¦  ' .

>YAILIE'¥]MII¥EI&SflW«

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF
Library of
The Her. Clifton H. Brewer

JESUS CHRIST AND THE
SOCIAL QUESTION

-jW^e-

JESUS CHRIST AND THE
SOCIAL QUESTION

AN EXAMINATION OF THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN
ITS RELATION TO SOME OF THE PROBLEMS
OF MODERN SOCIAL LIFE

BY

FRANCIS GREENWOOD PEABODY
FLUMMER PROFESSOR OF CHRISTIAN MORALS
IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

^ary oift£^

l» Haven, C?#

Nrfn fforfe
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON : MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.
igoi
AU rights reserved

Copyright, 1900,
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

Set up and electrotyped November, 1900. Reprinted March,
1901; April, 1901 ; August, 1901.

NotiDaorj Iprcss
J. S. Cuahing & Co. — Berwick & Smith
Norwood Mass. U.S.A.

THROUGH SUNNY DAYS AND ON THROUGH STORMY WEATHER,
YET EVER HAND IN HAND, BELOVED WIFE,
WE TWO HAVE WALKED OUR QUIET WAY TOGETHER
ALONG THE DUSTY ROAD OF COMMON LIFE.
BRIGHT WERE THE VISTAS ON OUR JOURNEY SEEN,
AND DARK THE VALLEYS OF THE SHADOW LAY,
BUT YOUR DEAR LOVE, LIKE ISRAEL'S GOD, HAS BEEN
MY LIGHT IN DARKNESS AND MY SHADE BY DAY.
I CANNOT GIVE YOU WHAT A SCHOLAR OUGHT,
LEARNING OR WIT OR INSIGHT FOR THE TRUE;
I BUT TRANSCRIBE WHAT YOU HAVE DAILY TAUGHT, —
THE SPIRIT OF THE MASTER SEEN IN YOU.

CONTENTS CHAPTER I
PAGE
The Comprehensiveness of the Teaching of Jesus . i
CHAPTER II
The Social Principles of the Teaching of Jesus . 76
CHAPTER III
The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Family . . 129
CHAPTER IV
The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Rich . .183
CHAPTER V
The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Care of the
Poor  . ¦ 226
CHAPTER VI
The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Industrial
Order  267
CHAPTER VII
The Correlation of the Social Qjkstions . . 327
vii

JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL
QUESTION CHAPTER I
THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING OF
JESUS
Wgt life bras tije ligljt of mm.
There are many periods in history which, as
one looks back on them, seem marked by distinct
and central problems or achievements, as if to
each such time there had been committed a
special work to do. Their characteristics stand
out clearly against the past, as a distant range
of mountains stands out against an evening sky.
We speak with confidence of the mission of
Greece to civilization, of the place of Rome in
history, of the vocation of the Hebrews, of the
period of the Reformation, of the epoch of
Napoleon. By one lesson at a time, — through
types of beauty or strength or righteousness,
through instructions in intellectual liberty, or
warnings of the lust for power, — the Master of
the ages seems to have directed the education
of the human race. Sometimes this mission of
an age or race is recognized by those who are

2 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
fulfilling it; sometimes it is discerned when one
stands at a distance, where the crowded details
of life melt into a general view. The Hebrews,
on the one hand, were sustained throughout
their history by the conviction of their sacred
and special calling, and that conviction gave
to their career its sombre, strenuous, self-examin
ing character; in Greek life, on the other hand,
it was the very unconsciousness of a didactic
mission which made possible the prevailing
serenity and charm. If Greek art had stood
consciously before the glass of the future, it
might have been the teacher, but could not have
been the joy, of the world.
The present age belongs, without question, to
the former class. There is not only given to it
a mission, but there is added a distinct conscious
ness of that mission. We do not have to wait
for the philosophical historian of some remote
future to discern the characteristic problem of
the present time. Behind all the extraordinary
achievements of modern civilization, its transfor
mations of business methods, its miracles of scien
tific discovery, its mighty combinations of political
forces, there lies at the heart of the present
time a burdening sense of social mal-adjustment
which creates what we call the social ques
tion. "The social question," remarks Professor
Wagner, " comes of the consciousness of a con
tradiction between economic development and
the social ideal of liberty and equality which is

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 3
being realized in political life." 1 This is what
gives its fundamental character to the present age.
The consciousness of contradiction between eco
nomic progress and spiritual ideals.jiiay_.use thg
language of social philosophy, or_may take, the
form of social service, or may be organized in
social legislation, or may simply utter itself in the
passionate cry of indignation or hate which comes
from the hungry or despairing, or from those who
sympathize with them. In all these varied, and
often unreasonable or extravagant, ways the c.har.-
acteristic emotion of the time expressesjiself. Jt_
isthe age oL_the. social question. Never were so
many people, learned and ignorant, rich and poor,
philosophers and agitators, men and women, so
stirred by this recognition of inequality in social
opportunity, by the call to social service, by dreams
of a better social world.
There is, of course, a huge, inert mass of unob
servant humanity, with no perception of this new
region of hope and faith into which the present
generation is entering. These persons live their
lives of business or of pleasure, as Jesus, with
splendid satire, said of such persons in his own
age, with just enough power of observation to tell
the signs of to-morrow's weather, but without the
1 A. Wagner, " Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie," 2. Aufl.,
1876, s. 36. So also Bebel, " Die Frau und der Sozialismus," 10.
Aufl., 1891, s. 240: " Society, in its form of wealth, has grown far
more aristocratic than in any earlier age, ... in its ideals and its
legislation it has grown far more democratic."

4 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
capacity to discern the signs of their own times.1
No one, however, who lifts his eyes from his own
private life can mistake these signs of the times.
The literature of the present age is saturated with
the desire for social amelioration or social revo
lution; workmen with grimy hands and women
with eager eyes are turning the pages of the
economists in search of practical guidance ; social
panaceas are confidently offered on every hand ;
organization on an unprecedented scale is con
solidating the fighting force of the hand-working
class ; legislation is freely advocated which prac
tically revolutionizes the earlier conception of the
function of government ; and, finally, the party of
revolution, with its millions of voters in European
countries, officially announces that all other issues
are to be subordinated to the social question, and
that all other parties are to be regarded as "a
mere reactionary mass."2 It is the age of the
social question; and to pretend that social life is
undisturbed, or is but superficially agitated, is sim
ply to confess that one has been caught in an
eddy of the age and does not feel the sweep of its
main current.
It is, however, not enough to say that among
human interests the social question is just now
1 Matt. xvi. 2, 3; Luke xii. 54-56.
2 " Die Befreiung der Arbeit muss das Werk der Arbeiterklasse
sein, der gegenviber alle anderen Klassen nur eine reaktionare Masse
sind," Programm der sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands,
Gotha, 1878.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 5
central and commanding. There are, it must be
added, two characteristics of the modern temper
which make of the social question of the present
time something quite different from the economic
and social agitations of the past. In the first
place, we are now confronted by a degree of
radicalism and a scope of reconstructive purpose
which practically create a new situation. Social
and industrial reforms in the past have been for
the most part ameliorative or philanthropic meas
ures, accepting the existing order of things, and
mitigating its harsher effects. Now and then a
sudden wave of indignation has risen out of the
depths of human nature and has swept away some
special abuse like American slavery, or some spe
cial form of social relationship like the ancien
re'gime of France ; but for the most . part the
desire to relieve the unfortunate and improve
the condition of the hand-worker has satisfied
itself with deeds of charity and with industrial
expedients which calm the surface of social life.
A wholly different state of mind prevails to-day.
Beneath all the tranquillizing arrangements of
philanthropy or industry which are being applied
to social disorder, there is a vast and rising
tide of discontent, stirring to its very bottom
the stream of social life. The social question
of the present age is not a question of mitigating
the evils of the existing order, but a question
whether the existing order itself shall last. It is
not so much a problem of social amelioration

6 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
which occupies the modern mind, as a problem
of social transformation and reconstruction. The
new social interest is concerned not so much with
effects as causes ; not with social therapeutics, but
with social bacteriology and social hygiene. In
deed, in this frame of mind there is often to be
discerned a violent reaction from traditional ways
of charity and from moderate measures of re
form. The time is wasted, it is urged, which is
given to lopping off occasional branches of social
wrong, when the real social question cuts at the
root from which these branches grow. Instead of
inquiring what ways of charity are wise, let us
rather, it is urged, inquire why charity is neces
sary and why poverty exists. Instead of reform
ing the adjustments of industry, let us rather ask
why the effects of industry are so cruel, debasing,
and unjust. Not a merciful use of things as they
are, but a state of things where mercy will not be
necessary; not patronage, but justice; not the gen
erous distribution of superfluous wealth, but the
righteous restitution of wealth to those who have
created it, — such are the demands to which our
ears have of late become accustomed, and which
indicate the character of the modern social ques
tion. " The number of relief- and charity-panaceas
for poverty," said an English agitator, " are of no
more value than a poultice to a wooden leg. What
we want is economic revolution, and not pious and
heroic resolutions." 1
JBen Tillett, in London Times, January I, 1895.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING "J
This unflinching radicalism proceeds to examine
the very pillars of social life, and to consider
whether they are worth what it costs to buttress
and maintain them. Three such social institutions
appear to support the fabric of modern civiliza
tion — the family, private property, and the State ;
and there is not one of these institutions whose
continued existence in its present form is not now
a matter of active discussion, or whose abolition is
not confidently prophesied. Is not the institution
of the family to be regarded as a passing incident
in the course of social evolution, the end of whose
social service has nearly arrived ? Is not the insti
tution of private property a mere symbol of social
oppression, so that, .as the earlier revolutionists
cried, "Property is robbery," their modern fol
lowers may now add, " It is right to rob the rob
bers " ? Is not the institution of the State, in its
present form, a mere instrument of the privileged
class, and must it not be supplanted by a coopera
tive commonwealth of collective ownership ? Ques
tions like these, freely agitated in our day by all
sorts and conditions of people, indicate how funda
mental and thoroughgoing the social problem of
which they are a part must be. They propose a
revolution, not only in the outward conditions of
social life, but in the very instincts and habits of
mind which adjust themselves to the present social
order. Such possibilities of social change are viewed by
many persons with grave apprehension, and by

•8 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
many with jubilant hope. To one class of observ
ers, we appear to be threatened by social disaster,
industrial chaos, a new slavery ; to the opposite
class, we appear to be at the dawn of a happy
era of brotherhood and justice, and Mr. William
Morris sings: — ¦
" Come hither, lads, and hearken, for there is a tale to tell,
Of the wonderful days a-coming when all shall be better
than well."1
From either point of view, however, the social
question is seen to have a quality of comprehen
siveness and radicalism which makes it practically
a new issue, and it is important at the outset of
the present inquiry to recognize how large a ques
tion it is with which we have to do. A generation
ago Mr. Lowell touched the note of the social
question of his time in his " Vision of Sir Launfal."
Social duty seemed then fulfilled in deeds of benev
olence and self-sacrificing love; and a whole gen
eration learned to repeat his lines as the summary
of social service : —
" Not what we give, but what we share,
For the gift without the giver is bare.
Who giveth himself with his alms feeds three, —
Himself, his hungering neighbor, and Me."
The temper of the present age is no longer com
prehended by such a statement of the social ques
tion. Instead of generosity, men ask for justice ;
instead of alms, they demand work. Thus the le-
1,1 Chants for Socialists," London, 1885.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 9
gend of the search for holiness, if written for
present-day readers, must be translated from the
language of charity into the language of industrial
Hfe, and the new Sir Launfal finds his Holy Grail
through productive labor rather than through pity
ing love.
" They who tread the path of labor, follow where Christ's feet
have trod,
They who work without complaining, do the holy will of God.
Where the weary toil together, there am I among my own,
Where the tired workman sleepeth, there am I with him
alone. *******
This is the Gospel of labor — ring it, ye bells of the kirk,
The Lord of Love came down from above to live with the
men who work." x
A second characteristic of the modern social
question is quite as unmistakable and significant.
Whatever aspect of it we approach, we find the
discussion and agitation of the present time turn
ing in a quite unprecedented degree to moral
issues, and using the language and weapons of
a moral reform. The social question of the pres
ent time is an ethical question. Selfishness enough
exists, it is true, among advocates of social change;
class hatred is also there, and the lust for power,
and the primitive instincts which, as Hobbes said,
make each man a wolf to his neighbor; but the
power and the pathos of the modern social move
ment reside in the passionate demand, now heard
1 Henry Van Dyke, "The Toiling of Felix," 1898.

10 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
on every hand, for justice, brotherhood, liberty,
the chance for a human way of life. In his
"Progress and Poverty" Mr. Henry George re
marks, " If our inquiry into the cause which makes
low wages and pauperism the accompaniments of
material progress has any value, it will bear trans
lation from the language of economics into that
of ethics, and, as the source of social evils, show a
wrong." * That is the note of the present situation.
The social question, which on its surface is an eco
nomic question, issues in reality from a sense of
wrong. This ethical note is struck by the new
philanthropy, in its unprecedented sense of social
obligation, its call for personal devotion, its demand
for self -discipline and wisdom ; and the same note
is heard in the harsher tone of the labor agitation,
declaring against the iniquity of the employer and
the inconsistency of private ownership with the
brotherhood of man. Behind many an economic
fallacy which would seem to have no right to per
manent influence lies this force of moral feeling,
which supports the irrational creed, as a building
supports the scaffolding which leans against it.
Here is a quality of the modern social question
which one immediately perceives to be a sign of
promise. Misdirected, passionate, inarticulate, the
cry for social righteousness may be ; but after all
1 " Progress and Poverty," Book VII, Ch. I. See also, Pref
ace to fourth edition : " The inquiry passes into the field of ethics.
... It also identifies the law of social life with the great moral
law of justice."

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING I I
it is an unmistakable sign of social progress, when
millions of people, in all lands and of all conditions,
are trying, however blindly, to discover what is
right and what is wrong in social conduct, and to
reach some consistency between their social condi
tion and their social ideals. " The real solution of
this problem," said Professor Ingram to a Trades-
Union Congress in Dublin, " can be effected only
by such reorganization of ideas and renovation of
sentiment as will rise to the dimensions of an
intellectual and moral reform." 1 It is not by
accident, then, that the social question is most
conspicuous in the most prosperous and best
educated countries. It is one expression of pros
perity and education. There is no social question
in Turkey or Egypt. The problem of social jus
tice does not grow out of the worst social condi
tions, but out of the best. It is not a mark of
social decadence, but of social vitality. It is one
expression of popular education, intellectual lib
erty, and quickened sentiments of sympathy and
love, and there can be nothing but good in the end
to come of an agitation which fundamentally repre
sents a renaissance of moral responsibility.
It is its ethical quality, moreover, which gives
to the social question of the present day its
commanding interest for generous minds. Great
numbers of men and women are lavishing their
time and thought on social service, without pre
cisely defining to themselves why such occupations
1 Kaufmann, " Christian Socialism," 1888, p. 12.

12 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
open, as they are pursued, into a peculiar peace
and joy. There is nothing intrinsically picturesque
or noble about the poor or degraded ; there is
little romance in the administration of details in
industrial or social life. Why is it, then, that time,
ability, money, and sympathy are in such abun
dance offered for such service ? It is because,
through these channels of activity, the moral life
of the time finds its natural outlet. It is a great
source of happiness to be associated with people
who are trying, however imperfectly, to make a
better world. Many a life emerges through such
association from an experience of narrowness and
emptiness into one of breadth, fulness, and satis
faction. It is like a journey from one's own
village to a foreign land, from which one returns
with a new sense of human kinship, a more com
prehensive sympathy, and a profounder gratitude
for his own blessings. The advent of the social
question in its present form has brought with it a
great and happy revival of ethical confidence.
The older ethics was individual, introspective,
self-examining, and its stream grew narrow and
uninviting and dry; but into its bed there has
broken this new flood of social interests, like a
spring freshet filling the channel to its banks ; and
now a score of outlets can hardly contain the
stream of philanthropic service which sweeps on to
the refreshing of the world.1
1 The ethical character of the social question is observed not by
the social reformers only, but by the philosophers of history : Th.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 1 3
In the light, then, of these two characteristics of
the modern social question, its radical intention and
its ethical passion, a further quality which one
observes in the present situation may appear at
first sight surprising. It would seem as if there
were an obvious kinship between the spirit of this
Ziegler, "Die soziale Frage eine ethische Frage," 1891, a stirring
attempt " to examine critically the conditions which exist, and to
consider how they may be brought to an issue in which our highest
good shall not be lost," s. 8. See also : Jodl, " Volkswirtschafts-
lehre und Ethik, Deutsche Zeit- und Streitfragen," 1886; F.
Hasler (from the Roman Catholic standpoint), "Ueber das Ver-
haltniss der Volkswirtschaft und Moral," 1887; Bonar, " Philosophy
and Political Economy in some of their Relations," 1893, Bk. V;
International fournal of Ethics, January, 1897, P- I9I> C. S. Devas,
"The Restoration of Economics to Ethics," "All [these sciences]
move in an ethical atmosphere; ... all have principally to do
with what is right and wrong " ; L. Ragaz, " Evangelium und
Moderne Moral," 1898; and for the history of this " socialization
of ideals," Stein, " Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophie,"
1897, especially s. 660 ff., " Die Sozialisierung der Religion."
Compare also the evidence of the economists : A. T. Hadley,
" Economics," p. 23, " The modern economist . . . would say that
nothing was economically beneficent which was ethically bad ; he
would insist with equal force that nothing could be ethically good
which was economically disastrous " ; CD. Wright, " The Relation
of Political Economy to the Labor Question," 1882; F. A. Lange,
" Die Arbeiterfrage," 1879. Note also the remarkable expansion of
systematic ethics into the sphere of the social question : Wundt,
"Ethik," 1886, ss. 159 ff., 498 ff., 529 ff.; Paulsen, "System der
Ethik," 1889, s. 698 ff.; and his paper before the ioter Evang.-soz.
Kongress, 1899, 5. 95, " Wandlungen des Bildungsideals in ihrem
Zusammenhang mit der sozialen Entwickelung " ; Runze, " Prak-
tische Ethik," 1891, s. 65 ff., with much bibliographical material ;
H. S. Nash, " Genesis of the Social Conscience," 1897, p. 223 ff. ;
Newman Smyth, "Christian Ethics," Ch. IV; "The Social Prob
lem and Christian Duties."

14 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
new philanthropy and the spirit of the Christian
rehgion. In both there is the same sense of value
in the humblest human soul, the same desire for a
spiritual democracy, the same call for self-sacrifice,
the same readiness to overthrow existing traditions
and institutions for the sake of righteousness.
The social question, one might anticipate, would
be at heart not only an ethical question but a
rehgious question also. " The religious element,"
said Mazzini, " is universal, immortal. . . . Every
great revolution has borne its stamp and revealed
it in its origin or in its aim. . . . The instinctive
philosophy of the people is faith in God." J
" Socialism," it has been remarked, " in its most
explicit and absolute form, has a great attraction
for the masses, by reason of that quality which it
possesses in common with the gospels. ... It is
this factor which has lent to those who profess
and propagate it the illusion of an apostolate, and
has inspired in those who are its objects an enthu
siasm extending to fanaticism, to crime devoid of
personal motive, to the scaffold itself."2 Yet,
nothing is in fact more conspicuous than the lack
of practical cooperation, and in many instances
the distrust and hostility, which prevail between
these two ways of social sendee. Sometimes
there is a candid dread of theological complica
tions, as when scientific charity lays down the
1 " Faith and the Future," 1835.
2"Nuova Anthologia," 16 November, 1898, p. 269. F. Nobili-
Vitelleschi, " II Socialismo di Stato."

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 1 5
principle of abstinence from proselytizing. Some
times there is a sheer disappointment with the
social effectiveness of the Christian Church, such
as forced one of the most judicious labor leaders in
England to say that he saw no place for religion in
the working-man's programme. Sometimes, again,
there is a genuine reproduction of Christian prin
ciples of conduct without formal recognition of the
Christian Church, as in the extraordinary growth
of the cooperative system in Great Britain. In
many such ways of social activity the instincts
which in other centuries would have drawn
people toward religion are finding their satisfaction
without religion ; or, rather, are finding in philan
thropy or labor unions or cooperative societies or
kindred social interests practical equivalents for
religion, satisfying hearts with generous emotions
and offering strong persuasions to loyalty and
fellowship. When, further, we turn to the more
radical expressions of social discontent, the prevail
ing attitude toward religion becomes even less
friendly. It is not necessary to notice the merely
vulgar talk of agitators who make it a part of
their stock in trade to ridicule and vilify the
religious life.1 It should also be observed that in
1 A collection of such coarser utterances may be found in Kauf-
mann, "Christian Socialism," 1888, Ch. IX; and in profusion in
Kohler, " Sozialistische Irrlehren von der Entstehung des Christen-
tums," 1899, s. 21 ff. "To suppress religion which provides an
illusory happiness is to establish the claim of real happiness,"
" Nouveau Parti," 1884 (Kaufmann, p. 195). "The cross, once a
symbol of suffering, is now a symbol of slavery," To-day, January,

1 6 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the official programmes of social revolution religion
is, as a rule, declared to be a matter of personal
decision, as though neutrality toward it were pro
posed.1 The expositors of revolutionary prin
ciples, however, maintain no such reserve. They
do not scruple to affirm that among the pillars of
the present social order, which must be over
thrown if the better social order is to prevail, are
the institutions and habits of the Christian religion.
" The revolution," said Bebel, " differs from all
its predecessors in this, that it does not seek for
new forms of religion, but denies religion alto
gether." 2 " The first word of religion," wrote
Friedrich Erigels, " is a lie." " The idea of God,"
said Marx, " must be destroyed ; it is the key
stone of a perverted civilization." " It is use
less," adds Mr. Belfort Bax, " blinking the fact
that the Christian doctrine is more revolting to the
higher moral sense of to-day than the Saturnalia
of the cult of Proserpina could have been to the
conscience of the early Christians ; " 3 and in
another place he says : " In what sense socialism
1894 (Kaufmann, p. 3). "We are all, I take it, disciples of the
materialist philosophy of history derived from Marx," Remarks at
Stuttgart Congress (Kohler, s. 7) .
1 " Erklarung der Religion zur Privatsache," Programm der
sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands. See also, Nation,
Nov. 12, 1891, "German Socialists in Council," an account of the
Erfurt Congress of tSgr, F. G. Peabody.
2 " Die wahre Gestalt des Christentums," 2. Aufl., 1887, quoted by
Herrmann ; " Religion und Sozialdemokratie," 2ter Evang.-soz.
Kongress, s. 13.
8 Quoted, Pall Mall Magazine, April, 1895.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING \J
is not rehgion will be now clear. It utterly
despises ' the other world,' with all its stage prop
erties, — that is, the present objects of religion.
In what sense it is not irreligious will be also,
I think, tolerably clear; it brings back religion
from heaven to earth. . . ." " It is in the hope and
struggle for the higher social life that ... the so-
cialist finds his ideal, his religion." " The socialist
requires no transformed Christian rites to aid him
in keeping his ideal before him. . . ." " It is
only natural that the socialist should resent with
some indignation the continual reference of ideal
perfection to a semi-mythical Syrian of the first
century, when he sees higher types even in some
men walking this upper earth." 1 In short, as
the eloquent Pastor Naumann concludes, " Social
democracy turns against Christ and the Church
because it sees in them only the means of provide
ing a rehgious foundation for the existing eco*
nomic order." 2
1 Bax, " The Religion of Socialism," 1886, pp. 52, 96.
2 F. Naumann, " Das soziale Programm der evangelischen Kirdhe,"
1891, s. 49. The attitude of scientific socialism to the Christian
religion is sufficiently indicated by : " Geschichte des Sozialismus in
Einzeldarstellungen," 1895, 3ter Band, F. Mehring, " Geschichte der
deutschen Sozialdemokratie," 1897, 2ter Teil, s. 387 ff., Die Christ-
lich-soziale Agitation; Engels, " Zur Geschichte des Urchristen-
tums, Neue Zeit," 1894-1895; Lutgenau, "Natiirliche und
sozialistische Religion," 1894; Stein, "Die Soziale Frage im
Lichte der Philosophic," s. 660 ff., " Die Sozialisierung der Reli
gion." The popular acceptance of this view is illustrated by Rade,
" Die sittlich-religiose Gedankenwelt unserer Industriearbeiter," 9ter
Evang.-soz. Kongress, 1898, s. 66; and by P. Gohre, "Drei Monate
C

1 8 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Here we come upon one of the most curious
and important facts of the revolutionary movement.
At first sight it is difficult to understand why a
movement which appears to propose simply an
economic change should be colored by this antipa
thy to spiritual ideals. The truth is, however, that
this characteristic of social radicalism proceeds,
in the main, not from an economic necessity, but
from the philosophy of history with which the
German school of scientific socialism happens to
be associated. Marx and Lassalle, the apostles of
the German socialist gospel, though of very differ
ent types of character, were both of Jewish extrac
tion, and both had been swept into the current of
the Hegelian philosophy, in its more radical inter
pretation. To this way of thought the universe
presented itself as a self-unfolding process of
material forces, one result of which was expressed
in the shifting opinions and beliefs of men. These
doctrines and ideals were, to the left wing of Hegel
ianism, not glimpses of reality, but effects of social
conditions. Spiritual ideals were the result of
Fabrikarbeiter," 1891, s. 142 ff. Adequate criticism of this position
is offered by : Herrmann, " Religion und Sozialdemokratie," 2ter
Evang.-soz. Kongress, 1891; A. Wagner, "Das neue sozialdemo-
kratische Programm," 3ter Evang.-soz. Kongress, 1892. See also
the less important discussion in Flint, "Socialism," 1894, Ch. IX,
" Socialism and Religion." The whole subject is treated in elabo
rate detail by H. Kohler (op. cit.). So Uhland: —
" Ich ging zur Tempelhalle zu horen christlich Recht,
Hier innen Bruder alle, dort draussen Herr und Knecht !
Der Festesrede Giebel war : Duck dich, schweig dabei 1
Als ob die ganze Bibel ein Buch der Konige sei."

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 1 9
economic circumstances, not revelations of abso
lute truth. Given a certain range of economic
condition, and there would ensue a certain quality
of spiritual belief or of religious fellowship.
" Every man," said Bebel, " is a product of his
time and an instrument of circumstances. Chris
tianity, then, the prevailing spiritual expression of
the present economic order, must pass away as a
better social order arrives. Indeed, the wise
reformer should apply himself to economic revolu
tion exclusively, because he is sure that the evanes
cent imaginations which capitalism has suggested
will disappear like dew when the morning of
socialism arrives." It would not at first seem as
if such a philosophy of the universe could have
had great significance for a parliamentary party of
plain working-people ; yet the fact is that it tinges
a great portion of the talk of labor agitators, falls
in with many lower impulses, becomes the justifica
tion of many natural prejudices, and contributes
greatly to the consolidation of the working-class
against the privileged and the pious. It is not
enough to say that the socialist programme is indif
ferent to rehgion. It undertakes to provide a sub
stitute for rehgion. It is a religion, so far as religion
is represented by a philosophy of life, to which men
give themselves with passionate attachment. It
sets itself against Christianity because, as Lieb-
knecht said, " That is the religion of private prop
erty and of the respectable classes." It offers
itself as an alternative to the Christian rehgion.

20 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
It is, as a distinguished critic has remarked, not
merely a new economic and social programme, but
proposes to compete with Christianity in offering
a comprehensive creed.1
We find, then, a gulf of alienation and misinterpre
tation lying between the social movement and the
Christian religion, — a gulf so wide and deep as to
recall the judgment of Schopenhauer, that Chris
tianity, in its real attitude toward the world, is abso
lutely remote from the spirit of the modern age.
Yet, from the time when the social question began
to take its present form, there have not failed to be
heard a series of protests against this alienation of
the new movement from the organization of the
Christian life. To any one, indeed, who has once
recognized the ethical quality of the modern social
question, the interpretation of it in terms of sheer
philosophical materialism must appear a perversion
of its characteristic aim, which can have occurred
only through an unfortunate historical accident.
What reason has the Christian Church for existing,
many persons are now asking, if it is not to have
a part in that shaping of a better world which at
the same time is the aim of the social movement ?
What was the gospel of Jesus if it was not, as he
himself called it, a gospel for the poor, the blind,
1 H. Holtzmann, "Die ersten Christen und die soziale Frage"
(" Wiss. Vortrage iiber rel. Fragen," 1880), s. 55. So Nathusius,
" Die Mitarbeit der Kirche an der Losung der sozialen Frage,"
1897, s. 115 ff., "Radical socialism must be in opposition to pre
vailing religion, because it is itself a religion."

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 21
the prisoners, and the broken-hearted ? Is it not
possible that the social movement, which so often
seems remote from, or even hostile to, the work of
the Christian religion, may be in reality nothing
else than a modern expansion of that religion ?
May it not come to pass that the solution of the
social question shall be found in the principles of
the Christian religion ? And is it not, on the
other hand, evident that the only test of the Chris
tian religion which the modern world will regard
as adequate is its applicability to the solution of the
social question? Must we not, as Maurice said,
either socialize Christianity or Christianize social
ism ? Such considerations have prompted a great
number of propositions, — experimental and philo
sophical, reactionary and radical, — looking to the
reconciliation of economic needs with Christian
ideals. They range all the way from the most obvi
ous and practical undertakings to the most vision
ary and speculative schemes. Each plan creates
strange companionships, — Catholics with Protest
ants, scholars with hand-workers, — yet all are at one
in the desire to find a place for the Christian life in
the modern world ; and while a complete history
of such schemes is quite beyond our present pur
pose, it may be instructive to indicate briefly a few
of the ways in which this reconciliation has been
sought. The first and most elementary scheme thus pro
posed is that of a literal reproduction of the eco-

22 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
nomic life of primitive Christianity. The disciples,
we read in the book of Acts, "had all things com
mon " ; and "sold their possessions and goods, and
parted them to all, according as any man had
need"; "and not one of them said that aught of
the things which he possessed was his own." 1
These passages have given encouragement to a
long series of experiments in Christian communism,
sometimes monastic in form, sometimes ascetic in
bond of union, but always inspired by the hope of
practically establishing a Christian way of life in
the midst of an unchristianized world. No one
can recall these tranquil communities of pious and
self-effacing souls without a touch of admiration.
It is reassuring to see the lusts of the world, which
dominate so many hves, powerless to disquiet
or control. The lingering communities which still
attempt, in unambitious seclusion, this reproduc
tion of apostolic life are to our time what the
best of monastic life was in its own age — spots of
calm in the centre of the cyclonic activity of the
world. Yet these conscientious attempts to revive the
industrial life of the first disciples have no substan
tial justification, either in economics or in Christian
history. On the one hand, they do not meet the
modern problem of economic life ; they simply run
away from it. It is impossible for such communi
ties to enter on a large scale into direct competi
tion with the methods of the great industry ; and it
1 Acts ii. 44; iv. 32.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 23
is equally impossible for the needs of the world
— or, for that matter, of the community itself —
to be supplied by these primitive ways of pro
duction. Communism, while it rejects the eco
nomic order surrounding it, still rests on that
order. The factories, railways, great cities, and
exchanges of commerce provide the very condi
tions which make it possible for the privileged
few to retreat to a life of calm. It was the
same with the monastic system. It could not be
for the many, still less for all. The world's work
had to go on, and the unproductive saints had to
be, in large part, supported by the toiling and
unsanctified world which lay about the monastery's
walls. Christian communism then, even at its
best, is not an advance, but a retreat. Its disci
ples deceive themselves with the impression that
they have subdued the world, when in reality they
have fled from the world. The only way out of
economic disorders and imperfections is through
them; and the Christian life in the present, age
must be sought, not in reversion to an impossible
past, but in the creation of a better future.
To these considerations must be added the fact
that these supposed reproductions of primitive
Christian economics have no adequate justification
even in the Scriptural passages on which they
appear to rest. The social life of the first disci
ples, when more closely scrutinized, is seen to have
been something quite different from the rule of a
monastic order with its vow of poverty, or of a

24 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
modem society with its communal control of pro
ductive industry and family life. Indeed, it is
quite contrary to the spirit of those first days of
Christian discipleship to think of them as devoted
to the establishing of any economic system or the
prescribing of any fixed rule of social life. There
is, in the first place, no evidence that what is re
ported of the little company at Jerusalem became
in any degree a general practice, as though enjoined
by the teaching of Jesus. No other instance of
communal ownership is cited in the book of Acts ;
but, on the other hand, the mother of Mark con
tinues to own her home in Jerusalem,1 and volun
tary relief is sent from Antioch by "every man
according to his ability." 2 The apostle Paul knows
nothing of such communistic regulations. " Let each
man," he says, "do according as he hath purposed in
his heart; not grudgingly, or of necessity."8 "Upon
the first day of the week let each one of you lay by
him in store, as he may prosper." i "We command
and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with
quietness they work, and eat their own bread."5
In short, the communism of the day of Pentecost,
like the gift of tongues described in the same
chapter, was a spontaneous, unique, and unrepeated
manifestation of that elevation and unity of spirit
which possessed the httle company in the first
glow of their new faith. Still further, this shar
ing of each other's possessions, which was thus
1 Acts xii. 12. 2 Acts xi. 29. » 2 Cor. ix. 7.
* I Cor. xvi. 2. 6 2 Thess. iii. 12.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 25
for the moment a sign of their perfect brother
hood, was even then no formal or compulsory sys
tem. The narrative immediately goes on to say
that one disciple, Barnabas, "having a field, sold
it, and brought the money, and laid it at the
apostles' feet,"1 — singling this man out, it would
appear, as unusually munificent. In the case of
Ananias and Sapphira,2 it is not the keeping back
part of the price of the land, but the lie to the
Holy Ghost which is condemned. "Whiles it re
mained, did it not remain thine own ? and after it
was sold, was it not in thy power ? " 3 This man
and woman wanted to appear to have made the
same exceptional sacrifice which had been praised
in the case of Barnabas, and it was their fraudu
lent virtue, not the reserving of their private prop
erty, which made their sin so base.
Thus the so-called communism of primitive Chris
tianity was simply a glad, free, domestic relationship
of generous aid and service, such as any modern
Christian congregation might legitimately strive to
imitate. It did not abolish distinctions of rich and
poor, still less did it enter the sphere of productive
industry. Its economics were those of a loving
family. Each man might keep his own posses
sions, but " not one of them said that aught of the
things which he possessed was his own." The
hearts of the first believers were stirred to self-for
getful and self-sacrificing service, and the church
at Jerusalem soon became in such a degree a
1 Acts iv. 37. 2 Acts v. 1-10. 8 Acts v. 4.

26 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
refuge for the poor that it was in need of mission
ary help from Gentile congregations. In all this,
however, there is no warrant for identifying Chris
tian faith with a single system of economic distribu
tion. Gladly as Jesus would have welcomed that
new glow of loyalty which had " all things com
mon," and certainly as he would recognize the
same self-effacing love in many an uncompetitive
and unambitious community to-day, it is both im
practicable and unhistorical to regard communism
as that solution of the social question to which
the New Testament is committed. Fortunately
for the Christian life, Jesus does not shut it within
the limits of any single social scheme, still less of
a programme which can have no important place
in the organization of the modern world.1
1 It is as a rule assumed by interpreters of the New Testament
with socialist sympathies that the communism of the book of Acts
is a genuine anticipation of the modern protest against capitalism.
Nitti, "Catholic Socialism," London, 1895, p. 62, " It is certain that
the early Christians practised communism or community of goods.
. . . The first Christians did not seek to acquire wealth; like
Christ, they sought to annihilate it. . . . Christianity was a
vast economic revolution more than anything else." Herron, " Be
tween Caesar and Jesus," p. 109, " Apostolic Christianity took
seriously the economic facts of the spiritual life. Men understood
that in becoming Jesus's disciples it was incumbent upon them to
surrender private interests." Renan, " The Apostles " (tr. J. H.
Allen, 1898), "The account in Acts is in perfect accord with what
we know of the other ascetic religions, — Buddhism, for example, —
which always begin with cenobitic (or communistic) life, the first
adepts being a host of mendicant monks." Todt, " Der radikale
deutsche Sozialismus und die christliche Gesellschaft," 2. Aufl., s. 70,
" The first Christian community was penetrated by the thought of

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 27
A second and more familiar way of applying
the Christian spirit to the social question is the
way of Christian philanthropy. The work of
the unity of interests. Each strove for all and all for each. In
this striving they were communists as our socialists are to-day."
Yet Todt later, s. 188 ff., admits that this was no fixed or invariable
rule. " The New Testament represents human liberty and accepts
any form of property-holding which fulfils this condition, whether
it be private property in real estate or communal ownership in the
socialist sense." For the prevailing teaching of scientific socialists,
see the abundant literature cited and the criticism offered in Koh
ler, " Sozialistische Irrlehren von der Entstehung des Christentums,"
1899, s. 85 ff.
On the other hand, New Testament critics of the first rank
are practically agreed in recognizing that no real analogy exists
between the modern situation and the early Christian practice :
Pfleiderer, " Urchristentum," 1887, s. 24; Weizsacker, "Apost.
Zeitalter," 2. Aufl., 1892, s. 47; and the conclusive discussion of
Wendt (Meyer's "Kommentar, Apostelgesch.," s. 102 and 120).
See also, Rogge, "Der irdische Besitz im Neuen Testament," 1899,
s. 73, "The Koivwvla of the first Christians is not an institution
like the communism of the Essenes or Therapeutes, rather a condi
tion marked, as Uhlhorn fittingly says, ' by absence of institutions.' "
Uhlhorn, " Charity in the Early Church," p. 74, " We might as well
speak of the institution of a community of goods in a family . . .
the thought with which we are dealing is not an institution of a
community of goods, but noble almsgiving." M. von Nathusius,
" Die Mitarbeit der Kirche an der Losung der sozialen Frage,"
2. Aufl., 1897, s. 403, "The communism of the first congregation
in Jerusalem consisted essentially in a point of view. No one said
of those things which were his own that they were his own; but it
must be recognized that the basis of this moral duty lay in the right
to private property. The Christian must spend his private property
for the general good." H. Holtzmann, in his elaborate study of this
subject, " Die ersten Christen und die soziale Frage," 1882, goes
still farther, concluding not only that (s. 30), " No compulsory
abandonment of property relations or legally introduced commu-

28 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
religion in a world of social needs is here held
to be, not the impracticable imitation of primi
tive social life, but the illumination of the world
as it is with works of mercy and service. " By
this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another."1 This way
of service has come to be a self-evident Christian
duty. Never before was there so clear a recog
nition of the social responsibility of Christian be
lievers ; never was there such multiplication of
philanthropic agencies in the name of Christianity,
or such general agreement that the test of religion
in the present age must be its capacity to inspire
deeds of love. In 1 849 Pastor Wichern, the founder
nism is suggested. Of such an institution the book of Acts speaks
not a word; " but going on to suggest that (s. 49), "The picture
offered by the book of Acts of communism in Jerusalem represents
the social ideal of the author, described as realized in the sacred
days of the beginnings of Christianity ; " a view which Rogge
(s. 69) regards as "a complete contradiction of the method in
which the author of the third gospel and the book of Acts else
where deals with his sources." Even a critic of avowed sympathy
with the socialist programme, like O. Holtzmann, " Jesus Christus
und das Gemeinschaftsleben der Menschen," 1893, candidly re
marks : " What the book of Acts describes is free offerings of
Christian brotherhood; . . . of industry in common, of the estimat
ing of each individual according to his work, of any levelling of
possessions or of labor, there is not a sign. No likeness is to be
found between the conditions of the first Christian community and
the programme proposed by socialism." Compare also : G. Adler,
"Geschichte des Sozialismus und Communismus von Plato bis zur
Gegenwart," Erster Teil, 1899, s. 69 ff. ; Stein, " Die soziale Frage
im Lichte der Philosophic," s. 232 ff. ; " Das Urchristentum und die
soziale Frage."
1 John xiii. 35.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 29
of the Innr.re Mission An.. Gprrnajy addressed his
Letter to the Nation, urging Christian believers to
enter "into the ferment and questioning of the time,
. . . and give the only indisputable proof that Chris
tianity . . . can accomplish what is possible to
no power or wisdom without the gospel ; " 2 and
this proving of Christian faith by Christian works
has become the special mark of modern Christian
ity. A hundred ways of service, visitation, and
relief, the advocacy of temperance and of recrea
tion, the provision of the social settlement and of
the institutional church, illustrate the expansion
of the work of religion into the sphere of the social
movement. Yet these Christian activities, beauti
ful and fruitful as they are, and testifying as they
| do to the vitality of the Christian religion, cannot
be regarded as presenting in themselves a solution
of the modern social question. This question, as
we have already seen, cuts quite beneath the whole
problem of philanthropy, and cannot be summed
up in terms of pity for the unfortunate or of alms
giving for the poor. It inquires for the causes of
ill fortune, and demands justice for the poor. It
applies itself to changing the conditions which make
(people poor, rather than to pitying the poverty which
evil conditions have made. However legitimate
1 Wichern, " Die innere Mission der deutschen evangelischen
Kirche," 3. Aufl., 1889 ; Gohre, " Die evangelisch-soziale Bewe-
gung," 1896, s. 3ff. ; Schafer, " Leitfaden der iimeren Mission,"
1889, s. 52 ff. ; Uhlhorn, "Die christliche Liebesthatigkeit seit deir
Reformation," 1890, s. 347 ff.

30 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
and beneficent, then, the progress of Christian sym
pathy and charity may be, it does not satisfy the
demand of the time. It is the work of a practising
physician, dealing with special cases of disease, while
beneath his mitigation of results lie profounder
inquiries concerning the causes and prevention of
disease. To meet the social question as it now pre
sents itself, religion must be more than merciful
and generous ; it must find a place for itself in that
search for better economic conditions and better
social organization which absorbs the attention of
the present time.
Here, then, we come upon many schemes and
dreams which, in the name of the Christian reli
gion, concern themselves directly with the disorder
and incompleteness of the industrial world. They
may be roughly classified in a few general types. ,
First, and on the outskirts of these definite propo- ;
sitions and programmes, there is what may be j
called the work of prophecy. The prophet, in
the social question, as in religion, is not the sys
tem-maker, or even the foreteller of the future.
He is the advocate of righteousness ; he lays bare
the sins of his people, and pronounces judgment on
their transgression ; he pictures the rule of equity
and peace, and promises to justice its reward. Here
is at least one legitimate work of the Christian
preacher. It does not need a training in political
economy to make one sensitive to social sins. The
same passion for righteousness which made the
burden of Hebrew prophecy finds its place in an

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 3 1
effective Christian ministry to-day. The prophet
may not know precisely what form the better future
is to assume ; and when he depicts the details of
that future, he may become only an impracticable
visionary. His place is to proclaim the eternal
law of righteousness and the retribution which,
for a nation as for an individual, is sure to follow
wrong. " The prophet that hath a dream," he
says. " Is not my word like as fire ? saith the
Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock
in pieces ? " 1 " Behold, I am against them that
prophesy lying dreams, saith the Lord; ... I
will cast you off, and the city that I gave unto
you ; " 2 and again, of the faithful he says, " I will
give them an heart to know me, that I am the
Lord : and they shall be my people." " I will set
mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring
them again to this land." 3
Among such prophets of the modern social
question, two have had extraordinary influence on
the consciences of Christians.4 Carlyle attacked
1 Jer. xxiii. 28, 29. 2 Jer. xxiii. 32, 39. 8 Jer. xxiv. 7, 6.
4 Of Carlyle's own writings the most significant are : " Chartism,"
1840; " Past and Present," 1843 ; " Latter Day Pamphlets," 1880,
See also: Schulze-Gavernitz, " Zum sozialen Frieden," 1890, I, ss.
77-290 ; " Thomas Carlyle als Sozialtheoretiker und Sozialpoli-
tiker " ; Garnett, " Life of Thomas Carlyle " (with bibliography) ;
Gibbins, "English Social Reformers," 1892, p. 181 ff. ; and the
unsparing criticism of Robertson, "Modern Humanists," 1891,
p. 11 ff. Of Ruskin the most significant writings are: "Unto this
Last," 1862; "Crown of Wild Olive," 1866; "Time and Tide,"
1867; "Fors Clavigera" {passim). See also the warm advocacy of
J. A. Hobson, "John Ruskin, Social Reformer," 1898; the critical

32 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
with splendid satire the mammonism and dilettant
ism of modern life, and pictured a revival of the
ancient ways of social stability and peace ; Ruskin
arraigned the prevailing political economy as un
real and illusory, and substituted for it, in what he
held was his most important work, a political
economy whose roots should be honor, and whose
veins of wealth should be "the purple veins of
happy-hearted human creatures." Both of these
great teachers were of the prophetic order. No
one can read their arraignment of social unright
eousness without a glow of sympathy and of self-
reproach. To many a mind, sunk in an Egyptian
self-content of commercialism, the summons of
Carlyle has been as if a new Moses were calhng
his people into the sterner region of the moral ideal ;
to many a mind which has been stupefied by the
ugliness and squalor of modern civilization, Ruskin
has restored the hope of beauty and peace. Instead
of an England of cruel traders and chartering politi
cians, Carlyle conceives an England of heroes and
captains of industry, fit to lead a holy war. Instead
of wealth which sinks a man, as a belt of gold pieces
would sink him in the sea, Ruskin calls for a new
definition of riches. The only wealth is life ; all
else is not wealth, but " ill-th." " I can even imag
ine that England may cast all thoughts of posses
sive wealth back to the barbaric nations among
estimate of F.J. Stimson, Quarterly fournal of Economics, 1 888;
and the less sympathetic treatment of Robertson (ut supra), p.
184 ff.; and of Politicus, "New Social Teachings," 1886, Ch. I. and II.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 33
whom they first arose, — and be able to lead forth
her sons, saying, ' These are my jewels.' " a
Yet these teachers of duty and of beauty,
when they abandon the path of spiritual inspira
tion, and undertake that of economic instruction,
warn us of the limits of the prophetic office.
Carlyle proposes a reversion of industrial life
from liberty of contract to the bondage of feu
dalism. " I am for permanence in all things."
"Gurth, the serf of Cedric, with a brass collar round
his neck, is not what I call an exemplar of human
felicity, but Gurth to me seems happy in compari
son with many a man of these days, not born thrall
of anybody." " Liberty when it becomes the lib
erty to die by starvation is not so divine."2 Rus
kin proposes a principle of exchange which shall
abolish all distinctions of ability or fidelity, and
which assumes an equality of service, the possibility
of which Ruskin himself denies.3 Nothing, indeed,
is more curious in literary history than the place
which both Carlyle and Ruskin have come at last
to occupy in the history of social reform. Both
were completely opposed to the democratic tend
ency of modern politics and industry. Both were
at heart aristocrats and reactionaries. Neither had
any fundamental sympathy with the socialist pro-
1." Unto this Last," Essay -II, Conclusion.
2 " Past and Present," Book III, Ch. XIII.
8 Compare, " Unto this Last," Essay III, with " Fors Clavigera,"
Letter V: "No liberty, but instant obedience to known law and
appointed persons; no equality, but recognition of every_betterness
and reprobation of every worseness."
D

34 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
gramme. Both stood for authority, order, obedi
ence. Ruskin speaks of himself as an "old Tory"
and as an "Illiberal."1 Carlyle pours contempt
on the antislavery agitation of a " long-sounding,
long-eared Exeter Hall."2 Both found in medise-
valism an escape from modern social ills. Carlyle
would heal the economic evils of the nineteenth
century by a reversion to feudalism ; Ruskin would
redeem the ugliness of modern civilization by a re
vival of primitive simplicity. Both distrusted the
spirit of democracy and the rule of the majority.
" I hate your Clutterbuck republics," said Carlyle,
of the United States ; and Ruskin, in his splendid
rhetoric, coincides in this view : " This I say, be
cause the Americans as a nation set their trust in
liberty and in equality, of which I detest the one
and deny the possibility of the other ; and because,
also, as a nation, they are wholly undesirous of
rest, and incapable of it ; irreverent of themselves
both in the present and in the future ; discontented
with what they are, having no ideal of anything
which they desire to become, as the tide of the
troubled sea when it cannot rest." 3 Yet, by a
strange perversion of the main intention of Carlyle
and Ruskin, their prophetic denunciations have
outlived their positive teachings ; their invectives
against the world as it is have been heard, while
their pictures of the world as it ought to be have
1 Hobson, p. 203.
2 " Past and Present," Book IX, Ch. V.
8 "Time and Tide," p. 152.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 35
been forgotten. Carlyle's " Past " would be abso
lutely intolerable to the radical reformers who still
dehght in his arraignment of the " Present." Rus-
kin's "Unto this Last," in its economic doctrine,
may be so impracticable as to justify the jest that
its title should be " Beyond his Last," but the vis
ionary quality of Ruskin' s economics does not
diminish the effectiveness of his splendid satire or
of his moral exhortation. The prophetic quality
in both these literary masters outlives their advo
cacy of feudal authority, and both have been swept
into the movement of radical socialism from which
they would have instinctively recoiled, and find
themselves at last cited as leading authorities in
the text-books of social revolution.1 Few lessons
are of more importance for teachers of righteous
ness to learn than the natural limitations of the
prophetic office which even these distinguished
cases illustrate, and which are much more obvious
in less gifted men. Many a Christian preacher,
stirred by the recognition of social wrong, — and
not infrequently by the burning message of Carlyle
or of Ruskin, — is called to be a prophetic voice,
crying in the wilderness of the social question;
but many a prophet mistakes his office for that
of the economist, and gives a passionate devo
tion to industrial programmes which are sure to
fail. Neither ethical passion nor rhetorical genius
equip a preacher for economic judgments. It is
1 E.g. Morris, " Art and Socialism," 1884, appendix, with passages
from Carlyle and Ruskin.

36 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
for the prophet of righteousness to exhort and
warn, rather than to administer and organize. A
different temper and training are required for
k wisdom in industrial affairs.
Reasonable, however, as such criticism may be
concerning the function of prophecy, it does not fix
a limit for Christian thought concerning the social
question. On the contrary, it may happen that
those who desire to apply the religious motive to
social life shall frankly dismiss the function of
prophecy, and enter, like other people, into the re
gion of economic discussion and research. While it
is true that there is nothing in Christian piety which
of itself fits one for social wisdom, it is certainly
not true that there is anything in such a sentiment
which disqualifies one from prudent and patient
inquiry or from intelligent decision. Beyond the
position of the prophet, therefore, lie various phases
of direct and practical service through which it is
proposed to utilize religion as a social force, and to
give it a definite place in economic hfe.
The most usual and the most moderate type of
the social utilization of religion is in what may
be called — if the title may be used as one of
appreciation and honor — the method of Christian
opportunism. The opportunist is not necessarily a
time-server; he may be simply a reformer who
uses each opportunity as it arrives. The opportunist
has no definite or final programme, but is ready to
use any means which for the moment appears prac
ticable. He feels his way through what is immedi-

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 27
ately possible toward the end which he desires.
This is the frame of mind of the great majority of
those who are attempting to apply the spirit of
Christianity to the social question. The " Social
Congresses " of Catholics and Protestants held each
year in European countries, urge on their adherents,
not specific enterprises in the name of religion,
but observation, research, and readiness to apply
the motives of religion to social life wherever the
way may open. They represent an alert, awak
ened, opportunist spirit, stirring great communions
of Christians, — a spirit which is often led by new
circumstances into quite unanticipated ways of
usefulness.1 Of this direction of the Christian im
pulse into unforeseen channels one of the most
notable illustrations is to be found in the devoted
service of Maurice and his friends in England.2
1 " Verhandlungen des Evang.-soz. Kongresses," I-XI, 1890-
1900 ; L. Gregoire (pseudonym) , " Le Pape, les Catholiques et la
question sociale," 1895 (p. 313, "Programme du Congres Catholique
de Cologne," 1894).
2 The story of the Maurice-Kingsley movement is delightfully
told in the " Life of Frederic Denison Maurice, Chiefly in his Own
Letters," 4th ed., 1885, especially Vol. II, Ch. I (a bibliography is
prefixed to Vol. I) ; and in Brentano, "Die christlich-soziale Bewe-
gung in England," 1883 (with bibliography). Of Maurice's own
writings, the most significant are : " Dialogue between Somebody (a
person of respectability) and Nobody (the author)," 1890; "Rea
sons for Cooperation," 1891; and of Kingsley: "Message of the
Church to Laboring Men," 1891; "Alton Locke," 1880; "Yeast,"
1891 ; "Literary and General Lectures," 1880. See also Kauf-
mann, "Christian Socialism," 1888, p. 57 ff. The true relation of
Kingsley to Maurice is recorded in a conversation reported by E.
Varnall, "Reminiscences," 1899, p. 190: " 'I owe all that I am to

38 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
The only economic principle which seemed at first
clear to these brave men was their conviction of the
unchristian character of the prevailing economic
system. It was, as Kingsley said, a "narrow, con
ceited, hypocritical, anarchic, and atheistic view of
the universe." Of positive teaching they had little
to offer. " I do not see my way," said Maurice,
" farther than this : Competition is put forth as
the law of the universe ; that is a he." Thus, the
original position of this group was one of expect
ant opportunism. By a fortunate coincidence, how
ever, the English cooperative movement — devised,
as must always be proudly remembered, by the
humblest of hand-workers, without the counsel of
the learned — was just beginning its history of ex
traordinary expansion, and in the spirit of this in
dustrial enterprise Maurice found an expression
for his social Christianity. "Competition," said
Kingsley, " means death ; cooperation means life."
The English opportunists gave the strength of their
leadership to the cooperative movement, and found
satisfaction for their Christian socialism in a prac
tical scheme which they themselves had not devised.
Sympathetic opportunism, however, does not
exhaust the resources of Christian thought con
cerning the social question. Beyond the readi
ness to use whatever way of service may offer
itself lie many deliberate attempts to give to the
social question a systematic interpretation in terms
Maurice,' said Kingsley. ' I aim only to teach to others what I get
from him.' ' I live to interpret him to the people of England.' "

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 39
of Christianity. They may proceed either by
denying the extreme revolutionary doctrine, or by
accepting it; in either case there is a distinct
meeting of the economic issue and a definite inter
vention, in the name of religion, in the affairs of
the industrial life. On the one hand is what may
be called the scientific reaction, — the renewed
examination, that is to say, of the facts which
create the social question, and the interpretation
of them as facts of the moral and personal life
rather than of the economic and social order. Of
this direction of research an important illustration
may be recalled in the work of the French engineer,
Le Play.1 This distinguished inquirer was not
only of the first rank in his scientific calling, but
was also a devout Catholic. No sooner had the
storm of revolution in France spent its force than
Le Play applied to the facts of social disorder the
same scientific examination which he had already
given to the geology of Europe. With amazing
1 Le Play, " Les Ouvriers Europeens," 2e ed., 1879 ; " La Re-
forme Sociale," 3 vols., 1872; C. de Ribbe, "Le Play d'apr&s sa
correspondance," 1884; Curzon, "Frederic le Play, sa methode, sa
doctrine, son oeuvre, son esprit," 1899 ; Quarterly fournal of Eco
nomics, IV, 408, H. Higgs (and Appendix); "La Reforme Sociale,
Bulletin des Unions de la Paix Sociale, fondee par F. le Play." The
Musee Social, founded in 1895 by 'Qe Comte de Chambrun, and
occupying his palace, 5 Rue las Casas, Paris, perpetuates in its
library and its varied investigations the methods of Le Play. See
Bodicker, " Le Comte de Chambrun et le Musee Social, Paris,"
1896 ; " Statuts du Musee Social," 1896 ; " Chronique du Musee
Social, Paris," Arthur Rousseau, 14 Rue Soufflot. See also C.
Jannet, " Le Socialisme d'etat et la reforme sociale," 2e ed., 189a

40 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
industry and unprecedented range of observation
he studied the conditions of domestic and indus
trial life, in many countries and under many
phases of civilization, and tabulated in minute
detail the budget of income and expenditure which
represented the economic condition of typical lives.
His results were in undisguised opposition to the
revolutionary dogmas which had already become
conspicuous in France. The social question, he
concluded, was not fundamentally one of economic
transformation or of the abolition of privileges, but
one of domestic integrity, industrial thrift, moral
education, and living religion. The issue was
ethical rather than economic ; the security of a
country like France was to lie in the vitality of its
family stocks, in greater prudence in expenditure,
in productive skill, and in faith in the moral order
of the world. The scientific liberalism of Le Play
gained at once large hearing. It approved itself
to the instinctive conservatism of the Church, and
it has been perpetuated, with much statistical and
historical learning, by many distinguished disciples.
Yet even in France, and within the Catholic
Church itself, this reactionary opposition to the
collectivist creed has of late given way to a more
sympathetic view. Whatever may be said of
domestic virtues and moral education, there has
seemed to many Christians no possibility of defin
ing the social question in these terms alone. The
specific problem of industrial change, it has been
felt, must be met, and met in the name of the

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 4 1
(Christian Church. The Church must have a social
(programme ; there must be a Christian doctrine
!of economics ; the revolutionary social movement
| must be tempered and deepened by the spirit of
Christian faith. These are the convictions which
have expressed themselves in the general type of
thought known as Christian socialism, and which
have united, in unanticipated fellowship, Catholics
and Protestants, Germans and Frenchmen, conserv
ative ecclesiastics and radical preachers.
The first determined note of this new Chris
tian programme was struck in Germany; not,
as might be anticipated, by a Protestant reformer,
but by a Catholic prelate. Several reasons may
be suggested for this interesting historical fact.
The Catholic Church has maintained throughout
its history a continuous tradition of organic re
sponsibility, and in this respect was peculiarly
prepared to receive and interpret the conception
of industrial unity which marks the modern social
question. The Catholic Church, moreover, was in
Germany the party of protest ; and its exclusion
from political control gave it a freer hand for
social agitation than was permitted to an Estab
lished Church. Even before the revolution of 1848,
the French Abbe" Lamennais1 had announced a
1 Nitti, " Catholic Socialism," p. 99 ff. ; Nathusius, " Die Mitar-
beit der Kirche an der Losung der sozialen Frage," 1897, s. 121 ;
Kaufmann, " Christian Socialism," 1 888, p. 35 ff. ; Mazzini's " Essays "
(Camelot edition, 1887), p. 73: "Wherefore, thought Lamennais,
— the mission of the Peoples, and their disposition toward order
and justice, being recognized — wherefore should the Church refuse

42 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
new mission for his religion, and had found in
the alarming watchwords, " Liberty, Fraternity,
Equality," not merely the signs of social revolu
tion, but the summons to a revival of Christianity.
His voice, however, was of one crying in a wilder
ness of conservative tradition, and his teaching
was condemned by Gregory XVI. As the social
question grew more distinct in form and the work
ing-people of Germany were won to the socialist
cause, the Catholic Church renewed its sympa
thetic interest. At the very beginning of the new
period, Lassalle, always more of an idealist than
Marx, had proposed his scheme of working-men's
productive associations, subsidized by the State,
— -a scheme at first welcomed by the German
Social Democracy, but soon supplanted by more
comprehensive plans of revolution. Lassalle's sug
gestion, however, was a seed which took root in
strange soil. Baron von Ketteler,1 Archbishop of
Mayence, a gallant prince of the Church, found
in Lassalle's proposal the suggestion of an eco
nomic programme for the Church itself. In his
notable book, " The Labour Question and Chris
tianity," he accepted the principle, and often the
language, of the socialist scheme. The self-help
proposed by the Liberals of his day for poverty
to regulate their movements, to preside over the action of this provid
ential instinct of the multitudes?"
1 Ketteler, " Die Arbeiterfrage und das Christentum," 4. Aufl.,
1890; Girard, "Ketteler et la Question Ouvriere," 1896; Kauf-
mann, "Christian Socialism," 1888, p. 108; Rae, "Contemporary
Socialism," p. 224; Nitti, " Catholic Socialism," p. 100 ff.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 43
is, to von Ketteler, in the working-man's present
condition, a mere mockery. Associated produc
tion, in the hands of the working-class itself, is
to be its redemption from capitalism. While
Lassalle, however, had turned to the State for
the endowment of such productive industry, von
Ketteler turned to the Church. Let Christians,
he proposed, voluntarily supply the means for
this industrial emancipation. What is this, in
deed, but the renewal of that earlier spirit in
which monasteries were endowed and cathedrals
built? The new age calls for Christian munifi
cence like that which enriched France and Eng
land with the splendors of Gothic art. " May
God in his goodness quickly raise up men who
will sow the fruitful idea of the association of
production in the soil of Christianity."
It was a bold and noble conception of the
social duty of a living Church, and, though the
conditions of Germany were unpropitious and
the scheme of von Ketteler was soon lost in
larger plans of Catholic socialism, it has had of
late, at the centre of Catholic authority, a most
interesting revival. No sooner had the social
chaos of 1 87 1 in France given way to some de
gree of order, than a group of Catholic Legiti
mists set themselves to the reorganizing of labor
under the principles of religion. The principal
representative of the French Catholic labor party,
the soldierly and eloquent Count de Mun, found
in the programme of industry suggested by von

44 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Ketteler, and modified by the later German Catho
lic Socialists, a key to the situation.1 There must
be revived that system of industry which the
Middle Ages knew as guilds. Economic liberty
is a modern illusion ; the demand of the socialist
for the reconstruction of industry under common
ownership is legitimate and inevitable ; but that
common ownership should be religious in spirit
and Catholic in administration. Religion must
reorganize the old order, and must utihze legis
lation to that end. The State may strengthen
the hands of the Church, but it is the Church
which must reconstruct, — under the tutelage of
religion, — the productive associations which Las
salle had vainly dreamed could be maintained by
the working-men alone.
Should this picturesque revival of industrial
feudalism, it may be asked, be a compulsory
system, or a voluntary organization ? The Comte
de Mun and his allies urge the necessity of State
authority and control ; and their political demands
coincide in the main with the programme of the
Social Democratic party. On the other hand,
there have sprung up in France a few voluntary
associations which actually illustrate the practical
direction of productive industry by the spirit of
religion. Few more idyllic scenes are to be wit
nessed in the modern world than that presented
1 Nitti, "Catholic Socialism," p. 273 ff., p. 292 ff, with further refer
ences; Fortnightly Review, January, 1896, "An Object-lesson in
Christian Democracy" (Val-des-Bois).

