate self to the common interest, and to learn to take thought for the common good. It is evident that the principles of self- interest cannot help men here and can never move them to this needful sacrifice. This is becoming very plain, and is the ruling note of many modern volumes. Thus Benja- min Kidd, in his " Social Evolution," a book of clear insight in spite of its gross misreading of the basis of religion, shows very conclusively that there is no power in the mere conflict of interests to yield the product of social progress. It is in religion alone that we can find any clear warrant for social progress, as it is in religion alone that we find the dominating motives to social service. Society is founded upon friendliness and co- operation and self-sacrifice, and when these are lost society is at an end. The other forces named may have some influence upon social life, but at best they are weak and uncertain when compared with this supreme and masterful force. It is in religion alone that we can find those motives and in- centives which can lift men out of themselves and can transform them into self-respecting and self-sacrificing members of society. Considerations of utility and en- lightened self-interest may have some influence upon men, but they cannot furnish those inspirations that re- new men and makes States. Mere knowledge does not convert the will from bad to good. Lombroso, in his " L'Uomo Delinquente," testifies that the number of male- factors is greatest, relatively, in the liberal professions (Lilly, "First Principles," p. 297). Considerations of self-interest cannot lift men out of themselves and con- THE STATE AND ITS RELIGION 321 strain them to spend and be spent for the common good. Society will perish when friendliness and love and self- sacrifice, the very elements of religion, die out of human associations. 5. And for another thing this religious spirit will create and guide the social conscience of the people, and will rouse them to strive for social and moral improve- ment. From the beginning religion has been present, and as the centuries have gone it has produced ever new forms of social life. The religion of Christ has been at work during the Christian era, and it has caused many significant changes. It has given men a new ideal of life, the highest and noblest ; it has taken form in the Christian church, an achievement of no small meaning, and it has created a conscience that has moved men to take thought for others and to bear their brothers' burdens. It has given birth to many missionary and philanthropic enter- prises, and has quickened men to proclaim good news to all. It has brought man to social and political self- consciousness, and has created in him a sense of hu- manity. That there may be progress, men must realize the evils that exist, and must be moved to unite their forces against these evils. " The history of mankind is the growth of one new conscience after another " (Henry D. Lloyd, " Man the Social Creator," p. 208). There is nothing like Christianity to make* and arouse conscience, to disclose and unmask evil, to challenge the accepted custom, and to brand with scorn habitual wrongs. It is a kind of index finger which, in all human history, has pointed the way toward a better and more perfect social order. It brings men under the sway of the loftiest incen- tives, and it places them under the influence of great con- victions. The Christian spirit has not wrought in vain during the centuries past. One evil after another has been seen and felt, and men have taken up arms against v 322 THE CHRISTIAN STATE it. Now it has convicted men of the sin of infanticide and laws have been framed against it; now it has given testimony against gladiatorial shows, and in time edicts have forbidden these ; now it has made men see the evil of slavery, and the old evil has disappeared. Now it has felt the iniquity of war, and nations have begun to take thought for the things of peace. One new blush after another has come to the cheeks of mankind, and they have begun to feel a sense of shame in presence of some abuse. The new conviction has found expression in new laws, and these have conserved the gains that have been made. All this enables us to appraise at something near its true value that form of religion which we have agreed to call Christian. For one thing, it gives us a conception of God the highest and the purest that man has ever known ; it gives us the conception of God who, in his very essence, is righteousness and love, a God who is at once Father and King. It gives us also a conception of God's purpose in the world that is the most splendid that has ever enriched human thought ; it gives us the conception of a kingdom of God on earth, a pure, righteous, and lov- ing society of intelligent and moral beings, a conception that is at once a great constitutive idea and architectonic principle of human society. It gives a conception of man that is at once the noblest and richest the world has ever known ; it shows us that man is made to be the child of God, and hence his life has an infinite meaning and value ; and it gives us the conception of hu- manity as a family of brothers in which each man is entitled to all respect, and is worthy of all honor. Thus in the religion of Christ we have everything that the State can need, both to ensure its perpetuity and to promote its progress. We have in it the supreme ideal which shines before men to lure them upward and onward. We have THE STATE AND ITS RELIGION 323 the spirit which is to determine the lives and activities of men. We have the gospel message that life is a service and each man is to find his own life as he loses it in the life of all. And we have a uniting and unifying spirit that draws men together and constrains them to live as brothers in a family. All this brings us face to face with the special need of religion in a democratic State. For one thing, democracy is, as we have seen, a confession of brotherhood in social and political relations. But human brotherhood has no meaning or vitality apart from the common divine Fatherhood. It is in the Christian truth of the Father- hood of God that we find at once the source and the warrant of the democratic assumption of the brotherhood of man. Suppose that men should lose out of their lives the belief in this divine Fatherhood; suppose that in the lapse of time this great truth should dissolve into thin air? In that case the belief in human brotherhood will die out of men's hearts and will lose all power in society ; the old terms may still be used, but they will be utterly impotent for the reason that they are wholly empty. With the passing of the conviction of human brotherhood based upon divine Fatherhood, the great truths that are at once the constitutive basis and the inspiring motive of democracy will also pass away. With the passing of the conception of fraternity, liberty has no vitality and equality has no basis, and this means the passing away of democracy itself. The Christian spirit has created modern democracy, and modern democracy will run its course and end in dismal night when the Christian spirit no longer animates and inspires it. And for another thing, all this enables us to see the relation of religion to the progress of the democratic State. In every form of the State a certain amount of friendliness and co-operation, justice and self-sacrifice — 3 2 4 THE CHRISTIAN STATE the inner principles of religion — are necessary in order that men may live together and may labor for the com- mon good; but in a democratic State these factors are simply indispensable. For democracy is a confession of mutual aims and obligations, with a conscious and vol- untary co-operation in behalf of the common welfare. The great difference between the democratic State and all other forms is not in the amount of social subordi- nation and self-sacrifice, for a democracy may impose more limitations upon men than a monarchy. In every form of the State men must submit to laws and must make sacrifices for the sake of the common life. But in a monarchy the laws are imposed upon men from without, and the sacrifices made are more or less compulsory. In a democracy, however, this social service and self-sacri- fice are almost wholly voluntary and conscious on the part of all. There is no force or factor that has one-half the social efficiency of religion, and there is no factor or force that can take its place. Appeals to self-interest