the source whence all these spring-the life of Jesus Christ, as applied to the present every-day affairs of men; applied not in the narrow bigotry of religionism, but in the broad liberty of Him who consorted with all men of all conditions, and who appealed to the best that was in them.

Arouse ye, oh, arouse ye, ye careless citizens of the land! Sell not your birthright for a mess of pottage, no matter how good it may taste.

IX.

GOOD GOVERNMENT.

"They brought unto Him a penny. And He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto Him, Cæsar's. Then saith He unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's."-MATT. xxii. 19-21.

My purpose this morning is to speak to you on the most important of all subjects of the day -Good Government.

I spoke to you last spring on Good Citizenship, and incidentally touched on my present subject; for it is impossible to speak of the one without reference to the other. Yet they are different, even as constitutional law and politics are different. Constitutional law looks at the state from the standpoint of its form and order; politics looks at the state from the standpoint of its rise and evolution. And so good government has regard to the state from the standpoint of the men who govern; good citizenship from the standpoint of those who are governed.

Let me clear the ground for my subject by

first pointing out to you that there are many theories as to how the state arose; because, as I shall show, our idea of good government depends upon the theory we hold as to the way the state came into existence. I cannot enter upon a discussion of all these theories; it is not necessary. It is sufficient to say that, generally speaking, four theories have been held, viz., the theory of brute power, the theory of contract, the theory of family relationship, the theory of theocratic foundation.

1. The theory of brute power maintains that the state is the work of the conquest of the weak by the strong. It asserts that might makes right. It has a plausible look, and has had many friends, especially among heartless despots and fanatic revolutionists. Yet it is evident that it is not correct, because it regards the state as held together simply by force, and leaves no room for moral relations and responsibilities. If the theory of brute power were correct, then there could be no place for the idea of law commanding respect outside of its rewards and penalties.

2. The theory of contract, since Rousseau wrote his "Contrat Social," has been very popu

lar, chiefly in republican countries. It asserts that the state is the free work of a contract entered into by its citizens. This theory has been most pleasing to the little political philosophers, because it flatters their feeling of importance, making them to feel that each one of them is a founder of a state, and that that state exists only by his will and consent. The theory would be admirable if all men were devoted to good government, and sought only its ends; but since all men are not devoted to good government, and seek their own as often as the ends of the state, and yet would, if this theory were correct, have a right to say that the state should not exist but by their will and consent, it works badly; it leads to the dread terror of anarchy. Besides, history tells us that this theory is absurd, for it starts with the premise that men have been as they are now, and we know that our immediate ancestors were uncouth barbarians, and our faroff progenitors more like animals than men.

3. And so we come to an examination of the third theory-that the state arose by reason of family relationship. "The effect of the evidence derived from comparative jurisprudence," says Maine, in "Ancient Law," "is to establish that

view of the primeval condition of the human race which is known as the Patriarchal Theory." In support of this theory there comes in on the one side the evidence of the Scriptures-evidence that may be called religious; and on the other side there comes in the evidence of ancient codes-evidence that may be called legal. The points in support of this theory which lie on the surface of history, both scriptural and non-scriptural, are these: The eldest male parent is absolutely supreme in his household. His dominion extends to life and death, and is as unqualified over his children as over his slaves. The flocks and herds of the children are the flocks and herds of the father; and the possessions of the father, which he holds in a representative rather than in a proprietary character, are equally divided at his death among his descendants, the eldest son receiving merely a double share.

"Archaic law . . . is full in all its provinces of the clearest indications that society in primitive times was not what it is assumed to be-a collection of individuals; in fact, and in view of the men who composed it, it was an aggregation of families." And it is in this way that Professor Drummond speaks in the book that we have all