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 45
by the famous factory of Leon Harmel at Val-des-
Bois, • — a contented, secluded, homogeneous popu
lation, a "famille ouvriire" a picture of what
the world of industry might be if only all working-
people were French Catholics, and all employers
were as devout and judicious as Harmel. Mean
time the Church itself, while it has not authorita
tively committed itself to either method of control,
has given the highest approval to the general plan
of a Catholic organization of industry. When the
present Pope, in his remarkable Encyclical of May
15, 1891, enumerated the direct ways of economic
relief which commended themselves to him, he
began with these words : " First in order come the
guilds of arts and trades. The increasing require
ments of daily life render it necessary that these
guilds be adapted to present conditions." Such
suggestions, carefully guarded though they are,
indicate the profound interest which has been
awakened by enterprises like that of Harmel, and
by parliamentary propositions like those of the
Comte de Mun. A revival of guild life may
indeed be impracticable except within the narrow
limits of a homogeneous community ; but it is at
least one way of direct acceptance by the Chris
tian Church of the economic issue, and it appears
to have received the formal commendation of that
remarkable man who, it is said, desires to be
remembered as the Pope of the working-classes.1
1 The social doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be
inferred from the view of Nitti's" Catholic Socialism," 1899. Indeed,

46 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
When we turn to the parallel development of
Christian socialism in Protestant Germany, we find.
as might be expected, less continuity and definite-
ness in social schemes, though not less determi
nation to find a place for religion in the social
movement. The history of such efforts begins
with the work of a most interesting, though now
half-forgotten, personality, the learned and devout
Victor Huber.1 This diligent scholar had become
acquainted, during his visits in England, with the
work of Maurice, while, on the other hand, he had
maintained a sympathetic correspondence with von
Ketteler. Thus he was in some degree a link,
uniting the Christian Socialist movement in Great
Britain with that of Catholic Germany. From
one of the most curious features of this learned book is the reit
erated criticism of its author by its translator. For authorized expo
sition of Catholic teaching see: Encyclical of May 15, 1891 (tr.
Nitti, p. 404 ff.); American Catholic Quarterly Review, July, 1891,
(a commentary on the Encyclical by Bishop Keane) ; Forum, Jan
uary, 1897, De Vogue, " Pope Leo XIII "; and the very noteworthy
book of Leon Gregoire (pseudonym), "Le Pap e, les Catholiques,
et la Question Sociale," 2e ed., 1895. Of a more general nature are :
Soderini, "Socialism and Catholicism," with a preface by Cardinal
Vaughan, 1 896; Winterstein, " Die christliche Lehre vom Erdengut,"
1898; see also J. G. Brooks, International fournal of Ethics,
" The Social Question in the Catholic Congresses " ; and Ameri
can Economic Association, 1894, "The Papal Encyclical on the
Labor Question."
1 R. Elvers, "V. A. Huber, sein Werden und Wirken," 1879 ;
Gohre, "Die evangelisch-soziale Bewegung," 1896, s. 6 ff. ; Kauf-
mann, "Christian Socialism," 1888, p. 129. See also the references
to Huber in England, in Maurice, " Life and Letters," 4th ed., 1885,
Vol. II, p. 2 ff.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 47
the one he derived his faith in industrial coopera
tion, applying the principle not only to production
and consumption, but to building societies, loan
associations, and even, under the title of " Home
Colonization," to the organization of German vil
lage life ; from the other he derived a confidence
in the Christian organization of industry, which
led him to establish his "Associations for Chris
tian Order and Liberty." Huber, however, was a
man born out of due time; he was politically a
Liberal of the earlier school, equally opposed to
the governmental paternalism which had already
begun to dominate Germany, and to the revolu
tionary socialism which was formulating its first
programme. -There was no natural constituency
for his scheme. He would have no governmental
aid for his cooperative societies, nor, on the other
hand, would he deliver them over to the Social
Democracy. He put his confidence in private
initiative and free Christian feeling. He had seen,
in England, a few Christian scholars devoted to
a working-class movement, and he fancied that
there might be in Germany a similar leadership.
He had not realized, however, the violence of the
working-class reaction in Germany from all alli
ance with the prosperous. He was also, it is said,
by temperament, lacking in conciliatory wisdom,
and had something of that isolation of spirit which
marks what the Germans call an " Einspdnner."
His career was one of disappointment; he with
drew from the academic circles of Berlin in 185 1,

48 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
for eighteen years lived in seclusion among the
Harz Mountains, and the direct results of his gen
erous efforts were transient and meagre. He is
to be remembered, however, as the first German
Protestant who, in the name of the Christian reli
gion, proposed a definite social programme. Chris
tian philanthropy, he maintained, was not to be
satisfied with almsgiving and help for the help
less, but was called to contribute to the new
industrial issue the forces of organization and self-
help. The social climate of England favored the
efforts of Maurice, while that of Germany blighted
the plans of von Ketteler and Huber, and the
socialism of the State and of the Revolution left,
between them, little room for Christian liberalism ;
but it is not impossible that, when the full effect
of prosperity secured by legislation comes to be
observed in Germany, there may be a renewal of
interest in enterprises of personal and spiritual
initiative ; and if that time arrives, there is likely
to be a renewed recognition of this early believer
in the free activity of a living Church.
Much more in accord with the tumultuous and
shifting character of the modern social movement
is the career of a second German Protestant
leader, the eloquent and masterful Pastor Stocker.1
For twenty-five years this brilliant orator has been
!A. Stocker, " Christlich-soziale Reden und Aufsatze," 1885;
Gohre, "Die evangelisch-soziale Bewegung," 1896, s. 41 ff.; Rae,
"Contemporary Socialism," 1891, p. 234; Kaufmann, "Christian
Socialism," 1888, p. 159.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 49
among the most conspicuous and the most criti
cised of Germans. Few critics would question
the motives of his intense and varied activity, but
no one can recall the changeful policies of his
stormy life without a pathetic impression of wasted
power. As early as 1878, being then Court
Preacher in Berlin, he organized his " Christian
Sociahst Labor Party," " on the basis of the
Christian faith," to "lessen the division between
rich and poor, and to bring in a greater economic
security." He dismissed the Social Democracy
as " impracticable, unchristian, unpatriotic," and set
forth a Christian programme as its substitute. It
is not, he says, "in the name of the Church that
the programme is proposed "; " the Church is not
called to make an economic programme." His
organization was not to be one of the clergy to
help the working-men, but one of the working-men
to help themselves. It was impossible, however,
for a Court Preacher, with a mind essentially con
servative and a following of the cultivated class, to
command the genuine confidence of German hand
workers. Stocker' s original ambition was thwarted
also by legislation introduced by the government
against the Socialists, — an attack which only
served to consolidate their forces and to shut out
the labor party of Stocker from consideration.
His zeal turned, therefore, to a new and less noble
crusade. The sympathy which was coldly received
by the working-men found a warmer welcome in
the ranks of tradespeople of the humbler type,

50 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
whose industrial welfare was seriously threatened
by an extraordinary increase in power and prosper
ity among the Jews. The social interest of Stocker
joined with his orthodox theology in converting
his original Christian socialism into anti-Semitism,
and he became much more widely known as a Jew-
hater than as a working-man's friend. Finally, in
1895, as if conscious that a working-class move
ment was impossible, Stocker and his friends
turned to a more comprehensive but more con
servative scheme. There was organized at Eisenach
a " Christian Social Party," for the purpose of unit
ing "under the principles of Christianity and
patriotism persons of all classes and occupations
who are moved by the Christian social spirit."
" While its special attention is to be given to the
elevation of the working-class as the present prob
lem of the time, it will with equal gladness serve
the needs of all productive interests in city and
country, in agriculture, factory hfe, and menial
labor." It opposes " all unchristian and un-Ger-
man schemes of spurious liberalism, oppressive
capitalism, rapacious Hebraism, and revolutionary
socialism." Thus Stocker' s new platform com
bined in one programme all the various ends for
which in turn he had already contended. It has
failed, however, of wide effect through its compre
hensiveness, as the first programme failed through
its limitations. Supported though Stocker has been
by persons of importance, the distinction between
his political ideals and those of the conservative

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 5 1
party has not been such as to detach votes, while
he has been a special object of the attack against
clerical influence in politics. The legislation of
Bismarck concerning socialism cut the ground
from under Stocker' s feet, and in 1890 he with
drew from his position as Court Preacher. He
has since remained a striking and solitary figure in
parliamentary life, regarded by many persons with
hesitating admiration and by some persons with
special animosity ; yet he is, none the less, to be
counted as the most eloquent and persistent of
German Protestants in maintaining that social
organization is an essential duty of the Christian
Church in the modern world.
Genuine and devout, then, as the Christian
sociahsm of German Protestants has been, it can
not be said to have produced a definite indus
trial programme, or to have had a profound effect.
It has found itself between two fires, the distrust
of the government, and the undisguised contempt
of the Social Democracy. On the one hand, it
is met by the emperor's dictum that the clergy
should leave politics alone ; on the other hand, it
is confronted by the Socialist belief that religion
is a superstition maintained in the interest of the
confiscating class. In this state of things, the
last proposition of the Protestant Socialists of
Germany, while it is certainly heroic, would seem
to be Quixotic, if not suicidal, in its character.
The rebuke of the emperor, it is said by the
eloquent preacher Naumann and his friends, is

52 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
not without justification. A clergyman in a State
Church may not hope at the same time to main
tain his clerical office and to establish a friendly
relation with the working-class movement. Either
his freedom of speech will cost him his place, or
he will address property holders alone. His only
escape from such a dilemma is to abandon the
ministry as a profession, and, in the name of a
new parliamentary party, to throw himself into
political life. Christian socialism must be re
garded as a political alternative, to be presented
to German hand-workers in place of the Social
Democracy which now commands their votes. It
accepts the economic programme of the Socialist,
but interprets and maintains that programme as
a witness of the Christian religion. Gallant and
self-sacrificing as this programme is, it cannot be
regarded as a hopeful phase of practical effort.
To abandon the Church for the sake of religion ;
to see in politics the field for a religious revival ;
to ally one's self with the Socialist party for the
sake of supplanting them, — this will seem to
most observers like the charge at Balaklava,
magnificent, but not war; and the withdrawal of
these Christian preachers from their prophetic
office does not, at present, appear likely to carry
with it the assurance of a corresponding influence
and leadership in the political world.
It is not essential for our purpose to cite further
instances of the Christian protest against the aliena-

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 53
tion of the social question from the Christian reli
gion. By many ways of utterance, by attempted
imitation of New Testament economics, by works
of philanthropy, by words of prophecy, by research,
by organization, and by political methods, the Chris
tian life of the modern world has maintained its
right to interpret and direct the social agitations
of the time. When one recalls, however, all these
varied expressions of Christian responsibility, he
cannot help remarking that one form of inquiry,
which would seem to be of fundamental importance,
has had but meagre attention. Behind all that may
be urged of the duty of the Christian Church, and
all that may be demanded of social life in the name
of Christianity, there lies, for all followers of Jesus
. Christ, the preliminary question concerning his per
sonal teaching. What did Jesus himself have to
say of the various spheres of social duty ? What is
the social doctrine of the gospel ? By the answers
to such questions the practical conduct of a loyal
disciple of Jesus must be largely determined. It
is most surprising, therefore, that in a period of
such extraordinary social interest on the part
of Christian believers, and in a time when the
Watchword " Back to Christ ! " has become so
.familiar, there should have been undertaken so
/few systematic or scientific inquiries concerning
ithe nature of his social teaching. Incidental
treatment of the relation of Jesus to problems'
of social life may be found, of course, in the
elaborate studies of the life of Christ, of which,

54 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
since the days of Strauss and Renan, there has
been such an abundance; and chapters also in
the text-books of Christian ethics ; but in few such
instances is disclosed any appreciation of the intense
eagerness with which the present age desires to
learn the social teaching of the gospel. The
theological and philosophical interest of the life
of Jesus has for the most part quite overshad
owed his human and social significance. It has
seemed more important to determine the relation
of the person of Christ to the mystery of the
Godhead than to determine his attitude toward
the secular problems of the modern world. In
fact, to many minds the personality of Jesus bears
so wholly a superhuman and other-worldly aspect
that there appears to be something like impiety in
discussing his social doctrine at all. It is a strik
ing fact that the creed which to millions sums up
the essence of Christian discipleship devotes its
attention so exclusively to the supernatural aspects
of the drama of redemption that it makes no allu
sion whatever to any incident of the human life of
Jesus ; as though, for the essentials of a Christian
faith, it were unimportant to recall anything that
happened between the miraculous birth and the suf
fering death of Christ.1 Even so profoundly rever
ent and appreciative a study of the life of Jesus as
was presented in the epoch-making book known as
aSee the striking article in New World, June, 1899, p. 299 ff.,
F. A. Christie, " The Influence of the Social Question on the Genesis
of Christianity."

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 55
" Ecce Homo," was regarded by many of its earlier
critics, because of its emphasis on the human and
ethical aspects of the life of Jesus, as bringing grave
dishonor on his nature and mission, and was de
scribed by the excellent Lord Shaftesbury as " the
most pestilential book that has ever been vomited
forth from the jaws of hell." A German theologian
of the highest rank, being lately asked to explain
this dearth of literature concerning the relation of
Jesus to the social question, gave it as his opinion
that it was the risks of ecclesiastical discipline
which had driven German theologians to think of
safer themes.1 It would probably be more just to
refer the phenomenon to the habits of isolation and
traditionalism which beset the theological mind.
The interest of theological studies is so independ
ent of the shifting issues of the world, and tends
so often to detach the mind from the passing
incidents of social life, that the theologian may
find himself at last thinking of one series of ques
tions while the world about him is interested in
quite another series, and there may come to be
hardly any contact between his professional re
searches and the human needs of modern life.
This, at least, is the impression made on multitudes
of plain minds by the discussions which to the theo
logians appear most vitally interesting. These
1 Compare, however, the new expression of responsibility in
"Verhandlungen des ioten Evang.-soz. Kongresses," 1899, ». 12 ff.,
" Das Verhaltniss der lutherischen Kirche zur sozialen Frage," by
Professor Kaftan; and remarks by Professor Harnack, s. 32.

56 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
subtle distinctions and acrimonious ecclesiastical
differences are simply without interest to persons
who are struggling with the tragic problems of
modern poverty, social service, and political moral
ity ; and to such persons the Christian Church
takes on a look of unreality and misdirected
energy, as though it were concerning itself with
little more than what Coleridge called the problem
of "superhuman ventriloquism," and existed only
to exercise the ingenuity of its ministers and
occupy the leisure of its adherents.
Nor is this all that is likely to happen when
a Christianity of dogma is confronted by an
intensely practical and ethical age. The person
of Jesus Christ, it is soon discovered, cannot be
thus excluded, even by the preoccupation of the
theological mind, from the world of the social
question. No sooner does one open his New
Testament than he finds Jesus teaching of social
duty with the same authority with which he dis
courses of Divine love. The story of the life of
Jesus moves through a world of human relation
ships, and he scatters on either side of his path
words of refreshing and deeds of blessing for the
poor, the humble, the weary and the heavy laden,
the burdened and blind and sad. His gospel, as
he expressly says, is twofold, and one half of it
is a social message, " Thou shalt love thy neigh
bour as thyself." x What wonder is it then, that,
when attention is recalled to the neglected aspect
1 Matt. xxii. 39.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 57
of the person of Jesus, this unmetaphysical, un-
ecclesiastical, human, pitying friend of man, —
stooping to serve the lowly and quick to rebuke
the proud, — there should be a quick swing of the
pendulum of opinion, and, instead of the Christ of
the creeds, there should seem to be discovered a
new Messiah, the Saviour of the toiling and desti
tute masses of men ? What was the young man
Jesus, it is asked, but a carpenter at his bench ?
Who were his companions but men of what is now
called the proletariat ? What words were oftener
on his lips than, "Woe unto you that are rich,"1
"Blessed are ye poor"?2 What, then, is the
teaching of Jesus, when it is stripped of the theo
logical interpretations which have obscured it,
but the gospel of a working-man's movement,
the language of a social agitator, the historical
anticipation of the modern programme of social
I democracy ? Here is the inevitable reaction from a
metaphysical Christology. The new time recalls
such words as " How hardly shall they that have
riches enter into the kingdom of God ! " 3 " Sell all
that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor " ; 4 the
attack upon the property-holding classes is forti
fied by the thought of Dives in hell and of Laza
rus contented ; and instead of a supernatural
Christ, sitting at the right hand of the Father in
another world, the figure which wins fresh loyalty
is that of the Carpenter, the poor man's Advocate,
1 Luke vi. 24. 8 Luke xviii. 24.
2 Luke vi. 20. * Luke xviii. 22.

58 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the greatest of socialists, or, as he has been lately
called, "Jesus the Demagogue."1
The first of the modern biographers of Jesus to
emphasize this view of his person and office was
Renan.2 It was a part of his general modernization
of the gospel to picture Jesus as having kinship
with the modern labor agitator, attacking on the
one hand the government and on the other hand
the prosperous. "Jesus," Renan says, "was in
one view an anarchist ; for he had no idea of civil
government, which appeared to him an abuse pure
and simple." "Pure Ebionism — that is to say,
the doctrine that the poor (ebionim) alone can be
saved . . . was accordingly the doctrine of Jesus."
" He pardoned the rich man only when the rich
man, because of some prejudice, was disliked by
society." " He openly preferred people of ques
tionable lives." His conception of the world was
" socialist with a Galilean coloring." " A vast social
revolution in which rank should be leveled and
all authority brought low was his dream." The
Jesus of Renan was, in short, a forerunner of the
modern revolutionist, limited in the radicalism of
his programme by the conditions of his social envi
ronment ; and it is not surprising that this inter
pretation of the gospel in terms of the modern
social question has appeared to many socialist
writers the final word of New Testament criticism.
1 Contemporary Review, March, 1896, p. 427 ff, W. Walsh
" Jesus the Demagogue."
2 "Life of Jesus," 23d ed. (tr. J. H. Allen, 1896), pp. 170, 212,
215, 171.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 59
The same interpretation, however, may be util
ized, not to enforce the teaching of Jesus, but to
condemn it. A distinguished English philosopher,
accepting the gospel as a revolutionary tract, finds
that characteristic not a reason for obeying the
teaching of Jesus, but a reason for rejecting that
teaching as impracticable and visionary. To
assume that Jesus was a pious anarchist, is to
dismiss his gospel as inapplicable to modern
life.1 The Christian theory of self-sacrifice is, it
is said, self-destructive. "If Christianity is to
mean the taking the gospels as our rule of life,
then we none of us are Christians, and, no matter
what we say, we all know we ought not to be."
" There is not one of our great moral institutions
which it [the New Testament] does not ignore or
condemn. The rights of property are denied or
suspected, the ties of family are broken, there is no
longer any nation or patriotism. . . . The morality
of the primitive Christians is homeless, sexless, and
nationless." "We have lived a long time now
the professors of a creed which no one consistently
can practise, and which, if practised would be as
immoral as it is unreal."
A much more sober and cautious approach to
1 International fournal of Ethics, October, 1894, F. H. Bradley,
"The Limits of Individual and National Self-sacrifice." So also L.
Stein, "Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophie," 1897, s. 244,
" Christianity is stamped with an ascetic and pessimistic character. "
"It has a dark and monastic quality (etwas monchisch Finsteres),
unfavorable to social and philosophical inquiries which assume a
confidence in human capacity."

60 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the social teaching of Jesus was made, somewhat
before the picturesque romanticism of Renan, by a
now largely forgotten, but most devoted and pains
taking, German scholar, who anticipated by more
than thirty years the importance which the New
Testament would have in the social movement.
Rudolf Todt 1 was an undistinguished pastor, who
was stirred by a passing suggestion of the more
famous Stocker 2 to examine with systematic care
the teaching of the New Testament in its relation
to the socialist programme. He found, as he
believed, in the gospels, not only general princi
ples, but " positive and concrete judgments for the
solution of social questions." The doctrine of the
New Testament deals, he affirms, " with the prob
lem of the State, the rich and the poor." "Who
ever would understand the social question," he
writes on his first page, " and would contribute to
its solution, must have on his right hand the works
of political economy, on his left those of scientific
socialism, and before him must keep open the New
Testament." Todt proceeds to set forth in detail
the various articles of the socialist creed, and con
fronts each in turn with the teaching of the New
1 Todt, " Der radikale deutsche Sozialismus und die christliche
Gesellschaft," 2. Aufl., 1878; " Recapitulation of the Social Doctrine
of the New Testament," p. 396 ff. See also Gohre, " Die evange-
lisch-soziale Bewegung," s. 10 ff.; and compare the criticism in
Holtzmann " Die ersten Christen und die soziale Frage " (" Wiss.
Vortrage fiber rel. Fragen," s. 21).
2 In the Neue evangelische Kirchenzeitung for 1873. See Todt,
p. 1, " Die Frage ging mir durch's Herz."

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 6 1
Testament ; and concludes that " with the excep
tion of its atheism . . . the theory of socialism can
not be opposed from the point of view of the gos
pel. Its principles not only conform to the tests
of the New Testament, but contain evangehcal
and Divine truths." The special form of faith
assumed by the Social Democracy of Germany,
appeared to Todt " unevangelical and unneces
sary." Every Christian must be a Socialist, but
need not be a Social Democrat. Against atheistic
socialism, therefore, a Christian socialism must be
organized. Todt thereupon, with Stocker and other
friends, began the organization of a " Central Asso
ciation for Social Reform on Religious and Con
stitutional Principles," a movement which through
various vicissitudes and transitions has been per
petuated in the Evangelical Social Congress and
the Christian Socialist party, and whose vitality
has proceeded in very large degree from the pains
taking study of the gospels with which it began.
Finally, as the present outcome of this interpre
tation of the New Testament, we reach a most
stimulating and noble personality, whose teaching
reverts with special emphasis to the personal influ
ence of Jesus Christ. Pastor Naumann 1 of Frank
fort was one of the few genuine orators of the
1 Naumann, " Das soziale Programm der evangelischen Kirche,"
1891; "Was heisst Christlich-Sozial ? " 1894, ». 9 ff. ; "Jesus als
Volksmann," Gottingen, Arbeiterbibliothek I, I, 1896, ss. 5, 13;
"Soziale Briefe an reiche Leute," 1899; Gohre, "Die evange-
lisch-soziale Bewegung," 1896, s. 163 ff.

62 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
German pulpit, and through all his preaching runs
a strain of such masculine piety that his enforced
withdrawal and his unpromising ventures in politi
cal hfe excite most natural regret. It must not
be supposed that Naumann sees in Jesus nothing
more than a social reformer. On the contrary, he
enters profoundly into the personal relationships
of Christian faith. "Lord Jesus," he says, "we
would sit at thy feet and feel what Christianity
really is." Jesus Christ is " neither a philosopher
nor statesman, neither physicist nor economist, . . .
he brings neither conclusions nor methods. He
lives, and his life is the revelation of God." Yet
to Naumann the social question, with its tragedies
of want and suffering, is so overwhelmingly absorb
ing that he dwells with constant emphasis on the
social teaching of the gospel. " Jesus is," he says,
" a man of the people " ; his talk is " with constant
reiteration of the rich and poor." " To save men's
souls he is the enemy of wealth." "Jesus loves
the rich, but he knows that their souls are free only
when they are ready to throw their wealth away."
He is " on moral grounds a radical enemy of capital."
" What are to be the tests of the Last Judgment ?
Not dogmas or confessions, but one's relation to
.human need." "An age which does not feed the
hungry, care for the naked, and visit the sick and
the prisoners belongs in the everlasting fire."
" Christianity is to help the poor." To these pas
sionate utterances of Naumann it is hardly neces
sary to add the more exaggerated statements of

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 63
other modern students. " Christianity," says the
Itahan economist Nitti, " was a vast economic revo
lution more than anything else." " Poverty was an
indispensable condition for gaining admission to the
kingdom of heaven." 1 With still less self-restraint
an American writer advances to more sweeping
generalizations. " The Sermon on the Mount,"
he writes, " is the science of society. It is a trea
tise on political economy." "The rejection of his
[Christ's] social ideal was the crucifixion he carried
in his heart." "An industrial democracy would be
the social actualization of Christianity. It is the
logic of the Sermon on the Mount." 2 These ex
travagances of exegesis indicate how sharply the
pendulum of interest has swung from a Christol-
ogy which ignored the social question to one which
finds the social question the centre of the gospel.
1 Nitti, " Catholic Socialism," 1895, pp. 58, 64.
2 Herron, " The New Redemption," pp. 30, 34, 80 ; compare
p. 143, " The worst charge that can be made against a Christian is
that he attempts to justify the existing social order." See also the
other writings of this self-sacrificing advocate of revolution, e.g. :
" The Larger Christianity ; " " A Plea for the Gospel ; " " Between
Caesar and Jesus." "No man can read the Gospel himself without
seeing that Jesus regarded industrial wealth as a moral fall and a
social violence." "The Church as a whole does not know what
Jesus taught, and so far as it knows does not believe his teaching
practicable," " Between Caesar and Jesus," p. 107. " I dread noth
ing more than the influence upon the social movement of existing
organizations of religion," Boston Address, 1895. "If we would
follow Jesus in the social redemption, it will be by storming the
citadel of monopoly." " We can only save the people from being
ground to profit by capturing the ' machine,' " The Industrialist,
July, 1899.

64 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Indeed, as has been lately suggested, it would not
be difficult, under these principles of interpretation,
to re-edit the New Testament as a socialist tract.1
Jesus drove, we may suppose, the swine into the
sea in order to testify his indifference to the insti
tution of private property. When meeting the
multitude his first care is to feed them, in order to
indicate the precedence of economic problems over
spiritual questions. He scourges the money
changers from the temple in order to bear public
witness against capitalism and its sins.
However unfounded in history such a conception
of the person of Christ may be, it is welcomed with
enthusiasm by great numbers of plain people. For
the Church and the theologians, the modern revolu
tionist has, as we have already seen, scant respect.
The Church is to him the bulwark of the property-
holding class, and the theologians are distracting
the minds of the unfortunate by promises of pros
perity elsewhere. "We'll give them back some of
their heaven," said Felix Holt, " and take it out in
something for us and our children in this world."
For the person of Jesus, on the other hand, re
garded as a working-man, a friend of the poor, an
outcast, a preacher of condemnation against scribes
and Pharisees, the working-class movement offers
fresh reverence and homage. The real Jesus seems
indeed, to many hand-workers, to have been redis
covered by them, as though beneath some mediae
val fresco of an unreal and mystical Christ there
1 Contemporary Review, March, 1896.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 65
had been freshly laid bare the features of the
man of Nazareth. "Christ," answered one German
working-man to an inquirer, "was a true friend
of the working-people, not in his words alone, like
his followers, but in his deeds. He was hated and
persecuted as is the modern socialist, and if he
lived to-day he would, without doubt, be one of us." 1
" Christ," wrote another, " was a great revolutionist ;
if any one now preached as he did, he would be
arrested." "He would have accomplished more/'
adds a third, " if he had given his efforts rather
to economic and scientific ends than to religion."
" He was a man of the common people," concludes
a fourth, " who fought a hard fight for their moral
and economic welfare." In short, it has come to
pass, as the author of the " Kernel and the Husk "
anticipated, that the hand-workers are saying,
" We used to think that Christ was a fiction of the
priests ; . . . but now we find that he was a man,
after all, like us, — a poor working-man, who had
a heart for the poor, — and now that we under
stand this we say ... he is the man for us." 2
\ Here, then, is a perplexing situation. To a vast
1 See the exceedingly interesting series of opinions collected by
Pastor Rade, in his paper before the Ninth Evangelical Social Con
gress, 1898, "Die Gedankenwelt unserer Industriearbeiter." Com
pare also Pfluger, "Kirche und Proletariat," 1899, s. 4: "The first
proclaimers of the gospel, especially Jesus himself, belonged to the
proletariat; ... the preachers of the gospel to-day belong to
' good society.' "
2 "The Kernel and the Husk" (Am. ed. 1887), p. 334 (quoted
also, Contemporary Revieiv, March, 1896, p. 429).
F

66 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
majority of those who are most concerned with the
social question, the Christ of the churches is an
object of complete indifference, if not of positive
scorn ; while to a Christ far removed from the
traditions and creeds of Christian worship, — an
unmysterious, human leader of the poor, — there
is given an honor which as a supernatural being
he no longer receives. On the other hand, to the
vast majority of Christian worshippers this concep
tion of Jesus as a labor-leader and social revolu-i
tionist appears a most inadequate and unhistorical;
picture of the Christ of the gospels. What havei
we here but a clean break between the tradition'
of the past and the need of the present ? On
the one hand is the ancient and precious story
of the relation of Jesus to the individual soul, hii
revelation of the Father to the child, and his revel
lation of the child to himself, his message to the
religious hfe in its experiences of sin, repentance,
and spiritual peace ; and on the other hand is this
new and unprecedented appreciation of the exter-\
nal ills of environment and misfortune, of social
wrong and injustice, and the discovery that here
also Jesus Christ has a message of stern rebuke
and pitying love. Is there, then, a permanent
chasm set between the work of the Christian
Church and the need of the modern world ? Is
there no unity to be discovered beneath these di
verse conceptions of the teaching of Jesus ? Must
it happen that the force of the Christian religion
shall be limited to spiritual and personal renewal,

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 67
and shall have no part in directing the social move
ment of the time ; or if, on the other hand, the
person of Jesus finds a place in the social ques
tion, must it be at the cost of his spiritual leader
ship and religious significance ? Must we choose
between Christ the Saviour and Jesus the Dema
gogue ; or is there in the religion of Jesus a qual
ity and character which of themselves create a
social message such as the modern world needs to
hear ? These are the questions which confront
one as he observes the alienation between Chris
tian teaching and social needs, and which invite
to fresh inquiry concerning the social teaching of
the gospel. 1
1The literature which is of importance in its new appreciation
of the social teaching of Jesus may be said to begin with the " Ecce
Homo " of Professor Seeley, 1867. The main thesis of this re
markable book — that Jesus was the founder of an external and
legislative commonwealth — may be regarded as an inadequate or
even a misleading statement of the purpose of Christ ("Christ
announced himself as the Founder, the Legislator, of a new State,"
p. 80 ; " To reorganize a society and to bind the members of it
together by the closest ties were the business of his life," p. 103 ;
"The first propelling power ... is the personal relation of loyal
vassalage of the citizens to the Prince of the Theocracy," p. 95).
Yet the extraordinary insight of this book into the spirit of the
gospels and its beauty and vigor of expression make its publication
an epoch in the interpretation of the teaching of Jesus.
A second contribution of much originality and power was the
Bampton Lectures of Canon Fremantle, "The World the Subject
of Redemption," 1885 (2d ed. 1895, with an introduction by Pro
fessor R. T. Ely, and with important appendices of illustrative liter
ature). Less academic, but of the highest spiritual insight, and
of an importance not generally recognized by his readers, are the
Bohlen Lectures of Phillips Brooks, " The Influence of Jesus," 1879.

68 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Two considerations give to such an inquiry a
peculiar interest and encouragement. In the first
place, as is evident from what has been already
Closer to the modern social spirit, more exegetical in character, and
for the general student a sufficient guide, is the thorough and dis
criminating book of Shailer Mathews, "The Social Teaching of
Jesus," 1897. (Compare also his article in the American fournal
of Sociology, January, 1900, " The Christian Church and Social
Unity.") Of German literature, specifically devoted to this subject, the
only comprehensive work lately produced is the learned but con
servative book of .M. von Nathusius, " Die Mitarbeit der Kirche
an der Losung der sozialen Frage," 2. Aufl., 1897; see also his
" Christlich-soziale Ideen der Reformationszeit," 1897. Of less
systematic German studies may be named : Schmidt- Warneck, " Die
sozialen Verhaltnisse und die ethischen Grundgedanken des Evan-
geliums," 1891 ; Uhlhorn, "Vermischte Vortrage fiber kirchliches
Leben," 1875 (s- 353fT-, "Zur sozialen Frage"); Bohmer, "Bren-
nende Zeit- und Streitfragen der Kirche," 1898 ; Sabatier, " Die
Religion und die moderne Kultur " (ubersetzt aus dem Franzosi-
schen), 1898 ; Russland, "Die Wirtschaftspolitik des Vaterunsers,"
1895. Further should be noticed the increasing emphasis on the social
aspects of the gospel in the general works of New Testament inter
pretation: e.g. Wendt, " The Teaching of Jesus" (tr. 1897); Bey-
schlag, "New Testament Theology" (tr. 1895); Weiss, " Biblical
Theology of New Testament" (tr. 1882), I, 62 ff.; Bruce, "The
Kingdom of God," 1891; and Gilbert, "The Revelation of Jesus,"
1899. Here also may be named less formal studies of the influences of
Christianity on modern life : e.g. Fairbairn, " The Place of Christ in
Modern Theology," p. 515 ff. ; and his " Religion in History and in
Modern Life," 1894, Lect. Ill ; Gore, "The Social Doctrine of the
Sermon on the Mount" {Economic Review, April, 1892); Rade,
" Die Religion im modernen Geistesleben," 1898, and his " Reli
gion und Moral," 1898 ; Soderblom, "Die Religion und die soziale
Entwickelung," 1898 ; Church, " Christ's Words and Christian
Society," in his " Gifts of Civilization," 1880, p. 39 ; G. Hodges,

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 69
said, we here approach the one subject in Chris
tian teaching where, on both sides of the present
social issue, there is sincere appreciation and rev
erence. The theology of Christianity, as the slight
est glance at its present tendency will indicate, is
laying aside its confidence in metaphysical defini
tions and elaborate formulas, and with a new
humility of mind is turning to the simpler task
of interpreting and perpetuating the teaching of
Jesus Christ. " The Church hears none but
Christ," said the earlier and broader statement
of this return to the gospels ; the modern spirit,
with more simplicity, inquires, " What would Jesus
say ? " To follow Christ, even though one cannot
adequately define him ; to be, not of those who
name his name alone, but of those who desire to
do his will ; to direct the life of one's own soul and
the life of the world in ways of which Jesus might
say, "Well done, good and faithful servant," — these
principles, to the modern Christian, are not inci
dental to the Christian life, but are the essence of
" Faith and Social Service," 1896 ; E. W. Donald, " The Expansion
of Religion," 1898 ; R. T. Ely, "Social Aspects of Christianity,"
1889 ; J. LI. Davies, "The Gospel of Modern Life," 1875, and his
"Social Questions," 1885 ; "The Message of Christ to Manhood,"
Noble Lectures, 1895 i Flint, " Socialism," 1895 (supplementary
note, " The Church's Call to study Social Questions," p. 493 ff.) ;
Washington Gladden, "Applied Christianity," 1886, and his "Tools
and the Man," 1893; Westcott, "Social Aspects of Christianity,"
1887; Harris, "Moral Evolution," 1896, Ch. IX and X; Drum-
mond, "Via, Veritas, Vita," The Hibbert Lectures for 1894, Lect.
VI, p. 209 ff.; Lyman Abbott, " Christianity and Social Problems,"
1897.

JO JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
it ; and this discernment and obedience, even when
accompanied by a high degree of ignorance as to
the interior nature of the Godhead and the pur
poses of the Infinite, may still, it is now widely
believed, receive the great word of acceptance,
"Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."1
And if it is thus true that the imitation of Christ
has supplanted opinion about Christ as the test
of Christian discipleship, it is equally true, on
the other hand, that the social movement also has
reached a point of peculiar reverence for the
person of Jesus. Inadequate and superficial as
may be the estimate on which this reverence
is based, it gives a point of contact between the
Church and the world. The ecclesiastics may
argue their claim to authority, and the theologians
may devise their systems of orthodoxy; yet all
these assumptions and deliberations will wholly
fail to impress the people of the trades-unions,
or the social democracy of the city slums. Let
the social teaching of the gospels, however, be
told — ever so simply — with its tender summons,
" Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy
laden," 2 with its test of discipleship, " Inasmuch
as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even
these least, ye did it unto me," 3 and the heavy
laden and those who are least in the modern world
become responsive to the teaching, and touched
with reverence for the person whom they thus
dimly discern. Hopeless, therefore, as one may
1 Luke vii. 50. 2 Matt. xi. 28. 8 Matt. xxv. 40, 41,

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 71
be of coming to any understanding with the social
movement through the prevailing methods of Chris
tianity, there is still ground for hope that the teach
ing of Jesus may have new adaptations to the need
of the new time. The talk of the churches is for
the most part in a language as unintelligible as
Hebrew to the modern hand-worker; but in the
teaching of Jesus he seems to hear the welcome
accents of a familiar tongue. A common rever
ence may beget a mutual understanding. The
Christian believer and the social reformer may
perhaps meet each other as they both approach
the simplicity which is in Christ.1
To this characteristic of the present inquiry must
be added a further encouraging consideration. The
problem to which we are invited, of determining
the relation of the teaching of Jesus to the special
needs of the real world, is in its nature not, as
may be supposed, a new problem, but a continu
ally recurring one. Each period in civilization
has had, in turn, its own peculiar interest and its
own spiritual demands, and each, in turn, following
its own path back to the teaching of Jesus, has
found there what seemed an extraordinary adapta
tion of that teaching to immediate issues and needs.
This is one of the most surprising traits of the
1 G5hre, "Drei Monate Fabrikarbeiter," 1891, ». 190. "Only
one quality (of religion) remains — respect and reverence for Jesus
Christ. It is, indeed, a new picture of Jesus of Nazareth. He
lacks the supernatural light in his eyes, the divinity assigned to him
by the theologians is a subject for smiles ; . . . but they all stand
reverently and quiet before his great personality."

72 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
gospel. It seems to each age to have been written
for the sake of the special problems which at
the moment appear most pressing. As each
new transition in human interest occurs, the
teaching of Jesus seems to possess new value. In
one age the focus of human interest was at that
point where the Greek mind met the Hebrew tra
dition, and developed the beginning of Christian
theology ; and to that age there spoke the great say
ings of Jesus concerning his relation to the Father,
as though the determination of the place of Jesus
in theology were the essence of the gospel. To
another age, absorbed in ecclesiastical development,
the teaching of Jesus seemed specially directed to
establishing the organization of the Church. This
illumination of each view and tendency is felt in
turn by each modern student of the gospels as he
considers from some fresh point of view the teach
ing of Jesus. One scholar, on the watch — as was
Renan — for the picturesque and Oriental traits of
a Galilean peasant, finds in the visionary hopes
of such a youth a key to the teaching of Jesus ;
another scholar, with the habit of mind of a con
stitutional historian, sees in the teaching of Jesus
primarily the work of the framer of a constitution,
and defines his mission as " the rise of a monarchy,
the purest and most ideal that has ever existed
among men " ; 1 still another scholar, profoundly
impressed by the note of melancholy and despair
which is heard in modern literature, turns again to
i " Ecce Homo," Ch. X, " Christ's Legislation."

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 73
this same teaching of Jesus, and finds its central
quality to be "A Gospel for an Age of Doubt."1
Does this divergence of impression mean that each
age and each scholar creates a new Christ, and
that what seems to be a historical figure is in real
ity only the reflection of the inquirer's mind thrown
upon the screen of the past ? Is it only the pious
imaginations of successive students which make
of Jesus now the source of a theology and now the
founder of a church, now peasant, now king, now
the deliverer from doubt? On the contrary, the
life of Jesus has, in fact, all these aspects, and
indeed many more ; and it is not as false inter
preters, but as partial witnesses, that men stand in
their own place and report that view of the gospel
which presents itself to their minds. This extraor
dinary capacity for new adaptations, this quality
of comprehensiveness in the teaching of Jesus,
which so many evidences of the past illustrate,
prepares us in our turn for its fresh applicability
to the question which most concerns the present
age. As it has happened a thousand times before,
so it is likely to happen again, that the gospel,
examined afresh with a new problem in mind, will
seem again to have been written in large part to
meet the needs of the new age. Words and deeds
which other generations have found perplexing or
obscure may be illuminated with meaning, as one
now sees them in the light of the new social agita
tion and hope. It will seem, perhaps, as it has
1 Henry Van Dyke, "The Gospel for an Age of Doubt," 1896.

74 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
seemed so often before, that no other age could
have adequately appreciated the teaching of Jesus ;
as if his prophetic mind must have looked across
the centuries and discerned the distant coming of
social conflicts and aspirations which in his own
time were insignificant, but which are now uni
versal and profound.
Such is the comprehensiveness of the teaching
of Jesus. A great modern preacher has de
scribed this power of adaptation in the parable
of the fairy tent.1 Set in the king's palace, this
magic enclosure was not too large for the smallest
room ; placed in the court-yard, it was large
enough to shelter all the nobles; brought out
upon the plain, it grew to cover the whole army
of the king; there was "infinite flexibility, in
finite expansiveness." Jesus himself, according to
the fourth gospel, with still greater suggestive-
ness, repeatedly describes his mission through
the parable of the light. "I am," he says, "the
light of the world " ; 2 "I am come a light into
the world " ; 3 " Yet a little while is the light
among you ; walk while ye have the light." *
Light is by its very nature comprehensive, trans
missible, ubiquitous. There is not too much for
each man's need, and yet there is enough for all.
Each separate chamber seems to have all the sun
shine, while the unexhausted light radiates into a
million other homes. It is the same with the in-
1 Stopford Brooke, " Religion in Modern Life," first sermon.
2 John viii. 12. 8 John xii. 46. * John xii. 35,

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE TEACHING 75
fluence of Jesus Christ. Each new age or move
ment or personal desire seems to itself to receive
with a pecuhar fulness its special teaching, and it
is quite true that a direct ray of communication
and illumination enters that chamber of the mind
which reaches no other point. It is as if one stood
at night watching the moon rise from the sea,
and saw the glittering band of light which leads
straight to him, as though the moon were shining
for one hfe alone ; while in fact he knows that its
comprehensive radiation is for him, and for the
joy and guidance of a world besides. So the unex
hausted gospel of Jesus touches each new problem
and new need with its illuminating power, while
there yet remain myriads of other ways of radia
tion toward other souls and other ages, for that
Life which is the hght of men.

CHAPTER II
THE SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING OF JESUS
JFor their aakts I sancttfg mgself .
We turn to the story of the gospels, inquiring
for the relation of the teaching of Jesus to various
social questions of the present age. Before enter
ing, however, into the details of such an inquiry,
it may be of advantage to survey the story as a
whole, and to consider whether there are any gen
eral characteristics or principles which lie plainly
on the face of the gospels, and which indicate the
habitual attitude of the mind of Jesus toward such
problems of social reform.
On opening the gospels with this general pur
pose in mind, one is immediately impressed by the
abundance of material presented. Jesus was no
recluse or ascetic. He lived in a world of social
intimacies, problems and companionships. The
first act of his ministry was to gather about him
an intimate group of friends through whose asso
ciated activity his teaching was to be perpetuated.
He entered with unaffected and equal sympathy
into the joys and the sorrows of social life.1 He
was familiar with the most various social types,
1 John ii. I-II ; xi. 1-44.
76

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING JJ
fishermen 1 and Pharisees,2 tax-gatherers 3 and beg
gars,4 Jews 5 and Romans,6 saints 7 and sinners.8
Almost every social question known to his age
was in some form brought before him, either to
receive his judgment or to make a snare for his
teaching. The integrity of the family, the rela
tions of rich and poor, the responsibilities of the
prosperous, — all these, which seem to be mod
ern questions, receive from Jesus reiterated and
often stern consideration, so that it would seem to
be a matter of slight difficulty to determine from
such ample material the character of his social
teaching. There are, however, several aspects of his min
istry which must be clearly recognized before this
teaching can be interpreted in its full significance
or scope. In the first place, as one sums up his
general impression of the gospels, it becomes
'obvious that, whatever social teaching there may
, be in them, and however weighty it may be, the
mind of the Teacher was primarily turned another
way. The supreme concern of Jesus throughout
his ministry was, — it may be unhesitatingly as
serted, — not the reorganization of human society,
but the disclosure to the human soul of its relation
to God. Jesus was, first of all, not aj^ormer,
but a revealer ; he was not primarily an agitator
1 Matt. iv. 18. 6 John iii. i.
2 Acts xxiii. 6. 6 Matt. viii. 5.
8 Matt. ix. 9 ; Luke v. 27. 7 Luke x. 42.
* Mark x. 46 ; John ix. 1. 8 Luke xix. 7 ; vii. 37.

78 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
with a plan, but an idealist with a vision. His
mission was religious. His central desire was
to make plain to human souls the relatiQn in
which they stand to their heavenly Father. " Lord,
shew us the Father," say the disciples, "and it
sufficeth us."1 " The gospel," as a great German
scholar remarks, "is not one of social improve
ment, but one of spiritual redemption." 2
Still further, there was at times in the spiritual
attitude of Jesus a certain quality of remoteness
and detachment from the social problems which
were presented to his mind. He refused to be
entangled in them. Distribution of property was
not within his province: "Man," he says, "who
made me a judge or a divider over you ? " 3 Forms
of government were not for him to change :
" Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are
Caesar's." i There was political oppression about
him to be remedied, there were social unrighteous
ness and iniquity to be condemned ; but Jesus
does not fling himself into these social issues of
his time. He moves through them with a strange
tranquillity, not as one who is indifferent to them,
but as one whose eye is fixed on an end in which
these social problems will find their own solution.
The social questions met him, as it were, on his
way, and his dealing with them is occasional and
unsystematic. Sometimes, when confronted with
1 John xiv. 8.
2 A. Harnack, 5ter Evang.-soz. Kongress, s. 1 20.
8 Luke xii. 14. 4 Matt. xxii. 21.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 79
such a question, he turns from it to the question
of spiritual motive which lies beneath the social
demand. He is asked to deal with the special
problem of inheritance, and his answer opens the
larger question of the love of money : " Take
heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness." 1
In short, Jesus will not be diverted by the demand
for a social teaching from the special message of
j spiritual renewal which he is called to bring. In
many of the processes of applied science, there
are certain results known as by-products, which
are thrown off or precipitated on the way to the
special result desired. It may happen that these
by-products are of the utmost value ; but none the
less they are obtained by the way. Such a by
product is the social teaching of Jesus. It was
not the end toward which his mission was directed ;
it came about as he fulfilled that mission. To
reconstruct the gospels so as to make them pri
marily a programme of social reform is to mistake
the by-product for the end specifically sought, and,
in the desire to find a place for Jesus within the
modern age, to forfeit that which gives him his
place in all ages.2
To this characteristic of the teaching of Jesus
must be added another which has equal signifi
cance in its bearing on the social question. It is
1 Luke xii. 15.
2 See also " The Message of Christ to Manhood," Noble
Lectures, 1898, II, F. G. Peabody, "The Message of Christ to
Human Society," p. 66.

80 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the occasionalism of his teaching. Jesus was not
the maker of a system. He considers each case
by itself. He is not posing at every turn as though
the future were listening to him. He gives him
self, with complete disinterestedness, to the single
person or special group or specific case before
him. " Jesus," says Wendt, " was not a scientific
teacher, but a popular preacher. He did not pre
sent his practical demands in abstract form and
systematic development. He applied them to
those persons with whom he had directly to do,
and to their concrete relations and needs; . . .
without qualifying them by limitations and condi
tions which might come into notice from other
points of view." 1 In short, Jeju^_Js_jDr2marily
thinking of individuals. The initial impulse of his
word and workis"th*is thought of the preciousness
of personality. The shepherd leaves the ninety
and nine sheep and seeks the one that is lost ; 2 the
woman sweeps the house to find the one piece of
money.3 General principles issue indeed from the
discourse of Jesus, as an aroma rises from a rose ;
but the source of this pervasive fragrance is in
that special and individual flower which blooms in
his conversation or his deeds.
The teaching of Jesus, being thus fragmentary,
is often, in its details, inconsistent. One who
proposes to follow literally the specific commands
1 6ter Evang.-soz. Kongress, 1897, "Das Eigentum nach christ-
licher Beurteilung," s. 23.
2 Matt, xviii. 12. s Luke xv. 8.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 8 1
of Jesus finds himself immediately plunged into
contradictions or absurdities. He accepts the
teaching of Jesus concerning non-resistance : " To
him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer
also the other -,"1 but soon he hears this same
counsellor of peace bid his friends sell their
garments " and buy a sword." 2 He joins with
the modern agitator in repeating the passionate
rebuke of Jesus, "Woe unto you that are rich;"
and then he looks again and sees the same Jesus
meeting the young man who had great posses
sions, and loving him. He proposes to abandon
all luxury and domestic peace in order to fol
low him who " hath not where to lay his head ; " 3
and then he looks again and finds this same Jesus
serenely sharing the gayety of a wedding feast4
and the peace of a comfortable home.6 To inter
pret, therefore, the teaching of Jesus there is
needed more than wilhngness of heart. The study
of the gospels calls for common sense. In fact,
the devotion to the letter of the New Testament is
one of the chief impediments to the perception of
its spirit. The very essence of its interpretation
lies in the discernment, through the medium
of detached utterances, of the general habit of
mind of the Teacher. Jesus himself repeatedly
intimated that he required this thoughtfulness in
his disciples. Those who had ears to hear,6 he
said, could receive his teaching, but to others it
1 Luke vi. 29. 3 Matt. viii. 20. 6 John xi. 6.
2 Luke xxii. 36. 4 John ii. 2. 6 Mark iv. 9.
G

82 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
was not given to understand. His teaching was
like that of the artist, who does not argue concern
ing beauty, but utters it, in color or in form, and
leaves the problem of appreciation for those who
can hear or see. He throws his truth into the
world for those who can receive it. " Go, . . ."
he says to those who ask for his doctrine, " and
tell John what things ye have seen and heard." 1
By his teaching concerning specific cases the dis
ciples are trained in a certain habit of mind, which
in its turn interprets other cases as they arise. It
is as Jesus promised that it should be to those who
followed him : " When he, the Spirit of truth, is
come, he shall guide you into all the truth."2
Thus the problem presented to a hearer of Jesus
in his own time, or to a reader of his words in the
present time, is to receive the teaching of Jesus in
the light of the special circumstances and sugges
tions which prompted it, and to deduce therefrom
the general principle which this teaching represents.
" If," as Wendt again remarks, " we examine the
recorded words of Jesus in an isolated way, we find
more than one meaning apparently possible, and
are able to decide with certainty for one of those
meanings by virtue of our knowledge of the mode
of teaching acquired by extensive observation in
other cases."3 The study of the law has been of
1 Luke vii. 22. 2 John xvi. 1 3.
8 "Teaching of Jesus" (tr. 1897), T> P- IC,6. Compare also
Paulsen, "Ethik," s. 72, "The universal applicability of the gospel
proceeds from the fact that it is not a philosophical or theological

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 83
late in a great degree transformed by the introduc
tion of what is known as the case-system. Instead
of lectures on the fundamental principles of juris
prudence, the learner is now confronted with de
tached and genuine cases, from scrutinizing which,
in their likeness and variations, he is encouraged
to deduce the principles which they combine to
illustrate. Something like this is the method in
which are communicated the principles of the
teaching of Jesus. They are not unfolded in a
philosophical system, but are involved in the
treatment of specific cases ; and to the observant
student this occasionalism of the teaching of Jesus
is precisely what gives it a perennial freshness,
vitality and force.1
Here, then, are two characteristics of the gospel
which would seem in some degree to obscure
its social teaching, — an evident subordination
of social problems, and an equally evident limi
tation of instruction to specific instances and occa
sions. Jesus speaks chiefly of God, and speaks
chiefly to the individual. It would seem, then, as
if we must have been misled in anticipating from
him a clear and impressive teaching concerning
the social world. If Jesus was not primarily de
voted to the social question, and if again his teach-
system. Systems pass away, . . . but great poems are as eternal as
their subject — human hfe itself."
1 Compare also the interesting proposition to apply the same
method to the study of medicine: W. B. Cannon, "The Case-
method of teaching Systematic Medicine," Boston Medical and
Surgical Journal, January n, 1900.

84 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
ing was chiefly personal and occasional instead of
systematic and universal, is it not difficult to derive
from it any general principles which shall be appli
cable to the problems of modern social life ? On
the contrary, one must answer, it is precisely these
two characteristics, his relation to God and his rela
tion to the individual, the loftiness of his Theism
and the precision of his occasionalism, which open,
as we consider them, into the social principles of
the teaching of Jesus.
On the one hand, this tranquil elevation of mind
above the social issues of his day is what gives to
Jesus his wisdom and insight concerning them.
He only truly sees things who sees round them
and beyond them. Breadth of wisdom requires a
large horizon of the mind. The man of details is
shut in by them, so that they obstruct rather than
enlarge his view. The wise physician deals best
with the sick man, not by being a participator in
the emotion and distress involved in the single
case, but by detaching himself from them and
examining the single case with the tranquillity and
self-control of a broader view. The wise general
does not throw himself into the smoke of battle,
but stands apart from it and above it, where he
can survey and direct the whole. The wise coun
sellor is he who stands above the issue which calls
for judgment and sees it in the perspective of a
wide experience. Sometimes it happens that the
highest wisdom in affairs of the practical world is
an endowment of the most unworldly men. They

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 85
see into life by seeing over it, and men of business
turn to such advisers for counsel because of the
horizon which their judgments survey.1
This quality of wisdom is not the trait most
commonly associated with the life of Jesus. His
tenderness of heart has obscured from obser
vation his sagacity of mind. Yet one cannot
approach his dealings with the questions which
were brought to him without being impressed by
this quality of insight, foresight, comprehensive
ness, wisdom. The traditions of the Church as
cribe to Jesus almost every other virtue rather
than that of sagacity. He is the type of submis
sion and resignation. His features, as portrayed
by Christian art, represent, almost invariably, a
feminine, spiritual, patient personality, not one
that is virile, commanding and strong. He has
become the ideal of the monastic and ascetic char
acter, and in many minds would have no consid
eration as a wise guide in practical affairs. A
more careful study of the teaching of Jesus leads
to quite an opposite impression. He was indeed
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, but
he was none the less truly a man of wisdom and
acquainted with human nature. His sanity of
judgment is as extraordinary as his depth of sym-
1 Compare also Seneca, " De dementia," II, 6, " He will dry
another's tears, but will not weep with him. . . . This he will do
with calmness of mind, and with an unchanged countenance."
(Succuret alienis lacrimis, non accedet. . . . Faciet ista tranquillS
mente, voltu suo.) And the saying of Neander (Preface to Vinet's
" Socialisme " ), " Um sich hinzugeben, muss man sich angehoren."

86 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
pathy. The first impression made by the boy
Jesus on those who met him was of his budding
wisdom ; he " advanced in wisdom and stature." 1
The first comment of many hearers upon his
teaching concerned its sagacity : " Whence hath
this man this wisdom?"2 Christian art and rever
ence, in remembering the prophecy fulfilled in
him, "In all their affliction he was afflicted,"3 has
forgotten that other hope of a just and discrimi
nating guide, which was equally fulfilled in him :
" The government shall be upon his shoulder : and
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor; "4
" and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding."5 The
picture of Jesus which Christian art has yet to
paint is that of the masculine Christ, a personahty
who teaches with authority, and whose large hori
zon gives him comprehensiveness of view.
Jesus himself testified whence this wisdom came.
It was, he said, his detachment from the world
which gave him insight concerning the things of
the world. " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth,
will draw all men unto myself."6 His leadership
in the affairs of earth comes of his being lifted up
from it; his religious mission created his social
authority. At the end of his ministry he prom
ises to his disciples that their power for social
service shall be enriched by the continuity of
relationship which he was to bear to the life of
1 Luke ii. 52. 8 Is. lxiii. 9. 6 Is. xi. 2.
8 Matt, xiii. 54. * Is. ix. 6. 8 John xii. 32.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 87
God : " Greater works than these shall he do,
because I go unto the Father." 1 It is said of
Count Zinzendorf, the pious nobleman who wel
comed the exiled Moravians to his home, that as
a young man he could ride the wildest horse in
his father's stables ; and on being asked how it
could happen that one could be at the same time
a pietist and an athlete, he answered, " Only he to
whom earthly things are indifferent becomes their
master." 2 There was this masterly quality in the
social teaching of Jesus. Instead of being en
tangled by social questions, he moved through
them with a quiet authority and even a delicate
irony. His conversation was in heaven; therefore
the world was at his feet.
Here is one of the most striking contrasts be
tween the teaching of Jesus and that of the prophets
of the Old Testament. They threw themselves into
the midst of the struggle for national righteousness,
exhorting, rebuking, upbraiding their people as they
wavered or retreated into wrong ; Jesus surveys
this struggle, as it were, from above, as an incident
of the great campaign of God. The prophets
wrestled with the waves of social agitation ; Jesus
walked upon them. The difference was not so
much one of social intention as of social horizon.
The work of a reformer is for his own age ; that
of a revealer for all ages. The social teaching of
Jesus is universal, precisely because it was a by
product, issuing from his universal teaching of the
1 John xiv. 12. 2Nathusius (op. cit.), s. 317, note.

88 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
life of God in the soul of man. Jesus looks at the
social world from above, and that point of view
gives him courage, optimism, comprehensiveness,
vision, hope.
The second characteristic of the gospels which
we have noticed is not less fruitful in social con
sequences. Jesus, as we have seen, primarily
addressed himself in his teaching to individual
cases and immediate ends. Once only, and that
at the beginning of his ministry, and to his selected
group of personal disciples, does he approach any
thing like a formal announcement of what may be
called general principles.1 For the most part
he uses a " case-system " ; he discourses with a
few ; he heals people one at a time ; he lavishes
his richest instruction on individuals ; and finally,
having attached to his teaching only a handful
of plain people, he gives back his work to the
Father with a strange sense of completeness in it.
" It is finished," 2 he says ; " Having accomplished
the work which thou hast given me to do."3 He
is not only indifferent to numbers, but often seems
disinclined to deal with numbers. He sends the
multitudes away ; he goes apart into a mountain
with his chosen disciples ; 4 he withdraws himself
from the throng in Jerusalem to the quiet home
at Bethany ; 6 he discourses of the profoundest
purpose of his mission with the twelve in an
upper room ; 6 he opens the treasures of his
1 Matt, v-vii. 8 John xvii. 4. 6 John xii, 1.
2 John xix. 30. * Matt. xvii. 1. 6 Luke xxii. 12-38.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 89
wisdom before, one Pharisee at night,1 and one
unresponsive woman by the well.2 What does
this extraordinary individualization of teaching in
dicate as to the attitude of Jesus toward social
reform ? It indicates the instrument to which he
was willing to trust his hope for the world. What
he had to give he gave to individuals, to be given
again through individuals. "As the Father has
sent me," he says, "even so send I you."3 His
way of approach to the life of his age was not
by external organization or mass-movements or
force of numbers, or in any way from without;
but by interior inspiration, by the quickening of
individuals, by the force of personality, or, so
to speak, from within.
When one considers the traditions and hopes
of his people, and the sense of capacity in him
self of which he must have been aware, it is
simply amazing that Jesus did not put himself
at the head of a movement, or establish an
organization, or direct his teaching to the whole
sale conversion of the multitude. Yet hardly any
problem of exegesis is more difficult than to dis
cover in the gospels an administrative or organiz
ing or ecclesiastical Christ. On the contrary,
there is, in his teaching, a remarkable quality of
reserve and privacy. Sometimes he charges his
hearers not to tell what he has said or done.4 He
interprets privately to his friends the teaching
1 John iii. I-2I. ' John iv. 7-29. 8 John xx. 21.
4 Matt. viii. 4 ; Mark viii. 26 ; Luke v. 14 ; Matt. xvii. 9.

