'<^_

• If ^,' sir,:

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE IDEAL OF JESUS

THE IDEAL OF JESUS

BY
WILLIAM NEWTON CLARKE

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1911

Copyright, xgix, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

Published August, X911

TO THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERHOOD

CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. The Purpose of this Book  i
II. The Ideal and the Method  15
III. The Picture of the High Aim .... 47
IV. The Kingdom of God  63
V. Righteousness  98
VI. The Twofold Law of Love  117
VII. The Filial Life  140
VIII. Deliverance from Evil  164
IX. Liberty  185
X. Human Value  204
XI. Justice  215
XII. Wealth  228
XIII. Christianity  259
XIV. The Church  280
XV. Society  301

THE IDEAL OF JESUS

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK
In the twentieth century we inherit a Christianity.
It comes to us from Jesus the Founder, but it comes,
of necessity, through the long course of time. It is
no fault of ours if in these centuries it has become
modified, and is not altogether like that which came
from him at first. We could not expect, and he
could not expect, that his gift to the world would
remain unmodified. He must have known that his
gift of spiritual life would enter into the ever-chang
ing human world, and influence the ages as they
passed, and be influenced by them in turn. This
certainty of change is due not only to human de
pravity, or even to human imperfectness : it is due
just as much to the germinant vitality of the spiritual
hfe itself. From all these causes combined it has
come to pass that we inherit a Christianity differing
in many respects from that to which Jesus gave the
first impulse in the world.
It has come to us in so many forms that we are
often perplexed, and eagerly inquire which is the true,
or whether we can be sure of any of them. The
1

2 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
various forms of it have hard work to recognize one
another. They differ in what they judge to be vital
characteristics, and though they all claim the name
Christian, they often deny it to one another. Per
plexed by this variety in thought, in spirit, and in
outward form, modern Christians are inquiring again
and again what the real Christianity is. It is not
unbelief that asks "What is Christianity ?" and it is
not mere curiosity. It is faith that asks, it is honesty,
it is desire to know the truth and have the best.
Christianity is so precious a thing, and so necessary
to all good hopes, that the present age must know
just what it is. No one inquirer may find an answer
that will satisfy all, but the inquiry is certain to
continue. The Christian heart feels that it must
know what Christianity really is, and the Christian
mind cannot refrain from the search.
It is well to know what vve are looking for. In
the present age we must not look for some definite
institution or set of facts or ideas that corresponds
entirely to the original gift of Jesus. The power of
his religion to grow forbids that, and the power of the
soil to influence the harvest forbids it again. Besides,
Jesus was no founder of unchangeable institutions.
We search his record in vain for any such idea of
his purpose. He was no builder of pyramids, to
stand unchanged for ages: he was an inspirer of
men, who were to breathe the air of his kingdom and
train their children to do the same. So we are not
to look for the exact preservation of a deposit that he
made with men, or the precise reproduction of a

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK 3
pattern that he gave. That is not his way, nor is it
a possible way. And yet nothing is more certain
than that in our search for Christianity to-day we
must look for the gift of Christ. If our Christianity
have not the spirit of Christ it is none of his. Any
thing that is worthy of the name will have its source in
him, and will have a living unity with the gift that
he originally bestowed.
Our true guide in the discovery and estimating of
modern Christianity is this: Jesus performed his
work in the world, and gave spirit and form to his
gift to the future, under the inspiration of vfhat in
modern speech we call an ideal — an ideal not only
for his own life but for all life. Every far-reaching
scheme of life looks onward to an ideal, which repre
sents its aspirations and inspires its activities. Every
forward-reaching mind, seeking to influence men,
holds its ideal aloft as the banner of the march that
it leads. Jesus had his ideal; he had his conception
of what hfe ought to be, and of what he supremely
desired that life might become. The vision floated
before him of life rightly allied to the powers above
and rightly exercised upon the plane of its being; of
life personal, expressed in all such character and
conduct as are worthiest of men, and of life social,
wrought out in all such spirit and service as make the
best and most successful world. It was an ideal for
men and for man, for the life of men and the life of
man, all held in true relation to God the source and
end of all. It was in the light of this ideal that Jesus
uttered every word of teaching, and wrought every

4 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
work of help, and gave himself to and for<the world.
To bring this ideal to reality he lived and died,
and this ideal represents his contribution to hu
manity. It represents his contribution to humanity better
than an'ything else that we can mention. He be
queathed to the future no scheme of doctrines and
no set of institutions. He was devoted to no church
or school, but he was devoted to his ideal in life and
death, and in it lay his hope for men. This represents
him, and it would be well if his ideal were so bound
to his name that he could not be mentioned without
reviving it in thought. If any religion springs up to
continue his work of blessing, we may be sure that it
will be worthy of his name just so far as it cherishes
his ideal and lives to realize it. The religion may
take various forms, and accept various ways of think
ing and modes of life, but it will be a Christian
religion if the ideal of Jesus constitutes the object
of its being.
So when we ask "What is Christianity ?" and look
about us for an answer, we are to look for a living
ideal, to which certain men are trying to conform
themselves, one another, and the world. If we find
this ideal alive, inspired by Christ, we have found
Christianity; if it has died, the real Christianity is
dead, however many churches and sound doctrines
there may be. And if in the twentieth century we
are to be better Christians, we need to behold the
vision that he beheld, to conceive of life as he con
ceived it, to ground the ideal in eternal reality as he

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK 5
did, and to be mastered by the same constraining pur
pose to bring his vision into actuality in ourselves
and all men.
It may be objected that an ideal is too vague a thing
to occupy such a place as is here assigned to it. An
ideal is an indefinite thing. It is unclear. No two
persons can see it alike. No one can tell exactly
when it is realized. No man can see Jesus' ideal as
he saw it, or know how near he comes to fulfilling it.
The answer is that all this is true. An ideal is an
indefinable thing, and is not the same to any two per
sons. The ideal that lay in Jesus' mind we cannot
hope perfectly to discern. We do not know exactly
what the realization of it would be. But this is the
glory of ideals. It is their nature to be great and
broad and comprehensive, too rich and full to be the
same to all, too inclusive to be realizable in any
single form or mode. The ideal in architecture,
for example, is made up of certain qualities, none
of which may be left out in thought or sacrificed
in building — qualities like strength, beauty, dignity,
appropriateness, durability. They are all perfectly
conceivable, but not one of them is precisely definable.
No two persons conceive of them alike. Each of
them may be manifested in a great variety of ways,
and there is no one architectural style in which alone
they can be embodied. Yet all this makes no dif
ficulty. Architects have their visions, and the one
ideal draws them on to manifold success. The ideal,
in fact, is the inspiration of all the styles, and gives

6 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
tHfem all the value that they possess. No man can
grasp it, but every man can realize it more or less.
And if we can learn well of Jesus, we shall find that
his ideal, too great for comprehension, is not too great
for daily use, and is the one thing that all Hfe needs
to give it the noblest worth.
In this book I propose to follow the Master in the
exhibition of his ideal. I think we have the means
of discovering very clearly what the ideal was by
which Jesus was controlled and which he held forth
to his disciples, and I wish to bring it out from the
record of his life and words. I shall endeavor so to
expound him and his utterances as to make exhibi
tion of the ideal to which he was devoted. I shall not
attempt to do this exhaustively, making sure that
I gather in every word by which the picture might
be brought toward completion. I am not studying
closeness of detail, but broad general portrayal, for
practical use. I think it possible to bring forth from
our records a clear view of the large ideal of man and
his life that was characteristic of Jesus, and that he
left as a guiding light to all who seek the best. It is
scarcely necessary to say that if I succeed in doing
this I shall be presenting the meaning and spirit of
Christianity as it was first given to the world. I am
sure that we can learn this clearly enough to make it
our own if we will, and to judge our own Christianity
by it. I shall be surprised if readers do not feel that
it is truly the supreme ideal for human life. It cer
tainly is the ideal to which the spirit of our Christian-

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK 7
ity must be conformed, and in the light of which we
must judge ourselves, our institutions, our aspirations,
and our work. In the whole-hearted adoption of this
ideal lies our only hope of becoming better Christians
and of leading on toward a Christian world. In this
Hght I see abundant reason to hope that the unfolding
of the Christian ideal may be a useful service.
I have just said that I consider this undertaking
practicable: the ideal of Jesus is so revealed that we
can see it. If we study Jesus our field is the Gospels,
and there I hope to bring my readers, if I may, into
the presence of the Person whose ideal we desire to
learn. The point upon which I would here insist is
that for the ascertainment of that ideal our materials
are entirely sufficient. This indeed, which is the
great practical gift of Jesus to our Hfe, is precisely
the thing concerning him which our materials best
enable us to ascertain.
We are often told that we know less about the
actual words of Jesus than we have supposed we
knew. We are reminded of the indirectness of our
information, of the imperfectness of understanding
and memory in his auditors, of the modifying force
of tradition, of the reverent attributing to him of
much that his followers had learned from him, of
variations in manuscripts, and of the fact that we
have his words only in a translation into the Greek.
In all these suggestions there is truth. If I were
undertaking a work that required an unquestionable
list of all his sayings, equally certified and perfectly
preserved, I should be attempting the impossible.

8 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
But I am undertaking a different task. I am seeking
knowledge of the ideal of life that Jesus entertained
and passed on to us; or, in other words, I am seeking
a broad understanding of the mind of Christ. I wish
to discover in the large what he said and did to show
the manner of life that men ought to live, and may
live through the grace of God. What I say is that
for this work we have abundant materials.
As to the broad fact of the character and influence
of Jesus, we need be in no doubt. Criticism has
not taken away the mass of our material for judgment.
The Great Teacher is not a myth or a shadow, nor
is his teaching an elusive thing. From the records
that we possess there stands out the figure of the
Mighty One of God — mighty in fulness of spiritual
truth, mighty in simplicity and straightforwardness,
and mighty in the singleness of his devotion to the
true end of Hfe. He spoke to his contemporaries
with desire to be understood, but he is far more in
telligible to us of the twentieth century than he was
to them. There is no doubt whatever as to what he
stood for. Here he is like Socrates: whatever un
certainties there may be about details of his Hfe or the
manner of his teaching, no one ever doubts what
Socrates stood for, or what is his contribution to man
kind. This is exactly what we say of Jesus. There
is no ambiguity about his position: the meaning of
his message is as clear as the sun in the heavens.
Various things about him we do not know and may
never discover, but his dominant views of God and
man and life are as well ascertained and known as

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK 9
anything in history. So we are entering upon no
uncertain quest.
When we have said that we are sure of the charac
ter of the main teaching of Jesus, we have implied
something more. If we know the character of his
main teaching, we know the character of the whole.
As we become acquainted with him in the Gospels
we discern an integrity so fine as to make us sure that
in his spiritual attitude he was consistent. We are
impressed by the conviction that with regard to those
simple and sublime principles that lie at the base of
his teaching he cannot have contradicted himself.
So wise and true a soul did not deny his own highest
words, or contradict the truth that he was conveying.
His tone will not vary: to his ideal we know that we
shall find him always loyal. When we have learned
his ideal we have learned him, for he knew only one
way of Hfe.
Hence when I speak of the ideal of Jesus I speak of
his whole revelation and testimony concerning the
Hfe of man. If I unfold it, I shall be deaHng with
his great characteristic conception; and it is to dis
cover this that I now turn to the Gospels. And,
plainly enough, my way is wide open. I am not
dealing with one question out of many. This is no
side issue or minor point, to be found only here and
there, and proved by a text or two. This must per
vade the whole material. By searching we certainly
can find what we seek. If we know anything at all
of Jesus Christ, we know enough to show us what his
ideal is. This is why I am satisfied with the material

10 THE roEAL OF JESUS
that Hes ready to my hand. I am thankful that my
purpose is to treat of that which we can best discover.
When we wish to learn the Christian ideal, we draw
near with receptive souls to him who has inspired it,
and attend to the Hfe and words in which he gave it
forth. We are not long in discerning the view of
God and man which is "the master-Hght of all his
seeing." We behold his ideal in his Hfe and words.
His vision shines before us. It is not doctrinaHzed
in our sources, or dogmatically put, even if that were
possible, but is presented as a vital reality, and offered
as an inspiration. He impresses us as living souls,
we understand him, we catch his idea, we see that to
which he points us. When we learn of him in his
own spirit, his vision becomes ours.
In studying the Gospels to find the broad Christian
ideal, I find myself more free in the use of my mate
rials than I might be if the purpose were different.
I am less Hmited by criticism. I am not proposing an
exhaustive study of all the words of Jesus, distin
guished from everything else. I am simply seeking
to discover his supreme and constraining view of Hfe.
There is a large and harmonious body of matter in
the Gospels, including their main substance, that
shows his view of Hfe vrith perfect clearness. It is
homogeneous, and holds together in moral unity. As
I examine it I cannot doubt that it really gives me
what I am seeking. Therefore I take it as representa
tive of him whom I am seeking to understand. Here
I see what Jesus meant and stood for. But in the
critical field two possibiHties meet me. One of them

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK 11
is that some of the passages that compose this har
monious group may not be satisfactory to textual
criticism: it may not appear certain that they are
words of Jesus himself; it may appear probable that
they were attributed to him by some of his followers,
instead of falHng from his lips. They may be later
unfoldings of his teaching. If I were drawing strict
lines through the Gospels, I should have to insist
upon the distinction that is noted here. But in
the search for Jesus' large view of life such passages
are not useless, nor need I disregard them. Utter
ances that fall in with his general thought have their
value in such a study, even if they came not from him
but from men who had learned of him. A charac
teristic word is not less illustrative of his ideal be
cause it came from Jesus as it were at second hand,
inspired by him in the soul of a man who but for him
would never have spoken it.
The other possibiHty is that I may find in the Gos
pels some sayings attributed to Jesus that are not
spiritually in agreement with this great central body
of his teaching. I must own that there may be such
passages, for I can perfectly understand how in the
historical process by which the Gospels were pro
duced they might creep in. What of these if I find
them ? Must I stumble at them, and fear that the
unity of my sources is destroyed, and set myself to
make good the injury by reconciling the contradiction
that I have found in the words of Jesus ? No: my
purpose justifies me in passing them by. My con
fidence in Jesus' integrity and consistency is complete.

12 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
I am sure that he did not contradict the fundamental
principles of his Hfe. If I find sayings attributed to
him that are inconsistent with his characteristic
thought, I shall be sure that they are not his as they
stand, but have beep attributed to him through some
misunderstanding. If they were his as they stand,
they would have to be understood in the light of some
unrecorded circumstance which we cannot recover.
In any case they would not be available for our use
in understanding him and his vision. After one has
made acquaintance with the Master, the evidence as
to what he said is not all found in manuscripts and
other external witnesses. A part of it resides in the
character of the sayings. "Can he have said it?"
is a perfectly proper question, and one that we may
often have to ask. It is not, as we might fear, a ques
tion that can have only a subjective and worthless
answer, for it does not propose to make our prefer
ences the touchstone for judging what he said. It
simply means, "We know him as the author of this
saying, and this, and this, in which we trace the rul
ing spirit of his Hfe ; can he, then, have been the author
of this also, which contradicts that spirit?" — and it
ought not to be so very hard to judge whether expres
sions are spiritually contradictory or not. Sometimes
we may be in doubt as to the true answer to the ques
tion, and sometimes we may err in answering it.
But if we err, we err in the exercise of a right and nor
mal judgment, for the question is one that we have a
right to ask.
Thus it comes to pass that I am more independent

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK 13
of criticism and its findings than I might be if I were
engaged in inquiry of some other kind. My quest
justifies me in larger use of inward and spiritual evi
dence than criticism by itself is wont to allow. It is
not as a critic, but as a student of morals and religion,
that I listen to the Master to hear him describe his
ideal. It must be added that the ideal that is here set
forth will be that of the Synoptical Gospels. There
is no other way. How I have wondered about the
mighty Fourth! The reason why it is not used in
the present study is not that there are questions about
its authorship and date. The reason is that whoever
the author may have been, there is no question about
the manner in which he used his historical mate
rials. In a most unusual degree they have been
cast in the mould of his own mind. Words that he
attributes to Jesus he certainly has recorded in lan
guage of his own, and how far they represent the
actual speaking Jesus, and how far his own adoring
faith and reflection, he has not enabled us to tell.
And so, just at the vital point for the present purpose,
his writing fails me. Utterances that have been con
sciously recast by another mind, however true their
spiritual testimony may be, cannot rightly be used
for the purpose of setting forth the actual ideal of the
living Jesus himself.
Perhaps I should apologize for disappointing one
possible expectation. In a study in the Gospels I
might be expected to follow the custom of citing
chapter and verse in text or foot-note whenever I quote

14 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Scripture or refer to it; but this I do not propose to
do. I wish my reader to read right on. Moreover,
I shall be dealing with the most familiar matters in
the Bible; and the Gospels are not so large, or so un-
famiHar, that a reader may not be trusted to find the
special statements for himself if he wishes to have
them before his eyes.

II
THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD
The ideal of Jesus is as broad as the whole field of
ethics and religion — that is, as broad as the field of
life; and his method in making it known is a method
adapted to bring to pass a strong and independent
possession of the character in which it consists.
Who first called Jesus the Great Teacher we do
not know, but of the lofty names that rightly belong
to him this surely is one. Through all Christian
time he has stood before the world as the supreme
teacher in religion. Other teachers of religion there
have been, before him and after, but he stands out
pre-eminent in quality and power. To those who
learned of him he imparted a conception and an
inspiration that made of religion a new thing. His
own vital conception of God and man, life and salva
tion, he so imparted to other souls as to transfigure
the rehgious life. He created the Christian religion,
and has been the living source of rehgious experience
to a large part of mankind for almost two thousand
years. Directly he has given forth epoch-making
truth and Hfe, and indirectly, through those whom he
has instructed and inspired, he has given innumerable
15

16 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
unfoldings and appHcations of his primary message.
In rehgion Jesus Christ is the Great Teacher.
In modern times he appears equally great as a
teacher of ethics. This second character was never
unknown to Christians, and yet in an important sense
it is new to them. Not so very long ago he was re
garded almost as a teacher of religion only. In the
rank and file of Christians the name ethics was not very
well known, and the distinct field of interest which it
represents had not become famihar. Some of us can
remember when the name religion covered the whole
field of Christian interest. It was of course under
stood that Jesus bade us do right, and taught us
many of our duties, and the high graces of the Chris
tian character were commended to us in his name.
He was the Lord of holy Hfe for his people, and the
counsellor of good life for all. But there was a theo
logical embarrassment. Good works had almost
been removed from the sphere of ethics to that of doc
trine, and were discussed chiefly with reference to
their place in the scheme of salvation. Were men to
be saved by them, or without reference to them ?
Had they any real value ? Standing by themselves,
were they an advantage to a man or a disadvantage
in the sight of God ? The question whether a man
was to be saved by his good works often seemed al
most to eclipse the question whether he was perform
ing any: sometimes, indeed, the discussion tended to
discourage them. By this inheritance of a doctrinal
discussion from the Reformation the proper estimate
of the importance of conduct was long obscured in

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 17
the Protestant churches, and the normal interest of
Christians in ethics was postponed. The discussion
was a vital one in its day, and the doctrine involved
is vital forever; nevertheless, from the controversy
there resulted a most unfortunate slurring of ethics
in the teaching of Christians. In the harm that was
done there was included a serious misconception of
Jesus Christ. That he held ethics and religion in
inseparable unity was not taken to heart as an actual
fact. So far as he did teach conduct, it was thought
to be as a kind of appendix to religion — ^just as good
life itself was regarded as a corollary to religious life,
a matter of inference from the motives that come vpith
salvation. That Jesus the Saviour of men was actu
ally interested in human conduct for its own sake, and
that the application of his moral teaching ranged
as wide as humanity, was scarcely a vital conception
among the Christian people. So the Master was
pardy understood and partly misunderstood by his
friends, with the result that the equal interest of God
himself in human conduct everywhere was unhappily
obscured. But at present we are coming to look with different
eyes upon ethics, and upon Jesus too. Upon Jesus
we look with eyes that see more of his historical reality
and vitahty. Modern study has given us a new angle
of vision. It is the living personal Jesus embosomed
in the life of mankind that the Gospels reveal to us.
He is nearer us than we thought, and we understand
his words in the light of their living context of hu
manity. He speaks more about our daily affairs

18 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
than we once thought possible to the Son of God.
Learning that nothing human was foreign to him,
we welcome him to a more intimate Mastership, and
a more practical. The change is most wholesome.
And while we have been learning this about Jesus,
the modern world has been learning to see ethics in a
new light. The doctrine of right character and con
duct has been coming to its own, and taking its place
beside the doctrine of religion. Imperfectly indeed,
and yet really, the best thought of the age, and the
common Hfe as well, is finding out the absolute
supremacy of ethical considerations. Ethics has
risen to the height on which religion stood alone, and
will never again come down therefrom. Conse
quently we have no difficulty in thinking of one and
the same Great Teacher as standing equally for
ethics and religion. Indeed, we now see that a
teacher who did not stand equally for ethics and re
ligion would be a one-sided teacher and a mislead
ing guide. It is true that there are still some Chris
tians to whom the word ethics or ethical seems a cold
and unspiritual word, suggestive of non-religious Hfe
and self-righteous motive. But this is only a survival
of misjudgment, and the fact is more and more recog
nized that by the teaching of our Master Jesus the
two fields are equally covered — as indeed they must
be if he is what we take him for, the Teacher sent
from God. There is only one divine ideal, and it
comprehends both fields, or it would be no divine
ideal. Accordingly, with no slightest derogation
from his religious value, and with fine enlightening

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 19
effect upon our conception of his greatness, we are
able to add to the titles of Jesus the worthy name of
the Great Teacher in Ethics.
It will be well if we can think clearly of the callings
of the two teachers who are thus set before us. A
teacher of religion must needs be a revealer of the
unseen. He has to do with the invisible Hfe of men,
the life of the soul. He shows them what great reali
ties there are in the invisible life, and how their own
being may find there its satisfaction. A poor and low
religious teacher will grope his way, and find what he
can, and tell what little he knows; but the ideal
religious teacher will discern that which really is,
and open to men the truth concerning the higher
element in the human lot. He will tell them of their
relation to the living God, show them what God re
quires of them and will do for them, open to them
the fount of help that they cannot see, inspire in them
the power to live as in sight of this invisible reality,
and train them in the high art of subduing all their
Hfe to the governance of the great Unseen. A teacher
of ethics, on the other hand, is an interpreter of cer
tain things that are seen. He views men in their
life and character, and conduct in the light of right
and wrong, or moral good and evil. It is his office
to help men to live as they ought in all their affairs.
He appeals to the moral nature, turns the searching
moral light upon actual and tangible affairs of every
kind, helps men to the right point of view for self-
judgment and for mutual judgment, and thus seeks

20 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
to establish and confirm the dominion of duty in
human Hfe. An inferior teacher in ethics may do the
best he can, but the ideal teacher will throw the light
of essential and eternal righteousness upon all tem
poral affairs and estabhsh in men that which for
ever ought to be. Such are the two callings, different
yet perfectly harmonious. It is evident that if one
teacher covers these two fields, he will cover the entire
field of human life, viewed in its higher aspects;
and it is evident also that it is the ideal way for one
teacher to cover both these fields. If one Great
Teacher can illuminate the invisible world and rectify
the visible, teaching men to live as they may with
God and as they ought with one another, the best
that can be conceived for mankind will be in his
hands. And Jesus is the Great Teacher, and his
mission covers the whole field, and the ideal that he
seeks is the perfect Hfe in ethics and in religion.
However freely it is recognized that Jesus is a
teacher of ethics, the fact is larger than it has been
commonly supposed to be. If a reader of the Gospels
will notice how large a part of his recorded teaching
relates to what men ought to be and do, and how
small a part to anything else, the result may be sur
prising. By far the larger part is ethical teaching
as here defined. Of abstract truth he uttered very
Httie, and of truth non-moral in its bearings, none.
He was a teacher of what men ought to be and do.
Yet Jesus differs utterly from teachers of the science
of ethics. Of their methods and problems he knows
nothing. He says nothing about the absolute ground

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 21
of moraHty. He does not discuss the philosophy
of conduct or character. He pays no attention to
ethical problems as problems, or shows that he ever
thought of them. He puts forth no list of things per
mitted and forbidden, and makes no suggestions
about deciding obscure cases of conscience. The
teaching of his time and country abounded in ethical
hair-splitting, but nothing of the kind can be charged
to him. He enters into no fine detail of ethical coun
sel, nor does he enter the region of comprehensive
theory. Systems of Christian ethics, simple or elab
orate, have been formed by his followers, but none
did he construct. If Christians will have a system
founded on his teaching, they must make it — he
gave them none.
When we turn to speak of Jesus as a teacher in
rehgion, we make no real transition. With him each
subject pervades the other. If he spoke much of
what men ought to be and do, he spoke always in the
presence of God, and regarded all life of men as lived
there. From that realm he brought motives into
the realm of ethics. But apart from the application
of the great reality to their moral life, Jesus taught
men of the God to whom they were bound by a vital
tie, of the character that he bears, of his heart toward
them, of his care over them, of the outpouring of his
heart to them in grace. He made men feel that it
was the height of privilege for them to live with the
God and Father whom he revealed; and by a power
all his own he brought men into the actual living of
that Hfe in God. Thus he was the Great Teacher

22 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
in religion. Yet, in religion as in ethics, he was no
teacher of the science. He never discussed or ex
pounded religion, and took no position as a theolo
gian. The problems of religion, as modern men call
them, had no place with him. Doctrines he neither
stated nor discussed. In religion as in ethics, the
teaching of his time was full of orthodox formaHty,
but he never formalized. Neither in fine detail nor
in elaborate theory did he teach religion. His prin
ciples in rehgion are quite ascertainable, and stand
forth in a splendid unity, but no system of doctrines
or scheme of rehgious observances did he hand to
his disciples or bequeath to us. Here again, if his
followers required a system they must make it for
themselves. It is worth while to remember that
Jesus was a layman; and as he was neither a priest
nor a rabbi in the old faith, so he was neither the
head of a cult nor the formulator of a system in the
new. His manner of going about the work of his life was
the simplest and most natural that we can imagine.
His general manner was so informal that we can
hardly call it a method, but if we call it so, it was the
practical method. What he taught of ethics and
religion we learn from the impression that he made,
and makes, through Hfe and words. If we watch
him, we find him teaching ethics and religion together
all the time, by the same life and words. This blend
ing of the two was the glory of his work among men :
in him religion and ethics met together, and kissed

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 23
each other, and his expression of them to the world
was as natural to him as breathing.
Living among men, he taught them by example.
His life shows his ideal, for it lets us know what he
loved and hated, what he approved and condemned.
His avoidance and omission of sin in his own life
set his visible condemnation upon the common evil,
and his daily virtue showed his heart set upon the
perfect goodness. As for his ruling motive in all this,
he lived as a man with God, and his reference and
deference to his Father in all things showed men
where to find inspiration for fidelity and hoHness.
That is to say, his own life in religion fed the springs
of noble ethics. His self-sacrificing spirit set a higher
key for life than men had known, and his heroic self-
assertion gave new beauty to his self-sacrifice; but
both self-sacrifice and self-assertion were inspired by
loyalty to the will of his Father. His unswervingly
high aim, always refusing to yield or temporize, was
a supreme example in the highest style of life, but
its springs were in love and reverence for God. His
example in the ethical Hfe is a social example as well -
as an individual one, for what example in social prac
tice can compare with his devotion to the good of
men ? But in this he was doing the will of God and
acting in the spirit of his kingdom. And as to the
manner in which the high ethical result was wrought
out in his actual Hfe, we can watch the play of pur
pose and temptation in his career, and see how faith
in God and faithfulness to his will won the victory.
In the study of his Hfe it is given to us to watch Jesus
advancing to the realization of his own ideal.

24 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Not that Jesus was planning or intending to frame
an example adapted to the instruction of men, and
deliberately constructed his life accordingly. He was
not a moral artist, but a moral agent. He was simply
living the human Hfe in genuine simpHcity, unspoiled
by self-consciousness or self-exhibition, putting into
daily action the spirit which is the secret of all good
living before God and man. His own life was the
ideal Hfe in respect of simple naturalness.
Living among men, he taught them also by the liv
ing word. We possess only fragments of his utter
ance, and long for more, but we are sure that we have
enough to show us what he stood for. Not that he
was planning a definite course of instruction for men :
he was more natural than that. His instruction from
day to day was simply intended to help men, and
make them better. Taking men where he found
them, he sought to make better human beings of
them, in their relations with their Father and their
fellows. In this practical effort his method was
wholly informal. He taught no school, and had no
set time or place to speak, but had all seasons for his
own. Never did he speak a professional word: he
was no professional man. He was always uncon
ventional, Hving and walking with men, and talking
freely with them as occasions arose. The occasions
came unforced, springing naturally out of human
affairs, or suggested at his own impulse. Passing
events gave him texts. Often he drew illustration
from the realm of nature, and oftener from human
affairs and relations of man with man. Back of all
his utterances lay his eager fellowship with men and

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 25
his unfaihng consciousness of God. In the various
occasions of speech he uttered some word which it
was right and normal for men to act upon, and thus,
the more powerfully because so naturally, he rein
forced the vital quality both in ethics and in religion.
We are not surprised to find that this teaching from
day to day concerned itself always with the case in ¦
hand. He did not go out of his way to make occa
sions, but gave immediate attention only to such mat
ters as he met, and spoke always the word for the
hour. He did not offer to his hearers instruction
that did not apply to them, or extend his discourse
for the sake of completing the subject. There is
no indication that he contemplated a universal treat
ment of ethics or religion, or was planning to cover all
the ground. He did not give forth instruction that
would come into effect only in distant ages and under
new conditions. Accordingly we are not to look to
him for teaching on all subjects, either in ethics
or in rehgion — a lesson that Christians might have
learned long ago to their great advantage. There
are many practical questions of great importance that
had not come into existence when he spoke; and upon
these he bore no testimony, except by giving utter
ance to principles that would apply to them when
they arose. He did not even touch upon all the
urgent moral issues of his own day; and of religious
issues that are peculiar to our day certainly he took
no cognizance. So we may be sure that we cannot
expect to receive from his hands a full text-book of
directions for the modern life.

26 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
But we receive from him what is far better than
a text-book of practical details. Concerning the
¦ temporal appHcation of eternal truth, Jesus is the
supreme teacher. He is the supreme inspirer too;
indeed, it seems too little to call him teacher, when
his great work was the imparting of spiritual power.
He knew the eternal realities that give significance to
our present Hfe, and he lived in order to bear witness
to them and bring them to their due effect. He
knew that there is no incongruity, as men often
imagine that there is, between the eternal and the
temporal, the profound and the practical, the divinely
great and the humanly commonplace. He perceived
that the actual grounds of duty in every field and at
every fireside are spiritual and eternal, and that the
commonest Hfe needs the highest inspiration. There
fore he brought the everlasting realities into their
normal connection with the ordinary day's work.
He showed what men should be and do in view of
those relations to God and their fellows which take
hold on eternity. Thus it was that he exhibited
ethics and religion as woven together. He grounded
the earthly morals in heaven, and brought heaven
into the earthly morals. He suffused morality with
religion : he attached every fibre of the human life to
« God. He made men feel that wherever duty meets
them, or moral opportunity, there God looks them
in the face. In fact, of his teaching, ethics is the body
and rehgion is the soul; it was devoted to making
men what they ought to be, and it was endowed with
life by the breath of God.

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 27
In this union we behold his ideal, of ethics and
religion in one. From this we are not to infer,.
however, that there is no ground for a sound
doctrine of ethics apart from religion. From the
first age of human existence the world has had its
ethics, because men had their mutual relations, out
of which duties inevitably sprang. If we knew>
nothing of God, we should still owe duties to our fel
lows, and be under moral obligations to them and to
ourselves. No more than religion did ethics wait •
for its birth until Jesus came. He found them both .
in the world, but for ages they had been scarcely more
than loosely joined together. They had been draw
ing toward a closer unity before he appeared. But
he revealed them as simply two aspects or sides of the
one life of man, and proclaimed that vital oneness
in which they are inseparable and coeternal. In
this unity consisted his ideal, and the true ideal
of humanity.
With this conception of his purpose and quahty,
we do not wonder that Jesus is not an argumentative
teacher. He could not be. How unhke he is to
Socrates the convincer! He is the great proclaimer r
of eternal truth. Accordingly his teaching is morally '
axiomatic and self-evidencing. He does not defend
it. If men reject it, it is not because his reasoning
does not convince them, it is because the teaching
itself does not appeal to them. Recognition is what •
it asks, and acceptance as true. Its success con
sists in winning its way, so that men acknowledge it
and give it the place of truth in their Hfe. If his

28 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
ethical teaching ever seems to fail, it is because it has
not been understood, or because men are below its
level, or because it has been carried into new condi
tions without the adaptations that his wisdom would
make. If his religious teaching ever seems to fail,
it is because men have not had the moral power and
liberty to discern it truly for what it is, and to make
it rightly their own. When his ideal is discerned as
ideals are designed to be, not as a fixed law but as
an inspiring perfection, it vrill be seen to be simply
the eternal good.
The descriptive word that stands at the head of this
chapter must be unfolded. It is that the method of
Jesus in making his ideal known is one that is adapted
to bring to pass a strong and independent possession
of the character in which it consists. This means
that he was a character-builder, who counted upon
making his ideal more than a mere idea, and im
planting it as a force. He was a maker of manhood.
He taught personality to direct itself from within.
¦ His ideal was the prophetic ideal of the new covenant,
set forth by Jeremiah and quoted in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, according to which the law of God was
to be written upon the heart. Both the standard and
the inspiration of the right life were to be within.
We see this illustrated in the fact that his teaching
dealt scarcely at all with anything Hke rules of con-
¦ duct, but took the more searching and helpful form
of principles. This fact is vital in our study.
Working by rules was vastly overdone in his day.

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 29
and the futility of the method was daily proved
before his eyes. The law as a system of rules
was defeating itself. His idea of the way to bring
in right living was very different from that of
law. He knew that the working power must be
within. He would lead men to act upon sound
principles out of a free heart, to give glad exercise to
good affections, and thus to be genuine doers of the
work for which they were created. This could not
be done by rule: it required education of the man.
His training could not take the form of an external
discipline: it must be personal, inward, flexible, sug
gestive, transforming. It is very true that Christians
have often understood Jesus to be a lawgiver, and
taken Christianity for a new law imposed by him,
better than the old but nevertheless a law. He could
scarcely be more profoundly misunderstood. He was
not a lawgiver, but a revealer, an enllghtener, a
renewer, an awakener of motives and a mover of
men. It is Insufficient even to describe him as a
teacher — how much more as a lawgiver! He was
an inspirer, a creator of Ideals, a deliverer from
spiritual limitations, a vivlfier of souls, a breather of
power to fulfil the ideals that he created.
I think it will be worth while to study some say
ings of Jesus that Illustrate this practice of his, of
teaching by principles rather than by rules. The
passages that I shall quote will do something more
than confirm the method; they will help us to see
in what manner he put it In exercise.

30 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
In the Sermon on the Mount according to Matthew,
in the discourse that is associated with the choice
of the aposdes according to Luke, Jesus speaks In
close connection of two topics that to a casual reader
might seem not to have very much in common. They
are RetaHation and Generosity. The order of utter
ance is not quite the same In the two reports, and in
the Third Qospel the movement of speech Is more
rapid and eager than in the First, and the exhor
tation is In greater detail: yet the two are essen
tially alike in their teaching.
• The Old Testament gives its sanction to revenge:
there "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
was permissible retahatlon. Cruel as this may seem
to us, it was really, in its origin, a limitation upon
an ancient privilege. Private revenge was an out
growth of immemorial tribal revenge, and once had
free scope, but now the law restricted retaliation to
equality, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
but no more: and even this was under the super
vision of the law, and the Injured man was answer
able for observing the Hmitation. But now Jesus,
with his "I say unto you," declares that even this
amount of retaliation must be given up. The whole
matter Is to be left to that past time to which it be
longs. No retahatlon at all, he says, and no resist
ance to the evil man : on the contrary, all manner of
good is to be done to the doer of harm. Enemies are
to be loved, and generosity without stint Is to be
poured out upon those who have never earned any
such thing. The demand is so absolute and far-

THE IDEAt AND THE METHOD 31
reaching as often to be condemned as extravagant. -
Not only is blessing to be returned for cursing, and
prayer for persecution, which might be taken as a
matter for the inward spirit: there are outward acts
as well, and these are described without mercy, with
no reservation at all on account of their tremendous
difficulty. If you receive a blow on your cheek,
turn the other to be struck; to the man who sues you
for one garment, give two; if impressed into service
to go a mile, go two miles; refuse no one who wishes
to borrow; ask not again the goods that some one
takes away; lend vrithout hope of return; give with
out measure. In Luke the Golden Rule, given else
where In Matthew, is woven in in the midst of this
call to limitless generosity, and In both versions the
appeal Is grounded in the example of God, who acts'
thus himself.
No wonder that this teaching is difficult. It has
usually been assumed that these sayings were rules,
or something near to rules, and all the difficulties of
literal obedience have sprung at once into sight.
How can human nature be expected to act in this
manner ? and If we did, what would be the result ?
This reads like a demand for undiscriminating con
duct, in which the normal use of reason, judgment,
common sense, shall be dispensed with. Experi
ence seems to show, too, that such undiscriminating
generosity Is not true kindness. It is alleged that
unflinching obedience to these counsels would be
disastrous to society, and not only to its selfish in
terests but to its real welfare. However that may be.

