(1) While this is recognised in Scripture, and all men are declared to

be brothers in virtue of their common humanity, Christianity traces the

brotherhood of man to a deeper source. The relation of the individual

to Christ is the true ground of love to others. In Christ all

distinctions which in other respects separate men are dissolved.

Beneath the meanest garb and coarsest features, in spite even of the

defacement of sin, we may detect the vast possibilities of the soul for

whom Christ has died. The law of love is presented by Jesus as the

highest of all the commandments, and the duty to others is summed up

generally in what is known as the golden rule. Of the chief

manifestations of brotherly love mention must be made (_a_) of the

comprehensive duty of _Justice_. The ground upon which justice rests

is the principle that each individual is an end in himself. Hence it

is the duty of each to respect the rights of his neighbours, negatively

refraining from injury and positively rendering that which our

fellow-men have a right to claim. Religion makes a man more sensitive

to the claims of humanity. Mutual respect requires a constant effort

on the part of all to secure for each the fullest freedom to be

himself. Christianity interprets justice to mean emancipation from

every condition which crushes or degrades a man. It seeks to create a

social conscience, and to arouse in each a sense of responsibility for

the good of all. At the same time social justice must not be

identified with charity. Charity has done much to relieve distress,

and it will always form an indispensable element in {211} the

Christian's duty towards his less fortunate brethren; but something

more radical than almsgiving is required if the conditions of life are

to be appreciably bettered. Justice is a demand not for bread alone;

it is a claim of humanity to life, and all that life ought to mean.

Christianity affirms the spirit of human brotherhood--a brotherhood in

which every child will have a chance to grow to a noble manhood, and

every man and woman will have opportunity and encouragement to live a

free, wholesome, and useful life. That is the Christian ideal, and to

help towards its realisation is the duty laid upon every citizen of the

commonwealth. The problems of poverty, housing, unemployment,

intemperance, and all questions of fair wages, legitimate profits, and

just prices, fall under the regulative principle of social justice.

The law is, 'Render to all their dues.' The love which worketh no ill

to his neighbour will also withhold no good.[19]

(_b_) _Truthfulness_.--Justice is not confined to acts, but extends to

speech and even to thought. We owe to others veracity. Even when the

motive is good, there can be no greater social disservice than to fail

in truthfulness. Falsehood, either in the form of hypocrisy or

equivocation, and even of unsound workmanship, is not only unjust to

others; it is unjust to ourselves, and a wrong to the deeper self--the

new man in Christ.[20]

Is deception under all circumstances morally wrong? Moralists have

been divided on this question. The instance of war is frequently

referred to, in which it is contended that ruse and subterfuge are

permissible forms of strategy.[21] There are, however, many

distressing cases of conscience, in which the duties of affection and

veracity seemingly conflict. It must be remembered that no command can

be carried out to its extreme, or obeyed literally. Truth is not

always conveyed by verbal accuracy. There may be higher interests at

stake which might be prejudiced, and indeed unfairly represented by a

merely literal statement. {212} The individual conscience must decide

in each case. We are to speak the truth in love. Courage and

kindliness are to commingle. But when all is said it is difficult to

avoid the conclusion that in the last analysis lack of truth argues a

deficient trust in the ultimate veracities of the universe, and rests

upon a practical unbelief in the divine providence which can make 'all

things work together for good to them that love God.'

(_c_) Connected with truthfulness, and also a form of justice, is the

duty enjoined by St. Paul of forming _just judgments_ of our

fellow-men. If we would avoid petty fault-finding and high-minded

contempt, we must dismiss all prejudice and passion. The two qualities

requisite for proper judgment are knowledge and sympathy. Goethe has a

fine couplet to the effect that 'it is safe in every case to appeal to

the man who knows.'[22] But to understanding must be added

appreciative consideration. We must endeavour to put ourselves in the

position of our brother. Without a finely blended knowledge and

sympathy we grow intolerant and impatient. Fairness is the rarest of

moral qualities. He who would estimate another truly must have what

St. Paul calls 'spiritual discernment'--the 'even-balanced soul' of one

'who saw life steadily and who saw it whole.'

(2) Brotherly Love evinces itself further in _Service_, which takes the

three forms of Compassion, Beneficence or practical kindness, and

Example.

(_a_) _Compassion_ or sympathy is a readiness to enter into the

experiences of others. As Christians nothing that concerns our brother

can be a matter of indifference to us. As members of the same

spiritual community we are participators in each other's joys and

sorrows, 'weeping with those that weep, and rejoicing with those that

rejoice.' It is no mere natural instinct, but one which grows out of

the Christian consciousness of organic union with Christ. 'When one

member suffers, all the members suffer with it.'[23] {213} We fulfil

the law of Christ by bearing one another's burdens.

(6) _Practical Beneficence_ is the natural outcome of sympathy.

Feelings pass into deeds. Those redeemed by the love of Christ become

the agents of His love, gladly dispensing to others what they

themselves have received. The ministry of love, whatever shape it may

take, must, in the last resort, be a giving of self. No one can do a

kindness who does not put something of himself into it. No true

service can be done that does not cost us more than money.

In modern society it is inevitable that personality should largely find

its expression and exercise in material possessions. Without entering

here upon the question of the institution of private property, it is

enough to say that the possession of material goods may be morally

defended on the twofold ground, that it ensures the security of

existence, and is an essential condition of the development of

individual and national resources. The process of acquisition is a

moralising influence, since it incites the individual to work, and

tends to create and foster among men interchange of service. Property,

says Hegel, is the embodiment and instrument of the will.[24] But in a

civilised community there must be obviously restrictions to the

acquisition and use of wealth. Unbridled appropriation and

irresponsible abuse are alike a peril to society. The State has

therefore the right of interference and control in regard to all

possessions. Even on the lowest ground of expediency the very idea of

property involves on the part of all the principle of co-operation and

reciprocity--the obligation of contributing to the general weal. It

would, however, be most undesirable that the government should

undertake everything for the general good of man that is now left to

spontaneous effort and liberality. But from the standpoint of

Christian Ethics possessions of all kinds are subject to the law of

stewardship.[25] Every gift is {214} bestowed by God for the purpose

of social service. No man can call the things which he

possesses--endowments, wealth, power--his own. He is simply a trustee

of life itself. No one may be an idler or parasite, and society has a

just claim upon the activity of every man. The forms of such service

are various; but the Christian spirit will inspire a sense of 'the

ultimate unity of all pursuits that contribute to the good of man.'[26]

The ministry of love extends over the whole realm of existence, and

varies with every phase of need. Physical necessities are to be met in

the spirit of charity. St. Paul pleads repeatedly the cause of the

poor, and commends the grace of liberality. Giving is to be cheerful

and without stint. But there are needs which material aid cannot

meet--desolation, anxiety, grief--to which the loving heart alone can

find ways of ministering. And beyond all physical and moral need is

the need of the soul; and it lies as a debt upon those who themselves

have experienced the grace of Christ to seek the renewal and spiritual

enrichment of their brethren.

(_c_) There is one special form of practical kindness towards others

which a follower of Christ will often be called upon to exercise--the

spirit of _forbearance and forgiveness_. The Christian is to speak

evil of no man, but to be gentle, showing all meekness unto all men;

living peaceably with all men, avoiding everything provocative of

strife; even 'forbearing one another and forgiving one another, if any

have a quarrel against any; even as Christ forgave you so also do ye.'

(3) Finally, we may serve others by _Example_, by letting the light of

life so shine before men that they seeing our good works shall glorify

God our Father. This duty, however, as Fichte points out, 'has often

been viewed very incorrectly, as if we could be obliged to do this or

that, which otherwise we would not have needed to do, for the sake of a

good example.'[27] That which I am commanded {215} to do I must do for

its own sake without regard to its effect upon others. Esteem can be

neither outwardly compelled nor artistically produced; it manifests

itself voluntarily and spontaneously. A modern novelist[28] ironically

exposes this form of altruism by putting into the mouth of one of her

characters the remark, 'I always make a point of going to church in

order to show a good example to the domestics.' At the same time no

one can withhold one's influence; and while the supreme motive must be,

not to make a display, but to please God, he who is faithful to his

station and its duties cannot fail to affect his fellow-men for good.

The most effective example is given unconsciously, as the rose exhales

its sweetest perfume without effort, or the light sheds its radiance

simply by being what it is.

3. _Duties in Relation to God_.--Here morality runs up into religion,

and indeed since all duties are in their last analysis duties toward

God, Kant and other moralists have objected to the admission into

Ethics of a special class of religious obligations. It has been well

remarked that the genuine Christian cannot be known by particular

professions or practices, but only by the heavenly spirit of his

life.[29] Hence religious duty cannot be formulated in a number of

precise rules. Love to God finds expression not in mechanical

obedience, but in the spontaneous outflow of the heart. The special

duties to the Divine Being may be briefly described under the main

heads of Recognition, Obedience, and Worship.

(1) _Recognition_.--The acknowledgment of God rests upon knowledge.

Without some comprehension of what God is there can be no intelligent

allegiance to Him. We cannot, indeed, by logical reasoning demonstrate

the existence of the Deity any more than we can demonstrate our own

being. But He has not left Himself without a witness, and He speaks to

man with many voices. The material creation is the primary word of

God. The beauty, and still more the sublimity, of nature are a

revelation through {216} matter of something beyond itself, a message

of the spiritual, bearing 'authentic tidings of invisible things.' But

nature is symbolic. It is a prophecy rather than an immediate

revelation. Still it warrants the expectation of a yet fuller

manifestation. That fuller utterance we have in man himself. There,

spirit reveals itself to spirit; and in the two primary intuitions of

man--self-consciousness and the sense of moral obligation--the presence

of God is disclosed. But, higher still, the long historic evolution

has culminated in a yet clearer manifestation of the Deity. In Christ,

the God-Man, the mystery underlying and brooding over the world is

unveiled, and to the eye of faith is revealed the Fatherhood of God.

The first duty, therefore, we owe to God is that of recognition, the

acknowledgment of His presence in the world. To feel that He is

everywhere, sustaining and vitalising all things; to recognise His will

in all the affairs of our daily life, is at once the duty and

blessedness of man.

(2) _Obedience_ follows acknowledgment. It is partly passive and

partly active.

(_a_) As _passive_, it takes the form of habitual trust or

_acquiescence_, the submissive acceptance of trials which are

ultimately, we believe, not really evils, because ordained by God and

overruled for good.[30] This spirit of obedience can be maintained by

_constant vigilance_ alone.[31] While connected with the anticipated

coming of the Son of Man, the obligation had a more general

application, and may be regarded as the duty of all in the face of the

unknown and unexpected in life. We are therefore to watch for any

intimation of the divine will, and commit ourselves trustfully to the

absolute disposal of Him in whose hands are the issues of our lives.

(_b_) But obedience has also an _active_ side. _Faithfulness_ is the

complement of faith. The believer must exercise fidelity, and go

forward with energy and purpose to the tasks committed to him. As

stewards of Christ we are {217} to occupy till He come, employing every

talent entrusted to us in His service. Work may be worship, and we can

glorify God in our daily tasks. No finer tribute can a man give than

simply himself.