are well enough in their way; compromise may adjust many difficulties for the time, and compulsion may even preserve a certain semblance of peace ; but the highest and broadest interests of society can never be promoted with- out a large amount of mutual aid, social co-operation, and self-sacrifice. It is just here that we discover the real relation of the Christian religion to the democratic State. For Christianity in its inner essence and fundamental principles is a religion of brotherhood and equality, of love and self-sacrifice; the law of Christ is the law of brotherly kindness and social helpfulness, of fair dealing and friendliness ; in a word, in its very essence and quality it is a love of righteousness and a struggle for the life of others. In a democracy the people rule ; but unless God lives in the people and rules through them, the State will crumble into dust and chaos will come again. THE STATE AND ITS RELIGION 325 No one has seen all this more clearly than James Bryce, in his great study of " The American Common- wealth." In democratic America the whole system of government seems to rest, not on armed force, but on the will of the numerical majority. " So, sometimes, standing in the midst of a great American city, and watching the throngs of eager figures streaming hither and thither, marking the sharp contrasts of poverty and wealth, an increasing mass of wretchedness and an in- creasing display of luxury, . . one is startled by the thought of what might befall this huge, yet delicate fabric of laws and commerce and social institutions were the foundations it has rested on to crumble away. Sup- pose all these men ceased to believe that there was any power above them, any future before them, anything in heaven or earth but what their senses told them of; suppose that their consciousness of individual force and responsibility, already dwarfed by the overwhelming power of the multitude, and the fatalistic submission it engenders, were further weakened by the feeling that their swiftly fleeting life was rounded by a perpetual sleep ? Soles occidere et redire possunt Nobis, quum semel occidit brevis lux Nox est perpetua una dormienda. " Would the moral code stand unshaken, and with it the reverence for law, the sense of duty toward the com- munity, and even toward the generations yet to come? Would men say ' Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die ? ' . . History, if she cannot give a complete answer to this question, tells us that hitherto civilized society has rested on religion, and that a free government has prospered best among religious peoples" ("The Ameri- can Commonwealth," Vol. II, pp. 582, 583). 326 THE CHRISTIAN STATE In the last analysis the State is the organized faith of a people, and where there is no faith — faith in God and faith in man — society is impossible, and the State crumbles into dust. And in the last analysis the real faith of a people finds expression in their politics, and thus the political life of a people is the final revelation of their religion, and their religion is the chief factor in their political programme. The religion of a people expresses that which they regard as the best and truest, and the State is the sphere in which the religion of a people finds its full and final expression. The real religion of a people shows itself in their politics more faithfully than in their theologies, and their politics is the best illustration of the inner quality of their religion. In fine, as the conclusion of this study, we find that religion is the most potent and pervasive power in human life and human society. We find that the forces which generate and sustain States are not material but spiritual. We find that the great standards against which all the laws and actions of men are measured are not physical but spiritual. And we find likewise that the goal toward which the State is moving and the great end which it sub- serves in the economy of life, is not temporal but spiritual. In a word, the State is the social sphere of religion, and religion is the real life of the State. " If you go through the world you may find cities without walls, without let- ters, without rulers, without houses, without money, without theaters and games : but there was never yet seen, nor shall be seen by man, a single city without temples and gods, or without oaths, prophecies, and sacrifices . . . ; nay, I am of opinion that a city might be sooner built without any ground beneath it than a commonwealth could be constituted altogether destitute of belief in the gods; or being constituted, could be preserved" (Plu- tarch, "Against Colotes," C. XXXI). XIII THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE IN the generations past men have faced great problems and have made great sacrifices. They have done this that their children might have an inheritance glorious and unencumbered. During the progress of the centuries one problem after another has arisen and has been met ; and men believed that with the fulfilment of this task the way for humanity's march might be smoothed. Abolish autocracy, they have said, and let government rest upon the consent of the governed, and the golden age will dawn. Make an end of slavery and humanity can breathe more freely. Break the unholy alliance be- tween Church and State and both will speed toward their goal with new hope. Give every person, whether male or female, an equal vote, and the new time will be at our very doors. One by one these demands have been met, here or there, but somehow the people are not content. In fact, it is with the modern State as with the desert- wandering Israelites ; to them the promised land meant the fruition of all their hopes and the solution of all their problems. But no sooner were they settled in the new land than a whole troop of new problems arose, and life became as strenuous as before. In all ages and conditions the problem of the State's existence is an insistent one, and every State has fallen far enough below its ideal. In all times, and under the best leadership, it has had a hard struggle to maintain itself and perform the minimum of its functions. But in modern times, the State, in these Western lands at least, 3 2 7 328 THE CHRISTIAN STATE is becoming democratic, and the sovereignty of the people has been formally declared. Now, one need not make any extended investigations to discover that the rank and file of the people do not possess the high qualifications that are required of such sovereign citizens. In fact, one finds that the affairs of State are falling into hands that are poorly prepared to meet the difficulties and to bear the burdens. Then another factor enters the field to complicate the whole problem, viz., the presence of Christianity. For nineteen centuries it has wrought among men, but it is only in recent times that its political bearings have been fully seen and its social ideal plainly recognized. In these democratic Western lands the affairs of State are more and more falling into the hands of men who have the Christian aim and motive. Now, since the Christian ideal is absolute in its requirements, and the Christian law is universal in its sweep, it follows that Christian citizenship is confronted with the task of creating a truly Christian civilization. Thus, to the minimum aims and functions of the State are now added the maximum aims and functions of the Christian democracy. They who suppose that the mere fact of democracy is sufficient to solve all problems are blind leaders of the blind. The truth is, the fact of democracy in itself says little about the real life of the people, and does not demonstrate their fitness for self-government. They who imagine that the mere pres- ence of Christian men in a State will bring in the mil- lennium are no less blind leaders of the blind. The truth is, the mere making of good individuals has meant very little in the life of the State ; for not until religion be- comes socialized does it become fully potent. This means that there are certain problems that are common to all States, simply as States, without regard to their form of government. There are others that in a THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 329 way are characteristic of the democratic State, and the more pure the democracy the more numerous these prob- lems are. Moreover, there are problems that, in a sense, belong only to the State that is approximately Christian. The special difficulties themselves