32 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
it is certain that only a few of the followers of Jesus
have been thoroughly convinced that it would be
wise to act thus or that it Is their duty to do so, and
fewer still have consistently tried to follow these
counsels. Here Christendom, whether it has re
jected the spirit of the Master or not, has plainly
parted company with his written language.
. But the matter appears In a different light if we
drop the idea of rules and look at the principle
that Is Involved in these directions about retaliation
and generosity. Compare the principle that dictates
retaliation, and produces it too, with the one that
Jesus would have us substitute for it. The working
principle of retahatlon is that the fault or sin of the
other man Is to determine what I, whom he has
injured, am to do to him. Has he harmed me intoler
ably? That makes me wish to kill him. But no,
the law says, you may not kill him, for that would go
beyond his injuty to you; but you may be even vrith
him, and do him as much harm as he has done to
you. So If he has put out my eye or knocked out my
tooth, his eye or his tooth Is mine to take. It is
not I that decide to do injury to his body; he has
decided it for me by harming me. Because he has
been a violent man toward me, I am to be violent
also. I am to do as I am done by, and become
like the evil man. But when we hsten to the voice of
Jesus, we are told exactly to reverse this movement.
Our Master, high-minded and true, says. In effect,
' Do not permit another man's wrong-doing to deter
mine what you shaU do. Decide it yourself. When

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 33
you have been wronged, let your own better heart
determine your conduct. One man's moral and
practical attitude toward another ought not to be
dictated by that other man's enmity or abuse. How
shall It be decided whether you are to love or hate
a hostile man — ^whether you are to pour out upon him
deeds of kindness or deeds of Injuty ? " He has
decided it," clamors the revengeful heart. But no:
it shall not be so among you. In spite of him, take
the matter into your own hands. Settle It yourself,
by the exercise of your divinest affection. No matter
how hard and provoking the case Is, give him a love
that he has never given you, and show him kind
ness that his heart knows nothing of. A blow has
been struck in anger, and has fallen on your cheek:
now who shall decide upon the destination of a
second blow, if a second is to be struck ? The other
man seems to have decided for you that a second
blow must fall upon him, as heavy as his was; but
learn not to let that decision stand. Decide yourself
that if a second blow be struck it shall fall upon you,
and turn your other cheek to receive it, rather than
be governed by another man's wrong-doing. Instead
of allowing his evil to be master of you, be your own
master, and substitute your own loving heart and
will completely for the revengeful spirit. Thus over
come evil with good.
Jesus would not claim that this might not be hard
to do. In this special case or In a hundred others, but
the clear rightness of It Is not hard to see. In fact,
this is the plainest and most axiomatic moral and
Christian counsel, as soon as we look upon it as the

34 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
enunciation of a principle. Nothing better than this
will ever be taught about a man's attitude toward
those who have done him wrong, and the appHcations
of the principle are without number.
• As for the extreme and paradoxical form in which
the principle is expressed. It throws the strongest
emphasis on the principle itself. Apparently the
expression is made so intense In order to get this
emphasis at the strongest. I have expounded one
example, but the others teach the same lesson. From
retahation Jesus passes at once to generosity, for the
two illustrate the same principle. So does submis
sion to wrong, which comes in also. In all these
matters his counsel is, in effect. Swing clear over to
the other side. Submit to what is unreasonable, he
says, rather than do a selfish or revengeful deed.
Live out the generous temper; trample selfishness
under foot, and make generosity the law of your life.
Always remind yourself that it Is difficult to carry
that temper too far. Do not be afraid of overdoing
it, for there is far more danger of underdoing It.
These extreme words about giving without Hmit
and lending without hope, that seem so far beyond
the Hmit of the practicable, are apparently Intended
to drive this wholesome principle sharply home.
And if we look at the clear principle of the commands
rather than at their paradoxical form, we shall have
no difficulty with them — except the difficulty of attun
ing our hearts to so high an Ideal.
The Ideal Is traced to a source higher than man.
We must add that the appeal against revenge and
in favor of broad helpfulness is grounded in the duty

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 35
and privilege of Hkeness to the heavenly Father.
Jesus reminds his hearers that no evil in men dom
inates God, so as to defeat or obscure his grace In
his deahngs with them. In God there Is no retalia
tion, and no hatred of those who hate him. He is
kind to the unthankful and evil: he gives his sun
and rain ahke to just and unjust. Thus the example
of his providence supports the lesson that has just
been taught, for the sinfulness of men does not deter
mine what he does toward them. It Is his own heart
that decides that question, and It Is a heart of patient
and forgiving love that waits to bless. Men who-
imitate him in this shall have the incomparable re
ward of being his sons. They are beginning to bear
his character in the true filial way, and It Is their
destiny to be perfect even as he Is perfect in the un
selfish grace, a destiny toward which it is their duty
and gloty every day to strive. Thus do ethics and
rehgion shine out together in the Master's ideal.
Sound and sweet morality In the every-day relation
between man and man Is recognized as the true sign
of the fihal relation to the eternal God.
There could be no better illustration than this of
the character of the Master's Influence. He was not ¦
telHng men what to do, as the law had done; he was
awakening them to a sense of what they should do
and why they should do It. He was training them
not for obedience to commandments but for free do
ing of the will of God. So he did not hamper them
by precepts, but reinforced them with principles. It
was not that he wished a man always to turn the

36 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
other cheek; he wished him to have intelligent self-
mastery in righteousness and love. Of course this
is the only way in which a great ideal of life and
character can be actually Imparted. An ideal is
nothing until it Is an Inward thing, possessing the
heart; and in these paradoxical sayings Jesus was
offering the Ideal of strong self-mastery and will to
bless. So it is of little consequence whether the
paradoxical commands as they stand are practicable
or not. The principle that they embody is practi
cable in a thousand forms.
. We have to own that Christendom has failed to rise
to the Master's principle here, but the chief evidence
to that effect does not reside in its omission of the
particular things that are here commanded. The
failure lies in the prevalhng temper of life. The spirit
that dictated the code of honor, according to which
insults must be avenged, has not become extinct in
men or nations, and the spirit of love that inspires
free and wise generosity has not fully come in. As
to the manner In which the better spirit is to do its
work when It comes, these counsels of Jesus are not
rules, they are suggestions and Illustrations. Rules
he could not give for such a work, for rules must
always accord with conditions, and conditions vary
from age to age. What he has done Is to encour
age the spirit Itself, by which alone the ideal can be
fulfilled. There Is a case In which Christendom has almost
entirely departed from obedience to a plain and direct

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 37
imperative of Jesus; and the fact is very suggestive
with reference to his method of teaching. In the
Sermon on the Mount he quoted from the old law,
which said, "Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but
shalt perform unto the Lord thy oaths." This meant
that the oath was to be held sacred, and the word was
to be kept, or the promise performed, as a duty
owed to God. "But I say unto you," said Jesus,
"Swear not at all."
For the understanding of this of course the sur
rounding facts must yield their light. An oath Is an
appeal to God in confirmation of something said,
whether In affirmation or in promise. The practice
of such appeal grew up when institutions were ill-
developed, and each man had to look out as best he
could for the fulfilment of promises that were made
to him. The appeal to God was a safeguard, first
required of the promiser and afterward volunteered
by him. In late Judaism such appeals to God could
not be called necessary, but they continued, and were
in great vogue. A great system of oaths had grown
up, which corresponded well to the methods of a
formal religion, but was harmful to spiritual relig
ion. To avoid the solemnity of the appeal, any
sacred thing was substituted for the name of God.
Thus oaths became light and vain, the appeal to
God was degraded, and sanctity went out of holy
things. In the presence of such facts Jesus said, "Swear
not at all." On another occasion, as we read, he
analyzed the current practice of swearing and de-

38 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
nounced the various evils that entered into It. But
we must not fail to note that In connection with this
prohibition he gave a reason for it, and a very plain
one. Swearing, he said, ought to be superfluous.
When a man speaks, his Yes and No ought to be
enough, and whatever goes beyond this simple af
firmation "cometh of evil." It was only because of
the evil of untruthfulness among men that an oath
was ever deemed necessary. Oaths would not be
here if the kingdom of evil were not In the
world. Live without them, he says, for in so far as
men are what they ought to be there Is no need of
them. This Is an absolute Imperative, and the prohibition
of oaths and swearing seems unmistakable. But it
has not generally been taken to be an unconditional
prohibition, or if it has, Httle obedience has followed.
It stands written as a command of Jesus, and Is freely
quoted as such, but it has long been allowed to be a
dead letter. With the exception of the people called
Friends, and a few besides. Christians do not refuse
to swear to testimony that they bear in court, or to
take the oath of office or of allegiance to government
when It Is required of them. Into the oath of alle
giance, indeed, the warmest religious sentiment
sometimes goes. How is this ? Are the followers of
Jesus In agelong disobedience to a command that he
meant for them all ? or may we say that this is
something else than a rule ?
We have some Instructive facts that bear on the
scope of the command. If we may trust the record

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 39
In the First Gospel, Jesus himself responded to an
oath. In his trial he stood silent before the Jewish
court under false testimony, but when the high-priest
said, "I swear thee by the Hving God that thou tell
us whether thou art the Christ," he made answer.
In the apostolic church there appears to have been
no general understanding that oaths were forbidden
to Christians. It is true that in the Epistle of James
we have the prohibition repeated In the Master's
words, though not quoted from him. But Paul was
not restrained from the use of oaths. Twice he is
recorded to have taken regular vows of religious ser
vice under the Jewish law, once at the instigation of
James, the head of the church at Jerusalem. In his
letters he was not always content with the simple Yes
and No, but at various times vigorously called God
to witness to the truth of his words: "Behold, before
God, I lie not." Evidently swearing was not re
garded as something that loyalty to Christ forbade.
Neither by his prohibition nor by his reason for it
was the use of oaths aboHshed, and this same condi
tion has prevailed from then till now.
Thus from the earliest times to the latest the gen
eral Christian practice has violated a plain command
of Jesus, and yet the Christian people do not feel
themselves very much to blame. Is this unbehef
and treason, or is there some other fact in the case ?
What has Christendom to say for itself ? How would
it defend itself before its Lord ? Christendom would
probably stand up for the oath, not as the best thing,
but as a good. Apparently the general conscience Is

40 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
satisfied that in the world, as it has gone, the govern
mental oath has been expressive of a sound moral
and religious motive, and has been on the whole a
benefit. It has been sincerely intended for a safe
guard to truthfulness and a protection to the highest
interests of society. Probably in its history as a whole
it has served the cause of righteousness. The Chris
tian practice implies a permanent conviction that if
Jesus were speaking here and now, or were legislating
for all time, he would not forbid the oath of allegiance
to government, or of fidelity In office, or of confir
mation to evidence. The practice of Christendom
implies the belief that this absolute prohibition was
not designed to go beyond the conditions In which it
was uttered.
- Nevertheless it Is certain that the reason that Jesus
gave for saying "Swear not at all" is permanently
good. A man's word ought to be so trustworthy
that appeal to God in support of It was needless.
Yes and No ought to be enough, and whatsoever is
more cometh of evil, just as he said. Oaths exist
because men will lie. That is to say, the sound rea
son that Jesus gave against the use of oaths Is a
part of his own ideal. His ideal man is a truthful
man, whose word needs no confirmation. His ideal
society would have no oaths, because all had such
well-grounded confidence in one another as to feel
no need of them. And yet his ideal man is a man
who can judge for himself, and in doubtful circum
stances know how to help the Ideal cause. And It is
certain that the ideal of Jesus against the oath is

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 41
slowly gaining force In that Christendom which has
disregarded the plain prohibition. The oath is not
regarded as the ideal thing, but as an imperfect help
to the good cause. If a Christian takes an oath, he
joins society in the endeavor to guard against un
truthfulness, but by what he knows to be an unideal
means. He may feel this when he performs the act,
and be aware that the oath is something beneath the
high requirement of the Christian character. Yet
since society seems safer with this Imperfect protec
tion in use, he yields his scruple and joins In its en
deavor at self-protection, and thinks that his Master
would wish him so to do. He may thus be serving
the Master's own ideal In the end.
It Is no small question that arises when we look
at the imperatives of Jesus. There are about fifty
words in the Imperative mood in the Sermon on the
Mount. There are many elsewhere, and frequently
the imperative tone sounds where the form of speech
is different. Reverence often says that every impera
tive word of Jesus voices a command, and a com
mand of Jesus is for all time and must be literally
obeyed. We have no right to inquire whether his
commands are limited in any way, or altered by
possessing a figurative quality. There they stand,
and we have only to obey them. But reverence may
well take another turn, and ask what right we have
to omit any reasonable means of ascertaining what
the words of Jesus really mean. Why should we
make our own assumption final ? Why assume that

42 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
all his imperatives were Intended to give us unchange
able rules of action ? Other speakers use language
variously, and why not he as well ? How can we
affirm that he spoke no words that belonged to his
own time alone, or that he was never figurative in
his speech except when he called himself so ? Why
should we ignore the poetic temperament of the
orient in which he lived and spoke, and the hard,
prosaic temperament of the Occident, which we bring
to the Interpretation of his words ? And how can
we forget that back of all Interpretations of single
sayings must He the large principles that determine
the general method of his teaching ?
" The general method of his teaching must explain
for us many of these Imperatives; and we know what
the method was. It was that of the giver of a great
ideal, who will guide men not by rules but by prin
ciples. The principle for us in the present matter
is that we must read his ImperatTve words In the
light of their relation to the Ideal which he is setting
forth. If we do this, we shall find that they may serve
his ideal not In any single way, but In many ways.
His commands may be literal or figurative, temporary
or everlasting, and each may make Its own contri
bution to his purpose. Often we have no difficulty
in classing them. If we hear him say, " Pray to thy
Father who Is in secret," we perceive at once that
he is enforcing his ideal directly, and means nothing
other than what he says. It is otherwise If we hear
him say, " If thy right hand make thee sin, cut It off:
if thy right eye, pluck it out and cast it from thee."

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 43
Regarded as a rule, this is squarely against his ideal;
but as illustrating a principle. It serves the ideal per
fectly. Jesus could not mean that the forfeiting of
a hand or an eye would save a man from sinning.
Self-mutilation would be futile; but spiritual self-
pruning, the spirit that would sacrifice anything as
indispensable as hand or eye for purity, is a grace of
his ideal man.
These two instances Illuminate the main point.
Jesus was throwing his ideal out into the circle of
humanity, to be welcomed by men and made their
own. Interpreters have often credited him with just
one method of doing this, the method of plain com
mand; but when we discern what an ideal is, we shall
know that there are many other methods. In giving ¦
his Ideal to men he would tell them to do things that
all true souls must do forever; he might also tell them
to do things that were appropriate only to the con
ditions in which he spoke; and he would doubtless
sometimes command eternal duty In temporary forms,
which would drop away after a time and leave the
duty to be done in some other way. All these ways
would be natural to him, and even necessaty; and in
studying what we have received from his lips it is for
us to judge how any one of his imperatives Is to be
classified. Instead of being Irreverent for us to pass
this judgment, reverence requires it, since without
It we cannot do justice to his words.
Is it implied in this that some of the counsels and
commands of Jesus, in the form in which they stand,
are not of permanent and universal force ? Cer-

44 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
tainly; and it is implied also that he might have
commanded differently under different conditions.
Any teacher would do that, and any wise master of
men. In other conditions his great principles would
necessarily have found other forms of expression.
All readers know that his teaching was moulded. In
form and in substance, too, somewhat, by the Jewish
life in which It had its being. In Rome or India his
utterance of truth would have been cast in other
moulds, and so it would if it were given forth in
America to-day. In modes of thought. In illustra
tions and in practical adaptation, his teaching would
have been different in any other land from what it
was In Palestine, and in any other age from what it
was In the first century. What he would have said
if he had been born into modem conditions we can
not closely guess, but two things we know: he would
have held forth the same ideal of life, and he would
have illustrated and enforced it In a manner intelli
gible and effective in the time and place where it was
to be applied. His ideal of life is the same yesterday
and to-day and forever; therefore it may be illus
trated and applied in a thousand ways, and give
birth to a thousand modes of life. This we must
always remember in seeking to understand his words.
This is the sum of the matter, that Jesus wished
to make God's will man's own. He would send out
disciples who through communion with the Father
had received the impress of his nature, and were
inspired from within by the principles that ought to

THE IDEAL AND THE METHOD 45
govern life. He would not prefer that men should do
right because he told them: he wanted men who
would do right without being told. The genuine
Christian aim has always been this, and the Christly
element in the Christian is not so much the mind that
follows directions as the heart that directs Itself in
the Christly way.
If we attempt to follow Jesus In this spirit, we shall
know him as a larger, wiser, and more exacting Mas
ter, In proportion as we appreciate this character in
his work. It Is a mistake to think that this view of
him makes him an easier Master to obey, and takes
away something from the seriousness of life. It Is far
easier to obey rules than principles. To be loyal to -
an inspiration of holiness requires more discernment
and moral sense, more courage and devotion, more
character and force, more of the gift of God and the
best In man, than any other ideal of life. Paul is
a more exacting prophet than Moses, and Jesus than
either of them. It Is a mistake, too, to imagine that
this view of Jesus is something new, appearing as an
innovation. It Is the ancient heart of living Chris
tianity. It Is true that Christianity has often been con
ceived as a law, and the teaching of Christ as legisla
tion. The spirit of legalism, so native to humanity,
has not deserted the field of Christ. Yet the progress ¦
of Christianity has not consisted in the estabhshment
of rules and methods, but rather In the unfolding of
principles and the entrance of inspirations that make
them alive. This Is not only Jesus' ideal of his work;
it is the ideal upon which his church, half consciously

46 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
and half instinctively, has proceeded in all the ages
of its life. It is not the old covenant, with law writ
ten outside, but the new, with law written upon the
heart, that dominates the true Christendom.

Ill
THE PICTURE OF THE HIGH AIM
I WISH to bring out various qualities that enter into
the ideal of Jesus; but in leading on toward this ex
position I am moved to Introduce the study exactly
as his actual ministty was introduced, by an Illustra
tion of the ideal that we are seeking to discern. He
himself is the great illustration, and we shall be richer
and wiser for our purpose if we first look at him in a
pair of scenes that show us the spirit that made his
Hfe what it was. There is no better illustration of the
vital manner in which his high truth was conveyed
from him to his first disciples, nor a more instructive
one for us at this far distance. I have named it the
Picture of the High Aim. The method of It brings
home to us the fact, most important for our purpose,
that we are to learn of no professional teacher. We
are coming to an actual Person, who does not always
set himself to teach, but lives his lessons In our sight.
His Hfe breathes upon us the spirit of holy instruction.
To be a pupil to him is not only to listen; it Is also
to look, to feel our way into the spirit of what he said
and did, to understand his Hfe. In himself his ideal
stands before us.
We meet the Master in the company of his dis
ciples at a crisis of his ministty. The popular favor
47

48 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
that he had enjoyed was passing, and he felt it neces
sary to prepare for the dark end which he foresaw.
Therefore he took his disciples apart in a quiet place,
and subjected them to the questioning that would be
most helpful to them. He began by asking, "Who
do the people say that I am ?" He obtained answers,
but they were not of any deep significance: the peo
ple had not taken him vety seriously, or put any Im
portant estimate upon him. Then he turned upon
his friends themselves, with the demand, "But who
say ye that I am ?" and in answer there came from
Peter the confession, "Thou art the Christ." To
this declaration Jesus responded with the warmest
congratulation for Peter: he had discerned a fact
that required such insight as God alone could give:
It was the Father's revelation, and nothing less, that
had opened to him this truth. But after this confes
sion had been made, the turn of the Master's thought
and teaching was not at all such as ''the disciples
must have expected. When his Messiahship was
thus an acknowledged thing, they would look eagerly
for signs of power, and expect instruction about the
coming victoty; but from that time Jesus began to
tell them that he must die. The Inspired confession
became thus the prelude to sorrowful tidings, which
of course they could not understand, or even take In
as true, so different from all this was their concep
tion of the Messiah's destiny.
In his increduHty, Peter, who had been congratu
lated upon receiving the great confession as a gift of
God, began to protest. "Mercy on thee. Lord," he

THE PICTURE OF THE HIGH AIM 49
cried, "this shall never happen to thee." Then In
stantly there came from Jesus a rebuke as terrible
as the congratulation had been splendid: "Get thee
behind me, Satan; thou art my stumbHng-block;
for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things
of men." And then foHowed the declaration that
one who proposed to follow Jesus must not consider
himself; he must accept the burden that God laid
upon him, and hold to his purpose, even bearing
his cross. "The things of God" which Peter was
ignoring were the high aim, devotion to a cause,
courage, self-forgetfulness, the steady consecration,
the purpose immovable. "The things of men"
above which he could not rise were the lower aim,
the worldly standard of judgment and desire, self-
consideration, fear, shrinking from the cost of high
moral endeavor, timid avoidance of the noble strife.
In his misplaced sympathy he would even persuade
Jesus to hold himself back from sacrifice for his great
purpose. Therefore he must be rebuked. Jesus
must go straight on unmoved, and his followers must
be taught to be followers indeed, never frightened
away from the high aim, faithful unto death. As the
Master, so must the disciple be: as goes the Leader,
so must go the follower, undeterred by this world's
hope or fear, unchangeable in the purpose of the holy
kingdom. Jesus had called Peter Satan — a terrible thing to
do. He had called him Satan not because of any
general depravity In his character or conduct, but
on account of one single position that Peter had

50 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
taken on that day. "Thou art my stumbHng-block,"
was the explanation of it; that Is to say, "You are
making it hard for me, you are blocking the road
that I am bound to take." Peter was a tempter to
him and as a tempter he ordered Peter away. Here
surely was a terrible crisis in the little circle of friends.
The Master had condemned his chief disciple in the
strongest possible terms, on the ground of grave
personal fault in relation with himself. This he
had done after pronouncing the same disciple highly
blessed of God. It was enough to shatter the peace
of the company — enough, one would almost think, to
shatter the company itself Into fragments.
It Is reasonable to think that when Jesus had been
compelled to do so terrible a thing among his near
est friends, he was quick to explain why it had been
necessaty. We can scarcely conceive of the faithful
Master that he was as doing otherwise. For the sake
of evety man among them, as well as for the sat
isfaction of his own heart. It was important that ex
planation should be made; and It was not difficult to
make. So I think it probable that this is the point
in his intercourse with his disciples at which he told
them the story of the Temptation that he encountered
at the beginning of his ministty. Of course he must
have told It to them at some time. If a great Intro
ductory struggle occurred when he was alone In the
wilderness, any knowledge that they might have of
it must have been derived from him. We cannot
beheve that the stoty of the Temptation that we read

THE PICTURE OF THE HIGH AIM 51
in the Gospels is an invention, and If it was true
plainly It must have been told by himself, since his
disciples would have no other means of obtaining
it. And though no one can prove that this was the
moment at which It was told. It certainly appears
to have been the moment In their fellowship at which
It would most naturally come in. The stoty fits the
occasion perfectly, for It shows why Jesus called his
disciple by the dreadful name, and nothing else could
explain it so well. Jesus called Peter Satan because
Peter had renewed the temptation that he had met
and conquered at the beginning of his ministry.
It is a fine contribution to our spiritual wealth
that we can receive the narrative of the Temptation
in the wilderness as a part of the actual oral teaching
of Jesus himself. The reason for so regarding It
is so plain as to preclude all doubt, and yet most
readers do not seem to have taken to heart the fact
that this is one of his own utterances. Whether we
think of ethics or of religion, or of both combined,
the passage contains fine instruction. The ideal
here shines before us. It is something to be thank
ful for If we can take this instruction as given directly
by Jesus himself, out of his own experience. As to
the manner In which the stOty is told, we are certain
that it Is not literal at all points. We may be sure
that he put the experience Into such form, in telling
it, that his friends could see the vital meaning of it.
Doubtless there is something of the parabolic In the
mode of telHng, but no one can know just how much.
The lesson for the sake of which he made this con-

52 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
fession of experience to them Is plain, and we shall
waste time if we search beyond It, seeking to under
stand vety much more.
The temptation that met Jesus at the beginning
of his ministry was neither more nor less than the
proposal that he should lower his high aim, abandon
his ideal, and mind the things of men Instead of the
things of God. The three temptations have often
been Interpreted as having to do with the personal
relation of Jesus to his Father, and significant in
connection with what we now call personal religious
experience: they all concerned his own soul. But
interpreters now more commonly judge, and more
wisely too, I think, that the whole suggestion related
to the method and principles that he should act upon
in his work among men, then just opening. Of
course the two forms of experience would coincide
more deeply than they would differ, and yet the dif
ference between them is important. If the more
modern view is right, the temptation fell in not only
with the general conditions of his Hfe, but with the
special ones of the hour. In actual significance It
seems to have been not so much the temptation of a
son of God — that is, of any child living with the
heavenly Father — as of the Son of God, just owned
in baptism and now turning his face toward a work
among men in the Father's name. And the sugges
tion in Its three forms was exactly that of Peter at a
later date, namely, that the Son of God should aban
don the true ideal of Hfe and undertake to do his
work in easier and less worthy ways, shaping his

THE PICTURE OF THE HIGH AIM 53
course to suit his own comfort or popularity, serving
good ends by bad means, minding the things of men
and not the things of God.
The first temptation found Jesus hungty in the
wilderness, and suggested to him that he need not
be hungry, since he was the Son of God. Many
readers have thought that by the "if" he was tempted
to doubt his Sonship, and put it to the test of miracle-
working to prove it; but In the Greek this is an im
possible meaning. " If thou art the Son of God, as
thou art, command that these stones become bread."
The hunger was real, and so was the appeal to it,
and yet we are right If we feel that in the temptation
something more was meant than was said. The
satisfaction of one day's bodily hunger can scarcely
have been all that was proposed, for that would have
been too small a matter for the occasion. It is In
credible that for such a spirit as Jesus hunger alone
brought on one of the supreme temptations of his
life. The hunger stands as a representative fact,
and the temptation that It suggested was, "Use thy~
power for thyself." The sense of a great calling
among men was upon him. The tidings, "The king
dom of heaven Is at hand," had been followed by the
voice from heaven sounding In his soul and testifying,
"Thou art my beloved Son." There is mystety in
this for us, and we cannot see what was passing
through his mind, but it is plain that a calling had "
reached him, a summons to a great leadership among
men. Since he was the Son of God, great power

54 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
must be his, and in his needs he could serve himself.
Others might serve him too. The kings of the earth
were expected to profit by the power that they pos
sessed. "The kings of the Gentiles are called their
great ones," and the lesser ones are supposed to be
at their service. So the suggestion was, in its broader
meaning, " Be served : be ministered unto: be as the
one that sitteth at meat. Here In the wilderness,
where you are hungty, let the powers of the heavenly
kingdom wait upon your needs; and so throughout
your Hfe be the recipient. For God's Son surely
It is more fitting, and therefore more blessed, to re
ceive than to give."
But the appeal to self-interest was made in vain.
Jesus perceived that such an attitude meant unbelief
in God, and abandonment of the due dependence
upon him. "Man shall not live by bread alone,"
he answered, quoting from the ancient testimony
about the feeding of Israel in the wilderness, "but
by evety word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God." Men are in God's hands, and must be satis
fied with his appointments. If we understand Jesus
to have cited the passage from Deuteronomy in the
spirit of its meaning in old time, he meant, "If God
says I am to be fed I shall be fed, while I look to him.
Bread Is not all that I want — I must have my bread
from him, and as his gift. All is for him to deter
mine. I will submit myself to his providence, not
claim to set myself above it. My powers shall serve
God's kingdom, not myself, and I will not demand
to be treated as a recipient." Not for satisfaction of

THE PICTURE OF THE HIGH AIM 55
his own necessities would he change his attitude tow
ard God. Not for his own advantage would he
lower the high aim and abandon his ideal.
The first temptation had related to himself, and
his own relation to his work. The second had
reference to his own people of Israel, and the man
ner in which he should seek their favor. Here I
follow the order of Matthew, which is more cHmactic
than that of Luke, and seems more natural: though
if we think of the ideas as surging in his mind In a
real experience, it does not matter much which we
think of as coming first. Probably they all recurred
again and again in the struggle, and were all united
sometimes In one great assault.
The first temptation had found Jesus hungry; the
second placed him in thought upon the pinnacle of
his Father's temple in Jerusalem. Of course there
was no need that he make a journey thither, or be
carried thither through the air, as we used to think
in childhood. Imagining that we must be literal.
Imagination placed him there, and that was enough.
The mission of God's Son would be expected to
centre in his Father's temple. There the people of
Israel were always present, often thronging. When
the kingdom came, they hoped to see it inaugurated
with mighty signs. Superhuman power was the
kind of evidence of God for which they looked. If
the Son of God were to cast himself down in their
presence from the height of the temple, and be borne
in safety to the ground, that would be enough for

56 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
them — they would see and beheve. And had not
God himself anticipated that vety act in the promise
which the Scriptures recorded ? "He shaU give his
angels charge over thee to keep thee, and in their
hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy
foot against a stone." Jesus wanted followers
from among a people who expected to yield to just
such evidence as this. Must not one who seeks a
foUowing consider what will appeal to those whom
he wishes to win ? And shall he not take advantage
of God's own promise ? " Instead of Insisting so
strenuously upon the high aim, aim where you can
hit. Make appeals that the people of Israel, looking
for the kingdom of God, will respond to. Appear
in your Father's house, accept his written promise,
trust his word, and win the multitude by a mighty
miracle, not of power only but of faith. Surely your
Father will be pleased with this, and the people too."
But in vain again. The clear vision of Jesus per
ceived that such an act would not He within the range
of the divine purpose and promise, or within the
field of his own right relation with the Father. Not
for such uses was the promise given, and not for such
help had he a right to call. So his loyal answer was,
"It is written. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy
God, put him to needless tests, play with him as It
were, call upon him to do for thee Inferior things of
thine own devising. Trust him, but trust him within
the field of his own character, and of his character
istic work. That is enough, and beyond that I will
not go." True, the people of Israel might be gained

THE PICTURE OF THE HIGH AIM 57
in such a way, some of them : they might be gained
to some kind of leadership: but Jesus would not seek
them thus, and would not offer them a leadership
that could be thus accepted. He would seek them
only In ways in which he had a spiritual right to in
voke his Father's help. Not for followers would he
change his attitude toward God. Not for popularity
would he lower the high aim and abandon the ideal.
The third temptation took hold upon the relation
of Jesus to the world. Israel was not the whole of
humanity: round about it stood the nations, and of
them Jesus thought. Of course there is no moun
tain from which one could see all the kingdoms of
the world and the glory of them; but an eager mind
has no need of such a point of vision. Has the king
dom of God any chance among these powers ? The
power of evil Is ready with Its suggestion. It claims
to be the dominant force In world affairs, and is able
to quote histoty in confirmation. It affirms that the
great world powers have not come to their greatness
without much of its friendly aid. So to Jesus, to
whose mind came visions of the kingdoms of the
world as fields of conquest for God's kingdom, the
power of evil whispered, "Make terms with me, and
you shall have it all." As the world goes, it was a
plausible suggestion. What is the hope of an abso
lutely pure work ? How can one expect world-wide
influence, except through such means as experience
has proved to be effective ? — and certainly the shin
ing successes among the nations have owed much to

58 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
evil. Is not a great enterprise defeated in advance
if it refuses all terms with the evil that so largely rules
the world? "All these things will I give thee, if
thou wilt fall down and worship me."
But the proposal was made to one who had clear
discernment of the everlasting moral contrast, and
could not be false to its demand. There are only
two primaty principles, and one of them is identified
with God. To Jesus it was not a question. It was
now that he said, "Get thee hence, Satan," and his
answer was, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve." To God and right
eousness must sole loyalty be given. Compromise
with the evil power that promised so Hberally was not
for a moment to be thought of. Not for the prospect
of vast extension of his influence would he change
his attitude toward God. Not for the whole world
would he lower the high aim and abandon the ideal.
Thus at the beginning of his life among men Jesus
stood fast by his high aim — he would sacrifice any
thing else, but never that. Again toward the end
the temptation is renewed, and he stands In the same
virtue. Not that this is anything wonderfid for him.
A strong soul holds to Its standards. When we
know him we do not wonder that he was not false,
but we admire his steadfastness none the less, and
are thankful for such a picture of the ideal. The
later scene, Hke the earlier, shows him as he was.
The voice of an enemy sounded from the Hps of a
friend : his disciple was his stumbHng-block, obstruct-

THE PICTURE OF THE HIGH AIM 59
ing the way in which it was his Father's will that he
should walk. It was Hke him to blaze forth upon
his chief disciple when he played the tempter's part,
and he fulfilled the Ideal equally In the act that fol
lowed, if he then graciously told Peter and the rest
as much as they could understand of his earher deal
ing with that same proposal.
The lesson could not be plainer. It could not be
half so plain if it were taught In school or dictated in
words. An act of firmness excels all exhortations.
In Jesus here we behold what God desires every man
to be. He had the high aim so thoroughly for his
own that it was impossible for him to be false to it.
This is our Father's standard for us all.
It Is worth while to notice at how many points this
example touches our life, and Illustrates the Ideal
that it commends to us. It is evident that the whole
transaction of the wilderness moves in the sphere of
religion. The first necessity is that the soul of Jesus
hold fast the fellowship of the Father. He must
not go spiritually away from home: he must do the
will of God with a free and joyful choice, and thus
abide in the secret of his presence. His action under
temptation illustrates the effect of the rehgious im
pulse, holding fast to God. And it Is needless to say
that the scene illustrates just as clearly the Ideal work
in the field of ethics. The choice lay between right.
and wrong, and the unqualified choosing of the right
is what makes the scene glorious. Plainly, too, it
illustrates the personal Hfe, the call of individual
duty, the ideal personal attitude. "As for me," says

60 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Jesus, "as for me, this is the only way, and here I
stand." But no less clearly does the scene illustrate
Hfe in its social aspect and the ideal attitude of the
individual in social relations. The great question
at issue was how Jesus should serve his fellows, and
his decision was that he would serve his fellows by
holding high his standard of life, by forgetting him
self, and by being utterly loyal to his God and theirs.
"As for you, O my brothers," says Jesus, in effect,
"I will serve you in the way that blesses you most
richly," and self did not come into the reckoning.
So here we find expressed the ideal in religion and
in ethics, in personal and in social forms. The les
son touches all life.
We may put the general lesson in a negative form
that Is quite intelligible, if we say that Jesus does not
stand for compromise. Doubtless there are matters
in which compromise Is right, and it vety often seems
to be entirely unavoidable in such a world as this.
Jesus is the vety soul of kindhness and patience tow
ard those who are but pardy trained in virtue and
have not yet attained to sound consistency: he would
never make the present day's requirement so severe
as to render a reasonable obedience impossible, and
he would never condemn a compromise that did
not trifle with the most Important things. But for
himself, in dealing directly with the great issues of
life, as in the scene before us, he knows only one way.
There is only one Master, and he knows no compro
mise when his requirement is Involved : there is only

THE PICTURE OF THE HIGH AIM 61
one principle of Hfe, and he accepts no compromise
in applying It to himself. This standard of unswerv- ¦
ing loyalty to God and duty, which he illustrates in
himself, he holds out as the true standard for all.
This quality must be characteristic of any religion
that is entitled to bear his name. It cannot be ex
hibited in perfection, but any religion that is of Jesus
must be at heart a firm religion, with its presumption
always against temporizing with evil. It may be
said that such straightforwardness is only the com
mon duty of man, and this is true; but then, the
Christian Ideal is only the genuine human ideal,
taken as the aim in a religion of saving power.
When we look at the influence of Jesus, and the
view that is generally taken of him, it is Interesting
to note the effect of this quality. The world is not
averse to compromise, but rather looks graciously
upon it, as a thing wholly Inevitable, and not too
much to be blamed even when it cannot be altogether
approved. Many think even better of it, and count
it a valuable principle In life. Conscience may
often bear testimony against it, but there are power
ful voices that warn conscience not to be too urgent
against so indispensable a thing. Sometimes, we
must own, much that may be counted under the name •
of compromise serves a Christian purpose, by way
of forbearance and helpfulness toward a weaker
brother. Nevertheless, after all has been said, the
fact remains that the world thinks better of Jesus ¦
for not having compromised. Probably no reader
of the Gospels has ever wished that he had in some

62 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
way made terms with the power of evil when it would
have helped him toward popularity or saved him from
suffering. Even the easy-going and much-compro
mising world likes him better for it that he would
not compromise. Any reader must shudder to think
how the later history of the world would have been
altered if Jesus had consented to lower his high aim
and abandon his ideal, at the soHcitatlon of friend
or foe. Regarded as a person In hIstoty and an
example of sound living, this Is one great means of
his lasting power upon humanity, that with uncom
promising singleness of aim he held his course.
'And this element of unyielding simplicity and straight
forwardness gives tone to all his teaching and influ
ence In ethics and rehgion.

IV
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
In seeking to understand the ideal of Jesus we
must make sure that we understand the Kingdom
of God, or, as the First Gospel calls it, the Kingdom
of Heaven. It was often upon his lips. He found
the hope of the kingdom as the supreme social and
religious expectation of Israel, and adopted this
national hope as the mould in which his own proc
lamation of the coming good should be cast.
He took the conception for his own, and used this
ideal of his nation for the representation of his own
ideal. So prominent is the kingdom of God In his
discourse, that interpreters have come to feel that
It is the very first thing to be Interpreted, if we are
to understand what Jesus stands for in the world.
In this they are right. The kingdom of God is the
embodiment of the ideal of Jesus.
How the idea of the kingdom of God came to be
so prominent, and yet why in some respects it Is so
far from clear In meaning, it Is easy to understand.
Out of the past the idea had come down to the time ¦
of Jesus. In the memory and imagination of the
people, the ideal Israel of the past was the kingdom
of David and his descendants; and in forms derived
from that kingdom the prophetic anticipation had
63

64 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
long pictured the ideal Israel of the future. It is
no wonder that the Israel of the future was conceived
as a kingdom, in which the ancient gloty was to be
renewed, and the national hopes of virtue, prosperity,
and power were to be fulfilled in the light of the divine
¦presence. This was only a natural transmutation
of sacred memoty into sacred hope: it was a de
scription of the promised blessing In terms of the
brightest experience. Of old it had been hoped
that the kingdom of David itself might develop into
a kingdom In which the coming good should be
embodied; but after unsatisfactoty centuries that
kingdom had vanished away. After it had gone
the hope sprang up that it would be restored, and
that new kings of David's Hne, reigning over Israel,
would bring in the expected day of gloty; but this
. hope also came to no fruition. In Jesus' time it
still lived In a fragmentaty way, though almost as a
hope of desperation, for the shadow of the Roman
empire was upon it, and only through rebellion could
it be fulfilled; and rebellion was hopeless. Yet the
hope of the kingdom could not perish, and in despair
it took another form. When earthly institutions
did not fulfil their promise and their possibiHties
were all destroyed, it began to be expected that the
coming kingdom would be brought in not from earth
but from heaven. The natural kingdom falhng, a
supernatural one would appear. God would intro
duce it by matchless signs from heaven, raising the
dead, judging the nations, vindicating his people,
and establishing Israel in righteousness and glory

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 65
under his own dominion. Both in the earlier form
and In this later eschatologlcal one the hope of the
kingdom was current in the days of Jesus. The
former was grounded in history, prophecy, and tradi
tional expectation, while about the latter there had
grown up a mass of apocalyptic literature, mightily
inspiring to the popular heart.
Thus In the first century the ancient phrase had
virtually two meanings, the later and more passionate
expectation being probably the more Influential.
One hope Inspired both, and in both forms it was a '
hope In God, the God of the fathers, who was to in
terpose and save his people Israel. In both forms it
was a national hope, which Is much the same that
we mean by a social hope. It was a hope for the com- -
mon life of men, a hope for the many, and for the
life that they lived together. These Important ele
ments the two forms of the hope had In common;
and yet in spirit, tone, and practical effect the dif--
ference between them was very great. The result is
that the phrase kingdom of God, standing by itself .
in the speech of that period, does not altogether ex
plain itself. For example, when John the Baptist
declared, "The kingdom of God is at hand," we can
not tell from the language whether he thought that
a descendant of David would soon reestablish the
throne of his fathers in Israel, or that by a mirac
ulous manifestation from heaven the new age would
be inaugurated and the reign of God brought in.
Nor does the phrase upon the lips of Jesus contain ¦
the key to its own meaning, as between these two.