(3) _Worship_.--The special duties of worship belong to the religious

rather than the ethical side of life, and do not demand here more than

a passing reference. The essence of religion lies in the subordination

of the finite self to the infinite; and worship is the conscious

outgoing of the man in his weakness and imperfection to his Maker, and

it attains its fullest exercise in (_a_) _reverence_, humility, and

devotion. The feeling of dependence and sense of need, together with

the consciousness of utter demerit and inability which man realises as

he gazes upon the majesty and grace of God, awaken the (_b_) instinct

of _prayer_. 'It is the sublime significance of prayer,' says Wuttke,

'that it brings into prominence man's great and high destiny, that it

heightens his consciousness of his true moral nature in relation to

God; and as morality depends on our relation to God, prayer is the very

life-blood of morality.'[32] The steadfast aspiration of the soul to

God, whose will is our law and whose blessing is granted to whatsoever

is done in His name, is the habitual temper of the Christian life. But

prayer must also be particular, definite, and expectant. By a law of

our nature, and apart from all supernatural intervention, prayer

exercises a reflex influence of a very beneficial character upon the

mind of the worshippers. But he who offers his petitions expecting

nothing more will not even attain this. 'If prayers,' says Mr. Lecky,

'were offered up solely with a view to this benefit, they would be

absolutely sterile and would speedily cease.'[33] The purely

subjective view of prayer as consisting solely in 'beneficent

self-suggestion' empties the term of significance. Even Frederick

Meyers, who lays so much stress upon the importance of self-suggestion

in other aspects of experience, admits that prayer is something more

than a subjective {218} phenomenon. 'It is not only a calling up of

one's own private resources; it must derive its ultimate efficacy from

the increased flow from the infinite life into the life of the

suppliant.'[34]

(_c_) Prayer attains its highest expression in _Thanksgiving and Joy_.

Gratitude is the responsive feeling which wells up in the heart of

those who have experienced the goodness of God, and recognise Him as

the great Benefactor. Christians are to abound in thankfulness. We

live in a world where everything speaks to us of divine love. Praise

is the complement of prayer. The grateful heart sees life

transfigured. It discovers everywhere tokens of grace and hope,

'Making the springs of time and sense

Sweet with eternal good.'

Peace, trust, joy, hope are the ultimate notes of the Christian life.

'Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks.'

Thanksgiving, says St. Bernard, 'is the return of the heart to God in

perpetual benediction.'

In the kingdom of love duty is swallowed up in joy. Life is nothing

but the growing realisation of God. With God man's life begins, and to

Him turns back at last in the wrapt contemplation of His perfect being.

In fellowship with God man finds in the end both himself and his

brother.

'What is left for us, save, in growth

Of soul, to rise up, far past both,

From the gift looking to the Giver,

From the cistern to the river,

And from the finite to the Infinity

And from man's dust to God's divinity?'[35]

'God,' says Green, 'is a Being with whom we are in principle one, in

the sense that He is all which the human spirit is capable of

becoming.'[36] In the worship of God, {219} man dies to the temporal

interests and narrow ends of the exclusive self, and lives in an

ever-expanding life in the life of others, manifesting more and more

that spiritual principle which is the life of God, who lives and loves

in all things.[37]

[1] Paulsen, _Ethics_, bk. III. chap. i. Cf. also Wundt, _Ethik_, p.

148. But see also W. Wallace, _Lectures and Essays_, p. 325, on their

confusion.

[2] Mackintosh, _Chr. ethics_, p. 114.

[3] Cf. Haering, _Ethics of Chr. Life_, p. 230.

[4] This seems to be the position of Herrmann; see _Ethik_.

[5] Cf. Eucken, _Life's Basis_, p. 185.

[6] Maccunn, _Ethics of Citizenship_, p. 40.

[7] _Duties of Man_, chap. i.

[8] See discussion by late W. Wallace in _Lectures and Essays_, pp. 213

ff.

[9] _Ethik_, p. 190.

[10] Maccunn, _op. cit._; p. 42.

[11] Cf. Eucken, _Main Currents of Modern Thought_, p. 348.

[12] Hegel, _Philosophy of Right_, p. 45.

[13] _Das Wesen des Christenthums_; cf. also _Ecce Homo_, p. 345.

[14] Adopted in Massachusetts in 1773.--'All men have equal rights to

life, liberty, and property.'

[15] Browning, _Prince Hohenstiel-Schwangau_.

[16] Cf. Wheeler Robinson, _The Christian Doctrine of Man_, pp. 281 f.

[17] Matt. xi. 18; Luke vii. 33.

[18] Ottley, _Ideas and Ideals_.

[19] Rom. xiii. 7-10.

[20] Col. iii. 9, 10.

[21] See Lecky, _Map of Life_.

[22] _Vor dem Wissenden sich stellen, sicher ist's in allen Fällen_.

[23] 1 Cor. xii. 26.

[24] _Phil. of Right_, pp. 48 ff.; see also Wundt, _Ethik_, pp. 175 f.

[25] Cf. Ottley, _Idem_, p. 271.

[26] Green, _Proleg._, p. 173, quoted by Ottley.

[27] _Science of Ethics_ (trans.), p. 337.

[28] Miss Fowler, _Concerning Isabel Carnaby_.

[29] Drummond, _Via, Veritas, Vita_, p. 227.

[30] Matt. viii. 25 f., x. 26; Luke viii. 23 f.

[31] Matt. xxv. 1 f.; Mark xxiv. 42; Luke xii. 36 f.

[32] _Chr. Ethics_ (trans.), vol. ii. p. 221.

[33] _Hist. of Europ. Morals_, vol. i. p. 36.

[34] _Human Personality_, vol. ii. p. 313.

[35] Browning, _Christmas Eve_.

[36] _Proleg._, p. 198.

[37] Cf. Jones, _Browning as Philosophical and Religious Teacher_, p.

367.

{220}

CHAPTER XIII

SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

In last chapter we dealt with the rights and duties of the individual

as they are conditioned by his relation to himself, others, and to God.

In this chapter it remains to speak more particularly of the organised

institutions of society in which the moral life is manifested, and by

means of which character is moulded. These are the Family, the State,

and the Church. These three types of society, though distinguishable,

are closely allied. At first, indeed, they were identical. Human

society had its origin, most probably, in a primitive condition in

which domestic, political, and religious ends were one. Even in modern

life Family, State, and Church do not stand for separate interests. So

far from their aims colliding they are mutually helpful. An individual

may be a member of all three at one time. From a Christian point of

view each is a divine institution invested with a sacred worth and a

holy function, and ordained of God for the advancement of His kingdom.

I

_The Family_ is the fountain-head of all the other social groups, 'the

cell of the social organism.' Man enters the world not as an isolated

being, but by descent and generation. In the family each is cradled

and nurtured, and by the domestic environment character is developed.

The family has a profound value for the nation. Citizenship rests on

the sanctity of the home. When the fire on the hearth is quenched, the

vigour of a people dies.

{221}

1. Investigations of great interest and value have been pursued in

recent years regarding the origin and evolution of the family. However

far back the natural history of the race is carried, it seems scarcely

possible to resist the conclusion that some form of family relationship

is coeval with human life. Widely as social arrangements differ in

detail among savage peoples, arbitrary promiscuity can nowhere be

detected. Certain laws of domestication have been invariably found to

exist, based upon definite social and moral restrictions universally

acknowledged and rigidly enforced. Two primitive conditions are

present wherever man is found--the tribe and the family. If the family

is never present without the tribe, the tribe is never discovered

without 'those intra-tribal distinctions and sexual regulations which

lie at the bottom of the institution of the family.'[1] Westermarck

indeed says that 'the evidence we possess tends to show that among our

earliest human ancestors the family and not the tribe formed the

nucleus of every social group, and in many cases was itself perhaps the

only social group. The tie that kept together husband and wife,

parents and children, was, if not the only, at least the principal

factor in the earliest forms of man's social life.'[2] If the family

had been an artificial convention called into being by human will and

ingenuity, it might conceivably be destroyed by the same factors. But

whatever arguments may be adduced for the abolition of marriage and

family life to-day, the appeal to primitive history is not one of them.

On the contrary the earliest forms of society show that the family is

no invention, that it has existed as long as man himself, and that all

social evolution has been a struggle for the preservation of its most

valuable features.[3]

2. If, even in early times, and especially among the Hebrews, Greeks,

and Romans, the family was an important factor in national development,

it has been infinitely more so {222} since the advent of Christianity.

Christ did not create this relationship. He found it in existence when

He came to the earth. But He invested it with a new ethical value. He

laid upon it His consecrating touch, and made it the vehicle of all

that is most tender and true in human affection, so that among

Christian people to-day no word is fraught with such hallowed

associations as the word 'home.' This He did both by example and

teaching. As a member of a human family Himself, He participated in

its experiences and duties. He spent His early years in the home of

Nazareth, and was subject unto His parents. He manifested His glory at

a marriage feast. By the grave of Lazarus He mingled His tears with

those of the sorrowing sisters of Bethany. He had a tender regard for

little children, and when mothers brought their infants to Him He

welcomed them with gracious encouragement, and, taking the little ones

in His arms, blessed them, thus consecrating for all time both

childhood and motherhood. Throughout His life there are indications of

His deep reverence and affection for her who was His mother, and with

His latest breath he confided her to the care of His beloved disciple.

There are passages indeed which seem to indicate a depreciation of

family relationships.[4] The most important of these are the sayings

which deal with the home connections of those whom He called to special

discipleship.[5] Not only are father and mother to be loved less than

He, but even in comparison with Himself are to be hated.[6] Among the

sacrifices His servants must be ready to make is the surrender of the

home.[7] But these references ought to be taken in conjunction with,

and read in the light of, His more general attitude to the claims of

kindred. It was not His indifference to, but His profound regard for,

home ties that drew from Him these words. He knew that affection may

narrow as well as widen the heart, and that our {223} tenderest

intimacies may bring our most dangerous temptations. There are moments

in the history of the heart when the lesser claim must yield to the

greater. For the Son of Man Himself, there were interests higher even

than those of the family. Some men, perhaps even most, are able to

fulfil their vocation without a surrender of the joys of kinship. But

others are called to a wider sphere and a harder task. For the sake of

the larger brotherhood of man, Jesus found it necessary to renounce the

intimacies of home. What it cost Him to do so we, who cannot fathom

the depth of His love, know not. Even such an abandonment did He

demand of His first disciples. And for the follower of Christ still

there must be the same willingness to make the complete sacrifice of

everything, even of home and kindred, if they stand in the way of

devotion to the kingdom of God.[8]

(1) Our Lord's direct statements regarding the nature of the family

leave us in no doubt as to the high place it holds in His conception of

life. Marriage, upon which the family rests, is, according to Jesus,

the divinely ordained life-union of a man and woman. In His quotation

from Genesis He makes reference to that mysterious attraction, deeply

founded in the very nature of man, by which members of the opposite sex

are drawn to each other. But while acknowledging the sensuous element

in marriage, He lifts it up into the spiritual realm and transmutes it

into a symbol of soul-communion. Our Lord does not derive the sanction

of wedded life from Mosaic legislation. Still less does He permit it

as a concession to human frailty. It has its ground in creation

itself, and while therefore it is the most natural of earthly

relationships it is of God's making. To the true ideal of marriage

there are several features which our Lord regards as indispensable.

