D

¦'I gum theft Books
\ for the founding of a >. Colony"

• iLm3iaamr •

From the Library of
CHARLES HOPKINS CLARK
Class of 1 87 1
1929

The Bible's Message to Modeen Life

The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
Israel's History from the Settlement
to the Assyrian Period

BY
CHARLES FOSTER KENT, Ph.D., Litt.D.,
Woolsey Professor of Biblical Literature in Yale University
JEREMIAH WHIPPLE JENKS, Ph.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Government and Director of the Division of Public Affairs in
New York University

New York
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1915

Copyright, 1915
By CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction  y
The Testing of Israel's Ideals. Plan of Work and Books of Reference.
Chapter I. The Necessity of Political Unity. The Union
of the Hebrew Tribes under Saul. I Sam. 4 — 14  1
1. The Failure of the First Hebrew Federation. * 2. The Influences that
Brought the Tribes Together. 3. Samuel's Work as a Statesman. 4. The
Successful Struggle with the Philistines. 5. Centralization of Authority
under Saul. 6. The Balance between Federal and Local Authority.
Chapter II. The Development op a Great Leader. David's
Training for Kingship. I Sam. 16— 18:30; 20— 30.  14
1. David's Personal Charm. 2. His Training in the Court of Saul. 3.
As a Fugitive in the Wilderness. 4. Among the Philistines. 5. His
Religious Spirit and Patriotism. 6. The Spirit and Standards of an Age.
Chapter III. The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in
Statesmanship. Saul's Character and Fate. I Sam. 19 ; 3 1 ;
II Sam. 1  33
1. The Weakening Power of Jealousy. 2. The Contrast between Saul
and David. 3. Meaning of Religion in a Crisis. 4. The Fatal Battle
of Gilboa. 5. David's Eulogy of Saul and His Work. 6. The Essentials
of Effective Statesmanship.
Chapter IV. The Right and Wrong of Imperial Expansion.
David as an Empire Builder. II Sam. 2—8; 23:8—39  51
1. The Decline of Saul's Kingdom. 2. Throwing off the Philistine Yoke.
3. The Unification of All Israel. 4. David's Reasons for Building an
Empire. 5. His Methods of Conquest. 6. The Right of Foreign Con
quest.
Chapter V. The Importance of Personal Character in a
Public Official. David's Weakness and Sins and their
Effects. USam. 9— 20;IKgs. 1:1— 2:12  63
1. David's Fall. 2. Remorse that Did not Undo Wrong. 3. The Shadow
of David's Crime. 4. The Revolt of Absalom. 5. The Tragedy of
David's Later Years. 6. The Influence of a Great Man's Character on
His Race.
Chapter VI. Culture Without Religion. Solomon's Policy.
I Kgs. 2:13—4:6; 4:29-34; 5: 1—8:66  71
1. The Way in which Solomon Became King. 2. His Machiavellianism.
3. His Reputation for Wisdom. 4. His Ideas of Religious Worship.
5. Church and State. 6. The Trend of Modern Civilization.
Chapter VII. The Fundamental Importance of a Right
Financial Policy. Solomon's System of Revenue and
' Expenditure. I Kgs. 4:7-28; 9:10— 11:40  83
1. The Object and Right of Taxation. 2. Solomon's Needs for Revenue.
3. His Sources of Revenue. 4. The Effects of his Policy upon Economic
Conditions. 6. Effects upon the Political Situation. 6. The Citizen's
Attitude toward Taxation.

iv Contents
Chapter VIII. The Expression op the Will op the People.
The Division of the Hebrew Kingdom. I Kgs. 12  93
1. TheDemands of the Northern Tribes. 2. The Folly of Denying the
People Their Rights. 3. The Political Effects of the Division. 4. Its
Social and Religious Effects. 5. The Right of the People to Express and
Enforce Their Will. 6. Ways of Expressing the Will of the People.
Chapter IX. Religion and Politics. Elijah's Arraignment
of Ahab's Policy. I Kgs. 16:21— 19:43  106
1. Israel's Political Problems. 2. Ahab's Political Policy and Its Effects.
3. Elijah the Tishbite. 4. His Interpretation of the Religious Crisis. 5.
TheConflict and Reconciliation of Politics and Religion. C. Modern
Pohtics and Religion.
Chapter X. The Rights of Citizenship. The Story of
Naboth's Vineyard. I Kgs.-21  118
1. The Oriental Attitude Toward Individual Rights. 2. Ahab's Per
version of Justice for Personal Ends. 3. Elijah's Advocacy of the Rights
of the Individual. 4. The Consequences of Ahab's Despotic Policy. 6.
The Rights of the Citizen Today. 6. How These Rights Can be Pro
tected.
Chapter XI. Sacrificing Personal Interests to Public
Interests. Micaiah's Reply to Ahab. I Kgs. 22  128
1. The Four Hundred False Prophets. 2. The Man who Dared Declare
the Truth. 3. Fate of a Ruler who Refused to Heed Good Counsel.
4. The Function of Minorities. 5. The Seeming Conflict of Personal and
Public Interest. 6. Ways in which Men may Effectively Serve Their City
and Nation.
Chapter XII. A Nation's Destiny. Israel's Conception of Its
Mission. Deut.4 — 9  138
1. Israel's Unfolding National Ideals. 2. The Effects of Great Crises
upon Israel's Development. 3. The Influence of the Prophets. 4. The
Sense in which the Israelites Were the Chosen People. 5. The Destiny
of a Modern Nation. 6. The Significance of the Individual Citizen's
Religious Attitude.

INTRODUCTION.
THE TESTING OF ISRAEL'S IDEALS.
The Hebrews received from their early ancestors, and above
all from Moses, the prophet and founder of their nation, certain
unique sentiments and ideals. The first was the deep sense of
gratitude and loyalty to the God who, they felt, had delivered
them from cruel industrial oppression in Egypt and from the
many perils of the Wilderness. It was loyalty expressed chiefly
through ceremonial observations; but from the first it appears
also to have guided the moral acts and to have shaped the charac
ters of these early Israelites. A personal feeling of fellowship
with Jehovah and with members of their race was the essence
of the religious faith which Moses transmitted to his followers.
Gradually also the conscious belief in a divine destiny for
their race dawned upon them.
From their ancient communistic tribal life they inherited
many democratic ideals. Each man had a voice in deciding
questions of common interest. Their leaders and rulers were
the choice of the people and ruled as the servants rather than
as the masters of their nation. Israel's ideal of government
from the beginning was the rule "of the Deople, by the people,
for the people."
The family was the cornerstone of the Hebrew common
wealth, and its rights and purity were jealously guarded.
Each individual enjoyed great political and religious liberty;
but, at the same time, he recognized his solemn obligations
to serve even at the cost of his life, if need be, the social unity
of which he was a part and the one God who was recognized
by that group.
These and kindred ideals alone distinguished the Hebrews
from the hundreds of ancient tribes and peoples that have
long since passed into oblivion without creating even a ripple
upon the boundless sea of history. Many of these ideals were
still in the process of development when the Hebrew clans
emerged from the Wilderness and entered the thickly populated,
much contested land of Canaan. The period from the settle
ment to the advent of the Assyrian conquerors was pre-

vi Introduction
eminently the era when their inherited political, social, moral,
and religious ideals were tested. Then began that age-long
contest between the strongly intrenched Canaanite cults and
the simpler, more austere religion of Jehovah. In the end
the religion of Moses and the prophets emerged victorious,
but the process of testing was so severe and prolonged that
Israel's ideals were crystallized into such an imperishable
form that they abide centuries after the Hebrew people has
ceased to be a nation, and today they constitute its supreme
gift to humanity.
Plan of Work and Books of Reference.
This book and the other volumes in this series are primarily
planned to meet the needs of college students, general readers,
and adult Bible' classes. Those who are able to command more
time and wish to do thorough work will find in the fist of Parallel
Readings at the beginning of each chapter carefully selected
references to the best authorities on the subject treated. For
their guidance Subjects for Further Study are also provided.
The books suggested in connection with this course have
been selected in order that each reader may have for his in
dividual use a practical working library covering the field
which it represents. The following books and also some standard
work on American history should be at hand for constant
Kent, C. F., The Historical Bible, Vols. II and III. They
contain the important biblical passages arranged in chronologi
cal order and are provided with the historical,igeographical, and
archaeological notes required for their clear understanding.
The translation is based on the oldest sources and embodies
the constructive results of modern biblical research. New
York, $1.00 each.
Croly, Herbert, The Promise of American Life. Gives an
interesting and instructive account of the leading political
problems of American history and of the forces and men that
have contributed to their solution. Many of the questions
before the rulers of ancient Israel are paralleled in American
history, and this volume gives the American answers. New
York, $2.00.
Lowell, A. Lawrence, Public Opinion and Popular Govern
ment. Prepared as a volume of the American Citizen Series

Introduction vii
to show the functions of public opinion in modern govern
ments. As the Hebrew commonwealth gives the best illus
tration among the early peoples of the power and modes
of expression of public opinion in ancient times the com
parative study is especially helpful. New York, $2.25.
For further parallel study the following books are suggested :
American Statesmen Series. An excellent series written by
authorities, containing recognized concise biographies of several
of the greatest American statesmen referred to in the Subjects
for Further Study.
Hazen, Charles Downer, Europe since 1815. One of the
latest and best of the brief histories of Europe, which lays
emphasis upon political movements and forces. New York,
$3.75. Guizot, M., History of Civilization in Europe. A standard
work on the development of modern civilized states. New
York, $1.50.
Kent, C. F., Israel's Historical and Biographical Narratives.
(Vol. II of Students' Old Testament), New York, $2.75. Pre
sents in a clear modern translation the original sources incor
porated in the historical books of the Old Testament, the
origin and literary history of these books, and the important
parallel Babylonian and Assyrian literature.
Kent, C. F., Biblical Geography and History, New York,
$1.50. Portrays the physical characteristics of Palestine and
the potent influences which that land has exerted throughout
the ages upon its inhabitants.
Lippmann, Walter, A Preface to Politics; Drift and Mastery.
Two suggestive stimulating books indicating the subtle forces
that determine political action and results; a sketch of many of
our social ills, a criticism of many remedies, and suggestions
of hopeful change.
Note also references in Volume I, The Making of a Nation.

CHAPTER I.
THE NECESSITY OF POLITICAL UNITY.
The Union of the Hebrew Tribes under Saul. —
I Sam. &-U.
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. II (The Founders and Rulers of United Israel),
pp. 63-83.
Croly, The Promise of American Life, Chaps. I, II; Lowell, Public
Opinion, Chaps. I, II.
Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, Rule over us, both you and
your son, and your son's son also; for you have saved us from the hand
of Midian.— Judg. 8: S2.
Then Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it on Saul's head, and
kissed him and said, Hath not Jehovah anointed you to be a prince over
his people Israel? And you shall reign over the people of Jehovah and
deliver them from the power of their enemies around about . . . and you
shall do as the occasion offers; for God is with you. — 1 Sam. 10: 1, 7b.
When in Innocency, or when by intellectual perception, he attains
to say: I love the Right; Truth is beautiful within and without, forever
more. Virtue, I am thine; save me; use me; thee will I serve, day and
night, in great, in small, that I may be not virtuous, but virtue; then
is the end of the Creation answered, and God is well pleased. — Emerson.
Democracy is more than the absence of czars, more than freedom, more
than equal opportunity. It is a way of life, a use of freedom, an embrace
of opportunity. — Lippmann.
Unity of sentiment and of ideals is what, more than anything else, binds
a people together. — Albert Shaw.
No one can be perfectly free till all are free. — Spencer.

The Failure of the First Hebrew Federation.
Israel's pioneer period illustrates the well-known homely but
significant utterance in connection with the signing of the
Declaration of Independence : " Unless we hang together, we shall
all hang separately." Notwithstanding their brilliant victory
on the Plain of Esdraelon under the leadership of Deborah and
Barak, the Hebrews soon fell a prey to their hostile neighbors,
for the forces making for division were stronger than those
binding them together. The tribal instincts which theyhad
brought from the desert led them to regard with suspicion
any centralized authority, The dividing hills and valleys of
l

2 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
Palestine intensified this tendency toward disunion. The
result was that each tribe under its individual leaders main
tained its independence, fought its own battles, and struggled
to work out its own problems. The so-called judges of this
period were simply local chieftains, who, as needs required,
rallied their tribesmen and delivered them from the bondage
of invaders. The prestige thus won gave to these deliverers
a local authority. In the ancient East the judges were the
civil and religious officials. To them were referred questions
of dispute between individuals and clans, even as they are
today to the sheiks of the Arab tribes. Among all Semitic
peoples civil and judicial duties were so closely connected
that among the Phoenicians, for example, the common designa
tion of a governor or ruler came from the same root as the
Hebrew word for judge.
The rule of the tribal deliverers or judges was local; none
ruled over all Israel. Thus Samson was the great hero of the
southern, Jephthah of the east-Jordan, and Gideon of the
central tribes. Several of these deliverers were probably
contemporary. The impression that they ruled in succession
over all Israel is due to the additions of the latest editor of the
book of Judges.
The most significant of these petty rulers was Gideon, for
his rule represented the beginning of the kingship among the
Hebrews. The oldest narrative gives a vivid picture of the
origin of his little kingdom. Owing to the lack of political
unity among the Israelites the Midianites, the early repre
sentatives of the modern Arab hordes, seeing their opportunity
for plunder, came pressing in from the eastern desert. The
action of the elders of Succoth and Penuel implies that most
if not all of the east-Jordan towns paid tribute to these desert
marauders in order to secure immunity from their attacks.
Emboldened by their successes the Midianites crossed the
Jordan and followed the valleys that led westward to the
uplands occupied by the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.
Here they met with resistance. In one of these skirmishes
the brothers of Gideon the Ophrahite were slain. Thus
devolved upon Gideon the sacred and social responsibility of
avenging his brothers' blood. Promptly he rallied three
hundred of his tribesmen and set out in pursuit of the Midian
ites, who were already retiring to the desert.

The Necessity of Political Unity 3
Gideon's home was probably at the present Ain el-Farah,
about ten miles northeast of the Shechem, at the head of the
valley which leads southeastward to the Jordan. Down this
valley, then, he followed the Midianites with his warriors,
crossing the Jordan either at the present Damiah ford or a little
further north, opposite the point where the Jabbok comes
down from the hills of Gilead. The Hebrew town of Succoth
guarded the entrance to this valley and Penuel was probably
a little further eastward along the bank of the Jabbok. Breath
ing vengeance upon the elders of these towns, which refused to
give him food, Gideon continued his pursuit until he overtook
the Midianites encamped on the borders of the eastern desert.
His method of attack was typical of border warfare. While
the Midianites were sleeping without suspicion of danger,
Gideon's followers with torches concealed in earthen jars
stealthily surrounded the hostile camp. At a given signal the
Hebrews sounded the battle cry, "For Jehovah and Gideon,"
and broke their jars. The Midianites, awakened suddenly,
thinking that they were surrounded by a mighty host, fled in
wild panic. Gideon was left in possession of their camp and
with a reputation for valor and prowess that made a profound
impression upon the Hebrew tribesmen both east and west
of the Jordan. This impression was deepened by the bloody
vengeance which he visited upon the elders of Succoth and
Penuel. Hence when he returned to Ophrah, his clansmen
and those of the tribes immediately adjacent asked him not
merely to rule over them but also to transmit his power to his
descendant. Thus as a result of the needs of the situation certain of
the Hebrew tribes made this valiant deliverer their hereditary
king. The first Hebrew kingdom thus established by prowess
suddenly collapsed because Gideon's successor Abimelech was
incapable and brutal. He secured the succession by the
murder of his brothers and ruled as a tyrant rather than as
a protector of his people. The fact that he was the son of
a Canaanite mother undoubtedly contributed to his downfall,
for through her he inherited the despotic Canaanite ideal of
rulership rather than the democratic ideal of the Hebrews.
His ignominious death at the hands of a woman was popularly
regarded as a divine judgment for his crime. Thus the first

4 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
attempt to unite the local tribes under a central government
proved a disastrous failure.
Was the assassination of a ruler's rivals looked upon then
with the horror now felt for such a crime? Compare this
natural and important step in the development of the Hebrew
nation, by which Gideon became king, with similar acts in
the history of other peoples, e.g., England. What was the
difference between the other so-called judges and Gideon?
II.
The Influences that Brought the Tribes Together.
Powerful influences were required to overcome the deep-
seated antipathy and suspicion with which the Hebrews
regarded all centralized authority. These influences were
suppli ed by the political situation. The pressure from the desert,
which Gideon's victory for the moment relieved, became
after his death even stronger than before. The Ammonites,
the near neighbors of the Hebrews on the east, also took ad
vantage of the lack of unity among the tribes to extend their
suzerainty, until in the days of Saul it extended even to the
Jordan. The tribes of southern as well as of eastern Palestine
felt the same pressure from the desert. The foes, however,
who at last compelled the Hebrews to unite were the Philistines.
A little before the Hebrews entered Palestine from the
east, the Philistines, moving eastward and southward by
land and sea from their homes in southern Asia Minor and the
islands of the eastern Mediterranean, had occupied the broad,
fertile coast plains west of the uplands of Judah. The pro
ductive fields of Philistia furnished the background for a rich
agricultural civilization. This centered about five great cities,
surrounded by strong walls and ruled by petty kings. Through
this territory ran the great coast road which brought to the
Philistines the civilization, the products and the arts of Egypt,
Phoenicia and Babylonia. Under the pressure of common
danger and their ambitions for conquest the Philistine cities
formed a coalition which enabled them to act as a political
unit. Hence, in the richness of their territory, in the develop
ment of their resources and civilization, and in their political
unity, the Philistines far outstripped the Israelites.
Conflict between these rapidly increasing, ambitious peoples
was inevitable. The picturesque stories told of Samson reflect

The Necessity of Political Unity 3
the beginnings of that conflict. Born in one of the villages
that guarded the entrance to a broad valley leading down from
the Judean hills to the Philistine plains, Samson was the
incarnation of the spirit manifested in this border warfare.
The relation between the Hebrews and Philistines was still
so close that intermarriage was common. Their hostilities
took the form of forays rather than definite campaigns. It is
possible and probable that popular tradition magnified Samson's
strength and achievements.
Was he in every sense a popular hero? How do the qualities
which he possessed appeal to the small boy of today? In
what respects was he a prototype of the modern athlete? How
do you estimate his moral character? Was his patriotism of
a broad, constructive type? What was the total effect of
his activity? How far should Samson's character be held up
as a type to be emulated today?
The real crisis came to the Hebrews when the Philistines
at last massed their forces and marched northward along the
coast plains, until they came to one of the broader passes
that opened into central Palestine. The result of the initial
engagement was an overwhelming defeat for the Hebrews.
Lacking organization and a leader prominent and strong enough
to unite them, they brought from the northern sanctuary of
Shiloh the ark, which symbolized the presence of Jehovah.
Placing it in the forefront of battle, they hoped that Jehovah
would perform a miracle in their defense, even as the sudden
storm had brought them victory on the memorable battle
field beside the River Kishon. The ancient Hebrew narrative
states that even the Philistines, familiar with the traditions
that gathered about the ark, were terrified, but bravely faced
the issue. In vain the Hebrews strove to force their Deity
to intercede in their behalf. They had yet to learn in the
hard school of experience the lessons necessary to prepare
them for the appreciation of ultimate national unity and
independence. Not only were the Hebrews defeated, but their
ark was captured and the Philistines were left masters of all
of the west-Jordan territory.
Do the, stories regarding the fortunes of xne ark among the
Philistines suggest that those who bore it were infected by
the bubonic plague? Were the Hebrews to whom the ark
was returned immune from this infection? Do the golden

6 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
tumors or boils with which the Philistines thought to appease
the god of the Hebrews suggest the nature of the contagion?
How far is the popular belief that calamity or misfortune is
an evidence of wrong doing and a sign of divine displeasure
still prevalent? What is the real foundation for this belief
in a great majority of cases? How far and how are great
afflictions, like those suffered by the Hebrews at this period,
but the open door to larger and nobler experiences? Do all
seeming misfortunes, if rightly met and interpreted, offer
opportunities for real progress? Illustrate in the history of
the United States. In your own experience.
III.
Samuel's Work as a Statesman.
The Philistine armies followed up the repeated victories
over the Hebrews and apparently subjugated all of southern
Palestine. To make this subjugation complete they estab
lished garrisons at strategic points, and as far as possible
disarmed the Hebrews, so as to render an uprising impossible.
The defeat of their armies and the capture of the ark un
doubtedly struck a severe blow at their faith in Jehovah, for
like children they still depended upon the visible evidence of
his power and presence. It was natural for the common
people to think of the god of the conquerors as the stronger.
The next step was to worship the stronger deity. Not only
Israel's future as a nation, but also Israel's faith was in peril.
The one man who appears to have appreciated the significance
of the crisis was Samuel, a seer of Ramah in southwestern
Ephraim. The later account, preserved in chapters 1 to 3, 7,
and 12 of I Samuel, represents him as a judge ruling over all
Israel, and this naturally reflects the tendency of later genera
tions to idealize the personality and work of the great prophet.
The oldest narrative, preserved in chapters 9 and 10, as well as
the subsequent development of Israel's history, gives a luminous
picture of Samuel's work as a statesman. It was a work
done not in public, but in private.
Like many of the great events in the world's history the
setting was exceedingly simple. As tradition says that the
cackling of geese saved Rome, even so the straying of a drove
of young she-asses, belonging to a wealthy Benjamite by the

The Necessity of Political Unity 7
name of Kish, led his son Saul in their quest far up among
the hills of Ephraim. Not finding the asses and being near
the town of Ramah, the name of which means height and
suggests that it was one of the many hill towns that are to
be found in southwestern Ephraim, Saul at the advice of his
servant went to consult the seer who dwelt there. The nar
rative indicates that Saul had not before that time heard of
Samuel, though it appears that Saul was already known to the
seer. At the high place in the upper part of the town he
found the seer seated in the midst of the elders, presiding
over a sacrificial feast. At once the young Benjamite was
given the seat of honor and then remained as Samuel's
guest. In a sense it was on the housetop in the hill town
of Ramah that the Hebrew kingdom was born. The nature
of the conversation between the patriot warrior of Ben
jamin and the seer of Ramah may be inferred from the
manner in which they parted. On the outskirts of the town,
as they bade each other farewell in the early morning, Samuel
poured upon the head of Saul the oil that made him Jehovah's
anointed and symbolized his call to a great mission. The
words of the prophet made clear the meaning of the symbol.
Saul was to be Israel's champion and ruler. With the ex
hortation to act as the occasion offered, Saul went forth in
spired by a new and noble patriotic impulse. Even with the
fanatical religious enthusiasts, the sons of the prophets, whom
he had probably hitherto despised, he shared the wild en
thusiasm to be God's man and to go forth and fight in the
name of Jehovah against his foes.
The event confirmed the wisdom of Samuel's insight. The
young giant Saul, with his courage and prowess and patriotic
enthusiasm, was the man supremely fitted to rally the dis
organized, dispirited Hebrews, and to lead them successfully
against the many foes who preyed upon them. Coming from
the little tribe of Benjamin, that had settled among the lime
stone hills between the larger tribes of Ephraim and Judah,
Saul was able to overcome the bitter jealousies between the
north and the south and to bind together the Hebrew clans
of southern and central Palestine. In inspiring Saul to act
as occasion offered, Samuel launched the Hebrew kingdom,
and in so doing prepared for its subsequent success and achieve
ments. Later traditions, influenced by the memory of the

8 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
disastrous reigns of such kings as Solomon and Ahaz, repre
sented the great prophet as opposed to the estabfishment of
the kingdom; but in the light of the oldest records Samuel
was the real king-maker, for he was the true statesman, who
appreciated the needs of the situation, found the man fitted
to guide his people, and inspired him to act effectively.
Do you recall any other great king-makers in the world's
history? Why could Samuel himself not have done the work
which Saul accomplished? Which is the greater character,
Samuel or Saul? Why? Which is the nobler goal for which
to strive, public recognition or actual achievement? Note
the different goals of achievement sought by the two men.
Could either have reached the other's goal? How far is the
desire for public recognition useful in the development of the
individual? In the progress of humanity?
IV.
The Successful Struggle with the Phtlisttnes.
The occasion for which Samuel had told Saul to wait came
quickly. The Ammonites advanced against the Hebrew town
of Jabesh in Gilead, situated on the heights east of the Jordan.
Vaunting their strength and trusting to the defenseless
condition of the Israelites, they threatened to mutilate the
submissive men of Jabesh by boring out each man's right
eye. It was an insult well calculated to stir the hot indigna
tion of the Israelites, but in vain the Gileadite messengers
went from town to town until at last they came to Gibeah
of Saul. Their message kindled into a fierce flame Saul's
smoldering patriotism. In the vivid words of the ancient
narrative, "The spirit of Jehovah rushed upon him, when
he heard these words." Cutting in pieces the oxen that had
been drawing his plow, he sent them to the chieftains of Israel
with the significant statement: "Whoever does not come forth
after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen."
It is not strange that "terror fell upon the people and they
rallied as one man," for they realized that the spirit of Barak
and Deborah was again in their midst. In attacking the
Ammonites Saul employed the tactics of Gideon, dividing the
people into three divisions and making the attack in the early
morning watch. The result was the same as in the early

The Necessity of Political Unity 9
battle against the Midianites. The Ammonites were completely
scattered, and the Hebrews who followed Saul recognized
that at last they had found a man worthy to be their king.
Returning to the northern sanctuary of Gilgal, the modern
Jiljifia, a few miles to the southwest of the ancient sanctuary
of Shiloh, the glories of which it has inherited, the Israelites
solemnly elected Saul to be their king. The ruins of an ancient
rock-cut altar and two sacred trees, as well as the shrine of a
Mohammedan saint, now mark the historic spot. Standing
on the rocky terrace, surrounded by deep encircling valleys,
one can readily picture the assembled Israelites clad in the
spoils of the conquered Ammonites, proud and grateful in
the memory of the recent victory, fearful of the Philistine
conflict that still impended, yet exultant as they proclaimed
their victorious champion king.
The details of the succeeding war with the Philistines are
recounted with unusual fullness in the early narrative of
I Samuel 13, 14. With their wonted energy, the Philistines
quickly invaded southern Ephraim and Benjamin with a
large army. Its advance was evidently over the pass of
Bethhoron, directly eastward across the central plateau.
By this movement they cut off the Israelites on the north from
those on the south. Many of the Hebrews laid down their
arms at once. Others fled to the caves. Saul's victorious
army quickly vanished, and he was left with only a few hundred
men. Meeting no organized opposition, the Philistines left
a garrison at the strategic fortress of Michmash, that guarded
the main highway from north to south. The remainder began
to plunder the Hebrew towns.
It was at this crisis that Saul's valiant son Jonathan turned
an ignominious rout into victory. Today one may still find
along the little valley of Michmash the rock-cut entrances
to the caves in which the frightened Hebrews probably took
refuge. It is possible also to identify the jutting spurs of
rock, which stand as sentinels on the northern and southern
sides of the valley, and to follow the footsteps of Jonathan, as
he with his armorbearer crossed the deep ravine and assailed
the Philistine fortresses.
The son of the giant Saul was probably himself of heroic
stature. It is not strange that a man, who thus emerged
from the ranks of the hiding Hebrews, was regarded by the

10 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
Philistines as almost divine, as he scaled the rocky heights
and all but alone faced the hostile garrison. Fear completed
what his courage and prowess had begun, and the Philistines
were quickly in mad flight. The panic was communicated
to the plundering warriors. Soon Saul heard the commotion
and with his usual impetuosity, without waiting for the response
of the divine oracle that he was consulting, he rallied his followers
in pursuit of the Philistines. Over the rocky heights of central
Israel they drove their fleeing foes, until by nightfall the
last surviving Philistines had escaped down the steep pass
of Bethhoron out into the plain. Saul was left free for the
moment to organize his kingdom.
In what departments of public life today are the qualities
which Saul possessed especially effective? Without Jonathan's
co-operation would Saul's kingdom have collapsed? Was
Saul justified in pursuing the Philistines without waiting for
the confirmation of the priestly oracle?

Centralization of Authority under Satjl.
From beginning to end Saul's task was supremely difficult.
Throughout his tempestuous reign there was almost constant
war with his hostile neighbors. The well-organized Philistines
made repeated attempts to re-establish their authority over
the Hebrews. The distance between upland and plain was
so short that a rapid night march enabled the Philistines to
penetrate to the hills through the western valleys, attack an
outlying Hebrew village, and retire laden with spoils and
followed by captives. On the south the Amalekites main
tained an almost constant guerrilla warfare. On the east
the Ammonites lost no opportunity to avenge the defeat which
they had suffered at the hands of Saul. Perforce Saul's court
was a military camp, and his advisers were the commanders of
his army. Israel was still in the pioneer stage. The first
task of the Hebrews was to cultivate the soil and care for
their flocks. Hence Saul had no standing army but was
dependent almost entirely upon the militia. Under able
leaders and with constant training warriors of this type de
veloped great efficiency. The hills and vales of Palestine were
also favorable to the cause of Saul. It is to his glory that in

The Necessity of Political Unity 11
the face of many obstacles, Israel's first great warrior king
not only succeeded in organizing the fighting resources of his
kingdom but also in holding his enemies at bay, even as David
sang to the daughters of Israel in his lament over Saul:
Who clothed you daintily in finest linen?
Golden ornaments he placed on your garments.
Saul's reign marks the beginning of permanent centraliza
tion of authority among the Hebrews. This process was
necessarily slow and beset by many obstacles. The problems
were very similar to those that characterized the beginnings
of the revolutionary period in American history. Each tribe
or group of tribes was jealous of its rights and submitted
to the central authority only as it was compelled by sheer
necessity. There is no evidence that more distant tribes, as
for example the Asherites and Danites, recognized Saul's
rule any more than they did the obligation in the days of
Deborah to join with their kinsmen against the Canaanites.
Similarly the southern tribes of Judah and its allies, the Caleb-
ites and other Arab tribes, showed themselves very ready
at the slightest provocation to withdraw from the Hebrew
confederacy. The term federation or united states, rather
than kingdom, is the more exact designation of the political
organization at the head of which stood Saul. At first he
was elected simply by the common consent of the warriors
who had followed him in the campaign against the Ammonites.
Later other tribes, realizing their need of the protection which
his standard afforded, joined the federation. Saul's authority,
therefore, depended on the one hand on his personal ability
and achievement and on the other on the consent of those
governed. In many ways the closest modern analogy is the
American federation (1776 to 1789) with its distribution of
authority between the weak federal and the strong state govern
ments. Saul does not appear to have taken any steps to extend his
power or to organize his kingdom. His capital was his native
town of Gibeah. His court was probably either held in his
home or, as in one memorable instance, out of doors beneath
the tamarisk tree near the high place. His own kinsman
Abner was his prime minister, as well as general. Judicial
cases were doubtless referred to the king, but the primary and

12 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
apparently almost the sole aim of the Hebrew federation was
military defense. Undoubtedly the different tribes sent
presents to their chief, but there is no evidence that Saul
instituted a regular system of taxation. While this type of
organization lacked coherence, it possessed the virtue of being
adjusted to existing conditions and of preserving Israel's
priceless democratic ideals. In the days of Saul and his
successors democratic precedents were established which
kings like Solomon and Ahab were powerless permanently to
overthrow. Israel, therefore, from the beginnings of its
national life, illustrated to all the world the characteristics,
strong and weak, of a rule of the people by the people for the
people. Picture in imagination what a Philistine attack meant to
the inhabitants of an outlying Hebrew town. What did Saul
do for the Hebrew people? Why were the Hebrews in Saul's
day so averse to recognizing centralized authority?
VI.
The Balance Between Federal and Local Authority.
John Fiske, in one of his admirable books, puts forward as
one of the three most important American political ideas,
that of federation. It is perhaps true, as Fiske intimates, that
in the American Union we find first the example, on a great scale,
of the advantages of a federal system of government. But,
after all, did not Israel in its early history give us in this respect,
as in so many others, the fundamental principles?
The essential advantage of federation, as a form of political
organization, is that it maintains a local self-government in
which each man may take his part in public affairs and thereby
may get a real training as a political thinker and doer, while,
on all great questions touching international affairs or matters
reaching in their influence far beyond the neighborhood which
he knows, he delegates his power to a representative, in order
thereby to secure unity of action. Only through federation
can we have thus combined the advantages of a strongly cen
tralized government with those of a democracy which trains
the individual.
In the early days of the Hebrew kingdom under Saul the
need for centralization came largely from war and dealings

The Necessity of Political Unity 13
with the surrounding tribes and nations. There was little
centralization of government, although doubtless there were
certain common rules and at times there were levies of troops,
if not of taxes, upon the different tribes. Probably, except in
times of war, the king did not deal with the individual members
of a tribe, as does our central government in collecting federal
taxes, but his suggestions and commands went to the elders of
the separate tribes. In individual instances, as when he
slaughtered the priests of Nob, his personal authority was
recognized, but this control was, after all, rather the discipline
of a military leader than 'the authority of a ruling king. Later,
as we know, David and Solomon went much farther toward
centralization, taking a census, levying taxes, interfering
directly with local affairs. Although the system was never
fully worked out, the rule under Solomon became despotic
and in consequence the desire for democracy, or at any rate
for local recognition and hence for the federal type of rule,
brought about eventually the fall of the united kingdom.
As we have already seen, the unifying force that brought
about unity under Saul was the need of self-defense against
warlike aggression. The chief advantage of unity was greater
power in war. The unifying sentiment, however, that made
this unity possible then, as it did from time to time, both in
earlier and later days, was religion, the common worship of
Jehovah. Until long after the days of Saul each tribe had
still its own shrine, each family, probably, its own household
god. But there was, after all, the universal worship of Jehovah
and the universal belief that the Israelites were the chosen
people of the most powerful God and that their prosperity
was dependent upon loyalty to him. Nowhere else in history
do we find so clearly imprinted upon its pages the unifying
power of a common religious belief, and nowhere else is so
apparent the uplifting, vivifying and revivifying power of
pure religious feeling. Questions for Further Consideration.
What is the centralizing force which keeps together the separate States
of the American Union?
Mention ten acts commonly performed by ordinary American citizens.
How many of these are under the protection or control of laws passed
by our State governments? How many under the federal government?
Under which are our regulations regarding marriage? Business con
tracts? Crimes? Customs duties? The post office?