66 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
. The Jewish people have been greatly blamed by
Christians for setting their hearts on an earthly king
dom, a national institution, a carnal kingdom as we
have been wont to call it. They ought, we are sure,
to have been more spiritual. Yet we may easily
blame them too much. This hope was a hope In
God, and It bore the form which the providence of
God had made most natural. The glory and charm
of their national history lay In an earthly kingdom.
No doubt they Idealized it, but the gloty was real to
them, and stood as a sign of God's own blessing.
Prophets had long ago pointed them to the throne
and family of David as the pledge and hope of the
great future that God had in store for Israel. It is
no wonder that they expected God's crowning gift
to come through the restoration of the kingdom in
which their ancient greatness stood. The persist
ency of this hope, notwithstanding all Its faults, was
due to a living faith in God. And even more per
haps was it a result of faith that the hope of the king
dom took on Its later eschatologlcal form. This
more brilliant hope sprang up in the darkness — nay,
it sprang up just because it was so hopelessly dark.
Not only had David's line ceased from reigning and
become mingled vrith the common multitude, but
it had come to pass that a throne for David's Son to
sit upon was an utter impossibility. Over a depend
ency of the Roman empire like Israel, no king could
hold such a sovereignty as the hope affirmed. But
in this deep darkness faith rose undlscouraged, to
declare that God would not forget his promise or

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 67
forsake his people. If the earthly kingdom could not
come, a heavenly kingdom could, and would. If
natural means did not bring the Son of David to the
king's seat in triumph, supernatural means would
serve God's purpose, and glories such as the natural
Jerusalem could not know would shine forth when
the kingdom of God was manifested from heaven
with power.
I have said that students of the Gospels feel it im
portant to know just what Jesus meant by the king
dom of God; and in consequence they inquire vety
carefully as to the precise sense in which he used
this phrase of hIstoty and hope. This is more de
cidedly the case In recent times, since there came to
be a better knowledge of the two forms of the hope
current side by side In his day, and often flowing
in a mingled stream. Much labor has gone Into
the Inqulty whether he held the hope of the king
dom in the historical form, or In the apocalyptic;
whether he looked for the ancient throne to be-
restored, or for gloty to be flashed from heaven; or
whether, yet again, he held the hope In a spiritualized
form and counted upon the kingdom as a spiritual
fact to be realized in neither of these two ways.
Some have felt that the vety stablHty of the Christian
faith depends upon his having been right on this
question and entertaining no incorrect ideas. Now
it Is true that a right understanding of Jesus' con
ception of the kingdom of God is vital to the under
standing of Jesus himself, his teaching and his ideal.
But It Is not true that the vital point for us to decide

68 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
is whether he held the apocalyptic or the historical
hope. On the surface, that question looks important;
but the fact is that in our endeavor to understand him
for ourselves, and In our efforts to promote the king
dom In real life. It has now scarcely more than an
academic interest. Only by passing beyond it do
we come to the important point at all and approach
our lesson.
With reference to the kingdom of God, much has
happened since the first centuty, and the question
how it should be defined stands vety far from where it
stood then. We have much new light. The fact
Is that both forms of the Jewish expectation are mat
ters of the dead past now. The kingdom came, and
fulfilled neither of them, and so left them in the
background, and showed what It really was.
The kingdom came. When Jesus and his fore
runner said, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand,"
they spoke the truth. It was at hand, and it came
In. That sovereign good which had been meant
by the kingdom of God In the divine forecasting of
the future did come with Jesus, and enter vrith him
into the histoty of mankind. This is a fact of the
first importance for our understanding of the Master,
for if he was right, if the kingdom was really at hand
and really came with him, then we have the means of
knowing what it was. The facts will answer our
search for the kingdom of God. And so we ask.
What was it that came ?
In answering this question we can say two things

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 69
with perfect certainty. One Is that if the kingdom
was at hand, and came. It was not to be a national
kingdom of the Davldic Hne, as the Jews had hoped
from of old. The kingdom is at hand, said Jesus,
but there was no setting up of David's throne, nor
any sign that such a thing was In contemplation.
The hope of kingly restoration was left in the grave
in which history had already buried It. And the
other thing that we can say Is that if the kingdom
was at hand, and came. It was not to be an eschato
loglcal kingdom, revealed from heaven in apocalyptic
glories and terrors, as the Jews were expecting in
their later hope. The kingdom is at hand, said
Jesus, but there occurred no descent upon the clouds
of heaven, no resurrection and day of judgment,
no miraculous transformation on earth, no endow
ment of Jerusalem with supernatural splendors. If
the kingdom was at hand, as Jesus said it was, it
was something different from either of these. And
if we endeavor to say that in either form the ex
pected event was merely postponed, and is yet to
occur, we find that the explanation fails to meet
the conditions in the case. Immediacy was an
essential element In the hope that the New Testament
records. All the hopes declared that the kingdom
was coming soon, and It was this expectation of an
Immediate coming that Jesus declared to be correct.
If a Davldic king or an apocalyptic kingdom should
appear after two thousand years, it would not corre
spond to the actual hope of Israel, any more than it
would to Jesus' confirmation of that hope. We may

70 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
stand firmly on the conviction that whatever the
kingdom was to be. It came. And in the light of this
fact we see that both the Davidic hope and the
eschatologlcal hope have been left behind in the
course of events. They have been cancelled. They
were earnest hopes, but not accurate ones. They
represented the be^t forelook of godly men in their
time, but the kingdom, when it came, was something
different from either of them. Thus both the Davldic
conception and the eschatological conception of the
kingdom of God drop out from the true reckoning, to
return no more.
What, then, was it that came ? In the fact that
the expected kingdom came with Jesus, we find three
helpful descriptions of It. For one thing, we see that
the kingdom that came was a kingdom operative
in the conditions of this world. It was not an order
created by resuscitation of the past, or by Incursion
of the Invisible future, but an order or method of life
here and now, just where we are. We expect it to
have a future beyond this Hfe, since the human soul
has such a future, and a genuine kingdom of God
will naturally be as lasting as the relation between
God and men. But the true description of the king
dom has its meaning and appHcation here and now.
In present Hfe we are to understand it. If this de
scription of the kingdom is correct, a second is im
plied, namely, that what we need to learn about the
kingdom is not its external form, but its internal
character. From the field of external description we
are driven by the conditions in which we are studying

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 71
into the realm of ethical and rehgious truth. The
kingdom that came In with Jesus was not of this
world: it was an unworldly spiritual force. If we
wish to compass its meaning we shall Inquire what
the kingdom of God Is designed to be as a dominant
force in the actual life of men; what are Its motives,
its inspirations and aspirations, what Its impelHng
powers; what are the relations on which It takes
hold; how it leads men to regard themselves and one
another and their God; what are its principles of
daily living; In what manner It will inspire men
to live together in the common life; what revolu
tions and reconstructions it will bring to pass in the
world if it prevails. These and such as these are the
fundamental questions. And one thing more. The
kingdom that was brought in with Jesus takes its
character from him. If we are questioned about
its inmost character, we can say at once that it is the
order of life in this present world that corresponds
to his teaching and influence. It Is the reaHzation
of his ideal. Jesus appeared, and uttered his word
and fulfilled his career In life and death; and out
from him and his work there came forth that order
of life, personal and social, in which the ancient ex
pectation of the kingdom of God was to be reaHzed.
This order of life was that which was meant in the
divine counsel by the kingdom of God. That king
dom had been expected in forms inspiring in their
time, but destined to drop away In the fulfilment;
but the reign of God was destined to come in a
fulness and freedom which the ancient hopes could

72 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
never foresee. That which came in Jesus was truly
God's kingdom, for Jesus revealed God freshly in
his relation to the Hfe of men, and brought men
into responsive loyalty to him. Consequently the
order of life that he brought in was truly a reign
of God. It was that dominion over men to which
God is evermore entitled and in which men are
blest.. Here we have a threefold description of the king
dom of God. It Is an order of life in the present
time, its importance resides not in its outward form
or mode of manifestation, but In its ethics and relig
ion, and Its ethics and religion are such as correspond
to the teaching and Influence of Jesus. Or, to put the
three into one, the kingdom of God is the embodi
ment of the Ideal that Jesus held.
How natural and normal does this make the stoty
of the kingdom ! When God placed his Son in the
world, the ancient hope of the kingdom was to be ful
filled. The Son of God performed the work of his
mission In the world, and left an Ideal to be realized
and a transforming ethical and religious power to
realize it. We look at the result which followed from
his work, and are well satisfied to give it the name
that the ancient promise had provided, the king
dom of God. It is a good name, for the reign of
God over the souls and social life of men is pre
cisely what Jesus suggested and inspired. More
over, the reigning over men to which God is entided
is exactly the result that came into being as the true
fruit of his mission. The work of Jesus among men

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 73
had no tendency to produce a restoration of the
kingdom of David, neither did it tend to change
the divine method in the world to the apocalyptical.
If either event had occurred, it would not have
been traceable to Influence that he had put forth.
But not so of the moral and rehgious reign of God.
His mission was visibly adapted to bring to pass just
that divine order of life of which we speak. It did
bring it to pass, imperfectly indeed, yet really.
Straight out from Jesus as a normal and congenial
outcome from his work came that ethical and relig
ious order of life which we call the kingdom of
God. In this God has followed the order of spiritual
nature, bringing forth from the presence of his holy
Son among men an order of life that corresponds
to his significance — and this is his kingdom.
Thanks be to God for the divine directness and
simplicity of the method. And let not the imper
fectness of the human development and the defec
tiveness of the result bhnd our eyes to the nature of
the work that Jesus has Initiated. The Imperfect
ness was inevitable, but the divine fact is not thereby
destroyed. This view of the matter sends us directly to Jesus ,
for our understanding of the kingdom of God. Since
the kingdom is that which corresponds to his in
spiration and fulfils his ideal, to him we must turn
for knowledge of It. And it Is well to remember
again that when we come to him our attention is
directed entirely away from the old discussions about
the form of the kingdom and the time and manner

74 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
of its appearing. Nor need we be surprised at any
manner belonging to his own time In which we find
¦ Jesus speaking of it. He must needs have spoken
so as to be understood. He may have spoken of the
coming good in terms of any of the expectations that
were current in his period. The popular forms were
all transient, as we have seen, and It matters vety
Htde to us which of them served his purpose best in
speaking to his contemporaries. While he spoke he
was laying the foundations of the kingdom that
actually came. This he did by his moral and spirit
ual work for men. ^Vhat we are to Hsten for, there
fore, if we wish to understand the kingdom, is his
word about its Inner character, its ethical standard,
its religious power, its human appHcations, its revo-
lutionaty intent. On such points we must learn of
him. It is indispensable that we approach the study
of the kingdom, remembering one thing that Chris
tendom has been prone to forget. The conception
of the kingdom of God is a social conception. So
it was before Christ, when prophets looked forward
and saw the people of a nation Hving together under
new and diviner auspices. The kingdom was to
be the divinely ordered social group and life. By
Christendom this has not been so much denied as
ignored or ill-conceived. Too persistent has been
the impression that the kingdom of God is some
how another name for personal religion or for the
church. At present, by way of preparation, I sim
ply call attention to the fact that in the kingdom

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 75
we must expect to find the fulfilment of the age- -
long social hope.
We come now to Jesus' account of the kingdom.
The ancient name Is admirably adapted to represent
his ideal, for it ImpHes the great meanings that re
side in his view of Hfe. The right to rule Is God's. -
All the significance that Jesus portrays in life takes
color from the relation that men hold to God. For
him nothing is outside this field. His whole teach- -
ing and inspiration have the presence of God for
their necessaty atmosphere. If It were not for relig
ion his Ideal would have no existence. Conse
quently Jesus' thought of God colors everything that •
he says about the kingdom. In the kingdom no
man Hves to himself, nor Is anything human the de
cisive factor. It is God that reigns, and the Hfe of -
man Is a life from God, in God, and for God, whose
beneficent will is to be done. So Jesus is winning
men to God, and the ideal of the kingdom is that
God is all in all — all that God should be, in all per
sons and all affairs.
When we look to Jesus for special portrayal of the
kingdom of God, we might naturally expect to attend
only to the sayings in which he speaks of it by name.
Our only question might seem to be. What does he
say when he Is talking about the kingdom ? But if
the kingdom represents his broad ideal, we are not
Hmited thus. We may learn about the kingdom not ¦
merely from what he said of it by name, but from all
that he told us of the order of Hfe that he was estab-

76 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
llshing. All that he said about the way in which
men ought to live — that is, all his teaching in ethics
and religion, all his inspiration and his ideal of Hfe
— goes to show what he meant by this great term.
As his whole work laid the foundations of the king
dom, so his whole utterance of truth shows us what
it is. Nevertheless, we turn first to what he said of the
kingdom under that name; and although we are
not Hmited to this field, we find ourselves well taught,
even if we were to go no further. But we feel our
way through many sayings that are not profoundly
decisive to some that are. We discover that in these
special utterances he said a good many things de
scriptive of the kingdom of God in its operation, but
not so many as we might expect that give account
of the inmost character of the kingdom itself. But
some of these few things are entirely decisive, for they
show what the living and powerful spirit of the king
dom really is, and so afford the key for the inter
pretation of the whole.
Look first at the sayings that are more external.
• For example, he describes the kingdom as precious.
Its secret Is like treasure hid In a field, to be obtained
only by him who is eager and wise enough. It is like
a pearl of great price, worthy to be obtained at all
costs. Or, he describes the manner of its enlarge
ment. It becomes great from small, in the manner
of the mustard-seed, far transcending its apparent
promise; it is pervasive, like the leaven, quietly
transforming that in which it is placed; it grows, no

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 77
man knows how, Hke the seed in the ground, respon
sive to unseen forces; it comes unobserved, and "is
in the midst of you," even while he speaks. Or,
he tells of the imperfectness of its manifestation in
the present time. It Is Hke the field in which the
tares grow among the wheat, not yet to be relieved
of their presence; it is like the net that gathers fish
of evety kind, good and bad, which have to be sepa
rated. Or, he tells how exacting it is. Among those
who are expecting it, the first shall be last and the
last first; it reminds him of vrise and foolish virgins,
who respectively seize and miss their opportunity at
the wedding feast; it shall be taken away from
"the children of the kingdom," if they do not discern
its spirit, and many from east and west shall receive
its blessings in their stead; pubHcans and harlots
shall enter it before chief priests and elders who are
bhnd to its character. In these sayings and others
that resemble them he describes certain relations ¦
and workings of the kingdom of God, and presents
its various appeals with stirring power, but he does
not tell us what it is. In these utterances there Is no
indication of what it is that constitutes the kingdom
of God as its moral and religious principle. If we
wish to Hve our Hfe in the kingdom, he has not yet
told us how. What is the inner definition ? Obedi
ence to God ? Yes, but what obedience ? Obedience
to what primary moral demand ? Is it fehowshlp
with God ? but fellowship in what fundamental
quality and character? The inner secret has not
yet been told us.

78 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
There are other sayings that go farther toward
the innermost. The Master helps us sometimes by
speaking of the possibihty or impossibility of enter
ing the kingdom, and In this Hght we seem almost to
see into the heart of the matter. It is desperately
hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom — ^nay, it is
humanly impossible, possible at all only because all
things are possible to God. Only vrith a righteous
ness better than that of scribes and Pharisees can
any one enter. Only in the spirit of Htde children
can men come in. Only by a new birth, or a birth
from above, is it possible. These sayings come
much nearer to the centre of the subject, for from one
side or another they all call attention to the spirit or
temper that is requisite if one would come into the
new life to which Jesus is calling. And yet even
these statements are not complete, and the secret has
not yet been opened. Wherein the righteousness of
scribes and Pharisees is Insufficient, what it is in the
kingdom of God that a rich man cannot receive, what
it Is that requires to be received in the spirit of a Htde
child, what indeed Is the moral attitude in fellowship
with God that constitutes the dominant impulse in
the life of the kingdom, what is the test-question and
turning-point — these vital questions are not answered
in the sayings that have been cited. In their place
we shall find these sayings immensely rich in their
testimony to the Christian ideal, but they leave
us still seeking the determinative principle of the
kingdom of God. There must be some central
characteristic, around which these various descrip-

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 79
tions gather and from which they derive their ap
propriateness. There is one of the words just referred to that does -
not Indeed describe the kingdom itself, but does illu
mine the way in which it must be entered. There
are two scenes, each thrice recorded, in which Jesus
illustrated entrance to the kingdom by reference to a
little child. On one occasion his disciples were dis- '
puting as to which of them was, or was to be, the
greatest in his kingdom. On the other, Httle chil
dren — babes — were brought to him to receive his
blessing. We cannot be sure that we have his vety
words in either case, for the records differ In their
way of combining the sayings in which substantially
a single thought is expressed; but in them all we
catch the tone of the Master's voice most distinctly,
and have no difficulty In perceiving his point. The
utterances, variously grouped in the different Gos
pels, are these: "Suffer the Httle children to come
unto me, for of such is," or to such belongeth, " the
kingdom of heaven." "Except ye turn and become
as little children, ye shall in no wise enter the king
dom of heaven." "Whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a Httle child shall in no wise
enter therein." "Whosoever shall humble himself
as a Httle child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of
God." "Whosoever shall receive this Httle child In
my name receiveth me; and whosoever receiveth me
receiveth him that sent me; for he that is least among
you, the same is great." "If any man would be

80 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all." All
these are variant forms of one idea, and the mean
ing of the symboHsm is plain. The sayings might all
be a commentaty upon the beatitude, "Blessed are
the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
¦It is the chlldhke who enter. To be without self-
importance, to be humble, simple-minded, trustful,
receptive, to be content with lowliness and let all else
be great— this is the spirit for which the kingdom is
prepared. Doubtless there may be other true descriptions of
the spirit that can enter the kingdom, but this is one
that the Lord has given us. It Is a searching word.
It Is a natural thing for little children to be suggestive
of all this spiritual beauty, and it requires neither
grace nor effort on their part. But the Master was
not addressing little children; he was speaking to
grown men and women, and to such the kingdom in
all ages brings Its appeal. It is one thing to be little
children, but to become as Httle children after hav
ing grown away from the childlike temper, to "turn,"
and take on this spirit so unhke all that maturity
acquires and glories in, this is quite another thing.
•This is a change at which human ability stumbles.
If It were not that the kingdom is God's own and he
is almighty and gracious, no man could enter It.
• Yet this is what the kingdom means. Men do not
enter it with heads high, as if they were doing it all
themselves and were to receive the gloty of it. Their
hearts bow in humility as they receive the gift of God
and begin to live the life of his kingdom.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 81
This simplicity and spiritual receptiveness is ap- •
predated again with a fuU heart when Jesus says,
rejoicing in what God has done for those who came
to him, " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and
earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise
and IntelHgent, and hast revealed them unto babes:
yea. Father, for so It seemed good in thy sight."
This was the way of the divine wisdom, as experience
was proving. Eyes that are less used to the dazzling
light of this world are shown to have better vision
for the realities that are revealed by God, and Jesus
rejoices in the honor that his Father has thus put
upon the simple heart. Not that he would fail In '
welcome to the wise and Intelligent, or withhold from
them his appeals, or count them unworthy of the
kingdom. Them also he would call, and bring.
But It is not as wise and intelligent that they will find
the kingdom open to them. When they add to their
wisdom a childlike simphcity of heart, the kingdom
is theirs.It is not true that in thus honoring the simple and -
childlike soul Jesus puts honor upon meanness of
spirit, or in any manner promises the kingdom only
to those who from a manly point of view are least
worthy of it. This is sometimes alleged against
Christianity; but In the name of God and man Chris
tians ought to reject the accusation and disprove it.
That which Jesus meant by the chlldhke spirit Is
beautiful in a child, indeed, but not so beautiful
as it is elsewhere. SimpHcity and humlhty are far ¦
more beautiful in a great soul capable of the largest

82 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
things. Humility, the opposite of self-importance,
openness of heart to that which is greater, receptive
ness, sweet co-ordination with powers above, adapta
tion to humble work — these are qualities that belong
to all high character, and are more beautiful than
anywhere else when they are worn as the garment
of grace upon splendid powers.
From this view of the spirit that enters the kingdom
we may proceed to another utterance of Jesus, in
which he has gone beyond all externals and all pre
paratory stages, and proclaimed the inner working
principle that makes the kingdom what it is.
The lesson is one of those that gain in impressive-
ness by coming In perfect simplicity out of real Hfe.
The principle is laid down by the Master in answer
to a definite request. Two of his disciples, James
and his brother John, with their mother according
to one report, approach Jesus privately and ask him
to promise them seats at his right hand and his left,
the seats of highest honor, in his kingdom when he
comes into it. In answering so ambitious a request
he warns them that they have no idea of what they
are asking for, and asks them In turn whether they
are able to drink the cup that it wIU be necessaty for
him to drink, and undergo the deep consecration of
suffering that he will have to endure on his way to
the throne of the kingdom. As they knew not what
they asked, so now they know not what they answer,
but they say, "We are able," full of the self-confi
dence of an ignorant mind. Then he tells them that

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 83
they shall Indeed drink of the cup and partake in the
baptism of suffering, but that that cannot insure to
them the seats that they are asking for. Who will
have seats at his right and left In his kingdom cannot
be told beforehand. They are not to be assigned by
him, and he can only say that those for whom the
seats are prepared will come to them. Of course this
means that those for whom the seats are prepared
will prove to be the same as those who are prepared
to take possession of the seats. Their own will come
to them, and they will come to their own ; those who
can take the seats, being fit, will take them by virtue
of their fitness. And when he mentions the sharing
of the cup and the baptism that are appointed to the
king himself. It Is implied that the men who go to the
kingdom closest to the king will be the ones to sit at
his right hand and his left. Whether James and John
will sit nearest to the king will depend upon how well
they follow the king In living out the spirit of the
kingdom. The two disciples may have been sur
prised at the dropping of all favoritism that was In
volved in this, but if they reflected seriously they
could not be offended at what they were told. The
terms were certainly reasonable and self-commend
ing. No one could have a right to ask a more defi
nite assurance than this, which was, in effect, "You •
will have the highest seats In the kingdom if you take
possession of them by the highest fulfilment of the
spirit of the kingdom."
Yet exactly by what means the highest seats in the
kingdom are to be taken is not yet apparent, but to

84 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
this Jesus now turns. The two disciples have been
unblushingly ambitious in their request, and the
other ten, when they hear of it, are scandahzed at
such ambition, and indignant — hot perhaps because
the ten are really less ambitious, so much as because
the two have put in a first claim. Thereupon Jesus
summons them all Into his presence, and tells them
where they have been wrong, and offers them the
true idea in place of the false. The whole matter
has been conceived after the manner of this world.
James and John have thought of the seats nearest
to the king as honors that the king confers, and that
bring elevation and compliment to the recipients of
his gift. But this whole idea Jesus bids them banish.
He reminds them that In this world greatness is sup
posed to be identified with authority, power, exalta
tion, dominion, visible superiority. Whenever a man
is great he seems great and feels great. This idea
of greatness has been In all their minds, and has
misled them. "But," he says, "It is not so among
you" — a great and decisive word. In his kingdom
in which they are seeking to be promoted, greatness
is not of the same kind as in the kingdoms of this
world. All goes on another principle. Here, he
who is to be great must be the servant, and he who is
to be greatest must be servant beyond all the rest.
Service, or rather the spirit that will render service.
Is the test. The higher the destination, the lowHer
the way by which one must come to it. This is the
method of this kingdom. It is a kingdom of mutual
help, and this is the law of it.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 85
That this must be the method of the kingdom Jesus-
makes plain by reminding them that this Is the
method of the king. " For the Son of man came not
to be ministered unto, but to minister" — not to be
served but to be a servant — "and to give his life a
ransom for many." As he said at another time,
"Which Is greater, he that sits at the table, or he that
waits on the table ? But I am among you as he that
waits on the table." The Son of man, who was to
be the king, held not himself at his own disposal,
and sought no exaltation, but made himself a servant
ministering to men, even to the giving of his life in
their behalf, a ransom to deliver them from the cap
tivity of sin, in which they could never rise to the
spirit of the kingdom. By this complete devotion
of himself to others whom he can bless, he has set
the type for his kingdom and for all its life. Since
the king is supreme in devotion for others' good,
this Is the keynote for all who belong to his king
dom. One who is to sit near the throne must take
the same path vrith him who has gone before to sit
upon the throne, and must closely follow him. He
who best does the work in which the king is leader,
the work of a servant to those whom he can bless,
thereby sits down nearest to his Lord.
This is a new doctrine to the disciples regarding
the way to the highest places In the kingdom, but it
is more than that. It is a most surprising doctrine -
concerning the nature of those places, and concern
ing the character of the kingdom itself James and
John must be taught better than to think of seats at

86 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
the Lord's right and left as honors conferred. Ac
cording to the spirit of this teaching, they are not to
be conceived as honors at all. The whole Idea of
visible greatness and exaltation as a reward must be
dropped from the conception of the kingdom of God.
It does not belong there. Human self-esteem may
set its heart upon a comfortable compensating glory
as a reward for service rendered to the king, but it
is wrong. The Master says, "It shall not be so
among you." He who Is seated at the Lord's right
hand Is not there to be congratulated upon his work
or admired for the virtue that has brought him thither.
His high place Is not something that has been assigned
to him in reward for what he has done. More amaz
ing is the doctrine: he has taken it In the doing. In
the very act of serving, the seat near the Lord has
been taken — ^yes, in the lowly act Itself. The doing
of the service that is llkest to the Lord sets a man
nearest to the Lord in his kingdom. Nothing else
can place him there, but this can and does. And
the surprise goes farther yet. It follows that the
man who Is seated next to the Lord is not likely to
suspect that he is there, and that none of his fellows
may know anything about it. Nevertheless, in being
the completest servant except One, he has taken the
place in the kingdom next to the One, and the Lord
will see him there, though no one else may know.
And if he was displaced by a better servant to
morrow he would neither know it nor be jealous if
he knew.
It is to be remembered also that the kingdom of

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 87
which Jesus here speaks is not located in a distant
heaven or coming In some future age. The king-.
dom of God came with Jesus, and Is a living kingdom
in this present world. The throne of the supreme
Servant-King has already been set up, and the places
at his right and left are already in existence. The
unconscious rank of lowly service is a present-day
reahty. The seats are fiUed, though only the Lord
knows who fill them.
This testimony to the character of the kingdom
of God Is so clear and distinctive as to yield a defini
tion. According to this, the kingdom of God Is a
reign of mutual service and help, with an unselfish
devotion to others for its Impelling power.
This doctrine of the kingdom of God includes two
parts, upon which apparently Jesus would have us
place equal emphasis. They relate to his part in the,
kingdom, and to ours. So far as the definition is
derived from Jesus' own relation to the kingdom, it
has long been too plain to be misunderstood. That
the Son of man came to the headship In the kingdom
by the way of supreme self-sacrifice, taking the form
of a servant, becoming obedient even unto death,
giving his hfe a ransom for many, has long been
familiar doctrine, and the church has always held it
fast in wondering faith. It has been discerned that
the kingdom is one in which the chief servant is
king. But the definition as he gave it appHes just ¦
as much to the members of the kingdom as to the
king. In his teaching their law of Hfe is made as

88 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
• plain as his. The whole kingdom is one of service :
the spirit of service and help is Its vital air for all who
belong to it. This, however, has not been so well
understood. We have thought of Jesus as the great
self-sacrificer, and supposed diat our place in the
kingdom was to be obtained by allowing him to
sacrifice himself for us and trustfully accepting the
benefit of his work. He was the great servant and
we were the recipients of his service, and thus we
were to be saved. A doctrine of service and self-
sacrifice has been taught by Christians, but it has
been taught too much as a corollaty from the central
truth of Christianity, and not enough as the central
truth itself. It is the central truth. We are indeed
to be recipients of our Saviour's service, and heirs of
the benefit of his self-sacrifice; but his doctrine of
the kingdom throws new light upon this heirship,
showing what fruit of his work it is that we are to
inherit. We are to be recipients of the benefit of his
self-sacrifice by being transformed Into the Hkeness
of it. His kingdom is a kingdom of servants Hke
himself, and its Hfe is a life of mutual help, or rather
of help to all and any who can be helped. This he
long ago made so plain that we ought never to have
missed the point. That a worid of unselfish mutual
helpers is the ideal world according to Christianity
is absolutely clear.
In the conversation from which our definition was
derived, the disciples looked upon Jesus himself as
the king of the kingdom that was to be. If we call

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 89
it the kingdom of Christ, as we often do. It is easy to
see that it takes from its head the character of service
and self-devotion; but what if we return to the ancient
name and call it the kingdom of God ? Is there any
such appropriateness now ? The kingdom of Christ
is a kingdom of service, but is this the manner of
God ? The common thought is far enough from this.
We have felt compelled to think of God as actuated
by different motives from ours. He stands on the
other side of the question of service. He is to be
served. In the ideal state "all are his servants,"
and all good consecration is consecration to him.
We give service, and he receives It. But while ¦
Jesus affirms God's claim upon our all, he also shows
him In another light. Jesus himself, who gave his
Hfe a ransom for many, is an expression of God's
own heart. Guided by him, we trace self-sacrificing
service back into God himself. God Is the great
servant. Every child is served by his parents, as all
sound human experience testifies, and Jesus points
to God as Father — Father not only because he gave
us being, but because he bends over us with a Father's
affectionate care. Through Jesus we know that God
does not stand aloof from men in their helplessness,
or hold his place above them in a spirit of superiority,
or exploit them for his own glory. Rather is the
Father at the service of his children. His representa
tive Is Jesus, who loved them unto the death. So .
when Jesus portrays God's kingdom as a kingdom of
service and self-sacrifice, he only does justice to God
of whom he speaks. The principle of self-devoting

90 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
help has found a place in the common life of men
through the strain of hard necessity, but it is a more
than human principle. He who has manifested the
Father has shown us that it was grounded in the
nature of eternal being.
. A kingdom of mutual help is the ideal of Jesus for
human life, and It is represented by the kingdom of
God, expected from of old and brought in with Jesus.
Of course there are other elements In his ideal of life,
some of which are set forth In his varied teaching.
Some of the chief of these I propose to unfold, as
well as I can. In the pages that follow. But all the
virtues and graces that enter into his ideal stand
vitally related to the character and Hfe that the spirit
of help inspires. Whatever other graces may be
gathered Into it, the kingdom of God, and the ideal
of Jesus, is a reign of unselfish service, seeking aH
good for ah.
Now In a few statements, obvious but not super
fluous, I must gather up what has been said
of the kingdom of God, in order to project it into
the use that Is to follow. They are of the ut
most importance for the grasping of Christianity
as an ideal and the understanding of it as a living
force. -
- (i) A kingdom that is thus described is a social
kingdom. It finds its field and opportunity in the
field of human society. Service, or helpfulness, is
no abstract conception. It is not a doctrine, to
which men can do justice by thinking of it: it is the

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 91
most concrete of things : it exists only in the realm of
facts. Nor is it a virtue that can be trained in soH-
tude. It is obvious that service ImpHes a plurahty
of persons and requires that they be associated to
gether. If only one person existed, we may Imagine
some virtues that he might possess, though we do not
see how he could get them, but he could not devote
himself to any service, and there could be no such
thing as the kingdom of God. It is when men live
together that mutual service is born. Men Hving
together have their need of help and their powers to
use in helping; here, therefore, is the field for the play
of that fine impulse of helpfulness, normal In man
and eternal in God, which the kingdom takes for Its
vital working force. A world that fulfilled the ideal
of God's kingdom would be a world in which men
helped one another; and certainly the ideal would
not draw any limits to the field of help, or confine
helpful activities to any particular class of services
from man to man. In his kingdom God has not
drawn any such Hnes of Hmitation or restriction.
Above all else the kingdom of God is a social spirit .
and a social force, manifest in the life of man with
man. Of old it was conceived as a nation. When •
it came it was not a nation, but It was still a matter
of organized humanity. It is a force that penetrates •
like leaven, cartying and Imparting Its character as
it goes; and the character that it carries Is helpful
love. This self-imparting quality goes penetrating
through the world, and through mutual service it
moves from man to man, from group to group, from

92 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
race to race. This is social work, and we see at once
how impossible it is for any doctrine of strict indi-
viduaHsm to do justice to this divine conception.
The kingdom of God has no life except in a mass
of men. The greater the thronging multitude, and
the richer the training of the Christian heart, the
more glorious is the opportunity for a genuine king
dom of God, which Is the Christian ideal for the
world. (2) The kingdom of God is a kingdom of personal
experience and character, just as truly as it Is a social
kingdom. It would be the greatest of mistakes to
think otherwise. Of course social work depends
upon Individual work, and the social Ideal cannot be
reaHzed except as the ideal personal Hfe is lived by
many. The kingdom of God has to be a kingdom
of individual renewal before it can be a kingdom of
social power. Apart from all doctrines, it stands as
an every-day fact that except a man be born again he
cannot enter into it. Men must be born into its
spirit, transformed that they may Hve its Hfe. From
an inferior mind, an impure spirit, a heart unmoved
by God, a selfish will, a proud preference, an indo
lent temper, a grasping ambition, a haughty isolation,
a cold indifference to men, a contempt for self-sacri
fice, or any other form of opposition to the spirit of
Jesus and of God, men must be brought into sym
pathy with the heart of the great Servant. They
must be led to make their own the mind of Christ,
which knows no way but the way of usefulness.
There Is very much unselfishness in the world, and

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 93
yet the kingdom of which we are speaking is a king
dom of new Hfe, since it is so profoundly Unhke the
life that mankind has come to live. Because It Im
plies this change, and the growth of this new spirit,
it is a kingdom of personal experience and character.
And the need of experience congenial to its quality
is not confined to the initial stages. The new spirit
needs not only to be breathed Into Individual men:
It needs to remain in them and be exercised by use
and training until it can no more forsake them:
wherefore it needs to be nourished and cherished by
all kindred influence until It has become their very
selves. The kingdom has to create its own people
to do Its work : for though the spirit of unselfish love
is trained in common life by the providence of God,
still in the true sense it is only half created anywhere,
and the kingdom has to inspire men for its purpose.
And so far as men have become taught and trained
and capable, the kingdom is served by their putting
forth of their personal energy in accordance with its
spirit. Thus while the kingdom of God is a kingdom
of social relations and works, it is not one in which
the individual is lost in the crowd or the high sig
nificance of the personal Hfe is overlooked. Here
every man is himself, though no man liveth unto
himself. (3) The kingdom of God is a kingdom of ethics.
All social life is ethical, for all relations of man with
man imply both rights and duties In great variety.
In the compHcated life that men have come to Hve
together the ethical question, the question what men

94 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
ought to do, arises at evety turn and In all possible
forms. Right and wrong are being done evety mo
ment in every conceivable manner, and fresh oppor
tunities of right and wrong are perpetually arising
in new intensity and comphcation. Into this moral
world, where good and evil are striving together,
comes now the kingdom of God, with its supreme
ideal of goodness and its urgent call for all such
effort as vriU make the world better. How it rein
forces the worthy ethical impulses and condemns the
unworthy! how it forces inquiry into the right and
wrong of what men are doing! how It brings high
standards to bear on ah! how it weeps over oppres
sion, injustice, and the harming of the human! how
it pleads for righteousness and fellowship and help!
how it glorifies all that is good! Its demand for
doing good as the law of life is a perfecdy intelligible
demand, and a searching one also. Our best dreams
of the future are dreams of a time when the world
is governed by the motive of the kingdom of God,
the motive of unselfish helpfulness : this is the attrac
tive and inspiring point in all the Utopias. The per
meating of all the common life of men by this Chris
tian motive Is the task of the kingdom of God. AH
ethical movements in the living world need to be
captivated by this divine impulse, and all high ethical
hopes take courage since a kingdom of God himself
is proposing to bring this to pass.
(4) The kingdom that is thus ethical In its field
and character is a rehgious kingdom. It could not
be the sound and hopeful ethical order that it is if it

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 95
were not rehgious. It is a religious kingdom, for
its Lord is God — not, as we shall see, a distant God,
or a God abstractly conceived, but a God In closest
relation with men, vitally joined to them in seeking
the end for which the kingdom exists. Not of him
self apart from the eternal power and inspiration is
a man expected to become a true member of this
kingdom, and not outside of communion with God
is the working force of the kingdom to be maintained.
The hope of success Is built on God, and the daily
force proceeds from him. The characteristic Hfe of
the kingdom Is a hfe above this world, Hved in per
sonal fellowship with God. From him its motives
and Inspirations proceed. The central principle of
the Christian religion sets the key. The various
forms of Christian experience all find their place In
the kingdom and do their part in fulfiUing its ideal.
Religion, the hfe of man In his relation to God, is
the realm in which the entire work of the kingdom
goes on, and the Ideal man of the kingdom is a richly
and comprehensively religious man.
(5) Centred thus In God and love, the kingdom of
God is a kingdom of all virtues. The principle of
this kingdom worthily meets the comprehensive need
of man, for it provides for a Hfe in which ethics and
religion, personal character and social mission, all
come fully to their own. God is all-good, and fellow
ship with him in unselfish love and service is a soil
in which all human virtues grow. The world does
not half beheve it, but it is a fact that the spirit of
unselfish service is a grace with which all other graces

96 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
of character, of whatever kind, harmoniously blend.
The Hst of Christian graces has been read with ad
miration, and the graces themselves have gladdened
the life of the world. In all Christian time; but all of
them are "nothing without love." And any virtues
that have not been mentioned In that Hst, and that
rejoice perhaps not to call themselves Christian, are
thin and poor If this grace does not enrich them. The
adaptation of the kingdom of God to the growth of
virtue resides in the simple fact that virtue grows
at the best advantage when something Is being done,
and the kingdom of God Is a kingdom of work. The
appreciation of virtues may grow in the cloister, where
men meditate, but the virtues themselves grow In the
open field. It is life that rears them, and there is no
field for the training of all sorts of virtue Hke the
kingdom in which unselfish service Is the law. Of
course we have to confess that the growth of virtues
in the kingdom of God has been far too slow, and the
development Is far from perfect even yet. For this
there are many reasons, one of which is that Chris
tians have so greatly misconceived the kingdom and
deprived it of its opportunity. But notwithstanding
all the faults, experience reports that the kingdom
of God has brought forth among men a harvest of
virtue for which the whole world ought to give God
thanks. The graces of the kingdom are genuine,
and are growing stiU. When multitudes of men are
loving and helping one another better than they are
now, they will be better men. New conditions bring
out new modes of goodness, old graces take new

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 97
forms, character assumes new richness and beauty
when new occasions put it to new tests.
The kingdom of God represents the Christian ideal
for the Hfe of mankind. Having viewed it In broad
outlook, we must now attend to some teaching In
which Jesus fills up the picture. In various ways he
has described the Ideal person, life, and relations.
And when we know what he wished life to be, we
may be sure that we know the best.