(_a_) It must be _monogamous_, the fusion of two distinct

personalities. 'They two shall be one flesh.' Mutual self-impartation

demands that the union should be an exclusive one. (_b_) It is a

_union of equality_. Neither {224} personality is to be suppressed.

The wedded are partners who share one another's inmost thoughts and

most cherished purposes. But this claim of equality does not exclude

but rather include the different functions which, by reason of sex and

constitution, each is enabled to exercise. 'Woman is not undeveloped

man but diverse.' And it is in diversity that true unity consists.

Both will best realise their personality in seeking the perfection of

one another. (_c_) It is a _permanent_ union, indissoluble till the

parting of death. The only exception which Christ acknowledges is that

form of infidelity which _ipso facto_ has already ruptured the sacred

bond.[9] According to Jesus marriage is clearly intended by God to

involve sacred and permanent obligations, a covenant with God, as well

as with one another, which dare not be set aside at the dictate of a

whim or passion. The positive principle underlying this declaration

against divorce is the spirit of universal love that forbids that the

wife should be treated, as was the case among the dissolute of our

Lord's time, as a chattel or slave. Nothing could be more abhorrent to

Christian sentiment than the modern doctrine of 'leasehold marriage'

advocated by some.[10] It has been ingeniously suggested that the

record of marital unrest and divorce in America, shameful as it is, may

not be in many cases altogether an evil. The very demand to annul a

union in which reverence and affection have been forfeited may spring

from a growing desire to realise the true ideal of marriage.[11] (_d_)

Finally, it is a _spiritual_ union. It is something more than a legal

contract, or even an ecclesiastical ordinance. The State must indeed

safeguard the civil rights of the parties to the compact, and the

Church's ceremony ought to be sought as the expression of divine

blessing and approval. But of themselves these do not constitute the

inner tie which makes the twain one, and binds them together amid all

the chances and changes of this earthly life.[12] In the teaching of

both Christ and {225} the apostles marriage is presented as a high

vocation, ordained by God for the enrichment of character, and invested

with a holy symbolism. According to St. Paul it is the emblem of the

mystic union of Christ and His Church, and is overshadowed by the

presence of God, who is the archetype of those sacred ideas which we

associate with the name of fatherhood.

(2) Though marriage is the most personal of all forms of social

intercourse, there are many varied and intricate interests involved

which require _legal recognition_ and adjustment. Questions as to the

legitimacy of offspring, the inheritance of property, the status and

rights of the contracting parties, come within the domain of law. The

State punishes bigamy, and forbids marriage within certain degrees of

consanguinity. Many contend that the State should go further, and

prevent all unions which endanger the physical vigour and efficiency of

the coming generation. It is undoubtedly true that the government has

a right to protect its people against actions which tend to the

deterioration of the race. To permit those to marry who are suffering

from certain maladies of mind or body is to commit a grave crime

against society. But care must be taken lest we unduly interfere with

the deeper spiritual sympathies and affections upon which a true union

is founded. In agitating for State control in the mating of the

physically fit, the champions of eugenics are apt to exaggerate the

materialistic side of marriage, and overlook those qualities of heart

and mind which are not less important for the well-being of the race.

In the discipline of humanity weakness and suffering are assets which

the world could ill afford to lose.[13]

(3) In modern times the institution of marriage is menaced by two

opposite forces; on the one hand, by a revolutionary type of socialism,

and on the other, by the reactionary influence of self-interested

individualism. (_a_) It is contended by some advanced socialists that

among {226} the poor and the toiling home life is practically

non-existent; indeed, under present industrial conditions, impossible.

Marriage and separate family life are insuperable barriers, it is said,

to corporate unity and social progress. It is but fair to add that

this extreme view is now largely repudiated by the most enlightened

advocates of a new social order, who are contending, they tell us, not

for the abolition, but for the betterment, of domestic conditions.[14]

(_b_) The stability of social life is being threatened even more

seriously by a self-centred individualism. Marriage is considered as a

merely temporary arrangement which may be terminated at will. It is

contended that divorce should be granted on the easiest terms, and the

most trifling reasons are seriously put forward as legitimate grounds

for the annulling of the holiest of vows. Without discussing these

disintegrating influences, it is enough to say that the trend of

history is against any radical tampering with the institution of

marriage, and any attempt to disparage the sanctity of the home or

belittle domestic obligations would be to poison at its springs the

moral life of man.

3. The duties of the various members of the family are explicitly, if

briefly, stated in the apostolic epistles. They are valid for all

times and conditions. Though they may be easily elaborated they cannot

well be improved. All home obligations are to be fulfilled _in_ and

_unto_ the Lord. The fear of God is to inspire the nurture of

children, and to sanctify the lowliest services of the household.

Authority is to be blended with affection. (1) _Parents_ are not to

provoke their children by harsh and despotic rule, nor yet to spoil

them by soft indulgence. _Children_ are to render obedience, and, when

able, to contribute to the support of their parents.[15] Masters are

to treat their servants with equity and respect. Servants are exhorted

to show fidelity. In short all the relationships of the household are

to be hallowed by the spirit of Christian love.

Many questions relative to the family arise, over which {227} we may

not linger. One might speak of the effect of industrial conditions

upon domestic life, the employment of women and children in factories,

the evil of sweating, the problem of our city slums, and, generally, of

the need of improved environment in order that our labouring classes

may have a chance of a healthier and purer home existence. Legislation

can do much. But even law is ineffective to achieve the highest ends

if it is not backed by the public conscience. The final solution of

the problem of the family rests not in conditions but in character, not

in environment but in education, in the kind of men we are rearing.

(2) This century has been called the _woman's_ century. And certainly

there is an obvious trend to-day towards acknowledgment, in all

departments of life, of women's equality with men. There is, however,

a difference of opinion as to what that equality should mean; and there

seems to be a danger in some quarters of overlooking the essential

difference of the sexes. No people can achieve what it ought while its

wives and mothers are degraded or denied their rights. For her own

sake, as well as for the weal of the race, whatever is needful to

enable woman to attain to her noblest womanhood must be unhesitatingly

granted.[16]

(3) But this is even more the _children's_ era. A new sense of

reverence for the child is one of the most promising notes of our age,

and the problems arising out of the care and education of the young

have created the new sciences of pedagogy and child-psychology. Regard

for child-life owes its inspiration directly to the teaching of Christ.

The child in the simplicity of its nature and innocence of its

dependence is, according to the Master, the perfect pattern of those

who seek after God. It is true that in the art of antiquity child-life

was frequently represented. But as Burckhardt says it was the drollery

and playfulness, even the quarrelsomeness and stealth, and above all

the lusty health and animal vigour of young life that was depicted.

Ancient art did not behold in the child the prophecy of a new and purer

world. Moreover, it was aesthetic {228} feeling and not real sympathy

with childhood which animated this movement. As time went on the

teaching of Christ on this subject was strangely neglected, and the

history of the treatment of the young is a tragic tale of neglect and

suffering. Only now are we recovering the lost message of Jesus in

regard to the child, and we are beginning to realise that infancy and

youth have their rights, and demand of the world both care and

affection. Ours sons and daughters are the nation's assets. Yet it is

a parent's question even more than the State's. In a deeper sense than

we imagine children are the creation of their parents. It is the

effect of soul upon soul, the mother's touch and look, the father's

words and ways, that kindle into flame the dull material of humanity,

and begin that second birth which should be the anxiety and glory of

parenthood. But if the parent makes the child, scarcely less true is

it that the child makes the parent. In the give and take of home life

a new world is created. When a father really looks into his child's

eye he is not as he was before.[17] Indispensable as is the State's

education of the young, there is an important part which the community

cannot undertake, and there is a danger in curbing individuality by a

stereotyped method of instruction. 'All social enactments,' says

Harnack, 'have a tendency to circumscribe the activities of the

individual. If we unduly fetter the free play of individual effort we

break the mainspring of progress and enterprise, and create a state of

social immobility which is the antecedent of national decay.'[18]

Youth ought to be taught self-reliance and strenuousness of will; and

this is a work which can only be done in the home by the firm yet

kindly influence of the parents. But there is another aspect of the

home problem not less pressing. The want of training in working-class

families is largely answerable for the waifs and strays with which our

cities team. Even in middle-class households there are indications of

a lack not only of discipline, but of {229} that kindly sympathy and

affectionate counsel on the part of parents, and of reverence and

frankness in the children; with the result that the young people,

missing the attachment and interest which the home should supply, seek

their satisfaction outside the domestic circle, often with the most

disastrous results. The problem of the family is thus the problem of

nurturing the very seeds of the moral life. Within the precincts of

the nation's homes the future of the commonwealth is being determined.

II

1. The _State_ is the supreme controller of social relationships. As

distinguished from the family and the Church, it is the realm of

organised force working for social ends. Its purpose is to secure the

conditions of life essential to order and progress, and it can fulfil

its function only as it is endowed with power to enforce its authority.

The interference of the State with the liberty of the individual has

created a reaction in two opposite quarters towards complete abrogation

of all State compulsion. On the one side Tolstoy pleads for the

removal of force, because it violates the principle of love and

subverts the teaching of Jesus--'Resist not evil.' Militant anarchism

as the other extreme demands the abrogation of authority, because it

believes that restraint hinders progress and happiness, and that if

governmental force were abolished individuals would be best able to

take care of themselves. The aim of anarchism is to destroy force by

force; the aim of Tolstoy is to allow force to do its worst. Such a

spirit of non-resistance would mean the overthrow of all security, and

the reversion to wild lawlessness. It is an utter travesty of Christ's

teaching. Extremes meet. Violence and servility join hands.

Anarchism and Tolstoyism reveal the total bankruptcy of unrestricted

individualism.

The social order for which the State stands is not so much an

interference with the freedom of the subject as the condition under

which alone individual liberty can be preserved. {230} The view,

however, that the State is an artificial relationship into which men

voluntarily enter in order to limit their selfish instincts and to

secure their mutual advantages--the theory of the 'social

contract'--has been discarded in modern times as a fiction of the

imagination. It is not of his own choice that the individual becomes a

member of society. He is born into it. Man is not a whole in himself.

He is only complete in his fellows. As he serves others he serves

himself. But men are not the unconscious functions of a mechanical

system. They are free, living personalities, united by a sense of

human obligation and kindredship. The State is more than a physical

organism. It is a community of moral aims and ideals. Even law, which

is the soul of the State, is itself the embodiment of a moral

principle; and the commonwealth stands for a great ethical idea, to the

fulfilment of which all its citizens are called upon to contribute.