90 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
which others have not understood.1 Never did
a popular leader leave his work so little systema
tized. The sense of incompleteness in it gave his
friends in his last days a sense of bewildered help
lessness. The only light they had was in his life,
and when he told them that it was expedient for
them that he should go away, the light seemed to
them to go out.2 " But we hoped," they said, " that
it was he which should redeem Israel." 3 He had
given them no indication of the external form
which should issue from his teaching. He trusted
to the capacity of individuals, if only their hearts
should have received the spirit of truth, to deal
with problems of form and organization as they
arrived. In short, instead of regeneration by
organization, Jesus offers regeneration by inspira
tion. He was not primarily the deviser of a social
system, but the quickener of single lives. His
gift is not that of form, but that of life. " I came,"
he says', " that they may have life " ; 4 " The words
that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are
life " ; B " Because I live, ye shall live also." 6 The
communication of vitality, the contagion of per
sonality, the transmission of character, — these
are the ends he seeks, and these are possible only
through that individualization of teaching which
marks his ministry. As Phillips Brooks once said,
"Jesus was not primarily the Deed-Doer, or the
1 Mark iv. 34. * John x. 10.
2 John xvi. 7. 6 John vi. 63.
8 Luke xxiv. 21. 6 John xiv. 19.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 9 1
Word-Sayer, he was the Life-Giver." 1 Even of
himself and of his own mission, he announces
that it begins with the individual. " For their
sakes," he says, I do not, first of all, organize
an associated life or announce a scheme of salva
tion ; but, first of all, " I sanctify myself." 2 Jesus,
in short, not only surveys human life from above,
but he approaches it from within.
These two quahties, however, of social wisdom
and social power, are not the only principles which
govern the social teaching of Jesus. Indeed, they
are but introductory to the most conspicuous and
central of his social principles. Beyond the point
of view from which he looks at the world, and the
instrument to which he intrusts his work for the
world, lies his ideal for the world, — a social ideal
whose significance and scope are to be interpreted
only when one has first recognized that Jesus sur
veys life from above and approaches it from within.
This social ideal, which presents itself continu
ously and vividly to the mind of Jesus, is summed
up in that phrase which occurs more than a hun
dred times in the first three gospels, — the " king
dom of heaven," or the "kingdom of God." 3 From
1 Noble Lectures, 1898, I. A. V. G. Allen, "The Message of
Christ to the Individual Man," p. 18. Compare also the sermon of
J. H. Newman, " Personal Influence the Means of propagating the
Truth." 2 John xvii. 19.
8 The two titles appear to be practically identical in signification.
Beyschlag, " New Testament Theology," I, 42, " That both expres
sions mean the same thing is manifest from the parallels oT Matthew

92 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the beginning of the ministry of Jesus to its close,
this is the subject of his prophecy, parable and
prayer. "Jesus," begins the gospel of Mark,
" came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God
and saying, The time is fulfilled and the king
dom of God is at hand." 1 The kingdom was
the one end to be desired ; it was the pearl of
great price for which all else might be sold;2
it was the piece of money to find which the
house was diligently swept ; 3 it was to be the
theme of daily prayer for the followers of Jesus :
"Thy kingdom come."4 It is a phrase which,
on the face of the record, is often obscure, and
which in different passages appears to have in
consistent meanings. The kingdom is described
as both a present and a future state, as both an
inward and an outward condition. Now it seems
to be a remote and glorious consummation of the
Messiah's reign in the day of the last things :
"Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man
in heaven : and then shall all the tribes of the
earth . . . see the Son of man coming on the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory." 5
Again, it is obviously not remote and supramun-
dane, but near and of this world : " There be
some here of them that stand by, which shall in
on the one hand and of Mark and Luke on the other." For pos
sible grounds of the variation in use see the interesting note in
Wendt, "Teaching of Jesus," I, 370 ff.
1 Mark i. 14, 15. 2 Matt. xiii. 46. 8 Luke xv. 8.
* Matt. vi. 10. » Matt. xxiv. 30.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 93
no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom
of God come with power." 1 Yet again, it is a
silent, spiritual, immanent presence : " The king
dom of God cometh not with observation : neither
shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the
kingdom of God is within you." 2
What unity of teaching is it possible to discover
within these apparently conflicting and incompat
ible aspects of the kingdom ? 3 In the first place,
certain difficulties of interpretation may be re
moved by recalling the circumstances under which
the teaching of Jesus was given. The phrase was
famihar to his hearers. It summed up to their
minds the fulfilment of their national hopes and
of their Messianic dreams.* Yet to the Hebrews
themselves it had become a confused and waver-
xMark ix. 1.
2 Luke xvii. 20, 21.
8 The history of modern interpretations of the doctrine of the
kingdom is told in detail by Schnedermann, " Jesu Verkfindigung
und Lehre vom Reiche Gottes," I, 86 ff. The conclusion of the
author which, he remarks (s. 173), "has been recognized by no
other inquirer," and which subordinates the idea of the kingdom in
the teaching of Jesus, seems unlikely to obtain acceptance; e.g. s.
173, "The assumption that Jesus laid great weight on the idea of
the kingdom for its own sake is wholly unfounded " (aus der Luft
gegriffen) ; and s. 195, " The conception of the kingdom lies, in
the teaching of Jesus, in the Israelitic background."
4 Ex. xix. 6 ; Dan. ii. 44. See : Wendt, " Teaching of Jesus,"
I, 174, and note; Holtzmann, "New Testament Theology," I,
225 ff. ; Stevens, " Theology of New Testament," p. 28 ff. ;
Beyschlag, " New Testament Theology," I, 43 ; and the detailed
and learned survey of four " stadia " in Jewish thought in Toy,
" Judaism and Christianity," 1896, 303-371.

94 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
ing conception. Sometimes it had taken the form
of a political scheme of national emancipation;
sometimes it was the expression of a religious
dream of Messianic glory. Thus, even to those
who were looking and longing for the kingdom
of God, it was not a clearly defined and specific
hope. On this flexible phrase, then, with its
capacity for spiritualization, Jesus fastens when
he desires to describe his mission. He knows
that his conception of it is not that which is
popularly current among his people, but he util
izes the only phrase which is in the least adequate
for his teaching, believing that the kingdom of
which he speaks is not only in no way contrary to
the national hope, but in reality represents the
interior truth of that national ideal.
One misinterpretation of his message he distinctly
meets. The kingdom, as he announces it, is cer
tainly not to take that form of a political restoration
to which many of his contemporaries had degraded
their social ideal. The blessings of that kingdom
are not for the great or powerful, but for the
humble ministers of others' needs. "Whosoever
therefore shall humble himself as this little child,
the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."1
" Whosoever would become great among you, shall
be your minister." 2 " My kingdom," he explicitly
says, "is not of this world;"3 and again, "Take
heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and
1 Matt, xviii. 4. 2 Mark x. 43. 8 John xviii. 36.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 95
the leaven of Herod," 1 — the desire, that is to say,
of political supremacy or of party rule. 2
A second conception of the kingdom of heaven
current in the time of Jesus cannot be so lightly
dismissed. It is that of an apocalyptic consumma
tion of the Messiah's rule, — a view which obviously
prevailed in much Jewish literature of the time, and
which is deeply imbedded in the gospel story. It
has been held, therefore, with ingenuity and learn
ing,3 that Jesus shared, with his people and his age,
these eschatological ideals, and that the key of his
teaching concerning the kingdom is to be sought,
not in his more spiritualized sayings, but in the
apocalyptic utterances and prophecies of the gos-
1 Mark viii. 15.
2 Wendt, I, 364 ff. ; Beyschlag, 1, 47 ; Shailer Mathews, " Social
Teaching of Jesus," 45.
8 This view has been elaborated, with variations in detail, in two
prize essays of the Hague Society for the defence of the Christian
Religion, by Issel, " Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes im N. T.," 1891 ;
and Schmoller, " Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes in den Schriften des
N. T.," 1891 (s. 102 ff.); and in the more famous treatise, confess
edly suggested by Schmoller, of Joh. Weiss, " Die Predigt Jesu vom
Reiche Gottes," 1892. See the summary of his conclusions, ss. 61,
62 ; and his intention, announced at the outset, " to exhibit the
thoroughly apocalyptic and eschatological character of the idea of
Jesus." See also, of the same tendency, Bousset, " Jesu Predigt in
ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum," 1892 (s. 100 ff); Schnedermann
(op. cit.), s. 190, " This kingdom of God is in no sense a result to be
achieved (Aufgabe). The refutation of the utterances of Ritschl
to this effect by Haupt, Kostlin, Schmoller, J. Weiss, and others, is
to be recognized and commended as an important achievement of
the latest inquiry. Rather it is a free gift (Gabe) as Schmoller and
J. Weiss have made plain."

96 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
pels. There are, beyond doubt, many passages
which lend themselves to this view ; and the method
of those New Testament critics who interpret the
teaching of Jesus in its relation to the antecedent
traditions and ideals of Hebrew faith, has been most
illuminating and fruitful. It is difficult, however,
to subordinate in the teaching of Jesus the spiritual
sayings to these Hebraic hopes. In disposing of
one difficulty of interpretation another difficulty is
introduced. If the mind of Jesus was thus su
premely concerned with an apocalyptic kingdom,
how can he have referred to it as " within " ? To
believe that the spiritual and ethical teaching con
cerning the kingdom should have been superim
posed by the followers of Jesus on the view really.
held by their Master, is contrary to every indication
in the gospels of the true relation between Jesus
and his disciples. The well-known phrase of Mat
thew Arnold, " Jesus above the heads of his report
ers," is one of the safest canons of the New
Testament interpretation. The more spiritual and
ethical a teaching is, the more likely it is to have
come from the Teacher's lips. Thus, if the apoc
alyptic passages are to be accepted at all, it must
at least be in connection with that other form of
proclamation which describes the kingdom as a
spiritual and already present reality. " Blessed are
the eyes which see the things that ye see ; " 1 " the
kingdom of God is come upon you."2
1 Luke x. 23.
2 Matt. xii. 28. So with much force, Erich Haupt, " Die escha-

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 97
What interpretation, then, shall be offered of this
relationship between a kingdom which is at hand
and a kingdom which is to come to pass in the
world of heaven? Three possibilities have had
serious consideration. It may be, in the first place,
suggested, in opposition to the view just presented,
that it is the apocalyptic passages which are super
added, and that they represent the thought of the
disciples, derived from the Hebrew tradition, rather
than the mind of the Master.1 Such a conclusion,
however, would seem to be the last resort of criti
cism. It may be, indeed, believed that to many a
saying of Jesus there was given a heightened color
through the report of evangelists steeped in apoc
alyptic hterature ; but to eliminate from the record
all anticipation on the part of Jesus of a future con
summation is to reject without other cause large
portions of the narrative.
tologischen Aussagen Jesu," 1895, s' 77 &> "The solution of the
problem appears to me attained only when our inquiry begins at
the opposite point from that now usually occupied, with those pas
sages in which the kingdom of God is described as present. .
These passages form the interior climax of the message of Jesus.
Here he shows that it is no new and noble Judaism that he brings,
The chief element in the kingdom of God — communion with God.
the relation of children to a Father — is a present possession."
1 See the restrained yet candid judgments of Toy, " Judaism and
Christianity," p. 260 ff ., " That they [the eschatological discussions]
were not delivered by Jesus in the form in which we now have them
may probably be inferred from the consideration already mentioned
— that the disciples for some time after his death show no knowl
edge of their contents. . . . The power of the founder of Chris
tianity was in his moral personality and in his conception of a
thoroughly spiritual society."

98 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
A second possibility which deserves considera
tion is that the thought of Jesus himself had a
gradual development during his ministry, and
passed by degrees from the external to the spirit
ual view of the kingdom, so that, while at the
beginning of his teaching he shared the popular
Messianic ideal and preached a kingdom which
was to appear in the clouds of heaven, he became
by degrees aware that this consummation was not
to happen, and that the real kingdom was, even
while he taught, being spiritually realized in the
hearts that accepted him.1 This view, however, is
also not without grave difficulties. There are,
indeed, indications that, as the ministry of Jesus
proceeded, the meaning and end of it grew clearer
and more commanding to his mind. The hopes
with which no doubt he began, of finding accept
ance among his people, turned out to be vain ; the
cross disclosed itself to him as an inevitable end ;
and at last he "set his face," as we read, "to go
to Jerusalem."2 Yet, on the other hand, the brief
limits of his ministry give scanty room for any
radical reconstruction of his thoughts concerning
the kingdom. Indeed, his first teachings recog
nized as fully as his later utterances its spiritual
nature. What is called his temptation was the
1 Beyschlag, "Leben Jesu," I, 229 ff.,"The probability is that he
came gradually to think of himself as the deliverer promised by the
prophets " ; and the criticism of Wendt, I, 380 ff. For the con
verse of this view, see Toy, p. 352.
2 Luke ix. 51.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 99
deliberate putting away by him of material tests
and rewards. If any deepening spirituality can
be traced in his language as it proceeds, it is much
more probably to be traced to his gradual instruc
tion of the disciples in the profounder view than
to a gradual illumination of his own mind. There
are, in fact, many indications which suggest a
deepening and spiritualizing of the idea of the
kingdom, not so much in the mind of Jesus as in
the minds of his hearers and followers. It may
well have been to them, at the first hearing, diffi
cult to realize that Jesus was enriching an old
phrase with a new signification, and his bold use
of traditional language may have been accepted
by them, as it has been accepted by many modern
scholars. By degrees, however, it may have come
to pass that one after another, in recalling their
impressions of the teaching of Jesus, became aware
of the deeper meaning which at first they had
missed, until at last the very phrase, " The king
dom of God," is in the fourth gospel lost in the
larger conception of "life" and "eternal life."
This gradually dawning consciousness of the inte
rior meaning of the teaching of Jesus seems to
find its fulfilment in the mind of Paul. To him
the spiritual view has become the only conceivable
one : " The kingdom of God is . . . ," he says
without qualification, " righteousness and peace and
joy in the Holy Ghost." 1
, We are brought, then, to the apparently para-
1 Rom. xiv. 17.

100 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
doxical conclusion that the kingdom of God had
to Jesus both significations, that of a future and
that of a present state, that of a heavenly and that
of an earthly society. This apparent paradox,
however, disappears when we consider the concep
tion of the kingdom in the light of the two prin
ciples which we have already laid down. Jesus,
as we have seen, views the world from above. He
sees in it the movement of the life of God on the
souls of men. Wherever, then, this spirit of God
finds welcome in a human life, there, immediately,
unostentatiously, yet certainly, the kingdom of
God has already come; and when at last that
same spirit shall penetrate the whole world, then
there will result a social future which language
itself is hardly rich enough to describe. This is
no inconsistency or confusion of thought. The
thought of Jesus considers both what is and what
is to be; the present potentiality of the kingdom
and its future realization. Here is the significance
of the parables of the leaven 1 and of the mustard
seed.2 The kingdom has as its very essence the
capacity for expansion. It has as real an exist
ence in the seed as in the tree, but not less real
in the future glory than in the present seed. It
is hidden in the leaven, but it is not less demon
strably to be revealed in the mass. The social
ideal, then, of Jesus Christ, is to be interpreted
only through his religious consciousness. He looks
1Matt. xiii. 33 ; Luke xiii. 21.
2 Matt. xiii. 31, 32; Mark iv. 31, 32; Luke xiii. 19.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING IOI
on human life from above, and, seeing it slowly
shaped and purified by the life of God, regards
the future of human society with a transcendent
and unfaltering hope. In the purposes of God the
kingdom is already existent, and when his will
is done on earth, then his kingdom, which is now
spiritual and interior, will be as visible and as con
trolling as it is in heaven.1
On the other hand, Jesus approaches life from
within, through the inspiration of the individual.
Here is his answer to that question which the
disciples themselves asked, "When shall these
things be ? and what shall be the sign of thy com
ing ? " 2 The kingdom is to come, answers Jesus,
not by outward force or social organization or
apocalyptic dream, but by the progressive sancti
fication of individual human souls.3 And does one
1 Holtzmann, " New Testament Theology," I, 200, "The kingdom
of God is both a gift to be received and a result to be achieved "
(ebensosehr Gabe wie Aufgabe). So Harnack, "History of
Dogma," I, 62, "Jesus announced the kingdom of God ... as
a future kingdom, and yet it is presented in his preaching as pres
ent ; as invisible, and yet it was visible — for one actually saw
it." B. Weiss, " Biblical Theology of New Testament " (tr. 1882),
I, 72, " It is this interpretation of present and future, it is this cer
tainty of its completion at every stage of the empirical realization
of the kingdom of God, which has become an inalienable moment
of the Christian consciousness, in consequence of the teaching of
Jesus." See also Stevens, " Theology of the NeW Testament," 1899,
37 ff. Holtzmann, s. 208, collects in a note a long series of defini
tions of the kingdom.
2 Matt. xxiv. 3.
8 On the kingdom as spiritual, see Bruce, " The Kingdom of
God," 4th ed., 1891, Ch. I; "Christ's Idea of the Kingdom," p. 58,

102 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
ask again what is to be the motive of this personal
sanctification? It is to be found, according to
Jesus, in the thought of the kingdom. On the
one hand the kingdom is an unfolding process of
social righteousness, to be worked out through
individuals; on the other hand, the individual is
prompted to his better life by the thought of
bringing in the kingdom. Thus the individual
and the kingdom grow together. The individual
discovers himself in the social order, and the social
order, like that " whole creation " of which Saint
Paul wrote, " waiteth for the revealing of the sons
of God."1
In other and more modern language, the social
teaching of Jesus Christ is this, — that the social
order is not a product of mechanism but of per
sonality, and that personality fulfils itself only in
the social order. Thus the social philosophy of
Jesus is but another statement of his philosophy
of religion. Speaking as a religious teacher, Jesus
says that the life of man is discovered to itself
in the service of God. The son comes to himself
when he says, " I will arise and go to my father."2
His sense of dependence, in the language of Schlei-
ermacher, is the beginning of his religious life.
Religion is freedom from the world through de-
" In all probability the title was used alternatively [kingdom of
God, or of heaven] by Jesus, for the express purpose of lifting the
minds of the Jewish people into a brighter region of thought "; and
on the kingdom as social, see Mathews, " Social Teaching of Jesus,"
Ch. Ill, and his " History of New Testament Times," 1899, p. 171 ff.
1 Rom. viii. 19. 2 Luke xv. 18.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING IO3
pendence upon him, "Whose service," in the beau
tiful words of the English Prayer-book, "is perfect
freedom." 2 The same spiritual process is to be
traced in the social teaching of Jesus. Again, the
individual is the point of departure, but he finds
his own self-realization only in the service of the
social world. As has been lately said, " The true
individuality is to be found in a fully organized
: society, and a worthy society in a fully developed
individual."2 The world of social ethics, then,
lies in the mind of Jesus like an island in the
larger sea of the religious hfe ; but the same prin
ciple of service controls one, whether he tills the
field of his island or puts forth to the larger
adventure of the sea. Shall we, then, say that
Jesus was an individualist, or shall we say that in
1 Schleiermacher, " Christlicher Glaube," 1801, 1, 19, "The com
mon element in all the varied expressions of piety which distinguish
religion from all other feelings — that is to say, the essence of reli
gion — is this, that we are conscious of ourselves as absolutely
dependent, or in other words, in relation to God." In the recon
ciliation of the sense of freedom with the sense of dependence, the
two German tendencies in the philosophy of religion, proceeding
from Hegel and Schleiermacher, meet ; Pfleiderer, "Die Religion,"
1869, I, 78, and more distinctly in his " Religionsphilosophie,"
1878,3. 298, "In Gott eins mit der Weltordnung und durch Gott
frei von der Weltschranke . . . das ist das Wesen der Religion " ;
Biedermann, "Dogmatik," 1869, s. 30, "The content of the religious
process in the spiritual life of man is the freedom of the finite spirit
from finite conditions in an infinite dependence " ; Lipsius, " Dog
matik," 1876, o. 28, "Religion is the reconciliation of the longing
for freedom with the sense of dependence."
2 New World, September, 1898, Henry Jones, "Social and Indi
vidual Evolution."

104 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
any sense of the word he was a socialist? Was
his mind directed toward personal education or
toward social reform ? His method, we must
answer, admits of no such antagonism between
spiritual life and the social good. The one is ; his
means, the other is his end. The first word of his
teaching is character, the second is love. Love
has its watchword, " for their sakes " ; and char
acter its command, " sanctify thyself " ; and the
Christian social law is fulfilled in the whole saying
of Jesus, "for their sakes I sanctify myself."1
Such, in their most general statement, seem to
be the social principles of the teaching of Jesus,
— the view from above, the approach from within,
and the movement toward a spiritual end ; wisdom,
personality, idealism ; a social horizon, a social
power, a social aim. The supreme truth that this
is God's world gave to Jesus his spirit of social
optimism ; the assurance that man is God's instru
ment gave to him his method of social opportun
ism ; the faith that in God's world God's people
are to establish God's kingdom gave him his
social idealism. He looks upon the struggling,
chaotic, sinning world with the eye of an unclouded
religious faith, and discerns in it the principle of
personality fulfilling the will of God in social ser
vice. It is for later chapters to indicate how these
social principles may be applied in detail to spe
cific social problems of the modern world. For the
1 John xvii. 19.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 105
present, let us note in advance the general effect
which they may have on one's total view of social
life. There has probably never been an age in hu
man history which could compare with the pres
ent time in its capacity for appreciating these
principles which we seem to discover beneath the
words and conduct of Jesus Christ. The social
question, as we saw at the outset, is an all-environ
ing and all-engrossing interest. Even those who
are not consciously concerned with it are none
the less involved in it. Indeed, this indifferent
and neutral element in modern social life makes
one of the most threatening elements of the mod
ern social question. Those, on the other hand, who
recognize the present situation are often much bur
dened and perplexed by it. Some of them are
shut in by the multitude of details involved in
social duty. Their special work is at best but a
fragment, and they often wonder how it can have
a place in the whole movement of social progress.
At times it seems to them that they are doing
more harm than good, and that perhaps it would
be better to do nothing. They are like detach
ments of an army, fighting in the skirmish line,
without knowing how their service counts in the
general's plan. They are oppressed with a sense
of incapacity. They observe that the philosophy
of society which is most current at the present
time is a philosophy of materiahsm. To it the
fundamental problems are economic ; in its teach-

106 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
ing the reconstruction of society proceeds from
below, and the ideals of an age are the corollaries
of its industrial order. To such observers, then,
the social question brings with it a new wave of
social pessimism, as if the problems of modern
society were too bewildering and portentous to
give any ground for courage or hope.
To this frame of mind, hemmed in, disheart
ened, vainly attempting the interpretation of life
from below, there offer themselves the social prin
ciples of the teaching of Jesus. In the first place,
he contributes a new point of view, — the view
from above, the sense of horizon, the capacity
for comprehensiveness and wisdom. Passionate
activity, beautiful self-sacrifice, indignant emotions,
— all these are abundantly offered in our day for
social service ; but what a lack there is of breadth
of view, of social courage, of a justified and stable
optimism ! How are these qualities to supplant
the narrowness and irritation and despair which
make social hope appear a Utopian dream ? They
are to come, answers Jesus, through an application
to the social question of the spirit of rational reli
gion. What the modern reformer needs is the
capacity to look beyond the bounds of his own
special work, and to perceive its relations, its
causes, and its effects, as a part of the movement
of a Divine plan. Nothing could be more contrary
to the teaching of Jesus than the vulgar notion
that he diverts attention from this world and fixes
it on another. His ministry is for this life, quite

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING IO7
as much as for any world. " Thy kingdom come,"
he prays, " on earth." It is, however, the point of
view which transforms the scene. The landscape
is more truly studied from the hilltop than from
the underbrush below. The general, standing apart
from the battle, surveys it more completely than
the rank and file in the midst of the smoke. Pre
cisely thus the spiritual companionship of Jesus
with the life of God gives him perspective and
hope in his view of the world below. He looks
at hfe from above, and its confusion and conflict
fall into order and reveal their purpose as parts of
the large intention of the Father. He looks over
the partitions of social provincialism, and sees the
dimensions and unity of the world.
When one asks, then, as many reformers are
tempted to ask, "What part has religion in these
practical affairs? What right have I to pause
in my generous activity and contemplate life
in the spirit of Jesus ? " the first — though not
the complete — answer to such self-inquiry is
this, — that the capacity for detachment and the
contemplation of practical affairs from the reli
gious point of view are precisely what make prac
tical activity most patient, comprehensive, and
wise. The special weakness of modern social
activity is its impulsiveness, its fickleness, its
fragmentary interest, its specialized enthusiasm.
What the work of philanthropy and the reform
of industry need is the larger horizon of the view
from above. Jesus heals the demoniac boy the

108 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
more gladly and firmly because he has just been
on the mount of transfiguration.1 It is the same
with many a devoted and overburdened modern
life as it turns to heal the social distresses of the
time. The patience and courage which administer
wise relief come of the antecedent transfiguration
of life through communion with God. Many a
modern life, if asked to define the significance and
usefulness of its religious experience, would have
little more to say than this : " My faith in God
makes me able to do my work. It rescues me
from narrowness and hopelessness, and gives me
persistence and courage from day to day. It
preserves for me the large view of my duty, and
sustains me when my immediate results are bit
terly meagre and small. In short, it is what
stands between me and overwhelming weariness or
social despair." The just still live by their faith.
The view of life from above gives a rational cour
age for the service of life below.
The second aspect of the teaching of Jesus is
equally applicable to modern life. Next to nar
rowness of view, what is the special peril of the
present social movement ? It is, beyond doubt,
its externalism. Wherever one looks, he sees prog
ress defined in terms of organizations, schemes,
majorities, social machinery. Industrial life has
reached a degree of complexity in which the in
dividual worker is little more than one cog in a
vast machine. Political methods have magnified
1 Matt. xvii. 15-18.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING IO9
enormously the function of government. Offi
cialism supplants more and more the demand
for individual initiative; until, as has been said
of German militarism, every effort seems now
devoted to the making of a man into a machine.
The creed of scientific socialism is frankly and
aggressively external. Its programme has rarely a
word to say of any change of character ; it makes
no appeal to the working-man to cultivate prudence,
self-restraint or patience. On the contrary, these
qualities, which have been generally recognized as
virtues, often seem to stand in the way of the work
ing-man's aim. Let him demand more pay, it is
urged; more comfort, better external conditions;
and then these changes in the outward industrial
order will of themselves develop the inward capac
ity to use it. Even rehgion itself runs grave risk
of being institutionalized and externalized out of
all self-recognition. Organization and ritual, ec
clesiastical machinery, leagues and associations, —
all these external methods have attained such
terrific dimensions and importance that it has come
to appear an elementary Christian duty for per
sons to become, as Stevenson remarked," joiners ";
and it is even announced as one conspicuous mark
of Christian progress that on a certain day, under
one organized arrangement, some millions of associ
ated believers will, in sixteen different languages,
beseech the throne of grace.
What has Jesus Christ to say to this marvellous
development of social machinery? He has no

IIO JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
direction to give and no criticism to offer. It
may well be an admirable, as it is certainly an in
evitable, phase in the evolution of society. The
methods of the " great industry " are transform
ing the habits of the Church, as they have already
transformed the habits of the business world. All
these subjects he outside of the sphere of the teach
ing of Jesus. He is not a social mechanic or a social
organizer. The complexity of the modern world
presents a problem of external arrangement which
was never before his mind, and with which,Leven if
it had been set before his mind, he would probably
not have felt himself deeply concerned. Jesus,
however, turns to the other factor of social life,
whose significance the tendency to externalism
gravely obscures. It is quite true, as modern
teachers are urging upon us, that environment
modifies personality, that social and economic con
ditions now exist which make a healthy human
life very hard to live, that the reorganization of
society is a pressing task, and that such im
provement in organization may fortify the indi
vidual life, as a single soldier's courage is stronger
when he is conscious of an organized army at his
back. The teaching of Jesus, however, is of the
person who can modify his environment, of the
man who transforms conditions, of the courage
which is nurtured in solitude and is not alone, be
cause the Father is with it. In short, Jesus
approaches the social question from within ; he
deals with individuals ; he makes men. It is for

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING III
others to serve the world by organization; he
serves it through inspiration. It is for others to
offer what the theologians once called a scheme of
salvation ; the only salvation Jesus offers is through
saviours, and saviours are those who have sancti
fied themselves for others' sakes.
Does this mean that the teaching of Jesus is
indifferent to external methods of reform, and is
absorbed, as many of his followers have been, in
mystical communion with God, and in the saving
of one's own soul ? Was Jesus unaware that there
may be circumstances in hfe in which it is almost
impossible to save one's soul? Would he, if he
could survey the life of the modern world, take no
interest in such bettering of external conditions ?
Would he expect to communicate spiritual inspira
tion where people are living, male and female, ten
in a room, or where a family of four are subsisting
on the casual earnings of one ? Is he so feeble a
sentimentalist as to think that good will come from
within if the way is not prepared for it from
without ? We shall soon see how far from such
indifference to external conditions is the teaching
of Jesus, and how radical are his instructions con
cerning the environment of life. If the primary
aim of Jesus is to set forth the principle of per
sonality, to awaken the higher life of persons, to
make a man " come to himself," then no social
conditions have, under his teaching, any right to
exist which can obstruct or which even fail to
encourage this end of individual growth, oppor-

112 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
tunity, initiative and character. All this we shall
observe as each successive aspect of the social
order claims our attention. Yet within this prob
lem of the better social order lies always the
problem of the better man. " There is no politi
cal alchemy," said Mr. Spencer, "by which you
can get golden conduct out of leaden instincts." 1
It is vain to imagine that a change of external
conditions will of itself bring about a change of the
human heart. The fact is that conditions which
seem extraordinarily favorable may become the
very cause of the wreck of character and of the
weakening of the will, and that conditions which
seem severe and meagre have in them often the
making of men. Many a phase of civilization in
which prosperity has been most freely lavished on
a people has turned out to be an epoch of political
or moral decline ; and many of the fairest blooms
of strenuous and fragrant hving have sprung from
a bare rock like that of Athens, or from an obscure
province like that of Galilee. The method of ex
ternalism, in short, deals at most with but one half
of the social question. It is a great and honorable
task which seems offered to the present genera
tion, — the task of perfecting social organization,
the levelling and broadening of the way by which
the better life of the future may have its entrance
into the world ; but if there is no better life to
enter ; if after crying, " Prepare ye, prepare ye
1 Essay on " The Coming Slavery," Popular Scientific Monthly,
April, 1884.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 113
the way of the Lord ! " we wait in vain to see the
Son of man approach, — with what a sense of
futility and purposelessness are we left, with our
organizations and schemes and committees, all
prepared for a day of triumph which does not
come !
Indeed, complexity of organization brings with
it a new and threatening peril. What shall it
accomphsh if the organization becomes the tool
of designing men ; what gain shall there be in the
municipalization of industry if the municipality is
the instrument of a " boss " ; wherein is the mechani
cal perfection of charity effective if it is in the hands
of stupid officials ? The more perfected the social
machinery becomes, the better trained must be its
engineers. The external order calls for the inward
control. The teaching of Jesus, then, does not
pretend to cover the whole range of the social ques
tion. It recognizes that the problem of adjusting
social environment must be a new problem with
each new age ; it concerns itself, therefore, with
the making of persons who shall be fit to deal
with the environment which each new age in its
turn presents. "Cleanse first," says Jesus, "the
inside of the cup and of the platter." x " For what
ioth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and
forfeit his life?"2
In Mrs. Browning's dramatic contrast between
the mission of the reformer and the vocation of
'he poet, she sets forth this Christian doctrine : —
1 Matt, xxiii. 26. 2 Mark viii. 36.
I

114 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
" I too," she says,
" have my vocation, — work to do, . . .
Most serious work, most necessary work,
As any of the economists. Reform,
Make trade a Christian possibility,
And individual right no general wrong.
. . . What then, indeed,
If mortals are not greater by the head
Than any of their prosperities ? . . . It takes a soul
To move a body : it takes a high-souled man
To move the masses, even to a cleaner sty.
. . . Ah ! your Fouriers failed
Because not poets enough to understand
That life develops from within." 1
Still more dramatically, Jesus himself, in that pro
found experience which we call the temptation, was
directly approached by the spirit of externalism.
" If thou art the Son of God," said the tempter,
"command that these stones become bread."2 How
modern the proposal sounds ! It is precisely the
use of power which the modern agitator would call
most beneficent — the utilization of spiritual forces
for economic production. It might seem, indeed,
to such an agitator nothing short of cruel, in a
world where there was hunger, to use power for
anything else than to make more bread. Jesus,
however, approaches the social question from
within. He has nothing to say against bread-
making ; in another place he feeds a great multi
tude. When, however, it is a question of the
1 " Aurora Leigh," Book II. 2 Matt. iv. 3.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 115
supreme need of life, he knows that there are
necessities more profound than hunger. " Man,"
he says, "shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God." 1 The fundamental craving of human life,
he well knows, — and many a human being, though
oppressed by poverty and hunger, still feels the
deeper need, — is for capacity, inspiration, regen
eration, personality, power.
There is another aspect of the social question to
which this second principle of the teaching of Jesus
/ recalls our attention. The fact that he approaches,
! first of all, the individual indicates how large a part
of social ills proceeds, in his opinion, not from
social maladjustments, but from the fault of human
beings themselves, in their own interior, misdirected
and redeemable lives. One need not here strike a
balance between the external and internal causes
of social wrongs. When the bacteria of disease
fasten on a human body, it is not possible to deter
mine whether the poison from without or the sus
ceptibility from within is chiefly responsible ; it is
enough to say that much of the external change
and decay comes from internal predisposition, and
that the constitution may be in many instances
fortified against such disease. In the same way
it may be affirmed of a vast amount of social suf
fering, that its cause and prevention are to be in
large degree determined by an inquiry into one's
own heart, and that the beginning of a great part
1 Matt. iv. 4.

Il6 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
of social amelioration is in the recognition of that
personal responsibility which the Bible does not
hesitate to call sin. We have become so accus
tomed to the language of externalism, that there
may seem something antiquated and theological in
this reference of social wrongs to so personal a
cause as sin. We are much more apt to trace the
evils of society to unfavorable environment, to
imperfect legislation, or to the competitions of
industry; and it is quite true that these causes,
and many more, contribute to the social question.
No tendency in modern life, however, is more
destructive to social progress than the tendency to
weaken the sense of personal responsibility for
social imperfection, and to fix the blame on unpro-
pitious circumstances. The ... obvious fact is, that
for a very large part of social disorder, the chief
responsibility lies in the passions and ambitions of
individual men, and that no social arrangement can
guarantee social welfare, unless there is brought
home to vast numbers of individuals a profounder
sense of personal sin. A social curse, for instance,
like that of the drink habit is legitimately attacked
by legislation and organization ; but these external
remedies will be applied in vain if there is any
slackening of the conviction that, with most per
sons, drunkenness is not a misfortune for which
society is responsible, but a sin for which indi
viduals are responsible. Or, again, the problem
of charity will remain an ever increasing problem
of relief and alms unless there is included, within

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING II7
the problem of relief, the stirring of individual
capacity to do without relief, and to enlarge the
range of initiative and self-respect. Or, once
more, the problem of industry will open into no
permanent adjustment between capital and labor,
so long as capitalists are rapacious and merciless,
and laborers are passionate and disloyal. To
whatever phase of the social question we turn,
we observe, within the sphere of social arrange
ments, the interior problem of the redemption of
character. Much social suffering is due to the
social order ; but much, and probably more, is due
to human sin.
To this point, then, of personal responsibility
Jesus addresses much of his teaching. He will
have no part in the limp fatalism which regards
character as the creature of circumstances. He
makes a masculine appeal to a man's own will.
He allows no shirking of the truth. The pub
lican whom he commends throws no blame on
his vocation or his circumstances: "God," he says,
" be merciful to me a sinner ! " 1 The prodigal
does not return to his father with an indictment
against the social conditions which have prevailed
in the far country of riotous hving ; he returns
with the manly and frank confession, " Father, I
have sinned." 2 There are, perhaps, profounder
aspects than this of the Christian doctrine of sin,
as there have been many technical and unreal
ways of expressing that doctrine ; but this bearing
1 Luke xviii. 13. 2 Luke xv. 18.

Il8 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
of the doctrine of sin on social life has been re
served for the present age to appreciate, and a time
when the social question is the centre of human
interest is a time when we need more than ever
to recall the personal causes of social progress
and decay. The chief difficulty with modern
social life, as we shall repeatedly see, is not a
mechanical difficulty, but a moral fault. It is quite
true, that one legitimate prayer of the Christian
reformer in the present age may be : " Create a
better social order, O God, and renew a right rela
tion between various classes of men ; " but a much
deeper and worthier petition of one who desires
to shape the social order of the time would be, as
it was of old : " Create in me a clean heart, O
God ; and renew a right spirit within me." 1 The
teaching of Jesus meets the need of the time
when he thus approaches the social question from
within. Persons, then, with horizon of view and with
interior initiative, — these are the instruments on
which Jesus depends to correct the narrowness and
the outwardness of the social movement. What is
it, one finally asks, which shall create in persons
this scope of social purpose and this capacity for
social service ? To answer this question we must
recall the third and the most characteristic social
principle of Jesus, the principle of the kingdom.
What delivers one from small views of social duty
and from externalism of social method is, accord- j
IPs. li. 10.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING II9
ing to the teaching of Jesus, the devotion of the,
individual to a spiritual ideal of social life. The
thought of the kingdom makes the man, as the ser
vice of the man in its turn makes the kingdom.
Among the harassing incidents of routine, incom
pleteness, and misdirected effort which abound in
modern tasks of social service, the secret of effec
tiveness and courage, according to Jesus Christ,
lies with the idealist. Such a man, as Matthew
Arnold says of Sophocles, " sees life steadily and
sees it whole." He finds himself because he has
found an end to which he can commit himself. He
is obedient to the heavenly vision ; he sanctifies
himself for others' sake; and wisdom, sanity, and
power are given to him as he thus gives himself to
the kingdom.
How far such language seems to carry us from
the prevailing temper of the modern social ques
tion ! What room is there, it may be asked, for
the idealist among scenes of destitution and over
crowding, of starvation wages and industrial slav
ery, where the masses of men are fighting, not
for ideals, but for daily bread ? Remote, however,
as a spiritual ideal appears to be from the in
tensely practical world of social service, it is none
the less certain that the lack of such an ideal is the
chief curse of modern social life, and that the un
spiritual character of the ends proposed as substi
tutes for such ideahsm constitute their chief social
peril. What is it which we must admit to be the
most depressing and heart-breaking quality of the

120 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
ordinary work of average modern life ? It is,
beyond doubt, its deadening, downward-looking,
dehumanizing dulness, its mechanical round of
unilluminated and uninspired routine. It is this
which brings with it the sense of limitation, insig
nificance, and purposelessness, which converts men
into machines and robs them of vitality, imagi
nation, faith, and hope. The high walls of their
vocation shut in the narrow road of their lives and
shut out all vistas beyond, until they trudge like
beasts of burden rather than walk like children of
God. And what is it that can restore color and
meaning to such a life ? Much, no doubt, can be
accomplished by improving conditions, by the lev
elling of the walls of vocation, by escape from
mechanism. Yet this sense of imprisonment in
one's life is by no means a consciousness of those
alone whose conditions are most deplorable. The
prosperous quite as much as the poor are thus en
snared. Despondency and ennui are social dis
eases which afflict the luxurious quite as much as
they do the hand-working class. Behind the prob
lem, then, of improving social conditions lies the
problem, for all sorts and conditions of men, of
interpreting life as it is, and as it must be, under
all conditions, and of illuminating that routine
which is inevitable with a sense of significance,
unity, intention, and worth.
This Jrzm.sjiguration _of..„QQmmon life is what
Jesus offers to men in his vision of the kingdom
of God. He looks upon the striving, struggling

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 121
world of social movement as contributing to that
social intention. He sees the
" One far-off, divine event
Toward which the whole creation moves."
Neither the turbulence of the stream, nor its
reactionary eddies, make him forget the ocean to
which it flows. The pettiness, the toil, the rou
tine, the insignificance of life, — even its pain and
bitterness, — are swept into the movement of his
mighty hope, and become a part of its greatness
instead of an obstacle to its course. Thus the
teaching of Jesus gives meaning to many an
obscure life, caught in the perplexity of the
modern world. It offers to such a life, not first of
all a new set of circumstances, but a new insight
into and through its circumstances. A man cries
out for the interpretation of his experience, and
finds it as he prays, " Thy kingdom come." It is
his social ideal which makes a place for his per
sonal service. His insignificant task gets a mean
ing because it is taken up into the Divine plan.
What he regards as his successes and what he
calls his failures may be of equal importance in
the vast campaign of God. He regains composure,
self-respect, and courage, because he has enlisted
in that service. It is not his universe. He is set,
as a man under authority, to do his duty in the
ranks. Not for him, indeed, the glory of a
triumphant commander, but for him perhaps at
last the commander's summons : "Well done, good

122 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
and faithful servant : thou hast been faithful over
a few things, . . . enter thou into the joy of thy
lord ! " 1
The significance of such a social ideal may be
indicated from quite another point of view. We
turn to the substitute now most confidently pro
posed for these spiritual interpretations of social
life, and at once observe that here also the spirit of
idealism is the effective motive power. Nothing
is more pathetic than to see an ideal created out of
ends which are essentially unspiritual and material,
and to observe this fictitious idealism exciting a
passionate and self-sacrificing loyalty. The social
end proposed by the philosophy of socialism may
be in one sense described as an ideal ; for it is, at
least, a visionary, remote, and Utopian end. In
the more accurate sense, however, it is as far as
possible from a spiritual ideal ; it is a sheer mate
rial, external rearrangement of possessions and
facilities. Yet how devoted and profound an
attachment is felt by millions of plain people for
this economic creed ! It is an emotional loyalty
which, we may be sure, has been awakened, not
by a programme of industry, but by the ideal
elements which have become associated with it;
by such maxims as " Liberty, equality, fraternity " ;
by the sense of justice, and the hope of a golden
age of righteousness ; in short, by those aspects of
the socialist gospel which it has in common with
the Christian gospel of the kingdom of God.
1 Matt. xxv. 21.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 1 23
It is by no means true, then, that the modern
world has outgrown the idealist. On the contrary,
it is his habit of mind which makes persuasive the
doctrines of industrial revolution. Indeed, it may
not improbably come to pass, as we shall later in
more detail point out, that the modern world may
have to take its choice of idealisms — on the one
hand, the materialized hope which inspires the
socialist propaganda; or, on the other hand, the
spiritual vision which inspired the teaching of
Jesus. One thing only, among the many uncer
tainties of the social future, may be regarded as
reasonably sure, — that no social teaching will be
likely to win the hearts of men which is not in
some way colored by an idealist's faith. The things
that are unseen are, after all, the things for
which human hearts most care. " Where there is
no vision, the people perish." The permanent
influence of the teaching of Jesus on the minds of
the human race was assured when he made it his
first duty and highest joy to proclaim the coming
of an ideal order of Divine righteousness and truth,
and " came into Galilee preaching the good news
of the kingdom of God."
Such appears to be the relation of the social
principles of Jesus to the social questions of the
present day. His contribution is not one of
social organization or method, but of a point of
view, a way of approach, and an end to attain.
His social gospel is not one of fact or doctrine,
but one of spirit and aim. If it is true that the

124 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
social movement is obstructed by narrowness of
view and lacks wisdom and horizon, if it is
gravely tempted by externalism and needs to be
recalled to the problem of the individual, if its
ideals are unspiritual and fictitious, then the teach
ing of Jesus has something still to offer to social
life even among conditions which he could not
have foreseen, and for which, therefore, he could
have made no regulative law. We are to consider
in detail the bearing of this teaching on various
forms of social organization presented by the
modern world. There are, in particular, three
such groups of relationship which he, hke con
centric circles, round the individual life. Closest
to him is the circle of the family, the interior and
elementary social group ; beyond this circle is the
larger group of a community of families, compre
hending diverse conditions of prosperity and pov
erty, and presenting to the individual the problems
of the rich and of the poor ; and still again, round
both these circles sweeps with a larger radius the
industrial order of the present age. Each of these
circles of social life holds a social question which
is in one aspect wholly unprecedented and purely
contemporaneous. The institution of the family,
the distribution of property, and the organization of
industry are all at the present time subjects of
fresh consideration, and conceivably open to radi
cal change. Of such problems, therefore, con
sidered as temporary social arrangements, the
teaching of Jesus, given as it was to a wholly

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 125
different age, can have little to say. The teach
ing of Jesus, however, concerns itself with the
principles which these social phenomena illus
trate. He views them from above, in the light
of his religious vocation ; he* approaches them from
within, through the development of personality;
he judges them in their end, as contributory to
the kingdom of God. Into each circle of social
life he enters with these social principles, and it is
as one who from within fits his key into door after
door and passes out into the open air.
In short, we are brought to the point where social
organization and social inspiration — the mass and
the person — meet as factors in social progress.
The teaching of Jesus, being chiefly concerned
with the latter factor, may perhaps seem to be of
decreased significance under the conditions of the
present age. Never was a time which appeared
more wholly given over to the principle of organi
zation. It is an age of mass-meetings, majori
ties, democracies, combinations, machinery. What
scope is there left, it may be asked, for the free
growth and creative service of the individual ?
The fact is, however, that the growth of organiza
tion, instead of displacing the principle of inspi
ration, only provides a larger opportunity for its
effectiveness. The two factors of social move
ment are not substitutes for each other ; they are
mutually dependent on each other, as wings which
on opposite sides sustain a bird's strong flight.
Personality finds in organization the multiplica-

126 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
tion of power ; organization, the more complex
it grows, makes greater demands on personality.
Modern machinery calls for better training in its
engineers ; modern industry requires more skill
in its mechanics ; modern politics, statesmanship,
administration, have become more and more de
pendent upon competent men who shall control
and direct the mighty power which modern organi
zation has devised. All things, said the apostle,
wait for . the entrance into organization of the
power of personality : " The earnest expectation
of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the
sons of God." 1
When, therefore, we admit that the chief social
contribution of Jesus is the production of spiritual
personality, we do not dismiss his teaching as
unimportant for the modern world. On the con
trary, we turn to him with fresh attention, as
perhaps providing that element of social progress
of which the modern world stands most in need.
If it is true that in every form of social activity
the cry of the time is for personality ; if we are in
danger of being overwhelmed by social mechanism
and robbed of. social power; if in the tendencies of
the time
" The individual withers and the age is more and more " ;
if the Church of Jesus Christ itself, with its vast
development of organization, is in danger of being
deserted by the active and thoughtful because it
1 Rom. viii. 19.

SOCIAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TEACHING 1 27
does not seem to be the instrument of wisdom and
of power, — then, even if Jesus makes no important
contribution to the external factors of social prog
ress, it may be a fitting time to recall the teacher
who said, "I am come that they may have life,
and may have it more abundantly."
Among many evidences that the modern world
is recognizing afresh the significance of person
ality, the most notable is the renewal of general
interest in the personality of Jesus himself. Here
was a person who, in the modern sense, accom
plished little, was but in the slightest degree an
administrator or organizer, and satisfied himself
with the general statement of his mission, " I am
the Way and the Truth and the Life." Yet
through all the uncertainties of Christian theology
and all the conflicts of Christian ecclesiasticism,
there has disclosed itself to the world an influence
proceeding from him which turns out to be that
which the world most desires, — the influence of
a person viewing life from above, judging it from
within, and directing it to its spiritual end. It is
one of the most extraordinary signs of the times
that, while the doctrines which centre about Christ
have to great multitudes almost lost their mean
ing, his personality has acquired fresh loyalty and
homage. People who are absorbed in the ways
of modern life feel a fresh accession of spiritual
loyalty to one who, in the midst of these tangled
interests, proves to be a wise and trustworthy
guide. In a great orchestra, with all its varied

128 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
ways of musical expression, there is one person
who performs on no instrument whatever, but in
whom, none the less, the whole control of harmony
and rhythm resides. Until the leader comes, the
discordant sounds go their various ways ; but at
his sign the tuning of the instruments ceases and
the symphony begins. So it is with the spiritual
leadership of Jesus Christ. Among the conflict
ing activities of the present time his power is not
that of one more activity among the rest, but that
of wisdom, personality, idealism. Into the midst
of the discordant efforts of men he comes as one
having authority ; the self-assertion of each instru
ment of social service is hushed as he gives his
sign ; and in the surrender of each life to him it
finds its place in the symphony of all.

CHAPTER III
THE TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING THE FAMILY
Stftere oras a marriage irt ffiera of ©alilu ; . . . anU Sestts also
foas btBBnt, arts fjts Disciples, to tije marriage.
The social problem of the family, it need hardly
be said, is not comprehended by practical consid
erations of domestic duty. It is not a question of
behavior within the domestic group, but a ques
tion of the continued existence of this form of
social relation. Even thus defined, the problem
of the family usually confronts one at such close
range that its real dimensions and significance are
not easily appreciated. Before approaching, then,
the teaching of Jesus on the subject, it will be
necessary to indicate briefly some aspects of the
question which may seem to be remote from the
immediate issues of the present age.
The problem first presents itself when we be
come aware that the coherence and permanence of
family life are, under existing social conditions,
seriously threatened. Domestic instability, it is
observed, tends in a most startling manner to be
come an epidemic social disease. The number of
divorces annually granted in the United States of
America is, it appears, increasing, both at a rate
unequalled in any other civilized country, and at
k 129

130 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
a constantly accelerating rate.1 In all Europe,
Canada, and Australia in 1889 the total number of
divorces granted was 20, 1 1 1 ; in the United States
in this same year it was 23,472. In 1867 there
were granted in the United States 9937 divorces ;
in 1886 there were granted 29,535. The increase
of population in those twenty years was 60 per
cent; the increase of divorces was 156 per cent.
The total of married couples living in the United
States to one couple divorced was in 1870, 664, and
in 1880, 481. The ratio of marriages celebrated to
one couple divorced was : in Massachusetts in 1867
forty-five to one, and in 1886 thirty-one to one ; in
Illinois in 1867 twenty to one, and in 1886 thirteen
to one. It may even be computed2 that if the
present ratio of increase in population and in sepa
ration be maintained, the number of separations of
marriage by death would be at the end of the twen
tieth century less than the number of separations
by divorce.
Many causes contribute to this result. Loose
ness in the law of divorce and in its administra
tion, diversity of law in the different States, and
an almost equal looseness in the law of marriage,
— all have their part in creating a situation in
which, as has been remarked, less care is observed
1 United States Commissioner of Labor, " Report on Marriage
and Divorce," 1889; "Columbia College Studies," I, 1; Willcox,
"The Divorce Problem ; a Study in Statistics," 1891 ; Mayo-Smith,
"Statistics and Sociology"; A. P. Lloyd, "A Treatise on the Law
of Divorce," 1889.
2 Willcox (op. cit.), p. 12.

THE FAMILY 131
in arranging a contract of marriage than is involved
in a contract concerning a horse or a piece of land.1
This situation, which has become so familiar as to
make the instability of the marriage tie a matter
even of current jest, is in itself sufficient to con
stitute a problem of extreme gravity, and it is most
natural that many communions of the Christian
Church are urging upon the consciences of their
adherents the insidious nature of the social peril
involved, and are procuring more stringent legis
lation, both of State and Church, concerning mar
riage and divorce.
In these practical efforts for domestic integrity,
however, there is in reality involved a much larger
issue than at first appears. It is, in fact, nothing
less than an issue between two theories of the
marriage tie, — • the conception of it as a temporary
contract, involving the interests of those who are
known as "the parties concerned " ; and the con
ception of it as a social institution, involving the
fabric of the social order. Indeed, the family is
but one element in a general struggle for existence
of two types of civilization, one dominated by an
interest in the development of the individual, the
other characterized by a concern for the social
order. The first of these conceptions of society
1 Atlantic Monthly, April, 1888, F. G. Cook, "The Marriage
Celebration in the United States"; S. W. Dike, "Reports of Na
tional Divorce Reform League"; Political Science Quarterly,
December, 1889, "Statistics of Marriage and Divorce"; C. F.
Thwing, "The Family : an Historical and Social Study"; C. D.
Wright, " Practical Sociology," 1899, p. 151 ff.

132 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
has for a long period controlled English thought.
" The movement of progressive societies," said
Sir Henry Maine, "has been uniform in one
respect. Through all its course it has been dis
tinguished by the gradual dissolution of family
dependency and the growth of individual obliga
tion in its place. The individual is steadily sub
stituted for the family as the unit of which civil
law takes account." a This substitution has been
for several generations the key of English jurispru
dence, philosophy, and economics, as well as of the
religious life and thought of Protestantism.2 The
second conception of society, on the other hand,
has come to its full expression within the present
generation. It takes fresh account of the stability
and progress of the social order. It is illustrated by
the mass of new legislation which deals with ques
tions of social welfare ; by the new expansion of
philosophy into problems of social structure, evo
lution, and obligation ; by the transition of eco
nomic science from issues of individual competition
and harmonies of self-interest to the adjustments
1 Maine, "Ancient Law," 3d Amer. ed., 1878, p. 163 ; so also
Horace Bushnell, " Christian Nurture," 1871, p. 91, " All our modern
notions and speculations have taken on a bent toward individual
ism." Compare, "The Message of Christ to Manhood," Noble
Lectures, 1899; H. C. Potter, "The Message of Christ to the
Family," p. 193.
2 So of the Catholic judgment of Protestantism, " Life of Father
Hecker," N. Y., 1894, "Protestantism is mainly unsocial, being an
extravagant form of individualism. Its Christ deals with men apart
from each other and furnishing no cohesive element to humanity."

THE FAMILY 133
of associated industry; and, finally, by the new
emphasis of Christian theology upon the organic
life of the Church or of the world.
In the midst of this conflict of tendencies in
civilization stands the problem of the family. If
the individual is the end for which social life
exists, if it is the "parties concerned" alone who
are to be considered in a case of marriage, then
the legislation of self-interest, which takes ac
count of nothing more than the happiness or even
the whims of individuals, will be set to make
and brealc this contract. If, on the other hand,
marriage is an elementary expression of organic
social life, a witness of that social continuity
which is coming to be recognized in the Church,
the industrial order, and the State ; or, to say
the same thing in the language of Christian
philosophy, — if the individual comes to his self-
realization only in and through his service of the
social order, — then the integrity of the family, as
the most elementary group of social life, will be
reverently guarded and stringently secured. In
the issue, then, between a reversion of social type
to the individualism which is elsewhere outgrown,
and the safe-guarding of the social organism in its
most elementary form, lies the first aspect of the
problem of the family.
Even this conflict of contemporary types, seri
ous as it is, does not present to us the problem
of the family in its full significance. Behind this
direct attack of sheer self-interest on the integ-

134 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
rity of the domestic group, there lie more subtle
perils which can be appreciated only when one
recalls the history and evolution of the institution
of the family. Here is a social group which, in
its present form, is by no means an original and
outright gift to the human race, but is the product
of a vast world-process of social evolution, through
which various types of domestic unity have been
in turn selected and, as it were, tested, until at
last the fittest has survived. From this point of
view, the problem of the family is not merely a
contemporary issue between expediency and ideal
ism, but is one element in the vastly larger prob
lem of human progress and destiny ; and one's
judgment concerning the place and future of the
family is determined by observing the gradual
processes of social selection through which, in the
history of the human race, the modern form of the
family has been by slow degrees evolved. Here,
at last, we meet in its full scope and social impor
tance the problem with which the divorce courts
and the ecclesiastical councils are trying to deal ;
and here also we meet one of the most curious
chapters of modern research, which has come to
play a most unexpected part in practical discus
sions.1 1 Westermarck, " The History of Human Marriage," 2d ed.
1894; Lubbock, "Origin of Civilization," etc., 3d ed., 1879;
McLennan, "Studies in Ancient History," 1886; Starcke, "The
Primitive Family," 1889; Schurman, "The Ethical Import of
Darwinism," 1887, Ch. VI ; Coulanges, "The Ancient City," 1874,
Book II.

THE FAMILY 1 35
The first aspect of this historical evidence to
win attention was formulated in the so-called " Pa
triarchal Theory." In the social life of ancient
Rome, and in many indications of social conditions
in ancient Israel, it was observed that the family
was the unit from which national coherence was
derived, and that this unit was perpetuated through
the supremacy of the oldest male. Thus the patri
archal theory seemed the key of the primitive
history of the family. Through the expansion
of the family group there appeared to be evolved
the clan, the tribe, the nation, and the authority
of the father became in turn that of the chief, the
ruler, the king. It is not easy to overestimate the
importance of the emphasis thus laid on the place
of the family in human history. " The unit of an
ancient society," in the familiar words of Sir Henry
Maine, "was the Family, of a modern society the
Individual. ' ' x Social progress proceeds, not through
relations of isolated atoms, but through the multi
plication of organized cells ; not through associa
tion of individuals, but through the perpetuation of
families. " A cohesive family," says Mr. Bagehot,
"is the best germ for a campaigning nation. . . .
Nothing of this is possible in loosely bound family
groups." 2 Yet the patriarchal theory, illustrated
as it was by the more familiar types of ancient
civilization, has not only had enormous expan
sion, but has been in important respects supple-
1 Maine, "Ancient Law," 3d Amer. ed., 1878, p. 121.
2 Bagehot, "Physics and Politics," Ch. Ill, p. 517.

I36 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
mented and corrected by the more extended study
of primitive society. It remains true that the
family is the unit of civilization, but it is also
true that this unit has had its own evolution, so
that the family is not only a cause of modern
society, but is in its turn an effect of ancient
society. Human relationships, it is in the first
place pointed out, were probably, even under the
rudest conditions, not the promiscuous relations of
a herd, but, — as in the case of most of the higher
mammals, — a relation of pairing animals, so that
even in the most primitive society, either through
force, or jealousy, or common possessions, or the
care of children, or necessities of self-defence, a
more or less permanently associated group-life was
maintained. " We may indeed conclude," said Mr.
Darwin, "from what we know of the jealousy of
all male quadrupeds, that promiscuous intercourse
in a state of nature is extremely improbable." x
What was it, then, that gave to this pairing
group its original coherence and continuity ? The
most striking suggestion which has been made in
answer to this question is that of Mr. John Fiske,
in his discussion of the physiological conditions of
human infancy.2 The young of most higher ani
mals, Mr. Fiske reminds us, are at birth able to
1 "Descent of Man," pp. 590, 591.
2 This epoch-making doctrine was first expounded in " Cosmic
Philosophy," 1875, H> 3^3! reappears in "The Destiny of Man,"
1889, p. 57 ; and is finally described in autobiographical form in
"A Century of Science," 1899, p. 100 ff.

THE FAMILY 137
care for themselves ; while the human infant must
be cared for through months of helplessness. This
prolongation of infancy brings with it the genesis
of sociality. It bridges the gulf which seems to
divide the human from the brute world. It gives
a profound meaning to the phenomenon of help
less babyhood. " From of old we have heard the
monition, ' except ye be as babes, ye cannot enter
the kingdom of heaven.' The latest science now
shows us — though in a very different sense of the
words — that, unless we had been as babes, the
ethical phenomena which give all its significance
to the phrase ' kingdom of heaven ' would have
been non-existent for us."
Still more significant for the philosophy of the
family have been the later researches of the eth
nologists. Turning from the comparatively ad
vanced social conditions indicated by the Roman
or Hebrew literature to more primitive social
types, these students of Aryan tribes and of
North American aborigines discover in the be
ginnings of human society a far more varied and
more curious series of domestic relationships than
the patriarchal theory covers. The family, it
appears, which is to be the unit of further civili
zation, has emerged into its present form through
various experimental types, assuming all possible
variations of grouping, until the fittest to survive
had been attained. First, out of the original rela
tion of pairing animals there comes into view a
domestic unity and continuity represented by the

I38 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
woman, who with her children creates a more or
less coherent social group among wandering and
predatory males. The matriarchal domestic type
precedes, as a rule, the patriarchal ; children be
long, first of all, to the mother's stock ; polyandry
appears to be more primitive than polygamy. It
is a type which still survives in many an Oriental
tribe and many an Indian tradition, and it may
even be suggested that this primitive institution
of the practical supremacy of the wife is not with
out its survivals in the administration of many a
modern home. Again, in this dim chapter of
social evolution, as possessions multiply and the
competition for wives becomes keen, the unity
of the family is determined, in many tribes, not
by reference to the woman, but by the supremacy
of the man. Perhaps the series of incidents sug
gested by McLennan occurs : first, in a state of
constant warfare, the neglect of female infants ;
then a consequent lack of women within the tribe ;
then the necessity for exogamy, or the procuring
of wives from outside the tribe, and, as a conse
quence, the custom of marriage by capture, or
the recruiting of domestic life from other tribes.
Finally, out of this unity in the male, emerges,
under more advanced social conditions, the patri
archal family, with its profound effect, through
Roman law and ecclesiastical custom, on modern
views of marriage and divorce.
Out of such a struggle for existence among
social types, the modern family is born. The

THE FAMILY 139
relation of individuals which it represents, with
personal rights and obligations, is a relation
unattained in primitive social groups. Prophe
sied though monogamy may be by the evolution
of the domestic group,1 the family as we under
stand it, with its mutual sacrifices, its personal
self-surrender, its discovery of the higher self in
the social group, appears to be an end toward
which the movement of social evolution has been
for ages tending. The social order, in St. Paul's
language, has groaned and travailed in pain, wait
ing for the revelation of the higher type. Here,
then, at last the problem of the family begins to
be seen in its true dimensions. It is not merely
a problem of contemporary or local expediency,
or even one of social philosophy alone, but one
which has the entire history of the race for its
background and the entire future of the social
order for its consequence. The immediate ques
tions of marriage and divorce which agitate the
modern world should be considered in the light
of this long story of social evolution or reversion.
With the integrity or instability of the unit of
civilization is likely to stand or fall the structure
of that civilization. The most fundamental ques
tion which can be asked of any phase of social
condition is this : What are the character, form,
and habits of its family life ?
It is at precisely this point, however, that we
now meet the most uncompromising and undis-
1 Spencer, " Principles of Sociology," I, 673 ff .

140 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
guised attack upon the modern family, — the
attack of the scientific socialist. It would be by
no means just to say that the encouragement of
domestic instability is an essential part of the
socialist programme. Many strenuous advocates
of common industrial ownership shrink from the
thought of a cooperative commonwealth of wives
and children.1 Yet it must be admitted that, with
great ingenuity and candor, the leaders of the Ger
man school, by utilizing the researches of the
evolutionists to which we have just alluded, and
applying them to the problem of social revolution,
have obtained a philosophy of history which has
had profound effect upon the practical beliefs of
millions of plain people.2 To those who would
substitute common ownership for individual liberty,
the institution of the family presents one of the
most persistent obstacles. Domestic 'unity is in
consistent with an absolute social unity vested in
the State. The thrift, economies, and centralized
interest of the isolated home tend to detach those
who are devoted to such homes from complete
devotion to the socialist ideal. " Family suprem-
JL. Stein, "Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophic," s. 77,
"In a socialist state of any civilized character, the institution of
monogamy must remain undisturbed."
2 Bebel, " Die Frau und der Sozialismus," 10. Aufl., 1891, ss. 7-72;
F. Engel, " Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des
Staates," 4. Aufl., 1892; Dritter Evang.-soz. Kongress, 1892,
s. 8 ; F. Naumann, " Christentum und Familie " ; Neunter Evang.-
soz. Kongress, 1898; Rade, "Die sittlich-religiose Gedankenwelt
unsrer Industriearbeiter," s. 117 ff. (" Ehe und Familienleben").