may be old, but they are not felt as problems till the State possesses a certain Christian self-consciousness. The State that is democratic must face all the problems of every State, and many more besides, only with this difference : where in other forms of the State the solution is more or less optional, in a democ- racy their solution is imperative ; for the very life of the State is at stake. We may carry this one step farther and may apply it to the Christian State, which is called to solve all the problems of every other form, with the added problems that grow out of the Christian conception of man ; and whereas their solution is vital in all other types of States, their solution is here imperative for the reason that the whole legitimacy and power of Chris- tianity are at stake in their solution. Something will be gained if we can secure a clear vision of the problems before us and can learn how vital they are to the life of the State. I. The Problem of Public Service. The fundamental fact in a democratic State is the participation of the people in the affairs of government. The time will never come when men can go away and leave their government to take care of itself. Governments always and every- where, De Tocqueville reminds us, will be as rascally as people permit them to be : and this is especially true in a democracy. It is hence almost needless to say that the successful working of a democratic government depends upon the direct participation and active interest of the people in its affairs. Without this direct participation of the people in government there can be no democracy. Without this intelligent, courageous, and unselfish devo- 33° THE CHRISTIAN STATE tion to the public good, there can be no successful democ- racy. Just here we come face to face with one of the most serious problems of the modern State. For alas ! the people are not all intelligent in civic matters ; they arc- not all courageous ; and too few are willing to make any sacrifices for the public good. In the chapter on " The Dangers of Democracy," we have considered some of the difficulties that beset the democratic State ; and the dangers we there considered define some of the problems that are most insistent and troublesome. We may simply refer to what was there said and pass on to notice some other elements entering into the problem. For one thing, the democratic idea implies and demands an independent and courageous spirit in the rank and file of the citizens. It means the independence to think for one's self and the courage to put one's convictions into effect. Now, the simple fact is, there is a large number of people in every community who refuse themselves the sacrament of thought and are con- tent to allow some one else to think for them. Popular government proceeds on the theory that the people are sovereign, and that each sovereign will respect his man- hood ; that is, that he will form his own conclusions with respect to men and measures, and will have sufficient independence and initiative to make his judgments effective. Then, in the modern democratic State, we find the party system in full operation, and as the success of the party depends upon the suppression of dissent, independ- ence, and courage are studiously discouraged. Regularity — the willingness to abide by the party platform — is lauded, while irregularity — the refusal to stand by the party principles — is denounced. It must be admitted that in the average community it costs something for the average citizen to do his own thinking and to follow his THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 33 1 own convictions. In fact, it means petty persecution that is not less trying because it is so insidious. " The re- public will perish," Lowell used to say, " when men cease to protest." But many things combine and conspire to make such protest difficult and dangerous in the modern State. In the more advanced modern States the number of scholarly and educated men is rapidly increasing. It must be admitted, however, that this very culture of the few in a way unfits them for the rough and tumble work of practical citizenship. Their culture has so separated them from their fellows that they live in a world apart. The moment one of these men takes an interest in public affairs and speaks his protest, he is likely to be sneered at by the politicians and suspected by the people. Thus it comes about that only men of marked ability and strong individuality have the courage to do their own political thinking and to put their own conclusions into action (" The Real Problems of Democracy," by E. L. Godkin, " Atlantic Monthly," July, 1896). Further, democracy implies and demands a spirit of self-sacrifice in the rank and file of the people. It means the willingness to serve the common good and to bear the burden and heat of the State's struggle for life and progress. One need not spend much time in trying to show that not all men who are members of the democratic State have this spirit of self-sacrifice and social service. It is not my purpose to apportion blame for this condition of things, and it is possible that the blame must be gen- erally distributed. It is possible that many of the ex- ponents of democracy are to blame in part, at least, for this condition, for too long they have thrown great em- phasis upon the doctrine of rights and have charged the people to consider their own interests. And it is probable that the church is somewhat to blame in that it has not 332 THE CHRISTIAN STATE explained the universality of the Christian law and has not inspired men to make sacrifice for the common wel- fare. At any rate, be the causes what they may, the fact remains that the number of men in the State who take large views of public questions, who look not every one upon his own things but every one also upon the things of others, who are willing to subordinate self-interest to the common welfare, and to endure hardship without hope of gain or honor is, unfortunately, not large. This lack of the altruistic spirit is seen, on the one side, in the tendency to construe all public questions in terms of personal advantage. This is not all, but too many show a disposition to use the machinery of government for their own interests, with little or no regard to the com- mon welfare. Mayor Jones, of Toledo, stated one day that he had been trying to find out the life principle of a number of so-called successful men. One man, when asked what was his principle in life, said with some emphasis: "My principle in life? Well, I do not care what happens to any man in the world so long as it does not happen to me." Too many are like the New York business man who, when importuned to lend his aid and in- fluence in behalf of a necessary but unpopular reform, said with some impatience : " This is all very well, but I do not see how it concerns me." It has come to this, that men do not expect altruistic service, and when they find a man who is showing unusual interest in public matters, they at once suspect him of ulterior motives. Many men are concerned with the question of making a living and get- ting rich, and they are quite ready to turn over to the politicians the selection of proper candidates for public office and the settlement of questions of public moment. Such men, it may be said, are among the most discourag- ing and dangerous men in the land; they are the very people who are jeopardizing free institutions and are THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 333 casting popular government under a cloud. Society is possible only where there are many altruistic and self- sacrificing people who look not alone on their own things, but also on the things of others. Social progress is pos- sible only where there are many people who are willing to subordinate self-interest and to live for the common life. Finally, democracy demands from every citizen un-^ ceasing vigilance and a public spirit. How to secure these is one of the primary problems that confront the modern State. In the republic of Athens no important law could be passed unless six thousand votes in its favor were deposited in the urns. To secure an audience of necessary size, servants of the State were sent through the market-place with a rope chalked red ; and whosoever received from that a stain on his toga was fined as an enemy of the State. Charles Sumner often affirmed that the citizen who neglects his political duties is a public enemy. A law