IIKHVn I I 1 1| $ &i • I HHH i lllii'i: 1 ;. ill nil: I Si! ■l i ■Ml P* ■nwi ■hhp w 1MI ; H H ill * HI * j i iiji IS! ait liHiii! M ! iiiHiiiilii!! .11111111 ■■IIS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/colemanethicsOOcolerich SOCIAL ETHICS SOCIAL ETHICS An Introduction to the Nature and Ethics of the State JAMES MELVILLE COLEMAN Sterrett Professor of Political Philosophy and History, Geneva College New York Chicago Toronto Fleming H. Revell Company London and Edinburgh Copyright, 1903, 1916, 1922, by FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY e ? r New York: 158 Fifth Avenue Chicago: 17 North Wabash Ave. London: 21 Paternoster Square Edinburgh: 75 Princes Street TO MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER 841613 CONTENTS CHAPTER I. The Nature of the Nation-State 13 CHAPTER II. Social Institutions 44 CHAPTER III. Church and State 56 CHAPTER IV. State and the Individual 71 CHAPTER V. Factors of Social Union 91 CHAPTER VI. Social Mind ■ in CHAPTER VII. Social Conscience 141 CHAPTER VIII. Social Forces 173 CHAPTER IX. Sovereignty of the State 201 CHAPTER X. Law 224 CHAPTER XI. Authority. 246 CHAPTER XII. General Principles of Authority 271 CHAPTER XIII. The Social Confession of Christ 286 CHAPTER XIV. What Constitutes a Christian State 30S FOREWORD Nineteen hundred years ago an exile of the Roman Empire was on a lonely Rock in the ^Egean. He was not there because he had done his neighbor wrong, but be- cause he believed in the coming of an organized society which would not rest on injustice. He had even dared to promise the coming of this new social order to the toilers that he met. Standing on this rock lookout the exile saw a new Empire rise such as the world had never known. In it were no slaves, there were none that suffered wrong and the ruler was a workman with calloused hands. While he looked he listened, and through the stillness came a voice. "The kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ." The exile believed in the vision and the voice. He told what he had seen and heard to others and they with gladness believed with him. It was their confidence that not only is there an individual, but a social soul, to be saved. Before both of them is righteousness and the Kingdom of God and the approach is through a divine man who calls himself The Way. After nineteen centuries the vision of the exile is not realized and those who have trusted in it must still walk by faith. The curse of sin still rests on the fairest works of God. War and hatred and greed and tears are yet the FOREWORD burden of the peoples. Satan still holds the kingdoms of the world. But we believe in the vision and in the con- quering power of the imperial Christ. It is in this faith that this little book is written and sent out with its halting message. If America is to be saved her citizens must learn that she is a soul and needs a Savior. They must learn that our real dangers are from internal sin and not from external foes. Men have tried all other paths to peace with their f ellowmen except that way that lies through peace with God. And they have failed. There is a Way, and if these chapters aid in the humblest degree in pointing out this Way and in making America loyal to her Christ they will have served their purpose. PREFACE. In these days, when the social mind is troubled with a plethora of books, the writer who proposes an addition to the number should be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in him. There is no lack of social studies, but it seems to me that there is room for a book which treats social phenomena from a distinctively Christian point of view, and yet gives adequate place to the con- clusions of science and philosophy. What is wanted is a Christian cosmic philosophy, for philosophy must be Christian to be cosmic. Mr. Herbert Spencer tried to build a cosmic philosophy on the basis of matter and motion ; Mr. John Fiske went so far as to admit that science could not disprove im- mortality; but the last word on the philosophy of the universe must not ignore spiritual facts. Science must come to recognize the fact that spirit is supreme over matter, rather than dependent on matter for existence. I believe that the student must look at the facts of the universe from the position of Jesus, if he is to gain the proper perspective. Thus may he hope to find the harmony of the universe. " In Him all things consist," and the view which leaves Jesus Christ out of the uni- verse, or makes Him anything less than a controlling factor, is fatally defective. These pages have no such ambitious aim as the statement of a world philosophy, yet the declaration is ventured that the cosmic philosophy, PREFACE when stated, will include these premises. Jesus Christ must be taken as the point of departure and approach. His will must be seen as the governing agency in mat- ter; His teachings must be accepted as the ultimate rule of human life. This is the view with which these pages have been written. This work, put together in the broken time of con- tinuous school work, was designed specially for the con- venience of my classes, but I am not without the hope that it may serve the same purpose for other teachers, and that the general reader will not find it altogether unsuited to his needs. With this latter class in mind, technical matter has been omitted as far as possible. Not to the classroom alone can be left the solution of the social problem, which solution is the social crowning of the Christ. Foot-note references have been omitted, and instead reference is made to books and chapters, in the hope that the reader may not rest satisfied with the reading of detached sentences, but will study the author for him- self. For the most part, however, the attempt has been made to interpret the commonplace facts, which are so familiar as to need no reference. In order to avoid the difficulty, peculiar to American politics, of confusing the " State," the social spirit, with the " State " as a member of the Federal Union, the word Commonwealth has been substituted for " State " in the latter sense. I am indebted to my brother, Rev. W. J. Coleman, through whose suggestion this work was undertaken, PREFACE and whose advice has been of great service in its prep- aration. The discussion of authority has its basis in a course of lectures delivered by him in Geneva College. The conception of the State and the relation which it bears to social institutions, is drawn from the teaching and the writings of Professor John Dewey. Scarcely less than to these do I owe a debt of grati- tude to the students, past and present, whose keen criti- cisms in class discussions have weeded out some of the defects in the book, and to others who have given their time to the correcting of the pages as they passed through the press. Fully conscious that this work is not a final statement of the views which it aims to present, I give it to the public in the hope that it may point the way to some complete embodiment of the social truth which shall "make us free/' SOCIAL ETHICS THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE ' Tommy Morgan had scarcely finished his argument in Chicago Commons that labor difficulties were to be settled by the teachings of Jesus when a stranger was on his feet to answer him. "What this man has just told you," said the new- comer, "is dead wrong. This world has always been, will always be, ruled by force. By force kings have reigned. By force empires have risen and stood. Force is the world law. What the last speaker has been saying about love is foolishness. Love never has, and never can, rule." Pagan Ethics. This discussion in the free forum of Chicago Com- mons states the issue which is as old as human history. Is love, or force, the ruling principle of the world of men? It was in the belief that force was supreme in international affairs that Germany made her appeal to the god of war in 1914 and backed the appeal with all the science of the age. Some men said then that Christianity had failed be- cause it had not prevented war. Very few would say 1 Prepared for this edition of Social Ethics. 13 14 ; SOCIAL ETHICS that new. They are saying that Christianity has not failed in international relations for the reason that, except in isolated cases, it has not been tried. The diplomacy of the world has been based on force, in fact John Hay was almost the first to propose any other prin- ciple. So that when Germany appealed to force she had centuries of diplomacy in her favor. Then why did Germany fail? Not through lack of preparation ! Not through lack of organization ! Never was force so well organized, so thoroughly ready, so able to strike savage blows. There is only one reason that seems sufficient and that is that Tommy Morgan was right when he said that there was something in the world stronger than force. Now if men are matter rather than mind, if they are ruled by material interests and ends, as our Marxian friends tell us they are, then force is the ultimate law. But if men are after all fundamentally mind, then spirit forces must dominate. This was the issue which the Assyrians raised with Hezekiah when they declared that in the name of the god of force the Assyrians had ravaged cities, desolated provinces, and destroyed em- pires. It was the same pagan language which was used by William Second, when he issued his address to his soldiers on the way to Pekin and that we occasionally read in our own Army and Navy Journal. Did the answer to the Assyrians when one hundred and eighty-five thousand of their soldiers fell in a night in the Serbonian bog, or the issue of the World War, give any answer to the question whether this world is ruled by impersonal force, or a righteous God? Somewhere, and somehow, we must decide whether human affairs are THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 15 governed by pagan or Christian ethics. And that is de- cided by whether men are fundamentally matter, or mind. Certainly paganism and Christianity may not finally divide the empire of the world. One, on other, must triumph. The Ancient Sanction for Pagan Ethics, Now while pagan ethics, like the poor, is always with us, the sanction for this code has changed with the age. In ancient times the monarchs of Egypt and Assyria, later of Greece and Rome, were supposed to represent the gods of the lands, so that their crimes against hu- manity were understood to be done in execution of the will of " the gods of things as they are." When Genseric was asked where he was going with his pirate ships he said, "Against the people with whom god is angry. ,, Alexander felt himself so much in need of a divine com- mission to sanctify his depredations that he went a jour- ney into the desert to have a priest discover his divine lineage. But as the centuries went by, the pagans in the land of the West ceased to believe in the gods of the old form and it was necessary that the ethics of force should get some new basis, or be discredited and fall into disrepute along with those who lived by its precepts. The New Sanction for Pagan Ethics, Somewhat more than half a century ago a quiet Eng- lishman named Charles Darwin announced a theory to the world which has done more to influence the thinking of men, or to justify certain ways of thinking, than any 16 SOCIAL ETHICS other hypothesis of modern times. Nor, as far as the theory itself was concerned, could one have expected such important results, for Darwin himself did not pro- pose it as a philosophy of life. What he claimed to have discovered was the origin of species, while the pagan mind seized upon it as an explanation of the universe of things and men. What Darwin claimed as the result of his investigations was that animal life, and he did not go beyond that, had been produced in prodigal abundance. And so great was this abundance that the food supply was insufficient, making the attempt to obtain food for the over supply of mouths a struggle for life in which those individuals best suited to the particular environment survived and those less suited perished. Thus we have as a result of variations and the struggle for life what Darwin called the survival of the fittest through natural selection. This Darwin said was the law of life and progress in the animal world and beyond that limit he modestly did not venture. He left to the adventurers, who followed, the task of using the Darwinian hypothesis for the ex- planation of things in general from the crayfish to Higher Criticism. Indeed Darwinism has served purposes of which its author never dreamed. The belief in divine right had been used as the sanction for the ethics of force in be- half of predatory individuals and classes for centuries until it ceased to function. This left the self-interest of industrial and political kings and predatory nations sorely in need of some justification for the practices they had elected to follow and what could be so acceptable to the selfish interests of the world as this theory which made THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 17 struggle and the extermination of the weak as unfit, the law of life. " Let him get who has the power And let him keep who can," no longer needed an excuse when it was exalted into scientific dogma. So it was not alone its scientific ap- peal which gave Darwinism its immediate popularity, but also the fact that it gave support to practices of men and nations that were as old as sin. To all such this new scientific contribution was as manna in the desert. Now since natural selection could be hailed as a law of the universe, not only in the lower forms of life, but also in human affairs, and since human progress was con- ditioned on struggle through which the fittest was se- lected, then the extermination of the weaker nation, or the weaker individual, is not only excusable, but com- mendable. Individual and national selfishness was not only justified but glorified. So natural selection became successively with its devotees a scientific hypothesis to explain the origin of species, a universal theory of life, and finally a religion for those who had no other. Its Individual and National Application. But while Darwinism may be accepted as an ethical code either by individuals, or nations, it is applied in quite a different fashion in the two cases. In its application to the individual it means his development in efficiency through his integration in his own interest, his entire absorption in his struggle for his own hand. As Ben- jamin Kidd states the case, "It is the science of the causes which have made those who are efficient in the 18 SOCIAL ETHICS struggle for their own interests supreme and omnipotent in the world." But the integration which makes a nation efficient must be secured in quite a different way. Professor Burgess, who had fully absorbed the Prussian idea of the ethics of force, says there must be a struggle between nations to prevent national stagnation, so international war is neces- sary to national life. But there must be no civil war. This would destroy the nation. If all the citizens pur- sued the methods of natural selection the final outcome would be the same as that of the Kilkenny cats. So in a nation where the ethics of force is taken as the method of international diplomacy, sacrifice is demanded in internal affairs and the more force is applied outward, the greater the demand for sacrifice within. The Prus- sian citizen was taught to lose himself in the state of which the Kaiser was the visible symbol. Thus did the Prussian ideal of struggle between Germany and other nations that she might have her place in the sun, and the renunciation on the part of the individual citizen within, produce the most efficient fighting force in in- dustry and war that the world has known. So we can understand Prussian diplomacy. Belgium was weak, France decadent. Therefore the destruction of these nations would be a blessing to humanity, even to these nations themselves, provided that Germany ad- ministered the affairs of the deceased. "Weakness," said Treitschke, " is the greatest national crime." There- fore the wiping out of the Serbian nationality would have aided human progress. All the conquerors from Sargon to William Second had acted on the same code of ethics, but only in recent times could it claim a scientific basis. THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 19 Treitschke asserts, " It is hypocrisy to apply the Sermon on the Mount to national life," for while the individual has a duty to sacrifice to national interests, there is noth- ing higher than the nation for which sacrifice may be made. And every militarist from Berlin to Washington would echo the saying of Treitschke, for this form of pagan belief is not peculiar to any language, or country. Prussianism, which is used here as another name for pagan ethics, is not bounded by political lines. Our boys died to kill it in France and our statesmen practice it in Washington. Prussianism is a state of mind. Beliefs Rule the World. Beliefs rule individuals. Belief is related to act as root to fruit. An individual's belief decides his attitude to God and to his neighbors. Paganism is what it is because of its belief. Christianity is such because of its belief. One can be changed into the other by a change of belief. An uncertain faith means an unstable life. "According to thy faith be it unto thee," is prophetic of every life. Beliefs rule nations. Some have emperors, some kings, and some presidents to reign over them, but every- where the popular belief guides the affairs of the people. England is not ruled by King George, or by Lloyd- George. England is ruled by what England thinks. While other peoples looked on the Prussian order as enslaving, the Prussian citizen accepted it as his service to the Fatherland. What made Germany a unity, to her neighbors a deadly unity, was not her army nor her industry, nor her laws. It was her belief. And so great was the enthusiasm of her belief that it induced belief in 20 SOCIAL ETHICS others. She believed so thoroughly that her system of education was the best, that her industry was the best, that other peoples, Americans among them, went to Ger- many to school. Germany was winning the world to her belief until she broke the spell in 19 14. When the war correspondent tells his story it is of the clash of bodies of men, large or small, along the line of battle. But that is not the whole story, not even the chief part of it. It was a new belief in Prussia, which Koerner put into song, that turned the tide at Waterloo against Napoleon. The agony of that furrowed field from the North Sea to Switzerland during four years was a conflict of beliefs. Germany made her mistakes, not at all in her military preparations, but in her psy- chology. She had studied the military plans of other nations, but not their beliefs. So she made her mistakes about Belgium, about England, about the Colonials, about the United States. Military men figure on the number of men and guns they can concentrate at a given point, but beliefs decide the campaign. Many things have been said and written about how, and when, and where, the Allies won the World War, so one more venture need not be amiss. The war was won on the day when those on both sides of the battle line came to believe that the Allies were somehow fight- ing for democracy, for the chance for the weaker nations, for the right of each man and each people to express what was in the life. Then the war ceased to mean simply getting so many prisoners, so many dead, so many yards of trenches. Victory, with the new ideal, meant a new world. Along with that new belief the rifle strength of the German army fell off one-half from March to THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 21 October of 1918. And the man who was able to give to the men in the trenches and the folks at home a new faith and belief was the one, more than any other, who won the war. That men have been disillusioned since then and have lost their faith, that the governments and the statesmen of the great powers are still following in the beaten path of pagan ethics, does not change the fact that, for a time, the world was in the possession of a new belief which ruled its destinies. And the fact that, even for a brief hour, the world seemed transformed by a new faith shows how the old prophecy may be fulfilled and nations may be born in a day. Beliefs Change the World. According to the Darwinian theory of progress through natural selection the process is infinitely slow. Ages are required to make any important change. But that theory utterly fails to explain the change in Germany in two generations from the ideals of Carl Schurz to those of Treitschke, or the changes in the world since 1914. "As a man thinketh in his heart so is he." This is no less true of a nation. When a man changes his mind it changes the man. When a nation changes its mind the nation is changed. When Ross tells us about " Changing China," he is writing of the change of the Chinese mind. Benjamin Kidd says, "There is no form or order of government or of the dominion of force which cannot be removed out of the world in a generation." President Wilson declares, " There is nothing that can stand in the way of great and triumphant convictions." 22 SOCIAL ETHICS Robert E. Speer writes, "When the Church learns to pray as it has put itself into other activities the Kingdom of God will come." So scientist and statesman and churchman agree that changing the belief of the world will change the world. And that is possible only because individuals and nations are fundamentally mind. John C. Calhoun struggled to keep the slavery issue out of the field of morals because he knew that if once the conscience of the people pronounced against it, slavery was doomed. That was what killed slavery, what killed the saloon. When that brand is put on any institution it goes out, like Cain, from the presence of men. The world hates war, our boys died in France to put an end to war. But the governments of the great powers, trained in pagan diplomacy, are busy getting ready for war. More than nine-tenths of the Federal revenue in United States is going for the payment of past and future war. We have done something to put an end to Prussianism in Berlin. What shall we do with it in Washington? One thing seems evident and that is that we can not end war by showing its awful results. Bloch and Angell showed in appalling figures the economic con- sequence of war, but that did not prevent the debacle of 1914. Far more appalling are the facts that the World War furnished, but we are proposing to put five hundred millions into battle ships while millions of our neighbors are starving for bread. The thing that will end war is a passion for peace, for peace that would carry with it a constructive plan for the uplift of humanity. Put into our schools, our press, our pulpits, the devotion to humanity as Germany THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 23 taught it for two generations for the fatherland and even as it united Germany for the destruction of a continent, it will unite America for the redemption of a world. Germany had the right method but the wrong ideal. Mazzini told us long ago that the discussion of rights leads only to dissension and war. He said we must give the place to duties that has been given to rights and that means that the pagan ethics of force must give place to the Christian ethics of service. We have had enough through the years of harping on national rights. The time has come to talk of national duties. We need the passion for peace as a new emotional ideal. " The pas- sion for the ideal is the passion for perfection, which is the passion for God." This is a Mental World. This is not intended for a moment to call in question the fact of matter. No one who stubs his toe as a bare- footed boy, or butts his head against a door in later life, need doubt the fact of matter. But what I am trying to make clear is that back of matter and always expressing itself through matter is mind. Mind is the fundamental thing. So we have been taking up the issues about which all of us are thinking and showing that they are psychological questions. For if the world is controlled by its ideas, and its ideas and its beliefs all belong to mind, then mind is the funda- mental fact, without which we could not explain world movements at all. Four Social Facts. These four facts are the individual mind, the national 24 SOCIAL ETHICS mind, the world mind, and the Divine mind. But in stating these as facts I am not thinking that this puts them beyond the sphere of discussion. Indeed, I may admit that each one is called in question by some one. So at this point I wish to preface the discussion by a statement from President King to the effect that " The true definition of anything is what God meant it to be." So if one should believe that the national mind was not very definite so far in United States, or if he felt it necessary to conclude that the world mind was scarcely functioning to date, it would still leave possible the four facts as stated. As for those who question the fact of the divine mind, no evidence for that will be offered in these pages, nor would the discussion have much interest. The Individual Mind. I think that we may safely take the risk of presuming the fact of the individual mind without discussion. It is true that if one should appeal to the current texts on psychology, in which we may find mind defined as " a stream of consciousness," it does not leave much room for the idea of personality. However, if the gentle reader will, through an appeal to his own consciousness, conclude that he has a mind, or rather, that he is mind, and will allow the same thing to me, we shall consider the matter as settled. For what we want most to conclude from the fact of mind is the consequent fact of responsibility, responsibility for one- self, for his relationships and for his realization through them. The World Mind. Is there a world mind, even in the process of the mak- THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 25 ing? Or, is it only such a dream as Abram had when he went out to find the " city which had foundations " ? But whether dream or reality, it is the real question, though it has not been often mentioned, in the discussion of the League of Nations. For if there is no world mind, then there can be no expression of that mind through league, or court, or congress. But if there is a world mind it must find some form of expression. To- day with nearly fifty nations in the League, no one is likely to deny its existence, or that it is very much alive. So that if the working of the League is not a proof of the world mind, it may be at least offered as circum- stantial evidence. There is another link of evidence that may be offered. That was the response which came to President Wilson's appeal to make the world safe for democracy, to give the weaker peoples equal place with the strong. We ex- pected a response from the countries of the West, but as well it came from the Arabs of Syria and Mesopo- tamia, from India, from China, the whole world became articulate in its expression of hope for a new social order " in which dwelleth righteousness." Everywhere, out- side of the elements of reaction, was an enthusiasm for freedom such as the world had not known. How shall we understand this unity of acclaim other than the infant cry of a new world ? How shall we understand that peo- ples without a press, without organization, almost with- out education, should have given expression to the same ideals for the days to come. To me it means that the tribune of the peoples called and the peoples answered. And the answer was as that of a single mind. 26 SOCIAL ETHICS The Nation-State is the Social Mind. In the months preceding the World War a young man left Kansas to finish his school training in a German university. He had grown up in the freedom that is characteristic of life in the Middle West, had been trained in a home and a church where war, all war, is accounted a sinful thing. His ideals were as far re- moved from those of Prussia as they might well be, so when he found himself in a class room of the University of Leipsic he was, indeed, in a foreign land. Then came the fateful days of 1914. The flag of the Empire was everywhere, the bands were playing, his com- rades had left their places in the university to fall in line at the barracks, even the gray-haired and spectacled professors were volunteering for some kind of war work. " Der Tag " for which Germany had been waiting and training had come and found her ready to the last button. In this storm of national feeling the boy from Kansas was caught and carried away to the recruiting office to enroll himself as a soldier of the Empire. On account of some errors in the paper which he presented it was returned to him for correction. That night in his room he sat with the paper before him which would renounce his home training, his country, his ideals, all that his life had meant, to become a German citizen. Then he re- membered that the flag for which he proposed to fight was not his flag, that the cause was not his cause, and making his way through the lines he came home to Kan- sas with the paper in his pocket as evidence of the ab- sorbing power of the German national mind. When this THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 27 was possible with a Western boy, one may understand what it meant for a German citizen. I am drawing my illustrations mainly from Germany because in no other land has the mind of the nation been so well organized, so definitely directed, nowhere else has the emotional ideal had such an overwhelming in- fluence on the life of a whole people. Such has been the unifying effect of this ideal that even the demoraliz- ing effects of defeat in the great war have not resulted in breaking down the union of States which was formed by force two generations ago. So the great centripetal force in Germany to-day is the German mind. And the experiences of the war have brought out vividly the fact of the English mind and the French mind and the Italian mind. It is the possession of the national mind that deter- mines where citizenship belongs. We have thousands of men who are helping to elect our officials who are still thinking Irish, or English, or German. What we ask of the foreigner who lands at Castle Garden is that he shall become an American citizen. What does that mean? Only that he shall go through certain legal formalities before a judge of the courts? We have certain elements of the population, which are obsessed with the idea of patriotism, that would line up everybody, especially school teachers, and have them swear to the Constitution of the United States as a panacea for all foreign ideas that may be abroad in the land. Not dissimilar was the spirit of Clovis, who marched ten thousand Germans into the river and bap- tized them at once into the Christian faith. The fact is that men and women become American 28 SOCIAL ETHICS citizens as they get the American mind. They belong to United States when they think United States. It is not the acceptance of a legal formula that changes a for- eigner into an American, but a change of mind. So we say to the foreigner who comes to our shores, " Let this mind be in you which was in Washington and Lincoln and Roosevelt," and when he gets the new mind he is an American. This is what Americanization means. So America to them is not New York, or Chicago, but it is the national mind within them. One said to Maurice, " The Kingdom of God is within you." He answered, " Yes ! so is the kingdom of England." England for the Englishman is not something outside of him. It is some- thing inside. It is something that he carries with him wherever he goes. That is the reason why the Anzacs lie so thick at Gallipoli and in Flanders. Real citizenship is, not determined by residence but by an attitude of mind. Patriotism. This lays down for us the basis of patriotism. It means loyalty to the national mind within us. It is de- votion to the national side of ourselves. It is as natural for the real citizen to love his country as to love himself. So when we sing " I love thy rocks and rills, Thy woods and templed hills," we are dealing with incidentals, not fundamentals. It has been said that wherever a Frenchman goes he car- ries Paris in his heart. That is where each man carries THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 29 his country and he never realizes how large a place it has in his heart till he sees his flag ten thousand miles from home. So patriotism is not under control of the police. It is not created in any degree by calling the stranger within the gates, " chink," or " greaser," or " dago." A man going along the street in one of our cities bought two apples and gave one to a workman whom he passed, putting his arm around him as he did so and saying, " I love you." That is teaching patriotism, for it is a step in human brotherhood. This is not at all the patriotism taught by the Chicago Tribune when it carries at the head of its columns the saying of Stephen Decatur, " My country, may she al- ways be right, but right, or wrong, my country." That is the sort of patriotism which covers injustice and fraud. Carl Schurz puts it better, " My country, when she is right to keep her right, when she is wrong to set her right." Nationality is the National Mind. The last century, especially the last few years, have been marked by the rise of new nationalities which are asking, and demanding a place among the older nations of the world. Some of these may be like " Voices crying in the night And having nothing but a cry," Ibut for the present they are needing attention. What we seem to need is a definition of nationality. Evidently it is not decided by religious preference, for Protestant 30 SOCIAL ETHICS fought Protestant, and Catholic fought Catholic, and Mo- hammedan fought Mohammedan in the recent war with all the viciousness that might be demanded by a drill sergeant. Nor was it race, for Pole fought Pole and Jew fought Jew. Nor was it residence, for neighbor fought neighbor. Indeed, it seems as if all the old rules have been destroyed by the needed exceptions to them. Language seems to have had more to do with lining men up in a common cause than any of the things mentioned, for language is the expression of mind and a common language is likely to mean a common mind. The thing that does seem most decisive is the emo- tional ideal. It is true that the Balkan peoples seem to be dividing frequently on race lines and that may be decisive in many cases of the ideal which calls out the deepest feelings. Nationality, like love, is a passion and it seems often as difficult to explain one as the other. But no one doubts the existence, or the power, of either. " What is it makes a nation ? Is it States, or ships, or guns? Or is it that great common heart That beats in all her sons? That deeper faith, that truer faith, That trust of one in all, Which sets the goal for every soul That hears his country's call." When our soldiers went across the Atlantic they were in England and in France and in Belgium, but however they were treated these places were not home. Nothing could have made these places home except a change of mind. The people spoke a foreign language, but more than that they thought foreign things. All of our men would have THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 31 agreed with the colored soldier who while coming up New York Bay past the Statue of Liberty took a long look at the uplifted arm and said, " Put down you' light, honey, I's home." Making Up the National Mind. Some have objected to the idea of the national mind on the ground of the divergent and contradictory ideas that are in it. But this does not seem to be a fatal ob- jection since even the reader of these pages may have divergent and contradictory ideas in his mind. In fact, he has no little difficulty in deciding between these con- flicting views. So if conflicting views in the national mind would be evidence of two or more personalities the same may be said of individuals. It would seem that if a man had only one idea, it might get lonesome and stray away looking for company and forget to come back. The North and the South had conflicting ideas about human slavery and they had them for a long time. But they do not have them now. If they had two minds then, what became of them? What was really taking place during the slavery contest was the attempt to make up the national mind. It takes longer to make up the national mind than the individual mind, but the method is the same. Facts were presented by platform and pulpit and press, feelings were stirred, and finally the will of the people was written into the law of the land. Nobody has questioned for a half century that slavery is dead, nobody wants it back. Then we spent nearly as long making up the national mind about the liquor traffic. Again we had the gather- ing of the evidence, the appeal to the emotions and finally 31 SOCIAL ETHICS the action of the national will that the business had reached that stage of decomposition that it should be buried. So as the verdict on slavery was written into the fundamental law as the final judgment of the nation, we have the Eighteenth Amendment, which is the verdict of the nation on alcohol. As in all such cases there are individuals and organizations which seek to nullify the national judgment, but what is written into experience and then into law abides. This is the process that is continually at work in the national mind, for great issues have no regard for the peace of nations. A score of questions are demanding settlement and zealous advo- cates are asking for the first place on the national docket. Processes of the National Mind. Our psychologists tell us, what we might guess with- out the telling, that our mental operations are classified as intellectual, emotional and volitional, or, to put it an- other way, we have intellect, feeling, and will. And as far as we can see every mind will have these forms of expression. May we say the same of the national mind? Is there a national intelligence, and a national emotion, and a national will? That would seem to follow from the things we have been saying of the national mind, but may be worthy of investigation. Is There National Intelligence? Is there a way of thinking that is distinctly English, and another that is distinctly French, and another as distinctly German? Is it not evidence of that when na- tions, and citizens of different nations, are not able to understand each other? That failure to understand is THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 33 the fruitful cause of individual quarrels and of interna- tional war. One realizes this when he tries to learn a foreign lan- guage. It is not simply getting the foreign words in his memory, but to make these words express what is in mind. In fact a complete translation of one language into an- other is not possible because the things expressed are not the same. Not till one can think in the foreign language can he speak, or write it out perfectly. An Englishman who recently lectured in this country said that a chief reason why the American and English soldiers did not get on well together was because they did not understand each other's jokes. He insisted that if men can laugh together over their troubles it will lighten the load. There is no greater test of our knowl- edge of a language than our ability to appreciate its jokes. Most of us have been puzzled with the English and the German joke as also they have been with ours. Most of us will admit that the Greek and Latin jokes that we came across in our college texts did not break up a recita- tion. As I recall the Homeric joke it was interesting chiefly because its frequent appearance made easier read- ing for a few lines. The reason why the German universities arranged for the exchange of professors with our schools, the reason why Cecil Rhodes arranged for the scholarships for American students, was to get the respective countries to understand each other. Both plans were aiming at an alliance between the countries based on that most en- during foundation, a common intelligence. If the nations are to develop their common interests into a lasting bond of friendship, it must begin with the 34 SOCIAL ETHICS knowledge that we think differently and must take this; difference into account in international dealings. Even when we use the same language as the Englishman we often mean something that he does not. When an Eng- lish boy speaks of " doing his bit," it is of what he owes to himself as a man; when an American boy uses the words he means what he owes to his country. Is There National Emotion? What I would like to make plain is that not only is there national feeling but that it is the dominant social force. This has been most evident in great religious movements, when the emotion of the ideal has lifted a nation to heights of sacrifice and attainment that other- wise would have been impossible. In such cases nations have shown themselves invincible against foes within, or without. Witness the struggle of Holland against Spain in the sixteenth century, or the rise of Puritanism in England a little later. Perhaps no other nation has ever used the conception of the emotional ideal more consciously than has Ger- many. Mazzini had already urged on his countrymen that the ideas of duty and sacrifice furnished the influ- ence, not only of the advancement of the nation, but of the world. Rights, he urged, had been the moving cause of separating classes and nation and that if the demand- ing of rights could be succeeded by the teaching of duties to the children of the nation and the world it would cement them together in a common life. It was Germany that adopted these ideas as a dominant feature in her educational system. From the teachers of the common schools, the secondary schools, and the THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 35 professors of the universities, came the steady urge upon the children and the youth of Germany to make duty to the fatherland and sacrifice for her interests the chief aim of life. The history of the land, its victories and its achievements were the daily thought of the pupils in the grades, her songs were on every lip. The wearisome barrack life, the grind of daily toil, was but the due of each citizen to the national ideal. Any one who recalls the speeches of the Kaiser will recognize this note run- ning through them all. The result in Germany is evidence of what may be ac- complished in any land where the whole educational sys- tem is organized to propagate a certain ideal in the mind of the nation. In Germany it meant the dominance of German Kultur not only in her own borders, but through the world. But if the ideal had meant a passion for the conquests of peace instead of war, the emotional ideal would have been equally strong, only the outcome would not have been that of 1918. Germany has taught the world a lesson by which other nations should profit. As she was changed in little more than a generation, so may others be changed according to the ideal which lays hold of the emotions of the peo- ple. A people which would take the ideal of peace and righteousness as the center of its educational system, of its press, of its government, that would keep continually before the mind of the children and youth the duty of sacrifice for this ideal would organize the national forces for world conquest, as certainly as did Germany, only for the uplift of the world instead of its downfall. Germany has taught the world the method. When a few men under the haystack at Williams proposed the 36 SOCIAL ETHICS conquest of the world for Christ it looked like the im- possible; by applying the German method it would be practical. She has shown how national institutions and a national state may be changed in a generation. All that is needed is the setting of the sum of the educational forces of a nation to a given task, and teaching as a life duty to the citizenship the work of sacrifice to gain the end. Class feeling, race feeling, and national feeling have been used for destructive ends, but they may be the means of lifting a nation to a degree of heroic service for righteousness such as the world has not yet seen. Is There a National Will? It does not seem that any argument is required at this point in order to justify an affirmative answer. " The will of the people " has long been a common statement in popular speech and is universally accepted as a fact in political theory and practice. The American Republic wills the kind of government she will have, the policy which she will follow, the individuals who shall guide her affairs. The modern question is not whether the nation has a will, but whether this will has any limita- tions. Often the teaching runs that not only does the national will decide the national policy, but as* well fur- nishes a final standard for the conscience of the citizen. Whenever military ideas and policy dominate in govern- ment policy, there is swift penalty for the one who dares think otherwise than as the public will decrees. Our own country was not without abundant illustration of this fact during and following the months of war. Lieb- knecht was given four years in prison for opposing the German government, while for lesser offences some in THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 37 United States were given ten years. So one who re- calls recent events will be in no doubt of the fact and the potency of the national will. The idea that government exists merely by the con- sent of the governed is an instance of the survival of an old belief after it has ceased to have the semblance of fact. It is a relic of the ancient notion that government was in the nature of a contract between the rulers and the ruled. It saw in the people and the government in- dependent parties, who dealt each with the other on terms of equality. But government is not an independent party in the case. It is the agent of the nation, is set up and directed by the nation. The will of the nation is completed in the national acts. The intelligence chooses the policy, the national feeling furnishes motor power, the will unites the national mind in the completed act. The Nation is a Psychological Organism. The sociological writers have dealt with this subject so exclusively from the biological point of view and given such a biological bias to the terms used that one uses the word organism with some hesitation. But since the term is needed here it seems altogether a pity to sur- render it to the materialists without, at least, a protest. So we shall understand at the outset that we do not accept the biological conception of the nation, which holds that citizens are related to the nation as the cells to the body. The biological idea of society has some value as an illustration, but has little relation, even a poor rela- tion, to the fact. The most tyrannical social order that the world has ever known still allowed a freedom to the 38 SOCIAL ETHICS Individual citizen, which the biological view makes im- possible. The military clique in Germany, and in Wash- ington, go on the assumption that the people have no more liberty than the cells of the body and that it is the business of the citizen to stand attention. But army life, like war, is abnormal. Its mechanical order is unsocial. Men are not bound together by the drill sergeant, but by the mental attitude which they take to the commonwealth. Professor Ramsey Muir has told us, " Nationality is an elusive idea, difficult to define. Its essence is a sentiment, and in the last resort we can only say that a nation is a nation because its members passionately and unanimously believe it to be so." So the social organism is not a biological, but a psy- chological concept. Its citizens, like those of the King- dom of God, do not lose freedom through sharing in the national life, indeed it is through being born into the social order that they attain to the reality of life. It is not claimed here that the nation realizes unity as does the Kingdom of God, or that the citizen realizes indi- viduality as far as is possible to the citizen of the King- dom, but what is meant is that both the nation and the Kingdom are psychological organisms. As was previously suggested the national organism is only in the formative stage. "For the national mind," says Fouillee, " is a continuous growth ; it is not em- bodied in a temporary succession of individuals, but in a continuously developing organism." Only when the na- tion gets the Spirit of the Kingdom will it fully realize its nature. On its way to this completeness it has been said that each nation must pass through its Red Sea, as did Israel on its way to national life, a suggestion that THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 39 only through suffering may the common mind, which constitutes a nation, be attained. " Society," says Fouil- lee, " is an organism which exists because it has been thought and willed, it is an organism born of an idea." But the question may still remain as to whether the nation is really organic in its nature. Mackenzie gives to us the following definition of an organism : " An organ- ism is a whole whose parts are intrinsically related to it, which grows from within, and which has an end suited to its nature." Does this definition seem to apply to what we have been calling the national mind? To an- swer this question we may use the three tests given by Mackenzie to social phenomena, 1. Are individual citizens intrinsically related to the nation? Are they so related that the nation could not ex- ist without the citizens, or the citizens in any real way without the nation ? Do the citizens make the nation and the nation the citizens ? The Greek word for the isolated, unrelated, man is our word idiot, since according to the Greek idea, it is only in his relationships that man really comes to life. Indeed we are all so dependent on our associations that solitary confinement is the most severe of punishments. A philosopher like Thoreau may take comfort in his seclusion at Walden Pond, but most men would prefer to "live in a house by the side of the road." Any one who tries to change the course of a life will be impressed with the fact of intrinsic relationships. He finds his man among evil companions and he replaces them with good; the bad literature which he reads is ex- 4© SOCIAL ETHICS changed for that which is healthful; the man is given 3 fit occupation to engage his attention ; then all the friend- ship that one can give is lavished on him. And what one learns when all this has been done is that only divine power can change a life, as Paul's life was changed, and set it going in a new way. If only a new birth can change a life, it seems evident that there are vital rela- tionships that hold it in the course it has been following. Harold Begbie has furnished abundant evidence of the need for the supernatural to change a life. The fact seems to be that the citizen and the com- munity are each essential to the other and that each in- fluences the other in proportion to the relative strength of character. Our truly great men proved their greatness by moulding their environment instead of being moulded by it. The nation would not be what it is if Washington and Lincoln and Roosevelt and Wilson had not lived their lives in it. But even they were its citizens and not the less that some of them were citizens of the world. Hampden and Pym could not have been without Puritan England and England's life would not have had all its virtues without them. 2. Does the Nation Grow from Within? Referring to Alice in Wonderland by way of illus- tration, we may say that " ships and shoes and sealing- wax " do not grow from within, while " cabbages and kings" do. Therefore the latter are organic and the former are not. No one can tie leaves on the outside of a cabbage and deceive even the wayfarer into the be- lief that the result is a part of the plant. The cabbage does not grow that way, neither does the king. But if THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 41 one will give the plant soil and moisture and sunshine it will grow in the only way possible for a cabbage, from the inside. Also there is a lesson here for statesmen which they may ponder with profit. Nations grow from the inside too. England and United States have tried the experi- ment of tying foreign elements on the outside with mili- tary and naval bandages, but the latest reports indicate that the East Indian and Egyptian have not become Eng- lish, nor the Filipino an American. This does not mean that the attachment was not a good thing for the colonies, but it is plain that the grafting has been a failure. In fact police powers seldom make a lasting connection. Napoleon said that you could do almost anything with bayonets except sit on them, so the position of colonial governments is not comfortable. One may graft a piece of skin on the body, but only when the blood of the body circulates through it does it become a part of the body. So we can not hitch for- eign elements to us by any outward force as a perma- nent condition. Military domination does not give the foreigner our ideals and hopes and aspirations. We can assimilate the foreigner, not by police powers, not by our industries, not by our schools. He may have the disci- pline of all of these and remain foreign to us. But the human sympathy, which has been touched with the divine, so that it holds him a brother man, will break down the barriers of race and class. 