THE FAMILY I4I
acy will be absolutely incompatible with an inter
dependent solidaric commonwealth." 2
To these practical considerations, moreover,
there is added a new application of the doctrine
of social evolution. The family, as we have seen,
has had its primitive origin, its changeful phases,
its gradual growth ; it is now, according to many
socialist philosophers, to have its further period of
transition and final decline. It is " a historical
phenomenon which has been developed in course
of time, and in time will vanish." What originally
consolidated the domestic group was the desire to
transmit private property. The family was "an
economic unit, and such it still remains."2 It is
an instrument of the capitalist class. Indeed,
without such private property the unity of the
family can hardly exist. How can we speak of the
sanctity of the home, it is asked, when the man
1 Gronlund, " The Cooperative Commonwealth in its Outlines,"
1884, p. 224. Bebel (op. cit.) 5. 199, "The final result is this :
Marriage, as at present understood, is an arrangement most closely
associated with the existing social status and stands or falls with it;"
s. 5, " The complete solution of the woman question ... is, like the
solution of the labor question, impossible under our present social and
political conditions." E. and E. M. Aveling, " The Woman Ques
tion " (a tract), 1897, p. 16, "The contract between man and woman
will be of a purely private nature. . . For divorce there will be
no need." K. P., " Socialism and Sex " (undated), London, Reeves,
" Economic independence is essential to all humans. . . . The cur
rent type of sex relationship ... is inconsistent with economic
independence, and therefore is a type destined to extinction. The
socialistic movement with its new morality . . . must surely and
rapidly undermine our current marriage customs and marital laws."
2 Naumann, "Christentum und Familie," s. 12.

142 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
and his wife have no home or private possessions,
and both work all day in the mill or the street ?
" For a large part of the working population of our
great industrial cities," remarks a German stu
dent, " the traditional form of the family no longer
exists." 1
It is still further pointed out that even as
regards its contribution to industrial life the
importance of the family is already enormously
lessened. Once every form of industry went on
within the family circle ; but, as the methods of
the great industry are substituted for work done
in the home, the economic usefulness of the family
is practically outgrown. Women are no longer the
slaves of domestic service. They can lead their
own lives and earn their own bread. " Machin
ery has become their saviour."2 Thus, with the
coming of the socialist State, family unity will be
merged in a higher end. The wife, being no longer
doomed to household drudgery, will have the
1 Gohre, "Drei Monate Fabrikarbeiter," 1891, s. 37, "Dass
infolge dieser Zustande in weiten Kreisen unsrer grossstadtischen
Industriebevolkerung die iiberlieferte Form der Familie heute
schon nicht mehr vorhanden ist." So Morris and Bax, " Socialism,"
p. 299 ff., "The present marriage system is based on the general
supposition of economic dependence of the woman on the man.
. . . The basis would disappear with the advent of social economic
freedom. ... A new development of the family would take place
on the basis of . . . mutual inclination and affection, an association
terminable at the will of either party. It is easy to see how great
the gain would be to morality and sentiment."
2 Naumann, s. 14; see also his "Der Christ im Zeitalter der
Maschine," in his " Was heisst Christlich-Sozial ? " 1894.

THE FAMILY 1 43
greater blessing of economic equality. Children
will be cared for by the community under health
ful and uniform conditions, and we shall arrive at
what has been called " the happy time when the
continuity of society no longer depends upon the
private nursery." x Childbearing and non-child-
bearing women will have separate consideration,
so that both production and liberty shall be
insured.2 The evolution of the family will have
proceeded from simplicity to simplicity. Its his
tory will have been a spiral progress, beginning in
the promiscuous freedom of savagery, and ending
in the equally incidental and loose relations of
individual and temporary desire.
It is difficult for one who is unfamiliar with the
socialist propaganda to believe that these specula
tions concerning social evolution can have had seri
ous influence upon the lives of the working-people to
whom socialism has become a practical creed ; but
the fact is that in popularized, and often in grosser,
form, this protest against family exclusiveness has
become a positive part of the German gospel of
discontent. The German hand-worker is con
stantly reminded that his economic welfare is to
be found in a complete break with that social order
of which capitalism, religion, and family unity
are the bulwarks ; and his eager mind is con-
1 Bernard Shaw, quoted Pall Mall Magazine, April, 1898.
2 The practical arrangement of this stock-farm scheme is de
scribed by Karl Pearson, "The Ethics of Free Thought," 1888,
P- 379 «•

144 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
stantly fed by the literature of domestic revolt.
Still more insidious is this same doctrine as it is
expounded in English as well as German literature,
addressed not to working-people, but to light-
minded and self-indulgent readers of the prosper
ous classes. The modern novel appears to find
no theme more lucrative than that of the fail
ure of marriage, and discusses in more or less
undisguised language the next steps which may
be proposed in domestic evolution. In short, it
has become clear, not only that a transformation
of economic conditions is likely to bring with it a
radical change in domestic relations, but that, on
the other hand, until a new set of ideas about
family life are made thoroughly familiar, the great
est obstruction to radical economic change will
remain unremoved. Nothing is stranger in the
modern social agitation than this transfer of its
storm-centre from the issue with capitalism, in
which it began, to the apparently remote and tran
quil region of the family ; and it is not inconceiv
able that the judgment of history on the programme
of economic socialism may be determined, not so
much by the main issue for which the programme
appears to stand, as by the effect of the changes
proposed upon the integrity of the family.
Such, then, is the place in modern thought of
the problem which, in its obvious and temporary
form, presented itself as a mere question of the
regulation of marriage and divorce. Two forces

THE FAMILY 145
appear to threaten the stability of the present
social order, — the reactionary force of self-inter
ested individualism, and the revolutionary force of
scientific socialism ; and at the point where these
forces meet stands the institution of the family.
On the one hand it is in danger of being shattered
into its atoms, on the other hand it is in danger
of being lost in a larger unity. On the one hand
is a possible social reversion, and on the other
hand a possible social revolution. The problem
of the family is not only theoretically fundamental
in social philosophy, but it is also the practical
issue whose decision is most likely to determine
the future of human society, government, and re
ligion. With this problem, therefore, brought to
its larger statement and seen in its far-reaching
effects, we turn to the teaching of Jesus, and
proceed to inquire whether the social principles
of his gospel which we have already considered
appear to open into any definite instructions con
cerning this special case.
As one sets himself to such an inquiry he is
struck at once by the extraordinary emphasis
repeatedly laid by Jesus on the institution of the
family. There were many other problems con
cerning which his judgment was sought, where it
must be inferred either from slight allusions or
from complete silence or from some single illu
minating phrase. Toward the politics, the larger
social institutions, and even the theological issues
of his time, his attitude was, as a rule, one of

I46 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
extraordinary reserve, which is as disappointing
to many a modern reformer as it was perplexing
to many a hearer of his message.1 On the other
hand, with quite unparalleled fulness of detail,
the teaching of Jesus deals with the nature and
obligations of the family. With unusual identity
of language the first three gospels record his
sayings on this subject, and their reiteration of
the teaching indicate how profound an impression
it originally made.2 Still further, this is the only
aspect of social life concerning which Jesus de
scends from the announcing of general principles
to the further duty of prescribing specific legisla
tion. When, for instance, the Pharisees are in
formed that the new teaching concerning marriage
and divorce is not what "was said to them of
old time," 3 and come to Jesus, "tempting him,"4
Jesus does not, as in so many other cases, refuse
to be ensnared by their questions, but proceeds to
expound with candor and thoroughness the Chris
tian law of the family in its relation to the Mosaic
law. When, again, the Sadducees bring him the
problem of marriage ingeniously converted into a
theological puzzle, Jesus again, instead of answer
ing, " Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites ? " 6 seems
glad to use this ill-intended occasion as an oppor
tunity for defining the place of marriage in the
1 " Ecce Homo," p. 336, " It was Christ's fixed resolution to enter
into no contest with the civil power."
2 Matt. v. 31 ; Matt. xix. 9 ; Mark x. 11 ; Luke xvi. 18.
8 Matt. v. 21. * Matt. xix. 3. 6 ]y[att- ^j^ jg_

THE FAMILY 147
spiritual world, and his doctrine is set forth with
such force and clearness that " when the multitudes
heard it, they were astonished at his teaching." x
More significant still of the sentiment of Jesus
concerning the family is his general use of this
relationship as the type which expresses all that
was most sacred to his mind. His entire theology
may be described as a transfiguration of the family.
God is a Father, man is his child; and from the
father to the child there is conveyed the precious
and patient message of paternal love. When the
prodigal boy, in that parable which most perfectly
tells the story of the sinning and repentant life,
"came to himself," his first words were, "I will
arise and go to my father " ; 2 and while he is yet
afar off the waiting father sees him coming and is
moved with compassion. Repentance, that is to
say, is but the homesickness of the soul, and the
uninterrupted and watching care of the parent is
the fairest earthly type of the unfailing forgiveness
of God. The family is, to the mind of Jesus, the
nearest of human analogies to that Divine order
which it was his mission to reveal.
To all these aspects of his teaching, which indi
cate the thought of Jesus concerning the family,
may be further added his habitual sympathy for
domestic life itself and his habitual reverence for
women. Jesus, though having "not where to lay
his head," 3 was as far as possible from the habits
of celibate asceticism. He shared the gayety of
1 Matt. xxii. 33. 2 Luke xv. 18. 8 Luke ix. 58.

148 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the wedding feast ; 1 he lived until manhood in the
tranquil simplicity of a village home ; he was sub
ject unto his parents ;2 he found respite from the
strain of his last days in the family circle at Beth
any.3 His attitude toward women was marked
both by insight and by courage. Nothing could
be more contrary to the spirit of Jesus than to
say with Bebel that " Christian doctrine exhibits
the same contempt for women which all Oriental
religions manifest." On the contrary, without en
tering into discussion of the rights of women to
special consideration, Jesus honors them in con
versation and in deed. He speaks to one unre
sponsive woman his momentous words, " God is a
Spirit: ... I that speak unto thee am he";4 he in
terprets and welcomes the affection which prompts
another woman to lavish on him her costly offer
ing ; 5 he reads the heart of the woman who is a
sinner;6 he lifts the thoughts of Martha above her
household cares 7 ; in his doctrine of marriage he
explicitly guards the rights and enforces the duties
of the woman ; and finally, his last thought upon
the cross is for his mother in her solitary home.8
His teaching moves in an atmosphere of domestic
interests, and his profoundest thoughts are colored
by respect for the family.9
1 John ii. i-ii. 8 Matt. xxvi. 6. 6 John xii. 7, 8.
2 Luke ii. 51. 4 John iv. 24, 26. 6 John viii. 7-1 1.
7 John xi. 21-27. 8 John xix. 26, 27.
9 Compare Shailer Mathews, " Social Teaching of Jesus," p. 98 ff.
So " Ecce Homo," p. 233, " Family affection in some form is the
almost indispensable root of Christianity."

THE FAMILY 1 49
No sooner, however, does one observe these
characteristics of the teaching of Jesus, than he
perceives a striking analogy between that teach
ing and the discussions which we have already
described as characteristic of the present age. The
considerations which made the problem of the
family conspicuous in the thought of Jesus were,
of course, infinitely removed from the speculations
and apprehensions of the modern world ; but the
identity of conclusion concerning the place of
the family in the social order is impressive. The
social teaching of Jesus, proceeding from a wholly
different point of view, lays its hand on the same
key of social progress which is now indicatedN by
the social philosopher ; and the character of the
teaching of Jesus on this subject is one whose
importance could not be adequately appreciated
until the researches of the present generation had
recalled attention to the problem of the family.
In the teaching of Jesus, as in these last inquiries
concerning the evolution of society, the crucial
problem is that of the nature and stability of the
domestic group. Modern research observes the
coherent family system working its way through
the history of tribes and nations, and moulding
whole races into firmer stuff ; Jesus, on the other
hand, with a wholly different horizon before his
mind, sees this same relationship of the family set
in the still wider sphere of the Divine order, and
finds in the unity of the family that social force
which moulds all mankind into one great family

150 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
under the Fatherhood of a loving God. Modern
learning, using the language of research, says,
"The family is the unit of civilization"; Jesus,
using the language of Hebrew scripture, says, "The
twain shall become one flesh. . . . What there
fore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder."1 Approaching, then, the teaching of Jesus con
cerning the family with this recognition of its
central position in his thought, we observe still
another likeness to the modern situation. There
are, as we have seen, two distinct aspects of the
present issue, — its contemporary, immediate, leg
islative form, involving the practical treatment of
marriage and divorce ; and, on the other hand, its
more comprehensive, philosophical, prophetic form,
in which the problem of the family becomes one
element in the process of social evolution. The
same distinction may be observed in the teaching
of Jesus. Far as he is removed from any academic
division of his discourse, none the less, in dealing
with the family, he speaks at times in terms of
social legislation concerning the family, and at
times in terms of moral education through the
family. On the one hand, he offers a specific doc
trine concerning marriage and divorce, and, on the
other hand, he announces principles of social life
which immediately and profoundly affect the con
stitution of the family. The first aspect of his
teaching, being the more obvious and explicit, has
1 Matt. xix. 5, 6.

THE FAMILY 15 I
attracted the greater attention from students of
the Christian law of social life, as though Jesus
were primarily a social reformer ; the second way
of teaching, being in his more accustomed manner
of general instruction, is less defined and external,
but lies in reality much deeper in the purpose of
Jesus and is of greater significance for the modern
question of the family.
As to the explicit doctrine of Jesus concerning
marriage and divorce, there would seem to be
little difficulty of interpretation. Indeed, it is
not easy to see how this subject has come to pro
vide such inexhaustible material for ecclesiastical
discussion. Unwelcome the teaching of Jesus may
be to many modern minds; impracticable or inju
dicious it may appear under modern conditions ;
"overstrained morality," it may be, as Renan called
it ; but in its main features this teaching cer
tainly cannot be called complicated or equivocal
or obscure.
In the passage which presents its most formal
statement, the teaching of Jesus begins, as it so
often does, with a text from the Hebrew scrip
tures, which Scripture, as he had solemnly told his
people, he had come not to destroy, but to fulfil.
" He which made them, . . ." says Jesus, quoting
from the book of Genesis, "made them male and
female, . . . and the twain shall become one flesh."1
The unity thus formed, Jesus goes on to say, in
answer to those who were " tempting " him, is
1 Matt. xix. 4, 5.

152 JESUS CHRIST. AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
absolute. "They are no more twain, but one
flesh."1 To put away one's wife, therefore, and
marry another is, Jesus does not hesitate to say,
for the man to commit adultery ; and to put away
one's husband and marry another is for the wife to
commit adultery.
In one important detail, it is true, a difference is
to be observed between this legislation as recorded
by Matthew and the parallel passages in Mark and
Luke.2 The first gospel, in both the passages which
occur in it concerning divorce and remarriage, in
serts the clause, " saving for the cause of fornica
tion " ; while in the other two gospels not even this
single exception is noted. Various interpretations
have been given to this divergence in the tradition.3
It may be urged, on the one hand, that, as adul
tery practically ruptures the unity of the flesh, it
is a priori more probable that Jesus should have
1 Matt. xix. 6. 2Mark x. 1-12 ; Luke xvi. 18.
8 On the one hand, Keim, " Jesus of Nazareth," III, 310, "This
addition is interpolated " ; V, 32, " Jesus softened his vigorous state
ment by no exception, not even by the most conciliating exception
of the wife's adultery, which the later Church, and first of all our
Matthew, introduced." Weiss, "Life of Christ," II, 150 (note),
"The form of Jesus' remarks against remarriage Luke has pre
served in the originals," II, 295 (note). On the other hand,
Meyer's" Handbook "(tr. 1884), on Matt. xix. 9, " The words are not
to be regarded as an addition of the evangelist. . . . The excep
tion which they contain to the law against divorce is the unica et
adaquata exceptio." Reconciliation of the two views is urged by
Wendt, "Teaching of Jesus," I, 354, "The exception noted by the
first evangelist is no real exception to the rule which Jesus so
emphatically laid down, that the obligation of marriage is absolute."

THE FAMILY 153
recognized it as putting an end to the marriage
relation. It may even be suggested that the two
gospels which omit to mention this ground for
remarriage have omitted it because they regarded
it as a matter of course. It must be, in any event,
admitted that the first gospel gives its support
to those who would permit remarriage for the
innocent party in a divorce for adultery, though
not even here is there any substantial support for
those who would extend the definition of adul
tery to undefined causes like desertion or aliena
tion, or still more trivial offences now often held
to be sufficient. On the other hand, it may be
reasonably argued that in a matter so closely con
cerning practical life it is more probable that Mat
thew should have been led to add an exceptive
clause than that the two other evangelists should
have omitted to mention so important a qualifica
tion. It may be still further urged that it is pre
cisely the admission of this single cause which has
brought with it, in all manner of disguises, that
very laxity which Jesus was bent upon excluding,
as though the one devil should return bringing
seven other devils more wicked than himself.1
1 An interesting analogy to the variation concerning an exceptive
clause is provided by the variation of the text of Matthew in the pas
sages concerning self-control (Matt. v. 22). The Authorized English
Version, following some manuscripts, reads : " Whosoever is angry
with his brother without a cause " ; while the Revised Version, on
better authority (see the critical note of Meyer on Matt. v. 22, 1864,
s. 136 : "Es ist ein unpassender, aus Befangenheit geflossener, obwohl
sehr alter . . . Zusatz.") omits the qualifying clause altogether.

154 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Important, however, as this question of interpreta
tion is, and prolonged as have been the discussions
based upon it in the councils of the Christian
Church, the really significant element of the
teaching is not that in which the various records
differ, but that in which they agree. The main
intention of the teaching has been greatly over
shadowed by this discussion of a single detail.
The emphasis of Jesus is, in reality, laid — not
upon the terms of a possible separation — but
upon the question of remarriage after such sepa
ration. "Whosoever putteth away his wife and
marrieth another," say all the passages. It is
against the provoking of alienation by this antici
pation of remarriage that Jesus makes his special
protest ; and the modern world, with its volun
tary desertions often suggested by antecedent and
illegitimate affection, knows well how grave a
social peril it is with which Jesus deals. He
teaches no prohibition of voluntary separation
in case of conjugal failure ; he makes no cruel
demand upon the innocent to sacrifice children or
love or life for one terrible mistake ; but, except
at the utmost for one cause, — and perhaps not
even for that cause, — the mistake is one which,
in the judgment of Jesus, involves a permanent
burden. Marriage when undertaken must be
regarded, not as a temporary agreement, but as a
practically indissoluble union.
It is not surprising to observe that both the
Pharisees, to whom Jesus offered this teaching,

THE FAMILY 155
and the disciples, who listened to it, were united
in their protests against it. On the one hand,
the Pharisees said, "This is a harder doctrine than
that of Moses," and Jesus admits that this is so.
You, he says, live by the law of Deuteronomy, but
even in your own tradition there is the older law
of Genesis. " Moses . . . suffered you to put
away your wives : but from the beginning it hath
not been so." 1 Behind the conception of a sacra
ment, that is to say, even when that sacrament
was ordained by Moses himself, there is the still
more primitive law of nature, the essential adap
tation described in Genesis of monogamy to human
life ; or, as Jesus said, that which has been " from
the beginning." On the other hand, the disciples
say, " If the case of the man is so with his wife,
it is not expedient to marry,"2 and this is precisely
the criticism frequently offered in modern times
to any strict construction of the marriage tie.
The common habit of the political or the legal
mind inclines it to inquire, not for ideal social
relations, but for temporary security against imme
diate perils. Stringent regulation of marriage, it
is urged, tends to increase the probability of pro
miscuous relations, and in some cases to throw
doubt on the legality of well-intentioned marriages
or on the legitimacy of children. In the interest,
therefore, of good order, the marriage contract
should be simplified and relief from its bonds
should be within easy reach. This is the defence
1 Matt. xix. 8, . 2 Matt. xix. 10.

156 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
of laws concerning marriage which authorize it
without preliminary license, or solemnizing magis
trate, or witness ; and of laws concerning divorce
which permit it for a hasty temper or a passing
whim. If the case of the man with his wife, it is
said, is more strictly regulated, " it is not expedient
to marry."
To all such suggestions that the way to sanctify
marriage is to make it less binding, the teaching
of Jesus is absolutely opposed. The alternative
he presents to permanent acceptance of the mar
riage bond is not that of a contract which may be
hastily made and hastily broken ; still less is it the
probability of living in vice if one is not living in
matrimony. The proposition of Jesus, which would
seem to be not unreasonable, but which, in the
light of much modern legislation and social custom,
appears in an extreme degree ascetic and unattain
able, is simply this, — that the alternative to per
manent union in marriage is permanent purity out
of marriage. There are, he admits, cases in which
"it is not expedient to marry,"1 though they are
by no means cases of mere insufficient self-control,
such as seek relief in the modern courts. Physical
reasons of temperament or of heredity may some
times fitly prohibit matrimony. Such persons, in
the language of Jesus, "are born eunuchs from
the mother's womb." Again, a profound spiritual
demand is sometimes inconsistent with the mar
ried state, as it was indeed with Jesus himself.
1 Matt. xix. 10-12.

THE FAMILY 157
Such persons, as he says, " make themselves eu
nuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." The
alternative in all such cases is not of more sexual
liberty, but of less. They sacrifice family life for
a duty which in their case is higher. It is, as he
had said just before, like plucking out the right
eye or cutting off the right hand if they cause to
stumble.1 Concerning the general rule of marriage and its
logical consequences, his teaching is explicit and
undisguised. Marriage, being ordained of God for
the union of two in one flesh, is in its intention
for two and for two only, so long as they both shall
live. Even to look upon another woman to lust after
her is to commit adultery with her already in the
heart. Jesus recognizes neither contemporaneous,
nor, as it has been called, consecutive, polygamy.2
Precisely as the other relations of family life, of
parent with child, of brother with brother, have
never been regarded as to be "put away"; pre
cisely as there may be in these relations alienation
and even separation, but cannot be divorce, per
mitting new alliance with new sons or brothers, —
so, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the rela
tion of husband and wife. Persons on entering
Christian marriage, as in becoming parents after
marriage, are undertaking a responsibility from
which they may not look to escape. The son,
1 Matt, xviii. 8, 9. So Mathews, " Social Teaching of Jesus," p. 93.
2 Princeton Review, July, 1882, Leonard Bacon, "Polygamy in
New England."

158 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
however prodigal, still belongs to the father ; and
the husband, though in a far country of perma
nent separation, still belongs to the wife. The
Christian law is not primarily designed to make
allowance for social failures, but to establish the
principles of the kingdom of God.
This severity, which it is impossible to eliminate
from the teaching of Jesus, was precisely what made
it unwelcome when first delivered. It was a time
when in Rome the domestic integrity, which had
been the foundation of the State, was corrupted by
ostentation and extravagance; a time when in Judea
the teachings of Scripture were being learnedly in
terpreted so as to permit the very license which
they were written to forbid. Thus the teaching of
Jesus, while true to the better tradition of both
countries, was too uncompromising for the self-
indulgent aristocracy of Rome, and too unmistak
able for the subtle theologians of Jerusalem. Indeed,
it was the more an offence to both because both
were forced to recognize that it was the ideal from
which they had fallen away. With something of
the same searching of hearts, the teaching of Jesus
still meets both self-indulgent desire and theo
logical ingenuity. Every kind of argument about
unhappy homes and uncongenial tempers and newly
discovered affinities is answered by the simple
words of Jesus, "What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder." 1 Every soft
hearted evasion of his legislation by those who
1 Matt. xix. 6.

THE FAMILY 1 59
profess to be his ministers is confronted by his
undisguised language, " Whosoever shall put away
his wife, . . . and shall .marry another, committeth
adultery."1 The family is, to Jesus, not a tempo
rary arrangement at the mercy of uncontrolled
temper or shifting desire ; it is ordained for that
very discipline in forbearance and self-restraint
which are precisely what many persons would
avoid, and the easy rupture of its union blights
these virtues in their bud. Why should one con
cern himself in marriage to be considerate and for
giving if it is easier to be divorced than it is
to be good ?
Finally, it is most interesting to notice that this
high strain of exalted idealism in Jesus concerning
marriage is not inconsistent with an equally re
markable quality of sanity and common sense.
Being asked one day by the Sadducees what would
happen under his strict doctrine of the marriage tie
if "in the resurrection"2 a woman found herself
among many legitimate claimants, Jesus does not
hesitate to say that the relation of marriage is
based on physical conditions, and is not to be a
characteristic of the heavenly life. " In the resur
rection they neither marry, nor are given in mar
riage, but are as angels in heaven." 3 It might
have been anticipated of a mystic and visionary, as
Jesus no doubt appeared to those who were tempt
ing him, that he would use no discrimination in his
teaching, and could be easily lured into discourse
1 Matt. xix. 9. 2 Matt. xxii. 28. 8 Matt. xxii. 30.

l60 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
about spiritual marriages and affinities, like many
a feeble mystic of the modern world. Jesus, how
ever, is in this matter no mystic or ascetic. He
recognizes that in marriage physical affection is an
element in spiritual unity. He looks at the things
of the flesh, not as things that are wrong, but as
things that are real. The very fact that, as Jesus
says, " He which made them made them male and
female," limits the marriage relation to the physical
life ; while it is also true that this physical relation
ship makes marriage a permanent relationship while
physical life lasts.
Such seems to be the nature of that one form of
social legislation which Jesus ever concerned him
self to give. To great numbers of persons who
have desired to harmonize domestic inconsistency
with Christian loyalty, it is a teaching which has
seemed hard to receive ; to many innocent persons
it is a teaching which, no doubt, has brought grave
suffering ; to many persons who have " lightly or
unadvisedly " become married, the penalty for their
mistake has often appeared intolerable. Jesus,
however, views the problem of marriage, like other
social problems, from above, — in the large horizon
of the purposes of God. Like a wise physician, he
detaches himself from entire absorption in specific
cases of social disease, and considers them in re
lation to the general principles of social reform.
His teaching may, as he says, bring, not peace, but
a sword. It may happen that a daughter-in-law
will be set against her mother-in-law, and a man's

THE FAMILY l6l
foes shall be those of his own household. None
the less, in the teaching of Jesus, the stable mono<-
gamic family remains the type of the unity of the
kingdom of God ; and his hope for the world is to
be fulfilled through the expansion of those affections
which are naturally born in the uncorrupted and
uninterrupted unity of the home. To this mainte
nance of the home in the interest of the kingdom
his legislation is directed. Those who, by fault or
misfortune, are involved in domestic instability
are permitted by the teaching of Jesus to admit
their failure and to part ; but they may not, except
possibly for a single cause, — and by no means
certainly even for that cause, — forthwith begin a
new alliance. Among those marriages which have
been deliberately wrecked on some well-known
rock of neglected duty, that one or the other party
might, with full insurance, embark in another ven
ture, the teaching of Jesus stands like a lighthouse
to mark the channel and to make such disasters
criminally inexcusable. Special cases of social dis
ease must not, according to the teaching of Jesus,
be permitted to menace the general social health.
Social wreckage must not obstruct social navigation.
The view from above gives significance and justi
fication to much in the teaching of Jesus which,
when seen from below, may seem unreasonably
severe. Such considerations as these, however, growing
out of the legislation of Jesus, carry us, it will be

1 62 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
seen, far beyond the actual sphere of legislation
itself, and into the region of the general conse
quences of his teaching ; and here, as has been
remarked, we come upon that which is more charac
teristic in the teaching of Jesus than legislation in any
form can be. If it is true, alike according to the con
clusions of modern scholarship and the gospel of
Christ, that the maintenance of family integrity is
the basis of the present social order, then it must be
true that those tendencies and enterprises in modern
society which make for domestic stability are most
directly in line with the purpose of Jesus ; and it
must be still further true that many tendencies and
enterprises of modern society which may seem in
themselves of slight social disadvantage must be
regarded as grave social perils if they are seen to
threaten the integrity of the family. Indeed, we
must go further, and admit that the chief defences
of the family are not to be sought in any form of
legislation, either political or Christian, but in
much more remote sources of social wisdom and
strength. Much of the energy which is devoted to
establishing rules about marriage and divorce is
like energy devoted to maintaining a dike, after the
ocean has begun to trickle through. Outside such
remedial legislation presses the force of a great
flood of restless desire, against which amendments
of legislation are of but slight avail ; and the in
creasing stream of divorces which now penetrates
the barrier of the family is in reality the indication
of a storm which is produced by causes lying often

THE FAMILY 1 63
very far away. There are social conditions in
modern life in which promiscuity and homelessness
are almost inevitable, and where it is a mockery
to talk of the sanctity of the home ; and there
are other social conditions, far removed from the
first, where an almost equal peril to the family is to
be found in social ambition and publicity. To
apply, then, the teaching of Jesus to the world as
it now is, one must take account of things which
lie apparently quite beyond the specific problem of
the family, and must observe some of the tenden
cies in modern life which make on the one hand
for social integrity, or on the other hand for social
disintegration. These remoter causes which at the present time
work for or against the stability of the family are
in the main of two kinds. In the first place, there
are causes which proceed from the economic move
ments of the age ; and, in the second place, there
are those which proceed from the prevailing stand
ards of social life. The economic influences have
their effect chiefly on our social customs ; the
moral causes have a still graver effect upon what
we may call our social creed.
Of economic changes which tend to modify
domestic life, the most conspicuous is the un
precedented concentration of population in urban
and industrial life. In 1791 but three per cent
of the population of the United States lived in
towns having more than five thousand inhabit
ants each. As late as 1840 but eight per cent

164 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
so lived. Then began the drift to the cities, until
in 1880 twenty-two per cent, and in 1890 twenty-
nine per cent, or nearly a third of the popu
lation, were housed in cities and large towns.1
The growth of the " great industry " is but an
other aspect of the same migration ; it masses
population, and draws together producer, seller,
buyer, and trader, until rural life, even far away,
feels what Mr. Charles Booth has called the in
draught of the city. To affirm that this migra
tion, and the congestion of population which
ensues, necessarily lessen domestic unity would
be, of course, quite unjustifiable ; but it is cer
tainly true that these conditions are unfavorable
for family life. The number of divorces annually
granted to residents in cities in the United States
is from one-third to one-half greater than the num
ber granted to residents in the country.2 Rural
life, on the other hand, does not insure affection
and forbearance ; indeed, it is often the monotony
and solitude of the country which drives restless
spirits, for good or evil, to the vivacity and com
panionship of the great industry and the great
town ; yet, in general, the life of the city is per
vaded by a sense of temporariness and homeless
ness, while the life of the country encourages
domestic integrity. It is but a small minority of
1 Quarterly fournal of Economics, January, 1890, A. B. Hart,
"The Rise of American Cities" ; C. D. Wright, "Practical Soci
ology," 1899, Ch. VIII (with references).
2" Report of Commissioner of Labor," 1889, p. 162.

THE FAMILY 165
the population of a great city which is able to
maintain privacy of domestic arrangement and to
train those sentiments and traditions which gather
about a home. The great proportion of the city's
population are industrial nomads, likely any day
to fold their tents like Arabs and migrate to
some better market for their labor or their wares ;
and, of these, a pitifully large proportion have not
even tents to detain them, and herd together in
the accidental companionship of the lodging-house,
the tenement, and the street. Indeed, the migra
tory habit, which is forced upon the poor, begins
to be a matter of choice among the prosperous,
and, instead of any place which can be perma
nently regarded as a home, we now observe, even
among the luxurious, a preference for the publicity
and changefulness of the " flat " or the hotel.
Whatever advantages of economy or convenience
there may be about this congregated and shifting
life, it certainly tends to discourage, ejther among
rich or poor, that sentiment which maintains the
unit of civilization. The Roman family had its
symbol of continuity in the sacred fire, burning on
the ancestral hearth ; but it is not without diffi
culty that this sense of a sacred and permanent
unity can be maintained round the cooking-stove
of the tenement, the hot-air register of the board
ing house, or even the steam radiator of the apart
ment hotel.
The problem of the city, which is thus involved
in the problem of the family, is however by no

1 66 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
means so formidable and overwhelming a social peril
as it at first appears to be. Within this conges
tion of social life there are many signs which point
to a restoration of social health and a renewal of
domestic integrity. First, may be mentioned the
now widely extended provision of better lodgings
for the poor. One of the greatest achievements
of modern philanthropy has been the discovery
that under proper conditions model dwellings are a
remunerative investment. To be charitable with
out being unbusinesslike has long been the un
fulfilled ambition of the well-disposed ; and the
lodging-house business has come to offer at least
one form of benevolence which justly commends
itself to generous but prudent philanthropists.1 In
these practical undertakings, however, one rule
of construction is essential for permanent success,
and the neglect of this rule has brought to many
a well-meant plan unanticipated disaster. It is
the rule which guarantees to each family its
domestic independence and seclusion. However
much the prosperous may be inclined to undomes-
tic pleasures, the healthier instincts of the self-
respecting poor demand something that can be
1 Of the abundant and rapidly multiplying literature on the
housing of the poor may be named : United States Commissioner
of Labor, 8th special report, "The Housing of the Working Peo
ple," by E. R. L. Gould ; " Report of New York Tenement House
Committee," 1895 > American Economic Association, XIII, Reyn
olds, " Housing of Poor in American Cities " ; Post, " Muster-
statten personlicher Fursorge von Arbeitgebern," 1893, W> s- 2I5 ff»
H. H. Estabrook, " Some Slums in Boston," 1898.

THE FAMILY 1 67
called a home. For this reason blocks of model
dwellings must be so constructed that each family
shall have its own front door, within which are all
the necessities of life. For this reason also, when
feasible, it is wiser to build detached cottages than
solid blocks. This also is the reason why great
industrial settlements, absolutely controlled by an
employer or a corporation, though equipped with
every comfort, are often unwelcome to hand-work
ers, even on the most economical terms. What
the good workman wants is not benevolent patron
age, but fair pay and independence. He wants a
sense of proprietorship and an object for his thrift ;
and many a bewildered employer has fancied his
plans thwarted by sheer ingratitude and stupid
ity when in reality they were confronted by the
healthy instinct of the home. The industrial
problem of dwellings for the poor, that is to say,
indicates in a most unexpected manner the funda
mental significance of the problem of the family.
A second hopeful characteristic of the present
congestion of population is the rapidly increasing
tendency to suburban life. The provision of rapid
transit from the centre of a city now sweeps each
day a great multitude of plain and unambitious
people into more natural conditions of rural life ;
so that the time may not be remote when a city
shall be little more than a vast warehouse and
shopping-place, in which, as in the case of that part
of London specifically called "the City," the popu
lation may even tend to decrease. In this tide of

1 68 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
population, flowing into the city each morning and
ebbing again at night, we observe a social move
ment which, beyond doubt, makes for the cleans
ing of social life and the establishment of domestic
unity. A suburban home is not a guarantee of
domestic happiness, but it certainly makes a centre
of mutual attachment, thrift, and simplicity ; and
the endless rows of unpretentious and often taste
less homes which now surround each great city
are to be reckoned by the thoughtful observer as
a significant contribution to the problem of the
family. Still another corrective tendency in city life
which makes for the integrity of the family is to
be found in the principles now commonly accepted
for the judicious care of children. The modern
science of child-saving rests on faith in the restora
tive quality of a good home. It regards city insti
tutions as not only the most extravagant, but as
also the least hopeful, way of caring for dependent
children, and its hope is in the deportation of such
children from the influences of the city to rural
and domestic surroundings.1 All countries in
which any alertness of mind is applied to official
relief have come to accept the placing-out system
as the way of charity appropriate to children,
and the first principle of that system is not only
1 J. A. Riis, "The Children of the Poor," 1892, p. 277, "He is
saved from becoming a tough to become an automaton." See also
Forum, January, 1895, P- 52 ff-> F- G. Peabody, " Colonization as a
Remedy for City Poverty."

THE FAMILY 1 69
that of "out-door relief," but that of out-of-town
relief, and the farther out the better. The instinct
of family life, that is to say, which is threatened
by the growth of the city, indicates in its turn the
most wholesome and fruitful way for the city's sal
vation. The same restorative tendency is to be ob
served in the habits of the prosperous. The
demands of business and the passion for social
herding force many prosperous persons into a form
of city life which bears hardly any semblance to
the life of a family, and which strains and frets
the marriage tie with divided interests and undo-
mestic obligations. As soon, however, as these
preposterous demands of the city appear to be
satisfied, the healthier domestic instinct reasserts
itself, and the prosperous — often, indeed, to escape
the city's tax-bill, but often also to escape from its
publicity and promiscuity — join the efflux to the
country, until in many cities, for at least half the
year, the streets of the more luxurious city-dwellers
are like streets of tombs. Still more significant is
the procedure of many such persons in the educa
tion of their children. Being instinctively aware
that a child needs, first of all, a home, and being
conscious that their own domestic establishment
cannot be fairly called by that name, they transfer
the care of their children, and especially of their
boys, to schoolmasters in the country. It is but
another application of the placing-out system,
which has for a long time been applied with sue-

170 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
cess to the children of the homeless poor, and
which is now having great extension among the
children of the homeless rich. In such instances
the utmost credit should be given to the teachers
who by consecrated devotion convert a school into
a family ; but what, on the other hand, is to be
said of the family which is confessedly not as
wholesome for one's children as a school ? Occa
sionally, no doubt, there may be an occurrence of
domestic disaster or necessary rupture or unavoid
able circumstances, in which the deporting of a
child to the custody of a stranger is advisable in
the case of the rich as in that of the poor. In
general, however, the growth of the boarding-
school system is an indictment of the home. A
school may be a better training-place of child-life
than a home ; but that is because the home, for
sufficient or insufficient reasons, is not what a
home ought to be. On the other hand, the plac-
ing-out system is a most striking witness of the
significance of the home in education. Parents
thus colonizing their children are indicating in the
most emphatic manner that, even if domestic unity
and seclusion are impossible to themselves, some
substitute for these blessings must be secured to
insure the moral and physical health of those
whom they most love. The same evils of the city
streets and of the undomestic home threaten rich
and poor alike, and beneath the problem of the
city, as in a palimpsest, one reads the underlying
signs of the significance of the family.

THE FAMILY I7I
There are many other economic changes which
are, in the same way, vastly enlarging the scope
of the problem of the family, and contributing to
the solution of a question with which they have
nothing designedly to do. Each judicious invest
ment in well-constructed dwellings for the poor,
each extension of suburban railways and reduction
of their rates, each encouragement on the part
of a corporation or employer of permanence and
thrift among employees, each amelioration of the
city's own life by checking the evil of drink, or by
multiplying popular resources of popular recrea
tion, instruction, and health, — is a contribution
to domestic integrity and peace. We observed at
the outset that the unfolding history of human
civilization is at each step epitomized in the evolu
tion of the family ; we now observe that the main
tenance of the family provides a test of the wisdom
both of economic movements and of philanthropic
endeavor. Yet these economic rearrangements and phil
anthropic enterprises, however beneficent they
may be, do not disclose to us the most funda
mental causes of the problem of the family. The
; main sources of domestic instability are not eco
nomic, but moral. The problem of the family is
not chiefly a result of defective social arrange
ments, but chiefly the result of a defective social
creed. The truth of this statement is at once
verified when one recalls the fact that divorce,
like nervous prostration, is a disease which afflicts

172 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the prosperous more than it does the poor. Temp
tation enough, indeed, to promiscuous living is
forced upon the poor by the crowded conditions
of their life, yet one of the most distinctive and
most touching characteristics of the poor is a
clinging conjugal attachment, unbroken by the
strain of destitution or even of vice. Many a
well-intentioned philanthropist has tried to lift a
family out of want by separating the wife from
her degraded husband, and has been dismayed
and possibly offended by the unreasonable loyalty
of the innocent to the unworthy partner. Domes
tic instability, that is to say, is not chiefly the
result of unpropitious circumstances, but of un
spiritual and undomestic views of happiness and
success. It is the consequence, not of a hard
life, but of a soft creed ; its chief provocations are
not external, but internal ; and its cure must begin
with a finer social morality and a more worthy
conception of the ends of human life. The prob
lem of the family is but one aspect of the whole
drift of social standards and ideals in modern life ;
and the loosening of the marriage tie is, from this
point of view, the premonition of a general land
slide of social morality, as in the Alps the occa
sional fall of icy fragments indicates a general
softening of the crust which may culminate in
a mighty avalanche.
Of such a threatening thaw of ethical standards
there are two conspicuous indications in modern
social life. One is the interpretation of life in

THE FAMILY 173
terms of egoism, and the other is the estimation
of life in terms of commercialism. One is the love
of self and the other is the love of money. On
the one hand is the ancient heresy which makes
one's self the centre round which the social world
revolves, — the Ptolemaic philosophy of the selfish
life; on the other hand is the special temptation
which confronts social life at the present time,
as a consequence of the prodigal productiveness
and abundance of the modern industrial world.
Of the effect on domestic stability of mere self
ishness, whether in the form of fleshly brutality or
of ungenerous self-consideration, little need be
said. The family, in its very nature, represents a
transition from the self-considering to the self-
subordinating life. The individual yields his iso
lated self in entering the social unity. A marriage,
therefore, in which one member assumes all the
rights and the other performs all the duties is not
a domestic relation, but a relation of supremacy
and servitude ; a reversion of type to one of those
primitive groups, patriarchal it may be, or matri
archal, from which the race by the slow processes
of evolution has emerged. Marriage in its modern
form is the most elementary expression of the
life in common.
Elementary as such a proposition would seem
to be, the discovery that it is true brings to
many persons a shock of surprise. Such persons
have imagined that domestic unity would endure
the brutality of passion or the domineering temper

174 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
or the self-indulgent complaint in which selfish
ness expresses itself ; and when they discover that
marriage involves mutual rights and mutual sac
rifices, they chafe under these unanticipated and
irksome restraints. They have thought of mar
riage as little more than the satisfaction of lust
or of ambition or of whatever other form self-
love may assume, and they suddenly find them
selves involved in a moral situation, demanding of
them the continual exercise of those generous
instincts of which, perhaps, their first love was
full. Here, then, are indicated both the chief peril
and the chief social function of the institution of
the family. The chief peril which besets the fam
ily is not to be found in imperfect legislation or
inadequate social arrangements, but in the undis
ciplined will, in the unsocialized desire, in the
survival in human life of the instincts of the beast
of prey, the viper, or the hog. On the other
hand, the chief social function of the family con
sists in the contribution which it makes to the
socialization of the will. The family sets the indi
vidual at birth in a relation of altruistic interest ; it
renews and matures this joy as discovered in self-
sacrifice, when the individual creates a new family
of his own ; it continues only as such self-discov
ery through self-surrender becomes the law of life.
The family, that is to say, is not designed to make
life easier, but to make life better. It rests upon
the generous instincts of natural and self-forget
ting love. To contemplate a marriage from any

THE FAMILY 175
other point of view is simply to court disaster.
Domestic stability comes, not through the domina
tion of one will and the suppression of another,
but through the discipline of each in mutual ser
vice, the giving and receiving of mutual correction,
the sharing of mutual burdens and mutual joys.
Such conditions necessarily involve friction, ad
justment, self-discipline, and self-sacrifice ; but it
is precisely these ethical demands which make the
chief contribution of the family to the moral edu
cation of the human race.
To the attack on the integrity of the family
made by sheer selfishness, must be added the
equally familiar peril created by the spirit of com
mercialism. Money-making is in itself no sin. Few
desires in life are more honorable or more contrib
utory to character than the ambition to win by
honest work enough money to free one's self and
those one loves from harassing and sordid cares.
Commercialism, however, estimates life in terms
of money, and expects to get from money blessings
which money cannot buy. It proposes, among
other uses of money, to buy an insurance on
domestic happiness, as on other commodities. It
talks of a " good " marriage as it talks of other
lucrative ventures, though goodness may be sheer
badness except to the trader's mind. Yet no one
can read the signs of the times without observing
that money and happiness are quite as often found
apart as together. In fact, commercialism sup
plies the soil in which the malaria of domestic

176 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
infelicity most easily spreads. The competitions
of trade are duplicated in the competitions of
social life ; the advertising habit reappears in the
habit of social ostentation ; the value of money for
making money is mistaken for a value in making
friends ; and finally, precisely as in the fluctua
tions of trade, a time of strain arrives, and the
home, like the business firm, becomes bankrupt
and is dissolved. It is a tragic Nemesis which
thus follows the enshrining of Mammon as one's
household god ! Luxury, long desired, brings
with it restlessness ; freedom from real cares is
succeeded by a more exhausting slavery to imagi
nary cares ; " good " as the marriage may have
seemed to be, it is difficult for those joined in it
to be good, and still more difficult for children
born of it to remain virile and unspoiled ; finally,
the natural end of a misplaced ideal comes in one
overwhelming shock, and the idol set above the
family hearth falls from its niche and crushes the
home. Nor is the effect of commercialism on the family
to be observed in the commercially successful alone.
There is a much larger and much more pathetic
group of cases in which domestic instability pro
ceeds, not from prosperity ill endured, but from
the unsatisfied thirst for unattained prosperity.
Such cases are affected by the contagion of com
mercialism, but have not the experience which
fortifies against it. They imagine that ostenta
tion and notoriety bring with them a happiness

THE FAMILY 177
which simplicity and seclusion miss, and that a
substitute for the home may be found in imitation
of the foolish rich. One of the most startling
evidences which the pitiful records of the divorce
courts disclose is the fact that domestic instability
in the United States prevails chiefly, not among
the poor, or among the foreign born, or the hand-
working class, but among the ambitious, commer
cialized, migratory middle class of native-born
Americans. It is, in short, one incident of that
general restlessness of modern American life, in
which the prizes of commercialism are the only
visible rewards of social competition. The per
verted standards and ideals of the commercial
ized rich filter down, like the water of an infected
spring, through the social strata, poisoning many
a life which has no direct contact with the tempta
tions of prosperity, but is thirsty for satisfactions
which the prosperous appear to enjoy.
If, then, the self-centred mind and the commer
cialized life are sources of such widespread con
tamination, then the restoration of social health
must begin in nothing less than the purifying of
the prevailing social creed. Family integrity can
no more be insured by enactment or legislation
than the health of a city can be secured by city
ordinances while the water supply is tainted at
its spring. The problem of the family is but one
aspect of the much larger problem of socializing
and spiritualizing the habits and aims of social
life. At this point, however, and perhaps with a

178 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
certain surprise, we find ourselves once more con
fronted by the social principles of Jesus Christ.
Precisely this issue, between a selfish and mate
rialized aim and a socialized and spiritual ideal,
was what lay before his mind, as it now lies
before the mind of the modern world ; and then
as now the crux of the situation was seen to lie
in the problem of the family. Jesus pictured to
himself a perfect spiritual unity of social life,
which he called the kingdom of God ; and of
that final fulfilment of his desire the germ and
type were in the unity of the family group, where
the self-realization of each individual was found in
loving self-surrender. Jesus, therefore, with an
explicitness used in no other case, announced defi
nite legislation concerning the family. If that ini
tial group, he seems to say, can be established
in integrity, then within its familiar circle can
be easily verified the principles of the kingdom,
which on a larger scale might be obscure. Yet
Jesus did not trust to such legislation to bring in
the kingdom. He surveyed social life from above,
with the detachment of the idealist ; and he
approached social life from within, by changing,
not social circumstances, but human hearts. No
amount of social regulation, he knew, can assure
social stability, unless the interior ideals of individ
ual lives are cleansed and refined at their source.
Jesus seeks therefore, first of all, the springs of per
sonal life, which if left unclean are sure to infect
the whole social stream into which they flow.

THE FAMILY 1 79
"Cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the
platter, " 1 he says ; " and even now is the axe laid
unto the root of the trees."2 In short, as we have
been led to trace the remoter causes of the problem
of the family, so finally we are led to that solution
of the problem which is most characteristic of the
teaching of Jesus. It is nothing less than the
redemption of personal life from the spirit of
selfishness and from that curse of commercialism
which the New Testament calls the love of the
world. Selfishness dries up the springs from
which the stream of the kingdom flows ; commer
cialism poisons that stream in its course. Where
the institution of the family is converted into an
instrument of self-interest or into a commercial
transaction, it is vain to hope for its transforma
tion by regulation from without ; where, on the
other hand, an unselfish temper and a spiritual
desire express themselves in domestic life, there
no problem of the family is left to solve.
Must one, then, conclude that this comprehensive
and spiritual solution of the problem of the family
has met with no success ? Has the teaching of
Jesus concerning the unselfish and unworldly life
given to the institution of the family no assurance
of stability ? Is it true that the very existence of
the family is at present seriously threatened, and
that we are likely soon to pass from a period of
" family exclusiveness " into an age of domestic
looseness or of communistic control ? On the con-
1 Matt, xxiii. 26. 2 Matt. iii. 10.

l80 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
trary, we must answer, grave as are the facts which
we have traced in this chapter, they have no such
significance as this. It is startling enough to be
told that out of every thousand marriages in the
United States upward of sixty are likely to end
in divorce ; but it must not be forgotten that, out
of the same thousand, nine hundred and forty are
tg continue in some degree of unity and love. An
epidemic of disease such as we have traced, though
it be serious, still leaves the vast majority of the
population uninfected ; an Alpine avalanche, though
it be destructive, still leaves the mountains strong.
No self-deception could be greater than that of the
socialist who fancies that we are really on the
brink of a general break-up of the family system.
No literature could be more untrue to the main
movement of modern thought than the books and
dramas which take for granted that licentious
imaginings and adulterous joys have displaced in
modern society pure romance and wholesome love.
The eddies of dirty froth which float on the sur
face of the stream of social life and mar its clear
ness are not the signs which indicate its current.
Beneath these signs of domestic restlessness
the main body of social life is yet untainted, and
the teaching of Jesus concerning unselfishness and
unworldliness is practically verified in multitudes
of unobserved and unpolluted homes.
What is a Christian family ? It is not an extraor
dinarily angelic or ascetic group. It is simply
a domestic group in which the spiritual ends of

THE FAMILY l8l
marriage are not obscured either by uncontrolled
selfishness or by contaminating commercialism.
Such a marriage has been created by the natural
leadings of a pure love, and this single-minded
affection becomes a permanent instinct of life.
A Christian marriage expects to have its friction
of interests and its moments of turbulence, like a
stream that has its rapids and its falls ; but these
incidents do not block the movement of life, and
the stream of love grows deeper and more tranquil
as it flows. A Christian family does not forfeit
its simplicity, genuineness, and interior resources
when it becomes prosperous, or find itself stripped
of the essentials of happiness when it becomes
poor. In a Christian home the discipline of chil
dren is not so much a work of exhortation as of
contagion. The prevailing climate of unaffected
idealism strengthens the moral constitution of the
child. Thus the Christian family gets its unity
and stability, not by outward regulation, but by
the natural processes of its inward life. It has its
troubles, and they draw hearts together. It has
its joys, and they are multiplied by being shared.
When, finally, the children of that family grow up
to hear of larger truths, — truths of the kingdom
and of the Father in heaven, and of the son for
whose return the Father is waiting, — then they in
terpret these great mysteries of the eternal world,
as Jesus prompted them to do, in the language of
their own loving and united home. Are there many
such Christian families ? Millions, we confidently

1 82 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
answer. This is the normal type of the civilized
home. The teaching of Jesus, so slightly accepted
in many ways of life, has actually taken firm root
in the soil of the family. If Jesus should come
again, and consider the obvious effects of his teach
ing on the habits of social life, he would perhaps
find no change so dramatic as that which is to be ob
served in the coherence and mutual devotion of the
modern home. To the vast majority of any modern
community, the problem of the family is but a re
mote and uninteresting sign of the time, heard by
them as the roar of the ocean is heard by dwellers
inland, reporting to them a storm far out at sea.
Homes enough there are, as we have seen, wrecked
in such storms, and lives enough which are tossed
on rough waters with nothing that can be called
a home to hold them up, but the continent of our
civilization is not seriously threatened by the en
croaching sea. The pure love which creates a
stable family still sanctifies multitudes of such
homes, set far back from the stormy agitations of
the time ; and among such homes the spirit of
Jesus enters from day to day, as one day he came
to the newly married pair at Cana, and changes the
water of commonplace and prose into the wine of
romance and joy.

CHAPTER IV
THE TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING THE RICH
pjoto haroln shall tfteg that ftatoe tithes enter into the ftingoom ot
©oo !
aSEho, then, is the faithful ano arise stehraro iuhom his loto shall
set oner his housebote? . . . BSlesseo is that sernant, ... of a
truth, fje Swill set him oner all that he hath !
We pass from the innermost circle of social
relationship — the family — and find ourselves in
a larger but concentric circle. At the centre the
individual is inquiring concerning his place and
function in the social order, but round him now
sweeps the life of a community, made up of
many families associated in the complexity of the
modern world. No sooner does the individual
contemplate this larger circle environing his life,
than a new social problem confronts him. He
observes the extreme diversity of social conditions
whicTr*~eac^i_:such community represents. Some
of these families are hungry, for food or for work,
and some, on the other hand, seem overburdened
by superfluous possessions. Some of these homes
are tempted by their poverty, and some by their
prosperity. The individual looks about him at
the scene presented by the modern distribution
of wealth, and it is not a peaceful or sunny
183

1 84 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
prospect. About him lie, it is true, great tracts
of general prosperity, a rolling country with gen
tle undulations of greater or less possessions ; but
in the midst of this smiling landscape rise a few
abrupt and overshadowing peaks, making more
sombre and sunless the deep canons of incom
petency and want which lie between. It is a
spectacle abounding in suggestions of pathos,
not unmingled with an element of irony. Each
extreme of this diversity involves its own special
peril; each social type — the dwellers on the
heights and those who never see the sun — has
its own temptations ; each type tends to become
isolated and fixed in its conditions; yet within
each type there are groups which have a curious
kinship in habit and needs. On the one hand is
the group of the unemployed and laboriously idle
rich, and on the other hand is the group of the unr
employed and professionally idle poor. The two
groups have much in common. Each is a detach
ment of what is known as the army of the unem
ployed. Each is characterized by loss of respect
for work. Each, therefore, has its share of re
sponsibility for the revolutionary agitation of the
time. The instruments of this revolt are likely
to be found among the exasperated poor; but
the provocation to revolt is likely to proceed
from the unemployed and self-indulgent rich, the
spenders of that which others have gained, the
persons of whom Mr. Ruskin said that their wealth
should be called their "ill-th," because it is not

THE RICH 185
well, but ill, with their souls. Thus, while the
main current of social life is healthy and free, its
motion has thrown up upon the surface a kind of
life which may be described as social froth, and
has deposited at its bottom another kind of life
which may be described as social sediment ; and
who shall say which is the more threatening social
peril, — the submerged poor or the light-minded
rich; the restlessness of the social sediment, or
the thoughtlessness of the social froth?
It should be noticed that this diversity of social
condition, which appears to create a new social
question, is not itself a new situation or one qf_
unprecedented gravity. On the contrary, one of
the most obvious facts of modern civilization is
the enormous advance in general prosperity and
in purchasing power of every social class. Jj^is,
by no means true that as the rich grow richer the
•poor "are growing poorer. The concentration of
great wealth in a few hands is accompanied by an
extraordinary distribution of comfort among many
millions, so that conveniences and resources, which
two generations ago were the luxuries of the few,
have come to be within easy reach of the hum
blest. This progress in general prosperity has
not, however, been a uniform progress. While
the rich have been growing richer, the poor have
been growing less poor, but they have not main
tained the same pace of progress. Thus, while
general progress may be admitted to be real, it
may be still indicted as inequitable, and it is this

1 86 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
sense of inequity which gives to the present social
situation its specific character. It is not true that
the hand-working class have less, but it is true
that they know and feel and desire more. Thus, the
modern social question is one fruit of the education
of the masses. It is not a sign of social decadence,
but a sign of social progress. " The people had been
made blind, like Samson," remarks Mr. Graham,
"the better to toil without being dangerous. . . .
In 1870 it was felt . . . that a measure of educa
tion was necessary and politic, and Lord Sher-
brooke (then Mr. Robert Lowe) expressed a very
general feeling in his well-known aphorism, 'We
must educate our masters. ' " l
In such a situation, however, the social question
presents itself in a much more radical form than
it has, under other conditions, assumed. It is not
a question of economic reforms or philanthropic
schemes. It considers the very existence of these
extremes of condition. Ought there to be any
such types in social life as the rich and the poor ?
Is the possession of wealth on any terms justifi
able ? Is poverty by any means eradicable ? Is
a social order just and rational which permits great
accumulation of wealth in single hands ? If not,
shall not a new social order be established, where
the valleys of social life shall be exalted and its
mountains and hills brought low ? We speak of a
rich man as being "worth" a certain sum. How
much, asks the modern spirit, is a rich man in fact
1 Graham, "The Social Problem," 1886, pp. 23, 25.

THE RICH I87
worth ? Is he worth what he costs ? In a time
when the majority have the power, but have not
the wealth, is it not possible, either by legislation
or by revolution, greatly to restrict or hamper the
accumulation and perpetuation of wealth ? May
not the way of the rich, like that of the trans
gressor, be made very hard ? If the private owner
ship of wealth brings with it no public utility, or
if, still worse, it turns out to be a source of demor
alization, are there not ways of dealing with it as
one deals with any common nuisance, so that it
may be in large degree abated ?
Thus the modern social question tests the institu
tion of private property by its contribution to the
public good. Does it foster a quality of social life
which is worth perpetuating ? Does money-getting
fulfil a moral purpose ? Is it, on the whole, best that
the way to wealth shall be left open toward the top,
so that a man who has the gift for getting rich may
have all the benefits of that gift ; or, on the other
hand, ought rich people to be abolished, because it
is impossible to be both rich and good ? What is
this fact of diversity of condition in modern social
life, but a challenge to the poor to use their power,
like a Samson who is no longer blind, to drag down
the pillars of a perverted civilization ?
Such are the questions which, often with bitter
ness, often with apprehension, are being asiced by
the present age. Wealth is brojightJto„J:he t_est
of utility. If it carmoTTTe proved to fulfil some
public~seTvice, Ihen it is very probably diggiqg its

1 88 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
.own grave. With such questions, then, we turn
to the teaching of Jesus Christ ; and at once we
are confronted by those principles of his teaching
which in their general form we have already re
called. Jesus views the social order from above,
in the horizon of the purposes of God ; he ap
proaches the social order from within, through the
awakening of individual capacity; he judges the
social order in its end, as a means to the kingdom
of the Father. What has Jesus, then, to say of
the contrast which was conspicuous in his time,
as it is in ours, between wealth and poverty ?
Does the possession of wealth appear to Jesus
likely to make that kind of man who in his turn
may help the kingdom ? May a rich man be an
accepted follower of Jesus Christ ? Or is poverty,
on the other hand, of the essence of Christian
discipleship, and is a rich man necessarily shut out
of the kingdom ? What is the teaching of Jesus
concerning the rich ? 1
No sooner does one ask these questions than he
recalls the reiterated and unmitigated language of
warning and rebuke with which Jesus addressed
the prosperous. " How hardly shall they that have
riches enter into the kingdom of God ! " 2 " Woe
unto you that are rich ; " " Blessed are ye poor ;" 3
" Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the
earth;"* "For a man's life consisteth not in the
1 See also Christian Register, January 5, 1893, F. G. Peabody,
"The Problem of Rich Men."
2 Mark x. 23. s Luke vi. 20, 24. 4 Matt. vi. 19.

THE RICH 189
abundance of the things which he possesseth;"1
"Ye cannot serve God and mammon;"2 "It is
easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God."3 Few modern agitators, urging thedispos-
sessed poor to resist their oppressors, have ever
ventured upon stronger language than this ; few,
indeed, have gone so far as to say to their fol
lowers : " Sell all that thou hast, . . . and come,
follow me."4 It is not surprising that such say
ings have been greeted as conclusive testimony
concerning the teaching of Jesus, and as establish
ing his place in history as the great forerunner
of modern protests against the industrial sys
tem which is based on private capital. "When
Jesus," it is confidently asserted, " says, ' Lay not
up for yourselves treasures upon earth,' he shows
himself on ethical grounds a radical opponent of
all accumulation of wealth."5 "The democracy of
property, which is the larger revelation of Christ,
... is the condemnation of the wage-system."6
" If the man who best represents the ideas of early
Christians were to enter a respectable society
to-day, would it not be likely to send for the po
lice ? " 7 " The practice of the preacher-carpenter
who had not where to lay his head, who is not re-
1 Luke xii. 15. 8 Matt. xix. 24.
2 Matt. vi. 24. * Luke xviii. 22.
6 Naumann, "Was heisst Christlich-Sozial ?" s. 9.
6 Herron, "The New Redemption," p. 63.
7 Leslie Stephen, " Social Rights and Duties," I, 21 (quoted by
Mathews, "Social Teaching of Jesus," 149 [note]).

190 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
corded as having possessed a single coin, who had
nothing to leave his mother, and whose grave was
borrowed from a friend, accords fully with the mes
sage he delivered."1
Estimates like these of the teaching of Jesus
must not be lightly dismissed. There is no way
of breaking the force of these solemn sayings of
the gospels concerning the deceitfulness of riches,
or of eliminating from the teaching of Jesus his
stern warnings to the prosperous and his beauti
ful compassion for the poor. Is it possible, how
ever, that so obvious and so limited a message
as this, a teaching so slightly distinguishable
from the curbstone rhetoric of a modern agitator,
can be an adequate reproduction of the scope and
power of the teaching of Jesus ? Is it not, on the
contrary, more probable that we have here a new
illustration of that easy literalism which through
all Christian history has distorted and limited the
teaching of the gospel? No vagary or extrava
gance of opinion has been too extreme to claim for
itself the authority of the teaching of Jesus, or to
fortify that claim through a fragmentary and hap
hazard eclecticism. The gospels, however, are
not a series of disconnected aphorisms ; they are
the record of a continuous life, whose complete
intention is not disclosed in single incidents or
detached sayings, but reveals itself in the general
1 Article in The Outlook, December 10, 1898. Compare also
O. Holtzmann, "Jesus Christus und das Gemeinschaftsleben der
Menschen," 1893, s. 17 ff.

