BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Prepared by a Committee of the 
 NATIONAL REFORM ASSOCIATION. 
 
 A List of Works treating of the Origin, Nature, Sphere and End 
 
 of Civil Government. 
 
 In presenting to the public a list of works on Civil Government two 
 "Beets are kept in view : first, to give a classified list of the principal books 
 Wring on political and social questions, the study of which will give quite 
 | and accurate knowledge on all the important questions relating to the 
 Jgin of the nation, its moral character and accountability, the source of 
 whority in civil government, the sphere of governmental activity, and the 
 |ls for which it exists ; second, to help investigators to see for themselves 
 It the fundamental principles of civil government are of a religious nature, 
 1 that this is maintained by the great body of writers on political questions. 
 1 It is not to be understood that the placing of any book in this list 
 jolves an endorsement of all its teachings. Some of them are far astray 
 ] certain essential principles. But no work is placed in this list that 
 s not with more or less ability maintain one or more of the Christian 
 iciples of civil government. 
 
 It is not maintained that the authors of these works would assent 
 all the conclusions drawn from their teachings by the National Reform 
 feociation. It is maintained however, that these conclusions follow as 
 logical conclusion from the political principles these authors advocate. 
 
 The student of* political science finds very early in his studies that 
 $at is known as the Social Compact theory of government receives a 
 :at deal of attention. No one, in fact, can pretend to be well informed in 
 itical science who does not know pretty thoroughly the origin, the history, 
 the characteristics of this theory. This is so for many rea- 
 It has been widely accepted in former years by political 
 Biters in this and in other countries. It has been incorporated 
 
 lo some of our States constitutions. It is about the only one of the 
 Joneous theories of past generations that still has its advocates. It con- 
 Jis elements of truth which every candid mind must admit. It aims 
 ^ account for the very fact of societv. to explain why we have 
 il government, whence the right to establish it proceeds, and claims to 
 ■Lall this in a social compact or mutual agreement of men. In this it 
 Iches false political doctrine. What it can and does do is to explain how 
 
 1 
 
 I s - 
 
any particular government came into being, how the men in office came to be 
 clothed with authority, and how the existing constitutions and codes of 
 law were adopted. These things are the result of compact or agreement, 
 and in this department of political science this theory has its place. i 
 
 It has been thought best to begin the list of books with one that 
 advocates the Social Compact theory of government as the fairest way to 
 bring the whole matter before the minds of investigators. Thomas Hobbes 
 is chosen as the representative of this school of political philosophers because 
 in a sense he was the founder of the school. Others before him had main- 
 tained some of the principles of the theory, but to him belongs the credit, 
 of reducing it to a clear and systematic form. Mr. Hobbes is selected for 
 the additional reason that he, after all, maintains some of the fundamental 
 principles of Christian government. He is often spoken of as an 
 atheist, but this he certainly was not. In his philosophy he was what is now, 
 known as a materialist, and it is generally believed that his teachings in 
 philosophy would undermine all religious faith, but he was very much 
 averse to being classed with heretics in religion, and Part III of the work 
 referred to below -is entitled, “Of A Christian Commonwealth.” 
 
 I. WORKS ON POLITICAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Leviathan. By Thomas Hobbes. George Routledge and Sons, London. 
 
 Hobbes starts with the supposition that there was a period when 
 society and government did not exist, a state of nature when all men were 
 absolutely free. Of this state of nature he says : 
 
 “Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men lived without a common 
 power to keep them all in awe, they were in that condition which is called 
 war; and such a war, as is of every man against every man.” (p. 64.) Tc 
 this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; tha: 
 nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and in- 
 justice have then no place. Where there is no common power, then; 
 is no law; where no law, no injustice.”, (p. 65.) “Because the conditior 
 
 of man, . . is a condition of war of every one against every one; m whict 
 
 case every one is governed by his own reason; and there is notmng htj 
 can make use of, that may not be a help to him, in preserving his lifj 
 against his enemies; it followeth, that in such a condition, every mat; 
 has a right to every thing; even to another’s body. And therefore, a: 
 long as this natural right of every man to everything endureth, there can b< 
 no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he may be, of living ouj 
 the time which Nature ordinarily allotteth men to live (p. 6b.) 
 
 On the origin of the Commonwealth he says: The final cause, end! 
 
 Hocian of men who naturallv love liberty, and dominion over others; 
 
 2 
 
 
0 • 
 
 fir 1 b 
 
 sr 
 
 wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: . . . This done, the multitude 
 so united in one person is called a ‘commonwealth,’ in latin ‘civitas.’ This is 
 the generation of that great ‘leviathan’ or rather to speak more reverently, 
 of that mortal god to which we owe under the ‘immortal God,’ our peace 
 
 0^0 and defence.” (pp. 82, 84.) 
 
 This account is here given because it has figured prominently in 
 political science and in the framing of constitutions of civil government. 
 It has had a long period of dominant influence in the United States, many 
 of our State constitutions setting it forth as the true theory of the origin of 
 the State. 
 
 Hobbes regarded this Leviathan when once it was created as having 
 supreme authority, and denied to the individual contractors the right to 
 break the agreement. But he held that the monarch or sovereign assem- 
 bly “hath immediate authority from God, . . and no man but the sover- 
 
 eign receiveth his power Dei gratia simply.” Again he says, “Sovereigns in 
 their own dominions are their sole legislators,” but, he adds, “It is true, 
 that God is the sovereign of all sovereigns; and when he speaks to any 
 subject he ought to be obeyed, whatsoever any earthly potentate command 
 to the contrary.” (p. 172.) Of Jesus Christ the Messiah he maintains 
 that in the future he is to be Messianic King, but that “as God he is 
 king already and ever shall be, of all the earth, in virtue of his om- 
 nipotence.” 
 
 The next great advocate of this theory after Hobbes was Locke. 
 His political writings are entitled, “Two Treatises of Government.” In 
 the first he controverts the Patriarchal theory as advocated by Robert 
 Filmer, and in the second he sets forth the social compact theory. But 
 instead of arriving at Hobbes’ conclusion that the compact creates a 
 despotic power, he reached the very opposite conclusion that it is the 
 bulwark of liberty. Rousseau, a citizen of Geneva, next took up this 
 theory and in his work entitled Contrat Social, gave it the shape in which 
 it has had the most influence in the United States. Brownson says that 
 “the theory was generally adopted by the American people in the last 
 century and is still the more prevalent theory with those of them who 
 happen to have any theory or opinion on the subject.” 
 
 The Science of Politics. By Sheldon Amos. D. Appleton and Co. 
 tfew York. 
 
 Professor Amos says of the Social Compact theory, that it is “fictitious 
 in itself, and added nothing to the fact of obligation on either side, while 
 it led to political confusion by withdrawing people’s minds from the real 
 grounds and moral foundation on which the reciprocal duties of the 
 Governor and the Governed rest.” (p. 46.) 
 
 The Christian State. By S. Z. Batten. The Griffith and Rowland 
 3 ress, Philadelphia. 
 
 Mr. Batten finds “the origin of the State in the Nature of man and 
 the purpose of God.” This view he says “gives us 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 existance. It grounds the State in 
 the very nature of mari and the purpose of God, and it contains a justifi- 
 cation for its existance in the very nature of life itself.” (pp. 52, 53.) 
 
 Chapter XII is entitled “The State and its Religion.” He speaks as 
 follows on this topic: “In all ages and lands religion has been the potent 
 factor in human life, and the central feature of human history. The chief 
 fact with regard to a man, says Carlyle, is his religion. ‘The truth is’ 
 says Professor Seeley, ‘that religion is and always has been, the basis of 
 societies and States. It is no mere philosophy, but a practical view of 
 life which whole communities live by. . . From history we learn that 
 the great function of religion has been the founding and sustaining of 
 States. And at this moment we are threatened with a general dissolution 
 
 3 
 
of States from the decay of religion.’ This means that the kind and 
 
 quality of a people’s religion will both create and determine their social 
 
 and political institutions. And this means that the decay and degener- 
 ation of a people’s social and civil life can be traced back to the decline 
 
 and decay of their religion. . . It is unfortunate that this larger question 
 
 of the State and its religion has, in these Western lands in modern times 
 been narrowed down to the smaller one of the relation of Church and 
 State. This latter question has played an important part in the history of 
 political thought; and it promises to play an even more important part in 
 the drama of the future. In the United States and France a temporary 
 solution and a working modus vivendi have been discovered. But it is evident 
 to all careful observers that the present relation is not by any means the 
 solution of the problem, and the last word on the question has not been 
 spoken. . . This whole movement in behalf of liberty of conscience and 
 
 the separation of Church and State, has been largely negative in charac- 
 ter. . . Again, to know the sphere of Christian manifestation we must 
 
 know what is the essential idea of Christianity. It has become evident that 
 the idea of the kingdom of God is the very center and circumference of 
 the Christian system. . . . But the kingdom is not only a personal ideal, 
 
 but a social ideal as well. . . In what is called the Church we have one 
 of the institutions of the kingdom and of the agencies for its extension in 
 the world. But a natural and inevitable question meets us at this point: 
 Is the Church the sole institution of Christianity? When the Christian 
 spirit has created the Christian Church, has it fulfilled its whole mission 
 in the world? The very conception of the religion of Christ, the very 
 idea of the kingdom of God, forbids such a conclusion. And so we must 
 widen the boundaries of the kingdom till they have included all the relations 
 and institutions of man’s life, the family, and the State, no less than 
 the Church. . . The religion of Christ, which is the religion of the king- 
 
 dom of God, must have to do with civic and social affairs no less than 
 with personal and ecclesiastical matters. . . They who would exclude 
 religion from political affairs show an utter misconception of the nature 
 of religion and the work of the Church. It matters not whether this 
 divorce is pronounced in the name of religion or politics it is wrong 
 in principle and pernicious in results. They who say that the Church is the 
 one sole institution of religion, and that religion has nothing to do with 
 social and political affairs, utterly misconceive the work of the Church and 
 the nature of religion. They who say that the State is a non-religious 
 realm, and with it Christianity has nothing to do, misunderstand the nature 
 of Christianity and the meaning of the State. Religion is a universal 
 principle and has to do with all life. The Church is one of the institutions 
 of religion, but the State needs religion as much as the Church.” (pp. 294, 
 301.) 
 
 The American Republic, By O. A. Brownson, LL. D. P. O’Shea, 1 
 New York. 
 
 In combatting the Social Compact theory of government as maintained 
 by Hobbes and others, he says: “The theory under examination denies | 
 that society has any rights except such as it derives from individuals who 
 all have equal rights. According to it, society is itself conventional, and 1 
 created by free, independent, equal, sovereign individuals. Society is a 
 congress of sovereigns, in which no one has authority over another, and 
 no one can be rightfully forced to submit to any decree against his will. 
 In such a congress the rule of the majority is manifestly improper, ille- 
 gitimate, and invalid, unless adopted by unanimous consent. 
 
 But this is not all. The individual is always the equal of himself, and 
 if the government derives powers from the consent of the governed, he 
 governs in the government, and parts with none of his original sovereignty. 
 The government is not his master, but his agent, as the principal only 
 delegates, not surrenders, his rights and powers to the agent. He is free 
 at any time he pleases to recall the powers he has delegated, to give new 
 instructions, or to dismiss him. The sovereignty of the individual survives 
 the compact, and persists through all the acts of his agent, the government. 
 
 4 
 
He must then, be free to withdraw from the compact whenever he judges 
 it advisable. Secession is perfectly legitimate if government is simply a 
 compact between equals. The disaffected, the criminal, the thief the 
 government would send to prison, or the murderer it would hang, would be 
 very likely to revoke his consent, and to secede from the state.” (pp. 62,63.) 
 In setting forth the divine origin of government he says: “In civil society 
 two things are necessary — stability and movement. The human is the element 
 of movement, for in it are possibilities that can be only successfully 
 actualized. But the element of stability can be found only in the divine, in 
 God, in whom there is no unactualized possibility, who, therefore, is im- 
 movable, immutable, and eternal. The doctrine that derives authority from 
 God through the people, recognizes in the state both of these elements and 
 provides alike for stability and progress. 
 
 “This doctorine is not mere theory; it simply states the real order 
 of things. It is not telling what ought to be, but what is in the real 
 order.” (p. 123.) In defining the method whereby this authority is derived 
 by the people from God, he says: “The right of government to govern, or 
 political authority, is derived by the collective people or society, from God 
 through the law of nature. Rulers hold from God through the people or 
 nation, and the people or nation hold from God through the natural law.” 
 (p. 133.) 
 
 Essays and Reviews. By O. A. Brownson, LL.D. P. J. Kennedy and 
 ons, New York. 
 
 Many writers on Democracy consider the people as the fountain source 
 of authority and law. Brownson goes back one step farther and asks who 
 or what is to take care of the people? “The people take care of govern- 
 ment and education, but who or what is to take care of the people, who need 
 taking care of quite as much as either education or government? We 
 know of but one solution of the difficulty, and that is in religion. There is 
 no foundation for virtue but in religion, and it is only religion that can 
 command the degree of popular virtue and intelligence rejuisite to insure to 
 popular government the right direction and a wise and just administration.” 
 (Page 372.) 
 
 The Principles of Politic Law. By J. J. Burlamaqui. John Rice, 
 hiblin, 
 
 The sources and binding obligation of law are shown to have a religious 
 character. “The authority of the laws consists in the force given them by 
 the person who, being invested with the legislative power, has a right to 
 enact these laws; and in the Divine Will which commands us to obey Him. 
 ‘It is better to obey God than men.’ For in promising a faithful obedience 
 to the sovereign we could never do it but on condition that he should not 
 order anything that is manifestly contrary to the laws of God, whether 
 natural or revealed.” In framing law the sovereign “should pay a perfect 
 regard to these primitive rules of justice which God Himself has estab- 
 lished, and take care that his laws be perfectly comfortable to them.” 
 (Pp. 123, 128, 129.) 
 
 The Ancient City. By Fustel De Coulanges. Lee and Shepard, 
 oston. 
 
