Laski, 1919), and The Law and the State, 31 Harvard Law Review, 1-185 (December, 1917). The latter monograph, contrasting what Duguit calls the German theory of the absolute state with his own version of the theory that the authority of the state is itself limited by law, recalls Viscount Bryce's dictum that "theoretical controversies concerning sovereignty have mostly had their origin in current politics." See his Studies in History and Jurisprudence, No. 10, "The Nature of Sovereignty." For another, and in general a more satisfactory, statement of the recent reaction on the Continent of Europe against the theory of the "absolute state," see H. Krabbe's The Modern Idea of the State (translated by Sabine and Shepard, 1922). The translators' introduction is a distinct contribution to the value of the book for the American reader. 3. The juristic theory of the state, as developed in the Englishspeaking countries, is clearly expounded in J. C. Gray, The Nature and Sources of the Law (2d ed., 1921). See also T. E. Holland, The Elements of Jurisprudence (12th ed., 1916). The theory is stated more adequately from the standpoint of the political scientist in W. W. Willoughby's The Nature of the State (1896). See also R. T. Crane, The State in Constitutional and International Law (1907). The limitations of the juristic theory have been clearly exposed in a series of brilliant writings by H. J. Laski. See his Essays on the Theory of Sovereignty (1917), Authority in the Modern State (1918), and Foundations of Sovereignty (1921). For a sensible judgment on the current controversy over "monistic" and "pluralistic" theories of the state, see G. H. Sabine, "Pluralism: a Point of View," in the American Political Science Review, Vol. XVII, no. 1 (February, 1923). See also the note above on Krabbe's The Modern Idea of the State. 4. The idealistic theory of the state, as understood in modern times, begins with Rousseau. For its subsequent development by European writers, see C. E. Merriam, A History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau (1900), and F. W. Coker, Organismic Theories of the State (1910). See also W. A. Dunning, A History of Political Theories from Rousseau to Spencer (1920), which presents a rather unfavorable view of the idealistic theories, and E. Barker, Political Thought from Spencer to Today (Home University Library), which presents a more favorable view. The most satisfactory systematic statement of the idealistic political philosophy in English is still T. H. Green's Lectures on the Prin ciples of Political Obligation (Works, Vol. 11, 1886). B. Bosanquet's The Philosophical Theory of the State (1899; 3d ed., 1920) is too greatly influenced by the extravagancies of the later German, especially the Hegelian, idealism. Its defects are clearly exposed in L. T. Hobhouse's The Metaphysical Theory of the State (1918). The best recent book on the theory of the state from the standpoint of a political idealist is J. Watson's The State in Peace and War (1919). But I find the most satisfactory exposition of the idealistic theory, not in the formal treatises of the philosophers, but written between the lines of the speeches and writings of statesmen, notably, in The Federalist and in the Inaugural Addresses of Abraham Lincoln and in certain of his Messages to the Congress of the United States. CHAPTER III CHURCH AND STATE 1 religious DURING many ages, including in some parts of the world Principle of the present, the first principle of politics has been that the conformity people of a state should profess the same religion. This principle was accepted in the ancient world as axiomatic. It was applied in its crudest form in the pagan empires, where the head of the state was worshiped as the supreme being. Even at Rome, when the pagan emperors began to feel the need for some more august title than that of Caesar, the deification of the prince became a measure of practical politics. The Roman republic and the more enlightened Greek commonwealths shrank from the apotheosis of statesmen, but they clung tenaciously to the unity of church and state. Socrates, for his alleged blasphemous teachings, was put to death. His offense, to use modern terminology, was not merely heresy; it was also treason. There was indeed no distinction between heresy and treason, between church and state. church- The pagan state was a church-state. It is not without The pagan reason that an ecclesiastic, that is, originally, one who belonged to the popular assembly in a Greek commonwealth, has come to mean, not a statesman, but a churchman. But Plato and Aristotle would not have understood the distinction between churchmen and statesmen. In their time the wise statesman had a care for the souls as well as for the bodies of his people. In the ancient Hebrew commonwealth there was a well-established distinction between priests and Levites, but there was none between Christian distinction between affairs church and state. The commonwealth stood unchallenged as the highest form of community. That indeed is Aristotle's definition of a state, and Plato, bolder though not wiser than Aristotle, describes the ideal commonwealth in order to make clear his idea of a perfect man. This he could logically do, since the church-state was a complete and self-sufficing community. It constituted a true analogue for both the spiritual and the material nature of man. The classic idea of the state was one which greatly strengthened the hands of statesmen, because it merged religious faith and civic patriotism into one corporate sentiment of surpassing intensity and dignity and power. But it enthralled the souls of men in an ignoble bondage to tribal deities and parochial creeds. Then Christianity came into the world. The good Christian found the classic concept of the church-state unsatisfying and profane. Jesus was not spiritual and interested in politics. "My kingdom," he said, "is not of temporal this world." And he proved his faith by rejecting the leadership of the Jewish nationalists for the martyrdom of the cross. The duty of his followers was clear. "The kings of the Gentiles," he said, "exercise lordship over them. . . but ye shall not be so." The rules of conduct to be observed among Christians were simple. Their first commandment was, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength"; and the second, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Among a people observing such a law there should be little need for force and for the state as the instrument of force. The existence of the state, to be sure, was a fact which could not be overlooked. But it could be viewed with indifference. To "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" was a counsel of prudence that was not intended to interfere with the higher duty to render unto God the things that are God's. No less significant was the potent mandate: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The propagation of the faith was a Christian duty, the performance of which was not to be impaired by any obligation towards Caesar. the two Such was the origin of the idea of the two kingdoms, The idea of the kingdom of the flesh and the kingdom of the spirit, kingdoms the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of the world to come. To the primitive Christian the pagan churchstate was merely the kingdom of this world. The kingdom of the world to come was represented on earth by the Christian fellowship. In the eyes of these otherworldly people the kingdom of this world was of little account. They did not formally renounce their allegiance to the pagan church-state. But they recognized a distinction between the two forms of community and the highest was not the state. The supreme law for them was the gospel and the supreme community was the Christian Church, a voluntary association of people united together for the worship of God and the salvation of their souls. By refusing to acknowledge the authority of any other earthly power in spiritual affairs, they effectually accomplished the separation of church and state. The adjustment of the relations between the two communities became the first problem of Christian politics. toward The pagan Roman Empire did not at first take notice Attitude of pagan of this new political problem. Pontius Pilate was favor- Roman ably impressed by Jesus' declaration that his kingdom was Empire not of this world. Unfortunately he was not the man to Christianity put justice before political expediency. But the Master had also said: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." And the poor and downtrodden came and believed and found rest. The Christian fellowship grew apace, and not without dis |