nessed, and which no doubt is of the highest value to man. Had he done so, certain virtues whose importance that progress has brought strongly into light, might have been more emphasised. The love of truth for its own sake, and toleration of the errors of others, might have been more expressly taught. But as it is, they are not lost sight of. Witness the admonition of the single eye,' the parable of the good Samaritan,2 the rebuke of the intolerant disciples. The form of the teaching was for the days of Christ; but its spirit is for all time. A teacher who made love to God, and man, the substance of man's duty, taught for all possible conditions of our race.

If we frankly allow and fairly bear in mind the qualifications and peculiarities to which I have now called attention, I think that we shall conclude that the teaching of Christ was deeply, comprehensively, and permanently moral. No one will deny that he taught love, purity, patience, devotion to God, as powerfully as either words or examples could do. It is the permanence of his morality which, with our modern ideas of progress, is, I suppose, most likely to be questioned. Is it suited to later times? Has it grown antiquated, or even obsolete as civilisation has advanced?

1 St. Matthew, vi. 22.

2 Luke, x. 30-37.

3 Luke, ix. 55.

Now, I think that some of those very precepts, which upon other grounds have been objected to, some of those sayings of Christ which, when looked at from the standpoint of our present state, have been thought extravagant, as, for instance, the injunction of unlimited almsgiving, forgiveness, submission, are really an answer to the question before us. They may fairly be said to be prospective, adapted to a progressive race. They are, at least in the letter, inapplicable now, but they seem more and more capable of a literal obedience as society approaches an ideal of moral perfection. It has been said that Christianity neglected justice, and insisted too much on charity. But surely the opposition of justice to charity is not founded on a deep view of morals. Nor would it require much thought with any Christian to conciliate the two. Charity, according to the enlightened understanding of the word, that is, a care for the general good, enjoins justice, and even penal justice, as a means thereto. There is an obvious difference between resenting injuries by private revenge and bringing the wrongdoer to justice on public grounds. To give way to criminals would not be to show kindness even to them. So, again, as to submission to authority, certainly Christ has carried the duty of the Christian far; and surely in such times as his, and among a people so turbulent as the Jews, and so apt

to find pretexts for that turbulence in religion, this obligation to use peaceable means of reform was a lesson that much needed to be enforced, and it argued a deep sense of the providence of God to trust to such means. Certainly, Christ gave no sanction to injustice, either in the law or the ruler. Nothing could be more repugnant to his teaching than despotism, class privileges, slavery, harsh social arrangements, tyranny, or oppression in any shape whatever. He taught a universal brotherhood; only he allowed no violent attempts to bring about the ideal. Surely the caution was needed. I think it, however, too much to say that Christ never gave countenance to a resort to force in any case whatever. There is at least one act in his life which

might be thought to do so. I allude to the cleansing of the Temple. This act has been found fault with as contrary to public order and civil obedience.1 But we may, I think, see in it a valuable recognition of the truth, that there is even in this matter a limit to the command, an exception to the general rule, a case in which other principles take its place, a case in which submission to established authority is no longer the good man's part. It has been customary to see an absence of ritualism or of national exclu

By Mr. Francis Newman, if I remember rightly, as also the stress laid upon Charity by our Lord in comparison of what is said as to Justice.

siveness in the religion taught by Christ, and most persons in these days would count those features of Christianity eminent merits. But I am bound to say that their origin with Christ has been questioned. The fact that our Lord himself conformed to the Jewish law, and that his immediate disciples did the same, for some time at least, has, I suppose, been held to disprove his claim to be the founder of a religion eminently free from ceremonial observances. But something should be allowed for the gradual development of a new system, something for temporary accommodation to old practices, and ways of thinking, and to conformity to avoid needless offence. We see these principles recognised in the words and acts of Christ, as in the gradual instruction of the disciples, in his own baptism, his enjoining obedience to those in the chair of Moses, his payment of the tribute money. In the Fourth Gospel we certainly do find a highly spiritual view of worship attributed immediately to Christ. And indeed, independently of this authority, we have elsewhere evidence that Christ laid the stress of his teaching upon moral obedience, and lightly esteemed merely ceremonial acts. We may quote, for instance, the many rebukes of the Pharisees, the saying upon fasting, the preference of mercy to sacrifice, the implication that prayer is not heard for much speaking, the injunction to forgiveness before offering the gift. So, again, as

to that other point, the catholicity of Christ's religion, a question has been raised whether we owe this to our Lord himself or to a movement amongst his followers, subsequent to him, headed by St. Paul. It must be allowed that his earlier efforts were

directed towards the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But it is also clear, even apart from the Fourth Gospel, that in the last days of his ministry he contemplated a Gentile church. Asceticism, in the ordinary sense of the word, will not, I suppose, be charged against Christ. His adversaries, in his own time at all events, brought an opposite charge." But perhaps a spirit dangerously opposed to our modern industrial civilisation may be found by some in his strong condemnation of the love of wealth. It must be borne in mind that he had not that civilisation to deal with. We are not to judge of the wisdom and goodness of Christ's words upon the supposition that he meant them literally to apply to our different times. Here, as in the case of the commandments which concern mental progress, we are to remember how much the form of Christ's

teaching was influenced by his times. He spoke to men who, if they sought for wealth, were very likely to do so by improper means. The pursuit of wealth

1 See the parables of the Marriage of the King's Son and of the Great Supper.

2 St. Matthew, xi. 19; St. Luke, vii. 34.