14 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
Is it more important for a father, with growing children, to have the
school teacher in his home town a person of high character and attainments,
or to have such characteristics in the President of the United States? Give
your reasons.
Why are we ordinarily more interested in the selection of the President
than in that of a school teacher?
Is there any person or group of persons in the United States today
performing the political functions of the prophet Samuel, especially those
of selecting the chief ruler and furnishing the leading political ideas? How
far is it today in the power of a private citizen of high ability and character
to play the r&le of that ancient Hebrew prophet? Have any of our ex-
Presidents occupied such a position? Washington, Cleveland, Roosevelt,
Taft? Subjects for Further Study.
(1) The Literary Structure and History of the Books of Samuel. Kent,
Israel's Historical and Biographical Narratives1 pp. 10-14.
(2) Study and criticize Alexander Hamilton's plans regarding the
centralization of federal power in the United States. Croly, Promise of
American Life, Chap, II; Lodge, Alexander Hamilton.

CHAPTER II.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GREAT LEADER.
David's Training for the Kingship. — I Sam. 16:1 — 18:30;
20—30.
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. II, pp. 84-87, 92-114.
Croly, Promise of American Life, cf . Index: Lincoln, Roosevelt, Bryan.
Lowell, Public Opinion, Chaps. Ill, IV.
Thereupon one of the young men answered and said, Behold, I have
seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is skillful in playing and a valiant
man, a soldier, judicious in speech, a man of good appearance, and Jehovah
is with him. — 1 Sam. 16: 18.
Then Abishai said to David, God has delivered your enemy into your
hand today. Now therefore let me smite him with his spear to the earth
at one stroke, and I will not need to smite him twice! But David said
to Abishai, Destroy him not; for who can lay his hand upon Jehovah's
anointed and be innocent? — / Sam. 26: 8, 9.
Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth. — Heb. IS: 6.
'Tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valor
To act in safety. — Shakespeare.
The future works out great men's destinies;
The present is enough for common souls,

The Development of a Great Leader 15
Who, never looking forward, are indeed
Mere clay wherein the footprints of their age
Are petrified forever. — Lowell.
That each thing, both in small and great, fulnlleth a task which destiny
hath set down. — Hippocrates.

David's Personal Charm.
In all the history of art probably no better example can be
found of youthful beauty and strength, combined with intelli
gence, alertness and skill, than the wonderful statue of David
by Michael Angelo in the City of Florence. It represents David
standing erect and watchful with his sling in his hand, just
as he is about to engage in conflict with the giant Goliath.
Perhaps no other sculptor has ever equalled Michael Angelo
in the ability to give life-like character to his artistic creations.
But there also has rarely been a subject so well adapted to the
depiction of youthful beauty, heroism, and skill as David
at this initial moment in his public career. Before consider
ing his religious experiences it is well to note his personal
characteristics and his training.
All the accounts of David's life and activities show that he
was a young man of unusual charm. He was a skilled warrior,
even when he was introduced to Saul's court, for he very soon
became the king's armorbearer and before long the leader of
his warriors in their most desperate forays. The fact that he
had been first brought to Saul's court as a musician in order
to quiet the nerves of the king when he was ill, by his skillful
playing on the lyre, proves his pre-eminence in that art. We
know also that he must have been a youth of unusual facility
in conversation and of pleasing address. His popularity among
all classes at the court, not only with warriors, but also with
the malcontents of every kind, who joined him when he later
left the court, and with Jonathan, the king's son, demonstrates
this fact. Moreover, he had been at the court but a short
time when the younger daughter of King Saul, Michal, declared
her love for him and her wish to become his wife. His relations
with Saul and Jonathan reveal a man of most unusual tact;
his experiences among the Philistines show not only his bravery
in war but later, as we shall see, his diplomatic skill in dealing
with those who might well have been the cause of his final

16 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
ruin. His treatment of Saul, when the king later came into
his power, illustrates the generosity of his spirit and the kindli
ness of his disposition, as well as his reverential attitude toward
the man who, he felt, had been chosen as the Lord's anointed
to be the king of the Hebrew people.
There is every reason to believe that his generous, eloquent
words in his poetic lament over the death of Saul were per
fectly sincere, and that he was lamenting not merely his friend
Jonathan, but also the king who had been his enemy and who
had sought his life, but whom, nevertheless, he looked upon
as the great leader of his people.
With his discriminating judgment of men David was able
to appreciate genuinely the bravery and the unselfishness that
Saul revealed in many of his acts and to excuse his mad im
pulsiveness when he felt that his position as king was threatened
by the popularity of his young son-in-law, who he feared would
become his rival.
David's far-sighted diplomatic skill is shown in the way in
which he treated Saul's son and successor, Ishbaal, after the
death of Saul; in the way in which he punished with death
the slayers of the young king who had been holding part of
the kingdom that he hoped later to make his own, and by the
acts of tact and judgment by which he brought together
the different separated factions of the Hebrew people into
one great kingdom. Nowhere else in ancient history do we
find a better example of real personal greatness. He was a
man of remarkable intelligence, he was a poet of the first rank, a
musician of unusual skill, a warrior of invincible courage and
ability, a diplomat of the first order and a statesman with
such far-reaching plans that from a scattered group of jealous
tribes and in a territory that was distinctly unfavorable to
political unity, he was able to weld together one of the great
nations of his day. Not merely did circumstances favor his
purpose. His own personal qualities, more than all other
forces, enabled him to achieve this remarkable success which
has made him since that far-off day one of the few greatest
heroes of mankind.
In these days of scientific study people are inclined to think
that the elements determining success are not primarily the
individuality of a person but external circumstances. Any
one, however, who has looked carefully into the forces that

The Development of a Great Leader 17
determine success in public life can see that as the years and
centuries go by, personality is a more, rather than a less, im
portant factor in deciding the course of the world's history.
It is true that physical skill and power, perhaps, signify less;
possibly even mental strength means no more than in the
earlier days; but beyond a doubt moral uprightness counts
continually more and more with each succeeding generation.
The increasing complexity of modern society makes it all the
more essential that in our dealings one with the other, we
can rely absolutely upon the word and upon the acts of the
men with whom we are associated. There can be no successful
statesman, nor business man of the larger type, unless his
personal character is such that he can win the confidence of
his fellowmen.
What were some of the personal characteristics of Napoleon
Bonaparte that contributed to his success (1) as a soldier?
(2) as a statesman? What were some of his personal qualities
that contributed to his failure in both these rdles? How much
of the success or failure of the teachers under whom you studied
at different periods depended upon their personality? Men
tion some of the personal qualities of a man that contribute
to his success in business or in politics, or mention the qualities
of a woman that are in the end largely contributory to her
success in home life, in society, or in business.
II.
David's Training in the Court of Saul.
The remarkable success of David, as leader of his people,
as king, and as the man who consolidated the different tribes
into one great kingdom, was due very largely to the training
that he received at the court of Saul.
Two different accounts are given of the way in which he
first came to court. The earliest, and probably on the whole
the most trustworthy, is that which brings him first to the
attention of the court attendants as a skillful musician whose
playing upon the lyre might soothe the king when he was
seized with one of his strange attacks. The king was probably
a high-strung man who, on account of his failure to unite all
the varied elements in his kingdom, and the isolation which
was his lot as king and also, probably on account of some

18 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
natural or inherited tendency, was afflicted with a severe
nervous malady. Some medical authorities consider it epilepsy,
others acute melancholia. But whatever the disease may have
been, he was subject to attacks under the influence of which
he became morose and jealous and inclined to turn upon those
about him. This disastrous tendency was manifested not
only in the case of David, but also in that of the priests of
Nob when he mistakenly thought it possible that they had
been conspiring with David against him.
Whatever the malady may have been, it seems perfectly
clear that David, even at his first appearance in Saul's court,
was not the stripling shepherd who was merely keeping his
sheep in the fields, as is indicated in the later account, but
that he already had won a reputation on the battlefield and was
in the prime of his youth. His close personal relationship
with Saul gave him an opportunity to win the king's affection.
The king's delight in him is shown by the fact that he soon
made him his armorbearer. From his daily association with
Saul, hearing the cases that came before the king to judge, and
participating in all his intimate domestic life (for we know that
he sat at the king's table), he was in a position to see how the
affairs of state were managed.
Of course at this time Saul was little more than the leader
of the tribes in time of war. David had, nevertheless, from
this association, the opportunity to learn all that could be
learned from probably the most skillful warrior of his race,
and thus to acquire a kind of training that was to prove of
great importance in the near future. As we have seen, this
close relationship, combined with David's personal qualities,
gave him also the opportunity of becoming a close friend of the
king's son Jonathan — a man of the noblest type — an as
sociation that must have been in many ways of the greatest
benefit. When, at the time of the attacks of the Philistines, the
giant Goliath called for a champion from the ranks of the
Hebrews and David volunteered, he doubtless felt that from
his position as armorbearer and as leader of the king's troops
it was fitting that he should be the volunteer. Moreover, as
we have already seen, David was a far-sighted youth, and he
must have recognized that a victory over the champion of
the Philistines would aid him greatly in his advancement at

The Development of a Great Leader 19
court. Such a conflict, of course, required bravery, and
David's courage has never been questioned; but, as we know
from the account given of the conflict, he was never at any
time in great personal danger. The giant Goliath had equipped
himself for a hand-to-hand conflict with spear and sword.
Saul had offered to fit out David with the same weapons,
but David then was not accustomed to that mode of fighting.
He had been trained as a shepherd. He had fought lions
and bears with sling and bow and club, and he preferred to
meet his warrior antagonist with these familiar weapons.
The event showed that through his skill with the sling he
was easily the conqueror, and that with little personal risk
to himself. In the flight of the Philistines that followed, as
they were chased by the Israelites, David doubtless came into
hand-to-hand conflict many times over with his foes, and his
success as warrior led the maidens of Israel to sing his praises
even more loudly than they sang those of their great king and
chieftain Saul: Saul has slain his thousands,
But David his ten thousands.
Naturally the popularity of this rising warrior led King Saul,
who was after all merely a military king, not only to feel
jealous of David, but also to question whether David might
not conspire against him and become his successor. In those
days conspiracy against the ruler was common. Assassination
was a not unusual method of removing a rival. And Saul,
judging David, not by the generous spirit that he had seen,
but by the customs of his day and by what had befallen many
another ruler, might well have had good excuse for feeling
that it was desirable that David be put out of the way.
When his daughter Michal expressed her desire to marry
David, the king, with apparent generosity toward a poor
young man, said that he would not ask a money marriage
portion but rather the foreskins of one hundred Philistines,
thinking that in the attempt to secure them by the slaughter
of his enemies David would probably lose his life. David's
popularity, however, as a soldier soon enabled him to gather
about him a fearless band of followers, so that this bloody
marriage portion was quickly secured, and he became the king's
son-in-law. This relationship gave him the social position

20 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
that fitted him for assuming the responsibilities which came
in later years. It is probable that he did not as yet en
tertain the ambition to become Saul's successor. Jonathan
was his dearest friend and the natural heir to the throne.
All that David looked forward to at that time was to become
the king's right-hand adviser and best friend and to prove
himself a loyal servant of Jehovah by rendering great service
to his people; for, from the time of his conflict with Goliath
to the end of his life, we find religious zeal and reverence for
Jehovah a prominent trait in David's character.
Here then at the court of Saul we find David securing the
training for his later success. He was instructed in the best
that could be taught in the way of military skill, both in personal
conflict and in commanding troops; he learned the ways of
the court and the most effective methods of dealing with
court officials. He saw and learned to avoid the many mis
takes made by the impulsive Saul, and realized how necessary
it is to have cool judgment and tact in dealing with the con
flicting elements that surround every court. He was likewise
making friends of the various military leaders and of the heads
of the different tribes, as he came in contact with them in their
service at court. Perhaps most of all his close friendship with
Jonathan was giving him higher and nobler ideas of not only
bravery and military skill, but of personal generosity, of love
for the noble and the true, and the desire to prove faithful
in all engagements. There is, perhaps, no character in Biblical
story that stands forth more prominently than Jonathan as
the ideal of manly virtue. When he might well have been
jealous of the rising David, we see no signs of jealousy, but
throughout his life only 'a noble, generous spirit, combined
with bravery and skill of the highest type. From him, as
well as from the others with whom he was associated, David was
acquiring the trained nature which later was to prove of so
great advantage.
How far does a pleasing personality contribute to a man's
success? Good manners? Is there a distinction between
good manners and courtesy? Is it right and wise to strive
for popularity? What qualities or acts insure genuine popu
larity? How far and in what ways did David's religious senti
ments contribute to his success?

The Development of a Great Leader 21
III.
David as a Fugitive in the Wilderness.
Saul's half-insane jealousy led him to adopt open measures
to take David's life. At first, in a fit of anger, he attempted
to pin him to the wall with his javelin, but David escaped.
Then the king made a vain attempt to capture David in his
house, but Michal deceived the royal messengers. Afterward
Saul thought that at the monthly feast he would have an
opportunity of securing David's assassination, or probably of
killing him with his own hand. But David, with his native
insight into character, and probably also prompted by the
warnings of his friends at court, was convinced of Saul's per
sistent hostility. Guided eventually by the advice of his
friend Jonathan, he left the court and went into the wilderness
to remain until it was safe for him to return, whenever condi
tions were favorable.
It was natural that as a fugitive he should first turn his
steps southward toward his own kinsmen of the tribe of Judah.
As he was fleeing thither, he stopped with the priests at the
little village of Nob, a short distance north of Jebus. When
they inquired regarding his mission, he deceived them, pre
tending that he was on some special mission for the king;
and he succeeded in persuading them to give him and his
followers some of the show bread, although that was ordinarily
eaten only by priests. Above all he secured there the sword
of Goliath which he had earlier won from that Philistine
champion. Afterward, as we know, when Saul learned that
David had been welcomed by Ahimelech, the chief of the
priests, he summoned them, and, contrary to all the dictates
of humanity and justice, he had them slain by the hand of
Doeg the Edomite, the man who had betrayed them.
David did not leave the Hebrew kingdom entirely, but took
up a position at Adullam, a rocky region filled with caves on
the western borders of the land next to the Philistines, where
he could easily protect himself from i attack and where also
in case of need he could turn to the Philistines to whom, as
enemies of Saul, he felt that he could go, should it prove
necessary. There gathered about him, as might be expected, not merely
some of his own friends and kinsmen, whose hearts he had

22 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
won when at the court of the king, but also, as the narrative
tells us, "every one who was in distress and every one who was
in debt and every one who was embittered gathered about
him and he became their leader, and there were with him about
four hundred men." It is usually the case that in any such
circumstances as those of David, a fugitive leader is followed
by the criminals and outcasts or by those who do not wish to
remain by the court. On the other hand, it is an evidence of
his power of leadership. It also gave him an opportunity
to acquire skill in dealing with all classes of men. That he
was successful we know.
Soon after he had found refuge among the western head
lands of Judah, word came to him that the old enemies of
the Israelites, the Philistines, had attacked a village, Keilah,
and were robbing the threshing floors and carrying off the people.
David was still a Hebrew. He retained all his natural heredi
tary hatred of the Philistines. Inquiring of Jehovah in the
usual manner whether he should attack them or not, he went
down, fought them, drove away their cattle, slew many of
them and thus delivered the inhabitants of Keilah.
When Saul heard that David was in this walled town, he
thought it was a good opportunity to surround and conquer
him. So he summoned his people to war and went down
against him. David, however, was watchful, expecting attack,
and in consequence being forewarned, he left Keilah, betook
himself into the hill country to the south of Judah, and waited
there. When Saul encamped in the hill country of Hachilah
near him, David at night stealthily approached Saul's camp.
Finding him, his chief guard Abner, and all his men asleep,
David, followed by one of his intimate bodyguards, Abishai,
went into Saul's camp. A tempting opportunity to kill the
king and rid himself of his enemy was thus offered, and Abishai
urged that this be done at once. But David's sense of justice,
his spirit, which was too noble to Mil an enemy unawares,
his religion, which led him to respect the person of the Lord's
anointed and, possibly, also the far-sighted statesmanship
which led him to know that, if he were to kill Saul in these
circumstances, he would arouse perhaps forever the hostility
of the northern tribes and especially of Benjamin the tribe of
Saul, led him to stay his hand. He, therefore, took Saul's
spear and the jug of water by his head, went to a neighboring

The Development of a Great Leader 23
hillside, then called out to Abner, the chief of Saul's guard,
and gibed him for not having kept better watch. When
Saul heard the well-known voice that had so often eased his
malady, and when he realized that his life had been spared,
his own generous spirit led him to speak contritely to David,
to call him his son and to ask that he return and be again on
friendly terms. Knowing, however, the king's real temper, and
feeling that, although his heart was softened then by this act
of mercy, he would turn again, David thought it best not to
trust him. So, speaking friendly words, he went on to a safer
place in the wilderness.
His life in the wilderness was, of course, that of an outlaw
of his day, but an outlaw of the generous, noble type of which
we sometimes read in stories. He protected the flocks and
herds of the Hebrew shepherds against the attack of other
marauders. He kept his men about him and trained himself
in the arts of war by attacking the Amalekites and the other
hostile tribes to the south, so that he could support his men,
distribute the plunder among them, and still retain the friend
ship of the southern tribes and of the law-abiding people of
his district.
One noteworthy case is preserved in the biblical account.
Nabal, a wealthy man of the South Country whose flocks
and herds David had protected throughout the grazing season,
refused at the feast of the sheep shearing to give him and
his young men the welcome and plentiful supplies that,
according to the well-known customs of the day, were richly
their due.
Not only did he refuse, but his refusal was couched in terms
that, to David, seemed insulting. With the hot temper of
youth, he was about to take revenge upon Nabal by killing
him and his people and by seizing all his property. Nabal's
wife Abigail, however, was a person of tact and judgment, as
well as a woman of great beauty and personal charm. Realizing
at once the risk that her husband was taking, she set forth
with her servants, bearing magnificent presents from the herd
and fruits to satisfy the hunger of David's men. When
she met him, she bowed to the earth and in terms most flatter
ing to the young chieftain she admitted that her husband was
at fault, offered to David the presents, warned him that he
ought not to shed the blood of the Hebrew people, and led

24 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
him to rejoice that she had saved him from the commission
of so great a crime.
David was at once touched by the suggestion, accepted the
presents, and agreed not to harm Nabal. Shortly afterward,
on the sudden death of Nabal, which came, according to the
views of the time as a divine punishment for his meanness and
violation of the sacred laws of hospitality, David sought the
hand of the beautiful and tactful Abigail in marriage.
After David's expulsion from the court of Saul, the king
had given his wife Michal to another man. David had later
married Ahinoam, a Jezreelitess. After his marriage to Abigail
he had two wives living with him, and later he recovered
Michal, after the death of Saul.
Among the Hebrews of that day it was not customary for
the ordinary poor man to have more than one wife. The
kings and rulers, however, in many cases had several wives,
and often as in the case of Solomon, numerous concubines.
Polygamy was an inheritance from Israel's nomadic period.
It had been retained in the case of tribal chieftains and kings,
because it was a natural and easy way to cement close relation
ship between tribes and nations. When treaties of peace and
friendship were made, in the past, as well as today, they were
frequently sealed by a marriage between the relatives of the
heads of the tribes or the nations making the treaty. David
by his marriage with Abigail extended his influence among
the Calebites, one of the strongest of the southern tribes.
By this marriage and by the care which he had taken of the
flocks and herds of the southern tribes while an outlaw, he
was laying the foundations for his future popularity.
Under what social conditions has polygamy usually appeared?
Was it justified in the case of David? Was he justified in
plundering hostile tribes, while protecting the flocks of friendly
tribes? Can we excuse Saul for his brutal attack on David?
Can we excuse David for his deception of Ahimelech? Do
you find in your study of David's life that all his acts of de
ception were prompted by what seemed to him military neces
sity? Does military necessity always or ever justify deception?

The Development of a Great Leader 25
IV.
David Among the Philistines.
The constant efforts which Saul made to destroy David
and the inadequacy of the food supply among the barren rock
hills of the South Country, finally led the outlaw leader to
turn his back upon the land of Israel and to go over to the
Philistines. Taking with him the six hundred men who were
his chosen followers, he went to Achish, the king of Gath,
and he dwelt there with his two wives and with all his followers.
As soon as Saul learned that David had gone to Gath he no
longer attempted to follow him, apparently deciding that
he was himself safe from further molestation.
In thus going over to the Philistines, David was not acting
contrary to the custom of that time. It was frequently the
case that refugees of one tribe fled to another. The law of
hospitality, which obtained everywhere, protected the stranger,
even though he came from a hostile tribe. The Philistines,
of course, had known David as one of the ablest warriors who
had fought against them, and David himself from his military
experiences had great respect for many of the leaders of the
Philistines. In consequence, it was by no means strange
that when he became a refugee, he turned to them for safety.
Nor was it in the least unnatural that they, knowing that
he was an outlaw from his own country, should receive him
with open arms and be glad to welcome him as an ally and
friend. As soon as David's position with the king of Gath
seemed assured, he asked for permission to dwell in one of the
towns in the open country instead of remaining in the royal
city with the king. He was, therefore, assigned to the town
of Ziklag and remained there for a year and four months.
In order that he might still support his tribesmen he made
frequent raids against the Amalekites, the Geshurites, and
other tribes which dwelt south of the Philistines toward the
land of Egypt. In order that the king might not learn that
he was making raids upon these southern tribes, he killed,
as a rule, both men and women, returning with the plunder,
which he gave to his men and from which also he paid tribute
to the king of Gath. He, however, pretended to the king
that he was continually making attacks against the South
Country of Judah, or against the country of the Kenites, or

26 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
other of the Hebrew tribes, so that the king would feel that
he had turned completely against the Hebrews and that he
would always remain faithful to him.
The Philistines, probably feeling that as they had won the
strongest warrior of the Israelites, they might more readily
succeed in their attacks, decided to make war against the
Hebrews. David and his men were summoned by Achish.
Naturally the young Hebrew chieftain found himself in a
painful position. He had not before attacked the Hebrews.
He clearly did not wish to do so now. But, seeing no way of
avoiding the issue, he agreed to go with the king against the
Israelites. When, however, the other kings of the Philistines
learned that he was with them, they objected strongly, saying
that if he were to go down with them to battle and was in
the camp with them, he might wish to ingratiate himself with
his former leader and thus, in the battle itself, might turn
against them. He, therefore, was directed not to go into the
battle, but to return to his home at Ziklag.
When he drew near his home, he learned that during his
absence the Amalekites had made a raid upon his country,
had carried away captive all the people who were in it, includ
ing David's wives and children, and had destroyed the town
with fire.
After consulting the oracle of Jehovah, David pursued the
raiders with his six hundred men. At the Brook Besor he left
two hundred, who had become wearied, in charge of the bag
gage, while he went hastily on with four hundred men. Over
taking the Amalekites while they were eating and drinking and
dancing on account of the spoils they had taken, he routed
them completely, killing all the men excepting four hundred
young men who rode upon camels, and recovering his wives
and all who had been captured, together with all the plunder.
On his return, he decided that the spoils should be divided
not only among the warriors themselves but that those who
had remained behind in charge of the baggage should also
have their share, thus establishing an entirely new custom
which henceforth obtained among the Hebrews.
Again in the final division of the spoils David's hopes and
plans for the future are disclosed, for he sent portions to his
friends among the elders of Judah. He also sent gifts to the
leaders of the tribes in southern Palestine, in Hebron, in the

The Development of a Great Leader 27
cities of the Kenites and in all of the other places where he
and his men had earlier dwelt. In this way he secured and held
the friendship, not only of his own people of Judah, but also
of all of the stronger tribes of southern Canaan. It was
already beginning to appear that Saul's strength was waning
and that a change in the political situation might soon arise
which would open the way for David to become one of the
great leaders of his race. As soon as the place should open
for him, it was beyond question that he would be ready for
it. If there came a conflict between the different tribes, he,
as a friend to many, would be far more likely to succeed.
David was showing himself here again, as so many times
before, not merely the warrior, but also the man of tact and
the diplomat.
As we shall see, the Philistines were completely successful
in their attacks upon the Hebrews, and Saul and his sons
were slain. When, however, the victorious Philistines re
turned home, David already having heard the news, had
abandoned the town of Ziklag and had gone up to Hebron,
where in the midst of his Hebrew kinsmen, he began to
strengthen his hold upon all the other tribes. His tact
and progress in winning friends were such that within a very
few years he had succeeded in uniting all of Israel into one
kingdom. Would David have been justified under the circumstances,
in killing Saul, when the king was in his power? Aside from
the moral issue, would it have been good policy for David
to have taken Saul's life? Did David do right in going to
the Philistines and taking up his residence among them on
friendly terms? Was David justified in deceiving the king
of Gath regarding the plundering expeditions that he was
making against the Amalekites and in pretending that he was
plundering the southern Hebrew tribes? When the Philistines
were about to attack Saul and his followers, was David justified
in going with them and pretending that he would himself
join in the attack upon the Hebrews? Indicate the different
ways in which his experiences in the wilderness and afterward
among the Philistines, were tending to fit him for the position
of king of the Hebrews. Had he any reason for believing
that he would be able to unite all the various tribes of the
Hebrews into one great kingdom?

28 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
V.
David's Religious Spirit and Patriotism.
David attributed his success not at all to his personal charm,
or to his ability, or even to his bravery. In the case of most
of his battles he waited until after he had consulted the priests
regarding the wishes of Jehovah, and after the contests were
over, he gave the praise to the Lord of hosts who, he believed,
was protecting Israel. In all of his battles we find likewise
no evidence of personal self-seeking, but a spirit of loyalty
and love for his country and his followers.
When urging upon Saul the desirability of letting him fight
with the Philistine giant, David said that Jehovah, who had
delivered him from the claw of the lion and the claw of the
bear would deliver him also from the hand of this Philistine.
As Goliath in his boastings cursed David by bis god, David
responded: "You come to me with a sword and a spear and
a shield, but I come to you in the name of Jehovah of hosts
and the God of the ranks of Israel whom you have insulted.
Today Jehovah will deliver you into my hands that I may
smite you and cut off your head, and I will this day give the
head of the army of the Philistines to the birds of the heavens
and to the wild beasts of the earth, that all the world may
know that there is a God in Israel. For the battle is Jehovah's
and he will give you into our hands."
After he had been banished from the court and Saul by his
own rashness and through carelessness of his guards, had come
into David's hands so that his life might easily have been
taken, the knightly warrior withheld his hand, saying: "Jehovah
liveth. Either Jehovah shall smite him or his day shall come
to die, or he shall go down into battle and be destroyed. Jehovah
forbid that I should put forth my hand against Jehovah's
anointed." In his response to Saul's invitation to come over
to him in a friendly spirit, he said: "Jehovah will reward each
man's righteousness and fidelity; for Jehovah delivered you
into my hand today, but I would not raise my hand against
Jehovah's anointed."
Again, when, owing to the entreaties of Abigail, he decided
to spare the life of Nabal, he looked upon that also as in ac
cordance with the will of Jehovah, saying: "Blessed be Jehovah,
the God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me. Blessed

The Development of a Great Leader 29
be your discretion, and blessed be you yourself who have kept
me this day from committing an act of bloodshed and from
delivering myself by my own hand."
His patriotism is shown no less by the fact that when he
was living among the Philistines and even leading the king
of Gath to believe that he was frequently plundering the
Hebrews and treating them as enemies, he continually spared
them but turned his hand rather against the Amalekites and
others who were their enemies.
We, of course, do not know when there came to David
the vision of the greater Israel which should unite all of the
different tribes into one nation with himself as king. There
is, however, reason to believe that this vision had come to
him early, for nowhere in his history do we find any appear
ance of jealousy; nowhere do we find it recorded that he,
being of Judah, looked down in contempt upon the tribes
of Benjamin or any of the tribes of the northern Israelites.
Always the Hebrews were the people of the chosen nation,
always Jehovah was the one King and Lord of them all. Even
after the death of Saul we find that his son Ishbaal, who had
succeeded to his position, was looked upon by David as the
rightful king of the northern Hebrews. And when with
the purpose of winning David's favor, possibly with some
desire of uniting the kingdom but, at any rate, with the thought
of becoming his followers, the guerrilla captains, Baanah and
Rechab, killed the young king and brought his head to David,
he had them promptly killed for their act of treachery, and
also because they had "slain a righteous person in his own
house upon his own bed." '',^1*^
Although as a private individual David conimitted many
sins, and he himself realized his own weakness, he*always placed
his reliance' on Jehovah. Although not all, if any of the
psalms that have been attributed to David were written by
him, there can be no doubt that he was one of the great singers
of Israel and one whose soul was kindled with true poetic fire.
No less insistent throughout all the records of David's
activity is the spirit of patriotism, of absolute devotion to the
welfare of his people, of a readiness to do all, to be anything, to
suffer anything, if only through the favor of Jehovah as he
believed and in accordance with his will, the nation may be
brought to its highest estate and the people of Jehovah be

30 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
exalted. There can be little doubt that in his day and nation,
this spirit of religion and this trust in the power and special
favor of Jehovah had much to do with securing for David
the confidence and trust and love of his people. They were
no small part of that equipment which enabled him to become
the great king who should unify his race.
Is there any essential difference between doing the will of
God and living conscientiously, doing from day to day what
one believes to be his duty?
Should any less credit be given to David for unselfish patriot
ism because he realized that by cultivating the favor of the
different tribes of Israel he could best succeed in holding their
friendship and bringing them into a single kingdom? Was
his treatment of Saul right and just throughout? Was his
treatment of Abner right and just? In the light of the age and
the ideas of the ancient East, were David's religious professions
mere hypocrisy? VI.
The Spirit and Standards of an Age.
In these modern days we hear much about the "spirit of
the age" in which we live. It has been shown by many his
torians and writers on political questions that men are to a
great extent the product of their time, and often too little
credit seems to be given to individuals for the originality of
their own thoughts or of their own plans of work and of success.
And it is largely true that we are all the product of our times,
and that our acts are determined largely by the customs under
which we live. And yet the great individual counts.
In those ancient days it would scarcely have been possible
for either Saul or David to have become the great leaders
of their people, had they not been men of remarkable physical
power, men who were successful in battle and in hand-to-hand
conflicts. Combined with this physical strength and skill
was also of necessity found a bold and brave spirit which
did not shrink from danger. But at the present day, though
we do admire physical courage and prowess, those qualities
are not necessary to success. Among the great statesmen of
modern times, such as Mr. Gladstone or Disraeli of England,
the question of physical courage is rarely raised, and still less
often does one speak of their feats of strength and endurance.

' The Development of a Great Leader 31
Mental accomplishment, real brain power, originality in
developing new plans, oratory, and the power to persuade the
multitude — these traits are more often looked upon as ele
ments of success than mere physical courage. Doubtless even
in David's day these also played their parts; but they, at
that time, were of less importance than physical power and
personal prowess.
The leaders of men at that time, however, adopted means
to accomplish their ends that now would be sharply con
demned. David, fleeing from the wrath of Saul, lied to the
priests of Nob regarding his purposes and the reasons for his
leaving the court. In such circumstances many people would
deceive today; but now such deceptions would hardly be
recorded without some indication that the act was wrong.
Beyond doubt, the conscience of the average man today is
much more sensitive on the question of truth-telling than in
the ancient days.
David also for many months adopted a regular course of
deception toward the king of Gath in whose city he was living.
In order that his deception might not be discovered, in all of
his regular forays he slew all persons, men, women and children,
who might report where his attacks were made. No such
practices today would be tolerated in any civilized country.
And yet, in the words of the ancient narrative not only is
no word of condemnation uttered, but his act seems to be
silently justified.
Of even greater importance are some personal characteristics
of temper and cruelty toward those who opposed their will.
Saul, in fits of anger, which are looked upon in the narrative
really as the consequence of a mental malady, attempted
repeatedly to kill David. He also slew the priests of Nob,
because he thought they had been favoring David. David
himself in many instances showed anger and committed
deeds that at the present time would in no country of the
world be tolerated. Had it not been for the intervention
of Abigail, he would doubtless have slain Nabal and many
of his followers, simply because he had not been properly
recognized and had been refused food for himself and his men
when he felt that he had a right to expect friendly hospitality.
He also condemned without hearing, but properly enough, the
treacherous slayers of the young king Ishbaal. On the other

32 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
hand we can see no justification from the modern point of
view for his killing out of hand the man who came to bring
him news of the death of Saul and his two sons in the fatal
battle of Mount Gilboa. We know that modern times would
not justify his various marriages, although probably they
would justify his refusal to receive Abner and his friends
when they wished to make peace with him after the death of
Saul, unless they brought with them Michal, his first wife,
whom Saul, after David's expulsion from the kingdom, had
given to another husband. These various actions that have
been mentioned, and many others that might be cited, call
attention most vividly to the great difference in customs
between those days and these. And yet, throughout all the
narratives, we find clearly brought before us the noble qualities
of magnanimity, uprightness, bravery, and, perhaps above all,
the spirit of righteous devotion to an ideal and the unselfish
readiness to do one's duty even though one is not to receive
an immediate reward. There can be no question that some
of the most fundamental principles of success are substantially
unchangeable at all periods of human history and in all stages
of civilization. Personal bravery, trustworthiness, fidelity to
one's friends, the ability to stand for a principle and to sacrifice,
if necessary, for that principle, and a spirit which looks up
to one's God as the guide of one's life — these characteristics
have always been fundamental; they have always been admired
and loved. They have always been among the leading con
tributors to success in any stage of civilization and in any
department of human activity.
Do the customs of David's "day excuse him for cruelty?
It has sometimes been said that a man's stage of civilization
can be judged by his willingness to break with the customs of
his day for the sake of accomplishing his end. How far is
this opinion right? How far ought a man to follow the cus
toms of his day, and in what circumstances ought he to violate
those customs? Subjects for Further Study.
(1) Origin and Character of the Philistines. Encyclopedia Biblica, III,
pp. 3713-3721; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, III, pp. 844-848.
(2) Select the American public man (soldier or statesman) whose
character in your judgment most resembles the strong, good qualities in
David's character. Study carefully his life and career; then judge the
relative greatness and service to the world of the two men.