2. The reciprocal duties of the State and its citizens receive

comparatively little prominence in the New Testament. But they are

never treated with disparagement or contempt. During our Lord's

earthly life the supreme power belonged to the Roman Empire. Though

Jesus had to suffer much at the hands of those in authority, His

habitual attitude was one of respect. He lived in obedience to the

government of the country, and acknowledged the right of Caesar to

legislate and levy taxes in his own province. While giving all

deference to the State officials before whom He was brought, He did not

hesitate to remind them of the ideal of truth and justice of which they

were the chosen representatives.[19] St. Paul's teaching is in harmony

with his Master's, and is indeed an expansion of it.[20] 'The powers

that be are ordained of God. Render therefore to all their dues,

tribute to whom tribute.' Beyond, however, enjoining the necessity of

work as a means of independence, and recommending that each should

remain in the sphere in which he has been placed, and perform

conscientiously the duties of his calling, we {231} find little direct

reference in the Epistles to the matter of citizenship. But as has

been truly said 'the citizen has but to stand in his station, and

perform its duties, in order to fulfil the demands of citizenship.'[21]

St. Paul's insistence therefore upon the personal fidelity of every man

to the duties of his sphere goes far to recognise that spirit of

reciprocal service which is the fundamental idea of the commonwealth.

3. Of the two extreme views as to the meaning of the State between

which the verdict of history has wavered--that of Augustine, who

regarded the State as the result of man's sinful condition and as the

direct antithesis of the kingdom of God; and that of Hegel, who saw in

it the highest ethical form of society, the realisation of the moral

ideal--the view of St. Paul may be said to have approximated more

nearly to the latter. Writing to the Christians at Rome Paul does not

suggest that it was merely for prudence' sake that they should give to

the Imperial Power unquestioning obedience. He appeals to the loftiest

motives. All authority is of God in its origin and ultimate purpose.

What does it matter to him whether Nero be a devil or a saint? He is

the prince upon the throne. He is the symbol of divine authority, 'the

minister of God to thee for good.' As a Christian Paul looks beyond

the temporal world-power as actually existing. Whatever particular

form it may assume, he sees in the State and its rulers only the

expression of God's will. Rome is His agent, oppressive, and, it may

be, unjust, but still the channel through which for the moment the

Almighty works for the furtherance of His purposes.[22]

The conception of the State as thus formulated involves a twofold

obligation--of the State towards its citizens, and of its citizens

towards the State.

(1) As the embodiment of public right the State owes protection to its

subjects, guarding individual privileges and prohibiting such actions

as interfere with the general {232} good. Its functions, however, are

not confined to restrictive measures. Its duty is not only to protect

the rights of the individual, but to create and maintain such

conditions of life as are essential to the development of personality.

In its own interests it is bound to foster the growth of character, and

to promote culture and social well-being. In modern times we look to

the State not only to protect life and property, but to secure for each

individual and for all classes of men that basis of material well-being

on which alone life in its truest sense can be built up. The

government must therefore strike some kind of balance between the

extremes of individualism and socialism. While the old theory of

_laissez-faire_, which would permit every man to follow his own

individual bent without regard to the interests of others, has been

generally repudiated, there is still a class of politicians who

ridicule the 'night watchman' idea of the State as Lassalle calls it.

'Let there be as little State as possible,' exclaims Nietzsche.

According to such thinkers the State has only negative functions. The

best government is that which governs least, and allows the utmost

scope to untrammelled individual enterprise. But if there is a

tendency on the part of some to return to the individualistic

principle, the 'paternal' idea as espoused by others is being carried

to the verge of socialism. The function of the State is stretched

almost to breaking point when it is conceived as the 'guardian angel'

who accompanies and guards with perpetual oversight the whole life of

the individual from the cradle to the grave. Many of the more cautious

writers[23] of the day are exposing the dangers which lurk in the

bureaucratic system of government. This tendency is apt to crush

individual enterprise, and cause men to place entire reliance upon

external aid and centralised power. It is indeed difficult to draw a

fast line of demarcation between purely individual and social ends.

There are obviously primary interests belonging to society as a whole

which the State, if it is to be the instrument of the common good,

ought to control; certain {233} activities which, if permitted as

monopolies, become a menace to the community, and which can be

satisfactorily conducted only as departments of the State. National

life is a unity, and it can only maintain its integrity as it secures

for all its constituents, justice, equity before the law, and freedom

of each to be himself. The State ought to protect those who in the

competitive struggle of the modern industrial system find themselves at

a hopeless disadvantage. It is the duty of the commonwealth to secure

for each the opportunity to become what he is capable of being, and to

fulfil the functions for which he is best fitted. The State cannot

make men moral, but it can interfere with existing conditions so as to

make the moral life easier for its citizens. Criminal law cannot

create saints, but it can punish evil-doers and counteract the forces

of lawlessness which threaten the social order. It cannot legislate

within the domain of motive, but it can encourage self-restraint and

thrift, honesty and temperance. It cannot actually intermeddle with

the sanctity of the home, or assume the rôle of paternal authority, but

it can insist upon the fulfilment of the conditions of decency and

propriety; it can condemn insanitary dwellings, suppress traffic in

vice, supervise unhealthy trades, protect the life and health of

workmen, and, generally, devise means for the culture and the

advancement, intellectually and morally, of the people. The State in

some degree embodies the public conscience, and as such it has the

prerogative of awakening and stimulating the consciences of

individuals. As a divine institution it is one of the channels through

which God makes His will known to man. Law has an ethical import, and

the State which is founded upon just and beneficent laws moulds the

customs and forms the characters of its citizens.

(2) But if the State is to fulfil its ideal function it must rely upon

the general co-operation of its citizens. The measure of its success

or failure will depend upon the extent to which an enlightened sense of

moral obligation prevails in the community. Men must rise above their

{234} own immediate interests and realise their corporate being.

Government makes its will dominant through the voice of the people. It

cannot legislate beyond the sympathies of its constituents. As the

individuals are, so the commonwealth will be. Civil duties vary

according to the qualifications and opportunities of individuals. But

certain general obligations rest upon all.

(_a_) It is the duty of all to take an _interest in public affairs_.

What concerns us collectively is the concern of each. Everything that

touches the public good should be made a matter of intelligent and

watchful interest by all. (_b_) It is the duty of all to _conform to

the laws_ of the country. It is possible that a particular enactment

may conflict with the dictates of conscience, and it may be necessary

to protest against what seems to be an injustice. No rule can be laid

down for exceptional cases. Generally it will be best to submit to the

wrong, while at the same time using all legitimate means to secure the

repeal of the obnoxious law. And if they will revolt, martyrs must not

complain nor be unready to submit to the penalties involved. (_c_) It

is the further duty of all to take some _personal part_ in the

government--if not by active service, at least by the conscientious

recording of one's vote. Christians must not leave the direction of

the nation's affairs to non-Christians. The spirit of Christ forbids

moral indifference to anything human. All are not fitted for, or

called upon to take, public office; but it is incumbent upon every man

to maintain an intelligent public spirit, and to exercise all the

duties of good citizenship. It has been truly said that they who give

most to the State get most from the State. It is the men who play

their part as active citizens working for the nation's cause who enrich

their own lives and reap the harvest of a full existence. Not by

withdrawal from social service, but in untiring labour for their

country's weal, shall men win for themselves and their brethren the

fruits of liberty and peace. For nations as for men emancipation may

come with a stroke, but freedom can be earned only by strenuous and

united toil.

{235}

(3) Already these ideals have begun to take shape. The most

significant feature of modern times is the growing spirit of democracy.

Men of all classes are awakening to their rights, and are accepting

their share in the task of social reconstruction. 'We know how the

masses,' says Eucken, 'are determined to form a mere dependent body of

the so-called higher classes no longer, but to take the problem of life

independently into their own hands.'[24] But while the modern

democratic movement is not without its hopeful aspects, it is fraught

also with grave perils. It is well that the people should awake to

their obligations, and realise the meaning of life, especially in its

social implications. But there is a danger that culture may not

advance with emancipation, and while the masses demand their rights

they may not at the same time discern their duties. For rights involve

duties, and emancipation, as we have seen, is not liberty. The appeal

of the socialistic party is to the equality of all who bear human

features. It sounds plausible. But there never has been, nor never

can be, such equality. Nature and experience alike reveal a pronounced

and insuperable inequality among men. The law of diversity strikes

deep down into the very origin and constitution of mankind. The

equality proclaimed by the French Revolutionists is now regarded as an

idle dream. Not equality of nature but equity before the law, justice

for all, the opportunity for every man to realise himself and make the

most of the life and the gifts which God has given him--that is the

only claim which can be truly made. 'The only idea,' says Eucken,

'which can give to equality any meaning is the conviction that humanity

has spiritual relations, that each individual has a value for himself

and for the whole because he is a part of a larger spiritual world.'

Hence if democracy is truly to come to its own and fulfil its high

vocation, the Pauline figure of the reciprocal influence of the body

and its members must be proclaimed anew as the ideal of the body

politic--a unity fulfilling itself in difference--an organic life in

which the unit finds its {236} place of security-and-service in the

whole, and the whole lives in and acts through the individual parts.

If we are to awaken to the high vocation of the Christian state, to

realise the possibilities of our membership one with another, a new

feeling of manhood and of national brotherhood, a new pride in the

community of life, must take possession of our hearts. We need, as one

has said, a baptism of religious feeling in our corporate

consciousness, a new sense that we are serving God in serving our

fellows, which will hallow and hearten the crusade for health and

social happiness, and give to every citizen a sense of spiritual

service.

III

Unlike the family and State the _Church_ is the creation of Jesus

Christ. It is the witness of His Presence in the world. In its ideal

form it is world-wide. The Redemption for which it stands is a good

for all men. Though in practice many do not acknowledge its blessing,

the Church regards no man beyond its pale of grace. It is set in the

midst of the world as the symbol and pledge of God's universal love.

1. The _Relation of Church and State_ is a difficult question with a

long history, and involving much controversy. Whatever view may be

held as to their legal connection, their interests can never be

regarded as inimical. The Church cannot be indifferent to the action

of the State, nor can the State ignore the work of the Church. But

since their spheres are not identical nor their aims entirely similar,

the trend of modern opinion seems to indicate that, while working in

harmony, it is more satisfactory that they should pursue independent

paths. There are spiritual ends committed to the Church by its Head

over which the civil power has no jurisdiction. On the other hand

there are temporal concerns with which ecclesiastical courts have

neither the vocation nor the qualifications to deal. Still, the

Church, as the organ of Christian thought {237} and activity, has

responsibilities with regard to civil matters. While religion is the

chief agent in the regeneration of man, religion itself is dependent

upon all social means, and the Church must regard with sympathy every

effort made by the community for moral improvement. The main function

of the Church in this connection is to keep before its members a high

ideal of social life, to create a spirit of fidelity in every sphere of

activity, and, particularly, to educate men for the tasks of

citizenship. The State, on the other hand, as the instrument of civic

life, has obligations towards the Church. Its duty is hardly exhausted

by observing an attitude of non-interference. In its own interests it

is bound, not merely to protect, but encourage the Church in the

fulfilment of its immediate aims. Parliament, however, must concede to

ecclesiastical bodies complete liberty to govern themselves. The

Church, as the institution of Christ, claims full autonomy; and the

State goes beyond its province when it imposes hampering restrictions

which interfere with the exercise of its authority and discipline

within its own sphere.

2. As a religious institution the Church exists for three main

purposes: (1) the _Worship_ of God and the Edification of its members;

(2) the _Witness_ of Christ to Mankind; (3) the _Evangelisation_ of the

World.