RIGHTEOUSNESS
When Jesus desired to set forth the character
that was to be approved, he had in Hebrew usage a
word ready to his use. The word was Righteous, and
its kindred noun was Righteousness. By necessity he
spoke in the terminology of his place and time, not
of ours, and the Hebrew religion had prepared for
him this word.
Its meaning Is of the simplest. To be righteous
is to be right, or as one ought to be. Righteousness,
accordingly. Is that which ought to be, in character
or in conduct. If a man is regarded in himself,
righteousness is a personal character; but as soon
as men are regarded as living together, righteousness
becomes also a social character, a quality of rightness
exhibited in mutual relations. The meaning Is most
distinctly and searchlngly an ethical one, and the
terms never . lose their solemn and urgent ethical
significance. It Is important to note, however, that
the ancient meaning is larger and less restricted than
the modern. Very much of the modern use of the
word makes righteousness synonymous with justice.
A righteous God Is a just God, faithful to the prin
ciple of the quid pro quo, certain to exact the due,
QS

RIGHTEOUSNESS 99
and a righteous man Is one of whom fairness is char
acteristic. But the Hebrew use is broader. Here
righteousness denotes that which ought to be, and
that Includes much more than justice or strict equity.
In the Old Testament God is the type of righteous
ness, of course, and his righteousness was taken to.
Include his generosity as well as his justice, his faith
ful grace as well as his faithful severity. It covers
the certainty of his kindness and his watchfulness
over the poor and needy that they may suffer no-
wrong, as well as the certainty of his punishment for
those who do the wrong. In like manner in the
New Testament we read : " If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." It Is
righteous to forgive those who confess. On the same
principle righteousness in man is of comprehensive
character. Including in general the goodness that-
should belong to man. As a descriptive term, the
word righteous is applied to those who are right In
the large, the ideal and acceptable people.
It must be added that in the Old Testament right--
eousness is no less a religious grace than an ethical
quality. It is never separated from religion or re
garded as existing apart from right relations with
God. Just as in the Old Testament wisdom is at
heart religion and folly is the same as ungodliness,
so righteousness and unrighteousness are separated
by the religious line. The Hebrew thought moves
in the world of God. Human standards are insuf- .
ficient, and so are human motives: to be righteous.

100 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
a man must be godly, ordering his Hfe by God's
standard of what ought to be.
The insistence of Jesus upon righteousness is never
less clear and strong than that of the Old Testament.
He has often been misunderstood upon this point,
and his gospel has been set over against the claim
for actual righteousness. He has even been sup
posed to offer something else as a substitute for It,
equally acceptable to God. This he has been thought
to do because in the sad histoty of sinful Hfe righteous
ness had become Impossible to men. But any one
who has been accustomed to interpret Jesus in this
manner should make a careful study of his teaching,
the point of which is thus completely missed. With
all the force of divine religion he Insists upon right
eousness as indispensable, and leaves no room for a
doctrine of anything to take Its place. Any unreal or
supposed or imputed righteousness stands at the
opposite pole to his teaching. Jesus is a far more
complete and thorough-going teacher of actual right
eousness than ever the Old Testament was. With
him, too, as with the Old Testament, righteousness is
not a matter of ethics merely, but of religion also.
-With him indeed it Is even more profoundly inwrought
with religion, since with him all the higher life is more
personal and inward, and more alive with God, than
the Old Testament knew how to make it. With him
the motives of religion are motives to righteousness
in all its forms, whether personal or social, ethical
or religious, and the sufficient righteousness has its
source in the deepest rehgion of the heart. Here

RIGHTEOUSNESS 101
again we find the Ideal for human character grounded
in the Ideal relation of man to God.
It is In the Sermon on the Mount that we find the
general teaching of Jesus concerning righteousness.
It is commonly thought that In these chapters of the
First Gospel we have utterances that were made at
various times, and grouped together by the compiler
of the book. If it is so, they have been wisely col
lected and arranged, for in the treatment of the
present topic we find In the discourse a genuine unity.
Even at this date it may not be superfluous to note
that in the Sermon on the Mount we have genuine
Christian teaching, not, as many readers used to sup
pose, legalistic teaching, designed to break the way
toward the Christian gospel, which could be pro
claimed only after Christ had died. It has been so
supposed because the Christian message was misun
derstood. This teaching Is thoroughly characteristic
of Jesus, and Is of the substance of the Christian re
hgion. The Master addresses his disciples primarily,
but he addresses them both as disciples and as men,
telling them at once what it Is right and normal for
men to be and do, and what he expects his disciples
to be and do; and these two are the same. His in
struction here Is as truly universal as any that was
ever uttered In human speech, for he declares the
indispensable substance of the real righteousness.
In doing this he shows us the heart of the Christian
ideal. Among the Beatitudes with which the Sermon

102 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
opens, there are two that celebrate righteousness, and
they show most clearly how high an estimate Jesus
placed upon it. In the first his congratulation goes
out to the man whose longing after righteousness is
as instinctive and irresistible as hunger and thirst;
and in the second, to the man whose devotion to
righteousness is so unalterable as to hold him firm
and faithful under persecution for its sake. In the in
satiable yearning for righteousness, certain to be sat
isfied, and in unswerving fidelity to righteousness,
worthy to be crowned, Jesus beholds true blessedness
for man. To those who endure persecution for
righteousness' sake belongs the kingdom of heaven.
- Passing beyond the Beatitudes, we soon learn more
definitely what Jesus meant by righteousness. The
term is ambiguous, because there is wide difference
in men's judgment as to what is good, but Jesus
makes his own teaching clear. In his circle of Hfe
scribes and Pharisees were well-known Illustrations
of one accepted and influential conception of right
eousness. But Jesus declares that no one can enter
the kingdom of heaven, which Is of course the ideal
state upon which all holy hopes are set, unless he
possesses a better righteousness than theirs. This
was most radical and heretical doctrine when he
uttered it, and though the change of times has made
it cease to be heretical, it is radical and searching
doctrine still.
Jesus did not mean that scribes and Pharisees were
necessarily bad men. What he did was to dispar
age the righteousness of which they were samples.

RIGHTEOUSNESS 103
There is no mystery about what was meant by the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. It may
be defined as the goodness which consists in having
done what God has specifically commanded. It is
the righteousness of obedience to commandments.
Even yet this idea of righteousness is not extinct
among Christians. In the days of scribes and Phari
sees it was a most natural conception. The Jewish
people were living under an elaborate law which
represented to them the authority of God, and set
before them what God desired them to do. Scribes
and Pharisees were trained in knowledge of it, and
knew it through and through. They counted up its
commands, and made them out to be six hundred
and thirteen in all. They labored to obey this law
of God in minute detail, making scrupulous care
a matter of conscience. What more could God
require or desire of them than obedience to the law
that he had given ? Surely they who were zealous
and careful In doing this would be acceptable to him.
So the scribes and Pharisees, knowing that they were
keeping the commandments, judged themselves right
eous — that is, sufficiently good, right in ethics and
acceptable to God In religion.
The quahty of a righteousness thus sought is plain
to be seen. Self-righteousness, In view of external
obedience, was the natural result. The principle was
the simple but delusive one of merit: obedience to
the law deserved the approval of the lawgiver, and
obtained it. Acceptance with God was earned by •
the doing of the work, and the work was the man's

104 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
ovm: so, therefore, was the merit. This is self-
righteousness. And this self-righteousness was sure
to be grounded mainly In external obedience. When
meritorious obedience to the law was sought, it was
inevitable that chief attention should be paid to the
parts of the law that could be obeyed most success
fully, and in which obedience could be most easily
observed and reckoned up. As a matter of fact, the
greater part of the commandments had reference to
conduct, which was visible and not hard to estimate;
and It was perfectly natural that righteousness should
be sought through outward conformity to the letter
of the law. The law called indeed for truth in the
inward parts; but that could be taken for granted,
while conformity in the outward life could not.
Thus the method tended to produce bondage to the
letter of the law, and indifference to its deeper spirit,
and self-righteousness In view of external obedience
is a true name for that which followed. Doubdess
it would be unjust to Imagine that scribes and Phari
sees knew nothing of any better religion than this,
for that would be difficult when the Psalms and
prophets were In their hands. But this was the char
acter of the righteousness which their system of Hfe
led them to believe that they possessed.
This Is legalism in religion, which was powerfully
encouraged by the Jewish system. But it was not
there alone, for it is so natural to the heart of man
that it may be found anjrwhere. Man loves to be
lieve that he Is earning his way with God. Conceive
of obedience to elaborate law, or to positive com-

RIGHTEOUSNESS 105
mands, or to specific moral obhgations, as the suf
ficient way to please God, or believe that by obeying
his requirements we can obtain merit and win his
favor by deserving it, and though we may call our
selves Christians we shall be In the company of
scribes and Pharisees with regard to righteousness.
We shall attend chiefly to externals, carefully watch
our performance of our duties, imagine ourselves
acceptable to God, and be deeply self-satisfied in the
result. Ethical Hfe can be conducted In this manner,
and so can religious, and such conduct of Hfe is com
patible with a good deal of earnestness in the desire
to be acceptable to God.
From the assertion of the claim for a better right
eousness Jesus proceeds to show what it consists in.
His way to the point is very short.
"No," he says in effect, "it is not enough to con
form to the express commands of God. The law says.
Thou shalt not kill; but I say unto you that a man
may be a murderer without klUIng. Hatred and
anger suffice to make a man a murderer at heart."
It Is plain that if a man Is to be righteous he must be
in no sense a murderer. For one who vrills the death
of another in hatred or in wrath, it is an evasion
before God to say, " I have not killed him " Such
a man Is a murderer, although he has done no mur
der. So righteousness calls for more than the word of
the law demands. It requires being as well as doing.
He shows it again. The law forbids committing
adultery. "But I say unto you," says Jesus, that
adultety may be committed without the act. The

106 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
greedy gaze of lust, intended to keep warm the un
lawful longing, is adultety. It is adultery where the
passion is, namely, in the heart. There may be none
in the flesh, but in the heart that which the law
forbids exists, and the man is an adulterer there. In
order to have the better righteousness, a man must
be no adulterer, either In the flesh or in the heart:
the real self must be no adulterer. The freedom from
the sin must belong not to the man's actions, but to
himself. These interpretations and deepenings of the ancient
law lead us to understand what Jesus meant by the
better righteousness which he calls indispensable.
It consists not in doing what one is required to do,
but In being what one ought to be. It is personal
rightness, rightness in character. As soon as we
have truly caught the tone of Jesus' voice in his teach
ing, we wonder how men can have thought that a real
righteousness could inhere in their doings. In his
presence how plain it Is that righteousness must In
here in men themselves! It is a personal fact. He
did not conceive that God's claims have been ade
quately expressed in commandments or could be
so expressed. With him the relation between God
and man never appears as a legal one : it is always a
personal relation; and thence it follows that a right
eousness that God can approve must be a solid per
sonal righteousness. In his sight there is no such
thing as law righteousness, or righteousness of works,
or righteousness of merit. All these are ruled out
by the necessity that righteousness be the man's own.

RIGHTEOUSNESS 107
resident in himself. So we find Jesus calHng for
real personal rightness of heart and will before God,
truth in the inward parts, to be expressed in the con
duct; and he would have us judge the conduct not
by comparison with commandments or by estimating
what it deserves, but as exactly what It is, in the light
of the character that inspired it, its conformity to
the mind of God, and its value for good ends. It
is morally axiomatic that this Is the true ideal of
righteousness. In this re-estimating of righteousness we see at
a glance how ethics and religion are inextricably
wrought together in the ideal of Jesus. He cannot
contemplate one without the other. If we tty to dis
tribute his discourse between the two, they appear
as two sides of the same reality. One cannot be
acceptable to God save as he hold a sound ethical
position, and one cannot hold a sound ethical position
except his Inmost self be devoted to God. The ideal
picture shows us a real man living In real moral
goodness through real religious devotion to God.
In another connection I have already spoken of
the sayings that follow, concerning oaths and swear
ing, and concerning revenge and generosity. But
their testimony to the better righteousness must be
mentioned here. Instead of claiming confirmation -
for your word, says Jesus, and making it a matter of
conscience to keep the word that you have sworn to, be
a man whose word needs no confirmation. Instead
of accepting the privilege of retaliation, and measur
ing what you take In accordance with the law, be a

108 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
man who will not retaliate, but will go to the vety
opposite extreme in returning good for evil. Such
reality is the ideal of righteousness.
Now it must be noticed how far Jesus has gone be
yond the indlvlduahstic field in the enunciation of his
ideal. In the cases already cited he has been treat
ing of righteousness In its social aspects. It belongs
to a man not merely as a being by himself, or as a
soul related to his God, but not less as a member of
the human family. To murder man, to sin against
woman, to speak the truth or not, to take revenge or
render good for evil, these are social matters, and the
righteousness that inspires worthy conduct in these
fields is a social fact. No narrowly individualistic
thing is that which Jesus is speaking of. Not even in
the two Beatitudes is it to be interpreted in individu
alistic fashion. When a man rightly hungers and
thirsts after righteousness he longs for it to be in all
others and In the common life, as well as in himself.
When a man has been persecuted for righteousness*
sake, it is usually for making some social appHcation
of righteousness that he has been made to suffer. So
Jesus has all the time been speaking words of social
significance. But now he comes to love and hatred,
and thus goes deepest into the social quahty that be
longs to the better righteousness. Now he appeals
to his hearers to substitute the social virtue for the
social vice, love that saves the race for hatred that
corrupts it. For love is the bond of society, while
hatred Is the anti-social force.

RIGHTEOUSNESS 109
Jesus quotes from the ancient law the command,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor," but does not dwell
upon it. The emphasis falls upon the contradictory
expansion of it, "Thou shalt hate thine enemy."
Scribes and Pharisees were not responsible for this
perversion, for It was simply a survival of Immemorial
barbaric tribaHsm, which counted all but kinsmen as
enemies and reckoned it a virtue to hate them. But
though they were expounders of the law they had not
had insight and vitahty enough to shake off this ab
solute contradiction of its intent. Their idea of duty
had been so external as to blind them to the deep
necessity of the call for love, and permitted them to
retain without protest this Inherited contradiction.
That love must be a vital thing in the lover, and
therefore free to flow out toward all, and that love
for enemies is a diviner thing than love for friends,
were truths for which they had no perception. Their
righteousness had had no power to protect love from
this dreadful perversion: It had even permitted them
to read the distorted precept in as an addition to the
law of God. But Jesus announces as the ideal, and
as a trait In the better righteousness, a love that sur
passes and supersedes the motives to hatred, casts
out enmity, and adopts the enemy into helpful and
redemptive ministration. It is the highest love that
men know, and It Is so vitally a part of the man him
self that he cannot fail to act upon it.
That this is the real righteousness Jesus indicates
by shovring Its source and affinities. This love is god-
Hke. It is no virtue to love your friends, he says.

no THE IDEAL OF JESUS
but to love your enemies is to imitate the matchless
work of God — nay, it is to exercise a grace derived
¦from him. It is a part of sonship. "Love your
enemies," says Jesus, "because God loves his and
deals gently with them. You are his children, and
the goodness of your Father is the type for you. Per
fect in his manner you are to be, and must seek to
be." Broad, free, impartial love to men is the child's
Hkeness to the Father, the human reproduction of
the eternal heart of God; it is the crown of good
ness in all character, human or divine. How lofty
Is this teaching, and how self-commending! The
quahty that Is real in God is to be real in men, and
the Christian ideal is attained in proportion as this
comes to pass.
The discourse upon the Mount now changes, though
the same spiritual strain continues. After insisting
upon reality, genuineness, the solid fact, in human
goodness, Jesus speaks of certain acts of religious
service, and of two ways in which they may be per
formed. He does not claim now to be exhibiting the
righteousness of scribes and Pharisees at work, but
he did so, and his hearers must have recognized the
picture. Over against this he placed the operation of
the genuine righteousness In this field, and portrayed
the true ideal of religious service. Here again we
see how vain the attempt must be to draw a clear line
between ethics and religion in his teaching.
He speaks now of the hypocrites, and the manner
in which they perform religious service. A hypocrite

RIGHTEOUSNESS 111
is an actor, and hypocrisy Is playing a part. Perhaps
it might have been better If the words had been thus
translated. In Jesus' usage here, hypocrisy consists
in doing something that ought to have a serious
meaning, not only without that meaning, but with
some other Instead. It is doing religious acts with'
a motive that is something else than religious. For
such conduct hypocrisy, or acting, was a good name,
and still is. The acts are rehgious, but the ethical.
insincerity nulhfies the religion.
He illustrates from almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, .
acts well known In his circle as acts of religion. All
three are expressive of loyalty to God, and the very
performing of them is an unspoken acknowledgment
of him. Nevertheless some perform them not unto
God, but to be seen by men. Their desire is that men
may admire their piety, and so they plan to perform
these acts openly and elaborately. They address
them professedly to God, but really to the spectators,
for effect. So their service is a mere show, like play
acting; it not only lacks the meaning that It professes,
but bears another that behes the profession. It has •
no moral value, for it is unreal: it has no reality in
the men themselves. Those who deal In such false
show may indeed have their reward, such as they are
seeking, for they do get some foolish admiration, for
a while; but this is all that is coming to them, and
the blessing of the Father Is not Included. What is
wanted is reahty. Let almsgiving be secret, let-
prayer be with God alone, let fasting be unprofessed
and invisible. The one to be considered is the Father

112 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
who is in secret and sees in secret. He knows the
service for exactly what it is, and has power to rec
ompense it with divine acknowledgment. This is
obviously right: what is done unto God, unto God let
it be done. Then things will be what they seem, and
this is the ideal way: prayer will not be pretence,
nor almsgiving ostentation, nor fasting an empty
show. It Is necessaty, and it is enough, that he who
sees in secret should find there the same thing that is
done In public.
In the same strain with this is the great word in the
Fourth Gospel : " God is a Spirit, and they that wor
ship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
Here speaks true inward religion: here Is the ideal
approach of man to God. God the Spirit can be
worshipped only by man the spirit. The acceptable
worship is simple, direct, and genuine, face to face
and heart to heart, independent of external things,
no forms relied upon as Indispensable, no inter
mediaries interfering between God and the soul, no
sacred places accounted necessary, only spirit and
truth, genuineness and sincerity, reahty of worship
within, opening of spirit to Spirit, making up the
substance of the act.
The First Gospel contains another passage, of far
different tone, in which hypocrisy Is largely Illus
trated and is charged home upon scribes and Phari
sees. Dealing as before with false pretence, Jesus
utters a starthng series of woes, denouncing the
hypocrites whom he met in actual Hfe, driving home

RIGHTEOUSNESS 113
the same demand for inward reahty that we have
heard him proclaim. Men of high professions
proved false by voluntaty bad practice he denounces
without stint. He accuses them of Hving a hfe that-
belles their teaching; of being enemies to that king
dom of heaven of which they speak with reverence
and hope, refusing it for themselves and forbidding
it to others; of eagerly making proselytes to the law,
whom they immediately initiate deep into their own
wickedness; of solemn trifling with oaths, deliber
ately minimizing the claims of the divine sanctity;
of extreme punctiliousness about the minutiae of the
law, while they ignore the great moral duties to which
it bears witness; of laying great stress upon a fair
exterior, while they make a reputable life a cover for
hidden Iniquity; of vain boasting of their superiority
to their fathers who killed the prophets, when they
are about to kill the Christ. In this great condemna
tion we hear the same strain against hypocrisy that
we have heard before. It denounces falseness in re- ¦
llgion as crime In ethics. It has sometimes been itself
condemned as excessive, and considered impossible
on the hps of that Jesus whose gende spirit we know
elsewhere. But in fact the thought that runs through •
it is precisely identical with that of his other teaching
on hypocrisy; and as for the tone of it, shall he not
be allowed to burn with indignation at systematic
falseness under the name of religion ? If he were
Incapable of such wrath he would be no true son of
God. Contrast for a moment this hypocrltic spirit with

114 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
the spirit of the fifty-first Psalm, the solemn prayer
of penitence, the classic in its kind. There, what
honesty in confession, what consciousness of the
seriousness of sin, what longing for inward genuine
ness, what reliance upon the forgiving grace of God !
Here is reality, truth in the inward parts. The
spirit condemned in the twenty-third of Matthew
and the spirit expressed in the fifty-first Psalm
are at the extreme opposite poles in religion. The
psalmist knew something of the better righteousness,
as indeed the humble and simple-hearted have done
In all ages.
In parable Jesus drew the same contrast, bring
ing out the true righteousness as against the Phari
saic. A Pharisee, self-righteous, stands "praying with
himself," although he speaks to God. He is self-
conscious, ignorant of himself, proud, ostentatious,
glotying in imagined goodness of his own producing.
He thanks God for his superiority to other men,
and gives him an account of it. A publican close by,
despised by the Pharisee and cited to God as an
example of what he is not, knows himself a sinner,
deals honestly with himself, takes the sinner's place
before God, bows in humlhty and penitence, claims
nothing and asks all, offers his prayer and ceases,
and In all this Is true to the holy spirit of reality.
Jesus records the result by saying, "This man went
down to his house justified — accepted as righteous —
rather than the other." Righteousness was not im
puted to him: he had it. He was accepted as right,
for the reason that he was right: he was taking the

RIGHTEOUSNESS 115
only right position for a sinful man to hold. He
was humbling himself before God in spirit and in
truth, and really asking what his soul was in need of.
Here was the better righteousness, and this was the
man for the righteous God to accept.
How clear are these teachings about the nature
of the better righteousness, and how simple is that
righteousness Itself! What Jesus calls for is reahty •
in worthy character, goodness, genuine and uncon
tradicted, a heart sincere, working consistently in
life. Nothing false must intrude, nothing formal
or artificial must take the place of the real rightness.
Jesus never said, " Be real," for that mode of speech ¦
is too modern to be his, but the words exactly repre
sent him, and from this simple demand he never
varies. "Not evety one that saith to me Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that
doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven."
"Not he that nameth the name.
But he that doeth the will."
In ethics, of course, this is the simplest possible teach
ing. It is not peculiar to Jesus, and cannot be pe-
cuHar to any one, for It Is the universal first truth
in morality — nothing is good but real goodness.
The teaching Is axiomatic and self-evidencing. It
needs various expounding, applying, and enforcing,
but no proving: no conscience or judgment has any
right to dissent from It. This central truth in all
sound morality Jesus set forth with unparalleled Im-

116 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
presslveness. And when we pass over into the sphere
of religion, we find him applying to reHgion also this
first principle of good morals, and insisting that re
ligion itself consists in this same Inward reality and
genuineness. How great a service he did to reHgion
by presenting this as the ideal, we shall see as we
proceed. At present it is enough to say that to re
ligion this teaching is a charter both of liberty and of
power. Some Christians have wondered why they found
it difficult to show that the teaching of Jesus was
strictly peculiar to himself. But as for the present
matter, if he had taught a doctrine of righteousness
that was solely his own, that would have meant that
It was a specialty and a partial doctrine, upon which
some other teacher might improve. There is only
one central conception and ideal of righteousness, and
here the doctrine of Jesus is universal and necessaty
truth. It can take a thousand forms in application,
but nothing can be substituted for It. The pecuHar-
ity of Jesus Is that he Interprets righteousness in
the Hght of a better conception of God, and of the
relation that man sustains to God, than has been
known elsewhere. According to him, it Is through
the Ideal relation of man to God that the ideal of
righteousness Is to be made real; and this we must
now consider.

VI
THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE
When we Hstened to Jesus discoursing of right
eousness, we heard him emphasize the need of inward
reality, the true fact of goodness before God, as
against satisfaction with outward performances and
proprieties; but we did not hear a vety large ac
count of the traits that compose the character that
must be so genuine. Yet of course he will tell us
this in his own way, as he must if his teaching is to
be effective. Hearers are too often content with
being exhorted to be genuine, without insisting upon
an answer to the question, "Genuine in what?"
Some of the teaching that fills out his Ideal of human
character and relation to God must now pass before
us. If we are to place the elements that compose it
in the right proportion, we cannot do otherwise than
place at the front his citation from the Old Testa
ment of the Twofold Law of Love, love to God and
men, and the estimate that he set upon Its value.
Here again is a word that goes to the vety heart both*
of ethics and of religion, and gives reveahng Hght
upon the Christian ideal In both.
From a Pharisee came the question, "What is the
greatest command In the law?" — or, as the Second
117

118 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Gospel gives it, "What manner of command is first
of aU ?" If we may trust the language as precisely
given, the questioner did not desire Jesus simply to
select one command from the list and designate it as
the greatest. He seems to have been asking for a
judgment as to the character that a command must
bear In order to be the most important — a far better
question than the other would have been. The Jews
were often discussing which was the most Important
of the ceremonial commands, and on that point there
were various opinions. But as to the supreme re
quirement in the whole divine economy of old, they
all knew what that was understood to be. The
ancient word was, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy
God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy might." Probably the enumeration in
the command was designed rather for emphasis than
for analysis. It waS not Intended to divide the man
into parts and bid him love God separately vrith each
of them. The meaning is rather, " Love God with all
the parts and powers thou hast, and vrith the full
energy of them all." By common understanding
this was the first and great commandment. Through
a curious blending of formality and seriousness, the
words of this supreme command were stored in every
phylactery. If the inquiring Pharisee wore phylac
teries in full number, as he may have done, he had
the answer to his question bound upon his hand, his
forehead, and his heart when he propounded his
question. And Jesus responded as any thougl^^ful

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 119
Jew would expect, giving the answer alike of the for-
mahst and of the spiritual reader of the law: "This Is
the first and great commandment." Love to God
ranked above all. This was the kind of law to which
the first place belonged — a law of the spirit and a
law of love; a law, too, that bound a man directly
to God himself.
When Jesus cites this as the crown of the law, he .
does not mean that this is the crown of legalism or of
the legal system. It is not, for legahsm does not reach
so high. By the law he meant the ancient instruction
of God, companion in his mind with the prophets,
who were God's teaching representatives. He meant
to say, "This first have men been divinely taught, that
with all their powers they must love their God." In
this light it is not strange that the first command
of the law has always been understood to have been
adopted here as first also in the gospel. There is no .
touch of the spirit of legalism in the command or in
Jesus' use of it. In either Testament It stands forth
simply as the first requirement in sound religion.
When Jesus proclaimed this as the first and great
commandment, he was not inventing a law, nor was
he adopting one that had been Invented in Hebraism:
he was simply recognizing the first great duty and
privilege of man, known of old and now declared
again. This was a command so fundamental that
it could stand nowhere but in the first place in any
revelation from God. Thus it was that he answered
the request not merely for a command selected as the
first, but for a command that must needs be the first.

120 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
We should misunderstand Jesus, therefore, if we
were to associate this command solely with his au
thority, and imagine that It was binding because he
gave It. Not so : he gave it because it was binding.
He was proclaiming a law of normal life, as wide In
Its range as the existence of intelligent beings, and he
was proclaiming the primacy of that law. This Is
the ideal attitude of spiritual beings toward their
God : there is One above the soul, and that One is to
be loved: the soul must look up with love to God.
Teaching men to live, Jesus gave, then, this as the first
law of their living. In this again we encounter the
axiomatic and self-evidencing nature of his moral in
struction. This law is independent of external au
thority. It is very true that for his friends and fol
lowers his authority as their Master may stand as a
reason why they have received it as the law of their
life. It is matter of history that he associated It
with himself, and gave It for them the authority of
his Mastership. Nevertheless it remains true that
Jesus could never make It our duty to love God by
commanding It. Not even God himself could do that.
It is our duty, and therefore Jesus commands it; our
privilege, and therefore he points it out. This is no
merely Christian duty, supported by his authority,
nor does he ever claim it as such. He is simply
requiring what Is required, and holding up the true
ideal. Accordingly neither here nor elsewhere do we find
him giving reasons for loving God. In any case It
would not be in keeping with his method to do so.

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 121
and it is plain also that to his own heart there was no
need of argument or Illustration to justify this great
first love. To him the love was as natural as life.-
Nevertheless he did Imply a reason for loving God,
and by implying commended It to us. It Is a reason
that comes from him with ineffable sweetness. In
his clear call to love God It is impHed that God is
lovable. The lovableness of God, which Is a primary
fact for successful moral and religious life in man, is
as truly proclaimed by Jesus as if he had put It into
words. "Love God," he says in substance: "you
can. Do not be afraid to commit yourself to love
toward him with all your heart and soul and might,
for he Is lovable to the uttermost, and you will find
him so. He will not disappoint you." By calling
us to love God utterly, Jesus pledges to us his word
of honor, as it were, that we shall find him able to win
our love, and worthy of it forever.
Of course the lovableness of God was impHed in -
the ancient law, as it must be In any reasonable call
to love. As a matter of fact, the spiritual training
of Israel bore its supreme fruit In the growing recog
nition of God as worthy of the best affection of man,
and as able to hold it. But the ancient affirmation
was necessarily less full of meaning than the later,
for God was not so well known of old, and by no lips
but those of Jesus could his lovableness be set forth
with such convincing power. He knew It himself
with so true a knowledge that his announcement was
a perfect testimony.
It is interesting to note that in this call for love -
to God, Jesus does not introduce his favorite name

122 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
and say, "Thou shalt love thy Father." He re
tains the old form of speech, and simply presents the
object of affection as "the Lord thy God." More
over, the addition "thy God" obtains somewhat of
new meaning upon his lips. It was to Israel that the
old law was addressed, and in the first instance it
was a nation's affectionate loyalty that was demanded
for the nation's God. But with Jesus the unit In re
ligion Is the individual, and the love for which he
calls is personal, the loyal affection of a loving soul.
In the old time, also, God was regarded as especially
Israel's own, and the possessive word was often
taken to indicate an exclusive right to his favor,
meaning "thy God as he is, not the God of other peo
ples." But Jesus knows nothing of any such exclu-
siveness or tribal privilege, and as he utters it,
"thy God" is addressed to any one, and is a term of
universality. The law Is for all : every one must love
his God : no one can live aright without him, and so
good is he that nothing but love suits the case of men
in their dealings with him. Really to know him
Is to love him, and he who loves him not knows
him not as he is. Hence the preciousness of any
revelation, and especially of Jesus' own, in which
God Is manifested so clearly in his love worthiness.
Amid all the calls to doubt and distrust of which our
life Is so full, it is unspeakably refreshing to hear
the beloved and trustworthy voice of Jesus calling us
to a love which the infinite worthiness of God wIU
satisfy forever.
What this implication of the lovableness of God

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 123
is to religion, we can see at once. Here is the funda
mental defect of the religions of the world : the na- .
tions have not become acquainted with a God who
could command the best love that they were able to
give. The only God who can do that is the God
and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, known in the
best experience of the heart. From communion with
a God thus lovable and adorable there may come forth
a religion into which the glory and honor of the na
tions may indeed be brought. And the lovableness
of God is as great a fact for ethics as It is for religion.
It means that the moral order to which human ethics
responds is grounded In a goodness which the best
in man can delight in vrith the joy of love. Without
such a substratum in the delightfulness of God, hu
man ethics must lack the sense of confidence and
hope that is necessary to the best moral life. But
when we can say, "The God of our conscience is the
God of our hearts," the moral life Is transfigured
and walks in gladness.
I wish that we could see just what Jesus himself
was thinking of when he spoke of love to God, but
that would Imply vision into his own soul. If we
could discern what his own love was, we might see
more clearly what kind of affection on our part would
fill out the meaning of the law. There are various
types of love, corresponding partly to differences in
temperament, and the Christian love to God has been
conceived in many ways by Christian people. Aside
from differences in temperament, various conditions

124 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
of Hfe and varieties of religious thought have led
to different experiences of this love, and different
expositions of it. Sometimes the Christian love to
God is a grateful response to divine grace; sometimes
a meditative joy, an admiring approval of character
and adoration of the perfect One; sometimes a silent
and inward mystical affection, trembling and raptur
ous; sometimes a longing that knows no rest for
deeper acquaintance and better fellowship; some
times an enthusiastic devotion to the holy will of God;
and sometimes these various types of love are blended,
in any and all proportions. Perhaps love to God
has oftenest been regarded mainly as a matter of
inward life, a feeling and sentiment of the soul —
for is not love naturally a function of the hidden man
of the heart ? This accords with the spirit of Jesus,
If only it be taken as a part and not as the whole.
If we look to Jesus himself for Illustration of love to
God, we learn at once that it is far from being en
tirely an inward grace. It is also an active and out
going affection. Love delights not only In God, but
in all that God delights in. It takes hold not only
upon his beauty, but upon his will. To love God is
to love what God loves, and so to love it as to be it
and do it. This Is how Jesus loved him — not emo
tionally alone, or meditatively, or approvingly, or
rapturously, though he must have loved in all these
ways, but with eager consecration of himself to God's
uses. "Lo, I come, to do thy will, O God," is the
true utterance of love. Love to God makes a worker
with God : Jesus is witness. Yet withal it has those

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 125
other qualities : it bears in its bosom the Inward glad
ness, peace and rest, the blessedness, aspiration and
hope, the rapturous delight, the incomparable satis
faction and the insatiable longing for more, that cor
respond to the infinite perfection of Its object. Love
Is at once a practical force and a mystical and deli
cious secret, and Is not less the one for being the
other. But in the summons of Jesus, if we may
judge from his own example, the main idea is that
love shall enlist the soul with God in all divine
endeavor. When Jesus was inquired of about the first com
mandment, he was not satisfied with specifying that,
but brought out from the ancient treasury another
command to set beside it. Having quoted the first
command, he added, "A second is hke It: Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself." By the side of love
to God he placed love to men.
This law of neighbor-love was often interpreted by
Jews, as we have seen, in the light of ancient tribal
prejudice, and perverted into permission to hate any
one who could not strictly be called a neighbor. The
law as it stands In Leviticus does not authorize such
hatred, and yet it is not of universal scope. It is in
connection with the mention of "the children of thy
people" that the Israehte is bidden love his neighbor
as himself: that Is to say, the neighbor that is con
templated is the fellow-Israelite. The same principle
appears when. In the same connection, "the stranger
that is with thee" is mentioned, and it is added,

126 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
"Thou shalt love him as thyself." The old method
of life still had its influence, and it was considered
that the alien became entitled to the nelghbof-love
through adoption into the tribe, but not other
wise. As long as tribal feeling survived in this man
ner, "Thou shalt hate thine enemy" was only a
natural corollary of this command. But Jesus was
untouched by any such inherited barbarity, and
meant the law just as he quoted it, as a law of love.
. And we should note that here again, as in citing the
first command, he brought over an old national
or communal command to Individual application.
Without withdrawing it from Its broader range, he
brought it home to each man as a law of personal
life. In trying to understand the neighbor-love, we must
remember that in this second command a third form
of love Is recognized, besides love to God and to the
neighbor. In the word, " Thou shalt love thy neigh
bor as thyself," self-love is assumed as a fact and
taken as the basis for comparison. It is assumed as
a matter of fact that a man loves himself, and always
will. This assumption needs no defence. Self-love,
or the self-regarding impulse. Is simply the normal
action of Hfe: Hfe instinctively asserts and protects
itself, and provides for Its own wants. Our own in
terests are attended to through a natural necessity.
We should note that Jesus puts no condemnation up
on this self-regard, so necessary and inevitable. He
accepts it as a primary fact of Hfe that a man will
put upon himself a high estimate and affection. In

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 127
thus recognizing self-love Jesus does not stop to point
out the dangers that attend it, or condemn the selfish
ness into which it may so easily degenerate, but sim
ply uses It for comparison and leaves It where he
found it. He has done more than any one else to
put self-love in its right place and keep it there, and
his use of this very law has been one chief means to
this end. The point now to be noticed is that here
stands self-love, an ineradicable and worthy element
in our life, and that Jesus uses It for his purpose.
By his citation of the law he guides us in defining
the neighbor-love that he requires of us, by comparing
it with this which we know so well.
Therefore we have to inquire into the quality of.
self-love. If we do so we shall find that the self-
love which this law contemplates Is not exactly
identical with some forms of self-regard which have
become common In the world. The self-love that is
sanctioned by Jesus here is not an exaggerated self- •
estimate, or a meditative self-appreciation, or an in
ward rapture of self-admiration. All this savors of
self-conceit. That kind of thing, well known though
it is. Is a late development of human folly, and should
not be confounded with the primary affections of the
soul. The genuine and original self-love Is the in- '
stinct that looks out for one's self. It looks out, liter
ally: it is an active and forth-reaching impulse, lay
ing the world under tribute for its object. It regards
self as Important enough to make other things serve
it, and therefore it does things for self's sake. It takes
care for one's own interest, and provides for one's

128 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
own necessities. It denies self, if necessary, for the
sake of some dearer interest of self. Of course this
may easily pass over into folly and sin, but in its
place it is a perfectly justifiable thing. There Is
no life without it.
. From this we Infer, as Jesus bids, the quality of
neighbor-love. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself" means, "Thou shalt treat thy neighbor on
the same principle as thyself. Him, too, consider
important enough to be served by thy endeavors.
As self-love goes out in works of self-assistance, let
thy regard for the neighbor go out In works of service.
Instinctively consider his interests as thou consider-
est thine own, and do him good as thou doest good
to thyself." So the nature of self-love stamps the
law of neighbor-love as nothing if not practical. It
means work. It cannot be obeyed by theories of re
form, or by meditation upon social duty, or by a sense
of the neighbor's value, or the contemplation of his
miseries, or the devoutest wishes for his welfare.
Not so do we love ourselves: for ourselves we act.
The neighbor-love is an outgoing affection, going
out to work. It bears the other's burden, as one
bears his own.
- Yet the love is not for the burden, or for the virtue
of bearing it, but for the neighbor. The interest Is
in the man. The difference is that self-love does not
go outside of self to find the object of its affection and
endeavors, but neighbor-love does. Hence it is a
richer affection than self-love can ever become. Self-
love may easily pass Into selfishness, but neighbor-

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 129
love tends the other way. Self-love may easily
narrow the self, but neighbor-love broadens it,
or rather transfigures it. The principle of this law
is the golden bond of society. When do men live
together normally, and attain to the full blessedness
of a common life ? It is when each considers the
other in the same spirit with himself, and gathers the
other into such privileges of the self as may legiti
mately be shared. The highest that we know of
social ethics Is built upon this foundation.
Jesus' own illustration of love to the neighbor,
given to Illuminate this very law. Is as familiar as
anything in the Bible, though the full use of it In real
Hfe waits for a better Christianity. The parable of
the Good Samaritan, called out by the question
"Who is my neighbor ?" does not contain the words
"as thyself," but none the less does it illustrate the
law. The parable shows that the neighbor to be
loved is the needy one, whether acquaintance or
stranger, countryman or alien, friend or foe. If he
needs help and one can help him, he is the one whom
this law of love Intends. But Jesus quietly changes
the emphasis, and so revolutionizes the law. The
parable not only answers the question "Who is my
neighbor?" but raises the question "How can I be
neighbor to another man?" "Who then, thinkest
thou, proved neighbor to him who fell among the
robbers ?" The one who fulfils the meaning of the
word neighbor is not the man who hes bleeding by
the roadside, but the man who comes along and has
compassion upon him and helps him to live. The