of Pythagoras pronounced every man " infamous who, in questions of public moment, did not take sides" (Cook, "On Conscience," p. 255). To go into politics to serve selfish ends may be culpable, but it is still more culpable to stay out of politics for selfish reasons. The modern State must create such a public sentiment that every self-respecting man will be ashamed to shirk his public duties. No one can be a good man and a bad citizen. Does a man possess culture, and wealth, and the Christian spirit ? Then there is every reason why he should take an active interest in public affairs, why he should accept the leadership of the social faith. Democ- racy does not mean equality in ability, and it does not mean the absence of all leadership. The fact is, leader- ship is more necessary in a democracy than in autocracy, but it is a leadership of a different kind. In a democracy it must be a leadership of intelligence and character, and 334 THE CHRISTIAN STATE it must find its warrant in the confidence of the people. How to secure this public service from qualified men is one of the most abiding and difficult problems of the democratic State. In a way it lies at the basis of all other problems, and in a real sense its solution means the solu- tion of the other problems of society. Some, indeed, be- cause of this lack of public spirit in the rank and file of the people take a gloomy view of the democratic experi- ment. II. The Problem of Political Corruption. It does not lie within the scope of our purpose to institute any com- parison between the past and the present condition of the world. It does not change the problem before us to say that there was more political corruption and fraud in other lands and generations than is found to-day in democratic lands. And it does not demonstrate the suc- cess of the democratic experiment to prove that in a democracy men are more honest than in an autocracy. Such comparisons are wide of the mark for these reasons : democracy itself is a comparatively recent thing, and hence such a moral comparison is out of the question ; and the amount of corruption and fraud that may little affect the stability of government in autocracy may undermine the very foundations of a democracy. And yet the long study of history will show that the great monarchies of the past came to their downfall because of the corruption and injustice that prevailed. Not only so, but in all the democratic experiments of the past corruption and injustice have been the chief causes of death. In brief, the history of every democratic experiment in the past can be told in a few words : First, poverty and struggle, with honesty and justice ; then success and progress, with growing pride and increasing wealth ; then luxury and corruption, with suspicion and division ending in dissolution and desolation. There is THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 335 one lesson that conies to us from every nation of the past, that the principles of honesty and fair dealing and justice are principles of unity, peace, and strength, while the vices of chicane, and corruption, and oppression, are the vices that spell suspicion, conflict, and ruin. One form of corruption to be mentioned is what is known as vote-buying. Careful investigations have been made in various States concerning the extent of this evil, and the figures are not reassuring. In some com- munities the proportion of venal voters is placed as high as twenty-five per cent. ; and this means that by the use of money men are able to turn elections pretty much as they please. It is certain that the men who gain office by such means are not careful to use that office for the public good alone ; in fact, men are willing to make such expenditures of money because they hope to recoup themselves in some way. The use of money in elections is a matter of public shame and open scandal. Some of the highest offices in the United States are believed to have been secured by the use of money. The fact is, many have come to look upon membership in the United States Senate as the purchase of millionaires or the reward of politicians. Then, in many of the cities and States of America, popular government is under a cloud because of the notorious frauds that are perpetrated. Special privileges a and franchises are a marketable asset, and hence many men are anxious to obtain them. Not only so, but the corporations holding these privileges do not always find it convenient and profitable to observe the laws and ordi- nances ; and hence they are interested in securing the elec- tion of manageable men and keeping government as inefficient as possible. In all the cities and States where corruption reigns it is usually found that the head and front of the offending are the great corporations which THE CHRISTIAN STATE hold special privileges that have vast money value. And it is invariably found that these special interests join hands with the lawless and depraved members of society in securing the election of corrupt and compliant men. Akin to this is the corrupt use of money in social and political affairs. The way in which many great rail- roads, street railways, gas, and water companies have obtained valuable franchises is a matter of public scandal. The power of organized money in city and State and national elections is tremendous, and every legislative body has felt its baleful and dangerous touch. Hon. Wayne MacYeagh has said that the black flag of the corruptionist is more to be feared than the red flag of the anarchist. A recent writer, who is utterly opposed to socialism, and cannot be accused of any antipathy to wealth, writes : " It is not the existence of inherited wealth, even on a very large scale, that is likely to shake seriously the respect for property : it is the many examples which the conditions of modern society present, of vast wealth acquired by shameful means, employed for shame- ful purposes, and exercising an altogether undue influence in society and in the State. When triumphant robbery is found among the rich, subversive doctrines will grow among the poor. When democracy turns, as it often does, into a corrupt plutocracy, both national decadence and social revolution are being prepared" (Lecky, " Democracy and Liberty," Vol. II, pp. 501, 502). It may be admitted that some of this corruption is more or less inevitable while human nature is as it is. Some there are who tell us that these questions of corruption are at bottom individual questions ; the character of the mass depends upon the character of the units ; and so long as you have depraved men to deal with, so long you will have corruption in the State. All this is trite enough, but it is too trite to touch the real heart of the THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 337 difficulty. In his autobiography, John Stuart Mill has indicated some of the convictions that grew in his life and determined his conduct. He saw that interest in the common good is now so weak a motive in the generality of men, not because it never can be otherwise, but be- cause the mind is not accustomed to dwell on it as it dwells from morning to night on the things that tend only to personal advantage. " The deep-rooted selfishness which forms the general character of the existing state of society, is so deeply rooted, only because the whole course of existing institutions tends to foster it ; and modern institutions, in some respects more than ancient, since the occasions on which the individual is called to do any- thing for the public without receiving its pay, are far less frequent in modern life, than in the smaller common- wealths of antiquity" (Mill, "Autobiography," p. 233). This problem of corruption is a real one, and be its sources personal or social, due to wrong ways of thought or defective institutions in society, the very existence of the State and its progress in moral life depend upon its solution. This corruption in society threatens the very life of the State, for a democratic and Christian State must be both honest and pure. III. The Problem of Intemperance. One of the chief concerns of every State is its own preservation. One of the prime means to this end is the self-control and so- briety of the people. This is important under every form of government, but is absolutely essential in a democratic government. Democracy is organized self-control, and democracy is but a name when self-control is lost. In the democratic State it is absolutely