THE RICH igi
habit and movement of the Teacher's mind. If,
then, one seriously desires to know what Jesus
thought about the rich and the poor, he must
scrutinize, compare, and weigh the scattered say
ings of the gospel and derive from them a general
impression of the life which gave authority to the
teaching ; and as he thus passes from the letter
of the gospel to its spirit, there may perhaps
disclose itself a scope and character of teaching
which no isolated saying adequately represents,
but which, the more one examines- it, draws the
learner to the Teacher with a profounder impres
sion of reverent awe.1
As one thus approaches the teaching of Jesus
concerning the rich, he is, first of all, confronted
by an extraordinary difference of emphasis in the
different evangelists.2 The fourth gospel hardly
J8ter Evang.-soz. Kongress, 1897, Wendt, "Das Eigentum nach
christlicher Beurteilung," s. 10, " A trustworthy Christian judgment
concerning property is to be derived, not from single Biblical utter
ances or parables, but from the fundamental principles and religious
conceptions of Jesus."
2 On these notable differences of social teaching see, on the
one hand, Keim, "Jesus of Nazareth," III, 284, "We have [in
Luke] gross, naked Ebionitism." . . . "The naked doctrine of
poverty." IV. 81, "In the glorification ... of poverty as such
... we have the direct reverse of the teaching of Jesus." More
moderately, H. Holtzmann, " Die ersten Christen und die soziale
Frage," s. 44, "The view of Jesus is of the peril of riches ; . . . the
view of the third Gospel is that riches are in themselves disgraceful,
and poverty in itself saving. " On the other hand, Renan, " Life
of Jesus" (tr. Allen), Ch. XI, "The Gospel in his [Jesus] thought
of it, is for the poor." The Ebionitic note of the third gospel is
emphasized, perhaps with exaggeration, by Colin Campbell, " Criti-

192 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
touches the question of material possessions at all.
It moves in quite another world, — a world of
lofty philosophy, spiritual biography, and Divine
communion. With the exception of two unim
portant passages1 the very words "rich," "poor,"
"wealth," "poverty," "to be rich," "to be poor,"
do not occur either in the fourth gospel or in the
Johannine epistles. The second gospel also, —
though for opposite reasons — offers practically
no materia] concerning poverty or wealth which
does not also present itself either in Matthew or
Luke, or in both. The fourth gospel loses sight
of these human interests in its flight of spiritual
meditation ; the second gospel hastens by these
general problems of social life in its absorbed and
concise records of the words and acts of Jesus.
Thus the teaching of Jesus concerning social con
ditions must be sought almost wholly in the gos
pels of Matthew and Luke ; and here we come upon
abundant material.
Yet here also we meet a still more striking
cal Studies in Luke's Gospel," 1891, Ch. II. Compare, Plummer,
" Commentary on Luke," 1 896, p. xxv. "Is there any Ebionism in
St. Luke ? That Luke is profoundly impressed by the contrast
between wealth and poverty ... is true enough. But this is not
Ebionism. He nowhere teaches that wealth is sinful and that rich
men must give away all their wealth, or that the wealthy may be
spoiled by the poor." Observe also the discussions of B. Weiss,
" Life of Christ," Book I, Ch. IV, V ; J. Estlin Carpenter, " The
First Three Gospels, their Origin and Relations," 1897, Ch.VIII-X ;
and especially the painstaking and convincing study of Rogge, " Der
irdische Besitz im N. T.," 1897, s. 91 ff.
1 John xii. 5 ; xiii. 29.

THE RICH 193
difference. In the first place, while the record
of the two gospels is often obviously identical
in origin, it happens in almost every instance
that, where Matthew and Luke report the same
incident or saying concerning the rich or the
poor, the passage in Luke takes a severer or more
universal form of condemnation of the one class,
or of commendation of the other. Where Matthew
says, " Give to him that asketh thee " (t<» ahovvri
o-e So'?),1 Luke says : " Give to every one " {iravrl
alrovvrC ere S(Bov) ; 2 where Matthew says, " Sell
that thou hast " {traKr^crov Ta inrdp^ovra), 3 (Mark,
oaa e'x«?), Luke says, "Sell all that thou hast"
{irdvra oaa £%ei? trwX-qaov) . i Wh ere the beatitude in
Matthew reads : " Blessed are the poor in spirit," 5
Luke says, "Blessed are ye poor,"6 and reen-
forces this modification with the added phrase,
" But woe unto you that are rich ! " 7 Where Mat
thew says, "But lay up for yourselves treasures
in heaven," 8 Luke says, " Sell that ye have, and
give alms."9 According to Matthew there are
brought to the great supper both bad and good,10
but in Luke the Lord of the supper says, " Bring
in hither the poor and maimed and blind and
lame." n To this marked difference of emphasis
must be added the further fact that the most
radical teachings and illustrations concerning the
1 Matt. v. 42. 5 Matt. v. 3. 9 Luke xii. 33.
2 Luke vi. 30. 6 Luke vi. 20. 10 Matt. xxii. 10.
8 Matt. xix. 21. 7 Luke vi. 24. n Luke xiv. 21.
4 Luke xviii. 22. 8 Matt. vi. 20.

194 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
perils of wealth are to be found in the third gos
pel alone. Here appear the story of Dives and
Lazarus,1 of the foolish rich man,2 of the unjust
steward,3 and the conversation about inheritance.4
It is in Luke alone that the prophetic word is
utilized : " And the rich he hath sent empty
away." 5 In short, between Matthew and Luke
there is as marked a difference of teaching as may
be found in modern literature between the teach
ing of an earnest philanthropist and the teaching
of a socialist agitator. It is quite within the truth
to speak of Luke as the "socialist-evangelist."6
What is to be regarded as the probable cause of
this striking peculiarity of the third gospel ? The
most obvious interpretation which suggests itself
is that the character of the gospel reflects the
character of its author. Luke, it is said, like Paul,
with whom he lived and taught, had a larger social
experience and a keener human sympathy than
the other evangelists. His mind, therefore, seized
on the radical sayings of Jesus in their original
sternness of tone, where Matthew softened and
spiritualized such words into conformity with pro
vincial habits of mind. Thus, the socialist-evan
gelist best understood his Master, and the teaching
1 Luke xvi. 20. 8 Luke xvi. 1-13. 6 Luke i. 53.
2 Luke xii. 16-21. 4 Luke xii. 13,
6 Rogge, p. 10 (citing H. Holtzmann in " Prot. Kirchenzeitung,"
1894). But compare, also, as diminishing the significance of these
contrasts, the comment on the general habit of mind of Luke, in
Plummer, " Commentary on Luke," p. lxii.

THE RICH 195
of Jesus concerning the rich is to be found in
Luke. This view of the relation of the gospels, how
ever, leaves out of account several of the most sig
nificant aspects of the New Testament. In the
first place, it is inconsistent with the general prin
ciple of criticism, that of two readings of equal
external authority the more spiritual reading is
the more likely to reproduce the Master's words.
Other things being equal, it is not probable that
the more obvious meaning is original, and that the
more spiritual signification is superimposed. Of
the two readings, " Blessed are the poor in spirit,"
and "Blessed are ye poor," it is on the face of
things not likely that the peculiar depth and
beauty of the truth which the first passage
expresses should be a gloss upon the superficial,
not to say the questionable, teaching of the second
passage. Further, without undertaking to enter
elaborately into the much debated problem of the
Paulinism of the third gospel, it is obvious that,
in the attitude of that gospel toward poverty and
wealth, we meet a characteristic which is very
remote from the habitual teaching and example of
Paul. To regard poverty as in any degree a test
for admittance to the kingdom of God, or to dis
criminate against the prosperous simply because of
their prosperity, is quite contrary to the spirit of
the robust, sagacious, and independent apostle to
the Gentiles. He perceives, it is true, that " Not
many wise, . . . , not many mighty, not

I96 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
many noble, are called ; " 1 but it is not a part
of his purpose to reproach the rich or to identify
holiness with poverty. For his own part he will
be, he says, a charge to no man. " For ye remem
ber, brethren, our labour and travail : working night
and day, that we might not burden any of you."2
It is true that Paul regards it a despising of the
Church of God to " put them to shame that have
not;" 3 and that he urges contentment with what
one has ; 4 yet he has a place for the rich also in
the world of Christian service. Within the
churches which he organizes there are disciples
prosperous enough to undertake missionary con
tributions. " So, then, as we have opportunity,"
Paul says to them, " let us work that which is good
toward all men, and especially toward them that
are of the household of the faith." 5 " God loveth
a cheerful giver." 6 He welcomes missionary gifts
from the church at Philippi as a sacrifice "accept
able, well-pleasing to God."7 He bids Timothy
to charge the rich "that they do good, that they
be rich in good works." 8 Finally, in his most
comprehensive statement of Christian character,
he explicitly announces that the abandonment of
possessions does not necessarily indicate holiness.
"And if I bestow all my goods to feed the
poor, . . . but have not love, it profiteth
me nothing."9 Here is a habit of mind so dif-
1 1 Cor. i. 26. 4 Phil. iv. 11. ' Phil. iv. 18.
2 1 Thess. ii. 9. 6 Gal. vi. 10. s 1 Tim. vi. 18.
8 I Cor. xi. 22. 6 2 Cor. ix. 7. 9 1 Cor. xiii. 3.

THE RICH 197
ferent from that which is illustrated in many pas
sages of the third gospel, that so far as this single
problem of the right to property has any bearing
on the general question of relationship between
Luke and Paul, it certainly seems to indicate no
close kinship of spirit or aim.
There is another and more general point of view
from which this contrast between Luke and Paul
may be considered. When we scrutinize the New
Testament as a whole we observe that the same
line of cleavage which is to be noticed between
the third gospel and the epistles of Paul appears
to run between other books also, and divides the
literature of the New Testament into two general
groups. With the third gospel seem to group
themselves the introductory chapters of the book
of Acts and the epistle of James ; and with Paul's
epistles the gospels of Matthew and of Mark. A
situation thus presents itself which is in sharp con
trast with the usual grouping of New Testament
books, and of which New Testament criticism has
thus far taken but small account. The first gospel,
for instance, is beyond question colored in many
respects by the Palestinian tradition, and the
third gospel is, in general, adapted to Gentile
readers; but when we examine the social teach
ing of the two there is exhibited a reversal of
these relationships, and the first gospel rather
than the third appears to free itself from the
pressing trials of Palestinian poverty and relief.
Into the interesting critical question thus opened

I98 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
it is not possible here to enter, but the general
line of cleavage is not easy to mistake.1 The
book of Acts begins in a tone of lofty ecstasy,
prompted by that confident belief in an imminent
cosmic catastrophe which made the first disciples
indifferent to social conditions or social change.
They testified to their freedom from the ordinary
limitations of life by their gift of tongues,2 and
they expressed their indifference to social distinc
tions by having "all things common."3 The
epistle of James goes beyond indifference to
possessions and positively indicts the prosperous
as sinners. Its language is that of unsparing
attack and bitter irony. " Go to now, ye rich,"
concludes this most radical of New Testament
writers, "weep and howl for your miseries that
are coming upon you." 4 On the other hand, the
first two gospels move in a world of tranquil
and unimpassioned narrative, less virile in teach
ings concerning worldly independence than the
self-respecting judgments of Paul, but exhibiting
no rigid discrimination between social classes.5
What does this general contrast among New
Testament books indicate as to the prevailing
conditions of primitive Christian life ? It reminds
us of that contrast of social condition and habit
1 On this distinction of New Testament Books, see the interesting
discussion of Rogge {pp. cit.), s. 68 ff.
2 Acts ii. 4. s Acts ii. 44. 4 James v. I.
6 See the essay of Th. Zahn, "Die soziale Frage und die innere
Mission nach dem Briefe des Jakobus," in his " Skizze aus dem
Leben der alten Kirche," 1898, s. g^.

THE RICH I99
of mind which, as has been frequently observed,
existed between the Palestinian and the Gen
tile communities. The disciples at Jerusalem, in
the lofty enthusiasm of their first fellowship,
threw down the barriers of ownership as they did
those of language, and had one speech and one
purse. It was, as we have already seen, not a
prearranged and institutional communism, but,
as Peter expressly calls it,1 a voluntary sharing of
what was needed. While it remained, it remained
one's own, and when it was sold it was still in
one's power. Even this relation, however, was one
which could not be realized in an enlarging Church.
As we proceed in the book of Acts itself, the social
types associating themselves with the new religion
become more and more varied, until persons of every
social condition, Pharisees2 and fishermen,3 the
treasurer of Candace,4 the proconsul Paulus,6 Dio-
nysius the Areopagite,6 Crispus,7 the head of a
Jewish synagogue, together with many who must be
cared for by alms from "the daily ministration,"8
come into view as acceptable members of Christian
congregations. Nor must we forget the inevitable effect upon
the congregations of Palestine of the social teach
ing represented by the epistle of James. The
less honorable poor flocked, it would seem, with
the devout to such communities, until at last the
1 Acts v. 4. 4 Acts viii. 27. 7 Acts xviii. 8.
2 Acts xxiii. 6. 6 Acts xiii. 7. 8 Acts vi. I.
8 Matt. iv. 18. 6 Acts xvii. 34.

200 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
church in Jerusalem, in spite of its noble desire
to have all things in common, was so impoverished
as to lose the capacity for self-support, and became
dependent on alms contributed by the Gentile
churches. It was a curious nemesis which followed
the identification of the religion of Jesus with a
special economic condition. James might continue
to fulminate against the iniquities of the rich, but
the communities to which he wrote sank into a
progressive pauperization from whose results they
were relieved by the more virile and thrifty con
gregations bred in the spirit of the self-supporting
Paul. Such, it may not unreasonably be believed, were
the circumstances in which two different ways of
regarding wealth and poverty came to exist within
the literature of the New Testament. In the Pales
tinian communities, where the faithful found them
selves more and more impoverished and defenceless,
every saying of Jesus was cherished which seemed
to comfort the poor or to rebuke the prosper
ous ; in the missionary churches, on the other
hand, the distinctions and animosities of social
classes were subordinated to the larger mission to
which the Christian religion was called ; and when
the same sayings of Jesus were repeated, it was their
spiritual significance which was recalled. " Blessed
are ye poor," 2 says the church in Palestine, for the
solace of its oppressed disciples ; " Blessed are the
poor in spirit," 2 repeats the spiritual tradition, for
1 Luke vi. 20. 2 Matt. v. 3.

THE RICH 20 1
the humbling of unchristian pride. " So also shall
the rich man fade away in his goings," says
James.1 " For all things are yours ; . . . and ye
are Christ's," 2 answers Paul.
These conjectures, however, carry us some
what beyond our present purpose. It is enough
to recognize, running through the New Testament,
two radically divergent traditions concerning the
relation of riches to the Christian life. Accord
ing to the one tradition the only consistent Chris
tian is a poor man ; according to the other the
true riches and the real poverty are of the soul.
If then we are to inquire which of these two tra
ditions represents the original teaching of Jesus,
it is impossible to rest on the authority of any
single passage in the gospels or even on the
authority of any single gospel. Behind these
partial expressions of the teaching, one must ob
serve the more general aspects and relations of
the Master's life. What, we must ask, was the
habitual attitude of Jesus toward the rich and the
poor as he walked and talked with both ? With
whom did he most naturally live ? To whom did
he most entirely give his heart ? Whom did he
welcome as his friends and followers ? What is
the relation of his teaching to the views which
prevailed in his own time and nation concerning
poverty and wealth ? Summing up his scattered
instructions, comparing his various parables, and
observing the general direction of his mind and
1 James i. II. z 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23.

202 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the habitual rule of his life, what was the burden
of his message to the rich ?
In order to reach an answer to these questions
it is necessary, first, to recall the social environ
ment of the ministry of Jesus, the world of people
and of ideas into which he entered and through
which he moved. The people who were the first
to welcome him were certainly not of the rich and
ruling classes, but, as a rule, plain and unassum
ing folk. This, however, is by no means equiva
lent to saying that the immediate followers of
Jesus were drawn exclusively from those who
in the modern sense, could be called poor. On
the contrary, the gospel story, with all its tender
feeling for the poor, moves for the most part
through a social environment quite above the
range of poverty. Jesus himself was born in a
home which cannot be classified either as rich or
poor. He was educated, both in letters and in
handicraft. When he entered upon his public
life, there is no sign that the social peril of wealth
was in any degree burdening his heart. When
at the outset of his ministry he was tempted of
the devil, the solicitations which were presented to
him were not those of riches, but those of fame,
power, and self-display.
When, further, we consider the social condition
of the persons first won by his teaching, we are met
by many different social types.1 Among those who
1 Rogge, p. 20 ff. ; H. Holtzmann, " Die ersten Christen und die
soziale Frage," s. 23 ; New World, June, 1899, p. 305.

THE RICH 203
flocked to a teacher who renewed their hope and
self-respect were indeed many penniless and bur
den-bearing outcasts ; yet within the circle of his
intimacy and confidence there were persons of all
degrees of prosperity. The fishermen who were
first called by him were by no means penniless
or homeless, but were people of reasonable
prosperity. They "left their father . . . with
the hired servants, and went after him."1 One
of them "was known unto the high priest, and
entered in with Jesus into the court of the high
priest." 2 At the death of their Master they
returned to their boats and trade.3 Peter was a
householder, to whose home Jesus came when
Peter's wife's mother lay sick.4 In the house
of Matthew the tax-gatherer, Jesus sat at meat ; 5
" and many publicans and sinners sat down with
Jesus and his disciples." 6 Zacchseus was a chief
publican, "and he was rich." "The half of my
goods," he said to Jesus, "I give to the poor;"
and Jesus commends him and welcomes him, say
ing, "To-day is salvation come to this house."7
Nicodemus, "a ruler of the Jews,"8 is addressed
by Jesus with astonishing candor ; but there is
no rebuke of the Pharisee's prosperity. The
captain of the guard,9 a person of social impor
tance and authority, is not censured by Jesus,
but honored with special praise. "Joanna the
1 Mark i. 20. i Matt. viii. 14. T Luke xix. 2, 8, 9.
2 John xviii. 15. 6 Matt. ix. 10. 8 John iii. I.
8 John xxi. 3 ff. ° Mark ii. 15; Matt. ix. 10. 9 Matt. viii. 10.

204 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna,
and many others," being — it must be in
ferred — women of means, "ministered unto them
of their substance." l The home at Bethany,
in which Jesus repeatedly found tranquil release
from the pressure of his public life, was a home
of comfort, if not of luxury, and there was in it
"anointment of spikenard, very precious."2 Fi
nally, Joseph of Arimathea, " being a disciple of
Jesus," provides a tomb for the crucified Master,
and comes with Nicodemus, "bringing a mixture
of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound
weight." 3
Here are sufficient indications that no single
social type monopolized the sympathy or accept
ance of Jesus. Whatever may be gladly ad
mitted concerning the special tenderness of his
teaching when he speaks of the poor, and how
ever true it is that "the common people heard
him gladly," 4 there is certainly no ground for
believing that Jesus proposed to array the poor
against the rich or to set the one social class
on his right hand and the other on his left.
The fact is that his teaching moved in a world of
thought and desire where such distinctions be
came unimportant, and a profounder principle of
classification was applied. He gathered about
himself all sorts and conditions of men and
women ; he passed without any sign of conscious
1 Luke viii. 3. a John xix. 38, 39.
2 John xii. 3. 4 Mark xii. 37.

THE RICH 205
transition from the company of the rich to that
of the poor and back to that of the rich again.
He was equally at home at the table of the pros
perous Zacchaeus, in the quiet home at Bethany,
and in the company of the blind beggar by the
wayside.1 He lavished his great utterances with
equal freedom on the scholarly Nicodemus2 and
on the ignorant and foolish woman by the well.3
In short, his categories of social judgment are
not those of wealth and poverty. His thought is
directed toward the fulfilment of the kingdom of
God. Whatever type of character he discovers
which seems contributory to that ideal he spon
taneously and often abruptly accepts, and what
ever circumstances, on the other hand, appear
to hinder that great consummation must be,
according to his teaching, at any sacrifice escaped
or overcome. Here must have been one source
of joy in listening to Jesus. Men found them
selves no longer identified with a single social
class, having special limitations of teachableness
or capacity ; they were brought into sight of the
comprehensive unity of human ideals and needs,
in which the distinctions of social groups were
lost in a larger companionship. It was the joy of
the narrow stream when it flows out at last into
the comprehensive ocean and meets the infinite
variety of other streams from which its own
course has been hitherto shut away.
This elevation of the mind of Jesus above the
1 Mark x. 46. 2 John iii. 1-21. 3 John iv. 7-26.

206 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
region of social differences is further indicated
when one considers his relation to that view of
poverty and wealth which was current among his
own people and in his own time. There still sur
vived about him a national tradition that piety
should bring with it prosperity ; yet, in spite of
their piety, his people were plundered and op
pressed by the unsanctified Romans, and the
prophecy of an external reward for righteousness
seemed far from fulfilled. Here was a social
condition contrary both to their religious hope
and to their national instinct of money-getting,
and the Hebrew people were filled with bitter
ness and wrath toward those who were, at the same
time, unholy and prosperous. "To pass through
their literature," it has been justly said, "is like
passing through Dante's Inferno, except that
nowhere appears any trace of that Divine pity
which the great Italian permits."1 There came to
exist among them what has been called a "genius
for hatred " of the rich. " Woe unto you," says
the book of Enoch, " who heap up silver and gold
and say, We are growing rich and possess all we
desire." "Your riches shall not remain for you,
but shall suddenly disappear ; because you have
gained all unjustly, and you yourselves shall re
ceive greater damnation."2
Into this social environment of embittered
poverty and cultivated hate, with no solution
1 Rogge (op. cit.), s. 34, with many illustrative citations.
2 Enoch xcvii. 8 ff.

THE RICH * 207
at its command for the paradox of poverty and
piety, enters the new comprehensiveness of the
teaching of Jesus. Prosperity, he preaches, is
no sign of Divine acceptance ; on the contrary, it
is one of the most threatening obstructions of the
spiritual life. The desire of the nation, therefore,
should be turned altogether away from the thought
of wealth as a sign of piety, or of poverty as a sign
of Divine disfavor. Let the poor take heart again.
They have no reason to envy or to hate the rich.
Let them rather realize how hard it is for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom. There is but one
supreme end for the life of rich and poor alike, —
the service of the kingdom ; and there is but one
fundamental decision for all to make, — the deci
sion whether they will serve God or Mammon.
In short, in striking contrast with the tradition
and literature of hate with which he was un
doubtedly familiar, Jesus surveys the relation of
the rich and the poor from above, in the light
of his ideal of the kingdom ; and a new sense of
hope and self-respect springs up in many a per
plexed and questioning mind as Jesus summons
it to a way of life of which neither wealth nor
poverty is the key, and of which, on the other
hand, neither wealth nor poverty is an absolute
obstacle. "Lay not up," he says, "for yourselves
treasures upon the earth, ... for where thy treas
ure is, there will thy heart be also." 1
Thus the teaching of Jesus is, in one sense, extra-
1 Matt. vi. 19, 21.

208 JESUS CHRIST *AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
ordinarily detached from the problem of social
distinctions and commercial prosperity. Jesus is
not a social demagogue ; he is a spiritual seer.
He is not concerned with the levelling of social
classes, but with the elevating of social ideals.
He welcomes a life for its own sake, not for its
circumstances of wealth or of poverty. Does
this characteristic of the teaching of Jesus, how
ever, render his message to the rich as a special
class any less distinct or solemn or profound ?
On the contrary, out of his fragmentary utter
ances and occasional parables there issues a teach
ing quite as radical in its character and quite as
searching in its demands as any modern arraign
ment of wealth, but with a touch of wisdom and
a balance of judgment which make it a teaching,
not for a special age or class, but for all condi
tions and all times.
The scattered utterances of Jesus about the
problem of wealth fall into two distinct classes.
On the one hand is the series of sayings which
deal with the faithful use of one's possessions ;
and, on the other hand, are the passages which
plainly demand the abandonment of such posses
sions. In the parables, for instance, of the talents 1
and of the pounds,2 as in the stories of the unjust
steward 3 and of the foolish rich man,4 there seems
to be indicated, not the intrinsic evil of wealth,
but the duty of fidelity, watchfulness, and fore-
1 Matt. xxv. 14-30. 8 Luke xvi. 1-13.
2 Luke xix. 13-27. 4 Luke xii. 16-21.

THE RICH 209
sight in administering wealth. " Watch therefore,
for ye know not the day nor the hour."1 "This
night is thy soul required of thee." a " Well done,
good and faithful servant." 3 " If therefore ye
have not been faithful in the unrighteous mam
mon, who will commit to your trust the true
riches ? " 4 In such passages money appears to be
regarded as a test. Faithfulness in the few things
prepares for mastery over the many things. The
mammon of unrighteousness may make friends
who will receive one into the everlasting taber
nacles. The same teaching is conveyed in that
doctrine of cumulative returns which appears in
the parable of the talents.5 Jesus is here as far
as possible from the position of a social leveller.
He discerns with extraordinary clearness the inevi
tably cumulative results of the wise use of pos
sessions, and announces a law of distribution,
which is not only fundamentally opposed to the
programme of the modern revolutionist, but is also
far more in accord with the method of nature.
" For unto every one that hath shall be given,
. . . but from him that hath not, even that which
he hath shall be taken away." 6
On the other hand, there remains a class of
passages which no softened interpretation can
render as teaching anything less than the abne
gation of possessions. "Whosoever he be of you
that renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot
1 Matt. xxv. 13. * Matt. xxv. 21. 6 Matt. xxv. 14-30.
2 Luke xii. 20. 4 Luke xvi. 11. 6 Matt. xxv. 29.
p

210 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
be my disciple."1 "Sell all that thou hast, and
distribute unto the poor, . . . and come, follow
me;"2 and "they left all, and followed him."3
" Thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things,
and Lazarus in like manner evil things : but now
here he is comforted, and thou art in anguish." 4
Concerning some passages of this nature, it may be
with justice urged that these absolute commands
seem to have been laid, not on all men, but on that
immediate group of disciples who were bidden in
a peculiar degree to share their Master's wander
ing life, and to detach themselves from the ties of
business and home. Further, in the case of Dives
and Lazarus, it is not unreasonable to infer that
there must have been more involved in the original
contrast of their destinies than a mere distinction
of prosperity and pauperism.6 Even if Dives be
condemned to anguish simply because he is rich,
it is not easy to believe that Lazarus should be
taken to heaven for no other reason than because
he was poor. Yet, after all possible mitigation
has been thus proposed for the severity of such
sayings, there remains in many of them an unmis
takable note of renunciation.
The most conspicuous instance of this motif of
renunciation is in the touching interview of Jesus
with the rich young ruler ; 6 an incident recorded
at length in all the first three gospels, as though
1 Luke xiv. 33. 2 Luke xviii. 22. 8 Luke v. 1 1 .
4 Luke xvi. 25. 6 Rogge, s. 66.
6 Matt. xix. 16-22 ; Mark x. 17-23 ; Luke xviii. 18 ff.

THE RICH 211
specially treasured among the early tradition of
the Master's words. This young man is both
impulsive and reverent. First he runs to Jesus,
and then he kneels before him, and Jesus, looking
on him, loves him.1 It is a beautiful meeting of
fair, frank youth with a wise, calm teacher; an
offering of spontaneous loyalty on the one hand
and an immediate impulse of affection on the
other. Yet the charm of the youth does not
soften in any degree the judgment of the Teacher.
On the contrary, precisely because he loves him
Jesus demands of him a great renunciation. One
thing stands between that winsome youth and his
service of the kingdom. It is his wealth. What
can one who loves him propose but a heroic rem
edy ? It is a case where alleviating treatment
must fail, and where the wise physician must with
apparent cruelty counsel a capital operation. It is
a situation familiar in modern life. A young man,
well born and well bred, winsome and gallant, is
withheld from the effective use of his life by the
weight of his possessions. If he could only forget
that he was rich and give himself to strenuous
work, he might do gallant service. If some dra
matic summons like that of an actual war is heard
by him, the follies of his luxury and self-indulgence
drop away from him, and he becomes the most
enduring and daring of soldiers. Meantime, how
ever, here he is, with hardly a fair chance for a
useful life, turning play into work, and sinking into
1 Mark x. 21.

212 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
a false and foolish estimate of life and happiness.
What hope is there for such a young man except
through some radical change, curative though
cruel, like the surgeon's knife ? It was thus that
Jesus, loving the young ruler, demanded much of
him ; and one can imagine the loving pity with
which Jesus, when the young man shrank from the
only operation which could save him, "looked
round about, and saith unto his disciples, How
hardly shall they that have riches enter into the
kingdom of God I"1
Here, then, in the teaching of Jesus, are two
views of wealth which are apparently in conflict,
— the thought of wealth as a trust to be used
and the thought of wealth as a peril to be escaped;
the physician's prescription for social health, and
the surgeon's remedy from spcial death. Does
this variation indicate any inconsistency or ambi
guity in the teaching of Jesus ? On the contrary,
the very essence of his message to the rich is to
be found in its twofold quality. It is not impossible
for Jesus to unite severity with love. He per
ceives with perfect distinctness that the most
immediate and insidious peril to the Christian life
is to come from the love of money. Vulgarity,
ostentation, envy, ambition, self-conceit, mate
rial standards of happiness — the qualities which
make people unspiritual, unteachable, unresponsive
to the light — are the attendants of the god Mam
mon. The issue is therefore undisguised. No
1 Mark x. 23.

THE RICH 213
man can serve two masters ; no man can have two
Gods. The service of the kingdom demands the
whole of a man, his possessions as well as his
mind and heart. The teaching of Tesus permits.,
in no case the sense of absolute ownership. No
man can say, "Is it not lawful for me to do
what I will with mine own ? " 1 A man does not
own his wealth, he owes it. Precisely as a busi
ness man says to himself, I must invest and
distribute a certain sum with special scrupulous
ness because I administer it as a trustee, under a
law which demands of me a special reckoning, so
the disciple of Jesus acts in all concerns of his life
as a servant who has heard the great word, " Be
ye also ready : for in an hour that ye think not the
Son of man cometh."2
If, then, such a listener to the teaching of
Jesus has to confess to himself that he is in any
degree owned by his money, if the thought of
trusteeship tends to fade and the thought of a
right to his possessions has crept in, if he is ex
cusing the unrighteous gain of money by the
benevolent use of money, or if he has come to a
tacit contract with his soul that his superfluous
means shall be the Lord's, and that with the rest
he may say, " Soul, thou hast much goods laid up
for many years ; take thine ease, eat, drink, be
merry,"3 — then, according to the teaching of
Jesus, the absolute and immediate renunciation of
wealth is better than any self-deception. "It is
1 Matt. xx. 15. 2 Luke xii. 40. 8 Luke xii. 19.

214 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
profitable for thee that one of thy members should
perish, and not thy whole body go into hell." l " For
what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world,
and lose or forfeit his own self?"2 In short, the doc
trine of Jesus is one of solemn alternatives, in the
presence of which each man must test the secrets
of his heart. Is he able to look up into his Lord's
face at some sudden coming and say, " Thou deliver
edst unto me five talents : lo, I have gained other
five"?3 Then his wealth has been his friend to lead
him into the eternal tabernacles ; and the Owner
of his wealth welcomes him with the word, " Enter
thou into the joy of thy Lord." 4 Or must there
be, on the other hand, a hiding from so search
ing a judgment, as of one who has worshipped
another god and has left his trust uninvested
and unfruitful ? Then the quicker and the more
rudely the altar of Mammon is overthrown, the
safer is that man from the overwhelming rebuke,
" Cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer
darkness : there shall be the weeping and gnash
ing of teeth."5
Let no one fancy, then, that in translating this
twofold teaching of Jesus into the language of the
modern world he can make of it a more moderate
or more tolerant message to the rich than the
coarser utterances and more radical programmes
of modern agitation. Jesus does not sentimen
talize about the duties of wealth ; he sets forth
1 Matt. v. 30. 2 Luke ix. 25. 8 Matt. xxv. 20.
4 Matt. xxv. 21. 6 Matt. xxv. 30.

THE RICH 215
with tranquil severity the alternatives which lie
before the rich. If in any case riches obstruct
the complete dedication of the life, then Jesus has
no objection to offer to the most sweeping of
modern demands for the abolition of rich men.
Indeed, he goes beyond most of these demands.
The modern attack on wealth would content itself
if the share of profit which falls to the capitalist
class could be greatly reduced. The teaching of
Jesus, however, is not a doctrine of economic
justice and equitable distribution ; he does not ask
of a man a fair proportion of his personal profits ;
he asks the whole of one's gains — and the life
which lies behind the gains — for the service of
the kingdom ; and the problem of economic dis
tribution expands in his teaching into the greater
problem of spiritual regeneration and preparedness.1
Such is the message of Jesus to the rich. He
does not present a scheme of economic rearrange
ment ; he issues a summons to the kingdom. He
confronts a man, not with the problem of his com
mercial rights, but with the problem of his own
soul. To many a man, ensnared in the complex
and intense conditions of modern life, to many a
man and woman tempted almost beyond their
strength by self-indulgence, narrow interests, and
practical materialism, the message of Jesus comes
1 See the passage in Paulsen, " Ethik," s. 69, " Wealth is of no
worth to the Christian. . . . But wealth is not only without worth ;
it is a peril. Property is in itself not a sin, but to the property-holder
it is an immense peril."

2l6 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
with convincing force. Such persons know well
that it is hard for those who have riches to enter
into the kingdom. They know how difficult it is
to maintain religious ideals, genuine simplicity, and
breadth of sympathy among the exotic and artifi
cial circumstances of a prosperous life. They see
how frequently the possession of riches becomes a
curse, and how often the children for whom the
father has labored are but the worse for the
abundance which he has secured, as though they
had asked him for bread and he had given them
a stone. They have to confess that it is easier for
the poor than for the rich to be poor in spirit. Such
persons, however, when they look once more at the
world of modern life, observe that the stern demand
of Jesus is sometimes met ; that — here and there —
riches are deliberately and consistently held as a
trust from God, and the way of service is made broad
and straight through the ministry of wealth ; and
they recognize the wisdom of Jesus, when, having
said so unreservedly, " How hardly shall they that
have riches enter into the kingdom of God ! " 1 he
is still able to say of the man who had faithfully
used his many talents, " Blessed is that servant,
... Of a truth I say unto you, that he will set
him over all that he hath." 2
If, then, on such terms there is a place in the
kingdom for the rich, one is led to ask, finally, how
wealth, thus regarded as a trust, may be legitimately
used. Does the teaching of Jesus give any indica-
1 Luke xviii. 24. " Luke xii. 43, 44.

THE RICH 217
tion of those employments of money which make
for the purposes of the kingdom ?
There seem to be at least three ways in which
•Jesus welcomes the ministry of wealth as a part of
{Christian service. First, there is the use of wealth
;in almsgiving. " Distribute unto the poor, and thou
shalt have treasure in heaven." x It is important,
however, to note that almsgiving, though assumed
by Jesus to be a habit of his followers, does not
receive from him a high place among Christian vir
tues. Jesus takes for granted that the consecration
of life will lead to the distribution of possessions ;
but he gives his chief attention, not to the stimu
lating of almsgiving, but to the correcting of its
mistakes and of the false estimate of value often
attached to it. Almsgiving must be free from os
tentation. " But when thou doest alms, let not thy
left hand know what thy right hand doeth."2 Ac
ceptable almsgiving must be measured, not by the
amount of the gift, but by the cost of the gift to the
giver. "Verily I say unto you, This poor widow cast
in more than all they which are casting into the
treasury. " 3 Jesus himself, so far as the record shows,
gave no alms, unless it can be accounted almsgiv
ing to feed the multitude that they might be atten
tive to his spiritual message. In the wonderful
picture of the Judgment, 4 the commendation of the
righteous is not bestowed because they distributed
of their abundance to the poor, but because they
1 Luke xviii. 22. 3 Mark xii. 43.
2 Matt. vi. 3. 4 Matt. xxv. 35 ff.

2l8 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
gave of their personal service to the stranger, the
prisoner, and the sick. While, therefore, it is true
that almsgiving is accepted by the teaching of Jesus
as a self-evident characteristic of his service, it has
in itself nothing of that primacy among the virtues
which through a great part of Christian history
has been attributed to it, and which has made
it often a sufficient cover for a multitude of
sins. Very different from the teaching of Jesus con
cerning expenditure in almsgiving are his allusions
to a second use of money, — its ministry to hap
piness and to beauty. It is only here and there
in the gospels that the sense of the beautiful
finds expression in the sombre and strenuous life
of Jesus, as slanting sunbeams strike through a
clouded and threatening day ; but when these
rare flashes of aesthetic pleasure slant thus through
his teaching they illuminate a side of his charac
ter which has been from many devout Christians
almost concealed. Jesus looks about him, at the
birds of the air and the lilies of the field, and the
sheer prodigality and loveliness of their lives make
them fit illustrations of the method of God. Jesus
sits among the happy guests at a wedding feast and
enters joyously into the festive spirit of that scene.
He is called a winebibber and publican because he
does not sternly shun occasions of genial hospi
tality and happy companionship. More impres
sively still his appreciation of non-utilitarian
expenditure is exhibited in the story of the woman

THE RICIJ- 219
with the box of ointment," — a story which fastened
upon the minds of those who heard it so strongly
that it appears in various connections in all four
gospels.1 The incident presented a clear issue
between the use of money for imaginative symbol
ism and the use of money for almsgiving. The
disciples " had indignation, saying, To what pur
pose is this waste ? For this ointment might have
been sold for much, and given to the poor." 2
Jesus, however, perceives that there are other needs
of human life to be considered besides mere main
tenance of life. "Man shall not live by bread
alone." 3 As the woman pours out her prodigal
offering it is as if in answer to the deep human
demand for the beautiful, the suggestive, the sac
rificial ; and Jesus greets her gift as he greeted
the beauty of the lilies, with their suggestion of
that Divine completeness which he desired to reveal.
"Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel
shall be preached in the whole world, that also which
this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a
memorial of her."4 Here is the charter of all
undertakings which propose in the name of Christ
to feed the mind, to stir the imagination, to quicken
the emotions, to make life less meagre, less animal,
less dull. " The limit of luxury," a modern worker
among the poor has remarked, "is the power of
1 Matt. xxvi. 7 ; Mark xiv. 3 ; Luke vii. 37 ; John xii. 3.
Compare Stopford Brooke, "Christ in Modern Life," Sermon
XVIII, " Art Expenditure."
2 Matt. xxvi. 8, 9. 8 Luke iv. 4. * Matt. xxvi. 13.

220 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
sharing." l Expenditure of wealth on art, on edu
cation, on music, on the opening of the resources
of nature to the weary life of cities, on the eman
cipation of mankind from commercial standards,
on the provision of humanizing and symbolic ways
of pleasure, — is not only justified through its ele
vating and educative effect, but it rests also on
the explicit authority of the teaching of Jesus
Christ. It is not always better to spend for such
ends than to give to the poor, but it is equally
legitimate. The Christian life would be meagre
indeed if it could offer no welcome to the unre
flecting and spontaneous sacrifice of the heart.
Both of these services of money, however, — its
benevolent and its aesthetic use, — recognized as
they are by Jesus, are subordinated in his teaching
to a third use which receives from him repeated '
commendation. One is almost startled to discover
that this most Christian employment of posses
sions is simply their scrupulous and honorable use
in that special work which one is called upon to do.
The Christian world has become familiar with a
double standard of ethics. It has refrained from
scrutinizing closely the methods by which men
get their money, and has reserved its judgment
for the methods by which they spend their money.
A man in the world of affairs may engage in
questionable occupations or undertakings if he
redeems himself by the consecration of his spoils.
The world's work, it is often felt, demands one
1 Barnett, " The Service of God," p. 99.

THE RICH 221
standard of business, and what is described as
" Christian work " demands another standard.
The service of Mammon brings such large re
turns that it may come to seem contributory to
the service of God. Probably nothing so degrades
the Christian religion in the view of men of the
world as the conformity of Christian churches or
Christian believers to this doctrine of ethical bi
metallism. To see a man of the double standard
accepted among the saints and a distinction per
mitted between the principles of the business
world and of the Christian Church, is enough to
drive from the influence of religion many a man
who has no rule of life but to be consistent and
incorruptible in his daily work. He cannot believe
that a debased coinage is valid for religious use.
With this judgment of men of affairs the teach
ing of Jesus precisely coincides. Jesus has noth
ing but condemnation for the divided life. The
fundamental principle of his teaching about wealth
is the principle that there cannot be two masters
or two gods. His severest sayings are directed
against the hypocrites, who in their business " de
vour widows' houses," and in the synagogues
"make long prayers."1 Consistency is, to Jesus,
the beginning of the Christian life. His judg
ment, therefore, is not primarily pronounced on
a man as he is praying or giving alms or per
forming what are technically called religious du
ties, but as the man is engaged in his common,
1 Mark xii. 40.

222 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
unsanctified, daily business. The pictures of the
religious life which the gospels most frequently
present are drawn from scenes of the commercial
world. A man, going into another country, calls
his servants and delivers unto them his goods.1
A nobleman calls his ten servants and gives them
ten pounds, saying, "Trade ye herewith till I
come."2 A man leaves his home and gives "au
thority to his servants, to each one his work,"
commanding also "the porter to watch."3 A man
plants a vineyard and lets it out to husbandmen,
" that he might receive from the husbandmen of
the fruits of the vineyard."4 Who are these ser
vants, these traders, these porters, these vine
dressers ? They represent the persons whom
Jesus desires for his disciples ; and they are per
forming precisely that kind of service which he
wishes his disciples to render. Who, on the other
hand, are the persons who receive from him his
most solemn warnings or most terrific condemna
tion? They are the servants who neglect their
trust ; 5 the porter who sleeps at his post, 6 the
husbandmen who fancy there is to be no reck
oning, 7 the trader who deals with his Lord's
money less scrupulously than he would with his
own.8 " Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,
thou wicked servant."9 "What therefore will
the lord of the vineyard do ? he will come and
1 Matt. xxv. 14. 4 Mark xii. 2. 7 Mark xii. I-II.
2 Luke xix. 13. 6 Matt. xxv. 24-30. 8 Luke xix. 20-24.
8 Mark xiii. 34. 6 Mark xiii. 34. 9 Luke xix. 22.

THE RICH 223
destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vine
yard unto others." 1 More characteristic, that is
to say, of the Christian life than the most gener
ous almsgiving or the most suggestive aestheticism
is the manifestation of consistent fidelity in the
conduct of one's own affairs. The first searching
of a man's heart should not concern the Chris
tian distribution of his gains, but the Christian
getting of his gains. The highest commendation
of Jesus is given, not to the munificent alms
giver, but to the faithful steward, the watchful
porter, the scrupulous servant. It was once said
of the Messiah that "his voice should not be
heard in the street " ; but, if we may translate
those words into the language of modern business,
it is precisely " in the street " that the message of
Jesus to the rich is delivered; and no self-decep
tion of the prosperous can be greater than the
belief that this judgment of Jesus on the con
duct of one's daily business can be mitigated or
transferred. Who, then, is the Christian rich man ? It is he
who recognizes that in the management of his
wealth he is in the presence of a constant and
subtle temptation ; that, as Jesus said, there is in
the nature of increasing wealth a peculiar quality
of "deceitfulness," so that the money which is at
first one's servant is at any moment likely to
become one's master. The Christian rich man
knows well that it is hard for him to enter the
1 Mark xii. 9.

224 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
kingdom of God. He observes the characters of
many men shrivel in the flame of prosperity. He
sees that conditions of luxury, ease, and lack of
the friction of life contribute to a slackening of
moral fibre. He holds before himself, therefore,
the solemn alternatives of Jesus, — the mastery
of wealth, or the abandonment of it. Thus the
wealth of the Christian rich man becomes to him
a trust, for the use of which he is to be scrupu
lously judged. He administers his affairs with
watchfulness over himself and with hands clean
of malice, oppression, or deceit. He does not hope
to atone for evil ways of making money by osten
tatious benevolence in spending it. He is to be
judged according to his ways of accumulating
wealth as rigidly as for his ways of distributing
wealth. He is not hard in business and soft in
charity, but of one fibre throughout. His busi
ness is a part of his religion, and his philanthropy
is a part of his business. He leads his life, he is
not led by it. His five talents produce other five.
And who is the Christian rich woman ? It is she
who finds it not impossible to be rich in purse and
poor in spirit. She accepts her opportunity watch
fully. She knows herself a servant of whom much
is required. In the midst of a world of foolishness
and vanity she maintains simplicity and good sense.
She is equally at home among the rich and the
poor. No severer test of the Christian life than
this can be proposed for any woman, and no fairer
type of character is to be met than that which

THE RICH 225
issues from such a test, having passed through the
needle's eye. If Jesus Christ should come again,
he would know what it has cost a man to put under
his foot the lust of riches, or a woman to keep her
heart clean from the temptations of self-indulgence.
Into the homes of such men and women, however
splendid their homes may be, Jesus would enter
gladly, as he entered the home of Zacchaeus or
that of Martha and Mary. On such a man, on
such a woman, he would look with a peculiar love,
as he looked on the young man with great posses
sions. The conflict with Mammon has prepared
for such a soul the way to eternal habitations.
The servant stands ready for the Master's reckon
ing, and the Master comes and says : " Well done,
. . . enter into the joy of thy Lord."

CHAPTER V
THE TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING THE CARE OF
THE POOR
TOjen shall the righteous ansfoer him, gaging, ILorB, tofjensafo foe
tljee an hungereB, ano feB thee? or athirst, anB gatie thee orinft?
&nB fohen sain foe tljee a stranger, anB took thee in ? or nalteB, anB
clotfjeo tijee 7 &nB fohen sain foe thee strft, or in prison, ano came
unto thee ? <ano the Sting shall anshier ano sag unto them, Uertlg
I sag unto gou, Inasmuch as ge Din it unto one of these mg brethren,
eben these least, ge Bio it unto me.
When one turns from the problem of the exist
ence of the rich to the problem of the care of the
poor, he enters a region of thought and duty much
more familiar to the follower of Jesus Christ.
From the first days of Christian history until now
the duties of compassion for the unfortunate and
of help for the helpless have been among the ele
mentary virtues of the Christian life. The transi
tion made by the ministry of Jesus in the history
of philanthropy is hardly less remarkable than the
transition made in the history of theology. With
the new thought of God came a new love for man.
The " Caritas " of the Christian was a fundament
ally different quality from the " Prodigalitas " of
the Roman.
This statement, however, must be at once
226

THE CARE OF THE POOR 227
relieved of a common but unjustified form of exag
geration. Modem apologists of Christianity are
in the habit of describing the contrast between
pre-Christian philanthropy and the charity which
followed the teaching of Jesus as a contrast
between absolute darkness and dazzling light, a
revolution in human relationships which for the
first time in history disclosed the meaning of
the great word Love. "The world before Christ
came," it is freely affirmed, "was a world without
love ; " " Egoism was the ruling spirit of antiquity ; "
"The human race had forgotten God ; " " The fam
ily and marriage were only political institutions ; "
" Without the gospel society would have been dis
solved, humanity would have perished hopelessly in
a bottomless abyss ; " " Poverty was considered a
disgrace that could only be endured by low and
bad men."1 These defenders of the Christian re
ligion err through excessive zeal. It is not only
inherently improbable that the virtues of Christi
anity should have been thrust upon a wholly unre
sponsive world, as though a flower stuck into a
sterile soil should come to bloom, but it is also
a superficial scholarship which discovers in the
ancient world no good ground for the sowing of
such virtues.
i Uhlhorn, "Christian Charity in the Early Church," 1883, Ch. I ;
Schmidt, "The Social Results of Early Christianity," 1889, pp. 107,
115, 139. See also, for further social apologetics of Christianity,
C. L. Brace, "Gesta Christi," 1884. Compare the more discrimi
nating treatment in Lecky, "History of European Morals," 1870,
Vol. II, Ch. IV.

228 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
On the one hand, the Jewish tradition, which
Christianity inherited, abounded not only in noble
utterances of the sentiment of compassion, but also
in elaborate arrangements for the practical relief
of the poor. "Blessed is he that considereth the
poor;"1 "He that hath pity on the poor, happy
is he ; " 2 " Thou shalt surely open thine hand
unto thy brother, to thy needy, and to thy poor,
in thy land ; " 3 " Is not this the fast that I have
chosen ? ... to deal thy bread to the hungry, and
that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy
house?"4 — these exhortations represent not only
the principles of Old Testament religion, but the
actual conduct of the devout. The Hebrew race,
throughout its entire history, has been endowed
with a peculiar sense of responsibility for its
weaker brethren, and in modern life is excelled by
no element in any community in thoroughness and
munificence of organized charity.5
When, on the other hand, we turn to the Roman
civilization in which the Christian religion found
its expansion and stability, we are confronted, it
must be admitted, by conditions of the gravest
social corruption and moral decline. These ex
cesses of a debauched and decadent aristocracy,
however, do not constitute a complete record of
1 Ps. xii. I. 8 Deut. xv. 1 1.
2 Prov. xiv. 21. 4 Is. lviii. 6, 7.
6 Charities Review, Vol. II, p. 21 ff., F. G. Peabody, "The
Modern Charity-worker " (addressed to the United Hebrew Chari
ties of New York City).

THE CARE OF THE POOR 229
the social life of the Roman world. By fixing
attention on the immorality of the ruling class,
and by utilizing such evidence concerning it as
is contributed by the Satirists on the one hand,
and by the Stoics on the other, it is possible to
describe the social life of Rome as one of the
most flagrant domestic looseness and most hope
less social decadence. The historical romances
which reproduce these conditions of the Augus
tan age join with the apologists of Christianity
in portraying this moral bankruptcy, and the
collapse of Roman power through loss of moral
virility is the most solemn proof which history
provides that righteousness alone exalteth a peo
ple. Yet such a judgment, if passed upon the
mass of Roman life, would be as extravagant
as a judgment of American civilization derived
from the literature and the newspapers which
find their material in the follies and sins of the
luxurious, pleasure-hunting, and unbridled rich.
Beneath the depravity of Roman aristocracy and
the corruption of Roman government there still
survived, especially in the provincial towns, an
atmosphere of unspoiled social life in which the
ideals of Christianity might naturally unfold.1
1 A just picture of the characteristics of Roman social life may
be derived from Friedlander, " Sittengeschichte Rom's," 6. Aufl.,
1888-1890, esp. Ill, 514 ff. ; Keim, " Rom und das Christentum ";
Mommsen, " History of Rome," V, Chs. XI and XII ; Pearson and
Strong, " Juvenal " (Introduction, chapter on Roman life) ; Reville,
" La Religion a Rome sous les Severes " ; Coulanges, "The Ancient
City," 1884; Church, "The Gifts of Civilization," 1880, 147 ff.

23O JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Conclusive evidence of this survival may be de
rived, for example, from the monuments which
recalled the virtues of the dead. At the very
period when licentiousness and brutality were cor
roding the life of the luxurious, these silent wit
nesses testify that in the great body of the popu
lation a way of life still prevailed which was tranquil,
domestic, compassionate, unostentatious and calm.1
It was in this soil of the surviving traditions of
Rome and the still flourishing traditions of Israel
that the philanthropy of the Christian religion
took root. Without such a soil Christian charity
would have been a seed sown by the wayside.
The expansion of the range and depth of philan
thropy accomplished by Christianity was beyond
doubt a mighty transition in the evolution of
human character, but it was not a miraculous
transformation of human character. God had not
left himself without witnesses in the pre-Christian
world. Legal and ostentatious as was the philan
thropy of the scribes and Pharisees, the Hebrew
race still maintained in many devout homes its
national virtue of compassion, and in such a home
Jesus was born. Prodigal as were the vices of
(Civilization before and after Christianity) ; and the striking essay
by Bosanquet on " Paganism and Christianity " in his " Civilization
of Christendom," 1893.
1 E.g. Wilmanns, "Exempla inscriptionorum Latinarum," 1873,
pp. 71, 147, 150, 168, and the touching eulogy of the girl Minicia
Marcella, by the younger Pliny (Ep. V, 16), translated, with a
description of the newly discovered tomb, by Lanciani, " Ancient
Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries," p. 282.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 23 I
Roman rulers, the Roman world had not wholly
abandoned its ancient ways of domestic integrity
and social peace, and among such Roman homes,
in cities of the Roman provinces, there was a wel
come for the missionary preaching of St. Paul.
Yet, if one may fairly call the perfected rose a
different flower from its wayside progenitor, it
remains true that the "Caritas" of the Christian
spirit was a new virtue, with an aroma of its own.
" Christianity," said Mr. Lecky, " for the first time
made charity a rudimentary virtue." 1 It is not,
however, its rudimentariness which gives to Chris
tian philanthropy a peculiar beauty and fragrance ;
it is the scope of its sympathy, the dimensions
of its giving, and its recognition of fellowship
with lives hitherto ignored or rejected by the
world. The worship and the fraternal relations
of the first Christians abound in a quality of com
prehensive tenderness quite unparalleled either
in Rome or in Israel. In the earliest forms of
Christian worship are special prayers for the poor,
the outcast, the prisoners. " Save among us," con
cludes the first epistle of Clement of Rome, " those
who are in tribulation, have mercy on the lowly ;
lift up the fallen ; show thyself unto the needy ;
heal the ungodly ; convert the wanderers of the
people ; feed the hungry ; release our prisoners ;
raise up the weak; comfort the faint-hearted."2
The same spirit of tender and self-effacing service
1 " History of European Morals," II, 84.
2 Lightfoot, " Clement of Rome," Appendix, p. 376.

232 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
is repeated in all the early liturgies, adorns the
conduct of the primitive congregations, and illumi
nates the dark period of theological controversy
in which the first fair visions of the Christian
Church were so soon to be eclipsed. From cen
tury to century this vast enterprise of Christian
charity has expanded with the growth of the
Church ; has atoned for many superfluous or cruel
controversies ; has brightened the sombre history
of monasticism and of the mendicant Orders ; and
has drawn to the influence of the Christian religion
millions of persons who could not have been com
pelled by threats of perdition, but who could not
turn from the witness of love. Never was this
sense of responsibility for the poor so profoundly
felt by the Christian Church as at the present
time. No body of Christians, however humble,
can maintain its self-respect without an elaborate
organization of compassion and relief. The Church
welcomes for itself not only the test of truth, but
the test of public utility. "I by my works will
shew thee," it says, "my faith."1 The giving
and doing of Christians has become a vast and
elaborate form of business. Special churches are
established to be agencies of philanthropic work
as much as places of preaching and prayer. To
many a modern mind which dismisses the claims
of Christianity to dogmatic truth, its maintenance
is abundantly justified as an instrument of human
pity and brotherhood. 1 James ii. 1 8.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 233
To all these manifestations of the Christian
spirit may be added many vast undertakings of
secular charity, which, even when dictated by
social and political prudence, depend for effective
ness in large degree on the extraordinary power of
the Christian tradition. Official relief is tempered
by Christian tenderness, the homes of the poor are
brightened by Christian visitation, and many an
institution or "settlement" from which Christian
teaching is formally excluded is in its effect an
instrument of Christian love. Were it not for the
general acceptance of this Christian teaching of
social responsibility, the burden which the relief
of the poor lays upon the self-supporting would
not be uncomplainingly borne. Few persons re
flect on the enormous sums annually devoted in
all civihzed countries to works of charity. Public
relief in the United States taxes the entire popula
tion not less than two dollars per capita for the
care of the dependent classes ; private benefaction
through societies and individuals probably costs
the community an equal sum ; and when to this is
added the amount contributed by the churches for
their own poor, and for all forms of philanthropic
service, we have a bewildering total to represent
the charity of the present age.1 The same munifi-
1 Details and statistics of charity in the United States are given
in: "Jahrb. fiir Nationalokonomie und Statistik," 1897; C. ^-
Henderson, " Armenwesen in den Vereinigten Staaten Nord Ameri-
ka's " (with many references) ; and in : Conrad, " Handworterbuch
der Staatswissenschaften," 2. Aufl., 1898; F. G. Peabody, art. "Ar
menwesen in den Vereinigten Staaten."

234 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
cence prevails in other Christian countries. A
prodigality of generosity has been reached which
the history of philanthropy has never witnessed
before, and for which the command of Jesus, " Dis
tribute unto the poor," 1 is in a very large degree
responsible. Whatever other teachings of the
gospel may still appear to be impracticable or
Utopian, this one command, it would seem, has
at last become adequately obeyed.
It is precisely at this point, however, where the
Christian conscience might seem to find some
satisfaction, and where at least one social problem
might seem to approach its solution, that the real
problem of charity in its modern form first comes
into view. We have already noticed the eagerness
and absorbing interest with which the modern
social question in all its illustrations turns from
the study of effects to the study of causes, from
the alleviating of conditions to the examination
of those conditions themselves. Here, also, is the
mark of modern charity. This prodigious move
ment of sentiment and compassion is now very
generally observed, not with undiscriminating ad
miration, but with a high degree of suspicion and
criticism. What, it is asked, does this vast enter
prise of Christian generosity in reality accomplish
beyond the selfish satisfaction of the pious givers
and the temporary protection and peace of the
State ? Is it certain that this enormous expendi
ture of sympathy and of money is doing more good
1 Luke xviii. 22.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 235
than harm ? Has the volume of poverty grown
distinctly less ? Is this prodigality of relief a
matter for self-congratulation and pride, or is it to
be regarded as in many respects a social peril?
Is not a distinguished critic of social tendencies
justified in saying that "the next most pernicious
thing to vice is charity in its broad and popular
sense " ? :
And if this arraignment of the total effect of
modern charity is in any degree just, should it
not be brought with even more severity against
the special charity of the Christian Church ?
Where do hypocrisy and fraud find so many cred
ulous victims as among the pious ? Who are so
emotional in their philanthropy and so hard to
convert to self-restraint and to scientific methods
as the religious people ? Where does divided
effort so often duplicate relief and encourage de
ception as in the schismatic generosity of the
divided Church ? Is it not true that Christian
philanthropy has in large degree utilized charity,
not primarily for the good of the receivers, but for
the good of the givers, " simply and exclusively," as
Mr. Lecky remarks, "for their own spiritual bene
fit" ?2 Was it not this emphasis on almsgiving as
a virtue which soon induced Christians to regard
mendicancy and asceticism as the marks of a saint ;
and must not the monastic system, in spite of all
1 W. G. Sumner, " What Social Classes owe to Each Other,"
1883, p. 157.
2 " History of European Morals," II, 99.

236 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
its noble traits, be described, from the point of
view of social progress, as a colossal mistake ?
Did it not, as Mr. Lecky goes on to say, "with
draw multitudes from all production, encourage a
blind and pernicious almsgiving, encourage habits
of improvidence among the poorer classes, paralyze
all energy, and prove an insuperable barrier to
material progress " ? Are there not still surviving
in many branches of the Christian Church this false
estimate of poverty and this morbid satisfaction in
pious zeal ? Are there not even more radical criti
cisms which open from this reconsideration of
Christian charity ? Should a social order which
has thus failed to eradicate poverty be permitted
further trial ? Is not the continued distinction
of wealth and poverty, which gives to Christian
philanthropy its opportunity, an outright confes
sion that Christianity is a failure ? Is not the
whole work of charity an insult to those who claim,
not a share in the rich man's bounty, but a right
to the rich man's possessions ? Ought there to be
any poor ? Is not this alleviating service of Chris
tian charity rightly described by the modern revo
lutionist as an anaesthetic administered to the poor
to keep them from realizing their condition ?
These questions lead us beyond the problem of
charity to the problem of industrial revolution and
reconstruction, and must be for the moment post
poned. It is enough to notice that in the relief
of the poor we are confronted by the most seri
ous and searching scepticism concerning both the

THE CARE OF THE POOR 237
methods and the spirit of charity as commonly
administered. There must be, it would seem, a
reconsideration of the first principles of Christian
compassion. Is this beautiful and bountiful obe
dience to the instinct of Christian love in which,
as has been believed, the Christian spirit most
perfectly utters itself, on the whole, doing more
good than harm ; and may it not soon be regarded,
as the history of monasticism is now commonly
regarded, as the witness of a splendid mistake, of
which the future will say, as was said of the charge
of Balaklava, that it was magnificent, but not war?
If, then, an issue of this nature presents itself
between the modern conception of social progress
and the common practice of Christian charity,
what are we to conclude concerning the authority
of Jesus as a guide for our philanthropy ? Must
we regard his teaching as unadapted to a scientific
and complex age, the beautiful survival of a remote
and Oriental world ? Is it possible for the poor
man of the present time to receive with gratitude
such a message as, " Be not anxious for your life,
what ye shall eat" j1 and is it any more possible
for the rich man of the present time to obey the
saying : " Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou
away " ? 2 One who would answer these ques
tions cannot content himself with a general im
pression derived from the habits of philanthropy
which have prevailed among the followers of
1 Luke xii. 22. 2 Matt. v. 42.