130 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
neighbor-love Is that which forbids a man to pass by
on the other side ignoring another's need, but impels
him to take notice, search out what can be done,
and give himself to doing it. The implied counsel
is, "You would help yourself out of trouble If you
could: now help your neighbor out as you would
yourself, and so be a neighbor." Of course neighbor-
love will not always be occupied with bodily relief,
as in the parable. Bodily relief is only a sample
method of doing good. The problem that confronts
neighbor-love to-day is infinitely more complex than
the problem of the good Samaritan. But the good
Samaritan's Impulse is fundamental to it all, the Im
pulse not to pass by on the other side. All sorts
of relief and deliverance are thus proposed to love.
The impulse to clear the road of robbers and pre
vent the same from happening again falls under the
same category as the rescue of the perishing by the
roadside. Not to pass by on the other side ! what a
far-reaching rule of conduct this is we see at a glance,
and yet we do not really know until we have judged
ourselves by it. Jesus would establish this rule of
conduct wherever men live together. This is the
Christian ideal, " Bear ye one another's burdens, and
so fulfil the law of Christ," and this is the living heart
of Jesus' teaching In social ethics.
After these glimpses of love to God and the neigh
bor we are ready to see what Jesus meant when he
said that the second commandment is "Hke unto"
the first. We must not fail to note that although the

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 131
two commands are both found In the ancient law,
they do not stand together there, and there is no
Indication that they were ever contemplated side by
side. The Idea of setting them In company is Jesus' ¦
own. The first was well known as the first and
greatest, but it was he who selected the second as
worthy to stand next to it, and he alone who said that
the two were alike. We can see that they are alike
In at least three respects.
One point of likeness lies in the breadth of the two
commands. Each deals with one of the great pri
mary human relations, and covers one of the two great
fields of life. One touches upon all that we have to
do with God, and the other with all that we have to
do with men. Thus they are alike in vastness. In
breadth of range, in fundamental relation to all
thought and conduct, all morals and religion. To
gether they sweep the entire field of the religious and
ethical relations.
Another point of likeness Is that they are both com
mands to love. They not only cover the two great
fields of life, but cover them with one and the same
motive. They bear testimony that the affection that
Is appointed to rule in our relation to all that Is above
us Is appointed to rule also In our relation to all that
is about us. What we do when we look up, we must
do also when we look abroad : toward God and men
we must bear one affection and live in one spirit.
Whether we look upon our life as ethical or religious,
one motive is appointed to inspire the whole. The
Master might have said more than that the two laws

132 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
were alike: he might have said that they were one.
Together they bind our life into the noblest of unities,
the unity of an unselfish love.
A third point of likeness Is that these two command
ments alike are utterances of the eternal goodness,
offered to us for our fellowship and imitation. These
laws are not human institutions. Each In its own
way Is grounded in the goodness of God. Love Is
a stream that has its fount In him. If we love God,
it is because he is so good and worthy as to claim our
love and draw it out. When we know him, he is
lovable; and it is in this eternal fitness that our love
to him is based. And if we love our neighbor, we
love in fellowship with God's own love toward him,
and in filial Imitation of our Father's gracious work.
The better nature by virtue of which we love our
neighbor with a godlike affection has come into us
from the eternal goodness, and its exercise In actual
helpfulness Is nothing but the character of God work
ing out in his children.
- Into how close a fellowship these two laws bring
ethics and religion. It is needless to say again. One
most admirable and worthy law is supreme in both
fields. The relations of men are dignified and sancti
fied by being brought into closest intimacy with the
relation of men to God. Jesus placed a crown upon
humanity by setting nothing above love to men except
love to God, and he revealed new beauty in God by
showing us that God desires men to be loved in com
pany with himself. It is as if God had said to hu
manity, "I cannot be rightly loved, save as thou art

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 133
loved also." We are reminded of the marvellous
testimony of the King in the great judgment scene,
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least
of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
We have not heard the whole of Jesus' teaching
about love to men until we have listened to what he
says of love to enemies. Here he sets forth what any
reader would call the extreme application of the law,
and here he gives the supreme IHustratlon of the great
ness of love, and of Its divine kinship. At the cost
of a Httle repetition this teaching must be presented
here, because the portrayal of the Christian ideal of
human relations would be Incomplete without it.
"Love your enemies," says Jesus. It is well to
note that In giving and expounding this command
he throws three lights upon love to enemies. First, .
he exhibits and enjoins what all would feel to be the
extreme and most exacting form of love. Taking the
perverse but natural license to hatred, he simply turns
it about: "Ye have heard that it was said. Thou shalt
love they neighbor and hate thine enemy; but I say
unto you. Love your enemies." This means: Let
hatred perish, even in its most congenial home, and
love take possession of its stronghold ; let love sweep
the whole field, for the perverse human affection sub
stituting the divine. Here love demands Its utmost.
Next, he exhibits love for enemies in comparison with -
love for friends, and reminds us how morally superior
it is. In loving those who love us there Is no special
virtue, for it is a natural thing. Sinners do that, and

134 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
for that there Is no reward. But love for enemies
is a higher kind of love, which nature does not pro
duce. This has moral value. For, thirdly, love to
enemies is most especially the imitation and repro
duction of the character of God. God loves those
who hate him, and deals kindly with them, giving
them sun and rain as he does his friends; and if we
love our enemies and do them good we shall be true
sons to him, bearing the likeness of his marvellous
grace. Here Is high doctrine indeed, and not even yet have
the rank and file of Christians accepted it as true for
real life. They have rested too much in the con
ception of mutual love, and held that to be the high
est. But not only does the Master here say that
brotherly love, or the mutual love of the like-minded,
is not the highest love, but love of enemies ranks far
higher : he assumes by the tone of his speech that as
a matter of course we all see it in that light. Evi
dently he thinks of it as a matter of common knowledge
and universal conviction. No one can question it,
he implies. Here, it is interesting to note, the Synop
tics stand in contrast to the Fourth Gospel and the
Epistle of John. In the Johannine sources we read
that the best proof of discipleship Is that we love the
brethren; that "greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends "; and that
all men are to recognize Christ's disciples by the love
that they have for one another. This promise to
mutual love has indeed been fulfilled in great meas
ure, for the mutual love of Christians has often stood

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 135
to the world as evidence of their discipleship. And
yet the love of Jesus himself was not of that kind.
He loved his enemies, and died for the good of those
who had no love for him; and discipleship to such a
Master cannot receive such evidence from mutual
love as it can from love to enemies and help to those
who hate. The cross has always been the object-
lesson of such love as this, and Jesus himself is the
supreme illustration of what In the Sermon on the
Mount he enjoins upon others. Jesus upon the
cross Is the expression of the Christian ideal of love,
as all Christian ages have known. Here he preaches
the same doctrine that his cross proclaims, when he
emphatically denies that the love of congenial spirits
is the highest kind of love and appeals to common
sense in support of the denial. Truly does he affirm
that the highest love is love in response to hatred,
with prayer in answer to persecution, and blessing
in reply to cursing.
Since love to enemies occupies so prominent a place
in the ideal of Jesus, it is important that we find out
exactly what it is, according to his intention. About
this there is no real mystery, and yet there has been
abundant perplexity and misunderstanding. Some
of the perplexities It ought to be easy to remove by
simply recognizing that the Master did speak clearly
and can be understood. If he had a clear meaning,
some contradictions are ruled out. Love to enemies
is not what we call brotherly love. It is not liking.-
It is not approval. It Is not delight in the congen
ial. It will not make us feel toward enemies as we

136 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
feel toward friends. Many of the perplexities have
sprung from the assuming of some such misdefinitlon.
What is it, then ? At heart, love to enemies is eager
desire to do them good. Of course it includes a
sense of their value, and a gracious and forgiving will.
These are attendant elements; but love to enemies
Itself is the godlike outgoing of the helpful heart —
or the helpful outgoing of the godlike heart. It is the
impulse to bless those who curse, and to save those
whom we might easily hate and leave to perish.
Thus it Is a saving or redemptive love, an Impulse
to seek and to save that which Is lost; or, in terms
that are entirely untechnical. It is the unconquerable
desire to go and make the enemy a better man, or in
any way to do him good. It is the motive of the
Good Samaritan spiritualized, if there is need of
spiritualizing it. Let the wounded man by the road
side be the personal enemy, or, what may be quite as
hard to deal with, the enemy of all that one holds dear
and sacred. Let him be the victim of spiritual rob
bers, overpowered by sin, robbed of his better nature,
with the likeness of God almost beaten out of him.
Even with all this let him be the personal enemy too.
Then the love that Jesus urges cannot leave him
where he Is, but runs to him and labors to restore him
to himself and to all welfare. Plainly this love is
higher than love to the loving brethren, beautiful
though that is and never to be disparaged. It is in
this, not in that, that we can be sons to the heavenly
Father, since he, as Paul has said, " commendeth his
own love toward us in that while we were yet sin-

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 137
ners Christ died for us." For men to be perfect as
their Father Is perfect is to be perfect in helpful and
redemptive love like this. Perfection in any other
love would be perfection, but In a lower grade.
Jesus himself as the example of such love is famihar
to us. No more characteristic word is recorded as
falling from his lips than the prayer on the cross for
his enemies and murderers, "Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do." Neither Is there
any word recorded that reveals him more clearly as
the Son of God. Son is like Father, and here is the
Son's whole-souled utterance of the Father's redemp
tive love. In this redemptive love he followed life
to its dreadful end, being so true a lover of men
that his heart was never turned away from them by
any enmity or crime of theirs. Herein he was true
Son to God, whose mercy endureth forever. Gazing
upon this in Jesus we see what God is, and what man
ought to be — what man will be also, in so far as his
sonship approaches the ideal.
One more illustration of the rank and value of love
to men Jesus gives in his great parable of judgment.
About the precise intent and appHcation of this para
ble there are various opinions, but nothing could be
clearer than its teaching about the significance of
active, helpful love. Jesus is called the King, and Is
portrayed as the Judge of men, who assigns them to
their destiny according to the character that has found
expression in their conduct toward their fellow men.
In this assignment of destiny active love is the deci-

138 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
sive test. Those who have performed the works of
love and helpfulness with a simple and uncalculating
heart, not reckoning up their merits or counting upon
reward, are accepted by the King and called Into the
kingdom. Such service rendered even to the lowliest
the King acknowledges as rendered to him, as if he
himself had been the needy one. On the contrary,
those who have passed by on the other side and left
such works undone are rejected and sent to the eternal
cleansing fire, with the explanation that he himself
has been neglected in their neglect. Readers have
often wondered at this test, and stumbled at it too.
How was it to be reconciled with justification by
faith, well known to be the only way, that men were
thus accepted on the ground of helpful works ? Yet
certainly Jesus makes no mention of faith as the test
of judgment, but only of gracious deeds wrought in
simplicity of heart. But this Is not strange. It ac
cords well with what we know of the mind of Christ.
Why should not love be the test of judgment, when
love appears In the Christian gospel as the supreme
grace alike in God and man ? " By their fruits ye
shall know them," and these are genuine fruits of the
truest grace. Jesus would approve Paul's estimate
of "faith, hope, love, these three," that "the greatest
of these is love," and he would give this supreme posi
tion to no love but that which reaches out to help,
like the love of God.
Love has received various definitions in the speech
of men, corresponding to their various experiences
with it. Sometimes it has been a sentiment of the

THE TWOFOLD LAW OF LOVE 139
mind, and sometimes a selfish human desiring; some
times an ardent approval, or a hunger for possession,
or a fellowship of the heart; sometimes a passion of
delight. But he who has set love in the highest place
has defined It at the highest, showing us that at heart
It Is a passion for doing good, a self-forgetful impulse
of redemption, in imitation of God and fellowship
with him. This, which is the passion of God, Is ap
pointed to be the passion of his children. This is his
ideal of human character. When this ideal is real
ized, the finest ethical grace becomes the very life-
breath of religion, while divine religion Is the breath
of the finest ethical life In man.

VII
THE FILIAL LIFE
Following on with Jesus' presentation of his
ideal, we now behold life in yet another light, and
look upon it as the Hfe of a child of God. He as
sumes that the right relation of man to God is that
of a child to a father, and that it is both the duty and
the privilege of a man to live vrith God as a genuine
son. I say that he assumes this : he does not formally
teach it or put it into separate words, but weaves it
into all his discourse as a truth that he takes for
granted. We are accustomed to say. In our modern
manner of speech, that Jesus taught the Father
hood of God. We speak of it as if it were a doc
trine that he propounded. But that is our artificial
way of describing a natural thing. He never men
tions Fatherhood or puts forth any doctrine about
It; but he does far better for us. He proclaims the
Father. He assumes that God is Father, tells us
what he is like in that character, and shows us what
it Is to Hve filially with him. The natural human
sonship to God that he assumes is always real, but
needs to be learned for what it is; by men it is some
times ignored, sometimes flouted, sometimes wel
comed, never perfectly recognized and acted upon;
140

THE FILIAL LIFE 141
but his gracious influence helps men to be aware of it
and live In the light of it. All his teaching here is
most informal. He does not dogmatize or define, but
out of his heart he tells of the Father, and shows what
the filial life must be, and counsels men to live it as
simply as he himself does. It Is the ideal life for men,
and as such he presents it. In considering this testi
mony of his we shall have to use again some sayings
that have already been cited, but they are rich enough
to be repeated In this new connection.
Primarily of course the teaching about the filial-
life falls under the head of reHgion. It is the relation
to God, not as an abstraction but as a Hving and
inspiring fact, that is in view. He answers the great
first question. What is God to us and what are we
to God ? and by his answer he opens to men life in
God's family. It is there that the good life is to be •
lived, high and pure in ethics, fulfilling the moral
ideal. Here he makes the body of life ethical and
the soul religious.
Coming now to his words, we find that Jesus ex
hibits the inmost character of the fatherly relation in
a word of rare beauty, which a reader may easily
pass with less attention than it deserves. He tells
his disciples that they have to do with "the Father
who Is in secret," and "the Father who seeth in
secret." Just before directing their attention thus,
he has been talking of publicity In religion and how
men abuse it. The hypocrites have eyes only for
that which is without: the beholders of their religion

142 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
are the men about them, whom they wish to impress
by their pious works. Thus the whole transaction
goes on in the wTrong field. But from contemplation
of the false method he now turns to the true. The
Father who is in secret and sees in secret is the one
true beholder of men's religious works, and to him,
not to an observing public, they must have regard.
• In this the meaning is that the relation between the
child and the Father lies not in the open world, like
the visible hfe of men, but is apart from sense-rela
tions and Independent of them. God Is the invisible
Father of the invisible soul. God whom no man hath
seen or can see stands closely near to man whom
no one hath seen or can see, one as Invisible as the
other, and the two have their most Intimate dealings
in the dark. It is in the invisible realm that the
relation has its being: the soul meets Its God and
deals with him In Its own dark and silent depths.
It is there, we know, that the entire outward life of
man is grounded : the outer life Is born of the inner,
and the seen is the offspring of the unseen; and
Jesus points to that secret realm from which the
open life proceeds as the place where the soul has
commerce with its God. This corresponds to what
we have learned to call the inwardness of religion.
The world beholds the manifold expressions of the
religious life, and may fancy itself a judge of the
Hfe itself, but it can be a judge only in part. Only
One who is in secret and sees in secret can dis
cern the actual life. To that One Jesus now gives
his favorite name, calling him "thy Father who is

THE FILIAL LIFE 143
In secret." The acts and feelings of a Father there
proceed. Man meets no stranger there, but his
eternal Kinsman. There he dwells, has knowledge
of his child, puts forth his affection, passes his judg
ments, and imparts his spiritual gifts. All the graces
of the divine family — conscience, penitence, faith,
hope, love, aspiration, consecration, fidelity — ^have
their abode in that secret place where the faithful
Father takes full cognizance. Religion dwells with
God in the inner darkness, and there the soul finds
a sanctuary Inexpressibly sacred and precious.
Confidential intercourse is there where no ear hears,
and there, alone with the Father, the child's Hfe is
nourished. Truly the announcement of the secret
Fatherhood is a veritable sursum corda to the children
of God.
What kind of Father God is Jesus tells in words
that are expounded by-the common experience of life.
A most gracious Interpreting light he throws upon
unseen realities from those that we know well. He
bids us form our Idea of the divine Fatherhood from
the best that we know of human parents. These,
although they are "evil," know how to give good
gifts to their children, and have the steadfast will
to do It. They will not give their children a stone
for bread, or a serpent for a fish, when food is what
they ask for. This understanding of their children's
needs, this unfaihng trustworthiness, this faithful,
brooding care, says Jesus, belongs to human parent
hood. Imperfect though the parents are: understand
that It belongs also to the divine, and in far surpassing

144 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
degree. "How much more will your Father who is
in heaven give good things to them that ask him!"
Thus human parenthood, notwithstanding all its
faults, is presented as a true though imperfect revela
tion of the divine. From the best that we know in
man he bids us argue up to what Is actual in God,
with the immeasurable "how much more" to con
firm our confidence and justify our hopes. And the
nature of this comparison enables us to read one de
lightful word between the lines by the full authority
of the Master. It is impossible to confine the com
parison, on the human side, to the father's part.
It is dehghtful to think, as we must, that all the
warmth and tenderness of a mother's love is gathered
in with all the strength and fidelity of a father's, for
illustration of the heart of a heavenly Father toward
his children. It is with such a Father, generous,
kind, and faithful after the human manner but far
beyond it, that Jesus bids us live.
Another practical view of the Father and his at
titude Is given us in a saying the effect of which
may easily be overlooked. Jesus exhibits God as
a Father who is strict with his children, holding them
to the principles of his family. After the record of
the Lord's Prayer there Is added a single comment
by way of exposition and enforcement. It Is only a
single one, but probably it Is a comment on the point
In the prayer on which a suggestion was needed
most. The disciples were bidden pray, "Forgive
us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." The prayer
for pardon is necessary, but what is the use of that

THE FILIAL LIFE 145
hard condition ? for we are required to tell God that
we ourselves are forgiving those who need our forgive
ness. To human nature forgiving Is not the easy
thing that we may wish it were, and many souls have
wondered at this addition to the prayer. But in the
filial life with God the forgiving spirit is an essential
grace. The meaning of the condition is unfolded in
the single comment that follows: "If ye forgive men
their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive
you; but if ye forgive not, neither will your heavenly
Father forgive you." A hard saying this has often
seemed to be, and it Is Indeed a searching word, as
every Christian knows. But it is uttered by the
Father's holy faithfulness, and to his children it is a
most healthful word. The children know that their
Father "dehghteth to pardon," and feel themselves
entirely free to invoke his forgiving grace. To this
Jesus encourages them by the prayer that he teaches
them, but he reminds them that the request ImpHes
an obligation. If they ask the benefit of forgiveness
for themselves, they must do to others what they wish
God to do to them; and they must know that God will
not forget this necessity. Forgiving, they will be •
forgiven by him, but unforgiving, they must remain
unforglven. It is a startling word, yet not a surpris
ing one. The Father is only holding the children to
the spirit of the family. God's house Is a house of
grace. Forgiveness is a favorite act in the family,
dear ahke to the forgiver and the forgiven; but if
they will not grant forgiveness, how can they hope
to receive it in this family of pardon ? The Father

146 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
is insistent, exactly as he ought to be, and he is doing
his children a most faithful service when he thus re
quires them to live in the atmosphere of their spirit
ual home. There could not be a better illustration
of a true and worthy paternal strictness. Jesus thus
exhibits God as no soft and easy-going Father, in
different to the claims of his own character, letting
his children go their careless way, but as the firm
and steadfast administrator of a holy household,
where his own spirit is the law.
But at the same time, while he thus portrays the
strictness, Jesus represents God as a Father who is
appreciative toward his children. He is a rewarder,
a recompenser, never unmindful of right things that
his children do. The assurance of this he makes
clear, though as to the manner he has often been mis
understood, "Thy Father who seeth in secret him
self will reward thee," says Jesus thrice. "Openly,"
late manuscripts have added in each of the three
places, absolutely destroying the sense. Repeaters
of the tradition, and early preachers, may not have
seen how the Lord could possibly mean anything
else than openly, and so may have added the word
In their discourses; or through the same misap
prehension some copyist may have written It upon
the margin of his manuscript to complete the sense,
whence it crept into the text. Whoever introduced
it was acting upon the ordinary view of Hfe, for the
recognition of one's merits is commonly regarded as
a thing much to be desired. He could not understand
a reward that was not open — that would scarcely be

THE FILIAL LIFE 147
a reward at all — and surely the great God would not
grudge his children the joy of an open vindication.
How well human nature knows this impulse toward
publicity! The hypocrites were like the rest of us
in that they craved a reward that showed, and how
eagerly they posed in order to get their recognition!
It was in rebuking this very thing that Jesus uttered
the word that we are speaking of. " But thou, when
thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what
thy right hand doeth; that thine alms may be In
secret; and thy Father who seeth In secret shall re
ward thee." Nothing but profound misunderstand
ing could add "openly" to this. The reward will be
where the whole transaction is, in secret. There Is
the deed to which the reward corresponds, there is
the Father with his discerning eye, and there, in
visible as God, is the spirit of his child, to which the
reward is coming. Secret, then, the reward will be.
This withdrawal of the reward from the public gaze
shows us plainly enough what the nature of It must be.
As It cannot Be pubhc approval or visible promotion,-
so it Is not In any sense a reward of merit or pay for
service rendered. The reward is simply the appro
priate return of spiritual blessing, given by the Father
to the child whose inward state is such that he can
receive It. As the Fatherhood is spiritual, and spir
itual the value of the work, spiritual is the reward.
About this there is none of the uncertainty that hangs
about public recompense. From the faithful and
appreciative Father, the benediction on real and
simple-hearted service will not fail. But Jesus does

148 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
not promise that the reward in secret will be knovra
by any one but him who receives it, save as fruits
of It may be seen In character and In fresh works of
grace. A more worldly doctrine of reward than this has of
ten been attributed to Jesus, and one that resembles
too much the Idea that he condemns in the hypocrites.
He has been understood to teach that every right
deed would be matched by a corresponding recom
pense, given because it was deserved, open to all be
holders, and bringing honor to the recipient, to be
conferred at the end of the earthly course. For this
some have held him In but slight honor, supposing
that he really taught it, while others, too well satis
fied with such a doctrine of reward, have missed the
point of his most spiritual teaching.
, It is true that there are some recorded expressions
in the Gospels that do not agree with the doctrine of
the reward in secret, and seem to promise a pubhc
reward of merit. Probably some of these, like the
word "openly," simply embody the hearers' natural
misunderstanding of what the Master said. In some
of them he is misunderstood by modern readers,
through the importation of modern ideas to the Inter
pretation. For example, to those who are reviled
and persecuted for his sake, Jesus says, " Rejoice and
be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven."
The modern reader has been taught to define heaven
as the blessed future state, and so he understands
that the bliss of that state Is here promised as an
open reward or compensation to the persecuted for

THE FILIAL LIFE 149
all their sufferings. But by heaven here Jesus does .
not mean the future state. "Great Is your reward in
heaven" means "Great is your reward with God";
and the reward with God Is not payment for some
thing done; here again it Is the fit return of spiritual
blessing from the Father. Jesus would approve the
spirit of the writer to the Hebrews when he says of
God that "he is a rewarder of them that diligently
seek him " — ^that Is to say, they find him, and that is
what he gives them as their exceeding great reward.
That no reward in the ordinary and popular sense
can be earned by the doing of duty, Jesus himself
affirms as a matter of course In the parable of the
Unprofitable Servant: "When ye have done all, say.
We are unprofitable servants; we have done that
which was our duty to do." His characteristic teach
ing is that no reward in the sense of payment or de
served return can be coming to a man for the doings
of his life. But all the more open therefore is the
field to his great idea that out of the Father's full
heart flows the free recompense of spiritual blessing
in response to the loyal devotion of his child. There
is no reason why we should be puzzled about dis
tinguishing between these two things. In the human
family the parents do not pay the child for any ser
vice or loyalty that corresponds to his sonship, and
no one supposes that they return to him a reward of
merit. Such a thing would be out of all keeping
with the true relation of parent and child. Never
theless they reward him, and do It in a manner whose
richness beggars the whole idea of payment, and the

150 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
child is aware of the meaning and value of the reward.
Even so, according to Jesus, the heavenly Father does.
A spiritual Fatherhood, then, better far than the
best that humanity knows. In which the Father is
strict in his ethical demands and yet appreciative
of all that his children do in loyalty — such is the re
lation between God and men that Jesus tells us of.
It is impHed at every point that the Fatherhood is
suffused with love, while it glows no less with the
strength and beauty of holiness. This is the realm
of divine religion, and In this atmosphere Jesus
would have us Hve our ethical life. Surely there Is
no worthier ideal of life than this. And now, hav
ing had the Father set before us, we may turn to the
other aspect of the relation and listen to Jesus while
he speaks of the children of God, and the life that
they live in this divine atmosphere.
That the life of the children with God is a life of
prayer belongs to Its religious character. In any
living relation with a living God, prayer is a matter of
course; but when the relation is a filial one, prayer
becomes a vital and tender thing, and the character
of prayer becomes a fact in ethics. Necessarily the
character of the Father gives color to all filial pray
ing. Holding up the contrast to the praying of the
hypocrites, intended for the ears of men, and with
that of the Gentiles, framed with many words and
useless repetitions, Jesus says to his friends, "After
this manner therefore pray ye," ye children of God,
to whom is open the privilege of praying to a Father.

THE FILIAL LIFE 151
Remember to pray as members of his family, as true
children ought and may. Pray quietly, the world
shut out, the soul alone with God. Speak to him
as a Father who Is acquainted with you: remember
that he knows what you need before you ask him.
Therefore you will not need to explain everything
in order that he may understand your case, neither
do you need repetitions to impress him, or many
words to influence him. Gentiles, not addressii)g
God as Father or accounting themselves his sons,
may suppose it necessary to beg of him with much
iteration and volubility. But it Is not so with God's
children, who pray to a Father who knows them
better than they know themselves.
The familiar prayer to which this exhortation was
a preface was not meant by Jesus for a liturgy or an
exclusive form. In a life of spiritual reahty there can
be no such thing as an exclusive form of prayer.
God, who has the heart of a Father, cannot require
or expect any single manner of praying, and upon
men who pray as his children no exclusive form can
be imposed. Filial praying may accept forms, but
cannot be bound by them, for it will change with the
changing need; and the natural variety Is exactly
what the Father wishes to hear. The address of the
Lord's Prayer, "Our Father," is a charter of liberty
in praying, for it opens the way to naturalness, and
the children's freedom is sure to claim its rights.
This prayer that Jesus taught to his disciples is a
fihal prayer, wonderfully true and comprehensive
in its expression of the normal desires of God's

152 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
children. It Is a prayer of the children rather than
of a child, though an Individual may offer It. If
an individual does offer it, he offers it as one of the
family, for there is not a clause In it that does not
imply the existence of a common Hfe in which the
individual is a partaker. It Is plain that the normal
desires of the divine family are here. First comes
the plea for the hallowing of the Father's name, the
coming of his kingdom and the doing of his wIU
by men; and then follow requests for the Father's
provision, the Father's forgiveness, and the Father's
protection for all whom the prayer represents. De
votion to the Father and reliance upon him are the
religious elements In the prayer, and the ethical
elements are the spirit of forgiveness and the desire
to be delivered from sin. If "Thy will be done"
were regarded as a prayer of submission, as it often
is, perhaps the prayer might breathe a minor tone.
But It is a prayer of aspiration, and of consecra
tion too, and it rings in the major key. When the
children pray that the Father's will may be done
and his kingdom come, they pledge themselves to
the bringing of his kingdom and the doing of his will.
Not only does the prayer breathe filial trust: it glows
with filial loyalty.
Jesus proceeds to give further account of the fihal
life, and In so doing he unfolds the meaning of trust
and loyalty, the principles to which the prayer gives
expression. In the discourse that follows they are
so Interwoven that It Is Impossible to treat them

THE FILIAL LIFE 153
separately. With him, it would appear, there is no
good loyalty without chlldhke trust, and no genuine-
trust that does not work Itself out in the spirit of
loyalty. It may be that we think of trust In God as a
religious element in life, and loyalty to him as an
ethical. If we do, then we shall say that in this-
teaching ethics and religion are perfectly interfused.
This closer view of the filial life is introduced by .
the declaration that men must discriminate and make
their choice between the earthly and the heavenly,
between human treasures and divine. The soul's
treasure must be laid up not on earth, where posses
sions quickly perish even if thieves let them alone —
not here, but In heaven, where all is abiding and
secure. Treasure committed to God is safe. The
man whose treasure is laid up in heaven is not the
one who has value stored in the future as in a bank,
to be drawn and enjoyed by and by — for here again
"heaven" is not the future life. He is the man
who has made abiding choice of God and all that
pleases him. As to the choice, either worldly good
or this divine treasure may be a man's dearest own —
either of them, but not both. Mammon, which is •
an old name for wealth, stands for the whole of this
earthly deposit, which includes much besides mere
money, while God stands for the whole of the heav
enly choice. To God and Mammon it Is impossible
to be equally devoted: one will certainly outbalance
the other; wherefore between the two there must be
a decisive choice. Not that wealth and godliness are .
necessarily incompatible, but the two dominant loyal-

154 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
ties are. To God, as against the supremacy of the
worldly significance of Ufe, the soul must take the
oath of allegiance and hold it fast.
This choice of the higher loyalty may seem a dan
gerous choice, but it will not prove to be danger
ous when it is accompanied by the higher trust.
Choose the heavenly, says Jesus, and have no fears
about the earthly. A hard saying, repUes the hearer;
it would be most sweet if it were not so hard, but a
hard saying it is. Have no anxiety? What is to
still the heart's anxiety in the midst of the earthly
necessities that cannot be escaped ? Who can won
der if the question rises and will not down ? But
the answer of Jesus is that the heavenly Father him
self is to still the heart's anxiety. In making the
loyal choice one trusts himself with God, and goes
out of his own keeping into the Father's hands; and
Jesus testifies that it is not only right to be there, but
safe and good. The wisdom of such confidence he
justifies by illustrations most beautiful. The heav
enly Father is he who feeds the birds, cares for the
grass, and clothes the lilies of the field with splendor.
Men are far more precious to him than birds or
flowers, and when he beholds them responding to
him with trustful loyalty, he vrill not disappoint their
confidence. Gentiles, not having discovered the
soul's true kinship, may naturally devote themselves
to the earthly good with all their might, since they
have their own way to make; but as for the children,
"Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need
of all these things."

THE FILIAL LIFE 155
But trust and loyalty go together. It is not to an
unethical and Inactive confidence that Jesus gives
this benediction and promise. A condition is at
tached. The filial confidence implies the filial loy
alty. The condition is, " Seek ye first the kingdom
of God and his righteousness." A true child of God .
does not simply lie down trustfully upon his grace.
With the first choice of his soul he adopts God's
moral ideal and devotes himself to the answering of
his ovm prayer, "Thy kingdom come."
This great condition has been sadly misconceived.
The seeking of the kingdom of God has often been-
taken to be seeking entrance to heaven hereafter,
and the seeking of his righteousness to be seeking
justification In his sight by faith, or even a right
eousness that he may give through imputation. By
such defining the passage has been very largely
confined to the personal range, and attention has
been held to individual destiny. But this is far from
the thought of Jesus in these words. To seek the
kingdom of God is to devote one's self to the endeavor
to establish the kingdom of God in this present world ;
to seek his righteousness is to strive to possess in one's
self and establish in the world the right character and
Hfe that God delights in. When we remember what
the kingdom of God is, and what righteousness is,
we perceive that the seeking of these ImpHes a life of
consecration to the highest good of any and all men,
and to the bettering of the human race. The work is
a social work, and for one who adopts it it is a life
long work. All the relations and activities of Hfe lie

156 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
within the field of his endeavor, and his aim is to help
in bringing them all, or any of them, under the sway
of God's kingdom and righteousness. It is plain at a
glance that this is work of loyalty to God, for it is
directed to the hallowing of his name, the coming of
his kingdom, and the doing of his vrill. But it is no
less a work of trust in God. The profoundest con
fidence In God is not shown in lying down to be car
ried by his grace, although in Its place this is a worthy
form of confidence. In so far as we need to be simple
, recipients, this is a right form of trust. But the pro
foundest confidence in God is exercised when one
accepts his will as worthy to be done at all costs, lives
loyally as his child, and labors to revolutionize human
society in the spirit of his kingdom. One who takes
his life in his hand for God's sake is the one who trusts
him, and one who trusts him fully will gladly take
his life in his hand for his sake. Loyalty and trust
imply each other. If Christendom takes the com
mand to seek first the kingdom of God and his
righteousness as a summons to seek personal welfare,
it sadly misses the point of the Master. It is a sum
mons to take part In the divine enterprise of making
all things new.
By saying "All these things shall be added unto
you," Jesus implies that the loyal soul is In the hands
of God and may trust him with all its needs. But he
seems also to mean that the shortest road to the sup
plying of all human necessities is the coming of God's
kingdom and the establishment of his righteousness
as the law of the common life of men. The kingdom

THE FILIAL LIFE 157
is so good and the righteousness Is so right that when
they come in the common needs will be suppHed.
The kingdom means that the necessity of each is
the concern of all, and the righteousness implies the
same. Human society will never be either happy
or righteous until the kingdom comes.
The loyalty for which Jesus calls is to manifest
itself in Innumerable ways. The spirit of the Father
is to be lived out in the Hfe of the children. " Blessed
are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the
children of God." "Love your enemies, that ye
may be sons of your Father who Is In heaven." "Be
merciful, as your Father is merciful." "Ye are the
salt of the earth, ye are the light of the world." The
work of loyalty is suggested more than it is described.
Jesus would have it carried far beyond the expres
sions of it that he mentioned. He never can have
supposed that the counsels that fell from his lips told
the whole duty of man, and still less can we suppose
that our fragmentary record shows It all to us. Not
even Jesus could possibly unfold the whole duty of
man in the fihal Hfe, for the fihal loyalty has a thou
sand forms, and finds new expression in every new
age and field of action. It means just as much in the
parts of our Hfe that we do not call religious as in
those to which we give that name. The kingdom and
righteousness of God cover everything. Jesus wishes
to raise up for the world a host of men who are utterly
loyal to their heavenly Father, and who trust him so
absolutely as to be sure that the way of loyalty is
always the safe and blessed road.

158 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Both the church and the world have suffered much
from reading these counsels in the wrong atmosphere.
There have been two errors. Now and then some
one announces that the Sermon on the Mount de
scribes a Hfe that Is noble in ethics but not conspicu
ously rehgious. This was once a somewhat common
impression, and we may find it still, in some who think
that the ethical life may be well Hved by itself, with
out much help from reHgion, But nothing could be
farther from the truth than the finding of this utter
ance non-rehglous. The fihal life that Is here set
forth finds its motive and inspiration in the vital
relation of man to God, and In nothing less than a
free hfe of faith and love toward the invisible Father.
But the opposite error has been far more hurtful,
because more common. Too often these commands
and counsels have been taken as technically religious
altogether, and read in the light of an individuahstic
piety. They have been accounted to be coimsels of
inward religion, belonging in the same region with
meditation and personal penitence and the aspirations
of the individual soul. Some even say that religion
is all between God and the soul, and does not direcdy
go any farther: of the fellow man and society it takes
only indirect cognizance. How plainly social these re
quirements are, how sharply they apply to the actual
relations of hfe, how impossible It is to obey them
except by attention to the way men Hve together —
these things are thus overlooked, to the great spirit
ual impoverishment of Christendom. The individ
ualizing of Christianity was an unavoidable necessity
m its time, and has served a necessaty use in history;

•THE FILIAL LIFE 159
but at present It is holding larger ideas in abeyance,
and is postponing the victory of Christ In the universal
field. The time has come when a broader under
standing Is an absolute duty.
With the social application thus In mind, we may
be surprised at one fact. Modern Christians say
much about the Fatherhood of God and the Brother
hood of Man. Some are Inclined to erect these two
as the pillars at the front of the Christian temple.
The two thoughts are natural companions, and when
Jesus says so much of the Father, we may be surprised
that human brotherhood is so Httle upon his Hps.
Of "thy brother" he sometimes speaks, but not in a
manner to show that he habitually thought of the
relation of man to man In this form. Only hints in
that direction appear. Probably, however, it was best
that the second thought should be left to grow in due
time out of the first: it would be more effective so.
So far from discouraging the second by not making
it prominent, he planted the seed from which it was
sure to grow. If God is Father, men are brothers,
and true filial life toward God will turn out to be
fraternal Hfe toward men. Fraternity is the Chris
tian ideal. All the teaching of Jesus naturally works
out in a life of brotherhood. Fellowship with the
Father promotes it, and the brotherly Hfe In turn
win enhance the preciousness of the Father.
We have been looking at Jesus' portrayal of the
fihal Hfe, but, clear and vivid though this is, it still
remains true that his greatest contribution to our

160 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
knowledge of the filial life has been made in his ex
ample. Greater than his words is his life, for in
this he enables us to see what it is for a man to live as
a son of God. When we look at what we know of the
life that he lived, we find the filial spirit expressed in
its most characteristic forms, namely, in love and
loyalty and confidence. We see Jesus delighting In
his Father, loving to commune with him, spending
nights in prayer and days in service, rejoicing to
make him known to men as he Is and commend him
to their confidence, finding his own joy in that Hfe
of spiritual reality which holds one heart to heart
with God. And, what goes deeper still, we see how
he accepted his Father's will and held it supreme;
how he accepted it not only as a will to be adored or
to be endured, but also as a will to be done by him
and accomplished through his efforts. Loyally trus
ting God, he consecrated and committed himself'
absolutely to the work that his Father had given him
to do. Accordingly he went through life not down
cast and submissive, as we sometimes Imagine him,
but in manly and courageous fashion, not fearing the
face of flesh, resolved only to fulfil his mission In the
world of men. He stands before us as the perfect
type of a son's warmth of spirit, glow of affection, and
joy in fellowship, and of a filial devotion in life and
death that is not mere humility but the co-operation
of a loyal heart. Moreover, we see him living not
only for his own soul and his Father, but for the world
into which he had been born. He hved for men.
He was a social being, one of his race and people.