necessary that men be sober and practise self-control. That men may fulfil the duties of their citizenship they must be calm and rational ; they must possess the ability to view all public questions without passion and prejudice ; and with w 338 THE CHRISTIAN STATE it all they must learn to subordinate self to the common life, and must take thought for the common safety. That the use of intoxicants of all kinds unfits men for the discharge of these duties; that the common use of such intoxicants injures them mentally and physically, and their excessive use wholly unfits them for citizenship in the State, is known to all. That intoxicants have a peculiar power over the kingliest powers of the soul ; that they weaken the rational and volitional faculties of man is known to all students of psychology and common life. And hence it is that intemperance is one of the life and death problems of the democratic State. The more intelligently one studies this problem the more difficult does its solution appear. It is not by any means the simple problem that some suppose, and there is no patent panacea that will effect an immediate cure. For, the moment we study this evil of intemperance in its sources, we find that three of the strongest and most constant passions of the human heart are at its roots. First, we have the love of gain. There are great financial interests at stake in this traffic. There are vast profits both in the manufacture and sale of intoxicants, and some of the great fortunes on both sides of the Atlantic have been made in this business. In all ages and lands moralists and legislators have recognized the fatal power of gold to warp the judgment and bias the mind ; for the sake of money it is found that men will sell their manhood and will place stumbling-blocks before their fellows ; for the sake of money men will seek to create the appe- tite for intoxicants in every new generation ; for the sake of increasing their revenues they will persuade men to drink beyond the safety line, and will evade and counter- act the laws wherever possible. Secondly, we have the appetite for stimulants. The craving for stimulants is a strong instinct in human beings. In all ages and lands THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 339 men have found that alcoholic beverages possess the peculiar power of producing temporary stimulation of their mental and physical being. In addition to the com- mon craving for stimulants, there is an abnormal craving that is induced by the struggle and stress of modern industrial and social life. At any rate, from one cause and another, this appetite is created in men; and when once developed it is imperious in its demands. The appe- tite for alcoholic stimulants is an abnormal one, but it is a common craving ; and the appetite, when once formed, is most potent in its sway. Thirdly, the instinct for social fellowship. Man is by nature a social being, and the desire for fellowship is one of the strongest instincts of his nature. The saloon is the most democratic institution in the world, and all men are made welcome and no questions asked. In the saloon men find brilliant lights and good cheer ; here they find social fellowship and free conversation. The modern saloon has such a strong hold because it supplies a social need. It supplies that need in a very questionable and unsatisfactory way, but it supplies it as no other existing institution does. In veriest truth it may be said that this traffic is a stumbling-block that lies right across the path of the State, and the State cannot truly advance till this stum- bling-block is removed. The liquor traffic is a standing menace to popular government, and intemperance is one of the most urgent problems of the modern State. IV. The Problem of the Disinherited. In these modern times some wholly new problems have come into the fore- ground and are clamoring for solution. We do not mean that these new problems are new things in society. There is probably not an evil in modern life that is not as old as the pyramids and as threadbare as the beggar's coat. But, and this is significant, these evils have never been felt before as they are felt to-day. For men are coming to 340 THE CHRISTIAN STATE social self-consciousness and are becoming sensitive, and as a consequence many evils, almost unnoticed heretofore, are regarded as problems. One of these clamant modern problems is what we may call the problem of the disin- herited. I. That there is a large class of persons in modern society who may be so called is known to all. By the term we do not mean that there is a large class who are legally disfranchised or formally disinherited, for in the foremost nations of the world no such class is found. In this respect the modern world is far in advance of the ancient. In the republics of Greece, even in their palmiest days, there was a large slave population that had no political rights and no legal standing. In the empire of Rome there was an enormous number of slaves who had no recognized rights, and toward whom none had any recognized duties. All through the Middle Ages much the same conditions obtained. In all these respects a great change has come, and slavery and serfdom are no longer found in any recognized and legal form. On the other hand, there is some recognition, in a formal way, at least, of ever}- person in the State, and some definition of his rights. It remains true, however, that in the best of modern States there is a large class of persons who have no fair and real inheritance in society. That this is so is made very evident by a study of conditions in our modern cities. Thus, in Britain and America — to go no further — we find that there is a large class who compose what is called the " Submerged Tenth." Above this is a larger class in poverty, who are unable to obtain those neces- saries which will permit them to maintain a state of physical efficiency. This latter class, according to the careful investigations of Charles Booth, numbers thirty and seven-tenths per cent, in London " ( Hunter. " Pov- THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 34I erty," pp. 5, 18). And it appears from these investiga- tions that fifty-five per cent, of the very poor and sixty- eight per cent, of the other poor are so, not through any fault of their own, but simply because they lack employ- ment. In London this investigator found that over two and a half million people, singly or in companies, live in one room — sleeping, cooking, eating, and bathing within the same four walls. In Scotland, according to official figures, over one-third of the families live in a single room, and more than two-thirds in only two rooms. The one who walks through the wynds and closes of Edin- burgh and Glasgow with open eyes is tempted at times to call for the crack of doom to come and end all. But the United States is not entirely above reproach in these respects. It is true that economic conditions here are very much better than in the Old World, but none the less the facts are appalling. In 1890, according to Bishop Huntington, " recent certified revelations have laid bare the multiplied horrors and depravities of the tenement population in great cities, where forty-one out of every hundred families live in a single room, and where the poorest pay more rent than the richest for each cubic foot of space and air " (" The Forum," October, 1890). New York is one of the richest States in the Union, and yet the reports of the State Board of Charities show that from year to year about twenty-four per cent, of the people apply for relief of some kind. In the year 1903 fourteen per cent, of the families in Manhattan were evicted for various causes. And more tragic than all, from year to year ten per cent, of those who die in New York are buried in potter's field (" Report of Department of Corrections," N. Y., 1902). In 1900, in New York State, a commission was created to investigate tenement conditions in New York City. After several days' investi- gation in silent amazement, the Buffalo members of the 342 THE CHRISTIAN STATE commission declared : " New York ought to be abolished." The figures given suggest a problem that they do not fully define. For, while poverty is a sign and cause of this social disinheritance, it is not by any means the only sign or cause. Along with this must be named the sickness that weakens and makes impossible the highest attainments. This problem of sickness and disease is one that has been with man from the beginning, and may remain with him for some time to come. But to-day we are coming to see ever more clearly that many of these forms of disease are due to social causes, and no longer must be accepted as a matter of course. Not only so, but in all of our cities, large or small, there is a slum district which is a kind of moral maelstrom. In these slum districts thousands of chil- dren are born, who by the very circumstances of their lives are doomed from the start. Many of them grow up ignorant and morally undeveloped; the tender bloom of virtue is rubbed off the soul before the girl has learned the meaning of purity, and the high possibilities of man- hood are blighted before the tendrils of the soul have unfolded. 