238 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Jesus, but must return, with closer scrutiny, to
the teaching of Jesus himself ; and such reexami
nation of that teaching discovers it to be by no
means so impracticable as its critics have often
assumed it to be, or so demoralizing as its adhe
rents have often forced it to appear. On the con-i
trary, the teaching of Jesus, when considered, not\
in its letter, but in its dominating spirit, has ex
traordinary applicability to the needs and problems
of modern philanthropy, and provides in itself the
best corrective for those grave errors in charity
which have been committed by Christians in their
Master's name.
As one thus approaches the teaching of Jesus
concerning the care of the poor, he is first of all
struck by its peculiar- tenderness and considera
tion for all who are unfortunate or distressed.
Jesus bears the burden of the poor always on his
heart. When he sends word to the Baptist of
the signs of his ministry, he uses the words of
Isaiah, "The poor have good tidings preached
to them "; 1 and when, again, in Nazareth he
reads the same passage, and "the eyes of all in
the synagogue were fastened on him," he says
of himself, " To-day hath this scripture been ful
filled in your ears."2 Throughout his teaching
Jesus enforces an extraordinary principle of moral
classification. He is amazingly merciful to all
burdened lives, even when those lives are sinful;
and, on the other hand, he is peculiarly severe in
1 Matt. xi. 5. 2 Luke iv. 20, 21.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 239
his judgment of the arrogant, the self-satisfied,
the purse-proud, or the consciously holy. " Come
unto me," says his message of comfort, "all ye
that labour and are heavy laden;"1 "Blessed are
the meek,"2 "the poor in spirit,"3 "ye poor;"4
" Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast
out." 5 The care of the poor is thus a self-evi
dent and elementary part of Christian discipleship.
Such sayings as : " Give to the poor," 6 " Distribute
unto the poor,"7 "The poor ye have always with
you," 8 represent a corollary of the gospel, a way
of life which will necessarily happen as one seeks
the kingdom of God. If the "little flock" of
his disciples obey his teaching they will "give
alms," and make for themselves "purses which
wax not old," for "where your treasure is, there
will your heart be also." 9
It should be observed, however, that in these
beautiful utterances of comprehensive pity, and
these categorical demands for the relief of the
poor, there is not at once indicated the precise
manner in which this relief is to be conveyed.
"Give to him that asketh thee,"10 is indeed a
dictum of the gospel, but the duty it enforces
does not carry with it a positive declaration as
to what one shall give, or with what intention
he shall give, or under what limitation or prin-
1 Matt. xi. 28. 6 John vi. 37. 6 John xii. 8.
2 Matt. v. 5. 6 Matt. xix. 21. 9 Luke xii. 32-34.
8 Matt. v. 3. 7 Luke xviii. 22. 10 Matt. v. 42.
4 Luke vi. 20.

240 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
ciple his giving shall occur. The teaching
of Jesus concerning the poor is, therefore, not
exhausted in this undiscriminating demand for
almsgiving. Many a giver, carelessly distribut
ing to the poor, fancies that he is satisfying thei
demands of Jesus Christ ; and many a more con4
scientious disciple, refusing to be prudent or self-!
controlled in giving, leans on the words of his|
Master, "Give to every one that asketh thee";1!
when in reality these acts, which intend to express i
obedience to the teaching of Jesus, may be abso
lute disloyalty to its true intention. Here, as in
so many other instances, the easy acceptance of
the letter of the gospel obscures the larger doc
trine of the spirit. For the prosperous to imagine
that thoughtless almsgiving satisfies the demand,
" Give to the poor," 2 is as superficial an inter
pretation of the gospel as it is for the poor to
imagine that mendicancy is endorsed by the say
ing of Jesus, "Ask, and it shall be given you."3
The teaching of Jesus, in its essential unity, lies
quite behind these scattered utterances which
seem to encourage heedless and hurtful relief. It
is a teaching which must be drawn, not only from
his many sayings about the poor, but also from his
habitual way of dealing with the poor ; and, thus
collated and summed up, it is a teaching much
more profound, and very much more difficult to
obey, than his followers have been on the whole
inclined to believe.
1 Luke vi. 30. 2 Matt. xix. 21. 3 Matt. vii. 7.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 24 I
In tracing this inner spirit of the teaching of
Jesus there must be first recalled two general
principles of the gospel which have been already
observed as governing the conduct of Jesus to
ward the rich. One of these is his relatively low
estimate of almsgiving as a virtue. He assumes
this form of charity, as we have said, to be a
corollary of the religious life; he is ready with
his praise of the man who can say, " The half of
my goods I give to the poor " ; 1 he even sets
forth as a test of God's acceptance, — not theo
logical correctness or ecclesiastical conformity, —
but loving and humble service. " Come, ye blessed
of my Father," he says, "inherit the kingdom
prepared for you. . . . Inasmuch as ye did it
unto one of these my brethren, even these least,
ye did it unto me." 2 Yet, praiseworthy as Jesus
assumes the habit of almsgiving to be, his allu
sions to it are in many instances not in terms of
commendation, but in terms of solemn warning.
He observes the abuse, the ostentation, and the
commercialism of much which passes as charity.
"When therefore thou doest alms," he says,
" sound not a trumpet before thee ; " 3 " Let not
thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." 4
In the story of the Good Samaritan5 the disbursing
of money for relief appears to be one of the least
important incidents. The priest or the Levite might
have subscribed for the care of the sufferer without
1 Luke xix. 8. 2 Matt. xxv. 34, 40. 8 Matt. vi. 2.
4 Matt. vi. 3. 5 Luke x. 30-36.

242 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
proving himself thereby a "neighbor." The rich
men, "casting their gifts into the treasury," 1 were
viewed by Jesus with a lofty scorn because " these
did of their superfluity cast in unto the gifts," 2 but
his face lighted up with joy when he saw one poor
widow bring an offering which was to be, not com
mercially counted, but spiritually weighed. " Of a
truth I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more
than they all." 3 Meeting, as Jesus did, from day
to day all forms of suffering and mendicancy, there
is no record of his giving alms. When he an
nounced the signs of his ministry he did not
open the book where it is written, "Thou shalt
surely open thine hand unto thy brother ; " 4 he
turned to the greater, though to many a poor
man the less welcome, message of the prophet,
" The poor have good tidings preached to them."6
In the story of the Last Supper there seems to
be, beneath the conversation of the Teacher and
his friends, a difference of mind concerning alms
giving. The disciples, we read, thought, because
Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said to him
"that he should give something to the poor,"6
while in reality it was of something infinitely
removed from almsgiving that Jesus spoke to
Judas. Indeed, it seems probable that the traitor
was more inclined to almsgiving than Jesus, for
it was Judas who, but a few days before, had said
to his Master, " Why was not this ointment sold
1 Luke xxi. I. 8 Luke xxi. 3. 6 Matt. xi. 5.
2 Luke xxi. 4. 4 Deut. xv. n . 6 John xiii. 29.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 243
. . . and given to the poor ? " 1 In short, Jesus
regards almsgiving as a virtue, but as a virtue
demanding constant watchfulness, discipline, and
humility. Charity, in this form, is one of the most
elementary, yet one of the most misleading, traits
of Christian character. Its rank among the vir
tues of the kingdom depends, not upon its munifi
cence, but upon its conveying the spirit of sacrifice
and consecration. " Woe unto you," Jesus goes
so far as to say to the Pharisees, . . . your inward
part is full of extortion and wickedness. Ye
foolish ones, . . . give for alms those things which
are within." 2
The second aspect of the teaching of Jesus — to
be recalled in connection with the problem of charity
as in connection with that of wealth — is the doc
trine of stewardship. What is true of the whole
conduct of life is true of the special duty of benefi
cence. While there are many other possible direc
tions of consecrated activity, that on which Jesus
most repeatedly dwells is the conscientious devo
tion of life to that special trust which the individ
ual finds committed to his hands. Here is a sphere
of charity of which the philanthropist, as a rule,
takes slight account. It is entirely possible to
manifest the scope and beauty of Christian love
without going beyond one's daily business or one's
commercial opportunity. Indeed, the special com
mendation of Jesus, bestowed upon the faithful
servant,3 the diligent steward,4 and the watchful
1 John xii. 5. 2 Luke xi. 39-42. 8 Matt. xxv. 21. 4 Luke xii. 42.

244 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
porter,1 seems to indicate that, to his mind, the
best opportunity for Christian service is provided
by the business of daily life. This is a conception
of business behind which many persons might be
inclined to hide, as though the processes of invest
ing and bartering and employing made up the sum
of Christian benevolence. It is not, however, a
gospel of Mammonism which is taught by the
gospel of Christ. He finds no intrinsic dignity in
buying and selling. He views the world of trade,
on the contrary, from above, in the light of his
clear distinction, " Ye cannot serve God and mam
mon."2 To the self-considering and grasping
man of business he speaks one of his most solemn
warnings, " When ye shall have done all the things
that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable
servants ; we have done that which it was our duty
to do." 3 Stewardship, in the teaching of Jesus, is
not mere shrewdness, or enterprise, or success ; it
is the superadded and uncommercial fidelity which
discovers among the interests of Mammon an op
portunity for the generous and personal service
of God. A business man may so administer his
affairs that they shall be either a social peril or a
social advantage, an obstruction to the general
welfare or a channel of Christian benevolence.
If the business principles to which one conforms
are honorable ; if his dealings with his employees
are just, consistent, and personal ; if he anticipates
the tidal nature of industry and provides for con-
1 Mark xiii. 34. 2 Matt. vi. 24. 8 Luke xvii. 10.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 245
tinuity of employment ; if his prosperity brings
reward to all concerned in procuring it ; if his
adversity is shared by employer with employed,
and the distinction of hands and head is merged in
the corporate responsibility of all, — such a person
may not be known as a philanthropist but merely
as a working-man with whom one wants to work,
and his stewardship may not be charity in its
technical sense, and may, indeed, lose much of its
worth if it becomes tainted with the patronage or
condescension of charity. Yet, even if such con
scientiousness in business is not charity, it at least
makes unnecessary much of what is known as
charity, and corrects, in its own sphere, those
derangements of the business world which bring
as their consequences poverty and the need of its
relief. Thus, the roots of charity lie in the larger
problem of the industrial order, and the most
unquestionable and most effective philanthropy
is to be found in industrial justice, progress, and
peace. The doctrine of stewardship does not ex
clude other ways of caring for the poor, but it
lays as the foundation of judicious charity the
scrupulous administration of one's own business
as a contribution to the kingdom of God.
Nor is this teaching of Jesus for men alone.
Many a woman in the modern world needs to
learn that Christian charity, in a very different
sense from that commonly accepted, begins at
home. It is a mockery of Christian obedience to
be zealous in the care of the poor- who are at a

246 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
distance, and to fail in considerateness to those
who are in one's own employ. It is more unchari
table to yield to the mania for cheapness in one's
commercial purchases, than to refuse alms to a
beggar in the street. To do the latter is to feel
a temporary twinge of personal self -inquiry ; to
do the former is to become in so far responsible
for cheap work, cheap wages, cheap morality, cheap
disease, and death. It is a still graver offence to
obey the saying of Jesus, " Distribute unto the
poor," : and to leave unfulfilled that command of
the apostle, " Owe no man anything." 2 The mark
of the unrighteous steward was that he was set to
render an account for his master,3 and used the
money for spurious philanthropy. The same con
demnation should be passed on one who figures on
subscription lists of charities, and delays the pay
ment of just commercial dues. "These ye ought
to have done, and not to have left the other
undone."4 The doctrine of stewardship has many
branches, but its roots are to be sought in the
elementary opportunities of the shop and the
home. Such are some of the preliminary aspects of
the teaching of Jesus concerning the care of the
poor. It is a teaching which subordinates almsgiv
ing and weighs the general conduct of life. The
teaching has a distinctly modern note. It is in
unison with the precept of organized charity,
1 Luke xviii. 22. 8 Luke xvi. 2.
2 Rom. xiii. 8. 4 Matt, xxiii. 23.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 247
" Not alms but a friend " ; it counts as the first
principles of the relief of the poor, the better
ing of industrial conditions and the abandoning
every form of industrial injustice. Yet that which
seems a modern note is in reality its note of univer
sality. Jesus, here as elsewhere, is looking at the
world from above, with his hope set on the com
prehensive principles of the kingdom of God, and
from this point of view the special problem of the
care of the poor is seen to be, not circumscribed
by schemes of temporary relief, but a part of the
universal problem of • redeeming and renewing
human character. If the mind of Jesus had been
turned from its supreme intention even by his
compassion for the beggars who flocked about his
path, he would have scattered alms among them
with as short-sighted and prodigal a generosity as
many of his modern followers have permitted
themselves in their Master's name ; but being pri
marily concerned with the revelation of God in
the souls of men, Jesus surveys the problem of
charity in its larger relations ; and that broader
horizon of his teaching gives him reserve, sanity,
and comprehensiveness of view.
These preliminary considerations, however, do
not lead to the conclusion that the teaching of
Jesus has no immediate and positive instructions
to offer about the care of the poor. On the con
trary, as one draws nearer to his actual dealing
with specific cases of relief, and observes his con
duct in its practical details, the word which has

248 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
been preserved to us by the loving hand of Paul
proves itself characteristic of the method of Jesus,
" It is more blessed to give than to receive." 1
These specific instructions issue for the most part
from the second social principle of Jesus, while his
general view of the care of the poor, as we have
just seen, proceeds from his first social principle.
His wisdom in charity comes of his viewing the
problem from above, his method in charity comes
of his approaching the problem from within.
It is difficult to overestimate the significance of
the fact that in the relation of Jesus to the poor
he deals almost exclusively with individuals. He
had compassion, it is true, on the multitudes and
fed them, but this was explicitly announced by him
to be " because they continue with me now three
days and have nothing to eat : and I would not
send them away fasting, lest haply they faint in
the way."2 His compassion for the beggars, the
blind, the poor, the sick, is, almost invariably, an
individualized, painstaking pity, with special adap
tation to each separate case. It does not seem
to occur to him that he might multiply the effect
of his power, and by a single effort heal or com
fort many. He knows no other way of relief than
that the giver should put himself in loving and
vital relation with the receiver, and establish the
contagion of the strength-communicating life.
The summary of this teaching of individualized
relief is to be found in the story of the Good
1 Acts xx. 35. a Matt. xv. 32.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 249
Samaritan,1 — a story of such exquisite complete
ness that one is tempted to study it as a work of
art and to prize each phrase as a separate gem.
The fundamental beauty of the story, however,
lies in the setting of all these details round one
central lesson. The lawyer, after quoting from
the earlier social legislation the saying, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, " 2 goes on
to ask from Jesus an interpretation of this law
of friendliness. Jesus replies that the test of
friendship is in the painstaking quality, the wise
adaptation, and the continuity, of friendly service.
There lies by the roadside what modern charity
would describe as a " case," a stranger, stripped,
half dead, and in need of a friend. Neither the
priest nor the Levite, it may be believed, are
brutal. They hurry by because they know that
the friendship which the case demands means an
expenditure of more time and trouble than they
can afford. Both are on their way to important
duties. Either of them would gladly report the
" case " to the proper authorities at Jerusalem, but
their own time and their own personal service
are precisely what they cannot spare, and they
pass by on the other side. The Samaritan also
is in haste. Up that hot and shadeless valley
he is driving his beast, laden with oil and wine
for the Jerusalem bazaars. His compassion, how
ever, conquers his prudence. He halts, goes to
the stranger, assuages his wounds, lifts him on
1 Luke x. 30-35. 2 Lev. xix. 18.

250 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
his own beast, brings him to a wayside inn, pro
vides for his care, and gives assurance that he
shall not be forgotten. Nothing can describe
with more precision the exact programme which
scientific charity has by degrees worked out to
guide the visitation of the poor — first, friendly
compassion, then the relief of temporary necessity,
then the transfer of the case to restorative con
ditions, finally the use of money, not as alms for
the helpless, but to maintain continuity of relief.
It was to the " host," not to the " case," that
the "neighbour" gave his money, saying, "Take
care of him ; and whatsoever thou spendest more,
I, when I come back again, will repay thee." 1
Here is a method of relief which may appear
elementary and archaic among the vast organiza
tions and instrumentalities of modern charity.
It may seem as if this simplicity of method
could have no place in the complex conditions of
modern life. This view, however, was precisely
the view of individualized charity which was, in
all probability, held by the Pharisee and the
Levite. They too were involved in so many and
such serious interests, that the help of the help
less must of necessity be deputed to others, and
they trusted for the provision of relief to the
elaborate organizations of charity which existed
in their nation. The chief obstacle, that is to
say, to Christian charity, now as then, is the pre
occupation of the individual with his own affairs
1 Luke x. 35.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 25 I
and the consequent dependence upon impersonal
methods of relief ; and the reform in method
now proposed in the name of scientific charity
is, in reality, nothing else than a return to the
principles of the Good Samaritan.
Two words sum up the change of method advo
cated at the present time by scientific charity.
The first word is classification ; the second is anti-
institutionalism. In the first place, it is observed
that the relief of the poor under modern conditions
has become too complicated and varied an affair
to be dealt with in any single way. In the homo
geneous social life which once prevailed in small
and isolated towns, charity was simply the helping
hand of a neighbor held out to the unfortunate or
disabled by his side. In the great modern city,
on the other hand, charity deals with many dis
tinct types ; and a method which deals with these
types indiscriminately leads to social demoraliza
tion and disaster.1 Of such distinct types the
most conspicuous are three. In the first place
there are what may be called the " can't-works,"
the aged, sick, and defective, who must receive
gentle and continuous consideration ; in the sec
ond place there are the " out-of-works," able to
labor but temporarily unemployed, for whom work
must be found ; and to these two separate classes
must be added as a third and distinct type the
" won't-works," the professionally idle, vagrant,
1 Charities Review, March, 1897, F. G. Peabody, " The Modern
Charity-worker."

252 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
mendicant poor. To deal with these three types
under one method is to do harm to all. To house
the worthy poor with criminals is to insult them ;
to provide the out-of-works with alms instead of
with work is to degrade them ; to maintain the
won't-works in idleness is to become responsible
for the permanence of a vagrant class. Classifica
tion, the discrimination of types, flexibility and
adaptability of method, — these are the elementary
principles of scientific charity. Pity for one type,
work for another, correction for the third, must be
offered ; and these three distinct demands call for
three distinct ways of administration. The non
effective and the willingly idle must not be per
mitted to hang about the necks of those who have
both the capacity and the desire to rise. The move
ment of social life is like the movement of an
army in the field. There is the march of the
effective troops, and there is also the merciful
attendance of the Red Cross nurses, caring for the
wounded, tending the sick, and mitigating the
hardships of battle. One cannot say that nursing
is less noble or less essential than fighting; but
one must say that it ought not to impede or em
barrass the fighting capacity of the army. After
all, the campaign must be fought through, not
nursed through ; and the central problem is not to
relieve those who fall by the way, but to maintain
the fighting army in effectiveness and discipline.1
1 Charities Review, July, 1897, F. G. Peabody, " Developing the
Up-draught."

THE CARE OF THE POOR 253
Here enters the second principle of charity
reform, — that of anti-institutionalism. Institu
tions are almost necessarily undiscriminating in
method. They deal with masses of poverty
under general rules of administration, and even if
the mass be of varied stuff when it enters the
institution, it is likely to be, when it comes out,
of one type, and that the lowest. The levelling
effect of institution life is peculiarly threatening,
as we have already noted in speaking of the
family, to the character of children. To throw
the infinitely varied types of childhood, good and
bad, promising and depraved, into the uniformity
and homelessness of an institution is to level the
best with the worst, and to lessen in all the
spirit of self-control and personal initiative.
"The institution boy," said one of the most ob
servant students of child life, " makes the poorest
kind of apprentice. He is saved from becoming
a tough to become an automaton." 1 A good
institution is, it is true, better than a bad home;
but while on that account institutions must exist
for the rescue of the degraded, it is precisely this
contact with the degraded which threatens the
morals of the better type. Thus, for children
first of all, and as far as possible for all cases of
need, the hope of permanent amelioration of life
lies in the escape from mass treatment and in the
adaptation of relief to the individual case. The
right place for a child is in a home, where he can
i J. A. Riis, "The Children of the Poor," 1892, p. 277.

254 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
be dealt with as a separate individual ; and right
relations with any home or any life among the
poor can be established only as each case is
approached as a new problem, making a new de
mand on the giver's insight, patience, and love.
The vast and costly experiments which have
been undertaken in wholesale relief have brought
us at last to the most elementary principles.
The new charity proceeds from consolidation to
individualization. The elevation of the poor is
not to be accomplished by mechanical devices of
legislation or organization, as though poverty were
a solid mass under which social jack-screws might
be inserted to lift the whole ; it is to be accom
plished only as one life reaches down and lifts up
another life by the communication of strength
and the contagion of personality. Individualiza
tion of relief, in other words, means simply that a
busy man or woman of the modern world halts,
lifts, tends, cares for, and is continuously respon
sible for that definite person who must be cared
for or redeemed. The last word of scientific
poor-relief is a reiteration of the teaching of
Jesus. Why is it, then, it may be asked, that this natu-j
ral and Christian method of relief has been so1
largely supplanted by complex and vicarious ar
rangements of charity, so that, instead of being
neighbors to a poor man, we are subscribers to a
society for his relief ? It is obviously because the
Christian ideal of social service demands more

THE CARE OF THE POOR 255
time, thought, and care than we are for the most
part either able or inclined to give. To most per
sons it appears, as it appeared to the priest and
the Levite, impracticable to interrupt the business
of life by personal service of the unfortunate. The
special offering which is demanded — the offering
of one's self — is a gift which is in many instances
already mortgaged to other duties ; and the second
best contribution — that of indirect and deputed
help — seems all that can be made. For many
persons this is a legitimate self-defence. There
are circumstances in many lives where one can
not be at the same time both a faithful steward
and a Good Samaritan. This admission, however,
does not lessen the significance of the teaching of
Jesus. That teaching still enforces the truth that
vicarious, official, institutional relief, however well
administered, is in its very nature a substitute for
that which in a perfected society would be done
by individuals for individuals in the name of Chris
tian love. Impersonal and deputed care, even if
well designed, is but an artificial makeshift for per
sonal and continuous service; and the only justifi
cation of vast and elaborate arrangements of public
and private charity is the proof that they provide
an adequate substitute for that personal offering
which individuals are not prepared to make.1
1 Compare, on this point, the English and the German theories
of poor-relief: Fowle, "The Poor Law," 1881 ; Aschrott, "The
English Poor Law System," 1888, and his "Die Entwicklung des
Armenwesens in England seit dem Jahre 1885," 1898 ; Mackay,

256 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
From this principle of individualization, then, are
to be derived the two corollaries which give to the
relief of the poor its direction and its discretion.
In the first place, it becomes evident that the more
scrupulously this substituted relief is disentangled
from officialism, routine, and anonymousness, and
the more directly it is made an instrument of wise
and loving personality, the nearer it approaches
both to scientific charity and to the teaching of
Jesus. The friendly visitor among the poor,
bringing neither patronage, nor alms, nor self-
consideration, nor religious propagandism, but sun
shine, courage, refinement, employment, patience ;
the social settlement set in the squalor and dul
ness of the great city, not for exhortation or
condescension, but for sheer neighborliness ; the
beautiful union which is sometimes witnessed of
official duty with loving and personal care, — these
are the finest products of modern philanthropy.
We speak, in commercial language, of the "plant"
of a modern enterprise of charity, but the plant of
charity grows for no other purpose than that there
may issue from it the flower of personal devotion.
We devote much time to devising the mechanism
of charity, but that mechanism revolves for no
"The English Poor," 1889; and "Parliamentary Report on the
Elberfeld Poor Law System," 1888 (see the evidence of C. S. Loch,
p. 88 ff., " We cannot have an out-relief policy in London — the
German experience shows. We have not citizenship enough to
administer it ") ; Bohmert, " Armenwesen in 77 deutschen Stadten,"
1886; Miinsterberg, "Die Armenpflege," 1897 ; Forum, December,
1892, F. G. Peabody, " How should a City care for its Poor ? "

THE CARE OF THE POOR 257
other purpose than to communicate the power of
personal love.
The second corollary from the principle of indi
vidualization is still more important. If the
machinery of relief is to be substituted for per
sonal service, it must be so organized as to be a
real, even if not a perfect, substitute. The only
excuse which can justify a prosperous life for
declining in its own person to undertake the part
of the Good Samaritan is, that it has at its com
mand an alternative which is likely to be more
judicious and persevering. When a beggar con
fronts a Christian in the street, there are presented
to the Christian but two alternatives. Either he
must himself, with painstaking and continuous de
votion, deal with the case ; or else there must be
already provided by the community an adequate
substitute for his own time and service. The
third possibility, — that of blank refusal of friendly
aid, — does not present itself to the mind of' any
person who has once heard the great command,
"From him that would borrow of thee turn not
thou away." 1 When a pious giver refuses to dis
miss even the probably fraudulent beggar without
relief, lest here and there one worthy mendicant
shall suffer, that giver is obeying a perfectly legiti
mate instinct. The Good Samaritan asked no
questions of the stranger before helping him.
The word of Jesus, "Give to him that asketh
thee," is a word which modern science must obey.
1 Matt. v. 42.

258 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Obedience to the instinct of compassion, however,
is not inconsistent with common sense. The
demand laid on one to give does not involve
the necessity of foolish giving. Much time and
money may be wisely spent in devising ways of
administration which shall legitimately relieve the
individual from the obligation of personal service.
The problem of judicious relief is not to suppress
the instinct of benevolence, but to redeem that in
stinct from pernicious employment in indiscrimi
nate aid ; and to this end it is absolutely essential
that the substitutes for personal aid which the
organization of charity may offer shall be acces
sible, discriminating, sympathetic, safe, and easy
to understand.
By these steps we are brought to that method
in charity which is most clearly indicated by the
teaching of Jesus. If, as we have seen, it is not
almsgiving which Jesus primarily inculcates, and
if, nevertheless, he desires to establish a personal
relationship between giver and receiver, what is
the special gift which, according to his teaching,
is to pass from the strong to the weak ? It is
the gift of power. The life of Jesus, as it touches
the lives of the degraded, the defective, or the
despairing, communicates to them new courage,
hope, and self-respect. Jesus, when approached
by persons crying for deliverance from some tem
porary trouble, often leaves the trouble itself un
relieved, in order to reach some permanent and
underlying need which they had never dared to

THE CARE OF THE POOR 259
think of satisfying. The blind beggar1 had sat,
it seems, daily on the curb in Jerusalem, where
the devout had tossed him their alms ; and the
beggar had come to hope for nothing more than
that he might receive more alms. Jesus gives him
no alms, but bends over him, anoints his eyes, and
communicates the power of sight for which he
had not asked, so that the man is no more a
beggar, and the people say, " Is not this he that
sat and begged ? " Other blind men cry to
Jesus, " Have mercy on us, thou son of David " ; 2
and again his mercy is shown, not in pity alone,
but in the communication of power. "Believe
ye," he says, "that I am able to do this ?" They
say unto him, "Yea, Lord." And he answers,
"According to your faith be it done unto you."3
It is the same with the compassion of the follow
ers of Jesus.4 The gift of Paul to the impotent
man is not of help to the helpless, but of help
to self-help. " Stand upright on thy feet," 5 says
the apostle, " and he leaped up and walked." The
word of Peter to the palsied man is, " Arise,
and make thy bed."6 With still more accurate
reiteration of their Master's intention Peter and
John meet the man at the Beautiful Gate. He
has been "laid daily at the door of the temple,"7
for no other purpose than to ask alms of those
that entered into the temple, and seeing Peter and
1 John ix. 1-12. 4 Acts ix. 34. 6 Acts ix. 34.
2 Matt. ix. 27. 6 Acts xiv. 10. 'Acts iii. 2.
8 Matt. ix. 28, 29.

260 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
John, "he gave heed unto them, expecting to
receive something from them," but Peter answers :
" Silver and gold have I none ; but what I have,
that give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ
of Nazareth, walk." a In other words, the teaching
of Jesus considers primarily, not a man's apparent
needs, but the man himself. The mind of Jesus
is ever on that kingdom which is to come through
the consecration of personality. In each case,
therefore, the fundamental problem is that of con
verting helplessness, self-distrust, and conscious
incapacity, into the courage, power, and initiative
of a life contributory to the kingdom. Rise;
stand upon thy feet ; open thine eyes ; walk, —
such are the great words of Christian charity.
The gift it desires to impart is not a temporary
contribution of relief, but a permanent increase
of opportunity and capacity. Christian charity is
not the " Prodigalitas " of the classic world ; it is,
"Caritas," the love which, for the sake of others
believeth, hopeth, endureth all things.
This is a teaching most fruitful in its conse
quences for the charity of every age. The relief
of destitution by the provision of food and shelter
still remains a duty of any well-ordered State.
" Every society," as a historian of the English
Poor Law remarks, "upon arriving at a certain
stage of civilization, finds it positively necessary
for its own sake ... to provide that no person
. . . shall perish for want of the bare necessaries
1 Acts iii. 5, 6.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 26 1
of existence." x Such provision of the necessities
of life, however, even when made on the most
liberal terms, does not bring us within the region
of Christian charity. It is simply a political and
social necessity, insuring public peace and decency.
Christian charity begins where political prudence
halts. Its task is not that of quieting the restless
poor by the anaesthetic of relief ; it is the task of
quickening the discouraged life with the stimulant
of individualized love. Christian charity takes
account not merely of conditions, but of capacity.
Its problem is not that of relieving destitution,
but of developing possibilities. Its aim is to con
vert a shut-in, stunted, spiritually defective life
into a healthy, effective, contributory factor of
the kingdom.
Here, then, is the hierarchy of charity. Essen-
itial but most elementary is its maintenance of
'physical life. Food, drink, and shelter are for
the poor, precisely as they are for the prosperous,
essential preliminaries of a humanized life, but,
considered as ends of charity, they are as inade
quate as when, in more luxurious forms, they are
regarded as ends of life by the self-indulgent and
ostentatious rich. A rich man's life consisteth not
in the abundance of things which he possesseth,
and a poor man's poverty does not consist wholly
in the lack of such possessions. Beyond the pro
vision of these necessities in the life of the poor,
as in the life of the prosperous, lies the demand
1 Fowle, " English Poor Law," p. 10.

262 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
for the communication of capacity. The need of
the poor man is not bounded by relief under his
conditions ; he needs also courage to better his
conditions. The aim of charity is to give, not
only comfort, but power; not merely a greater
equality of circumstances, but a greater equality
of opportunity. The problem of the prosperous,
as we have already seen, is to own one's wealth
instead of being owned by it, and to make of
money the instrument of social service ; and with
the same end in view charity should approach the
problem of the poor. How can a life, it asks,
weak, ignorant, and beset by grave temptations,
be endowed with self-mastery and self-respect, and
become an instrument of the kingdom of God ?
Thus, in the hierarchy of charity, above the work
of the food-kitchen and the temporary refuge, is
to be set the elevation of the poor through indus-j
try, in the farm and the shop; through education,-
in the gymnasium and the trade school ; through!
the home, under conditions where a home can be i
realized ; through employment, such as can be fairly J
called a living ; through the glimpse of beauty and '
the purifying of love. Much of the charity most
in vogue even among Christian churches is but
slightly in accord with the teaching of Jesus. It
does not, indeed, give stones when asked for
bread ; but it gives bread when asked for hope,
power, pleasure, life. Man lives indeed by bread,
but not by bread alone. It is no just appreciation
of the poor which leads one to imagine that they

THE CARE OF THE POOR 263
want most of all to be fed. They want, precisely
as the prosperous want, that life which is more
than meat, — the sense of capacity, of joy, of
hope ; and of all the sources of their degradation
the most perilous is the loss of their courage and
faith. " The highest ambition of the beneficent,"
said Mr. Spencer, unconscious perhaps that he was
reiterating the teaching of Jesus, "will be to have
a share — even though an utterly unappreciable
and unknown share — in the making of man." J
How is it then, one may finally ask, that this
quality of power is communicated ? It is communi
cated, answers the teaching of Jesus, not chiefly
by legislation or by organization, but by contagion.
It is not a mechanical, but a vital, force. The
power of Jesus and his disciples to be obeyed
when they say, "Rise, stand upright, walk,"
proceeds from the contagious quality of the good
life. And why is our poor-relief, even when con
scientious and scientific, so often without this
communicative power ? It is because we are not,
as a rule, good enough to do much good. A
stream cannot satisfy thirst if its springs are dry.
The best intention to lift the poor must fail if
there is no lifting power to apply. The poor can
not be pushed up, they must be drawn up. " I,
if I be lifted up from the earth," said the Master,
"will draw all men unto myself."2 The lifting
force of social life is not compulsion, but, like that
of the planetary world, attraction. "If I bestow
1 " Principles of Ethics," II, 433. 2 John xii. 32.

264 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
all my goods," says the apostle, "to feed the poor,
. . . but have not love, it profiteth me nothing."1
Indeed, the goods thus bestowed are likely to be
so foolishly bestowed as to profit the poor also
nothing. In short, the problem of being good
and that of doing good are not two problems, but
one ; and many a disheartening experiment in
well-intentioned charity forces a community or
an individual to a reexamination of their own
hearts. What, then, is Christian charity ? It is certainly
not that haphazard and ostentatious giving which
is seen of men and has its own reward of praise
and self-esteem ; nor is it a prodigal giving for
distant needs, atoning for neglect in one's own
immediate cares ; nor is it emotional compassion
posing as more pious than intelligent method.
Christian charity is, first of all, rational, prudent
and wise. It surveys its problem from above,
with detachment, perspective and horizon. It
begins with its nearest duties of business and
of home. It satisfies itself, not by offering tem
porary relief, but by the permanent elevation of
the level of desires. It is educative, disciplinary,
comprehensive, just. Christian charity, therefore,
deals primarily with the individual. It may em
ploy large methods, but it is not lost in them. It
seeks the one sheep that is lost. Its aim is not
the perfecting of a system, but the saving of a
soul. It looks behind conditions for the person
1 1 Cor. xiii. 3.

THE CARE OF THE POOR 265
who is ensnared in them. It expects, not to make
the world soft, but to make characters strong
enough to live in a hard world: It judges all
undertakings of poor-relief by their contribution
to virility, initiative, and self-help. Its care is
devoted, not to providing crutches for the weak,
but to providing ways in which the weak shall
be able to obey the command, "Rise up, stand
upon thy feet, walk." Finally, Christian charity
finds its instrument for this educative and per
manent relief in the communicative power of
Christian personality. "Only he who has," said
Emerson, " can give, he on whom the Soul de
scends alone can speak." The complex mechan
ism of modern charity is but a medium through
which works with security and effectiveness the
power of a good life. The mechanism of charity
is economic; its motive power is spiritual. The
science of charity is a work of organization, the
sentiment of charity is a work of contagion. The
first step toward doing good is in being good.
The elevation of the poor is retarded by many
'faults of social mechanism, but it is much more
retarded by ignorance, impatience, self-regard and
injustice, in those who help the poor; and one of
the keenest joys of human life is felt by those
who, dismissing great schemes of social improve
ment, give themselves to the patient service of a
few discouraged lives, and discover that power
may be communicated to those lives and may
lift them into self-respect and hope. To these

266 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
self-effacing servants of the common good, Jesus
spoke his most unmeasured praise : " Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom pre
pared for you from the foundation of the world :
Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my breth
ren, even these least, ye did it unto me." 1
1 Matt. xxv. 34, 40.

CHAPTER VI
THE TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING THE INDUS
TRIAL ORDER
2Hje Son of man came not to ht numsteteB unto frat to minister.
In all that has been thus far said of various
social questions there has been a sense of incom
pleteness and fragmentariness, as though in each
case we were dealing with one aspect of a more
inclusive problem. The problem of the family
expanded as it was considered, until it was seen
to involve further issues of economic and social
life; the problems of wealth and of poverty opened
into larger questions of ownership and occupation,
of work and idleness, of the distribution of prod
ucts and the utilization of leisure. Wealth, we
observed, should contribute, first of all, to eco
nomic justice ; charity must provide, first of all,
for economic self-help. Round these inner circles
of social relationship which hold the family and
the community sweeps the larger circle of the
industrial order. If we extend the radius of the
family circle, we enter the sphere where men
meet as employers and employed. If we follow
the circumstances of wealth and poverty out to
their margin, we pass into consideration of the
use, or the misuse, or the incapacity to make
267

268 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
use, of industrial opportunity. The philosophy of
socialism, it is true, grossly exaggerates this truth
when it announces that this relation of concentric
circles is a relation of cause and effect, as though
the key of every social question must be sought in
the industrial problem. The family is more than
an economic unity, and is modified by other mo
tives than those of economic interest ; wealth and
poverty spring from many other causes besides
industrial conditions. Yet it is none the less true
that the industrial question environs like an at
mosphere the whole body of social life. The
integrity of the family is profoundly affected by
economic changes and defects ; wealth and poverty
are inevitable social facts under the prevailing con
ditions of ownership and of industry.
What, then, is this industrial problem in which
all other social questions are thus deeply involved ?
The problem has two aspects. On the one hand
is the form which it assumes, on the other hand is
the spirit which it represents. These two aspects
of modern industry must be carefully distinguished
and may be considered in turn.
The form of the industrial problem has become
determined by the amazing expansion of modern
industrial methods, the vast combinations of em
ployers and of employed, and the enormous prizes
which reward strategy or good fortune. These
characteristics of modern industry have brought
the factors of industry to a situation which appears
not unlike a state of war. The forces of production

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 269
are maintained on a war footing. The modern "cap
tain of industry " is of the same stuff which makes
great generals. He is a farsighted, determined
leader of men, with his mind fixed on a single end,
and with an industrial army at his command.
Over against him are many opposing forces, — the
force of his immediate competitors in business, the
remoter hostility of competing nations, and, more
than all, the spirit of industrial disaffection stir
ring in his own troops and inciting to mutiny. More
and more the industrial world finds itself occupied
by two armed camps, — the force of the employed
combined to meet what seem the aggressions of
the employers, and the force of the employers
combined to resist what seem the unreasonable
demands of the employed. Strikes and lock-outs
are temporary raids across the enemy's frontier ;
organization on both sides disciplines and drills
the contending armies ; industrial arbitration, like
international arbitration, offers itself as a last
substitute for battle ; while, hanging on to the
skirts of the two forces, threatening the employers
with violence, and weakening by its competition
the power of the employed, is that unorganized
and shifting mass which we call the army of the
unemployed. Even international diplomacy is
now concerned quite as much with questions of
industrial warfare as with political issues, and
the treaties, the competitions, and the territorial
expansion of nations have become more and more
the weapons of the warfare of trade.

270 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
If this is a true picture of the competitions of
industry, then the present form of the industrial
question becomes plain. It is a question of ade
quate substitutes for economic war. It is the prob
lem of industrial peace. This peace may be sought
in many ways. Sometimes it is temporarily se
cured by the sheer superior force of one party in the
conflict. Such peace, however, in industrial, as in
political life, is unstable and disturbed. The force
that has been crushed waits for its occasion to
renew resistance. Industrial slavery, like political
slavery, prophesies revolution. Again, industrial
peace is sought by retreating from the field of
industrial conflict into the uncompetitive tranquil
lity of some communistic society, as pious souls in
other days retreated from the conflicts of the world
to the monastic life. Such peace, however, is
even at its best for the few only. The hurrying
world of modern industry passes by these under
takings, as a railway train in Italy sweeps by
some lingering monastery on its secluded height.
Sometimes, again, industrial peace is actually
established within a limited circle, as in the sub
stitution of mutual interest for commercial an
tagonism in the cooperative system. Finally, such
peace is sometimes dreamed of as universal and
permanent, within a cooperative commonwealth
of common ownership and industrial democracy.
All such schemes and dreams assume that the
present war footing of industry, like that of nations,
is both extravagant and unnecessary ; all are wit-

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 27 1
nesses of a widespread desire for industrial dis
armament. The labor movement of the present
day is in its form an industrial peace-crusade.
It may be urged, indeed, that to picture the field
of economic activity as a battle-field is grossly
to misconceive the nature of modern industry.
Employers and employed, it may be pointed out,
are in reality, not hostile forces, but allies and
partners in production. They prosper or suffer
in the end together, and to assume a discord be
tween their interests is not only unjustified, but
suicidal. Is it not, it may be asked, a strange
form of peace-movement which begins by exagger
ating the antagonisms of industry, and proposes as
its end a social revolution which shall completely
abolish the capitalist class ? These are reasonable
criticisms. There is nothing in the nature of
industrial life even under present social conditions
which necessarily involves it in war, or which
forbids the most idyllic relation of mutual confi
dence and affection. Here and there such a rela
tion in industry actually exists, and instead of a
state of war we have an " industrial partnership,"
or an "Institution patronale," or a "Familie ou-
vriere." Such an admission, however, only brings
more clearly before us the real nature of the pre
vailing industrial warfare. It is not an antago
nism which is inherent in economic life. In fact, it
is at bottom not an economic antagonism at all.
Like most declarations of war it proceeds, as a
rule, from unanticipated and emotional causes.

272 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
The industrial conflict of the present day is simply
the form assumed by that profound sense of moral
distrust which is stirring in the hearts of the hand-
working class, and expressing itself in a passionate
demand for industrial justice.
At this point we observe the second aspect of
the industrial question. Its form is determined
by economic conditions, but its spirit expresses a
moral protest. Fifty years ago the great body
of hand-workers were ignorant and unobservant ;
now they have eaten of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge and their eyes are opened. They look
about them at the prodigious productiveness of
modern industry, and it seems plain to them that
the division of profits is unjust. That which in
cites them to revolt is not that they earn less than
before, but that they know more than before, and
feel and desire infinitely more. That which makes
them dissatisfied is not that their economic condi
tion grows worse, but that their emotional and
intellectual life is wakened and demands new
satisfactions. They observe that in the general
progress of economic prosperity the relative gain
which falls to them seems slight when compared
with the enormous accumulations of superfluous
wealth which fall into the hands of the few.
Thus they find themselves the agents in produc
ing wealth of which they obtain but an insignifi
cant share, and they cry out with passionate
indignation as against a grievous wrong. No one
gets any just impression of what is called the

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 273
labor movement who does not thus recognize the
interior spirit which expresses itself in these de
mands for industrial change. The economic
programme proposed by an agitator may be so
demonstrably speculative or Utopian that one
can hardly imagine it as commanding the loyalty
and self-sacrifice of plain and practical minds ;
but that which sustains the programme is the
emotion to which it gives a form. Many a mis
directed and indefensible enterprise becomes sig
nificant when one hears the ethical undertone
which it is trying to express. Beneath the tossing
and conflicting waves thrown up upon its surface
are the profounder movements of emotion which
rise like great rollers out of its depths.
Here, then, are the two aspects of the industrial
problem — its economic form and its ethical spirit ;
its form, a search for industrial peace ; its spirit,
a demand for industrial justice. What, then, we
go on to inquire, has the teaching of Jesus to do
with these things ? Has he any instructions to
give concerning the form of the industrial order ?
Has he any suggestions to offer concerning the
spirit of industrial life ?
To the first of these questions a general answer
may be given without delay. It is impossible to
imagine that any specific instructions concerning
the form of modern industry shall be derived
from the teaching of Jesus. The social horizon
of that teaching was as remote from the prob
lems of modern industrial life as though it were

274 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
in another planet. To turn to Jesus for categor
ical instruction concerning industrial organiza
tion, individual initiative, or social control, is as
preposterous as to inquire into his views con
cerning modern inventions or modern politics.1
Such phrases as Christian economics, in the sense
of organizing modern life under the direct regula
tion of Jesus, or Christian sociology, as a science
of modern society directly defined by Jesus, or
Christian socialism, as a form of government
prescribed by Jesus, are as much without justi
fication in the teaching of Jesus as it would be
to speak of Christian astronomy or of Christian
science. To the obvious fact that Jesus could not have
given specific legislation for a social situation
which was undreamt of in his day, there must be
added the fact that he for the most part declined
to give such legislation even for those social
problems which were actually brought before
him for judgment. The Pharisees take counsel
"how they might ensnare him in his talk,"2
and bring to him the question of tribute. Does
he teach submission to Rome, or is he a politi
cal revolutionist ? Jesus, however, perceives their
1 H. Holtzmann, " Die ersten Christen und die soziale Frage,"
s. 21, "To speak of the economics of the New Testament is, in my
opinion, as impossible as to speak of its dietetics (Acts xv. 20, 29),
its hermeneutics (I. Cor. ix. 9, 10), its astronomy (Matt. ii. 9, 24,
29), or its meteorology (Matt. xvi. 2, 3 ; Luke xii. 54, 55).
2 Matt. xxii. 15 ; Mark xii. 13 ; Luke xx. 20.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 275
craftiness, and dismissing their specific question,
solemnly announces to them his higher law. You
show me, he says, this coin with the image of
Csesar on it, the symbol of your obedience to him ;
but show me also whether there is stamped upon
your hearts the mark of an equal loyalty to God.
At another time Peter brings to him the social
question of the temple tax.1 Are the followers of
Jesus ecclesiastical reformers who are to consider
themselves free from the Mosaic law? Again
Jesus refuses to be entangled in such a question.
He and his friends, he says, are like the sons of
kings, who are free from the obligation of tribute,
but whose freedom from such obligation makes
tribute no burden. Let us not lower ourselves,
he teaches them, to such a controversy, but let us
discharge ourselves of non-essentials so as to cause
none to stumble, and then use our freedom for
the work of the king's sons. Still again, there is
brought to him the problem of the distribution of
property. "Master," says one, "bid my brother
divide the inheritance with me ; " 2 and, as before,
Jesus first refuses to deal with the question as
though he were a social reformer, and then pro.
ceeds to translate the question of inheritance into
a question of the spiritual life. "Man," he first
sternly answers, "who made me a judge or a
divider over you?" and then, looking about him
at the listeners eagerly awaiting his views on the
distribution of property, he passes from the ques-
1 Matt. xvii. 25. 2 Luke xii. 13-15; compare Ex. ii. 14.

276 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
tion which had been asked him to the motive
which prompted the question. "Take heed," he
says, " and keep yourselves from all covetousness."
" A man's life consisteth not in the abundance of
the things which he possesseth." Finally, and
with still greater candor, Jesus, at the close of his
life, declines jurisdiction in social and political
affairs.1 The authority which he claims for him
self is not that of a ruler, but that of a revealer.
"My kingdom," he says to Pilate, "is not of this
world." "Now is my kingdom not from hence."
"To this end am I come into the world, that I
should bear witness unto the truth." These sol
emn affirmations completely distinguish the mis
sion of Jesus from that of a social legislator or
revolutionist. No specific form of industrial ar
rangement can fairly claim to reproduce a design
prescribed by him.
Yet it by no means follows from this conclusion
that the teaching of Jesus has no bearing on
modern industrial life. On the contrary, when
one recalls the social principles of the gospel, they
are at once seen to involve decisions concern
ing many economic schemes of the present day.
Jesus, in the first place, surveys industrial life, as
he does all other human interests, from above, as
a means to that spiritual education of the race
which is to have its end in God's kingdom. The
world of business affairs is to Jesus not an isolated
sphere of human activity, for it lies within the
1 John xviii. 36, 37.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 277
large horizon of his spiritual purpose. This point
of view, however, involves two judgments concern
ing industrial life, which at first sight appear to
be not wholly consistent. On the one hand, the
view from above removes Jesus from all primary
concern with questions of economic profit or loss.
His teaching concerning industrial life is moved by
a great desire to direct the forces of ambition and
emulation away from economic satisfactions toward
spiritual ends. "Lay not up for yourselves," he
says, "treasures upon the earth, . . . but lay up
for yourselves treasures in heaven."1 "Be not
therefore anxious for the morrow : " " Seek ye first
his kingdom and his righteousness." 2 The rich
man, according to Jesus, says to his soul, " Soul,
thou hast much goods laid up for many years ; "
but God answers him, " Thou foolish one, that
layest up treasure for himself, and is not rich
toward God."3 On the other hand, this distinct
I subordination of economic interests and gains
idoes not carry with it, in the teaching of Jesus, a
note of asceticism. Over against his assurance
'that the " true riches " are not mere products of
industry must be set the no less obvious fact that
he moves with sympathy and appreciation through
the world of industrial activity, and finds in it, not
material for censure, but for example and praise.
The sower in the field,4 the shepherd with his
flock,5 the merchant buying pearls,6 the fisher
1 Matt. vi. 19, 20. 8 Luke xii. 19-21. 6 John x. 2-5.
2 Matt. vi. 33. 4 Matt. xiii. 3-8. 6 Matt. xiii. 45, 46.

278 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
casting his net,1 the laborer waiting to be hired,2
the householder digging his winepress,3 even
the tax-gatherer4 and the soldier6 doing the
duty assigned to them, — these are not types of
conduct to which Jesus alludes in words of admo
nition or regret, but are, on the contrary, types
which he naturally utilizes as texts of his dis
course. The persons whom he most sternly re
bukes are not those who are deeply absorbed in
the world of work ; they are those who, having
work given them to do, shirk it or leave it half
done. The servant who trades with his master's
talents 6 is commended ; but the rebuke of Jesus is
for him who did not put his money at the banker's,
whence he might have received his own with in
terest. The praise of Jesus is for the shepherd
who scours the hillside to find the one missing
sheep;7 for the scrupulous housekeeper who lights
her lamp and diligently sweeps her house until she
finds the one lost coin.8 Jesus, that is to say,
while announcing that the real treasure is in
heaven, and while describing the man who looks
for it on earth as a fool, none the less repeatedly
teaches that scrupulous fidelity in one's daily busi
ness commands the commendation of God. "If
therefore ye have not been faithful in the unright
eous mammon, who will commit to your trust the
true riches ? " 9
1 Matt. xiii. 47, 48. 4 Matt. ix. 9. 7 Luke xv. 4-6.
2 Matt. xx. 6. 6 Matt. viii. 5-13. 8 Luke xv. 8, 9.
8 Matt. xxi. 33. 6 Matt. xxv. 16, 17. 9 Luke xvi. 11.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 279
Is there an inconsistency between these two
aspects of the teaching of Jesus, — its subordina
tion of industrial results and its commendation of
industrial fidelity? On the contrary, it is pre
cisely the union of these traits which marks the
Christian view of industrial life. The Christian
moves through his experience in the world as the
judicious traveller passes through an interesting
country. Such a traveller does not permit himself
to be altogether absorbed in the routine or discom
fort or mechanism of his journey, but recognizes
the resources and charms which disclose them
selves along his way. He finds delight in inci
dents which to many would be irksome. He deals
cheerfully with the details of travel for the sake of
those ends of travel which he desires to attain.
He is laying up treasure which cannot be lost, and
where his treasure is there his heart is also. It
is this problem of uniting alertness with repose,
devotion to details with perception of an end
beyond details, which, for great numbers of per
sons, represents the personal aspect of the in
dustrial question. How to combine delight in
work with deliverance from the despotism of work
is to many an unsolved problem. If they give
their hearts to industrial activity they become its
slaves ; and if they give their hearts to spiritual
interests, then they become unprofitable servants
in the world of work. How is it, then, that peace
of mind and a sense of unity are to be attained in
these divided and discordant lives ? They are to

280 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
issue, according to the teaching of Jesus, from the
discovery of spiritual significance in that work
which one is called to do, and this discovery is
made when one looks at his experience from
above. The religious point of view is not one
which distracts the mind from its work, but one
which gives the mind insight into its work. The
world of industry abounds in resources and satis
factions, well worth attaining at the cost of much
dull routine along the way, and the larger end jus
tifies the painstaking fidelity. Details which might
seem irksome when viewed from below, become
dignified and honorable when viewed from above.
The man who trudges through his work without a
thought beyond his dusty road, and the man who
will not go that way at all because the road is
dusty, equally miss the lesson of industrial life.
The view of that life from above finds a place for
its activity and fidelity within the horizon of a
Christian ideal. The Christian is faithful in that
which is least, and through that fidelity enters into
the joy of that which is much.
To the doctrine of horizon as applied to indus
trial affairs must be added the Christian doctrine
of industrial progress. Jesus not only surveys the
world of business from above, but approaches it
from within. His method begins with the indi
vidual. His supreme intention is that of making
persons who shall in their turn make the kingdom
of God. Here, then, is a test to be applied to
any form of industrial life. Instead of estimating

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 28 1
the economic advantages or disadvantages of a form
of industry, the teaching of Jesus weighs it as a
contribution to character. Of any industrial pro
gramme or proposition Jesus asks, not whether it
will pay, or will be extravagant, or difficult to
administer; but rather, what sort of people will
it be likely to produce. In the making of goods
will it make good characters ; or, while making
cheap products, will it also make cheap men ?
This is a point of view from which any commercial
system may be fairly considered. We may apply
the test, for example, to the industrial order now
prevailing, and we have already observed one type
of character developed by such a system — the
character of the alert, audacious, commanding
personality, the "captain of industry," the Napo
leon of finance. These are qualities worth produc
ing. No new economic arrangement can perma
nently supplant the present industrial order unless
it tends to produce an equally virile and forcible
type of man. At this point, however, a new series
of questions begins. Are these qualities of leader
ship, it is asked, the finest moral product of which
the present order of industry is capable ? If this
is true, is it not possible that a better arrangement
of economic life might produce a more generous
and noble type? When, still further, we pass
from the character of the captains of industry to
that of the privates in the industrial army, what,
under our present commercial system, do we find
to be the normal product of moral virility ? Does

282 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the method of the great industry tend to develop
initiative, intelligence, and versatility in the great
mass of subordinates, or does it rather develop a
stunted, dehumanized, mechanical type ? Is it
true that the private in the great factory, as in a
fighting army, is often the better soldier when he
is no longer a free person, but more completely a
part of the machine ? Questions like these make
the burden of that social complaint which ex
presses itself in what we call the labor movement.
Unreasonable and misdirected many of these in
dustrial demands may be, yet they utter a cry
from the ranks of industry for a more human, free,
and reasonable life. They are the passionate
writhings of suppressed and defeated personality,
buried under the mountain of overwhelming rou
tine, as the struggling Enceladus lay beneath the
heaving ^Etna. The pathos and the dignity of the
labor movement is to be found in this reiteration
of the teaching of Jesus, that economic schemes
are to be estimated by their contribution to per
sonality. The economic order is an instrument
for the making of men ; and a struggle which, like '
the present labor movement, brings forth, even ,
through much travail, more thoughtful and loyal ]
men, is the birth struggle of a better social world. -
This principle of Jesus which subordinates profit
to personality may be applied as a test of any in
dustrial scheme. Indeed, the principle sometimes
interprets industrial movements whose economic
success would be on other grounds inexplicable.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 283
An interesting illustration of this truth is provided
by the cooperative system of Great Britain. It is
a movement which has had a most chequered his
tory of economic success and economic failure.
Under some conditions the extraordinary expan
sion of the cooperative system would lead one to
conclude that those plain weavers of Rochdale
had discovered a panacea for economic ills ; under
other conditions, apparently not less favorable,
cooperation has met with immediate disaster.
What is it which makes the cooperative plan at
one point so fruitful and at another point so barren
in its results ? It is the fact that the system is
not merely an economic device, but much more
fundamentally a moral movement. Cooperation
depends for its success, not only on its commercial
principles of cash payment and deferred benefit, but
on the moral qualities of patience, thrift, and loyalty,
which make that character known as the " cooper
ative man." "The cardinal doctrines of its faith,"
said Professor Marshall at the Cooperative Con
gress of 1889, "are . . . firstly, the production of
fine human beings, and not the production of rich
goods, as the ultimate aim of all worthy endeavor.
Secondly, he who lives and works only for himself,
or even only for himself and his family, leads an
incomplete life ; to complete it he needs to work
with others for some broad and high aim." 1 The
achievements of the cooperative system in Great
Britain are moral victories. Millions of plain peo-
1 A. Marshall, " Inaugural Address at Ipswich," 1889, p. 2.

284 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
pie have been trained in the instincts of coopera
tive life, and the industrial profits have been the
natural results of the cooperative sentiment. Yet
this ethical quality of the cooperative system is at
the same time its limitation. Where the coopera
tive man is lacking, the economic scheme fails.
What has wrecked many sanguine enterprises in
cooperation has been, as a rule, not their business
difficulties, but the lack of patience, self-sacrifice,
or honor among the cooperators themselves. The
passage of Caesar across the Alps, Mr. Holyoake
once said, was most seriously delayed by the num
ber of asses accompanying the troops, and the prog
ress of cooperation is retarded by the same animals.
Thus the cooperative system is a striking illustra
tion of the teaching of Jesus. The first condi
tion of success in cooperation is a constituency of
self-respecting and loyal persons. A few plain
people associate themselves in a cooperative enter
prise, quite unconscious that they are in any de
gree bearing witness to the social principles of the
gospel ; they apply themselves to the simple prob
lem of conducting a shop or factory with fidelity,
self-sacrifice and patience ; and as their work ex
pands they seem to themselves to have made a
good commercial venture, while in fact, in one
corner of the great industrial world they are illus
trating the principle of the Christian religion, that
industrial progress begins from within.
Such is the point of view, and such is the way of
approach, which are indicated by the teaching of

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 285
Jesus in its relation to forms of industry. Those
methods and programmes, are most consistent with
the gospel which enlarge the horizon of work, and
which make work more personal, responsive, origi
native, and human. All ways of education which
enlarge the scope and significance of industrial life
are justified and suggested by the teaching of Jesus.
Such education is economically justified because
it provides the community with better artisans,
mechanics, printers, plumbers, and carpenters ; but
it is much more fundamentally justified because
it enriches and strengthens personality, teaches
respect for honest work, and illuminates work with
the sense of beauty and the love of truth. What
ever thus converts a machine into a man, permitting
the worker to look at his work from above, and to
interpret it from within, has a place in the Christian
programme of industrial life. It not only contrib
utes to economic stability, but it perpetuates the
teaching of Jesus Christ.
There still remains to consider in this connec
tion the third social principle of the gospel, which,
in fact, dominates and interprets the other two. The
doctrine of social horizon and of social origin meet
in the social ideal of Jesus Christ. He surveys the
world as the field of the kingdom of God, and in
spires individuals to become instruments of that
kingdom. When one thus recalls this central and
commanding hope of Jesus concerning the future of
the world, and the language he habitually used con
cerning it, there is certainly in his ideal a striking

286 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
likeness to many a hope and dream of the modern
industrial world. The kingdom of God, according
to Jesus, is to be found in the gradually realized,
and finally perfected, brotherhood of man. This
kingdom is to come in ways which the wise and
prudent do not anticipate. It is by no means cer
tain that it will come through a peaceful process of
social evolution. "Tcame not to send peace, but
a sword ! " 1 It may be ushered in even by force :
" The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and
men of violence take it by force." 2 It will be a
kingdom hard for the rich to enter, but the poor,
the blind, the maimed, and the lame will be wel
comed into it.3 It is a kingdom already poten
tially existing in the world, like a seed already
planted which will soon grow up to overshadow all
the herbs.4 Finally, it is a kingdom in which a new
system of labor will prevail ; 5 a system in which the
workers will be paid, not according to their service,
but according to their needs. " It is my will to
give unto this last, even as unto thee. ... So
the last shall be first, and the first last." 6 Is there
not in these varied descriptions of the coming king
dom of God an extraordinary anticipation of many
modern prophecies of industrial revolution, and of
an international and universal brotherhood where
there shall be no rich and no poor, where from each
shall be demanded according to his powers, and to
each shall be given according to his needs ? Is not
1 Matt. a. 34. 8 Luke xiv. 21. 6 Matt. xx. 1-16.
2 Matt. xi. 12. 4 Matt. xiii. 31. 6 Matt. xx. 14, 16.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 287
this hope of comprehensive social unity even now
expanding like the mustard seed, unobserved by
many of the wise and prudent of the world ? May
it not be said of the fulfilment of this social pro
gramme, "Watch therefore, for ye know not the
day nor the hour ; " 1 and again, " This generation
shall not pass away, till all these things be accom
plished"?2 How are we to interpret the obvious
likenesses of these two social ideals, that of the
modern teaching of collectivism and that of the
teaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God ?
We have already more than once recalled one
answer which is frequently given to this question.
These likenesses, it is said, are so obvious and
striking that the two social ideals must be re
garded as practically identical. Jesus was a social-
! ist. If he had lived in our day he would have been
a Messiah of this new gospel which defends the
poor against the rich, and opposes the domination
of capitalism with an ideal of industrial justice.
"There can be no manner of doubt," remarks a
German theologian, "that the fundamental ideals
of socialism are to be referred back to Jesus." 3
Much as there is, however, in the language of
the gospels to encourage this view, such an iden
tification of the teaching of Jesus with modern
socialism has never thoroughly commended itself
even to socialists themselves. The more thought-
1 Matt. xxv. 13. 2 Matt. xxiv. 34.
8 O. Holtzmann, " Jesus Christus und das Gemeinschaftsleben
der Menschen," 1893, s. 14.