The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in Statesmanship 33
CHAPTER III.
THE NEED OF BREADTH AND SELF-CONTROL IN
STATESMANSHIP.
Saul's Character and Fate. — I Sam. 19; 31; II Sam. 1.
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. II, pp. 87-91, 114-120.
Croly, Chap. Ill; Lowell, Chaps. V, VI.
And the women sang to each other as they danced, and said,
Saul has slain his thousands,
But David his ten thousands.
And it made Saul very angry, and this saying displeased him, and he
said, They ascribed to David ten thousands, while to me they ascribed
but thousands, and what can he have more but the kingdom? And
Saul kept his eye on David from that day forward. And Saul was
afraid of David.—/ Sam. 18: 7, 8.
Daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,
Who clothed you daintily in finest linen,
Golden ornaments he placed on your garments,
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle! — II Sam. 1: 24.
He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty;
And he that ruleth his spirit, than he that taketh a city. — Prov. 16: 32.
I have touched the highest point of all my greatness :
And, from that full meridian of my glory,
I haste now to my setting. — Shakespeare.
Of all the passions, jealousy is that which exacts the hardest service,
and pays the bitterest wages. Its service is: to watch the success of
our enemy; its wages: to be sure of it. — Colton,
I.
The Weakening Power of Jealousy.
There are few more pathetic figures in biblical history than
Saul. He was possessed of many heroic characteristics. He
was the man who founded the kingdom, and was probably the
only leader in Israel at that time who could have established
it; and yet, on account of his personal weaknesses, he eventually
failed. The most noteworthy of his weaknesses, perhaps, was that
of jealousy — one of the most natural, common, and yet un
pleasant and injurious characteristics of human nature. WTien,
on account of the military success of David, Saul's subjects

34 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
began to praise him, the king felt that he had reason to fear
for his throne. In those early days of warfare, when personal
prowess was the chief element of success in a warrior, this fear
was not unnatural. Only a man confident in his own power,
generous of heart, and a reader of other men's souls, would
have been able without such fear to listen to the praises of one
who might well become a rival. We know enough of the
personal characteristics of David to be confident that Saul
had no real cause for fear, but he was not a good judge of
human nature. He did not understand the nobility of David's
character, and as we see from many other instances in his life,
he did not have full confidence in his own strength and ability.
It is a great man who will put an enemy or one whom he be
lieves to be opposed to himself into a position of authority.
A well-known university president recently invited into his
faculty and promoted a man whom he believed to be bis per
sonal enemy, because, as he said, "this great scholar can
bring credit and strength to the university, and why should
I place my own comfort before the welfare of the university?"
But this university president had confidence in his own strength
and was a man far above the narrow weakness of any petty
jealousy. Besides suspicion, another element of jealousy that causes
the greatest unhappiness to its victim is envy. Saul not
merely feared David, he envied him his popularity; and, as
we see, every sign of affection toward David on the part of
Jonathan or of the people caused King Saul the greatest personal
suffering because of his despicable envy.
Any exhibition of jealousy is at once recognized by those
who see it as a weakness, and most persons despise it intensely.
We may readily note how Saul lost the favor and friendship
of his followers by this feeling toward David. When the
maidens of Israel, on David's return from battle, sang that
Saul had slain his thousands and David his ten thousands,
it is quite probable that at first they had no thought of dis
loyalty to Saul. They naturally wanted to praise the return
ing champion, and in the exuberance of generous feeling toward
him and of patriotic love for their country, which they thought
his victory had saved, they exaggerated the relative merit
of the youthful warrior. Saul's resentment, however, of the
song must have cooled their loyalty to the king, and would

The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in Statesmanship 35
certainly tend to strengthen rather than to weaken their
preference for David.
Moreover, when Saul in his jealous hatred, after David had
been compelled to flee from court, ordered the assassina
tion of the priests of Nob, because in all innocence Ahimelech
had welcomed David, whom he supposed to be on an im
portant errand for the king, the king not only alienated all
the friends of these priests of Nob, but he also lost the con
fidence and affection of his right-minded followers.
Saul's persistent pursuit of David could not fail to have
had an ill effe,ct upon all the soldiers engaged in the chase.
They knew that on one occasion at least David had spared
Saul's life, when he might readily have taken it. David had,
moreover, been a popular comrade of theirs in earlier days,
and for them to see Saul, goaded on by his groundless fear
and jealousy, attempting to take the life of their friend and
favorite must have detracted greatly from their loyalty toward
him. Jealousy tends also to prevent success not only in warfare,
but also in all fields of activity. How often, for example, a
young surgeon or teacher or engineer, because he is jealous of the
rising reputation of another member of his own profession,
fails to learn from the man whom he fears to be a rival the
special points of superiority which that rival possesses. The
more modest man, too broad-minded to be tinged with jealousy,
seeks information from every source; and this breadth of view
and readiness to gain strength from all persons, even those
who may be rivals, leads perhaps more than anything else
to success. The scientific men who advance most rapidly
are those who are modestly glad to learn from any source,
however humble.
It is perhaps scarcely too much to say that this weakness of
Saul's eventually cost him his kingdom. David was not, as
a matter of fact, Saul's rival, as his subsequent history showed.
He was beyond all question a loyal friend of Saul's son and
presumptive successor, Jonathan. Had he remained at Saul's
court as a member of his military staff, as one of his chief
leaders in war, he would have brought to Saul's side his friends
and kinsmen of Judah and of the southern tribes, who after
wards became David's allies in his contests with Saul's suc
cessors. Had Saul retained the friendship of David, it is

36 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
more than probable that the fatal battle of Gilboa would
never have been fought; that either the Philistines, knowing
the strength of Israel, would not have attacked, or had they
attacked the Israelites, Saul, with the aid of David and with
the united strength that would thus have been at his side,
would have won a victory instead of suffering fatal defeat.
It is not too much to say that this weakening power of jealousy
cost Saul his happiness for years, and eventually his life.
Are you willing to see any rival in business or in sport pass
you? In any contest does the strife itself or the victory im
prove you most personally? As our years increase or we
attain to higher positions in business or society or work, are
our rivals in all fields of activity of a higher class and more
worthy as contestants? Is the contest for the presidency
more interesting and enjoyable to the contestant than that
for governor, or the contest for the governorship more exciting
and enjoyable than that for alderman? Enumerate certain
major advantages that come from rivalry in business or scholar
ship or moral excellence. Can any advantage come from
yielding to jealousy? II.
The Contrast Between Saul and David.
The lives of Saul and David were so interwoven that one
naturally thinks of the two men together, and one finds him
self even unconsciously contrasting their strong and weak
points. It should not be forgotten, however, that David
was the favorite character with almost all of the writers —
certainly all of the later writers of Hebrew history. We must,
therefore, expect that when he is contrasted with Saul, the
narrators are unconsciously prejudiced in his favor. In spite
of this fact, however, there are definite enough statements
regarding the acts of each to enable us to form a positive judg
ment of the personal characteristics of the two men.
In that earlier day when leadership meant primarily leader
ship in battle, it was, of course, essential that both of these
great military leaders be brave, and at no time do we find
the personal courage of either hero questioned.
David was, beyond doubt, by far the more pleasing per
sonality. Men turned to him, not only because they trusted
him and needed his assistance, but also because they liked

The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in Statesmanship 37
him. From the beginning he was popular at the court of
Saul. There can be little doubt that the songs of the women
in praise of David that aroused Saul's jealousy were phrased
in so complimentary terms because the singers liked the hero,
and they sang gladly the praises of the man whom they per
sonally admired and whom every one loved. Moreover, when
David was driven from Saul's court and gathered about him
a band of the discontented, it was clear from their later achieve
ments that many of his followers, if not all, were men who
came to him not for the sake of plunder or for the love of
fighting, but because he had aroused in them a feeling of
personal loyalty which made them wish to serve him. No
where in the records do we find any intimation of this personal
attractiveness in Saul. David was loyal to him because he
was the king, the Lord's anointed, and from all the records we
derive the impression that he was chosen king in the first place
because of his mighty deeds in war and his promise of becoming
a great warrior king. Saul's method of gathering about him
the Israelites for their attack upon the cruel Ammonites east
of the Jordan, by slaying the oxen with which he had been
ploughing and sending the gory pieces about among the chief
tains, summoning them to follow him for vengeance, shows
indeed the characteristics of a leader in kindling the spirit of
patriotism and fight, but does not show any ability to arouse
personal affection.
David, although a man of marked ability and one who met
with pronounced success in practically all of his undertakings,
was, nevertheless, one whose manner at least was modest and
who never thrust himself forward into positions to which he
was not called. When the suggestion was first made that he
become the king's son-in-law, his reply was modest, but when
the opportunity was clearly before him, his action was prompt,
decisive, and successful. Although Saul, after his anointing
by Samuel, went quietly back to his home and waited for the
opportunity to come before he assumed the r61e of leader,
his jealousy of David and his readiness to put out of the
way his chief supporter and warrior, show a touch of personal
vanity, as well as doubt of his own capacity to control a diffi
cult situation, which is a sure sign of weakness.
Saul also seemed to lack the feeling of faithful loyalty to
a friend which David possessed. David had given him no

38 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
real cause for hatred when he attempted to slay him. In his
rash jealousy at one time he threatened to strike his loyal son
Jonathan. His unjustifiable slaying of the priests of Nob
reveals a lack of loyalty to his followers and to those who
had been faithful to him that is a decided blemish on his
character, although of his general patriotism and devotion
to Israel as a whole there is no question. David, on the other
hand, shows the quintessence of faithful loyalty in his relations
not only to Saul himself, whose life he spared on at least one
memorable occasion, but also later in the care which he took
for the welfare of the descendants of his tried friend of the
olden days, Jonathan.
Entirely aside from the question of any mental derange
ment, Saul was evidently impulsive, and at times generous,
as when, in the earlier days, he showered favors upon the
young David, and also later, when on the occasion of David's
sparing his fife, he called David his son and besought him to
return again to court. There is no reason for questioning his
sincerity in this declaration of friendship and affection for
David. It is probable that in that mood, he felt all that he
said, but David, knowing his changeable characteristics,
was naturally unwilling to trust him. David had a quick
temper as we see in his dealings with Nabal. He had in him
much of the cruelty of the outlaw of those early days. There
can be little question that, if the shrewd, far-seeing, charming
Abigail had not intervened, the punishment of Nabal would
have been as bloody and the plunder of his goods as ruthless
as any act committed by Saul. And yet there was this differ
ence. In accordance with the customs of the day and with
the ordinary rules of human action of that time and country,
Nabal deserved the fate that would have been meted out to
him. Nowhere in David's life do we find an instance of an
action from impulse without thought of the consequences.
Even in the commission of his worst sins, that brought him
eventually misfortune and unhappiness, there is no reason
for thinking that his acts were not the results of a deliberate
plan for the attainment of his desires.
Saul's heedless rashness led him at times to commit acts
that threatened to alienate his people. Perhaps the most
striking example was his foolish resolve in the midst of the
battle of Michmash to curse all of his followers who should

The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in Statesmanship 39
eat before the evening, by which time he thought he would
have avenged himself' upon the enemy. Such a command,
accompanied by a vow of destruction upon any who disobeyed,
although doubtless founded upon a good religious motive,
showed the impulsive foolishness of a man who, when his
followers needed to put forth their most strenuous efforts,
would deprive them of food for many hours. And when, not
knowing of this command, the beloved Jonathan had tasted
honey, Saul stood ready to carry out his vow by taking his
son's life, and doubtless Jonathan would have been sacrificed,
had it not been for the intervention of the people, who would
not endure to see the real winner of the battle slain to fulfil a
rash and foolish promise of a reckless king.
In no case in David's own life do we find such fatal folly.
Rather do we note far-sighted plans to win over to his side
those who would otherwise be hostile, in order to clear his
way of enemies, to persuade the hesitant that it would pay
them to become his friends. His acts reveal a cool-headed,
not to say wily master of diplomacy, whose every deed tended
to further his well-thought-out plans.
Even in their religious life we see the same characteristics.
Both were sincere worshipers and followers of Jehovah, but
Saul was fanatical, while David's religion accorded with good
judgment and was reasonable. We have already noted the
rash vow of Saul. We may likewise recall that on his first
summons to the kingship, he was found dancing with the
sons of the prophets. Historians are not fully agreed regarding
the practices of the sons of the prophets, but there seems every
reason to believe that they were similar to the whirling der
vishes of modern Egypt and to other religious enthusiasts,
some of whom have even been found in modern times among
the uncultivated frontiersmen at their camp meetings, or
among negroes in their revival services where religious en
thusiasm amounts at times to hysterical frenzy.
Contrast these hysterical manifestations of the sons of the
prophets with David's dancing and leaping before the ark
of the covenant, when, in later years, this was brought to the
temple in his new capital at Jerusalem. To be sure, his wife
Michal, Saul's daughter, was greatly offended at his acts,
which she thought unworthy the dignity of a king. But
David had reason to believe that the coming of the ark

40 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
of the covenant to his new capital would make that capi
tal the religious center of all Israel. No one knew better
than did he what an important influence this would have
toward uniting his kingdom and promoting its success. No
one else, perhaps, so well realized how important it was that
all the people should be impressed with the profound significance
of the occasion. For the king thus to take the lead in the
public rejoicing emphasized this thought, and in all probability
the emphasis was decidedly strengthened by the fact that
his action was unwonted. We have no evidence that any
one else saw anything grotesque or improper in the king's
acts excepting Michal, and there is perhaps good reason to
believe that she, moved by personal jealousy and quite possibly
also by a feeling that she had been neglected, was disposed
to find fault with this husband, who, since the earlier days,
when she had cared for him and saved him from her father's
vengeance, had apparently found others who pleased him
more. David's religious observances, as well as his political
acts, appear to have all been guided by a cool judgment that
did not lose sight of an ultimate beneficent purpose.
Is a person less sincere when he is clear-headed enough to
see the personal advantage to himself from a patriotic action?
Did Lincoln foresee that he would probably attain to the presi
dency as a result of his patriotic fight against the extension
of slavery into the territories? If so, was his action any the
less praiseworthy? Ought a ruler in his official capacity to
follow always the same rules of morality as a man in private
life? If David had really been trying to supplant Saul, would
Saul have been justified in executing him? What constitutes
treason in a monarchy? What is the usual punishment for
treason? III.
Meaning of Religion in a Crisis.
In all ages and countries men in time of extreme peril have
been wont to call upon their gods. Men who do not possess
a religious nature, and who are not accustomed to religious
worship, call in tones of despair, hoping unreasonably for
some miraculous rescue. On the other hand, those of a religious
nature, accustomed to worship and to thought upon matters

The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in Statesmanship 41
beyond this life, find in times of peril their religion a source
of comfort and courage. Such persons are not so likely to
call in accents of despair for a miraculous rescue as to ask for
courage and strength to accept the divine will, whatever it
may be.
In the different periods of history and in different countries
we naturally find various manifestations of the effects of
religious belief, for religion itself assumes widely varying mean
ings. Primitive peoples, whose idea of the relations of men
to the gods are merely superstitious fears of the unseen and
of the to them supernatural forces of nature, often in times
of peril make pledges to their deities to offer sacrifices, provided
their safety is secured. They attempt by these sacrifices or
promises of gifts at the altars to buy the favor of their deities.
Homer, in the Iliad, sings of the hecatombs offered in prayer,
or perhaps even more often in thanksgiving for a great victory,
or for the repose of the soul of a hero slain in battle. In those
early days questions of right and wrong, of sin and guiltless
ness, are rarely raised, even in the minds of the worshipers.
The question is rather one of a sufficiency of offerings to buy
the favor of the gods.
In later times, of course, after the conception of the deity
has changed, God, or the gods, have been recognized as power
ful intelligences who judge men in terms of human justice,
and offerings are accompanied with prayers for mercy in case
of acknowledged sin, or with thanksgiving for the escape
from pain that would have been reckoned as justice. Sins are
recognized as acts contrary to the will of God, as shown by
a man's conscience, and are therefore subject to penalties
imposed either indirectly by obscure or miraculous means, or
by the direct working of natural laws. Wherever men have
believed in the mighty intervention of God in changing the
effects* of his natural laws, certain religious leaders, priests or
medicine men have claimed the power of influencing the gods
directly; and from this has come the sale of indulgences, by
the purchase of which a man might in advance secure exemp
tion from the consequences of acts that were generally believed
to be contrary to the will of God.
Closely related to these various beliefs come naturally the
wish to learn in advance the will of the gods or to foresee the
future. All of these different beliefs have been, at different

42 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
times and in different countries, influences that affected ma
terially the significance of religion in times of crisis.
It is interesting and important to note the ways in which
their religious beliefs affected men of so different temperaments
as Saul and David in the days of ancient Israel. Both were
profound believers in Jehovah; both believed that they were
servants of Jehovah and were anxious to carry out his will.
Before entering upon acts of great importance, such as begin-
ing a battle, both were accustomed to seek to ascertain the
divine will by consulting, through their priests, the ephod.
Scholars have been unable to determine exactly what is meant
by the ephod and how it was consulted, but it seems reason
ably clear from the results that the judgment of the priests,
at times quite possibly influenced by the wishes of the king,
determined the form of the decision.
We have already seen how Saul, at the battle of Michmash,
in his rash way cursed the man who would eat food before
evening, and how this rash vow came near costing the Israelites
the life of the hero Jonathan. When, after this vow, Saul,
through the priest, asked of God, "Shall I go down after the
Philistines? Wilt thou deliver them into the hand of Israel?"
no answer was received. The priest probably knew that
Jonathan had unwittingly taken food that day, though Saul
had not yet learned of it, and not caring to make a decision
in a matter of so grave importance to the king and the people,
the decision was left to the sacred lot. Saul, as we know,
stood ready to sacrifice his son, carrying out what, at the
present time, would be considered a mere heathen superstition;
but although they were unable to prevent the disclosure of
Jonathan's act, and although Jonathan, hero as he was, was
prepared to accept the decision and be put to death, the people
were ready, in a case of so great emergency, to sweep aside
what must have seemed even to them the decision of God
and to apply the principles of common sense. "But the people
said to Saul, 'Shall Jonathan die who has wrought this great
deliverance in Israel? Far from it. As Jehovah liveth, there
shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he has
wrought with God this day.'" The people saw far better
than their superstitious king that the doing of the will of God
in guarding the life of the innocent was vastly more important
than the unwitting violation of the order of the king, though

The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in Statesmanship 43
that had been given from religious motives and accepted as
a sacred pledge. Saul's religious attitude in this time of
crisis was that of a narrow-minded, superstitious, though
absolutely sincere follower of what he believed to be the divine
will. The judgment of the great mass of Israel's warriors
was that God's will must be in accord with the principles of
common sense and of sound judgment.
Later in fife, as Saul approached the last great crisis, when he
found himself practically deserted by the priests and! religious
leaders of Israel, he turned in the same helpless, supersti
tious manner to the witch of Endor, one of the representa
tives of the old heathenism that still remained in Palestine.
Her methods seem to have been those of the later fortune
tellers or spiritualistic mediums. Although Saul came to her
in disguise, she must have recognized him from his gigantic
form and the type of his followers. Presumably her sympathies
were with his enemies; at any rate her judgment was sound
in the belief that a leader consulting her under such circum
stances was not likely to be successful in battle. Her summon
ing before her the spirit of Samuel and her pronouncement of
the judgment that he gave, is a mark of not merely a shrewd
judge of mankind and of events, but also of marked courage
and determination. Saul was evidently greatly impressed
by her decision and, overcome by terror, went with fear and
hopelessness, though bravely, as became a heroic warrior, to
meet his fate.
Nowhere in David's life do we find any such crude mani
festation of religious belief in times of emergency. He, too,
before the battle consulted the ephod, but his priests, knowing
the spirit of the leader, in every instance cited in the Bible,
advised an attack and predicted victory. Nowhere do we
find David uttering any rash vows which might either weaken
his followers or lead to such terrible consequences as occurred
in the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter in the early wars against
the Ammonites on the east of the Jordan or as would have
resulted in the sacrifice of Jonathan had not the people's
judgment been much sounder than that of their king. David's
religion seems always to have been a source of courage and
of comfort to him in times of crisis, excepting when his own
conscience told him that his acts had been wrong, and that it
was his duty to make reparation. When the prophet Nathan

44 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
most shrewdly and wisely, though boldly, aroused the con
science of the king to recognize his guilt in the seizure of Bath-
sheba and the wanton sacrifice of Uriah the Hittite, the king
recognized his guilt. His religion led him to call upon God
for mercy, though his religious belief was not strong enough
to lead him to any further attempt to put away his sin. It
was, perhaps, then too late to make any kind of reparation.
Throughout his life, however, David's religion was to him a
source of joy and strength.
Why do people of the present day ever seriously seek to
have their fortunes told? How does the mere listening to one's
fortune thus told tend in itself to bring about the results pre
dicted? Ought one's prayer in time of crisis to be a plea for
rescue and safety or for strength and courage to meet the
crisis sanely and to accept whatever result may come as the
will of God? Many of the members of ignorant Mohammedan
tribes of Upper Egypt are said to have attacked the English
battle squares with recldess bravery, because their religion
had taught them that death won in slaying a Christian would
lead them straight to a blissful paradise. Before Port Arthur
in the Russo-Japanese war thousands of Japanese marched
cheerfully to certain death, because it was said they counted
it a joy and privilege to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their
beloved Emperor whom they counted divine, the direct de
scendant of the gods. At the battle of Gettysburg the Con
federate soldiers whose bravery gave world-wide fame to
Pickett's charge, went cheerfully against the Northern lines,
knowing that many of them could never return. Compare and
distinguish carefully the differences in the religious element
that supported the bravery of the men in the different instances
just cited. IV.
The Fatal Battle of Gilboa.
Although in the period of Saul's strength we find mention
made of many victories, even over the peoples east of the
Jordan and to the north, his personal weaknesses had broken
his power. The expulsion of David from his court had meant
to Saul not merely the loss of probably his most skiirful warrior,
but also that of many others of his ablest men, several hun
dreds of whom followed David when he went into the South

The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in Statesmanship 45
Country and afterward to the Philistines. There is good
reason to believe that this defection and Saul's gradual loss
of popularity were influential in leading the Philistines to
renew their attacks upon Israel.
According to the records, Achish, the king of Gath, whose
vassal David had become, had so great confidence in David's
fidelity that he put him in charge of his bodyguard and deter
mined to take him with him in the attacks against the Israelites.
The other leaders of the Philistines, however, shrewdly and
probably more accurately, thinking that David at the time
of conflict might suddenly determine to take sides with Israel
against them, all insisted upon his returning to the country
of the Philistines and not accompanying them to the battle.
As the Philistines approached, they came up the coast
plains west of Israel's strongholds, then turned eastward
through the valley of Esdraelon, with probably two intentions:
first, to cut Saul off from any possible relief from the northern
tribes, and in the second place, to secure for themselves a
greater freedom for manoeuvering with their horses and chariots
in case the battle could be fought in the lowlands.
Saul, however, recognized his weakness, and, fearing the
possibility of defeat, drew up his men with his experienced
skill on the rocky heights of Gilboa, where he would have first, the
advantage of forcing the Philistines to leave their chariots
and horses and meet his men on foot, and second, the ad
vantage, no slight one in those days of hand-to-hand conflicts,
of an attack from the higher level.
In his doubt and fear regarding the coming battle, he natur
ally, as was his custom, consulted the priests and besought
the oracles of Jehovah for signs of victory. Probably bis
priests shared his doubts for he obtained no response. With
his superstitious attitude of mind he turned, as we have already
seen, to the witch of Endor, going to her in disguise and asking
for judgment on the events of the morrow. Her decision over
whelmed him with despair, and it took her persuasions and
those of his followers to convince him that he should take
food and prepare for the battle. Like the brave man, however,
that he had always been, he and his sons stood firm in the
battle, while most of their followers turned in dismay and
fled, pursued and slaughtered by the oncoming Philistines.
His three sons, Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, fell,

46 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
slain in his presence, and he himself was sorely wounded by
the archers. Knowing the barbarous treatment that he might
expect from his foes, seeing that all hope was gone, like the
Roman Antony centuries later, he first besought his armor
bearer to slay him. When the latter refused, he fell on his own
sword and his armorbearer immediately followed his example.
The acts of the Philistines in stripping him of his armor,
and fastening his body with those of his sons on the wall of
Bethshan showed clearly how accurate was Saul's judgment
regarding the treatment that he might anticipate from his
foes. A pleasing token of grateful remembrance of Saul's generous
and successful bravery lights up the last tragic scene in his
career. As will be recalled, the Ammonites had threatened
in the early days all the men of Jabesh in Gilead with the
loss of the right eye, when Saul's vigorous attack destroyed
the Ammonites and saved the Jabesbites. In memory of that
day they marched from their eastern home all night, took
the bodies of Saul and his sons from the wall of Bethshan,
carried them back to Jabesh, held ceremonial laments, and
then buried them under the famous tamarisk tree near the
city, and fasted seven days in their honor.
The life of the impetuous warrior king was ended, and with his
death went also the liberty of the Israelites. For nearly a
decade, under Saul's weakling son and successor, whose armies
were led by Saul's chief captain Abner, the northern tribes
were vassals of the Philistines. The presumption is also that
for some years David, as leader of Judah and the southern
tribes, paid tribute to the Philistines.
Saul's services, however, cannot be overlooked. Out of a
group of disconnected, warring tribes he had made and for
some years had maintained a single nation that, however
loosely connected in many ways, acted together in times of
emergency. Although eventually he fell before bis foreign
foes, it was still Saul's prowess and his strength as a leader
that made David's later successful career possible.
Explain how Saul's visit to the medium of Endor may have
contributed toward his defeat in battle. In your judgment,
had David accompanied the Philistines to the battle, would
he have fought for or against Saul? On which side ought
lie to have fought? What reasons have you for thinking that

The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in Statesmanship 47
Saul's treatment of David led to his own destruction? Work
out your own plan, as far as possible in detail, for a careful
study of Saul's life. V.
David's Eulogy of Saul and His Work.
The generous and noble character of David is seen in his
reception of the news of Saul's defeat and death. Though
the battle of Gilboa opened David's way to the kingship of
Judah, and eventually to the rule of all Israel, and although
David, with his clear insight into political conditions, must
have forecast, at any rate in hope, this future, when the man
from Saul's camp came and reported that the people fled from
the battle, that many of the soldiers had fallen, and that
Saul and Jonathan, his son, were dead, "David took hold of
his clothes and tore them, and all the men who were with him
did likewise, and they mourned and wept and fasted until
evening for Saul and for Jonathan, his son, and for the people
of Jehovah and for the house of Israel because they had fallen
by the sword." There is no reason to doubt that David's
grief was sincere and heartfelt. Jonathan was his most in
timate friend and sworn brother, while Saul in his earlier
days had been his patron and friend, whose good qualities
David could not fail to discern and remember, even though
he could not overlook his weaknesses. It was natural that
he should mourn them together. He sang in their honor a
noble requiem that has been preserved to the present day.
The singers of Israel, like the European bards of later days,
composed their own songs, and there is good reason for believing
that David's ode of sorrow comes in practically its original
form from the fips of the warrior poet. This dirge has been
characterized as follows:
"The artistic beauty of the poem is unsurpassed. It opens
with a stanza in the quick two-beat measure, which rises in
the second stanza to the three-beat, and in the third to the
four-beat measure, which is maintained throughout the song,
until the last refrain is introduced, giving the effect of a final
sob. In the first stanza the nation is called upon to join in
the lamentation, in the second the cruel exultation of the Philis
tines is viewed with horror, and in the third, nature and espe
cially the mountains of Gilboa, the ppptir of the disastrous

48 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
battle, are called upon to join in the universal lamentation.
In the next two stanzas the courage, the prowess and the virtues
of Saul and Jonathan are powerfully presented. The women
of Israel, who led in the ancient lamentations, are reminded of
what Saul has done for them and the nation. The culmina
tion of the poem is reached in the pathetic stanza in which
David protests his deep love for Jonathan and voices his
own bitter sorrow."
David's relief at the removal of fear of Saul's hatred must
have been great. He could now safely return to his own people.
His life opened before him; his heart must have leaped with
ambition. Leaving the country of the Philistines, with his
usual forethought and tact he turned to Judah and the southern
tribes, who, in the circumstances, quite naturally called him
to rule over them, while he himself must have been looking
forward and planning for the eventual leadership of all Israel.
But with all this in prospect, his love for Jonathan, his sym
pathetic heart, his insight into character, his great-souled
nature led him to feel towards Saul pity rather than anger
or hate. He recognized Saul's bravery and skill and real
services to Israel, so that when his tragic fate overcame him on
the heights of Gilboa, David's lament was sincere and genuine.
Could David be sincere in his grief over the death of Saul
and still feel glad of the personal opportunities which his
death afforded? Is there any religious element to be found
in David's dirge over Saul and Jonathan? Does this dirge
sound to you more like a heathen or like a Hebrew poem?
Point out the elements of beauty, artistic or moral, in the poem.
In what respects are our modern funeral customs an improve
ment upon those of the Hebrews? Or inferior?
VI.
The Essentials of Effective Statesmanship.
A little reflection regarding the characters of Israel's first
two kings, Saul and David, gives one a clear conception of
the qualities required to make a person an effective and suc
cessful statesman.
A man may be a brave, and on the whole effective, fighter
without great mental ability, but even in hand-to-hand con
flicts a quick mind is of great advantage and no one can be

The Need of Breadth and Self-Control in Statesmanship 49
a successful general without a broad-minded intelligence which
enables him to grasp as a whole plans of attack and defense
on a great scale. In later times and in more complex societies,
when the business of the statesman is not so much warfare
as finance, the development of economic resources, the pro
tection of the industrial welfare of a people, intelligence, in
tellectual training and manifold knowledge become even
more essential.
The contrast of the two characters, Saul and David, bring
into high relief the grave necessity of self-control and cool
judgment on the part of the ruler. A man who cannot control
his temper, a man who will not maintain at least the* semblance
of patience in times of emergency, or one who will not restrain
his acts until he can foresee their results, is sure to fail in any
field of activity, but especially in a position as leader where
self-control is the prime consideration in enabling one to con
trol others. Whether David or Solomon or some other of the
wise men of ancient Israel was the author of the proverb,
"He who ruleth his own spirit is greater than he that taketh
a city," there can be no question as to its essential truth.
Closely related to the characteristics just mentioned is the
power of insight into character and the ability to understand
the feelings and wishes of one's people. This gift of under
standing the popular will is something different from mere
intelligence, something quite apart from ordinary knowledge
that can be acquired by study. It implies a sympathy with
one's neighbors, and apparently an almost intuitive touch
with people of all classes and types in society. The men who
have possessed this gift are not always the men who are the
best fitted to plan the work of a great state, but this power is
of the greatest service in putting plans into effect and often
in knowing what plans are possible. It is generally conceded
that, although Jefferson lacked the breadth of intellect and
original creative power of Hamilton, in his understanding of
the American people and the way to reach their sympathies
he was greatly Hamilton's superior. Lincoln's greatness as
a statesman was due perhaps as much to this quality of sym
pathetic insight as to any other of his great gifts. In this
respect it is worth while to note the sharp contrast between
Saul and David and to recognize how much of David's success
was due to this gift of understanding.

50 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
Closely allied with this, of course, is tact in dealing with
individuals and social groups, whether foes or friends. These
qualities often belong to a boss as well as to a statesman,
to a man who is a political manipulator for selfish ends, as
well as to a patriotic leader, but the qualities are important
for a statesman of the highest type.
Beyond all these personal gifts must be emphasized, of
course, patriotism — unselfish devotion to one's country's wel
fare. All personal gifts of whatever nature, if turned to selfish
ends, fall short of effective statesmanship, though unselfish
patriotism, unaccompanied by the personal characteristics
mentioned, is not in itself enough to make any public man
effective. In these later days, when personal religion seems to have
no longer the hold upon the popular mind that it had in the
earlier days, it is of importance to note how great was the
influence of devotion to Jehovah in the lives of both Saul
and David. Although, we have seen, Saul's religion often
degenerated into mere superstition, so that it was a source of
weakness rather than strength, David's religion seems never
to have been a source of weakness, and in many instances,
to have been a source of strength. Beyond all doubt, any
man's conception of his relation to his God cannot fail to
affect most profoundly his attitude toward his country and
toward the welfare of its people. Without any ascription of
a miraculous or supernatural influence in the lives of men, it
would still remain true that any statesman's views of his
relation to God must color materially his plans of working
and living and must thus become an important element in
the effectiveness of whatever he undertakes in behalf of his
people. Aside from the reaction upon his own personality, the
effect which the statesman's religious views produce directly
upon his people must also be considered. The most civilized
peoples of the present day, although their conceptions of
religion are greatly different from those of ancient Israel,
are, nevertheless, profound believers in religion and in the
thought that the most successful work in statesmanship can
not be combined with a faithless, selfish, ignoble, corrupt
character. The belief is also general that the surest guarantee
of the noblest character is an absolutely sincere, reasonable,
tolerant, devout religious belief.