THE FILIAL LIFE 161
bearing the common burdens. He was the prince
of helpers, contributing himself daily to the common
good, living and dying to bring the kingdom of God,
laboring to bring on the new heavens and new earth
wherein dwelleth righteousness. Theology has its
metaphysical doctrines of the person of Christ to
account for the sonship of Jesus to God; but doctrine,
after all, is only the explanation of fact, and no
analysis of his person can ever afford such proof
and Illustration of his sonship to God as resides In
the life that he lived and the death that he died.
In everything' God was Father and he was Son; and
thus he has given us living evidence of what it would
be for God to be Father to all men, and all men to be
sons to God. This is the ideal for the world — that •
all men in their widely varied life should be animated
by the filial spirit that made Jesus what he was in the
fihal life with God.
The key to the true filial life is found in unity .
of character between Father and Son. Such a life
comes not from a sense of duty or from deference to
commands, but springs from profound oneness of
heart with God. A son of God is one who is at least
on the way to become perfect vrith the Father's per
fection. The decisive fact is that he Is like-minded
with the Father. In Jesus this character-unity, or
moral fellowship, was complete, and so he illustrates
in full measure the normal relation of man to God,
and the normal Hfe of goodness. The Chrisdike is
the truly human. Shall we say that his full fel
lowship with the Father was due to his moral pu-

162 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
rlty, or his moral purity to his full fellowship with
the Father ? Concerning him we need not labor to
solve the question; but concerning ourselves we know
that we shall be in closer fellowship with the Father
in proportion as we become free from sin, and in
turn shall become more free from sin in proportion
as we live In deep communion with the Father and in
loyalty to his will. This is the way of the filial life.
Some of us can remember when it used to be a
question whether the example of Jesus was really
imitable. This was not because we saw how beau
tiful the example was, and knew that we and all
men were Incapable of the like. In the common
teaching of the time he seemed to be set so far away
from us, in a personaHty so radically unlike our
own, as to be out of our class entirely, in a life that
lay beyond the reach of our imitation. It is true
that his example was offered to us, in the preaching
that we heard, and yet we could scarcely feel that
the offer was genuine, his distance from us was so
great. We were often told, indeed, that we must
not expect really to resemble him. But the day of
such impressions is passing. Jesus Is imitable. It
is true that his pre-eminence will not be taken from
him by any successes that we may win. But we
sadly misunderstand him, and our own life also. If
we suspect that anything in Jesus places his fihal
example beyond the reach of our imitation. We
need the revealing light of the ideal to show us that
nothing good is beyond the reach of imitation. All
ideals are imitable, however unattainable they may

THE FILIAL LIFE 163
be. The goodness of God himself is imitable. How
truly imitable Jesus is we see at once, as soon as
we remember what is the point in question. It is
character. In his life the motives and inspirations
that should govern human beings are set before us,
and a life that resembles his will rise toward the one
ideal of us all. The unity of heart with the Father
that gave character to his life is open to us through
the divine grace that he made known. We must not
lower our actual Ideal by Imagining that the highest
is not for us. The perfect ideal should draw us on,
not only to admire it but to make its likeness our ovth.

VIII
DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL
Jesus, honest and true, taking men as he found
them, knew them as involved in moral evil. That
they were sinful he recognized as a fact. He did not
discuss the nature of evil, or offer any contribution
to the philosophy of it. He gave no light upon its
origin or the extent of its sway. He never spoke of
original sin, or represented men as totally depraved:
on the contrary he constantly implied by his appeals
that there was good in men as well as evil, and enough
of good to make it worth while to appeal to them on
the highest grounds. Nevertheless he steadily repre
sented men as so involved in evil that escape from it
was a necessity. Indeed, if one understands at all
the life that Jesus proposes, it is evident that It im
plies a change great and radical from the ordinary
state of mankind, and that the change consists on
one side in an escape from the control of evil. That
life is so full of goodness that one cannot live it with
out having been delivered from the evil dominion,
and the fulness of the new life must depend upon the
degree of the deliverance. Escape from evil is the
way of entrance to the good. In Buddhism, the
escape from evil, which is the one thing desired, is an
164

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 165
end in itself, and nothing lies beyond it except the
negative blessedness of release, however this may be
idealized. With Jesus the escape from evil is the
means and manner of entrance Into character and
Hfe in which the ideal of existence is intelligibly
fulfilled. As to the nature of the evil in which men are in
volved, Jesus sets aside all suggestions of externahsm
like ceremonial defilement, and passes by all ideas
of hereditary depravity, and declares that the evil
is moral, and is within. " From within, out of the
heart," he says, proceeds the evil that works genu
ine defilement upon a man. Thence proceed evil
thoughts; thence also the various Impurity that works
out in crimes against society, and thence such per
sonal traits as the common judgment justly condemns.
That is to say, the evil from which men need to be
delivered resides in the realm of character. We
may call this a very obvious statement, which ought
to be unnecessary; but It was not superfluous in the
time of Jesus, and is not superfluous yet. Men are
prone to locate their evil somewhere else than in their
real selves, and imagine that they owe it to some exter
nal influence. So they do, of course, to some extent,
for the hurtful influences are many; but deliverance
from the hurtful influences would not be deliverance
from the real evil. There would still remain In every
man a real centre and secret of evil, in his own heart,
the seat of his character. Wrong character is the
trouble. The man Is not what he ought to be. So

166 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Jesus testifies, and so testifies the common experience.
• The question of human evil Is not at bottom a ques
tion of misfortune, but of ethics.
Since the human evil resides In the realm of char
acter, the escape from evil must consist in a change
of character. There is no other way out. From
such evil there can be no escape except through
change from bad character to good. I am not speak
ing now of escaping the consequences of evil, or of
the various helps to deliverance, or of the conse
quences of the deliverance, but only of the deliver
ance itself; and what I mean Is that the deliverance
itself consists in the cessation of the quality In the
heart that makes It bad, and the opening of a fount
of goodness there instead. It was the mission of
Jesus to make better men. This was so evident in
his day, and has been so evident ever since, that it
ought to be unnecessary to prove that the deliverance
which he proposes consists In change of character,
the new making of man. Various forms of doctrine
have tended to conceal this truth, partly by couching
it in technical language, but we must not allow It
to be concealed.
Since the evil and the escape reside in the realm of
character, we are not surprised that Jesus did not
rely for deliverance of men upon anything that does
not affect the character. Deliverance from evil is an
ethical work: of course It is, for the evil is ethical.
¦ There is no place in Jesus' plan for deliverance from
evil by any process of a magical nature, or by any
method that does not imply a moral experience. No

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 167
priestly act can effect it, or do anything toward it
except through influence exerted In the moral realm.
Jesus has declared that no defilement of a ceremonial
kind can make a man unclean In the sight of God,
and he would equally hold that no external act of any
kind can do anything toward cleansing him of his
evil. Externals do not reach to where the evil is,-
No such thing as baptismal regeneration Is conceiva
ble within the circle of Jesus' ethical and spiritual
ideas. The evil that resides in character must in
character be put away, and the work that trans
forms character must be inward. Intelligent, experi
mental, reconstructive. Only in actual living experi
ence can the escape from evil be made. There are
external helps that are invaluable, but they are helps
to the experience of the soul, and only as such do they
forward the work of deliverance. All the teaching
of Jesus about escape from evil is practical teaching,
and is ethical in the fullest sense.
The central point of this teaching appears in the
saying attributed to him in the conversation with
Nicodemus In the Fourth Gospel, "Ye must be born
again." If the words are translated "Ye must be
born from above," as they may be, the meaning re
mains the same. Entrance to the kingdom of God
is a new beginning: it Is the entrance upon a new life,
worthy to be called a new birth. Of course the
language is chosen for an illustrative purpose, and
is figuratively used : it is not to be pressed as if it
were intended for literal description. We must not
attempt to bring In all the analogies of birth to com-

168 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
plete the interpretation. The point is that the king
dom of Grod postulates a change so radical as to be
a new beginning of life. The reason is that the king
dom Is not of this world, while men are. Here again
the change is an ethical change, a transformation of
character. No reader ought to be able to doubt this.
It is not something that is wrought upon a man, but
something that is wrought in him. Hence it is not
probable that Jesus said that a man must be "bom
of water." "Bom of the Spirit" is characteristic of
him, but "bom of water" is not. This allusion to
baptism as indispensable to entering the kingdom,
and as even an element in the new birth itself, is prob
ably the contribution of a later time, when baptism
had begun to be accounted necessaty for salvation,
an idea utterly opposite to the thought of Jesus. Ac
cording to his conceptions the new birth could be
nothing else than a personal entering Into the spirit
and character of the kingdom of God. This Is of
course an ethical change, but an ethical change
vFrought In the spirit of religion : it is a birth at once
into a new relation to God and into a new character.
As all ethical work Is with Jesus religious too, so the
new birth of character is truly a birth from above.
The new-born man is born of God.
Many definitions and detailed descriptions of the
new birth have been proposed, but they disappoint
us if we expect much from them. An external de
scription of the new birth is obvious, but an Internal
description is Impossible. The process must be as
various as human nature and life, and it is incredible

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 169
that any formula of it is at our disposal. If we follow
the light that we have from the mind of Jesus, and
equally If we are led by experience, we shall not
undertake to tell just how the new birth must come
to pass, or by what particular set of signs it must be
evidenced, or to decide, save as large tests of character
may inform us, whether any given person has ex
perienced it or not. The field of life is too large and
various to justify such dogmatizing. The sum of the
matter is that if a man is coming into the kingdom
he must be born into the spirit of it. Such a birth
from above, ministered by the Spirit of God, means
transformation of character. The process may be-
swifter or more slow, and will be great in proportion
to the need of change. About the method of it there
can be no rule. But it is obviously true that through-
such a new birth the escape from evil must be made.
As to the human side of the deliverance from evil,
we find that Jesus tells us of some elements that enter
Into it. One of them is Repentance.
The word is not often quoted from him In the
Gospels, but the idea Is always on the surface or just
below. His whole claim implies It. At the begin
ning of his pubhc work he found the word ready for
his use and at once adopted it. John the Baptist
had made the land ring with the summons, " Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," and it is
recorded that Jesus began his preaching with the
utterance of the same call. "Repent, and beheve in
the good tidings," is the earliest exhortation that Is

170 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
attributed to him. It was well understood in Israel
that repentance would be essential to participation
in the blessings of the kingdom when it came, and
it was a common belief that God would delay the
manifestation of his kingdom until Israel was peni
tent enough to receive it worthily. However un
spiritual many of the popular notions of the king
dom may have been, this was a thoroughly wholesome
ethical idea. Repentance was necessary, as every
one knew, and when the Baptist declared that the
kingdom was at hand, no one was surprised that he
threw his whole soul into the cry, " Repent," or that
his baptism implied the confession of repentance.
And if Jesus discerned the spiritual quality of the
coming kingdom better than John, all the stronger
was the reason why he should take up John's word.
The more spiritual the kingdom, the more urgent the
demand; and as we listen to Jesus through his minis
try we see that he never came to a moment at which
this was not the very word that suited his purpose.
This living context of the earliest preaching re
minds us of what repentance really is. If men are to
enter the kingdom of God and live its Hfe, they need
to come In true sincerity out of the moral state in
which they are unfit for it. The repentance to which
Jesus called was the state of mind and will in which
a man would forsake his sins. It occurs whenever
some holler power has taken sufficiently control
ling hold upon the soul. The holier influence says,
"Come away from your evil," and the soul, seeing
the evil somewhat as it is, comes away — not perfectly

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 171
at once, for that is a work of time, and yet with a gen
uine will of abandonment. Repentance Is the son's
coming to himself in the far country and setting out
to go home to his father. Both are included, the in
ward awakening and the homeward turn, the change
of feehng and the change of will, the revulsion against
sin and the leaving It. Both are right and necessary,
and the first is incomplete without the second. The
experience may be painful and even full of agony or
not, as the case may be. The will to abandon sin
may rend the soul, or It may bring the joy and exulta
tion of release, or it may be a quiet resolve that does
not stir the depths of feeling. It may well be painful,
for it naturally includes a more or less impressive
sense of guilt for the past that is now forsaken. The
pain is the element that has been most talked about,
and repentance Is often defined as sorrow for sin.
But the sorrow Is of variable amount, and its signifi- •
cance Is secondary, the main point being the action.
Thus conceived, repentance Is not a solitary event in
a life, a step taken once for all and finished, for higher
principles ought always to be showing us the evil
of our inferior ways and drawing or driving us out
of them, and such change in us will always be covered
by Jesus' Idea of repentance. Repentance is simply
one part in our response to the upward call, and Jesus
would have us repent as often and as long as there is
anything to be repented of.
Though the word Is not very often used, evidently
the call for repentance Is a primary note, sounding
through all the teaching of Jesus. It fits perfectly

172 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
into his view of life, and permanently. The duty and
privilege are axiomatic. Repentance is a part of the
ideal, for a sinful man cannot become right in any
other way; no repentance, no rightness: no breaking
off the worse life, no entrance to the better. If the
time ever comes when men are no longer sinful in
heart or living below their best, repentance may cease,
but not till then. It is no part of the ideal for the per
fect God, but it Is absolutely the Ideal step for a sin
ful man to take. The kingdom of God is always at
hand in some form, coming and to come, and it al
ways remains true that if men are to receive it and
enter they must be changed Into its spirit. The ex
perience will be endlessly various, and yet In its
inmost meaning it will be always one.
In the deliverance from evil a true companion to
repentance Is Self-denial; and this also Jesus insists
upon as indispensable. The philosophy of its posi
tion is very simple. The difficulties of sound moral
and religious life are not all on the outside, as we
sometimes wish they were and try to think they are.
If the enemies were all without, the warfare would be
simpler. But for the purposes of sound living, and
of escape from evil, the man who must be the actor
is unsteady, fickle, and untrustworthy, and part of
the time at least he makes Inward resistance. It often
seems as if he were divided and there were two selves,
a higher and a lower, one upreaching and the other
dragging down. So strong Is this appearance that
the actual division of the man has often been held as

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 173
a Christian doctrine. But there is no division In the
human constitution. The personality of the man is >
not divided between good and evil, but his character
is, with the result that by his own will and act he now
aids and now resists the demand of the right and
fihal Hfe. The same self does both. Of course the
upward reaching is the normal action, to which alone
hope and destiny belong; in this alone is the true
ideal of life: wherefore the self must be encouraged
in this and denied Its false luxury of dragging down
ward. Hence the Christian duty and privilege of i
self-denial, and hence the Christian definition of it.
A man must deny and resist himself in his downward
leadings and doings, that he may bring his powers
into unity and steady work, for promotion of the
higher ends. Self-denial is opposition to one's own .
opposition to the good, with sacrifice of any self-
interest that would forbid the holy attainment. The
downward Insistence is apt to be strongest when some
self-interest is involved, though this may sometimes
seem quite innocent, so that to deny the downward
self may imply much self-sacrifice. But plainly it
is a necessary part of self-mastery.
Jesus gives various exhortations to self-denial .
which serve to illustrate what it is. Rather than be
led into sin, he says, cut off a hand or pluck out an
eye, and cast it away; sacrifice anything that is an
occasion of stumbling, however precious. We have .
already seen how Impossible It is to take this literally.
Self-mutilation cannot stop sin. As he said of food,
so he might say of bodily organs, that their work

174 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
"entereth not into the heart." But the Master's
urgency is none the less for want of llterahsm. The
will to be good should be strong enough to sustain a
man in any sacrifice that Is necessary for the accom
plishment of his object. Anything that does "enter
into the heart" with Its evil influence and corrupt
the real man must go, though it be as indispensable
as hand or eye. Any honest hearer must feel that
this is a perfectly reasonable demand.
"If a man come after me," he says again, he must
"hate his father and mother and wife and children
and brethren, yea, and his own life also." The
natural affections appeal tenderly to the heart, but
one must prefer that which Jesus stands for to them
all, and must sacrifice them all and turn against them
if they thoroughly resist him in his Christian loyalty.
Not that Jesus considers these affections valueless or
unworthy, or that the relations that inspire them de
serve to be hated; and not that there Is any virtue
in hating them for its own sake. It is just because
they are so noble and precious that they are here
brought into comparison with that which transcends
them. There is only one thing above them, and that
is loyalty to God and truth and righteousness, and
for this a man is to sacrifice them all if he must. The
Christian choice, which is the same as the sound
ethical choice, is a very simple and radical one, for
It is neither more nor less than a choice between the
best and the Inferior. If a man really finds himself
clinging to friend or kinsman as against God, and
there is no other way out of it, it Is reasonable to

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 175
say that he must deny himself and sacrifice the
friend. Again, " If a man would come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
To Jesus the cross, symbol of death, was the burden
appointed by the Father, to be borne and not laid
down. Evety disciple must follow him in the same
spirit of loyal obedience In which he bore his destiny
of death. It is not meant that every disciple must
expect to die for his sake, for that was not true when
the words were spoken, and has never been true since.
But whether the burden assigned by God be death
or anything else light or heavy, the disciple must bear
it after Jesus; and as in Jesus' case, the bearing of
it must be so much a part of his very self that he would
go to death rather than surrender it by lowering the
high aim and abandoning the ideal. Self-interest
or the love of ease may resist the acceptance of it
and rebel against the load, but the disciple Is to deny
this resisting self and loyally carry the burden.
To the rich young man Jesus said, "Sell all, give
to the poor, and come, follow me." An exceptional
test, no doubt, for the circumstances that determined
the form of it would not often occur, but not ex
ceptional in principle. "Ye cannot serve God and
Mammon," and the young man himself was choosing
the wrong master, although he did not know it, and
so his self was to be denied. So strong was the hold
of his wealth that only a great renunciation could set
him free to eternal life, which he thought he desired.
Indeed he did desire it, in part, but his real self was

176 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
on the other side. So this call for a drastic self-denial,
bitter as it seemed to him, stands In no contrast with
the winning invitation, "Come unto me, all ye that
labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,"
but is simply one form of it, adapted to this special
case, and showing this man by what means he must
enter into the rest. And though the test seems ex
ceptional, what Jesus added about the difficulty of
rich men's entering the kingdom shows that he re
garded very many as in need of a self-denial that
would break up the whole tenor of their life.
In all this we must note how sane and reasonable
' is Jesus' idea of self-denial. According to him self-
denial is always for a purpose : it is a means, not an
end. It is never for its own sake, as if there were
independent virtue in the very act, or as If human
nature and Its desires were fit only to be trampled on.
¦ Self-denial, like repentance, is a natural and neces
sary part of the way from evil to good. In making
that great transition, a man will have to deny his own
wrong self-assertions and resist his wrong resist
ances, all for the sake of the end in view. Christians
have too often missed the Master's point and looked
upon self-denial as somehow an end In Itself. Hu
man nature has been disparaged and despised, partly
because It was so low and little in comparison with
the divine, but more because it was thought to be
totally depraved; wherefore it has been counted a
virtue to contradict Its desires and trample upon all
that pertains to It. Sometimes men have been told
that self must be denied just because it is self, which

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 177
has no rights. But all this is far from the thought of
Jesus. We remember how he said, "Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself," blaming no one for loving
himself in proper measure. Jesus knew nothing of •
any essential contemptlbleness in human namre —
did not he himself bear it? — or any unmitigated
sinfulness in men. His idea of self-denial is quite
separate from such considerations. He sets forth a
great end to be attained, worthy of the utmost hu
man endeavor, and inspires us to feel that for the sake
of this It Is an honorable, wise, and happy thing to con
tradict the self that refuses the best good — the contra
diction being intended, of course, to bring the resisting
self to terms and teach it the better way. This is the .
only principle on which he calls for self-denial — that
the end requires It and deserves it. Self-denial is .
self-rectification: it Is effort to get the self in hand.
Here appears the Master's ratlonahty. This Is
simply the common and reasonable doctrine, raised
to a high power. Self-denial is no specialty of Jesus
and his reHgion, or of religion at all. It is one of the ¦
oldest elements In life. All rehgions of any earnest
ness have called for it, and apart from all rehgious
considerations it is one of the commonest things in •
the world. Love knows it well, and so do all other
powerful passions. Parents deny themselves for the
sake of their children, and individuals for the good of •
society. Men are always denying themselves, or
turning back resisting impulses and setting aside
conflicting interests, for their own advantage, for
fame or wealth or pleasure, for lust or revenge or

178 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
appetite, for love or beauty, for charity's sake, for
patriotism, for a cause whether good or bad, for the
satisfaction of an ideal. There is hardship in self-
denial, but all the world knows what it is to welcome
the hardship for the sake of the end in view. Jesus
asks no more than worldly or selfish interests have
always asked : he merely takes the common principle
and applies it to the supreme need and interest of
man. What men have always been doing, and ex
pected to do, for the sake of ordinaty ends, he now
bids them do with all their hearts for the highest.
When Jesus looks out upon his ideal he Indeed be
holds a world involved In evil, but he sees men
struggling out of the evil by their best endeavors,
and gladly beating back and conquering evety im
pulse in themselves that would prevent them from
coming out Into the free activities of the kingdom
and family of God.
Thus far the deliverance from evil may appear to
be wholly a matter of ethics, a work to be accom
plished by man himself; for repentance and self-denial
look hke purely human works. But it would be a
great mistake to think so. Jesus does not lead men
to expect the escape from evil to be made through
repentance and self-denial, or through any action of
their own, taken by itself. The part is not the whole,
and the human part, while it is Indispensable, Is
secondaty. God's part Is primary, and but for it the
deliverance that Jesus proclaims would be impossible.
He locates the experience, so to speak, in the realm

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 179
of religion, as truly as in that of ethics. This is the
glory of his message of salvation.
Jesus conceived of himself as the messenger of the.
helpful grace of God, who had sent him to seek and
to save that which was lost. This God had done
because the saving of men from sin was the object
dearest to his heart. All the doctrines of free grace
that his apostles developed were but unfoldings of
the fundamental truth that Jesus himself proclaimed.
He taught men to rely confidently upon God, who •
is beforehand with them all in the matter of deliver
ance from evil. He labored to leave no room for
doubt that God is eagerly interested in making men
good and right. He loves to pardon all who come to
him, and he delights to renew the heart and life. If
men are brought over from evil to good, it will be
because his unbounded desire to deliver them has
had its way; for antecedent to all dehverance from
evil is the grace of God. His heart is set on this, and
only when he accomplishes this is he satisfied con
cerning men. Jesus would make men know that
it is God's nature to be a Saviour, and lead them to ¦
construct and govern their life in view of such a God.
His doctrine of the attitude of God toward the sinful,
as a Saviour God, was partly known through Hebrew
prophets who had obtained ghmpses of the truth, and
yet when he proclaimed it it was almost new in
the world. It came as a revelation, and It is still a
revelation of incomparable importance to mankind.
It still needs to be proclaimed aloud to Christen
dom, for in various ways it has been astonishingly

180 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
obscured. And yet it belongs not only to the Ideal
of Jesus, but to any ideal with which humanity has
a right to be satisfied. The true Ideal of Hfe must
conceive of men as embraced In the comprehensive
care of a God whose joy it is to do them good,
and who cannot rest without delivering them from
evil. Of this most inspiring truth concerning God we
have the classical illustration in the so-cahed Parables
of Recovery. These parables have had a large place
in the appeals of reHgion, but have never yet fully
come to their own in the field of theology. Their
teaching has been so effective in religion, partly
because it came straight out of the real life of Jesus
himself In contact with sinful men, and partly be
cause it is so self-evidencing in its testimony con
cerning God. Publicans and sinners, drawn to re
pentance by Jesus' Influence, are welcomed by him
with gladness, and scribes and Pharisees find fault
with him for treating them so well. But Jesus an
swers to the effect that at any rate God Is glad of
their coming to him, and all ought to join in his re
joicing. Human beings who have lost what belongs
to them seek it eagerly, he says, and rejoice when
they have found It, and make no secret of their joy,
but want company in it. The shepherd seeks his
sheep, the woman her piece of money, and both call
upon their neighbors to rejoice with them when their
search has been successful. The father is on the
watch for the returning of the son who has gone
astray, and makes great rejoicing when the wan
derer, having learned the true lesson of the far

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 181
country, has come penitently home. By these pict
ures Jesus represents the attimde of God toward
men in their sinful alienation from himself. The
men are his own, and he does not give them up
though they have gone away from him: he desires
their salvation, seeks them, welcomes them when
they come, and joys over them when they are with
him again. Only ungracious souls, portrayed in the
unlovely picture of the elder brother, will refuse to
rejoice with God over one sinner that repenteth.
Such a God as this, Jesus would give men to under
stand, is the God with whom they have to do.
This free and helpful grace toward the sinful, and
man's acceptance of it, are variously Illustrated In
Jesus' dealings with people around him. He goes
out of his way to seek Zacchaeus the publican, and
Zacchaeus responds to the divine endeavor to bring
him to a better life; whereupon Jesus bears witness
to God's acceptance of the man, and testifies that
"the Son of man is come to seek and to save that
which was lost." The sinful woman In Simon's
house comes with a passion of weeping to answer
Jesus' call with penitence and a holy consecration,
and Is bidden go In peace, with her many sins for
given. In the parable the publican casts himself
trustfully upon the wlUingness of God to be merciful
to him a sinner, and is justified. In all this God
has drawn out faith in himself as the Saviour of
men. It is not called faith, but faith clear and simple
shines out with divine beauty In this free response
and self-commitment of sinful beings to the grace
that saves.

182 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
¦ In these narratives, and elsewhere in our records,
bright and joyful emphasis is laid upon the presence
in God of the forgiving heart. In the Lord's prayer,
Jesus implies that God is always ready to receive
and grant his children's request for his forgiveness.
The father's forgiveness Is voiced in his joy over the
returning prodigal. "Thy sins are forgiven thee"
is the word of blessing to the paralytic before he Is
healed. No condition to the divine forgiveness ap
pears in the teaching of Jesus, except that the sinner
must be turning away from his sin, and that the one
who seeks for pardon must be giving his own pardon
to others. The conditions are all ethical in their
nature — that is, they are such conditions as the moral
nature of forgiveness requires; they are not condi
tions devised, but conditions inherent In the case.
And they are all on the human side, so far as Jesus
bears wimess. He represents the divine forgiveness
as flowing forth freely wherever there Is a soul that
is morally prepared to receive the blessing. God's
heart is free and his way is open. Nothing outside
of God and the woman appears to have been required
to justifiy the pardon of the sinful woman in Simon's
house. Whether he thinks of himself in ethical re
lations or in religious, the sinful man who Is minded
to forsake his evil way is encouraged by Jesus to
do precisely what he was long ago exhorted to do
in the fifty-fifth chapter of Isaiah — "Let him return
unto the Lord and he will have mercy upon him, and
unto our God, for he will abundandy pardon."
In this testimony about dehverance from evil

DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL 183
through the grace of God Jesus gave an inestimable
blessing to humanity. Two dangers beset men when
they are awakened to their need of deliverance from
evil. On the one hand, they know that their own
effort is indispensable to the result, and may easily
Imagine that it is sufficient too. Indispensable it is,
Jesus tells them, in its own place, but not sufficient,
for they are bound by real ties to God. But, on the
other hand, if they feel that the case Is serious be
cause sin is so great, they may shrink in fear from
God, since they know him only from afar, and are
uncertain of his willingness to save. Most suspicious-
of him, IndeecJ, they are apt to be, and incredulous
about his grace. That they are dependent upon the
grace of God, Jesus does not let them doubt, and the
sufficiency of that grace he sets in the clearest light.
Knowledge of the free saving God is his gift. He
sets the human endeavor, necessary but secondary,
in Its true relation to an all-embracing love.
In this he lays down what Christians are beginning
to dare take as a fundamental truth of religion, and
of ethics too. The human life, personal and general,
is Hved within the friendly circle of the divine life,
and from the eternal good-will there flows perpetual
encouragement to all right aspiration and endeavor;
consequently, what no human endeavor could effect
the divine grace is freely accomplishing — men are de
livered from evil. The past Is forgiven, the house
hold of God becomes their home, and power for all
sound life is Imparted to them. The ideal of Jesus
Includes not only men struggling away from evil by

184 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
their best efforts, as we have seen, but men struggling
thus because God lives and works; men sustained
in their endeavor to escape from evil by a sufficient
and unfailing grace; men escaping and escaped into
the righteousness of the family of God. By this
revelation that we have our being in the atmostphere
of divine help, Jesus stands as the minister of hope
to all human striving after goodness. And since God
is one and the same to all, Jesus is the minister of such
hope not to a few men only but to all men, and his
gospel, the proclamation of the real God for the help
ing of the real human need, is a gospel universal,
adapted to all mankind.

IX
LIBERTY
From the comments that Jesus made upon some
events we may draw a clear doctrine of liberty, and
one that is of the very substance of his ideal. We do
not know that he ever used the word, but he did set
forth the thing, and the conception is so characteristic
of him that when once we have grasped it we can
never again detach it from the body of his teaching.
It Is a permanent doctrine too: in spite of all changes
in the conditions of hfe it still stands firm and is of
the utmost value to-day.
The background is the situation of his own time
and country. The conditions of life were not favor
able to personal independence and self-direction, but
rather to spiritual bondage. Doubtless there was
much religion of the better kind In the quiet life of
the people, and among leaders too, but in the ruling
religious scheme there was small room for genuine
hberty, such as the best Hfe In ethics and religion
needs for its atmosphere. Legalism was the only
orthodoxy. In the whole law the voice of God was
heard: it sounded in the additions that had been
made by interpretation, as well as in the parts that were
regarded as original. The righteousness of scribes
185

186 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
and Pharisees, gained by obedience to specific com
mands, was what the people were taught to believe
In and to seek, and in order to obtain it of course they
must keep the whole law. The result was a minute
supervision of conduct. Either a man kept the law
or he did not, and if he did not his free intercourse
with God was supposed to be Interrupted. Con
formity to the external parts of the law was most
easily tested, and therefore received the most atten
tion. Thus in all the matters that were most vital
to his spiritual welfare the law, not the man himself,
determined what a man should do; and it was mainly
an outward law. Independent judgment was ruled
out. Loyalty to God was loyalty to a system of
commandments. A man had no right to judge for
himself as to anything on which the law had spoken.
He ought to be governed by his conscience, but con
science meant sense of duty to keep the law: other
wise, conscience did not come into the account.
Strict lawkeepers saw no good In any kind of life
but this, even though it were a more spiritual way.
"This multitude that knoweth not the law are ac
cursed," is quoted from scribes and Pharisees. Yet
naturally there might be among the "accursed"
multitude some who were really more religious than
those who despised them.
Jesus lived under this system, and understood it
well, but legalism was altogether strange to his life
and thought. He once directed a leper whom he had
healed to obtain from the priest a legal certificate of
his restoration to health, in order that he might be

LIBERTY 187
free to resume his place in society as a well man;
but this was an act of mercy, not of legahsm.
There is no record that for himself he ever per
formed any act of ceremonial obedience. In the time
that the Gospels cover, or paid any form of legal
deference to the law. As for his disciples, we shall
see how he inspired them very early to a new kind
of practice. It was indispensable that he should,
if they were to be his disciples indeed. The system
in which they had been reared did not tend to make
them Independent moral agents. It gave no frank
encouragement to free personal action, the inde
pendent work of real character. It made something
else than a man's conscience the judge of what he was
and did. But against the legalism that thus omitted
the conscience and suppressed the soul Jesus pro
claimed a genuine personal liberty and openly set
his friends at work in making use of it. He never
called it liberty, or gave it any name at all, or formu
lated any doctrine of it, but liberty it was, and nothing
else. He was well aware that to claim it for himself
and encourage it in others was a most heretical
thing, but he paid no heed to that, and went squarely
in the face of the orthodoxy of his time in practising
and encouraging liberty.
There Is a very striking illustration in his answer
to an inqulty about fasting. Certain Pharisees, and
certain disciples of John the Baptist, observed that
his disciples did not fast, as their own authorities
required and as they supposed all true religion must

188 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
require, and asked Jesus why. It is Interesting, and
surprising too, to note that the disciples were not
questioned about his practice, but he about theirs.
They were the transgressors — ^whence we can only
infer that under his influence they were already act
ing in personal independence in turning away from
some of the prescribed fasts. He defended them,
and gave reasons, first why his disciples did not fast,
and then why they should not be required to fast.
His reason why his disciples did not fast was that
at that time fasting was not suited to their condition.
He showed it by a kind of parable. "Can the chil
dren of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom
Is with them ? As long as they have the bridegroom
with them they cannot fast. But days will come
when the bridegroom is taken away from them; and
then will they fast, in that day." As If he had said,
"Fasting is a fit sign of sorrow, but their hfe with
me is joyful, as at a wedding feast. Not until they
mourn the loss of me, the bridegroom who glad
dens them, will fasting suit their case. When it suits
their case It will come of itself." Possibly the half-
parabolic manner of this utterance concealed a Httle
of Its radical quahty; but if his hearers understood
him they knew that he was giving an independent
and radical re-estimation of an institution that was
authorized by the law. He dared to say that his dis
ciples would fast of their own accord when it meant
something to them, but need not fast until it did.
Till it has significance in their life they "cannot fast";
that Is, they cannot perform it as a rational and sig-

LIBERTY 189
nificant act, and therefore It Is not required of them.
If we were to state the principle that underlies this,
it would be, "What cannot be done with meaning
is not required." Thus an established service of the
law is taken entirely out of the categoty of acts that
must be done because they are commanded, and
counted as an act that is to be done when it has
meaning enough to make it worth doing. In deter
mining what a man is to do, his condition Is ranked
above the law, and his own judgment is set to de
cide the question. The law calls for fasting, but the
man's condition does not: the man decides not to
fast, and Jesus justifies him. Vi^at liberty Is this!
A man is made the judge of his ovm conduct, and is
approved even though his judgment decides against
that which the law requires.
This first part of the answer brings the disciples
out from under the ancient law, and sets them in
a free and independent life. As Jesus himself has
brought them out, it is plain that their new life is to
be under his Influence; and in the second part of the
answer he tells why in this new life there can be no
requirement of fasting. Here he uses a pair of illus
trations. We are wont to read him so solemnly that
perhaps we scarcely dare to notice the gleam of
humor in his picture of the old clothes and the new
patches on them, but it Is there; we should see it too
in the picture of the wine-skins, if we were accus
tomed to wine-skins. The point is that the old system
to which fasting belongs is like an old garment, while
his own new method of life is like a piece of new,

190 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
strong cloth; the old system is like weak old wine
skins, while his new spirit is like strong new wine.
He is not here to patch up the old, or to save it from
too great a strain. If he were to put his new life on
as a patch to the old Jewish system, It would neither
match nor hold, but would make a failure every way.
If he were to put his new vital force into the enfeebled
Jewish order, something would break. New ways
for new powers. The free life must have Its own
modes. Fasting as an act of religion belongs to the
old order of outwardness and routine, not to the new
kingdom of the spirit. The new movement of Hfe
wants other forms of expression.
The two parts of the answer fit together admirably.
The first sets fasting in its proper place in a voluntaty
life such as he is leading men into, and the second
expressly claims that of such a life prescribed fasting
is not a congruous part. If a man feels that he must
fast he may fast, but it becomes him to have a good
reason for It. And he could not better illustrate the
great principle that the Christian life is not a life of
response to legal dictation. Under Jesus, legislation
is not the method. He is not introducing a law.
The old legislative method does not correspond to
his free spirit, nor would it be competent to hold his
new spiritual power. His life is the hfe of the spirit,
and hberty of spiritual judgment is the atmosphere In
which It must have its being.
Perhaps Jesus made an even more startling decla
ration of liberty when he took up the subject of

LIBERTY 191
ceremonial cleansings and defilements. Scribes and
Pharisees from Jerusalem, orthodox of the orthodox,
observed that his disciples omitted the washing of
their hands before eating — a washing for the sake
not of cleanliness, but of acceptableness to cere
monial requirements. Noticing the fact, they asked
Jesus to explain it. Here again it is the Master who
Is questioned about the disciples, not the disciples
about the Master, as we might have expected. On
this point of legalism also they must have begun to
change their practice under his leading.
In his first answer Jesus calls attention to the fact
that the legal tradition that requires all this hand
washing is not from God, but from the "elders," the
men of old time. It is a part of the law made by
interpretation. It Is a sample, he says, of many mat
ters in which the legalists have frustrated God's
genuine requirement by claiming his authority for
some act or custom that he has not required. "Ye
leave the commandment of God, and hold fast to
the tradition of men " — and for this confounding of
things that differ, this mixing of human with divine,
he blames them bitterly. Even within the inherited
law, he implies, they ought to discriminate, and keep
God's word and man's apart. Evidendy he would
insist that his followers should be free at least from
the obligation to obey the human additions to God's
law. This was as bold and offensive a word as the
word about fasting. What he said was that In the
law which all the orthodox insisted upon there was a
part that was not from God, and that it was the duty

192 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
of teachers of the law, and of those who were to obey
it, to discover that part and cease to hold it as bind
ing. What! criticise the ancient and accepted law
itself, written In the Scriptures, and exercise moral
judgment upon It, and cast part of it away ? But
that was what Jesus was Insisting on.
But he is not content with this, and must needs go
on to tell what he thinks of the principle of ceremonial
defilement itself, quite independently of its relation
to the divine command. Calling the people around
him, he proceeds to confirm his great doctrine of Hb
erty by heretical and revolutlonaty statements of the
most astonishing kind.
In his estimation defilement is a real and a dread
ful thing, and he wishes his hearers to be right, not
wrong, as to what will bring it on them. It is real,
but it is not ceremonial. To the people he gives the
gnomic saying, "Not what goes Into a man, but what
comes forth from him, works defilement upon him."
When his disciples ask for explanation he tells them.
In effect, that whatever the law may say about clean
and unclean foods, there is nothing in it. There are
no clean and unclean foods. Food cannot defile.
Food simply passes through the body and is gone.
It is of the body and of nothing else, and having
served the purposes of the body it perishes. The
decisive fact is that It "entereth not into the heart,"
the seat of the personal moral life, for which reason
It is nothing at all to the real man, and has no power
to defile him. When real defilement occurs, as too
often, alas! it does, the heart is the fountain and start-

LIBERTY 193
Ing-point of it. Out of the heart, the Inner life, comes
forth sin, with its various impurities and injustices
and evil passions. If you are looking for defilement,
look not to food but to living evil in the heart for the
source of it. You will surely find It there.
How revolutionary this was, we in our Christian
atmosphere can scarcely imagine. The writer of the
Second Gospel, rightly perceiving what was meant,
added, outside of all grammatical construction, as if
in meditative amazement or else in a triumphant
sense of liberty, "... making all foods clean!" —
declaring worthless all the old distinctions between
foods that defile and foods that do not, and forever
ending ceremonial embarrassments as to what one
may eat. All foods are free. The syllogism is very
direct and conclusive : The heart alone is the source
of purity or impurity before God; food does not
affect the heart; therefore with purity or impurity
before God food has nothing to do. The same
reasoning would apply to the formal necessity for
hand-washing, and to all supposed defilements under
ceremonial law. They are all relics of an imme
morial unspiritual faith, which makes God mindful of
a thousand external matters. But Jesus' principle^
is that only the spiritual and ethical is essential.
If It is said that this is perfectly obvious, we must
reply -that It Is very far from being obvious every
where among Christians even yet, and that at the
time when Jesus spoke it was absolutely heretical.
Only by the boldest claim of intellectual and spiritual
liberty for himself could Jesus have uttered these

194 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
words at all, and only by the boldest claim of practical
liberty for men as men could he have given this forth
as a principle for all to act upon. On that day he
avowed for all time the position that the spiritual and
ethical, to the exclusion of all that is formal, external
and ceremonial, is the sole test of acceptableness in
the sight of God
From another point of view Jesus taught the lesson
of liberty when he opened to his followers a noble
freedom with reference to the use that they should
make of the Sabbath day. The disciples, walking
with their Master on the Sabbath, hungty, helped
themselves to handfuls of grain in the field as they
were passing through. Thereupon certain Pharisees,
observing it, charged them with breaking the Sab
bath by harvesting and rubbing out the grain, and
asked Jesus about it. Yet the third time It is their
conduct, not his, that is called in question. Their
strictness must haVe been loosened in many ways
under his Influence. The plain Impression of the
record Is that they took the grain In all simplicity,
just because they wanted it, not thinking of any law.
Jesus' first reply is a reference to the Scriptures,
made as an argumentum ad hominem. He cites
from the life of David a ceremonial Irregularity with
regard to the temple, evidently not condemned at the
time of It, and recorded without censure in the Old
Testament — as much as to intimate that a rational
interpretation of the law of sacred things is no novelty,
and the Pharisees might have known it. But his

LIBERTY 195
real answer strikes to the heart of the matter by going
straight to the nature and purpose of the Sabbath
itself. What Is this Sabbath, he virtually asks, about
which your scruples know no limit ? and what does
it exist for ? "The Sabbath was made for man, not
man for the Sabbath." In the hard and merciless
legalism that was now catechizing the disciples, the
Sabbath was treated almost as if it were an end in it
self and a separate object of devotion. On one day
in seven it seemed to be esteemed the one thing need
ful that the Sabbath receive no detriment. Legisla
tion was strict, interpretation was stricter, and the
keen watchfulness of the guardians of the law was
strictest of all. The result was that man was made
to feel that this sacred institution was more important
far than he: whatever became of him it must be
honored, and he must almost account himself to
have been made for Sabbath-keeping. But this
most orthodox position Jesus dares to withstand.
The rule works the other way. The Sabbath, he
declares, was made for human benefit. By a man
himself and by all who have anything to do with the
regulation of his life it ought to be treated as a servant
of man, not as his master. This ought to be the rul
ing idea of the entire community. No law has a
right to invert this relation and set the means above
the end, and no interpreters of the ancient law have
a right to read into it the Inverted meaning. If
Jesus were expounding the matter further, of course
he would say that men ought to use the Sabbath
wisely, not recklessly, not selfishly, or irreligiously.