288 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
ful and scholarly advocates of radical reform have
felt, though they have not always analyzed their
feeling, a subtle difference, as of a change of
atmosphere, when they passed from the region
of their social schemes and approached the
spirit of the teaching of Jesus. One breathes in
the gospels a climate of tolerance, mercy, and
many-sidedness, which is far from stimulating to
the socialist's temper, and moderates the bitter
ness of his indictment of the world. Glad as
organized socialism might be, therefore, to appro
priate for its programme the spiritual forces of the
modern world, it has never felt quite secure in
accepting as an ally the impulses of the Christian
religion. It has permitted the religious sentiment
to exist "as a private affair," but there has been
little inclination to a formal alliance. The undi
vided allegiance demanded by the socialist ideal
would be, it is felt, less heartily rendered if at the
same time one were encouraged to be loyal to the
ideals of Jesus Christ.
The suspicion thus manifested by the thought
ful socialist proceeds from a sound instinct. When
one passes from the level of the social-democratic
programme to the level of the teaching of Jesus,
there may be indeed much likeness in the land
scape which one surveys, but a difference of eleva
tion is immediately perceptible, and a change is
felt which is nothing less than climatic. A new
quality of social feeling, a new flora, as it were,
of social virtues, a new diversity and comprehen-

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 289
siveness of social judgments, prove that, though
the outlook be the same, we stand at a greater
height. Thus it happens that to those who habit
ually look at life in terms of the socialist creed the
teaching of Jesus is full of surprises. Sympathy
with the socialist aim Jesus constantly exhibits,
yet he cannot be regarded as a safe teacher.
The socialist never feels quite sure what Jesus
may say next. Many of his sayings read like
orthodox socialist doctrine ; but, of a sudden,
there is uttered something quite destructive of
the socialist creed, and it is as if among familiar
plants one should come suddenly upon a flower
which belonged to quite another and a sunnier
zone. Consider, for instance, that saying of Jesus
which has received much commendation from
socialist writers, — the principle of remuneration
proposed for the laborers in the vineyard. a All
who are ready to work are, it is announced, to be
paid an equal and a living wage. The fact that
one man has a better chance in life does not
guarantee him a better compensation. " It is my
will to give unto this last, even as unto thee." 2
Was ever a parable of industry more prophetic of
the modern programme ? Does it not almost an
ticipate the new formula : " Man for man, time
for time ; from each according to his capacity, to
each according to his needs " ? Was it not this
1 Matt. xx. 14, and xix. 30 ; Mark x. 31 ; Luke xiii. 30.
" Matt, x :. 14.
r

290 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
saying of Jesus which made the text of Mr. Ruskin's
splendid indictment of the economics of competi
tion and the basis of his doctrine of a non-com
petitive, just exchange ? 1
If this saying, we must answer, were the whole
of the teaching of Jesus concerning industrial life,
we should certainly have a most sweeping doctrine
of social revolution. No sooner, however, do we
turn a few pages of the gospel, than we find a con
ception of social life apparently in complete opposi
tion to the doctrine of equality, — a law of essential
and cumulative inequality. The servant, we read,
who has been trusted with five talents doubles them
in trade, and his master says to him, " Well done,
. . . for unto every one that hath shall be given," 2
and on the other hand, the servant to whom least was
intrusted receives the rebuke, " From him that hath
not, even that which he hath shall be taken away."
The same principle of cumulative returns is applied
by Jesus not only to gain in money, but also to gain
in knowledge. To the disciples who have already
learned something of the new gospel it is given
to know more. They shall learn of the " mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven,"3 but to others it is
not given ; so that one man in his spiritual knowl
edge shall have "abundance," and from another
1 "Unto this Last" (concluding paragraph), "Go forth, then,
weeping, bearing precious seed, until the time come and the king
dom when Christ's gift of bread and bequest of peace shall be Unto
this Last as unto thee."
2 Matt. xxv. 23, 29. 8 Matt. xiii. 1 1.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 29 1
"shall be taken away even that which he hath."1
The same law is applied again to the capacity of
observation or of judgment. The man who takes
heed " how he hears," finds his capacity of hearing
and of judging enriched, while he who covers his
lamp with a vessel or puts it under a bed finds
secret things less and less manifest, until even
that discernment which he seems to have is by
degrees taken from him.2
What is to be said of this principle of cumulative
returns and cumulative losses, in money, in learning,
or in capacity ? The first thing to say of it is, that
it is a principle which is unquestionably and pro
foundly true. The whole experience of life testifies
to the enlargement of capacity through its use, and
to the shrinking of unused faculties as of unused
limbs. One of the most effective spurs of human
effort is the assurance that energy once set in
motion gets momentum ; that it is the first accu
mulation of money, or of skill, which costs ; that
returns of money or of work are like seeds, which,
when once planted, grow while man sleeps ; and
that such acquisitions, once attained, may be even
transmitted from parents to children and prolong
the action of the law of cumulative returns. The
opposite aspect of the truth is no less obvious. A
world of cumulative gains must be one of cumu
lative losses. It is a world, therefore, where in
equality is an essential aspect of human life, in
1 Mark iv. 25.
2 Luke viii. 16-18; Mark iv. 25 ; compare Rev. ii. 5.

292 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
which unused capacity declines, and undeveloped
resources shrivel into weakness and impotency.
The poor man often grows poorer for no other
reason than because he has not that little which
would give him his chance to get more ; the evil
life propagates itself from generation to genera
tion until it passes from ignorance to vice, and
from vice to sheer degeneracy; trouble breeds
trouble ; mistakes lead to further mistakes ; one
lapse from virtue tempts to deeper sin, until they
which have not seem stripped even of that which
they have. Here, however, is a' social law which
seems absolutely inconsistent with the socialist
ideal, — a law, indeed, which represents that view
of the world against which the socialist most hotly
contends. When, therefore, the socialist reads no
less than six times in the first three gospels that.
this is a world of essential inequality, must he not
hesitate to claim for his cause the support of the
teaching of Jesus, and may he not fairly wonder
how this assurance of cumulative returns could
have come from the same lips which announced
equality of payment as the law of the Lord's vine
yard ?
How is it, then, that there can legitimately exist
within the teaching of Jesus two principles of
industrial life which seem so completely irrecon
cilable ? To announce at one moment that the
last comer shall be first, and at another moment
that he who has shall have more, is from the point of
view of economic teaching sheer self-contradiction.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 293
Jesus, however, is not thinking of economic profits
or losses, but of the education of human souls for
the kingdom of God ; and he observes that in God's
training of men the two principles coexist, — the
principle of cumulative returns and the principle
of proportionate judgment. On the one hand, a
man is led to do his best because he has perceived
that capacity, power, and resources either develop
or shrink, so that to him who hath is given and
from him who hath not will be taken away. On
the other hand, the same man is aware that the
judgments of God will be determined, not by abso
lute achievements, but by proportionate fidelity.
"To whomsoever much is given, of him shall much
be required ; " x and of him whose opportunity has
been least, but who has been faithful to it, the
great word may be spoken, " It is my will to give
unto this last, even as unto thee."2 Thus the two
principles which are economically inconsistent are
spiritually allied. At the evening, when the Lord
of the vineyard comes, saying, " Call the labour
ers, and pay them their hire,"3 the man who has
achieved little may hide himself behind his success
ful brethren, saying, "I am but an unprofitable
servant ; my opportunity has been slight, and my
gains are few," but the principle of a proportionate
judgment gives him the place which his desire and
his fidelity have won.
" 'Tis not what man does which exalts him, but what man
would do," —
i Luke xii. 48. a Matt. xx. 14. 8 Matt. xx. 8.

294 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
says Browning's David; and the same note is
struck by Rabbi Ben Ezra,
" What I aspired to be
And was not, comforts me."
The true relation between the social ideal of
Jesus and the social ideal of the modern revo
lutionist comes then, at last, into view. The
Christian doctrine of the social order holds the
programme of the socialist, and holds much more.
There is a place in the gospel for the principle of
equal compensation ; but there is also a recogni
tion of the opposite truth of unequal endowment.
The relation, therefore, between the two social
ideals is like that of two parallel lines lying in
different planes. There is the same direction in
both, and, if one regards their direction only, the
one line of social movement may be easily mis
taken for the other. The two lines lie, however,
on different levels of experience ; they have differ
ent starting-points and different ends, and their
paths can never meet. The motives from which
the two proceed, and the ideals toward which they
lead, are in different zones of human desire. The
socialist programme begins with the observation
of economic needs and ends in an ideal of eco
nomic change ; the teaching of Jesus begins with
the sense of spiritual need and ends in the ideal of
a spiritual kingdom. Both social teachings move
through the life of the real world, giving laws to
its industry and direction to its energy; but the

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 295
aim of the one is to make the poor rich, and the
aim of the other is to make the bad good. The
socialist philosophy finds in economic transforma
tion the cause of character; Jesus counts on char
acter to bring about economic transformation.
The one plan builds up social life from below, the
other derives it from above. The cooperative
commonwealth is to rise out of a new arrangement
of production; the New Jerusalem is to descend
out of heaven from God.
Here are two ideals of the social order which,
parallel though their lines may be, are by no
means identical. It is one thing to think of in
dustrial change as a means of spiritual education,
and it is quite another thing to think of indus
trial change as a means of abolishing private
property. The socialist programme proposes an
industrial system which must depend for its
perpetuation on unselfishness, magnanimity, and
simplicity of character ; but it makes no ade
quate provision for the training of these virtues.1
Nationalize the means of production, it is said,
abolish the capitalists, and then the same persons
who are to-day ambitious, competitive and self-
seeking will become public-spirited, generous, and
self-controlled. Cleanse the outside of the cup
and platter, and the inside will be purified of raven
ing and wickedness. Extend the line of economic
development, and it will run up into the qualities of
1 Compare, 3ter Evang.-soz. Kongress, 1892; A. Wagner, "Das
neue sozialdemokratische Programm," s. 96 ff.

296 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
the kingdom of God. The teaching of Jesus looks
at the world of industry from precisely the opposite
point of view. It passes no judgment on economic
programmes, however radical those programmes
may be. It affirms, however, that, until industrial
life is lifted to the level of a moral opportunity and
taken in hand as a trust from God, no economic
scheme, however promising it may be, has the
assurance of effectiveness or permanence. There
may be grave difficulties to be overcome in the
existing machinery of industry, but the chief diffi
culty with industrial life, according to the teaching
of Jesus, is not mechanical, but moral. The devil
has tempted modern men as he once tempted
Jesus, showing them all the glories of the world,
and saying, " All these things will I give thee, if
thou wilt fall down and worship me ; " 1 and many
a modern man has accepted the terms. Accord
ing to Jesus, the root of the industrial question is
not in conditions, but in character. It has become
a threatening social question, not because the
economic system is bad, but because people are.
Its solution is to be reached, not primarily through
good machinery, but through good men. No
arrangement of industry can be devised which is
beyond the possibility of being utilized for evil by
unscrupulous and designing men ; and if, on the
other hand, the control of industry were in the
hands of conscientious and generous men, then
almost any economic system — even the present
1 Matt. iv. 9.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 297
one — might perhaps prove itself sufficiently effec
tive and just, and the industrial revolution, which
now appears to many minds imperative, might
come to seem superfluous.1
Through this contrast of ideals, then, we are
brought into sight of the practical problem of
modern industry. Here is the upper level of
social development, as traced for us in the teach
ing of Jesus ; and here is the lower level of eco
nomic change, as indicated to us by scientific
socialism. Above, is the conception of industrial
life as moving toward the kingdom of God ; below,
is the pursuit of happiness to be attained through
better economic distribution. In this condition of
things the present industrial alternatives may be
perhaps thus stated, — that if the social movement
does not proceed along the higher plane of prog
ress, it is extremely likely to proceed along the
lower plane. A problem so intensely felt as is
the industrial question of the present day is
bound to find some channel of expression, and if
this stream of passionate feeling does not follow
the line marked out for it by the teaching of
Jesus, then the channel which seems, for the time,
most ready to receive the stream is that of the
socialist transformation. In fact, these alterna
tives are already indicated by the spirit of the
1 On the tendency of the institution of private property to de
velop altruism, see the remarkable admissions of L. Stein, " Die
soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophic," s. 105 ff., and comments
thereon in International foumal of Ethics, April, 1898, p. 364 ff.

298 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
modern agitation. The creed of social revolution
has become, in many minds, a distinct substitute
for a spiritual religion. It has drawn to itself the
same emotional loyalty and zeal which are com
monly associated with a religious faith. Men go
to the scaffold for the cause of revolution as they
once died for Christ, and with a spirit akin to
that of Christian martyrs give their lives for the
creed of the social democracy. When one remem
bers that this creed, which commands such devo
tion, is in its form an economic programme, and
that the articles of this religion deal, not with
supernatural realities, but with questions of wages
and taxation, the passionate attachment of social
ists to their faith may well seem surprising.
Why is it that such extraordinary devotion is
offered to an industrial programme, and indeed
to -a programme which by many of its adherents
is but very vaguely understood ? It is because
this creed, unspiritual though it seems, represents
to millions of people a religion, and provides a sub
stitute for that teaching of the Christian Church
which they have been led to reject. In short, the
acceptance of social revolution as a religion is a
practical indictment of the religious teaching of
the Christian Church. The religious emotion
demands some way of utterance even in those
who reject religion, and the socialist movement
provides a way of utterance for many persons who
have lost faith in the purposes of Christianity.
The socialist programme, in other words, repre-

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 299
sents the penalty which the modern world is pay
ing for its insufficient obedience to the social
teaching of Jesus. If social progress had pro
ceeded steadily and firmly along the higher level
of spiritual education, there would have been little
provocation to transfer this progress to the lower
level of industrial revolution. Failing, however,
to find in religion anything real, what could plain
people do but make of socialism a real religion ?
It is a question of alternatives. The revolt of the
laboring classes is a pathetic attempt to find a
substitute for religious faith, and the only effec
tive way to meet that revolt is to prove that the
Christian religion is rational, practicable, socially
redemptive and economically justified.1
Such, then, appears to be some suggestion of
the teaching of Jesus in its relations to forms of
modern industry. He surveys economic problems
from above, and perceives that fidelity in the affairs
of industry opens the way to the kingdom ; he
approaches economic problems from within, and
finds their key in character ; finally, with a trium
phant hope, he pictures this eager life of the world
of trade taken up into the Divine process of spir
itual education, and moving along the higher level
of his social idealism toward the realization of ¦ the
kingdom of God. It was pointed out, however,
at the beginning of the present chapter, that the
1 Compare also, "The Kernel and the Husk" (Am. ed. 1887),
p. 326 ff. : " It appears, then, that what is called ' Socialism ' is
really nothing but a narrow and unwise form of Christianity."

300 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
problem of form in industry constituted by no means
the whole of the industrial question, but that behind
the economic forms now proposed there lay the
ethical spirit of the present agitation, giving power
and passion to many a scheme which in its form
might be misdirected or immature. It remains
therefore to consider the relation of the teaching
of Jesus to the prevailing spirit of modern industrial
life, and to observe the motives and passions on
which he relies for industrial progress.
The first spiritual quality in the teaching of
Jesus which is thus applicable to modern industry
has been already noticed in his utterances con
cerning the kingdom of God. This fulfilment of
his ideal is anticipated by Jesus with a persistent,
and, as it must have seemed to many who were
with him, a Quixotic, hope. In the face of the
gravest obstructions and misapprehensions he pro
claims that the kingdom is at hand : "The kingdom
of God is come nigh unto you ; " 1 "The kingdom
of God is within you ; " 2 " There be some . . .
which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see
the kingdom of God." 3 Jesus, that is to say, is
the most unfaltering of optimists. He sits with
his friends by the well of Jacob, watching the
peasants as they plough the fertile field in the
early spring, and he contrasts the slow process of
the seasons with the immediate ripening of his
own work. Say not of our mission, he tells his
disciples, as the farmer says of his task, that
1 Luke x. 9. 2 Luke xvii. 21. 8 Luke ix. 27.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 3OI
months must pass before the harvest comes ; lift
up your eyes beyond this valley to the field of the
world, which is "white already unto harvest." 1
How unreasonable and exaggerated such opti
mism must have seemed to many a judicious ob
server of the signs of the times ! How meagre,
in fact, was the welcome which the teaching of
Jesus practically received ! How quickly it was
to meet with defeat and blight, like a seed that
had been planted in sterile sand ! How soon that
field of his mission which Jesus had prophesied
should be white with harvest was to become Acel
dama, a field of blood ! Yet, how unswervingly,
at every step of his ministry, Jesus was guided
by his unconquerable optimism ! He believed in
people who did not believe in themselves. He dis
cerned good in people who seemed to themselves
irretrievably bad. He forgave people whom the
judicious had condemned. He inspired people to
be what he desired them to be. The wavering and
unstable Peter must have seemed to himself much
more like shifting sand than like solid rock ; but
Jesus discerns within that feeble discipleship an
underlying quality of strength, and calls on Peter
to be the rock which his name implies, and the
character of the disciple grows firm and consistent
under the touch of the Master's confidence and
hope. Finally, Jesus, with a transcendent opti
mism, trusts his entire teaching to followers who,
as he well knew, understood but imperfectly what
1 John iv. 35.

302 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
they had learned from him. He is sure that the
Holy Ghost will some day guide them into all truth,
and bring to their remembrance all that he had
said to them.1 He is not discouraged by the
waste of much precious seed,2 by the growth of
tares among the grain,3 by the unfaithfulness of
stewards,4 by the unresponsiveness of the wise and
prudent,6 or even by the disloyalty of friends.6
Sometimes the splendor of his hope blazes out in
Oriental images of mighty triumph. "The Son of
man," he says, "shall come in the glory of his
Father with his angels."7 "As the lightning
cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto
the west ; so shall be the coming of the Son of
man."8 "From henceforth shall the Son of man
be seated at the right hand of the power of God." 9
In short, through all the obstacles of bigotry,
stupidity, hardheartedness, hypocrisy and ecclesi-
asticism which confronted him, Jesus remains a
consistent optimist, confident that the world about
him is ready for his message, and that the fulness
of time is come.
When we turn from this quality of the teaching
of Jesus to the prevailing spirit of modern indus
trial agitation, we find a curious mingling of traits.
On the one hand is an optimism quite as thorough
going as that with which Jesus surveyed the signs
of his own time. There are, indeed, observers
1 John xvi. 13 ; xv. 26. 4 Matt. xxv. 24-28. 7 Matt. xvi. 27.
2 Matt. xiii. 4-7. 6 Matt. xi. 25. 8 Matt. xxiv. 27.
" Matt. xiii. 25, 26. 6 Matt. xxvi. 21. ° Luke xxii. 69.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 303
who find in the present social order no ground
whatever for social hope. The feverish haste and
tumultuous agitation of the present time are, to
such persons, signs of social bankruptcy and ap
proaching chaos. They retreat from this decadent
civilization to the monastic life of some commu
nistic society, or register their protest against the
whole tendency of modern society, or sit on the
bank of the hurrying stream of modern life and plan
some impossible diversion of its current or some re
striction of its flow. This frame of mind, however,
— the spirit of social reaction or despondency, —
is as far as possible from the spirit of the scien
tific socialist. He has no desire to retreat from
the tendencies of modern economic life, or even to
counteract their effects. On the contrary, he wel
comes the increasing complexity of industrial life
as a prophecy of his gospel. His creed is taught
in a spirit of the most buoyant optimism. The
social conditions which for the present exist are
regarded by him, not as signs of increasing evil,
but as essential preliminaries of that better
future which is soon to come. They are a phase
of social evolution which is essential to progress,
but which is now in its turn destined to disap
pear. Even those economic tendencies which
many reformers regard with alarm are, from
the point of view of the consistent socialist,
contributory to the one great end toward which
social evolution works. The vast combinations
of capital which seem to threaten industriar de-

304 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
mocracy are in reality only the forerunners which
prepare its way. Let centralization of control, it
is said, proceed, let trust be joined to trust, until
industrial life becomes one vast monopoly, and
then the time will be ripe for the cooperative com
monwealth ; the producers will at last take con
trol of the mechanism which was devised to crush
them, and out of a world of seeming evil there will
issue a world of perfect good. Social evolution
will be fulfilled when the democracy, which has
already learned to govern itself, will at last come
to produce for itself. The socialist is sustained
by a vaster hope of social transformation than the
world has known since the days of the optimism
of Jesus, and may be tempted to repeat his confi
dent prophecy, " Lift up your eyes and look at the
fields, for they are white already unto harvest."
Yet, on the other hand, beneath this strain of
optimism in modern socialism there is often a
curious and jarring note of social pessimism. The
mood of morbid despondency and reckless cyni
cism which is blighting so much of modern litera
ture seems to be peculiarly attracted by schemes
of social revolution. An affinity may be observed
between literary and social iconoclasm.1 The
1 E.g. Ibsen, Letter to Georg Brandes: "The State must be
abolished. In a revolution that would bring about so destructive
a consummation I should gladly take part. . . . Changes in the
form of government are nothing else than different degrees of tri
fling — a little more or a little less absurd folly." Compare also,
H. Van Dyke, "The Gospel for an Age of Doubt," 1896, Lecture I
(and citations in Appendix).

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 305
belief that modern morals are but disguised ani
malism and modern society is but a tissue of con
ventional shams induces the further belief that
the social order is doomed and that a social ca
tastrophe is at hand. This social pessimism is
fostered by preachers of the socialist creed. If
all social hope is to be set on the one great end
of revolution, why, it is asked, should one concern
one's self with efforts to better the world as it now
is? Shall we not rather permit the present social
order to go from bad to worse until, at last, by the
pressure of its own inherent evil, it is shattered
from within, and upon its ruins rises the democ
racy of labor ?
Among the early Christians there were many
who, in a mood akin to this, awaited the "end
of the world." x A cataclysm, they believed,
was soon to occur in which the entire fabric
of civilization as it then existed was to disap
pear; and those who so believed concerned them
selves little with passing phases of political or
social reform, but withdrew from a perishing
world and made ready for the great day of the
Lord. There is, however, one characteristic of
the new social pessimism which sharply distin
guishes it from the spiritual anticipations of the
early Christians. They lived in the light of
their Lord's return, and had no doctrine of so
cial destruction or of positive antagonism to the
social order ; the modern revolutionist is, first of
1 Matt. xxiv. 3.
X

306 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
all, an enemy of things as they are, and may, ini
deed, follow his creed but little beyond its destrucL
tive teaching. Social reconstruction is too remote
and vast a dream to make an effective appeal to
the imagination of plain people, but social obstruc
tion, and the destruction of the present social!
order with its obvious defects and wrongs, make a
programme which can be easily understood. The
first lesson, then, in the catechism of industrial
revolution is a lesson in class hatred. No perma
nent good, it is taught, can be expected from the
employer class, however excellent its members
may be; no social adjustment which may follow
a social catastrophe could be worse for the work
ing-man than is the present order. " Civilization,"
it is, with profound emotion, said, "denies to
man the right to live a guiltless life. . . . What
ever I do, whichever way I turn, I can neither
feed nor clothe my family, nor take any part in
public affairs as a citizen, nor speak the truth as
I conceive it, without being stained with the blood
of my brothers and sisters."1
In this wail of social pessimism, however,
great numbers of intelligent hand-workers detect
a false note. They are perfectly aware that, in
spite of many industrial hardships and injus
tices, the standard of life and the purchasing
power of the wage-earning class are unmistak
ably and progressively improving. The age of
l The Industrialist, July, 1898; G. D. Herron, "The Social
System and the Christian Conscience."

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 307
machinery has made it possible to secure a live
lihood in fewer hours and with less labor than
was ever possible before. The general ten
dency of industrial life is to thrust competent
workmen, not down, but up, and to fill the lower
places with the less competent, who in their turn
feel the up-draught of economic progress.1 An
industrial programme which assumes that the
present order is hoplessly evil cannot command
the loyalty of those whose experience justifies so
cial hope. To them it seems by no means certain
that an industrial catastrophe would be a greater
blessing than that which may come through the
slow processes of industrial evolution. In short,
those who have any stake in the present order
hesitate to commit themselves to a gospel of social
decadence arid despair, and leave the creed of so
cial pessimism to be preached by the disaffected,
the unscrupulous, the ignorant, or the academic.
The spirit of the present industrial agitation,
then, has in one aspect a remarkable likeness to the
spirit of Jesus, while in another aspect it is radi
cally opposed to that spirit. In its intention there
is the same confident idealism, but in its method
there is little of that faith in individual initiative
and in the possibilities of the world as it now is,
which gave to the teaching of Jesus its sanity.
1 Compare C. D. Wright, Address at Mt. Holyoke, March 13,
1899; and the eloquent essay of F. Naumann, "Der Christ im
Zeitalter der Maschine," in his "Was heisst Christlich-Sozial ? "
s. 30.

308 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Thus the programme of the socialist alternately
attracts and repels the followers of Jesus, Its
dream of an industrial world of greater justice
and larger opportunities seems but a renewal of
the vision of the kingdom of God ; but its spirit,
sedulously fostering social distrust and despair,
has no place in the gospel of the kingdom. It is
difficult for persons trained in the Christian tradi
tion to imagine the reign of human equity and
brotherhood introduced through the free play of
passion and hate, or to believe that a bad world
can be transformed by one external device into
a world of love and beauty. Social pessimism
is not easily combined with social hope. The
optimism of Jesus, on the other hand, is consist
ent and unfailing. It transforms the world be
cause it hopes for the world. Socialism blackens
the character of the real world to heighten the
contrast with its ideal ; Jesus illuminates the real
world and makes it the instrument of his ideal.
The heart of man naturally responds to the mes
sage of the optimist, for he brings that which is
better than social prosperity, — the gift of hope.
The fulness of time came in the teaching of Jesus,
because Jesus had such fulness of hope for his
own time.
What was it, then, we go on to ask, which justi
fied in Jesus this hope for the world ? It was, as
it has been the main purpose of our inquiry to show,
the confidence which Jesus had in the capacity of
the human soul. If he can stir but a few individuals

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 3O9
to positive loyalty to him and his hope, the world
and its redemption are, he believes, secure. " All
things are possible," he says, " to him that believ
eth."1 "This is the victory that hath overcome
the world, even our faith." 2 His most anxious
inquiry of his disciples is this, " Do ye now
believe?"3 The gift which his followers soon-
learn to ask of him is the gift of faith. " Lord,"
they say, "Increase our faith."4 The instrument
which he would use for the overturning of the
world is the power of personal faith : " If ye have
faith, ... ye would say unto this sycamine tree, Be
thou rooted up, and be thou planted in the sea ;
and it would have obeyed you." 5 Here is the
second quality in the spirit of Jesus which affects
his social teaching. He looks upon the world
with hope, because he acts upon it through faith.
We have already seen that his social teaching
begins with the individual and finds the key of
circumstances in the growth of character. Now,
however, we must consider this characteristic of
his teaching, not as a method or programme, but
as a spiritual dynamic, a guiding passion, an instru
ment of social service. What Jesus desired to
communicate to his followers was, first of all, a
moral initiative, a sense of spiritual capacity. He
was moved by what the author of " Ecce Homo "
accurately calls "the enthusiasm of humanity."
He had a passion for personality. The contagion
1 Mark ix. 23. 2 1 John v. 4. s John xvi. 31.
4 Luke xvii. 5. 6 Luke xvii. 6.

310 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
of his spirit disclosed men to themselves, from the
time when it was prophesied of him that through
him the "thoughts out of many hearts may be
revealed," x to the time when the disciples, walk
ing to Emmaus, said, " Was not our heart burning
within us, while he spake to us in the way?"2
Social redemption, according to the teaching of
Jesus, begins in this communication to human
lives of the spirit of an active faith.
What is the relation of this second character
istic of the spirit of Jesus to the spirit of mod
ern industrial life ? Does the teaching of Jesus,
because it is primarily addressed to the individual,
depreciate or ignore the efforts which the modern
world devotes to the improvement of external con
ditions ? On the contrary, the teaching of Jesus,
as we have already seen, welcomes every industrial
change which makes in any way for the making of
men, which gives greater scope for personal initia
tive, or which discovers and confirms personal capac
ity. Jesus, however, is a teacher, not of industrial
mechanics, but of spiritual dynamics. The adjust
ment of economic conditions is, in each new age,
a new problem of social mechanism, to be solved
by new devices concerning which Jesus can have
nothing to say ; but the end for which these vary
ing forms of social mechanism are devised is in all
ages the same. It is the production of personality,
the making of men.
Each economic proposition finds itself, sooner
1 Luke ii. 35. 2 Luke xxiv. 32.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 311
or later, confronted by this test, and at this
point meets the teaching of Jesus.1 Consider,
for example, the effect of this test on a minor
question of economic life. There has been, of
late, much discussion of the value of thrift.
Thrift, in less advanced days, was held to be an
elementary social virtue. Young persons were
encouraged to this virtue by praise and reward,
and adults by the establishment of banks for
savings. Now, however, we are told by radical
reformers that the habit of saving is by no means
to be regarded as an unquestionable social ad
vantage, but rather as a serious social peril. He
who learns to save from what he is now able to
earn is, it is said, less likely to demand larger earn
ings. He is inclined to be satisfied with things as
they are and grows less disposed to a radical change
of social conditions. As his savings increase, he
grows more conservative in his social creed, de
taches himself from the interest of the wage-earn
ing class, and goes over to the side of those who are
perpetuating social injustice. "We teach our peo
ple," recently said a labor leader, " that thrift is no
virtue." " Thrift," said John Burns, at the Trades
Union Congress of 1 894, " was invented by capital
ist rogues to deprive honest fools of their proper
1 So Ruskin, " Fors Clavigera," Letter 70. " Property must con
sist of good things, not bad ones. It is rightly called a man's goods,
not a man's ' bads ; ' " and " Munera Pulveris," § 34, " We must dis
tinguish the accidental objects of morbid desires from the constant
objects of legitimate desires."

312 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
standard of comfort, so that their balance in the
bank would be in proportion to the capacity of the
workers to allow themselves to be deprived of their
share of the national wealth." What may be in
ferred from the teaching of Jesus concerning his
judgment in an industrial question like this ?
Jesus, it must be answered, being not a deviser
of social programmes, does not enter into the
question of the economics of thrift ; but, as an
inspirer of personal lives, offers a teaching which
has a distinct bearing on the ethics of saving.
The reason which that teaching would emphasize
for encouraging the saving of money is not that it
makes more money, but that it makes better men.
The first justification of thrift is not that it makes
a bank account large, but that it makes people
thrifty. The children of the prosperous as well as
the children of the poor may be taught, through
habits of thrift, lessons of foresight, self-respect,
and wise generosity. If an economic programme
does not encourage frugality, prudence, and self-
control, it can have no important place in the
future of society ; for no industrial future can per-.
manently prosper which is to be ushered in by
imprudent or spendthrift habits. The man who
had not on a wedding garment found no satisfac
tion in the wedding feast.
Here, then, is one of many industrial proposi
tions in which are disclosed both the likeness
and the contrast between the teaching of Jesus
and the modern tendencies of economic life. The

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 313
teaching of Jesus regards not comfort but char
acter as the object of economic change. It is
not so much concerned with making the world
soft and easy, as with making moral fibre hard
and strong. Where many reformers point, with
entire justice, to an effect on character of im
proved economic conditions, the teaching of Jesus
recalls attention to the marvellous conquests of
unpropitious economic conditions which have been
achieved by men of faith. Not those regions
of the earth where nature has been kindest and
labor least compulsory have been economically
most prosperous, but those which, by extorting
struggle, have developed manhood. Not the sunny
slopes of Italy and Spain, or the incredible fertility
of Egypt, or the spontaneous harvests of the trop
ics, have been the guarantees of industrial pros
perity, but the incessant battle of Holland with
the sea, and of Germany with superior enemies on
every side, and the insular necessities of Great
Britain, and the rugged soil and climate of New
England. " What do you raise here ? " asked a
traveller in the land of the Pilgrims, " from this
sand and these rocks?" And the answer was,
"We raise men."1
Such is the spirit of the teaching of Jesus. He
1 On the influence of a hostile environment on " social fibre," see
the striking view of Bagehot, in his " Physics and Politics," Ch. II,
"The Use of Conflict." Compare also, Spectator, April 8, 1899, p.
479, on the Labor-Socialist Conference, " The competitive struggle
has many drawbacks, but at least it produces men, and it is men
we want to make, not great associations of consumers of food."

314 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
is not indifferent to the amelioration of circum
stances ; on the contrary, it is the inspiration of
his teaching which has suggested most of the en
terprises which have introduced into industrial life
the sentiments of compassion or justice. These
industrial enterprises, however, when undertaken
in the spirit of Jesus, begin, not as mechanical
devices, but as spiritual desires. The individual
dreams of an industrial relation which shall verify
the teaching of Jesus, and then proceeds to sho\jf
his faith through his works. The commercial
scheme expresses the personal ideal. Back of the
system is the man of faith.1 When the Son of
man cometh, he will look, first of all, not for a
method of economic distribution, but for "faith on-'
the earth."2
v How then, one finally asks, shall this spirit of the
teaching of Jesus practically manifest itself ? When
a man is stirred by the optimism of Jesus to a new
quality of hope, and quickened by the method of
Jesus to a new capacity of faith, what does that
man want to do ? The answer to this question
brings us to the last command of the social teach
ing of Jesus, — the great word "service," or to
that other word, corrupted by the usage of
Christian sentimentalism — the still greater word
1 So Leclaire, in his first experiment of the system of profit-shar
ing : Sedley Taylor, " Profit-sharing," 1884, p. 25, " I cannot believe
that this consummation will ever be reached through the conflicts
of opposing interests ; it can only be from economic science enlight
ened by the Spirit of the Gospel."
2 Luke xviii. 8.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 315
"love." "I am in the midst of you," says Jesus,
" as he that serveth." x " The Son of man came
not to be ministered unto, but to minister."2
"Whosoever would be first among you shall be
your servant."3 "By this shall all men know
that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to
another."4 According to the teaching of Jesus,
the evidence of what is now called success, or of
what the gospel calls "glory," is to be found in
the capacity and the willingness to serve. When
Jesus knows that "the Father . . . hath given all
things into his hand,"5 and that he has "come
from God and goes to God," what does he offer
as the witness of this transcendent leadership ?
He lays aside his garments and washes his
disciples' feet, and when he has done this lowly
service he says, " Now is the Son of man glorified,
and God is glorified in him." 6 Side by side with
the symbolism of the Lord's Supper there should
be set this other symbolism of the Christian life —
the symbolism of service. The one is the sign of
power derived from Jesus ; the other is the sign of
service inspired by Jesus. The final test of Chris
tian discipleship is in its capacity to stoop and
serve. " For I have given you an example, that
ye also should do as I have done to you."7
We turn, then, with this last quality of the teach
ing of Jesus to the methods of modern industrial life,
1 Luke xxii. 27. 8 Matt. xx. 27. 6 John xiii. 31.
2 Matt. xx. 28. 4 John xiii. 35. ' John xiii. 15.
6 John iii. 35.

3l6 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
and it seems at first sight as if there were no com
mon ground on which the two might meet. What
place is there, one asks, for such words as service
or love among the scrambling competitions of the
business world? What, indeed, is the world of
business but a vast battle-field of organized self-
interest, a gambling-table with enormous stakes, a
lottery where a few great prizes tempt a hundred
feverish victims to venture and lose? How
strangely it would sound if in some business cen
tre the great words were spoken, " Whosoever
would be first among you shall be your servant ! " 1
What a curious motto for a business office would
be the words, "By this shall all men know that
ye are wise men of business, if ye have love one to
another." Is there not, on the other hand, abun
dant justification for that passionate hopelessness
which cries out in the name of Christ : " It is only
the densest ethical ignorance that talks about a
Christian business life, for business is now intrin
sically evil ; . . . there is no such thing as an ethi
cal bargain, . . . there are no honest goods to buy
or sell ; . . . the hideous industrial war . . . makes
the industrial system seem like the triumph of
hell and madness on the earth"?2
It is quite true, one must answer, that the world
of industry abounds in persistent and subtle temp
tations of self-seeking, ambition, cruelty, and bad
faith. Business life in the modern world is to
many persons what the exceeding high mountain
1 Matt. xx. 27. 2 The Industrialist, July, 1899, G. D. Herron.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 317
was to Jesus, — the place where the devil exhibits
the kingdoms of this world and their glory, and
says again, " All these things will I give thee, if
thou wilt fall down and worship me."1 No man,
it must be fully admitted, deals prudently with his
business affairs who does not daily recognize that
he is likely to be at any moment tempted of the
devil. All this, however, is by no means to say
that the business world is in its nature irretrieva
bly depraved, or that there is no such thing as a
Christian business life or an ethical bargain. On
the contrary, there are many aspects of the busi
ness world — and aspects of which the social re
formers as a rule take small account — where both
ethics and religion have an important part in shap
ing and directing modern industry.
In the first place, if we can detach ourselves for
a moment from the motives and passions of indi
viduals in business, and observe the organization
of business as a whole, considering its total work
ing and results, it is seen to be, not — as is often
asserted — a scheme of destructiveness and social
piracy, but a vast and complex movement of social
service. Crookedness and greed enough there are
on the surface of the business world, as the surface
of a stream bears along much scum and froth ; but
the stream itself, as it sweeps through the life of
the time, bears in its current, not a means of poi
soning the age, but a means of satisfying its needs.
The creation of new forms of business proceeds,
1 Matt. iv. 9.

3l8 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
as a rule, not from the desire to rob the commu
nity, but from the desire to serve it ; and, in the
main, the most rewarding forms of business are
those which are based on the discernment of real
needs and the supplying of real benefits. The
amazing multiplication of production through mod
ern machinery works, on the whole, to the same
large end of social service. Tragedies enough
there are of personal loss created by the introduc
tion of improved mechanical methods, as though
machinery were designed to grind in pieces the
workmen who are caught in its wheels ; yet noth
ing is more obvious than that machinery, through
its marvellous cheapening of production, is the poor
man's friend rather than his enemy. Startling,
therefore, as may be the temporary successes
achieved in defiance of the natural laws of busi
ness, the movement of industry on the whole is a
movement toward good. The achievement of the
arctic explorer Nansen was accomplished by com
mitting himself to the polar current and letting it
carry him along its course. The wise business
man commits himself in the same way to the
great current of human need and makes himself
a laborer together with God. Indeed, there are
many ways in which the moral end of the indus
trial order is reached through unconscious or even
unwilling instruments, as though with a sort of
providential irony. Many a man who is involved
in business affairs is quite unconscious that he is
performing any social service; he may even be

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 319
attempting to get the better of the social world, or
to do it a wrong ; yet the principle of service often
utilizes the self-interested or rapacious spirit, and
makes the wrath of man to praise it, so that an
undertaking devised for the meanest ends is over
ruled in its intention and contributes finally to the
general good.
Still more noteworthy than this ministry of ser
vice, consciously or unconsciously fulfilled, is a
certain distinctively ethical quality which may be
observed in the business world. It is quite true
that the prevailing standards of industrial life fail
in many of the finer and tenderer traits of social
morality, but it is none the less true that a certain
moral code, with characteristics of its own, exists
in business affairs and demands of business men
the most scrupulous conformity. Business life is
often harsh and even merciless in its methods, but
it makes much of such qualities as truth, honor,
fidelity, and loyalty. In fact, when one looks
below the surface of business life, it is most im
pressive to observe that its very existence and
continuance depend on certain moral assumptions,
and that it trains men in some ethical qualities
which do not seem to be developed in the same
degree anywhere else. People who are proposing
to reform social morality are not infrequently defi
cient in certain virtues which are absolutely funda
mental in commercial life. The reformers are apt
to classify as the highest of moral traits the softer
sentiments of sympathy, generosity and self-sacri-

320 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
fice, but they are not always scrupulous in measur
ing words and in discharging business obligations;
men, on the other hand, in the business world are
often limited in their moral horizon, and slow in
their moral emotions, but they are the chief agents
in maintaining certain of the most elementary of
social virtues. For multitudes of such men the
law of the good life is practically bounded by the
maintenance of their credit and the speaking of
the truth. Thus it happens that business transac
tions of vast dimensions are determined by a word
or even by a sign, and that vast systems of com
munication are trusted for their security to the
absolute fidelity of some obscure servant at the
telegraph table or the railway switch. The more
elaborate business becomes the more dependent
it is on these moral qualities. More fidelity and
sobriety are required of the motorman than of the
horse-car driver ; greater trustworthiness of the
modern mechanic than of the hand-worker whom
he succeeds. For the vast majority of workers in
the business world it is better capital to be morally
incorruptible than to be intellectually clever. The
first question which most employers desire to ask
concerning a person seeking employment is not :
Is he shrewd, unscrupulous, pliant ? but : Is he of
clean character, can he be trusted, does he drink ?
So far, at least, the moral life has become a dis
tinct element in the industrial problem, and must
be reckoned with in any organization of industry
which intends to meet the needs of the age.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 321
Modern business is not, as it is so often pictured,
the work of a horde of pirates and wreckers watch
ing for a chance to entrap and despoil the unwary ;
it is much more like the legitimate traffic of the
high seas, where there are many perils of storm
and collision, and many disasters wrought by treach
ery or rashness, but where on the whole strong men
are trained and the work of the world is bravely
done. In spite, then, of the insidious temptations in
which the world of industry abounds, the spirit and
intention of business life have some contact with
the spirit of the teaching of Jesus. The law of
service which he announces for his disciples is not
a wholly unknown principle in the world of com
petitive trade. It governs the organization of
industry regarded as a whole, and it tests great
numbers of individual lives even when they are
unconscious of its judgment. What then be
comes the duty of the follower of Jesus in his
relation to the industrial world ? His duty is, not
to deny himself this way of expressing the spirit
of service, or to permit himself scepticism concern
ing the possibility of such expression, but to give
himself with confidence and joy to his business
affairs as to that opportunity for the Christian life
which lies nearest to his hands. The problem of
the Christian in the world is not to escape from
the world, or to be on his guard against the world,
but to overcome the world. Confronted by the
kingdoms of this world, he does not hide from

322 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
their temptation, but rebukes the tempter and pro
ceeds to rule the world through serving it. He con
verts, as the book of Revelation says, the kingdom
of this world into the kingdom of our Lord and of
his Christ.1
Here is a test which any man may apply to
his own business life. Am I, in my own place
and degree, moved by the spirit of service ? Am
I contributing to that general movement of indus
try which lifts and ameliorates the life of my
time ; or am I, on the other hand, either a social
parasite or a social highwayman ? Am I so pro
ducing, distributing, administering, as to be a
laborer together with God ; or am I thwarting the
generosity of nature and fattening on the misfor
tunes of the weak? These are hard questions for
many men, corrupted by the passion of commercial
ism or by the opportunity for gain ; but they are
questions which for the vast majority of plodding
business lives lead to the restoration of self-respect
and hope. Great numbers of such persons are
sorely disheartened and perplexed by the incon
sistency which appears to exist between devotion
to their business and loyalty to their Christ. They
want to be followers of Jesus, but they have to
struggle for a living in the world of industry, and
their religion and business, their worship and
work, seem hopelessly. set apart. This is the spir
itual struggle which /in earlier ages drove thou
sands of conscientious souls into the monastic life.
Rev. xi. 15.

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 323
They could not find the way to be at once about
their own business and about their Father's busi
ness. What is it that can restore the sense of
unity to such divided lives ? It is the spirit of
service. To be able to look up out of the dust
and uncleanness of the business world and hon
estly say, " I am here as one that serveth ; I
am not being ministered unto, but I am minister
ing ; I accept my business responsibilities and my
business limitations as indicating the place in this
world where I am wanted, and the work in this
world which I am called to do," — that is what
gives to many an obscure and tempted life its
tranquillity, significance, and dignity. The soldier
in the thick of the battle does not expect to
know the whole plan of the campaign, nor has he
enlisted for any dainty service. He is set in his
own place, perhaps alone on the skirmish line,
perhaps in the solid front of the main body, per
haps, like the centurion of the gospel, as a man
of authority having soldiers under him, but in
any case with the movement of the whole army
depending at one point on him. When he is thus
in the midst of active warfare he is just where a
trained soldier desires to be, and he gives his life
to his work with a high and solemn joy.
Is such a figure of speech merely a preposterous
' idealization of the scramble and greed of the world
of industry ? On the contrary, it is precisely such
a campaign of human ingenuity and skill, enlisted
to subdue and utilize the forces of nature, which

324 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
industrial life in reality represents ; and it is in
such a field of service that the good soldier of
Jesus Christ finds his opportunity. Base strata
gems and barbarous methods still abound in the
campaign of industrial war and have their inevi
table consequences in stirring disloyalty and revo
lution in the ranks ; but these abuses of industrial
opportunity only serve to indicate what the task
of the follower of Jesus must be. The Chris
tian man in the business world is not bewildered
by its confusion or overcome by its temptations.
He is held to his post by the spirit of service. He
looks at business affairs from above, and per
ceives beneath their strenuous competitions the
signs of a possible brotherhood of industrial peace.
He approaches industrial problems from within,
convinced that any economic millennium- must be
reached, first of all, through the consecrated ini
tiative of competent individuals. Thus, in the
world of business he sees one of the most effective
agencies for perpetuating the teaching of Jesus, —
a place where integrity, fidelity, patience, thrift
and consistency have immediate justification and
large utility. He is alert for every sign of a more
just organization of industry, but he is equally
alert to make the most of those moral opportuni
ties which are already in his hands. He views the
economic world with hope and his fellow-men with
faith, because he approaches both in the spirit
of love.
Is such a habit of mind extremely rare in in-

THE INDUSTRIAL ORDER 325
dustrial life? Have the kingdoms of this world
been so persuasively presented by the devil to
this generation that business men have as with
one consent fallen down and worshipped him ?
On the contrary, behind the insatiable and un
scrupulous commercialism which disfigures the
face of modern industry there is a great mass of
faithful life doing the real work of the world with
unobserved and untempted devotion. The busi
ness world is like a building whose front is defaced
by such conspicuously bad work that the whole
structure seems to totter. Fortunately, however,
the columns which support the whole are undis
turbed. There may be grave reasons for shame
that the building is not more consistent or beau
tiful, but there is no reason to believe that it will
fall. The pillars of modern industrial life are
securely set in the moral stability of the vast
majority of business lives. Millions of such per
sons, as they scrupulously discharge their business
obligations, are meeting the demand of Jesus,
"Whosoever would be first among you shall be
your servant";1 and as they stoop to their ob
scure duties are obedient to his example, " If
I then, the Lord and the Master, have washed
your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's
feet."2 The Christian problem of the industrial
world is to multiply lives like these. If any revo
lution in the industrial order is to overthrow
the existing economic system, the new order must
1 Matt. xx. 27. 2 John xiii. 14.

326 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
depend for its permanence on the principles of
the teaching of Jesus ; but if the principles of the
teaching of Jesus should come to control the exist
ing economic system, a revolution in the industrial
order would seem to be unnecessary.

CHAPTER VII
THE CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS
JSeraose JE line, ge shall line also.
We have considered several of the modern social
questions under the form of concentric circles en
vironing the individual life. The radius of per
sonal inquiry is prolonged until it reaches, first
,the problem of the family, then that of wealth and
poverty, and finally that of the industrial order; and
the area of each problem in succession is seen to be
an essential part of a more comprehensive problem
with larger circumference and content. This figure
of speech, however, though convenient for consecu
tive chapters and entirely justified in point of fact,
gives by no means an adequate picture of the real
relationship among the various social questions.
It is quite true that the problem of the family
expands as one considers it until it is seen to be
in large part a question of the uses of wealth or
the effects of poverty ; it is true again that wealth
and poverty cannot be dealt with as independent
or fixed conditions, but must be interpreted in
terms of economic organization, progress, and
reform ; yet it is not less true that these outer
circles of social relations change under our hands
327

328 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
into the inner problems, so that the radius which
measures them contracts as easily as it has been
prolonged. The industrial agitation, for example,
is but one form of the revolt of the poor against
the rich ; the extremes of wealth and poverty are
alike in threatening the existence of domestic
ideals and of family seclusion ; the programme
of the socialist forces us to reconsider, first, the
distribution of private property, and then the na
ture and place of the family group.
Thus the relation of the social questions with
each other is not that of mere sequence or ex
pansion; it is one of mutual dependence and
transferability. Each problem which we have
considered turns out to be, in one or another
aspect, another problem in disguise, and it be
comes impossible to speak of any one as wholly
cause or as wholly effect. Shall we say, for in
stance, that it is the ill-ordered and ambitious
home which leads to poverty, or shall we say that
it is the strain of poverty which shatters the peace
of the home ? Is it the industrial order which
creates the sins of the rich, or is it the unscrupu
lous rich who pervert the industrial order? In
neither case can we affirm that at one point the
social malady invariably begins and that all other
symptoms come of contagion. Each problem may
begin anywhere. The diseases which we have con
sidered are epidemic rather than contagious. Lack
of industrial opportunity may involve, first, poverty,
and then the shattering of the home. An ambi-

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 329
tious home may lead first to wealth and then to
industrial crookedness. In short, we come upon
a relationship analogous to that which has been
discovered to exist between the various forces of
the physical world. What once appeared to be
the isolated and disconnected action of heat, light,
motion, or electricity, is now associated with all
other physical forces under the doctrine of correla
tion. I strike two stones together and the motion
is converted into heat or into light. I rub my seal
ing-wax and the motion is converted into electric
ity. I change heat into light in the lime light ;
heat into electricity in the electric light ; and
finally, electricity into light and heat and motion
in that wonderful combination of discoveries which
has become familiar in the electric railway. Here
is the most fruitful doctrine of modern science.
The varied modes of action in the physical world
are not to be interpreted or utilized in isolation ;
they are convertible, interpenetrating, correlated,
Something like this is the truth which under
lies the whole series of the social questions. For
practical convenience, each may be hypothetically
isolated ; there may be specialists in charity or in
economic reform, and even specialists in some sub
section of one social problem, such as charity for
children, or trades-unionism ; there may be special
organizations for divorce-reform or the building
of dwellings or the promotion of cooperation ; yet,
in all this diversity of operations, it must not be
forgotten that these varied enterprises are funda-

330 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
mentally correlated and convertible social forces.*
The gentle charity-visitor begins her apparently
simple task of relieving some destitute home, and
suddenly finds herself confronted by other social
problems which seem quite beyond her capacity
to solve. The real question presented to her turns
out, perhaps, to be one of domestic cruelty, involv
ing a decision on her part concerning the unity
of the family; or, more probably, the destitution
which she is called to relieve is but a sign of irregu
lar employment, for which the permanent remedy
is, not alms, but work. Thus the problem of relief
is abruptly transformed into that of domestic integ
rity or into the complex economic question of the
glut of labor ; and the kindly visitor to the poor is
bewildered as she perceives the scope and relations
of her lightly assumed task. Or, again, the judi
cious philanthropist, applying himself to improving
the dwellings of the poor, discovers that the first
principle of this new science lies — as we have
already observed — not in generosity or charity,
but in provision for domestic seclusion and for
economic independence. Many such enterprises
have failed because the poor prefer a home, how
ever squalid, to a barrack, however convenient;
and many other such enterprises have failed be
cause the poor have declined to be even generously
patronized or deprived of liberty. Wisdom in
1 In the same sense, Professor Clerk-Maxwell describes what he
calls the " cross-fertilization of the sciences." (lies ; Flame, Elec
tricity and the Camera, 1899, p. 74.)

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 331
this apparently detached form of philanthropy
comes of recognizing the correlation of the social
questions. The doctrine which thus issues from our con
siderations appears, it must be admitted, in its
first statement to be a somewhat disheartening
truth. If it is true that no social question can be
thoroughly interpreted without involving one in
remote and often much more comprehensive ques
tions, how can one hope to reach any satisfying
conclusion ? Who can deal adequately with all
these correlated aspects of social life ? When one
finds some special and limited inquiry ramifying
into so many complex considerations of social
philosophy, is he not naturally tempted to abandon
a task which he has neither the time nor the capac
ity to complete ?
Certainly, one must answer, there is much in
such reflections which is likely to check enthu
siasm and even to suggest despondency. When
one comes to realize the dimensions and many-
sidedness of the special problem with which he
is concerned, he will certainly approach it with
less assurance and be less certain that a com
plete and final solution of it is at hand. It is,
however, precisely this reserve and prudence,
and the wholesome loss of self-confidence which
they involve, which many social reformers of the
present day most urgently need to cultivate.
Each social question has become, to many zealous
advocates, of such engrossing interest that it

332 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
seems to them to hold the key of social ameliora
tion. We are met on every side by social panaceas
and social solutions. There appears to be in many
minds a sense of obligation to possess some spe
cific for social diseases or to know some short cut
to social prosperity. " If my plan," said one expo
nent of a problem of general redemption, "is not
sufficient, what is yours ? " as though it were the
duty of any serious-minded man to have some
universal remedy to propose.
There is a splendid earnestness in this eager
devotion. It proceeds, for the most part, not from
intellectual conceit, but from moral enthusiasm.
Something, it seems to these philanthropists,
must be done and done at once, to make a better
world, and they gallantly apply themselves to the
cleansing of that little corner of the great social
order upon which the windows of their minds
happen to look. Their social outlook creates their
social creed. The special reform with which they
concern themselves seems to them comprehensive
and sufficient. If the world would but accept their
remedy, — single tax, prohibition, nationalization of
industries, Malthusianism, old age pensions, non-
resistance, communal ownership, or some other of
the panaceas so earnestly commended, — the whole
constitution of modern society would be estab
lished in permanent health. It is a gallant and,
as we shall in a few moments point out, a fruit
ful enthusiasm, which is infinitely more contribu
tory to social progress than critical cynicism or

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 333
indifference. Yet it remains true that the rarest
virtue in the reformer is the gift of broad and
patient wisdom. The very intensity of his vision
involves, as a rule, a corresponding narrowness of
view. His eye is fixed on a single end, and he
takes little account of outlying or qualifying cir
cumstances. What he needs to appreciate, then,
is the correlation of the social questions, — the
many, and often remote, conditions which affect
and sometimes transform the problem immediately
before him, and the unexpected allies which may
come to his aid while quite unconscious of serv
ing him.
A striking illustration of this expansion and
transformation of one social question into other
forms is to be found in the later developments of
the so-called temperance cause. Here is a social
movement which has been very generally regarded
as an isolated and specialized work. A few ob
vious remedies have seemed sufficient to meet the
portentous evil of the drink habit. The pledge of
abstinence, the prohibition of sale, the physiologi
cal instruction of children, the constant agitation
of public sentiment, — these and kindred methods
of direct reform have appeared to bound the
sphere of temperance work. More and more, how
ever, it has become evident that, beyond these
specific agencies of reform, there are, on every side
of the temperance question, influences and move
ments which are among its most threatening
enemies or its most powerful allies. Domestic,

334 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
economic, even psychological and racial, con
ditions are intimately correlated with the prob
lem of drink. Is it drink which destroys the
family, or is it the disordered family life which
tempts to drink? Is the drink habit a morbid
passion, or is it in many cases a normal and
healthy craving for recreation which drives men
to the saloon ? Is it true, as one distinguished
economist has said, that the thirst for liquor
among working-men is not so much a question of
drink as of food, and that to know why a poor man
drinks one has but to look in his dinner-pail ? Is
it drink which robs men of their earnings, or is it
the fluctuation of earnings which drives men to
drink ? Would the drink traffic be less pernicious
if wisely converted into a municipal industry ?
Is the moral tone of the community weakened by
prohibitory legislation ? How does it happen that
the wine-drinking peoples of southern Europe are
temperate, and the water-drinking Anglo-Saxons
intemperate ? These are but indications of the
varied inquiries which now confront any one who
looks below the surface of the problem of temper
ance. What seemed to be a detached question
concerning a personal habit is in fact correlated
with almost every movement of social or economic
reform. The most effective attack upon the drink
habit may come of some flank movement, in the
interest of better homes, or healthy amusement,
or regular work, or nourishing food, or State con
trol, or the education of a new and superior desire.

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 335
A similar extension and ramification might be
observed in any one of the social questions of the
present time. Each has a part in the solution of
all the rest, and all are in a measure dependent on
the progress of each. Playgrounds, as the mayor
of Boston has lately pointed out, may be regarded
as an offset to penal institutions, and gymnastics
may reduce the* expenditure of prisons, so that it
may be even urged that " crime in our large cities
is to a great extent simply a question of athletics."
No social problem can, in any absolute sense, be
dealt with alone. It is but one aspect of the gen
eral evolution of social habits and ideals. One of
the most observant of American economists has
remarked, "When I hear any one bring forward
a solution of the social question, I move to ad
journ." There is, he means to say, no such thing
as the complete and immediate solution of spe
cial problems which are inextricably involved in
the general progress of social evolution. The
whole social body moves together if it moves at
all. The correlation of the social questions gives
to the scattered movements of social reform a
unity and interdependence so vast and complex
that one must dismiss the notion of a panacea for
each separate social ill, and content himself with
an imperfect' and contributory service.
Does it, however, follow from this view of prog
ress that one must turn back to his own special
problem with the despondent sense that little can
be done ? Is the doctrine of correlation in reality a

336 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
disheartening truth ? On the contrary, the enlarge
ment of relations, and the convertibility of power
thus acknowledged, give dignity and significance
to many a partial and discouraging effort for so
cial reform. Modesty, indeed, the doctrine of cor
relation teaches. One must recognize that the
work he has undertaken is much more varied and
comprehensive than it at first appeared to him to
be. To find, however, one's own limited plan of
social service reenforced by, and in its turn reen-
forcing, other and larger plans, is to regain self-
respect and hope where one had felt discouraged
and alone. The solitary sentinel remembers that
the army is at his back ; the hard-pressed bat
talion is aware that the same battle is going on
all along the line ; that defeat at one point may
contribute to the general victory, and that the ef
fective force is often strengthened by new and
unanticipated allies. The movement against the
drink habit, for instance, of which we have just
spoken, gets new vitality and importance as it
becomes associated with the whole movement
of industrial and moral progress. Temperance
reform was in grave danger of being side-tracked
from the main line of modern interest, and given
over to the politicians and the pious. It is now
seen to be one aspect of the comprehensive social
movement of the time, and, to many careful ob
servers, the problem of economic progress appears
to be in very large degree dependent upon the
problem of drink. The most judicious leader of

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 337
the labor agitation in Great Britain, on being
asked why he advocated total abstinence, answered
that it was for the economic power which could be
in this way so easily saved. He believed in and
practised temperance, that is to say, not primarily
for the sake of temperance, but for the sake of
labor reform. He was, indeed, but repeating what
Professor Cairnes years ago pointed out, that the
future of the laboring classes might be prophesied
by an examination of the excise returns. Econo
mists, that is to say, and labor agitators join with
physiologists and moralists in calling new atten
tion to the social significance of the drink habit ;
and the advocate of temperance, instead of being,
as in the past, in some degree isolated in his re
form and distrusted as a fanatic, finds himself,
through the acceptance of the doctrine of correla
tion, in the very centre of the main stream of
social reform.
The same enlargement of function and diver
sity of usefulness may be discovered in any form
of honest social service, and make of the doc
trine of correlation, not a discouraging, but a
highly stimulating, teaching. Suppose, for in
stance, that a few generous-minded persons organ
ize on an intelligent plan a working-men's club.
They have, in all probability, no very definite idea
of the outcome of their enterprise, but are moved
by the desire to offer education and entertainment
to less fortunate men. As their fraternal work
proceeds in its unambitious service, how shall

338 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
it be classified among the social movements
of the time ? From one point of view it has a
place in the temperance campaign, for it provides
a genuine substitute for the attractions of the
saloon ; from another point of view it is a contri
bution to the labor movement, for it gives to hand
workers material for study and liberty of discussion;
from still another point of view it is a peacemaker
between social classes, for rich and poor find in it
a real democracy and come to a more just under
standing of each other's ideals and faults. It may
even make for the stability of the home, though it
seems to withdraw its members from their homes.
An intelligent working-man in such a club, being
asked whether his wife did not wish him at home
in the evening, answered, "Yes ; but she says that
when I am at home I am much more interesting."
One thing such a club resolutely denies that it is
— a form of charity ; yet it precisely expresses
that acceptable charity which brings, not alms, but
friendship. One great human interest such a
club as a rule excludes — the discussion of reli
gion ; yet its rule of conduct is that which Jesus
himself laid down as one-half of religion, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Thus this
unassuming undertaking has its part in at least a
half-dozen of the social movements of the time,
and may perhaps be contributing more to effective
philanthropy and to undefiled religion than many
an organization definitely created in their names.
Or — to turn the same story round — suppose

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 339
that an employer, ignorant of the real instincts
and ambitions of his employees, introduces in his
business a spurious though well-intended form of
generosity. He feels a touch of that breeze of
industrial fraternity which has sprung up in our
time, but it does not really stir his nature to a new
life. He wants to keep his self-respect, but he
wants also to keep his profits. He looks, there
fore, for ways of combining the service of God and
the service of Mammon. Thus he may seem to
himself to be generous when he is in fact only
patronizing. He provides homes for his employees,
but under terms which limit their liberty ; he ad
justs wages with what appears to be liberality,
but under conditions which irritate and restrict ;
he counsels thrift and simplicity, while his own
domestic life remains ostentatious and vulgar. Is
this merely a commercial phenomenon, bounded
by the business in which master and man meet ?
On the contrary, this half-hearted service has its
effect all along the line of the social movement,
to hinder advance and to create distrust. The
instinct of the home in working-people protests
against a home that is not one's own ; the self-
respect of the wage-earner refuses to be patron
ized ; the commercial maxims of the employer
cannot teach what his private life denies ; finally,
the man who had fancied himself earning the grati
tude due to a generous philanthropist finds himself,
to his own great surprise, responsible for industrial
dissatisfaction and revolt.

340 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
Here, then, is the larger teaching of the doc
trine of correlation. There is in the modern
social world no detached or isolated life, and no
one can be sure at precisely what point his life
or work may affect the life or work of the com
munity. He may be in intention serving at one
point, and the force of his service may be trans
formed into quite another form of effectiveness ;
or he may be quite unconscious that he has any
part whatever in the social question, while, in fact,
he has made himself a conspicuous instigator of
social revolution. When one realizes this truth,
he turns, with a new courage and self-respect, to
the special form of service which immediately in
vites him. Any honest and generous work, he
sees, may count in unforeseen and surprising ways.
His charity may fail in the form of relief, and yet
may be communicated in the form of character ;
his business may be necessarily businesslike, and
yet may be wise philanthropy. The scattered
social forces, utilized by myriads of men, are
taken up into the comprehensive unity of the
social movement, so that each separate impulse
is transmitted through the whole organic life.
Such is the correlation of the social questions ;
and when we turn from this modern and scientific
analogy to the teaching of Jesus Christ, we find
the same truth foreshadowed in many striking
ways. No inquiry could be more misleading or
superfluous than to search the gospels for confir
mation of the principles of modern science. The

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 34 1
harmonies of science with religion are in this sense
as unreal and fanciful as the harmony of poetry
with chemistry, or of art with politics. Yet as
one traces the correlations of social activity and
the transmission of social power, he cannot help
recalling the reiterated promises of Jesus to his
disciples that the humblest tasks performed by
them might become effective for the greatest ends.
"Whosoever," he says, "shall give to drink unto
one of these little ones a cup of cold water only,
... he shall in no wise lose his reward." a " Whoso
shall receive one such little child in my name
receiveth me."2 "Then shall the King say, . . .
Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the king
dom prepared for you from the foundation of the
world : for . . . Inasmuch as ye did it unto one
of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it
unto me." 3 Jesus, that is to say, dignifies and
transfigures the devotion to that which is least,
not merely by the promise of that which is much
as its future reward, but by the assurance that
there is no distinction of least and much, that the
issues of the kingdom and the service of the King
may be determined by the giving of the cup of
water and by the care of the little child.
Nor is it in terms of commendation only that
this teaching of the conversion of social forces
is set forth. Some of the most solemn denuncia
tions of Jesus are uttered against those who slight
the modest opportunity or obstruct the insignifi-
1 Matt. x. 42. 3 Matt, xviii. 5. 8 Matt. xxv. 34, 40.