The Right and Wrong of Imperial Expansion 51
Analyze as best you can in accordance with the principles
of statesmanship mentioned in this section the characters
of Presidents Wilson, Taft, Roosevelt, McKinley and Cleve
land. Distinguish the boss from the statesman. Which
of the qualities named above does the successful boss possess
and which does he lack? Subjects for Further Study.
(1) Hebrew Mourning Customs. Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible,
III, pp. 453-455; Kent, Songs, Hymns and Prayers of the Old Testament,
pp. 16, 17.
(2) Read carefully an account of the life and services of Thomas Paine,
whose writings had much to do in securing American independence. Judge
impartially the effect that his religious views had upon his life and service
to his country,

CHAPTER IV.
THE RIGHT AND WRONG OF IMPERIAL EXPANSION.
David as an Empire Builder. — II Sam. 2 — 8; 23: 8 — 39.
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. II, pp. 121-146.
Croly, Chap. IV; Lowell, Chaps. VII, VIII.
Then all the tribes of Israel came to David to Hebron and said, See
we are your bone and your flesh. In times past when Saul was king
over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel, and Jehovah hath
said to you, 'Thou shalt be shepherd of my people Israel, and thou shalt
be prince over Israel.' — II Sam. 5: 1, 2.
And David kept on growing greater, for Jehovah of hosts was with
him.—// Sam. 5: 10. Ez fer war, I call it murder —
Ther you hev it plain and flat;
I don't want to go no furder
Than my Testyment fer that. — Lowell
The arms are fair
When the intent for bearing them is just. — Shakespeare.
Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. —
Duke of Wellington. The Decline of Saul's Kingdom.
After the tragic fate of Saul and his elder sons had been
decided on Mount Gilboa the way seemed clear for David to

52 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
become in due course of time the ruler of all Israel. His per
sonal popularity and also the care that he had taken to court
the friendly feelings of the southern tribes received their
immediate reward; while the friendship of the northern tribes
was gradually won over by the skillful tactics that he had
employed throughout his career.
Immediately after the news of Saul's death had been re
ceived, David turned towards the south and went to Hebron
taking with him his two wives. One was Ahinoam the Jezreel-
itess, through the marriage with whom he had strengthened his
position with one of the southern tribes. The other was
Abigail through whose intercession he had spared the life
of Nabal and whom after Nabal's death he had himself married,
acquiring thereby wealth and influence as well as a wife of
great ability and charm. As was learned in the account
given of his dealings with Nabal, David had for years, while
living as outlaw, protected the flocks and herds of the southern
tribes against the attacks of the men of the desert and had
thereby won their friendship. It was not difficult for them,
as soon as they heard of the death of Saul, to choose for their
leader and king a man from among themselves who had already
won their affection through his protection of their interests and
his personal ability and in whose ranks many of their own people
were already fighting.
We need not question the sincerity of David's appreciation
of the noble spirit of the Jabesbites, even though he knew
that his recognition of their loyal act would serve also to
strengthen him with the northern tribes. As soon as he
heard of their action he sent messengers to them saying: "May
you be blessed by Jehovah because you have shown this kind
ness to your leader Saul and have buried him. Even so may
Jehovah show kindness and truth to you; and I also will do
well by you because you have done this thing. Now, therefore,
be courageous and valiant; for Saul, your leader, is dead,
and the house of Judah has anointed me king over them."
It was not, however, until years later that David was to become
king also of the northern tribes. Abner, Saul's ablest captain
after Jonathan, had survived the battle of Gilboa. As com
mander of Saul's army he had selected Ishbaal, a younger
son of Saul, and had him set up as king over all of the northern

The Right and Wrong of Imperial Expansion 53
tribes, and had established the new capital east of the Jordan
at Mahanaim.
As was to be expected, a conflict between David and the
followers of Ishbaal soon began. Apparently both Ishbaal
and David, although acting independently of each other,
were paying tribute to the Philistines, and not until some years
later, after David had become king of all Israel, was he able
to throw off the Philistine yoke.
According to the accounts given us, the fate of the divided
kingdom and of the separate rulers was determined, as is so
often the case in history, by the private personal passions,
loves and hatreds of individual actors. Ishbaal, a weak king,
was practically under the domination of his great leader Abner,
while David, though a strong character and one who eventually
controlled, still found it necessary to deal tactfully with his
own war chief, Joab, a man of marked military ability, but
of narrow mind and petty jealousies.
In a battle fought between Abner and Joab and their fol
lowers near the Pool of Gibeon, after an exhibition duel between
twelve young champions from each of the two sides, in which
apparently all were killed, the forces of Abner were defeated
by the men of David. In the retreat that followed, Joab's
younger brother, Asahel, a fleet runner, pursuing Abner alone,
was slain. Though the older and more skillful warrior had
warned him and offered to let him escape and even to take with
him some plunder, Abner at length was forced to kill him
in self-defense, thereby creating a blood feud with Joab that
eventually brought dire results. The battle ended indeed by
Abner suggesting a truce to prevent a continuation of what
he considered a civil war; but, although the battle ended,
the war dragged on. Meantime David continually grew stronger
and the followers of Ishbaal fewer and weaker. Abner had
apparently for some time felt that it would be wiser for the
forces to unite as one kingdom under David. At length
Ishbaal, by reproving Abner for having taken to himself
Rizpah, who had formerly been a concubine of Saul, offended
Abner, who considered rightly that he himself was the actual
ruler, although Ishbaal held the title. In consequence Abner
sent word to David that he would undertake to persuade the
northern tribes to submit. David responded favorably, making
first the one condition, that before any negotiations were formally

54 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
taken up there should be returned to him the wife of his
youth, Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom the king had
given to him in return for his victory over the Philistines. It
was she who had saved his life when Saul turned against him,
but whom Saul later, after the expulsion of David from his
kingdom, had given in marriage to another man named Paltiel.
This occurrence is a striking illustration of the customs of
the time as well as of the threads of personal feelings and
interests- that mold the welfare of nations. Michal seems
to have nothing to say in either case regarding her fate. She
had apparently been loyal to David and had protected him
against her father even at great risk to herself. She had
likewise won the love of her second husband, for when she
was taken from him by Abner at David's suggestion, he fol
lowed her, weeping as he went, until Abner turned him back.
Later we find Michal criticizing David most scornfully for
his dancing before the ark of the covenant when it was brought
up to Jerusalem, and in turn being rebuked by David whose
affection for her had apparently been supplanted by that
felt for another wife, for his retort is severe and sarcastic.
The narrator adds that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had
no child to the day of her death. Had she perhaps inherited
some of the jealous disposition of her father?
Abner and David, in the absence of Joab, David's military
commander, made arrangements for the transfer of Abner's
loyalty from Ishbaal to David with the expectation that the
northern tribes in consequence would make David the ruler
of all Israel. But Joab on his return followed Abner and treacher
ously slew him. In thus avenging the death of his brother
Asahel, Joab nearly ruined the plans that David his king had
made for the welfare of the nation.
This treacherous murder would have prevented absolutely
the uniting of the kingdom had not David with his customary
tact, as well as with sincerity of feeling, immediately repudiated
all knowledge of Joab's deed, giving to Abner a state funeral,
sorrowing for him and fasting as for the death of a royal brother,
while he likewise cursed Joab as a guilty murderer whom he
compelled to take part in the funeral ceremony.
Two of Ishbaal's treacherous captains, hearing of Abner's
death, sought the house of Ishbaal, murdered him and brought
his head to David thinking thus to win the king's favor. Here

The Right and Wrong of Imperial Expansion 55
again, doubtless in part from sincere abhorrence of the treacher
ous deed and doubtless also with the knowledge of the good
effect that would be produced upon the northern tribes, David
ordered the immediate execution of the murderers and the
exposure of their bodies as a warning to the people, while
Ishbaal's head was buried with all honor in Abner's grave
at Hebron.
The total result, however, of Ishbaal's interference with
Abner and of the political circumstances of the time was
that all the northern tribes came to David in Hebron and
asked him to take the kingship of united Israel, saying that
in the days of Saul he had been the warrior who had led them
out to battle and to whom Jehovah had said, "Thou shalt
be the shepherd of my people Israel and thou shalt be prince
over Israel."
Do you approve of David's treatment of Joab? Did not
Joab usually have David's welfare at heart? How far was
Abner justified in his treatment of Ishbaal? What in your
judgment was Abner's chief motive, — personal pique or
regard for the welfare of his people? II.
Throwing off the Philistine Yoke.
The success of the Philistines in overthrowing Saul in the
great battle of Gilboa and the relative weakness of both David
and Ishbaal in the succeeding years had made these foes of Israel
dominant throughout southern Palestine. There can be little
doubt that both David and Ishbaal paid tribute to them for a
time and were considered their vassals. David's growing
strength, however, and the knowledge of the Philistine leaders of
his ability naturally tended to make them fearful of his success.
In consequence, when they heard that David had been anointed
king over Israel as well as over Judah, they decided to move
against him. It is not improbable that David himself in
stituted the revolt, for the northern tribes looked to him as
their liberator. The accounts of the war are brief and incom
plete. It is probable that it lasted for a number of years.
At first David remained in the highlands, making his defense
from his old stronghold, the cave of Adullam and the heights
around about, and attacking the Philistines as opportunity

56 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
offered. Later, as he grew stronger, sometimes by open
battle, sometimes by strategy that enabled him to strike
them unawares, he succeeded in beating them back; and
finally in two great victories on the plain south of Jerusalem
he completely won his independence from them, driving them
back as far as Gezer, their large fortified city on the border
of the western plain.
Consider the economic gain to David's kingdom from these
victories. The political gain. The military gain. How far
has the United States gained in political and military strength
from the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands? From the
acquisition of the Philippines? III.
The Unification of all Israel.
David completed his conquest of the ancient land of Canaan
by attacking the Jebusites whose hold upon Jerusalem had
never yet been shaken. The situation and the fortifications
were of such strength that the enemy had little fear of an
attack, thinking that even the lame and the blind would be
sufficient to hold the city against any assaulting force; but
by sending some of his strong warriors up through the water
courses David succeeded in gaining a foothold and eventually
in capturing the ancient fortress.
Jerusalem was peculiarly well fitted to become the new
capital of the united kingdom. It was in the first place a city
of almost impregnable strength both by virtue of its natural
situation and of the new fortifications and encircling wall
and towers built by David. Furthermore, its situation between
the land of Judah and that occupied by the northern tribes,
meant that David's residence there would not arouse factional
jealousies. It was an advantage that a man of David's tact
would not overlook.
David's knowledge of human nature and of his people led
him further to see the importance of making this capital city,
so far as possible, also the religious center of his kingdom.
Since the earlier victories over the Philistines, the Israelites
had regained control of the ark of Jehovah, which had remained
in BaaWudah. When David had finally established his
residence in Jerusalem and had built there a palace, he made

The Right and Wrong of Imperial Expansion 57
provision for bringing up the ark and thus making Jerusalem
pre-eminently the center of the national worship of Jehovah,
though it was not until centuries later that the local shrines
in the different towns and cities were abolished. The ark
was transferred with great ceremony, David assembling all
the chosen men of Israel, some thirty thousand, besides the
hordes of unarmed people who wished to accompany him, in
order to give the ceremony the greatest impressiveness pos
sible. The accidental death of one of the attendants at the
moment that he happened to touch the ark to prevent it from
falling, was at first interpreted as a signal of Jehovah's dis
pleasure, and the ark remained outside the city in the home
of one of David's Philistine bodyguards for a considerable
period, until the prosperity of the guard seemed to make it
clear that Jehovah's favor had been restored.
At Jerusalem the ark was deposited in a tent especially
prepared. Sacrifices and feasts and rich offerings were pre
sented by David, and gifts were distributed among the people
in commemoration and celebration of the entrance of this
symbol of God's favor, which had been brought by the people
from Mount Sinai, into the new capital of the kingdom. With
the people united now in loyalty to their ruler and in religious
sentiment as well, and with an army loyal, strong, and skilled
in warfare, it was natural that David should enter upon the
career of conquest which made Israel one of the great states
of southwestern Asia.
Compare the geographical and political causes which have
made great capitals, Jerusalem, Berlin, Washington, Peking,
Paris and Rome. Compare the political, economic, social,
artistic, or religious influences which these cities have exercised
upon their respective countries and upon the world.

IV.
David's Reasons for Building an Empire.
David's experience not only with the Philistines but also
with the various tribes of Israel had made it clear to him that
the only safety for his kingdom lay in a strong military power,
and, considering the strength and habits of the neighboring
nations, he was perhaps right. The same argument has been

58 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
used for many years by the German Empire, and by the ad
vocates of a stronger navy for the United States.
Furthermore the military power of any country is dependent
not only upon the strength of its army and navy, but to no
less degree upon its financial strength. David was far-sighted
enough and had sufficient experience in war and statesmanship
to know that he must be regularly provided with supplies for
his army and with economic resources for the development of
his kingdom. By controlling the people on the borders of
Judah and the outlying tribes of Israel he was securing not
merely additional territory for agricultural development, but
also, what was perhaps of still greater consequence, he was
obtaining control of the trade routes between Egypt, Baby
lonia, Assyria and those running north through Damascus and
farther westward on to the territory now known as Asia Minor.
Through the facilities afforded by these trade routes he opened
the way for the commercial development of Palestine, which
was later carried to a much higher degree by his successor
Solomon. Moreover, David himself represented the noblest product
of the literary and artistic culture of his race, as well as the
civilization of war and conquest. By securing control of the
territory of the Canaanites in the lowlands, he and his people
were brought into immediate touch with the highest material
civilization of the period. The Hebrew race of that day,
and especially the tribe of Judah, knew little of the refinements
of modern civilization. They were a hill people relying chiefly
upon the growth of their flocks and herds for their material
welfare, and although they possessed the noblest morality and
religion of their day, in the refinements of civilization they were
doubtless very inferior to the people of the lowlands whom
they had conquered, and especially to the inhabitants of
Egypt and Babylon. David was too able a man not to be
conscious of the advantages that would come from more
intimate association with the surrounding peoples.
Moreover, for any strong man, as well as for any growing
nation, mastery of others, the sense of power, the love and
will to control are among the dominant ambitions. As soon
as the opportunity offered, it was to be expected that a king
like David, leader of an invading, aggressive people, would
wish to extend the boundaries of his kingdom so as to become

The Right and Wrong of Imperial Expansion 59
the ruler of a great, wealthy, influential empire, instead of
being merely the head of a small, even a vassal kingdom,
as for some years Judah had been.
Compare the motives of David with those of King William
of Prussia from the years 1860 to 1875. With those of England
in India and Egypt. According to the biblical accounts,
David was tolerant of the religious beliefs and practices of
the Canaanites among whom the various communities worshiped
each its own separate Baal. Do you approve of this religious
toleration? Why? V.
Methods of Conquest.
The great European wars of the present day often lead us
to wonder whether there has been any advance whatever in
civilization within historic times. The changes that have
been wrought by new inventions, increasing the efficiency of
weapons of destruction, seem to some to be the chief improve
ments since the days of David, although, of course, economic
reasons and the earlier stage of civilization compelled a some
what different method of civil and military organization.
King David's regular army apparently consisted of only his
few chosen leaders and his six hundred trained fighting men
who made up his bodyguard. We read that among the
leaders there were three of pre-eminent ability, and that fol
lowing them were thirty, each one of whom was able to slaughter
his opponents by the score, for in the early days of warfare
personal prowess counted far more than at the present time.
Aside from these, every able-bodied man in the kingdom was
subject to call in time of need, being regularly summoned by
their tribal and local leaders who fought under the direction
of David's chieftains. Usually during the winter and spring
the army remained at home attending their flocks or tilling
their fields. The campaigns were carried on after the harvest
time in early summer. The simple habits of the people and
this method of fighting enabled David to carry on these
wars of conquest year after year without seriously draining the
resources of his kingdom. This was done the more readily
because the subjugated nations were compelled to pay tribute,
and in many instances great numbers of the able bodied were
enslaved and forced to cultivate the soil.

60 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
In certain cases the wars were begun by hostile nations that
had hoped to overwhelm the Hebrews; in other cases David
himself took the aggressive. His first extensive foreign cam
paign was apparently against the Ammonites, east of the
Jordan, the war being incited by the treatment of ambassadors
from David who were insulted in ways recognized as cruel,
uncivilized and contrary to the rules of war even of those
early, days. Later wars with tribes to the north, east and
south extended his kingdom, until it reached from the
neighborhood of Damascus on the north to the eastern arm
of the Red Sea on the south and from the Phoenicians and
Philistines on the west to the desert on the east, a territory
nearly twice as large as that originally occupied by the Israelites.
Frequently the wars were carried on with extreme cruelty.
In some cases, as in that of the Moabites, the people were com
pletely subjugated, as many as two-thirds of them being put
to death and the others enslaved. At other times the con
quered nations were left largely under their own government,
being forced merely to pay tribute.
In practically every case then, as well as now, all of the
contending nations felt that the deity was on their side —
a condition of affairs, too, much more easily understood then
than now, for, in those days, each tribe had its own patron
god upon whom it felt that it could normally rely, while, at
the present time, all the Christian nations apparently call
upon the same God. It is a striking illustration of the narrow
ness and self-conceit of most individuals, who see the justice
of their own side in every dispute so clearly and that of their
opponent so dimly, that all apparently feel conscientiously
justified, while they condemn unqualifiedly the cause of their
opponents. When one ancient nation conquered another, it was looked
upon simply as proof that the god of the victorious people
was stronger than the god of the conquered. The weaker
god, however, was not rejected as no longer worthy of reverence.
The subjugated people still followed their own god, but
they often added to this the worship of the conquering deity.
Another method by which David extended his kingdom or
confirmed his hold upon conquered territory was by marriage.
We have already seen how he had extended his wealth and
power by marrying Abigail, the wife of Nabal the Carmelite,

The Right and Wrong of Imperial Expansion 61
and had won the favor of a southern tribe by his marriage
with Ahinoam the Jezreefitess, after he had been driven out
of Saul's kingdom. Later, he took other wives; for example,
he married the daughter of Talmai the king of Geshur. The
same custom of strengthening by marriage the pofitical power
of the king was carried to a still greater extent by Solomon,
and is by no means unknown even at the present day.
In what ways do the royal families of Europe carry out
the same ideas regarding the political importance and use of
marriage? What is a morganatic marriage? What is its
effect regarding the right of succession to a throne? Cite
modern illustrations among rulers and wars in which the
barbarities of lust and cruelty are comparable with those of
King David in his treatment of conquered peoples. Discuss
briefly the religious element in the wars of the present day
from (a) the viewpoint of religious justification for war, and
(6) the viewpoint of conflicts arising from differing religious
beliefs. VI.
The Right of Foreign Conquest.
Practically every growing nation in all periods of history
has felt itself justified in demanding room for expansion.
Japan at the present time is said to be looking for territory
to which her own people may be sent as settlers. Germany
for half a century has been seeking colonies in which to expand.
In the earlier days the American colonies, and afterwards the
States on the Atlantic Coast, felt that it was necessary for
them to secure territory to the westward, and similar feelings
and practices are almost universal.
The sentiment followed seems to be that "the earth belongs
to him who makes the best use of it," and inasmuch as each
powerful nation is in a position to be judge in its own cause,
it seems to be often a contest of civilization against barbarism,
in which usually the civilized country wins. Civilized peoples
with their greater skill in invention and their better practice
in organization, are usually the strongest, so that in the ulti
mate analysis the justification of their conquests is a refined
type of the doctrine that might makes right. Certain excep
tions to this general principle are found, as in the case of the
ancient Greeks, where the more highly cultivated people was

62 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
conquered by the Romans who, though on a lower stage of
civilization, were nevertheless able to absorb so much of the
higher culture of the Greeks that the union of the two seemed
to promote rather than to destroy civilization. A somewhat
similar statement may be made with reference to the ancient
Jews, whose religion and business ability has permeated the
civilized world, even though as a separate nation they ceased
to exist many centuries ago.
The only way perhaps — at any rate, the only way that
seems yet to have been found — by which the benefits of differ
ing civilizations, even of different stages of social development,
can be combined without working destruction and injustice,
is by the federal system as it has been most extensively and
successfully developed in the United States and in Switzer
land. In a federal government each local division may retain
its own customs so long as it is willing to join with other divi
sions in matters that are of common concern to all. In Switzer
land we find different religions, different races, different lan
guages, and yet a harmonious action in questions that are
common to all. It is apparently through the extension of
this federal principle that we must look ahead, so far as it
shall prove practical, to an ultimate world peace through a
world state, which may control in certain common matters,
possibly even those touching war and peace, but which shall
still leave to each separate state — almost each separate com
munity within each state — the right to direct its own local
affairs and to each individual liberty to play a part in propor
tion to his ability and influence.
What are the advantages of a great unified state as com
pared with those of separate small states? Draw up a plan
of a federated state of Europe naming matters of interest
common to all of the states, and indicating also matters of
special interest which might be retained separately by the
different states without affecting unfavorably the general
welfare. By what means could such a state be established?
What part should the United States take in such a federation?
Subjects for Further Study.
(1) Hebrew Military Organization and Methods. Kent, Israel's Laws
and Legal Precedents, pp. 80-86; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible. IV, pp.
892-895. (2) Situation and Strength of Jerunalem. Kent, Biblical Geography
and History, pp. 64-70; Smith, Jerusalem, Vol. I.

The Importance of Personal Character in a Public Official 63
(3) Study the story of the formation of the German Empire and com
pare the methods employed by Bismarck with those used by David.
Bismarck s Autobiography: passim; Hazen, Chaps. XL XIII, XIV, XXX.
(4) The Effects of War upon Religious Feeling. Compare the biblical
accounts of David's wars with the English and German literature of the
European war in 1914-15.

CHAPTER V.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL CHARACTER IN
A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
David's Weakness and Sins and Their Effects.
II Sam. 9—20; I Kgs. 1:1—2: 12.
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. II, pp. 146-182.
Croly, Chap. V; Lowell, Chaps. LX, X.
Nathan said to David, thou art the man! . . . And David said to
Nathan, I have sinned against Jehovah. — // Sam. 12: 7a, 13a.
Mercy and truth preserve the king,
And his throne is upholden by mercy. — Prov. HO: 2S.
If a ruler hearkeneth to falsehood,
All his servants are wicked.— Prov. 29: 12.
I will be lord over myself. No one who cannot master himself is worthy
to rule, and only he can rule. — Goethe.
Wisdom does not show itself so much in precept as in life — in a firmness
of mind and mastery of appetite. It teaches us to do, as well as to talk;
and to make our actions and words all of a color. — Seneca.
A religious life is a struggle and not a hymn. — Mine, de Stael.
I.
David's Fall.
The tragic, revolting story of David's relations with Bath-
sheba and her husband Uriah the Hittite is too familiar to
need repetition. The detailed account of the king's weak
yielding to passion, his consequent attempted trickery to con
ceal his crime that was foiled by Uriah's innocent, patriotic

64 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
self-devotion, then his brutal order to Joab to encompass the
death of Uriah, is one of the best illustrations of the fact that
the biblical account of Israel's history had for its prime pur
pose moral and religious instruction. The condemnation of
the prophetic narrator and the pitiless frankness with which
the sin and its far-reaching consequences, extending over
decades of time and generations of men, is told, are perhaps
unmatched in literature. The tactful but unsparing rebuke
of the prophet Nathan, while a model of literary skill, is none
the less an appeal to the best motives and the noblest feelings
of men of all times.
The account discloses many of the customs and much of
the moral attitude of the people of that day. The king's
word was law, whether for good or evil. Neither the king's
attendants, nor Bathsheba, nor Joab seems to have raised
any question of obedience. The subsequent narratives show
nevertheless that Bathsheba was a woman skillful in intrigue,
most persuasive in person, and limitless in ambition, one
that under like conditions might have developed as did the
famous Empress Dowager of China, whose first successes
were apparently due to the same seductive qualities. From
the time of her marriage with David after Uriah's death,
Bathsheba seems to have been his favorite wife, and it was
apparently her personal ability as much as his own deserts
that secured for Solomon, her son, the succession to David's
throne. It is noteworthy, too, that the sin that was so bitterly con
demned by the prophet seems not to have been the act of
adultery — though that crime was punished throughout Hebrew
history as unsparingly as murder — but rather the ingratitude
and treachery and contemptible meanness shown by the king
in the gratification of his desire and in his attempts to escape
its consequences. The strong are utterly despicable when
for personal gratification they plunder the weak.
Consider carefully the social reasons which make the crime
of adultery so injurious to the public welfare. Why is the
wrong not merely personal, but also public? Why are acts
of faithlessness and treachery on the part of nations or rulers
of supreme significance? Is there any other sin so flagrant
for a ruler as a violation of public obligation? Why?

The Importance of Personal Character in a Public Official 65
II.
Remorse that Did not Undo Wrong.
The vivid parable of Nathan at first aroused David's just
indignation and scorn and he utterly condemned himself in
the person of the fabled rich man. When Nathan in his
condemnatory announcement, "Thou art the man," drove
the lesson home and sentenced him, David repentantly acknowl
edged his sin and took with a humble spirit the punishment
declared against him by the prophet.
It is known that the tale was written long after the event
and this probably explains in part the fact that the results
foretold — the violation of David's wives and the death of
Bathsheba's son — both actually took place in exact accord
with the account given; and yet it required no gift of second
sight or miraculous foresight to see that such a sin, committed
even in these early days when the moral delinquencies of
kings did not always receive the condemnation which they
merited, would certainly have dire results.
David's disposition is likewise clearly depicted in the story
told of the death of Bathsheba's son. When the child fell
sick, David besought God, lying all night in sackcloth upon
the roof, as he sent up his petitions, and fasting continually
until on the seventh day the child died. As soon, however,
as hope had gone, his practical sense and energetic disposition
made themselves manifest and he rose, washed, anointed himself,
changed his garments, came to the house of Jehovah and
worshiped. Then going to his own house, he ate and took
up the business of the day.
It is not recorded that David made any further effort what
soever to expiate his sin. Indeed, how could such expiation
be made excepting through better instruction that might be
given his sons and the further teaching of his people? Doubt
less many moralists would insist that he should have repudiated
Bathsheba and disinherited Solomon, her son. Such an act,
however, was not at all in accord with David's disposition
and character, and it is an open question whether thereby
he would not have committed a further sin instead of having
expiated his first offense. David's frank, generous and on
the whole, upright character led him doubtless to keen repent-

66 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
ance, but his active, cheerful, optimistic temperament would
not permit him to brood over his sins.
Ought one to brood over a sin committed? Is there a better
proof of repentance than a changed mode of life? Did David
truly repent? What are the reasons for your opinion? What,
according to the New Testament, is the remedy for past sins?
Compare David with Shakespeare's Macbeth, King Lear, and
George Eliot's Adam Bede. III.
The Shadow of David's Crime.
Whether willing or unwilling to change his course, the terrible
effects of David's unbridled passions were not to be escaped.
Repentance seldom changes results. Even in the members
of bis own family the same gross crimes reappear, and one
can scarcely doubt that the example and influence of the
father were felt by bis sons, giving them a plausible excuse for
similar acts. David's pitiful weakness in dealing with members
of his own family, as he grew old, casts such a deep shadow
upon his reputation that it darkens materially the brilliancy
of his greatest achievements. The odious crime of his eldest
son Amnon, whom David at that time doubtless looked upon
as his probable successor, was so like that of his father, both
in nature and in the personal meanness of his actions in con
nection with the accompanying results, that one might well
think of an hereditary influence. The murder of Amnon by
his half-brother, Absalom, in revenge, was doubtless in part
inspired by what he looked upon as his duty, being the next
of kin to his wronged sister, in part, also, doubtless, by some
hope of succeeding to the throne in case of his brother's death.
As David had shown weakness in dealing with Amnon, he
likewise showed similar weakness in dealing with the various
acts of treason of Absalom. Is it perhaps possible that the
kindness and consideration shown by David in his youth
toward his earlier patron and friend, King Saul, were after
all, merely a certain kindly weakness of disposition and char
acter that later in fife in dealings with his children became a
most grievous fault, leading to the condoning of hideous
crimes and eventually to the disruption of his kingdom? Is
a kind disposition often an accompaniment of weakness? Is

The Importance of Personal Character in a Public Official 67
there any relation between strength and courage and cruelty
of nature? IV.
The Revolt of Absalom.
One would be more inclined to believe that Absalom was
influenced on the whole by worthy aims in encompassing the
death of his guilty brother Amnon, had his succeeding years
been less marked by treachery and treason, leading even to
an attempt to secure the throne by killing his own father.
After the consideration shown him by King David in per
mitting him to return to Jerusalem, Absalom treacherously
took pains to cultivate the friendship of the Hebrews. He
appears to have devoted his attention especially to the citizens
of Judah, the democratic hill men, who seemed somewhat to
resent David's growing neglect of his royal duties as judge
and leader, and who, doubtless also, on account of their ruder,
half-nomadic habits, their greater personal independence, and
their closer allegiance to the older belief in Jehovah, were
inclined to criticize the gradual drifting of the kingdom into
the more refined and luxurious customs of the lowlands and
of the subjected Canaanites. There can be little doubt that
with the new prosperity of the kingdom a far greater degree
of luxury became prevalent even at David's court, and that
with the refinements of the Egyptian and Babylonian civiliza
tions, there came also not a little of the Canaanite corruption
so bitterly denounced by the later prophets. A sharp conflict
sprang up between the two types of civilization, and it is
evident that David, who had been reared in the stricter school
of the pastoral tribes, in his declining years gradually drifted
into the more luxurious and weaker habits of those against
whom in his earlier days he had waged some of his best fought
battles. Absalom was crafty enough to take advantage of the situation
and patiently and treasonably to cultivate the friendship
of these dissatisfied tribesmen. When, however, the rebellion
actually broke out and Absalom gathered his cohorts about
him to overthrow the Icing, David, although taken by surprise,
showed all of his old shrewdness and skill in escaping the
immediate danger, in misleading Absalom with the aid of his
counsellor Hushai and his priests Zadok and Abiathar, until

68 'The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
his own safety was secured and the downfall of Absalom
became certain. Again, however, at the time of the final
battle with Absalom, we see the same personal weakness, which
now almost wrecked the kingdom. Beyond doubt Absalom
was a traitor of the most dangerous type; beyond doubt also
the kingdom was far better off in David's hands than in those
of his son, and even David showed no desire whatever to
abdicate in Absalom's favor. Unless he intended to abdicate,
the only possible course to be followed, in the light of the con
ditions of those days, was to encompass the defeat and death
of Absalom. David's attempt to save Absalom's life and,
what was still worse, his failure to show appreciation of the
loyalty of not only Joab, but also of his host of devoted fol
lowers, nearly divided the kingdom. This tenderness of heart
and conscience seems a lofty virtue as it is manifested in David's
relations with Saul; it seems also a worthy and on the whole
a noble humility when David takes meekly the abuse of Shimai;
but in the crucial conditions under which the revolt of Absalom
took place, the same characteristic is clearly a fatal weakness.
What excuse had Absalom for his conspiracy? Did he really
sympathize with the sterner beliefs and habits of the Judahites?
What limit should each of us set upon his own kindness and
mercy? Is kindness that is not prompted by justice often a
crime? Illustrate. V.
The Tragedy of David's Later Years.
David in his last years is a weak, lonely, sad, betrayed old
man. The pitiful longing and weakness of a failing man, as
well as the customs of his age and of the degenerate court,
are vividly painted in the story of Abishag, the beautiful
Shunammite; and the almost complete withdrawal of the
king from participation in public affairs appears in the con
spiracies of Adonijah and Bathsheba, regarding the succession.
The king himself seems to have had little will or interest in
the matter; but when Bathsheba came to him in person, her
former charm and force of character appeared, and under her
persuasive influence and that of Nathan, whose vigorous
courage had won the king's confidence years before, David
carried out their wishes. Even in this last appearance of
David in public life, we see the diplomatic skill which through-

The Importance of Personal Character in a Public Official 69
out his many years was so marked a characteristic. It was
King David, not Bathsheba nor Nathan, who promptly formu
lated the plan by which Solomon was to be anointed king
under such circumstances that the people would stand by
him as the Lord's anointed in accordance with the law and
customs of the age.
Perhaps no other character in Hebrew history, with the
possible exception of Moses, shows so many marked char
acteristics of personal success and greatness as did David. No
other character has his personal weaknesses and sins pointed
out with such detail and merciless frankness. The Hebrew
narrators clearly intended that their moral lessons should be
unmistakably understood; and yet David had evidently won
their hearts also as he did the hearts of all who came in contact
with him, so that in summing up his story, they loved him
still and depicted him as the greatest hero of their race.
What bearing has the story of Bathsheba upon the extent
and nature of woman's influence in public affairs? How far
ought we to guard ourselves against excusing the sins and weak
nesses of those we love? At what period in their lives should
old men transfer their responsibilities to younger shoulders?
What are the ethical and social principles involved?
VI.
The Influence of a Great Man's Character on His Race.
The only immortality that George Eliot recognizes in her
writings is that which comes from personal heredity (that is,
the acquired qualities which one transmits through his de
scendants) and especially from the personal influence of one
individual upon others. The whole story of King David
emphasizes, perhaps as strongly as that of any character in
history, the powerful influence exerted by a strong man in an
influential position. His history, too, seems to controvert
Shakespeare's dictum:
"The evil that men do lives after them
The good is oft interred with their bones."
As has been shown beyond question, the evil in David's
life and the weakness in his character undoubtedly influenced
many others to commit gross crimes and led even to revolu
tion within the kingdom itself. But as one gains a com-

70 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
prehensive view of the entire course of David's life and notes
the ennobling influence of his better personal characteristics
upon his people, marks the love and loyalty with which not
only Joab and the Philistine warriors but also his people both
of Judah and Israel followed him throughout his life, in spite
of his sins and weakness, and understands also how his skill
in war and diplomacy enabled him to build up out of a weak
group of jealous, quarrelsome, scattered tribes a united kingdom
which under his leadership grew into one of the great empires
of his day, it is easy to appreciate the tremendous power of
nobility and strength of character. In David's case the
good far out-tops the evil. In spite, too, of the pitiful suffering
of his later days and the regrets and pain which violations
of his conscience brought him, his life seems on the whole to
have yielded to him a surplus of satisfaction and happiness.
It was the joy of patriotic service and worthy achievement,
and these acts were remembered by the people long after his
personal faults and sins were forgotten. Centuries later they
continued to look for the advent of another anointed one who
would rule in the spirit and reproduce the glories of David's
reign. It has been said that one should so shape his life that his
last ten years shall be his best in influence, in achievement,
in happiness. Suggest changes in David's life that would have
promoted such a desirable result. Are you building your life
on such a plan? How far will such a plan consider one's
physical welfare? Mental culture? Moral habits? Religious
beliefs? Religious practices? Subjects for Further Study.
(1) Israel's Laws regarding Adultery. Kent, Israel's Laws and Legal
Precedents, pp. 109-111. *
(2) Compare the statesmanship of Daniel Webster and Abraham
Lincoln and judge how far moral integrity was a factor in determining
the fate of each. Tarbell, Life of Lincoln; Lodge, Life of Webster

Culture Without Religion 71
CHAPTER VI.
CULTURE WITHOUT RELIGION.
Solomon's Policy.— I Kgs. 2:13 — 1:6; 4:29-34; 5:1—8:66.
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. II, pp. 183-185, 187-192.
Croly, Chap. VI; Lowell, Chaps. XI, XII.
So the king gave command to Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and he
went out and struck Shimei down, and thus he died. So the kingdom
was brought completely under the control of Solomon. — I Kings 2: 46.
Now when Solomon was old, his heart was not perfect with Jehovah
his God. — I Kings 11: 4b.
Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. — Matt.
20: 27.
He who learns the rules of wisdom, without conforming to them in
his life, is like a man who labored in his fields, but did not sow. — Saadi.
Wisdom will never let us stand with any man or men on an unfriendly
footing. — Emerson.
'Tis not what man Does which exalts him, but what man Would do! —
Browning. I.
The Way in Which Solomon Became King.
It was of course natural that as David grew old there should
be strife among his sons as to which one should become his
successor. In those days, as we have already noted, the
eldest son was naturally the heir to the throne, although if
other sons showed superior ability, they were sometimes
chosen. It was recognized that the reigning king had the
privilege of nominating his successor, but in any event the
nomination was to be confirmed by the approval of the leaders
of the people either formally or informally.
David's eldest son Amnon had been murdered by Absalom
in revenge for the wrong done to Absalom's sister. Absalom
himself, the next in line, had. been slain in battle in revolt
against his father. The next in order was Adonijah, a man
described by the narrator as "an exceedingly good-looking
man." Apparently he was also a man of ambition and fond
of display. Counting upon the inactivity or good nature of
his father David, "he prepared for himself chariots, horsemen
and fifty men to run before him as runners,"and made it clear
to the people that he desired to be king. His father had never
questioned his acts and he did not expect that he would be

