Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/624

612 who was more merciful than one of his subjects; while the misfortunes that come upon a kingdom torn by civil war, furnished him arguments for proving his own innocence of complicity with Satan. These comparisons, coupled with the absence of any serious criticism of royalty, make it safe to say, that while we are lacking in definite political teaching emanating from Jesus, we cannot maintain to the contrary, that he regarded government as an evil. But his kingdom was indeed not of this world, and these comparisons yield no data for generalization.

In the light of these facts it is certainly a strange use of language to speak of the words of Jesus as those of a teacher of politics, and the Sermon on the Mount as a political document. It is true that the teachings there contained, if once carried out, will, as Augustine protested, produce good men and therefore in so far, good citizens. And it is by no means difficult so to use language as to make Jesus one of the long line of victims upon the altar of political reform. Was not the treasurer of his little society of a dozen men a type of the "boodler" who, having made what he could from the proposed kingdom, sold out its king? And did not Jesus himself perish as a revolutionist—a king of the Jews? But, after all, such a view is a tribute to its propounder's homiletical ingenuity rather than to his understanding of the real life and significance of Jesus. If he were indeed essentially a political reformer or idealist, is it not an astonishing thing that he should have left no more teachings in regard to the state than these scattered, and on the whole, obscure texts? Even the apostles gave more political teaching than he.