(1) The first of these objects has already been dealt with when

treating of the duties to God. It is only needful to add here that the

Church is more than a centre of worship; it is the home of kindred

souls knit together by a common devotion to Christ. It is the school

of character which seeks the mutual edification of its members 'by

provoking one another to love and to good works.' Hence among

Protestants the duty of _Church Discipline_ is acknowledged, which

deals with such sins or lapses from rectitude as constitute 'offences'

or 'scandals,' and tend to bring into disrepute the Christian name and

profession. In the Roman Church, the Confessional, through which moral

error is avowed, with its system of penances, has in view the same

object--viz., to reprove, correct, and reclaim {238} those who have

lapsed into sin--thus seeking to fulfil Christ's ideal 'to despair of

no man.'

(2) But the Church is also a rallying place of service. Both in its

corporate capacity, and through the lives of its individual members,

the Church seeks to bear constant _witness to the mind of Christ_. It

proclaims His living example. It reiterates His will and embodies His

judgment, approving of what is good, condemning what is evil, and ever

more confronting the world with the high ideal of the divine Life and

Word. Not all who bear the name of Christ are consistent witnesses.

But still the aim of the Church is to harmonise the profession and

practice of its members, and generally to spiritualise secular life by

the education of public opinion. Before, however, Christians can hope

to make a profound impression upon the outside world, it is not

unnatural to expect that they should exhibit a _spirit of concord_,

among themselves, seeking to heal the unhappy schisms by which the

Church is rent. But while our separations are deplorable--and we ought

not to cease our endeavour for the reunion of Christendom--we must not

forget that there may be harmony of spirit even amid diversity of

operation, and that where there is true brotherly sympathy between

Christians, there already is essential unity.[25]

(3) The special work of the Church to which it is constrained by the

express terms of its Master's commission, is to _preach the Gospel_ to

every creature and to bring all men into obedience to Christ. A

distinction is commonly made between Home and Foreign Missions. While

the distinction is useful, it is scarcely valid. The work of the

Church at home and abroad is one. The claims of the ignorant and

hapless of our own land do not exempt us from responsibilities to the

heathen world. The Lord's Prayer for the coming of the Kingdom

requires of Christian men that they shall consecrate their gifts along

every line of effort to the fulfilment of the divine will upon the

earth.

3. While all sections of the Church are convinced that {239} an honest

application of the principles of Jesus to the practical affairs of life

would speedily transform society, there is considerable diversity of

opinion as to the proper attitude of Christianity to _social problems_.

The outward reconstruction of social order was not, it must be

admitted, the primary aim of Jesus: it was rather the spiritual

regeneration of the individual. But such could only become a reality

as it transformed the entire fabric of life. (1) Christ's teaching

could not but affect the organisation of industry as well as every

other section of the social structure. Though Jesus has many warnings

as to the perils of riches, there is no depreciation of wealth (in its

truest sense). It is true He refuses to interfere in a dispute between

two brothers as to worldly property, and repudiates generally the

office of arbiter. It is true also that He warns His disciples against

covetousness, and lays down the principle that 'a man's life consisteth

not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.' But these

sayings, so far from implying disapproval of earthly possessions, imply

rather that property and trading are the indispensable basis upon which

the outward fabric of the social order is built. Christ does not

counsel withdrawal from the activities of the world. He honours work.

He recognises the legitimacy of trading. Many of His parables would

have no meaning if His attitude to the industrial system of His day had

been one of uncompromising hostility. He has no grudge against riches

in themselves. In the parable of the talents it is the comparatively

poor man who is censured while the rich is commended. To sum up what

Jesus thought about wealth is not easy. Many have thought that He

condemned the holding of property altogether. But such a conclusion

cannot be drawn from His teaching. Possessions, both outward and

inward, are rather to be brought to the test of His judgment. His

influence would rather bring property and commerce under the control of

righteousness and brotherhood. His ideal of life is to be attained

through learning the right use of wealth rather than through the

abolition of it. Wealth {240} can be used for the kingdom of God, and

it is a necessary instrument in the Church's work. It may be

consecrated like every other gift to the service of Christ. But there

are mighty forces enlisted against its best usefulness, and only

through the fullness of Christian grace can its good work be done.

What Jesus does condemn however is the predatory instinct, that greed

of gain which embodies itself everywhere in the spirit of plunder,

exploitation, and the impulse to gambling. He can have nothing but

condemnation for that great wave of money-love which has swept over

Christendom in our time, affecting all classes. It has fostered

self-indulgence, stimulated depraved appetites, corrupted business and

politics, oppressed the poor, materialised our ideals, and weakened

religious influences. 'From this craze of the love of money the voice

of Jesus calls the people back to the sane life in Ethics and religion

in which He is leader.'[26] What then ought to be the attitude of the

Church to the industrial questions of our day? While some contend that

the social question is really a religious question, and that the Church

is untrue to its mission when it holds itself aloof from the economical

problems which are agitating men's minds, others view with suspicion,

if not with hostility, the deflection of religion from its traditional

path of worship, and deem it a mistake for the Church to interfere in

industrial movements.

A recent writer[27] narrates that in his boyhood he actually heard an

old minister of the Church of Scotland declare in the General Assembly,

'We are not here to make the world better: we have only to pass through

it on the way to glory.' 'No grosser travesty,' adds the author, 'was

ever uttered. We _are_ here to make the world better. We have a

commission to stamp out evil and to prevent men from falling into it.

If this is not Christian work, what is?'

At the same time a portion of the clergy have gone to the opposite

extreme, identifying the kingdom of God with social propaganda, and

thus losing sight of its spiritual {241} and eternal, as well as its

personal, significance. There has been moreover a tendency on the part

of some to associate themselves with a political party, and to claim

for the Church the office of judge and arbitrator in industrial strife.

But surely it is one thing to degrade the Church to the level of a

secular society, and another, by witness and by effort, to make the law

of Christ dominant over all the relationships of life. Men are

impatiently asking, 'Has the Church no message to the new demands of

the age? Are Christians to stand apart from the coming battle, and

preach only the great salvation to individual souls? _That_ the

Christian minister must never cease to do; but the Gospel, if it is to

meet the needs of men, must be read in the light of history and

experience, and interpreted by the signs of the times.

(2) The ground idea of Jesus' teaching was, as Troeltsch has pointed

out,[28] the declaration of the kingdom of God. Everything indeed is

relative to union with God, but in God man's earthly life is involved.

Two notes were therefore struck by Jesus, a note of individualism and a

note of universalism--love to God and love to man. These notes do not

really conflict, but they became the two opposite voices of the Church,

and gave rise to different ethical tendencies. The first religious

communities consisted of the poor and the enslaved. It never occurred

to them that they had civic rights: all they desired was freedom to

worship Christ. Not how to transform the social world, but how to

maintain their own religious faith without molestation in the world of

unbelief and evil was their problem.

(3) In the early Catholic Church the spirit of individualism ruled.

With the Reformation a new type of life was developed, and a new

attitude to the social world was established. But while Lutheranism

sought to exercise its influence upon social life through state

regulation, Calvinism was more individualistic, and sought rather to

{242} enforce its teaching by means of the personal life. The attitude

of the various sects--Baptists, Pietists, Puritans--has been largely

individualistic, and instead of endeavouring to rectify the abuses of

industrial life they have been disposed rather to suffer the ills of

this evil world, finding in faith alone their compensation and solace.

In modern times the tendency of the Church, Romanist and Protestant

alike, has been toward social regeneration; and a form of Christian

Socialism has even appeared which however lacks unity of principle and

uniformity of action. The mediaeval idea of a Holy Roman Empire, in

which all nations and classes were to be consolidated, is now admitted

to be a dream incapable of realisation, partly because the idea itself

is illusory, but principally because the hold of the Papacy upon the

people has been weakened. The agitation, 'Los von Rom' on the one

hand, and the 'Modernist' movement on the other, have tended to

dissipate the unity and energy of Catholicism. Nevertheless the

Church, which is really the society of Christian people, is coming to

see that it cannot close its eyes to questions which concern the daily

life of man, nor hold aloof from efforts which are working for the

social betterment of the world. To bring in the kingdom of God is the

Church's work, and it is becoming increasingly evident that the

kingdom, if it is to come in any real and living sense, must come where

Jesus Himself founded it--upon the plane of this present life.

There are two considerations which make this work on the part of the

Church at once imperative and hopeful. The first is that the Church is

specially called upon by the command and example of its Founder to

range itself on the side of the weak and helpless. It is commanded to

bring the principles of brotherly love to bear upon the conditions of

life which press most heavily upon the handicapped. It is called on in

the spirit of its Master to rebuke the greed of gain and the callous

selfishness which uses the toil, and even the degradation of others,

for its own personal enjoyment. The Church only fulfils its function

when {243} it is not only the consoler of the suffering but also the

champion of the oppressed. And the other consideration is that in

virtue of its nature and charter the Church is enabled to appeal to

motives which the State cannot supply. It brings all social obligation

under the comprehensive law of love. It exalts the principle of

brotherhood. It lifts up the sacrifice of Christ, and seeks to make it

potent over the hearts of men. It preaches the doctrine of humanity,

and strives to win a response in all who are willing to acknowledge

their common kinship and equality before God. It appeals to masters

and servants, to employers and labourers, to rich and poor, and bids

them remember that they are sharers alike of the Divine Mercy,

pensioners together upon their Heavenly Father's love.

4. Whatever shape the obligation of the Church may take in regard to

the social problems of the homeland, the duty of Christianity to the

larger world of Humanity admits of no question. The ethical

significance of the missionary movement of last century has been

pronounced by Wundt,[29] the distinguished historian of morals, as the

mightiest factor in modern civilisation. Speaking of humanity in its

highest sense as having been brought into the world by Christianity, he

mentions as its first manifestation the care of the sick, and then

adds, 'the second great expression of Christian humanity is the

establishment of missions.' It is unnecessary to dwell upon this

modern form of unselfish enthusiasm. It has its roots in the simple

necessity, on the part of the morally awakened, of sharing their best

with other people. 'Man grows with the greatness of his purposes,' and

no greater ideal task has ever presented itself to the imagination of

man than this mighty attempt to conquer the world for Christ, and give

to his brother men throughout the earth that which has raised and

enriched himself.[30]

'The two great forming agencies in the world's history,' says a

prominent political economist, 'have been the {244} religious and the

economic.'[31] On the one hand the economic is required as the basis

of civilisation, but on the other the supreme factor is religion. The

commercial impulse, carried on independently of any higher motive than

self-interest, has however not infrequently reacted favourably on the

moral life of the race. Mutual understanding, the sense of a common

humanity, the virtues of honesty, fairness, and confidence upon which

all legitimate commerce is founded, have paved the way in no small

degree for the message of brotherhood and mercy. The present hour is

the Church's opportunity. Already the world has been opened up, the

nations of the earth are awakening to the greatness of life's

possibilities. The danger is that the Oriental peoples should become

satisfied with the mere externals of civilisation, and miss that which

will assure their complete emancipation. Christianity was born in the

East, though it has become the inheritance of the West. It is adapted

by its genius to all men. And undoubtedly the West has no better boon

to confer on the East than that on which its own life and hope are

founded--the religion of Jesus Christ. If we do not give that, we are

unfaithful to our Master's call; we falsify our own history, and wholly

miss the purpose for which we have been entrusted with divine

enlightenment and power.