2. Another aspect of this problem is seen in what may be called the industrial exploitation of childhood. That this evil of child labor is a very real one, even in the life of the foremost nations, is too manifest to require any extended proof. It is possible to quote the figures show- ing the number of children under fifteen years of age toiling in fields and factories, in mines and workshops ; but figures do not mean very much. Census returns of government and reports of industrial commissions show, however, that in many parts of the land, in many lines of industry and trade, children of tender years are employed at tasks that are often hazardous and usually mechanical, for long hours, and in conditions that are unsanitary and THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 343 depressing. Not only are the children deprived of the right to play and the privilege of an education, but their very occupation tends inevitably to weaken the body and stunt the mind, and thus unfit them for full life and large usefulness in the State. The child is made old before he is young, and he is early cast aside as so much worn-out machinery that is no longer profitable. By this system of child labor, society really disinherits a large proportion of its members, and forever debars them from the best things of life. By it society also loses a large fraction of its most valuable asset. There may be some industrial gain from this labor of the children ; but the losses far outbalance the gain. The fact is, from every point of view, child labor is an evil without one valid argument in its support or extenuation. It is a waste of the nation's most valuable asset, the manhood of its people. It is economic suicide, for it produces an inert, inefficient mass of laborers. It is wholly unneces- sary, for the nations where this evil is most prevalent are no longer in need of calling all hands to work. It is impossible for a people to tolerate this evil and preserve its self-respect while professing faith in the democratic creed and maintaining allegiance to the Christian ideal. One of the gladdest things that the prophet can say of the city that is coming in the new time is this : " The streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the broad places thereof" (Zech. 8:5). 3. A third aspect of this problem is seen in the inade- quate provision that is made, even in the most progressive nations, for the full training of each life and its fitness for service in the commonwealth. This is too large a problem for treatment here, and we can only notice one element that makes it so real. Thus, the number of per- sons who receive what may be called an adequate educa- tion, that is a training that shall unfold their powers and 344 THE CHRISTIAN STATE prepare them to co-operate with society in perfecting its own life, is comparatively small, even in the most ad- vanced and intelligent State. It is true that in some lands that are most democratic and Christian, a system of public education has been created which aims to provide for every child the rudiments of an education. And it is also true that in some of these States provision is made for the advanced education of many. No one who is familiar with the aims and achievements of this system of State education can make light of it; in fact, he must see in it one of the most auspicious omens for the betterment of man. And yet when this has been said, the whole story has not been told ; for the fact yet remains that this sys- tem of education, in its most elementary stages, is not accomplishing the results that might be expected, while a large proportion of the people are practically debarred by circumstances over which they have no control from the advantages of a higher education. All this shows that even in the most advanced and intelligent society there is a large class that is practically disinherited ; that is, they begin life under a heavy handicap ; all through life, owing to the lack of opportunity and ade- quate training, they are denied access to the best things in life. They are wholly unable to rise into better condi- tions; the natural powers and latent resources of their souls are never nourished into life ; they are what may be called the disinherited classes in society. These facts have a double significance, a personal and a social, and each is deserving of careful consideration. In its personal aspect the saddest thing about all this ignorance and poverty is not the suffering and ignorance themselves, though these are often sad enough ; the most tragic thing about it all is the waste of human life, the fact that the possibilities of many lives are never unfolded. In its social aspects the most tragic fact about it all is THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 345 this : that in every generation there is a heavy loss of so much social possibility ; that is, so few persons make any real and adequate contribution to the total wealth of society. The number of persons born in a generation may represent the total latent powers and potential resources of that generation. But thus far no generation in any land has as yet succeeded in developing and garnering for the use of society more than one-fifth of the total powers and resources of mankind. Through poverty and crime, through want of training and lack of oppor- tunity, at least four-fifths of the total possibility of any one generation is practically undeveloped. Could these handicaps be removed, could every person receive an adequate education, could the latent powers of all men be developed, and could every person receive a fair in- heritance in society, the present working forces of society could be centupled (Ward "Applied Sociology," 234). These people so held back are men and women of normal minds and human souls, and susceptible, if surrounded by the same influences as the educated and moral, of becom- ing as capable and intelligent as they (Ward, ibid., p. 313). They possess the same human nature as their more suc- cessful brothers, and under different circumstances they also might stand upon their feet and become agents of civilization and contribute their share to human achieve- ment. In all times men have observed these facts, but it is only in recent times that they have become a problem to society itself. In all the earlier times men accepted these differences of fortune as a matter of course, and conse- quently they felt little responsibility for their removal. Thus, in practically every nation in the ancient world, it was believed that mankind was composed of several varieties of human beings, made of different kinds of clay ; the best things in life were for the few, while the 346 THE CHRISTIAN STATE great mass of the people were made to be underlings and servants, hewers of wood and drawers of water, and wholly unfitted for culture and progress. At different times, in the name of theology, men have defended the existing inequalities of society as a part of the decree of God, and consequently these differences among men were neither to be questioned nor changed. It is a matter of record also that the time has been when an English bishop actually defended poverty on the ground that it is necessary that there be a certain amount of misery in the world in order that good people may have some objects on which to exercise the grace of charity. It is a matter of common knowledge that there are some sociologists, even in the most enlightened lands, who regard poverty and drink shops as more or less necessary and inevitable. For the relentless suppression of the weak and unfit through such means, we are told, is nature's method of eliminating the unfit and improving the human breed. In later times the impression