72 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
troubled now. He discussed his plans with Joab the leader
of the army and with Abiathar, one of the leading priests,
and won them over to his side. A certain strong group,
including the other chief priest, Zadok, Benaiah, the leader of
the king's bodyguard, the three famous heroes of David, and
Nathan the prophet, he could not persuade to espouse his
cause. They favored instead Solomon, his younger brother.
No justification is given for their preference of Solomon.
There is good reason to believe, however, that they considered
him the better man. His mother, Bathsheba, as we know
from other accounts, was a woman of ability and great per
suasive powers; and she probably had used her influence in
favor of her son, not only with the king, but also with these
leading men of the nation. Moreover, as later history shows,
Solomon himself was a most attractive personality and in all
probability a man of greater strength of mind and character
than his older brother.
As soon as Adonijah's plans became evident, Bathsheba
by the advice of Nathan laid the case before David. Doubtless
the emergency was critical. If Adonijah succeeded, Bathsheba
and Solomon and probably Nathan and the other leaders
opposed to Adonijah would lose their lives. Bathsheba's
appeal to David was successful. He had apparently earlier
promised that Solomon should succeed, and now he not only
confirmed the nomination but with all his old-time shrewdness
and skill he laid the plans by which Solomon should first be
seated on the throne and secure the approval of the people.
Evidently the personal rivalry of the different party leaders
had much to do with the selection. Joab and Benaiah were
rival leaders of different military bodies. Abiathar and
Zadok were rivals as priests. Nathan, who years before had
so boldly denounced David for his alliance with Bathsheba,
had apparently been won over by her, so that in any jealous
antagonism that must have existed between her and the other
wives of David's harem, the old prophet was on her side.
David's own promptness and skill and knowledge of his
people seem, nevertheless, to have been the decisive factor.
It was a recognized custom of the time for the king to nominate
his successor, and David clinched his nomination by having
Solomon actually seated on the royal ass, publicly proclaimed
as king, and approved by the people, while the good-looking

Culture Without Religion 73
Adonijah was wasting time in attempting to win over his
followers by personal display and by giving a feast.
How do you explain the act of Joab in supporting Adonijah
against the will of King David? Compare the plots of Adoni j ah
and Solomon with those of Huerta and Carranza and other
leaders in Mexico. Mention any similar practices in modern
European or Asiatic history. II.
Solomon's Machiavellianism.
Even Adonijah, when he saw how completely he had been
outwitted, promptly accepted Solomon as king. Knowing
that his life was in danger, he fled at once to the altar for pro
tection and appealed to Solomon for mercy. King Solomon
promised to spare him, provided he were thereafter to ''show
himself a worthy man."
Apparently, however, Adonijah did not reckon upon the
stern decision of Solomon's character, but ventured a little
later to tempt his kindness further. Solomon then hesitated
no longer. He showed all of the cold-blooded, calculating
sternness that Machiavelli recommends in his famous book
"The Prince." "The usurper of a state should commit all
the cruelties which his safety renders necessary at once, that
he may never have cause to repeat them; . . . matters of
severity should be finished at one blow. . . . When it is
necessary for a Prince to restrain his subjects within the bounds
of duty, he should not regard the imputation of cruelty. He
should not shrink from encountering some blame on account
of vices which are important to the support of his states.
I maintain that a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot
with impunity exercise all the virtues, because his own self-
preservation will often compel him to violate the laws of
charity, religion, and humanity."
The provocation for the first stroke was thus: Adonijah
persuaded Bathsheba to ask Solomon to give to him in marriage
Abishag, the beautiful young attendant of David. Inasmuch
as it was generally recognized in those days that the man who
took the concubines of the king was the king's successor, the
request was extremely bold, even though it was possibly
made with an innocent intent. Abishag had never been really
the concubine of King David, though nominally so, and it

74 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
was not unnatural for Adoni j ah to wish her for his wife. Never
theless he was familiar with the custom. Even his elder brother
Absalom in his revolt against his father, acting on the advice
of his priests, had entered the harem of King David and taken
his concubines as evidence of his succession to the throne.
Adonijah should have been wiser than to tempt the king,
but he promptly paid the penalty, for he was immediately put
to death. The life of Abiathar the priest was spared simply
because he had borne the ark of Jehovah before King David
and had shared all of David's trials, but he was deprived of
his priestly rank and banished to his private estate at Anathoth,
north of Jerusalem. Joab, who had been one of the leaders
of Adonijah's party, though he fled immediately to the altar
for sanctuary, was slain there by Benaiah, the leader of the
bodyguard, and the king placed Benaiah at the head of the
army in Joab's place. The killing of Joab, now an old man, who
had been the faithful, though at times the harsh and unruly
friend of David, seems merciless; but the king gave as explana
tion of his acts the fact that Joab had slain with his own hand
two men (Abner and Amasa) "more honorable than he"
without sufficient reason. And from the published accounts
most men would agree that those acts of Joab had not been
justifiable. A later account also states that King David
had himself recommended to Solomon that Joab's life be
taken. If this account is authentic, it remains an open ques
tion whether the dying king in a spirit of petty spitefulness
had turned against the man who had so often made him trouble
in earlier years, though always faithful, or whether he seriously
recognized that so long as Joab lived, King Solomon could
never depend upon his absolute loyalty on account of his
support of Adonijah. Whatever the reason may have been,
Solomon apparently determined to take no further chances
with any of his enemies. One after the other was removed,
apparently not in passion nor in fear, but coolly, deliberately,
after calm consideration, until he stood alone without a rival.
Do you approve or condemn Solomon's treatment of Adoni
jah? Of Joab? Is it likely that David urged that Joab be
slain? Why do you think so? Mention modern instances of
like character. Is the political overthrow of a rival by false
stories or insinuation against his character less blameworthy
than Solomon's method? Give illustrations of modern as-

Culture Without Religion 75
sassination or attempted ruin of reputation for political pur
poses. Ought a ruler's code of morals to differ from that of a
private citizen, as Machiavelli seems to teach?
III.
Solomon's Reputation for Wisdom.
There is no more attractive story in history of youthful
devotion and noble ambition than the account given of
Jehovah's appearance to Solomon in a dream in Gibeon.
The modest youth apparently realizing to the full the heavy
responsibilities resting upon him as heir to the great empire
of his father uttered the beautiful prayer, "Thou hast showed
to thy servant David my father, great kindness. And now,
Holy Jehovah, my God, thou hast made thy servant king
in the place of David my father, although I am but a child,
not knowing how to go out or to come in. Give thy servant,
therefore, an understanding mind to teach thy people, that
I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to judge
this thy great people?" Solomon received in full the answer
to his petition; but it is interesting to note the nature of the
oriental wisdom which he exhibited to so marked a degree that
he was considered by later Hebrew historians the wisest man
of all time. The oriental mind is traditionally given to
philosophical speculation, it delights in the solution of knotty
personal problems, it makes fine hair-splitting distinctions in
logical analysis: but, nevertheless, it is often found lacking in
practical sagacity when dealing with the every-day problems
of life.
Solomon doubtless had the "discerning mind," as is shown
by the illustrations given in the Bible. He could answer
promptly all the puzzling riddles of the Queen of Sheba. He
could analyze the motives of a jealous woman and readily
determine justice in individual cases; but in the deeper western
sense of the word, Solomon did not possess practical wisdom,
however penetrating his intellect or keen his insight.
Solomon was not farsighted in the affairs of his kingdom
as had been David his father. David knew that his kingdom
must rest upon the will and favor of his people, and through
his whole career in innumerable instances we see evidence
of this knowledge. He had a sound judgment in building

76 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
upon the feelings, even upon the prejudices of the Hebrews,
so as to weld together out of numerous jealous tribes one
people, united in a purposeful ambition and devotion both to
him and to the principles of Jehovah's rule for which he stood.
Solomon, on the other hand, seems to have had little regard
for either the feelings or the welfare of his people. He doubt
less pleased many of them by the artistic display of his wealth
and by rich ceremonial, but this was at the expense of
the comfort and personal welfare of the masses; and even
before his death, as we shall see, his nation had commenced
to call him to account. Moreover, he lacked good judgment
and tact in dealing with individual problems, when he himself
was not in a position of an absolute judge and dictator. More
than to anybody else he owed consideration to King Hiram
of Tyre, from whom he received much of the material out
of which he built the temple on Mount Zion, which made him
celebrated throughout the ancient Semitic world and which
helped him to unify his kingdom. Also it was by King Hiram's
advice and with his immediate help that he entered upon the
commercial plans that brought great wealth and display into
his kingdom. No other alliance had been so fruitful of good
either to himself or to King David, his father, as that with
Hiram; and yet, when the opportunity came for him to pay
his ally, instead of cementing this friendship, he aroused the
king's displeasure. Evidently in return for favors received
Solomon assigned to Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee;
but apparently he selected cities that were poor and not worthy
to be offered as such gifts, for when Hiram came from Tyre
to see them, he was displeased with them and gave them the
name which lasted for centuries "the land of Cabul (good for
nothing)." Apparently with a feeling of ironical contempt
he sent (Hebrew tradition asserts) still further to King Solomon
one hundred twenty talents of gold.
Solomon showed a certain ability in organizing the details of
administration, but he manifested also a vanity and love of
personal display combined with carelessness regarding the wel
fare of his people that amounted to the greatest folly. It is
questionable whether on the whole it would not be a more just
estimate of Solomon to call him, not the wisest, but the most
foolish of Israel's kings.
General Grant ranked low in his class at West Point. How

Culture Without Religion" 77
do you explain his remarkable success as a general? General
McClellan ranked high at West Point. How do you explain
his lack of success in the field?
Consider the early records of Bismarck, Gladstone, John
Quincy Adams, Jackson. What is the test of wisdom? What
are the main causes of greatness? Of the men named above
which most resembled Solomon? IV.
Solomon's Ideas of Religious Worship.
In the field of religion likewise Solomon fell far below the
wisdom and insight of the great prophets. His religious worship
was formal rather than spiritual. It had, too, a political aspect,
in that he made the great temple that he built at Jerusalem
one of the chief places of worship for the Hebrews, so that
not only his capital city was strengthened but also his cen
tralizing policy was furthered through having the eyes of all
the tribes turned toward Jerusalem as the great religious
center of the kingdom. He appreciated the political and
artistic elements in the worship of Jehovah; but he did not
appreciate the need of right personal living as the fundamental
characteristic of devout worship.
We speak much in these days of religious toleration. It is,
however, worth while to note the different meanings of tolera
tion. Solomon was doubtless tolerant. He was willing to have
his people subscribe to any and all beliefs. In his day, to be
sure, most peoples believed in numerous gods, each tribe,
often each clan, having its own separate divinity. But Jehovah
had become to the Israelites the one God most worthy of their
devotion and the one whose will, as they understood it, led
to the highest and noblest living. Solomon appeared to make
no distinction between the gods. He set up new sanctuaries
merely to please his foreign wives. He did not study the
varying moral ideals represented by the different gods or
forms of worship, nor did he even advocate the good repre
sented by each, but in sheer good-natured carelessness, or
more likely in order to facilitate his foreign alliances, he
said, "Let every one do as he will." It is beyond question that
the worship of Chemosh the god of Moab and of Ashtarte
the goddess of the Sidonians and that of many of the Canaanite

78 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
gods were attended with licentious practices that, while they
enticed and pleased, had still a corrupting influence upon
the morals of the people. But the worship of Jehovah, though
attended with bloody sacrifices that seem to us barbarous
relics of the crude anthropological conception of the deity,
was nevertheless in its total effect only uplifting and purifying
to morals. Solomon apparently made no distinction between
them and cared little for the moral effects of worship. In
fact a man whose chief delight was in the magnificence of his
court and "who was a lover of women" could not be expected
to have a keen moral sense.
The account given of Solomon's worship was of course
written after the event, and the writer in many instances
condemned Solomon far more bitterly than even the most
enlightened thinker of his day could have done. Yet even
in his own time the spiritually minded men, especially of the
tribe of Judah, who still retained the simpler beliefs and prac
tices of King David and his predecessor, condemned most
bitterly these practices, and were ready before Solomon's
death to stir up a conflict between the stricter followers of
Jehovah and the more cultured devotees of the gods of the
Canaanites. The prophet Ahijah before Solomon's death
predicted the division of the kingdom and the succession of
Jeroboam. Distinguish between the toleration of Solomon and that
of Jesus. Was Lincoln tolerant in political matters? Had
Lincoln been tolerant in politics in the same way that Solomon
was tolerant in religion, should we have today a united country?
Think out fully the reasons for your opinion. Define real
toleration, political and religious. Did Solomon's religious
toleration have a positive pofitical bearing?
V.
Church and State.
In any consideration of the history of the ancient Semitic
peoples we must recognize that there Was no division between
church and state. _ Every nation, even every tribe, had its
own separate deity. Every ruler of necessity worshiped
the deity of his people and promulgated his laws as the com
mands of the god. The wars that were fought between the

Culture Without Religion 79
different nations were looked upon as wars of the separate
gods, and when a victory was won, it was ascribed to the active
intercession of the nation's god and was accepted as a proof
that the victorious god was superior in skill and power to
the vanquished. In those circumstances it is evident that
there could be no distinction made between church and state,
between the administration of religious and of secular affairs.
Such a distinction is entirely a modern conception and a
modern practice.
Even in the middle ages and down to modern times the
division line between the religious and secular fields of human
activity is not clearly drawn. The greatest contest of the
middle ages in Europe was that between the so-called spiritual
power of the popes and the temporal power of the kings; and
as we know, the power of the most ambitious and most suc
cessful of the spiritual rulers was based on their assumption
of the right to interfere in temporal affairs. Even the tem
poral rulers received their kingdoms with the consent of the
pope. This head of the church claimed the right to absolve
from their allegiance the subjects of any king whose acts he
declared contrary to the laws of God. When King Henry
IV was kept waiting for three days bareheaded and barefooted
at the palace gates at Canossa before the haughty Pope Gregory
would admit him to make his confession of wrong doing and
his submission to the dominant, not to say domineering religious
potentate, he recognized, it is true, a distinction between the
spiritual and temporal realms that could not have been recog
nized by King David or King Solomon, but he still was com
pelled to feel most keenly a relationship between the two
that no longer exists. The personal ambitions and desires,
the growing economic and military strength of the kings
and, most of all, the growth of personal independence of the
people in thought and act that followed the invention of
printing and the Protestant Reformation, carrying out the
individualistic and social teachings of the New Testament,
brought about the separation of the two spheres of personal
activity. The effective motives, as for example in the case
of King Henry VIII of England, were not always the highest;
but in the case of most religious leaders and of the leading
religious and philosophical thinkers only the welfare of humanity
was sought.

80 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
Today in Russia where the Czar from his official position
is the nominal head of the established church, in Greece and
Spain and other countries where a similar church organization
still remains, and even in England where with the utmost liberal
ity of religious toleration in thought and act the appointment
to all positions of religious control and church worship in the
established church remains in the hands of the government,
we still find remaining a relic of the old absolute union that
existed in ancient days. Throughout the centuries since the
Protestant Reformation, however, the tendency toward separa
tion has been steadily strengthened, until at the present time in
all countries among the so-called non-conformist denominations
and in some, like the United States, with all denominations,
the separation has become complete, apparently to the moral
and religious benefit of both state and church.
This formal separation between the political and religious
organizations does not imply any fundamental separation
between the two fields of religion and politics. In the church
there should be carried out the form of governmental organiza
tion that is best suited to the needs and effective work of the
members of the religious body concerned, and in the state
all the officials of whatever degree should be actuated by the
principles of righteousness and by an unselfish devotion to the
welfare of humanity that characterizes the teachings and to a
continually increasing degree throughout the civilized world
marks the practices of the refigious leaders of all churches
of whatever faith.
Is the appointment of Thanksgiving Day by the President
of the United States a political or a refigious function? In
some of the American colonies only church members were
allowed to vote on governmental questions. Was this a union
of church and state? What are some of the arguments for
and against dividing the public school funds among religious
denominations and then giving them control of the schools?
VI.
The Trend of Modern Civilization.
It has already been intimated that King Solomon with all
of his magnificent personal ability must still be counted a
failure in the political field, because he failed to recognize

Culture Without Religion 81
the rights of the individual citizens in his kingdom and in
consequence was dwarfing rather than strengthening the
personal development of his subjects; for every government
may well be tested by the tendency toward an increasing of
the welfare — economic, intellectual and moral — of the great
mass of the people.
In modern times there has been a rapid development in the
spirit of refigious freedom and toleration — with here and
there a rare exception — among civilized peoples. The in
dividual is now at liberty to speak and even to act as he will
on religious matters. Wherever there is a distinct separation
between church and state and especially where there is a
large degree of individual initiative left to the citizen, this
toleration becomes easy. In Switzerland, for example, under
the federal form of government, we find Roman Catholics
and, Protestants of various denominations living in harmony,
because the central government does not interfere with refigious
questions and no citizen is compelled to pay taxes for the
support of any church to which he does not belong, though
in some of the cantons the schools are placed under the direc
tion of the churches and the clergy are supported by public
funds. We find also in Switzerland different nationalities,
Italians, French, Germans (even in many cases they do not
understand one another's language) living in harmony, because
the central government does not interfere with local affairs.
The representatives from the separate cantons, that deal with
federal matters of common interest, can either speak and
understand one another's language or the official interpreter
makes clear whatever points are not readily understood.
The tendency of the times is clearly toward the greatest tolera
tion, the weakening of formalism, and the strengthening of
the influence of religion upon man's moral acts.
There was seen in Solomon's reign a great increase of wealth
and of luxury in the nation. In ancient Palestine, however,
the increasing wealth was not widely distributed among the
people. It was invested largely in public buildings, in magnifi
cent royal robes, precious jewels and other articles for dis
play, and in luxurious — often licentious — living for the king
and the court, and was not devoted to increasing the comfort
of the common people. Indeed, as the court increased in
magnificence, heavier burdens were laid upon the people.

82 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
While the king and the courtiers and their associates and visi
tors lived in the midst of luxury, the common people dwelt
in little mud huts in abject poverty, many of them in a state
of slavery amidst conditions worse than in the days of his
father David and with the degree of wretchedness steadily
on the increase. The revolt following Solomon's death was
based upon the demand for greater freedom and greater com
fort for the people. There is fortunately a clearly defined
tendency in modern times, with the rapidly growing wealth
that comes from modern inventions and improved methods
of business, for the people to demand a larger share in the
increasing wealth. Sometimes this demand is granted; often
it is at first refused; but its validity is being more and more
generally recognized. Danger comes indeed, as many examples
in history show, from the increase of luxury in any community,
but the improvement in the standard of living will do not
harm but good, provided the general level of comfort in the
community rises and luxury is not retained as the perquisite
of a few rich people, but within the limits of reason and justice
is distributed widely among the people. This is a normal
result of the teaching of the purest and best religion, as well
as of democracy.
We have already noted that Solomon's efforts toward despot
ism eventually led through revolt toward democracy. There
can be no doubt that the scientific thinkers on politics since
Solomon's day, as shown by Aristotle in the fourth century
before Christ, have clearly recognized that tyranny leads
ultimately toward democracy. Aristotle also taught, as have
writers since his day, that there may be a tyranny of the people;
that a democracy in which the citizens do not exhibit self-
control and show no desire to do justice to all certainly leads
to an ignorant and vicious oppression of certain classes which
likewise at times brings about the rule of one who becomes
a despot. The course of history seems to have shown this
truth also; and in consequence there is reason to believe that
the people are thus becoming through experience in political
affairs, as well as in refigious affairs, more tolerant and more
ready to grant to one another the rights that each demands.
Can one trace in modern Germany the development of the
principles just laid down regarding either religious toleration
or luxury or democracy? Can one trace these principles in

The Fundamental Importance of a Right Financial Policy 83
modern Russia any less? Give an illustration of oppression
by the people or their representatives that has led to a benevo
lent despotism. Can we infer from the form of government
whether it will be despotic or democratic in spirit?
Subjects for Further Study.
(1) Ancient Egyptian Wisdom. Wisdom of the East Series, The
Instruction of Ptah-hotep; Breasted, Egyptian Records, Vol. I, 230, 231.
(2) Study carefully the history of religious oppression and religious
freedom in the Colonies of Massachusetts Bay and Rhode Island, and
1 compare the conditions there with those under the rule of Solomon. Lodge,
English Colonies in America; Frothingham, The Rise of the American
Republic.

CHAPTER VII.
THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF A RIGHT
FINANCIAL POLICY.
Solomon's System of Revenue and Expenditure.
— I Kgs. 4:7-28; 9:10—11:40
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. II, pp. 186, 201-208.
Croly, Chap. VII; Lowell, Chap. XIII.
And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided food for
the Icing and his household: each man had to make provision for a month
in the year. — / Kings 4- 7.
Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hun
dred and sixty-six talents of gold, besides what came from the traffic of
the merchants and from all the kings of the Arabians and from the gov
ernors of the country. — / Kings 10: 14, IB.
The king shall not take many wives for himself, lest his heart turn
away; nor shall he collect for himself great quantities of silver and gold. —
Deut. 17: 16b, 17. Of all the evils that infest the state,
The tyrant is the greatest: there the laws
Hold not one common tenor; his sole will
Commands the laws, and lords it over them. — Euripides.
The prince who
Neglects or violates his trust is more
A brigand than the robber chief. — Byron.
I.
The Object and Right of Taxation.
Some of the so-called scientific anarchists of the present
day, recognizing too keenly certain weaknesses that are found

84 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
in most governments, teach that we should abolish all govern
ments and that matters of common interest should be regulated
by voluntary organizations of groups of people interested who
have agreed upon their rules of action. Others say that,
although this is not practical because many individuals are
selfish, still if we should ever reach a stage of moral excellence
in which each individual exemplifies the Christian principle
of unselfishness, government would no longer be necessary,
since each would care for others. Is it not evident, however,
that, even though each individual were absolutely unselfish,
if each were also intelligent, independent in judgment, and
ready to take upon himself the responsibility for his acts,
there would still be a difference in conscientious judgments
which would lead to conflicts that in some way must be settled?
However unselfish a man might be, his conscience would
compel him to insist upon what he believed to be for the welfare
of others, even though he might meet many differing opinions.
On this account it becomes clearly evident that, in all countries,
under all beliefs, at all times, there must be some form of
government with authority to compel action if need be. As
population increases, civilization develops, invention multiplies,
fife becomes more and more complex and the need of regula
tion becomes continually greater, it is found more expedient
and best for all the people to delegate certain functions of
regulation and action to a committee who shall carry them
out for the benefit of the whole. Thus government is estab
lished to formulate and enforce the rules of action that become
necessary. Men who give their time in this way to promote the welfare
of the community must be supported; and thus in the most
natural manner the need for taxation arises.
It has been sometimes asserted that people should pay
taxes in proportion to the services rendered them by the
government. In a few special cases, as for example in sending
letters through the post office, the service rendered can in a
general way be measured so that this plan is adopted. Gene
rally speaking, however, such measurement of service is im
possible. While a rich man has more property to be protected
by the government than has the poor man, he is better able
to hire protection than is a poor man, so that it may well be
argued that the poor man has the greater need and that the

The Fundamental Importance of a Right Financial Policy 85
service rendered him is correspondingly greater. The fact
is that in all civilized countries practically every one of our
activities is controlled by the government and therefore govern
ment is to each one a matter of superlative importance. Even
before a child is born it has a legal status and rights that have
been determined by governmental act. Every business con
tract made of whatever nature has its sanction and its enforce
ment through the government. Peace and safety in the
community, the health of the inhabitants, many of the con
veniences of their lives are either directly guaranteed or sup
ported by the government. Even the conditions of one's
death and burial are to a large degree prescribed. Every
man owes practically all the benefits of civilization to his
government and the government has the right in case of need,
and it frequently exercises the power, to call for any sacrifice,
even for that of life, from its citizens. All of the leading
authorities, therefore, on taxation have reached the general
conclusion that people should pay taxes, not in proportion to
the benefits received from the government, as they cannot
be measured, but rather in proportion to their ability to pay.
The methods of determining the amount payable naturally
must vary in different countries and under different conditions
dependent upon economic considerations, on the form of govern
ment, and equally upon the intelligence and skill of the law
makers and of the citizens. Taxes should be payable always
in the ways and at the times most convenient for the
people, and only in cases of the most extreme necessity
should they be levied so as to lessen at all the productive
forces of the country. Moreover, as government exists for
the good of the governed, no taxes whatever are justified
unless they are to be expended for the good of the people.
Any tax levied for the mere satisfaction of a ruler without
regard to tne welfare of his people is not justified; but any
tax or any burden that is fitted to promote the general welfare
may, at the discretion of the government properly established
by the people, be laid upon them. It is lack of recognition of
what we owe to the government and of the patriotic sacrifices
that each one can well afford to make, which leads so many
short-sighted and selfish individuals to avoid taxation and to
attempt to escape payment of their proper share.
On what ground do you justify taxation for the support

86 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
of public schools? Of a public library? Of a public art gallery?
Of a pubfic opera house? Of a public dance hall? Is it wise
and fitting to use rooms in public school buildings for dances
and plays? Is a person ever justified in refusing to pay a
tax that he thinks unwise? Would a believer in free trade be
any more justified in smuggling than a believer in a protective
tariff? Why do many people attempt to conceal their property
from the tax assessors in order to escape taxation?
II.
Solomon's Needs for Revenue.
Solomon of course had the normal needs for the support
of government officials that his father David had and that all
rulers find necessary. In addition thereto, however, there
were many special expenditures made by Solomon, some of
which were doubtless beneficial, others of questionable need
or advantage. Solomon strengthened the fortifications of
Jerusalem and improved decidedly its strength as a military
post and its advantages as a social and religious center. Be
sides strengthening Jerusalem he also built fortresses in different
parts of his kingdom at Hazor and Megiddo in the north,
Baalath, Gezer and Bethhoron in the west, over against the
Philistines, at Tamar in the south, and storehouses and
cities elsewhere. So far as these fortresses were needed as a
defense against foreign tribes and nations there was ample
justification for the wealth expended upon them. It seems
probable, however, that these fortified places were used in
part, at any rate toward the close of his reign, in order to
strengthen his hands in enforcing compulsory labor upon his
people by which many thousands of them became practically
public slaves with no individual rights of their own, and also
to enable him better to suppress any revolt caused by his
tyrannical policy. So far as the fortresses were desired to
suppress the aspirations of his own people for freedom and
a voice in the government the expenditures were not justifiable.
Later tradition states that David had planned to build
for the ark of the covenant, which had remained on Mount Zion
in a tent, a temple suitable for the housing of so sacred a
memorial of Jehovah's covenant with his people; but he had
to content himself with collecting materials for its construe-

The Fundamental Importance of a Right Financial Policy 87
tion. Solomon carried out this plan on a scale that seemed
most magnificent to his subjects, although the temple as
compared with our modern buildings was not large. It
was a little over ninety feet long, thirty feet broad and
forty-five feet in height. It was nevertheless planned in
beautiful proportions and was decorated with an elaborate
richness and splendor that certainly had never before been
equalled in Palestine. One might well apply to it the saying
applied centuries later to the Taj Mahal, the magnificent
mausoleum erected at Agra, in India, by the Grand Mogul
Shah Jehan in loving memory of his favorite wife Mumtaz-y-
Mahal, "It was planned by Titans and finished by jewelers."
Evidently the priests who later gave us in the sixth chapter
of I Kings the detailed account of the temple and its furnishings,
believed it was wise and proper for Solomon to expend vast
sums upon the temple erected in honor of Jehovah the God
of Israel. It is indeed probable that the conditions were such
in Jerusalem at that day that this relatively large expenditure
for the worship of Jehovah was fully justified, although under
the different conditions of modern times many of the noblest
religious thinkers would believe that at least part of that
outlay might better have been devoted to promoting the
personal comfort and welfare of the people.
However well the expenditure upon the temple may be
justified, most thoughtful students of politics would agree
that the enormous sums expended upon the building of Solo
mon's palace and the apartments erected for the satisfaction
and pleasure of his Egyptian queen and his numerous wives
and concubines could have no such justification.
Are churches ever tempted to expend wealth on buildings
that might better be spent on "social work"? On what
principle ought a church to regulate its expenditures? Is
there danger that a modern government will spend too much
for public buildings? Would you favor an increase or a de
crease in the salary of the President of the United States?
Of our ambassadors abroad? Why? Does the building of
fortresses by Solomon throw any light on the problem of our
military expenditures? Give reasons.

88 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
III.
Solomon's Sources of Revenue.
During much of his reign, especially the earlier part, Solomon
must have received large revenues from tributes paid by con
quered tribes and peoples whom King David had subdued.
We have no record of the amounts thus received; but from
the accounts given of his other revenues this source was prob
ably only of minor importance.
In building the temple and his palaces Solomon made an
agreement with Hiram, king of Tyre, by which the latter
furnished cypress timber for his buildings, Solomon paying
therefor in wheat and olive oil. To carry out his building
schemes Solomon raised a forced levy of thirty thousand
men, besides seventy thousand burden bearers and eighty
thousand hewers of stone in the mountains together with
officers and superintendents. An onerous burden was thus
imposed upon his people that could be justified by only the
greatest necessity or for a satisfaction common to all his people.
The same inexcusable and short-sighted extravagance is
shown in the way in which he carried on his commercial under
takings. David had extended the kingdom to the eastern
arm of the Red Sea, so that there was an outlet by water to
the Indian Ocean and the lands beyond. With the assistance
of King Hiram, many of whose subjects were seamen with
knowledge of the commercial water routes, Solomon built a
fleet of ships on the Red Sea and sent them to Ophir (probably
in India, perhaps some port of eastern Arabia, or possibly
East Africa) from which he imported gold, silver and ivory,
and also large quantities of red sandalwood and precious
stones, together with apes and peacocks and other objects of
luxury and display from the distant Orient. On account
of the splendors of his court many other rulers came from
distant lands to visit him, bringing with them presents of all
kinds, so that his wealth was thereby increased. These were,
of course, all sources of revenue; but it is to be noted in these
latter cases that the imports into his kingdom were such as would
add to the magnificence of his position as a ruler, but not to the
comfort or welfare or commercial strength of his people.
In one or two lines, however, it is evident that Solomon and
his advisers had the true commercial spirit. He imported

The Fundamental Importance of a Right Financial Policy 89
horses from Mucri and Kue and sold them again at a large
profit to the kings of the Hittites and the Arameans; and it
is entirely possible that it was wise in those days for the govern
ment to engage directly in a commercial enterprise of this
kind to a degree that would not be wise and profitable now.
This is the only reference to a foreign trade that was profitable
to the people, and there is no evidence that even this profit
lessened in any way the burdens laid upon them. It all depends
upon the use made of the surplus revenue.
A large part of Solomon's building enterprises, as we
have seen, did not benefit his people directly nor add to the
comfort of their lives, while, with the possible exception
of the building of the temple and the trading in horses, all of
the rest of the commerce mentioned and the expenditures
of which any account is given served simply to add to the
burdens of his people while gratifying his own personal ex
travagance and his luxurious and licentious tastes. It should
be noted that most of this revenue, whether wheat or oil or
labor, was probably levied as a direct tax upon his people and
was payable in kind, as is customary now in India and. Egypt
and Java and other oriental countries. It is doubtful, how
ever, if it was levied justly in proportion to the income of
the wheat and oil growers, as is done strictly in the modern
cases mentioned. It is more probable that the products were
taken with little regard for an easy adjustment of burdens,
while the levy of forced labor of course fell upon the poorer
classes so heavily as practically to reduce them to slavery.
IV.
The Effects of Solomon's Policy upon Economic
Conditions.
We have already noted that the chief sources of revenue
that Solomon employed were direct levies of labor and food,
although some profit was also made from commerce, and doubt
less numerous gifts added to his revenues. His father, King
David, had extended the bounds of his kingdom by conquests
and had greatly added to his revenues by securing the tributes
paid to him by the subject tribes. Some of these tributes
were still continued throughout the reign of Solomon, but as
is related in the eleventh chapter of I Kings, before the end

90 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
of his reign a series of revolts broke out which must have
deprived him of large revenues. All of these defections naturally
increased the burdens which Solomon laid upon the Israelites,
for he was determined to gratify his extravagant tastes to the
utmost and apparently in his short-sightedness or his selfish
recklessness took little heed of the distant future.
The consequence of this short-sighted policy was that the
king, who had the reputation of being the wisest man of his
age in uttering maxims, in solving riddles, in rendering judg
ment in minor individual cases, by producing lavish enter
tainments, and by gratifying the artistic tastes of the wealthy,
was steadily impoverishing his kingdom and laying burdens
upon his people that were becoming more and more intolerable.
Inasmuch as his subjects were a pastoral and agricultural
people and were not in a position themselves to market their
products readily, it is probable that the payment of the levies
in kind was entirely satisfactory, so far as they were levied
justly and proportionately. The chief objection to this part
of his taxing system was the amount demanded and probably
also the injustice of the distribution of the burden, although
of that we have no definite account.
The same comment may be made regarding the economic
effect of forced labor. In early stages of society, where there
is little agriculture and practically no manufacturing and
few commercial enterprises, a reasonable amount of forced
labor is not objectionable. It is retained to a small extent in
the United States and France and takes the form of labor on
public roads. In many cases the inhabitants are compelled,
not only to work upon roads, but also to perform personal
services for the rulers, as was earlier the case in the Philippines,
or to act as night policemen and day patrol, as is common today
in Java and Burmah. Whatever the nature of the work, if
not too much is demanded, it is often the easiest way in
which taxes can be paid. In the case of Solomon, however,
it is clear that the numbers levied and the amount of their
time taken were so large that it must have affected most
unfavorably the actual productive work of the ldngdom.
Moreover the labor required was, as we have seen, not neces
sary for the comfort of the people, nor did it tend to increase
the capital of the kingdom.
Even the revenue from gifts was doubtless paid for by even

The Fundamental Importance of a Right Financial Policy 91
more magnificent presents from Solomon, so that instead of
a source of permanent gain, the visits of generous rulers were
a source of actual loss. And as the gains in territory made
by his father were not increased by Solomon, the revenue
from those conquests were gradually and, toward the close
of his reign, rapidly becoming less. The people must, there
fore, have felt keenly the increase of burdens and their growing
poverty. Some people have claimed that certain taxes, like a protective
tariff, impose no burden upon the people. In what cases is
this true? One of the Malay states whose production of tin
is so large that it has a certain monopoly therein levies an
export duty on tin. Who bears the burden of that tax, the
residents of that country or the foreign consumers of tin?
Who bears the burden of the export duty on Manila hemp,
the Filipino producers or the consumers of rope? How about
the United States tariff on tin plate? On potatoes, eggs,
wine? Was Solomon able to make foreigners bear the burden
of any of his revenues? V.
Effects upon the Political Situation.
All of these results of this wisest king's most foolish policy
could have only a very seriously detrimental political effect.
In the earlier days of David, the people had a voice in deter
mining their own political policy. The need for individual
self-reliance in defending themselves against the perils of the
desert and the wilderness had made them independent in
spirit. The continual warfare against the desert peoples
and the hostile Philistines had made them resourceful, thought
ful warriors; and the Jewish people have never at any stage of
their history, even in its early days, been lacking in intellectual
independence and self-reliance. The tyrannical policy of
Solomon, therefore, with its most burdensome economic effects,
raised against him the feelings of the multitude leading, as
we have seen, to revolutions among the outlying nations that
had been conquered by David and finally, near the close of
his reign, to a rebellion on the part of two of the tribes.
Jeroboam was a man of ability and authority selected by
Solomon himself to be placed in charge of the forced labor
employed in building the royal palace at Jerusalem, and a

92 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
man who would hardly have led a revolt without good excuse.
This uprising was unsuccessful, but it is a clear evidence of
the justice of the complaints of the northern districts that
revolted that Jeroboam was encouraged in his acts by Abijah,
the prophet of Shiloh, one of the enfightened prophets who saw
in Solomon's policy a menace to true religion.
Is economic oppression likely to lead to pofitical revolu
tion? How far were the causes of the American revolution
economic? Of the French revolution? Of the rebellion of the
Southern States? VI.
The Citizen's Attitude toward Taxation.
It has already been intimated in Section I, that, inasmuch as
government is a necessity and a wise government a benefit, taxa
tion is fully justified. The only question regarding it that can
properly be raised by the citizens is concerning the justice of
the government's tax policy, its direction, and the amount to
be levied. The nature of the tax policy must be determined
by the stage of civilization and the conditions under which the
people are living. Usually the policy is to a great extent
determined also by the wisdom or ignorance of the government.
Solomon's case demands careful study of the possible methods,
as well as of those employed.
The question of the direction in which the money is to be
spent is also a matter of vital importance, as well as the amount
to be levied. Every citizen has not only a right to inquire
regarding the nature and amount of the tax that he shall pay,
but in a self-governing country, inasmuch as injustice is often
wrought through taxation, it is a recognized duty of the in
dividual citizen to inquire also regarding expenditures. A
clear distinction should be kept in mind between the nature
of expenditures of private individuals and those of the state.
A private individual should and must adapt his expenditures
to his income. The state, on the other hand, determines
first what expenditures it is wise to make, then adapts its
income by means of compulsory taxation to cover its ex
penditures. The only sound policy for a government to
follow, therefore, is to prepare in advance, as is usual in most
civilized countries, an annual budget, naming, first the proper
expenditure, thus fixing the amount of revenue to be raised,

The Expression of the Will of the People 93
then determining the best and least burdensome ways to raise
the sums needed. In all modern progressive governments
this budget must be fully explained to the people or their
representatives, and must receive their approval before the taxes
are levied. Usually the budget is one of the important, fre
quently the most important subject discussed by the legis
lature. It is always subjected to severe criticism. Evidently
Solomon did not depend upon a budgetary system that had
passed the criticism of the representatives of the people.
When is a man justified in "swearing off" his taxes? Can
a taxpayer sometimes shift the burden of his tax upon another?
Give examples. Do you consider this practice right and
just? Under what circumstances and how far?
Subjects for Further Study.
(1) Hebrew Systems of Taxation and Tribute. Encyclopedia Biblica,
IV, pp. 4905-4916.
(2) Examine the last financial report of the State in which you live,
or that of your city, noting the sources of revenue and the main items of
expenditure. Compare these with Solomon's sources of revenue and
objects of expenditure from the viewpoint of the welfare of the common
people.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE EXPRESSION OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
The Division of the Hebrew Kingdom. — I Kgs. 12.
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Yol. Ill {Kings and Prophets of Israel and Judah)
pp. 1-7.
Croly, Chap. VIII; Lowell, Chap. XIV.
And they said to Rehoboam, Your father made our yoke intolerable.
Now therefore make the intolerable service of your father and the heavy
yoke he laid upon us lighter, and we will serve you. — I Kings 12: 7.
And when all Israel saw that the king gave no heed to them, the people
answered the king, saying,
What share have we in David?
We have no claim in the son of Jesse!
To your tents, O Israel!
Now care for your own house, O David! — / Kings 12: 16.