3. Does the Nation Have an End Suited to Its Nature? This seems evident to those who have given attention to national characteristics. Nations are as diverse in 42 SOCIAL ETHICS this respect as individuals. Each has its own type of mind, its own method of life, and its own destiny to achieve. England, France, Germany, United States, are as unlike as the citizens of which they are composed, each has its part to play in the great world drama of the nations. Some of these may fail to fulfil the purpose of their creator and will be put aside for more worthy suc- cessors, but this very disaster, which has come to many nations of the past, is in itself a proof of an end which each nation is to serve. Now we have considered the three tests in Mackenzie's definition. Does not it appear that United States fulfils the conditions of the definition of an organism? Our Republic is a whole whose parts are intrinsically related to it, which grows from within and which has a destiny peculiarly its own. National Responsibility. One of the plain conclusions from the reasoning of this lecture is the fact of the moral responsibility of the nation. If the nation thinks and feels and wills, and I do not think that one may explain the phenomena of cur- rent history on any other supposition, then the nation is responsible for its acts as is the individual, is subject to the same influences for good and ill. In fact this be- lief is so universally accepted that it is in our common speech. One does not need to explain to the man on the street that Germany was responsible for the invasion of Belgium, that Belgium was responsible for the atrocities of the Congo Valley, that England was responsible for the Boer War and the United States for the Mexican War. No one questions these conclusions and they are THE NATURE OF THE NATION-STATE 43 justified only if the nation has a mind to reason and a will to choose. America is in good degree responsible for the defeat of Germany and if all plans fail to get a national agreement for the establishment of world peace America will in large measure be responsible for that failure. Why have nations failed to meet their responsibilities ? It is not so much because of enemies without as foes within. The old histories told us that Rome fell because of the invasion of the Goths, but we know that Rome was rotten at the heart and went down through its cor- ruption. Idleness and vice destroyed the virtues of the Roman citizen and sapped the life of the nation. Poetry said, " Sarmatia fell unwept, without a crime," but his- tory tells us enough of the tears and the crimes. Na- tions, like men, must reap as they sow. Mackenzie's Introduction to Social Philosophy ; Essays in Phil- osophical Criticism, Seth and Haldane ; The Group Mind, Pro- fessor Mc Doug all ; La Science Sociale Contemporaine , Fouillee ; Psychologie du Peuple Francais, Fouillee ; Social Psychology ; Ross. SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS. It is in the very nature of spirit to be active, therefore the State must have agencies through which to act. To some extent the social life expresses itself through individual members of the State, but its larger expression is through its institutions. The individual enlarges his life as he increases his intercourse with his fellows and with the world about him. Take away his eyes and ears, his hands and feet, and his life can not be enlarged, even if it be sustained. His life is conditioned on activity. Applying the analogy of the individual to the State, it seems clear that the latter stands in equal need of channels through which the life may go out into action. It is to the institutional forms of the social life that the attention is here asked. Even in the earliest and the simplest periods of the social life, some institutions were found necessary to its enlargement, and even its existence. From the first the Family had a place. Into it the individual was born and through the various Family functions, as then practiced, the State in embryo did the main part of its work. But as nomadic life was succeeded by the settled conditions of agriculture, and this coupled with manufac- tures and commerce, the social institutions multiplied to allow expression to the growing complexity of life. Each new situation demands a new institution, or the 44 SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS 45 remodeling of an old one. The rise and growth of these institutions furnish the material of social history. The Family. The Family most fully meets the primary social needs. The patriarchal Family, which seems to have been the prevailing form in early times, suggests, in the functions which it performed, many of the later institutions which arose through social division of labor. Government is suggested in the position which Abraham held, especially when we find him calling together a small army out of his immediate followers to fight with the Eastern invaders. Within his limited domain, and among those who were his kin by blood, or the fiction of adoption, he ruled as a king. The will of the father was supreme. The Family contains the germ of the school. The most rapid development of mind takes place before school age is reached and the bent of interest has been largely decided before the pupil enters the classroom. The teacher comes in to supplement the work of the father and the mother, having the possibility of enlarging the view of the child, seldom of changing the stand- point from which its world is seen. The prejudices of the home become those of the pupil and the man. The home life makes, or mars, the pupil of the common school and the scholar of the higher grades. It is in the Family that the child gains his religious foundations. Whether, or not, religious instruction is consciously given to the child, it goes out into life equipped with a theology and a code of ethics. What & SOCIAL ETHICS. the Church can affect in the later life depends much upon the conscious, or unconscious, teaching by the fireside. If the Bible is made the commonplace book for reference and story, if the catechism is made the recreation in which all share, not the task imposed upon the child as a punishment, there is laid a theological basis, a foundation of principle on which to build a solid life structure. There is also seen in the Family the division of labor which makes the factory system the economic method of industry. In the home that is wisely guided each person has his duties, on the right doing of which the welfare of the Family depends. Thus is early begun the training in industrial efficiency and the more impor- tant training in the sense of responsibility for the welfare of others. The duties need not be arduous, should not be irksome, but it is necessary that they should be recognized as duties if the child is to be trained for social service. It is where this sense of other selfishness is not gained in the home that the kindergarten has its place in doing the work which is neglected in the Family. The importance of the Family is doubly realized by those who have tried to deal with the homeless class, which is always a factor in the community. If a Family can be found to adopt the outcast the case is simplified, but in the greater number of instances this can not be done. It is to meet this social need that the orphanage is established to take the place of the Family relation- ship. Yet how imperfectly this substitution can be made is known by those who trace the later life of the child SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS 47 of the orphan's home. A clergyman who had spent many years in public institutions said that he had often followed the child from the orphans' home, through the reformatory, the penitentiary, and the prison. He said, as many others say, that good citizens are seldom made in the orphanage, yet society has devised no other institution that can take its place. This emphasizes the fact that each social institution has its special function that must be imperfectly performed by any other. In particular must the Family be guarded from every influ- ence which diminishes its social service. Government. The Government is the social institution through which the State expresses its will for the control of individuals and other institutions. The earliest form of social con- trol was exercised by the head of the household, but when the nomadic life was succeeded by the settled condition, the social control occupied too wide a range of actions to be administered by the father. From the earliest institution of Government as a separate social function it has persisted, though at times so inefficient as to have little value. This was the case in the Middle Ages when the collapse of the Roman authority left only the shadow of imperial control over the districts which it had ruled. In this and similar cases the administration reverted to individual hands. When a freeman had a quarrel with his neighbor, since there was no convenient magistrate to whom appeal might be made, even if it had not been disgraceful to 48 SOCIAL ETHICS. propose such peaceable means of settlement, he fought the issue out with clubs, if he was a commoner, with lances if a knight. Now two things are clear : that under such conditions good order could not be maintained, and that there would be a waste of social energy. Almost any kind of efficient rule is preferable to the economic waste of time and energy when each individual has to be both magistrate and policeman. When one set of men is given the work of legislation, another the function of interpretation of the law to meet the special cases presented, yet another given the function of execution, or even when these functions are centralized in a single class, the bulk of the citizens may devote their strength to other employments, with great gain to the social economy. When the workman builded the wall of Jeru- salem, as runs the record, with the sword in one hand and the trowel in the other, the result in stonework would not be large. This illustrates the fact that the social institution acts as a conservator of social forces, through the division of labor which it affords. By giving each group of men a special duty, it gives them the opportunity of becoming specialists in that work and so giving better service. It also sets free other men for other service. When every twentieth man is in the Government, as is said to be the case in France, and dependent on the Govern- ment for his support, it means a great social waste. In far larger measure is there social waste when nearly the whole body of citizens of a certain age is set to defending the fatherland against imaginary invasions. SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS 49 In civilized countries the army should have only police duty and if justice is followed in the administration of Government, police force can be reduced to a minimum. The large standing army is a proof of unsocial conditions. The Church. As the main purpose in this connection is to show that the social institution comes into being in response to a social need, it will not be necessary to treat each at length. The Church finds a necessary place because the social spirit, the State, has a religious character which demands institutional expression. This does not mean that the religious idea finds outlet through the Church alone, for being an element of the social spirit religion must have some place in all institutions which meet any legitimate social need. But it is through the Church, the institution which performs the ecclesiastical duties of the social spirit, that religion finds its chief expression. The religious factor will be found in Gov- ernment, in Family, and in the factory; but as the economic is the chief factor in business, so is religion in the Church. No single institution has a monopoly of any function ; it has some one function in greater degree than any other institution. Even the Church must deal somewhat in finance. Each legitimate social institution has a special social duty of its own, yet in each, since they arise from the social spirit, are found subordinated to the chief function, the suggestion of the functions of other institutions. This religious factor which expresses itself most con- 50 SOCIAL ETHICS. cretely through the Church, and in general way through all social institutions, comes into the social life through its contact with the divine life. The complete filling of the social spirit with the divine spirit would mean the transformation of all social institutions and the realization of the Kingdom of God. When Paul, in explaining the kinship of the social members, reminded his readers that each had his own particular gift and consequent duty and that through all worked the same spirit, he was teaching what I wish to make plain here. It is in this relationship that social institutions are to be understood. All are expressions of the same social spirit, the State. It is evident that the man who argues that religion has no place in business and politics has a faulty psy- chology. No human spirit is devoid of religion, even though it may be a feeble influence. If there were no religious element in the State, there could be none in the Church, since the latter is an expression of the former. If there is religion in the Church, it must exist in some measure in all other institutions, since all are related. We do not go to a railroad company for re- ligion, yet it must be present there. All are members one of the other. The older social philosophy which proposed to split society into isolated fragments, even, as Kant taught, to divide the individual into what he regarded as the hopeless contradictories of reason and feeling, is not supported by the facts of individual and social life. Life is a unity and any philosophy of life which does not SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS Si find unity as its basis, needs revision. This does not mean that there are not conflicts in life between opposing principles. Such contests are ever present, but there is a life which includes both parties in the struggle. Nor does the fact of social unity preclude a higher moral standard in one institution than in another. The Church sets a higher moral standard than the trust company, since the former is made up of the best men of the community, while the latter demands no other qualifi- cation than business shrewdness; yet while both insti- tutions have the same leaders as is frequently the case, we should not expect the principles on which the two institutions are administered to differ essentially. In such case the Church might be expected to have some- thing of the character of a social club, with some insur- ance features included. Politics can not be depraved and the Church pure in any community. The idea that the Church can be isolated from the life of the time was not realized even by the monks in the Thebaid, much less in modern times. The Church can not be on the road to heaven and the corporation on the way to hades, when the same people are in both institutions. If sel- fishness rules in the market it can not be barred from the fireside. What is present in marked degree in one phase of life will be present in some degree in all others. Some idea of the way in which a social institution originates, and of its relation to the life of the commu- nity, may be gotten by recalling the incidents connected with the settlement of Oklahoma City when the Indian lands were opened to the " rush." In the morning the 52 SOCIAL ETHICS. site was uninhabited prairie and before night it had a large population with an organized Government. The immediate need for this institution is evident when we recall the situation. The settlers were largely made up of the less tractable class, who were ready to enforce their arguments with the revolver, so that when several squatters laid claim to the same desirable lot on the prospective main street, there were liable to be some unlawful methods in the proving of the claim. In order that the various claims might be submitted to the courts for settlement, it was of the first importance that a form of Government should be established with authority to keep order among the sadly mixed crowd. Under such conditions the organization of Government will be among the first actions of the community. On account of the rapid transfers of real estate and other salable property, some institution was needed to conduct the financial operations and a bank was estab- lished. Now it is doubtless true that both the Govern- ment and the bank had been planned in advance by a few individuals, but these individuals only anticipated the social need. They did not create it. The social life found expression through the institutions named. This leads to a conclusion, which the State must come more thoroughly to understand, that a social institution, offi- cered by individuals, must still minister to the social welfare. They are at least semi-public officials and public office is a public trust. If the administration is to be left in individual hands it must be on condition that these individuals recognize SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS 53 their obligation for social service. There is no more reason, in the nature of the case, why the bankers of Oklahoma City should run their business with sole regard to dividends than that the officials of Government should do the like. Here lies the demonstration of the prin- ciple previously stated that the factor which is dominant in one institution will inevitably present itself in others. If the railroad company, a social institution, is to be run simply for the holders of its stock, why should Government not be run for the holders of office ? That it is so run in many instances is evidence of the fact that corruption will not be barred from politics until all social institutions manifest a new spirit of social service. If the Sugar Trust may with impunity disre- gard social interests in the making of its schedules, may not Congress do the same in the framing of law? As the population of the town becomes acquainted with its religious conceptions and need, there is a demand for the organization of a Church. The first organization will be of that creed which expresses the religious crav- ings of the larger number of the inhabitants, that is, the social needs will be satisfied in the order of the intensity of the demand. In some districts of the West, and of the East as well, there are large populations centered in mining camps where there is no demand for the Church. This does not necessarily mean that the persons gathered in such localities have no religious interests, but it means that these religious interests do not bulk large enough to demand expression through an ecclesi- astical institution. At the same time they will foster 54 SOCIAL ETHICS, institutions which some other neighborhood would not tolerate. In each community are found the interests that are in others, but in some the interest is not great enough to demand any form of organized expression. When an agent is sent by the Church into a community where there is no ecclesiastical organization, it is with the purpose of awakening the religious interest to such a degree that it will require an institutional expression. The town will not have added many months to its life before there comes a demand for schools. If the people are far scattered, as often on the prairie, the instruction must for a time be given in the Family, but the increase of population enables this social demand for a school to be satisfied. At first the building will be crude and often both teaching and teacher of a like order, but with the possibility of better things, a change ensues. The shed gives way to a commodious classroom, the high school is added and the institution develops in accordance with the latest models. Institutions are an expression of the social spirit and they develop or decay in correspondence with the spirit which works through them. While it is the social spirit which gives rise and char- acter to the institution, there is a reciprocal relation be- tween the institution and the life behind it. Radical and permanent reforms involve changes in the social spirit, since such changes affect all institutions. But a change in the institution also has its reflex influence upon the life. A change in school methods which gives new interest to the pupils, affects the whole life of the SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS 55 community. An improvement in the mail service results in bringing social elements that had previously been isolated into communication. A better street-car service relieves the congestion in the crowded centers of popu- lation, making life more tolerable for the poor. Every- one of these changes has its effect on the life of the people. Thus reforms are brought about directly by changing the social spirit; indirectly by changing insti- tutions. This conclusion shows the part which the Spirit of Jesus Christ must have in all deep and lasting social transformation. It is as the divine Spirit is projected into the State that all institutions will gain new impulses toward better social service. .While the social institution has its inspiration from the social spirit, this, in turn, gains its aspiration from God. CHURCH AND STATE Whenever it is proposed to place any religious fea- ture, such as a Sabbath law, on the statute book, a cry of alarm is raised that the proposition means a union of Church and State ; yet if the alarmist was questioned as to what he meant by Church and State respectively, his sorrows would increase. But his fear is not altogether causeless. Something was realized in the past which has been called a union of Church and State from which came very undesirable results, so that if the charge of such union is fastened upon any movement, it has the effect of original sin, since the movement is con- demned even though actual transgressions are not proved. It is necessary in any discussion to define the basis on which it shall be conducted, and specially in this case where there is such variety of opinion in regard to the meaning of the terms. The definition of the State which is followed here, is stated in the first chapter. It will, therefore, be suffi- cient to say that the State is the social spirit. The State, or social spirit, being subjective, must find expres- sion and perform its functions through objective insti- tutions such as the nature of the State requires. In the chapter on Social Institutions, the necessity for their existence is discussed, also the fact of their necessary correspondence with the life which they express. It will s6 Church and state 57 scarcely be questioned that the Church is one of the most important of these social institutions. The social spirit is religious by its nature, since every race that is known has some form of religious worship. Those who would prove the assertion that religion was foisted on men by priests for their own selfish interests, would need to have the priesthood precede the existence of man on the earth, as he has always shown his religious inclina- tions. The Church exists as the most concrete expression of the religious nature of man. The time when the Church appears in human history is not a point which is of importance in this chapter. It is sufficient for our purpose to notice that it has been one of the great social facts with which every student of social forces has been called to deal. In speaking of the Church as the institution which expresses the religious nature of men, it is not meant to imply that this nature does not express itself through other institutions. Since the social life is organic, each part is related to every other. Thus the religious factor, while the dominant characteristic of the Church, is present in every phase of the social life and, therefore, in all institutions. This is illustrated in the life of the individual. As a Christian, he will make the Church his chief agency for putting his religious beliefs into practice, but as a Christian he will give evidence of his religion in his shop and his store. If his religion is of the kind that only serves for Church purposes, its quality may be open to some question. So is it with religion in the social life; it permeates 58 SOCIAL ETHICS. the whole life and, therefore, all social institutions. Relation of Church and State. If the definitions offered be accepted, the relation of the Church and the State are easily understood. The Church is the concrete expression of the religious phase of the State. Whether the State is definitely Christian, or Mohammedan, or Hindoo, the Church is the expres- sion of the dominant religious idea in the State. Accord- ing to this view, we could not consider the question of a union of Church and State, nor, by correct definition, has such a thing existed, unless in the ancient societies. The fact is apparent that the reputed union of Church and State, which is so often and so justly deprecated, involves a different conception of the State than that given in these pages. It is based on the old, discarded idea that the Government is the State. Of a union between the political government of the State and the administration of the Church, history, medieval and mod- ern, furnishes many instances ; indeed, most of the coun- tries of the world are trying the experiment of uniting the political with the ecclesiastical functions of society. In Germany, the Government has taken the Lutheran Church into alliance with it, in France the combination is made with the Catholic, and in England with the Episcopal Church. This union was brought about in each case by the action of the political institution, the Government, and is subject to modification by it at any time. The Episcopal Church in England might be disestablished by an act of Parliament. These two CHURCH AND STATE 59 institutions, the Church and the Government of Eng- land, are so far united that the political and ecclesiastical functions are blended, the Government appointing the officials and enacting the creed of the Church. The Thirty-nine Articles which make up the Anglican creed were passed as any other measure in Parliament. Admitting the view that the Government is the State it is permissible to speak of this relation being a union of Church and State, but not otherwise. By whatever name it is known, it is an unwarranted uniting of func- tions that ought to be allowed to work independently. It is in independence that political and ecclesiastical institutions will best work out the social end. Co-opera- tion there should be in the uplifting of the people, but this means that each should act within its own sphere. Disastrous Results from the Union of Functions. No matter whether, as in the Middle Ages, the eccle- siastical dominated the political, or, as in the present day, the political imposes its requirements upon the ecclesiastical, injury is done to the State. Whatever lessens the real freedom of the individual, works social damage, and all the persecutions which paralyzed the Spanish people and blighted France, in and since the Reformation, came from the uniting of these social functions. Henry Eighth of England, because of his assumption of headship in the Church, decreed death to the Catholic who denied this place to the king, and also to the Protestant who denied transubstantiation. The Covenanters of Scotland were hunted as the quarry Go SOCIAL ETHICS. on their native hills, because they claimed that Jesus Christ, and not some Stuart king, was head of the Church. Neither Parliament nor Congress should dic- tate the creed of the Church. Why Political and Ecclesiastical Functions Have Been United. If this confusion of social functions, which were in- tended to co-operate, but not to combine, had been re- alized in but a single country, or in a special period, it might be passed with little notice, but since the in- stances are so numerous an investigation should reveal some common cause. Priest, or king, must have some end to gain. Previous to the coming of Christ, and outside of the Hebrew Commonwealth, there was scarcely any distinc- tion between the Church and the Government. The Twelve Tables at Rome dealt, without distinction, with ecclesiastical and political matters, and the pontiffs, who aided in developing the Civil Law from these Tables, were not lawyers but priests. Each Government official was an ecclesiastic as well. In Greece, even after the king had lost his political power, he was retained in office on account of his ecclesiastical duties, which only one of the royal line might perform. The Roman consul on a campaign consulted the aus- pices, through which the gods were thought to reveal their will, as if he had been a priest. Under such con- ditions, a separation of the political and ecclesiastical was not considered. CHURCH AND STATE 61 But with the coming in of Christianity, the situation changed. Something now appeared in the State, which had not been known before. It was a conflict of re- ligions, between which religions the Government had to choose. This came to an issue in the time of Con- stantine, when the pagan faith had lost its power to bind Society together, and there was needed some new agency to support the weakened Government. To those who believe Constantine to have been a devout Christian, no other reason than this need be advanced for his making Christianity the Government religion, for cer- tainly it was not the religion of the Roman State; but historians are inclined to view his action as having the political end of gaining for the support of the throne that compact body of Christians, numbering probably less than one-tenth the population of the Empire, whose enthusiasm more than compensated for their lack of numbers. The Christian Church was doubtless the strongest social organization of the age, and the Em- peror wished to use its fresh blood to vivify the flaccid veins of a decaying order. The heathen had the weight of numbers, but Constantine judged wisely that the faithless multitude is a weaker social force than the compact body of enthusiastic believers. From the standpoint of political expediency the es- tablishing of the Christian Church by law was justified, but the effect upon the Church of making it popular, was to bring into its membership that class of men, too numerous in every age, who make popularity rather than principle the rule of life. Up to this time, the 62 SOCIAL ETHICS. members of the Christian Church had come through tribulation, but now membership was the road to po- litical preferment. From this time we may date the decline of morality in the Church, which decline made Protestantism a necessity in the later time. The same motives which led Constantine in the fourth century, actuated Clovis in the fifth. By accepting Chris- tianity and baptizing his army of wild Franks in a body, Clovis won the blessing of the Pope and the support of good Catholics wherever his army moved. It was though the aid of the Church that he won his conquests over the wide territory which took the name of the con- querors, and it was through the same means that he bound the conquered together in submission to the Me- rovingian line of kings. It was with the Frank as with the Roman. The need of strengthening the Government caused the institutional union of Church and Govern- ment. During the medieval period the rulers of the Hohen- staufen dynasty waged a long warfare to free Ger- many from the papal power, being compelled at last to make inglorious submission at Canossa to the Roman pontiff. With the single exception of England, pro- tected by its insular position and the stubborn Norman kings, every country of Western Europe made sub- mission to the Pope in the eleventh century. Now it scarcely needs argument, that if the other Governments of Europe had been as secure as the English kings they would have shown like independence, though even Eng- land had the Catholic as the established religion. Thus CHURCH AND STATE 63 again it is Government weakness which furnishes the explanation for the uniting of ecclesiastical and political functions. Nor is the case different when we recall more recent historical incidents. When Henry Eighth dethroned the Pope of Rome, to set up the Pope of England in the person of the king, it does not require any inspiration to divine the cause. The divinity which doth hedge about the king when he is able to claim a species of adoration, aids in binding the people to the throne. It was upon the sacredness of the crown that the Stuarts depended to sustain them in power, regardless of the popular judgment which was passed upon the injustice of their administration. Whether the sacredness which may be thought to belong to Edward Seventh as the head of the Established Church gives strength to the present English Government, his subjects can give the most authoritative answer. Be that as it may, history seems to bear out the statement that the weakness of Government has been the cause of the al- liance between the political and the ecclesiastical func- tions of the social spirit. Religion and the State. As has been already stated, an established church is not to be desired ; indeed, it has worked no little damage in the past. But in opposing such conditions, some of its antagonists have gone to the opposite, and equally untenable, extreme, in claiming that religion should have nothing to do with political and business relations. It is 64 SOCIAL ETHICS. probably true that one of these extremes is the natural result of the other, but the wiser conclusion lies on the middle ground. If it is true, as anthropology and the Bible clearly teach, that man is religious, then religion must find expression through his whole life. It is only a question of what the religion will be. The State will express its religion, whatever it has, through its whole institutional life. It is idle to talk of excluding re- ligion from one sphere of the social life, while retaining it elsewhere. If life were not organic, such a conception might be conceded, but in an organism each part co- operates with every other. Grant that the social spirit is religious, and it inevitably follows that the Govern- ment, the expression of the State, will be religious. Ecclesiasticism in Government is to be decried, but the Christian religion in Government will enable it to de- serve the devotion of the citizen. It is loose thinking which fails to distinguish the Church from religion, an institution from a principle. Putting the moral law in Government would not join the Government with any Church, because the moral law is a principle. The things which can be united belong to the same sphere, and while the principles of the Bible should find expression in governmental action, we could not reasonably speak of uniting the Government with the Sermon on the Mount. On the other hand, the strength which would inure to the Government, which takes as its standard of justice the Word of God, would obviate the unfortunate mingling of ecclesiastical and political functions poou- larly known as the union of Church and State. CHURCH AND STATE 65 There is no surer method of preventing this Old World condition from being reproduced in the New than in making religion an abiding factor in Government. In such case the Government can appeal to the conscien- tious loyalty of the citizens, and not appeal in vain. The Union of Church and Government. Whenever one proposes a law to protect men from, working on the Sabbath; whenever it is proposed to legalize the reading of the Bible in the schools, indeed almost any Christian reform meets with the objection that it is a union of Church and State. It is worth see- ing what this frequent cry of " Wolf ! " means. In order to understand the issue it is necessary to see what the term " Church " means in this connection. We know what the Government means without explanation. There are five meanings of the word Church in common use: 1. We speak of the invisible Church when we mean the redeemed Society which makes up the body of Christ. 2. The term is used to mean the whole body of pro- fessing Christians. 3. The word Church is used when referring to a con- gregation of believers having a stated place of meeting. 4. The term is used in designating the building in which a congregation, or society, meets. 5. Its most frequent use is in reference to a body of believers united by a distinctive creed. Now it needs no argument to prove that the union of Church and State, to use the popular phrase, does not mean a uniting of the Government with the Church as defined in any one of the first four ways. It is not a 66 SOCIAL ETHICS. union with the body of the redeemed; it is not a union with the whole body of believers whose names appear upon the records of the Church; it is not union with a congregation; still less with a building. There remains, then, only the fifth use of the word which need be con- sidered in this connection. The dreaded union of Church and State, more correctly Church and Government, is between a particular denomination and the Government. But this same conclusion is reached by another method. When one turns to Europe for illustration on this ques- tion, he finds the Government of England united with the Episcopal Denomination, the Government of Germany united with the Lutheran Denomination. In neither of these cases could the word Church be used in any other sense. Now the practical question is reached, as to whether there is any reasonable apprehension that a law which forbade the discharge of a workman for refusal to work on the Sabbath would effect the dreaded union of the Government with the Presbyterians. What denomina- tion would such legislation favor? Or, to vary the illustration, suppose that an amend- ment was placed in the Federal Constitution acknowl- edging the authority of Jesus Christ and the supremacy of His law in moral questions, would that unite the Gov- ernment of the United States with some denomination? If this question is answered affirmatively, what denom- ination would then become the established Church? Is it not clear that the union of the Church with the Government, which is here deprecated, and the making CHURCH AND STATE 67 of the teachings of Christ the ethical standard of Gov- ernment, which is here advocated, have nothing to do with each other? An established Church does not bring Christian principles into Government, though it does bring political methods into the Church. The Parlia- ments of England and of Germany are under no more obligation to legislate or judge in accordance with Chris- tian principles, than is the Government of the United States. Bringing Christianity into political action does not bring in the Church; establishing the Church does not bring in Christianity. It would seem that the popu- lar apprehension in regard to religious features in our laws, is due to a failure to understand the history of the subject and the terms used. The Government can aid the Church, not by a merg- ing of functions, but by co-operation. Both rest on the same fundamental constitution, the law of God; both have the same end, the uplifting of humanity. In re- jecting the union of the Church with the Government, it is neither necessary nor wise to throw away religion with it. In our haste to throw out the bath-water it is not wise to cast away the child. It will bring this discussion to a fitting close if we are able to make clear in what a union of Church and Government consists. There are certain facts always present in such cases, and by these familiar marks the union may always be known. Three of these marks are always present where there is a Church established : 1. The Church is not independent of the Government 68 SOCIAL ETHICS. in legislation. In England the creed of the Church is enacted by Parliament in the same way as any other measure which becomes a law. The Thirty-nine Articles which compose the creed of the Church of England were enacted in the time of the Tudors, and can be changed only by the English Government. The Church, as such, has no more control over the matter or form of her creed than over a land law. Members of the Church may be in important political positions, and thus bring influence to bear in the framing or amending of a creed, but their action is not as members of the Church, but of the Government. During the Middle Ages the Gov- ernments were often compelled to submit their measures to the Church officials for approval, but in modern times the Church has the subordinate position in the union. Whether the Church takes its constitution from the Gov- ernment, or the Government submits its measures to Pope or council, there is not independence in legislation. 2. There is not independence in the choice of officials. In the time when the papal power swayed the political as well as the ecclesiastical destinies of Europe, it was necessary that the Emperor should have the endorsement of the Pope before he could consider his throne secure. But in recent times the interference comes from the other party in the case. Instead of the Church assuming to pass upon the political candidates, the Government chooses the officials in the Church. The Archbishop of Canter- bury, the highest official in the Church of England ex- cept the king, has his place conferred upon him by the party which has the majority in the House of Commons, CHURCH AND STATE 69 acting through the Prime Minister, as truly as does the Secretary for India. Church officials are appointed by the same power and in the same way as the Government officials. If the Prime Minister is High Church in sympathy, as is the case with Lord Salisbury, the bishops who are appointed will, for the most part, incline to Ritualism. From the standpoint of an outsider, it is simply a matter of politics. Edward Seventh has as much control in the Church as he has in matters of political administration. The union of Church and Government has not succeeded in bring- ing religion into politics in any degree, while it has brought the Church catechism into the schools. From the facts which are apparent to all, it is evident that where such conditions exist there is no independence in the choice of officials in the Church. 