 That religion permeated early customs and institutions, constituting 
 their moving power, is the thesis of De Coulanges. “The place of assembly 
 of the Roman senate was always a temple. If a session had been held else- 
 where than in a sacred place, its acts would have been null and void, for the 
 gods would not have been present. Before every deliberation, the presi- 
 dent offered a sacrifice and pronounced a prayer. The political institutions 
 
 5 
 
of the city were born with the city itself and on the same day with it. Every 
 member of the city carried them with himself, for the germ of them was in 
 each man’s belief and religion.” (Pp. 217, 231.) 
 
 Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation. By T. H. Green. 
 
 Longmans, Green and Company, New York. 
 
 The grounds of political obligation lie in the State as the pre-supposi- 
 tion of the moral life. Without the State man could not reach the realiza- 
 tion of his highest and best self. The State, therefore, is involved in the 
 moral nature of man and from that fact derives its authority. “The condi- 
 tion of the moral life is the possession of will and reason. The value, 
 then, of the institutions of civil life lies in their operation as giving reality 
 to these capacities of will and reason, and enabling them to be really exer- 
 cised. The moral capacity implies a consciousness on the part of the 
 subject of the capacity that its realization is an end desirable in itself, and 
 rights are the condition of realizing it.” 
 
 The Sphere of the State. By F. S. Hoffman, Ph.D. G. P. Putnams 
 
 Sons, New York. 
 
 In dealing with the Social Compact theory of government Professor 
 Hoffman says that as a theory it is utterly fallacious, that “it led to the 
 French Revolution and our late rebellion, and that wherever introduced it 
 tends to national strife and ultimate disintegration. As a theory of gov- 
 ernment it is a true doctrine, if we mean simply the form of the govern- 
 ment. It is not left to the people whether they will have a government oi 
 not, any more than it is left to them to determine whether or not they will 
 live in a State. The government is a necessity as truly as. the State, but the 
 people in their organic capacity as a State ought to determine by social corn- 
 pact not only who are to be their governors, but also the mode of then 
 selection and the sphere of their activities. ... All just governmerr 
 is of God through the people. For man is so made by his Creator that he 
 must live in a State, and the State must have a government. (Pp. 
 
 On the relation of the State to religion the author says: ‘We unhesi- 
 tatingly advocate the doctrine that religious instruction, as well as secular 
 should be given in the schools of the State. But solely as a means to ar 
 en d — not as an end in itself.” (P. 46.) 
 
 Political Ethics. By Francis Lieber, LL. D. J. B. Lippmcoot ane 
 Co. Philadelphia. 
 
 On the moral character and personality of the State Dr. Lieber says 
 “The state being a jural society, and rights being imaginable betweei 
 moral beings only, it follows that the state has likewise a moral characte 
 and must maintain it. From what constitutes right, as has been shown 
 it appears that no right, consequently no specific rights, can exist betweei 
 animals or irrational beings, since the right is founded on the claim eac 
 rational or moral being makes on every other rational or moral being. 
 
 (Vol I. pp. 158, 159.) T . , . , 
 
 In opposition to the Social Compact theory Dr. Lieber speaks thus 
 “Wherever we find men, in whatever stage of social development, th 
 barbarous Patagonians, the restless son of the desert, the moving hunter o 
 the prairie, the piratical Malay, the forlorn Esquimaux, the slavish Asiati 
 or the free American, the submissive Russian or the manly Briton, wher 
 there are men, there are also rules, rulers and ruled, ordainers and obeyer 
 judges and judged, those that have power and those that yield obedience 
 chieftain and followers, princes and subjects, magistrates and citizens 
 always superiors and inferiors. The state is natural to man, is absolut 
 necessary to man.” (Vol.,1. pp. 215, 216.) 
 
 6 
 
Civil Liberty and Self Government. By Francis Lieber, LL. D. J. 
 ». Lippincott and Co. Philadelphia. 
 
 On the question of Church and State and religion and the State Dr. 
 Lieber says: “The Americans consider it (the separation of Church and 
 State,) as a legitimate consequence of the liberty of conscience. They 
 believe that the contrary would lead to disastrous results with reference to 
 religion itself, and it is undeniable that another state of things could not by 
 possibility have been established here. We believe, moreover, that the great 
 mission of this country has to perform, with reference to Europe, requires 
 this total divorce of state and church (not religion), (p. 259.) 
 
 First Principles in Politics. By William Samuel Lilly, Honorary FeL 
 >w of Peterhour, Cambridge. John Murray, London. 
 
 “Civil society is natural to man, and so may, and must, be regarded by 
 all theists as instituted by the Author of Nature. (P. 21.) 
 
 The State and the Individual. By William Sharp McKechnie, LL. B. 
 imes MacLehose and Sons, Glasgow. 
 
 In speaking of the impossibility of excluding religion and morality 
 from the sphere of the State he says that once “It was held that the world 
 
 might be split as by the stroke of a knife into two compartments — the 
 
 spiritual and temporal — over which Pope and Emperor should respectively 
 rule. The course of history. . . is sufficient of itself to prove the 
 
 fallacy on which this division rested. Philosophy gives an equally clear 
 
 denial to the possibility of any such absolute dualism” 
 
 “It may still be asked whether the State’s proper sphere includes 
 morality. It is sometimes said that it does not, but several reasons show 
 that it is impossible for the legislative and adminstrative authorities 
 utterly to banish all moral considerations from their ken. In the first 
 place, each State must act among other States, and is forced to deal with 
 matters involving questions of morality whether it like it or no. It may, 
 at its peril, consistently ignore the ethical aspects of what it does, or 
 boldly declare its defiance of them, but this refusal to see the light does 
 not evade penal responsibility or avoid the consequences of a violated moral 
 law.” (p. 94.) 
 
 “No true right of the individual can be opposed to the rights of a moral 
 State.” (p. 433.) 
 
 The Nation. By K. Mulford. Hurd and Houghton, New York. 
 
 Dr. Mulford presents a number of arguments to prove that the nation 
 is a moral person, the chief of which are these: “This is the condition of 
 its vocation, as in the fulfilment of its vocation there is the formation of 
 its character.” “The nation is a moral person, since it is called as a power 
 in the coming kingdom in which there is the moral government of the 
 world, and in whose completion there is the goal of history. It is a power 
 in the moral conflict and conquest which is borne through history, to the 
 final triumph of the good.” “The being of the nation as a moral person 
 has its witness in the consciousness of men. It has awakened the higher 
 moral emotion, and its response has been from the higher moral spirit. 
 It has, called forth the willing sacrifice of those who were worthy. The life 
 of the individual has been given for the life of the nation.” (pp. 19, 21.) 
 
 On the origin of the nation with its power and authority he says: 
 “The nation has a divine foundation, and has for its end the fulfillment of 
 the divine in history.” “The evidence of the origin of the nation is in its 
 necessary nature.” “The nation is an organic unity; it is not an artificial 
 fabric nor an abstract system, but it is a life which is definite and disparate, 
 and has a development; therefore it has not its origin in the individual nor 
 
 7 
 
the collective will of man, but must proceed from a power which can| 
 
 determine the origin of organic being 
 
 “The evidence of the origin of the nation is also in its being a moral 
 person. There is and can be for personality, as it transcends physical 
 nature, only a divine origin, and its realization is in a divine relation.’ 
 “The powers with which the nation is invested are also indicative of its; 
 origin. It is clothed with an authority, and has a majesty which no powei 
 of earth may assume. The affirmation of its will is law, but apart from it 
 the will of no man and no collection of men, is law for another. The righi 
 of government is its right, but apart from it no man and no collection of mer 
 have the right to govern another, and it belongs to the nation only as it is] 
 of divine right. There is no human ground on which it can rest. They whcj 
 are intrusted with it hold it as the representatives of the nation, and as the 
 ministers of the divine purpose in the nation. The President and the Com 
 gress, as the Crown and the Parliament rule by the grace of God. . . If the 
 divine origin and foundation of the nation is denied, the authority of its 
 government is resolved into mere force.” (pp. 54, 59.) 
 
 “As the nation is called to be a power in history, it is in the realizatioi 
 of its being the Christian nation. It is this in its necessary conception 
 It has not in its option the alternative to determine whether it shall be, bu 
 yet shall or shall not be this, but its necessary realization is the Christiai 
 nation. . . The only completion of the state is in the Christian state." 
 
 (p. 368.)’ , , 
 
 “The Christ is represented in his coming as the only King, and as neare 
 to humanity than in the earlier ages and as revealing in his own life th 
 foundation of its eternal relationships. The Christ is called the only Kin£ 
 the Deliverer, in obedience to whom the freedom of the individual an 
 the nation consists. And as there has been in nations the recognition o 
 the Christ as the King, there has been the formation of a national lift 
 and the unity in which alone the divisions of race are overcome; and a 
 the nations have rejected the Christ as the King, no more a power in hi 
 kingdom, they have passed from history.” (pp. 386, 387.) 
 
 Government and the State. 
 
 Sons, New York. (1902.) , 
 
 By Frederick Wood. G. P. Putnam 
 
 “The universality of religious sentiment is strictly that which brings 
 within State jurisdiction. Of the many qualities which form the characti 
 of a community, one is the moral ton, the aggregate of opinion on ethic 
 Questions. Whatever violates this tone endangers the State. Religioi 
 of extreme difference cannot dwell together and must find their abode 
 countries of consonant ideas. These facts impress upon all States, to 
 limited degree, a religious character. This degree has nothing in J cons, 
 nance with that attaching to the union of Church and State.. (Pp. Ill, 1 1^ 
 
 Political Science. By Theodore D. Woolsey, Tate President of \ a 1 
 College. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 
 
 In dealing with the Social Compact theory of the origin of governme 
 Dr Woolsev says: “Contract does not explain the obligation of subseque 
 generations' to abide by the contract. A successor by testament can 
 bound to fulfill the conditions if he receive the bequest; but the bindi 
 force of a social covenant spends itself when the contracting parties d 
 appear from the earth. They are partners, and the partnership expir 
 unless new members are admitted by their own free consent. Mr Jeftersc 
 who embraced this contract philosophy, felt this objection so strongly 
 to think that, after nineteen years, when the majority of the first farmers 
 a constitution would no longer be living, constitutions ought regularly to 
 submitted to the people. On this an American writer remarks that hem 
 the life of states shorter than that of a horse. But he did this logical 
 
 • 8 
 
His error lay in starting from the basis of express contract, and in resting 
 the obligations of citizens toward the state on a formal transaction, rather 
 than on the nature of man and the necessity of the state. (Vol. I, pp. 191, 
 192.) 
 
 “States have rights which cannot be derived from rights surrendered 
 by individuals. . . Society in the state-form has a right over the lives of 
 
 individuals, so far as, for instance, to punish wilful murder capitally. 
 But the murdered man certainly did not give up his right to punish his 
 murderer. He would have killed him if he could. Nor does it appear that 
 men in general possess, or can give up, a right over their own lives. The 
 right of punishment does not rest on such a flimsy foundation. The trouble 
 that this case gave Rousseau is instructive. . . Society, in short, has 
 
 more wisdom and might than the sum of its members, and much more than 
 contending claimants in a given case. Its wisdom and might qualify it 
 for judgment, and it brings these qualities to bear on all. The right comes 
 not from renounced power but from the state's being, in the natural order 
 of things, God's method of helping men towards a perfect life. (Vol. I. p. 
 195.) “How then does the state arise? . . If the question refers to the 
 rational grounds on which we can justify the existence of an organized 
 society, the answer is found in the destination of men, in their being so 
 made as to seek society, for which they are prepared by the family state, 
 and in the impossibitity that society should exist, be permanent and 
 prosper, without law and organization. The individual could make nothing 
 of himself or of his rights except in society; society unorganized could make 
 no progress, could have no security, no recognized rights, no order, no 
 settled industry, no motive for forethought, no hope for the future.* The 
 need of such an institution as the state, the physical provision for its 
 existence, the fact that it has appeared everywhere in the world, unless 
 in a few most degraded tribes, show that it is in a manner necessary, and 
 if necessary, natural, and if natural, divine.” (Vol. I. p. 198.) 
 
 NOTE. — In presenting the list immediately following a word of ex- 
 planation may be helpful. At the present time the popular view of the 
 origin of the state is known as the historical or evolution view. The 
 authors of most of the recent works on political science hold this view 
 in some form or other. They discard the Social Compact theory in all its 
 forms. They also reject the theory of divine origin. But they mean by 
 this the theory of the divine right of kings. They generally admit that the 
 idea of the state together with possession by the state of sovereign 
 political, authority is to be traced back to God. In applying the theory 
 of evolution to the historical development of the state they seek to trace 
 the various steps of progress whereby the state has become what it is. 
 It must be admitted that the study of political science in the light of 
 history that the various steps of progress may be traced is perfectly 
 legitimate. But this study alone will not tell us how, when or where man 
 began to be a political being and how the state comes to be Clothed with 
 authority. Hence many of the writers of this school, in order to find a 
 sure foundation on which to rest the authority of civil government are 
 compelled to trace it back to the Divine Author. 
 
 Political Science and Constitutional Law. By. J. W.. Burgess. 
 
 Professor Burgess concedes the divine origin of the state in the 
 following sentences: “If the theologian means by his doctrine of the 
 divine origin of the state simply that the Creator of man implanted the 
 substance of the state in the nature of man, the historian will surely be 
 under no necessity to contradict him.” “The principle of the historic 
 genesis of the state .does not stand opposed to the doctrine of the divine 
 origin of the state when that doctrine is rationally construed; it includes 
 it and makes it the starting point in the evolution.” He makes man’s 
 nature the “basis and starting point,” and holds that “the Creator of the 
 nature is, therefore, the originator of the subjective state.” (pp. 59, 62.) 
 