94 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
Statesmanship would be out to meet a crisis before it had become
acute. The thing it would emphatically not do is to dam up an insurgent
current until it overflowed the countryside. — Lippmann.
Tyranny
Absolves all faith; and who invades our rights,
Howe'er his own commence, can never be
But an usurper. — Brooke.
When private men shall act with original views, the lustre will be trans
ferred from the actions of kings to those of gentlemen. — Emerson.

The Demands of the Northern Tribes.
Nowhere in ancient literature and history is the issue between
despotic tyranny and democracy more clearly presented than
in the twelfth chapter of I Kings. It is a memorable chapter
from its bearing upon the age-long contest between designing
selfish rulers and their subjects. It describes in simplest
terms that for which the common people in the French Revolu
tion were wildly groping, that which our revolutionary fathers
demanded from King George, that for which the English
House of Commons has been successfully contending, that
which the Social Democratic party of Germany proposes to
wrest by force, if need be, from the government which they
have considered a military autocracy, and that which the
citizens of our American cities are beginning to recover from
the greedy hands of political bosses. The tribes assembled
at the ancient city of Shechem demanded that the man whom
they called to lead and represent them should be their servant,
not their irresponsible master. No befogging theories about
the divine rights of self-constituted kings blinded the vision
of the practical, intrepid elders of Northern Israel. Hard
experience had taught them on the one hand their need of a
ruler who would bind them together in a common defense
against their foes; on the other how intolerable were the burdens
of irresponsible despotism. Their ideal was not hazy and
impracticable, but absolutely concrete and definite, for David's
policy as a ruler in his earlier years was the embodiment of
that for which they were contending and Solomon's of that
which they were absolutely repudiating.
The demand of the elders also assumed that the institution
of the kingship was based on an implied or definitely expressed
contract or covenant between the ruler and those ruled. What

The Expression of the Will of the People 95
they demanded was a magna charta, definitely expressed in
words, if not in writing. In modern terms they were seeking
to establish a limited, constitutional monarchy. Moreover,
the men who formulated these demands were not a few revolu
tionary iconoclasts, but the elders of the nation, the official
representatives of at least three-fourths of the population and
area of Israel. Their method of procedure was determined,
but law-abiding and strictly constitutional. The memorable
gathering at Shechem has sometimes been characterized as
a rebellion. As a matter of fact it may be more truly described
as the first constitutional assembly of which we have any record
in human history. The institution of the kingship was still
new among the Hebrews. As has been noted, it was the out
growth of the older office of tribal sheik, which was in many
respects most democratic. The law of succession was uncertain
and the right of primogeniture by no means firmly established,
as is shown by the ambitious contentions of David's sons and
by the fact that his eldest, Adonijah, did not actually succeed
him. The two determining factors appear to have been the
nomination of the dying king and the popular acceptance of
this choice by the people. Even though Solomon was the
choice of David and had the support of a strong group in the
court, including the royal guard, he did not become king until
he was publicly presented to the people and accepted by them
as their new ruler. Undoubtedly Rehoboam was Solomon's
nominee, and this nomination probably had the tacit, possibly
the public, approval of the people of Jerusalem, but he could
not become the legitimate and established king of all Israel
until he had the approval of a majority of the tribes. Before
giving that approval, they were entirely justified in requiring
definite assurances that Rehoboam would rule in accord with
the oldest and best traditions of the Hebrew kingship.
Was a popular assembly like that recorded in I Kings 12
possible or conceivable in ancient Egypt or Babylonia? If not,
why not? Do you recall any earlier attempt (that is, before
937 b.c.) in human history to establish a constitutional or
limited monarchy? In what respects does a constitutional
monarchy differ from a republic? Is the freedom of the people
materially less?

96 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
II.
The Folly of Denying the People Their Rights.
The legality of the demand of the elders of Israel is demon
strated by the fact that Rehoboam went with his court and
counsellors to Shechem to treat with the popular leaders of
the nation. A great opportunity was then offered him to
cement the varied and discontented elements in the Hebrew
Empire and to lay a solid foundation for his rule over united
Israel, for the people declared that they were ready to give
him loyal service in return for fair treatment. The fires of
tribal jealousy appear for the time to have been smothered.
Never was a fairer demand made of a ruler. Evidently Reho
boam was deeply impressed with its fairness. Is it possible that
at first the noble ideals inherited from his grandfather David
mastered him and that he had a glorious vision of a contented,
united Israel? At least it is clear that he was deeply impressed
with the importance of the decision which he was called upon
to make, for he demanded three days to consider it. In so
doing he tacitly recognized the propriety of the people's action
and gave them encouragement that the reply would be favorable.
The Biblical historian with marvelous skill has carried us
back to that early age and by means of his dramatic record made
us eye-witnesses and auditors at this fateful moment in Israel's
life. We hear Rehoboam's voice as he asked the advice of
the old men, who had sat in the council chamber of bis father
Solomon and learned lessons from his mistakes, but who had
been bred in the camp and court of the patriotic David, the
king that had come from the ranks and loved his people more
than he did himself. Their words apply equally well to any
young ruler facing his responsibilities of office: "If now you
will be a servant to this people and serve them, and give them
a favorable answer, then they will be your servants forever."
These words embody a fundamental principle of life, which
the great prophet who wrote Isaiah 40-53 and Jesus were destined
to make central in all their teachings. If Rehoboam had
only had a larger vision and experience of fife, he would have
been able to appreciate the eminent wisdom of this counsel;
but with the self-sufficiency of a youth reared in a false environ
ment he rejected it. Pride and selfishness inclined him to
the counsels of the young men, who, fike himself, had been

The Expression of the Will of the People 97
born and reared in the glittering, superficial, pleasure-loving
court of Solomon. The issue was clear-cut and Rehoboam and
his counsellors so interpreted it. It was the conciliatory,
democratic policy of David and the popular party versus the
autocratic despotism of Solomon and the military party. The
demand of the people was too simple and direct and the Tight
ness of their cause too obvious for compromise between these
two antithetic policies. Rehoboam, fike many a king before
and after him, chose the policy that promised to satisfy his
own selfish ambition and turned a deaf ear to the voice of his
people. By dire threats he sought to silence that voice. "If
you found my father a hard taskmaster, you will find me a
merciless tyrant," was his tactless, shameless reply to the demand
that he grant the people their rights. The event quickly
demonstrated the superlative folly of his policy.
Is the counsel of the old men always the wisest? What
advantages does it possess? What influences often vitiate
the counsel of those of mature years? In what fields of thought
and action are the conclusions and counsels of youth of especial
value? What have youth and old age each to contribute
to the other? Is the present tendency to disregard the counsels
of mature experience perilous?
Was Rehoboam the victim of wrong counsel or of his own
deliberate selfishness? Cite other historic illustrations of
rulers who have deliberately refused to grant the people their
rights. In what respects, if any, did Rehoboam's attitude
toward society differ from that of a highway robber?
III.
The Political Effect of the Division.
In its effects, not only upon him but upon his race, Reho
boam's decision was one of the most momentous ever made by
a Hebrew ruler. For him it meant the immediate loss of two-
thirds of the empire that might have been his, and fully three-
fourths of the arable land and therefore of the income inherited
from his father. It left him master simply of a little, barren
upland principality that was speedily overrun and stripped
of its inherited resources by the plundering Egyptian King
Shishak. The direst effect of all was the heritage of civil
war between Judah and Northern Israel which constantly

98 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
weakened the strength of the two kingdoms and rendered
them an easy prey for the Assyrian and Babylonian conquerors,
when they later set out to take possession of southwestern
Asia. One direct effect of the division upon Northern Israel
was the establishment of a series of mifitary dynasties, which
depended upon the sword for their authority and which fell
in a welter of bloodshed the moment a stronger rival appeared.
The result is that Northern Israel's history is stained by a
series of royal assassinations that weakened both the resisting
power and the patriotism of the people of the north.
The division also intensified the old rivalry between the
north and the south, which David sought so earnestly and
successfully to allay. So intense did it become in the centuries
following Rehoboam's disastrous decision that it survived the
Babylonian exile and reappeared in the bitter Samaritan feud
which burned far down into the Roman period. The cry
of the representatives of the northern tribes at Shechem:
"What claim have we in David?
We have no claim in the son of Jesse!"
not only separated the Hebrew tribes, but also hastened the
fall of Samaria in 722 and of Jerusalem in 586 b.c. More
disastrous still in bringing about the exile of the Jewish race
was that lack of harmony and mutual confidence between
rulers and those ruled which was voiced in the demands of
the people at Shechem and intensified by the brutal words of
Rehoboam. Thus for the Hebrews, as for many other nations,
disunion in the end meant subjection.
Picture what might have been the political history of united
Israel if Rehoboam had sought to serve rather than to enslave
his people. Would Israel's permanent integrity have been as
sured if the northern tribes had submitted at Shechem to Re
hoboam's tyrannical demands? Are lasting peace and pros
perity possible under a despotism? Are the political power
and prestige of a powerful state essential to the welfare of a
people? Compare the relative prosperity of the average
citizen of England or Germany and of Switzerland or Holland.
IV.
The Social and Religious Effects of the Division.
The decision of the people at Shechem meant political
disaster for the Hebrew race, but it was not lacking in positive

The Expression of the Will of the People 99
values for them and for humanity. It was a dramatic declara
tion that the object of all government is the conservation of
the rights of the people. It committed a large majority of
the Israelites to relentless opposition to the despotic misuse
of political power. Has this been in general the attitude of
the Jews throughout the centuries? Cite present-day illus
trations in Europe and America.
The northern tribes placed at their head a certain Jeroboam
who came from the ranks and who had gained their confidence
by his brave and determined opposition to the oppressive
policy of Solomon. In every sense the action of the ten tribes
was a democratic movement. Jeroboam I bore the current
title king, but he was as much the choice of the people as
George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. The exigencies of
the situation made it necessary to establish a military organiza
tion in Northern Israel, and certain of the later kings yielded
to the temptation of attempting to exercise despotic powers,
but the relentless judgment that was visited upon such of
fenders showed how firmly democratic ideals were established
in the minds of the people. The record of the reign of Jero
boam I is brief and has been colored by the prejudices of the
later Judean historians, who had come to regard Jerusalem
as the one legitimate sanctuary and the northerners as rebels.
But from the meager record it appears that Jeroboam did
all in his power to fulfil the public trust laid upon him. There
is no suggestion of tyranny and oppression. Private and
public interests were undoubtedly faithfully guarded. May
it not well be that his experience in charge of the forced levy
had not only given him invaluable experience as an adminis
trator, but had also strengthened his sympathy for the op
pressed? He knew their sufferings perhaps better than any
other man in the kingdom. It was a difficult task that devolved
upon this son of the common people, for Northern Israel was
by no means a homogeneous geographical unit and Solomon's
policy had done little to develop and unite them except in their
opposition to despotic oppression. The Philistines pressed
them hard in the west, and Shishak of Egypt in his looting
expedition overran Northern Israel, as well as Judah. The
one important act that is recorded of Jeroboam is condemned
by the biblical historians, but it is an index of his spirit and
policy. For the convenience of his subjects he established

100 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
not one royal sanctuary, as had Gideon and Solomon, but
two: one in the extreme north and another in the extreme
south. If he had been seeking merely to strengthen his own
ambitions, he would have naturally lent his patronage to the
local sanctuary at his capital Shechem. His democratic
tendencies are also revealed by his selection of priests from
among all the people who were not of the sons of Levi. To
a later religious historian this seemed gross impiety, as did
also his public participation in the services of the royal sanc
tuaries, but in so doing he was not only following earlier well-
established traditions but also carrying into the national
religion his democratic ideas. These acts also suggest that
he was deeply interested in all that vitally concerned his
subjects. For over two decades he guided the troubled des
tinies of Northern Israel, and at his death his independent
subjects endorsed his policy by electing his son his successor.
The division of the Hebrew Kingdom in 937 b.c. marked
large progress in defining and establishing the rights of man,
and in developing a people that would lend a ready ear to the
lofty social ideals of their later prophets. It also precipitated
in time the series of political crises, which called forth the great
social and religious reformers like Elijah, Amos, Hosea, and
Isaiah, who transformed men's conception of God and of their
responsibilities to their fellows. It destroyed all possibilities
of a world empire, but it gave to men a vision of rulers who
would attain glory by being the servants of their people and
of the one divine King, ruling in justice and love over all
mankind. Modern governments are often classified as monarchical,
aristocratic, and democratic. Can the various church organiza
tions be similarly classified? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of each of these forms of organization in church
and state? Does the present-day English or German reporter
write as fair an account of the great European war as did the
biblical historian of the reign of Jeroboam I?
V.
The Right of the People to Express and Enforce
Their Will.
It is a far cry from the assembly of the people at Shechem
among the hills of Ephraim to the halls of the Continental

The Expression of the Will of the People 101
Congress in Philadelphia. And yet the demands of the northern
Israelites upon the successor of King Solomon are justified
in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The
demands in both cases embody the same ideas. The founda
tions of these demands are also substantially the same; they
are found in human nature — normal mental and moral growth
for each and every individual. Normal moral health demands
not only mental activity but also the power of choice, the
right of initiative, the obligation to make decisions.
In our schools little children memorize, older children are
taught to reason and are given certain rights of initiative and
the obligation to decide upon questions laid before them.
In business mere clerks do routine work, the heads of depart
ments, who supervise the work of others, must take the re
sponsibility of making decisions. The manager of a great
business has time to do little except to formulate plans and
to make decisions. There has been in the business world an
outcry against the great industrial combinations because
it has been said that they weaken the power of initiative, that
they absorb the business of the smaller men and make mere
hired men of those who formerly had to carry the responsi
bilities of an independent business. Beyond doubt, if justified
by facts, this charge against the combinations is exceedingly
grave. On the other hand it is claimed that the heads of
departments in the industrial combinations are given the
power of originating plans, of making decisions, and that
they are held responsible primarily only for results, so that
they have the same power of initiative as in an independent
business, while the responsibility is more direct, and that in
the combination nothing is lost in initiative, while much is
gained in training. Whatever the facts may be in individual
cases, all agree that it is an essential for the success of any
business that the power of initiative be encouraged. In many
business houses at the present time a suggestion box is placed
where every employee, however humble his position, may
make suggestions for the improvement of the business; and
the workers are even stimulated to be thoughtful in this regard
by prizes that are offered for the best suggestions.
Inasmuch as the government in any state _ more or less
completely controls practically all of the activities of _ life,
deciding upon the forms which contracts shall take, supervising

102 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
the preparation of medicines and the sale of foods, determining
the conditions of marriage and divorce, making regulations
for the protection of the health of the citizens, and even, for
the protection of the pubfic, ordering individuals to lay down
their fives in war, it is evident that in the realm of government
there is far greater opportunity to affect the welfare of in
dividuals and of states, than in business. It is in consequence
extremely important that the best policy be followed by the
government. As it is essential that children be guided in their
activities, so primitive peoples are under the immediate con
trol of the father or chief of the family or clan. But as peoples
grow in intelligence and experience, the individual citizens
must act, take responsibilities, be given opportunity for initia
tive and choice, in order to secure their own best development.
But human nature is selfish and it is found that rulers often
act for their own individual welfare, whether this be for the
good of their fellow citizens or not. As we have seen, partly
perhaps from natural inclination, partly because it was es
sential for the development of his kingdom, David put in the
foreground the welfare of his people. Under his rule, as
in days that had preceded, the individual carried his own
responsibilities. Solomon, however, in selfishly promoting his
own power and magnificence, neglected the welfare of the people
and even oppressed them in order that he might satisfy his
pride and ambition.
Many centuries later we find that the lords in England in
the early days had the opportunity and used it to shape legisla
tion in their own interest regardless of the welfare of the common
people. Similar instances are found among the great land
owners in Germany, among the aristocrats in Russia; and,
for that matter, wherever any class in the community is able
to get into its own hands the power of government, that power
is likely to be used selfishly and not with due regard for the com
mon interest. The struggle in practically every state should
be to secure such use of the power of government that the
welfare, not of one class, but of the whole shall be promoted.
At Shechem, the people looking back to the customs of their
ancestors, under which the people had possessed the right
of initiative and had been able to take the responsibilities
which make for the building of character, demanded that
they be given back the freedom they had earlier possessed.

The Expression of the Will of the People 103
This demand was based upon the fact that Solomon had
selfishly sacrificed their interests. They did not propose to
permit his successor to continue to sacrifice them, as he had
done. The ideal in government, if the above considerations are
justified, would be that which would give to the individual
citizens the power to decide what the policy of the state should
be and under which each individual citizen in the state should
have the desire and the will to consider the welfare of all the
citizens, so that the government would exist simply to promote
the general welfare. Only a people schooled in self-discipline
is willing in such circumstances to yield to the authority of
law as formulated by the majority or the representatives of
the majority. But for people skilled in popular government
this readiness to submit to law normally accompanies the
ability to make the best type of laws.
To what extent ore the people in the United States given
the freedom of choice in the states which are under so-called
"boss" rule? Could we speak of "freedom" under the Czar
of Russia, if the Czar carried out the will of his people? What
would Rehoboam have gained if he had assented to the request
of his people?
Ought an employer to give his workmen the right of deter
mining what the policy of the business shall be? Give the
reasons for your answer.
In a country fike that of the ancient Hebrews where the
church and state are one, would these same principles apply
in the realm of religion? VI.
Ways of Expressing the Will of the People.
It is immaterial what the form of government may be called,
if only it is such that right practical results are achieved.
Often we are misled by words in the discussion of such ques
tions. We speak of Great Britain as a "monarchy." During
the days that the recent war seemed impending the government
refused to take a definite stand. Sir Edward Grey, the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, said officially that the government
would not act until the people's desires became known. As soon
as an event had occurred that seemed to crystallize pubfic
opinion, the action of the government was quick and reasonably

104 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
sure. In the fight of these and many similar facts shall we say
that England is in fact a republic or a monarchy?
In France at the present day the power remains with the
President of the Republic to remove from office the prefect
of any department or the mayor of any city. The government
is strongly centralized, substantially according to the plans
first put into effect by Napoleon Bonaparte. Yet France is
a republic in form. Is the government in France more or
less democratic than that of England?
Before the outbreak of the European war the Czar of Russia
in his communication to the German Emperor said that under
certain circumstances he could not restrain his people and that
war would inevitably come. If this is a fact, does it weaken the
autocracy of the Czar? It is well known that in the native
states of India and in the Federated Malay States, by the side
of the native ruler is placed a British "resident," whose duty
it is to make suggestions and to give advice to the Sultan or
local chief, and that the native chief must follow the advice
given him, although the laws are issued and put into effect
in the name of the native ruler. An Englishman traveling
some years since in the Federated States and observing these
conditions protested vigorously in a letter to the London
Times, saying that in fact the chief had been deprived of
all authority and that England was acting hypocritically.
The letter was translated to the native chief referred to who
replied: "What does the fellow want? The English now do
practically all the work, while I get the honor and the pay.
He seems to want me to do all the work. I prefer the present
conditions." Was the chief imbued with the spirit of liberty
and self-government?
The people may express their will in various ways, either
directly in a general assembly by the clashing of their swords
against their shields to express their approval of measures
proposed, as in the case of the ancient Greeks, or by the show
of hands in a general assembly, as in the smaller mountain
cantons of Switzerland, or as in the United States in town
meetings by oral vote or ballot.
The people may express their will through representatives
of various kinds. Among primitive people the elders of the
village in accordance with custom hold the position of repre
sentatives through general assent. A king is sometimes elected,

The Expression of the Will of the People 105
sometimes he inherits his position and title under a regular
constitution. Such constitutional monarchies are often con
trolled by representatives chosen by the people. The essential
fact is that the desires of the people are carried out by their
representatives. Sometimes a representative is looked upon as a mere mouth
piece of his constituents, one to ascertain their wishes and
carry them out, even though they be contrary to his own
views and convictions. Others believe that constituencies
should select as their representative some man who under
stands their needs, who has their confidence and who, in con
sequence, should be trusted by them to do as to him seems
best, even though his views as an expert may differ from those
of his constituents.
Which is the better principle of representative government?
Which principle is the one more commonly followed?
In case it is desired to change radically the form of govern
ment, this change has been at times brought about by violence,
as in the case of the great revolutions. In other cases, however,
where provision has been made beforehand, such a change
may be brought about peacefully through creating or amend
ing a constitution. The ideal would seem to be that repre
sentatives be chosen for their ability and experience, as well
as for their general views on public questions, and then be
given a reasonable amount of discretion regarding the use of
their votes, without any citizen feeling that he is misrepre
sented, and that provision be made for peaceful changes, even
though they be radical in their nature.
Is a lawyer a representative of his client? Do you give your
lawyer discretion in using his judgment? Is a physician to
be considered as a representative of his patient in the treat
ment of disease? Is it customary to give him full discretion
in the treatment of a case? Why? Why ought not a con
gressman to be given as great a degree of liberty in determining
the policy that he shall follow as the trained expert in either
law or medicine, science or business? Is a congressman so
trained in his field of legislation that he can be considered an
expert? When President Wilson was elected, was the change in
our governmental policy such that we might speak of it as a
peaceful revolution?

106 The Testing of a Nation 's Ideals
The first President of the Chinese Republic, Yuan Shih-kai,
in the opinion of some, assumed a dictatorship. Can a change
be made quickly from a despotism to a real democracy with
full authority in the people's hands? Why?
Under the laws of most of our States a man is said to "come
of age" with full legal rights of manhood, at twenty-one years
of age. Why not eighteen years? Or twenty-five years?
Is there any method that can be devised by which the capa
bilities of decision and of wise action may be determined by
examination? Subjects for Further Study.
(1) Structure and Literary History of I Kings. Kent, Israel's His
torical and Biographical Narratives, pp. 14-18.
(2) Examine the question of establishing a referendum on constitu
tional amendments and on important laws in two of the United States
having such referendum or in Switzerland. Give an opinion somewhat in
detail as to the classes of laws upon which the American electorate is
fairly well qualified to express an intelligent judgment. Lowell, Public
Opinion and Popular Government.

CHAPTER IX.
RELIGION AND POLITICS.
Elijah's Arraignment of Ahab's Policy. — I Kgs. 16:21 —
19:43.
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. Ill, pp. 8-23, 25-27.
Croly, Chap. LX; Lowell, Chap. XV.
Then Elijah came near to all the people and said, How long are you
going to limp between the two sides? If Jehovah be God, follow him,
but if the Baal, then follow him. — / Kings 18: 21.
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love
the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. — Matt. 6: 24-
We know, and, what is better, we feel inwardly, that religion is the
basis of civil society, and the source of all good and of all comfort. —
Burke. Our human laws are but the copies, more or less imperfect, of the eternal
laws, so far as we can read them. — -Froude.
Democracy is better for us, because the religious sentiment of the
present time accords better with it. — Emerson.

Religion and Politics 107
I.
Israel's Political Problems.
Throughout the two centuries of its independent existence
Northern Israel was confronted by many grave problems.
Its geographical position and physical attractiveness exposed
it to constant peril. On the southwest were the warlike
Philistines, eager to extend their territory and to keep open
the great highways of commerce which brought to them their
chief wealth. The western headlands of Judah presented a
frowning front; but broad, open valleys ran through the terri
tory of Northern Israel from east to west and north to south.
The wide fertile plain of Esdraelon lay in its very center, and
across it passed the natural highways along which traders,
immigrants, and conquering armies had traveled from time
immemorial. It also separated the tribes in the north from
those in central Palestine, while from north to south ran the
deep rift of the Jordan valley. Thus Northern Israel was
divided into three distinct natural units.-
Along the western valleys came Philistine armies to contest
the possession of the border towns. On the southeast the
Moabites were constantly seeking to push their boundaries
northward and to expel or subject the isolated east-Jordan
tribes. During the first half-century the relations between
the northern and southern Israelites were hostile; but when
Baasha, who mounted the throne of Northern Israel, after
slaying the son of Jeroboam, pressed Asa of Judah too hard,
the latter called to his help a nation which proved one of
Israel's deadliest foes. It was the Aramean kingdom of
Damascus. Situated in a fertile basin on the borders of the
desert, this ancient city had grown rich through trade and the
products of the agricultural territory which it held along the
slopes of the Anti-Lebanon mountains. It was also am
bitious to extend its territory and sphere of influence through
out southern Palestine. Control of the land held by the
Northern Israelites was essential, if it was to carry on unim
peded trade with Egypt. Thus on three sides Northern Israel
was subject to almost constant attacks of strong, persistent
foes, and its fertile grain fields were a bait attracting its greedy
neighbors. Omri, the founder of the strongest dynasty of Israel, was

108 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
called to the throne while leading an army against the Philis
tines. He it was, according to the testimony of King Mesha
that was found inscribed on the famous Moabite stone, who
broke the power of his southeastern foes and for a generation
held the cities of northern Moab in subjection. It was Omri,
who with the trained instincts of a general, selected a high,
sloping hill in central Ephraim and founded the strongly
fortified city of Samaria, and made it his capital. He was
also the first of Israel's rulers to pay tribute to Assyria, as is
recorded in the annals of Ashurnagirpal Ill's campaign into
northern Syria in 876 b.c. During the later years of his
reign Omri's might was broken by the attacks of the Aramean
armies from Damascus. He was obliged to cede certain of
his territory to them and to set aside certain streets or quarters
in Samaria for the Aramean traders. After his death and the
accession of his son Ahab the Aramean King Benhadad almost
succeeded in completely subjugating Northern Israel, for his
armies penetrated to the very gates of Samaria.
In what respects did Omri resemble David? As a rule did
the danger from attack from without develop or weaken the
nations of antiquity? What degree and types of opposition
are beneficial to nations? To individuals? Were economic
forces as potent in ancient Semitic politics as today? Illustrate.
II.
Ahab's Political Policy and Its Effects.
Ahab inherited from his father Omri two things: a broken
and almost subjugated kingdom and the ambitions and ability
of a statesman and organizer. It was a period in Israel's
history that called for able, broad-minded leadership. The
first task was to repel the Aramean invaders. The situation
seemed almost hopeless; but Ahab's followers were fighting
in desperation for their homes and very existence, while his
foes were sated with victory and over-confidence. In the
two great battles against the Arameans Ahab showed himself
a daring, able leader. In the last battle at Aphek he not only
liberated his people, but captured Benhadad, the Aramean
king. Then, doubtless to the surprise of his followers and in
the face of the open protest and condemnation of the sons of
the prophets, he set Benhadad free and concluded with him

Religion and Politics 109
a treaty that gave Ahab possession of all the cities conquered
by bis father Omri and special trading quarters in Damascus
for Hebrew merchants. In view of the natural strength of
Damascus war could bring him no more. It also reveals his
policy. Although he was an able warrior, he appreciated the
superior advantages of peace and commerce. He purposed to
build up and strengthen his nation, not by the sword but
by alliances and trade. In this respect he was far in advance
of his barbarous age. Northern Israel had rich natural re
sources. Its grain fields bore far more than was required for
the support of its inhabitants; but the land had been devastated
and its resources drained by the protracted wars. More than
the spoils of war his people needed rest and an opportunity
to till their fields and to rebuild their homes.
Another reason may also have influenced Ahab to be clement
toward his fallen foe: it was the approach of their common
enemy Assyria. He may have been far-sighted enough to
have seen that all the united strength of the peoples of Syria
was needed to repel the dread invader. From the annals
of Shalmaneser II we learn that in 854 b.c. both the Israelites
and Arameans fought side by side in a great but indecisive
battle against the Assyrians. The fact that according to that
record Ahab sent more chariots into the battle than the Ara
means is explained by his earlier victory at Aphek.
Ahab's policy was in many respects similar to that of Solomon.
His ambition was to place Northern Israel in the forefront
among the nations of southwestern Asia, and to that end he
or his father Omri had made a treaty with their western neigh
bors, the peaceful, commercial Phoenicians. The advantages
of such an alliance are obvious. As had been clearly shown
in the relations between Solomon and King Hiram, the Phoe
nicians were in need of grain, which the Hebrews could supply
in abundance, and they were able to furnish in exchange
the military equipment and the products of art and civiliza
tion that Ahab required for the realization of his ambitions.
This alliance meant a favorable, nearby market and a valuable
ally. No wonder that it was sealed by a royal marriage
between Ahab and the daughter of the king of Tyre. By
the subjects of both kings this marriage was doubtless regarded
as an act of wise statesmanship.
The alliance with Tyre might have brought only well-being

110 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
to both peoples, had Jezebel, who became Ahab's wife, been
an ordinary oriental woman. But she was the daughter of
Ethbaal, the ex-priest of Baal, who had mounted the throne
of Tyre by assassinating his royal master, and Jezebel was
a true daughter of her energetic, ambitious, unscrupulous
father. She was doubtless a woman of fascinating personality,
with bold spirit and eager determination. The international
courtesy of the day permitted her to have a temple of her god
in her new home, Samaria, and the Baal priests necessary for
its service. Alliances between Semitic peoples also meant
friendship between their gods. The situation in Israel was
rendered more perilous by the fact that many of the Northern
Israelites had Canaanite blood in their veins, and in the north
many of the Canaanite refigious customs and shrines, which
were identical with those of the Phoenicians, had survived.
The Canaanite cults were also closely connected with the
agricultural fife of Northern Israel and were in themselves
exceedingly attractive to a pleasure-loving people, for they were
joyous and gave free license to the baser passions. In this
fertile and already well-prepared field Jezebel appears to have
initiated a proselyting campaign. In any case the Israelites
were free to follow the Canaanite customs with the tacit
approval of the court. There is no evidence that Ahab or a
majority of his subjects contemplated for a moment abandon
ing the worship of Jehovah, the traditional Baal or Master of
Israel, but they were quite ready to make friends with the
ancient baals of the land and of their opulent allies in the west.
Do you think that Ahab's policy had the approval of a
majority of his subjects? Why? Did Ahab probably regard
himself as another David and the saviour of his country?
With what reason? Did the sons of the prophet who con
demned his toleration of Benhadad rightly interpret the divine
will? Were the Spanish inquisition and the burning of witches
in early New England originally regarded as doing the will of
God? What crimes have been committed in recent times
under the sanction of divine authority? How far is there
danger of interpreting our will as the will of God?