[1] Lofthouse, _Ethics of the Family_, p. 77.

[2] _Hist. of Human Marriage_, p. 538.

[3] The literature on this subject is enormous. See specially works of

Westermarck, M'Lennan, Frazer, Hobhouse, Andrew Lang, and Ihering.

[4] See chap. vii. in Garvie's _Studies in Inner Life of Jesus_.

[5] Matt. viii. 21, 22; Luke ix. 59-62.

[6] Luke xiv. 26; Matt. x. 37.

[7] Mark x. 29, 30.

[8] Matt. xix. 12.

[9] Matt. v. 32, xix. 3-10; Mark x. 11, 12.

[10] See Forsyth, _Marriage: its Ethics and Religion_.

[11] King, _Ethics of Jesus_, p. 69.

[12] Stalker, _Ethics of Jesus_, p. 336.

[13] Though Nietzsche does not use the word he may be regarded as the

father of modern eugenics.

[14] Cf. Ramsay Macdonald, _Socialism_.

[15] Mark vii. 9-13.

[16] Cf. King, _The Moral and Religious Challenge of our Times_, pp. 42

f.

[17] Cf. W. Wallace, _Lects. and Addresses_, p. 114.

[18] _Aus Leben und Wissenschaft_.

[19] Matt. xii. 18-22; John xviii. 23, xix. 10 f.

[20] Rom. xiii.

[21] Sir H. Jones, _Idealism as a Practical Creed_, p. 123.

[22] Some sentences are here borrowed from author's _Ethics of St.

Paul_.

[23] _E.g._ Eucken, Kindermann, Mallock, and earlier H. Spencer.

[24] _Life's Ideal and Life's Basis_.

[25] Eph. iv. 3.

[26] Clarke, _Ideal of Jesus_, p. 258.

[27] Watson, _Social Advance_.

[28] _Die Soziallehren der Christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen_, a recent

work on social ethics of great erudition and importance.

[29] _Ethik_, vol. ii.

[30] King, _The Moral and Religious Challenge of our Times_, pp. 44 and

346.

[31] Marshall, _Principles of Economics_.

{245}

CHAPTER XIV

CONCLUSION--THE PERMANENCE OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS

In bringing to a close our study of Christian Ethics, we repeat that

the three dominant notes of the Christian Ideal are--Absoluteness,

Inwardness, and Universality. The Gospel claims to be supreme in life

and morals. The uniqueness and originality of the Ethics of

Christianity are to be sought, however, not so much in the range of its

practical application as in the unfolding of an ideal which is at once

the power and pattern of the new life. That ideal is Christ in whom

the perfect life is disclosed, and through whom the power for its

realisation is communicated. Life is a force, and character a growth

arising in and expanding from a hidden seed. Hence in Christian Ethics

apathy and passivity, and even asceticism and quietism, which occupy an

important place in the moral systems of Buddha and Neo-Platonism, in

mediaeval Catholicism and the teaching of Tolstoy, play only a

subsidiary part, and are but preparatory stages towards the realisation

of a fuller life. On the contrary all is life, energy, and unceasing

endeavour. 'I am come that ye may have life, and that ye may have it

more abundantly.'

There is no finality in Christian Ethics. It is not a mechanical and

completed code. The Ethic of the New Testament, just because it has

its spring in the living Christ, is an inexhaustible fountain of life.

'True Christianity,' says Edward Caird, 'is not something which was

published in Palestine, and which has been handed down by a dead

tradition ever since; it is a living and growing {246} spirit, and

learns the lessons of history, and is ever manifesting new powers and

leading on to new truths.'

The teaching of Jesus is not merely temporary or local. It is an utter

perversion of the Gospels to make the eschatology present in them the

master-key to their meaning, or to derive the ethical ideal from the

utterances which anticipate an abrupt and immediate end. Jesus spoke

indeed the language of His time and race, and often clothed His

spiritual purpose in the form of national expectation. But to base His

moral maxims on an 'Interim-Ethic' adapted to a transitory world is to

'distort the perspective of His teaching, and to rob it of its unity

and insight.' On the contrary, the Ethics of Jesus are everywhere

characterised by adaptability, universality, and permanence, and in His

attitude to the great problems of life there is a serenity and sympathy

which has nothing in common with the nervous and excited expectation of

sudden catastrophe.

In like manner it is a misinterpretation of the teaching of Jesus to

represent asceticism as the last word of Christian Ethics.

Renunciation and unworldliness are undoubtedly frequently commended in

the New Testament, but they are urged not as ends in themselves but as

means to a fuller self-realisation. Such was not the habitual temper

and tone of Jesus in His relations to the world, nor was the ultimate

purpose of His mission to create a type of manhood whose perfection lay

in withdrawal from the interests and obligations of life. 'To single

out a teaching of non-resistance as the core of the Gospels, to retreat

from social obligations in the name of one who gladly shared them and

was called a friend of wine-bibbers and publicans--all this, however

heroic it may be, is not only an impracticable discipleship but a

historical perversion. It mistakes the occasionalism of the Gospels

for universalism.'[1]

Finally, there are many details of modern social well-being with which

the New Testament does not deal, questions of present-day ethics and

economics which cannot be decided by a direct reference to chapter and

{247} verse, either of the Gospels or Epistles. The problems of life

shift with the shifting years, but the nature of life remains

unchanged, and responds to the life and the spirit of Him who was, and

remains down the ages, the Light of men. The individual virtues of

humility, purity of heart, and self-sacrifice are not evanescent, but

are now and always the pillars of Christian Ethics; while the great

principles of human solidarity, of brotherhood and equality in Christ,

of freedom, of love, and service; the New Testament teachings

concerning the family, the State, and the kingdom of God; our Lord's

precepts with regard to the sacredness of the body and the soul, the

duty of work, the stewardship of wealth, and the accountability to God

for life with its variety of gifts and tasks--contain the germ and

potency of all personal and social transformation and renewal.

[1] Prof. Peabody, _Harvard Theological Review_, May 1913.

{248}

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A.--GENERAL WORKS ON ETHICS

I. ENGLISH WORKS

1. _Early Idealism and Intuitionalism_.

Hobbes, 1650; Mandeville, 1714; Cudworth, 1688; Cumberland, 1672; Sam.

Clarke, 1704; Shaftesbury, 1713; Butler, 1729; Hutchison, 1756; Adam

Smith, 1759; R. Price, 1757; Thom. Reid, 1793; Dugald Stewart, 1793; W.

Whewell, 1848; H. Calderwood, _Handbook of Mor. Phil._, 1872;

Martineau, _Types of Ethical Theory_, 1886; Laurie, _Ethics_, 1885; N.

Porter, _Elements of Moral Science_, 1885.

2. _Utilitarianism_.

Locke, _Concerning Human Understanding_, 1690; Hartley, _Observations

on Man_, 1748; Hume, _Enquiry Concerning Principles of Morals_, 1751;

_Essays_, 1742; Paley, _Principles of Mor. and Political Phil._, 1785;

Bentham, _Introd. to Principles of Morals and Legislation_, 1789; Jas.

Mill, _Analysis of the Human Mind_, 1829; J. S. Mill, _Utilitarianism_,

1863; A. Bain, _Mental and Moral Science_, 1868; _Mind and Body_, 1876;

H. Sidgwick, _Methods of Ethics_ (6th ed.), 1901; Shadworth Hodgson,

_Theory of Practice_, 1870; T. Fowler, _Progressive Morality_, 1884;

Grote, _Examination of Utilitarian Ethics_, 1870.

3. _Evolutionary Ethics_.

Chas. Darwin, _Descent of Man_, 1871; Herbert Spencer, _Principles of

Ethics_ and _Data of Ethics_, 1879; W. K. Clifford, _Lectures and

Essays_, 1879; Leslie Stephen, _Science of Ethics_, 1882; S. Alexander,

_Moral Order and Progress_, 1889; Shurman, _Ethical Import of

Darwinism_; Huxley, _Evolution and Ethics_; Hobhouse, _Morals in

Evolution_ (2 vols.), 1906; Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the

Moral Ideas_, 1909.

4. _Modern Idealism_.

T. H. Green, _Proleg. to Ethics_, 1883; F. H. Bradley, _Ethical

Studies_, 1876; _Appearance and Reality_, 1893; E. Caird, _Crit. Phil.

of Kant_, 1890; _Evolution of Religion_, 1903; W. R. Sorley, _Ethics of

Naturalism_, 1885; _Recent Tendencies in Ethics_, 1904; _The Moral

Life_, 1912; W. L. Courtney, _Constructive Ethics_, 1886; J. S.

Mackenzie, _Introd. to Social Philos._, 1890; _Manual of Ethics_ (4th

ed.), 1900; W. Wallace, _Lectures and Essays_, 1898; Muirhead,

_Elements of Ethics_, 1892; Rashdall, _Theory of Good and Evil_; Boyce

Gibson, _A Philos. Introd. to Ethics_, 1904; Ward, _Kingdom of Ends_

(Gifford Lect.), 1910; Bosanquet, _Principles of Individuality and

Value_, 1912; _Value and Destiny of the Individual_ (Gifford Lects.),

1913; _Psychology of the Moral Self_; D'Arcy, _Short Study of Ethics_;

W. Arthur, _Physical and Moral Law_; Jas. Seth, _Study of Ethical

Principles_ (11th ed.), 1910; Ryland, _Manual of Ethics_; G. E. Moore,

_Principia Ethica_, 1903; _Ethics_ (Home Univ. Lib.), 1912; MacCunn,

_Making of Character_, 1905; _Ethics of Citizenship_, 1907; _Six

Radical Thinkers_, 1907; Bowne, _Principles of Ethics; Immanence of

God_, 1906; Dewey, _Outlines of a Crit. Theory of Ethics_, 1891;

Harris, _Moral Evolution_; Hyslop, _Elements of Ethics_, 1895; Mezes,

_Ethics, Descriptive and Explanatory_, 1901; Royce, _Religious Aspects

of Philosophy; Philosophy of Loyalty_, 1908; Taylor, _Problem of

Conduct_; Rand, _The Classical Moralists_ (Selections), 1910.

II. FOREIGN WORKS

Kant's works, specially _Metaphysics of Ethics_, trans. by T. K.