 9 
 
Elements of Political Science. By Stephen Leacock, Ph. D. McGill 
 University, Montreal. Houghton Miffin Company, Boston and New York, j 
 
 After showing the fallacies of the Social Compact theory, the theory : 
 of the Divine Right of kings and the theory of force as explanations of 
 the origin of the State, Professor Leacock sets forth the Historical or 
 Evoulutionary view. He shows that the advocates of this view are not 
 agreed among themselves as to the lines along which the evolution went 
 forward and declares that “it is impossible to predicate any universal 
 course of development or any necessary series of forms which it must 
 assume.” Among the products of this political evolution he mentions 
 the separation of Church and State. In this part of his discussion he 
 admits the necessary relation of the State and the moral law. He says: 
 “The early forms of government were theocratic. The functions of priest j 
 and king were intermingled or closely allied. The divine law was presumed 
 to constitute the sanction behind human enactments. . . In the modern 
 
 state, however generally it may be admitted among the citizens that 
 legislation ought to be based on the ethical principles of Christianity, the 
 interpreters of the divine law, in the form of the priesthood, are not 
 placed in- a position of civil authority. The guidance of the spiritual and 
 the political life of the community is in different hands.” (p. 50.) 
 
 The State. By Woodrow Wilson, LL. D. D. C. Heath and Co. 
 
 After enumerating and discussing various theories of the origin of 
 the state President Wilson says: “Upon each of these theories, neverthe- 
 less there evidently lies the shadow of a truth. Although government 
 did not originate in a deliberate contract, and although no system of law 
 or of social order was ever made ‘out of hand’ by any man, government 
 was not all a mere spontaneous growth. Deliberate choice has always 
 played a part in its development. It was not, on the one hand, given 
 to man readymade by God, nor was it, on the other hand, a human con- 
 trivance. In its origin it was spontaneous, natural, twin-born with man 
 and the family; Aristotle was simply stating a fact when he said, Man is 
 bv nature a political animal.’ But, once having arisen, government was 
 affected and profoundly affected, by man’s choice; only that choice 
 entered,’ not to originate, but to modify government.” (p. 14.) 
 
 The Nature of the State. By Westel Woodbury Willoughby, Lec- 
 turer in Political Philosophy in the Johns Hopkins University. Macmillan 
 and Co.. New York. 
 
 Professor Willoughby goes much farther than most writers in separat- 
 ing the State from moral and religious ideas, but he can not bring him- 
 self to the point of denying all connection. In studying his discussion 
 of the origin of the State, Chapter III, it should be . remembered that 
 his inquiry is “why in any particular case there should exist in a community 
 a definite set of individuals arrogating to themselves the right of exercise 
 of this divine prerogative of rule. All that necessarily follows from the 
 divine theory is that political rule of some sort or other is divinely justified, 
 (p. 52.) 
 
 II. WORKS ON JURISPRUDENCE. 
 
 American Law. A Commentary on the Jurisprudence, Constitution 
 and Laws of the United States. By James De Witt Andrews. Callaghan and 
 Company, Chicago. 
 
 10 
 
A few short quotations relating to the personality of the State, and to 
 religious instruction in the public schools, are here given: 
 
 “The State or society is the necessary and normal, i. e., natural whole, 
 of which men are parts. It is therefore an original rational organism like 
 reason itself, an original fact, an essential condition of human existence.” 
 (Vol. I, p. 5.) 
 
 Mr. Andrews shows that the word person has two meanings: First, 
 every being, artificial or natural, capable of having or owing rights. Sec- 
 ond, the characters, capacities, qualities or positions which the law 
 ascribed to certain men as individuals, that is, rank, condition, capacity — 
 status. 
 
 “We know that all laws emanate from persons, and also that they 
 operate against or upon persons; that is, all law certainly addresses persons. 
 So of rights.” (Vol. I, p. 81.) He maintains the personality of the state 
 for the above reasons. 
 
 “It would probably be safe to affirm that no American court would hold 
 that an explanation, incidentally given in the course of teaching history or 
 literature, if the tenets of the Christian religion, Mohammedanism, Mor- 
 monism, or any other religion, would be a violation of the law, and some- 
 thing must be left to the discretion of those who are conducting the schools 
 and to the courts in the matter, and the intention with which an act is 
 done, and the extent to which it is carried, must be decisive of the matter.” 
 (Vol. I, p. 602.) 
 
 Commentaries on the Laws of England. By Sir William Blackstone. 
 
 With reference to the Social Compact theory of the origin of govern- 
 ment, Blackstone says: “Not that we can believe, with some theoretical 
 writers, that there ever was a time when there was no such thing as 
 society either natural or civil; and that, from the impulse of reason, and 
 through a sense of their wants and weaknesses, individuals met together 
 in a large plain, entered into an original contract, and chose the tallest 
 man present to he their governor. This notion of an actually existing 
 unconnected state of nature, is too wild to be seriously admitted; and 
 besides it is plainly contradictory to the revealed account of the primitive 
 origin of mankind. (Vol. I. p. 46.) 
 
 Of the nature of Law he says: “Considering the Creator only as a 
 being of infinite power, he was able unquestonably to have prescribed 
 whatever laws he pleased to his creature, man, however unjust or severe. 
 But as he is also a being of infinite wisdom, he has laid down only such 
 laws as were founded in those relations of justice that existed in the nature 
 of things antecedent to any positive precept. 
 
 “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the 
 laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.” “As man depends 
 absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, 
 in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of the Maker is 
 called the law of nature.” “This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, 
 and dictated by God himself is of course superior in obligation to any 
 other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; 
 no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them 
 as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or 
 immediately, from this original.” Speaking of the effect of sin upon the 
 human reason, which would have been sufficient had not man fallen to 
 know what the law of God is as revealed in nature, he says: “this reason 
 is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error. This has 
 given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine Providence, 
 which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness 
 of human reason, hath been pleased at sundry times and in divers manners, 
 to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation.” 
 “Undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that 
 moral system which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the 
 natural law; because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to 
 
 IT 
 
be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human 
 reason we imagine to be that law. . . Upon these two foundations, the 
 law of nature and the law of revelation, depends all human laws; that is 
 to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.” (Vol. I, 
 pp. 39-42.) 
 
 Commentaries on American Law. By James Kent. Edited by George 
 F. Comstock. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. 
 
 In speaking of the law of Nations Chancellor Kent says: “It would 
 be improper to separate this law entirely from natural jurisprudence, and 
 not to consider it as deriving much of its force and dignity from the same 
 principles of right reason, the same view of the nature and constitution 
 of man, and the same sanction of Divine revelation, as those from which 
 the science of morality is deduced. 
 
 “We ought not, therefore, to separate the science of public law from 
 that of ethics, nor encourage the dangerous suggestion, that governments 
 are not so strictly bound by the obligations of truth, justice and humanity, 
 in relation to other powers, as they are in the management of their own 
 local concerns. States, or bodies politic, are to be considered as moral 
 persons, having a public will, capable and free to do right and wrong, 
 inasmuch as they are collections of individuals, each of whom carries 
 with him into the service of the community the same binding law of 
 morality and religion which ought to control his conduct in private life. . . 
 And we have the authority of the lawyers of antiquity, and of some of 
 the first masters in the modern school of public law, for placing the moral 
 obligation of nations and of individuals on similar grounds, and for con- 
 sidering individual and national morality as parts of one and the same 
 science.” (Vol. I. pp. 2, 3.) 
 
 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. By Joseph 
 Story, L’L.D. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. 
 
 In speaking of .the essential connection between religion and the 
 State Justice Story said, “The promulgation of the great doctrines of 
 religion, the being and attributes and providence of one Almighty God; the 
 responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom 
 and accountability: a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultiva- 
 tion of all the personal, social and benevolent virtues; — these never can be 
 a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is indeed diffi- 
 cult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them. . . : 
 
 Indeed in a republic there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing 
 the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its sup- 
 port and permanence if it be what it has ever been deemed by its truest 
 friends, thy religion of liberty.” In discussing the meaning of the first 
 amendment to the national constitution which forbids Congress to make any 
 law respecting an establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exer- 
 cise thereof, he says: “Probably at the time of the adoption of the consti- 
 tution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if 
 not universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive 
 encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the pri-j 
 vate rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An at- 
 tempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to ; 
 hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation) 
 if not universal indignation. 
 
 “It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any 
 free government can be permanent where the public worship of God, and 
 the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in 
 any assignable shape. 
 
 “The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less 
 to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Chris- 
 
 12 
 
tianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any 
 national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to a hierarchy the 
 exclusive patronage of the national government.” (Vol. I, pp. 661-664.) 
 
 The Works of James Wilson, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 
 i the United States, and Professor of Law in the College of Philadelphia, 
 'allaghan and Company, Chicago. 
 
 Justice Wilson was one of the signers of the constitution of the 
 United States and ranks among the foremost authorities on questions of 
 jurisprudence. 
 
 On the moral personality of the State he says: “A number of in- 
 dividuals, who have formed themselves into a society or state, are, with 
 regard to the purposes of the society, bound to consider themselves as 
 one moral person,” (Vol I. p. 322.) 
 
 “Though states or nations are considered as moral persons, yet the 
 nature, and essence of these moral persons differ necessarily, in many re- 
 spects, from the nature and essence of the individuals of which they 
 are composed. (Vol I. p. 135.) 
 
 Justice Wilson makes a clear and proper distinction between civil 
 society which is our natural state and existing governments which are the 
 result of agreement. After combating the social compact theory of the 
 state with a series of unanswerable arguments, he says: “To a state of 
 society then, we are invited from every quarter, It is natural, it is necessary 
 it is pleasing, it is profitable to us. The result of all is that for a state 
 of society we are designated by Him who is all-wise and all good.” 
 
 III. COMMENTARIES ON THE BIBLE. 
 
 Only a few from the great mass of Bible commentaries can be referred 
 o in this Bibliography. The student of political science, however, can do no 
 etter than read the Bible itself, as it is after all the greatest of all works on 
 (ivil government. 
 
 The Psalms. By Carl Bernhard Moll, (Lange Series). Scribner’s, New 
 r ork. 
 
 In his comments on the Second Psalm he says: “The Messiah’s power 
 over the Kingdom of God is destined to be a divine government, not only to 
 embrace the world, but also to conquer the world; and it has not only this 
 destiny, but has also sufficient means in its own constitution to accomplish 
 both of these purposes. We must distinguish, however, (1) the means of 
 grace, which are offered previously to all the world, the use of which con- 
 veys a blessing to all those who willingly submit themselves to him ; . . . 
 and (2) the powers which infinitely surpass all the powers of this world, 
 and which are greatly to be feared when they unfold in their strength in the 
 exhibition of wrath, in the Messianic judgment. 
 
 “In the intervening time the Divine word addresses itself not only to 
 the lowly and the weak, but very emphatically to the powerful and those in 
 high positions in the world, who are in special danger of over-rating them- 
 selves and of boasting, and, in consequence of this, of misunderstanding 
 neglecting and transgressing the laws of the Kingdom of God, which lie at 
 the basis of all human order, and therefore they need an earnest and gracious 
 admonition to be mindful of their responsibility to the Heavenly King and 
 Judge, and to lead their subordinates in witnessing faithful obedience to their 
 Lord and God, who not <?nly has established the office of magistrate in the 
 world and maintains, protects and blesses the power of the magistrate 
 
 13 
 
among men, but also would stand in a personal relation and communion 
 with those who are clothed with this power, in order that the scepter and 
 sword, money and property with which they have been invested by Him, 
 may be used to the glory of God, the good of the kingdom, and the benefit 
 of men.” 
 
 The Prophet Isaiah. By C. W. Nagelsbach. (Lange Series.) Scrib- 
 ners, New York. 
 
 The second chapter is taken to refer exclusively to the nations of the 
 world. It speaks of their receiving instruction in God’s ways and of their 
 walking in His paths, and beating their swords into plowshares, etc. The 
 author of the exposition says: “The consequence o-f this divine instruction, 
 sought and received by the nations, shall be, that the nations shall order 
 their affairs and compose their judicial processes according to the mind of 
 him that has taught them. So shall God appear as that one who judges 
 between the nations and awards a (judicial) sentence. The Spirit of God 
 that lives in His word is a Spirit of love and peace. The God of peace 
 sanctifies, therefore, the nations through and through, so that they no more 
 confront one another in the sense and spirit of the brute power of this 
 world, but in the mind and spirit of the Kingdom of God.” 
 
 Isaiah, Exposition and Homilies. By Rev. George Rawlinson. (Pulpit J 
 Commentary.) A. D. F. Randolph and Company. 
 
 In a homily on Chapter 2:6-8 he states as the theme, “National Judg- 
 ments the result of national sins.” In developing this thought he says. 
 
 * “God’s dealings with Israel are to be viewed as a pattern of his dealings 
 
 with nations generally. He has not two standards of right and wrong, or 
 two rules of action under like circumstances. He is no ‘respecter of per- 
 sons.’ As he dealt with his own peculiar people, so will he deal, so has 
 he always dealt, with the other nations of the world. 
 
 “Every nation has its probation. God proved Israel during the space of 
 above seven hundred years by the laws which he gave them, and the cir- 
 cumstances in which he caused them to be placed. He chastened them by 
 foreign enemies, comforted them by deliverances, warned them by his 
 prophets, afflicted them by famine and pestilence, gave them times of refresh- 
 ing. So long as there was any hope of their repentance and reformation 
 he bore with them, forgave their transgressions, prolonged their time of trial, 
 ‘destroyed them not.’ It was only after all the resources of his mercy had ; 
 been exhausted, and there was no remedy left, that the destruction fell, and 
 the nation ceased to exist. And so it was with the other nations of the earth. 
 God raised them up, set each a work to do, gave them laws if not by revela- 
 tion at any rate through their conscience, and proceeded to prove them, 
 whether they would work His will or not. Each fell in its turn because it 
 rebelled against God, and persisted in its rebellion, until God could suffer 
 it no more.” 
 
 Notes on the Book of Daniel. By Albert Barnes. Leavitt and Bros., I 
 
 New York. 
 
 Chapter 7 of the Book of Daniel is the record of a vision in which 
 the prophet saw one like the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, 
 “And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all 
 people, nations and languages should serve him; His dominion is an ever- 
 lasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that whch 
 shall not be destroyed.” V. 14. Dr. Barnes says on this verse: ‘The 
 nature and the extent of His kingdom is designated as one that would be 
 universal and perpetual.” “It would be universal; would embrace all 
 nations. The language here is such as would emphatically denote univer- 
 sality. It implies that the kingdom would extend over all the nations of the 
 earth, and we are to look for the fulfillment of this only in such a universal 
 reign of the Messiah.” 
 