3. There is not independent means of support. In America we are accustomed to the practice of each con- gregation, provided it has ability, supporting its own minister, while the Established clergyman draws his salary from the general taxation. These taxes which go to the support of the Church Establishment are col- lected from all the people who have taxable property, regardless of their belief. The clergyman is a Govern- ment official, and receives his salary as such. The Church may raise money from its membership for mis- sions or other work, if it sees fit, but the clergyman is not supported by his congregation, nor is he responsible to it. To sum up the preceding points, we have a union of 70 SOCIAL ETHICS. Church and Government when there is a lack of inde- pendence in the framing of law, in the choice of officials, and in the means of support. It is equally true that where these conditions do not exist there is not a union between the political and the ecclesiastical institutions. With this statement of familiar facts it seems clear enough that the putting of religious features into Gov- ernment law and practice, and the other question of the union of a certain denomination with the Government, are entirely distinct questions. The gaining of one con- dition is not even a step toward the other, but rather away from it. The Government of England, with its Church Establishment, is scarcely nearer to Christian methods of administration, than is the Government of the United States, which is non-religious by profession. It would seem a fair conclusion from logic and history, that putting religion into the Government would keep out Church Establishment. Surely the man who, when it is proposed to place some of the teachings of Christ in law for the guidance of Government, feels it necessary to lift his voice in warning against a threatened union of some denomination with the Government, is somewhat afflicted with mental astigmatism. The simple question which would indicate how needless is his warning is the query as to what denomination would be united with the Government by such a measure. The Kingdom of God, Herbert Stead; The State and the Church, Prall. THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL Ever since the struggle began between the rulers and the ruled, the philosopher in the sphere of theory, and the statesman in the field of legislation have beeen trying to adjust the relations of the State and the individual. The philosophers have outlined what they thought to be the ultimate social ideal, so that in the philosophy of any age we find what the ablest thinkers conceived to be the supreme social need; in the laws of the time is written what the lawmakers contrived to meet the immediate social needs. It is in this way that the dreams of the idealists later find embodiment in the statute books and social theories direct the course of political action. In the first chapter an attempt was made to define the State in psychic terms, together with some contrasts between the definition offered and those proposed by Mr. Spencer and Thomas Hobbes. In this connection a brief statement is offered of the views of those who have made the largest contributions to social philosophy, so far as their views are concerned with the conservation of social unity and individual freedom. The Work of Moses. It is in the legislation of Moses that we find the earliest recorded attempt to gain unity and freedom. When this great leader was assigned his task, the Israelites were a 7i 72 SOCIAL ETHICS. race of slaves, in servitude so long that they had lost their love of freedom; with a tribal formation, but an intertribal jealousy which stood in the way of the re- alization of national life. Under such conditions it is evident that unity under law is the first necessity, which must precede any lasting development of individual free- dom. Moses recognized that order is the mother of liberty, not liberty the mother of order as the philosophic anarchist teaches. What Moses demanded from the loose tribes which he sought to fuse into a nation, was obedi- ence to law, the first lesson of every people that has passed out of the rudest form of social life. To develop an enduring patriotism in this disorganized mass of individuals, trained to servility and selfishness by centuries of slavery, was the task which fell to this Hebrew statesman, and the evidence of his wonderful success is the cohesion of this unique people through thirty centuries of suffering. So low was their concep- tion of the priceless gift of freedom, that they would readily have bartered the free life of the desert for the old slavery of Egypt with the leeks and garlic of the Nile. One might search far for the negro in our land who, once a slave, would be willing to go back to the old life ; yet this was what the Hebrews wished to do. Surely it was an inspired genius that could mould a nation out of such unlikely material. The Israelites began their national life under the guid- ance of Moses. Mr. Herbert Stead holds that the He- brew nation was formed about three ideas: the idea of God marked by the name Jehovah ; the demand that those THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL v and Social Progress; De- Coulanges, The Ancient City. SOCIAL FORCES Mr. Lewes, who accepted the authority of history, though denying that of revelation, once said to Mr. John Stuart Mill that it must be admitted that certain influ- ences for freedom which had not been known before, came into the world about the time when Christ was on the earth. It was not, however, the initiation of the struggle for freedom, for that had been going on through the past ; it was the time when a new impulse was given to the factors which make for the realization of human freedom. It was to the disciples who felt within them the stir- ring of a new life that Jesus said : " The Kingdom of God is within you." Henceforth it was to be an unrest- ing contest between the individual and social forces' pf indifrerentism and retrogression on one hand and the progressive Kingdom of God on the other. The Kingdom of God aimed at nothing less than universal empire in the hearts of men; it brooked no rival, would make no terms. At first the inspiration of a few individuals, it so transformed these men that they infected those whom they touched. " It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in the meal," since each changed life became a constructive influence in the lives of other men. The Kingdom Against the World. The kosmos, or the world, is Paul's designation of the 172 SOCIAL FORCES 173 life which is not transformed by the spirit of God. Paul contended with this world in the lives of other men; he contended with it in his own. The world was the dom- inant influence in the lives of the men to whom he preached in the capitals of the Mediterranean neighbor- hood ; it was still an influence in the lives of the Chris- tians whom Paul calls his " little children." Now the Kingdom was to come into the individual and the social life as a new principle, to contest for domination with the world which was in possession. Between these two psychic forces in the social life, there could be no truce, or compromise ; either the world, or the Kingdom, must gain control. Mr. Herbert Stead has defined the Kingdom as " the fellowship of souls Divine and human, of which the law and the life are love, wherein the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man, as both are embodied in Jesus the Christ, are recognized and realized." This comprehensive definition sets before us one of the psychic forces in the social life, of which Jesus Christ is the inspiration. It comes into the life and takes such com- plete possession that Paul could assert : " It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me." Yet the world still remained as a factor, even with the Apostle to the Gentiles. The kosmos, as it is treated by the apostles, does not refer to a place, but to a principle of life. This kosmos rules in the individual and the social spirit, until the Kingdom enters and wins the contest for the suprem- acy of the life. Conversion of the life, individual or social, relegates the kosmos to a subordinate position. 174 SOCIAL ETHICS Paul's Statement of the Case, In the letter to the Romans, 7th chapter, Paul gives his experience of the struggle between the Kingdom and the world for the control of his life. He laments that " the good I would I do not ; but the evil which I would not, that I do." So far as Paul was concerned, the Kingdom was in control; he willed the good thing, yet the world had such hold that it could vitiate the act. Paul does not claim that he is not free to choose; the lack comes in the performance. " For," he says, " I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind." The kosmos had so permeated his life, that it could not be entirely expelled, even though it could be kept under. In this struggle of an acute con- science we have the psychological factors which work for and against righteousness. Paul is not leading a dual life; he is describing the conflict which goes on within the individual life. The individual is the battle field as well as the contending forces. One or other of these forces is always dominant and that one is decisive of the character of the life. Not that either becomes so completely dominant as to be uninfluenced by the other. It is doubtful if any man ever becomes so bad as to have no good impulses, or so good as to be entirely free from the evil principle of the " world." There is always some opposition, however slight, whether there is moral development or declension. What Paul so vividly experienced and described in his own life, finds its counterpart in the social life. There also the world is dominant ; there too the Kingdom enters SOCIAL FORCES 175 the field and struggles for the mastery. Since the world has control in the major number of individual lives, it has control in the social life, yet is this mastery not so complete as to entirely eliminate the psychic principle of the Kingdom. Paul brings out the fact that the evil principle was able to leave its taint on every act. The disease which shows in the hand, indicates the impurity of the life current in all parts of the body; so does sin prevent the act from satisfying all the demands of the situation. While society today is not Christian as Jesus Christ defines Christianity, yet it is not what it would be if the Kingdom .were eliminated as a social force. For the purpose of our study of society, both the Kingdom and the world are present, active factors. Each is trying to monopolize the field and make society entirely in its own pattern. Each of them expresses the belief of certain classes in society and they are arrayed against each other on every great social question. It is impos- sible to identify these psychic forces with particular institutions. The Church has for its work the bringing in of the Kingdom, but it is possible to find some outside the Church that are as closely identified with the social force that makes for righteousness as some that are within. The line between the opposing social factors can be drawn with greater accuracy by principles, than by institutions. The principle of action in the Kingdom is love; the principle of the opposition could scarcely be better defined than by the word force. According to one or other of these principles, each 176 SOCIAL ETHICS individual must line up his action ; not that either prin- ciple will cover each particular thing that he may do, but that one principle will have the dominant place. He adopts one or other as his ethical standard. Between the dominions of these principles there is no neutral ground ; for as Jesus stated the case, " He that is not for us is against us." In any movement, psychical or physical, the inert element must be reckoned with; so in the social move- ment it has its influence. If society is moving toward a higher moral level, the force of inertia, of that whole class of indifferent individuals who think themselves neutral, must be overcome before any progress can be made. The Apostle John looks on this class of men as specially objectionable and writes of them: " I would they were cold or hot." Whatever advancement is se- cured must be by overcoming the opposition and also lifting the dead weight of the people who, " did not care which." The neutral man is found to be a dead weight on the wrong side of every reform. It is upon the indifferent class, upon those in what we may call a subconscious moral condition, that the reformer does his work. His antagonist he may not expect to win to his position, but if he is able to force the issue upon such as have not yet declared themselves, he may recruit the ranks of those who make love the principle of social action. Elijah as he confronts a peo- ple wavering between God and Baal forces the issue by his demand : " Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." It is to gain this end of forcing men to take sides that SOCIAL FORCES 177 the champion of the Prohibition cause strives to bring on a collision between the Church and the saloon. He believes that if men can be forced into a choice of sides, the victory will be won. The citizen has not the right to be indifferent to any question which concerns the social welfare. The individual and the social spirit furnish the field for the battle of the standards. The principle of love, which is the principle of the Kingdom, is embodied in Jesus Christ; the principle of force which is the ethical standard of the world may be found scientifically stated by Weismann. By this statement it is not meant to assert that any great number of people accept the extreme Darwinism taught by Weismann, with any idea of en- dorsing that author or his views; what is asserted is that the ethical standard which dominates social action is the application of the doctrine which goes by the name of Weismann. Many of those who fall under this classification may never have heard of Weismann, might even deny the validity of evolution; but nevertheless they might find a fair scientific basis for their ethical theory in Weismann's writings. Darwin had made natural selection the center of his system, but he added to it use-inheritance and sexual selection to aid in the explanation of progress Weis- mann discarded the two last factors as having no place in his scheme of evolution, so that it will be necessary in explaining the position of Weismann to deal only with natural selection. It is not necessary to the purpose here to enter into a discussion of Weismann's " germ 178 SOCIAL ETHICS plasm " which is passed on unchanged from parent to child through the generations ; nor is it necessary to deal with " amphimixis," the chance combination of the pater- nal and maternal packets of " germ plasm " which allows for variation. The interest here lies in its ethical appli- cation, so that we are only concerned with natural selec- tion as an ethical standard. Since natural selection, according to Weismann, is the only factor in progress, struggle is the essential ele- ment. Nature is prodigal in the production of life and competition is the method by which the unfit are weeded out, while the strong possess the land. Mr. Kidd builds his book on " Social Evolution " on this foundation, fol- lowing Weismann closely for the most part, so that one will gain a fair understanding of what the doctrine of natural selection means when put to the service of ethics by reading Mr. Kidd's discussion. Mr. Kidd and Weis- mann agree that any limitation on the struggle between individual organisms would stop the progressive move- ment and would mean social stagnation to the society in which it occurs. It is true, they would admit, that we may go down in the fight for life; but we must die if we do not fight. Only in this way may the vitality of society be preserved and new conditions created. We must fight or die, or fight and die. Struggle is the first necessity in life. It is through this relentless struggle where each must fight for his own hand that the fittest is picked out and the " survival of the fittest " is assured. The vanquished failed because he deserved to fail, therefore it is the SOCIAL FORCES 179 necessary conclusion that the winner always has the righteous cause and to him be the glory. The winner is to be commended because he won; the loser con- demned because he lost. The conclusion is not simply that might makes right, but that might is right. To interfere in the struggle between two individuals, or two nations, in such a way as to influence the result, might bring about the survival of the unfit; it is only when the victor spoils the slain that we are certain which is right in the quarrel. Now while this struggle for life is going on among the individuals of the race, it is the environment which chooses that type of individual, brute or human, which suits the conditions existing at the time and place. That is what is meant by natural selection. In the biological field, the environment is material nature, therefore thought and purpose have nothing to do with selection. Both Weismann and Darwin agree that the variation in the individual which enables him to survive, has not been foreseen, coming in casually. Variations are all in ran- dom directions and it is the environment which rejects the multitude of the unfit and selects the one which is best. We may get the situation before our mind by conceiving that all the roads which lead onward appear equally good, yet all but one are blind alleys lacking outlets ; the individual whose random step takes him in the road which is open, survives, the others perish. Dar- win claimed that natural selection had no place for teleology, no evidence of purpose was in the process. There was no place for phophecy since none knew what 180 SOCIAL ETHICS variation might come in the individual, none knew which might be selected by the environment; all must draw at random and most of the cards were blanks. Mr. Spencer taught that beyond the struggle which was present, lay an age when struggle would cease and a static condition ensue in which egoism is to balance altruism in his ideal society; but Weismann insists that when struggle ceases, retrogression sets in. There is no stage between evolution and dissolution, at which the race may pause. At this point where struggle has been eliminated Weismann puts his stage which he calls panmixia, where the hostile social elements have coal- esced through marriage, or otherwise, so that competition is unable to work. This is the beginning of social death, says Weismann. With this statement of Weismann's biological views, their application to ethics is not difficult. He would argue that our present moral attainments have been reached by the struggle to the death between individuals, between institutions, between ideals. Each man must fight for himself since if he seeks to aid the weak that are being crushed, it will imperil his own success ; also it will aid in the preservation of the unfit. We have no cause to extend our sympathy to a weaker people in its contest with its stronger enemy, since the very fact of weakness is an evidence that it should be eliminated. If any course wins in life it is a proof of its Tightness since in natural selection it is the environment that selects, a premise which makes the end justify the means. The God of things-as-they-are is the one we should worship. SOCIAL FORCES 181 This is what we may call the doctrine of natural selection as applied to ethics, or the creed of Weismann- ism and it is taken here as the social force with which the teachings and the principles of Jesus find themselves in conflict. It is for this reason that some space has been given to its statement and more allowed to its dis- cussion. If existence determines Tightness, if worth is measured by survival, then the Kingdom of God is not an ideal ; indeed, there is no place for an ideal. Changes are casual, rather than the working out of a conscious purpose. Starting from a premise such as this, it is easy to see why the scientist looks upon the teachings of Jesus as inapplicable at the present time and upon the Kingdom of God as the fabric of a vision. Professor Small recently said to his class : " It is possible that in some future time men shall obey teachings such as Jesus gave, but the guide for present action is the common consensus of practical judgments of humanity." The present demand is to adapt oneself to the environment in which he finds himself. Conformity to the social environment becomes the sole duty of each. The martyr is a sinner against his time. He suffers greatly because he failed to adapt himself to his selecting environment. Does this not express the dominant ethical theory of our own time? Mr. Kipling and his compeers preach it as a sacred duty of the ruling nations to compel the peo- ples that are less advanced in industrial improvements, to conform to the type of the winning race. It is their business to eliminate the weak and preserve the strong. Is it not the spoken, or unspoken, word of the great i82 SOCIAL ETHICS majority that things are well as they are? Is not our trade balance good, our market firm, our business flour- ishing? It is exceedingly difficult to convince a popular audience that there is any great moral turpitude in a method of business which results in material prosperity. This conclusion is not consciously based on natural selec- tion applied in the ethical sphere, but it appears to be a fact nevertheless that the theory of natural selection comes in to uphold a certain system of ethics. Does the Doctrine of Weismann Hold in Biology? Professor Poulton in explaining natural selection, takes the case of the caterpillar, some species of which have been found with something resembling a thorn upon their back. Others of the family have been noticed which erect themselves in such a way that they closely resemble a shoot upon the tree. Now it is clear that because of this likeness to the branch on which they are, they will be to a good degree immune from the attacks of birds and other enemies. They can not be distinguished at a little distance from the branch on which they feed. The ordinary form of caterpillar, being more easily seen, will be eaten, while these variations from the ordinary type will survive. How did this variation come about which enables this particular caterpillar to survive while the more common forms perish? Evidently the caterpillar did not study out the situation and conclude that if it could stand on its head it would be like a shoot on the branch; and it is equally evident that the other type did not plan the thorn upon its back. The Darwinian SOCIAL FORCES 183 would tell us that it is simply a casual variation which happened to suit the environment. It is not hard to see that when the caterpillar does resemble a thorn upon the branch that in the struggle for life among the various creatures which prey on this species, this caterpillar has a decided advantage. It will have a better opportunity to live and rear a progeny with like growths, so that a new kind of caterpillar is in the field. But is it final to say that it came about by cnance? If the coincidence which brought about this particular form is simply mechanical, if there is no design in the case, perhaps such a conclusion may be accepted. But there is another authority on the subject of heredity which says that all things " brought forth after their kind " ; and it may be quite as scientific to make the claim that the variation mentioned was simply the un- folding of the characteristics in the life germ, as that it was "casual." It is a commonplace that the acorn contains the future oak, or even the future oaks, so that the divergence in oak trees need not be laid to random variations. But this is looking at the matter of variation only from one standpoint. Science considers the subject from the standpoint of the part ; philosophy from that of the whole. It would seem unquestionable that the conclusions of science should agree with philosophy ; also that the philo- sophic conclusions should be verifiable by science. Now it is agreed by modern philosophers that the universe is in some sense organic, and the conditions of an organism 184 SOCIAL ETHICS demand a vital relationship between part and part, also between the parts and the whole. It demands that each part shall perform its proper function in the organism and contribute to the interests of the whole. How then can the idea of " struggle " between the parts be the fundamental principle of development? How could one assert it as scientific truth that the changes which come about are only random variations? It is not proposed here to deny that natural selection is a factor in the development of the lower forms of life, but to deny that it is the dominant partner in the process. Natural selection may eliminate the unfit, it may have some part in strengthening the fit, but it fails to explain how the fitness arises. Another thing to be considered is that if life is organic, including its various forms, it can not mean a struggle each for itself. How far Drummond remedies the defect in natural selection by his bringing in of struggle for the life of others, need not be considered here. Yet it does not appear that even Drummond looked at the case from the standpoint of the whole. Paul brings out this organic relationship in the higher life when he writes " none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to him- self." If this rule is applicable to the lower life as well, and Mr. Herbert Spencer claims that it is, then co-opera- tion rather than struggle is the rule. Mr. Spencer has attempted a cosmic philosophy, which assumes to bind the universe together under the operation of certain laws. From this premise he argues the inade- quacy of natural selection as the cause of progress. To SOCIAL FORCES 185 make the matter clear we might consider a pioneer village in the colonial days. In its beginning each settler would be a farmer in some measure, since food had to be gotten from the soil and there would be little division of labor. Gradually the community becomes more complex in its interests and each household becomes more dependent on the labor of others. No longer do all till the ground, but we find one man building houses, another making shoes, another weaving cloth. The community is grow- ing from the simple to the complex, through division of labor. Shall we say that we find in that village life an illustration of natural selection through struggle; or is it not rather a growth through co-operation ? Weis- mann and Darwin would have to defend the former proposition and Mr. Spencer the latter. Evidently when the scientific doctors differ, one need not be discredited scientifically because he exercises the same privilege. The purpose of this chapter is to show that the bio- logical doctrine of natural selection, whether it is called Darwinism, or more exactly Weismannism, should not be applied to the settlement of moral questions as is being done ; and as it is open to serious question whether natural selection may claim dominion in its proper sphere of biology, we may with greater assurance deny its claim to rule in ethics. Environment Selects. There is one further point to be noted before leaving the biological phase of the subject. The environment 186 SOCIAL ETHICS makes the selection. In the case of the caterpillar its environment would be, for the most part, the tree on which it fed, the quality of air, and the animals which sought its life. It will survive as it is able to meet all these conditions. The animal has nothing to do with selecting itself; its life or death is determined solely by environment. Hundreds fall in the struggle as they prove unfit and only the few meet the test. It does not seem that there would be much use of Jesus Christ com- ing to die that he might redeem a world built on that plan. The Application of Natural Selection to Ethics. The question now to be studied is whether the rule of the woods and the fields, if it is not discredited even there, may be properly taken as the ethical guide in human affairs. According to this conception there is no merit in feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. Rather is that class of actions the perpetuation of weak- lings whose very need shows their unfitness to survive. The difference of opinion which one individual has with another is but casual. There is no absolute standard of right and wrong, since this is determined only by what the environment demands. If one is in Rome he meets the conditions of life by doing what the Romans do. To set up a standard of life which is contrary to the pre- vailing belief and practice, to try to live his life by such standard, is not an evidence of goodness. Rather does it evidence an unfitness to survive. As the environment is the final judge of righteousness and unrighteousness, SOCIAL FORCES 187 one belief may be as good as another until it has been tested by public opinion. If the crowd rejects it, it is not good. There is no justification for the one man, or the few men, standing against the crowd. It is not a ques- tion of what the moral law demands, it is not a ques- tion oi what the teachings of Jesus demand, it is only to consider what are the demands of environment. Is Natural Selection in Ethics the Popular View? According to the view taken in this chapter, the ques- tion should be answered affirmatively. Not that there is not continual and effectual agitation for the relief of the defective classes, not that " struggle " is not checked at many points; but that the general teaching of the press and the public administration, is based upon the ideas which belong to the doctrine of natural selection. It is to be gladly affirmed that war plays a decreasing part in the history of the race; though it is yet true that the burden of armaments in preparation for war, weighs heavily on the civilized world. It is no small gain that private war has been so generally suppressed, and internal affairs of State adjusted in so many cases by reason rather than by force. But it is questionable if the method of suppressing the weaker portions of humanity, has not changed its method rather than its principle. We have ceased to cut throats in the old brotherly fashion, yet the cutting of prices looks frequently to the same end. The strong individual breaks down his opponent by mental superior- ity in the particular field and not by superior muscle, yet 188 SOCIAL ETHICS when one takes into account the material addition which immense capital gives to the man that wields it, the difference between the old and the new conditions is not so great. Civilization has veneered the ancient villain of the game of war. The Industrial Situation. If the doctrine of Weismann is to have a dominant place in business, it means that sentiment must be elim- inated from the methods that are used. It means that competition of each against all, shall go on unchecked by any feeling of sympathy that would affect the making of a contract. President Walker, in his work on Political Economy, has denned competition in the terms of natural selection. "Whenever any economic agent does or for- bears anything under the influence of any sentiment other than the desire of doing the least and taking the most he can in exchange, be that patriotism, or gratitude, or charity, or vanity leading him to do any otherwise than as self interest would prompt, in that case also, the rule of competition is departed from." As President Walker argues for competition as the principle of business activity he may fairly be taken as an exponent of Weismannism in industry. Now if this conception of competition was actually realized in the factory and the market, natural selection would have the field to itself and just so far as the prin- ciple of " the longest tooth and the sharpest claw " has its way, this is the case. Such a conclusion would bar morals out of business transactions and leave the same principle for the market as the battlefield. SOCIAL FORCES 189 How far is it realized? It is probably an exaggerated statement, though it is current, that ninety per cent, of the business men fail at some period in life. However this may be the percentage of such failures is very large. In many cases the failure finds its sufficient explanation in incompetence, yet it appears to be true that the ma- jority are crushed by combinations of capital, a result which no amount of sagacity could have prevented. It is in many cases a trial of strength in which the one who can command the most capital is able to crush his rivals in the race, and he looks upon it as a mere matter of business to do so. He plans his campaign and carries it through as does a general when he forces his enemy from one point to another in his retreat before a superior force. It has been said that the purpose on the battlefield is to exterminate, while in business it is only to conquer, but this is scarcely a complete statement of the case. If a soldier is killed on the field, he can be left to lie where he falls till there is leisure to scoop for him his shallow grave, while his comrades close up the ranks and march on; but each wounded man takes three from the ranks, since two must aid their wounded comrade to the rear. In business, men do not seek to kill, but to disable. Of the two thousand empty store rooms in the city of Chicago some years ago, many of the former proprietors found their places behind the counters of the department stores which had crushed their little ventures. Very few are the railroads of today that are held by the men who sunk their fortunes in them at the first, ipo SOCIAL ETHICS for the reorganizations through which the railroad com- panies have passed, have reared the present business on the ruins of the former companies, which proved them- selves unfit. Then when the business has been wrecked, society is left to care for the wounded, and also to pay the expenses of the war in increased prices to the sur- vivor. We have our organizations of working men on one side, and of capitalists upon the other, standing for differ- ent things, yet both parties follow the rules of war, and do not hesitate to plant the blow where it will draw most blood. The union orders a strike when the employer has the most orders in hand, that he may be forced to make the required concession; while the employer takes the opportunity to reduce wages when the artisan can not resist. The battle usually goes in the favor of the employer, because capital can afford to wait with the possibility of recovering lost ground by the higher prices of a reduced stock. But the grip of hunger will not allow the laborer to wait, so that he must accept the terms offered. Now it is not claimed that this correctly states the attitude of all employers, or of all employees; what is sought in this case is the general principle on which industrial operations are based. Another fact which points to the same conclusion is the eagerness with which the commercial countries are grasping after undeveloped territory which may promise a market for their excess of goods. No question of treaty stipulations, or of human rights, is allowed to tip the balance toward justice, where conquest may SOCIAL FORCES 191 open a new field for commercial exploitation. Why are the commercial countries not able to find consumers within their own limits for the goods which they pro- duce, that they must seize colonial possessions at such a cost of blood and treasure? Clearly not because the people at home have all the economic goods that they might profitably use. The most plausible answer is that the relentless competition has taken from the masses the power to purchase, though not the wish to consume. So we see the Governments, in order to extend their commerce, burdening their people with heavy war debts which diminish yet more their power to purchase what the market affords. This fatal policy which shortens the actual market at home, to win a possible market abroad, seems to show that the accepted industrial principle must be at fault, since it thus works disaster to the people, as well as to the industrial interests involved. The suggestion may be worth making that the acceptance of the ethics of Jesus in the conduct of our great enterprises, might make it unnecessary to seek out some less developed people, where the market must be opened and kept open with the bayonet. The application of the ethics of natural selection within the national group leads to its application between the nations. The Political Situation. It seems to admit of proof that the ethics of the 1 struggle for life " is dominant at the present day in industry; we may now consider whether the same con- 192 SOCTAL ETHICS elusion may be drawn in regard to political action. This conclusion may be reached by a study of the principles upon which political action is based, and by considering the practice under those principles. We shall get at the principles on which our political structure rests, by referring to the written constitution of government which went into operation in 1789. Upon those principles the government was erected and has been administered during the century which has elapsed, seeming to suit the people as well now as when adopted. Every one who has shared in governmental action since its adoption has done so upon the basis of this funda- mental law, and so long as the present law is in force, there is no other legal basis. It is therefore proper to refer to the Constitution of the United States as con- taining the principles upon which politics rest. The Constitution, in turn, rests upon its preamble, or enacting clause, which reads : " We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This legal enactment expressly states that the source of political authority is in the peo- ple ; and while this means the organic people, rather than any number of individuals, it remains true that the will of the organism must find its expression through the majority. According to any democratic conception of the State it could not, and should not, be otherwise. But if the ultimate power is lodged with the majority, if the majority is the source of law and right, do we not have the doctrine of natural selection where the variant individual or minority must depend for the right to exist SOCIAL FORCES 193 upon the environment, the majority? It is quite true mat the minority is itself a part of the environment, yet it is so far a subordinate part that it can not regulate it. Comte argued, and his point is made frequently in these days, that since the individual is a member of the organism, that he should submit to it. But suppose the majority is wrong, must the individual accept their con- clusion and act upon it? By this method, must not right and wrong be decided by a count of heads? Comte taught that humanity is the God of the individual. Hu- manity is the end of his service, the object of his wor- ship. Taking such a premise as the basis of reasoning, it is clear that if the individual should set his opinion, or his act, against the crowd, he would be guilty of impiety. Is not that the idea which underlies much of the social teaching of the day? Not that the extreme position taken by Comte is accepted in words, but there is a suggestive likeness in the conclusions drawn. Not infrequently is it asserted in the press and elsewhere that when the country has fairly decided on a course of action, it is the duty of the loyal citizen to accept that decision and act upon it. A citizen may object to war, but once it is declared, he is under obligation to support the war, however unjust the cause may appear. Such statements have been current coin in the party papers of England and United States during the recent wars. The venders of such sentiment might touch elbows with Auguste Comte. It can mean nothing short of this, that the individual should submit his conviction to the decision of the social environment, the mass of the people. 194 SOCIAL ETHICS It may be that these are not the expressions of the social mind, but their currency would suggest such a conclusion. The teaching runs that when the individual has expressed his belief he should then be ready to act with the crowd against his belief. This means nothing less than the application of the ethics of natural selection in the discussion and settlement of the questions of the day. The man, or the opinion, which the environment chooses, is the fittest to survive. Now if the will of the people is ultimate, must one not conclude that when the people have decided on any eourse, the citizen is in duty bound to subscribe to it by act, if not in thought? If there is a higher will than that of the people to which the popular will is subordinate, then the judgment of the social will may be questioned, but not otherwise. Nor does it appear that the practice of politics differs radically from the principles on which it is based. Our method of treatment of the Indian during " a century of dishonor " shows that he is looked upon as * unfit " and his elimination is proceeding with more or less rapidity. One hears less frequently the saying that " the only good Indian is a dead Indian," but the practice has not suf- fered radical change. Treaties which secure to him his land are seldom binding when his holding becomes valu- able. Specially does this idea show itself in politics when voters are urged to give their support to some new propo- sition, such as the prohibition of the liquor traffic. At once is the question broached as to whether the project SOCIAL FORCES 195 can receive a majority of votes, and if this does not appear probable the measure is chosen which is likely to have the popular support, even if the individuals them- selves are not in sympathy with it. There is a dread of voting with the minority which has considerable effect in deciding how ballots shall be cast. Who has not met with the idea of being "odd," as a controlling influence in the choice of actions ? Perhaps the individual is not in any danger from the crowd, yet it is fair to say that where " the will of the people," is the final arbiter of individual rights, freedom is on a precarious footing. The Constitution guarantees the right of jury trial, but the liberal use of the injunction shows how this may be set aside in many cases. It may be that the judge of the Equity Court will guard indi- vidual rights as surely as would the jury, yet it means, to a large extent, the suppression of jury trial in any quarrel between employers and laborers. Paper guar- antees are a poor defense when there is a popular demand that they be set aside. All these instances which might be multiplied, suggest the conclusion that "conformity to environment " is the dominant ethical idea in our social life. How frequently is the epithet of traitor applied to the man who proposes to criticise political policies supported by the majority ? Continually is the effort made to suppress discussion on any question where the popular will has been expressed. Now it is frankly admitted that the conclusion drawn, which makes natural selection the ethical creed of the " world " of this age, may not be the correct one ; nor 196 SOCIAL ETHICS is it beyond question that the " world " furnishes the popular creed; yet the statement is ventured that when any other conclusion is taken it will be open to graver objections than the one offered here. Dualism in Ethics. While holding the belief that there can not be any reconciliation between these conflicting ethical ideas, it is only fair to state that Professor Giddings has made a proposal of that kind in his work on " Democracy and Empire." Professor Giddings deals with the idea of natural selection, making Nietsche its exponent, and holding with Nietsche and Weismann that to eliminate the " struggle for life " would take away the incentive for human effort. This would result in " panmixia " and the consequent degeneration of the people concerned. Professor Giddings holds that both social ideals, that of natural selection and the teachings of Jesus, are necessary to the social welfare. He allows that struggle may be eliminated from the group as the law of its life, but that it must be kept in working order somewhere to prevent stagnation. He would admit that we may reach the time when competition of the natural selection type would be excluded from the family and the neighborhood and even from the State. Within these limits we may follow the teachings of Jesus and become bearers of each other's burdens without incurring the disastrous results which Weismann feared from "panmixia." In fact Professor Giddings would teach that such an extension of the ethics of Jesus might be of great advantage to the society. SOCIAL FORCES 197 Up to this point Weismann has been discarded, but for the remainder of the way the paths of Weismann and Giddings lie together. Internecine strife may be abol- ished, but the vitality of the social life must be preserved by struggle between the nations. Thus Professor Gid- dings proposes to divide the earth between these two forces, allowing the teachings of Jesus to have free course within the State, but giving Weismann his way in international affairs. It must be admitted, so far as international affairs are concerned, that this ideal comes close to the actual. Whatever may be said as to the ethical code within the group there is no international code of ethics except force. However, neither the teach- ings of Jesus, nor modern philosophy, makes provision for such dualism in law as that proposed by Professor Giddings. There is no suggestion from either source of a division of territory between conflicting laws. One does not find anywhere in the teachings of the Christ a proposal that he would admit of division of the world with Weismann, or his kind. From the old days of blood and iron, when each family, and tribe, and people, was an Ishmael to all outside its limits, have come down to us ideas which we are now asked to accept because of the trade-mark of science upon them, as if baptizing them with a new name might change their character. It is a pitiful doctrine that the strong can keep his strength only by shedding the blood of the weak. The Comparison of the Social Ideals. It is spirit against matter ; love against force ; experi- 198 SOCIAL ETHICS ence against faith. Weismann would say that each must struggle for his own hand; Jesus said "love your enemies." The former argues that strength comes through resistance; the latter that it comes through sacrifice. Where such antagonism exists there can be no compromise. Jesus Christ claims the social life as his own, and means that the Kingdom shall come in it so completely that there will be a social incarnation. Struggle there is in abundance since the great apostle to the Gentiles draws his illustrations from the arena and the race course and proclaims his triumph in the words : " I have fought the good fight." Yet this is infinitely removed from the doctrine of struggle incident to natural selection. Jesus stated his method of survival when he said : " He that would be greatest among you, let him be servant of all." It is in the Christian's confession of faith that the teachings of the Christ are practical in method and universal in application. They are suited to the needs of the social life and no less to the intercourse between States. When we see each country piling its frontiers with fortresses and massing its sons behind stone walls, through dread of a neighbor who is wasting, in the same costly occupation, an amount of social wealth which would lift the poor of the land from poverty, it needs no further argument than the statement of the facts to show what a priceless boon it would be to the nations to gain the ethics of Jesus as the rule of life. While the repre- sentatives of the different countries profess friendship for each other, the fact occasionally comes to light, that SOCIAL FORCES 199 at the same time spies are being maintained at the rival courts. So long as the ethics of Weismann dominate in political affairs, must the peoples waste their spiritual and material treasures in the worship of the strange god of force. Yet Ormuzd will not forever strive with Ahriman, Jesus with Weismann, though the end be far in the future. For a time must the Christian citizen accept the standing order : " Be not conformed to this world ; but be ye transformed." The refusal to conform to environment has had its army of martyrs to whom is due the progress of the race, for the ethics of Weismann are as old as human selfishness. In the advancement of the kingdom there must always be those who "have come out of great tribulation," through their insistence upon the right of private judgment and the duty of projecting the Kingdom into the world. So far, environment has been considered as the scien- tist sees it, who looks upon natural selection as the ethical standard. But when our view is enlarged so that the fact of God, which Weismann had ignored, is brought into our plan, the character of environment undergoes a change. What by the scientist of Weis- mann's belief had been made the whole of environment is now seen to be only a part, even a subordinate part. Conformity to environment in this sense, which to the Christian is its only meaning, is conformity to God. The criticism upon the scientist is that he has dealt with a subordinate part of the field as if it were the whole, and has drawn conclusions from insufficient data. *oo SOCIAL ETHICS The argument of this chapter may be briefly stated. Since and before God became incarnate in Jesus, there has been radical antagonism between what Paul calls " the world " and the Kingdom which the Christ came to further ; so far in the history of the race " the world " has been the dominant social force, though doubtless modified at every point by the ethics of Jesus. At the present time the popular standard of ethics appears to be that of natural selection as proposed by Weismann, which is in direct and irreconcileable opposition to the teachings of Jesus. The conformity to the ideas of the crowd, which natural selection would demand, stands in the way of social progress, which is found only in the progress of the Kingdom. The question is raised whether natural selection deserved the place which has been assigned to it in biology, and its application in the field of morals is altogether denied. The suggestion is also made that the scientist in failing to take the fact of God into account in treating environment, has left a fatal weakness in any conclusions which he may draw from his partial view of the situation. From Comte to Benjamin Kidd, Mackintosh; Weismannism, Romanes; Social Evolution, Kidd; The Romanes Lecture for 1893, Huxley; Inadequacy of Natural Selection, Herbert Spen- cer; Darwinism in Politics, Ritchie; Democracy and Empire, Giddings (pp.34<>57)- THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE Sovereignty is an attribute of will and is not found except in will. If the State did not have mind, there could not be sovereignty in the State. This is the con- clusion to which Mr. Herbert Spencer comes when he argues that the State is like the animal organism, having physical powers but lacking intelligence. If, as he claims, there is no psychic factor, if the State is controlled by physical laws alone, then has the State no more of sov- ereignty, no more of character, than the animal to which Mr. Spencer likens it. It is only a great mechanism which has no power to direct its course. Sovereignty Includes Choice. If one accepts the views of Mr. T. H. Green, the long debate which has gone on over the freedom of the will is without justification. Mr. Green says that the expres- sion freedom of the will is tautological since it is equiva- lent to saying the freedom of the free thing. It is in the very nature of will to be free. We may arrest a person and shut him in a cell, we may even take his life, but his will is beyond our reach. He makes what choice he will in spite of sheriff and executioner. This char- acteristic is in each personality which has will. The State has this power of choice and can not be restrained 201 202 SOCIAL ETHICS in the use of it. When Elijah was on Carmel he de- manded of the assembled court and commons of Israel: " Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." They had the power to make the choice and would be held respon- sible for the use which they made of this power. In Israel at that time there were two forces struggling for dominance, the one idolatrous, the other holding for the true God. These two elements must both be taken into account in making up the national mind, but when the mind is made up and the choice is made, it is made without restraint. Neither Elijah, nor any one else, can compel a choice against their will. Often in the State there are conflicting elements, but when the social mind is made up, all these things are taken into account. It is under these conditions that the choice is made and responsibility assumed. Sovereignty Includes the Power to Control the Means for Reaching the End Chosen. It is at this point that we must distinguish between wills which are sovereign and those that are subordinate. Paul could say " to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not." The limitation did not lie in his power of choice, but in his ability to execute. The same limitation exists in the case of the State. Bluntschli says, " absolute independence does not exist anywhere on earth." Humanly speaking the limitations of State sovereignty take two forms, the internal, and the ex- ternal ; the former, through the opposition of its own citi- zens, the latter through the opposition of other States. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE S03 The Internal Phase of Limitation. While the will of the State has been made known, it is frequently true that there is an opposition party, indeed it is of much account that such opposition should exist to furnish the needed criticism on the party in power. The idea is more common than one could wish, in the United States at least, that when the State has expressed its will, the minority should accept the result as final in the case. Such reasoning fails to do justice to the pro- testing minority, which is needed as an incentive to the party in power to take a higher moral standard of action. We need our reformers and they are always in the minority. We need our martyrs who resist unto the death the will of the State which enjoins injustice. This opposition by the individual should not be based on the plea that he is himself sovereign, or a fraction of sovereignty. The statement that each individual is a sovereign may be allowed to pass as rhetoric, but nothing more. He is an individual with responsibilities to his manhood, to society, and to God, responsibilities which can be met only by faithful witnessing for the truth as he knows it. While opposition to the carrying out of the social will is not sufficient to change the purpose, it is able frequently to modify the methods used. This is illustrated in the temperance agitation, where the voicing of opposition to the prevailing policy has forced concessions from the liquor power at a number of points. Dominant parties are usually susceptible to criticism. To criticise is the function of the minority. 204 SOCIAL ETHICS External limitations of State Sovereignty. In the family of nations, of which each State is a member, there is legally a perfect equality. Differences in population, and in wealth, give no pre-eminence in privi- lege. In a number of cases there is a union among the great States of the world to guarantee the territory of one whose weakness might be an undue temptation to a stronger neighbor. This is illustrated in the case of Switzerland which is neutral ground. What is specially lacking in international affairs is such development of the consciousness of kind, that the aggressions of the larger upon the weaker peoples would be prevented in each case by a union of the other powers. So long, however, as the present rapacity for territory continues, such a condition must remain a prophecy. Yet even under existing conditions, each State is under bonds to keep the peace in many respects. In many cases, the State may not treat its own subjects as it will without regard to the judgment of other States. America interfered between Spain and her Cuban sub- jects, though later the hollowness of this act was shown by the adoption of Spanish methods in the Philippines. All the reason why the United States is not called to account is because the other States also have the hunger for territory which they wish to gratify in like fashion. Yet while the public sentiment, which one may hope is gathering against all aggression of the strong upon the weak, has no international institution through which it may have organized and effective expression, the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 205 various States are exceedingly anxious to place their case before the jury of humanity in such a way as to win a favorable verdict. State action is Hmited less by what other States have done than by what they might and would do under sufficient provocation. The Hague Peace Conference was a move in the right direction, but its constitution was defective in that its conclusions were not binding even upon the States there represented. Many of its provisions were disregarded by the powers represented before the report of the con- ference had been made public. When the stronger pow- ers shall be willing to forego conquests by force of arms, we may gain an international tribunal which will limit the sovereignty of the States by the impartial judgment of their peers in the family of nations. Sovereignty Rests on Right. This does not contradict the proposition that sover- eignty over a people is often initiated by force. The thought is that force can not be made the permanent basis on which sovereignty rests. States have been de- frauded of their birthright with scarcely the grace of a contract for a mess of pottage, but the possession may be kept only by a return to justice. Rousseau said : " The strongest is not strong enough to be always master, unless he transforms his strength into right, and obe- dience into duty." Physical force is an element in sov- ereignty without which the State could not preserve itself and perform its functions. But the real strength of the State will be indicated by the infrequency with which it must appeal to the arbitrament of force. 206 SOCIAL ETHICS The strongest State is not the one which must depend upon the dread of its standing army to win obedience to its laws, but rather does strength consist in the possi- bility of dispensing with such physical aids through the loyalty of a contented people. A large standing army not only saps the industrial and moral energy of a people, but it is a standing notice of internal, or external, weak- ness. Not only is it a source of national weakness when unwilling populations are compelled to a reluctant sub- mission, but it reacts disastrously upon the social life of the dominant partner. Only social damage can result when one section of a people becomes the taskmaster of another. Sovereignty must come to rest upon justice, else insurrection and revolution become the only relief for an oppressed people. Force may rule till right is ready, provided that justice is not too slow in coming to its own. Sovereignty and Revolution. The right of insurrection, though it is admitted only as a last resort, is recognized as the protection against an arbitrary will, whether of the monarch, or the State. In the earlier times, when the ruler could call out his mailed men on horseback to ride down the hundreds of defenseless peasants, this had less meaning than at the present, when the farmer on his croft, with smokeless powder and long-range rifle, is more than a match for the sergeant with his squad of men. Inventions such as those of recent date are putting into the hands of the few, when the cause is worth the risking of their lives, a power which the State will not hastily provoke. The time is SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 207 coming, if not already here, when men must be governed by reason and not by the reckless assertion of an arbitrary will. Those who have accepted the explanations here given will be prepared to differ with the definition given by Bodin, and recently repeated by Professor Burgess, that sovereignty is "absolute, unlimited power." We have seen that the will, whether of the individual or the State, is not limited in the matter of choice, but is limited in the carrying out of that choice. Sovereignty is Indivisible. This is admitted as soon as it is made clear that sov- ereignty is an attribute of will. The State can have but one mind, but one will, therefore the old claim that sov- ereignty could be divided has not a leg on which to stand. Sovereignty can not be divided any more than will, and this is clearly impossible. It is doubtless true that the settling of a question in philosophy does not necessarily end it as a question in political affairs, yet it is more than probable that a correct conception of the philosophy of the State might have prevented the long contest, which ended with the Civil War, over the question of the division of sovereignty. The South held stoutly for the idea that the respect- ive Commonwealths were sovereign; indeed, there was scarcely a section of the country which did not make the same claim, as the occasion demanded. The view held by the North during the period before the Civil War was probably voiced by Webster, who explained that sov- ereignty lay partly with the Union, partly with the Com- 2o8 SOCIAL ETHICS monwealths. So far as argument could be made from the State documents and official statements, the South was able to hold its own, since the Commonwealth Con- stitutions and the Articles of Confederation, as well as various other authorities, sustained the idea of the sov- ereignty of the respective Commonwealths. Three positions were taken in regard to the residence of sovereignty. Calhoun, who is the clearest exponent of the belief in Commonwealth sovereignty, declared that when the connection of the colonies with Great Britain was broken each became an independent Commonwealth. Each was as truly sovereign as Great Britain itself. When the Articles of Confederation were framed, they consti- tuted a league between the contracting Commonwealths, which, through its Congress, was to deal with certain matters of common interest, but not to trench upon the sovereignty of the Commonwealths. The Constitution of 1787, said Calhoun, did not change this condition of things, but only made the principles of the Articles of Confederation more effective in securing the ends of the league. To his mind there was no American nation, as we would understand the term, therefore there was no national government. The Commonwealths retained their sovereignty and therefore had the right to nullify any laws enacted at Washington which were not acceptable to the Commonwealth concerned. Secession, from this standpoint, is only the withdrawing from the voluntary league, whose treaty, the Constitution, was no longer acceptable to the contracting parties. Secession would, thus, not be in the nature of rebellion, but only the ex- SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 209 ercising of the legal privilege of the Commonwealth. The national view held that it was a nation, not thirteen colonies, which declared its independence of Great Brit- ain. The Articles of Confederation, which treated the Commonwealths as sovereign bodies, did not express the facts in the case. When the struggle for leadership of the German people came in 1866 between Prussia and Austria, the ambas- sador of the former said: "His Majesty, my king, will not regard the national foundation upon which the con- federacy rests as destroyed by the extinction of the con- federacy. Prussia holds fast, on the contrary, to these foundations, and to the unity of the German nation under the transitory forms of expression." This was the na- tionalist view of sovereignty in the United States, that in spite of all expressions to the contrary, in statute, and constitutions, there was existent, beneath all transitory forms, a national life. In this national life, sovereignty resided and not at any time in the respective Common- wealths. Webster's position, which has been accepted until re- cently in legal treatises, rested upon a compromise be- tween the idea of Commonwealth and of national sov- ereignty. He held that the respective Commonwealths became sovereign on their separation from Great Britain, thus agreeing with Calhoun; but he said that when the Constitution of 1787 was framed the Commonwealths surrendered a portion of their sovereignty to the Union which was then formed. According to this view, sov- ereignty was divided. Such a compromise could not be 210 SOCIAL ETHICS final, and the question of where sovereignty resided was submitted to the arbitrament of war. When one understands that sovereignty resides in the will, he sees why Webster's contention failed in philoso- phy as it also failed in politics. There is not a division of sovereignty between the Governments of the nation and the Commonwealths, since sovereignty rests not at all in either, but in the will of the State which constituted the Governments of Commonwealths and nation. There is one people, not thirteen or forty-five. There is one will in control, which is morally responsible for national ac- tion; one sovereign power resting finally upon the justice of the action. In the matter of sovereignty, legal decisions are ad- justing themselves to the historical facts, so that the former difference of view between the historian, who held sovereignty to be indivisible, and the lawyers who fol- lowed Webster, is mainly reconciled. The latest legal treatises accept the former doctrine. Sovereignty Can Not Be Delegated. Authority to act may be delegated by the sovereign, but sovereignty can be alienated only by the extinction of the State. This is clear when the subject is considered from the psychical point of view. Sovereignty belongs to the social will, so that the loss of one means the loss of the other, also the loss of personality. Texas gave up its sovereignty when it came into the Union, and it gave up at the same time any independent choice of ac- tion. Henceforth its course must be guided by the will of the American State. The sovereignty once surrendered SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 211 is as though it had not been. The State delegates au- thority to its Government, but sovereignty remains with the State. From the facts at hand, it is evident how far the materialistic conceptions of the State led us away both in political theory and practice. Had it been un- derstood that the State was psychical not physical, spir- itual not material, the long contest over the division of sovereignty either would not have occurred, or would have had to choose some other conditions of warfare. It is of no small account in the progress toward political har- mony that we are coming to understand better the sub- ject with which we have to deal. The Location of Sovereignty. Hegel tells us in his " Philosophy of History " that in the time of the early monarchies one was free, later the few were free, now all are free. Taken with some al- lowances, this expresses the truth of which history marks the unfolding in the process of the centuries. In the early empires the king was called the sovereign, though we accept the term with a proviso. Taking Egypt as a concrete case, the Pharaoh ruled in autocratic fashion, yet there were bounds to his authority, beyond which the king ventured at his peril. The King Was Limited in His Sphere of Action. The modern Government legislates in regard to the re* lations between citizens to an extent not possible to the ancient king. His range of subjects was limited, though in his particular field he had little restraint. The ancient Government was scarcely more than a taxing agency, and 212 SOCIAL ETHICS if the subjects paid their taxes without undue complaint, besides furnishing levies of men for the suppression of rebellion in the empire, or the subjugation of surrounding peoples, the monarch did not interfere in the other spheres of life. The general course of the life of the people was regulated by influences with which the king did not presume to interfere. The modern Government steps in between citizens to regulate contracts, to decide on the methods of inher- itance, to make conditions for legal marriage and divorce, filling the modern statute book with rules on subjects with which the Pharaoh did not concern himself. It is doubtless true that the growing complexity of modern society, of which Mr. Herbert Spencer makes so much, calls for Government interference in a way that the sim- 'plicity of ancient society made unnecessary. Yet even .then they had to buy and sell as now. The difference lay not so much in the different conditions in society as in the change in the idea of the functions of Government. The king wanted money for his court, and men for his wars and public works. Gaining these ends he was con- tent to allow the subject to follow the customs of his fathers in other matters. It was in custom that ancient society read its code of laws. These customs had been sanctified by immemorial usage. They had grown up less by conscious intent than by unconscious adaptation to existing conditions. Yet the point we should keep in mind is that they were the expression of the life of the people. Thus the people were ruled by laws of their own making, rather than by any device of the king. The SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 213 Pharaoh might drive them into his army, or by thousands into the quarries, but to have interfered in family rela- tions, or to have changed a religious rite, might have raised a storm which would have swept him from his throne. The King Issued Decrees for Special Cases. We think of a law which is enacted by the legislature as a standing rule for the settlement of a whole class of cases, a rule which by the interpretation of the courts may meet the needs on that particular subject for dec- ades. In this sense the ancient king did not issue laws. He sent out decrees for special times and cases, and these edicts ceased to have force when the special occa- sion passed. The laws of the Medes and Persians could not be altered, for which there was less need on ac- count of their special character. Ahasuerus, as the book of Esther records, issued his decree against the Jews for a certain day, and the order could be amended only by a new decree. The only rules which had general applica- tion at such times were found in the customs of the people. When Hegel writes that one only was free in the early society he means that only the king consciously chose his own course. It is doubtless true that the people had scarcely come to consciousness of having any end beyond mere existence. We could hardly speak of any defined social ideal as yet. The power which the people pos- sessed was mainly that of resistance to change. There doubtless were those who had insurrections against es- 214 SOCIAL ETHICS tablished conditions brooding in their minds, but they could not infect the multitude with them. Patriotism was yet far in the future. In such a condition of things, where was sovereignty located ? Was it in the monarch ? Was it his will that shaped the course of things, or did his will have to adapt itself to the established order? The latter seems the necessary conclusion. He might tax, he rriight kill, but he could not change the customs of the people. The absolute king seems to belong to the realm of fancy, rather than of fact ; he finds his place in story, rather than in history. The Few are Free. In the growth of common consciousness, the monarchy gives way to the aristocracy. Not that this has been the universal rule among the peoples, for, taking the world as a whole, development seems to have been the exception rather than the rule. In many cases the particular so- ciety seemed to have reached the limit which its political genius allowed, without passing beyond the monarchical stage of development. Wherever societies have reached any high degree of development, the king has been dis- placed in reality if not in name. The Tarquin Kings of Rome tried to hold their posi- tion by granting certain privileges to the Plebeians, but the Plebeians had not enough political organization to sustain the Tarquins in this purpose. For this reason the kings were driven from Rome by the Patrician aris- tocracy. The early Roman Republic was an aristocracy, with the political administration carefully guarded in SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 21$ Patrician hands, and the struggle for three hundred years was between this aristocracy and the rising spirit of democracy. In England this order of development seems to be re- versed, since the power of the king rose to its greatest height out of the ruins of the feudal aristocracy; yet the power of the Tudors lay mainly in the fact that they favored the commons to such an extent that they were among the most popular of English kings. The last of the Tudor line, "the good Queen Bess," was, undeserv- edly enough, the most popular of all, since she knew so well when to yield to the wishes of the people. The power of the Tudors lay, as does the modern Govern- ment, in the approval of the people. The aristocracy of birth has had its time to reign, and has passed away. The aristocracy which now bars the road toward democracy is the aristocracy of wealth. Mr. Herbert Spencer looked forward to the time when the control of society would lie in the industries of the time, instead of in the legislative halls, and he has proven to be more of a prophet than many of his critics, since pres- ent conditions go far toward the realization of his ideal. The Government of the United States must have its con- ference with Wall Street, and the English Government with Lombard Street, before deciding on important mat- ters. The press, which is to educate the people on the great questions of the day, depends upon its advertising pages rather than upon its editorials for its livelihood, and the former control the latter. It is the advertising agent who mainly dictates the make-up of the paper. 2i6 SOCIAL ETHICS The same is true in a less degree of the pulpit and the school. In the anxiety for endowments, the schools must cater to the sentiments of those who have grasped the world's wealth. The aristocracy of religion, and later of birth, held dominion over the minds of men, while that of wealth holds their bodies in fee; but the plutoc- racy must pass away, as did its more honorable pre- cursor. The feet of those who carried out its predeces- sors are at the door, and not all the subserviency of press, pulpit and school can keep democracy from its own. Sovereignty, so far as it is realized on earth, rests in the will of an aroused people. At one time the king assumed to have it, and for the time his claim seemed valid ; the aristocracy seated itself upon the throne which the king vacated, and grasped with firm hand the reins of power; they too have passed, and will pass, away. Where superior mind failed to keep in the saddle, con- centrated wealth need not hope to hold its seat. In our own time we read how the kings and the nobility of Europe bow in awe before a group of American million- aires. It is the new aristocracy which is graving its laws deeply on the political methods of our day. There is but one influence that can stay the coming of democracy. When the moral decay which followed the Punic Wars had sapped the vitality of Roman life, the citizens lost that moral fiber which is essential to the people possessing self-government. The people had their consciences blunted by the plunder of the provinces which fed them, by the feasts and shows which made them careless of the suffering of the provincials, at whose SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 217 cost these had been gained. To quote from Mr. Kipling, Rome was bearing the " White Man's Burden " of sub- ject populations. Under such conditions the Roman citi- zenship degenerated so that it became the prey of the demagogue and the barbarian. Brutus sincerely believed that with the death of Caesar the Republic might be re- stored, but it was too late. Only a moral citizenship deserves self-government; only such can retain it. It is at such a time of moral degeneracy that the Caesar comes. Since sovereignty is in the will, it follows that when a State becomes so corrupt as to lose its will power, as does the individual under like circumstances, some rival people comes to build upon the ruins of a fallen race. In this way can sovereignty pass from a people, but it is to another people more worthy of it. All Are Free. . This was the final stage in Hegel's plan of human de- velopment. We have seen that in the previous stages the monarch, or the aristocracy, had claimed to be sov- ereign, but back of these administrators there was the people with the possibilities of rebellion. It is true that these uprisings were infrequent, yet their possibility acted as the fear of a strike upon an employer who has many orders on hand which he wants to fill. The possi- bility of revolution was the sword of Damocles which hung over the king and the nobility to remind them of how carefully they must do their work lest the blade should fall. In the modern State it Has become something short 218 SOCIAL ETHICS of a vice that the Government is afraid of the crowd, so that in listening for the popular verdict the Government has little of the leadership which it should exercise. It is the aim of the statesman of the present to follow, rather than to lead, public opinion, satisfied if results show that he has charted correctly where the tide is running, so that he may keep his political craft where the water is deepest. Is Sovereignty in the English Parliament ? While the reasoning here followed denies sovereignty to the Parliament, many writers on law hold that as there is no constitutional restriction upon what Parliament may do, therefore sovereignty resides in the king in Parlia- ment. This seems to be mistaking appearance for fact, since Parliament follows public opinion with scarcely less subservience than does Congress. Parliament has some- thing the character of a constitutional convention, as it is within its legal competence to work an entire change in the British Constitution of Government, but the mem- bers have a clear understanding that they must go back to their constituents to give an account of their steward- ship. Parliament is the last legal court of review, but the people have it in their power to change this court and its decisions at any time. It is not necessary, as in the United States, to submit constitutional changes to the popular approval, but the difference is rather in method than in principle. The legislators must submit themselves to popular approval. So long as Parliament is in session there are no legal SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 219 limitations upon its functions, but the dissolution brings the whole issue before the electors, much as if they were voting upon the measure directly. If the people wish to reverse the decision of Parliament, they can choose other members in that body. England's Three Revolutions. Professor Burgess states that England has had three revolutions. The first one took place in the reign of King John, when the barons in alliance with the leaders of the commons forced in Magna Carta the limitation of the royal power. It is true that King John kept the semblance of legal form by giving the Great Charter by his royal will, but it was a consent which he dared not withhold. " They have given me four-and-twenty over-kings," he said as he rolled upon the floor in his chagrin, and, except at intervals, the " over-kings " re- mained. Many times in the following centuries the Charter had to be re-affirmed as the kings tried to break through the limits which had been set to the royal pre- rogative. They had walked a road which could not be retraced. The second notable change took place when the first Tudor set the crown upon his head in 1485 on Bos worth Field. During twenty years the Wars of the Roses, with their accompaniment of executions and confiscations, had worked such havoc among the feudal nobility that it was not after that time an efficient check upon the king. Thus the revolution of 1485 eliminated the nobility and left the king face to face with the people, whom he hence- 220 SOCIAL ETHICS forth was to serve, though not always with a good grace. But as yet there was no institution through which the will of the English people could direct the Government. The Commons was yet a kind of assistant of the Lords. The Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission, though they later earned the hatred of the people, were designed to coerce the weakened nobility. It was when the king turned these courts upon the people that the reaction came which overthrew both king and courts in the Puritan uprising. During the years from 1485 till 1832 the king was allowed to keep the semblance of power, provided that he was sufficiently modest in its exercise. The third revolution was in 1832, when the people took over the exercise of the powers of the State. Up to that time the members of the Commons had been elected from the same districts as centuries before, though the population had moved meanwhile. The result was that large cities such as Liverpool and Manchester had no rep- resentative in Parliament, while villages, so ruined as not to have a house to mark the place where they had stood, sent representatives to Parliament. By this means these pocket boroughs, as they were called, the members for which were appointed by some Lord, controlled the actions of the House of Commons. The Reform Bill of 1832 abolished these boroughs, distributing the repre- sentation according to population, making Parliament the exponent of the social will. Again it may be said that the action of 1832 was not revolutionary, since it was legalized by the crown; but when it is remembered that SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 221 the ministers ordered out the Horse Guards, compelled the king to dissolve Parliament and to consent to the creation of new Lords if the existing House did not con- sent to the Reform Bill, it is apparent that the royal prerogative had gone into eclipse. The last court of appeal is neither king nor commons — it is the people. Conditions of Freedom. So far the argument has led to the conclusion that the people have been, and are, the sovereign power, though it may be recalled that the State is not unlimited in its actions. Sovereignty in full realization belongs only to that will which is unlimited in its choice, and as well in its use of means for executing its will. The State, then, is not finally sovereign. Only in God is found the will which meets the conditions. In this conception of sovereignty is also found the essentials of individual freedom. If it is concluded that the people is the ultimate sov- ereign, this power must find expression through the ma- jority. If that is all that we have reached through the centuries of progress, it means that we have changed from the king, who had the semblance of sovereignty, to the people, which has much more of the reality, and that any sufficient guarantee of individual freedom is lacking. With the monarch it is possible to reason, scarcely with a million men. Against the king it was possible to appeal to the multitude, but to whom against the multitude? There will always be minorities in a de- mocracy, however common the ideas of the time ; indeed, «22 SOCIAL ETHICS it is to this social variation that we must look for pro- gress. Mr. Lawrence Lowell in his " Essays on Democracy " points out the same danger when he says : " It is clear that where absolute power is vested in any man or body of men, the rights of the individual depend on the will of that man or body; and this is no more true in the case of a king than in that of a legislative assembly or a sovereign people." We have seen how the king gave place to the aristocracy, and how this body, in its turn, had to acknowledge the power of the democracy. It is now left for the democracy to confess the authority of God in the matter of social control and the goal of history will be reached. In any will short of the will of God, sovereignty is relative; in Him it is absolute. It is in this that we have our only guarantee for in- dividual freedom. With God as the sovereign, we have an arbiter who is free from the intolerance of the majority and the pas- sion of partisanship. Nowhere short of God is there a judge who has a care for the weak, which puts them on equal footing with the strong. It might be objected at this point that while God is sovereign, yet He must act through human means; that this human means must be the dominant social force, which is expressed through the majority. This might seem to lead back to the same result as before, the tyranny of the majority. But this does not state the whole case. The State must be ruled through the social element which is dominant at the time, but this majority should understand that it is not SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 223 the final judge in the case. It should remember that it is under law, to which it must give account, and that the question between the majority and the minority goes on appeal to the judgment of God. The case may be al- lowed to stay on the divine docket for decades or cen- turies before judgment is pronounced and execution or- dered, but when the bill is rendered it will be with costs. Injustice will inevitably meet its recompense of reward. When the State recognizes its will as subject to the will of God, then, and not till then, will the individual have a guarantee of freedom sufficient to protect him from arbitrary power. It is frankly admitted that the social intelligence must finally put its interpretation upon the divine law in its application to the matter in hand, and it is always pos- sible that this interpretation might not be the one which justice would demand; yet it is not to be forgotten that the people taking the law of God as the rule of life has not worked social injustice to the citizen. Social free- dom would not meet immediate fruition even on this basis, but in no other way will it be gained at all. It is when the State consciously accepts the will of God as supreme over the social will and carries out the social functions in the spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ, that the will of God is done on earth as it is done in heaven. The Nature of the State, Willoughby, pp. 181-309 ; Essays on Government, Lowell, pp. 189-223; Political Science, Burgess, part 2; Works of T. H. Green, vol. 2, pp. 427-549; American Republic, Brownson. LAW The philosopher who teaches the eighteenth century idea that we know only unrelated phenomena is lonely in these days as the owl upon the housetops, since ma- terialist and idealist maintain that there is a universe constituted by universal law. It is evidence that ideas have not been simply marking time during the last hun- dred years, when the philosopher, the scientist, and the theologian have this much in common, however much they may differ in regard to the nature of this universal law. When the question of the nature of the law is broached, these quondam friends fall apart and each goes his several way. One of the questions which bring out this difference of view is that of the origin of law. Is Law Personal or Impersonal in Origin? " Of law," writes Hooker, " there can be no less ac- knowledged t than that her seat is the bosom of God ; her voice the harmony of the world." This sentiment states one view of the case, in declaring that law is an expres- sion of will. It teaches that in the administration of the universe of men and matter there is a sovereign will at work which originates and directs both psychical and physical movements. These movements are not along blind alleys which are liable at any point to be marked " No thoroughfare." Each one is telic in character, hav- ing an end to serve in the universal plan. 224 LAW 225 So far as the Middle Ages produced anything deserv- ing the name of history, it was written from the stand- point of the ecclesiastic, and was scarcely more than a brief record of the doings of the churchmen. Somewhat later the historian gained a new vantage and gave us a record of the rise and fall of kings and courts. In recent times we are told that the economic factor is the most important in the matter of social growth. What the student comes to understand is that each of these — the ecclesiastical, the political, or the eco- nomic — is but a different factor in the social movement, each co-operating with the others in an organic relation- ship in working out the plan of God in the uplifting of society. In this wonderful social plan each man and each institution has a work that is to minister to the final end. It follows from this evidence of the complexity of the plan that the will which designed and moves it all is supreme intelligence. The universe starts from God and moves to God. That is its origin and its end. At no point between origin and end is either the molecule of matter or the individual man free from the control of the sovereign will. This will must belong to a person, since things do not have will. It is the personal will of a personal God. Those who claim in this age that law is impersonal teach that natural law controls the world in which we live and that natural law is physical. The laws of attrac- tion and repulsion govern matter; so they tell us that they govern man. In this materialistic view of things there is no spirit, except as it evolves from matter, so 226 SOCIAL ETHICS there can be no spiritual laws. Our common idea that nature is dead, passive matter, we have borrowed from the physicist, and yet, though we took part of his prem- ises, we blame him because he wants us to go the rest of the way with him in admitting that this nature rules. Our mistake has lain in taking his premise as our start- ing point. Nature does rule, but is the clod under my foot nature? The clod did not make itself, it does not rule itself. There is something beyond the clod, and thatjs mind, that willed the clod. To find nature we must** go beyond what our feet tread upon, to what our thoughts, reach after, and find mind. Matter is neither a beginning nor an end. It is but the means through which spirit finds expression. Nature is sentient, it is God, and all the laws which we see working in matter — the falling stone, or the running stream — are but one phase of nature's laws. All law emanates from the spir- itual nature and acts for it. As a side issue on this point we have the question of miracles. It is said by the materialist that miracles are a violation of the laws of nature, and therefore that they are impossible. But if we deny his premise that physical law is the only natural law ; if we hold that nature is the divine mind, it changes the whole situation. Then from the standpoint of the divine mind, the departure from the observed course of things is not only possible, but, taken in connection with the life of Jesus Christ, is certain. The laws which God gave to Moses at Sinai were nat- ural laws, were the revelation of man's nature to him- LAW 227 self. The moral law was his constitution, just as the physical laws reveal the constitution of the rock and the soil. But neither man nor the rock gave law to them- selves. That was given by the maker of both, that nature of which they were the expression and whose will they were to perform. In the final analysis nature is God. It is not passive, but active; it is not dead matter, but living mind. The miracles, of which Jesus is chief, obeyed the law of mind. The Impersonal Origin of Law. If this were written for the people of the East, it would be in place to take up the question of Pantheism, which teaches that God is in everything and that everything is God; but when one is writing for Anglo-Saxon readers the Pantheistic idea of law needs no more than a passing notice. The Pantheist would hold with the preceding view that all law came from God, but it would not be an expression of will. Pantheism has no place for a per- sonal God, and an impersonal God, one that has no ex- istence except in what the eye can see, can have no will. But for the American, or the Englishman, having before his eyes the mechanical inventions which have made the powers of earth and air his servants, living in the midst of a production of material wealth such as the world has not known at any previous time, material- ism is the dominant idea. Paradoxical as it may seem, as the mind of man is able to conquer matter and make it work for him in the field of action, matter is inclined to dominate man in the field of thought. " Things are in the saddle," so that man is in danger of owning as his master what was meant to be his slave. From the 228 SOCIAL ETHICS standpoint of the materialist, law is that uniformity of action which may be discovered in the laboratory, or by daily observation. It is simply physical law, and if there is a God at all He does not interfere in the operation of this law. There is no will in control. Mr. Herbert Spen- cer, who has earned the right to be taken as an ex- ponent of materialism, teaches that law is only persistent force working through the material world and through society. All things come from matter and motion, says the great Agnostic, so that thought itself is but a physical product of some reaction in the brain. There is no will in control, no mediator to stand between man and the inevitable laws of persistent force, so that the mills of the materialistic gods, while grinding slowly, will " grind exceeding small." This universal law may possibly be adjusted to some remote end, but it is to work as re- morselessly as the law of falling bodies. Such is the origin of law as the materialist sees it. The man who takes the Bible as the rule of his life is not left in doubt as to which of these views of the origin of law he will accept. If the materialist has any place for God at all it is as the Creator of a universe which He at once abandoned. He has no place for con- science in regard to the application of the law. The whole duty of the individual is done when he submits to " persistent force," which in social affairs would be the rule of the environment. One does not need a conscience under such conditions. The Definition of Law. Any adequate definition of law should apply equally LAW 229 Well in the material and in the spiritual realms, for when we reject the idea of the materialist who, in his limited view, denies spirit, it is not necessary to take the position of his equally one-sided friend who maintains that mat- ter has no existence. One needs to look at facts with both eyes open. Law might be defined as " the will of God," but it carries with it the possible implication that law is some- thing imposed on the world from the outside, instead of being, as it is, its constitution. The universe was not made first and then a law made for it, but the law was made in it. Montesquieu has given us a definition which seems to be sufficiently near to the facts : " Law is the necessary relations which pertain to the nature of things." When the student is trying to discover physical laws in the laboratory, he does it by bringing different substances together to see what they will do. He finds that by mix- ing oxygen and hydrogen together in certain proportions he produces water. Two substances, each in itself harm- less, when combined become a dangerous explosive. By experiments the student learns the actions of the acids and salts with which he has to deal, and these relations constitute their laws. In each case the law, or relation, is determined by the nature of the substance. To work any change in law it would be necessary to change the nature of the substance in question, since the law is some- thing in it, and not an external power imposed on it. When we turn from the matter of the laboratory to man, the definition still meets the conditions. The re- lations between man and man, taken with the relations 230 SOCIAL ETHICS between man and God, make up the sum of psychic law, with which we have to deal. When Jesus said, " Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself," He was stating the relationship which per- tained to the nature of God and man. As man comes to understand God better and his neighbor better, he is learning the constitution of both parties, so that he is able to live according to law. When a man does wrong he is violating his own constitution. A social wrong is a violation of the social constitution. The Knowledge of Law. As we have noticed two ideas in regard to the origin of law, there are also two views as to how we come to the knowledge of law. Those who believe that law is the expression of the will of a personal God, believe also that our knowledge of law is gained partially through revelation ; while their opponents who allow only a physi- cal character to law, claim that it is learned onlv through observation. Knowledge Through Experience. It must be admitted at once that a large proportion of the knowledge of our relations to men and things has come through experience; perhaps much the larger part has been gained in this way. But we can not allow ex- perience the whole field to itself. One difficulty with making experience the sole discoverer of law is that it can deal only with the past, and only inadequately with that field ; while it can give only suggestion for the fu- LAW 231 ture. It can give us a fair idea of where we have been, but can only infer the point toward which we ought to aim. In other words, it fails to present the ideal law which we ought to realize. The oarsman who sits with his face to the stern of his boat may, by watching the points on the shore which he is leaving, reach the desired landing on the other shore, if the shore is in sight. But if a long distance intervenes, the points on the shore cease to be a guide and he has recourse to his compass. If history only repeated itself, if the future were only the repetition of the past, experience might file its claim as the agency through which law is made known; but experience fails to furnish the ideal