Religion and Politics 111
III.
Elijah the Tishbite.
Elijah is one of the most dramatic figures in Israel's dramatic
history. The biblical historian projects him into the narra
tive without preface or introduction. Like a storm-cloud he
sweeps across the serene horizon of the middle of Ahab's
reign. He is a gaunt, austere, outspoken man, clad in the
grim garb of the desert-dweller. He comes from the otherwise
unknown village of Tishbi on the heights of Gilead, east of
the Jordan, where the wandering nomad and the agriculturist
meet, and where the traditions of Jehovah, the God of Moses
and of the Wilderness, were still cherished. In Ahab's mind
he was classed with the sons of the prophets, who had opposed
his policy of alliance and expansion, and whom he had in
retaliation attempted to hunt from the land. Amidst the
smiling, vine-clad hills of central Israel Efijah seemed sadly
out of place. In fact he never felt at home in the great cities
of Israel. He was lacking also in tact and diplomatic skill.
Indirection and compromise were unknown to him. His
strength lay in his clear, direct insight and in his uncompromis
ing boldness. Efijah was one of the last of the older type of
prophets. He had much in common with Deborah and Samuel.
He was able unerringly to analyze a pofitical and refigious
situation that escaped or baffled the more learned and ex
perienced statesmen of his day. His was the intuition of the
child that simply and unquestioningly arrives at true con
clusions regarding human character and motives where those
of maturer years are often deceived. Like the earlier prophets,
when he saw a fact or truth he proclaimed it, regardless of
the consequences to himself. Elijah was thus the enfightened
conscience of his nation. By Ahab and undoubtedly by a
majority of bis contemporaries he was regarded as "the troubler
of Israel," a fanatical calamity howler, who was barring national
progress, a dangerous character who should be suppressed
or hunted from the land.
Do intellectual training and culture blunt a nation's or a
man's intuitive appreciation of what is right and wrong?
Why is it that children are often better judges of human nature
than their elders? How may men retain the child's power
of intuitive analysis? Are the calamity howlers of one genera-

112 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
tion often recognized as true prophets by the next? Illustrate.
What unpopular teachers of today may possibly belong to that
category? Does the fear of seeming queer and of being called
calamity howlers often deter men from doing their best work?
IV.
Elijah's Interpretation of the Religious Crisis.
The world-wide differences between Ahab's and Elijah's
interpretation of the political and religious situation in North
ern Israel were due to their diverse point of view and training.
Both felt that they were right. Ahab was conscious of the sup
port of the overwhelming majority of his subjects; Elijah, of
standing almost alone. Ahab trusted to his processes of reason
ing ; Eli j ah felt in the depths of his consciousness the absolute con
viction that Jevohah himself was speaking to and through him.
Ahab's point of view and training were those of a man reared in
the most advanced center of the mingled Hebrew and Canaanite
culture that had developed in Northern Israel. The sterner
moral ideals that the ancestors of the Hebrews had brought from
the wilderness and learned from the lips of Moses had been ener
vated by wealth and comparative luxury and undermined by the
insidious influence of the degenerate, materialistic Canaanite
civilization that in the north had so largely absorbed Israel's
earlier loyalty to Jehovah. The sanctity of the marriage re
lation, the integrity of rulers and judges and the sense of social
responsibility were all being severely tested, and great was the
danger that they would be abandoned by the luxury-loving,
ambitious sons of the north.
Efijah, reared in the older environment, taught from infancy
to abhor the Canaanite cults and licentiousness, clearly saw
the peril. He recognized that Northern Israel under the
strong leadership of Ahab and Jezebel was in imminent danger,
while finding its national life, of losing its soul. The problem
that confronted and at times seemed to baffle him was how
to make his countrymen see the peril and avert it. At first
he appears to have gone directly to King Ahab and protested
to him against the current tendencies. When he was received
with contempt by the king he uttered his warnings to the
people, probably thereby winning the taunting title, " Troubler
of Israel." It is possible that he next aroused some of the

Religion and Politics 113
members of the prophetic guilds, known as the sons of the
prophets, with which he was closely connected, to join in a
campaign of protest. This would explain why Obadiah, the
religiously inclined prefect of Ahab's palace, had at the risk of
his own fife hid a hundred of the prophets of Jehovah in caves
to guard them from Jezebel's wrath and proselyting zeaL
These zealous, though fanatical, champions of the Jehovah
religion undoubtedly exerted some influence upon the common
people; but their protests and those of Efijah only aroused
the bitter persecution of Ahab and probably of many of the
leaders of the nation.
The only hope of reaching and moving the conscience of
Israel was to appeal from king and rulers to the people, as has
often been done in modern times, even in America, when a
ruler or reformer has felt that the leaders of parties or the
lawmakers were sacrificing the best interests of the nation
to temporal, selfish ends. As has often been the case in history,
a striking natural phenomenon made this possible in a most
effective way. The actual facts are clearly recorded in the
picturesque, concrete symbolism of later story. The traditions
regarding Elijah and T*nisha came to us as they were probably
told among the prophetic guilds of Northern Israel and Judah
two or three generations after these prophets lived. The
supernatural elements that have been woven into them in
such unparalleled profusion are nevertheless important, for
they reveal the impression that the personality of each of these
great prophets made upon their own and later generations.
The prologue to the epoch-making assembly on Mount Carmel
was the terrible drouth that, according to the Greek writer
Meander, occurred during the reign of Ittobaal of Tyre and
lasted one full year. Both Phoenicians and Hebrews regarded
this terrible calamity as a judgment sent by their Deity.
It prepared the mind of Ahab and his counsellors for Elijah's
bold demand, presented to the king in person by the intrepid
prophet: "Send now and gather the fifty prophets of the BaaL
who eat at Jezebel's table." A contest or debate makes a
universal appeal especially to that elemental fighting instinct
which was exceedingly strong in Ahab's character. The
unusual character of Elijah's request also undoubtedly fas
cinated the king. Doubtless he was conscious of a deep under
current of popular discontent. "Thi3 drouth is Jehovah's

114 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
punishment of Ahab's persecution of the prophets" was on
many lips, and Ahab himself probably more than half believed
it. Here, however, was an opportunity to concifiate the
prophets and people. The proposal that the Baal prophets
be invited also was as attractive as it was surprising. It
suggested full representation of all the varied refigious parties
in his kingdom and the possibilities of an agreement and com
pact between them. In any case the king readily acceded
to Elijah's request.
On the commanding height that rises in the heart of central
Israel, easily accessible to all and yet above the agricultural
environment of the broad valleys below, the representatives
of the people met together. The effects of the blighting
drouth were in evidence as far as the eye could reach, and the
air, even on the mountain plateau, was hot and stiffing. Evi
dences of Jehovah's displeasure engulfed the people and thirst
and hunger within emphasized what they believed to be the
divine protest. When the gaunt, severe, dauntless prophet
rose before them, he had at last an audience prepared for his
message. Clear and direct as a lightning flash it came to
them. It revealed the whole refigious issue stripped of all
its complexities and allurements: "How long are you going to
limp between the two sides? If Jehovah be God, follow him;
but if Baal, then follow him." Tradition has embellished
the scene, but it is perfectly clear that Efijah had done all
that any true prophet could do; he had presented the facts
and appealed directly to the conscience of the nation. In
graphic words he declared: "You are making absurd, pathetic
efforts to serve two gods, to hold two types of faith, diamet
rically opposed. The task is impossible. Choose one or
the other and be loyal to him." No answer came at the
moment from the people, but the next quarter century showed
beyond question that Elijah's words had touched the popular
conscience and evoked a true response. The narrative implies
that the prophets of Baal were given ample opportunity to
present their cause, but it evoked no response from god or man.
The narrative states that they were slain by the people at
Elijah's command beside the Kishon below, even as were
the Canaanites beside the same historic brook centuries before
by the Hebrew warriors who followed Deborah and Barak.
At last the full meaning of the great religious crisis was clear

Religion and Politics 115
even to the humblest and most obtuse in Northern Israel;
the popular conscience had been thoroughly aroused. The
sinister meaning of Ahab's policy and of Jezebel's proselyting
was revealed. Time and circumstance would give the people
opportunity, as they did in gory terms in the revolution of
Jehu, to express their deep conviction and determination to
limp no longer between two sides.
Do you think that what they beheld on Mount Carmel
was a special miracle? Does a striking natural phenomenon
often afford the opportunity for a refigious or social leader
to attain moral ends? How far were the people justified in
regarding it as a direct divine judgment? Why does the
miraculous element abound in the Efijah and Elisha stories,
while it is entirely lacking in the contemporary record of Amos
and Hosea? What light does the different type of miracles
recounted of Efijah and Elisha throw upon the character of
each of these prophets? In calling for a great popular assembly
was Efijah reasserting the rights of the people? What other
memorable assembly of the Northern Israelites did it recall?
V.
The Conflict and Reconciliation op Politics
and Religion.
Never in Israel's history did the conflict between the de
mands of practical politics and applied religion seem so sharp
as in the days of Ahab. If Ahab and his counsellors had
acceded at once to Elijah's demands they would have banished
all traces of the Phoenician Baal cult from the land. This
would have meant, not only that Ahab would have been
exposed to the rage of an infuriated and determined queen,
but also the severing of the profitable alliance with Tyre, the
closing of Israel's best market, and the cutting off of its chief
source of military supplies at a time when the nation was in
constant danger of attack. To Ahab and his statesmen this
seemed an impossible price to pay for mere ease of conscience.
Besides Jehovah was still the recognized God of Israel, and the
toleration of Baal worship was regarded by them as simply a
common act of international courtesy.
In the light of a broader perspective the true reconciliation
is revealed. No political policy is practical for a nation that

116 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
does not conserve its largest and most permanent interests.
Israel was not weak in material resources. Its supreme need
was a force to bind together into close unity its naturally dis
similar and dissevered elements. Its chief peril was not, after
all, foreign foes, but the internal strife and luxury and licentious
ness that threatened to destroy its virility and power of resist
ance. Loyalty to Jehovah, complete and undivided, was the
one force capable of uniting the nation, and also the only one
capable of preserving it. The seductive, pernicious influence
of the Baal cults was the great disintegrating, weakening factor
in Israel's life. On the simple basis of practical politics, dis
loyalty to Jehovah and a weak toleration of Baalism was
the worst policy Israel could possibly pursue. Ahab per
sisted in this short-sighted policy and thereby wrecked his
dynasty and nearly ruined his kingdom. As soon as he ceased
to command the confidence of his people in his loyalty to the
God of the nation, they were ready, as the event proved, to
follow the lead of an aggressive revolutionist. The struggle
between antagonistic refigious parties caused the best blood
of Israel to be needlessly shed. Immorality, due to the in
fluence of Baalism, and the lack of united and consistent
action were the chief causes of the final downfall of the northern
kingdom. Modern history abounds in illustrations of the
fact that there is no real conflict between the demands of
politics and religion and that the greatest evil that can befall
a nation is for its statesman to neglect the fundamental prin
ciples of all great religions. As nations are bound together
more and more closely and politics become more international,
the seeming conflict between politics and religion is more
completely eliminated. The dream of the greatest prophets
throughout the ages has been a federation of man, in which
the petty jealousies and intrigues of nations would disappear
and all the human race be united in conserving the highest
welfare of humanity. On this ultimate foundation the aims
of politics and of religion become absolutely one.
Which of the great nations of today have been founded and
guided throughout certain periods of their history by the
principles of religion? Name countries and periods. What
countries illustrate at times the evils that come from the
lack of such guidance? Illustrate. Have some of the most
disastrous political blunders of modern history been made

Religion and Politics 117
as a result of neglecting the fundamental principles of religion
and morality? Cite illustrations. Does the reconciliation of
politics and religion mean the reunion of church and state?
If not, why not? VI.
Modern Politics and Religion.
The belief is current in many minds today that good politics
is bad religion and that a rigid adherence to the Ten Command
ments and above all to the fundamental teachings of Jesus
unfits a man for success in political life. This is possibly true
for a brief period, though not in the long run, if a man's aim
in entering politics is his own personal advancement and
profit. In certain cities and countries men have at times
won office and held positions for a little time by corrupt or
barbarous methods, but there is little doubt that such cases are
becoming less and less common in all civilized Christian lands.
Men are beginning to discover that so-called "good politics"
is in the highest degree mimical to the common good. The
ultimate aim of all rightful political organization and activity is
the welfare of the people. Religion preserves and sanctions those
laws and methods which, experience has taught, best conserve
the interest of individuals and of society. Really good politics
is therefore impossible, unless in accord with the principles
of religion. Usually this accord comes through the personal
activity of those who regulate their lives in accordance with
those principles.
Should the priests and preachers of religion actively enter
the field of politics? Do you think that they should publicly
and officially support a political party? If not, in what ways
can they more effectively raise the political standards of their
community and state? What men in your opinion have done
most for your city and community in recent years? For
your country? Why?
Is it not possible for a man to have a profound influence
upon his government without holding office or taking any active
part in elections? How? Subjects for Further Study.
(1) The Contemporary Testimony of the Moabite Stone. Kent,
Historical and Biographical Narratives, pp. 494-496.
(2) Study the relations between the English government and the

118 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
Established Church in England, as regards representation of the Church
in the House of Lords and the ways in which the members of the Clergy
are educated, appointed and supported. Express your judgment regard
ing the effects of this relationship upon (a) the promotion of reforms in
politics and social legislation and (6) upon the religious influence of the
Clergy, Lowell, Government of England.

CHAPTER X.
THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP.
The Story of Naboth's Vineyard. — I Kgs. 21.
Parallel Readings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. Ill, pp. 23-25, 28, 29, 32-35, 41-53.
Croly, Chap. X; Lowell, Chap. XVI.
Now Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard beside the palace of Ahab,
king of Samaria. And Ahab spoke to Naboth, saying, Give me your
vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near
my house, and I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it is more
satisfactory to you, I will give you the value of it in money. — / Kings
21:1,2. Then Jezebel wrote letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with his
seal, and sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who were in his city,
who presided with Naboth. And she wrote in the letters, Proclaim a fast
and also place Naboth in a prominent place among the people. Then
place two base men before him and let them bear witness against him,
saying, You have cursed God and the king. And then carry him out
and stone him to death. — / Kings 21: 8-10.
This is true Liberty when freeborn men,
Having to advise the public, may speak free. — Horace.
A king ruleth as he ought, a tyrant as he lists, a king to the profit of all,
a tyrant only to please a few. — Aristotle. I.
The Oriental Attitude Toward Individual Rights.
Undoubtedly one of the most marked differences between the
East and the West is the prevailing attitude toward individual
liberty. The westerner will sacrifice almost every other
possession — wealth, prosperity, even life — to secure and
protect it. The ancient oriental knew or thought no more
about the equality of man than his modern descendant does

The Rights of Citizenship 119
about pragmatism. What the ordinary oriental most dreaded
was too much personal liberty, for it meant isolation and
defenselessness. His chief ambition was to align himself
closely with the communal organization, whether it be the
family or tribe or state, and thereby to be assured of protection
and maintenance in case of danger or misfortune. The great
majority of the people of Israel were eager to secure the patron
age of a strong chief or noble, who would champion their cause
in the law courts and better still protect them from the aggres
sions of their designing neighbors and rivals. This fact explains
why many free-born Hebrews voluntarily assumed the obliga
tions of slavery for themselves and their descendants. It
was of course a choice between two evils, that of penury and
violence at the hands of the strong and unprincipled or the
subject relation with the assurance of food and shelter and
ample protection. This feeling to a great extent explains
why there was such a huge slave and serf class in the old oriental
monarchies like Babylonia and Egypt. It meant a small
ruling class and a large body of dependents. The individual
rights of the great majority were, therefore, in the keeping
of irresponsible rulers. Their control of those subject to
them was not merely pofitical but also economic, and was
unchecked by any ideas of individual equality or organized
movements to secure personal liberty. It is not strange,
therefore, that many of the ancient oriental rulers became
cruelly despotic and unhesitatingly crushed any subject
who stood in the way of the realization of their personal
desires. Ancient oriental history abounds in gory illustrations.
Even in the present generation it is stated on good authority
that whenever the late Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Hamid, wished
to acquire an estate belonging to one of his wealthy subjects,
the body of his victim would before long be seen floating down
the Bosporus and all that the Turkish police would do was
to cover the corpse with a mat to screen the crime from public
gaze. Confiscation of the estates of the murdered man would
soon follow without a single note of public protest.
What are the underlying psychological and economic causes
of the remarkable development of fraternal and beneficiary
organization in America within the present generation? Is
that development normal and on the whole conducive to the
welfare of society? How does it affect the efficiency of the

120 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
church? Is this development due to the fact that the church
has not extended its functions so as to meet the fundamental
needs of man? In what ways are the modern alliances be
tween capital and political power similar to the ancient
oriental despotisms? How does this differ from the control of
the government by labor organizations? II.
Ahab's Perversion of Justice for Personal Ends.
Jezebel brought to the court of Ahab the perverted ideals of
the oriental ruling class. Inasmuch as a king stood in the way
of realizing the ambition of her father Ethbaal, he, although a
priest, had not hesitated to resort to assassination. A woman of
Jezebel's strong personality exerted a powerful influence over
her husband. Moreover his ambitions led him to lend a
ready ear to her seductive philosophy. The murder of Naboth
is significant in itself, but it also revealed Ahab's real character
and policy to his subjects. It was probably more potent in
bringing about the final overthrow of his family than his
toleration of Baalism. The opinions of the common people
regarding their rulers are more often formed from acts like
this than from the state policies the same rulers advocate.
The story is exceedingly realistic and full of homely touches.
Ahab and his queen Jezebel wanted to add a vegetable garden
to their royal estate at Jezreel, out on the fertile plain of Es-
draelon. The king, well aware of the firmly fixed property
laws of Israel, tried in an honorable way to acquire the adjacent
vineyard; but Naboth, its owner, obstinately refused to sell
his hereditary estate. Ahab, recognizing how impregnably
Naboth's position was guarded by Israel's traditions and that
even a king could not dispossess him, went home and to bed
in ill-humor. It is not clear whether love for Ahab or for
fresh vegetables or pique because of Naboth's obstinacy
inspired Jezebel. In any case the present story is the later
concrete version of the Fall of Man. Ahab undoubtedly
knew the method she would employ to secure the coveted
vegetable garden. Its boldness and simplicity perhaps fas
cinated him. Its assumption that his power was absolute
was flattering to a Icing who had just been forcibly reminded
of the fixed limitations of his authority.

The Rights of Citizenship 121
Jezebel's action illustrates the worst fruits of absolutism.
Not only did she plot deliberately to murder Naboth but in
so doing she threatened the entire pofitical and judicial organiza
tion of the nation. A shudder must have gone through all
Israel, for if a man in high position as was Naboth could, be
falsely condemned by pubfic officials and publicly stoned by
his fellow-citizens simply at the command of a foreign-born
queen, no one could feel secure. Ahab's share in the crime
was even more ignominious than that of Jezebel, for he allowed
his wife to do the contemptible work and then reaped its fruits.
Which is the more reprehensible, the crooked politician
who directly bribes voters, or the candidate with far higher
ideals who tacitly accepts the methods of the party machine?
The traveling salesman, who presents a personal gift to the
agent who purchases his goods, or the president of the cor
poration who winks at these questionable methods?
III.
Elijah's Advocacy of the Rights of the Individual.
When Ahab set out to take possession of Naboth's vineyard,
acquired at so great a cost, the news undoubtedly spread
like wild-fire throughout Jezreel and far beyond, but every
mouth save one was mute with terror. Fortunate indeed
was ancient Israel that it had reared up a class of men who
enjoyed unique authority and whose duty it was to speak at
such a time. No man in Israel, not even Ahab himself, doubted
the king's guilt, but none dared raise a word of protest except
Elijah. Like Nathan of old, he went straight to the king and
caught him in his infamy just as he was entering upon the
possession of the fruits of his cowardly connivance in Jezebel's
crime. Efijah, as always, shot directly to the point without
preface: "Have you killed and also taken possession?" Ahab
offered no excuse, although by his words he apparently sought
to imply that personal antagonism inspired Efijah: "Have
you found me, O mine enemy?" The prophet's sententious
reply, "I have," was full of grim significance.
It is not clear whether or not the exact form of Elijah's
prediction was determined by the later narrator's knowledge
of subsequent events. Elijah's words: "In the place where
the dogs licked the blood of Naboth will the dogs lick thy blood

122 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
also," may have been simply the prophet's graphic putting
of the old law of blood vengeance. As a matter of fact the
prediction was not literally fulfilled. Naboth was a citizen
of Jezreel and was publicly stoned in the open space in that
northern city; while the wounded Ahab returned after his
fatal battle at Ramoth in Gilead to his capital, Samaria, and
it was there that the dogs licked his blood. The significant
fact is that Elijah was not uttering a specific prediction, but
was rather laying down in concrete terms the great principle of
moral responsibility and the inevitable consequences of wrong
doing. Even under the malign influence of Jezebel, Ahab
had not lost all moral sense. At least he still feared the divine
judgment or, as we should say today, the outworking of the
fundamental law which he had violated, for he assumed the
garb of mourning and "went about quietly." His subsequent
record suggests that the dominant feeling in his mind was
not true repentance but simply fear of the consequences of
his crime. There is no indication that he for a moment aban
doned his policy of absolutism or attempted to make reparation
to the family of Naboth or made public confession to his
subjects whose hereditary rights he had outraged.
Elijah belongs to the older group of prophets or seers. He
was clothed with the mystery and dignity of the ancient men
of God. His method was chiefly that of protest. With
the later prophets, who, like Elisha and Hosea and Isaiah,
lived among the people, studied their detailed problems,
counselled and taught them in the way of right, he had little
in common. But he was nevertheless a connecting link between
the earlier seers and the later refigious and social reformers,
for he was the first to espouse the right of the individual and
to raise the cry of protest against the cruel aggressions and
oppressions of the rich and ruling class. Thus Elijah was a
pioneer, heralding the coming of Amos and Isaiah and the
supreme Teacher of social righteousness; but he was little
more than a lone voice crying in the wilderness, for he ap
parently made no attempt to define the ideals and methods
of social service and reform. Rather he was the interpreter
and defender of Israel's earlier and simpler institutions— a
disciple of Moses, not a member of the unique group of eighth
and seventh century prophets, who ethicized and socialized
Israel's inherited religions. But in his courage, his energy

The Rights of Citizenship 123
and his devotion to the ideals of his nation in a period of great
peril, Elijah stands among the greatest of Israel's prophets.
Was Efijah lacking in tact in his dealing with Ahab? Which
was the more guilty, Ahab or Jezebel? What should Ahab
have done to make reparation for his great crime? Why
was Ahab's crime more of a public menace than David's
murder of Uriah? Is the degree of crime proportionate to
the evil that it brings to society? Cite modern illustrations
of crimes similar in their social effects to that of Ahab.
IV.
The Consequences of Ahab's Despotic Policy.
Ahab is a familiar type in our modern life. He was a man
of large ability and ambitions. Today he would have been
a great captain of industry. He knew how to organize men,
how to inspire them to great effort; he had a broad knowledge
of facts and was able to develop a consistent plan, to carry
it to completion whatever be the opposition. Like many
masterful men, he made the fatal mistake of not listening
to the good counsels of others or of his own conscience. Both
spoke to him with remarkable clearness and insistence. His
mistakes were not through ignorance. He deliberately chose
to do his own will, and he and his nation paid the consequences.
One of the final acts of Elijah was to associate with himself
the son of a wealthy farmer of eastern Ephraim. Elisha
was trained as a disciple of Elijah, but he was a very different
type of man. By birth and training he was in closest touch
with the rulers and people of Northern Israel and he enjoyed
the confidence of both. Through him the principles for which
Elijah contended were instilled into the mind of the masses
and found a certain response among the members of the ruling
class. The evils of Ahab's policy also became chiefly apparent
during the reign of his sons Ahaziah and Joram. The immoral
effects of Baalism offended the sense of the better-minded
citizens, and the strong militarism which had commended Ahab's
policy to his subjects began to crumble. Also the popular
resentment at the tyranny, of which the story of Naboth was
a glaring illustration, continued to smolder and was ready
to burst into a flame at any moment. That moment came
when Elisha sent one of the young sons of the prophets to

124 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
the captain Jehu, who, in the absence of the wounded King
Joram, was commanding the Hebrew forces in the war against
the Arameans, with the significant message: "Thus saith
Jehovah, the God of Israel, 'I have anointed thee king over
Jehovah's people Israel.' " The fierce, intemperate reaction
against the wrong, repressive policy of Ahab cost the blood
of the reigning kings of Israel and Judah and of the chief men
of the nation. It fatally weakened the strength of the northern
kingdom and undoubtedly hastened its downfall. Jehu, early
in his reign, paid tribute to Assyria; and under his successors
Northern Israel was humbled in the dust before its old foes,
the Arameans. Baalism was banished by force from the land,
but its baneful influence remained, as Amos and others plainly
testify. The events of the next half-century abundantly
demonstrated the utter futility of a policy like that of Ahab's,
which sacrificed morals and religion to material and immediate
ends. In seeking a brilliant, material success Ahab lost not
only his own life but also that of his nation.
What characters in modern history are similar to that of
Ahab? If he had had a different type of wife, would his reign
have been more successful? In what ways did Jezebel handicap
him? Are any excuses to be made for Jezebel? Could she
have been expected to act otherwise under the circumstances
of her birth and training? Do you approve of Naboth's
spirit? Compare the character and methods of Efijah and
Elisha? Is a religious revolution carried through by the
sword ever permanently successful or beneficial? Why not?
Illustrate.

The Rights of the Citizen Today.
Elijah, in his championship of the Israelites against what
was felt to be the tyranny of Ahab, was standing for the rights
of the individual as they were interpreted by him and by the
more democratic leaders. They were asking for the rights
of the people as they understood that these rights had come
down to them from their ancestors; and in fact, the right of
personal possession of land and the privilege of retaining that
land in a family, was an established custom which most people
did not willingly set aside.

The Rights of Citizenship 125
The rights of the citizen today in the United States and
in most states where there is a constitutional government,
are definitely determined, sometimes, in the first instance,
by the court declaring what the old-time custom has been,
usually in a written constitution of which the courts merely
interpret the constitutional wording. The constitution is
thus framed in order to protect the people against any wilful
act of oppression on the part of their government, whether
the government be that of a king or of an elected president.
Of course, in modern days we have gone in certain directions
far beyond what was even thought of in the days of Ahab.
In the United States the Congress is forbidden to make any law
respecting the establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom
of speech or of the press, or to prevent the people from as
sembling peaceably, or from petitioning the government
for redress of grievances. Of course, in the days of Ahab
many of these questions would not have arisen, but all of these
rights probably were understood before Solomon's day, so
far as the conditions themselves existed. Many people did
worship Baal instead of Jehovah; the people did assemble and
petition their ruler.
Among us no soldiers shall be quartered in any house in time
of peace without the consent of the owner. In the days of
Ahab, every man was likely to be called to be a soldier and
the occasion for a restriction of this kind probably did not exist.
The right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,"
of course, looks to a type of civilization such as in Ahab's
day had not been attained. So it is with the rights of trial by
jury, of a formal defense in case of a criminal charge, and others.
The ancient Hebrews had apparently the rights of democratic
self-government developed to a degree far beyond that of
any other people of their time. Their constitution was based
largely on custom, and was supported by the power that the
multitude wielded, because of the fear that a revolution might
be incited by harsh treatment. Although we have gone much
farther at the present day with reference to the details in
which we restrain our government, the spirit of democracy
was fully in the minds and often in the practice of the
Hebrew people. It had not been so far forgotten that the
people did not believe that they had a right to call Solomon's

126 The Testing of a ATation's Ideals
successor to account even though they had not ventured to
attempt to impose their-will upon King Solomon himself.
The Constitution is our fundamental law. Is an ordinary
untrained voter better able to vote upon its adoption or upon
the passage of a tax law? Which is the more important?
How far are our laws merely the formulation in written forms
of old-time customs? Are laws that originate in this way
the more important or less important? Are marriage laws
of this type? The laws of contract? Criminal laws?
VI.
How the Citizens' Rights Can be Protected.
In the United States today if a citizen feels that his rights
have been abused by a fellow-citizen or even by any adminis
trative officer, he appeals to the courts for redress and the
courts in their interpretation of the law quite generally are
inclined to interpret against the government the laws that
protect the citizens.
In case there seems to be a need of adding to the protection
of the citizen against his government, or if, owing to changing
conditions, any modification of these rights is required, pro
vision is regularly made to amend our constitution, or through
a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution as a
whole; but the most fundamental rights are supposed to have
always the formal protection of the constitution and to be en
forced by the courts.
As society becomes more complex, controversy is likely to
become common between those who think that the power
of the government should be restricted to as great a degree as
possible and those whose inclinations favor an extension of
governmental power. On the one hand we find the Socialists,
who think the government of their so-called Co-operative
Commonwealth should take upon itself more and more the
functions now performed by private establishments until
all productive capital shall be in the hands of the government
which shall then direct the individuals in their efforts to pro
duce more wealth. At the other extreme we find the " scientific
anarchists," who teach that there should be no government
at all, but that affairs of common interest should be conducted

The Rights of Citizenship 127
by voluntary associations made to satisfy the needs of the
time. From what has already been said it seems clear that
neither of these extremes is practical at the present stage
of civilization in either America or Europe. The majority
hold that the rights of property of the individual citizen should
in the main be protected by leaving in the hands of private
individuals most business.undertakings and placing the burden
of proof upon the government whenever it asserts the right
or advocates the policy of taking upon itself more of the duties
that have been generally . left in the hands of the people.
Provision must, however, be made for change, because with
the changing civilizations change in the relationships between
government and citizen are bound to come. These changes
may be by war, through revolution, or peacefully by consti
tutional amendment. The rights of the citizens are probably
better conserved through courts on minor matters, through
constitutional conventions and amendments with the referendum
to the people on matters that are less complex, but that, never
theless, are of the most vital import and that normally belong
in a constitution.
The constitution of Oklahoma is many times longer than
that of the United States. Why?
Is government work usually carried on more or less efficiently
than private work? More or less expensively? Why? Why
did Colonel Goethals succeed in building the Panama Canal
when private contractors had failed?
If our post office carries parcels long distances for less than
cost, who pays the difference? Can a government be better
or more intelligent than the men of whom it is composed?
Why do our newspapers give more space to the utterances of
President Wilson than they did to those of Professor Wilson?
Are the sayings abler, or wiser? How can the people of the
United States protect themselves against the foolishness or
the wrong-doing of a President?
Subjects for Further Study.
(1) The Hebrew Theory regarding the Rights of Property. Kent,
Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, pp. 70-74.
(2) Investigate in your own State the legal restrictions upon (a) free
dom of speech in public, (b) freedom of public assemblage, (c) freedom
of publication of facts or opinions. How far are these restrictions in
tended to protect individuals? How far to protect the public? See
Statutes ot the State under "Slander, Libel, Police Power, Assemblage."

128 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
CHAPTER XI.
SACRIFICING PERSONAL INTUliESTS TO PUBLIC
INTERESTS.
Micaiaii's Rioply to Ahab. — I Kgs. 22.
Parallel liaulings.
Kent, Historical Bible, Vol. Ill, pp. 30-32, 30-38.
Croly, Chaps. XI, XII; Lowell, Chaps. XVII, XVIII.
And Micaiah said, Therefore hear the word of Jehovah: I saw Jehovah
sitting on his throne and all the host of heaven landing by hiiu on his
right hand and on his loft. And Jehovah said, Who shall deludo Ahab
so that he will go up and fall at Ramoth in Gilead? And one proposed
one thing and another another, until there came forth a Hpirit and stood
before Jehovah and said, 1 will delude him. And Jehovah said to him
By what meanH? And ho said, I will go forth and become a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. Thereupon Jeliovali said. Ihou
shalt delude him and shalt succeed also! Go forth and do so. So behold,
Jehovah hath now put a lying npiril, in the mouth of all l.hiwi your propliel.H,
since Jehovah hath determined to bring ovil upon you. — / Kings 22: l!)-?i?i.
Who, born for the universe, narrowed his mind.
And to party gave up what was meant for mankind. — Goldsmith.
I do love
My country's good, with a respect more tender,
More holy, and profound, than mine own life. — Sliiikrupunre.
Dulce ct decorum cut pro patria mori.- — Horace.
I.
The Foun Hundred Falsio Prophets.
A significant but often overlooked story comes from the
closing year of Ahab's reign. It illustrates perhaps better
than anything else the inevitable effects of his calculating,
self-centered policy. At last ho had temporarily healed the
breach between the two Hebrew kingdoms and had persuaded
Jehoshaphat the Judean king to unite with him in a campaign
against the common foe, the Arameans. It was no longer a
war of defense but one of aggression. This fact evidently raised
some doubt in the minds of both kings, for thoy wore eager
to have the divine assurance that they would bo victorious.
Accordingly the official prophets of Northern Israel wore
summoned, four hundred in number. It is evident that they

Sacrificing Personal Interests to Public Interests 129
were the product of Ahab's despotism. His campaign of
persecution against the sons of the prophets had apparently
resulted entirely to his satisfaction: these men of conviction
and courage were either all slain, or hunted from the land,
or silenced. The four hundred official prophets were but tools
of the king. Jehoshaphat must have had some experience
with official prophets or else was aware of the unnatural condi
tions in Ahab's court, for when, in response to the question,
"Shall I go up to fight against Ramoth in Gilead or forbear?"
they all replied in chorus, "Go up; for Jehovah will deliver
it into the hand of the king," he became suspicious. Their
fawning spirit must also have put him on his guard. His
question reveals the thought in his mind, "Is there no other
prophet of Jehovah, that we may inquire of him?" It was
almost equivalent to saying, "Produce a real prophet, if you
have- one left in your kingdom. These sleek, mercenary
prophets are but puppets." The situation well illustrates
the perils of prosperity and of a too close union between church
and state. These four hundred prophets fitted in well with
Ahab's policy. They placated the people and took the place
of the sons of the prophets who had been slain or banished,
and they could be depended upon to say what he wanted.
If Jehoshaphat had not been so impolitely persistent they
would have carried Ahab very comfortably through a trying
crisis; but at the same time they were unwittingly luring him
on to his death. It was this type of prophet that ultimately
undermined the influence of the true prophets and by their
lying messages and misleading counsels hastened the destruc
tion of both Hebrew kingdoms.
In your opinion were all of the four hundred official prophets
in Ahab's court deliberate deceivers or were some of them
probably self-deceived? What reason had they to think that
the coming battle would result favorably for Ahab? Is the
temptation for the preachers of today to speak as their audiences
want them to speak as strong as in the days of Ahab? What
forms does the temptation take? Has Churchill truly por
trayed it in his novel, " The Inside of the Cup "? Are the effects
of yielding to this temptation as disastrous today as in earlier
days?