196 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
or unmindfully of him who gave It. Not only to the
benefit but to the best benefit of man ought it to be
devoted. Only a high-minded use of the day would
correspond to his ideal, and aU the stronger is his
position in view of the high value of the blessing.
So inexpressibly valuable a servant of man is this,
that no one ought to deprive him of its service by set
ting it up as his master.
What use Jesus himself made of this freedom with
the Sabbath all readers know. "The Sabbath was
made for man" might be called his motto. He per
formed public acts of healing, and when they were
challenged by legalists he defended them vigorously.
The meanness of the opposition to such healing an
gered him, and once is recorded his Indignation as he
looked round upon the leaders in the synagogue who
were forbidding him to make more of man than of
the day. He declared that healing on the Sabbath
Is merely such work as men do for their cattle, which
they will feed and water and help out of holes on the
Sabbath. How much more appealing ought human
needs to be than the needs of an ox or an ass! No
sacred law or custom has any right to check such work.
So he willingly stood as a violator of the Sabbath in
the estimation of Jews who perverted the law; but
he claimed that in what they called profanation of the
Sabbath he was only bringing the day to the filful-
ment of Its purpose. According to the report in the
First Gospel, he clinched the argument In defence of
the men who plucked grain to eat on the Sabbath by
this tremendous argument from ancient prophecy —

LIBERTY 197
"If ye had knovm what this means, I desire mercy,
and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the
guiltless." God long ago put the inward above the
outward, the spiritual above the formal, hkeness to
God above offering to God: his heart was set upon
the ethical grace of mercy, not upon the ceremonial
act of sacrifice. Because these rehglonists had failed
to see this vital message glowing In their Scriptures,
they had that day condemned the guiltless and called
good evil. But Jesus himself was now acting upon
that ancient divine valuation, and opening to all men
the Hberty to prize mercy above sacrifice, the end
above the means, the work of life above the methods
of life, as God does.
By such treatment of the institutions of the sacred
law Jesus opened to men a fine personal Independ
ence; or, rather, he asserted for them their original
right of liberty. How radical he was! He taught.
men to criticise the law that they attributed to God.
He declared null the principle that underlay the cere
monial system. He assigned to religious Institutions
their true place as servants of man, and thus taught
men to seek their value in a new quarter. He pointed
to the heart as the sole seat of that which is accepta
ble or unacceptable to God, and thus bound upon
men the responsiblHty of taking care of that which is
within. By such teaching he impressed the lesson
that we are not to suppose that a thing is right because
it is commanded in the law, but must understand that
so far as the law is good a thing Is commanded in

198 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
the law because it is right. As an appeal to the con
science and a test of what ought to be done, he dis
tinctly deposes the force of legislation from the first
place and sets above It the value of the law. In all
this — and perhaps this is the most radical teaching of
it all — he bids men freely act upon their ovra judg
ment of good and evil, even where the ancient and
sacred law has spoken. Even to bitter opponents he
is recorded to have said, "And why even of your own
selves judge ye not what is right ?" In morals men
can judge, have a right to judge, and ought to judge.
Thus he sets personal judgment free from prohibi
tions and constraints; and the right of judgment Is
the very life of the gift of liberty.
In fact, just as the writer to the Hebrews after
ward testified, the gospel of Jesus brought fulfilment
of the prophetic hope of a new covenant, of which
one great characteristic was to be that the law was
written on the heart. We have seen that his doctrine
of righteousness was simply a doctrine of reahty:
the required goodness must be the man's own, a
quahty of his very being: a man must be himself, the
self being a good one toward God and men. God's
requirement must be not an external authority but
an inward guide: he must know the law not as en
graved on tables of stone but as impressed upon his
own Inward affections and thus made his own. But
one of the conditions of inward reality is liberty. In
order to be himself, a man must be free to be himself
He must be unhampered by false authorities and
repressive forces, and unrestrained in putting forth

LIBERTY 199
his best in thought and work. Accordingly we do not
wonder that Jesus preaches Hberty so tremendously.
Liberty belongs to the substance of his ideal. With
out It his ideal man can never exist. With It there
are risks and dangers, but with it there are opened
all the possibilities of high virtue and godliness.
Jesus never discussed this gift of liberty, or de
scribed it at all, or even spoke of it as a separate fact.
His impartatlon of Hberty to his disciples was wholly
practical and informal. He did not exhort men to
be free, but started them In a free life. Therefore we
should look in vain to him for an explicit statement
of the principle in which liberty is grounded. But
in view of his general attitude and Influence the
principle is perfectly plain.
His view of liberty Is a direct result from his stead
fast conviction of the relation between God and man.
Jesus always assumes that there is only one above
the human soul, and that is God, the Father of men.
To him each man belongs, and has access, and is
responsible. To him men are so related that all duty
Is duty to him — though not to him alone — and all
Hfe is life under his paternal authority. Above man
there is no other. Between any human being and
God there stands no one whatever with any binding
authority over conscience and will. Since all life in
its higher character, ethical and religious. Is a matter
between man and his God, God is the only possible
master for men, and filial allegiance to him implies
release and freedom from all others who claim au-

200 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
thority. The one mastership of God annihilates all
other masterships. Immediate relations with God
imply emancipation and hberty for man. This is
true not of some men only but of all, since God is
the same to all, and all are bound alike to him by
this liberating tie. This is the liberty which Jesus
claimed in his own life. The high aim to which he
held so firmly was the aim of loyalty to God alone,
and no other authority over him did he acknowledge.
This too is the Hberty which he proclaims to all who
learn of him. He thus blesses mankind by restor
ing to every man an essential human right and privi
lege, clearing earth and heavens of all intermeddlers
who would come between man and his God.
Of course it will not be understood that the claim
of his fellows upon a man is In any way diminished
by this sole mastership of God. No man liveth unto
himself, or has a moment's right to think that human
ity has no claim upon him. But the call Is of an
other kind; and It is as a free spirit, answerable in
the higher sense to his God alone, that a man is caUed
to serve his fellows and fulfil his obligation to them.
Neither will it be understood that the sole mas
tership of God Is Incompatible with various forms
of social authority that exist among men. Parents
have authority over their children for a certain time
and within a certain sphere, and governments have
authority over their people for certain purposes.
But such authority is of a wholly different kind. It
rests upon relations that exist among human beings
themselves, no one of whom has naturally anything

LIBERTY 201
of the higher authority over another. Thus it is
differenti^ated entirely from the authority of God, who
is himself alone, and before whom all men stand ahke.
Moreover, it is valid only within its ovm special
field. Within a certain range human authority has
force, but it does not extend into the region of God's
sole mastership to rival him. When it endeavors
to Invade that field It exceeds its rights and must be
ordered back where it belongs. Human authority
has often claimed to represent God and exercise con
trol over judgment and conscience and will, but never
rightfully. When it comes to a matter of conscience, -
or of judgment as to what is true, or of the exercise
of moral choice, there is only one way. The apostles
were right when they deemed it sufficient to reply to
the Sanhedrin, "We ought to obey God rather than
men " — by which they meant, as they ought to mean,
"The Sanhedrin does not stand between us and God,
and we owe to you no duty at all in this matter."
This Is the right rule for all. The Christian liberty
Is freedom from all masters but God.
When Jesus proclaimed the emancipation from
human mastership which Is implied in loyalty to God,
he gave to the world a gift of priceless value. We
have to confess indeed that Christians have arisen
to this liberty only in a vety Imperfect way, and have
often been sadly false to the principle of it in their
treatment of one another. Very largely the lesson
has still to be learned. Nevertheless, in spite of all
defects. Christian liberty has done in the world a

202 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
great and beneficent work. Many souls that ac
knowledged God have found themselves set free from
other domination, and have claimed the right to Ig
nore all interference with his requirement. In such
experience the fear of man has met its master, and
the best in the soul has come to its own. The way
has been opened for godliness to live above the world
in a higher fidelity, for honest thought to discover and
proclaim truth In all realms, and for loyal hearts to
do the will of God without reserve. The command,
"What ye have heard In the ear proclaim ye upon the
housetops," has become a rule of life, and the whisper
of God imparting truth has been fearlessly trans
mitted to the world. The value of this superhuman
freedom in actual accomplishment of good for man
kind is past all computation, while its force by way
of example, inspiring souls In bondage to come forth
into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, has been
a gift almost as great. Evety freeman of God Is a
missionary of freedom.
It is worth while to note that this fine liberty of the
soul is not only an ethical gift but a religious gift
as well. It is well known in modern times, and
is increasingly admired, but is not always traced to
its real source. The finest and manliest personal
Independence of our age, which all recognize as a
part of the ideal manhood, is often thought of as a
product of human free institutions. Its growth is
greatly indebted to them, but in a deeper sense It
is the offspring of loyalty to God, which abolishes
all spiritual bondage by giving the human spirit only

LIBERTY 203
one master. It is Jesus who goes to the heart of the
matter with regard to Hberty. Under his influence it
Is not to be regarded as a gift of man to man, or a
lesson learned In a human school, though in a true
sense it may be both of these. He grounds it in re
ligion, by making the soul's loyalty to God the key
to its freedom from domination of men. Thus for
our time as well as for his own he lays in religion
the deepest foundation of one of the great ethical
gifts. Many have enjoyed the fruit who did not
recognize the nature of the tree on which it grew;
but the ideal personal hberty is a result of loyalty
to God. It is well to note also that in religion Jesus
here offers us the solution of a great social problem.
When we speak of liberty we speak of a social
fact, and the question of Hberty is a social question
in any age, for it Is a question of what men really
are to one another, and In what manner they ought
to live together. It is an inspiration to know that
Jesus offers the solution of this social problem not
primarily In the relation of men to one another, but
In the relation of all of them to God. This surely is
the ideal way. The heavens rule, God, not man.
Is the key of life.

X
HUMAN VALUE
The farther we go into the teaching of Jesus, the
more does the great social question open about us on
every side. Plainer and plainer it grows that his
ideal was a social ideal. We may enter the kingdom
of God by the individual door, but the kingdom itself
is a social realm, where the question of what man
should do toward man requires the heartfelt atten
tion of every citizen. We need not wonder, there
fore, but should be most thankful, that the counsels
of the Master extend their application till they cover
the whole social field.
One of the most far-reaching of ethical questions
is that of the value of a human being. How high
an estimate ought to be put upon a man, simply as
a man, or upon a child as a potential man ? Of
how much worth is a human being ? How ought one
to regard his own value ? and what valuation ought
men to put upon one another ? According to their
mutual estimate will be their treatment of one an
other; and in the history of the race it has become
only too plain that to misjudge human value is a
sadly dangerous thing. We may never take the ques
tion of human value to heart, or we may think too
meanly of our fellows, or we may prize them highly,
204

HUMAN VALUE 205
and these judgments will have large social effects
and immeasurable importance. These are vast eth
ical questions, and In proportion as we are ac
quainted with the living God we shall call them
religious questions also.
In a variety of ways Jesus teaches us what a human
being is worth, and how we ought to estimate men.
Here again some words that we have already studied
will be found yielding an additional lesson, and it will
not be a loss of time to draw it out.
He calls attention more than once to the value of,
men in comparison with lower creatures. The grass
of the field, the lilies, the birds, the ox, the ass, the
sheep, he brings Into comparison. For all these he
says that God cares, and how much more for men!
Men care for their animals too, and will take great
pains to supply their wants and get them out of dan
ger. Hard-hearted religionists around him he begs
to take as much Interest in the welfare of men as
they take In the care of their cattle — and he begs In
vain. The lesson as he gives it is, "God cares for
these — the sheep, the sparrows, even the flowers —
and how much more valuable is a man than a sheep !
God recognizes the greater human value, and so
should you." To our eyes as we read It this may
seem like vety rudimentary teaching, and an ex
tremely rudimentary standard of human value, too
obvious to be of any practical worth. But hard ex
perience proves that in teaching humanity to man
rudimentary lessons are far from superfluous. Even
yet they are needed. Many a man's employees

206 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
would be thankful for such consideration as he gives
his horses, and many a man's family Is housed worse
than his animals. And very beautiful and cheering
is this teaching of Jesus concerning the fatherly heart
of God, who rightly estimates the value of all living
creatures and holds his human children precious
above the rest.
The teachings that illustrate liberty throw equal
light upon human value. When he compares men
with sacred institutions, and relegates the temple
and the Sabbath to their true position as servants of
humanity, Jesus places high honor upon man. He
quotes, "My house shall be called a house of prayer
for all nations"; the temple then, often accounted
sacred for Its own sake, was intended to be a servant
to mankind, both Jew and Gentile; wherever man Is,
therefore, there Is something greater than the temple.
How he sets man above the Sabbath by saying, "The
Sabbath was made for man," we have already seen;
and he does not hesitate to put this word into personal
appHcation. "Ought not this daughter of Abraham
... to be healed on the Sabbath day ? " She is the
more important. As the sanctity of the showbread
did not stand in the way of satisfying David's hunger,
so that of the Sabbath must be no bar to usefulness
toward men, for whom it was made. Since man Is
the being for whose good God made all holy institu
tions. In his sight he ranks above them all. This is
not represented merely as Jesus' personal judgment.
He records it as the judgment of God, expressed in
his preparing of the holy Institutions for the service

HUMAN VALUE 207
of man. In God's judgment the end ranks above
the means.
The three great Parables of Recovery, which have
taught us so much about the divine love, convey also
the clearest of lessons concerning human value.
In these three parables of "the lost found," which
declare with ascending emphasis that It was right
for Jesus to welcome as he did the pubhcans and
sinners, the worth of a human being shines forth.
Why was It a good thing for these men and women
to come to him seeking a better life ? and why should
they be welcomed ? Because of what they were
worth. They were worth saving for their own sake,
and they bore a real value to God, whose they were.
Because of the saving of this Intrinsic value, as well
as because of the victoty of the divine love, is there
"joy In heaven over one sinner that repenteth."
The scorning of such by the Pharisees is represented
in the parable by the elder brother's name for the
prodigal, "This thy son, which hath devoured thy
living with harlots." But the father's name for him
Is, "This thy brother."
We do not find Jesus calling attention to his own
sense of human value, but his life showed it In many
ways. His disciples apparently thought that little
children brought to him for his blessing were too
insignificant to hold his attention, but he rebuked
their unwelcoming spirit, and received the children
with warmest interest. When he was asked why he
companied with sinners, he repHed that he was a
physician, and these were the ones who had need of

208 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
him. As a physician of course he must go to his
patients, and he went freely and gladly, never ques
tioning that they were worth aU the pains that he
took for them. That sinful men were not important
enough for him to serve them with full devotion never
occurred to him. It was by way of comment upon
his one day's work with Zacchaeus the pubHcan
that he uttered the immortal saying, "The Son of
man Is come to seek and to save that which was lost."
That which is lost, he Implies, is worth seeking and
saving: men are precious. If Zkcchaeus had not
responded to his search on that first day, it is hard to
think that he would not gladly have given him a
second. His own ideal was to seek the lost "until
he find it" — ^the only satisfactoty way. Most em
phatically again did he tell of human value when he
said, "The Son of man came not to be ministered
unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom
for many." Not for himself would he live and die,
but for men, and it was worth while. We may think
that he said this because "not for self" is the right
principle for life and death; and so he did. But
if the objects of his unselfish sacrifice had not ap
pealed to him as worth the cost, he would not thus
have given himself for them. His self-sacrifice even
unto death was his measure of the value of the men
for whom he gave himself. The cross bears testi
mony to what he felt humanity to be worth. From
this high judgment of human value he never swerved.
He had his moments of impatience with the slowness
of the response — " How long shall I be with you ?

HUMAN VALUE 209
how long shall I suffer you?" — but neither by the hard
way to the cross nor by the agony of the cross itself
was he turned from the conviction that men were
worth the sacrifice. Even In the hour of death his
murderers were still to be prayed for.
Another light upoo human value is given In Jesus'
suggestion of the value of a man to himself. A man
is worth more to himself than all the world can be
worth to him. To gain the whole world would be
no gain if he lost himself in the transaction. If a
man has thus lost himself, there is nothing in all that
he possesses, even if he has gained the world, that is
valuable enough for him to "give In exchange for his
soul," to buy himself back again. "What shall it
profit a man" to have made such a bargain ? In the
parable of the foolish rich man, the moral is that
"a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the
things that he possesseth." Nearer home than that
must he look for that which counts. It was when
God required of him his soul that his trouble came.
He himself was the centre of Interest then, and all
his wealth, prized for the comfort It was to bring
him, was nothing worth. If he could not stand up
to meet this last call of God, all was failure.
Very suggestive concerning a man's real value are
the words in which Jesus tells how alone this value
can be realized or conserved. They are paradoxical
and searching. Self-seeking will prove a disappoint
ment. "Whosoever would save his life shall lose
It, and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall
save it." A man Is precious In a mystery, and only

210 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
a deep experience can bring the mystery to light.
He must die to live. He can make himself of full
value only by letting himself go in self-forgetful con
secration. Only by the sweet though costly rule of
self-sacrifice can his value be fully realized. It will
be wrecked and lost if he follows the selfish method.
Only when he surrenders himself to the holy cause —
"for my sake," for that which I stand for — can he
come into true possession of himself. If man were
a being who could secure his own value by making
it his end, this would be a very different world from
what It is. It might be more attractive to the or
dinary soul, but heaven could not be brought Into it.
But the actual law of Hfe is the law of surrender.
So in the case of Jesus himself: "Except a grain of
wheat fall into the ground and die, It abideth alone;
but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit." The value
of a spiritual being resides not merely In itself, but
even more in what it brings forth. So even of God.
If he were a selfish seeker of his own glory, he would
have no glory. Of this paradoxical and yet rational
nature is the value of a spiritual being, and therefore
of a man.
Jesus did not represent value as belonging to a
few men only, or to some special class alone. He
would never lead us to think that God prizes merely
the select few, the finest spirits of the human ract.
He encourages none to think themselves God's fa
vorites. He saw the worth of despised men, and
brought out undiscovered values. Men are unequal
in many respects, and of unequal value for many pur-

HUMAN VALUE 211
poses, but Jesus assures us that they are all precious
to God, who counts them his own, sees their possibili
ties, and prizes them for what there is in them. The
parables of recovery do not point a hmited or tem
porary lesson. They show how everywhere and al
ways God rejoices when the value of the human
comes back to him. Accordingly the lesson of the
value of man as man, and so of all men, remains In
the world as an element in the ideal of Christianity.
It is needless to confess that this lesson has barely
begun to be learned and practised in Its full meaning,
and yet it is true that the Christian era is the human
era, the age of man. Despite the terrible defects and
wrongs that still remain, with Jesus there has come
a sense of human value such as the world has not
known elsewhere; and when we obtain a glimpse of
Jesus himself we do not wonder.
It Is easy to see that in proportion as Jesus becomes
influential in the world, the sense of the value of man
will be Increased. Of course, too, the law of human
value cannot stand as a mere formula or an abstract
estimate. It must have applications of vast impor
tance. It is a law of self-respect. We do not hear
Jesus speaking of this, but he taught the lesson as
no one else has done, and has inspired a self-respect
that may almost be called a Christian grace. Since a
man is so precious, every human being ought to re
spect and even to reverence himself, and to attend to
his own higher duties and interests In a manner that
corresponds to his value. It Is not self-conceit that

212 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
says, "Because God prizes me I will prize myself"
And of course the law of human value is a law of
respect and reverence toward other men. It should
be this to evety one who looks his brother in the face.
We sin against our fellows, and against God who
prizes them, if we do not treat them all as beings of
high worth. As an ideal for life, Jesus made this
absolutely plain; and yet how slow are even the best
to make application of It, or even to perceive that
application must be made! And society in general
has obtained only faint glimpses of this ideal.
It Is Impossible to discuss here the applications of
the law of human value, but the nature of them is
plain. The law Is both destructive and constructive.
It tears down and It builds up. Give It its way and
it tears dovpn all that belittles man and treats him as
of small account. It seals the doom of tyrarmy In
government. It condemns all social tyrannies and
oppressions, and all institutions that deal with human
beings without high consideration of their worth.
All scorn and contempt of men, even of evil men, it
would abolish. All practices that embody contempt
or indifference toward men It would doom to blasting,
unless they change their tone. And In the place of
tyranny and contempt and wrong, it would bring in
an order of large and equal justice, of fraternal sym
pathy and helpfulness, and of equal opportunity.
A social order that corresponds to the Christian ideal
of human value Is the order for which human welfare
waits. The form of it may not be foreseen, but the
spirit of it is as plain as the character of Jesus himself.

HUMAN VALUE 213
Here we may remind ourselves how perfectly the
ideal of human value fits in with Jesus' ideal of the
kingdom of heaven. There he showed us an order
Inspired by the spirit of mutual help and service.
Here he points us to the companions whom we are
caUed to serve and help, and bids us see how well
worthy they are of all that we can do for them. In
a world of human value the life of mutual service
is the normal life, and the redemptive love of God Is
the right spirit to inspire all hving.
Jesus could not discuss the problems of our time
in his, and so he has not given us specific directions
what to do in view of human value. We must find
out for ourselves what we need to unlearn and repu
diate, and what new works of social righteousness
we must learn to do. The time has come when we
ought to be learning, for the vast social issues have
arisen, a Christian people has grown up that ought
to be capable of dealing with them, and every day
is clamoring more loudly than the last for attention
to the claims of human value. There Is no more
vital question. IndustriaHsm is wellnigh omnipotent
now, and industrialism knows Httle of large intrinsic
value in human beings. It recognizes their value
only for some single purpose, in which they may
serve the interest of those who exploit them. A
man comes to be called a hand. Life comes to be
organized without reference to the intrinsic value of
human beings who cannot organize it for themselves.
The money-making impulse is the organizer, and the
money-making impulse is always ready to utilize

214 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
men as means to its end, whatever other values in
them It may destroy. In deahng with human beings
the Master's word is true, "Ye cannot serve God and
Mammon." To serve God is to deal with all that
is human as worthful and honorable In Itself and
for its own sake: to serve Mammon is to ignore
the higher values and trample them under foot. A
Mammon-worshipping generation invokes the curse
of God by Its contempt of humanity.
The significance of the present social strifes turns
more upon the question of human value than upon
almost any other. Human value and selfish Interest
are in a death-grapple, and the thing needful to a
righteous outcome is that the voice of Jesus be heard.
Evidently the contest will be long. The work of
righteousness in making adjustment must needs be
slow, and will require the utmost wisdom and pa
tience. Selfishness will propose all manner of injus
tice; and, on the other hand, the worth of men is
sure to be asserted sometimes In unwise ways, so
that interest in its righteous claim will be discouraged
through mistakes. But it is indispensable to a good
future that the Christian Ideal of human value be
kept in sight, and taken to heart, and held as the
guiding light In all social changes. Only thus can
the true Ideal of society be reached, or even ap
proached. The practice of human value is essential
to the fulfilment of the hope of the world.

XI
JUSTICE
Very close to the ideal of human value lies that of
justice. In one aspect, indeed, the claim of human
value is a claim of justice: men have certain claims
on one another by reason of their worth, and justice
demands that they be honored. But besides, in all
human affairs there is such a thing as reciprocity —
give and take — and there is a way of exercising this
reciprocity that is just and equal, corresponding
rightly to the conditions. There can be no definition
of justice that will make plain what is just In every
particular case; It Is the task of every person, and of
society, to study that out, and to act upon the con
clusions that may be reached. But it does not fol
low from this seeming Indefiniteness that justice Is
a vague and uncertain thing. The principle is per
fectly clear. Justice Is that which is due according
to the claim of right. It is a mere repetition to say
that the doing of justice is every one's duty.
In our day one who emphasizes justice is apt tc^
dwell much on the rights of man, or of men; for in
recent centuries the assertion of justice has largely
been identified with the assertion of rights. But
perhaps to our surprise we find that of the rights of
men Jesus did not speak. His principles may lead
215

216 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
to assertions about rights, but he made none. In
this omission he made no mistake, for that was not
the message for the hour. If he had stood forth as
a herald of human rights, he would have missed the
point of his mission. He was not in the world for
immediate social reform. He was to create a force
that would work reform in Its season, but its season
would be long in coming, and the work of his Hfetime
was of another kind. But apart from such consider
ation, agitation for human rights was not the most
natural thing from his own point of view. To him
duties, not rights, were of first importance. Not
"What can I claim ?" but "What do I owe ?" is the
first question for a right mind to ask. It was charac
teristic of Jesus that he inspired men to do justice
before he moved them to demand it.
His largest teaching upon justice, as well as the
clearest illustration of the judgment that has just
been cited, is found in the law that he announced
when he said, "All things whatsoever ye would that
men should do, do ye even so unto them; for this
is the law and the prophets."
This word Is commonly known as the golden rule,
and the name is weU deserved. In the popular
*lhought it probably passes oftenest for a law of love,
but as soon as we examine It it appears as a law of
justice. It recognizes that two sets of requirements
are present, and bids me equalize them, I wish
another to treat me in a certain way or in a certain
spirit. But he has the same claim upon me that I

JUSTICE 217
have upon him, and his claim I ought to acknowledge.
What I desire from him he has an equal right to de
sire from me, and it is only just that I give to him
such as I ask from him. The rule takes two forms.
Negatively, I ought not to do to him what I wish him
not to do to me, and positively, I ought to do to him
what I wish done to myself. The two requirements
may or may not coincide In precise detail, but they
entirely coincide In spirit. Plainly this is the right
eous and equal rule for the management of that
reciprocity which enters into all human relations —
give as you would receive, do as you would be done
by. In order to do this satisfactorily it may be found
that love is indispensable, but the claim springs
primarily not from love but from justice. The law
calls only for what is equal, fair, right, just: it ought
to be fulfilled. It Is well called a golden rule, for it
is a rule of righteousness. In so far as it is ignored,
there can be no effective righteousness between man
and man, and no sufficient rightness In personal
character. Jesus adds at once that this is no new rule, and he
lays no claim to It as a rule of his own. "This Is the
law and the prophets." It Is older than Jesus, and
had authority before he uttered it. It is not found
in the Old Testament in so many words, but he bears
witness that it represents the spirit of the Old Testa
ment In both law and prophecy. Modern readers can
trace it further still. It is found, more or less clearly,
in the ethical teachings of various peoples. Confucius
has it, both in the negative form and in the positive.

218 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
The Buddha has it, and so have various other teach
ers. That is no objection to it as a Christian law,
as some Christians have suspected that they ought
to feel, but a strong commendation. The golden
rule cannot be a specialty of any teacher or religion.
It exists so widely because it is a law of universal
right. It has been proved the right rule of conduct,
and universal experience commends it. So far as
men have learned to use good judgment In their life,
"Do as you would be done by" Is recognized the
world over as the natural and reasonable rule of duty.
It is almost an axiomatic law. Of course it is far
from being universally practised, for passion is blind
to It, and pride ignores It, and selfishness forgets it
or denies It, and innumerable interests argue it im
practicable. But it points out the ideal way to Hve,
and the ideal of human society cannot be attained
without it; and to this effect the sober judgment of
the world bears witness.
A searching illustration of this law as a law of
justice is given by Jesus in the parable of the un
forgiving servant. From pure kindness a servant
has been forgiven a vast debt that he owed his mas
ter; but when a fellow-servant begs him to forgive
a trifling debt under identical conditions, he stub
bornly refuses. The argument of the parable is that
it was the duty of the servant to exercise the same
pardon that he himself had pleaded for and received.
The main appeal is not made to love or to compas
sion: it Is represented that forgiveness was simply
his duty, and that he sinned against justice In refusing

JUSTICE 219
to forgive as he had been forgiven. He might claim
that the debt was justly due to him; but the parable
hints that justice had taken on a new form since he
had been forgiven, and demanded of him forgiveness.
The only allusion to mercy affirms mercy as a duty
in his case: "Oughtest thou not to have had mercy
upon thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on
thee ? " How utterly wrong, unjust, subversive of
social right for the servant to refuse such a boon as
had just been freely given to him! No human law
can enforce this claim, though in the parable the
master does proceed to enforce it, since he figures
as the representative of God. But that makes no
difference: a man is bound to do to others as he
desires others to do to him. The parable is the more
interesting because it Illustrates the claim for some
thing different from mere reciprocity. A third per
son comes in. The servant Is not called upon to
treat his master as his master has treated him, but
to treat his fellow-servant so. The second man is
told that it was his duty to do to the third as the first
had done to him. By this the golden rule is laid
down as a law to govern all social relations, for this
Is the teaching — "Treat every one as any one has
treated you for your good." What a revelation is
this! What a new thing it would make of life!
This Illustration of the law of justice is all the more
searching because It represents that law as penetrat
ing to a region where love alone is often regarded as
Influential. What but love, we might ask, has any
thing to do wlt:h the forgiveness of injuries ? Yet the

220 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
parable justifies itself. An unforgiving spirit grieves
righteousness as deeply as It injures love. If par
don is the gift that we desire, pardon is the gift that
justice requires us to impart.
Jesus makes another application of the law of
justice, and of the principle of the golden rule. In
what he says of the judgment that men should pass
on one another. " Judge not, that ye be not judged."
In this teaching there is nothing that is peculiar to
Christianity: any moralist might have said the same,
for the teaching Is obvious. Yet none the less truly
is it characteristic of Jesus and suited to stand among
his instructions. That which It requires enters into
his ideal of how men ought to live together. If It
had stood in the Sermon on the Mount below the
golden rule instead of above it, we should have said
that he meant it for an Illustration of that law, and
should have called it a very good one. The point is
simply that all such judgment should be avoided as
one would be unwilling to have returned upon him
self. "With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be
judged," by men around you; therefore be careful,
and give only such as you would be willing to take.
If we ask what particular kind of judgment is thus
ruled out, we find that he does not tell us, but leaves
us to find out for ourselves. He has given us the
text, but has not filled out the sermon. But the ser
mon Is easily constructed. It is plain that on these
terms we should have to avoid all rash and hasty
judgment, made before we had good knowledge of

JUSTICE 221
the facts; and all harsh, censorious, unloving judg
ment, needlessly condemnatory; and, no less, all fool
ish overappreciation, unreasoned and flattering. So
much at least. The mind of Christ should lead us
to fair judgment, grounded in the best reasons that lie
within our reach and tempered by love. We are re
minded that in such a world of give and take as this,
injustice in judgment will be visited upon the unjust
judge. Righteous judgment is always a duty, but
the exhortation to it is based on this other ground
besides, that one's manners have a right to come
home to light upon one's self, and may be trusted to
do It.
As to the use that Jesus would have us make of
this rule of just judgment. It has sometimes been
supposed that he was forbidding all judgment upon
persons, and permitting it only upon acts and prin
ciples: men may judge the sin but not the sinner,
the fault but not the man, all judgment upon per
sons being reserved to God. But this cannot be the
meaning. Jesus himself in the same chapter passes
judgment on the false prophets, and tells his hearers
how to do the same. They are to "beware of false
prophets," but how can they do this unless they
judge them false ? And the test Is, " By their fruits
ye shall know them." But we do not need his ex
ample to justify us In passing judgment on persons
as well as on acts, for we cannot help doing it. We
do pass moral judgment upon our fellow-beings
for this sufficient reason. All the more reason is
there, therefore, why our judgments should always be

222 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
just and reasonable. But we need not be ashamed
of the practice of judging. If it is rightly governed.
The omission of personal judgments would not be in
accordance with the mind of Christ. It Is often
thought that it would : the mind of Christ is gentle,
and we must condemn no man. It is true that the
spirit of Christ is gentle, and that it would lead us to
condemn no man if we could avoid it. But the
spirit of Christ is righteous also, and, to speak of the
simplest fact of all, it is honest. The Ideal of Jesus
does not include a state in which inevitable moral
judgments are held in suppression, and honest con
victions concerning good and evil are forbidden their
right of way. He would have us judge, as we must,
but always fairly and without contempt; and he
would have our condemnations embraced In the
redemptive love that never sees evil without desire to
abolish it, or an evil man without desire to save him.
The close kinship of the golden rule to the sec
ond great commandment cannot fail to be noticed.
That second law of love Is indeed a law of justice,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," for here
also it is just to equalize the claims. As we said
about that law, so we may say of the golden rule,
that Jesus performed an Immense service to humanity
by placing It where he did. The principle of the
golden rule Is a first principle In all sound ethics,
and Jesus Is the supreme teacher in religion. What
he has done is this: he has taken this great first prin
ciple of ethics into religion, so to speak, and has

JUSTICE 223
rendered It amenable to religious motive and appeal.
Among his religious counsels he has given a central
place to this prime ethical command. Similar was
the act by which he placed the second great com
mandment side by side with the eternal and neces
sary first. In thus using the golden rule, he took an
ethical principle that is sound without reference to
religion, and set it where the motives of religion in
spired from himself would reinforce and elevate it
ever after. The service that he thus rendered to
humanity has been appreciated in part, but is still
to receive the recognition that is its due. When this
universal law of social ethics comes to receive the full
benefit that it will draw from the Christian inspira
tion, the new heavens and new earth wherein dwell
eth righteousness will be at hand.
The golden rule is primarily a rule for self-judg
ment. This is evident upon the face of it, and we
cannot fail to see that for this purpose It is a most
valuable rule. Hard questions may arise as to our
duty under it, but they arise from the conditions, not
from the principle. The rule itself Is perfectly In
telligible, and in general each person is In a position
to know how far he Is loyal to it and how far disloyal.
But to judge one's self under this rule requires a
sound conscience, and a good intelligence too, and
a fair knowledge of the life of other men. Education
in the power of self-judgment under the golden rule
Is one thing that the world needs.
It proves impossible, however, to limit our judg
ment under the golden rule to self-judgment. By

224 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
the very nature of the life in common we are com
pelled to judge whether other men are faithful to it.
The very existence of tolerable society depends upon
some deference being paid to the^golden rule, and
the enriching of the quality of the social life depends
upon the enlargement of loyalty to its principle.
Thus any extensive violation of the golden rule be
comes a sin against society; and any one who Is
watching the social Hfe with a heart eager for its
welfare cannot fail to take notice of such offences.
In passing judgment upon other men's loyalty or
disloyalty to the golden rule, it is vety evident that
we must be careful. We cannot always be sure that
we understand the motives of other persons. We
may have little doubt about them, and yet there is
always a possibility that we may misjudge; and if
we do, we may violate the golden rule in our very
insistence upon It, passing such judgment as we would
not wish to be returned upon ourselves. Neverthe
less we cannot refrain from judging others under this
rule, and we ought not. It is the will of God that we
should judge. One of God's powerful agencies for
righteousness In this world is the irrepressible judg
ment of men upon their fellows and their works.
It is liable to error and abuse, and yet it is a genuine
gift of God for the common good. The reformatory
power of popular judgment is enormous. Espe
cially In the conditions of the present time, when
Information is diffused so swiftly and so widely, is
popular judgment becoming enlisted in the service
of righteousness. By means of it God is pleased to

JUSTICE 225
cleanse the world of much of Its evil; and much of the
evil which popular judgment may be helpful in putting
away consists In sin against the golden rule. So the
Ideal of Jesus includes the free putting forth of mutual
judgment In the interest of mutual purification.
In the present day the golden rule and the Ideal of
human value are combining to work conviction of
vast social sin. The self-judgment that the golden
rule calls for is not merely an individual matter.
For certain purposes a group of men Is a self. A
firm Is a self, and so Is a corporation; so is a social
class; so In fact is society itself. There are institu
tions and customs and practices for which perhaps
a class of men Is responsible, or perhaps a group
of business interests, or perhaps a nation, or perhaps
the total of men living together which we call society.
Some such customs and institutions are utterly vio
lative of the golden rule and ruinous to human
value; and the group or body that is responsible for
them ought to judge Itself for its sin. In some degree
this righteous self-condemnation is becoming a fact.
The process has only begun, but it has begun. It
will have to continue till great changes have been
wrought. Any earnest voice of condemnation may
help to awaken the voice of conscience where con
science needs to act. It Is the Christian standing of
this law of justice that renders the moral searchlight
so terrible and so cleansing. When neglect of the
golden rule wrecks human value, there is heard the
voice of him who says, " Inasmuch as ye did it not
unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it

226 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
not unto me"; and that appeal, reinforcing universal
justice, will at length produce repentance, and works
meet for repentance, in many a field of social wrong.
The law of justice is so unwelcome In great parts
of the world's life that relief from its pressure is
sought in discussion, and especially in claiming that
the golden rule is Impracticable. Sometimes the
obscurity of the law Is complained of, the difficulty
of knowing exactly what one would wish to be done
to himself if the case were turned about. That, how
ever, would seem to be no reason why one might not
try to find out. Oftener it is Insisted that the thing
cannot be done : the rule is a piece of mere idealism,
with no possibility of ever becoming a law of real
life: obedience to It would destroy the common and
necessary operations of the world. But the law is
too fundamental and self-commending to be thus
escaped. This is a law whose judgment of condem
nation or approval Is absolutely inevitable, as soon as
the moral grade of life becomes high and the voice
of religion is clear. Of course the golden rule is
not easily practicable. The passions of life and the
complications of self-interest are against It. Com
mon customs and institutions have grown up with
little regard to it, and often expressly for protection
to selfishness. Though there are large and invalua
ble traditions of justice among men, the inherited
fashion of the world favors justice only in part.
Moreover, the rule is so thoroughly a social one that
one person alone can never do it justice. It calls for
reciprocity, and can do its best work only when the
social atmosphere sustains it. Doubtless, too, it is

JUSTICE 227
not always easy to determine exactly what the law
demands. Patience and wisdom must be brought
to that question, together with all the impulses of
the Christian heart, and a long growth of character
must have come before the law can be most effective.
The law is revolutionary, too. Long before perfec
tion is in sight It will be plain that many an ancient
institution is doomed, and that daily life must yield
to a new principle. Shrinking from revolution, the
world resists the law.
All this is true, and the golden rule cannot be fully
established In force at once; and yet it is certain that
it Is the true law of Hfe, whose claim is not to be
evaded by any sophistications. Whether or not It Is
practicable to the full is a question for the future.
At present It certainly is far more practicable than
practised. It might be obeyed far more fully than it
is. If we refuse it the obedience that is possible now
on the ground that perfect obedience is not possible
now, we sin against light and treacherously evade a
plain duty. Jesus has shown us his Ideal for the
life that men live together, and we are Hving at a
time when It Is becoming plain as day that the prin
ciple of it would undo a thousand of our daily wrongs
and ills. The world is suffering for this very thing,
and the Christian Ideal calls us on. From our
Master and our brethren alike we receive the sum
mons to put forth our best endeavors toward bring
ing this prime law of justice Into full effect.