Abbott, under title, _Kant's Theory of Ethics_ (3rd ed.), 1883; Fichte,

_Science of Ethics_ (trans.), 1907; _Science of Rights_ (trans.);

_Popular Works_ (2 vols.); _Vocation of Man_, etc.; Hegel, _Philosophy

of Right_, trans. by S. W. Dyde, 1896; Lotze, _Practical Philosophy,

_1890; Paulsen, _System of Ethics_, trans. by Tufts; Wundt, _Ethics, An

Investigation of the Facts and Laws of the Moral Life_ (3 vols.),

trans. from 2nd German ed., 1892; Dubois, _The Culture of Justice_;

Guyot, _La Morale_; Janet, _Theory of Morals_ (trans.); Nietzsche's

_Works_, translated by Oscar Levy (18 vols.); Eucken, _The Problem of

Human Life_, 1912; _Life's Basis and Life's Ideal_, 1912; _Meaning and

Value of Life_, 1912; _Main Current of Modern Thought_, 1912; _The Life

of the Spirit_, 1909; Hensel, _Hauptproblem der Ethik_, 1903; Lipps,

_Die Ethischen Grundfragen_, 1899; Natorp, _Social-paedagogik_;

Schuppe, _Grundzüge der Ethik_; Wentscher, _Ethik_; Schwarz, _Das

Sittliche Leben_; L. Levy-Bruhl, _Ethics and Moral Science_, trans. by

Eliz. Lee, 1905; Windelband, _Präludien. über Willensfreiheit_; Bauch,

_Glückseligkeit und Persönlichkeit in der krit. Ethik_; {250}

_Sittlichkeit und Kuttur_; Cohen, _Ethik des Reinen Willens_, 1904;

Dilthey, _Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften_; Ihering, _Der Zweck

im Recht_ (2 Bde.), 1886; Cathrein, _Moral. Philosophie_ (2 Bde.),

1904; Tonnies, _Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft_, 1887.

B.--CHRISTIAN ETHICS

I. GENERAL

Harless, _Christl. Ethik_, 1842 (trans.), 1868; Schleiermacher, _Die

Christl. Sitte_, 1843; Marheineke, _System d. Christl. Moral_, 1847;

Bothe, _Theol. Ethik_, 1845; De Wette, _Lehrbuch d. Christl.

Sittenlehre_, 1853; Ch. F. Schmid, _Christl. Sittenlehre_, 1861; A.

Wuttke, _Handbuch d. Christl. Sittenlehre_, 1861 (trans., 2 vols., J.

P. Lacroix, 1873); F. P. Cobbe, _Religious Duty_, 1864; _Studies

Ethical and Social_, 1865; Seeley, _Ecce Homo_, 1886; Maurice, _Social

Morality_, 1872; _Conscience_, 1872; Wade, _Christianity and Morality_,

1876; Hofmann, _Theol. Ethik_, 1878; Lange, _Grundriss d. Christl.

Ethik_, 1878; Martensen, _Christl. Ethik_ (trans., 3 vols.), 1878;

Gregory Smith, _Characteristics of Christian Morality_, 1876; O.

Pfleiderer, _Grundriss d. Glaubens und Sittenlehre_, 1880; Luthardt,

_Vorträge über die Moral d. Christenthums_, 1882; S. Leathes,

_Foundations of Morality_, 1882; Frank, _System d. Christl.

Sittenlehre_, 1885; Westcott, _Social Aspects of Christianity_, 1887;

W. T. Davidson, _The Christian Conscience_, 1888; Balfour, _The

Religion of Humanity_, 1888; Maccoll, _Christianity in Relation to

Science and Morals_, 1889; Stanton, _Province of Christian Ethics_,

1890; Hughes, _Principles of Natural and Supernatural Morals_, 1890; W.

G. Lilly, _Right and Wrong_, 1890; Bright, _Morality in Doctrine_,

1892; Schultz, _Grundriss d. Evangelischen Ethik_, 1891; Newman Smyth,

_Christian Ethics_, 1892; Dowden, _Relation of Christian Ethics to

Philos. Ethics_, 1892; Jas. Drummond, _Via, Veritas, Vita_ (Hib.

Lect.), 1894; Jacoby, _Neukstamentliche Ethik_, 1889; Salwitz, _Das

Problem d. Ethik_, 1891; Knight, _The Christian Ethic_, 1893; Jas.

Kidd, _Morality and Religion_, 1895; Strong, _Christian Ethics_, 1897;

Troeltsch, _Die Christl. Ethik und die heutige Gesellschaft_, 1904;

_Die Sociallehren d. Christl. Kirchen u. Gruppen_ (2 vols.), 1912;

_Protestantism and Progress_, 1912; Lemme, _Christl. Ethik._ (2 vols.),

1908; Kirn, _Grundriss d. Theol. Ethik_, 1909; _Sitlliche

Lebenanschauungen d. Geigenwart_, 1911; Nash, _Ethics and Revelation_;

Dobschütz, _The Christian Life in the Primitive Church_; Clark, _The

Church and the Changing Order_; Ottley, _Christian Ideas and Ideals_,

1909; Clark Murray, _Handbook of Christian Ethics_, 1908; Henry W.

Clark, _The Christian Method of Ethics_, 1908; Rauschenbusch,

_Christianity and the Social Crisis_, 1908; Geo. Matheson, _Landmarks

of New Testament Morality_, 1888; J. Smith, _Christian Character and

Social Power_; Gladden, _Applied Christianity_; J. R. Campbell,

_Christianity and the Social Order_; Coe, _Education in Religion and

Morals_; Peile, _The Reproach of the Gospel_; Gottschick, _Ethik_,

1907; W. Schmidt, _Der Kampf um die Sittliche Welt_, 1906; Herrmann,

_Ethik_, 1909; _Faith and Morals, Communion of the Christian with God_;

A. E. Balch, _Introduction to the Study of Christian Ethics_;

Kirkpatrick, _Christian Character and Conduct_; Church, _Outlines of

Christian Character_; Paget, _Christian Character_; Illingworth,

_Christian Character; Personality, Human and Divine_; R. Mackintosh,

_Christian Ethics_, 1909; Haering, _The Ethics of the Christian Life_

(trans.), 1909; Barbour, _A Philos. Study of Christian Ethics_, 1911;

Stubbs, _Christ and Economics_; W. S. Bruce, _Social Aspects of

Christian Morality_, 1905; _Formation of Christian Character_; Harper,

_Christian Ethics and Social Progress_, 1912; T. C. Hall, _Social

Solutions in the Light of Christian Ethics_, 1911.

II. SPECIAL SUBJECTS

1. _Ethics of Jesus_.

Briggs, _Ethical Teaching of Jesus_; P. Brooks, _Influence of Jesus_;

Dale, _Laws of Christ for Common Life_; Feddersen, _Jesus und die

Socialen Dinge_; Gardner, _Exploratio Evangelica_; Ehrhardt, _Der

Grundcharacter d. Ethik Jesu_, 1895; Grimm, _Die Ethik Jesu_, 1903;

Peabody, _Jesus Christ and the Christian Character_, 1905; _Jesus

Christ and the Social Question_, 1902; _The Approach to the Social

Question_, 1909; King, _The Ethics of Jesus_, 1910; _Moral and Social

Challenge of our Times_, 1912; Rau, _Die Ethik Jesu_; Stalker, _Imago

Christi_, 1888; _The Ethic of Jesus_, 1909; Mathews, _The Social

Teaching of Jesus_; Horton, _The Commandments of Jesus_; W. N. Clarke,

_The Ideal of Jesus_, 1911.

2. _Teaching of Jesus and Apostles_.

_Works_ of A. B. Bruce; Gilbert, _Revelation of Jesus_; Harnack, _What

is Christianity?_ (Das Wesen); _Sayings of Jesus_; Jülicher,

_Gleichnissreden Jesu_; Denney, _Jesus and the Gospel_, 1909; Latham,

_Pastor Pastorum_; Moorhouse, Pullan, Ross, Von Schrenck, Stevens,

Swete; Tolstoy, _My Religion_; Wendt, _Lehre Jesu_ (2 ed.), 1901;

Weizsäcker, _The Apostolic Age_; Hausrath, _History of N. T. Times_;

Fairbairn, _Christ in Modern Thought_; D. La Touche, _The Person of

Christ in Modern Thought_, 1911; Pfanmüller, _Jesus im Urtheil d.

Jahrhunderte_; Bacon, _Jesus, the Son of God_; Dalman, _Words of

Jesus_; Baur, _Paulinismus_; Bosworth, _Teaching of Jesus and

Apostles_; Pfleiderer, _Paulinismus; Primitive Christianity_;

Johan-Weiss, _Paul and Jesus_; Gardner, _Relig. Experience of St.

Paul_; Alexander, _Ethics of St. Paul_.

{252}

C.--HISTORY OF ETHICS

See Histories of Philosophy: Ueberweg, Erdmann, Windelband, Schwegler,

Maurice, Rogers; Alexander, _A Short History of Philosophy_ (2nd ed.),

1908; Lecky, _Hist. of Europ. Morals_; Luthardt, _History of Ethics_;

Rogers, _A Short History of Ethics_, 1912; Thoma, _Geschichte d.

Christl. Sittenlehre in der Zeit d. N. T._, 1879; Wundt (_Vol. II. of

Ethics_); Wuttke (_Vol. I. of Ethics_); Sidgwick, _History of Ethics_;

Ziegler, _Gesch. d. Ethik_; Jodl, _Gesch. d. Ethik in d. Neueren

Philosophie_; T. C. Hall, _History of Ethics within Organized

Christianity_, 1910. See also Relevant Articles in Bible Dictionaries,

especially Hastings' _Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_.

{253}

INDEX

Activism, 117, 122, 179.

Adiaphora, 201.

Aestheticism, 15 f., 108.

Alquin, 2.

Apocalyptic teaching of Christ, 133.

Aquinas, Thomas, 2, 196.

Aristotle, 10, 17 f., 40 f., 66, 70, 87, 107, 187.

Arnold, Matthew, 1, 107.

Asceticism, 129, 150, 192, 245.

Assimilation to Christ, 179.

Atonement, 166.

Augustine, 30, 57 f., 66, 140, 231.

Aurelius, Marcus, 43, 70.

Avenarius, 86.

Balch, 132, 133.

Barbour, 41, 135, 157, 159, 161.

Baur, 39.

Beatitudes, 129, 136, 188.

Beneficence, 213.

Bentham, 103, 204.

Bergson, 64, 91 f., 117 f.

Bernard, 218.

Blewett, Christian view of God, 170.

Bosanquet, 16, 27, 64, 92, 113, 114.

Bousset, 134, 135.

Brotherhood, 145, 210, 243, 247.

Browning, 3, 16, 60, 63, 77, 119, 131, 132, 138, 206, 218.

Bunsen, 69.

Burckhardt, 227.

Burke, 204.

Burkitt, 32.

Burnet, 41.

Burns, Robert, 204.

Butcher, 41.

Butler, Bishop, 166.

Caird, E., 44, 60, 64, 245.

---- J., 63.

Cairns, 135.

Calixtas, G., 2.

Calvinism, 2, 57, 241.

Cambridge Platonists, 39.

Campbell, 69.

Chamberlain, Houston, 48.

Character, 6, 10, 14, 15, 24, 186;

making of, 208.

Childhood, children, 226 f.

Christ, 1, 4, 5, 11 f., 124;

as example, 146 f.;

character of, 148 f., 150.

Christianity, 123 f.

Church, 4, 209, 236 ff.

Citizenship, 39, 151, 233 f.

Clarke, 240.

Clement, 2, 39.

Coleridge, 3.

Collectivism, 106.

Compassion, 212.

Conduct, 1, 6, 13, 15, 183 f.

Conscience, 68 f.

Conversion, 171.

Courage, 38, 186, 187, 190.