has gained currency that the law of nature is struggle for existence with the survival of the fittest, with the corollary law that those who do not survive are the unfittest and deserve to perish. The formal criticism of these views is here impossible, and it is not necessary. But it may be said that they one and all rest upon what may be called the aristocratic view of human nature ; that is, they all assume that there are certain differences among men which are natural and necessary which can never be wholly eradicated and ought never to be ignored. Some of these views frankly charge up these differences to the decrees of God, and men have not hesitated to misapply the words of Scripture and talk about the vessels made for dishonor. Other of these views assume that there are natural and essential differences in human lives, and we have great systems of caste based upon this be- THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 347 lief. Whatever may be their basis and reason, such views all rest, in the last analysis, upon what we have called the aristocratic view of human nature. But to the modern man these views have become in- tolerable, and he can no longer rest under their burden. A new spirit, the Christian democratic spirit, has arisen and challenges every one of these views. According to this, men are all brothers in one family because children of one Father ; they are all made of the same clay, and hence they all have the same nature and capabilities. Men are different in mental endowments and talents, but these are merely incidental and external ; in essence they are alike and equal, and each has the same value and meaning as the other. Every child in the State has his place in the State, and his life has some meaning in the total meaning of society. There is no reason in the nature of things why a few should have a large fraction of this heritage while the great majority are practically disinherited. The Father has made provision for all his children, and his bounties are for all alike. This defines the problem that modern society must solve, if it would be Christian in spirit and democratic in form. And this defines a task which we shall consider in another chapter, " The Pro- gramme of the Christian Society." V. The Problem of the Unfit. Akin to the problem just named, and related to the problem next to be con- sidered, is another which is no less vital and significant. In a way it may be regarded as the problem of all prob- lems, the one problem that has the most intimate relation to the progress and the welfare of man. This is what we may call the problem of the unfit. The history of progress, it has been said, is the record of the gradual diminution of waste. In all the lower stages of life the amount of waste is enormous, and com- paratively few living creatures reach maturity. As we 348 THE CHRISTIAN STATE rise in the scale we find that the amount of waste is diminishing, and fewer creatures perish in the struggle. In the higher stages, among civilized men, this waste is reduced to the minimum, and life has a higher value. The history of civilization, as Professor Huxley assures us, is the record of the attempts which the human race has made to escape from the unchecked sway of the principle of the struggle for existence with the destruction of the unfittest. But this struggle for existence is not by any means the meaningless and cruel thing that it may at first sight appear to be. It is nature's way of detecting superiority and of declaring the qualities that are worthful in life. In the jungle, where life is little else than a free fight, only those creatures who are possessed of full vitality and alert senses have any chance of surviving; the weak and crippled, the dull-eyed and heavy-footed are doomed, and inevitably perish. In a savage society, where the struggle is little modified by intelligent and moral action, the number who fail to survive is quite large, for the weak and defective, the diseased and crippled soon perish. There are no mental and physical weaklings ; the diseased and malformed receive no care, and they unfailingly die. The struggle is severe, and the results are tragic, but by this process the blood of the tribe is kept comparatively pure, and the highest efficiency of the clan is maintained. It is easy, of course, for one to condemn all this as a mark of human depravity, and in a higher stage of society it would be worthy of all condemnation. But behind it all there is the effort on the part of the tribe to maintain its own existence and to preserve the highest standard. The struggle for a bare existence is hard, and the tribe cannot afford to carry any superfluous impediments without endangering its own life. But in a civilized and moral society all this is changed, THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 349 and emphasis is now thrown upon the factors of altruism and social philanthropy. The Christian spirit has created many types of eleemosynary effort, and a studied desire is shown to minister to the less endowed and keep every human infant alive. Not only so, but in the progress of society there has been evolved various methods of medical practice which result in lessening disease and lengthening human life. To-day medical science that is motived by the spirit of Christ declares that no single life in the com- munity shall live uncared for or shall die if its life can be prolonged. In a large way it may be said that society is intelligent and civilized and Christian in the degree that its members practise mutual aid and live for the common life. In a large way, also, it may be said that a society is uncivilized and barbarous in the degree in which its members neglect the weak and permit them to perish. This concern for the weak, this effort to help the helpless, is proper and right, and every lover of his kind must rejoice in this triumph of love and science over disease and death. But all this raises a problem that is one of the most real and fateful that society has to meet. Is all this a real benefit to the race, or is it a fatal injury? We may grant that the principle of natural selection is ruthless so far as its results are concerned, but it must be admitted that this principle is of great service in detecting the unfit and elim- inating them. To set aside this principle, and to carry the other principle of social aid to its full conclusions, we are told, will produce results that are disastrous ; in fact, to do this, we are assured, will mean the steady weakening and inevitable deterioration of the human race. Thus the scientist and the sociologist tell us in solemn language that the modern methods of philanthropy are a mistaken and suicidal policy, for they mean the poisoning of the blood, and will result in the retardation rather than the 35o THE CHRISTIAN STATE acceleration of progress. Thus, Herbert Spencer finds fault with modern governmental and social organizations on the ground that they are interfering with the beneficial operation of the universal law of natural selection. " In- convenience, suffering, and death are the penalties at- tached by nature to ignorance, as well as incompetence — are also means of remedying these. Partly by breeding out those of lowest development, and partly by subjecting those who remain to the never-ceasing discipline of ex- perience, nature secures the growth of a race who shall both understand the conditions of existence, and be able to act up to them. It is best to let the foolish man suffer the penalty of his foolishness. . . A sad population of imbeciles would our schemers fill the world with could their plans last. Why, the whole effort of nature is to get rid of such — to clear the world of them and make room for better " (" Social Statics. Sanitary Supervi- sion"). "Will any one contend that no mischief will result," he asks, " if the lowly endowed are enabled to thrive and multiply as much as, or more than, the highly endowed ? " To the same purport speaks the sociologist. Thus Prof. E. A. Ross says, " The shortest way to make this world a heaven is to let those so inclined hurry hell- ward at their own pace." Hence he deduces the social canon : " Social interference should not be so paternal as to check the self-extinction of the morally ill-consti- tuted " (Ross, "Social Control," p. 425). He maintains that many of our so-called charitable and philanthropic efforts and methods are simply preserving the unfit, and are thus poisoning