 14 
 
The Synoptic Gospels — The Expositor’s Greek Testament. By A. B. 
 
 3ruce, D.D. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York. 
 
 On Matthew, Chapter 28:18, “All authority hath been given unto me in 
 heaven and upon earth,” Dr. Bruce says that the term authority means 
 “every form of authority; command of all means necessary for the advance- 
 ment of the Kingdom of God-.” “The two phrases (in heaven and upon 
 earth) together point to a universal cosmic dominion. But so far as the 
 earth is concerned, the dominion is only a matter of right or theory, a prob- 
 lem to be worked out. Hence what follows, verse 19.” “The commission to 
 the Apostles arises out of the power claimed — all power has been given to 
 me on earth, go ye, therefore , and make the power a reality.” 
 
 The Gospel According to Matthew. By J. P. Tange. Scribners, New 
 
 cork. 
 
 In commenting on Chapter 28:18, (All authority hath been given unto 
 me in heaven and on earth), Dr. Lange quotes with approval the words of 
 Dr. Meyer: 
 
 “It is an unwarranted rationalizing explanation when this expression is 
 made to mean simply, either the power of ruling the minds of men by means 
 of doctrine, or full power to make all the preparations necessary for the 
 Messianic theocracy. It is the kingly office of Christ without limitation.” 
 
 A Commentary on the Gospel of IVIatthew. By E. W. Rice. American 
 >unday School Union, Philadelphia. 
 
 On Matthew 28:18, 19, the author says: “It was something more than 
 mere power that Jesus had received. It was the right to rule. It included 
 all the authority and privileges and power of a king in heaven and on earth. 
 He could, therefore, speak with divine authority. His commands were 
 supreme over the subjects of his kingdom.” 
 
 “Disciple all the nations.” “The Greek does not imply that they were 
 to go and make some disciples out of all the nations, but it implies an abso- 
 lute command to make all the nations disciples of Jesus.” 
 
 Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew. (The Pulpit Com- 
 lentary Series.) By Rev. A. L. Williams. 
 
 On Chapter 28:18, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven 
 and on earth,” he says: “Jesus here asserts that He, as Son of man, has 
 received from the Father supreme authority in heaven and earth, over the 
 whole Kingdom of God in its fullest sense.” 
 
 Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. The Expositor’s Greek Testament. By 
 te Rev. James Denny, D.D. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York. 
 
 On Romans 13:1-6, he says: “There is perhaps nothing in the passage 
 which is not already given in our Lord’s words, ‘Render to Caesar the things 
 that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s; yet nothing can be 
 more worthy of admiration than the soberness with which a Christian idealist 
 like Paul lays down the Divine right of the State. The use made of the 
 passage to prove the duty of ‘passive obedience,’ or the right divine of kings 
 to govern wrong, is beside the mark; the Apostle was not thinking of such 
 things at all. What is in His mind is that the organization of human society, 
 with its distinction of higher and lower ranks, is essential for the preservation 
 of moral order, and therefore, one might add, for the existence of the Kingdom 
 of God itself; so that no Christian is at liberty to revolt against that organi- 
 zation. The State is of God, and the Christian has to recognize its Divine 
 right in the persons and requirements in which it is presented to him.” 
 
 15 
 
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 tien, Philadelphia. 
 
 By Charles Hodge. Mar- 
 
 On the thirteenth chapter of this epistle Dr. Hodge says: “All authority 
 is of God. No man has any rightful power over other men, which is not 
 derived from God. All human power is delegated and ministerial. Civil 
 government is a Divine institution, 1 . e., it is the will of God that it should 
 exist and be respected and obeyed. While government is of God, the form 
 is of men The obedience which the Scriptures command us to render to our 
 rulers is not unlimited. There are cases in which disobedience is a duty. 
 
 The Epistle of Paul to the Romans.’ By J. P. Lange. Scribners, Xew 
 
 York. 
 
 On Chapter 13:1-4, Dr. Lange says: “In reference to the civil shorty, 
 the Apostle evidently makes the following distinctions : ( 1 ) The actual exist- 
 ence of the civil powers, which are in every case an ordinance of God s 
 providence, (here Dr. Riddle, of the Western Theological Seminary, who 
 prepared supplementary notes for the American edition adds, not of a socia 
 contract, nor simply by the will of the people ) and the ideal and rea 
 existence of the civil power which is not merely providentially from God but 
 is also by creation and institution, fundamentally an ordinance appointed by 
 
 G ° d Dr Riddle says, further, in his added notes: “The simple, pelucid 
 meaning of the Apostle is, that civil government is necessary, and of Divine 
 appointment. We infer that anarchy is as godless as it is inhuman , tha 
 magistrates are not ‘the servants of the people, nor do they derive then 
 authority from the people, but from God, even though chosen by the people 
 thlt republican officials, no less than the hereditary monarchs, can sv ibscnbc 
 themselves ‘by the grace of God.’ Unless the principle be of universal applica 
 tion anarchy will be justified somewhere. This principle, moreover, re 
 spects the office, not the character of the magistrate; not the abstrac 
 authority indeed, but the concrete rulers, whatever their character. If 1 
 be deemed too sweeping, then its self-imposed limitation has been overlooks 
 For as the obedience is demanded because of God s appointment, tnen it v 
 not demanded in matters contrary to God’s appointment. When the uv 
 power contradicts God’s word and His joice in our conscience, then it con 
 tradicts and subverts its own authority.” 
 
 Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Romans. B 
 
 H. A. W. Meyer. Funk and Wahnalls, New York. 
 
 On Romans 13*1-4 Dr. Meyer says that the word, “There is no mal 
 istracv apart from God, 'ex press in general the proceeding of all ^agistrac 
 whatever 7 from God, and then this relation is still more precisely defined 
 respect of those magistracies which exist in concrete as a Divine insthutio 
 bv the appointment of God. Thus Paul has certainly expressed the Divii 
 right of Magistracy, which Christian princes especially designate by 
 expression ‘by the grace of God.’ ” 
 
 The Enistel of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. By the Right Rev. I 
 C. G. Sul? M. Lord Bishop of Durham. University Press, Cambndg 
 
 Dr Moule in commenting on Romans, thirteenth chapter, says: “ 
 
 but the existing authorities have been appointed by God d e 
 
 emphasizes the absolute inalienable Supremacy of God, the second 
 
 16 
 
phasizes the fact that this Supreme Ruler actually has constituted subordi- 
 nate authorities on earth, and that these authorities are to be known in each 
 case by their de facto existence, and to be obeyed by Christians as God’s 
 present order.” 
 
 The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Expositor’s Greek Testa- 
 ment. By G. G. Findlay. 
 
 In commenting on Chapter 15:25-28, he says that these verses “reaf- 
 firm, in new words of Scripture, the unlimited dominion assigned to Christ, 
 in order to reassert more impressively the truth that only through His abso- 
 lute victory can the Kingdom of God be consummated. This subjection of 
 all things to Christ is no infringement of God’s sovereignty nor alienation of 
 His rights; on the contrary, it is the means to their perfect realization.” 
 
 Commentary on Ephesians. (Pulpit Commentary.) By Rev. Prof. 
 W. G. Blaikie, D.D. Anson D. F. Randolph and Company, New York. 
 
 In a homily on Chapter 1 :21, which speaks of the exaltation of Christ 
 “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every 
 name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to 
 come, he says: “As Head over all things for the Church, He has com- 
 plete control . . . over all kings and rulers, heathen and Christian, to 
 
 counteract their opposition or summon them to His side.” 
 
 Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., 
 D:C.L., LL.D. Macmillan and Company, New York. 
 
 An extract is here given from his exegesis of Chapter 1:16, which in 
 describing the glory of Christ, says: “For in Him were all things created, 
 in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether 
 thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things have been 
 created through Him, and unto Him.” 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot says: “Some commentators have referred the terms used 
 here solely to earthly potentates and dignitaries. There can be little doubt, 
 however, that their chief and primary reference is to the orders of the 
 celestial hierarchy, as conceived by Agnostic Judaizers. . . . But when 
 
 this is granted, two questions still remain. First — Are evil as well as good 
 spirits included, demons as well as angels? And next, though the primary 
 reference is to spiritual powers, is it not possible that the expression was in- 
 tended to be comprehensive and to include earthly dignities as well? . 
 
 Nor is there anything in the terms themselves which bars such an extension, 
 for, as will be seen, the combination principalities and powers is applied not 
 only to good angels but to bad, not only to spiritual powers but to earthly.” 
 He paraphrases as follows: “You dispute much about the successive grades' 
 of angels; you distinguish each grade by its special title; you can tell how 
 each order was generated from the preceding; you assign to each its proper 
 degree of worship. Meanwhile you have ignored or you have degraded 
 Christ. I tell you, it is not so. He is first and foremost, Lord of heaven 
 and earth, far above all thrones or dominions, all principalities or powers, 
 far above every dignity and every potentate — whether angel, or demon, or 
 man — that evokes your reverence or excites your fear.” 
 
 The First Epistle General of Peter. By G. F. C. Fronmuller. (Lange 
 Series.) 
 
 On Chapter 3:22, which declares that “Jesus is on the right hand of God, 
 having gone into the heavens, angels and authorities and powers being made 
 subject to him, he says:” “A former sufferer is now exalted to the highest 
 dignity of heaven. ... He has been received as sharer of the Divine 
 government. He is not only King of His Church, but of the whole world.” 
 
 17 
 
IV. WORKS ON THEOLOGY. 
 
 i. Systematic Theology. By Charles Hodge, D.D. Scribners, New 
 
 York. 
 
 In discussing the matter of “Obedience to Civil Magistrates,’” he says: 
 “The whole theory of civil government and the duty of citizens to their 
 rulers are comprehensively stated by the Apostle in Romans 13:1-5. From 
 this it appears (1) that civil government is a Divine ordinance. It is not 
 merely an optional human institution; something which men are free to have 
 or not to have, as they see fit. It is not founded on any social compact; it is 
 something which God commands; (2) it is included in the Apostle’s doctrine, 
 that magistrates derive their authority from God; they are his ministers; they 
 represent Him. In a certain sense they represent the people, as they may 
 be chosen by them to be the depositaries of this divinely delegated authority; 
 but the powers that be are ordained by God; it is His will that they shall be, 
 and that they should be clothed with authority.” (Vol. Ill, p. 357.) 
 
 Popular Lectures on Theological Themes. By the Rev. A. A. Hodge, 
 D.D., LL.D. Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia. 
 
 Lecture XII is on “The Kingly Office of Christ.” The following ex- 
 tracts give only a faint idea of the magnificence of this lecture. 
 
 “Christ is already a King upon His throne in the full sweep of His 
 kingly administration.” The present mediatorial kingdom of the God-man is 
 absolutely universal, embracing the whole universe and every department of 
 it. The Kingdom of Christ therefore interpenetrates all the political com- 
 monwealths of this world, and all the political commonwealths of this world 
 embrace the kingdom of Christ. It is very evident that it does not follow 
 that the State has nothing to do with religious laws or obliga- 
 tions. . . As a matter of fact, every State in the world must have, 
 
 and has had, a religion of some kind. . . . Every Christian must be- 
 
 lieve that the State ought to be obedient to the revealed law of Christ. This 
 is so because— (1) the Word of God explicitly declares that ‘the powers that 
 be are ordained of God;’ that ‘rulers are ministers of God to us for good;’ 
 that ‘whosoever reviseth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God;’ (2) be- 
 cause Christ himself explicitly declared that to Him as Mediator all power in 
 heaven and on earth had been committed. He is thus made ‘Lord of lords 
 and King of kings; (3) because the Christian revelation expressed in the 
 inspired Scriptures expresses the will of Christ upon many subjects in which 
 it can be carried out only through the agency of the State and of her laws 
 and officers. The State must pronounce her will as to the rest of the Sab- 
 bath day, as to marriage and divorce, as to the right of property and the 
 relation of capital and labor, as to capital punishment, and as to the educa- 
 tion of the young. The ground covered by these subjects the State cannot 
 possibly avoid. And it is equally impossible for a Christian man, who knows 
 the will of Christ as to the points in question, to ignore or disobey that 
 will when acting in the capacity of a citizen of the State. If he does so, 
 he is consciously guilty of direct disloyalty to his Lord. All intelligent 
 and honest Christians must seek to bring all the actions of the political 
 society to which they belong obedient to the revealed will of Christ the 
 supreme King, the Ruler among the nations. The Church and State are 
 mutually, entirely independent. The officers and the laws of the one have 
 no jurisdiction within the sphere of the other. Nevertheless, Christ is 
 the common King of each, and His Bible is the common statute-book of 
 each. ... I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on 
 your wild sea of politics, THERE IS ANOTHER KING, ONE JESUS — 
 THE SAFETY OF THE STATE CAN BE SECURED ONLY IN THE 
 WAY OF HUMBLE AND WHOLE-SOULED LOYALTY TO HIS PER- 
 SON AND OF OBEDIENCE TO HIS LAW.” (259-287.) 
 
 Theology of the Old Testament. By Dr. Gustav Friedrich Oehler. 
 Funk and Wagnalls, New York. 
 
 18 
 
“Moral good is not realized in individual life alone, but also in the 
 various social spheres.” “Not only domestic but political life, and well- 
 ordered civil institutions, are regarded as component parts of moral 
 good. All earthly authority is an emanation of the Divine wisdom. The 
 view that kings and judges are the organs of the Divine government of 
 the world, and the vice regents of the Supreme Ruler and Judge, and that 
 as such they are appointed to administer justice, . . . forms the 
 
 foundation of a whole series of proverbs. . . . The prosperity of 
 
 a nation depends upon its possession of the word of God.” (P. 553.) 
 
 Systematic Theology. By A. K. Strong, D.D., LL.D. The Griffith 
 and Rowland Press, Philadelphia. 
 
 Dr. Strong, when presenting the Kingly Office of Christ, says: “This 
 is to be distinguished from the sovereignty which Christ originally pos- 
 sessed in virtue of His Divine nature. Christ’s kingship is the sov- 
 eignty of the Divine-human Redeemer, which belonged to Him of right 
 from the moment of His birth, but which was fully exercised only from 
 the time of His entrance upon the state of exaltation. By virtue of this 
 kingly office, Christ rules over all things in heaven and earth, for the 
 glory of God and the execution of God’s purpose of salvation. With 
 respect to the universe at large, Christ’s kingdom is a kingdom of 
 power; He upholds, governs, and judges the world.” (Vol. II, p. 775.) 
 