Cousin, 16.

_Creative Evolution_, 117.

Croce, Benedetto, 117.

Culture, 16, 99, 108, 130, 148, 156, 207, 208.

Daemon of Socrates, 69.

Danaeus, 2.

Dante, 125, 138.

Darwin, 74.

David, Psalms, 48 f., 70.

Davidson, 69, 81.

Death of Christ, 166.

Decalogue, 2, 45, 72.

Deissmann, 162.

Democracy, 235.

Denney on Forgiveness, 163.

Descartes, 204.

Determinism, 88 f.

Dewey, Professor, 64.

Disinterestedness of motive, 156 f.

Divorce, 224.

Dobschütz, 134.

Dogmatics, 3, 24 f.

Dorner, 25 f.

Drew, 31.

Duty, Duties, 8, 21, 52, 196 ff.

Dynamic of new life, 164 f.

'Ecce Homo,' 152, 205.

Ecclesiasticism, 3, 49.

Economics, 17, 239.

Ehrhardt, 151.

Emerson on Example, 151.

Empire, Roman, 43; 'Holy,' 242.

Engels, 105.

Epictetus, 43, 70.

Epicureans, 42.

Erinnyes of Aeschylus, 69.

Eschatology, 133 f.

Eternal life, 131.

Ethics, Christian, 1 f., 5, 6, 10 ff;

Philos., 22, 35 f., 168;

permanence of, 245.

---- of Israel, 44 ff.

Eucken, 86, 93, 108, 115, 117, 121 f., 179, 203, 207, 235.

Eugenics, 110, 255.

Euripides, 69.

Evil, 57 f., 62, 118.

Evolutionalism, 74 f., 103 f.

Example, human, 151, 214 f.;

of Jesus, 140, 222 f.

Externalism, 142 f.

Fairbairn, A. M., 147.

Faith, 65, 67, 174 f., 196, 216;

Pauline doct., 177.

Faithfulness, 200, 203, 216, 224, 231.

Faith healing, 90.

Family, 220 f.; relationships, 222, 226.

Fatherhood of God, 141, 145, 153, 216.

Feuerbach, 101.

Fichte, 65, 112, 204.

Forgiveness, divine, 153; human, 214.

Forsyth, 224.

'Foundations,' 173.

Frazer, 29, 221.

Garvie, 222.

God, idea of, 26; sovereignty of, 27; fatherhood of, 27;

love of, 28; recognition of, 215; obedience to, 216;

worship of, 217.

Godlikeness, 141, 218.

Goethe, 58, 81, 107, 130, 212.

Grace, means of, 209.

Graces, 188.

Grant, Sir A., on 'Mean,' 185.

Greece, Ancient, 11, 35.

Greeks, 16, 28, 69.

Green, T. H., 18, 75, 77, 88, 187, 218.

Haeckel, 86, 101.

Haering, 21, 25, 156, 201.

Harnack, 176, 205, 228.

Hebrew, 35, 44.

Hedonism, 104.

Hegel, 9, 19, 55, 65, 112 f., 124, 204, 213, 231.

Heraclitus, 37.

Hermann, E., 125.

Herrmann, 202.

Hobbes, 57, 102.

Hobhouse, 221.

Holiness, 141; of Jesus, 149.

Hope, 47, 197 f.

Hügel, von, 126.

Hume, 18.

Hypnotism, 90.

Hyslop, 14.

Ideals, 6, 12; idealism, 107, 127 f.

Ihering, 221.

Immanence of God, 43, 93.

Immortality, 155.

Incarnation, 165 f.

Indeterminism, 88.

Individualism, 107, 204, 205.

Inge, 16.

Intellect and Intuition, 65, 118.

Intellectualism, 64, 65, 114, 118.

Intensity of life, 129 f.

_Interimsethik_, 134 f., 246.

Intuitionalism, 72.

Irenaeus, 166.

Israel, 35, 44, 70.

Jacoby, 25, 142, 157.

James, St., 29.

---- W., 56, 65, 66, 89 f., 114 f., 172.

Jones, Sir H., 132, 219, 231.

Judaeism, Ethics of, 45.

Judgment, final, 140; just judgment, 212.

Justice, 32, 38, 172, 187 f., 210, 233.

Justification by faith, 177.

Kant, 13, 65 f., 74, 111 f., 152, 158, 162, 185, 204.

Keim, 151.

King, 134, 224, 227, 243.

Kingdom of God, 132 f.

Kirkup, 105.

Knight, 36.

Lassalle, 232.

Law, Mosaic, 45 f., 70.

Lecky, 43, 66, 211, 217.

Lemme, 25, 79 f.

Leonardo, 92.

Lidgett, 27.

Life, 12, 118; as ideal, 128; as vocation, 200;

regard for, 207; as Godlikeness, 141; sacredness of, 142;

Christ as standard of, 147; brevity of, 154; 'eternal,' 131.

Lodge, Sir O., 172.

Lofthouse, 221.

Logic, 15, 118.

Lotze, 88.

Love, supremacy of, 28, 196 f; divine, 144, 153.

Lütgert, 108.

Maccabean age, 48.

MacCunn, 203.

Macdonald, Ramsay, 220.

Mach, 85 f.

Machiavelli, 70.

Mackenzie, 13, 14, 19.

Mackintosh, 26, 199.

Macmillan, 112.

Mallock, 232.

Man, estimate of, 55 ff.; primitive, 57.

Mark, St., 32.

Marriage, 223, 225.

Marshall, 224.

Martensen, 25.

Marx, 105.

Massachusetts, 'Declaration of Rights,' 205.

Matheson, Geo., 194.

Mazzini on Rights, 203.

'Mean' of Aristotle, 40, 185.

Metaphysics, 3, 10, 17 f., 25, 37.

Meyers, St. Paul, 168, 217.

Micah, 47.

Mill, J. S., 32, 103.

Millar, Hugh, 56.

Milton, 58.

Mission of Jesus, 149.

Missionary movement, 243.

Moffatt, 134.

Morality, 10, 37 f.

Morals, 24. See Ethics.

Morris, 92.

Motives, 6, 10; Christian, 152 f.

Muirhead, 14.

Murray, 55, 58.

Müller, Max, 58.

Nativism, 72.

Naturalism, 100 ff.

Nemesis, 69.

Neo-Platonism, 39 f., 40, 44, 245.

'New Ethic,' 108.

Nietzsche, 58, 109, 225, 232.

Nine Foundation Pillars of Schmiedel, 31.

Norm, Normative, 12, 146.

Novalis, 16, 25.

Obedience, 178.

Old Dispensation, 45.

Origin, 39.

Orr, J., 142.

Oswald, 86.

Ottley, 59, 61, 209, 213.

'Ought,' 12, 21, 80.

Paine, 204.

Parables of the kingdom, 137.

Parents, 226.

Parker, Theodore, 56.

Pascal, 57, 59.

Passions, 41, 58, 191.

Paul, St., 22, 26, 30 f., 43, 47, 57 f.,

66, 70, 77, 94 f., 162, 173, 177.

Paulsen, 10, 151, 199.

Peabody, 148, 150, 246.

Pelagius, 56.

Penalty, 162.

_Pensées_, 59.

Perfection, spiritual, 27, 141.

Permissible, 202.

Personality, 6, 55 f., 61, 112, 113, 122, 209, 213.

Pfleiderer, 44.

Pharisaism, 143.

Philosophy, 4, 5, 9, 35 f.

Plato, 18 f., 37 ff., 66, 107, 184, 187.

Pluralism, 116.

Poetry of Old Testament, 45 f., 48.

Politics, 15 f.

Postulates, 6, 18, 22, 25, 29.

Power, divine, 164 f.

Pragmatism, 63, 114 f.

Prayer, 217.

Pringle-Pattison, 103.

Property, 213.

Rashdall, 27.

Realisation of self, 128.

Reformation, 2, 11, 47.

Regeneration, 171.

Regret, 171.

Renewal, 171.

Renunciation of Gospel, 156.

Repentance, 171.

Response, human, 169.

Responsibility of man, 29. See Will.

Resurrection of Christ, 167.

Revolution, French, 56, 235.

Rewards, 157 f.

Richter, Jean Paul, 155.

Righteousness, 46 f., 52, 142, 192.

Risen life, 167.

Ritschlian school, 63, 90.

Romanticism, 107.

Rome, 35; Romanist, 243.

Rousseau, 56 f., 100.

Ruskin, 16.

Sabatier, 66.

Sacrifice of Christ, 166; self, 131, 191, 194, 209.

Sanday, Professor, 139, 157.

Schelling, 65.

Schiller, 16, 107.

Schleiermacher, 3, 25, 39, 201.

Schmidt, 86.

Schmiedel, 31.

Schopenhauer, 109.

Schultz on copying Christ, 152.

Schweitzer, 134.

Science, 13 f., 83.

Scott, E., 134, 140.

Seeley, 16.

Self-regard, 207.

Self-restraint of Jesus, 150.

Self-sufficiency, 130.

Seneca, 43, 70.

Sermon on (the) Mount, 32.

Seth, Jas., 103.

Sin, 28 f., 140.

Sinlessness of Jesus, 149.

Smith, Adam, 103.

Smyth, Newman, 17, 26, 132.

Socialism, 105; social problems, 225 f., 239.

Society. Social institutions, 220 ff.

Socrates, 9, 36 f., 39, 69, 186.

Sonship, 153.

Sophists, 11, 36, 37.

Sophocles, 69.

Soul, 61, 119.

Sovereignty of God, 27, 93, 144.

Specialisation, 207.

Spencer, 74 f., 103, 232.

Spinoza, 18.

Sport, 207.

Stalker, 176, 224.

Standard of New Life, 146 f.

State, 229 ff.

Stephen, Leslie, 17.

Stoics, 42, 56, 70, 185, 194.

Strauss, 151.

Strong, 193.

Sudermann, 110.

Suffering, 202, 208.

_Summum bonum_, 11. See Ideal.

Symonds, 69.

Sympathy of Jesus, 149.

Synoptic Gospels, 33.

Tasso, 81.

Temperance, 38, 187, 191.

Temptation, 208.

Tennyson, 3, 39; wages, 161.

Testament, New, 28, 30 f., 35, 57, 71.

---- Old, 26, 45.

Thanksgiving, 218.

_Theologia Moralis_, 2.

Titius, 134.

Touche, E. D. La, 145.

Troeltsch, 135, 151, 241.

Truthfulness, 211.

Utilitarianism, 103 f., 114.

Virtue. Virtues, 69, 21, 38 ff., 183 ff.

Vitalism, 117, 120.

Vocation, 154, 199 f.

Wages, 161.

Watson, 240.

Wealth, 239.

Weiss, Johannus, 134, 170.

_Welt-Anschauung_, 19, 31.

Wenley, 44.

Wernle, 58, 134.

Westcott, Bishop, 39.

Westermarck, 221.

Will, 12 ff., 82 f.

Wisdom, 38, 43, 49, 187, 192.

Wordsworth, 3, 39.

Work, 208, 239.

Worship, 217, 237.

Wundt, 73, 78 f., 186, 213, 243.

Wuttke, 13, 25, 217.