the blood of the race. It is easy, of course, for one to grow piously indignant and to denounce all this as brutal indifference and scien- tific hard-heartedness. But none the less there is here a grave danger, one that must be recognized and avoided, or the race will pay the forfeit. The universe sets a THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 351 premium upon efficiency and fitness, and any method that enables the unfit and defective to survive and perpetuate their kind is a gross and fatal violation of the order of things. Modern society, however, being more and more motived by the spirit of Christ, will never again allow the defective and unfit to live uncared for and to die un- pitied. In fact, as time goes on, the Christian spirit will more and more summon to its aid scientific knowledge to keep the weakest and unfittest from perishing in the struggle. And modern society, having an intelligent concern for its own interests, will not be willing to allow the unfit and defective to survive and perpetuate their kind to the disadvantage and detriment of the race. Is there any way out of this dilemma? Or must the Chris- tian spirit and the scientific mind work at cross purposes? This, at least, states one of the most puzzling problems of modern society — the problem of the unfit. Modern society motived by the Christian spirit must declare that there shall be no unfit and defective members | in the State. This means several things that are worth a moment's consideration. For one thing, it means that modern society must put all its resources in pledge in be- half of the weakest and least promising member, that he may be lifted up into strength and fitness. Modern sci- ence and Christian philanthropy must direct their energies toward the creation of conditions that will prevent the making of the unfit and defective. The unfit must not be allowed to remain the unfit, but must be transformed into the fit. The science of medicine and the practice of charity have put into our hands certain systems of moral splints and braces, certain remedies and appliances, which enable us to keep the unfit and defective alive. The Christian spirit is here, and is becoming the moving power in men's lives ; they hold in their hands a vast system of prophylactic and moral remedies and braces ; the scien- 352 THE CHRISTIAN STATE tific and sociological spirit must show society what to do in order to provide for its future welfare; and society itself must then put its resources in pledge in behalf of the proposition that there shall be no unfit. This is a great undertaking, and it may require long generations for man to reach the goal. But this is a task that society must undertake in a brave and hopeful spirit, in the con- viction that though everything may not be done at once, something may be done that will bring it nearer the goal. It is worth something to know the problem before us ; and we have gained much when we know the direction of true progress. 1 VI. The Social Problem. In human progress some political problems have been solved and their solution has been formulated in written constitutions. In the mean- time, however, other problems have come to the front and are now clamoring for solution. Progress may mean the solution of problems, but progress no less means the multiplication of problems. Three generations ago De Tocqueville declared that the problems before men at the beginning of the nineteenth century were political ; then, with remarkable prescience, he foretold that the problems at the beginning of the twentieth century would be social. And this prophecy suggests the sphinx riddle that is now propounded to men and must be solved by society. We cannot pass this social problem by, for the reason that it is vitally related to the very existence of democracy and the honor of Christianity. Those who are interested in this problem will consult the careful studies that have been made by John Hobson in " The Social Problem," and Lester F. Ward, in his various books ; by Robert Hunter, in " Poverty," and John Graham Brooks, in " The 1 For a fuller discussion of this problem, with the suggestion of some remedies, the reader is referred to an article, "The Redemption of the Unfit," in "The American Journal of Sociology," September, 1908. THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 353 Social Unrest"; by Prof. R. T. Ely and Prof. William Graham ; by my friend Prof. Walter Rauschenbusch, in " Christianity and the Social Crisis " ; by Prof. Francis G. Peabody, in his two noteworthy studies, and by innumer- able other workers in this special field. And whether one is a socialist or not, he should not neglect such men as Karl Marx, in his great work, " Capital " ; or Blatchford, in his suggestive plea " Merrie England " ; or Loria, in " Economic Foundations of Society " ; or Labriola, in " Materialistic Conception of History " ; or Henry George, in " Progress and Poverty," and his other books ; or Benjamin Kidd, in " Social Evolution " and " Western Civilization." In fact, it seems almost invidious to name any special students in this field when there are so many earnest workers. Several factors enter into this problem and make at once its difficulty and its urgency. 1. In the more advanced Western nations political democracy has been gained and the people have become sovereign. But, as we have seen, in the chapter on the unfinished tasks of democracy, this has not by any means Lrought the people either liberty or contentment. In fact, the free citizen in the political State finds himself under bonds that are most irksome and galling. He finds that while in certain realms and relations his rights are defined and safeguarded, yet in other realms and relations they are wholly undefined and gross injustice is done. He may vote as a free citizen, but he is taxed without any representation, and government is without his consent. He may exercise his fraction of sovereignty in the po- litical State, but he discovers that he is rated as a " hand " in an industrial class and has little real initiative in life. It is vain, as De Laveleye has said, to call the tramp of the street a sovereign when he is a proletarian. It is vain, as any one can see, to glorify one's political privileges so long as he has no social opportunity. " Liberty," said x 354 THE CHRISTIAN STATE Carlyle, " I am told, is a divine thing. Liberty, when it becomes the liberty to die by starvation, is not so divine." 2. Again, in the most advanced lands of the Western world there has been a remarkable increase of material wealth. And this wealth, it may be said, is of various kinds, and includes practically all of the means of man's physical and intellectual life. The nineteenth century solved one problem at least — the problem how to create the most wealth in the least time. Machinery has multi- plied man's productive power many fold, and has cor- respondingly multiplied the commodities at his disposal. Indeed, machinery answereth almost all things, and at best man's labor is the superintendence of a machine. But what is the result of it all, we may ask? Is the struggle of life less keen and wasteful than in the bad times of old ? Is man, liberated from the toil and moil of life, now learning how to live the glad, free life of the spirit, and to rejoice as the emancipated citizen of the kingdom? In his day John Stuart Mill declared that it was an open question whether machinery had really lightened the burden of a single human being. In our times many things indicate that the increase of machinery is begetting a new slavery and is weighting man's load. Man is becoming the slave of the machine, and his work is more exhausting than ever. The machine may have been intended to serve mankind and to lighten its load, but it is enslaving the man and is tightening his chain. In fiction the inventor created his Frankenstein, a great creature in the semblance of a man, but without brain or soul, and only to be destroyed at last by the monster he had made. The fiction of the novelist, we are gravely told, is becoming the reality of our civilization. 3. And once more, in these Western lands, the home of democracy, we find that humanity has come into a marvelous heritage of knowledge and wealth. And this THE PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN STATE 355 social heritage, which represents the common toil of the fathers, is the common heritage of the children. In the wisdom and beneficence of G