toward which we ought to aim. Neither present, nor future, repeats the past. Nor does it appear that experience may rightfully lay claim to a monopoly of the past. Man might in time have discovered the moral law, by means of a long and painful experience, but that was not the way in which it was learned. The child would learn by experience that the fire will burn its fingers, but the mother makes a revelation of the fact, with some saving in time and tears. Experience is a slow and expensive method of gaining knowledge, though its lessons are remembered. But much of our knowledge has not been gained, and could not be gained, by it. It fails to give the complete outlook on human and divine relationships. Knowledge Through Revelation. This is the factor which gives us what experience fails 232 SOCIAL ETHICS * to furnish, and contributes the unearned increment in knowledge. By experience we gain information about material things, for our senses are continually active in this work ; but experience utterly fails to furnish intimate knowledge of God. When Peter made his confession, " Thou art the Christ," Jesus said to him, " Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In other words, there was a relationship discovered which came not by observation. This became a part of Peter's experience, but it came through revela- tion. It was the promise of Jesus when he went away that when the Spirit was come He would lead men into all truth. This truth was to be gained in no other way. After it had been once gained, experience might aid greatly in its development, but while experience may re- combine what has been gained, it can furnish little that is new. The error of those who claim that all our knowledge of law is derived from experience is nearly akin to the error of thinking that all law has a physical origin. Each of these views is a partial truth. Having given to experience all the place that it can reasonably claim, revelation must be brought in to account for our spiritual knowledge. Thus experience and revelation complement one another, each having its function to per- form in making us conscious of our relations to all that is outside the self. Thus far we have been considering the origin of law in the constitution of matter and spirit, and also the way in which we attain to the knowledge of the law. It is now in order to outline the method by which the knowledge of the law is put into objective LAW 233 form in institutions and statutes, so that it may work out the function of law in social control and development. Early Forms of Law. When we turn to the study of the early forms of law, two opposing views appear, each claiming the whole field to the exclusion of the other. One of these schools of law holds that law is first manifested in the form of cus- tom, while the other as stoutly insists that legislation furnishes the first form of law. It will probably be found, after due consideration, that each view has part of the truth and that both will be needed to explain the facts in the case. In general it may be said that the German writers presented the early form of law as cus- tom, while the opposing idea found support among the English lawyers. Among the German writers on this subject Savigny has fairly earned the first place. He did his work at the time when the aggressions of Napoleon on the German people had awakened Prussian patriotism to the point of making a determined struggle for a national existence. The King of Prussia had been so influenced by Napoleon that the rise of nationality took place without his leader- ship, or even his favor. It was a movement of the people which opposed, or ignored, the king, and in such a time it was natural that a writer who was in sympathy with the new spirit, which finally forced the War of Libera- tion, should look to the people rather than to the king as the maker of law. Whether it was the historical situa- tion or the result of his investigations, Savigny held that 234 SOCIAL ETHICS customs were developed as naturally as language. Both came out of the people. Some explanation has been given in a previous chapter as to the way in which custom comes into existence. The customs would not, at first, be common to all. Individuals would adopt a certain practice, and if it proved fit for the existing conditions, the practice would be copied by others until it became uniform. As soon as custom arrived at this stage, it would act as a restraint upon unruly members in their violation of the common practice. It is evident that these customs do not arise from the arbitrary decisions of any individual or group, nor do they hold sway simply through the popular assent. Rather do they have a positive sanction in the will of the community, since they are the expression of the HTe of the community. Reason is not a prominent factor in the formation of social customs ; they are not reasoned out. But while this is the case, the development of custom has, more or less, the character of a conscious social purpose. It is what the people wanted, else it had not taken the form of custom. For instance, when the three-field system of farming was introduced, by which they arranged that a field should be used as meadow, grain, and pasture land in successive years, it was probably through the suggestion of some shrewd cultivator who saw that the continual cropping of the soil would unfit it for use ; but the act would be- come customary through the fact that it suited the con- ditions of agriculture and of society. When once this custom had been settled, there was no doubt among the LAW 235 farmers as to what ought to be done, so that the field was plowed, or mown, or pastured, according to the pre- vailing rule. No one would think, at least till fertilizers were devised, of departing from the rule which custom had fixed. Under such conditions there is no need of a statute to define what ought to be done, nor of an official to enforce it. The common judgment, based on the utility of the practice, is quite sufficient to give sanc- tion to the rule. In the early communities, when men were simple herd- ers, or tillers of the soil, life would be so simple that the rules of custom would furnish much the larger part of the means of social control. When new employments bring in a division of labor, so that sowing and reaping, grinding the grain and weaving the cloth, are no longer done by a single person, life becomes so complex that customs fail to serve the end of social control. Sir Henry Maine has been the chief exponent in English of this view of the early form of law. Taking India as his field of study, he considers the village community the earliest form of society and in this community there was no enacting of law; everything was ruled by custom. Decrees the Earliest Form of Written Law, The reason why one should call the early enactments decrees, rather than statutes, is because the king, who was the lawgiver, issued special orders for special cases, instead of laying down a general rule to cover a whole class of cases. In discussing the legal conception of the term " state," in one of the previous chapters, reference 236 SOCIAL ETHICS was made to the views of Hobbes. The central idea of the legal system of Hobbes is that law is a command issued by a sovereign to a subject, and depending for its enforcement upon his superior might. Contrary to the conditions where custom is thought to rule, force is here the chief factor in law. It is for the sovereign to com- mand ; for the subject to obey. As has been suggested, the first commands are aimed at isolated cases, only in more advanced legal conditions are general rules formu- lated. Without going at length into a discussion of the devel- opment of legislation, it may be said that the theory o-f law studied in our law schools is derived from English sources and is drawn from Hobbes. Now it is clear that if law comes altogether through the act of the legis- lator, be it king or Parliament, custom is ruled out of the question. But the flaw in this conclusion, which shows that it is invalid, is that history furnishes abundant evi- dence of a rule by custom. The conception of Hobbes was not based on a study of history, but on a philosophical theory which was altogether unhistorical. Yet, in this case, as in the conflicts previously noted, we get at the fact by combining the truth which is found in each claim. Custom has its place, but it fails when society becomes so complex that difficulties arise with which custom can not deal. This situation calls for the legislator who cuts the knot with a statute which becomes a rule in all like cases. One of the defects of custom as law, lies in the fact that changes must be made very slowly, if made at all. LAW 237 A government administration is scarcely more than a mouthpiece for the average man if it is only the executor of custom. It is for this reason that legal development will be necessarily slow if it must wait the growth of custom to put the new idea into general practice. In early society custom was the usual rule and changes came about very slowly, legislation playing a very small part in the work. But with social development, legis- lation steadily encroached on the field of custom, until at the present time legislation has nearly driven custom from certain spheres of social control. The regulation of the home is left to custom, but nearly the whole field of business operations, which make so large a part of modern life, is occupied by legislation. Nor does it appear, from present indications, that Mr. Herbert Spen- cer's ideal of the abdication of government, is likely to be realized. Legislation is in continual demand to re- strain this influence and to promote that one. Indeed it is the socialist ideal, in which legislation is in control in all spheres of lfe, that is looming up in the distance. To sum up the points suggested in the preceding paragraphs, custom nearly monopolizes the field of early law, while legislation holds a larger relative place with each century of development. The three forms in which law is known in modern usage are common and statute law and con- stitutions. i. Constitutions. Hamilton defined the constitution as : — "The declaration of principles by which we have chosen to be governed." 238 SOCIAL ETHICS According to this definition the constitution is made up of the principles, drawn from the life of the people, for the setting up of government, the adjustment of its dif- ferent departments, with directions to guide each in the performance of its functions. The definition also brings out the necessary distinction between constitution and statute, in that the former has to do with principles, the latter with the application of principles. The constitution is but an outline of what the Government is to be and to do. When the constitution of the French Republic was drawn up in a convention which had a majority of monarchists, the outline was limited in such fashion that if the monarchists should be able to agree, a king could be brought in without any radical change in the French Constitution. Our own frame of Government is one of the briefest among the written constitutions, leaving to Congress, among other duties, the creLcion of the whole system of federal courts. Indeed, the Federal Constitution was much briefer than was palatable to many of the ratifying conventions in the Commonwealths and the first ten amendments, the American Bill of Rights, embody only a part of the changes and additions which were proposed by the Com- monwealth Conventions. All these amendments aim at one end, the limiting of the powers of Congress, the people not being entirely satisfied with the statement of the framers of the Constitution, that since it ordained a Government of limited powers, it was needless to for- bid the Government to use the powers which had not been given to it. It had been the fear of the people of that LAW 239 time, with the memory of George Third in mind, that the Government would encroach on individual liberty, therefore these amendments were adopted to guard the people against any excessive use of power by Congress. Still with these additions, and those added in connection with the slavery question, there is little in the Consti- tution which ought to be in statute instead. It is a declaration of principles which leaves their application to Congress and the courts. In the Commonwealth Constitutions, on the other hand, there are many instances of non-constitutional provisions. These parts of the frame of government deserve the name non-constitutional, since they are not general prin- ciples such as properly find a place in the Constitution, but are rather the application of principles to remedy wrongs. It is for this reason that the Constitutions of the American Commonwealths do not in all cases conform to the definition offered at the beginning of this section. The apparent reason for incorporating in the Constitu- tion those legal features which belong in statute law, is the prevailing distrust of legislators. This is illus- trated in the attempts which have been made to curb the aggressions of the liquor power. It was founH that when the pressure of public opinion compelled a legis- lature to prohibit the traffic, the subsidence of the agi- tation was followed by the repeal of the measure. In order to prevent this setting aside of the popular measure through the influence of the liquor interest on the poli- ticians in control, it was thought best in many Common- 240 SOCIAL ETHICS wealths to place the prohibitory measure in the Con- stitution, where it would not be subject to the will of the legislators. Iowa presents the novel situation of a pro- hibitory clause in the Constitution, which the legislature could not remove, while a provision is made in statute law that any parties paying a certain tax for the privilege of selling liquor shall be exempt from prosecution for the violation of the Constitution. A better safeguard of the public welfare would seem to lie in the election of officials who had a wholesome regard for the oath of office and for the social welfare. 2, Statute Law. Statute law differs from the principles of government that are embodied in the constitution, not only in matter, but in manner of enactment. Our Federal Constitution, and the Commonwealth Constitutions for the most part, are ratified by some form of the referendum, while statute law is enacted by Congress, or legislature. The function of statute law is to apply the principles in the constitution for the solution of the various questions which arise in the administration of government. Guided by the constitution, the legislature has the duty of fram- ing such measures as will repress the unsocial elements in society and encourage those that assist the social development. The older idea that the legislator had only the negative function of guarding life and property fits neither the present ideas, nor the present social needs. He has also the positive duty of directing the social forces into the most fruitful channels. LAW 241 This leads to the suggestion that the legislator has an individuality of his own and is not simply an executor of public opinion. Public opinion is fairly representative of what the average man thinks, and if the law was framed according to that standard, it would lift the thought of the man who lives below the average, while it might retard the man who had made greater advance- ment. Law is an efficient educator and therefore it should be as advanced as public opinion will tolerate. If any social advance is being made the statute will soon be antiquated and need replacement. It is unfortunate that this ideal conception of the legislator as a moral pioneer of public opinion is so far from the reality, since he is often inclined to legislate on the lowest level that will be tolerated. Professor Burgess has said that in America we have a democratic State with an aristo- cratic Government, and, taken in the sense in which it was meant, it expresses the theory of our Government. It was not meant to be a rule by the lowest, as is often the case, nor even by the average man. It was, in theory, a rule by the best men. As Carlyle stated it, the fittest should rule, and these should be the free choice of a free people. This was the idea that lay at the basis of the original plan for the election of the President. Each Common- wealth was to select its most capable men and these men, meeting without instructions, were to cast their votes for the best man, regardless of party, for the office of President of the United States. While Washington was the candidate, the plan worked with success; but with 242 SOCIAL ETHICS his withdrawal from the field the party idea came to the front, so that the electoral college, instead of being a meeting of the wise men to deliberate as had been in- tended, became a mere device for recording the wishes of the voters of one of the political parties. Such a position gives neither honor, nor power, to the members of the electoral college, and it comes near to expressing the idea which the average official has of his duty. He is to keep his ear to the ground in order to make his measure take the popular tone. Such men do not make the State, since they are politicians and not statesmen. It has been said that a statesman is a politician that is dead, but even this fails to win the desired title to fame in many cases. Unless the legislator is better able than the average man to judge " the relations which belong to the nature of things " and to crystallize these relations into statutes, history will scarcely write his name among the immortals. j. Common Law. It is difficult to state a working definition for common law which shall, at the same time, be brief and com- prehensive. Perhaps no legal authority has succeeded better than Chancellor Kent, who defines the common law as " those principles, usages and rules of action appli- cable to the government and security of persons and property, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legis- lature." According to this definition the common law is comprehended in the immemorial customs of the people LAW 243 and in the decisions of the courts based upon these customs. The common law in this country includes in addition to the' customs and usages of England which the colonists brought with them, the parliamentary guarantees of free- dom which preceded the English settlement in America, since the most important part of the common law is that which concerns the liberty of the citizen. At different times in the history of England, statutes were passed declarative of common law principles. The first of these is the royal confirmation of common law principles by King John at Runnymede in 121 5. The Great Charter, as it was called, professed to be only a confirmation of the good old laws with which the people had long been familiar. The second of these great affirmations of common law was the Petition of Rights, granted by Charles First, declaring again the principles of the Great Charter, which had been set aside through usurpations by the crown. The third of these acts was the Habeas Corpus Act, passed during the reign of Charles Second, which did not alter the principles of the preceding meas- ures, but provided for their greater efficiency through their application by the courts. The fourth of these great English charters of liberty was the Bill of Rights, adopted by Parliament in the reign of William Third, which for- bade the king to set aside the laws of the realm. English and American liberty has its legal basis in the common law of which these acts form a part. They did not create the liberties which they expressed, but affirmed them for the guidance of the Government, whicii 244 SOCIAL ETHICS was inclined to encroach upon the rights of the citizen. The right of trial by jury, the provision that the accused shall not be compelled to testify against himself, belong to common law principles, which antedated the settle- ment of America. While the common law, upon which the jurisprudence of the American Commonwealths rests, includes statutes as well as ancient custom, in later usage the line between common and statute law is drawn as in Chancellor Kent's definition. This difference does not lie in the subject matter, since the statutes embody, frequently, a principle which had been realized in the common law. When the principle is written in statute form it ceases to bear the name of common law. It is a recognized maxim in law that we do not know the meaning of a statute until the court has passed upon it. Whatever the judicial decision may be. on the case which comes up for action, that is the legal meaning of the law. This maxim, which applies specially to statute, is also applicable when the court is called upon to pass on long established custom, since the decision in this case defines the common law. Thus in both statute and common law cases, the courts interpret the law. A decision of the courts based upon custom has the same sanction as if based on statute. Both are enforceable by the ordinary legal process. The question might arise at this point as to why common law was written in statute form at all, since it has equal authority in the former stage. The change becomes necessary through a conflict of customs, or of LAW 245 decisions based upon them, which requires a statute to settle the disputed point and give a basis for judicial action. So long as customs, and decisions upon them, agree it does not appear that the legislator needs to interfere. The rule of primogeniture in England, by which the eldest son inherits the landed estate, has come down from the feudal times when it was necessary for the king to keep the land in the hands of those who could come to his aid in war; yet while it has had such an effect on English life for centuries, it still remains a part of the common law. Statute law could not set out this principle in clearer outline than it has attained in common law. Ancient Law, Maine; Law of the Ancient Hebrews, Wines; Law, Lacy; Spirit of the Laws, Montesquien; Early Law and Custom, Maine; Political Science and Constitutional Law, Bur- gess. AUTHORITY Sovereignty finds expression through its two phases of authority and law. In practice these two factors may not with safety, be separated. Eliminate law from au- thority and it leaves only tyranny; take authority away from law and only anarchy remains. It is when they are used in conjunction, each performing its own function, that sovereignty works out the social end. Authority Rests on Right. Napoleon once said that we could do almost anything with bayonets but sit on them. We paraphrase the epi- gram of the Corsican by saying that while force is an essential element of authority, it may not be made its basis. History records many cases where illegal meas- ures have been enforced by police powers, with a disre- gard of justice, but history also affirms that this has not been a permanent condition. Napoleon held Prussia in subjection through most of his campaigns, partly by means of his ascendancy over the mind of the Prussian king, though mainly by force, even compelling the Prus- sians to fight under his leadership; but the outburst of Prussian patriotism which crowded Blucher's regiments and blasted the hopes of Napoleon at Waterloo, showed that force could not repress national feeling. Force mav be a temporary but not a permanent ae- 246 AUTHORITY 247 pendence. Rousseau states the case when he says : " The strongest is never strong enough to be always master, unless he transforms might into right and obedience into duty." It is by this means that it occurs at rare intervals, that the conquest of the homes of a people is transformed' into a conquest of their hearts. Charlemagne pushed his armies quite across the German lands, but while the conquest was won by the warrior it was secured by the priest. What had been subdued by force of arms was brought to loyal obedience by the Gospel. It was not many years after the bloody struggle, a generation long, that a Saxon monk, forgetting the heroic defense which his countrymen had made, sang the praises of the Franks who had brought them out of heathen darkness into the Gospel light. The highest loyalty is found only when it is given for conscience sake. Such loyalty the despot never earns and never knows. Authority appeals to con- science only when the rule is based on right. It is for this reason that righteous laws make for the stability and permanence of a Government. Authority Is from God. This follows from the proposition already demon- strated that God is sovereign. Authority always goes back to a sovereign, therefore authority finds its sanction in God. Paul writes in his political instructions to the Roman Christians: "The powers (authorities) that be are ordained of God." That is the final basis of all authority. The contest which was waged so long over the question of inherent powers in government is easily 248 SOCIAL ETHICS resolved when the social structure is understood. Gov- ernment has authority delegated to it to perform its duties, but it has no inherent authority to do anything. This authority comes to the Government from the State, but it is inexact to speak of any inherent authority in the State. That is not the final step in its location. God has inherent powers; institutions have that which is conferred on them by law. Each one who exercises authority must derive it di- rectly, or indirectly, from God. The official of Church or State, the father in the family, each traces, properly, the authority which he exercises to the common source. Authority may have passed, as in political affairs, through several intermediaries, but its ultimate source is the same. It is this fact which makes possible the co-opera- tion of all social institutions, under a common authority, toward a common end. If authority is properly used, the family function will harmonize with the Church, the Government, the industrial order, — each aiding all others by doing its own particular work. All social insti- tutions, provided that they have a legitimate function, are thus designed to integrate with one another in a harmonious system under a supreme will. It is for this reason, if for no other, that this conception of the social system should appeal alike to the philosopher who seeks a principle which will unify the social life, and to the man of practical affairs who is looking for daily guidance. The Use and the Abuse of Authority. While individuals, parents for example, have authority AUTHORITY 249 given them to direct and correct their children, it is possible to abuse the privilege. It is for this reason that, while the father has authority over the child, the com- munity has found it necessary to limit his use of it. The various agents for the prevention of cruelty to children and to animals, witness to the fact that the adminis- trator of authority frequently requires interference in his affairs. The policeman brings home to the parent who outrages the feelings of the neighborhood, the truth that the use of authority must be distinguished from its abuse. Where should the limitation in the use of authority be placed? Evidently at that point where law is elim- inated from authority, and mere force is used. Force used lawfully is authorized; used unlawfully, it is crim- inal. The father is arrested and punished who maltreats his child, or the driver who abuses his horse. The same principles apply with equal aptitude to other instances of the abuse of authority, though there is not always such ready machinery, or wish, to call the offending party to account. Authority is a trust which may not be held irresponsibly. If the user had inherent authority, there might not be any legal interference with him in its exercise, but there is neither individual, nor insti- tution, that may claim such high prerogative. Authority must follow the provisions of law. Delegation of Authority. Delegation is the method by which authority is given by the sovereign to the subordinate agencies through 250 SOCIAL ETHICS which he works. Sovereignty may be surrendered, which means the lapsing of it, but may not be delegated. So long as sovereignty is retained, authority may be placed in the hands of any agency to carry out the purpose of the sovereign. The method of delegating authority may be illustrated by a business house sending out an agent to sell goods. So long as he represents the house, the salesman has explicit instructions in regard to his duties. He is informed as to the length of time for which credit may be extended, he is told the price which he may make to customers and the guarantees which may be given with the goods. So long as he keeps within the specifications of his instructions, he acts with au- thority, and the house will carry out his contracts. The agent has no authority to go beyond his instructions and does so at his own risk. In such a case he is acting without authority and his acts are discredited by the house. i. God Delegates Authority to Jesus Christ. God, as essential, does not deal directly with the indi- vidual, nor with the State. It is the explicit teaching of the Bible that after man had sinned, thus marring the image of God in which he was created, he could deal with the essential God only through a mediator. The mediation between God and man was effected by the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross and He becomes the mediator, the one who reconciles man to God and acts as the inter- mediary in all matters. It is, therefore, through Jesus Christ that God acts in his dealing with men and it is AUTHORITY 251 to Jesus Christ that all authority is delegated for the control of human affairs. This conclusion does not carry with it the idea that God is passive in social control, for since God is spirit, and it is in the nature of spirit to be active, to conceive of Him as passive would be impos- sible. God, the Father, is active, but He acts through Jesus Christ, the Son. The relation and function of each person of the God- head as set forth in the Bible, may be crudely illustrated by the division of labor among the partners in a business firm. Where there are three partners in the business house, one of them may give his attention to the sales department, another attends to the advertising, a third to selling the goods. This gives a division of labor and allows each member of the firm a special function, but it does not mean that the firm has been dissolved by such division of work. It has not become three inde- pendent workers, but has been differentiated for greater efficiency. Each member, notwithstanding his separate duty, perhaps because of it, is carrying out the will of the firm. The firm acts through him in his work. The firm sets him apart for that special work. By some such analogy may we understand how the administration of the world is given to Jesus Christ, and yet God be active in it all. , By the records in the New Testament, we understand how universally that control was exercised. In physical nature the birds, the grass of the field, the waves, the wind, — all owned his control. In the multitudes which thronged Jesus He banished disease, He restored the 252 SOCIAL ETHICS deformed, and made men spiritually as well as physically whole. Material goods He said would be added to him who put first "the Kingdom of God and His righteous- ness." The Gospel of John is prefaced by the declaration that Jesus Christ made the universe, thus giving an authoritative interpretation of the first verse of Genesis. It was the idea of the ancient philosophers that all matter must be deduced from one original element so that there might be unity in all. Such is likewise the demand of modern science, when it searches for the principle in control. Without some such supremacy, science would be a thing of " shreds and patches." While the scientist may, and often does, reject the idea that the will of God gives unity to all things, he is compelled to put something in his room. There must be either supreme force of matter, or supreme will of mind. Science must have one or other of these premises. If the scientist rejects the will of God as the means of control, he is reduced to the necessity of making life and thought a result of some combination of matter and motion, he has to govern man by the same law as the pebble at his feet. What the scientist thus worships ignorantly, is declared in the teaching of the Christ. He is the " per- sistent force," His is the will which shapes " the fortui- tous concourse of atoms " and regulates the H reasonable sequence of the unintended." Science could not have a being without the universal presence of the Spirit which brooded over the chaos of the primeval day, except by deifying one of God's creatures in his room. The materialist insists on the necessity AUTHORITY 253 of a universal law, and the mind may not stop short of premising a lawgiver. Revelation brings in the neces- sary complement of science. The latter deals with the thing created; revelation includes the creator. Jesus Christ claims to be supreme in the administration of the universe. In His commission to His disciples He declares : " All authority is given to me in heaven and on earth." There is no reservation. A passage in the life of Jesus Christ which is sometimes misunder- stood, occurs in the trial before Pilate when the Roman governor questioned Him in regard to the charge that He was organizing a rebellion against Rome in order to set up again the Jewish monarchy. Seeing that Pilate had not understood the purpose of His mission, nor the spirit of His teaching, Jesus said : " My King- dom is not of this world." Not a few have interpreted this saying to mean that this is the devil's world and that the " Kingdom " means some state after death where the will of Christ is to be done. But such a view fails to satisfy reason, for the Christ who created and governs this world can not thus be evicted from his own posses- sions. It also fails to satisfy the text and the context. The word translated " of," in the saying quoted above, is a preposition having the meaning " out of," and means that His Kingdom does not have its origin in this world. It is of heavenly birth and earthly residence. The words of Jesus freely translated would read something like this : "My Kingdom is not of the kind that you suppose. It is not of the character of the world. If it were then would my servants fight, as do the followers of 254 SOCIAL ETHICS other rulers, that I might not be delivered to the Jews. I am to win a throne but not by sword and spear. My Kingdom is not from hence." With this reading agrees the word which came to John, an exile on Patmos, the one who penned the saying of Jesus just explained. " The kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ." In an earlier chapter of this same Gospel of John, Jesus is quoted as saying of His disciples : " Ye are not of this world even as I am not of this world." We have here the same use of the Greek words as in the saying of Christ : " My Kingdom is not of this world," and if the Kingdom does not have any place in existing society, but only in some future state, the same must be said of the disciples. Few will claim that Peter and his com- rades had not existence except in a future state. Such an interpretation is not well considered. However the present conditions may suggest an opposite conclusion, there is the explicit assurance in the Bible that the Kingdom which was inaugurated among men in the beginning will yet be realized on the earth. That was the purpose of the life and death of Jesus Christ and this purpose must be realized. With this conclusion, philosophy and science are in agreement, since both look forward to an ideal society on earth. Comte reads this into his Positive Polity when he foretold the age when altruism would rule in the hearts of men, while St. Simon, the master at whose feet Comte had sat, thought like the disciples of Christ that the redemption of humanity was at hand. Mr. AUTHORITY 25s Herbert Spencer prophesied the time when society would be finally differentiated, when matter would be integrated and motion dissipated, and when egoism and altruism would be in perfect equilibrium. It is the faith of the Christian that Jesus Christ is to rule on earth through the supremacy of His law in the hearts of men. The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament, The Kingdom of God is the ideal society in which civilization is to culminate and the Old Testament gives us a cross section of its development by tracing the history of the Hebrew people. For some reason, which was not its superiority to other races, the Hebrew was chosen to manifest to men the character and purpose of God. In the period which was covered by the Old Tes- tament history, the individual was regarded rather as a fraction of society than as an end in himself. The institution was the important thing, whether family or tribe; the individual had his status as a member of these institutions. It was the period of group life. It may have been for this reason, in part, that God sought to make Himself known to men through group life, instead of through individual life. The Hebrew nation- ality was grouped about their conception of God. The prophets were primarily concerned with the life of the group rather than with individual interests. They were the patriots of the age who recognized that Jehovah either prospered or punished the people according as they were obedient or disobedient to him. While they had their constitutional king and something corresponding 256 SOCIAL ETHICS to the modern bi-cameral system of legislation in the body of elders and princes of the congregation, it was recog- nized that the will of Jehovah was supreme in the conduct of affairs. So far as this idea was realized, the Hebrew people constituted a theocracy, the God-ruled. Any State which accepts Jesus Christ as its ruler, and His law as the rule of the social life, is a theocracy. To know His will the Hebrew went to the oracle or to the prophet ; with our fuller revelation, we may go to the written Word. The Bible from its beginning to its end is the history of the development of the Kingdom of God, and its prophecy is unrealized history. Though coming very far short of its ideal, the Hebrew State was a type of the Christian State which is not yet, but is to be. David in his reliance on God, though not in his grievous faults, is the typical ruler. Solomon proposes to extend his rule at the expense of the principle on which it rests, and the kingdom is rent to save the principle. The prophets foretell the triumph of the principle and the wonderful rejuvenation of nature and man with which its perfect realization is to be accompanied. John the Baptist pre- pares the way for the Kingdom through his preaching, and gives baptism as the naturalization rite by which the Kingdom is entered. Jesus tells his disciples that the Kingdom is at hand, later, — that ft is among them. The apostles proclaim it and organize themselves for its realization. With the ascension of Jesus Christ, the Spirit comes to develop the Kingdom in the life. The whole Word and work of God point to the realization AUTHORITY 257 of a process which has been going on through the centuries, the acceptance of the reign of Christ over the life of man in its every phase. This is the social con- summation when the State shall be permeated by the Spirit and shall become the Kingdom of God. Jesus Christ Delegates Authority to the Organic People. God does not appoint any man, family, or class, to exer- cise political authority. He gives that authority to the people, not to certain individuals. To be more exact, He gives authority to the social spirit, the State. It is the divine purpose that the will of the spirit which is divine, shall find expression through the will of the spirit which is human. Man was made with the necessity for civil rule. Hegel says truly that the human spirit is realized only in the objective world, the world of institutions. It must find expression through these to be itself. In an abstract way we might think of spirit as merely sub- jective, disembodied, but in reality man has never existed under such conditions. He lives and grows in the Family, the Church, the industrial organization, — the objective world to which Hegel refers, — of which the State is the most inclusive institution. Because the State is the most inclusive institution, because that in it man comes to himself, it is to it that Jesus Christ delegates authority to administer social control. It is necessary that order be maintained, that disorder be repressed, therefore social control is a necessity for the realization of spirit. The constitution of man's nature is tne law wmcn 258 SOCIAL ETHICS he must follow if he is to work out his highest possi- bilities, or even make any attainment. By this constitu- tion man's action must be voluntary, that is, it must be an act of the will. Social action must be the choice of the social will. It is, therefore, to this will that Jesus Christ gives authority in social affairs, this will which is held responsible for the work done. Now, this being the case, it is evident that Christ does not confer author- ity on any family, since the family is subordinate to the social will. The greatest thing in man is mind; the greatest thing in society is the social mind. It is to this mind that authority is delegated and thus the will of God purposes to find expression through the social will. There is not a certain amount of social authority vested in each individual, say one eighty-millionth part of the whole in United States. No man has any author- ity whatever over another in civil affairs unless it has been given to him by the State, which is the sole legatee. This truth has its special application in these days when mob violence frequently sets aside the legal authorities. It makes no difference whether one man or a hundred men take the life of the supposed criminal, it is murder no less and each individual in the mob must answer for it to God, if not to the civil law. The normal course of social action is for the State to make choice of certain ends after a review of the situation, though it is unfortunately true that frequently this consideration fails to take in the whole set of con- ditions. This is what makes the social or individual AUTHORITY 259 act faulty. When the State, acting through the Govern- ment, licenses the liquor traffic, there is the consideration of the revenue to be gained and, perhaps, some consid- eration of lessening the consumption of the beverage. But the social consequences are not fully considered. Since it is to the social mind that Christ delegates authority to deal with such issues, since the State is held responsible for the decision made, the social prob- lems demand attention in all their aspects. The State, no more than the individual, is authorized to do wrong. It has the necessity of choosing, but must render account for the choice. To sum up the preceding paragraphs, it is to the State, the social spirit which is capable of reason and of choice, that Jesus Christ delegates au- thority. In popular speech, social control is located in the will of the people. Does this will of the people mean the same thing as what has been called here the social will? Is the mind of the people of which this will must be a phase, simply the social mind? Does popular speech embody the latest teaching of social philosophy, the psy- chological view of the State? With proper qualifications it would seem that all these questions are to be answered affirmatively. The common mind has somehow grasped the great social fact which philosophers had obscured with their wisdom, and the main object of these pages is to interpret this social fact. But who are "the people" whose will is in control? Does this mean a certain family, or class, or even some sex distinction? Evidently not, since will is not limited 26o SOCIAL ETHICS by any of these marks. It may be well at this point to recall the explanation previously given, that all those belong to the State who share in the social spirit. Now it is clear that those who share this spirit, must share in mind which is one of the attributes of spirit, and in will which is one of the phases of mind. " The people " whose will exercises social control are those who have the common mind. This would mean the whole population, so far as they are capable of forming opinions, with the exception of those who have not been assimilated to the national spirit. That the voters do not comprise " the people " in this sense is evident since it is the State itself, acting through the Government, that determines the qualifications ot the voters, prescribing these qualifications either in consti- tutional or statute law. It is therefore evident that the will of the people does not wait for its existence until a voting class has been defined. The State is not defined by act of legislature since the legislature is created by the State. Whatever may have been the philosophy of the men in the Philadelphia Convention who framed the Constitution, the State is a historic fact and not a creature of law. This is clearly recognized in the popular phrase " the will of the people," for will is not brought into being by act of legislature. The fact seems to be that the writers on this subject have been led astray by legal terminology, while the common mind has gotten at the fact. It is a question in psychology and not in law. Everyone who has a part in the making up of the common mind shares in social control. The voters, more or less imperfectly, AUTHORITY 261 express this common mind, and a king if he were wise enough, might do the same. The real gist of the question of suffrage for women is whether the social mind would gain a better expression if sex were disregarded in voting. It can not be a ques- tion of right, for a woman has quite as good a right to her opinion as a man has to his, so that if it is to be settled by her right, she should have the ballot. But the real question is whether the social will would be more clearly, more intelligently expressed. Some writers have held that woman is the psychological complement of man, and that the State will not get full and clear expression in social action until women have a voice in political affairs. It is said, on the other hand, that this psychic element already finds a place, since it now influences the opinions which are recorded at the polls. The essential matter both for the individual and the social mind is that it have the fullest possible opportunity for development through expression. That is the purpose of the ballot. 