 Christian Theology. By Milton Valentine, D.D., LL.D. Lutheran 
 Publication Society, Philadelphia. 
 
 The saving work of Christ as King is quite fully presented in this 
 treatise. In setting forth the relation between Christ’s Kingly Sover- 
 eignty and the State or civil government, he says: “As the scope of this 
 Kingly Sovereignty is far wider than the Church, the question of relation 
 between it and the State is quite a different question from that between 
 the State and the Church. There may be independence as between the 
 Church and State, but not of the State with respect to Christ’s Kingly 
 dominion. A few truths will make this evident. 
 
 (a) The State as truly as the Church is a Divine institution, and 
 
 its legitimate officers are “God’s ministers” (Rom. 13:1-6). This is the 
 Christian view of civil government — Divine as truly as the family, a thing 
 made necessary in the nature of man and society, a necessity framed 
 by God in the order of life. . . . Anarchy is not a privilege of 
 
 the race. 
 
 ( b ) Christ, as Mediator, is King of kings and Lord of lords, and 
 to His authority every knee is to bow, “of things in heaven and things 
 in earth” (Phil. 2:10; Eph. 1:21-22; I Cor. 25:25). Civil governments 
 in any and every form, are no more exempted in their special spheres 
 
 from recognition of and respect for God’s authority, plan-, order or laws 
 
 no more entitled to a divorce from obedience — than any other activity of 
 man. There is no secularity beneath the stars that is absolved from 
 harmonizing its action with the sovereignty and laws of Cod, carried on 
 in the mediatorial dominion of Jesus Christ.” 
 
 (c) Every nation should explicitly and practically, in its own 
 sphere and function, acknowledge the Christ of God as the Supreme 
 Ruler of the earth, and His will as the supreme law to which govern- 
 mental action should always be conformed. Otherwise there is the con- 
 tradiction of a divine institution in revolt against God. If the civil 
 governments of the earth, the most prominent, representative feature of 
 human life, the rulership of the world, peculiarly determinative of the 
 life and character of the nation, is to be held as excused from all recog- 
 nition of, or practical respect for, the Divine order, how is the harmon- 
 izing of all things with that order, and the bringing of the world to 
 righteousness and peace ever to be accomplished? The blight of many 
 nations is that the secular power is not Christianized enough to harmon- 
 ize with the ideal of the kingdoms of this world as having really become 
 ‘kingdoms of the Lord and His Christ.’ 
 
 19 
 
( d ) A1 civil officers should be men who recognize Christ’s authority 
 and who conform themselves to it as supreme in all the relations of 
 human life.”(Vol. II, pp. 181-183.) 
 
 V. WORKS SETTING FORTH THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE 
 
 NATION AND RELIGION. 
 
 The United States a Christian Nation. By David J. Brewer, Associate 
 Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The John C. Winston 
 Company, Philadelphia. 
 
 The first chapter begins thus: “We classify nations in various ways, 
 as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, an- 
 other an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great 
 Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, 
 Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan 
 nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. 
 
 This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. 
 It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U. S. 471, that 
 court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, ‘these and many 
 other matters that might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations 
 to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.’ 
 
 But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the 
 sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are 
 in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitu- 
 tion specifically provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an 
 establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ 
 Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are, either in fact 
 or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within 
 our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject 
 all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a 
 condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or 
 essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the gov- 
 ernment as a legal organization is independent of all religions. 
 
 Nevertheless we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian 
 nation — in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. This pop- 
 ular use of the term certainly has significance. It is not a mere creation 
 of, the imagination. It is not a term of derision but has a substantial 
 basis — one which justifies its use. Let us analyze a little and see what is 
 the basis. 
 
 Its use has had from the early settlements on our shores and still 
 has an official foundation.” 
 
 (This is followed by a number of quotations from the commission 
 given to Columbus by Ferdinand and Isabelle, the Colonial charters, the 
 original compacts of government, State constitutions, decisions of courts, 
 etc., in which the Christian character and purpose of the makers of the 
 American nation is clearly set forth.) 
 
 Religion and Civil Government in the United States. By Isaac A. Cor- 
 nelison. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. 
 
 After expressing approval of the separation of Church and State 
 in this country, Mr. Cornelison says: “The question still remains^ how- 
 ever, whether a State, without a Church, is also without a religion.” The 
 question of the union of Church and State, not being of any practical 
 interest in this country, he does not propose to discuss. The discussion 
 
 20 
 
is confined exclusively to the former question. He then gives lengthy quota- 
 tions from charters, compacts of government, State constitutions, judicial 
 decisions, etc., to show that there is an actual connection of the Nation with 
 religion. He maintains that the Christian amendment of the National Con- 
 stitution is unnecessary and that it cannot be shown that the omission of all 
 recognition of God or of Christ from the National Constitution was done 
 to make the government atheistic. 
 
 Our National Obligation. By an Attorney at Law. Western Tract 
 and Book Society. A Premium Essay which won the prize of a Hundred Dol- 
 lars offered in 1873 for the best Essay on the Religious Amendment to the 
 Constitution of the United States. 
 
 In eighteen short chapters the author maintains a series of propositions 
 by which he leads us step by step to his conclusion. The most important 
 of these propositions are the following: ‘‘All civil government must, in the 
 nature of things, have had a divine origin.” (P. 17.) “In the nature of 
 things a moral obligation attaches inseparably to the exercise of civil au- 
 thority.” (P. 27.) “As a matter of fact, there has always existed among 
 men, to a greater or lesser degree, a general recognition of a national 
 moral obligation.” (P. 33.) “During the period of the Mosaic economy, 
 God claimed and exercised universal sovereignty over the nations of the 
 earth.” (P. 58.) “The Old Testament prophecies represent Christ as 
 receiving this universal sovereignty, both over individuals and nations, by 
 the appointment of God the Father.” (P. 70.) “Herein the New Testa- 
 ment teachings concur with the prophecies of the Old Testament.” (P. 82.) 
 “The Divine Ruler demands an explicit acknowledgment on the part of all 
 his subjects.” (P. 134.) “There is an official acknowledgment of the 
 Divine sovereignty running through our entire national history, although 
 it is still defective in one essential particular.” (P. 140.) “The requisite 
 acknowledgment of Christ’s kingly jurisdiction over us ought to be embodied 
 in our national constitution.” (P. 152.) 
 
 Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United 
 States. By B. F. Morris. Geo. W. Childs, Philadelphia. 
 
 The author, in our judgment, claims too much for the Christian char- 
 acter of our nation and government. The book, however, contains much 
 valuable material. He declares that “This is a Christian nation, first, in 
 name; and secondly, because of the many mighty elements of pure Chris- 
 tianity which have given it character.” (P. 11.) 
 
 An Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Characters of the American 
 Government. New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1838. 
 
 This book was published without the name of the author, but from in- 
 formation gained from surviving representatives of the publishers it is believed 
 the writer was a Judge Warner. It is a thin volume of a little more than two 
 hundred large octavo pages. It is marked by great logical power, singular 
 felicity of diction and a fervent religious spirit. The author’s concern had 
 been awakened by an attempt made in both the New York and Connecticut 
 legislatures to abolish the custom of appointing chaplains who should offer 
 prayer regularly during the sessions and by the thoroughly irreligious report 
 in Congress on certain petition which had been presented for the discontinu- 
 ance of the national mail service on the Lord’s Day. He reviews the pro- 
 visions relating to religion in the Federal constitution to show that they do 
 not necessarily impose on the nation an irreligious character. He reviews the 
 
 21 
 
original State Constitution, and the course of State and national legislation, to 
 prove the Christian purpose of the founders of the nation, and concludes the 
 treatise with these words : 
 
 “God preserves us; we must go back; we must reform our political 
 administrations on the point of their moral principles. . . . We must 
 
 retrace our steps, retrieve our errors, regain the position we have lost. Let 
 us dig up the burned standard of the fathers and fashion ourselves anew by 
 it; let us return to the primary spirit of the government ere the doom of the 
 nations that forget God become our own.” 
 
 VI. MODERN MISSIONARY LITERATURE. 
 
 This very large and rapidly growing department of literature deserves 
 much fuller notice than can here be given it. The great enterprise of modern 
 missions has been compelled to study the relation of government to religion. 
 It stands face to face with the ruin wrought by sin in national life, as in every 
 other department of human life, and it cannot but ask whether the salvation 
 wrought by Christ meets this as it mets other human neds. And the answer 
 of missionary leaders and workers the world over is singularly unanimous. 
 The dream of secularism that a nation can live a safe and beneficent life apart 
 from God and from Jesus Christ is not* the idea of the missionary forces. We 
 could fill pages with quotations in proof of this statement, but content our- 
 selves with a few extracts from two books by two of the most eminent 
 missionary leaders of today. 
 
 Christian Missions and Social Progress. A Social Study of Foreign 
 Missions. By the Rev. James S. Dennis. Two volumes. Fleming M. Revell 
 Company, New York and Chicago. 
 
 This great work consists of two series of lectures delivered at Princeton 
 in 1893 and 1896. The purpose of the author is plainly indicated by the title 
 of the work. A few extracts will show in some measure the line or argu- 
 ment followed. These extracts are all from Vol. I, p. 61. 
 
 “Christian missions, according to every fair and proper criterion, have 
 long since fully vindicated their claim to be ranked as a religious force in 
 the world. Are they also a humanizing ministry? They touch and trans- 
 form individual lives. Do they also reach and influence society as a whole? 
 
 We know that they teach a new religion of the heart. Do they 
 
 also advocate and seek to establish a more refined moral code for the 
 
 domestic, social, commercial, philanthropic, and even national life of man- 
 kind? (P. 23.) “It cannot be said that this is indeed a new conception of 
 their import when we consider the historic relation of Christianity to human 
 progress; yet it comes to many of us with a certain freshness, simply be- 
 cause its identification with the scope and purpose of modern missions has 
 been allowed to lapse to an unwarrantable extent.” (P. 24.) “The study 
 of the social evils of the non-Christian world has emphasized the necessity 
 for an adequate remedy. Here we deal with a vital point in our dis- 
 cussion. If a remedy is needed, then it is essential that it be the right one. 
 We must scrutinize with care all proposals intended to provide relief and 
 guarantee improvement.” (P. 355.) “Education alone, apart from Chris- 
 tianity, will not accomplish it. It is not in itself a moral force. In fact, if 
 it is out of touch entirely with Christianity, it often becomes a powerful 
 weapon of evil and may be subsidized in violent hostility to the higher wel- 
 fare of society.” (P. 357.) “The mere introducing of these Asiatic em- 
 pires into the sisterhood of nations, still less the introduction of western 
 
 facilities and inventions, or the exchange of Oriental for Occidental com- 
 
 22 
 
modities, will not touch the real seat of the trouble.” (P. 365.) “Is civi- 
 lization divorced from Christianity a panacea in Africa? In the case of the 
 Kaffirs, one of the most promising of the South African races, it has been 
 made manifest that the adoption of so-called civilization without Crhistian- 
 ity has produced the most lamentable results, while the acceptance of Chris- 
 tianity has invariably opened up to them a bright and progressive career.” 
 (P. 366.) “We have heard much of what has been called the ‘Gospel of 
 Commerce,’ . . . but, taking the world as it is, commerce may be 
 
 simply a school of fraud deceit, and selfishness. It may illustrate the worst 
 aspects of unscrupulous greed and grieviously misrepresent the moral 
 force in social life. . . . Christianity brings new energies, new 
 
 ideals, and new hopes, true-hearted, and pure — is the ultimate solution of 
 social evils and the sure promise of a redeemed society, fashioned at last into 
 the likeness of Christ.” (Pp. 163, 164.) 
 
 Christianity and the Nations. By Robert E. Speer. Fleming H. Revell 
 Company. 1910. 
 
 In the fourth chapters of this book, entitled “Missions and Politics/’ Mr. 
 Speer says : 
 
 “As light breaks on the difficult problems of Church and State at home, 
 and our governments become in a deeper and more real sense Christian, 
 they will express their Christian character to other nations. If our govern- 
 ments are purely secular, of course they can have none but a secular mes- 
 sage to utter; but if, as we believe, they are meant to be in a noble sense 
 religious and Christian, then their Christian character will lnd utterance as 
 the Christian character of John Lawrence’s government did in the Punjab.” 
 
 VII. WORKS TREATING OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 
 
 The Bible in the Public Schools. Arguments in the case of John D. 
 Minor and others vs. the Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati. Robert 
 T. Clark and Co., Cincinnati. 
 
 The addresses by the attorneys in support of the use of the Bible in the 
 Schools of Cincinnati are very valuable as setting forth the need the State has 
 of religion. Only one or two extracts need be given. In the course of his 
 argument George R. Sage said: “Religion is recognized by the constitu- 
 tion itself as the bond of society, the basis on which our institutions rest, 
 and essential to good government and the safety of the State.” (P. 155.) 
 
 The Superior Court of Cincinnati, before which the case was tried, 
 rendered its decision in favor of the use of the Bible. Judge Hagans, in 
 announcing this decision said: “We shall find that religion of some sort 
 was always a necessary adjunct of the State, furnishing both bonds and 
 sanctions, as the pledges of its safety and perpetuity.” (P. 362.) 
 
 Moral Education. By E. H. Griggs. B. W. Huebsch, New York. 
 
 “To appreciate the literature, sculpture, painting, action, and, indeed, 
 all expressions of life during these Christian centuries, a knowledge of the 
 basal sources of the Christian religion is essential. Consider, for instance, 
 how necessary a knowledge of the Bible is to the appreciation of half the 
 paintings in any European gallery. As the Bible is the great text-book of 
 Christianity, so it is the source from which much of our civilization can be 
 explained.” (P. 281.) 
 
 23 
 
Moral Training in the Public Schools. The California Prize Essays. By 
 C. E. Rugh, T. P. Stevenson, E. D. Starbuck, Frank Cramer and George E. 
 
 Meyers. 
 
 A single quotation will be given, and this from the essay by Dr. Steven- 
 son: “The secular program of education does not meet the needs of the 
 nation. The nation needs a law-abiding citizenship, a people who will yield 
 obedience to the laws, not merely as a matter of compulsion or to avoid 
 their penalties, but for conscience’ sake. To prepare for such obedience 
 the citizen must not only know the law, but must know and approve the 
 reasons which underlie the law. But the main reason which underlies 
 many of our laws is a religious reason; for example, our laws against 
 blasphemy and perjury are based on reverence due to the name of God.” 
 (P. 71.) 
 
 Moral Instruction and Training in Schools. Report of an International 
 Inquiry. Two volumes. Edited on behalf of the committee by M. E. Sadler. 
 Longmans, Green and Company, London and New Yotk. 1908. 
 
 The Introduction states that “The influence of education upon conduct 
 and character is the subject discussed in this book/’ Its chapters are the out- 
 come of an inquiry undertaken with the purpose of gathering information as 
 to the methods of moral instruction and training now in use in schools in 
 different countries.” (P. 13.) 
 
 Chapter 7 takes up “the Religious foundation of Moral instruction,” and 
 declares it to be the consensus of opinion of leading educators in the 
 world today that moral instruction cannot be severed from religion. It is 
 stated that if the investigation had been made a generation ago the verdict 
 would doubtless have been different, but that now, “The general result of 
 new currents of thought and feeling has been to give a fresh stimulus to the 
 belief in the unseen in all its forms, which is the essence of religion and 
 more particularly to the conviction that ethical and social ideas must fail of 
 their full power over the heart and will unless they are connected with this 
 fundamental belief.” (Vol. I, p. 68.) , , 
 
 Of education in the United States it is said that its chief end is “to 
 prepare our children for good citizenship. It is denied that our public 
 schools are ‘Godless,’ but that their chief aim is to develop noble manhood 
 and womanhood. (Vol. II, pp. 258, 258.) , 
 
 Education in Religion and Morals. By George Albert Coe, Ph.D. 
 Fleming H. Revell, Company, Chicago, New York and Toronto. (1904.) 
 
 In the Preface the author points out the importance of the moral and 
 religious training of the young if we are to secure the moral health of society. 
 He then takes uo the theory of education, next the child, and next the institu- 
 tions by which the child is to be educated. These he enumerates thus ; 
 
 “The family, the Sunday School, Societies and Clubs, Christian Acad- 
 emies and Colleges, and State Schools.” 
 
 In the discussion of the last topic he says: “That State schools should 
 make good citizens, and that good citizenship depends upon good character, 
 all are agreed. As to the relation of State schools to religion, there is con- 
 fusion in both theory and practice. In all this confusion, however, the cen- 
 tral issue concerns the kind of life that we wish the children to grow into. 
 The contradiction between the religion and the secularist view of life is 
 fundamental and irreconcilable. In our schools we must sim- 
 
 ply choose between the two views. Religion or irreligion is present in 
 the schools just as surely as teachers are present. The notion that the 
 
 24 
 
State school can be strictly neutral with respect to the great problem of life 
 and destiny is simply illusory. It it incumbent upon us to take one side or 
 the other. This does not necessarily imply instruction in dogma.” (Pp. 
 348, 358.) 
 
 The Philosophy of Education. By Herman Harrell Horne. The Mac- 
 millan Company, New York. (1907.) 
 
 The writer speaks in strong terms of the necessity of Bible knowledge 
 and says that 
 
 “Public opinion today is strong, but not unanimous, in supporting the 
 reading of the Bible, without note or comment, in our public schools.” 
 (P. 126.) 
 
 VIII. CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 
 
 Social Ethics. By James Melville Coleman. The Baker a-nd Taylor 
 Company, New York. 
 
 The steps in the delegation of authority and the general rules govern- 
 ing the use of authority are as follows: God delegates authority to Jesus 
 Christ; Jesus Christ delegates authority to the Organic People (the State); 
 the State delegates authority to the government; the government delegates 
 authority to officials, municipalities and corporations. With every delega- 
 tion of authority a law is prescribed to govern its exercise; when authority 
 is received, recognition should be made of the obligation of the agency 
 conferring the authority; in the recognition of authority no intermediate 
 agencies should be passed over. 
 
 In the administration of political authority these rules are applied with 
 the exception that “At one particular point is failure to be noted, when 
 the State refuses to confess the dependence of the social will upon the will 
 of Jesus Christ, and thus interfere with the cosmic philosophy of the divine 
 plan.” 
 
 A System of Moral Science. By Laurens P. Hickok, D.D., LL.D. Re- 
 vised with the co-operation of Julius H. Seelye, D.D., LL.D Ginn, Heath and 
 Company, Boston. 
 
 Almost a hundred pages of this work are given to the discussion of 
 civil government. The author says that “The State is in no sense a human 
 product; though found wherever man is found, man no more makes the 
 State than he makes himself.” “The theory of a voluntary compact is a 
 mere figment. ... No State ever thus originated.” (P. 112, 113.) 
 “While government is a necessity for the State, and may righteously en- 
 force its enactments, it by no means follows that every government is neces- 
 sary or righteous. We are not bound to obey because some have as- 
 sumed to command, nor because they have acquired power to crush 
 resistance. This power may still be usurpation and tyranny. On the 
 other hand, authority may constrain conscience as a duty without the appli- 
 cation of its power. Even when the rightness of the precept is not at all 
 apprehended, the naked will of sovereignty is enough to fix obligation, but 
 it must be sovereignty standing on right authority. This is where the 
 principles of moral science reach to the very foundation of all civil govern- 
 ment.” (P. 121.) The State “may not legislate in violation of pure 
 morality. . . . When civil authority attempts to break over the bar- 
 riers of moral right, and command anything which it would be unworthy 
 of man to perform, it nullifies its own authority by running against the 
 ultimate test of all authority, and can only provoke contempt and universal 
 Divine authority. . . . God is the rightful sovereign of all sovereign- 
 
 ties, ‘the King of kings and the Lord of lords.’” (P. 127.) 
 
 25 
 
A Handbook of Christian Ethics. By J. Clark Murray, LL.D. McGill 
 
 University, Montreal. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh. 
 
 The State with the legal code by which it is realized, is, in a very real 
 sense, a divine institution. It forms an organized embodiment of the high- 
 est revelation of God, that a nation has been able to attain in its national 
 life. Accordingly it becomes one of the primary obligations of the indi- 
 vidual to the State to work for the improvement of its legal code.” 
 
 System of Christian Ethics. By A. Dorner. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh. 
 
 The idea of right is central in the State and involves its divine origin 
 Justice necessitates a Christian State. “The principle of the State is the 
 idea of right. For the idea of right establishes the divine origin of the 
 State, and excludes that theory of it according to which it is based orig- 
 inally upon contract. And in the idea of right we have the inward bond I 
 that connects the State with religion. For among the various religions it is 
 the Christian alone that, by its history, has given the State a safe guarantee 
 that it will exercise a blessed influence on its citizens.” (Pp. 558, 559, 580.) 
 
 Christian Ethics. By D. G. Gregory, D.D., LE.D. 
 
 In treating of the State, Dr. Gregory ably maintains its divine origin ■ 
 moral character and subordination to Divine law. 
 
 Christian Ethics (Social). By H. Martensen. T. & T. Clark Company 
 
 . The relation between the institution of the State by God and its consti- 
 tution by man is admirably expressed. “Christianity has prescribed no 
 definite form of constitution, from which fact, however, it must not be 
 inferred that it regards this as a matter of indifference. It has expressly 
 taught us only that the State is a divine ordinance, and that the source of 
 plempotence or sovereignty must be sought in God. The State, although 
 certainly to be regarded as a human, is nevertheless in its inmost nature a 
 divine institution, invested by God with the highest earthly power* and 
 rulers are the organs for exercising this power, a fact which does not 
 however, exclude the co-operation of the people.” (Pages 183-185 ) 
 
 IX. SOCIOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM. 
 
 Principles of Social Science. By H. C. Carey. In three volumes. J. 
 
 B. Lippincott Company. * 
 
 “Nations can permanently prosper only as they obey the golden rule of 
 Christianity; and when they fail to do so, Nemesis never fails to claim her 
 rights.” (Vol. I, p. 422.) 
 
 Social Aspects of Religious Institutions. By Edwin L. Earp. Eaton 
 
 and Mains, New York. 
 
 The author in the outset declares that “The Christian religion has 
 pre-eminently a social aim. (P. 4.) He says further: “The need for 
 religious social organization must be considered from the viewpoint of a 
 world problem which Christianity hopes to solve. The ideals of religion 
 which have in view the world-wide kingdom of redeemed humanity can 
 never be realized so long as there are great nations representing different 
 
 26 
 
civilizations that are backed by military power and economic and indus- 
 trial efficiency without the Christian ideal.” (Pp. 29, 30.) 
 
 Social Facts and Forces. By Washington Gladden. G. P. Putnam’s 
 Sons, New York. 
 
 In this work Dr. Gladden deals with the various social problems of 
 the day with a view to discover how the well-being of the people is 
 affected by the changes taking place in industrial life. In speaking of 
 the sphere of the State he asks: “Has society provided itself with no 
 means of realizing this unity which is the very condition of its existence?” 
 He says that “the State, we might think is such an agency,” and he adds: 
 “I am disposed to believe that the State, if rightly conceived and adminis- 
 tered % would perform this service. The State, in the true conception of it, 
 is the union of all for the common good.” But he deprecates the fact 
 that the State is viewed generally as a police power and nothing more, 
 “and it accentuates the antagonisms rather than the unities of society.” 
 Let me say again that this conception of the chief function of the State is a 
 wholly erroneous conception that the State is something higher and more 
 God-like than this, and' that if we could only invest it in our thoughts with 
 its true divine character, we should need no other agency for the unification 
 of society.” (P. 201-203.) 
 
 Social Solutions in the Light of Christian Ethics. By Thomas C. Hall. 
 Eaton and Mains, New York; Jennings and Graham, Cincinnati. 
 
 This work is designed to throw light on the social message of Jesus 
 Christ. In speaking of the sphere of civil government and the obedience 
 it may rightly claim, he says. ’Government can claim our respect and 
 loyalty only in so far as its agents are ‘ministers of God’s’ Divine order. 
 We must confess that neither America, England, nor Germany, nor any 
 existing government, is really Christ’s kingdom. All are built upon force. 
 In none of them is God’s will done as in heaven. In all of them intem- 
 perance, prostitution, violence, and corruption mark the character of the 
 social order, even if in less degree than in ancient Rome. The teachings 
 of Jesus today are still revolutionary. We could not make Matthew’s 
 constitution of the kingdom of heaven (Sermon on the Mount) the statute 
 law of the United States without an entire change in our government, 
 both in its purpose and machinery. All State complicity in intemperance, 
 prostitution and violence must cease. . . . The government must 
 become the expression of God’s love, shed abroad in our streets, market 
 places, and places of amusement.” (Pp. 23-25.) “The moralization and 
 not the abolishment of government, is the goal.” (P. 153.) 
 
 The Political and Social Significance of the Life and Teaching of Jesus. 
 
 Bv Jeremiah W. Jenks. Young Men’s Christian AssociatiomPress, New York 
 
 The author says: “The best government is that which best serves the 
 people. . . . Through no revolutionary process, no arrogant assump- 
 
 , tion of control by any one person believing himself to have exclusive insight 
 
 into God’s plans for progress, through no merely selfish struggle for rights, 
 in which duties to society are forgotten, but by slow growth to purer forms 
 of political action as the life of the nation comes into higher, nobler phazes, 
 will government reflect the Christianity of its people and grow ever better as 
 individual faith stirs to eternal vigilance.” (P. 69.) 
 
 The Church and Her Prophets, By E. D. Marvin. Broadway Pub- 
 ishing Company, New York. 
 
 “Gradually reformers are coming to a deep conviction that there is no 
 force that can efficiently regenerate human nature and make men morally 
 
 27 
 
great, save that which is manifest by the presence of Christ in the life; anc I 
 that He, and He alone, is the divinely appointed leader in social, com-' 1 
 ^nercial and political improvements.” (Pp. 42, 43.) 
 
 Jesus Christ and the Social Question. By Prof. F. G. Peabody. Grosser; 
 and Dunlap, New York. 
 
 Because the state with its government is often in the hands of a class! 
 who wield its powers in behalf of their own selfish interests, there are many] 
 who think that it ought to be abolished, or at least so transformed as tc 
 change completely its purpose and activities. Professor Peabody puts thej 
 question in this form as coming from the discontented class. “Is not the] 
 institution of the state, in its present form, a mere instrument of the privi- 
 leged class, and must it not be supplanted by a co-operative commonwealth! 
 of collective ownership? In discussing the attitude of Jesus toward the) 
 social question he says: “There was political oppression about him to be 
 remedied; there were social uprighteousness and iniquity to be condemned;! 
 but Jesus does not fling himself into these social issues of his time. He 
 moves through them with a strange tranquility, not as one who is indif- 
 ferent to them, but as one whose eye is fixed on an end in which these 
 social problems will find their own solution.” Professor Peabody compare? 
 the social teachings of Jesus to the by-product of applied science. In this 
 he is undoubtedly wrong, since the kingdom was the great end for which he 
 labored and suffered. 
 
 Christianity and the Social Crisis. By Walter Rauschenbusch. Thej 
 Macmillan Company, New York. 
 
 In the introduction to this work the author says that “Western civiliza- 
 tion is passing through a social revolution unparalleled in history for scope 
 and power.” In speaking of the sphere of the State and what may be done 
 through political agencies in the solution of our vexatipus social problems he 
 says: “The State is the organization through which men co-operate for the 
 larger social ends. If men conceived of political duties as a high religious 
 service to man and to God, the State can be a powerful agent in the bettering 
 of human life.” “Ideally, the State is the organization of the people for 
 their larger common interests. Actually, all States have been organizationss 
 of some section of the people to protect their special interests against the 
 rest. Ideally, the chief function of the State should be the maintenance of 
 justice. Actually the chief function of the State has been the maintenance of 
 existing conditions, whatever they happen to be.” “Nothing better could 
 happen to any State than to have within it a Church devoted, not to its 
 own corporate interests, but to the moral welfare of humanity, and nudging 
 the reluctatn State along like an enlightened pedagogue.” (Pp. 183-187.) 
 
 God and Government, or Christ Our King in Civic and Social Right- 
 
 ousness. By J. Martin Rohde. Eaton and Maines, New York. 
 
 This book is highly commended by the late Bishop McCabe, and toy 
 the Hon. A. C. Matthews, ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives of 
 Illinois, and former Comptroller of the United States Treasury. 
 
 In the first chapter the author says: “Individual Christianity and 
 State atheism are two things so entirely at variance with each other that 
 both cannot consistently be component parts of one and the same character. 
 The true Christian faith is largely and necessarily a theocratic faith, a faith 
 which acknowledges divine rulership in all national affairs.” (P. 15.) “Our 
 Republic should seek to be an ideal Christian nation by recognizing the 
 importance and the pre-eminence of Gospel precepts and principles in public 
 affairs and in national life. Indeed, inasmuch as it is evident that all 
 King Immanuel’s providential dispensations are in harmony with human 
 
 28 
 
happiness and well-being, all nations should acknowledge his sovereignty 
 and endeavor to be accounted worthy in the Lord’s great day to join God’s 
 mighty host in the great thundering chorus of eternity. ‘Hallelujah, the Lord 
 God omnipotent reigneth.’ ” 
 
 Mr. Rohde does not think the acknowledging of Christ formally in the 
 national constitution is absolutely necessary to make the nation Christian, 
 but he holds that it would be a proper act of reverence. He says: “While 
 it is certainly true that a literal recognition of Christ as the head of the 
 nation and a formal declaration of his gospel as the fundamental teaching 
 on which all legislation should be based would not be out of place and 
 could do no harm, . . . yet it must be conceded that such a mere form 
 
 of words alone have little or no significance or influence in Christianizing 
 our people.” (P. 34.) 
 
 “But regardless of such a verbiage of our national code the doctrine of 
 the divine origin and authority of the State cannot be denied and must, by- 
 all means, be maintained. Plutarch has well said: ‘There has never been a 
 State of atheists. You may travel over the world; you may find cities with- 
 out walls, without a king, without a mint, without theaters or gymnasiums; 
 but you will never find a city without a god, without prayer, without oracles, 
 without sacrifice. Sooner may a city stand without foundations than a State 
 without belief in the gods. This is the bond of all society, the pillar of all 
 legislation.’ Thus a significant religious impulse recognizing a higher 
 power in all law and authority wonderfully pervades all mankind.” (P. 35.) 
 
 “The clearest and strongest minds, from Plato to Paul and from Paul to 
 the sages of the present day, have believed and declared that God is the 
 author and source of all law and authority. 
 
 “Confirming this unanimity of opinion, we have the inspired declara- 
 tion, “There is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of 
 God.’” 
 
 “Therefore, in all government, whether the forms of administration be 
 autocratic, monarchical, or democratic, we should recognize the authority of 
 the one Great Unseen Lawgiver by whom kings rule and princes decree 
 justice.” (P. 36.) 
 
 The Social Application of Religion. By Charles Stelzle, Jane Addams, 
 Charles P. Neill, Graham Taylor and George P. Eckman. Jennings and 
 Graham, Cincinnati. 
 
 Herbert Welch, in the Introduction to this works says: “In Jesus Christ 
 is the hope of society, as well as of individuals. Those who worship Him 
 and those who serve Him should be at one to put Him on the world’s throne.” 
 (P. 7.) Mr. Stelzle, in discussing the Spirit of Social Unrest, says: “We 
 must socialize our teaching and socially convert our (Church) membership. 
 There is many an honest Church member who has been converted spiritually 
 but who has never caught the social vision. He has never been converted 
 socially. There is a great difference between the two. There are many 
 professing Christians who believe they are keeping the first great command- 
 ment, but who are altogether ignoring the second, which Christ said was like 
 unto the first.” (P. 34.) 
 
 Christian Sociology. By J. H. W. Stuckenberg, Professor in the The- 
 ological Department of Wittenberg College. Funk and Wagnalls Company. 
 
 This work is designed to show the Origin Character and Relations of 
 the Christian Society formed by Jesus Christ. In setting forth the obliga- 
 tions resting upon Christians toward the world much practical truth is given. 
 A few quotations only can here be presented. In speaking of the character 
 and work of Jesus he says: “Jesus was not a politician, and he gives 
 neither specific rules in his teachings, nor illustrations for all the duties of 
 the statesman; but the principles of government and the basis of all 
 statesmanship are given by Christ, so that from the Gospel a system of 
 Christian politics may be constructed.” (P. 90.) 
 
 In speaking more specifically of the mission of the Christian Society, 
 
 29 
 
he says: “Christian Society aims at the redemption of man and of the 
 world from the thralldom of sin and from the dominion of evil.” (P. 186.) 
 
 On the question of Religion and the State he speaks as follows: “The 
 relation of the Church to the State is not a burning question in America, as it 
 is in Europe, since we have no union of Church and State. In the Urxted 
 States the question could hardly have arisen, whether the Church would 
 ever be absorbed by the State. But the realtion of religion and of Christian 
 society to the State is a vital question for America, as well as for Europe, 
 and it is a subject which is exciting more attention than formerly. While 
 some are working to secure the recognition of God in the Constitution of the 
 United States, others are working to prevent the appointment of chaplains, 
 the recognition of Sunday, and everything else that savors of religion, by our 
 government. 
 
 “Christianity is a spiritual power, which tries to establish and perpetuate 
 itself by spiritual means, and by earthly instrumentalities so far as they are 
 right and promote divine truth. In the State Christian Society can demand 
 protection in the exercise of its rights. But it has no right to interfere with 
 the liberty of others, and to demand that they shall give up their religious 
 views. Coercion in spiritual matters is totally at variance with the spirit of 
 the Christian religion. The laws may protect Christian society in its re- 
 ligious exercises; but they cannot be properly used to coerce men to become 
 Christians. Even the recognition of God in the Constitution seems mockery, 
 so long as he is not recognized by the people in their hearts. To say that 
 we, the people of the United States, recognize Almighty God, when it is 
 patent to every one that we do not, is a glaring falsehood. It is better to 
 work for the recognition of God in the heart of the nation, so as to bring the 
 people up to the point that we can say with truth in the Constitution that 
 we recognize him. 
 
 “This suggests a radical evil which Christian soicety is called to re- 
 move — namely, the tendency to. make hobbies of mere words and externals, 
 instead of working to promote deep' and vital heart-religion. It is the 
 mission of this Society to christianize the State, not to secure an empty 
 recognition of religion. The government is to be made more and more a 
 real theocracy; but this can only be done by making the truth of God 
 supreme in the hearts of men. When this is done, then everything else 
 will follow.” 
 
 “If laws are enacted which are in conflict with the believer’s con- 
 science, then he must submit to the punishment for violating the laws, 
 rather than violate his conscience. No effort should then be spared to 
 remove such laws. Indeed, Christian society may do the State good service 
 in the efforts to secure such laws, and such only, as are right and will 
 prove a blessing to the community. Even if there can be no direct religious 
 legislation, the moral standard of the Gospel may be made the ideal of the 
 State. A Christian spirit should pervade the laws, instead of the atheistic 
 spirit which some would infuse into them.” (Pp. 193-195.) 
 
 Note. — Dr. Stuckenberg does not oppose the proposition to acknowledge 
 God in the National Constitution, but only the making of such an acknowl- 
 edgment hypocritically. The National Reform Association can adopt as its 
 own every word in the above quotations. 
 
 X. MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 Christian Theology and Social Progress. By F. W. Bussell. E. P. 
 
 Dutton and Company, New York. 
 
 Democracy is shown to have received much from Christianity. “It 
 may, perhaps, seem needless to lay further emphasis on the peculiar debt of 
 
 30 
 
certain modern political ideals to Christianity. While in their strictest 
 sense Christianity and Socialism are irreconciable, the vague yet potent 
 connotations of the term ‘democracy’ are inseparable from Christian belief, 
 and if divorced from this vital union, fall at once to the ground. We must 
 choose between the rival merits of the scientific and antique, the religious 
 and personal view; between the conception suggested by Mach’avelli and 
 Hobbes and followed more or less openly by modern statecraft, and a con- 
 ception based on Christian principles reinforced by Roman civil law, main- 
 tained with unabated pretensions through the Middle Ages, revived against 
 authority by Luther for a brief space, and once more proposed by Rousseau 
 and the genuine ‘liberalism’ he called into being.” (Pp. 324, 328.) 
 
 The Kingdom of God. By James S. Candlish, D.D. T. & T. Clark, 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 The author considers the Kingdom of God both Biblically and histor- 
 ically. In stating the purpose of Jesus Christ in coming into the world he 
 says that “Jesus’ ideal was a social one; his aim is not merely to elevate 
 and sanctify individuals, but to unite them into a community, to renevate 
 society, and, indeed, ultimately humanity itself. This is indicated by the 
 name Kingdom of God, and is proved by all the considerations that show 
 that the name is not a mere figure of speech, but the appropriate designa- 
 tion of a great reality. The notion of the Kingdom of God in the sense of 
 Jesus is wide enough to include all the relations of life, and the promotion 
 of it is an adequate expression of the task of the Christian life.” (P. 205.) 
 
 The World the Subject of Redemption. By Canon W. H. Freemantle. 
 Longmans, Green and Company, New York. 
 
 This work is a series of lectures delivered before the Unviersity of 
 Oxford. They are based on John 5:17: “God sent not his Son into the 
 world to condemn the world, but that the world, through him, might be 
 saved.” In the opening of the first lecture b; raises the question, “What is 
 the world which Christ came to save? . . . We mean by the world 
 
 the organized constitution of things in which we live, including the material 
 universe so far as we apprehend it, but chiefly humanity, which (taking the 
 world as known to us), is its crown.” (P. 4.) 
 
 “The Nation . . differs from all voluntary associations, even from 
 
 that of public worship, in that it is more distinctly an ordinance of God. 
 
 We may worship alone, or in small societies, or in informal gath- 
 erings. Even of family life we may in a great measure denude ourselves. 
 But we cannot help belonging to the nation, and that for our whole life, and 
 with all that we have. It is somteimes assumed that the organization for 
 worship is divine, and the family and State, as it is said, merely human. 
 But the contrary is the case. The organization for worship is distinctly and 
 demonstrably a formation of man; the family and the State are institutions 
 of nature and of God.” (P. 320.) 
 
 The Gospel for the Secular Life. By F. W. Freemantle. 
 
 In this series of sermons preached by Canon Fremantle at Oxford, he 
 takes the ground that the sphere of gospel influence is the whole life of 
 man. The second sermon in the series is entitled “Religion without a 
 Temple.” In it he declares that “The nation and all classes in it should 
 act upon Christian principle, that laws should be made in Christ’s spirit of 
 justice, that the relations of the power of the State should be maintained on 
 a basis of Christian equity, that all public acts should be done in Christ’s 
 spirit.” (P. 75.) 
 
 The third discourse is entitled “The Supremacy of Christ.” After 
 showing that he must be recognized as supreme in Education, in Trade, in 
 Literature, in Art, in Science, he comes finally to the sphere of Politics, 
 and maintains that this sphere is not excluded. He says: “It is believed 
 by many that the sphere of politics can be dissevered from that of religion 
 
 31 
 
and this has been made the ground of theories which, whether they come 
 from the clerical or the secular side, are equally godless. It cannot be that 
 the public life, the natural home of justice, should be separated from God, 
 whose very nature is righteousness.” (Pp. 109-110.) 
 
 The State in Its Relation With the Church. By W. E. Gladstone, Esq. 
 Two volumes. John Murray, Gondon. 
 
 While Mr. Gladstone writes primarily from the point of view of an 
 established religion, his words apply equally well to the general relation of 
 States to religion. “I return, then, to the position that, as the nation fulfills 
 the great conditions of a person, a real unity of being, of deliberating, of 
 acting, of suffering; and these in a definite manner, and upon an extended 
 scale, and with immense moral functions to discharge, and influences to 
 exercise, both upon its members and extrinsically ; therefore it has that kind 
 of clear, large and conscious responsibility which can alone be met by its 
 specifically professing a religion, and offering through its organ, the State, 
 that worship which shall publically sanctify its acts. That which, by its 
 governing organ, it professes Specially, it must encourage and maintain 
 throughout its inferior members as a part of such profession itself.” (Vol. 
 I, p. 105.) 
 
 Divine Aspects of Human Society. By E. D. Huntington, D.D. 
 
 This volume consists of a series of lectures delivered before the 
 Brooklyn Institute. The first is entitled, “Society a Divine appointment.” 
 Bishop Huntington says: “Let us not hesitate, then, to plant our feet 
 firmly, even by definition, on the broad position that Society is a Divine Ap- 
 pointment. The Former, who made us, made us to be social. In the orig- 
 inal plan of his constitution, man was not meant to live alone. Though it 
 were possible for every individual of the species to reach the perfection of 
 his private nature in a solitary state, — which it is not, — still the purpose of 
 God in His creation would not be answered.” (P. 11.) 
 
 “The great whole that we call Society has been arranged by the Cre- 
 ator in a system of concentric circles. The first and smallest social type is 
 the family. Its primary constituents are a man and a woman, — then 
 parents and children,— sometimes including in a complete patriarchate, all 
 the descendants of the living progenitor. The second and next larger is the 
 Tribe, a group of families. The third is the State, varying greatly in extent, 
 sometimes comprised in a single city, like the State of Athens, which with 
 all its splendor, power and fame, contained only four hundred thousand 
 inhabitants. . . . Fourth is the Nation, a larger collection determined 
 
 by a common origin, a common language, and contiguous lands, often in- 
 cluding several political organizations; as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, were all 
 included in the Greek or Hellenic nation. Fifth, and last, is the Empire, 
 a mightier power, a cluster of nations, a ganglion of cities and provinces.” 
 “It is not a single solar system, but many, — the whole also heliocentric, — 
 God the central and supreme Sun of all, not only an attracting Law, not 
 only an irradiating Light, but a conscious Spirit of Life and a Personal 
 Protector. Toward each of these groups He has a character and a name. — 
 Father of the families of the earth. Leader of the tribes , Lord of the states, 
 King of the nations, Sovereign of the empires. (Pp. 35, 36.) 
 
 “The social constitution of man, and the relevation of Christ, are the 
 two correlated, complemental forces which bear forward the progress of the 
 world. Together they prepare that renewed, just, free, merciful and holy 
 society which the New Testament repeatedly characterizes as the kingdom 
 of heaven on earth. ... It follows that when the great truths of 
 Christianity shall have become embodied in the actual forms of govern- 
 ment, education, trade, art, letters, mercy, manners and worship, and shall 
 have controlled Society bv their living power, then the kingdom of Christ 
 will have come.” (P. 272.) 
 
 32 
 
“Reform without Christianity is wild, bitter, barren, and soon reactionary 
 and retrogressive. Christianity without reform is a corruption and a false- 
 hood.” (P. 297.) 
 
 The Spirit of Laws. By M. De Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, 
 toyal Exchange, Edinburgh. 
 
 The bearing of religion upon princes and government in general is 
 touched on. “A prince who loves and fears religion, is a lion, who stoops 
 to the hand that strokes or to the voice that appeases him. * He who fears 
 and hates religion is like the savage beast that growls and bites the chain 
 which prevents his flying on the passenger. He who has no religion at all 
 is that terrible animal who perceives his liberty only when he tears in 
 pieces and when he devours. “The Christian religion is a stranger to 
 mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommend in the 
 gospel, is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes 
 his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty.” (Vol. II, pp. 119, 120.) 
 
 Divine Order of Human Society. By R. E. Thompson, S. T. D. John 
 ). Wattles, Philadelphia. 
 
 A modern interpretation of Theocracy as opposed to secularism on the 
 one hand and ecclesiasticism on the other is given. “A theocratic nation 
 is neither more nor less than one which acknowledges God as its supreme 
 Ruler, regards His will as the highest standard of national conscience, and 
 sees in Him a King as real as any of any earthly dynasty. It recognizes all 
 national authority as delegated by Him. It holds His law revealed in the 
 written Word and in the human conscience to be a higher law to which 
 the wronged and oppressed may always appeal.” (P. 105.) 
 
 The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, D.D., LL.D. Pres- 
 yterian Committee of Publication, Richmond, Va. 
 
 In a sermon on National Sins, Dr. Thornwell says that the State must be 
 impressed with a profound sense of, God’s all-pervading providence, “and of 
 its responsibility to Him as the moral Ruler of the world. The powers that 
 be are ordained of Him. From Him the magistrate receives his commission, 
 and in His fear he must use the sword as a terror to evil-doers and a praise 
 to them that do well. Civil government is an institute of heaven, founded 
 in the character of men as social and moral, and is designed to realize the 
 idea of justice. . . As the State is essentially moral in its idea, it con- 
 
 nects itself directly with the government of God.” (Vol. IV, p. 514.) 
 
 In the same volume is a memorial of the Southern Presbyterian Church, 
 prepared by Dr. Thornwell, addressed to the Congress of the Confederate 
 States, asking that there be placed in the Constitution of the Southern Con- 
 federacy a recognition of the Lord Jesus Christ. That constitution already 
 contained a recognition of God. A few extracts are herewith given. 
 
 “It is not enough for a State which enjoys the light of Divine revelation 
 to acknowledge in general terms the supremacy of God; it must also ac- 
 knowledge. the supremacy of His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all 
 things, by whom also he made the worlds. To Jesus Christ all power in 
 heaven and earth is committed. To Him every knee shall bow and every 
 tongue confess. He is the Ruler of nations, the King of kings and Lord of 
 lords.” 
 
 “That Jesus Christ is the supreme Ruler of the nations we know with 
 infallible certainty, if we accept the Scriptures as the Word of God. 
 
 “But it may be asked — and this is the core of all the perplexity which 
 attends the subject — Has the State any right to accept the Scriptures as the 
 Word of God? The answer requires a distinction, and that distinction 
 seems to us to obviate all difficulty. If by ‘accepting the Scriptures’ it is 
 
 33 
 
meant that the State has a right to prescribe them as a rule of faith and 
 practice to its subjects, the answer must be in the negative. The State is 
 lord of no man’s conscience. As long as he preserves the peace and is not 
 injurious to the public welfare, no human power has a right to control his 
 opinion or to restrain his acts. . . . But if by ‘accepting the Scrip- 
 tures’ it is meant that the State may itself believe them to be true, and 
 regulate its own conduct and legislation in conformity with their teachings, 
 the answer must be in the affirmative. As a moral person, it has a con- 
 science as really and truly as every individual citizen.” (Pp. 551, 552.) 
 
 Messiah the Prince, or The Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ. By 
 
 William Symington. 
 
 In considering the proof that Jesus Christ is Ruler of Nations the 
 author finds his first argument in the fact that “national subjection to Jesus 
 Christ as Mediator is directly enjoined upon civil rulers. ‘Be wise now, 
 therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the 
 Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, 1 
 and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little.’ ” As | 
 proof that this is addressed to civil rulers, not as individuals but in their 
 official capacity, he shows that the Second Psalm from which the quotation is 
 taken represents these rulers “in their public capacity as plotting against 
 the Lord and that it is in this capacity they are here addressed. (Pp. 
 195, 196.) 
 
 Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, with an In- 
 troductory Essay on Civil Society and Government. By E. C. Wines,* 
 D.D., LL.D. Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia. 
 
 The Introductory Essay is a very valuable contribution to the literature 
 on political science. Of the origin of civil government Dr. Wines says: “The ! 
 true orgin of civil government and its ultimate foundation, undoubtedly 
 lies in the will of God. Government is, therefore, a divine institution. 
 Reason, revelation, and the best human authority, concur in enforcing this' 
 conclusion.” (p. 18.) 
 
 “There is a general concurrence among moral and political philosophers : 
 in the doctrine, that civil government is founded on the will of God.” (p. 29.) 
 But Dr. Wines does ample justice to the Social compact theory by showing 
 what it has to do in the establishing and administration of civil government. 
 He says: “All these, society, government, law, are, at the same time truly 
 divine and truly human institutions. They are divine, inasmuch as they are ! 
 essential agencies in carrying out the divine purposes in the creation of i 
 man. They are human, inasmuch as they are instituted and administered 
 by men, without any special and immediate interposition of the Deity (p. 33) 
 
 Introduction to the Study of International Law. By Theodore D.j 
 Woolsey. Scribner’s, New York. 
 
 In the introductory chapter, which treats of the definition, growth, 
 jural and moral grounds, and the sources of International La w, Dr. Woolsey: 
 says that “There are moral relations which give rise to international moral - \ 
 ity. It may be said, to say the least, that nations have duties and moral 
 claims, as well as rights and obligations.” (P. 31; see 16.) 
 
 Life and Works of J. R. Sloane, D.D. Edited by Professor Wm. M.j 
 Sloane. A. C. Armstrong and Son. 
 
 In a number of addresses published in this volume, Dr. Sloane main- 
 tained with great power and eloquence the moral character and accountabil- 
 ity of nations, their obligation to frame their laws in harmony with the 
 divine law, and the duty of making an acknowledgment of the divine claims! 
 upon nations in their frameworks of government. _ I 
 
 In an address on the Moral Character of the Nation he said: “Every | 
 government, by equitable laws, is a government of God; a republic thusf 
 
 34 
 
governed is of him, through the people, and is as truly and really a the- 
 ocracy as the commonwealth of Israel. The refusal to acknowledge this 
 fact is as much a piece of foolish impiety as that of the man who persists 
 in refusing to acknowledge that God is the Author of his existence.” (P. 273.) 
 
 • 
 
 Civil Government. A series of Lectures on Romans i3*:i-7. By Rev. 
 r ames M. Willson, D.D. 
 
 With great clearness and power Dr. Willson sets forth the teachings 
 of the Divine Word as to civil government. In speaking of the authority of 
 those who bear rule he says: 
 
 “They derive their power from God, or in other words, government is a 
 divine institution, originating in, and, of course, sanctioned by the will of 
 God. National organization is not the cere creature of the voluntary action 
 of the inhabitants of a particular country or district.” (Pp. 25, 46.) 
 
 The Next Great Awakening. By Josiah Strong. The Baker and Tay- 
 or Company, New York. 
 
 This, as well as other works of Dr. Strong, such as Our Country, The 
 New Era, The Twentieth Century, are helpful. 
 
 A number of books will be named without making any extracts. All these 
 vill be helpful in gaining a correct and full knowledge of politics both theo- 
 etical and practical. 
 
 Te Political Theories of the Ancient World. By W. W. Willoughby. Long- 
 mans, Green and Company, New York. 
 
 Christianity and the Social Order. By R. J. Campbell. The Macmillan Com- 
 pany, New York. 
 
 Te Approach to the Social Question. By F. G. Peabody. The Macmillan 
 Company, New York. 
 
 tandards of Public Morality. By A. T. Hadley. The Macmillan Company, 
 New York. 
 
 ome Ethical Gains Through Legislation. By Florence Kelley. The Mac- 
 millan Company, New York. 
 
 mierican Political Ideas. By John Fiske. Harper and Brothers, New York, 
 'heolcgy and the Social Consciousness. By H. C. King. The Macmillan 
 Company, New York. 
 
 XI. PUBLICATIONS ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL REFORM 
 
 ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Tanual of Christian Civil Government. By the Rev. D. McAllister, D.D., 
 LL.D. 300 pages, bound in manila paper, 25c a copy. By mail, 30c 
 a copy. 
 
 abbath Laws in the United States. By the Rev. R. C. Wylie, D.D. 250 
 pages, bound in paper, 35c a copy; bound in cloth, 75c a copy, 
 ur National Christianity and Fundamental Law. By the Rev. John A. 
 
 Henderson, D.D. 16 pages, 5c a copy ; $2.50 a hundred, 
 hrist the Ruler of Nations. By the Rev. T. P. Stevenson, D.D., LL.D. 16 
 1 pages, 3c a copy; $1.50 a hundred. 
 
 he Principles of National Religion. By Dr. Wylie. 20 pages, 3c a copy; 
 - $1.50 a hundred. 
 
 35 
 

 
 3 0112 098472043 
 
 By the Rev'. F. M. Wilson. 24 page.J^^| 
 
 The Christian Citizenship Pledge. 
 
 a copy; $1.50 a hundred. 
 
 The Constitutionality of Reading the Bible in the Public Schools. By DrH 
 
 McAllister. 20 pages, 5c a copy ; $2.50 a hundred. 
 
 Our Educational System: Is it Christian or Secular? By Dr. Wylie. Jj 
 pages, ioc a copy ; $5.00 a hundred. 
 
 The Sabbath and the Working Man. By Rev. J. A. Cosby, 3c a copy. 
 
 A Christian Nation, or Political Atheism, Which? 
 
 Assault Upon the Use of the Bible in Our 
 postpaid. 
 
 
 h? Reply to Rabbi LeM 
 Public Schools, sc a c^H 
 
 )r. Stevenson. 10 page^B 
 
 §■8 
 
 M. Downie. 8 pages, 5c a copy; 
 
 Lynch Law and the Principles of Justice. By Dr. Stevenson. 10 page* 
 
 a copy; $1.50 a hundred. 
 
 To an Unknown God. By R. ^ _ t , J , 
 
 hundred. 
 
 The Christian Amendment and the Liquor Traffic^ By the Rev. T. B. AnB 
 son, D.D. 12 pages, 3c a copy; $1.50 a hundred. 
 
 The National Reform Association — A Plea for Its ’Moral and Financial sH 
 port. Free. 
 
 A Plea for Religion in the Nation. By Dr. StevenoSn. 31 pages, 3c a ccH 
 5 copies, ioc. 
 
 The Religious Character of the National Reform Movement. Br. Dr. Stef"^ 
 
 son. 16 pages, 3c a copy; 10 copies, 25c. 
 
 Religion in Pubjic School Education. Reply to Rabbi Levy. 5c a c<p 
 postpaid. 
 
 “This is a Christian Nation,’’ U. S. Supreme Court Decision, with annotati 
 by Dr. R. C. Wylie. 12 pages, 5 cents. 
 
 The Association is now issuing a new series of leaflets entitled “Stul 
 in Christian Citizenship,” which will be furnished at the uniform price j 
 cents a copy; 10 copies, 25 cents; 50 copies, $1.00; 100 copies, $1.50. The; 
 
 lowing numbers are now ready : 
 
 Christian Citizenship Defined. By -the Rev. R. C. Wylie. 
 
 The True Idea of the State. By the Rev. D. McAllister, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 The Origin of the State. By Dr. McAllister. 
 
 The Ultimate Source of the State’s Authority. By Dr. McAllitser. 
 
 The Moral Ends of the State. By Dr. McAllister. 
 
 The Institution of Civil Government. By Dr. R. C. Wylie. 
 
 The Relation of Nations to the Lord Jesus Christ. Bv Rev. J. S. Martin. MM 
 Christ’s Government of the Nations. Bv Dr. R. C. Wylie. 
 
 The Relation of Civil Government to the Bible. Bv Dr. William Parsons 
 
 The Moral Personality of the Nation. By Rev. T. H. Acheson, D.D. 
 
 The Moral Responsibility of Nations. By the Rev. S. F. Scovel. D.D., LfflBj 
 The Forgiveness of National Sins. Bv Dr. T. P. Stevenson. 
 
 What Constitutes a Christian State. Bv Dr. Stevenson. 
 
 Is the United States a Christian Nation? By Dr. T. P. Stevenson. 
 
 National Christianity in the Public School. By Dr. R. C. Wylie. 
 
 The Bible in the Public Schools. By Rev. W. F. McCauley. 
 
 Our National Thanksgiving Festival. Bv Dr. R. C. Wylie. 
 
 Religious Defect of the Constitution of the United States. Bv the Rev 
 Craven. D.D., LL.D. 
 
 Send orders for publications in Class XI to 
 THE NATIONAL REFORM ASSOCIATION, 
 Room 603, Publication Bldg., 209 Ninth St., Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
 3C)