130 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
II.
The Man Who Dared Tell the Truth.
Jehoshaphat's question was exceedingly trying to Ahab.
Reluctantly he confessed that he knew of another prophet
who was able to speak with recognized authority, but that he
hated him, as he did Elijah, because he had prophesied for
the king only evil. Micaiah, the son of Imlah, was one of the
two prophets in Israel who were trying to save the king and
nation from ultimate calamity, for they alone dared point
out the evil consequences of Ahab's policy.
While the messenger was going to summon Micaiah, the
four hundred official prophets endeavored by means of dramatic
actions to convince the sceptical Jehoshaphat of the truth
of their prediction. It is a striking scene. The two kings
of Judah and Israel are seated on their thrones in all the para
phernalia of their royal office. Lined up before them are the
four hundred prophets of Israel, probably clad in their garb
of office. Suddenly Zedekiah, their spokesman, stepped
forth before the king wearing horns of iron, and turning to
Ahab, declared: "With these thou shalt push the Arameans
until thou hast destroyed them!" Such an elaborate sym
bolism suggests that it had been prepared in advance, possibly
at Ahab's command, to make more impressive the already
discredited authority of the mercenary four hundred, who
in chorus confirmed Zedekiah's prediction.
Into this presence came the unpopular Micaiah. The royal
messenger who had summoned him had voiced the spirit of
Ahab's court: "The prophets have with one consent promised
good fortune for the king; therefore speak the same as they
all do and prophesy good fortune." Micaiah recognized it
as both a bribe and threat, but it could not swerve him from
his allegiance to a higher King. "As Jehovah liveth, I will
speak whatever Jehovah saith to me."
If ever a man felt himself in a hopeless minority, it was
Micaiah, when he was ushered into the presence of Ahab and
Jehoshaphat. He well knew the feelings and temper of his
royal master. His life was in imminent peril. He was already
the most unpopular man in the court. If Ahab had come
back successful from battle, contrary to Micaiah's prediction,
his reputation as a prophet would have been ruined; and yet

Sacrificing Personal Interests to Public Interests 131
he even dared mock the king by echoing, in a tone that Ahab
at once recognized as irony, the cracle of the four hundred.
The king's reply indicates that this was not the first time that
he had ridiculed Ahab's attempt to bring under bis despotic
control even the oracles of the Deity himself. A certain
caustic humor, as well as dramatic power of presentation,
characterizes all that is related of this otherwise unknown
prophet. His figure of "all Israel scattered on the mountains
as sheep that have no shepherd" was well calculated to arouse
Ahab to an appreciation of his high responsibility and of
the woes that he was in imminent danger of bringing upon his
helpless subjects. Micaiah would have been a good counsellor
for many a modern ruler. Then to make his lesson doubly
impressive and to rebuke the mercenary four hundred prophets,
Micaiah recounted a vision. Instead of Ahab seated on his
throne he seemed to see Jehovah the divine King sitting in
state with all the heavenly host about him. The question
raised by Jehovah is: "Who shall delude Ahab so that he will
go up and fail at Ramoth in Gilead?" The implication is
that Ahab is condemned; all that remains to be decided is a
fitting way in which to carry out the sentence. Some of the
divine attendants suggested one thing; others another, until
at last one stands forth and asks that he be sent as a lying
spirit in the mouth of all of Ahab's prophets. So perfectly
did this punishment fit the crimes of Ahab that it at once
received the divine approval. Accordingly the lying spirit
was put in the mouth of the four hundred prophets with the
result already noted. Micaiah's courage, insight, and skill
are all equally impressive. Underlying his bold, yet gently
humorous, condemnation of Ahab's tools, is the prophet's
deep moral conviction that the king's policy cannot possibly
receive Jehovah's approval. This conviction in Micaiah's
mind must have been rendered doubly sure by the fact that
the proposed war was simply prompted by the king's selfish
ambitions. It meant in any case the sacrifice of innocent
lives and jeopardized the future of the nation, for notwith
standing all his faults, Ahab was the best military commander
Northern Israel ever had, and his death would mean that his
people would indeed be left "as sheep without a shepherd."
Do you think that Micaiah had an absolute vision of the
future or was his vision a graphic, concrete method of present-

132 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
ing his clear conviction that Ahab's motives and plan of war
were wrong and that they would not be blest by a God of
justice? Give your reasons. Is the lying spirit in the mouth
of the false prophets the first appearance in Hebrew literature
of the popular belief in Satan? Compare this portrait here
with that in Job 1, 2. Did Micaiah wish to vindicate the four
hundred prophets?
Do you think that the advisers of any of the rulers before
the outbreak of the great modern war gave the advice they
thought was desired instead of the soundest advice? What
ones? Are such acts common today even in the case of holders
of small offices or of business men? Have you met any case
in your own experience? III.
The Fate of a Ruler Who Refused to Heed
Good Counsel.
Ahab is an excellent example of the superlative folly of
trying to elude the consequences of one's own crimes. He
must have recognized the absolute truth of Micaiah's con
tention, for he had a conscience and the figurative language
in which it was presented did not conceal but rather made
the more impressive its sinister warning. The false prophets
also felt keenly the stinging rebuke. Zedekiah showed his
anger and resentment by striking Micaiah in the face, but
that intrepid prophet remained calm in the serene confidence
that he was true to the eternal principles of which Jehovah
was the source and embodiment. He appealed to the future
for the vindication of his prediction. The exact prediction
which he uttered concerning Zedekiah may never have been
fulfilled, but its declaration that disaster awaited the nation
Israel proved all too true.
Ahab's rage was expressed in the command to put Micaiah
into prison and to feed him on scanty fare until the falsity
of his prediction should be demonstrated. It was the only
reply that a determined despot could make to the voice of
conscience and of truth. Micaiah met his unjust fate with
the confidence of a man intent on higher issues than the mis
fortunes of a moment. Thus Ahab entered the battle with
tb/» Arameans handicapped by a guilty conscience and deadly

Sacrificing Personal Interests to Public Interests 133
fear that led him to assume a disguise. To Jehoshaphat he
showed the very doubtful hospitality of putting on him his
royal robes, an act which nearly cost Jehoshaphat his life,
for the Aramean king had given orders that Ahab must be
captured at any cost.
The knowledge of Micaiah's ominous prediction and of
Ahab's infamous treatment of a faithful prophet of Jehovah
must have been widely known throughout the ranks of the
Hebrews, so that they entered the battle with fear in their hearts
and already half defeated. Ahab's disguise must also have
greatly disconcerted them, for the chief force holding them in
line was the presence and personal power of their masterful king.
Ahab himself was well aware of this fact, for when an arrow
pierced his coat of mail and mortally wounded him, he held
to his post until at the close of the day he died in his chariot.
The picture of the dying king, propped up in his chariot and
by sheer will power holding his place in the ranks of his fol
lowers is both inspiring and pathetic. One would like to
know what were his thoughts on that tragic day, as he felt his
life-blood departing and the tide of war turning against him.
Was it Micaiah's vision of "all Israel scattered on the moun
tains as sheep without a shepherd" that held him to his post
and kept his feeble heart beating? Did memories of the many
times that he had refused to heed the voice of his faithful
prophets and of his own conscience come back to him in the
midst of that tragic battle? Like many a masterful, energetic
man before and after him, he had felt himself strong enough
to defy God and his people and too late learned the utter
futility of the attempt. Back to his capital Samaria his
fleeing followers carried the body of the king, and next day,
as his servants washed his blood from his chariot and the
dogs licked his blood, every thoughtful man in Israel recalled
not Ahab's earfier victories but the stern prediction of Elijah
and the innocent blood of Naboth, poured out at Jezreel
through the cupidity and treachery of the most gifted but
morally one of the weakest of the kings of Northern Israel.
Prepare a sketch of Ahab's character, noting his elements
of strength and weakness. Did he genuinely love his subjects?
Is war ever justifiable except for defense? If so, cite illus
trations. Which is the greater prophet, Elijah or Micaiah?
Why?

134 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
IV.
The Function op Minorities.
In these days of popular self-government, we are in the
habit of speaking of the rule of majorities and of the rights
of minorities that need to be protected, but we comparatively
seldom think of the very useful function that minorities regu
larly perform. Men are so constituted that, unless there is
some way of compelling them to act thoughtfully after due
consideration, they are likely to act hastily and carelessly,
often in the long run to their own injury.
In our representative governments it is natural and wise
that conflicting interests and conflicting opinions should find
due representation. In our legislative bodies in consequence
we shall always have on every question of importance majorities
and minorities. A vote is taken in any republic, if we are to
follow the suggestion of Rousseau, not primarily for the purpose
of putting into effect a specific opinion, but rather to find
out what the majority thinks, our first interest being that the
will of the majority shall rule. In consequence, a member
of the minority ought not to feel that he is wronged or that
his will is not being carried out, if, as an advocate, let us say,
of free trade, he finds a protective system put into effect.
What he cares most about is that the majority shall rule.
If the majority believes in protection, he, therefore, wants
the state to have protection, until he and his party can con
vince a majority that that system is wrong. The function
of the minority, therefore, is to criticize the majority, to argue
with the majority, to put forward its own views so unceasingly
and so effectively that it will eventually become a majority
and then it will pass its favorite measures, after they in turn
have been duly criticized and opposed by the minority that
follows. In this way the government is kept stable and
secure, and progress, while possibly not always rapid, is steady
and sure. The importance of criticism must not be overlooked
in any state, or for that matter in any act of importance in
private as well as in public life, and such criticism should not
arouse bitterness, but should merely impose upon those who
are criticized the duty of self-examination and of the needed
readjustment of views and of acts.
Is it desirable that a system of proportional representation

Sacrificing Personal Interests to Public Interests 135
be adopted, so that even a small minority, say twenty per cent
or ten per cent, of the voters may still have an official repre
sentative to voice their opinion? In such a case would there
be danger of too many small parties? Is it always desirable
that one single party have a majority, so that the voters may
hold it responsible for the acts of government? Would not
or would a coalition of small parties on each important measure
answer the same purpose?

The Seeming Conflict op Personal and Public
Interest.
Most men feel that it is contrary to their immediate interest
to pay heavy taxes, but they recognize that it is in the public
interest that government be established and upheld, and they
are, therefore, willing to make the sacrifice of their personal
interest for the sake of promoting that of the public. Men
of training and ability are frequently asked to accept public
office in order that they may put their capabilities and ex
perience at the service of the pubfic. In many instances the
acceptance of such an office means a decided sacrifice of certain
types of personal interest. Not many years since a man
accepted a position in the United States cabinet at a salary
of $12,000 a year, when such acceptance was said to involve
the sacrifice of a personal income of $100,000 a year or upwards.
A member of the United States Senate some years ago resigned
his position because, as he said, he felt it incumbent upon him
to make proper financial provision for the support and educa
tion of his family and for his own needs in future years. He
had long served the public as an official as efficiently as he
could, and the public agreed that his services had been most
useful; but he felt that the time had come for him to place
first emphasis, for the time being at any rate, upon his personal
affairs. This seeming conflict is one that frequently arises.
Usually, if one takes the look far ahead and has his real interest
in the final terms of service, there will be found to be no con
flict. If a citizen cares for his character and his self-respect,
he may much more easily afford to pay high taxes than to
attempt to shirk his proper share of the pubfic burdens. A
man may sacrifice a fortune, as many have sacrificed fortunes,

136 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
by devoting his fife to the public service, but the approval
of his fellow-citizens and, what is of more importance, the
approval of his conscience for a life spent in the performance of
duty ought surely to be ample compensation for the loss of
wealth. We know that it is practically a universal experience
that men who fall on the field of battle, when fighting for a cause
they believe to be just, do not regret the sacrifice, but cheer
fully, gladly even, sacrifice life itself for their country and
the duty imposed upon them by patriotism. Can any one
believe that they have lost by sacrificing all that they have
for the pubfic good?
Give illustrations within your own knowledge of persons
who have sacrificed private gain for the public good with no
expectation of reward. Give illustrations of those who have
sacrificed the public good for private gain. Judging all the
above cases in the light of the reputation of all the persons
mentioned among their neighbors, and in the scale of your
conscience, would you gain most in the long run in the first
or the second class? VI.
Ways in which Men May Effectively Serve their
State and Nation.
Many of the discussions regarding the duties of the citizen
lay chief emphasis upon office holding and the furtherance of
the pubfic welfare through law making and law enforcement.
It is too often forgotten that the unofficial citizen in many
cases may accomplish for his city and state as much as can
any pubfic official. When in the early sixties, Professor
Virchow of the University of Berlin noted the very high
death rate of that city and believed that this death rate might
be greatly lowered through the installation of a proper water
supply and drainage system, his scientific studies were probably
of no less service to his city than the official service which he
performed when he went into the City Council, afterward
to become a member of the Prussian Landtag and of the
Imperial Reichstag. In these official positions he was able
to assist in putting into effect remedial measures that promoted
the health of his fellow-citizens. That was a work, however,
that might have been accomplished by many more men than

Sacrificing Personal Interests to Public Interests 137
could have performed the scientific investigations upon which
these great services rested. Few people will question the
service to their countries that men like Edison and Gray and
Carrel and Pasteur and Helmholtz and numerous other scientific
men have rendered, even when those services are put into
direct comparison in value with those of important members
of the government of the leading states or of the greatest generals
in warfare.
But aside from the public effect of these personal services
along scientific lines, there are other services directly political
in nature that may be performed without securing or holding
public office. A very large proportion of the legislation of
the present day deals with economic and social questions.
It frequently happens that a man who is thoroughly trained
in business or in the commercial sciences, by virtue of his
investigations, his scientific reputation, his standing as a
man of good judgment and unprejudiced views may exercise
even more influence upon legislation than can a man who is
himself either a political leader or a member of an official
body. The prime consideration, of course, is that a person
have the knowledge and then the character that will win
confidence. If he have the public spirit which demands that
he put whatever he has of ability or strength at the service
of the public, it makes little difference what his field of activity
may be — he will find ample opportunity. It is not many
years since, at the time of a great social crisis in New York
City, large sums of money were put with full discretion into
the hands of a woman of marked ability and high character,
Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell, to expend for the public welfare,
because it was generally felt that there was no public official
or no other private citizen so well equipped to render this
special public service that the situation demanded. Similar
illustrations are found in the distribution of relief funds at the
time of the San Francisco earthquake and fire, in the famines
in China and India and in numberless other instances that
might be cited. Let no one, therefore, feel that in order to
render a public service he needs to seek or to enter public
office. It is perhaps far more likely to be the case that he
can render his public service either by serving as a conscientious,
fearless — though he should try to be a sensible and even-
tempered — critic of public affairs, or by the direct rendering

138 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
of public service through personal study and personal devotion
in any field of pubfic activity.
Is there any adverse criticism to be made of a conscientious
man who does seek public office? How is one to find a just basis
for judging such a man? What is the proper criterion for
judgment? Ought a man always to wait until some one else
suggests him for office? Or for a private appointment?
Subjects for Further Study.
(1) The False Prophets in Israel's History. Compare the references
to them in Micah 3: 3-7, Jer. 5: 13, 31; 6: 13, 14, 34, and Ezek. 22: 25-28;
Lam. 2:14. Wny were they a deadly menace to the integrity of the Hebrew
commonwealth? (2) If a City Government in the United States needs for public purposes
— say for a park — the land of a private individual, it may take the land
through condemnation proceedings by the right of eminent domain.
Examine this right and the methods of procedure under the laws of your
own State and compare them with Ahab's methods of securing Naboth's
vineyard. Statutes: "Eminent Domain; Condemnation Proceedings."

CHAPTER XII.
A NATION'S DESTINY.
Israel's Conception of Its Mission. — Deut. 4 — 9.
Parallel Readings.
Croly, Chap. XIII; Lowell, Chap. XIX.
Ye shall walk in all the ways which Jehovah your God hath commanded
you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may
prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess. — Deut. 6: S3.
For thou art a holy people to Jehovah thy God. Jehovah thy God
hath chosen thee to be a special people to himself, above all people that
are upon the face of the earth. — Deut. 7: 6.
Know therefore that Jehovah thy God, he is God, the faithful God,
who keepeth covenant and mercy with those who love him and keep his
commands to a thousand generations. — Deut. 7: 9.
Ye are the salt of the earth. — Matt. 5: IS.
From the beginning the Land of Democracy has been figured as the
Land of Promise. An America which was not the Land of Promise,
which was not informed by a prophetic outlook and a more or less con
structive ideal, would not be the America bequeathed to us by our fore
fathers. — Croly.

A Nation's Destiny 139
While it is illuminating to see how environment molds men, it is abso
lutely essential that men regard themselves as molders of their environ
ment. — Lippmann.
This shall be thy work: to impose conditions of peace, to spare the
lowly, and to overthrow the proud. — Virgil.
The meaning of honor and of the sanctity of one's word, the under
standing of the principles of democracy and of the society in which we
hve, the love of humanity, and the desire to serve — these are what make
a good citizen. — Tarbell.
We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven
can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of
order and right, which heaven itself has ordained. — Washington.
I.
Israel's Unfolding National Ideals.
It is reported that Gladstone in speaking regarding the
American Constitution characterized it as the greatest work
that had ever sprung at one time from the mind of man. If
the story is true, the assumption seems to be that great historic
documents come quickly into being without previous prepara
tion. Nothing could be farther from the truth. American
historians have repeatedly shown that scarcely an article or
section in the American Constitution is new, but that nearly
every plan proposed had been tried by some colony, and every
successful institution therein established had already stood
the test of experience. So it always is in the development
of nations. The early Hebrew tribes established a model
of democratic policy that has had a prevailing influence upon
human history since that time, and the experience of Israel
first proved that the democratic idea, which is commonly
found in primitive society, was also adaptable to a powerful
nation. When the Hebrews first appear as a people, they are merely
a band of slaves escaping from the tyranny of the Pharaoh
in Egypt, but they are bound together by the influence of a
leader of pre-eminent ability who knew how to unite his tur
bulent people into one firm social unit and to impress indelibly
upon them the ideal of freedom, and especially the idea of
dependence upon Jehovah. Through his ability to unite
his people Moses created the Hebrew state. It consisted
at first of only a small disorganized people wandering in the

140 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
wilderness with scarcely sufficient resources to meet their
daily needs; but Moses gave them the ambition to become a
united people with an orderly government founded upon
righteousness. Their experiences in the wilderness cultivated
in each man the spirit of independence and self-reliance neces
sary to the foundation of self-government; but in the early times
they were so few in number and had a leader so pre-eminent
in ability that in all matters of public policy they rested mainly
on his judgment. In their own personal affairs, however,
every family and clan ruled itself under the direction of its
elders. As the tribes came north through the territory east of the
Jordan and entered upon the conquest of Palestine, the pres
sure of conflict against the desert tribes, together with the
incentives to subjugate the peoples of Canaan, emphasized
still further these primitive tendencies. To these were added
the conception of a strong, permanent state that would enable
the Hebrews to acquire property and to establish themselves
as permanent residents of a home land. But it was not until
later that the pressure from the surrounding nations and
especially the attacks of the Philistines upon the different
tribes of Israel led them to take steps to realize, as they did
under Saul, the ideal of a nation united into one people, great
enough to be called a state in the modern meaning of the
term. After King David overthrew the Philistines, he rapidly
extended his conquests to the north and east and south, until
he ruled an empire instead of a small kingdom. His realm
extended from the territory of Damascus on the north to the
Red Sea on the south, from the desert on the east to the land
of the Philistines in the plains bordering on the Mediterranean.
He had under him many subject peoples, and the conception
of a kingdom, which the Israelites had held before, grew into
the broader idea of a great empire. The earlier belief in
Jehovah as a tribal God developed into the thought of Jehovah
as a God of other gods, as a Lord of lords, although not until
long after David's day did the conception of a one universal
God, supreme over all peoples, become prevalent among them.
It will be thus seen that step by step the nation developed
from the mere idea of the family or clan with its patriarchal
head, as in the days of Abraham, into that of a great imperial

A Nation's Destiny 141
nation, ruling over other nations, and that as their bounds
were extended, their conception of Jehovah's influence and
authority was correspondingly enlarged.
Did the Hebrews learn more in the wilderness from the
teachings of Moses or from their struggles against hunger
and thirst and hostile tribes? Is there anything in the nature
of life in the wilderness that especially emphasizes the idea
of man's dependence upon a supernatural power?
II.
The Effects op Great Crises Upon Israel's
Development.
Although the process of development may be slow, in the
history of nations there may be noted from time to time,
certain crises or steps in development that mark the beginning
or the end of periods of national growth. Though the crises
seem to come suddenly, they are usually the result of long
preparation. Definite dates are ascribed for the beginning
of the American and French revolutions, and yet in both cases
it is possible to trace through a series of years influences
that were steadily increased in strength until at length they
suddenly burst the bonds, and events of international im
portance quickly took place. The sudden revolution in China
against the Manchu dynasty had been preparing for many
decades. The outburst came suddenly from apparently a
slight, even an inadequate cause. So in the recent great
war that has involved all Europe and a large proportion of
the civilized world, the underlying influences of national
prejudices, growing armaments, aggressive commercialism,
the spirit of dominating militarism, and various suspicions
were all gaining strength during a long series of years until
finally, at an event that at first seemed only a minor crisis,
there burst into flame in a few hours a conflagration of war
that has changed all of modern history. In Israel's history
we may likewise mark a series of significant crises.
In the beginning the nation came into being through a
revolution that freed the Hebrew slaves from the Egyptians
and gave them a chance to build stable social institutions.
At Sinai, through the insight of Moses, the covenant with
Jehovah was promulgated that determined the trend of the

142 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
nation's religious and political development from that tima
forward. The great victory of Deborah over the Canaanites gave to
the Israelites the consciousness of unity that enabled them
to look forward to ultimate possession of a permanent home
in a land that from its agricultural and commercial possibilities
enabled them to build a sound civilization.
The pressure of the Philistines upon the scattered tribes
of the North and South threatened their independent existence
and forced them to accept Saul as the king of a united nation.
This act inaugurated a memorable era which continued through
the reigns of David and Solomon, and resulted in the gradual
development of the people into a great empire.
Solomon's oppression of his people and the burdens that
he laid upon them brought about the next, and, in many
respects, the most important political crisis in Israel's history,
when the tribes demanded of Rehoboam that he relieve the
people from their unjust burdens and make himself not the
tyrant but the servant of the people. This crisis, which estab
lished for the Israelites once for all the principle of individual
human rights, marks the political culmination of their nation's
destiny. They not only demanded, but they won self-govern
ment. The last important crisis in the period under considera
tion came in the days of Ahab and Elijah. The perpetuation
of Israel's faith in Jehovah and the political and social and
moral ideals that had crystallized about that faith were then
at issue, and in the end the higher ideals triumphed.
Can there be self-government under a king? Give examples.
Can there be tyranny under a democracy? Give examples.
Which do you consider the most important crisis mentioned
in this section? Why? Can you mention any books the
publication of which has marked crises in history? What
ones? III.
The Influence of the Prophets.
It is the fashion among a certain group of modern writers
to say that the fate of individuals is determined by society
and that the forces which control the development of nations
and individuals alike are forces for which they are not respon
sible and which no individual can control. The determining

A Nation's Destiny 143
influence of environment is not to be underestimated, but it
should be noted that in every movement there is some individual
who starts it and to a great extent, as a result of his personal
characteristics and efforts, determines its direction. Doubtless
in the American situation and in the acts of Great Britain
there were underlying causes that forced the American revolu
tion; but the influence of such men as Samuel Adams, Patrick
Henry, James Otis and George Washington is likewise not
to be overlooked.
The system of slavery in the United States doubtless would
ultimately have been abolished as a result of underlying eco
nomic and moral forces. This in no way lessens, however,
the emphasis that should be placed upon the work and acts
of Webster, Calhoun, Lincoln, Douglas and John Brown.
So in the Hebrew history there are a few great men, the
prophets, each of whom rendered a service that cannot be
overlooked; each is the one in whom we find the immediate
efficient, even perhaps the final cause of one of the great his
toric changes. The world's historians will ever look upon
Moses as the great creative mind that laid the foundation
of the institutions that have made the Hebrews a people of
tremendous influence throughout all history. It needed a
prophet like Samuel to crystallize in his mind the underlying
thoughts and aspirations of his people for a greater unity, and
to select the man, who of all men of his day, was probably
best fitted to put that thought into effect. It needed a man
with the boldness and insight of Elijah to see the necessity
for the Hebrew people to stand for the rights of the individual
against the tyranny of a king fike Ahab and to act upon the
belief that Jehovah would overthrow the oppressor of the
upright and would protect his people, if they implicitly fol
lowed him and relied upon his power, in order to establish
for the Hebrews and for all free peoples since that time the
doctrine of individual human rights. In other cases we find
prophets like Nathan and Ahijah and Elisha, and later Amos
and Isaiah, and finally the greatest prophet of them all, Jesus
of Nazareth, discerning first the needs of their own people and
finally seeing the needs of all peoples and crystallizing in then-
words and lives the principles of action required to lead the
world to higher levels.
In your judgment is the day of the prophets ended? Many

144 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
have thought that Emerson may be considered a prophet in
view of the nature and effect of his teachings. Do you think
so? Do you consider Martin Luther a prophet? Or Karl
Marx? Must a man to be a prophet contribute a great idea
to the world's history, or is any man of great influence to be
so counted? Napoleon? Csesar? Lincoln? Mohammed?
Darwin? Fichte? Rousseau? IV.
The Sense in Which the Israelites were the
Chosen People.
The story given in the Old Testament of a covenant, a
bargain made between Jehovah and the Israelites, seems
strange to most people of the present day. It seems at first
blush derogatory to the dignity of God that he should make
a bargain with a people, and it seems likewise impossible that
any people could so know the will of the Deity that they could
understand the terms of a covenant so as to carry it out; and
yet with a somewhat different statement of the circumstances
the historical significance of the covenant of Jehovah with
the Hebrews becomes clear.
All primitive people, like the early Israelites, looked upon
their God as being quite like themselves in nature, though
of greater power. When they asked protection from him,
it was natural, they thought, that he should demand some
thing in return; and that, as the different tribes might make
bargains one with the other, so might the gods of the tribes
make bargains with one another and with their peoples. We
find numerous illustrations in Hebrew history; for example,
the vows of Jephthah and Saul. It is a most remarkable
tribute to the insight and wisdom of Moses that, understanding
the normal moral characteristics of his people, he should have
been able to formulate the customs that had gradually de
veloped through the preceding years and that represented the
highest intellectual and moral principles of that day and
generation into a series of rules of action, representing, as
he felt convinced, the will of Jehovah ; and then that he should
be so imbued with the spirit of scientific righteousness as to
dare to say to his people that, if they would keep those laws,
Jehovah would be their God and friend and defender and
protector against all ills.

A Nation's Destiny 145
So far as history gives us records,* Moses was probably the
first leader in history who recognized, so far as to dare act upon
the_ principle, the immutability and strength of moral laws and
their permanent influence upon the welfare of humanity.
At the present day in speaking of physical phenomena
we all recognize the immutability of law. We speak of
nature's laws of health; we say that if we obey nature's laws
and live in conformity with them, we shall prosper. We say and
know that if we violate those laws, we shall be punished. What
has become a mere truism in the realm of physical law, the
ablest thinkers of this day, attaining finally to the insight of
Moses, have come to recognize as true also regarding the so-
called moral and social laws. More and more it is coming
to be recognized that the individuals and the peoples who
obey these moral and social laws prosper; that those who
violate them are punished.
In the days of the ancient Hebrews, just as the physical laws
of nature were much less well understood than at the present
day, so many of the moral laws were less well known. With
their belief in the immediate interference of Jehovah in political
affairs and with their lack of knowledge of natural law, if any
ill, like a great plague, befell the people, they ascribed this
to the displeasure of Jehovah and believed that in some way
they had violated their covenant. Doubtless they were at
times mistaken in interpreting the nature of their transgres
sion and its consequences. There is no apparent reason why
a plague should be dependent upon the taking of a census,
as was believed in the case of David. But in the majority
of cases they were right: the people had violated some as yet
unknown moral or physical law. As their prophets acquired
greater knowledge and a deeper insight into the causes of
national prosperity, they were often able to declare with
authority and certainty that, unless their people followed the
laws of Jehovah, a serious punishment, one even that might
result in the overthrow of their state, would surely follow.
They had agreed to obey his laws; he would punish them if
they violated them. That was their faith. It was usually
justified. In that sense the Israelites were the chosen people
of Jehovah. With their enlightened consciences and with a
deeper insight into the significance of right living than any
other people in history, they believed that they could attain

146 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
the highest success by righteous living, and that their ancestor*
had so pledged them to such living with Jehovah that they
had become the chosen people. It needs no mystical insight
to perceive the soundness of this doctrine, nor does it need
any superstition or mysticism to see that any individuals or
any people of the present day may themselves be designated
as leaders or may be chosen as the people of their God, if they
are willing in the same way to pledge themselves to righteous
living in accordance with the laws established by the forces,
whatever they may be, physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual,
that have been laid down by the unseen and as yet only partially
known power that we call God.
Mention some of nature's laws that are even now frequently
violated by ignorant people. Give cases of prompt and
great rewards for the observance of God's laws. Would
you count the suppression of yellow fever in Cuba and Panama
a case of that kind? It is asserted by historians that licentious
ness and corruption were the chief causes of the downfall of
the Roman Empire. Is this an illustration of the failure
of a great nation to make or to keep a covenant with God?
Can you give any illustration of success in an individual or
a nation — in the long run, and in the best sense of the word —
that has been attained by wrong-doing? V.
The Destiny of a Modern Nation.
In this same sense in which the Hebrew prophets spoke of
Israel's destiny may we speak of the destiny of a nation at the
present day. As we come more and more to understand the
nature of political and social forces, we can see how the life
of a nation is dependent upon its geographical and economic
situation, upon the character and degree of development of
its people, upon its relations with other nations; and its success
depends on the extent to which its people use these forces
so as to produce the highest degree of development possible
in the circumstances in which they live. This principle of
success may well be looked upon as a covenant offered by nature
or by God whose laws control nature.
It is clear that the destiny of no two peoples can be the
same. The natural resources of one country make of its

A Nation's Destiny 147
people a nation of agriculturists. Another country is peculiarly
well adapted to satisfy the need of the world for manufactured
goods; other nations from their gifts can best serve humanity
by the development of their artistic tastes; while others are
better suited to become leaders in science or literature or
morals. Culture is a matter of law, of imitation, of the develop
ment of individual gifts under right training. Freedom can
be attained, but only in ways that conform to the laws of
human nature or developed society. Good morals will bring
in the end the best results. Every ruler, every people, every
individual is in position to make a covenant, if he will. But
people may still make mistakes, as apparently those do who
still believe in the divine right of kings.
It seems clear that each nation will be best fitted to fulfill
its own destiny, in the high and noble sense in which ancient
Israel conceived its lot as a chosen people under the condition
that it should obey the law of Jehovah, if it shall render the
greatest service to its people of which it is capable, by studying
its natural resources of all kinds, economic, political, social,
and learning the ways in which it can best develop them so
as to promote the welfare of humanity, and then direct its
energies so as to attain this noblest end. Such a result cannot
be attained until a nation is ready to look beyond its own
borders and to develop itself, not selfishly, but for world
service. Can a nation render world service by scientific achievement?
By the development of wealth? By the extension of popular
education? By militarism? By the cultivation of moral
philosophy? By setting the fashions in dress? By writing
the world's music? By cultivating religious feeling?
VI.
The Significance of the Individual Citizen's Religious
Attitude.
Religion in these days has undoubtedly acquired a meaning
different from that of the days of the Hebrew prophets, but
even at the present date there is probably no universal agree
ment regarding the meaning of religion. We may, however,
broadly define a man's religion as his attitude toward the
forces outside himself which determine, often without his

148 The Testing of a Nation's Ideals
understanding them, his fate. In other words, to use the
common phraseology, a man's religion is his attitude toward
God. In the earlier stages of society man looked upon the
God as some unknown force, sometimes beneficent, sometimes
vengeful, which he could appease by gifts and to which he should
be thankful for favors received. Differing stages of civiliza
tion have had different conceptions of these unknown forces
that they have called gods.
This conception of religion does not differ materially from
that of the modern reverent scientist who recognizes the laws
of nature as on the whole beneficent and who believes that
they are capable of being gradually more and more understood,
so that they can be better used for the promotion of human
welfare, and who further believes that the laws of our being
are not only physical laws but also laws of mind and of society
which affect us morally and socially, so that by conscientious
living we can gradually attain a higher and higher good. No
two peoples, not even any two close personal friends, have
exactly the same conception of God, for to every one God
represents, under Christian teaching, his highest conception
of what is good and right, and that conception naturally differs
owing to the differing circumstances of living. Each man's
conception, therefore, of the laws of God (or of nature in this
broadest sense) is individual and will differ in details from
the conception of others. To each of us then, the service of
God, if we abandon all theological terms, is simply the render
ing to one another and to the world the best service that we find
possible and the doing conscientiously in all regards, to ourselves
and to others, our duty. The best and truest and most devoted
of men can thus simply gain the supreme uplifting joys of
religion even as Jesus did, whose service was and could be
only in doing His Father's work by giving His care and love
and even His life for His fellowmen, the children of God.
Religion comes thus directly home to each man's business
and bosom and to his life as a citizen. The best state will
grow from the best citizens. The highest problem of the state
is to develop such citizens, for the state is simply the organized
association of its individual citizens, and the government of
the state is their instrument for carrying out their will. The
problem of citizenship is to promote in the best ways the general

A Nation's Destiny 149
welfare. This brings the state and citizen into close touch
with religion.
If this is what is meant by religion and the religious attitude
(and this does not differ in essence from the teaching of Jesus),
it becomes evident that, as the destiny of the Jewish nation
was dependent upon the refigious attitude of the Jewish people,
so the destiny of every modern nation is dependent upon the
religious attitude of its people. If each nation's highest
destiny is to render to humanity the greatest services of which
under the circumstances it is capable, this destiny will first
be attained when each individual's religious attitude is also
that of devoted service to what he believes to be the highest
good of humanity. This was evidently the fundamental
principle in Jesus' mind when he declared to his disciples:
"Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant,
even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but
to minister."
According to your conception, is every law of nature a law
of God? Do you think that moral and social laws depend
upon natural characteristics? Are there any so-called laws
of morals or social laws (not political statutes passed by men)
that are not also natural laws? Are the laws of a true religion
contrary to natural laws? How can you observe God's laws
otherwise than by observing natural laws (physical, mental,
moral and social)? Subjects for Further Study.
(1) Trace the development of Israel's democratic ideals, noting the
inheritances from the early nomadic life, the incorporation of these ideals
in the Hebrew commonwealth, and the struggles to maintain them in the
more complex life of Canaan.
(2) Read thoughtfully Washington's Farewell Address, Lincoln's First
and Second Inaugural Addresses and Lowell's Address on Democracy.
If the people and government of the United States were to live up to
the principles of these addresses, would the American people prosper
and take their place as the leaders of the world in political development?
Find passages in these addresses which show that the writers believed
that they were stating fundamental social laws which to them had also
a divine sanction. Would this be considered by them as a covenant
with God, if they believed that the people of the United States consciously
accepted the righteous way of living suggested in their addresses?

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 8106