3. The Delegation of Authority from the State to the Government, Even as the will of Jesus Christ should act through the social will, so should the social will act through its institution, the Government. The Government is the agency through which the will of the State gets its great- est objective efficiency. Because of this fact it is neces- sary that the State should lay down its rules of procedure for the Government, so that the State may secure the 262 SOCIAL ETHICS objects for which the Government was set up. In order to make sure that this end shall not be missed, it is required in all States which have elective rulers that they shall take oath to carry out the will of the State as laid down in law. This would certainly not be necessary if the Government derived its authority from some other source. The point may be illustrated by various incidents in the history of England. When the Norman kings gained the English throne, while the legal forms of coronation were gone through, it was evident that they owed their position to force of arms rather than the popular will and, therefore, they did not feel under obligation to adhere to the terms of the English Constitution. They felt themselves, in a degree, independent of the State. But when the Lan- castrian dynasty came into power, it was through act of Parliament and they felt the necessity of ruling as constitutional monarchs. They had been raised to place by what at that time was the electorate of the kingdom, and to disregard its will would have cut the ground from under the feet of the ruling family. .Most modern gov- ernments recognize that public office is a social trust and there is no tendency to deny its dependence on the State. The Constitutional Convention. From the earliest period in American history, the con- stitutions have been framed in some form of constitutional convention which represented the will of the people. In England, however, although the Constitution is as truly a social product as it has been in America, the convention AUTHORITY 263 was not a factor in the process. The English Constitution which, though in written form, is scattered through the acts of Witan, Great Council, and Parliament, covering the period from Alfred to the present, required no con- vention; since, by the English method, the passage of a constitutional provision does not differ from the passage of an ordinary statute. In this way the Constitution is easily shaped to fit the changes in the social mind. In the case of the German Empire, the Constitution was formulated by the Emperial authorities, Bismarck having a chief place in the work, and accepted by the heads of the various German States as they gathered at Versailles in 187 1, at the close of the Franco-Prussian war. The French Constitution was framed by the Assem- bly which was elected for the purpose of settling the terms of peace with Germany in 1871, though the Consti- tution was not made until 1875. Neither in France, nor in Germany, was the Constitution submitted to the decision of the people. In neither case were those who framed the Constitution chosen for that particular duty. Yet the fact that it was acceptable to the State showed that it had the endorsement of the social will, even though that endorsement was not formally expressed. The Convention which met in Philadelphia in 1787 to devise a form of Government which would be more suitable to the American State, was a representative body, chosen for the special task in hand. According to the terms of their call, they were only to revise the Articles of Confederation, but it was found that the social need could not be met without a radical departure 264 SOCIAL ETHICS from the existing frame of Government. If the Com- monwealths were to be treated as sovereignties, as they had been by the Articles, the law would not be an expres- sion of the social fact, and the latter end would not be better than the first. On the other hand, if the Convention treated the Union as a single State, as the fact demanded, their action would not be a revision of the Articles, as had been proposed, but a revolutionary act. It is to the credit of the Convention that it took the course which the occasion demanded, even though illegal, and framed the Constitution for a Federal State. The Convention departed from the provisions of the Articles, which could be amended only by the consent of all the Common- wealths, by declaring that when the work of the Con- vention had been accepted by nine of the Commonwealths, it would constitute their fundamental law. It has been held, and with much justice, that as the Convention was a representative body, chosen for the special work of drafting a Constitution, their production might be accepted as the expression of the will of the State without recourse to an endorsement by popular vote. But in American history the convention has seldom assumed that power. However, whether the convention submits the fruit of its labor to the people, or promuk gates it without this action, does not affect the character of the Constitution as law. The Government does not institute nor constitute itself. That is the work of the State. It is by means of the Constitution that the State grants to the Government its authority and the instructions for AUTHORITY 265 its exercise. Thus it is plain that the Constitution is not a compact. Such it could not be between the State and the Government for the sufficient reasons that the Government is organized by the Constitution and also because the Government is but the expression of the social will. One might as well claim that the child is a contracting party at its own birth. The idea that the Constitution was a compact had its origin in the time when the Government and people were looked on as two independent parties. At this time the privileges won by the citizens were regarded as concessions by the ruler, and reforms were treated as mutual agreements between the people on one hand and the king on the other. Indeed, since the king of those days stood for a private rather than a public interest, there was much apparent reason for looking on Constitutions as agree- ments between the governor and the governed. Also the individualistic conception of society as an agreement between the members, gave the basis for such a concep- tion of the Constitution. Such an agreement was made by a few passengers in the Mayflower to guard against the dissensions which seemed on the point of breaking out in the little com- pany, but this agreement would scarcely rank as a Con- stitution framed by a State. It is a relic, as are many of the preambles of the first Commonwealth Constitu- tions, of the individualistic philosophy which colored the speech of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and some of the writings even yet. Unless the psychological conception of the State is altogether at fault, the Con- 266 SOCIAL ETHICS stitution is willed by the State and is not at all a contract of partnership. Even Rousseau, the apostle of individ- ualism, held to the supremacy of the common will. The preamble to the Constitution of the United States reads : " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of Amer- ica." This explicitly states that it is the State which gives to Government whatever authority it may possess. The articles of the Constitution provide for all the depart- ments of the Government, in some cases for the com- position and duties of the department; in others, as the judicial department, leaving upon Congress the entire work of organization. The Government may not, except by provision of the Constitution, add to the departments, nor to the functions which they are empowered to exer- cise. For this reason there is not found any place for inherent powers in the Government, since authority is delegated to it by the Constitution. Our Constitution is a model of explicitness in holding the Government strictly responsible for all the authority which it is deputed to exercise. Much was made in one period of our history of implied powers, but so far as these are present they were dele- gated as all others. Article I, Sec. 8, contains a clause which empowers Congress " To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution AUTHORITY 267 the foregoing powers." In this clause lay the basis of the doctrine of implied powers, the Federalist Party led by Hamilton wishing to give to Congress a wide latitude for legislation under this provision, the Republicans under Jefferson insisting upon limiting the sphere of legislation to what was strictly " necessary." The view which ob- tained acceptance with the judiciary held that authority for the action must be shown to have been expressly granted, but, this fact being established, the power may be broadly interpreted. This is an additional proof, if any be needed, that the Government has only delegated authority. The Constitution also provides that officials shall be chosen for brief periods, in order that they may be fre- quently reminded that they are servants of the people. The fear was prevalent a century ago that the Govern- ment would encroach upon the freedom of the individual, and therefore officials were allowed only short terms so that they might not become arrogant in their use of power. It may now be questioned if this idea has not been carried to an extreme and if efficiency in some de- partments might not be promoted by longer terms for the incumbents. Specially does the consular service suf- fer through displacement of tried men with the change of party ascendency at Washington. An official is often relegated to private life, or to other official duties, about the time when he has gained the acquaintance with his work, which would make him of value in his position. Specialists are needed in official positions, and they may be had only at the price of premanent employment. 268 SOCIAL ETHICS Some attention has been given here to this phase of the Constitution, because in our country more than in any other has the social fact of the delegation of authority from the State to the Government been put in terms of law. The other social fact which this one illustrates is that the State receives its authority from Jesus Christ and therefore should make such recognition of its divine King as the State, on its part, requires of the Government. 4. The Government Delegates Authority to Officials, Municipalities and Corporations. In order that the Government may perform its func- tions, it must commission deputies to enforce executive orders and decisions of the courts. Without this, the federal laws would become a dead letter in many com- munities which are not in sympathy with them. These deputies owe their authority for the performance of their official duty to the Government, not to the State. They are not legally amenable to the people. Municipalities and corporations receive their authority through charters, which define their functions and privi- leges. So long as these institutions keep within the pro- visions of their charter, the Government is under obliga- tion to give them protection. This would seem to place the business corporation in the same relation to the Gov- ernment, and to the State behind the Government, as is held by the deputy commissioned for a special service. It is commissioned for a special social service. That this view is not accepted by the corporation management is not a sufficient argument against its reasonableness. The AUTHORITY 269 official sent out by the Government to take the census, or to perform some other duty, is generally recognized as carrying out a public trust. Why should not the corpora- tion, which has its duties and privileges defined in the charter which created it, be considered as performing, likewise, a public service? In both cases social powers are being used, as when a railway company is able to force a right of way through a man's land, by the use of the State authority of eminent domain. Without this social force to carry out the wishes of the company, they could not enter upon the land of any man who was un- willing to grant the privilege. Whenever social powers are used by an individual, or by an institution, for private ends, it is recognized as a criminal proceeding. Is the corporation, or its function, of such a nature as to exempt it from the general rule? Political corruption enters at the point where the official looks on his position as one which may be used for gaining private wealth, without regard for the public weal. Does the corporation management become culpable under like circumstances? If they are only stewards of the social power which they use, this would hold true. In any department of social administration there may be an abuse of the authority granted when the recipient fails to recognize the obliga- tion which he owes. This is not at all an argument for economic socialism, but rather is it a suggestion that if corporations properly realized their function there would be no ground for the socialistic appeal. Every social function is carried on by delegated au- thority, since authority can be had in no other way. No 270 SOCIAL ETHICS institution has any inherent powers, or authority. At no point does it appear that this delegation and conse- quent responsibility is questioned except the authority which the State receives from Jesus Christ and that which the corporation receives from the Government. Social philosophy suggests a correction in the popular view at these two points. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE USE OF AUTHORITY Through the history of the development and admin- istration of Government, certain principles may be traced which appear to be of general application. In any Gov- ernment in which the despotic idea is uppermost, no principles need be sought, since, in such case, might is the only right; but in any Government in which the sense of responsibility is present, these principles may be detected. i. With Every Delegation of Authority, a Law Is Pre- scribed to Govern Its Exercise, 2. When Authority Is Received, Recognition Should Be Made of the Obligation to the Agency Conferring the Authority. j. In the Recognition of Authority No Intermediate Agencies Should Be Passed Over. These principles, which are worked out in each con- stitutional Government, are equally manifest in the opera- tion of the divine rule. Should the evidence to be pre- sented bear out these statements, it may fairly be con- cluded that they are universal principles, which in all cases should be followed. It is the philosophical problem of our time to find the unity of all in the diversity of all. Along the line of these principles must that unity be sought. What is demanded is the unity of the divine 271 272 SOCIAL ETHICS / and the human, which will gain complete unity with the conservation of the divine will and human freedom. The preceding chapter dealt with the four steps in the delegation of authority; from God to Jesus Christ, from Christ to the State, from the State to the Govern- ment, and from the Government to the agencies under its control. It is the purpose of this chapter to apply the three principles stated above to each of these four steps in the delegation of authority, to see how far the principles have been realized in practice, and also what is yet to be realized before the social system may be unified through obedience to law. As the last step in the trans- mission of authority is the one which finds most ready illustration from daily experience, it may afford the best point of entrance on the examination. I. Are the Three Principles Realized in the Giving of Authority by the Government to Its Deputies and to Chartered Institutions? There are two ways in which a corporation comes into existence, either by a special grant, or under a general law. Since the former method has been somewhat dis- credited through the favoritism which may be practiced under it, the latter method is the one in common use. Under the general law, any individual, or individuals, may become a corporation on condition of complying with the law, specifying the business in which they wish to engage, the capital invested, the name to be used, and other particulars which may serve to guard the public interest- Having thus complied with the law laid down GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 273 by the legislature, the corporation, as a political body, is an agency of the Government for carrying out its functions. The corporation having been authorized is not at liberty to change its name, its business, nor to consolidate with any other except by permission of the Government. Should the corporation fail to keep the rules laid down in its charter for its guidance, it is not only the privilege but the duty of the Government to call the corporation to account for its abuse of powers. The abuse is not infrequently in those who grant the authority as well as in those who use it, since there is just cause for the charge that the legislators are often the agents of the chartered corporations, if not actual members, so that the charters do not guard the public interest. The people of Pennsylvania will not soon forget the Ripper Bill by which the streets of some of her cities were presented to certain corporations for the use of street-car companies, a gift which defrauded the people of many millions of the wealth which had been socially created. These abuses of the principle, however, do not militate against the principle, since in all cases the Government lays down law, bad or good, for the conduct of these enterprises, and the business is legitimate only as the corporation keeps within the provisions of the law. The first great industrial combination of which we have any record was attempted at Babel without a charter, with the result that the undertaking was stopped and the company disorganized. The municipality closely resembles the corporation iu 274 SOCIAL ETHICS its chartered capacity. It is authorized to levy taxes, to contract debts to a certain amount, and to make im- provement, by the provisions of the charter. When it is found necessary to go beyond the stipulations of the charter, application must be made to the legislature for the privilege. Even when the legislature grants the city streets to transportation companies, the municipality has no remedy at law. So closely is the municipality guarded in its use of authority that it is not allowed to void a former contract, even when it is clear that public in- terests would be profited, provided there are vested inter- ests involved in the old contract. The officials acting under Government authority receive this authority in a commission, or warrant, which defines their powers and duties and, as long as they observe the conditions of the commission, they act with the whole power of the Government. An accredited representative of the American Government at a foreign station em- bodies the authority of the American Government in himself. But this does not make it allowable for him to act at his own discretion. There may be critical emer- gencies when it is necessary for him to act without any direct warrant, since provision for the case had not been made in his letter of instruction, but aside from such unusual instances he is strictly bound by the law which was given to him when empowered to act. When the official does go beyond his instructions his act is not official, but is that of an unauthorized person. For such action the officer is liable to prosecution. For instance, if a sheriff has a warrant for searching certain GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 275 premises, and should make this the pretext for a general search, he would be liable for such action. The indi- vidual takes certain obligations upon him on assuming the office, and must carry them out or resign, if he is true to his assumed obligations. In the days when the Fugitive Slave Law was in force, many sheriffs, who did not agree with the law, refused to serve the writs ; but it does not seem that when the official has sworn to uphold the law that he is justified in disregarding its provisions. If he feels conscientious scruples about ad- ministering the law, it would seem better that he should not assume the duties of the office. When a position is taken under conditions that are specified and known, it is not open to the incumbent to disregard them. It is in place for the official to tender his resignation if he feels that the work required of him is morally wrong. These illustrations are enough to show that at this point of the delegation of authority, a law is given with it. In regard to the second principle, that the source of authority should be acknowledged, it is equally evident that it is followed in the cases under discussion. The officials under the Government, the municipalities, and the corporations, all recognize the agency which authorizes their actions. The corporation at once falls back upon the Government for support whenever any third party in- fringes upon corporation rights. If the courts decide that the acts of the corporation are within the terms of the charter, the corporation may call upon the police powers of the Government to uphold its claim. In the frequent strikes among the employees of the street-car i276 SOCIAL ETHICS companies, the police is called on to keep order on the line. Thus the corporation recognizes the source of its authority. Should the police fail to give the corporation the required protection, the militia is called on to restore order. When one remonstrates with the dealer in liquors about carrying on his trade, he is apt to appeal to the authorization of his business by the Government, as this fact is shown in his license. The recognition of the authority of the Government by the official is explicitly made in his oath of office and frequently in its administration. Before the political official can enter upon the duties of his office, he must swear to perform his official duties and also to obey the general laws under which these instructions are given. Should he refuse to make this recognition of the agency which authorizes the action, he could not legally enter on any official work. When a representative of our Gov- ernment goes to another country, he presents his commis- sion declaring his authority, as a basis of making any official communication to the foreign court. Aside from this commission, which acknowledges the authority of the Government of the United States, he is but as any other citizen of the country. It is the acknowledgement of the source of his authority which gives him his dignity. When a travelling agent comes into a store to sell goods his first announcement is of the name and reputa- bility of the firm which he represents. The agent may not be known at all, but if the company has good standing in the commercial world, its name recommends the agent to the customer. It is therefore a common rule in busi- GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 277 ness, as in political affairs, to acknowledge the source of authority. The third principle previously stated, that no steps should be passed over in the recognition of authority, has been implicitly followed, except in the case of the Government official. The question raised in regard to the official is whether he should be guided by the law gov- erning the case or by the sentiment of the community. It has been the acceptance of the latter alternative as the rule of official conduct that has caused a practical nullification of law in many communities. The laws in some of the Commonwealths, notably Maine and Kansas, have prohibited the saloon within their jurisdiction. In certain cities the liquor element is sufficiently strong to control the election of the city officials. Now if the magistrate were true to his oath of office, true to the principles that are operative in any efficient Government, he would enforce the existing statutes regardless of the local sentiment. Any other course of action means that the law shall be operative only in those districts where it has the support of the local sentiment, so that each community exercises the privilege of vetoing all legis- lation which does not suit the neighborhood. This was the principle on which South Carolina nullified the law of Congress in 1832 and forbade its enforcement within the Commonwealth. The following out of this principle means the sub- version of all Government. The Southern statesmen proposed only the sovereignty of each Commonwealth, but this goes much farther, making each neighborhood 278 SOCIAL ETHICS independent. Further, if each city has a right to 'dis- regard the enactments of the legislature, may not the wards pass upon the city ordinances? There are no limits to this idea of nullification, if once it is admitted as a working principle. The essentially anarchistic idea of reducing all law to a matter of local option needs no comment. Now this result is a consequence of failing to follow the third principle, which insists on recognizing the agency immediately superior to the one using the author- ity. The official is a member, or a deputy, of the Gov- ernment, sworn to perform a certain service ; it is not for him to hunt after what the locality wants in the case, since he is not responsible to any authority but that which commissioned him. Failing to enforce the law according to his oath taken on entering the public service, not only makes the official guilty of perjury, but as well endangers the political system of which he is a factor by violating one of the principles which is essential to Government. It is not an unusual thing in municipal elections for a candidate to appeal for the suffrages of the voters, on the understanding that he will nullify the law. With the exception of this criminal failure of duty on the part of the public officials, the three principles that are to be observed in the delegation of authority are realized in the relation between the Government and the agencies through which it performs its functions. 2. Are the Three Principles Noted, Obeyed in the Giving of Authority by the State to the Government? The principle that a law is given when authority is GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 279 conferred, finds no clearer demonstration than in the Constitution which the American State lays down for the Government. As has been already noticed, the Gov- ernment has no inherent powers; all that it has are granted by the State and are specifically catalogued in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution had in mind the aggressions of the English kings upon popular privileges and it was the intention of the fathers to place every safeguard about individual rights. To this end all the powers not conferred upon the Government by the Constitution were specifically denied to it by that instrument. Nor was the legislative department, which was most feared, left with the legal prohibition only, for the Supreme Court was created to hold the other departments in check. To one who has given the Con- stitution even a cursory reading, it will need no argument to show that when the State gave authority to its Govern- ment, it gave it under strict provisions of law. The second principle, that the body conferring the authority should be recognized, is also realized. The Constitution is prefaced by the. statement that the au- thority of the Government rests upon the State, therefore every official who swears to the Constitution, and each one must take the oath, acknowledges the authority of the State which gave the Constitution. There is no question in the United States about the Government rec- ognizing the authority of the people, the chief danger being that the officials may become mere automatons recording some temporary wave of sentiment. The fire of criticism through which the political leader must pass, 28o SOCIAL ETHICS keeps him from forgetting the authority which exalts him and may pull him down. So sensitive are public men to criticism that there has been an attempt, not without success, to silence the criticism of the press by party threats, or the giving of patronage. In recent months the Post Office Department has seen fit to ex- clude from second-class mail privileges, certain papers which advocate Prohibition or Socialism. Some excuses were given in each case, but they were not reasons. The hope of a good administration of Government lies in discussion of public men and measures and if this can be silenced, in whatever way, the consequences would be such as the patriot could not view with complacency. When a citizen becomes a candidate for political pre- ferment, he lays down the propositions, called his plat- form, that, under the Constitution are to guide his official conduct. This platform is framed with the purpose of commending the candidate to the electors, as a man who would render efficient public service, and the voters are left to choose the one of the candidates whose views seem best suited to the social needs. Thus from the beginning of his candidacy till the end of his term of office, the official is seldom lacking some reminder of the fact that the State is the source of Government au- thority and he is frequently called upon to recognize this fact. Coming to the last principle, that the immediate source of authority should be recognized, it is to be said that Government should not recognize some more remote authority to the exclusion of the State. It was the defect GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 281 in the theory of the divine right of kings, that the mon- arch ignored the people in his acknowledgment of author- ity, thus leaving the way open for a disregard of the social welfare. The Government does not draw its au- thority immediately from God. Government is the natural working out of the social nature which God made in man. It is a permanent social institution. The authority exercised in Government comes from God through the State. The fact is that when any of these principles stated at the beginning of this chapter are disregarded, it brings about disastrous results. We have before us in the daily press the results recorded where officials disregard their oath of office, leaving the laws without enforcement to suit the people of the local neighborhood. The idea of the Stuarts that they drew their authority directly from God, cost England a century of struggle and the Stuarts a throne. J. Are the Three Principles Observed in the Delegation of Authority by Jesus Christ to the State? Since the Bible expressly declares that all authority is given to Christ, it follows that all authority exercised in social affairs must come from Him. Does Christ give law when He confers authority? Some, even Christians, have insisted that Jesus Christ does not rule over the whole life, that part is not under His law. Yet, unless a man is made on the compartment plan, it is not possible to split his life into sections. Life is a unity, not a dualism. A man is not a Christian by sections. Thus when a man argues that there should not be any religion 282 • SOCIAL ETHICS in business or politics his error is psychological but no less fatal. If religion is a factor in life at all, it goes through every part of the life. If there is no religion in politics and business, there is none in the life at all. Jesus Christ gives law to the whole life. An individual, or a people, may refuse to obey this law, but it is idle to claim that religion dominates the life, when some part of it is independent of religious control. Jesus Christ laid down the general principles of law at Sinai, or, more exactly, he stated the law on which society was constructed. The Moral Law is the social constitution of man, not given first at Sinai, but stated at Sinai. It was given when man was created. Some, at least, of the precepts had, through experience or revela- tion, been known before the announcement by Moses. The acceptance of the Moral Law was clearly stated as the condition on which the Hebrew State might law- fully exercise authority, a condition alike applicable to any State, since the constitution of man has not been abrogated with the lapse of time. The New Testament is also a book of law, stating a deeper significance than had been understood before. The Bible, therefore, is the law which Jesus Christ gives and the authority which he confers upon the State is to be used according to Scriptural directions. It would be an inadequate guide for men if it did not furnish rules for the whole life. The Hebrew State fulfilled the second principle by acknowiedging the authority of Jesus Christ When the law was read at Sinai to the representatives of the people they declared : " All that the Lord hath said will we do GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 283 and be obedient." This was an explicit recognition of the law giver. They were not able to live up to the law and the repeated instances of national repentance were often accompanied by a renewal of their recognition of the authority of Jehovah. Thus the Hebrews made an effort to keep the second principle involved in good government. It is at this point that modern States fail to meet the requirement. No modern State has made the recognition of the authority which is in control of social affairs. The failure to follow the principles involved in the delegation of authority has been no less disastrous at this point than at others. In several of the European States the Constitution declares that the monarch rules " by the grace of God," but this is quite another thing than an acknowledgment that the divine authority is recognized in governmental affairs. Such phraseology lays no obliga- tion to make the divine law the rule of official conduct. But, in addition to this defect, such religious feature fails to honor God, since it disregards His express teaching that men much acknowledge God by acknowl- edging Jesus Christ. This is not a mere matter of words. It is stated : " No man cometh to the Father but by me." " He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which sent Him." To pass over Christ in the confession of the source of authority dishonors God, since it dis- regards his word and act in giving " all authority " to Jesus Christ. Such conscious omission of the acceptance of Christ is the refusal of the only mediator between God and man. 284 SOCIAL ETHICS The usual reason for ignoring Jesus Christ in the social confession of the source of authority, is that the dominant social influence in the State objects to the name of Jesus while all classes believe in some kind of a God. The God of the Christian is the Father of Jesus Christ and He can be pleased only by the confession of His Son. We are not dealing with one who is deceived by verbal forms. God reads the mind of the State as that of the individual, and demands that He should be honored in His own appointed way. The cosmic philosophy, the unity of law, the teachings of the Bible are in cordial agreement in insisting on the harmonizing of the will of the State with the will which guides the universe. 4. The Principles Involved in the Delegation of Author- ity Are Realized in the Relation between Essential God and Jesus Christ. The Father gives law to the Christ and acknowledg- ment is loyally made of its delegation. " I came not to do mine own will," said Jesus, " but the will of Him that sent me." Many times in the ministry of the Lord does He make this willing confession that He came to do the Father's will. Hegel wrote that the State would realize its mission when it would confess : " Lo ! I come to do Thy will O God." This completes the application of the three principles stated at the beginning of this chapter, to the different stages in the delegation of authority. In nearly every stage they are realized in the administration of political authority and wherever they are departed from, social GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 285 damage is the consequence. At one point in particular is failure to be noted, when the State refuses to confess the dependence of the social will upon the will of Jesus Christ, and thus interferes with the cosmic philosophy; of the divine plan. THE SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST If a cosmical unity is to be. gained, the social spirit must be harmonized with the divine spirit. The social confession of Christ is the means to this end. It would seem that materialistic ideas of the State have somewhat hidden, even from Christians, the proper relationship of the State to the Christ. But when the psychological view of the State has had time to mature in the common mind, so that it may clear the mental atmosphere of the errors in the theories inherited from the individualistic philoso- phers of the eighteenth century, and the biologists of the nineteenth, we will gain a correct political philosophy and, ultimately, a better political practice. Schlegel teaches in his " Philosophy of History " that every great move- ment has passed through the stage of theory, and that theory has shaped the later historical events. Admitting that the situation demands that the State should make an acknowledgment of the authority of Christ in the social life, as is required in the individual life, it yet remains to be considered what form this confession should take and where it should be made. i. The Form of Confession. It may fairly be said that the particular words used in a social confession are not of more importance than in a confession by the individual. The essential thing SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST 287 is that it shall accept the law of Christ as the rule of life. It is necessary that the statement shall be free of ambiguities and, as it is to be a standard of official conduct, it should have legal precision. It is not an ex- pression of mere sentiment, not simply the insertion of some name or phrase in the Constitution of Government, but the laying down of a definite ethical standard for legislative, executive, and judicial conduct. As it, of necessity, has this scope, it must be the expression of the social mind, and not that of an individual, or of a number of individuals. It is the expression of a social obligation which is binding on the social life. On one hand, by making this confession honestly, the State comes into a right relation with God; on the other hand, it takes a right position in its relation to the individual citizen. God is so bound in with the universe which He has made, that no part of the grand cosmic system can be economically operated when God is left out of the plan. Putting Jesus Christ into social life brings about that integration of the State with God, and of social classes with each other which is required " to promote the general welfare." It will make the discussion at this point more definite to suggest the following adaptation of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States : " We the people of the United States, recognizing God as the source of authority, Jesus Christ as the ruler of the State, and the Bible as the ethical standard for all moral questions in social life, . . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 288 SOCIAL ETHICS It is to be carefully noted that not all questions would come directly under the operation of this amendment. Many of the questions with which the different depart- ments of Government have to deal are economic simply, or involve some legal technicality. In dealing with such matters, the question of an ethical standard is of less moment. It is directly concerned with all questions where justice or injustice is at issue. All political ques- tions have a moral element, but it is not always the dominant factor. The ethical standard would have di- rectly come in question in the recent breach of public faith with Cuba. It would also suggest that some other interests are paramount to those of trade in the Philip- pines. A tariff law would not, so directly, be appealed to a moral standard. The application of this amendment would require no change whatever in the form, or the methods, of govern- ing. It would not make any change in the class of cases which would come before the legislature, or the courts. It is concerned alone with the ethical standard which shall be applied to those cases. If any one holds that the present standard is Christian, he need expect no change at all, but one who considers the general dis- regard of the Sabbath, the licensing of different forms of vice, will scarcely draw such a conclusion. As a matter of fact, every individual, and every institution, has an ethical standard and it is only a question of what that standard shall be. Each one may form his own judgment as to what ethical standard is operative in governmental affairs, but he will not doubt that one exists. SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST 289 Whether chosen by intention or not, it is always in evidence. The suggestion here is that the Bible be taken as that standard. No change is proposed in political method. It would seem that every man who believed in taking the Bible as the standard of his own life, should advocate the acceptance by the State of the same standard. Nor would it, as some have hastily concluded, interfere with the opinions that men may hold on religious ques- tions. This fact is evident when one takes time to con- sider the kind of cases which come before the courts. Government does not deal with what men think, but with what they do. Why should a change in ethical standard affect this matter? Or, as this book is written specially for Christians, why should Christians fear to be judged by the Bible standard in the courts? Why should the testing of legislative enactment by the teachings of Christ, endanger individual freedom? An objection might be raised at this point by those who do not believe in the Bible, but it is difficult to see the ground on which a believer in the teachings of Jesus would enter a protest. It would seem that Christians should be at one in this matter. Why should the Bible standard endanger free- dom, more than a standard of materialistic ethics, or some other ? Men are not tried for their thoughts under our system of Government and this freedom which we have is due to the Christianity which should be recog- nized. It was the coming of Jesus which made freedom of thought and action possible; on this account it can scarcely be seriously claimed that to take the ethics of 2 9 o SOCIAL ETHICS Jesus as the basis of governmental action would destroy the very thing which this teaching made possible, indi- vidual freedom. There is no provision under our system of government for bringing a man into court on account of his theo- logical opinions, or his church preferences. The writer, who is a descendant of the Covenanters who were hunted to the death for their opinion's sake, would be the last to propose a reinstatement of the inquisition for opinion. It is the surest guard against such return, to take the ethics of Jesus as the standard of social conduct. The man who has any reason to fear that his business interests, the title by which he holds his property, his freedom of speech, would be disturbed by the acceptance of the law of Christ as the rule of life, has good reason to question the methods of his business and the matter of his speech. It would seem that every Christian, indeed every honest man, should welcome such a standard in our legislatures and our courts. Government is continually extending its functions and this process is likely to continue, as it is becoming more necessary to guard individual interests from the encroach- ment of the great industrial combinations. Government function is also being extended in dealing with the de- pendent and defective classes of the population. If one will compare the range of subjects with which the legis- lator deals, with those with which he dealt a century ago, it will be seen that the character of Government is of growing concern to the individual. If the State be- comes Christian through confessing the Christ, then will SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST 291 the Government, with other social institutions, be per- meated by the same influence, to the advantage of the individual. Some standard of action the State has, and must have. Would it not be to the advantage of all good citizens to make the State avowedly Christian? The proposed amendment falls naturally into two divi- sions ; the first giving honor to God, the second concern- ing the welfare of men. The first obligation, the State owes to the rightful ruler of this, and every other, nation ; the second to its citizens and other States. There is an old and well established proposition that " Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." That is the proposition which this amendment elucidates and applies. In the general scramble for wealth, and our conquest by materialistic views, it might be well to recall that, in the eternal view of things, spirit dominates. There was a great trading people long ago whose ships cruised in every known sea and their merchant flag floated in every port. They gained their celebrity from gathering the little mussels from the sea and mak- ing from them the Tyrian dye, and when the home supply was exhausted they sent out their trading companies to procure the raw material and extend their trade. The Phoenicians have been called the " Yankees of the East " and in material gains they led the world. Yet beyond a few inscriptions we know nothing of their literature and, excepting the genius of Hannibal, there is scarce a Phoenician name which lives in history. A people whose interest centers in trade does not make permanent con- tributions to history ; but those that contribute to spiritual 293 SOCIAL ETHICS growth leave an inheritance which neither time nor change consigns to oblivion. No favorable balance of trade, nor output of manufac- tured goods, can balance the social account with an offended God. " Kiss ye the Son lest ye perish from the way," even though factories multiply and railroads increase their tonnage. While the argument in these pages turns, for the most part, on the social benefits to be gained by the social confession of the Christ, since that phase of the subject appeals most forcibly to men, yet it must not be forgotten that the glory of God is not of less account. The question which confronts any peo- ple with such opportunities as we possess, is whether they should be willing to accept for themselves the won- drous benefits of the Saviour's death, while refusing to Him the honor which is His due. 2, The Place of Acknowledgment, Neither the form, nor the place of acknowledgment of the authority of Christ is of great account, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. This political con- fession of faith should be an adequate statement of the kingly rights of the Christ over the State, and it should be so formulated and placed as to give legal sanction to the Bible as the ultimate standard for the settlement of moral questions arising in the sphere of Government. It is to be a standard for the legislative, executive, and judicial departments in the determination of such ques- tions. So far as the matter of place is concerned, this confession might be made to stand by itself as an act SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST 293 of the State, superior to the Constitution of Government which we have at present and to which the Constitution and all subsidiary laws would have to conform. The acknowledgment should be placed where the will of the State finds direct expression. The Constitution fulfills this condition. The acknowledgment is not an act of Government, but of the State, and the Constitution is the only law which, in our political method, is made by the State. The social mind does find expression through the measures on the statute book, but indirectly through the action of representatives. The Constitution, our supreme law, is made by the people. It is a change in social mind, as well as in law, that is sought, therefore the act should be the expression of the social mind. The statutes of Congress stand in the name of Congress and are enacted by authority of Congress. The Constitution stands in the name of the people. Since it is the pur- pose to make the Bible the legal standard of political action on moral issues, the Constitution, which is the supreme law for all departments and all gradations of the Government, would answer this purpose. It would not have the same effect to place such Chris- tian features in the Commonwealth Constitutions, even in all of them. They are only local in jurisdiction and deal only with local questions ; but in the national Con- stitution the provision would cover not only all moral questions arising under the Federal jurisdiction, but as well those within the Commonwealths, since the Federal Constitution is a part of each Commonwealth Constitu- tion. The Federal Constitution is the political criterion. 2Q4 SOCIAL ETHICS The Constitution is a proper place since it could b*£ secured in that document only as the result of an earnest, popular demand. The pertinent question is sometimes asked, " Of what avail to put such a statement into funda- mental law, or law of any grade, unless it is supported by the life behind the law? Certainly in this instance it would have little value. It does not have much meaning for the unbeliever to confess Christ, while he remains in unbelief ;. nor would a similar occurrence in the social life have great value. It is true that law has a consid- erable influence on life, and the effect that a high ethical standard of law would have upon the popular ethics is an excellent reason for insisting on the acceptance of the Bible as a standard of civic law. That is an educa- tional force the influence of which is sorely needed in our social life. But as a matter of fact, there must be a change in the social mind, a transformation in the social life, before there can come this reformation in our political institutions. There are but two ways in which the recognition of the authority of Jesus Christ and of his law may be secured by the State. It is possible that in some great social revolution the need for such a change would appear so pressing that it would be brought about without regard for legal forms. This method would be taken only when the State had been so profoundly moved that the social demand set aside all constitutional methods, a situation for which history affords few parallels. President Lin- coln, under the pressure of military necessity, set aside legal provisions in issuing the Emancipation Proclama- SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST 295 tion and it is quite possible that the liquor traffic may receive its legal quietus under some such stress of cir- cumstances. The Reformations in Germany and Scot- land were marked by popular uprisings, but other causes than religious fervor entered, to some extent, into each movement. The acceptance of the law of Jesus as the rule of the social life must face the opposition of every vicious influence in society, a combination which no other movement has ever had to meet. If nations are " born in a day," such a moral victory may be in the divine plan. The other method of winning the acknowledgment of the authority of the Christ is through the legal meth- ods provided in the Constitution. In such case the measure, following the usual course, would have to be sanctioned by Congress, then ratified by the legislatures in three-fourths of the Commonwealths. History has shown that such concurrence of different sections and classes is not easily gained, indeed, the only amendments made to the Constitution in a century were the outcome of a terrible war. Professor Burgess takes the ground that the Constitution has put such barriers in the way of its own amendment that only such a crisis as a war produces will make an amendment possible. However that may be, it is clear that any amendment must have due consideration, before a sufficient sentiment is created to give it the force of law. In neither of the ways suggested is there a possibility of putting this proposition into the Constitution without a social regeneration of the people. The people do not want such a change now 296 SOCIAL ETHICS and it will be only when the social mind has been brought to see its necessity that it can be secured. Mo- tives of hypocrisy will never lead to the social enthrone- ment of Jesus. In regard to the question of how the social confession of Jesus Christ shall be made, history affords scant data, and prophecy is silent; but the fact is made sure by the promise of God. It is also objected that this could not be put into law until the people wanted it, and that then it would not be needed as it would be the rule of the social life with- out any enactment. This has an element of truth, but in its application would condemn our whole system of law. Laws are not made for the obedient, but for the lawless class. We have laws against burglary, yet public sentiment is strong against burglary. There are few forgers in the community, yet there are severe penalties for signing the name of another to a check. We would need the proposed measure, for the benefit of citizens, even though the dominant influence in the social life were Christian. So much for that phase of the amend- ment in which the interests of citizens are concerned* As a last reason, though not the least, this amendment should be in the Constitution because the State should confess its King. This does not mean king of a part of life, with the whole field of public affairs independent of his control. Jesus Christ is King of the whole of life, and in the Constitution, which declares itself the supreme law of the land, that fact should be acknowledged. " For them that honor me I will honor, and they thai despise me shall be lightly esteemed." SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST 297 g. The Value of the Amendment. No plea will be more effective with the Christian than this, it honors Jesus. " Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." There is no gift, individual or social, that does not come through him. Is it a great thing for him to ask that his teachings be taken as the rule of public and private life ? It is sometimes said that if the appeal is taken to the Bible on moral questions, it still in- volves the difficulty of a double ethical standard, since the Old Testament teaches a different code of ethics than the New. If that were true would not Jesus have known it better than our modern critics? He explicitly declares that He " came not to destroy the law but to fulfill." " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful- filled." Yet these sayings of Jesus are taken from the chapter, Matthew fifth, which critics cite as an evidence that the teachings of Jesus are not in accord with the Mosaic law. With all due regard for the opinions of those who find the divergence between the teachings of Jesus and the Ten Commandments, one is inclined to think that he who made the law knew its meaning better than does the critic. That some of the minor provisions of the laws of Moses, given to Israel on account of their peculiar situation, were allowed to lapse with the change of conditions, is doubtless true. But Jesus in his teaching only brings out the deeper sig- nificance of the Ten Commandments. He does not annul them. The Bible is a unit in its teachings. 298 SOCIAL ETHICS Few peoples have greater reason for gratitude to Jesus Christ than has the American nation. When this coun- try was discovered by Columbus, Europe was feeling the first throbs of the Reformation. Had settlement in the New World been made at that time, under royal patron- age, the early colonies would have been influenced by the reactionary Catholic party of Europe. But God had planned otherwise. In 1492, Spain was ending a contest with the Moors which had tried the Spanish power, and during the next century Philip of Spain, feeling himself the special protector of the Catholic Church and the inquisition, championed the cause of the Pope against the rebellious subjects in the Netherlands. Dur- ing eighty years the contest went on, demanding its full complement of Spanish energy and treasure, and when the struggle ended in the independence of the Dutch Republic, Spain had lost her power and her opportunity, such an opportunity as comes only once to a nation. During the century succeeding the discovery of Amer- ica, France had no energy to spare for colonization. In the earlier part, the French king was hurrying his men and means over the Alps to make good his shadowy claims, against Spain and the Empire, to thrones in Italy, while the last half of the century witnessed the dis- traction of the religious wars which rent France into factions. While the lands of America were inviting settlers, the Guises and the Bourbons were drenching the fields of France with blood. So was Europe kept from taking possession of the New World until the Reformation had done its work, and when the settlers SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST 299 came at last, they were refugees, seeking the freedom in the wilderness which had been denied on their hearth stones. To get the true perspective of the settlement of America, one must know the history of Europe during three centuries, and the more this history is studied will the gratitude increase to that God that guarded the embryonic nation. To our shores came the Pilgrim, the Puritan, the Huguenot, and the Covenanter, sifted by despotic hands from the peoples of Europe to plant in the virgin soil of the American forest. It is true, though often forgotten, that the high re- ligious sentiment was, for the most part, north of the Hudson. The South was largely settled by an aris- tocracy of English gentlemen, resting upon a larger population of indentured servants and men whom the press-gang had swept from the streets of London. In our adulation of the early settlers, it may not be left entirely out of mind that the Southern Colonies were, for years, a Botany Bay, for the English police courts. Yet the Puritans north of the Hudson, out of proportion to their numbers, swayed the sentiment of the Colonies. While other peoples have been hampered by institu- tions which have outlived their usefulness, we have had a mobility which presented few restrictions. While it is true that we have no long period of history to sustain us by its memories, we have no inglorious record to forget. Isolated from all competitors by the seas, which have, till this time, made us free from the supposed need of standing armies, whose maintenance crushes the peasantry of modern Europe and even of England to the 300 SOCIAL ETHICS subsistence point, we have been left free to develop without these disastrous handicaps. The same seas which insure us freedom from foreign invasion, furnish the cheapest highway for communication with the markets of the world. Untold wealth exists in our national resources and it is a gift to the American people. Shall this wealth be used to win freedom for men and to lead the world to a higher civilization, or shall the material forces, the wonder of the world, crush the spiritual to the earth? Press these material forces into the service of humanity, make the chief end social well-being instead of money dividends, and God would be mani- fested to men in a way never before realized. This is what it means to make the teachings of Jesus the law of the social life. I am aware of the claim that religion has no rightful place in the market, but without the influence of religion there would be no markets com- manding a world traffic. It is religion that guards our lines of railway and steamship traffic, not the police nor the navies of the world. It is not armed force which has lifted the world into the measure of light which it owns; it is not rifles which keep it there. These methods which the rule of Jesus would banish are the parasitic growths of the barbaric ages. 2. It Would Give a Proper Ethical Standard for the Decision of Moral Questions, We are often informed that the teachings of Jesus are not applicable to our conditions; but certainly con- ditions were not more favorable when Jesus walked the SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST 301 roads of Galilee. Yet he insisted upon their immediate application to social conduct. He did not give us spe- cific rules of conduct, since these would have become obsolete in the course of events, but he laid down prin- ciples which never grow antiquated. The disciples con- sidered his teachings practical then, and tried to incor- porate them in their lives. To be guided by " the common consensus of practical judgments," as some advise, means the surrendering of any social ideal. The leader of thought must be in advance of the common judgment of men, else he is not a leader. If a " common consensus " is to be the ethical standard, stagnation is the moral future of society. j. It Guards the Freedom of the Citizen. While this is one of the chief ends of the proposed amendment, it is at this very point that objection is usually raised. History has shown that the individual may not trust the monarch to give him the conditions of freedom, nor may he place his confidence in aris- tocratic rule. Scarcely safer are his interests in the power of the crowd. Polybius taught long ago that it was, the tendency of popular rule to become mob rule and the evidences which support that view are not wanting. In any difference which arises between the individual and the State, the will of the State is a preju- diced party in the case. If a fair judgment is to be rendered, it must be through the appeal to an unpreju- diced code of law. This unprejudiced umpire is the law of Christ which works no injustice. It may be said that even though 302 SOCIAL ETHICS the law of Christ were the legal standard, it might be so interpreted as not to meet the end in view. Doubt- less this is possible, but the weaker party would certainly be in better case when appeal is made to the teachings of Jesus, than when made to any other rule. Better surely is a good rule even though warped in its inter- pretation, than a poor rule used in like fashion. It is hard to see why any Christian, or any honest man, should fear that the applications of the teachings of Jesus would restrict his freedom, since it is through Jesus that freedom comes. Whatever may be true of the unbeliever, the Christian should not fear the appeal to the teachings of the Master. 4. It Would Win the Confidence of Other Nations, The reason why fortresses bristle along the frontiers of the nations, that spies are sent to foreign courts, that every meeting of the kings is jealously observed, is because there is no confidence of one State in another. Nor has national conduct been such as to warrant con- fidence. The laws between nations are seldom observed when the nation which suffers the wrong is not able to back its claim by force. If the nations of Europe would each adopt the teachings of Christ as the rule of political life, there would follow immediate disarmament. This is said with full knowledge of the fact that ministers of the teachings of Jesus are not less ready than others in their justification of aggressive wars, but it is to be expected that the social regeneration, which must precede the acceptance of the rule of the Christ, will have its SOCIAL CONFESSION OF CHRIST 303 influence upon these who have misread the Sermon on the Mount. Armies and navies are mainly the tribute which the nations are paying for the real, or fancied, reasons which they have given for distrust. English statesmen argue that ships enough should be constructed for their navy that they may be able to fight with all their neighbors at once, which indicates that there is something radically dishonest about England, or the neighbors which she has. Some of the American wise men have also been arguing that the only safety of the United States is to build a navy large enough to fight with all Europe, which suggests that some one has been cheating in the game the nations play. It may be allowable to sug- gest that if the United States had kept faith with Cuba and the Philippines, which we hope it will even yet do, it would have done more to guard our coasts than all the battle ships in the navy. For the present we seem to have forfeited the confidence of the nations. There are no real friendships between the Governments of the world. One helps another when it has a com- mercial ax to grind, but it turns its back upon it when a better alliance offers. This utter lack of faith in international friendships is wasting money and men, making disastrous inroads on the scanty earnings of the poor, and the wealth of the rich. Let any people profess to take the teachings of Jesus as the rule of life, giving proof of sincerity and it might disband its armies, using its vessels of war to give outings to the children. War is not the greatest curse that afflicts mankind, but none 304 SOCIAL ETHICS has less excuse. Let us honor the name of Jesus and His law and the nations will have no need to distrust the "Republic of the West." 5. It Would Give to Us a Harmonious System of Law. Human legislation is out of joint with the divine, since it is made with little consideration of its agreement with the principles of the Bible. To most legislators it might cause a smile, if one were to suggest that the Sermon on the Mount had any connection with practical politics. Yet if Christ gives law to the world can it be practical to follow any other standard? Unity is the end of life; it is the end of law. It can not be gained at any human level, since no human standard can suit all men equally, nor will God bring his law to that criterion. The social law must be brought into harmony with the divine law. When the social life and law is linked with the divine by human choice, the social system will be " fitly framed together " and joined to the throne of God. WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE The purpose of this chapter is not simply an academic discussion of the Christian State as an idea. It is to determine, from a consideration of social facts, whether the United States may properly be called a Christian State. To the mind of many this discussion will seem unnecessary since, in common speech, not only the United States, but most of the States of Europe, would be classed as Christian. Differences of opinion exist on this question, partly through the lack, or the possession, of the knowledge of social facts, partly through varied inter- pretations of the facts when known. But mainly are the different conclusions due to the failure to agree as to the meaning of the term Christian. The subject is taken up with the hope that a common interpretation of facts, and a common agreement on the meaning of terms may be reached, in order that a common conclusion may be drawn at the close of the discussion. An individual, or an institution, deserves the name of "Christian " when Jesus Christ is accepted and His law made the rule of individual, or institutional, life. Nothing less than this fulfills the conditions which Jesus laid down for His followers. The choice of Jesus Christ as the ruler of the life is consciously made by the Chris- tian. The child in the Christian home may imbibe the teachings of Christ; with the years of responsibility 305 306 SOCIAL ETHICS will come the necessity to make conscious choice of the Christ as Lord. One does not become a Christian by accepting certain maxims of conduct, nor does man, or State, become Christian simply by being surrounded by a nominal Christian civilization. The civilization which has been attained is doubtless due to the influences flow- ing from the life and death of Christ, but it does not make one a Christian to have shared in those benefits. Many a man who denies the Christ that made the free offer of himself for the redemption of the individual and the social life, has done that much. The States usually called Christian are those who have benefitted most by the work of Jesus Christ. They are more Christian than Mohammedan, or Confucian. So much is clear to every observer. But are they more Christian than infidel? By the definition offered, the State can become Christian only as it accepts Jesus Christ as the Lord of the social life. Has the United States done so much? Has any other State? When we apply the same test to the social life as to the indi- vidual, it does not seem that there should be any great divergence among Christians as to the answer given. In a recent study, " Political Theories," the author, Professor Dunning, passes lightly over the teachings of Jesus with the statement that his doctrines were essen- tially unpolitical. It is quite true that Jesus gave no specific instructions to his disciples on the political ques- tions of the day, for the very evident reason that it was not possible for a resident of Judea, where the work of Jesus was done, to share in Roman administration. WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 307 Another fact should be kept in mind as accounting for the alleged unpolitical character of the teachings of Jesus. The functions of the Roman Government, at least so far as a province like Judea was concerned, were limited to collecting taxes and putting down insur- rections. They did not provide for the poor unless for the rabble at Rome, they had neither schools nor asylums. The taxes were farmed to the highest bidder as in Turkey to-day. At the time when Jesus met the problems of his followers, the care of the weak and the equalization of social burdens formed no part of Caesar's duties. Yet all these matters are dealt with by Govern- ment at the present time; all these matters were dealt with in the teachings of Jesus. If they were unpolitical then, they are political now. The Jews spoke the truth when in their passion they said to Pilate : " If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend." The enthronement of Christ in the hearts of men meant the dethronement of Caesar and all his kind. The realization of the teachings of Jesus meant political revolution then, would mean it now. The classes to which Jesus directed individual care are now the wards of the State. The questions with which He dealt are frequently met in the sphere of political control and the principles He taught afford the answer. If Jesus had lived in a country and in a time when the people had political questions to settle which were of moral importance, is it not probable that He would have given an answer as readily as on other concerns of life? It is true that He did not advocate revolu- 308 SOCIAL ETHICS tion against the Roman as His countrymen desired, but His refusal to do this was a political act, based on political principles. The only writing of the New Tes- tament which was directed to a locality where the citizen could share in the duties of government, was the letter to the Romans, and it contains a chapter on the char- acter of Government. This letter states that all rightful authority is from God, and that the true principle of administration is love. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is not to be altogether postponed till a future life, but that it is a present social fact. Slowly it is being realized on earth through the working of the Holy Spirit. When the Kingdom has so far entered any State that the will of Christ is consciously chosen as the law of the social life, then the State is Christian. There is room for debate in deciding when this condition has been met, but there is no other adequate test. This is the test which I would apply to our social order in seeking an answer to the question, " Is this a Christian State ? There are two ways in which we may judge the char- acter of the State : by its profession, and by its practice. Individual acts define the individual character; social acts define the social character. If the fruit is good, so is the root. If the social life is Christian, it will appear in its outcome. These are the tests by practice, and unless the profession corresponds, it will have little value. There are three methods of social expression: that through the individual lives of the citizens, through institutions, and through the civil law. WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 309 I, The Individual Life. The individual life is in some degree an exponent of the social character. Not that the social life has full expression through one individual, or even through all the individuals in the society. Yet it is a common, and not altogether false idea, that we can judge of a neigh- borhood, or country, by the resident whom we meet. We judge by the speed and accuracy of his work as to the industrial efficiency of the community ; from the variety of his knowledge we estimate the worth of the school system; from his conduct we draw a conclusion as to the moral influence of the environment. It is, then, fair to conclude that we may be aided in deciding our question as to the Christianity of the State by the study of the individual citizen. Is the average citizen of the United States a Christian ? By this is not meant a nominal Christian, but one who fills the conditions of the definition by taking the Christ as his Lord and Christ's teachings as his law. This is a hard question to settle finally. It can not be deter- mined by the Church membership, since some of these would not meet the requirements. The idea prevails outside the Church membership that the teachings of Jesus, however good they may be, are not practical in their application to present conditions, and this con- clusion is not seldom found among Church members. Should the definition of the Christian be wide enough to include such persons? Should one be classed as a Christian who refuses to accept the rules of life which Jesus taught? There are various interpretations put on 310 SOCIAL ETHICS the teachings of Jesus by Christians, according to their knowledge of Him, but it does not seem that one who declines to accept these teachings as a basis for his theory of ethics, deserves to be called a Christian. This is the case with a majority of the people outside the Church, and a respectable minority inside. It is for this reason that a conclusion can scarcely be arrived at in regard to the attitude of the average man in this country toward Jesus Christ, at least one which would satisfy all parties. The writer believes that the social facts prove that the dominant social in- fluence is unchristian. The weight of evidence also seems to show that though the average citizen is influ- enced by Christianity, he is not a Christian. Statistics which have been gathered with some care, show that not more than ten per cent, of the young men in the country have any vital connection with the Church. The percentage is much larger among some other classes, but it does not total half the population. One will usually find, unless he lives in an exceptional community, that when he tabulates the Christian members of the city, or town, the majority is on the wrong side. The chief value of this reference to individual character lies in the fact that it suggests to each reader the possibility of drawing upon the social facts in his neighborhood as a guide in making up his mind as to the social char- acter. If one has been a close observer of city and country life, if he has also had an acquaintance with the different sections of the country, his opinion would de- serve consideration. WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 311 If observance of the Sabbath is taken as a test of the Christianity of the individual, the crowded cars and boats on their way to pleasure resorts, while the preacher talks to empty pews, afford a convincing item of evidence. More people might be found in a single beer garden on the Sabbath, than in all the churches of the ward. These are some of the evidences which are discouragingly abundant in most localities. Social Institutions. Social institutions rise through the objectifying of the social spirit and therefore reflect the character of the social life. This the individual does not do completely, since each has an individuality of his own in addition to the social element expressed through him. It is, therefore, from social institutions that we gain the best notion of the character of the State. If these are def- initely Christian, it is fair to conclude that the spirit which acts through them has a like character; if they fail to meet the requirement, an opposite verdict must be given. The Church. It is to the Church that one would naturally look to find the highest expression of Christian life. In the Church are gathered nearly, if not quite, all of those who have consciously taken Christ as Lord. The Church, by pro- fession, has taken this stand. It sends its messengers through the world to call on individuals and institutions to accept the teachings of Jesus. That the work of the 3ia SOCIAL ETHICS Church is done in an indifferent manner must be admit- ted by its best friends, yet it is through the Church, the united followers of the Christ, that the Spirit of God is to be infused into the social spirit. While the Church is a social institution, an expression of the functions of the State, yet through the Church is the State to gain the transfigured life. The Church life is to react into the life of the State, changing the latter into its likeness. This function of the Church is illustrated in the purpose of the civil law. In idea, if not in fact, law is educative. It is a product of the community and yet it does not serve its purpose unless it provides for advancing social order and freedom. Thus while the Church is an ex- pression of the social life, it has for its end the changing of the social life. There is a strong tendency in certain quarters to insist on a dualism between the life of the Church and that of other institutions. But as a matter of fact the character of the Church will not differ re- motely from that of other institutions in the same society. The reason is clear. Some of the same people are in the Church and in the factory, so that the conduct of the two institutions can not be diametrically opposed to each other. The preponderance of a different element in the Church and the factory, may, however, make one dominantly Christian while the other is not. But the two are apt to shade into one another in character. Where two institutions have the same membership, they must have the same character. Men can not lead a dual life. They can not be Chris- WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 313 tians in the Church and something else in business. If they are trying to follow out such a plan the strong probability is that they are not Christians at all. Yet it is possible for the Christian, who holds a controlling posi- tion in the Church to have a subordinate one in the corporation, where another force than Christianity is in control. The practical conclusion is that while the Church can have, and usually has, a more perfect ethical standard than the other social institutions of the neigh- borhood, it is still true that the Church can rise only as it lifts the others with it. There is a unity in life, which strongly inclines all contemporary institutions toward a common standard. Yet the different social functions which dominate in the different institutions draw about each its own class of men, so that while there is a common likeness, each institution has an individuality of its own. The Church, as a whole, is Christian. It has unworthy members, it does unworthy things at times, but its dom- inant idea is obedience to Jesus Christ. It is not de- manded by the Church, nor by the Christ, that a perfect life shall be achieved, in order that the term of Christian may be earned. If the demand took such form it would exclude all individuals, all institutions. It means the sincere acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Lord of the life. This much deserves to be said to prevent a mis- understanding of what is meant. It should be the aim of every lover of Jesus and of humanity, that all social institutions should be brought into loyal obedience to the authority of the Lord. This is the commission of the Master and the mission of each disciple. 3 i4 SOCIAL ETHICS The School. Education is one of the most important functions in the State, properly understood, the most important. The school is only one of the agencies in the work of educa- tion, but the school differs from the other agencies em- ployed, in that it has no other function. The farm and the factory train the child in industrial methods, the Church furnishes him educational ideals, the Govern- ment trains him in civil order, the family gives to him the initial steps in all these directions. The school is the result of a social demand for an agency which shall devote itself to education solely, with teachers trained for the work. As both the individual and the State are spirit, in the final analysis the development of spirit is the main aim of both the individual and the State. Education means the development of spirit. This should be the aim of every teacher, whether in the Church or the home, the school or the pressroom. The meaning of education is to lead out the life. The imparting of information is an element of education, but must not be mistaken for it. Information does not of necessity enlarge the life. A student may acquire an accurate knowledge of a language, he may be able to master dif- ficult problems in mathematics, and have no broader sym- pathies than before these subjects were studied. He is informed; not educated. It has been charged that the atmosphere of a University is too frequently heedless of the life movements going on in the world about it. That can have no meaning other than this : it is imparting in- formation instead of educating. WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 315 When a convict was being enrolled at Sing Sing prison he said to his jailor: "I speak seven languages." The jailor answered that they had only one there, and but little of that. The man had been informed, but not educated. Men whose lives are " led out " do not go to prison. Our prisons are not filled, for the most part, with the ignorant class. There are the men who know how to forge a name, to raise a check, to falsify an ac- count. The untrained criminal may steal a horse, or run off with your purse, but he is not capable of the fine art which marks the accomplished rascal. The ruffian who snatches your watch, with training in the schools might loot a bank. It is possible to cram a student with all the curriculum from the multiplication table to metaphysics, and leave him with scarcely wider vision of the world's needs, of the struggling life about him. Indeed, it may even give him a pride of knowl- edge which makes him more unsocial than the man who digs by the roadside and murders his English. At some time we may outlive the cramming process which is fre- quently certificated by a degree as an education. It may be too soon to tell what changes in studies, and specially in method, are needed to make our educational institu- tions what they ought to be, in order that they may have their proper influence upon the life which they develop. Education is not putting something in, unless as the pump is primed to draw something out. The mind is not to be filled, but expanded. Jesus was the great teacher, and He drew His lessons from all that which He saw about Him. He felt with the ravens and the sparrows; 316 SOCIAL ETHICS He sympathized with the sower; He gloried in the lilies of the field. His life went out to all these things, and, more than to these, it opened new visions to the needy who crowded His steps. Emerson said somewhere, " Na- ture hath no secrets from the sympathetic mind." It is a closed book to the man who brings only information in his quest. Jesus said : " He that saveth his life shall lose it." That doctrine is quite as applicable in the school as in the Church. It is excellent pedagogical doctrine. The man who saves his life is not led out, not educated. Jesus taught His disciples that they should become universal. Their lives were to be broad enough to touch every individual, and class, and race. He does not cram their lives, but He draws them out till the simple peasant sees visions which philosophers are denied. The Jews said of the Teacher : " How hath this man letters, having never learned ? " Such was the judgment of the schools on Him who knew all things, though He did not patter over the dry matter of the classrooms of the day. It is the Spirit which leads men out into the broader life, and the Bible is the text-book which He uses. Whatever of expansive influence there may be in other teachers and texts has its origin in this Teacher and this text. Cram into a mind all possible knowlege, leave it un' touched by this vital influence, and the life will remain narrow and unprofitable. This is a fact which few thought- ful Christians will question. It is not intended to enter any charge against the present curriculum of the schools by this writing, though such an indictment might possibly be supported by a fair amount of evidence. What is WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 317 asserted is that these studies by themselves will not furnish an education. Christianity is the expansive influence in life, so far as such influence is present. We do not often try to teach science without a text, or history without a refer- ence book. The Bible is the text of Christianity. It is the book beyond all others which leads out the life into broader endeavor. That is to say, the Bible is the best book for educating the life. By what right may it be excluded from the curriculum of the school which has education for its sole function? The situation calls for something more than a cursory reading of a few verses in the morning. School books are not studied in that way. The Bible deserves at least the place which it once held in the schools, when it furnished the reading lesson for the child. We would be reluctant to allow the name of scientific to a school which had no place for a scientific text; we can not be less reluctant to apply the name of Christian to the school which does not include the accredited text of Christianity as one of the studies in its curriculum. Not only does the exclusion of the Bible preclude a rounded development of the student, but it fails to keep before the mind of student and teacher the very principles on which a real education rests, and according to which it must advance. This demand for the Bible as a reading book in the classes, at the very time when it is having to contest the place of a morning exercise, may seem extreme. But does the situation admit of anything less? Education means the leading out of life; the Bible is 31S SOCIAL ETHICS the book that shows the way. Would any Christian edu- cator question either of these propositions? Does not the conclusion follow that the Bible should have a place in the curriculum of the school? It has not that place. In many localities it is not al- lowed to be read, even without comment. Has the school any sufficient claim to the name of Christian under such conditions? It is a fact of large significance that the teacher is apt to be a Christian; it is also true that he may bring his Christianity to bear in many ways upon the lives which he is training. But no one would claim successfully that the school of the present day aims to teach the life of Jesus as truly as that of Washington. Why should it not? It is said, though most frequently contrary to the evi- dence, that there are other places where the child may learn these things, if they are necessary. But admitting this for the sake of argument, it has no particular bearing on the case. It is the function of the school to educate, and if it does not provide conditions for developing a rounded life, it fails of its chief end. In spite of the fact that instruction in the Bible was the chief reason for the establishing of the common school after the Reformation ; in spite of the fact that most of the teachers in the primary schools are Christian, it seems necessary to conclude that since the teaching of the Bible is not allowed in the schools, they are not taking the teachings of Jesus as the law of life. If this is the law of school life, why should it not be taught? If it is not taken as the rule of life, the school is not Christian. WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 319 This defect is much more marked in the higher grades of school work. In our Universities Jesus is not ac- cepted as more authoritative in His teachings than Kant. The Lord is treated as one among other philosophers. As an evidence that this is a common indictment against such institutions, one need only refer to the fact that the different Christian Churches have thought it necessary to establish denominational schools in which a rounded education shall be given. In appliances and opportunities for research they are usually inferior to the institutions which can boast of larger support, but this defect in equipment is endured by many students rather than ac- cept an education on a materialistic basis. If our Com- monwealth Universities were Christian, the denomina- tional school would have difficulty in justifying its ex- istence. The Saloon. The Church and the school represent the best elements in the social spirit. Yet if we are to pass judgment upon the character of the social spirit, it is necessary to include the extremes of good and bad in the survey. The saloon may fairly be classed as a modern social institution, since it evidently expresses one phase of the social life. It is not one which arises from the attempt of men to sat- isfy legitimate wants, but is demanded by a perverted sense. The patron of the saloon insists that it is neces- sary to the expression of his life, and until he is convinced to the contrary the saloon defines his character. So while the saloon holds the most prominent positions on our 320 SOCIAL ETHICS streets, must it be treated as an expression of social char- acter. The Church and the school are natural antagonists of the saloon. This is legally recognized by the provision in the laws of many localities that the saloon may not be licensed within a certain distance of the school or the Church. This amounts to^an admission that they do not represent the same social interests. They stand for dif- ferent phases of life, yet each meets a social demand. No attempt will be made in this place to show the evil effects of the saloon and its adjuncts, the brothel and the gambling room, upon society. The facts are before the world, and each man must make up his own de- cision from them, but it is the conviction of the writer that the influence of the saloon is more pernicious than any other in modern life. Its alleged social features give it the greater possibilities for social damage. Yet there is probably no other institution which wields greater social power than the saloon. The political par- ties do not dare to antagonize the liquor power. The candidate may be doubtful in regard to any other ques- tion of the day, but no Congressman can be elected who declares his open hostility to the saloon. The liquor interest dictates the main part of the editorial utterances on matters relating to temperance, and its influence is not absent from the assembly and the pulpit. No other social institution is so arrogant in its self- assertion as that which represents the saloon. If the social spirit were Christian, would it find such dominant expression through the saloon and its accompaniments? WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 321 More than this, would the saloon be able to exert such a controlling influence over other institutions? It is an open fact that the Government in this country- is dominated by saloon interests. The liquor power met with some reverse in the abolition by law of the beer canteen in the army, but it is being strengthened at other points. Never in the history of the country was this institution more influential in high places than now. Few are the newspapers which refuse to carry liquor adver- tisements, and fewer still the politicians who would ven- ture to offend this oligarchy by turning down their glasses at a public banquet. Could such an institution dominate social action in a Christian State in this present time? Lazv as the Expression of the Social Spirit. The history of certain periods is mainly constructed on the belief that the laws belonging to any era express the ideas of the time. When one takes up the Roman code, and finds what actions were forbidden, he concludes that these actions were so far prevalent as to call for social control, and also that they were considered harm- ful to the State. When we find in certain periods of the Middle Ages that laws were passed against the excesses of the clergy we make the inference that reformation was needed in the Church. In some cases these scraps of legislation are about all the records that are obtain- able, and from these the historian constructs his society as the scientist builds an animal from the bone which he discovers. In our age, when the records are so com- plete, it is not so necessary to get our ideas of the char- acter of society from the laws upon the statute books, &* SOCIAL ETHICS but it is true now, as long ago, that the laws of any age are a fair expression of its life. They reflect with a fair degree of exactness the morality of the people. In our political system the fundamental law, upon which all legislation rests, is found in certain documents known as Constitutions. For this reason it will not be necessary to examine the secondary laws, since they are but the applications of the principles of the fundamental law. The Constitutions are made by the people, and from their character we may with a good degree of certainty fix upon the character of the life which forms them, thus aiding in the determination of the question whether this is a Christian State. These fundamental laws may be treated in the order of their enactment and also of their importance. They may be classed under the heads of Charters and Colonial Constitutions, Commonwealth Con- stitutions, and Federal Constitution. I, Colonial Charters and Constitutions : For two reasons the charters are not of the first importance in determining the present character of the American State ; first, they were issued nearly three hun- dred years ago, and, second, they were neither framed nor adopted by the colonists themselves. In all cases they were esteemed a grant of privileges from the king, which might be revoked at his sovereign pleasure. They can not, therefore, stand on a par with the Constitutions as expressions of the social life. Some of the Charters, notably that of Rhode Island, expressed the ideas of the dominant spirit in the Colony, but not every settle- WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 323 ment had Roger Williams to plead its case. For the most part, the men who had to do with framing the Charter were not residents of the settlement to which the document related. Whatever may be thought of the expressions, religious or otherwise, which are found in the Charters, it may be said in the words of Lord Beaconsfield, when some- one accused him of being inconsistent with a former ut- terance : " A great many things have happened since then." The intervening centuries, especially the one which has just closed, have been marked by an immense influx of settlers with diverse beliefs and practices. For better or for worse, these have exerted no little influ- ence upon the social character. Scarcely may it be said that one-half our present population is made up from the descendants of those who came to this country before 1820. In 1775 Bancroft thought that there was about one-fifth of the population which was not English; in 1890 one-third of the population was either of foreign birth, or had one or both parents born abroad. For these and other reasons, the statements of the Charters can furnish no more than an inference as to the present social character. The point in the Charters with which this chapter is specially concerned is the matter of religious features. In this respect one does not expect very much from the Stuarts of England, therefore is in less danger of being disappointed at the meagreness of what he finds. One expression in common use in these royal documents is, that the king held his position " by the Grace of God," 324 SOCIAL ETHICS which referred much less to his dependence on God than to his independence of the English people. Another religious feature which received more atten- tion in the Charters than in colonial practice, was the reference to the conversion of the Indians. Judging by the wording of the Charters, this purpose was a leading motive in organizing the colonial trading companies. In the Virginia Charter, given by the gracious will of James Stuart, in 1606, article third reads : " We greatly com- mending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires to the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majestie, in propagating of the Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in these parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government." In the Second Virginia Charter, given by the same gracious hand in 1609, we find a declaration of the in- tention, " by the assistance of Almighty God to prose- cute the same (enterprise) to a happy End." The Patent for the Council of New England differs only in details from the expressions already cited. In this document the king refers to the fact that ," within these last Yeares there hath raged a wonderfull Plague together with many Slaughters and Murders, committed among the Savages," inhabiting the district of Massachusetts. Pie accordingly thanks God that this fact of the decimation of the Indian tribes had been hid from other kings so WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 32S that the English might get the land.. " We in our Judg- ment are persuaded and satisfied that the appointed Time is come in which Almighty God in his great Goodness and Bountie toward Us and our People, hath thought fit and determined that those large and goodly Territoryes " should be taken by such of the subjects of King James as should be conducted thither. This opening for a trading company leads him to say further : " In Con- templacion and serious Consideracion whereof, We have thought it fitt according to our Kingly Duty, soe much as in Us lyeth, to second and follow God's sacred Will" — " which tendeth to the reducing and Conversion of such Savages as remain wandering in Desolacion and Dis- tress, to Civil Society and Christian Religion, to the Inlargement of our own Dominions." This faculty of combining the conversion of the heathen with the interests of trade has such a smack of modern ethics that one feels that history is repeating itself. It was not the thought of either king or Parliament that they were laying the legal foundations of a future State. It was the thought of the time that they were commissioning a trading organization, such as the Hud- son's Bay Company, which monopolized the fur trade of the Northwest, or the East India Company, which looted the treasures of the native princes of India. With this fact in mind, it may seem strange to us that religious features appear at all. It is to be noticed, however, that none of these re- ligious acknowledgments make the authority of Christ and His law paramount in the conduct of the enterprise. 