342 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
cant life. With great detail and eloquent reiter
ation he describes the man who omits to care for
the hungry, the naked, and the sick, and perceives
in this social neglect an essential disloyalty to
God. "Depart from me, ye cursed, . . . Inas
much as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye
did it not unto me." J He deals with the mere
obstructionist in social life as one who is in reality
thwarting the ends of the kingdom and whose life
is worse than wasted. "Whoso shall cause one
of these little ones ... to stumble, it is profitable
for him that a great millstone should be hanged
about his neck, and that he should be sunk in
the depth of the sea."2 Even the words which
men carelessly utter, Jesus teaches, are correlated
with remote issues of thought and conduct, and
affect all the outer circles of one's social life, as
the ripples from a stone cast into a still lake go
circling out until they break upon the distant
shore. "Every idle word that men shall speak,
they shall give account thereof in the day of judg
ment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified,
and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." 3
Jesus, that is to say, announces as a spiritual prin
ciple the same quality of radiation and convertibil
ity in moral forces which we have considered in
terms of a physical analogy. There is to him no
detached duty, no isolated neglect, no lost word.
Each is transformed into new shapes of utility or
new occasions of offence, and each may come at
1 Matt. xxv. 41, 45. 2 Matt, xviii. 6. 8 Matt. xii. 36, 37.

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 343
last to be the test of the whole of life in the day
of judgment. The doctrine of correlation is a
modern statement of the teaching of Jesus, that
the fragmentary service of the least of his breth
ren is taken up into the unity of discipleship to
him. At this point, however, we come into view of a
further aspect of this physical analogy which we
have left thus far unnoticed, and which is not with
out new suggestiveness when applied to the social
world. The transmutation of physical forces and
their conservation in new forms indicate to the
scientific observer that he is observing, not intrin
sically different phenomena, but various manifesta
tions of a single force. We cannot properly speak
of the forces of nature. Heat, light, magnetism
and the rest are in fact only the temporary ex
pressions of one pervasive and comprehensive
force. Behind the diversity of operations in
nature lies the supreme fact of the unity of
nature, whose action is neither originated nor
increased, but only transmuted and conserved,
by the forces which we see. The fundamental
belief upon which physical science rests is the
assurance of continuity and undiminished effec
tiveness in that central activity which in the trans
formations of the various physical forces appears
to be dissipated or destroyed.
What then, one goes on to ask, is the nature of
this permanent unity of power, of which the physi
cal forces of nature are transient expressions ? To

344 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
this question the teaching of physical science gives
no reply. We have come to the border line be
tween that which can be observed in nature and
that which must be inferred to be at the heart of
nature, and we pass from the domain of physics
to that of metaphysics. For the sake of clearness
in distinguishing between the changeful and the
permanent aspects of physical life, science has
agreed to give to the underlying unity of force
the title of " energy " ; yet of the nature of this
central energy science makes no assertion be
yond the fact of its manifestation in those forces
whose action we observed. Mr. Spencer, as he
reaches this central doctrine of the unity of force,
approaches it in language which reaches almost
a lyric strain of confession, and concludes with
words not unlike those of a theological creed.
"Deeper," he says, "than demonstration —
deeper even than definite cognition — deep as the
very nature of mind, is the postulate at which
we have arrived." "Amid the mysteries which
become the more mysterious the more they are
thought about, remains the one absolute certainty
that he is ever in the presence of an Infinite and
Eternal Energy from which all things proceed." 1
Such is the doctrine of energy into which the
doctrine of correlation opens ; and as we have
ventured to use the analogy of the latter doctrine
to illustrate the transformations and unity of social
1 " First Principles " (Am. Ed.), Ch. VI, p. 192; " Religion, a
Retrospect and Prospect," p. 35.

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 345
service, we are naturally led on to ask the final
question which this analogy suggests. Here are
these various forms of social activity, transmuted,
as we have seen, in the most surprising ways and
with undiminished force into new channels of
expression and effectiveness. The correlation and
conservation of the social movements bind together
all scattered types of social service in a sense of
unity. They are not disconnected undertakings,
but partial manifestations of one social dynamic,
which moves the entire mechanism of the social
order. What, then, is the nature of this unity
which thus expresses itself in all these changeful
aspects of social responsibility? What is the social
energy from which all these movements which we
have considered may be believed to proceed ?
This question is obviously not met by the intrinsic
difficulty which is presented in the case of the phys
ical world. There is in social life no chasm to be
bridged between what can be observed and meas
ured and what lies absolutely beyond verification.
The social movements are not external and me
chanical changes ; they are simply phases of
human life and history, open to analysis by any
one who can interpret the motives of masses of
men. In short, in the study of modern society,
we are moving altogether in the region of human
motives and ideals, where the social energy which
stirs the whole must be of the same verifiable qual
ity as the social movements which it utilizes. An
army may be in one aspect regarded and studied

346 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
as a machine, and in some cases the more per
fectly mechanical the movement of an army is,
the better it fulfils its ends; yet there is no diffi
culty in recognizing that what acts like a machine
is after all an instrument and expression of the
commander's will. In the same way, the social
forces of philanthropy and reform have their me
chanical laws and external conditions ; but the
social energy which directs and unites them is to
be sought in the world of human desires, duties,
reasonings, and hopes.
When, therefore, we ask what it is in human life
which has inspired the extraordinary range and di
versity of the modern social movements, the whole
character of our preceding inquiries indicates the re
ply. The social questions are, in their main scope
and intent, manifestations of the moral life of the
time. They are ethical questions. They appear
in forms which are political or industrial, but be
hind these diversities of form works the one spirit.
Against the lust of the flesh there rises up the in
stinct of chaste love and creates the social question
of the family ; against the lust of riches there appear
the emotions of benevolence and pity and create
the problem of charity ; against economic injus
tice there rises up the hope of an industrial com
monwealth and creates the labor question. Thus
there is a mechanism of the social questions and
a motive power, and while the mechanism may be
externally adjusted by legislation or organization,
the motive power is to be found in human hearts

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 347
and wills. The social questions occur simply be
cause a very large number of people are trying in
many different ways to do what is right. The
moral life is written across the face of the time
in the language of the social questions. The
social energy of the modern conscience finds its
main channel of expression in the social forces
of modern reform.
This truth of the fundamentally ethical character
of the social questions has repeatedly presented
itself in the course of our separate considerations.
Now, however, when it appears once more as the
outcome of the doctrine of correlation, we are led
to observe more closely its implications and corol
laries. If it is true that social progress is but the
expression of moral energy, this is a truth of the
utmost significance, both for the student of social
questions and for the student of the teaching of
Jesus Christ.
To the first of these students there is indicated
the one absolutely indispensable element in all
forms of social service. It is the supply and
the control of moral motive-power. The social
movements of the time have become organized
on such a scale that a vast amount of time and
attention are necessarily devoted to the admin
istration of their machinery. Nothing, however,
is more purposeless or more ludicrous than an
elaborate mechanism which has not power enough
to do its work. Social power uncontrolled by
well-ordered mechanism is, it is true, often in-

348 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
effective, wasted, or dangerous, like steam escap
ing from ill-adjusted valves ; but social mechanism
unprovided with moral power is simply dead
routine or downright self-deception, like a ma
chine which men spend their lives in devising,
and which, after all, will not move. Here is the
practical peril which every administrator of social
reform has to meet. It is so easy to get involved
in the machinery which one has perhaps himself
created, so easy indeed to become a part of that ma
chinery and to trust to its automatic effectiveness,
that it sometimes requires a positive spiritual
effort to remind one's self that the only justifica
tion of a social machine is its transmission of social
energy. A charity administrator accomplishes his
round of inquiry and relief, an organizer of work-
ingmen gathers the whole membership of a trade
into his union, a temperance reformer procures
the legislation which his cause seems to require,
— yet, when the test of this mechanical activity
arrives, how disheartening its results often seem
to be ! The poor remain as importunate and as
ingeniously deceitful as ever ; the working-men,
when the strain is put upon their loyalty and
patience, fall away from the organization and its
creed ; the community persists in behaving, under
the best of liquor laws, much as it did when there
was no restraint. Is it then to no purpose that
poor-relief and labor-unions and temperance laws
are so laboriously devised and sustained ? On the
contrary, these channels of organization are abso-

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 349
lutely essential both to control and to utilize the
social energy which they receive. The wise en
gineer, however, is aware that through such chan
nels is to flow a turbulent stream of human
emotion and desires, which has its sudden floods
and ebbs, and for whose restraint and discipline
he must provide. Charity administration, in judi
cious and loving hands, checks the flood of mendi
cancy, finds new outlets into the fields of industry,
stirs and guides the motives of the poor, until the
stream of poverty, broad as it remains, is held in
check by the channel of relief. Labor organiza
tion, to be under control when the stream of
passion runs high, must be fortified by moral
education when the current of industrial life is
calm. Nothing is more suicidal in such move
ments than to trust to sudden emotions or in
flaming words or elaborate organization. These
sources of power fail as suddenly as a spring
freshet subsides, and leave at the best only a track
of destruction behind. Permanent efficiency pro
ceeds from intelligence, prudence and loyalty cul
tivated in tranquil days and providing, in time of
strain, an even and trustworthy supply of moral
energy. Temperance reform is but a labor of
Sisyphus, and the burden it desires to remove
rolls back on the community again, unless the
agitation is consistently directed, not so much to
the hampering of a trade, as to the disciplining
of a passion. The drink habit is in very large
degree the perversion of one of the most univer-

350 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION-
sal of human desires, the thirst for exhilaration,
recreation, and joy, and to remove the only avail
able means for satisfying this normal craving with
out providing adequate substitutes, is like blocking
the channel where a stream does harm without
observing how many new fields the same stream
is likely to devastate.
Thus in every social question the problem of
guiding and directing social energy lies behind
the problem of developing social organization.
The first inquiry of the social reformer should
be : " What is the nature of the special emotion
or desire or appetite with which I am now called
to deal ? How can I utilize it, educate it, and
direct it to its proper end ? " Here is the key
to judicious methods. When one fairly realizes
that he is concerned, first of all, not with ma
chinery, but with life, not with "cases," but with
people, not with economic schemes, but with
the passions, hopes, and ideals of human beings,
then his ways of social organization will become,
not less painstaking, but more sympathetic, pru
dent, patient, and wise. There is no quality in
modern life more beautiful, or indeed more he
roic, than this capacity to handle social machinery
without loss of moral vitality and faith. To be
from day to day an official and still to remain
merciful, tender-hearted, and hopeful ; to be a
reformer, without loss of broad sympathy or of
hospitality of mind ; to be an employer, and find
within the field of industry room for humanity,

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 351
democracy, and idealism ; to believe in a cause,
but to believe still more in the courage, strength,
and peace to which the cause opens the way, —
these are the qualities which redeem social service
from its discouragements, its small conceits and
its automatism, and make it virile, healthy, happy,
and sane.
This truth, however, that the social questions are
expressions of moral energy is a truth which is
also of special significance for the student of the
teaching of Jesus. From what source, one asks
himself, is there to come an adequate supply of
this moral energy, this impulse of love and hope,
of courage and patience, of sympathy and wisdom,
which shall keep the social movement fresh and
free ? What source of spiritual power can insure
to the stream of service an even and abundant
flow, instead of an intermittent and wasted cur
rent ? It is not necessary, in reply to this ques
tion, to insist that the teaching of Jesus is the
sole source of such social energy. Many causes
have conspired to make the present the age of the
social question, and many influences and circum
stances have enlarged the stream of sympathy and
social obligation which flows through the midst of
the present time. Yet it is perfectly evident that
the Christian Church has at its command both a
quantity and a quality of social power, which,
whenever they have been fairly utilized, have had
quite unparalleled effect. No sooner did the first
flood of Christian feeling sweep over the ancient

352 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
world than a new harvest of philanthropy spon
taneously sprang up, as a new crop springs from
a sterile field where the stream of irrigation has
flowed. The same social fruitfulness has followed
in every age each new access of genuine Christian
life. Even when such a stream has been diverted
to what seems antagonistic to the social life, as in
the development of monasticism, there have been
none the less created new social ties, with new
ways of organization for social service. Plainly
we have in the teaching of Jesus a source of social
energy which has been but scantily utilized by the
modern world.
Nor is it necessary to insist that the message
of Jesus is primarily one of social welfare. On
the contrary, it comprehends many other things ;
and, as we saw at the outset of this inquiry, is
primarily, not a message to society, but one
addressed to the needs and desires of the in
dividual soul. Primarily devoted, however, as
the message of Jesus is to the individual, it is
none the less true that with constant and solemn
reiteration he affirms -the test of the salvation of
the individual to reside in his contribution to
social service. Not confession of sin alone, he
says, nor adoration, nor orthodoxy of opinion, but
the fruits of the spirit are the signs of discipleship.
If any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none
of his. "By their fruits ye shall know them."1
" Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,
1 Matt. vii. 16.

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 353
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." 1
Not ecclesiastical fellowship nor theological assent
separates, according to Jesus, the sheep from the
goats, but the care of the hungry and the stranger
and the sick. 2 Not he who receives the water of
baptism or the cup of communion has the assur
ance of blessing, but, "Whosoever shall give to
drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold
water only, . . . shall in no wise lose his reward. " 3
What irony of religious teaching, then, it is, and
what a deliberate withdrawal of the influence of
Christianity from any bearing on the concerns of
modern life, when it is proposed to prolong the
ancient controversies of orthodoxy or ritual or
organization, as though they in any degree repre
sented the ends to which Jesus devoted himself, or
could be of the slightest real concern to those who
are meeting the needs of the present age. Accord
ing to the teaching of Jesus, the Christian Church
is to be, not a deposit of opinion, but a source of
spiritual energy, a mighty social dynamic, a foun
tain of redemptive life. " Because I live," he says,
"ye shall live also."4 The gift of Jesus is a gift
of life. " I came that they may have life ; " 5 and
life is known by its creative, self-propagating,
self-communicating power.
¦ It follows from this truth that achievements
which are often regarded as extraneous and acci-
1 Matt. vii. 21. 2 Matt. xxv. 35. 8 Matt. a. 42.
4 John xiv. 19. 5 John x. 10.
2 A

354 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
dental in the work of a Christian church may be
in fact its essential and central intention and the
best justification of its existence and its claims.
A church, for instance, proceeds to enforce its
forms and tests, its theology and philosophy,
as its central duty, and as if incidentally and
by the way leavens the community about it with
the spirit of benevolence, sympathy, patience,
and hope. What a curious experience it might
be for such a church some day to wake, and
discover that these incidental achievements were
what most commended it to its Master ! A
Christian mission in foreign parts lavishes its
efforts in the attempt to bring heathen to Christ,
and counts, with great self-reproach, few gains
from all its devotion ; but meantime, while fulfill
ing its technical obligation, it comes to pass
that the spiritual climate in the neighborhood
of these devoted souls by degrees experiences a
subtle change — cruelty disappears, domestic life
grows purer, tolerance and truthfulness begin to
supplant the heathen traits of bigotry and de
ceit. What is this gentler air which is breathed
wherever a wisely administered mission has done
its patient work ? It is the proof that the mis
sion is accomplishing that which it was set to
do. This, and not the number of converts it can
count, may be the test of its missionary fidel
ity, genuineness, and power. Many a man can
teach Christian doctrine to heathen listeners, but
only a life which has been hid with Christ in God

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 355
can communicate to heathen lives the spiritual
energy which proceeds through Christ from God.
Or, once more, a new and sudden responsibility is
laid upon a nation to convey to people at the ends
of the earth the blessings of a Christian civiliza
tion ; and many are rash enough to say in the
name of religion, " Let us first subdue this people
by force of arms and then the way will be clear
to carry to them the teaching of Jesus." The
teaching of" Jesus, however, is not something that
waits until the social questions of aggression and
war are answered. It must be communicated
through the process of civilization, not after that
process, or before it. It is impossible for the same
nation to present itself to a heathen world, first as
rapacious, commercialized, and lustful for glory,
and later as an ambassador of the mercy and grace
of Christ. We have seen in the making of money
that it is the getting of wealth with clean hands,
and not the free spending of ill-gotten wealth,
which marks the Christian man of business. The
same thing may be said of empire-making. It is
the moral quality of the conquest itself, and not
that which may happen after the conquest, which
represents the Christian energy of the conquering
nation ; and it is the motives which prompt and
direct the original approach to a heathen civiliza
tion which are likely either to bring heathen to
Christ or to repel them from him.
What is it, then, to which we are brought as the
special problem which presents itself to the Chris-

356 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION

tian Church in the age of the social question ? It
is the problem of communicating to the social
movement that social energy which the teaching
of Jesus originates and conserves. There are
other aspects of that teaching which have met the
peculiar needs of other times ; and there are some
aspects of it which are plainly applicable to all
times and which touch the universal experience of
human sin, contrition, and aspiration. Yet all these
profound effects of the teaching of Jesus, its recon
struction of theology and its regeneration of indi
vidual life, are consummated and justified by being
gathered up into a sense of power which can create
a better world. After all, the test of religion is in
what it will do. St. Paul, discoursing of Christian
theology, submits even the world of knowledge to
the test of power, " That I may know him," he
says, " and the power of his resurrection " ; 1 as
though even his certainty concerning the resurrec
tion of Christ was precious to him because of the
power which it conveyed. Jesus himself often
defines discipleship to himself in terms of social
utility. " By this shall all men know that ye are
my disciples, if ye have love one to another." 2
What, then, is the place of the Christian Church
in the modern world ? It is not a place where cor
rectness of opinion is guarded and maintained ; not
a cold-storage warehouse for uncorrupted truth ;
not merely a place of religious utterance, or of
religious symbolism, or a gymnasium of ritual
1 Phil. iii. 10. ! John xiii. 35.

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 357
for the calisthenics of the soul. It is, to use the
language of our modern life, a " power-house,"
where there is generated a supply of spiritual
energy sufficient to move the world with wis
dom, courage, and peace. Let this power fail,
and a church stands in the midst of modern life
without adequate reason for existence, a Sunday
club, an entertainment bureau, a survival of the
days when religion was real. A living church com
municates power. "The tree is known by its fruit." x
"Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good
fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."2
And what, again, is the place of a Christian
teacher or preacher in such a time ? He is like
one who has at his command some tremendous
source of physical power, such as the cataract of
Niagara provides, and who proposes to utilize this
power in the service of the world. The stream
has flowed for ages, abundant and unspent, but
for the most part it has been rather a spectacle
to admire than a power to use ; and when, from
time to time, timid ventures have been made to
use it, they have come to harm by the very excess
of power which they had not learned to control.
At last arrives the new opportunity of the modern
world. The miracles of modern invention and
organization provide an adequate channel for the
distribution of this mighty power through all the
varied and correlated needs of men, and the task
of the modern engineer, unprecedented in its
1 Matt. xii. 33. 2 Matt. iii. 10.

358 JESUS CHRIST AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION
opportunity, is to direct and control the power
itself. Never before has the world seen the
mechanism of the social order adapted as it now
is for the conveyance of social energy. The ample
channel, thus provided, waits for the power of the
Christian life, and as the sufficient stream leaps
forth into the varied activities of the world, it sings
as it flows, " I came that they may have life, and
may have it abundantly." 1
What, then, in its simplest statement, is the
relation of the teaching of Jesus to the social
question ? That teaching is, for those who can
receive it, the chief source of this spiritual power,
for whose transmission the social order is pre
pared ; and of this transmission of power the
humblest of the followers of Jesus may be an
instrument. He sanctifies himself for others'
sakes, and there is given to him unanticipated
effectiveness for social service. He becomes an
unobstructed channel for the water of life. "He
that believeth on me, . . . out of his belly shall
flow rivers of living water." 2 Much there may
be in the teaching of Jesus which remains too
exalted or obscure to command the honest con
viction of the man of the modern world ; yet he
has found at least the secret of spiritual power.
The view of life from above has given him com
mand of the world below; the approach to life
from within has made him master of himself ; and
the direction of life to a spiritual ideal has given
1 John x. 10. a John vii. 38.

CORRELATION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS 359
him magnanimity, patience, and peace. It may
not be for him to know the mysteries of the king
dom of heaven, but it is enough if he may prepare
the coming of that kingdom, and the great words
of Jesus-support his ignorance and renew his hope : ,
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." l
" And I remember still
The words, and from whence they came,
Not he that repeateth the name
But he that doeth the will.
And him evermore I behold
Walking in Galilee,
Through the cornfield's waving gold
By the shores of the Beautiful Sea.
* * * * *
" And that voice still soundeth on
From the centuries that are gone
To the centuries that shall be.
From all vain pomps and shows,
From the pride that overflows,
*****
" Poor sad humanity
Through all the dust and heat
Turns back with bleeding feet
By the weary round it came,
Unto the simple thought,
By the great Master taught,
And that remaineth still,
Not he that repeateth the name
But he that doeth the will."2
l Matt. vii. 21. 2 Longfellow, "The Golden Legend," Finale.

INDEX OF BIBLE PASSAGES

Exodus

Leviticus Deut.PsalmsProverbsIsaiah

u. 14
xix. 6 .
xix. 18
xv. II
li. 10
xii. 1 .
xiv. 21
ix. 6
xi. 2 .
lviii. 6 .
lviii. 7 .
lxiii. 9 .
Jeremiah xxiii. 28
xxiii. 29
xxiii. 32
xxiii. 39
xxiv. 6 .
xxiv. 7 .
ii. 44
iii. 10
iv. 3 .
iv. 4 .
iv. 9 .
iv. 18
v.-vii. v. 3 ¦
v. S •
v. 21
V. 30
v. 31
v. 42

DanielMatthew

VI. IS .
vi. 3 .
vi. 10
vi. 19
vi. 20
vi. 21
vi. 24

PAGE
• 27S
¦ 93
• 249
228, 242
. 118
. 228
. 228
. 86
. 86
228
. 228
. 8631
• 31
• 31
• 31
¦ 3i
¦ 31
• 93
179. 3S7
. 114
• "S
296, 317
• 77

193, 200, 239
*• ¦ • 239
. 146
. . . 214
. 146
193, 237, 239, 257
. . . 241
217, 241
... 92
188, 207, 277
• 193. 277
. . . 207
189, 244

PAGE

Matthew vi. 33

• • 277

vi. 34 .

• ¦ 277

vii. 7 . .

. . 24O

vii. 16

• ¦ 352

vii. 21

353. 359

viii. 4 . .

. . 89

viii. 5 . .

- • 77

viii. 5-13 .

. . 278

viii. 10

. . 203

viii. 14

. 203

viii. 21

. 81

ix. 9 . .

. . 278

ix. 10

• • 203

a. 31

¦ • 77

x. 34 ¦

. . 286

x. 42

34i, 353

xi. 5 . .

238, 242

xi. 12

. . 286

xi. 25 .

. . 302

xi. 28

• 70, 239

xii. 28

. . 96

xii. 33 .

¦ 357

xii. 36 .

• • 342

xii. 37 .

• • 342

xiii. 3-8 .

• • 277

xiii. 4-7 .

. . 302

xiii. n

. . 290

xiii. 25

. . 3°2

xiii. 26

. . 302

xiii. 31

100, 286

xiii. 32

. . 100

xiii. 33 .

. . 100

xiii. 45 .

• ¦ 277

xiii. 46

¦ 92. 277

xiii. 47

. . 278

xiii. 48

. . 278

xiii. 54 .

. . 86

xv. 32 .

. . 248

xvi. 2 . .

• • 4

tfl

362

INDEX OF BIBLE PASSAGES

PAGE

PAGE

Matthew xvi. 3 .

• • 4
Matthew xxiv. 31
. . . 92
xvi. 27
. . 302
xxiv. 33 .
. . . 96
xvii. 1 .
. . 88
xxiv. 34
. . . 287
. . 89
xxv. 13
209, 287
xvii. 15-1!:
. . 108
xxv. 14-30
208, 209
xvii. 25
• • 275
xxv. 14
. . 222
¦ • 94
xxv. 16
. . 278
xviii. 5
• 94. 341
xxv. 17
. . 278
• • 342
xxv. 20
. . 2I4
¦ • 157
XXV. 21 . 122, 209, 214,
• • 157
243
xviii. 12
. . 80
xxv. 23
. . 290
xix. 3 .
. . 146
xxv. 24-28
. . 3°2
. . 151
xxv. 24-30
. . 222
xix. 5 .
150, 151
xxv. 29
209, 290
xix. 6 .
15°
152. 158
xxv. 30
. . 2I4
• • 155
xxv. 34 . 2
41, 266, 34I
xix. 9 .
146, 159
xxv. 35 .
• • 353
xix. 10
• • 155
xxv. 35 ff.
. . 217
xix. 10-12
. • 156
xxv. 40 . ;
1, 241, 266,
xix. 16-22
. . 210
34i
xix. 21
193
239, 240
xxv. 41
• 71, 342
xix. 24
. 189
xxv. 45 .
• • 342
xix. 30
. 289
xxvi. 6 . .
. . 148
xx. 1-16
. 286
xxvi. 7 . .
. . 219
278
xxvi. 8 . .
. 219
xx. 8 .
• 293
xxvi. 9 . .
. . 219
xx. 14
286,
289, 293
xxvi. 13
. 219
xx. 15
. 213
xxvi. 21
. . 302
xx. 16
. 286
Mark i. 14
. . 92
xx. 27
315.
316, 325
i. 15 .
. . 92
xx. 28
¦ 315
i. 20
. . 203
xxi. 33
. 278
ii. 15 .
. . 203
xxii. 15
¦ 274
iv. 9 . . .
. . 81
xxii. 18
. 146
iv. 25
290, 291
xxii. 20
• 193
iv. 31 . .
. . 100
xxii. 21
• 78
iv. 32 . .
. . 100
xxii. 28
• 159
iv. 34 . .
. . 90
xxii. 30
• 159
viii. 15 .
• • 95
xxii. 33
• 147
viii. 26
. . 89
xxii. 39
¦ 56
viii. 36
. . 113
xxiii. 23
. 246
ix. 1 . .
• ¦ 93
xxiii. 26
U3. 179
ix. 23 .
• • 309
xxiv. 3 .
101, 305
A. 1-12 .
152
xxiv. 27
. 302
A. II
. . 146
xxiv. 30
. 92
x. 17-23
. . 210
INDEX OF BIBLE PASSAGES

363

Mark

Luke

PAGE

PAGE

X. 21 . . .

. . 211

Luke xii. 13 . .

... 194

A. 23 . . .

. 183,212

xii. 13-15 .

• ¦ • 275

x. 31 . . .

289

xii. 14 . .

... 78

a. 43 . . .

¦ 94.205

xii. 15 . .

• • 79. J89

x. 46 . . .

. . . 77

xii. 16-21 .

194, 208

xii. 1-11 . .

. . 222

xii. 19-21 .

. .213,277

xii. 2 ...

. . 222

xii. 20 . .

. . . 209

xii. 9 ...

• • 223

xii. 22 . .

• • 237

xii. 13 . . .

¦ 274

xii. 32-34

• 239

xii. 37 . . .

. . 204

xii. 33 . .

193
xii. 40 . .
221
xii. 40 . .
213
xii. 43
. . . 217
xii. 42 . .
243
xiii. 34 . . .
. 222, 244
xii. 43 • •
2l6
xiv. 3 . . .
. 219
xii. 44 . .
2l6
i- 53 - ¦ •
• ¦ 194
xii. 48 . .
293
ii- 35 • •
• • 3IO
xii. 54-56 .
4
ii. 51 • •
. . 148
xiii. 19 . .
100
ii. 52 . . .
. . 86
xiii. 21
100
iv. 4 ...
. 219
xiii. 30 . .
. . 289
iv. 20
. . 238
xiv. 21 . .
193, 286
iv. 21 . . .
. . 238
xiv. 33 . .
. . . 210
/. 11 . . .
. . 2IO
xv. 4-6 . .
. . 278
v. 14 . . .
. . 89
xv. 8 . . .
80, 92, 278
v. 27 . . .
• ¦ 77
xv. 9 .
... 278
vi. 20 . . £
7, 188, 193,
xv. 18
102, 117, 147
200, 239
xvi. 1-13 . .
194, 208
vi. 24 . . .
57, 188, 193
xvi. ^ . . .
. . . 246
vi. 29 . . .
. . 81
xvi. 11 . .
209, 278
vi. 30 . . .
193, 240
xvi. 18 . .
. 146, 152
vii. 22 . .
. . 82
xvi. 20 . .
... 194
vii. 37 . . .
• 77.219
xvi. 21
. . 210
vii. 50 . . .
. . 70
xvii. 5 . . .
... 309
viii. 3 . . .
. . 204
xvii. 6 .
¦ • 3°9
viii. 16-18
. 291
xvii. 10
• • 244
ix. 25 .
. . 214
xvii. 20 . .
• • ¦ 93
ix. 27
259, 300
xvii. 21 . .
• • 93. 300
ix. 28 .
• • 259
xviii. 8 . .
¦•¦ 314
ix. 29 . . .
¦ • 259
xviii. 13 . .
... 117
ix. 51 . . .
. . 98
xviii. 18 ff. . .
. . . 210
ix. 58 . . .
• • 147
xviii. 22 . .
57. 189, 193,
x. 9 ...
. . 300
210, 217, 234,
x. 23 . . .
. . 96
239, 246
x. 3°-3S • •
241, 249
. . 57, 216
x. 35 . . .
x. 42 . . .
. . 250
• • 77
xix. 7 . . .
... 77
xi. 30-42 • ¦
• • 243
364

INDEX OF BIBLE PASSAGES

PAGE

Luke xix. 9  203

xix. 13 . . .

. . 222
xix. 13-27
. 208
xix. 20-24 .
. . 222
XIX. 22 . . .
. . 222
XX. 20 . . .
• • 274
XXI. I . . . .
. . 242
xxi. 3 .
. . 242
XXI. 4 . .
. . 242
xxii. 12-38 . .
. . 88
xxii. 27
¦ • 315
xxii. 36 . . .
. . 81
xxii. 69
¦ . 302
XXIV. 21
. 90
xxiv. 32
¦ • 310
John ii. 1-11 .
76, 148
11. * . .
. 81
111. 1 . .
77. 203
111. 1-21 .
89, 205
m. 35 ¦
• 315
iv. 7-26 .
• 205
iv. 7-29 .
. 89
iv. 24
. 148
iv. 26
. 148
iv. 35 •
. 3°i
vi. 37 .
• 239
vi. 63 .
• 90
vii. 38 .
¦ 358
vm. 7-1 1 .
148
vm. 12
• 74
IX. 1 . .
¦ 77
IX. 1-12 .
. 258
ix. 8 . .
• 259
x. 2-5 .
¦ 277
x. 10
. 90,
353. 358
xi. 1-44
¦ 76
xi. 6 . .
. 81
xl. 21-27
. 148
Xll. ± . .
. 88
xn. 3 . .
204, 219
xii. 5 . .
192, 243
xn. 7 . .
. . 148
xii. 8 . . .
148, 239
xn. 32
. 86, 263
xn. 35 •
"4
xii. 46
¦ 74
PAGE
John xiii. 14 .... 325
xiii. 15  SJS
xiii. 29 . 192, 242
xiii. 31  315
xiii. 35 . . 28, 315, 356
xiv. 8  78
xiv. 12  87
xiv. 19 .... 90, 353
xv. 26  302
xvi. 7  90
xvi. 13 .... 82, 302
xvi. 31  309
xvii. 4  88
xvii. 19 . . . 91, 104
xviii. 15  203
xviii. 36 ... 94, 276
xviii. 37 . . 276
xix. 26  148
xix. 27  148
xix. 30  88
xix. 38 . . . . 204
xix. 39  204
xx. 21  89
xxi. 3 ff. , . . . 203
Acts ii. 4  198
ii. 44 .... 22, 198
iii. 2  259
iii. 5  260
iii. 6 . . . . . 260
iv. 32  22
'v. 37  25
v. 1-10  25
v- 4  25,98
vi. I  igg
viii. 27  199
ix-34  259
xi. 29  24
xii. 12 . . . 24
xiii. 7  199
xiv. 10  259
xvii. 34 . . . 199
xviii. 8  199
xx. 35  248
xxiii. 6  77, 199
Romans viii. 19 ... 102, 126
xiii. 8  246
INDEX OF BIBLE PASSAGES

365

PAGE

PAGE
Romans
xiv. 17
• • 99
Galatians
vi. 10 .... 196
I Cor.
i. 26
196
Philemon
iii. 10
¦ 356
iii. 21
. . 201
iv. 11
. 196
iii. 23 .
. . 201
iv. 18
. I96
xi. 22
. . 196
I Timothy
vi. 18
. I96
xiii. 3 . .
196, 264
James
i. 11
. 201
xiii. 7 . .
. . 260
ii. 18
. 232
xvi. 2 . .
. . 24
V. 1 .
. I98
II Cor.
ix. 7 . .
. 24, 196
I John
v. 4 .
¦ 3°9
I Thess.
ii. 9 . .
. . 196
Revelation
ii.S •
. 29I
II Thess.
iii. 12
. . 24
xi. 15
. 322
INDEX

Abbott, Lyman, 69 note.
Acts of the Apostles, 197, 198.
Adler, G., 28 note.
Allen, A. V. G., 91 note.
Ananias, sin of, 25.
Arnold, Matthew, 96, 119.
Aschrott, P. F., 255 note.
Aveling, E. B., 141 note.
Bagehot, W., 135, 313 note.
Barnabas, the disciple, 25.
Bax, Belfort, 16, 142 note.
Bebel, A., 3 note, 16, 19, 140 note,
141 note.
Beyschlag, W., 68 note, 91 note,
93 note, 95 note, 98 note.
Biedermann, A. E., 103 note.
Bodicker, 39 note.
Bohmer, Julius, 68 note.
Bohmert, Victor, 256 note.
Bonar, J., 13 note.
Bosanquet, B., 230 note.
Bousset, W., 95 note.
Brace, C. L., 227 note.
Bradley, F. H., 59.
Brentano, L., 37 note.
Brooke, Stopford, 74, 219 note.
Brooks, J. G., 46 note.
Brooks, Phillips, 68 note, 90.
Browning, E. B., 114.
Browning, Robert, 293, 294.
Bruce, A. B., 68 note, 101 note.
Burns, John, 311.
Bushnell, Horace, 132 note.
Business, Christian conduct of, 244
ff. ; pessimistic views of, 316 ; a
system of social service, 317 ff. ;
ethical quality of, 319 ff. ; the
law of service in, 321 ff.
Campbell, Colin, 191 note.

Cannon, W. B., 83 note.
Carlyle, 31 ff.
Carpenter, J. E., 192 note.
Catholic Church, in the social
movement, 41 ff. ; social doc
trine of, 45, 46 note.
Charity, rejection of, 6; old and
new view, 8; problem of, 116;
use of wealth for, 217 ; Christian,
226 ff. ; early Christian, 231 ;
suspicion of, 234 ff. ; revolution
ists' opinion of, 236; dangerous
form of, 243; begins at home,
245 ; changes advocated in, 251 ;
institutionalism in, 253 ff. ; organ
ization of, 257 ; its real task, 261
ff. ; nature of Christian, 264 ;
specialists in, 329.
Children, in the socialist State, 143 ;
care of, 168 ff. ; in a Christian
home, 181; care of, in institu
tions, 253.
Christianity, socialist opinion of,
16, 19 ff. ; relation to social ques
tion, 21; mark of modern, 29;
schemes for applying to social
question, 30, 36, 41, 53 ; essence
of modern, 69 ff. ; attitude to
ward woman, 148 ; root in family
affection, 148 note ; influence on
work for the poor, 233; final
test of, 315.
Christie, F. A., 54 note.
Church, R. W., 69 note, 229 note.
Church, the, relation of labor to,
15 ; relation of social reform to,
20 ff. ; institutional, 29 ; to enter
industry, 43, 45; no economic
programme, 49 ; loss of influence,
56; the revolutionists' view of,

367

368

INDEX

64; organization of, 72; tradi
tions respecting Jesus, 85 ; trans
formation of, no; danger of,
126; attitude toward divorce,
131 ; in Jerusalem, 200 ; ethical
degradation of, 221 ; its relations
to the poor, 232 ; abuse of char
ity in, 235 ff. ; mistaken charity
of, 262 ; rejection of, 298 ; its
potentiality, 351 ; a source of
spiritual energy, 353 ; true work
of, 354 ; its place in the modern
world, 356.
Club, working-men's, 337 ff.
" Columbia College Studies," 130
note.
Commercialism, danger of, 175 ff. ;
emancipation from, 220 ; in busi
ness, 322, 325.
Commissioner of Labor, report on
marriage and divorce, 130 note,
164 note.
Communism, Christian, 22 ff. ; na
ture of, at Jerusalem, 25, 199 ;
New Testament commentators
on, 26 note.
Competition, 38, 313 note.
Conrad, J., 233 note.
Contemporary Review, 64, 66.
Cook, F. G., 131 note.
Cooperation, 28.
Cooperative societies, 15, 47,283!!.
Coulanges, F. de, 134 note, 229 note.
Curzon, on Le Play, 39 note.
Darwin, 136.
Davies, J. LI., 69 note.
Devas, C. L., 13 note.
Dike, S. W., 131 note.
Divorce, increase of, 129 ; teaching
of Jesus concerning, 152 ff. ; law
of Moses on, 155; futility of
remedial legislation, 162; in
cities, 164; among the prosper
ous, 171, 177.
Donald, E. W., 69 note.
Drummond, J., 69 note.

Ebionism, 191 note.
" Ecce Homo," ^, 67 note, 73
note, 146 note, 148 note, 309.
Economics, relation to ethics, 13
note ; of early Christians, 25 ;
Carlyle and Ruskin as teachers
of. 33. 35; study °f, 3°; un
christian character of, prevailing,
38; the fundamental problem
of, 105 ; of the New Testament,
274.
Egoism, danger of, 173; in an
tiquity, 227.
Elvers, R., 46 note.
Ely, R. T., 69 note.
Emerson, R. W., 265.
Engels, Friedrich, 16, 17 note.
Ethics, and the social question, 10,
12, 13 note, 346 ; the old, 12 ; and
economics, 12 note ; must solve
social question, 40; social, of
Jesus, 103 ; lower standards of,
172 ff. ; double standard of, 220 ;
in the labor question, 273.
Fairbairn, A. M., 68 note.
Faith, power of, 309; strength of
men of, 313 ; need of, 314.
Family, the, value questioned, 7 ;
place in social question, 40 ; open
to change, 124 ; teaching of Jesus
concerning, 129 ff. ; evolution of,
134 ff. ; patriarchal theory of,
135 ; the primitive, 137 ; socialist
teaching about, 140 ff. ; economic
usefulness of, 141 ff. ; a bulwark
of the present order, 144 ff., 162 ;
emphasized by Jesus, 145 ff. ; its
place in the thought of Jesus, 149 ;
permanence of, 158 ff. ; the hope
of the world, 161 ; causes under
mining its stability, 163 ff. ; chief
peril to, 174; undermined by
commercialism, 175 ff. ; solution
of the problem of, 178 ; what is
a Christian, 180 ff.
Fiske, John, 136.

INDEX

369

Flint, Robert, 18 note, 69 note.
Force, transformation of social, 340
ff. ; the fundamental social, 346.
Fowle, T. W., 255 note, 261 note.
France, social question in, 40 ff.
Fremantle, W. H., 68 note.
Friedlander, Ludwig, 229 note.
Garnett, Richard, 31 note.
George, Henry, 10.
Germany, social question in, 41 ff. ;
Protestant social programme in,
48 ; militarism in, 109.
Gibbins, H. de B., 31 note.
Gilbert, G. H., 68 note.
Girard, on Von Ketteler, 42 note.
Gladden, Washington, 69 note.
Gohre, P., 17 note, 29 note, 46
note, 48 note, 60 note, 62 note,
71 note, 142.
Good Samaritan, the, lesson of,
241, 249, 255, 257.
Gore, Charles, 69 note.
Gospel, the, nature of, 78 ; study
of, 81 ; characteristics of, 83, 88 ;
apocalyptic ideas in, 95 ff. ; vari
ations in, 152; demands family
integrity, 162 ; distorted by liter
alism, 190 ; the fourth, disregards
material things, 192 ; peculiarity
of the third, 194 ; its estimate of
alms, 241 ; tolerance of, 288.
Graham, W., 186.
Gregoire, L. (pseudonym), yjnote,
46 note.
Gronlund, L., 141.
Guilds, 45.
Hadley, A. T., 13 note.
Harmel, Leon, 45.
Harnack, A., 101 note.
Harris, George, 69 note.
Hart, A. B., 164 note.
Hasler, F., 13 note.
Haupt, Erich, 96 note.
Hegel, effect of his philosophy on
socialism, 18 ff.
2 B

Henderson, C. R., 233 note.
Herrmann, W., 16 note, 18 note,
Herron, G. D., 26 note, 63 note,
189 note, 306 note, 316 note,
Higgs, H., 39 note.
Hobbes, Thomas, 9.
Hobson, J. A., on Carlyle, 31 note,
34 note.
Hodges, G., 69 note.
Holtzmann, H., 20 note, 27 note,
60 note, 93 note, 101 note, 191
note, 194 note, 274 note.
Holtzmann, O., 28 note, 190 note.
Holy Ghost, sin against, 25; will
guide men to truth, 302.
Huber, Victor, 46 ff.
Ibsen, 304 note.
Ideal, social, of Jesus, 91 ff., 121 ;
remoteness of the spiritual, 119;
of socialism, 122 ; of social ser
vice, 255; the expression of, in
business, 314.
Idealism, of Jesus, 104; not out
grown, 123, 128 ; of industrial agi
tation, 307.
Individual, the, 80, 89, 101, 103 ; re
sponsibility of, 116; his devotion
to an ideal, 119; his limitations
and emancipation, 120 ; his devel
opment by society, 131 ff. ; in the
family, 173 ff. ; ideals of, purified,
178 ; redemption of the world by,
309 ; his responsibility, 323 ; must
serve society, 352.
Industrial order, 267 ; present con
dition of, 268 ff. ; causes of antago
nism in, 272 ff. ; Christian view
of, 279; its effect on men, 281 ff. ;
transition in, 297; different feel
ings toward, 302 ff. ; Christian
problem of, 325.
Issel, Emst, 95 note.
James, Epistle of, 197, 198 ff.
Jannet, C, 39 note.

37o

INDEX

Jerusalem, communism among
Christians at, 24 ff., 199.
Jesus Christ, his rebuke to those
who cannot see the signs of the
times, 3 ; and the socialists, 17 ;
his gospel, 20; did not enjoin
communism, 24, 26; his social
teaching, 53 ff, 76 ff. ; laborers'
respect for, 65 ; of the churches
and of the gospels, 66 ; imitation
of, 70 ; adaptation of his teaching,
71 ff. ; different views of, 72 ff. ;
his supreme concern, 77; social
teaching not his aim, 79; method
of teaching, 80 ff. ; how inter
preted, 81 ; reason for his insight,
84 ; his picture in art, 86 ; teaching
universal, 87 ; did not systematize,
89; his social ideal, 91, 100; his
eschatological sayings, 95 ff. ; his
philosophy of religion, 102; indi
vidualist or socialist, 103 ff. ; his
ministry for this life, 106 ; aspects
of his teaching, 107 ff. ; his way of
salvation, no, in; his temptation,
114 ; his belief in personal respon
sibility, 117; his contribution to
the social question, 123; his
teaching concerning principles,
125 ; interest in his personality,
127 ; his leadership, 128 ; teaching
about the family, 145 ff. ; his sym
pathy for domestic life, 147 ;
respect for women, 148 ; on mar
riage and divorce, 151 ff. ; his an
swer to the Sadducees, 159 ; his
solution of the problem of the
family, 178 ; how to interpret, 191 ;
his environment, 202 ff. ; taught
all classes, 204 ff. ; teaching con
cerning the rich, 207 ff. ; and the
rich young man, 210 ff. ; apparent
conflict of his teachings, 212 ; se
verity of his message to the rich,
214 ff. ; whom he commends, 222
ff. ; his teaching concerning the
poor, 226 ff. ; his view of alms, 241

ff. ; his doctrine of stewardship,
243 ; the modern tone of his
teaching about the poor, 246 ; his
method of dealing with the poor,
248, 258 ; did not teach economics,
273 ff. ; his teaching concerning
industry, 276 ff. ; method of ap
proaching the industrial question,
290 ff. ; on cumulative returns,
290 ff. ; reconciliation of his indus
trial teachings, 292 ff. ; relation of
his and the socialists' ideal, 294
ff. ; an optimist, 300 ff. ; what jus
tified his hope of the world, 308
ff. ; relation of his teaching to
thrift, 312; practical application
of his teaching, 314 ff. ; how to
follow him in business, 323 ff. ;
his teaching on the correlation of
forces, 340 ff. ; test of discipleship
to him, 352.
Jodl, Friedrich, 13 note.
Jones, Henry, 103 note.
Juvenal, 229 note.
Kaftan, J., 55, note.
Kaufmann, M., 11 note, 15 note,
37 note, 42 note, 48 note.
Keane, Bishop, 46, note.
Keim, Th., 152 note, 191 note, 227
note,
" Kernel and the husk," 65, 299.
Ketteler, W. I. von, 42 ff.
Kingdom of God, 91 ff. ; how it is
to come, 101, 118 ; what it offers,
120; Christian law designed to
establish, 158 ; thought of Jesus
concerning, 285 ff. ; confidence
of Jesus in, 300.
Kingsley, Charles, 37 note, 38.
Kohler, Hermann, 15 note, 16 note,
18 note, 27 note,
' tL.k*cnf - sM- ¦ fc
Lamennais, 41 ff.
Lanciani, Rodolfo, 230 note.
Lange, F. A., 13 note.
Lassalle, F„ 18, 42 ff.

INDEX

371

Lecky, W. E. H., 227 note, 231,
235 ff-
Leclaire, E. J., 314 note.
Leo XIII, Encyclical of May, 1891,
45, 46 note.
Le Play, F., 39 ff.
Liebknecht, W., 19.
Lightfoot, J. B., 231 note.
Lipsius, R. A., 103 note.
Lloyd, A. P., 130 note.
Longfellow, H. W., 359.
Lowell, J. R., 8, 9.
Lubbock, Sir John, 134 note.
Luke, Gospel of, Ebionism in, 191
note; its teaching about rich
and poor, 192 ff. ; peculiarity of,
194 ff. ; Paulinism in, 195.
Liitgenau, Franz, 17 note.
Mackay, T., 255 note.
McLennan, J. F., 134 note.
Maine, Sir Henry, 132, 135 note.
Mark, Gospel of, 192, 197.
Marriage, two conceptions of,
131 ff. ; in the light of social
evolution, 138 ff. ; socialist opin
ion of, 141 note ; popular discus
sion of, 144; teaching of Jesus
concerning, 151; after divorce,
154; regulation of, 155; only
alternative to, 156 ; rule of, 157 ff. ;
sanity of teaching concerning,
159 ff. ; how Jesus approaches
the problem of, 160; selfishness
in, 173; commercial spirit in,
175 ff.; Christian, 181.
Marshall, A., 283.
Marx, Karl, 16, 18.
Materialism, 18, 20, 105.
Mathews, Shailer, 68 note, 95 note,
102 note, 148 note, 189 note.
Matthew, Gospel of, sayings about
rich and poor in, 193; in har
mony with Paul's epistles, 197.
Maurice, F. D., 21, 37 note, 46
note.
Mayo-Smith, R., 130 note.

Mazzini, Joseph, 14, 42 note.
Mehring, F., 17 note.
Men, their production the end of
society, 310 ; strengthened by
conflict, 313.
Meyer's Commentary, on Jesus'
teaching concerning divorce, 152
note.
Mommsen, Th., 229 note.
Morris, William, 8, 35 note.
Mun, A., Comte de, 44.
Miinsterberg, E., 256 note.
" Mus6e Social," 39 note.
Nash, H. S., 13 note.
Nathusius, M. von, 20 note, 27
note, 41 note, 68 note.
Nations, mission of, 1 ; retribution
upon, 31.
Naumann, F., 17, 52, 61, 140 note,
141 note, 142 note, 189 note,
307 note.
Neander, J. A. W„ 85 note.
Newman, J. H., 91 note.
Nitti, F. S., 26 note, 41 note, 42
note, 46 note, 63.
Nobili-Vitelleschi, F., 14 note.
Opportunism, Christian, 36 ff., 104.
Optimism, of Jesus, 300 ff., 308 ;
in industrial agitation, 302.
Outlook, The, 190.
" Parliamentary Report on Elber-
feld System," 256 note.
Paul, on communism among
Christians, 24; his idea of the
kingdom of God, 99; on pov
erty and riches, 195 ff., 201.
Paulsen, F., 13 note, 82 note, 215
note.
Peabody, F. G., 79 note, 188, 228
note, 233 note, 251 note, 252 note,
256 note.
Pearson, Karl, 143 note.
Personality, its place in the social
order, 102, 104, 127 ; modification

372

INDEX

of, no; the aim of Jesus, in,
126; development of, 112; Mrs.
Browning on, 114; its place in
organization, 125 ff. ; in the in
dustrial order, 282 ff.
Pessimism, in modern socialism,
304 ff. ; revolutionary character
of, 306 ; false note of, 306 ff.
Pfleiderer, O., 27 note ; 103 note.
Pfiuger, Paul, 65 note.
Philanthropy, its ethical note, 10;
as an application of the Chris
tian spirit to the social question,
27 ff. ; the social question goes
beyond, 29 ; not to rest satisfied
with alms, 48 ; what it needs, 107 ;
work of, 166; found root in
Rome, 230; scope of Christian,
231; best form of, 256; mis
taken, 339.
Pliny the Younger, 230 note.
Plummer, A., on Ebionism in
Luke, 192 note, 194 note.
Political Science Quarterly, 131 note.
Politicus (pseudonym) , 32 note.
Poor, the, Jesus' teaching con
cerning, 226 ff. ; Jewish care for,
228 ; care of, by the church, 232 ;
thought of Jesus for, 238 ; method
of Jesus in dealing with, 248 ff. ;
different types of, 251; cannot
be relieved wholesale, 254; re
lieved by communicating power,
260 ff. ; how power is given to,
263 ; injudicious efforts for, 330.
Population, concentration of, 163 ;
suburban, 167.
Potter, H. C, 132 note.
Preacher, the, legitimate work for,
30; limitations of, 35; his place
in the modern world, 357.
Property, private, its right ques
tioned, 7 ; open to change, 124 ;
transmission of, 141 ; its test as
an institution, 187 ; tendency of
its possession, 297 note.
Prophet, the, in the social ques

tion, 30 ff; criticism of, 35 ff.;
of the Old Testament, 87.
Rade, M., 17 note, 65 note, 69 note,
140 note.
Rae, John, 42 note, 48 note.
Ragaz, L., 13 note.
Reformers, weakness of, 319 ; how
they must approach the social
problem, 331 ; enthusiasm of,
332 ; their first question, 350.
Regeneration, how effected, 90;
need of, 115 ; fundamental, 117 ;
of the world, 309.
Religion, and social discontent, 15 ;
socialist attitude toward, 16 ; test
of, 28; how it meets the social
question, 30; social utilization
of, 36 ff. ; in industrial life, 39 ;
organization of labor by, 43 ff. ;
Christ's philosophy of, 102; as
dependence on God, 103 ; as
solution of the social question,
106 ; institutionalization of, 109 ;
harmony of, with science, 341 ;
the test of, 356.
Renan, E., on communism in prim
itive Christianity, 26 note; on
social teaching of Jesus, 58 ; on
teaching concerning riches, 191
note.
Repentance, character of, 147.
R6ville, A., 229 note.
Ribbe, C. de, 39 note.
Rich, the, 183 ff; teaching of
Jesus concerning, 188 ff., 207 ff. ;
Paul on the duty of, 196 ; follow
ers of Jesus, 203 ff. ; Jewish
opinion of, 206; message of
Jesus to, 213 ff. ; severity of
Jesus' demands on, 214; Chris
tian life of, 223 ff.
Riis, J. A., 253 note.
Robertson, J. M., 31 note.
Rogge, Christian, 27 note, 192
note, 194 note, 198 note, 206 note.
Rome, corruption of, 228 ff.

INDEX

373

Runze, George, 13 note.
Ruskin, 31 note, 32 ff., 34 ff., 184,
289, 310 note.
Russland, Gustav, 68 note.
Sabatier, August, 68 note.
Schleiermacher, 102, 103 note.
Schmidt, C, 227 note.
Schmidt -Warneck, 68 note.
Schmoller, Otto, 95 note.
Schnedermann, Georg, 93 note, 95
note.
Schopenhauer, 20.
Schulze-Gavemitz, G. von, 31 note.
Schurman, J. G., 134 note.
Seneca, 85 note.
Shaw, Bernard, 143.
Sin, responsible for social evil, 116 ;
for industrial evil, 296.
Smyth, Newman, 13 note.
Social congresses, 37, 55 note, 61.
Social democracy, the, pro
gramme of, 4, 16 note, 44, 295 ;
approves working-men's associa
tions, 42 ; condemned by Stocker,
49 ; rejects Christian socialism, 51.
Social machinery, 108 ff. ; dangers
in, 113 ; must be readjusted in
each age, 310 ; must have moral
power, 347 ff.
Social question, the, 2 ff. ; present
characteristics of, 5 ff, 9 ff. ;
interest of, 11; ethical character,
11, 12 note; relation to religion,
14 ; misinterpretation of, 20 ;
relation of Carlyle and Ruskin
to, 31 ff. ; ethical rather than
economic, 40 ; teaching of Jesus
concerning, 53 ff., 76 ff; Jesus'
view of, 104 ; all engrossing, 105 ;
how solved, 106 ; externalism in,
108, 112; how far the fault of the
individual, 115 ff.; its root in
moral evil, 296; its correlation,
327 ff. ; transformations of, 329
ff.; expansion of, 333; funda
mentally ethical, 347.

Socialism, attitude toward religion,
14, 16 ff. ; Christian, 41 ff., 46 ff.,
50 ff. ; relation to social democ
racy, 52, 61 ; creed of, 109 ; its
end ideal, 122; in the teaching
of Jesus, 287 ; its creed a substi
tute for religion, 298 ; misrepre
sents the world, 308.
Socialists, their philosophy of his
tory, 18, 140; legislation against,
49, 51 ; Protestant, 51 ; Christian,
61 ; attack on the family, 140 ; on
marriage, 141 note; on the family,
142 ff. ; self-deception of, 180;
their distrust of Jesus' teaching,
288 ff. ; relation of their ideal and
Jesus' ideal, 294 ff. : optimism of,
303 ; pessimism of, 304 ff.
Soderblom, Nathan, 69 note.
Soderini, Count Edward, 46 note.
Spectator, 313 note.
Spencer, Herbert, 112, 139 note,
344-
Starcke, C. N., 134 note.
State, the, questioned as an institu
tion, 7 ; socialism of, in Germany,
48 ; as a social unit, 140 ; must
relieve destitution, 260; evolu
tion of the socialist, 304 ff.
Stein, Ludwig, 13 note, 17 note,
28 note, 59 note, 140 note, 297
note.
Stevens, G. B., 93 note, 101 note.
Stimson, F. J., 32 note,
Stocker, A., 48 ff.
Sumner, W. G., 235 note.
Taylor, Sedley, on profit-sharing,
314 note.
Temperance, sphere of, 333 ff.;
economic progress dependent
on, 336; method of, 349.
Tenements, model, 166 ff.
Theology, its interest not social,
54 ff. ; reaction from, 56 ff. ;
change of, 69 ; beginning of, 72 ;
of Jesus, 147.

374

INDEX

Thrift, old and new views of,
3"ff-
Tillet, Ben, 6 note.
Todt, Rudolf, 26 note, 60 ff.
Toy, C. H., 93 note, 97 note,
98 note,
Uhland, Ludwig, 18 note.
Uhlhorn, Gerhard, 27 note, 29 note,
68 note, 227 note.
Unemployed, the, 184.
United States, criticised by Carlyle
and Ruskin, 34; divorce in, 129;
charity in, 233.
Van Dyke, Henry, 9, 73, 304 note.
Vogue, E. M., Vicomte de, 46
note.
Wagner, A., 2, 3 note, 18 note,
295 note.
Walsh, W., 58 note.
Wealth, distribution of, 185 ff. ;
brought to the test of utility,
187; divergent teaching about,
in New Testament, 193 ff., 201 ;

sayings of Jesus about, 208 ff. ;
enervating effect of, 211 ; a trust,
213, 216; how rightly used, 216
ff. ; its ministry to happiness,
218 ; its use in business, 220 ff.
Weiss, Bernhard, 68 note, 101 note,
192 note.
Weiss, J., 95, note.
Weizsacker, Karl von, 27 note.
Wendt, H. H., 27 note, 68 note,
80, 82, 92 note, 93 note, 95 note,
98 note, 152 note, 191 note.
Westcott, B. F., 69 note.
Westermarck, E., 134 note.
Wichern, J. H., 28.
Willcox, W. F., 130 note.
Wilmanns, Gustav, 230 note.
Winterstein, A., 46 note.
Wright, C. D., 13 note, 131 note,
164 note, 307 note.
Wundt, W., 13 note.
Yarnall, E., 38 note.
Zahn, Th., 198.
Ziegler, Theobald, 12 note.
Zinzendorf, N. L., Count von, 87.

New Testament Handbooks

EDITED BY
SHAILER MATHEWS
Professor of New Testament History and InterpretaUont
University of Chicago
Arrangements are made for the following volumes, and the publishers
will, on request, send notice of the issue of each volume as it appears and
each descriptive circular sent out later; such requests for information
should state whether address is permanent or not : —
The History of the Textual Criticism of the
New Testament
Prof. Marvin R. Vincent, Professor of New Testament Exegesis,
Union Theological Seminary. [Now ready.
Professor Vincent's contributions to the study of the New Testament rank him
among the first American exegetes. His most recent publication is " A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Phihppians and to Philemon "
{International Critical Commentary), which was preceded by a " Students'
New Testament Handbook," " Word Studies in the New Testament," and
others.
The History of the Higher Criticism of the
New Testament
Prof. Henry S. Nash, Professor of New Testament Interpretation,
Cambridge Divinity School. [Now ready.
Of Professor Nash's " Genesis of the Social Conscience," The Outlook said: " The
results of Professor Nash's ripe thought are presented in a luminous, compact,
and often epigrammatic style. The treatment is at once masterful and helpful,
and the book ought to be a quickening influence of the highest kind; it surely
will establish the fame of its author as a profound thinker, one from whom we
have a right to expect future inspiration of a kindred sort."
Introduction to the Books of the New Testament
Prof. B. Wisner Bacon, Professor of New Testament Interpretation,
Yale University. [Now ready.
Professor Bacon's works in the field of Old Testament criticism include " The
Triple Tradition of Exodus," and " The Genesis of Genesis," a study of the
documentary sources of the books of Moses. In the field of New Testament
study he has published a number of brilliant papers, the most recent of which is
" The Autobiography of Jesus," in the American journal of Theology.
The History of New Testament Times in Palestine
Prof. Shailer Mathews, Professor of New Testament History and
Interpretation, The University of Chicago. [Now ready.
The Congregationalist says of Prof. Shailer Mathews's recent work, "The Social
Teaching of Jesus" : "Re-reading deepens the impression that the author is
scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and yet conservative and pre
eminently sane. If, after reading the chapters dealing with Jesus' attitude
toward man, society, the family, the state, and wealth, the reader will not agree
with us in this opinion, we greatly err as prophets."

The Life of Paul
Prof. Rush Rhees, President of the University of Rochester.
Professor Rhecs is well known from his series of " Inductive Lessons " contributed
to the Sunday School Times. His " Outline of the Life of Paul," privately
printed, has had a flattering reception from New Testament scholars.
The History of the Apostolic Age
Dr. C. W. Votaw, Instructor in New Testament Literature, The
University of Chicago.
Of Dr. Votaw's " Inductive Study of the Founding of the Christian Church," Modern
Ckurcht Edinburgh, says: " No fuller analysis of the later books of the New
Testament could be desired, and no better programme could be offered for their
study, than that afforded in the scheme of fifty lessons on the Founding of the
Christian Church, by Clyde W. Votaw. It is well adapted alike for practical
and more scholarly students of the Bible."
The Teaching of Jesus
Prof. George B. Stevens, Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale
University.
Professor Stevens's volumes upon " The Johannine Theology," " The Pauline The
ology," as well as his recent volume on " The Theology of the New Testament,"
have made him probably the most prominent writer on biblical theology in
America. His new volume will he among the most important of his works.
The Biblical Theology of the New Testament
Prof. E. P. Gould, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Prot
estant Episcopal Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Now ready.
Professor Gould's Commentaries on the Gospel of Mark (in the International Criti
cal Commentary) and the Epistles to the Corinthians (in the American Com
mentary) are critical and exegetical attempts to supply those elements which
are lacking in existing works of the same general aim and scope.
The History of Christian Literature until Eusebius
Prof. J. "W. Plainer, Professor of Early Church History, Harvard
University.
Professor Platner's work will not only treat the writings of the early Christian
writers, but will also treat of the history of the New Testament Canon.
OTHERS TO FOLLOW
" An excellent series of scholarly, yet concise and inexpensive New Testament hand
books." — • Christian Advocate, New York.
" These books are remarkably well suited in language, style, and price, to all
students of the New Testament." — The Congregatio?ialistt Boston.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK