PAM. 
 
 SLUM, 
 
 
 "(HI)? flouirra (That J6?” 
 
 ❖ 
 
 frrarljrb by 
 
 ®Ij? iRrowrpnb t^nuinrb (Hljanblrr iKobbina 
 Ulrrtor of tl)? 
 
 (Eburrb of tlj? ilnrarnation 
 Nrro fork (Cily 
 January 28, 191 7 
 
 * 
 
 ilrintpb bg Jlrrmissinn fnr Jrxnalp Sistribultan 
 
“otyp pmimra (Eljat Ir” 
 
 * 
 
 “Lei erery sow/ 6e in subjection to the higher powers: for 
 there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained 
 of God.” — Romans 13 :i. 
 
 This text has often been a stumbling-block. It has been 
 used, time out of mind, to bolster up doctrines repellent to 
 freedom, doctrines such as that of the divine right of kings 
 and the passive obedience of subjects. Needless to say, St. 
 Paul had no such teaching in mind. There was never a sin- 
 cerer champion than he of human freedom. There are no 
 writings where we find enunciated with more passionate con- 
 viction the views concerning liberty, fraternity and equality 
 which are the foundation stones of democratic states. What- 
 ever St. Paul is preaching, we may be sure that he is not 
 preaching anything which is out of accordance with his life- 
 long principles and practice. We must make his spirit the 
 criterion by which to judge the meaning of his words. 
 
 Taking them in this large and liberal way, the Apostle’s 
 meaning becomes clear. What he is talking about is the 
 Christian’s duty to the state, to civil authority in general, 
 and specifically to the authority of the Roman Empire. What 
 he teaches is that civil government is a divine appointment, 
 and that disobedience to it, when unwarranted by conscience, 
 involves not only political disloyalty but also defiance of God. 
 “The powers that be are ordained of God.” In a general 
 sense, the truth of this saying is apparent. In a general sense, 
 the Roman Empire was a divine ordinance. It maintained 
 law and order throughout the vast extent of its dominions. 
 It protected property and person. It enforced peace. St. 
 Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship, and had reason 
 to be grateful for it. On more than one occasion it was the 
 instrument by which he was protected from mob violence, 
 
his life saved and his ministry prolonged So he inculcates 
 a spirit, a spirit not of blind and servile submission, but of 
 wide-awake and conscientious obedience. The Christian is 
 to be a loyal subject, a punctual tax-payer, and a good citizen. 
 Wherever his conscience permits, he is to be found upholding 
 the civil power, not opposing it. 
 
 Is not St. Paul right? Are not these things one aspect 
 of religion? Which is Christian, the furious mob of lynchers 
 storming at the doors of the gaol to get at the convicted offend- 
 er, or the Governor who stands between them and their prey, 
 and tells them they must lynch him first ? The men who stand 
 for law and for the processes of law are the true patriots both 
 of the secular commonwealth and of that spiritual common- 
 wealth which we term the Kingdom of God. 
 
 I think it evident from the connection that this, in a 
 general way, is what the Apostle had in mind. For notice 
 the connection. His precept of obedience to the powers that 
 be comes immediately after his prohibition of private ven- 
 geance. “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather 
 give place unto wrath.” Here we see what is, perhaps, the 
 greatest of the functions of the state. The state prohibits 
 the wreaking of private vengeance. It steps between, and 
 takes the administration of justice into its own hands. In a 
 lawless community every man is his own avenger. If he is 
 wronged, or if he imagines himself wronged, he takes the 
 matter up himself and obtains such satisfaction as he is able. 
 The disadvantage of this personal method of settlement is 
 obvious. There is no place in it for justice. Quarrels are 
 settled quite without reference to right or wrong, and solely 
 upon the basis of superior strength. Might determines right- 
 Might even attempts to determine questions of conscience- 
 The Jews, for example, had a dispute with St. Paul about a 
 question of theology. Not being able to convince him by 
 their arguments, they attempted to establish the validity of 
 their position by murdering him, as they had murdered his 
 predecessor St. Stephen. No wonder that he felt grateful 
 to the calm, impassive civil authority which took him under 
 its protection and guaranteed to him a fair trial ! The powers 
 that be were ordained to put a stop to terrorism, to anarchy, 
 to forcible settlement of questions which ought not to be 
 
decided by force. To this extent at least he felt that they 
 were ordained of God. 
 
 And to this extent at least, and no doubt to a very much 
 greater extent, civil authority is ordained of God, and human 
 government possesses divine sanctions. We ought therefore 
 to do what St. Paul did. We ought to recognize the fact 
 with appreciation, and with feelings of obligation. It is a 
 very great thing, greater than any of us realizes, to live in an 
 orderly society, and to posssess the blessings of stable govern- 
 ment. It is not a little thing that our persons are protected, 
 that our property cannot be taken away from us without due 
 process of law, that we can go with confidence and security 
 upon our lawful occasions. The powers that be are upon 
 the side of order. They stand for the administration of jus- 
 tice. They stand for the public welfare, and for the public 
 peace. When justice miscarries, when public welfare is en- 
 dangered, when public peace is disturbed, it is usually through 
 no fault of the civil authority, but in spite of its efforts to 
 maintain order. So we owe to it not only recognition, but 
 also loyal obedience. We ought to pay our taxes cheerfully. 
 We ought to assume willingly all the duties of citizenship, jury 
 duty included. We ought to obey the law which prohibits 
 undue speed for motor vehicles, even where we are not re- 
 strained by the suspicion that a policeman on a motor cycle 
 may be following close behind! 
 
 We ought also to be restrained and decent in our criticism 
 of public officials. This may sound like a counsel of perfec- 
 tion, but in a democracy like ours it is sorely needed. The 
 unmeasured and unmerited abuse which is heaped upon public 
 men, out of the spite and bitterness of partisan spirit, is one 
 of the scandals of democracy. It keeps I do not know how 
 many sensitive and honorable men from entering upon public 
 life. It makes life a burden for many who do enter it, often 
 from highest and most disinterested motives. I know of few 
 things more unpatriotic than to cultivate a temper of deliber- 
 ate hostility toward those who are in positions of authority, 
 to make up one’s mind in advance that what they say must 
 be wrong because it is they who say it, and that what they 
 do must be opposed because it is they who do it. This is the 
 very spirit of self-will and anarchy against which St. Paul’s 
 
injunction is levelled. It needs only a little reflection to per- 
 ceive that if such a temper were to become general, it would 
 make short shrift for all effective government. 
 
 So much for the positive bearing of St. Paul’s injunction. 
 Now for a glance at one of its larger and more far-reaching 
 implications. 
 
 “The powers that be are ordained of God.” They are 
 not, then, self-originated. They are not self-determined. 
 This is no doctrine of the divine right of kings, or of the abso- 
 lute authority of the state. Far from being above good and 
 evil, as a vicious modern philosophy proclaims it, the state, 
 the civil authority, is ordained to minister to human welfare 
 as the instrument of the Divine Will, and must be judged 
 accordingly, and, where need is evident, must be shaped and 
 altered accordingly. If, for example, the misting forms of 
 political organization are carrying out the purposes for which 
 they were ordained, if they are administering justice, main- 
 taining law and order, safeguarding the rights and liberties 
 of their citizens, and making due provision for the rights and 
 liberties and interests of other states, well and good. But if, 
 through some inherent defect, they are unable to execute 
 these aims, then the defect must be brought to light and cor- 
 rected. We know that at the present time some grave defect 
 exists. We know the defect to be so grave that it has plunged 
 half the world into a gigantic war. Now is the time for Chris- 
 tian men to use not only their hearts and sympathies but also 
 to use their brains, to think with all the power and lucidity 
 that God has given them, and to formulate, even if for the 
 time being only on paper, some new order, some new type 
 of political organization, some revolutionary change in the 
 social structure, which shall enable the powers that be to 
 carry out more perfectly the great, orderly, pacific purposes 
 for which they are ordained of God. For as the world is 
 constituted, the vision inevitably must precede the realiza- 
 tion, and the formulation of far-reaching plans for concerted 
 action is the indispensable prelude to their accomplishment. 
 
 Let me give a single illustration of this principle, taken 
 from our own national history. At the dawn of our history 
 as a nation, the powers that be, represented by the civil 
 authorities in the several States, were not co-ordinated. They 
 
were not welded together by a perception of their common 
 interests. The thirteen newly constituted States were united 
 by their common hatred of Great Britain, but they disliked 
 one another only a shade or two less. We read American 
 history, and we find that at this early period Connecticut and 
 Pennsylvania were at swords’ points over the possession of 
 the valley of Wyoming. New York and New Hampshire 
 had a similar dispute over the possession of the Green Moun- 
 tains. The City of New York “obliged every Yankee sloop 
 and every New Jersey market boat to pay entrance fees and 
 obtain clearances at the custom-house, just as was done by 
 ships coming from London and Hamburg.’’* Connecticut 
 business men retaliated by suspending commercial intercourse 
 with New York. The United States were united only in 
 name, and to all appearance they were drifting into anarchy. 
 
 Then we know what happened. After the revolution 
 which secured our liberty, there came a bloodless revolution 
 which secured our unity. There were thirteen weak, jealous, 
 quarrelsome, nearly bankrupt communities, armed against 
 each other with menacing force, and with tariffs that were 
 meant for protection and that resulted in prostration. They 
 buried their antipathies, pooled their resources, and created 
 one great, sovereign, solvent federation. I do not think 
 that any one can fail to perceive that this coming together 
 of the States was providential. The nation could stand, as 
 the States severally were not able to stand, for law and order. 
 The nation could be, in a far wider and deeper sense than the 
 several States could possibly be, the minister of God. 
 
 Now I do not think that it requires any undue strain 
 upon our imaginations to see that there is a certain parallelism 
 between our present situation and that of our American fore- 
 fathers, and that their solution of their problem may cast 
 some light upon our solution of ours. The critical period in 
 United States history was the period just subsequent to the War 
 of Independence. The critical period in the history of modern 
 civilization will be the period just after the close of the Euro- 
 pean war. The task then was to find some way in which the 
 States could be leagued together and prevented from drifting 
 into anarchy. The task now will be to find some way in which 
 
 •John Fislce: Critical Period of United States History. 
 
the powers can be leagued together — not, of course, under one 
 central government: that is neither possible nor in the least 
 desirable — but in some fashion which will enable them to take 
 concerted action wherever common interests are concerned. 
 Liberals the world over are giving earnest attention to this 
 gigantic problem. No less than thirty solutions of it have 
 already been proposed. It is said that these projects are 
 idealistic. Is that a condemnation of them? The proposal 
 to create an American nation was idealistic at the time. At 
 least within the Christian Church, proposals of this character 
 can scarcely be condemned for any such objection. The 
 purpose for which the Church of Christ exists is to make 
 ideals real. 
 
 The real difficulty lies in another quarter. A World’s 
 Court, a League of Nations, a League to Enforce Peace, is 
 just as strong, or just as weak, as the public convictions which 
 it registers. Where there is a worldwide will to peace, the 
 will will find the way. Where there is the will to war, no 
 political machinery, however ingeniously contrived, can per- 
 manently prevent war. It may retard it. It may put ob- 
 stacles in the way of it. It may make it costly to the agressor. 
 That is the most that its advocates can claim for it, and the 
 most that its sober advocates do claim. Without the right 
 spirit, the spirit of forbearance and of international good will, 
 machinery of this sort might even degenerate into an obstacle 
 to peace. We have an historic instance in the ill-fated Holy 
 Alliance. The Holy Alliance was formed almost exactly 
 one hundred years ago, at the close of the Napoleonic wars, 
 under the most hopeful auspices, and having as its definite 
 object the preservation of everlasting peace. We are all 
 familiar with the sequel. In the hands of Prince Metternich 
 it speedily became an instrument of tyranny and repression. 
 It crushed popular revolutions in Naples, Piedmont and 
 France. It restored absolutism in its most offensive form 
 to the throne of Spain. It attempted to widen the sphere of 
 its operations to the New World, and to bring back Spain’s 
 revolted colonies to their old allegiance. Then our Munroe 
 Doctrine was formulated as a counterblast to these pretensions, 
 and the Munroe Doctrine saved the Western Hemisphere 
 from the enforcement of peace at the cost of liberty. 
 
What we need, then, is to go farther afield than any 
 political machinery can take us, even so promising a political 
 device as a League to Enforce Peace. The origins of war and 
 peace lie in the hearts of the peoples of the world. They are 
 to be found in their general attitude toward one another, in 
 motives of good will cr in motives of aggression, in carefully 
 cultivated friendship or in thoughtlessly provoked hostility. 
 A nation’s real influence, its true position, do not rest solely, 
 and perhaps not even chiefly, upon force. They rest chiefly, 
 I think, upon imponderable things. They rest upon what, 
 for want of a closer definition, we may term the national 
 character. It is the character of a country, its reputation 
 for honor, for high ideals, for fair and generous dealing, 
 which in all difficult and delicate negotiations ultimately 
 determine the measure of its usefulness. 
 
 Now negatively, this should mean to us national self re- 
 straint. A nation which is cherishing large aims of service 
 and of mediation cannot afford to show itself boorish. We 
 ought accordingly to find some way to curb the glib and ir- 
 responsible demagogues who are continually jumping up and 
 predicting foreign invasion. One day it is to be by the Japanese, 
 the next day by the British, the next day by the Germans. 
 They change with every wind that blows, like the weather- 
 cocks they are. But these things do not read well when they 
 are reported by a foreign press. Suspicion engenders sus- 
 picion, and threats are encountered by threats. 
 
 We ought also to find some way to restrain the periodicals 
 which resort to the same tactics in order to promote their 
 sales upon the day of rest and gladness. I think that it would 
 be an excellent thing if business men were to wait upon the 
 publishers of jingo newspapers and point out to them that 
 all this wild and incendiary talk is not only bad morality but 
 also bad business, and that business men can scarcely be 
 expected to encourage the circulation of periodicals which 
 are insulting their customers, whether their customers live 
 at home or abroad. 
 
 And then, too, we ought to watch most carefully all the 
 little bills which are introduced into Congress for the express 
 purpose of insulting some foreign power. It is a great deal 
 
easier to head these things off at the start than to wait for 
 the State Department to adjust and to explain. 
 
 Positively, what we can do to provide the right atmos- 
 phere for future developments is to exhibit national courtesy. 
 Solomon tells us that to have friends a man must show himself 
 friendly. That is exactly as true of nations as of individuals. 
 To have friends a nation must show itself friendly. It was a 
 courteous thing to call the Argentine Republic, Brazil and 
 Chile into conference with us concerning affairs in Mexico. 
 It did more to promote good relations with Latin America 
 than anything which has happened in a hundred years. It 
 would be a courteous thing if we were to go farther, and 
 settle the just claims of the Colombian Republic. Nothing is 
 to be gained by dickering and delay. 
 
 And far beyond mere courtesy, there lies open to us, in 
 Europe’s immeasurable need, an immeasurable opportunity 
 for kindness. It has been suggested that in addition to gifts 
 which come from private sources we should make a great 
 public appropriation to help meet the need. There is pre- 
 cedent for such action. Even if there were not, we could create 
 a precedent. A public gift of one hundred million dollars to 
 relieve distress within the French Republic would be a fitting 
 recognition of the service that France rendered to us at the 
 very beginning of our national history. Given to a single 
 nation to which we are bound in spirit by a thousand cherished 
 and subtle sympathies, it would make for international good 
 will. It would be one slight but definite indication that a 
 new day is dawning upon the world, that a new way is being 
 discovered for nations to regard one another and to deal with 
 one another, and that behind the noble definition which the 
 President has made of American ideals and principles, there 
 lies an eagerness, a generosity, a readiness to serve and give, 
 which is in keeping with the loftiest traditions of the land 
 we hold most dear.