326 SOCIAL ETHICS This idea may have been in the mind of some of the promoters of the colonies ; it may have been in the mind of the settlers, but it was not written in the Charters. They confess the being, the goodness, and the general control of God in providence, but no single Charter pro- fesses to take the law of Jesus Christ as the rule of life. The conclusion follows, therefore, that the Charters, even when we pass over the fact that they were given two hundred and fifty years ago by a foreigner, do not give evidence that the State is Christian. To have Christian features and to be Christian are not identical propositions. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. It is not in the Charters, given by an English king, but in the Colonial Constitutions, framed before the middle of the seventeenth century, that we find the clearest ac- knowledgment, that American history furnishes, of the supremacy of God in civil affairs. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, framed for the government of the neighboring towns of Hartford, Windsor, and Weath- ersfield, was the first written Constitution which any community in America made for itself. In this respect it was unlike the royal Charters, since it was an expres- sion of the life of the community. " Well knowing," reads this Constitution, "where a people are gathered together, the Word of God requires that to mayntayn the peace and union of such a people, there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres at all seasons as occasion shall require." For the instruction of the WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 327 governor and his assistants it was ordered that, " being chosen and sworne according to an oath recorded for that purpose they shall have power to administer justice according to the Lawes here established, and for want thereof according to the rule of the Word of God." Thus did these early settlers accept the law of God as the rule of conduct in political affairs. The Fundamental Articles of New Haven. This Constitution was written, in the same year as that framed for the Hartford people, by the burgesses of New Haven. Like the men in the Connecticut Valley, these settlers on the shore of the Sound were refugees not only from political and ecclesiastical oppression in England, but from unsatisfactory conditions in the older Colonies about Massachusetts Bay. It was to set up a Scriptural form of Government that they had pushed so far into the wilderness, and they do thorough work. In June of 1639 tnev come together " to consult about settling civill affairs according to God." This New Haven document had its principles stated in the form of queries to which the people assembled gave assent or expressed disapproval after discussion. One of the queries reads : " Whether these Scriptures doe hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to God and men, as well in the government of famylyes and com- monwealths as in matters of the church." This was twice read and assented to by all present. These popular Constitutions were set aside by the 328 SOCIAL ETHICS Charter of Connecticut which was granted by Charles Second in 1662 to certain " of our loveing Subjects," and the acknowledgment made by these little companies of earnest men, of the divine authority in political affairs, has found no parallel in the official papers which have been issued in the centuries since. One other document of this period deserves notice, less because of the matter in it than because of the circum- stances connected with its issue. This was the May- flower Compact, drawn up and signed in the cabin of that vessel, previous to the landing in 1620. It was intended less as a basis for any general frame of Govern- ment than to hold in check certain disorderly members of the party, who had declared that on landing " they would use their own liberty," since the settlement was north of the territory over which the Virginia Company, from which they held their patent, had jurisdiction. Within the lands of that Company they admitted the force of its rules, but outside its boundaries they wished to be independent of control. The Compact reads : " In the name of God, Amen," and further states that " for the glorie of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie," they had undertaken to plant a colony in Northern Virginia. The Puritan Not the Typical American. These are the expressions in law of the ideas of the Pilgrims and the Puritans of New England in an age when persecution had heated their lives above the moral temperature of the materialistic formulas of later date. WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 326 But it is sometimes necessary to call to mind that these expressions are not typical of what might be expected from the Kennebec to the Savannah. South of the Hud- son they read their Bibles quite differently, if they read them at all. The moral atmosphere suffered a marked change when one left the Connecticut River behind him on his way through the Middle Colonies. The Puritan population was of that from which Cromwell constructed his famous " Ironsides," with a larger number of Uni- versity men than could be gotten in the same population in an English county. The Southern Colonies, on the other hand, were flooded with indentured servants and ruffians pressed from the London streets, and this motley crowd submerged the scattered communities of Scotch-Irish and Huguenots. While the Puritan was careful beyond comparison in the observance of the Sabbath, the bulk of the popula- tion in the South made it a day for amusements and broils. The Puritans did not equal one-fourth of the total population in the eighteenth century, and perhaps one- half in the seventeenth, so that the colonies, as a whole, were not of the Puritan type. Outside of New Eng- land, it may be questioned whether the laws of God were reverenced in the early days more than at the pres- ent time. The writer who maintained that the Carolina settlers reverenced " neither God nor man " may have exaggerated the irreligious character of the people, but in any case this community had very little of the Puritan flavor. There is considerable trouble experienced by the modern who attempts to characterize the typical Amer- 330 SOCIAL ETHICS ican, and there would not have been less two hundred years ago. One runs no risk in making the statement that while the Puritan contributed much of the iron in the blood of the coming race, he did not furnish the typical American of the seventeenth century. We may not therefore take his religious beliefs, as is often done, as typical of the convictions of the colonists as a whole. One who studies the records of the contemporary his- torians previous to the American Revolution will scarcely conclude that the typical citizen of those days was a Christian, nor that the country as a whole was dominantly Christian. 2. Commonwealth Constitutions. Throughout these chapters the term Commonwealth is used instead of the term State, when designating a portion of the country, to prevent confusion with State, the social spirit, or nation. The word Commonwealth is in common use, so that it will require no explanation further than this statement. When the Continental Congress in 1776 declared the people independent of English jurisdiction, the individual Colonies were left, with few exceptions, without a frame of Government. The Charters under which they had enjoyed a good measure of self-control had been revoked by the king, and their assemblies outlawed. Massachu- setts had supplied the place, by Committees of Corre- spondence, but this could serve only a temporary pur- pose. It was evident that some new method must be inaugurated to meet the exigencies of the situation. In WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 331 this crisis the Colonies applied to Congress for advice as to what they ought to do. Congress replied that each Colony should frame a Constitution for itself, a recom- mendation which met the wishes of the people so entirely that they at once proceeded to put it into practice. It does not appear that any one of the Colonies acted without the Congressional advice and oversight, so that the unity of the people under a central Government was recog- nized from the beginning of Commonwealth existence. The facts of this period do not give aid or comfort to the exponent of " State Rights," however the wording of the public documents may sanction his views. In the years from 1776 to 1780 nearly all of the Com- monwealths framed Constitutions and became self-gov- erning communities. In comparing the religious features of these instruments with those of the Charters of earlier date, no radical change is to be noted. The name of God occurs with less frequency, but as neither Charters nor Common- wealth Constitutions acknowledged the authority of God in political affairs, there was no special departure from the precedent set by the Charters. There is nothing in the Constitutions of the Commonwealths to recall the acknowledgments made by the settlers at New Haven and Hartford. These examples from Connecticut stand alone in American history. Under the Charters an oath had been required of public officials, and the same was the rule under the Common- wealth Constitutions. Pennsylvania and Delaware framed Constitutions in 1776, which allowed for an affirmation 332 SOCIAL ETHICS instead of the official oath, but both required of the can- didate for political positions a declaration of a belief in God and in the inspiration of the Scriptures. This clause in the Constitution of Delaware reads : " I do profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration." While this is an explicit requirement that the candidate shall be a Christian, it does not confess the authority of God in civil affairs. In other words, it is a personal, not a social, confession of faith. It is worth noting as an evidence of the influence of the irreligious character of the Federal Constitution, and the decadence of the times, that Delaware revised this clause from its Constitution in 1792, substituting the test clause from the Federal Constitution : " No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification/' for holding office. In 1780, Massachusetts required a belief in the Christian religion as a condition of holding office, and in the same year the Constitution of North Carolina required the ac- ceptance of the Protestant religion by its officials. These requirements indicate that while the law of Jesus Christ had not been accepted as the rule which should be su- preme in civil affairs, the people judged it necessary to insist on Christian qualifications in the man whom they would entrust with political power. This is not an unusual .circumstance. The merchant who sands his sugar, puts talc in his flour and chicory in the coffee, may yet insist WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 333 upon Christian qualifications in the men whom he employs to sell the goods. They must be Christians, but not to that extent that they refuse to handle adulterated goods. The clerk may be expected to give short measure, but must not falsify the books. Men frequently want a Chris- tion official to administer unchristian law. This may serve to explain, in part, why the test of Christianity was applied to the official, and not to the law which he had to administer; it guarded personal re- sponsibility of the official to the people, and ignored the social responsibility of the society to God. The Con- stitutions of the different Commonwealths, based the authority for the execution of the functions of Govern- ment solely upon the sovereignty of the people. The initial phrase of the Federal Constitution — " We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution " — was not original with the members of the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. It was copied from the Constitutions of the Commonwealths.. None of the Commonwealths made any confession, in their Constitutions, of the authority of Jesus Christ in political affairs, nor of the supremacy of His law in moral questions. Some made mention of the existence of God, some of His goodness, but none of His authority. Massachusetts, in the Constitution adopted in 1780, makes the following declaration : " We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful heart the goodness of the Great Legislator of the universe do agree upon, ordain, and establish, the following declara- tion of rights and frame of government, as the Constitu- 334 SOCIAL ETHICS tion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." This dec- laration, which finds substantial parallels in other public documents of the same date, confesses the goodness of God, but it lays no obligation upon the official acting under it to enact, or to interpret, laws in harmony with the law of God. Such forms of expression have, there- fore, no legal value whatever. They are only expressions of sentiment, which need have no influence on the con- duct of the Government. This is the particular fact to which attention is called. The acceptance of the law of Jesus Christ as the rule of life is what constitutes a Christian. The lack of this acceptance disallows of either individual, or institution, claiming the name of Christian. Therefore, the conclu- sion seems necessary that the expression of the social life through the Commonwealth Constitutions, does not in- dicate that the State was Christian previous to 1787. The fundamental civil law of the land is the Federal Constitution, and therefore it is the chief subject of study when one wishes to determine the character of American law. During a century it has expressed the life and moulded the law and the ideas of the people. Once it had a radical change, as the result of a revolution in sentiment brought on by the Civil War; hundreds of amendments have been proposed, fifty being offered dur- ing the recent session of Congress, yet it would scarcely be disputed that the Constitution, so far as its moral character is concerned, satisfies the people as well today as in its earlier years. For this reason the Federal Con- stitution may be taken as furnishing the moral standard WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 336 which the American people would have in law. By study- ing what the people like, we can learn what the people are. So long as the social spirit does not demand changes in the law, it is fair to conclude that the law gives sat- isfactory expression to the social life. 5. The Federal Constitution. The forms of law which have been cited belong to the past, and are expressions of past life. The Federal Con- stitution is the accepted expression of the social life of the present. It is, therefore, to its features, rather than to preceding forms of law, that we turn for evidence as to the present character of the State. If the Federal Con- stitution is Christian, it would be a fair inference that the State, of which it is the expression, is Christian; if the Constitution is not Christian, it will be equally strong evi- dence on the other side. The Decline in Religions Expression. We have already noticed that the clearest, in fact the only, acknowledgment of the supremacy of God in civil affairs found in any American Constitution of Govern- ment was that made by the Ccnnecticut settlers in 1639. Religious expressions are frequent i:i the Commonwealth Constitutions of 1776 and succeeding years, though they diminish wit-i each revisirn of these instruments of Gov- ernment. In the Federal Constitution they do not appear. The reason for this decline in religious expression in the Constitutions is apparent. The adequate expressions of the authority of the law of God were made by small and 336 SOCIAL ETHICS select communities, where there was little divergence in interests, or belief. As the population increased in these centers it was drawn from various sources, .it included elements of entirely different character. Something else than religion became the dominant interest in the neigh- borhood. The same people, or their descendants, are still there and still have an influence on the neighborhood life. But they have changed in character, or have ceased to exercise so much influence. This change is emphasized when these communities are drawn together in the larger unity of the Common- wealth. In this union a larger variety of belief, or un- belief, was included, which demanded the modifying, or even the exclusion, of the religious features in the law. The Constitution of the Commonwealth had its character modified to suit the spirit which it expressed. The Constitution of the United States makes a still greater departure from the Connecticut model of 1639. When the heterogeneous population reaching along the whole Atlantic seaboard, a population including a large body of unbelievers, and many others who were indiffer- ent, sought to find expression for their political beliefs through a single document, that document contained no religious features. Not only are religious expressions absent from the Federal Constitution, but they are de- barred by its own explicit provision. It is avowedly agnostic. One fact deserves notice before leaving this phase of the subject. The Federal Constitution, while it did not follow the precedent, set by the Commonwealth Constitu- WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 337 tions, of demanding an oath from the candidates for official position, or requiring a profession of their belief in Christ, agrees with them in not taking the law of Christ as the standard of official conduct. None of the Commonwealth Constitutions had such requirement, nor was such made, subsequent to the New Haven act of 1639. This act required conformity to the divine stand- ard of legislation ; the Commonwealth Constitutions made the demand that the official should be a Christian; the Federal Constitution prohibited any requirement of per- sonal or social religion. Such was the progress of the years, toward the total ignoring of God in the funda- mental law of the land. Before turning to the internal evidence of the Constitution itself on this point it may be well to consider some counter-claims in regard to the character of this Constitution. Gladstone declared the Constitution of the United States the greatest production struck off by the mind of man at a single sitting. While there was but a single feature in this frame of Government, the provision for the elec- tion of the President, that was not taken from Colonial precedent, one is inclined to agree with the English eulogist, that no other country can boast its equal. Carefully did it guard the rights of man, except where it riveted the fetters of the slave; but in this did only what was done at that time by the laws of every country to which the black man had been carried. Wisely were the powers of Government divided between the depart- ments. With patience were its measures fused over the fires of prolonged debate. The greatest minds which this 338 • - SOCIAL ETHICS country could furnish shared in the deliberations. It was a magnificent piece of work ; but it was not Christian. It Was Made by Christian Men. It is sometimes said that it was made by Christians, and that therefore it is Christian. As to the religious convictions of the men who met in Philadelphia during the Summer days of 1787, to propose a frame of Gov- ernment which would " meet the exigencies of the Union," it would not be possible to draw final conclusions. Some of them were avowed Christians ; some were avowed un- believers. ' Which factor had the majority in the Con- vention can not be determined after this lapse of time. It may throw some light on the dominant influence in the Convention to recall that none of is sessions were opened, or closed, with prayer. No reason is at hand to account for this departure from the prevailing custom. On the 28th of May, when the differences between the large and the small Commonwealths over the question of representation seemed on the point of disrupting the Con- vention, Franklin proposed that prayer should be offered daily. " In this situation of the Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights, to illuminate our under- standings? In the beginnings of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously an- WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 339 swered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintend- ing Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow can not fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been as- sured, Sir, in the sacred writings that * except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this ; and I also believe that without His con- curring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." Hamilton and others expressed the fear that having recourse to prayer at that time might lead the public to conclude that they were seriously embarrassed ; Franklin rejoined that the omission of a duty could not justify a further omission, and that the rejection of the proposi- tion would subject the Convention to adverse criticism. Mr. Randolph proposed, in order to give color to the proposed change, that a sermon be preached on July 4th. Franklin seconded this motion, but it was not al- lowed to come to a vote, that act being prevented by adjournment. There is no record of the proposal being renewed at later sessions. Whatever may be said as to the character of the members of the Convention, it seems 340 SOCIAL ETHICS a fair inference that the religious idea was not a con- trolling factor in the proceedings. The Constitution a Product of Christianity, It is sometimes claimed that the Constitution is Chris- tian because its provisions are an outcome of Christianity. Undoubtedly the Constitution would not have been with- out the influences that flowed from the life and death of Jesus Christ, but would that make it Christian? The freedom of thought and action which it proposes did not exist until Christianity gave it birth. It does not yet exist where the influence of Christianity is not felt. But while modern civilization would not have been what it is without Christianity, it is a large assumption which calls all its elements Christian on that account. The infidel is allowed to declaim or publish his blas- phemies today practically without hindrance; before the work of Jesus was done he would have suffered the death penalty for such an offense. Because Socrates spoke against the gods he was compelled to drink the hemlock. Such was the fate of the infidel before Jesus won tolera- tion for friend and foe alike. Though the modern in- fidel is a by-product of Christianity, it does not follow that he is a Christian. The individual, or the institu- tion, may reap the temporal benefits of the work of Jesus Christ, while refusing to confess the name of the bene- factor. This the American State has done. It appro- priates the gift and in its fundamental law denies the giver. "Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms," has ruled in the counsels of the nations. WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 341 The Date of the Constitution. Some have seen in the dating of the Constitution, " in the year of our Lord," an acknowledgment of Christ. But if that constitutes it a Christian instrument, then every letter which is written with a date upon it, deserves the name. This would assert that the letters of Voltaire and Thomas Paine were Christian documents, as well as those written by Calvin, or Luther. Everyone who writes A. D. on his production does not by that act prove its Christian character. But there is another line of objection to this sweeping claim. All treaties made under the Constitution become a part of the supreme law of the land. Now the treaty with Tripoli, ratified in 1798, bears also the Mohamme- dan dating, " in the year of the Hejira 1211 " so that if one date recognizes Christ the other must acknowledge Mohammed. As a matter of fact, neither dates have any religious significance in the connection in which they are found. The character of the Constitution must be settled by a study of its provisions. It has been already claimed that it is a product, one of the finest products, of civilization. By this Constitution, then, may the character of the civilization be known. The purpose of this chapter is to determine whether or not the American State is Chris- tian. Taking the Federal Constitution as one of the ripest products of the age, it becomes a fitting subject of in- vestigation in determining the character of the age, and of the American State. It is with this idea that we turn 342 SOCIAL ETHICS to the study of the religious character of the law of the land. i. The Preamble of the Constitution. This is the section of the Constitution on which each succeeding item depends for its sanction. All the pro- visions of the instrument rest on the authority of the people. The preamble reads : " We the people - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Constitution, therefore, rests on the will of the people and acknowledges no higher au- thority. It is by profession a supreme law made by a supreme people. As has been stated in a previous chap- ter, it is thoroughly in agreement with the principles governing the delegation of authority in political and in- dustrial affairs, that the Government should be made thus to acknowledge the authority of the State which called it into being. In another respect, however, the Constitution fails to conform to the general principles governing such dele- gation, since it does not recognize the authority of Jesus Christ over the State. The people is the immediate source of authority in Government. That much is true. But the people is not the ultimate source of authority. The State is superior to the Government, but the State, in its turn, is inferior to the higher power. This fact should be stated in the preamble which assumes to lay the foundation for political action. As the preamble stands, it gives the State the supreme place, thus putting the people in the place of God. This was practically the WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 343 view of Comte, who held that humanity was God, to whom the worship of the citizen was due ; and while this idea was doubtless not in the mind of the designers of this preamble, their denial of the supremacy of the Lord, leaves no other alternative. It is said that this acknowledgment of the authority of the people implies, while it does not state, the supremacy of a higher authority. But the necessary interpretation of other parts of the Constitution makes this position un- tenable. The Convention which declined to appeal to Jesus Christ in prayer also refused to accept Him as the ruler of the State. Since we have defined the Chris- tian as one who accepts the law of Christ as the rule of life, it is quite evident that the Constitution, which puts the will of the State in place of the will of Christ, does not deserve the name. 2. The Official Oaih. Previous to 1789 it had been the uniform rule to re- quire that Government officials should be inducted into office by the use of the oath. This, in the nature of the case, was an appeal to God, and therefore served as a religious test. It is quite another thing from taking the Word of God as the rule by which the moral questions arising in the performance of his official duties should be judged. Yet this requirement discriminated against the unbeliever in favor of the Christian, and was a re- ligious feature common to all the Constitutions of earlier date. The Constitution of New Jersey, made in 1776, is one of the few cases, if not the only one, where the Com- 344 SOCIAL ETHICS monwealth did not require an oath of the candidate for office. The twenty-third item in the New Jersey frame of Government reads, in part : " I, A. B., do solemnly declare, etc." In many of the Commonwealths exception was made in favor of the Quakers who had conscientious objections to the use of the oath. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of New York furnishes one instance of this exception in favor of the Quakers. The clause re- lating to the oath reads : " That every elector, before he is admitted to vote, shall, if required by the returning officer or either of the inspectors, take an oath, or, if of the people called Quakers, an affirmation of allegiance to the State." It had been customary, in many instances, to use the words " swear, or affirm," but the appeal to God at the end of the formula was retained. It is because the oath had been uniformly required of the elector and the official previous to the formation of the Federal Constitution, that the omission of the oath from the Constitution makes a departure from precedent. In the second article of the Constitution, the formula is given which the President of the United States is re- quired to take at his inauguration : " I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of Pres- ident of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It has been the custom of the Presi- dents to add an appeal to God in their use of this for- mula, but it is not in the bond. The Constitution does not require that Government officials shall believe in God, and the citizen who makes such a demand of a candidate WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 345 as a condition to giving him support, is laying down an unconstitutional requirement. To ask that a candidate shall be a Christian is to ask that he shall be better than the law which is to guide him. For conclusive evidence that the substitution of an affirmation for an official oath was not through any over- sight, but of deliberate purpose, we have only to turn to the records of the different drafts of the Constitution submitted to the Convention. The original draft pro- posed by Randolph on May 29th contained this clause: "Resolved, That the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers, within the several States, ought to be bound, by oath, to support the articles of union." The Pinckney plan provided that the President " At entering on the duties of his office shall take an oath faithfully to exe- cute the duties of the President of the United States." It is thus made clear that the first drafts before the Con- vention followed the former custom of requiring an oath from the President of the United States and other Gov- ernment officials, and that the change, to mere affirmation instead, was made with the question before the members. Some days later, on August 6th, the committee to which the various proposals had been submitted, reported the form of oath, or affirmation, provided for the President, as it is found in the Constitution. At the same time the com- mittee reported the following \ rovision for other officials : " The members of the legislatures, and the executive and judicial officers of the United States and of the sev eral States, shall be bound by oath to support the Con- stitution." On August 30th the words " or affirmation " 346 SOCIAL ETHICS were inserted after the word " oath." This provision of the Constitution, which appears as the last paragraph of Article 6, had its phraseology changed somewhat in later revisions, but the wording concerning the oath re- mained as stated here. It was in connection with this section that the religious test clause was moved by Pinck- ney, and was unanimously adopted by the Convention. While the records of the Convention do not witness to any debate upon the emasculation of the oath, it is evident to anyone who follows the testimony at hand, that the matter had due consideration. The first drafts re« quired an oath; the later revisions omitted it. There is a consistency in the whole proceeding which forbids any thought of negligence. The result of dropping the re- quirement of the oath for officials was seen soon after in the action of Congress. The House of Representatives, in session May 6th, 1789, adopted the following oath for use by its members : " I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) in the presence of Almighty God, that I will support the Constitution of the United States, so help me God." The first statute which appears upon the record of the acts of Congress, bears the date of June 1st, 1789, and reads in part as follows : " I do solemnly swear (or af- firm, as the case may be) that I will support the Con- stitution of the United States." This remains as a law of Congress, and conforms to the requirements in the Constitution. When the name of God was excluded from the supreme law, inferior law hastened to fall into har- mony with it. By these easy stages did the name of God WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE zM cease to have any legal place in the official language of the Republic. It is frankly admitted that the name of God, unless taken reverently, has but little meaning; yet the patriot must look with some anxiety on those pro- ceedings in the Constitutional Convention, and the Con- gress meeting under the Constitution, which deliberately excluded that name " which is above every name " from the supreme law of the land. In the scanty records which remain of the proceedings of the ratifying Conventions there is but slight reference in the debates to the substitution of affirmation for an appeal to God. The objection? raised to the Constitution on that point must have been few. Evidently the dele- gates were not greatly shocked by the omission. One reference to the matter is credited to Henry Abbott of North Carolina. " Some/' he said, " are desirous to know how and by whom we are to swear, since no religious test is required — whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Prosperpina, or Pluto." The record does not show that he received any information on the matter. 3. The Test Clause. The third paragraph of Article 6 of the Constitution reads : " No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Under the previous citations it might be possible to advance the claim that the Constitution had failed, if at all, through omissions, rather than by any positive provision. But in the test clause quoted there is an ex- plicit prohibition of any religious feature in the Con- 348 SOCIAL ETHICS stitution. What is a religious test? Perhaps a more definite knowledge of its meaning may be gained by a reference to a political test, with the working of which all are familiar. When a foreigner wishes to become a citizen of the United States, there are certain conditions which he must satisfy. If he is an Englishman, he must give up his allegiance to the king and exchange the monarchy for the Republic; he must abjure any allegiance to a foreign State. This is a political test, and unless the embryo citizen is willing to take this test the court must refuse naturalization. Now the meaning of a religious test is equally clear. If a Mohammedan were ordered to give up the Koran, or the Hindoo to abjure the Vedas, it would constitute a religious test. If these parties were asked to accept any institution, or teaching, which was distinctively Chris- tian, it would be a religious test. Now to apply these illustrations to the matter in hand, if the Federal Consti- tution required of those who owned allegiance to it, a be- lief in God, or in the supremacy of His law, it would be a religious test to the citizen who did not believe in God, or in the supremacy of His law. It is, therefore, expressly forbidden by this clause, that any religious expression, Christian or otherwise, should appear in the Constitution..- Any other conclusion would allow one part of the Con- stitution to contradict another. It has been suggested that the prohibition was aimed at sectarian rather than religious features. But if this had been the case it would seem strange that the right word WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 349 had not been used by the scholarly men who composed the membership of the Convention, or by Gouverneur Morris, who is said to have chiefly influenced its diction. Had the intent been to prevent discrimination between Christian denominations in political action, it would have our approval, though the danger of such discrimination would have been imaginary. But the circumstantial evidence does not admit of such an interpretation of the test clause. It was clearly the intention of the Convention that all religious features should be excluded. The reference to the name of God had already been expunged from the official declaration. The first Congress embodied this idea in a statute. In the Fifth Congress, where many of the same men, or their influence, remained, a treaty was ratified with Tripoli. As the Mohammedans have always stoutly insisted that the earth of right belongs to Islam, and that no other power is on an equality with the Mohammedan States, it was thought necessary to conciliate them in this treaty. To this end a clause was inserted in the treaty which declares : " As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, it has in itself no character against the laws, religion and tranquillity of Musselmen." This was signed by the President, John Adams, and endorsed by the Senate of the United States, the members of which, we may sup- pose, understood the nature of the Constitution under which they acted. It does not seem that the evidence of the unchristian character of the Constitution admits any possibility of rebuttal. Would that it did! 35Q SOCIAL ETHICS One more citation as to the intention of the framers will suffice. To the Presbyterians of New Hampshire and Massachusetts who complained of the " omission of God " from the Constitution, Washington replied in the Massachusetts Sentinel of December 5th, 1789. In this open letter he said that religion had been left out of the Constitution " because it belonged to the churches, and not to the State." This gives us the statement of the President of the Philadelphia Convention that the Con- stitution has no place for the Christ, or His law, and states the reason for ignoring them. It is not atheistic, since it does not deny the existence of God ; it is agnostic, since it does not know Him. 4. Supreme Court Decisions. The Courts have sustained this view of the Constitu- tion at different times, but there is a more simple test of judicial action which anyone, without having recourse to the Court records, may apply. The Courts are ruled by the Constitution, and the principles contained in that instrument. outline their official code of conduct. Now the Bible is the text of Christianity, and if Christian prin- ciples are in the Constitution, the Courts would have to be guided by the Bible in their decisions on moral ques- tions. If it is not in the Constitution as a ruling prin- ciple, it would be mere sentiment at the best, without any legal value. Has anyone known of the Courts basing their decision for, or against any party, on Bible teaching ? They have never done so, and it would be in direct con- travention of the Constitution, the official guide of the Courts, that such action would be taken. WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 33 i The theory of the Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, that the Government can be neutral in the matter of religion, is impossible in practice. Every people has its theology; every institution has its code of morals. In practice some standard is taken, and all others rejected. It is not at all a question of whether a moral standard shall be chosen, but which one shall be chosen. When the Constitution, and the Government acting under it, as well as the State acting through it, barred Christianity as a ruling principle from the fundamental law, they by that act accepted some other standard. What that prin- ciple was, or what it is, may be a question difficult to answer satisfactorily, but that is the only question. It has been suggested in a former chapter that in prac- tice the ethical theory of Weismannism, of natural se- lection, is the one in general use. At least the people, Ueting through their representatives, rejected Christianity as the governing principle in political morals. What the Jew emphatically declared, has the American im- plied, we will not have this man to rule over us. This closes the argument in regard to the character of the American State. A few of the leading social in- stitutions have been studied ; a few points noted in regard to each. The reader will decide from the social facts considered, or from others that seem to him more im- portant, on the proper answer to the question. To the writer it does not appear that the candid student can be long in doubt as to what the answer must be. Scarcely will anyone claim that our political and industrial meth- ods conform, even by profession,«to the teachings of Jesus, 352 SOCIAL ETHICS These comprise the larger part of the social practice, and our conclusions might rest upon this basis alone. The saloon, which is sanctioned by law, and which is such an important factor in political control, is notoriously unchristian. The school gives only a partial education, since it ex- cludes, as a text, frequently even from reference, the Bible, which is the chief text-book of the led-out life. The fundamental law excludes the Christ. Is the State which expresses itself through these institutions a Chris- tian State ? Only an exceedingly narrow definition of the word Christian would make an affirmative answer pos- sible. The Regeneration of the State. In this lies the nation's hope. That the Spirit of the Kingdom may permeate the social spirit is the patriot's prayer; the supreme end of his labors. Some may dis- agree with the conclusions drawn above in regard to the character of the State, but surely there is not a Christian who will raise a question as to the social end to be gained. The social spirit must be born into the higher life. The Word of God should be the text-book of the present pupil, the future citizen, in the common schools. Only thus can a citizenship be trained which will ensure the perma- nence of republican institutions. All institutions should be transformed by the Spirit of Jesus, and those which are alien to the Kingdom must be banished from the social life. There is need of such change in law as shall acknowl- edge Jesus Christ as the King of the State, and His law as WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN STATE 353 the legal standard of morals to which officials, high and low, shall look as the measure of official duty. This de- mands not simply a formal but a spiritual change. There is not any popular demand for a change in the Constitu- tion toward the expression of a larger Christianity. This demand must be created before such change can be had. Such fundamental change in law requires an antecedent change in the social life which expresses itself through that law. This may place Constitutional change, that shall make the Government Christian, far in the future, but not farther than the facts warrant. The Spirit cometh " not with observation," so that the glorifying of the Christ by the American State may not be so far future after all. There must come to the social mind a new conviction of the rights of Jesus Christ, to call out a social profession of faith in Him. To secure this end is the Christian's duty and in its fruition the patriot's reward. Jesus prayed and died for that end, and not in vain. It is in the firm belief that the Holy Spirit will inspire earnest men with the stern resolution to win America, and the world, for the Christ, the King, that this book has been written and sent on its errand. Journal of the Constitutional Convention, Madison; Elliott's Debates; Selected Documents from 1606-1775, Macdonald; Ori- gin of Republican Form of Government, Straus; Critical His- tory of Sunday Legislation, Lewis; Our National Education — Is It Christian or Secular? Wylie; Dying at the Top, a State- ment of Religious Conditions, Clokey; The Christian Society, Hcrron. INDEX. Aristocracy, 158. Aristotle, social theories of, 73. Authority — — delegated to Jesus Christ, 250. — delegated to the State, 257. —delegated to the Govern- ment, 261. — delegated to officials, mu- nicipalities and corpora- tions, 268. — general principles govern- ing delegation, 271, ff. — its source, 247. — its delegation, 249. Bagehot, referred to, 121. Bluntschli, quoted, 202. Burgess, referred to, 219, 295. Christian, defined, 305. Christian State, defined, 308. Christianity and the social con- science, 153. Church, as a social institution, 49. — and State, 56. — and State, reason for unit- ing, 60. — and Government, 58, ff, 65, 157. — as related to other institu- tions, 51, 57. — defined, 65. — the character of, 311. Comte, referred to, 97, 343- Conscience and habit, 142. — generalizes, 143. — social, defined, 141, 145. Constitution and colonial char- ters, 322. Constitutions, commonwealth, 330 Constitution, federal, 335. — character of, 335. — product of Christianity, 340. Coulange, De, quoted, 102, 193. Darwin, referred to, 177. Democracy and the social con- science, 155. Dunning, referred to, 306. Education, its meaning, 315. ff. Ethics, dualism in, 196. Ethics of natural selection, 186. — illustrated, 190, ff. Family, patriarchal, 45. — its varied functions, 45, ff. Feeling, social, 131, ff. Franklin, quoted, 338. Freedom, its development, 214, ff. — its conditions, 221. Government — —identified with State, 17. — without justification, 22, 25. — effect of revolution on, 32. — suggested in family, 47. 355 356 INDEX. Giddings, ethical dualism of, 196. Green, T. H., referred to, 201. Habits, social, 122. Hegel, referred to, 27, 33, 257. Hobbes, referred to, 15, ff, 236. Hooker, quoted, 224. Ideas, social, 116, 122. Imagination, the social, 120. Immigration, 29. — the problem of, 99. Individual and the social con- science, 165. — the relation of,to the State, 35, ff, 71. Institutions, social, 44, ff. — conserve social energy, 48. — methods of growth, 51. — the character of, 311. Invention, the faculty of, 120. Kant's view of the ideal, 124. Kent, quoted, 242. Kidd, referred to, 178. Kingdom of God, defined, 173. — and the kosmos, 174, f f. — development of, 255. Language, 96. Law — —as the expression of life, 321. — defined, 229. — how known, 230, f f. - — its forms, 233, 237. — its origin, 226. Le Bon, quoted, 130. Lewes, referred to, 172. Locke, referred to, 18. Lowell, quoted, 222. Mackenzie, quoted, 35. Marx, referred to, ill. Mind, social, evidence for, 97. — its psychology, in, ff. Morris, quoted, 27. Monasteries and the social con- science, 160, ff. Moses, the legislation of, 71, ff. Natural selection, 148. — the popular ethical view, 18 Naturalization, defined, 31. Nature of the state, 41. Oath, official, 343, ff. Parliament, not sovereign, 218. Plato, the social theories of, 73, $S- Race, psychic influence of, 91. Religion and the state, 63. — in social institutions, 49. — as a social bond, 102. Religious features in law, 322, f f. Responsibility of corporations, 269. Rousseau and individualism, 77- — idea of citizenship, 79. — common will of, 81. — quoted, 205. Savigny, referred to, 233. School, its character, 314, ff. Small, quoted, 181. Social problem, its nature, 14. Spencer, referred to, 19, f f, 32, 84. INDEX. 357 State, defined, 26. — a psychic organism, 39. — and social institutions,. 44, f f. — biological view of, 19, ff. — genius of the, 94. — identified with Government, 17, — its character, 305, ff. — legal conception of, 15. —method of growth, 28, 40. — psychological view of, 25, 84. — who comprises the, 260. Stead, Herbert, quoted, 72. Test, religious, 342, ff. Tripolitan Treaty, 349. Unity, aided by social settle- ments, 39. —of church and government, 67- — social, factors of, 91, ff. Utilitarian view of ideal, 125. Walker, quoted, 188. Ward, referred to, 100. Weismann's view, 177, ff. — criticised, 182. Will, social, 136, ff. Printed in the United States of America UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY BERKELEY Return to desk from which borrowed. This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. mraoiMt . 29Feb'56PEf SEN r~, LD 21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 YB 06967 841613 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY ■I ill I!!' 'ii I ill I HP wmmm ■P HBHSPn WSBT ;i iiii-ii ii;te?i«i!i{!iiiii BiSHl BHHbBB IWBIffi