XII
WEALTH
I cannot trace the ideal of Jesus through its vari
ous applications in the common life of men, though
only by seeing it In some of its applications can we
really know It as it Is. By no study of that ideal in
the abstract can we see how broad and social it is,
how general and yet how particular, how searching
and yet how cheering. Some applications have al
ready been apparent, but I wish to show one more.
First and last he spoke a good deal about Wealth,
and about the rich and the poor. That certainly is
a perennial topic, and one that needs illumination
from his peculiar light to-day as urgently as any;
and so I am inclined to study here the sayings in
which he showed how his ideal bore upon this mat
ter. Not all students understand him alike on this
subject, and probably I cannot interpret him to the
satisfaction of all. But I am sure that there are
no teachings of his that admit us more freely into
the spirit of his kingdom than some of these, or show
more clearly what kind of blessing he wished to send
into the life of human society.
We must look for a moment at the background of
the picture, which we find In certain current notions
228

WEALTH 229
about the rich and the poor, characteristic of the
time and place.
Among the Jews, the poor were heirs at once to a
strange and sad contempt, and to a pecuhar hope.
On the one hand, Israel had long had a national
tradition of belief that the good were sure to prosper
in this life, and the bad would have no prosperity.
Men would get on in the world as they deserved.
The thirty-seventh psalm, while it contains some
beautiful expressions of pure religion, is the classical
passage in the Old Testament to this effect. The
behef that "they that are blessed of him shall inherit
the land, and they that are cursed of him shall be
cut off," and the confidence, " I have never seen the
righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread,"
had been a sincere attempt to solve the problem
of trouble and of human InequaHty. This stands
among the loyal but mistaken endeavors that men
have made to justify the ways of God. This view
of Hfe had been partly laid aside before the days of
Jesus, because it was found not to accord with the
facts, but it had left Its effect in the low estimation
In which the poor were held. Those who could show
no prosperity to attest the divine favor were more or
less under a cloud, especially in the esteem of the
prouder classes, to which the religious leaders mostly
belonged. Generations of poor people had lived un
der the shadow of the thought that they were poor
because they did not deserve to be rich. Yet, on the
other hand, in strange contrast to this, Israel had
from other scriptures another national tradition. It
was written that the poor were the special care of

230 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Jehovah, who was the God of the friendless and
unfortunate. Often In the Psalms he is invoked as
their helper, and responds with strong promises for
their encouragement. Hs is the God of the father
less and the widow. In spite of the doctrine that
blessed the prosperous In his name, there was a
deep-lying impression that God Is on the side of the
weaker party, so that "he that hath no helper" has
In him a friend who will not fail. Thus a pecuhar
mixture of contempt and favor was the portion of
the poor in the time of Jesus. It was in the common
thought that God must be against them, and yet in
another light he seemed to be their special friend.
In the same conditions, the rich were heirs In a
special degree to a false conceit of their own virtue.
Centuries of national decay had not wholly effaced
the vain pride fostered by the doctrine that pros
perity proves the divine favor. Of course the temp
tation to conceit and superciliousness followed. Their
wealth was precious as all wealth is, but It was gifted
with a more dangerously suggestive quality as a wit
ness to the approval of God. Of such a doctrine
self-righteousness is the sure fruit. Though this
theory of wealth had faded in part, Its influence
remained, in a pious enhancement of the respect
that was paid to the rich, and In their sense of deserv
ing it.
Jesus moved In such a world as this, and we have
to observe how he acted and spoke in it.
As to his personal position, he was neither rich nor
poor, but was more nearly poor than rich. The

WEALTH 231
statement of his poverty Is often exaggerated. He
and his associates were not in the poorest class or
anywhere near it. His position was lowly, but there
is no sign that it was one of want. He is called the
carpenter's son, and the carpenter, and the common
impression that he worked as a carpenter, is prob
ably correct. He was of the working class, but labor
was honored, not despised, and industry brought a
hving. His disciples were mainly of the same class
with himself, but some were better off. His saying,
"The Son of man hath not where to lay his head,"
does not mean that he was homeless all his days.
When he uttered these words he was a teacher who
could promise no fixed abode to his followers, having
none himself. "If you follow me now, you must
expect to be a wanderer." Apparently Jesus moved
among both classes, rich and poor, with equal free
dom. He visited the homes of rich men by invita
tion. At various times he was the guest of the pros
perous, and apparently welcome. At the same time
the story of his ministry is a consistent story of friend
liness to the poor.
When we come to his teaching, we find that he did
not address men primarily as rich or poor. Rightly,
too, for he was concerned with them all, and spoke
to them as men, handling themes that touched them
all ahke. His large and simple view of Hfe was
suited to the case of all men, and he could appeal to
them wherever he found them. His concern with
them as rich or poor was only a concern as to how
well they were fulfilling their destiny by doing their

232 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
duty to God and men. But this was the vital ques
tion, and he was entirely free In speaking to them as
rich or poor if he could help them here. To the
rich as rich he seems to have spoken most, and he
spoke in all faithfulness. He pointed out their re
sponsibilities and dangers, and he never showed the
slightest deference to their wealth, or to them as
holding it. To the poor he spoke according to their
condition, bringing them a tender heart and a mes
sage of divine kindness. He found the hearts of the
needy. Concerning himself he quoted from proph
ecy, " He hath anointed me to preach glad tidings to
the poor," and described his ministry by saying,
among other things, that "the poor have good tidings
preached to them." Perhaps the word poor was
broader in his meaning than it is in our common
speech; but what he meant was that he was bringing
the good news of sympathetic and helpful love to the
unfortunate whom men despised, and was thus ful
filling the ancient hope of the poor that God would
be their helper. So the poor heard his voice with a
tender and pathetic gladness, and out of the shadow
of an undeserved contempt many came into the light
of the kingdom of heaven.
Taking his conduct as a whole, we cannot see that
Jesus either commended or condemned riches or
poverty as necessarily involving a moral quality.
Neither class did he either court or shun. He spoke
severely and warningly to one class and comfortably
to the other, but he did not avoid the class that he
warned, or praise the class that he comforted. Both

WEALTH 233
were deemed worthy of his company and of his faith
ful counsels.
The utterances concerning wealth, and concerning
the rich and the poor, are found In the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke. At first sight it is surprising to
find that between Matthew and Luke there Is a re
markable difference of tone on the subject. The
Gospel of Luke is sometimes called the Gospel of the
poor. It contains the largest number of allusions to
them, and records the strongest words of good cheer
for their encouragement. It also contains warnings
of the rich as a class, which in Matthew do not ap
pear. Here alone stand the parables of warning to
rich men — the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Rich
Fool, the Dishonest Steward. Some sayings that in
Matthew bear another meaning appear in Luke with
keen edge against the rich. Matthew's beatitude,
" Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the king
dom of heaven," becomes in Luke, " Blessed are ye
poor, for yours Is the kingdom of heaven." Not
only so, but it Is matched by a woe, either of con
demnation or of pity, upon the opposite class: "But
woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your
consolation." In Hke manner the "hunger and
thirst after righteousness" of Matthew appears in
Luke as "hunger" — "Blessed are ye that hunger
now, for ye shall be filled"; and this again Is matched
by "Woe unto you that are full now, for ye shall
hunger." Thus we find differing testimonies attrib
uted to Jesus. We find a strong utterance against

234 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
the rich in one Gospel, which the compiler of another
Gospel had no idea of putting in.
It is Interesting to find the same divergent testi
monies In the writings of men who had learned of
Jesus. These two views of rich and poor appear In
the early church and run through the New Testa
ment. In fellowship with the Gospel of Luke stands
most decidedly the Epistle of James, and the same
tone sounds In the early chapters of the Acts of the
Apostles. In these writings the poor man appears to
have the advantage as a Christian, while the rich
man is more or less at a disadvantage because he
is rich. But the Gospel of Mark is of Hke effect
with Matthew on the point, and the latter part of the
Acts of the Apostles Is in the same company, while
the Epistles of Paul have no animus against the rich.
In this difference of feehng there is nothing to wonder
at, since there are reasons for it in human nature
and In the common relations of life; but It has often
been perplexing to find both feelings attributed to
Jesus himself. Whatever the opinions of his fol
lowers may have been, we should be glad to know
just what he said, and which sentiment truly rep
resents him. Was he as severe upon the rich as he
appears in Luke, or has that meaning been Inter
preted into his words by the feeling of his followers ?
It would be a satisfaction to know which form of the
beatitude of the poor is really characteristic of Jesus.
Efforts have been made to decide which form of
the beatitude was the original, but without very sat
isfactoty success. Reasons are given for both con-

WEALTH 235
elusions, but students have after all decided largely
in pursuance of their temperament or associations.
For my ovm part, I have not been able to see how
without a certain amount of partisanship I could
reach an opinion as to whether the original beatitude
was " Blessed are the poor In spirit," or " Blessed are
ye poor." So I am compelled to leave that his
torical question unanswered.
But really I do not suffer seriously from this in-
ablHty. If It were not for a single point, there would
be no trouble at all. The only difficulty is that the
two forms of the beatitude appear to be intended as
reports of one and the same utterance. The two
Gospels seem to be quoting the same thing, but
differ. But this need not surprise us or perplex us.
It Is not as if we were handhng documents that
promised perfect accuracy. This Is not the only
discrepancy of the kind that we have to deal with.
We are often meeting just such differences in the
Gospels, and by this time they ought not to trouble
us. If the two passages represent the same saying,
as apparently they do, one of the reports must have
been altered by reporter or compiler, or somewhere
between, and conformed to some one's understand
ing of the Master.
And If we still feel that we must know which was
the original saying, it must be said that so far as
our conception of Jesus and his ideal is concerned It
does not make so very much difference. Both say
ings may have fallen from his lips. Certainly the
Master may have said, "Blessed are the poor In

236 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"; and cer
tainly in some moods and connections the same
Master may have spoken comfortably to the literal
poor and said, " Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the
kingdom of God"; certainly, too, he may have
warned the rich that they may be having all their
comforts now, that their fulness Is but temporaty,
and their woe is coming if they continue In the rich
man's pride. He who said, " How hardly shall a rich
man enter the kingdom," may have said also, " But
woe to you that are rich, for ye have received your
consolation." In either instance the denunciation
does not go out so much against the fact of wealth as
against the temper of mind that wealth encourages.
Either of the two sayings corresponds to the ideal of
Jesus. They do not contradict each other in any
vital way, and he may perfectly well have uttered
them both. So I do not feel the need of great labor
to ascertain which was the original beatitude. I
should be glad to know, but for the Interpretation of
Jesus and his view of life it Is not absolutely neces
sary. Both represent the mind of the Master, each
in its own connection.
It was in his parables that Jesus spoke most
largely, and most plainly, about rich and poor and
the use of wealth. As to the parables of Jesus, It
has always been noticed that he makes much use of
analogies from nature to illustrate the life of man in
relation to God, and grateful recognition has always
been made of his testimony to the spiritual suggest-

WEALTH 237
iveness of the natural world. This view of his
words has not received too much attention, but suffi
cient notice has not been taken of the fact that he
has drawn more illustrations from human affairs
than he has from nature. Many of his parables
are simply human narratives, and some are stories
of business and industry. Some of them are as
secular as any stories can be, and some have the
use of money for their turning-point. And we have
no reason to assume that he used these worldly
narratives solely for Illustration of spiritual and
heavenly things. Money, for example, he does not
regard only as a symbol of eternal values. The
better we know him, the more certain we are that
he means to teach earthly lessons also.
Two habits of mind in Christian readers have
favored this misunderstanding. First the long habit
of reading everything in the Bible as technically
religious has made It seem almost Incredible that
Jesus talked about' the commonest matters of this
world's ethics. All must relate to what is known as
the religious life. Thus preoccupied, readers have
failed to see how much of this world's ordinary life
is touched in the words that He before them. And a
similar bhnding to facts has resulted from the long
habit of reading the Bible as a book of Indlvlduahsm
and not of society. The individual career and the
personal salvation have so filled the field of view that
readers have not lifted up their eyes to the social
horizon, or perceived how Jesus was working out
an ideal of salvation not only for the individual, but

238 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
for the world. When Christian readers can shake
themselves free from these preoccupations they will
better understand their Master.
One of the secular illustrations, thoroughly secu
lar, is found in the parable of the Talents, of which
that of the Pounds is apparently a variant. This
Is a stoty of the use of money, which might come
straight out of actual life. Certain slaves are in
trusted by their master with money in various
amounts, which they are to use in trade, according
to their own judgment and ability, to make gain for
him. Perhaps In such a case they might receive a
commission, but that does not appear in the parable.
Of course the qualities essential to success are good
judgment, diligence, and fidehty. The size of the
trust — ten talents, five, or one — is prominent in ap
pearance, but does not enter at all into the question
of the master's approval at the end. What is ap
proved and rewarded Is good, wise, practical use of
the money. What is condemned is the Irresponsi
ble spirit that shirks the task and finds excuses for it,
the laziness that ignores the trust and gets nothing
to show for it at last. Faithfulness and good man
agement meet their reward, while punishment falls
upon the indolent man who exerts himself only in
finding reasons for neglect of his duty.
Undoubtedly this Is intended to lUustrate the
trusts that are committed to men In connection with
the work of God's kingdom. But see how this
financial illustration represents them. If it pictures

WEALTH 239
them fairly, they must be practical trusts that can
not be fulfilled in thought or aspiration, but require
work of the liveliest order; and they must be social
trusts, to be wrought out not in solitude, but by wise
and strenuous endeavor among men. They require
far-sight, alertness, skill, and patience, just as the use
of money does. Thus the parable pictures the king
dom as a busy place, where men work with a will as
they do in making money. The King's business is
business. And at the same time the iUustratlon Is
in turn illustrated by the use that is made of it.
The kind of business life that Jesus would think
well of Is seen in the picture that he uses to teach a
lesson. He has pointed out with approval the kind
of qualities essential to the management of a finan
cial enterprise. He has illustrated his point by
showing wealth held as a trust for profitable use,
for which its holder will be called to give account;
and he conveys the impression that such a trust
ought to be administered by far-seeing, painstaking,
well-managed effort for the worthy fulfilment of the
end In view. He has not said in so many words
that wealth Is a trust from God, but his manner of
using the financial Illustration implies this lesson.
Wealth Is a trust for which account must be given;
the use that Is made of it is a test of those who have
it; the opportunity that it opens must be met in the
spirit that the parable commends; to evade the
giver's will and purpose Is failure in the work of
hfe; and Jesus' ideal of faithfulness, wisdom, and
steadfast purpose shines out in full brightness. He

240 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
would see men of wealth using it with all their vigor
for the Giver's ends.
In another parable his estimate of wealth and his
idea of the way to use it are brought out by contrast.
It is the parable of the Foolish Rich Man. The dis
course starts from a question of property, a hearer
having asked Jesus to bid his brother divide the
inheritance with him. Of the merits of the case we
know nothing, for Jesus ignores the request, on the
ground that such work does not belong to his office;
he is no judge or divider. But he seizes the oppor
tunity for a word of counsel. Beware, he says, of all
covetousness. What a man has Is not the main
point; not in the abundance of his possessions does
his life consist. Life devoted to possessions ends in
failure, and wealth that Is turned to no gracious
outlet soon proves its own worthlessness. See the
rich man with harvests too great for his storage.
He has enough for many years, and is satisfied and
comfortable, desiring nothing more. He thinks only
of himself, and counts only upon enjoying what
he has. Nothing is charged against him but this.
There is no hint of fraud or oppression in the getting
of his wealth. The earth has given him its harvests,
and he is simply the self-contented man, calling upon
himself to take his ease and his pleasure in his
abundance. His wealth has made him self-satisfied
and self-indulgent — that is all. But life ends. God
says to him, "Thou fool, this night Is thy soul re
quired of thee," and instantly all that he has drops

WEALTH 241
from worth to worthlessness. It is his no longer.
Whose shall it be ? any one's but his. At that sum
mons, sure to come, wealth loses all its value. The
trouble is, says Jesus, that the man has been laying
up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.
His seeking has been self-seeking, and he has turned
everything to self-indulgence. Jesus' way is for a
man to be rich toward God, heir to a spiritual value
in God's sight; and this he may do whether he Is
rich in this world or not. If he has the wealth of
this world and it does not help to make him rich
toward God through the use that he makes of It,
then he too is a foolish man, like the man in the
parable, and has gained nothing from all that he
possesses. If this man is regarded as holding his
wealth as a trust from God, then he certainly has
" digged in the earth and hid his Lord's money," and
has nothing to show for it. The selfish, thoughtless
rich of all ages, who know no use of their wealth
beyond their own enjoyment, and fancy that this
Is enough, here have the withering light of Jesus'
ideal turned upon them. Their alienation from that
ideal Is complete, and their failure is as sure as
death. Another parable carries the lesson one step further,
from self-indulgence to that selfish indifference to
others which is its natural companion. It is the
parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus; but if tides
were to be made appropriate it would be called the
parable of the rich man and the beggar.

242 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
This parable has one scene laid in the future Hfe,
and Christian readers have been so fascinated by this
glimpse of the unseen world that they have done
scant justice to the chief meaning. This is not a
parable of the future life, but of the present. The
reference to the future life is only Incidental to the
purpose of the story, and we have no reason to sup
pose that Jesus intended to draw plain pictures of
heaven and hell. He is talking about human rela
tions that exist here and now and are bound to bear
kindred fruit hereafter. The parable is one of the
plainest and sharpest utterances ever made concern
ing man's Inhumanity to man, encouraged by the
luxurious life of the wealthy. Through the sharpest
of contrasts his ideal of human fellowship and help
fulness comes out.
There is a rich man who lives self-indulgently and
splendidly. Unnoticed at his door lies a beggar,
longing for so much as even the crumbs from the
rich man's table. This rich man Is not accused of
dishonesty, or oppression, or avarice. His fault in
deed is not described in words: It Is only exhibited.
He lives alone in his glory, and is indifferent to
another's need, and even unaware of it, though it
lies plainly in his sight. Selfishness and luxury have
rendered him contentedly isolated from humanity.
This is aU; the rich man does not harm the beggar:
he is simply unaware of him.
But the scene changes. The beggar dies and
goes. In the care of angels, where all good Hebrews
hope to go. The rich man dies also, and to his sur-

WEALTH 243
prise finds himself In torments. He sees where the
beggar is, and cries out, begging himself, entreating
for even a drop of water, a moment's relief, to be
brought him by the man whom at his own table he
overlooked. But In vain. He is reminded that the
two have changed places. In his Hfetime he had
what he wanted while the beggar wished in vain,
but now the case Is reversed. Each is reaping his
harvest in kind. Moreover, they cannot change
places now or do anything for each other. The mis
sion of the water-carrier is impossible; the sufferer
must bear it — he cannot be helped out. And now,
in this lurid light of consequences, the story comes
back to this world, to end where It began, in human
life. The sufferer In the flame thinks of his five
brothers, still alive amid the old temptations of
wealth and luxury, and entreats that they may be
warned by the beggar sent back to earth, to avoid
the life that will bring them where he now Is. But
in vain again. He is told that there Is no need of
their coming to that place of torment, since they
have God's own teaching in Moses and the prophets.
A messenger from the dead would bring them no
new light or power, for their own Scriptures tell
them what kind of life will keep them out of hell.
It cannot be said that Jesus represents one man as
in torments because he was rich and the other in
Abraham's bosom because he was poor. Why the
rich man Is in torments we infer from the beginning
of the stoty, where he appears in selfish Isolation,
prevented by his love of luxuty from knowing that

244 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
another is in need. Why the poor man is in Abra
ham's bosom we are not told: we are only shown
that he is comforted there, whence we Infer that
he Is worthy of the comfort and belongs where com
fort is to be found. The lesson that the parable
does drive home with power Is that wealth brings
to its possessor a terrible opportunity and temptation
to be separate in Interest from his kind. If it absorbs
him in luxury and enjoyment, it isolates him. At
his princely table a man is apt to forget that there
are beggars, even though one is lying at his door.
If he knows that the beggars exist, still his luxury
may easily blind him to their necessities. Not that
a man needs to be rich to be thus alienated from
the human fraternity; but for the rich the tempta
tion is tremendous. The parable bears home the,
lesson, too, that such selfish alienation from one's
kind works hopeless misery. God's world is not a
world in which such Hfe can prosper. And it Is a
present-day lesson, uttered In a world where all who
hear it have light enough to show them the way of
human sympathy and help. Thus does Jesus cast
the revealing light of his ideal upon the sin of indif
ference to man, which wealth does so much to foster.
In the kingdom that he desires to bring, no man is
selfishly ahenated from his brother.
Another sharp lesson on the use of money meets
us In the parable of the Dishonest Steward. To this
parable many meanings have been attributed, and
yet it is intelligible enough when it is taken as a

WEALTH 245
simple story from real life, addressed to a real audi
ence to whom the conditions were familiar. It is
plain at a glance that it was Intended for reproof
and warning to certain rich men, but to what class
of rich men ? This Jesus himself decides for us, by
calling their possessions "the mammon of unright
eousness." This can only mean "unrighteous mam
mon," or wealth dishonestly obtained. Even with
out this phrase to guide us the meaning ought to be
plain; for, as all readers know. It is a dishonest trick
with money that the parable recounts and traces to
its end. So it is plain that Jesus was warning men
who had become rich unrighteously. It appears too,
as the story proceeds, that the men entertained some
idea of using their Ill-gotten wealth in the interest
of their own future welfare. Probably they thought
of doing good with it, or of devoting It to some
sacred service, in the hope that in the kingdom of
God, soon to be estabhshed, it would win them a
welcome. Somehow, at any rate, they had the Idea
of "making friends" by means of it, to serve their
own advantage in the future. The parable itself
provides this background for our understanding of it.
The story Is that a rich proprietor has let his land
on shares to tenants, and at the end of the season
they are to turn over to him his proportion of the
crops. They pay in kind. His steward, or manager,
who collects the rents, has been found guilty of some
wasteful mismanagement, and is told to make up his
accounts preparatory to vacating his office. He re
flects that he is too frail for hard work and too proud

246 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
to beg, and decides that he must do something to take
care of himself when his office is gone. He thinks
out a plan that suits him. Before making up his
accounts he goes around and asks each tenant how
much he is owing the proprietor as his share of the
year's crop. On getting the answer, by the author
ity that he still holds as manager, he tells each one
to report a smaller debt. This means, of course,
that he Is using the proprietor's authority to make
every tenant a present at the proprietor's expense.
He is well assured that none of them will report him
for this, for they will all profit by the trick; and he
calculates that In their gratitude for this relief they
will take him into their houses for a while and look
out for him until he can turn himself to some other
occupation. The proprietor finds out what he has
done, as of course he must, and cannot help praising
him for a shrewd rogue who has played a sharp trick.
Jesus thinks it a shrewd trick too; for, as he says,
that kind of people, children of this world, are
shrewder in their sphere of life than the children of
light are in theirs. The palm for smarmess goes to
the wicked.
After the story the application. "And I say unto
you, make to yourselves friends by means of the
mammon of unrighteousness; that when it shall fail,
they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles."
But of course this is ironical. When Jesus tells the
holders of dishonest money to do what the villain
in the story did, in hope of gaining what he had
sought, there is no other way to understand him; he

WEALTH 247
must be ironical. "Go, you holders of wealth that
you have gotten by fraud, go, and do likewise. You
are looking to the time when you will be wanting
a welcome in eternal dwelling-places. Very well, fol
low out your plan : trust your corrupt money to make
you friends against that time. Use your dishonest
gains with the idea of buying your welcome in the
kingdom of God — and perhaps you will find the wel
come waiting for you when you need it!"
The parable does not tell us all that we would hke
to know about riches basely gained. It does not
tell what positive use ought to be made of such pos
sessions, or answer the question whether "tainted
money" is capable or incapable of doing good in the
world. But that tainted money is bad money for its
owner, and that he must not expect to win into the
kingdom of heaven by using it for that purpose, it
does make very plain. The plan does not succeed,
even in the story; how much less, then, with God!
How unlovely, too, does such a plan appear when it
is portrayed as an actual thing in real Hfe! Call
things by their right names; call fraud fraud. Call
men by their right names too, and let them learn to
call themselves by their right names, and see them
selves as they are.
It may seem very little to say that the ideal of
Jesus here appears in clearness and power against
dishonesty In the gaining of wealth, and against all
hypocritical tricks to make base winnings serve the
final good of the winner. But it is not so Httle,
after all. These are perfectly proper things for the

248 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
high-minded Jesus to denounce. The implied warn
ings, too, are all worthy of him. In all gaining of
money there is dreadful opportunity of falling into
some dishonest method through keen self-interest.
If the men who know this temptation by experience
could be counted up, they would be numerous enough
to vindicate the Master a thousand times for uttering
this parable. And when wrong has been done, there
is often temptation somehow to carry It off by high
professions, and cover it up under later good inten
tions, and hope that after all it may do no final harm
or may even be turned to good. The parable serves
a world-wide and age-long purpose as a vigorous ex
pression of the high standard of cleanness and honor
that Jesus would have all men hold respecting money.
All the synoptics tell how little children were
brought to Jesus for his blessing, and how he said
that the kingdom of God must be received In the
spirit of a little child; and immediately after this they
all tell of the rich young man who ran eagerly to ques
tion Jesus but turned sadly away. We have met him
before in this study, but he comes to us here again,
and through him the Master gives us a lesson on our
present topic. He has kept the commandments,
but is not satisfied; something has stirred a deeper
longing, and whatever more must be done to obtain
eternal life he feels himself ready to do. He touches
the Master's heart by his sincerity and his high pos
sibiHties, but he cannot be received as he is. Even
the external conditions are against it. The Ideal of

WEALTH 249
Hfe for the Httle group about Jesus will not admit
him. If he "follows" with his wealth stiU in his
hands, he will seem both to himself and to the others
to be unlike the rest, and if he spends freely for the
support of the company, the characteristic type of
Its life will be gone, while if he does not the rest will
complain of him as miserly. In that group there is
no place for a rich man, for he cannot really take
the place of a disciple just Hke all the rest, following
Jesus only. So when he asks, "What lack I yet?"
it is nothing strange that Jesus answers, " Sell every
thing, give the money to the poor, and then come
and be my follower." But the test shows that the
external difficulty is not the greatest. It reveals the
man himself as Incapable of the necessary act. He
has great wealth, which he loves and cannot bring
himself to part with. "His countenance fell at that
saying, and he went away sorrowful; for he was one
that had great possessions."
In his comment Jesus has nothing to say about the
external conditions, but goes straight to the moral
difficulty within. "With what difficulty shall a rich
man enter the kingdom of God ! " It is impossible.
This young man most vividly illustrates the impos-
slbihty. It ought to be needless to say that by the
kingdom of God here is not meant a future heaven :
it means the Hfe that here and now responds to the
dominion of God's will. He could not enter, be
cause his riches were too nearly a part of him; he
took his temper from them; they determined what
kind of Hfe he must live; he was not ready to detach

250 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
himself from them and become a simple disciple
to Jesus and an equal brother to poor men. The
kingdom was of one temper and he of another. As
this rich man could not enter, so it naturally would
be with any rich man; the spirit of devotion to
wealth was incompatible with the lowly and unselfish
spirit of the kingdom. This was news to the disci
ples, who had never met the question before, and it
is no wonder that they asked in amazement, "Who,
then, can be saved ? " But though Jesus admitted
that to God even this great change was possible, he
asserted still that so far as human considerations go
it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of God. The two tempers are irreconcilable.
If we accept a very probable textual reading, we
have in the second Gospel a still more searching
statement of this great difficulty. After he has said,
" How hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of God!" and the disciples have expressed their
amazement, Jesus adds with sad emphasis, "Chil
dren, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!"
The difficulty is not all due to riches: it is the great
human difficulty, exhibited by the rich in its extreme
form, but common to man. The kingdom is hard to
enter. The temper of pride — self-sufficiency and un-
brotherly Isolation — ^is a human temper, race-wide, and
It is a bar that must be removed before the kingdom
can be entered. The trouble with wealth is that it
gives the greatest opportunity to this anti-Christian
spirit. So the young man as an object-lesson con
cerning wealth gives warning to all mankind. The

WEALTH 251
meaning is not that money is necessarily an enemy
to God and cannot be used for him. It is that
the money ideal and the Ideal of God are incom
patible, and it Is only by being cured of his devotion
to the one that a man can become loyal to the other.
There is a single word that expresses much of
Jesus' judgment concerning wealth. In the inter
pretation of the parable of the Sower, among the
forces that correspond to thorn-roots in the soil
choking the growth of the good seed. Is counted
"the deceitfulness of riches." Here is a quahty that
goes far to justify the various warnings. Among the
dangers of wealth Is its power to blind men to its
dangers and mislead them by its promises. Wealth
is the greatest of self-commenders, and it often lures
men on by painting a future which It cannot create.
It seems good to have, and in many respects, of
course, it is good to have. But it promises useful
ness that it does not bring forth. It encourages
gracious motives to remain In its company, and
promises them large exercise, but represses them
when It has got the power. It proposes to a man
that he shall be its master, but it becomes his mas
ter, and holds tyrannical power over him by becom
ing a necessity to him and imposing upon him a
thousand new necessities. It persuades a man to
justify the self-indulgence into which it leads him
and the selfish Isolation from humanity which it
promotes. It encourages Its owner in manifold self-
deception as to his own heart. It does not do all

252 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
this for evety one who holds it, but this deceitfulness
belongs to it, and the opportunity stands wide open.
Moreover, to the deceitfulness of wealth It is not
necessary that one should possess It. It deceives the
poor as well as the rich. By an attractiveness that
conceals the moral dangers it often corrupts those
who do not possess It. It makes them in love with
false and Injurious standards of Hfe. It convinces a
seeker for it that he is specially exempt from the per
ils of the seeking. It stands as an end, and claims
to justify many an unworthy and sinful means. All
this, of course, Jesus did not specify, but long experi
ence has shovsm that he did well to speak warningly of
"the deceitfulness of riches." Devotion to wealth,
as an object In life, stands In contrast to his ideal of
clear straightforwardness In seeking a high end.
On the other hand, it is to be noticed that Jesus
never utters any warning against the perils of pov
erty. No Gospel represents him as dwelling on the
spiritual dangers of the poor. While the rich are
barred from the kingdom in so far as they are gov
erned by self-satisfaction and unbrotherly Isolation
from men, he conceives of the poor as prepared In
some degree for the kingdom by their comparative
simplicity of heart and freedom from false self-
estimate. Yet there are grave moral dangers for
the poor, as he must have known. Poverty not only
works injury through limitation and the loss of valu
able opportunities, but it brings Its temptations
to envy and bitterness of spirit, and to unworthy
efforts to better one's condition. But Jesus seems to

WEALTH 253
have considered the harm wrought by poverty less
grounded in the will than that which is wrought by
wealth, and the poor, consequently, less In need of
warning than the rich.
Twice — though one of the cases was as far as pos
sible from that of wealth — Jesus saw persons using
their possessions in ways that he could warmly com
mend. There was a poor widow who cast Into the
temple treasury her contribution for the divine ser
vice. It was the least of the offerings that were made,
and the gifts of the rich burled it in the box; but he
declared it to be the greatest gift of them all. It
was the greatest In proportion to what the giver had,
and it represented the largest and freest impulse to
give. In the most of the offerings there was no self-
sacrifice at all, but this one had self-sacrifice for its
very life. So the spirit that inspired it was identical
with the spirit of the kingdom of God. Here was
not only giving, but self-giving. The clear eye of
Jesus saw beauty where ordinary eyes saw an ordi
nary gift of trifling consequence, and he bore testi
mony to the value of such generosity. When money
was given for a good use he would see it given
freely. In a spirit that did not closely count the cost.
Gifts out of superfluity had no beauty in comparison
with gifts out of necessity, bestowed because the
heart would offer them.
In very different conditions a similar lesson came
out again. At Bethany, just before the end of his
life, a woman brought a flask of ointment intended

254 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
for the toilet, very costly, broke it, and poured the
ointment upon his head. His disciples, utilitarian to
the core, thought this sinfully extravagant, since the
ointment might have brought enough to give large
help to the poor. But Jesus felt the real meaning
of the act. What had happened was not merely the
outpouring of ointment; it was an outpouring of the
heart. The act was a giving of value for love's sake,
going beyond the range of ordinary reasons. There
was a fine impulsiveness about it that Jesus recog
nized with joy, a beautiful generosity that counted
nothing too fine to be used for the heart's satisfac
tion. The outburst of a freely giving spirit dehghted
him. He had a welcome too for the insight that
would discern an opportunity of love, and the zeal
that would seize it. This was the only moment.
Kindness to the poor was a part of the ordinary life,
to be counted upon as a matter of course in the
common round; but his own presence with those
who loved him was temporary, and now was near
its end. Here was a loving heart that dimly fore
saw the end, and could not hold back Its costly
tribute. Others might condemn, Jesus would con
gratulate. If we follow his leading here we shall
see that his ideal has room for a glad Impulsiveness
In the gracious use of one's possessions, as well as
for a well-directed judgment. Freeness has beauty
in his sight. This is no new lesson indeed, for
the good Samaritan Is represented as rushing to his
helpful work, with good judgment and yet with a
generous zest. If a man has something that he can

WEALTH 255
use beyond himself, Jesus would see him not Its
slave, but its master, not narrowed by it Into a cal
culator of how Htde he may do, but pouring it out
generously at his ovm strong impulse. Apparently
he would be quite wilHng that a free heart should
sometimes be run away with by Its eagerness to bless.
Better too much than too httle.
To sum up in a statement or two what Jesus has
said about wealth is no easy matter. Many have
thought that he condemned the holding of property
altogether; but it does not seem likely that in the
long run this will be understood to have been his
Intention. Probably property-holding in itself will
stand the test of his judgment. But of course it
must be added that when his ideal comes to have
due Influence property-holding will be a very differ
ent thing from what it is now. His influence would
bring It under the control of righteousness and
brotherhood, required both by sound ethics and by
the Christian mind. It seems more like Christ that
the Ideal of righteousness and brotherhood should
be attained through learning the right use of wealth
than through the abolition of it.
We may ask whether Jesus must be understood
to condemn vast fortunes and the owners of them.
No, not directly. He condemns no man for what
he Is not guilty of, and certainly not every possessor
of a vast fortune Is to be blamed for having it.
Even if it be true that in the accumulation of evety
vast fortune there has been something wrong, still It

256 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
is not all the fault of the one man who holds the
fortune. It may be partly his fault, but it may be
partly the fault of other men, and it is largely the
fault of what we call the system, the prevailing order
of life, which is chargeable to the mingled good and
evil of human nature. But we must not doubt for
a moment that the spirit of Jesus disapproves an
order of life in which the accumulation of vast for
tunes is provided for, and stands as a natural and
normal thing. His ideal would not tolerate condi
tions that work out by their own nature into so
unequal a distribution of property. A thoroughly
Christian world would be unlike the present order
on both sides; there would be none so poor and none
so rich as there are now. Christ inspiring a social
order would maintain a better equality, and would
do it not through some artificial and formal recon
struction, but through the steady and effective work
ing of the Christian motives.
But the moral effect of Jesus' teaching about
wealth Is plain enough. He does not assert that
wealth is by everlasting necessity inconsistent with
his ideal, but he does represent that wealth is fitted
by its nature to be an active foe of his ideal, and
bids men beware of allowing it to do Its hostile work.
He declares that the ordinary spirit of a rich man,
devoted to his wealth and governed by it, is incom
patible with the spirit that the kingdom of God
requires. He throws strong light upon the man
ner in which wealth may render a man selfish, self-
indulgent, self-satisfied, and Indifferent to his feUows.

WEALTH 257
In the golden rule he sets up a standard of Hfe of
which wealth easily tends to make men oblivious;
and in his insistence upon human value he enters
another field in which wealth, ignoring the worth
of men, is apt to be a power of wrong. He points
out the deceitfulness by which wealth blinds men
to its dangers. In his teaching as a whole, wealth
appears as a powerful solicitor to the lowering of
the high aim and the abandonment of the ideal of the
kingdom. The judgment that declares a rich man unable to
enter the kingdom is not final, however, because to
God all things are possible. Divine grace, which
can work wonders, can overcome this human im-
possibihty and Impart a spirit that will master the
temptation and hold wealth in the spirit of the king
dom. It becomes all who are tempted by money
In any way to seek the dominion of this new spir
it, for certainly Jesus exhibits the fact of wealth in
the world as a manifold menace to his ideal and
peril to the souls of men. He makes us feel that it
is easier for a man's character to be ruined by
wealth than by poverty, and easier for wealth to
ruin its possessor than to make him a blessing. He
has not spoken of wealthy Christians, but we come
away from his teaching with the impression that if
a man is to prosper as a Christian while he is rich
he must needs have a double portion of the spirit
of God. Wealth can be used for the kingdom, and
in the spirit of the kingdom, and is a necessaty in
strument for some parts of the kingdom's work; but

258 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
there are mighty powers enlisted against Its best use
fulness, and only through fulness of Christian grace
can Its good work be done. The hope is that the
redemptive power of God will win the victory over
the hostile force and convert wealth into a friend.
The spirit of Jesus certainly has nothing but con
demnation for that great wave of money-love which
has swept over Christendom In our time, affecting
all classes of the people. It has fostered self-indul
gence, brightened the charm of luxury, added to the
zest of fashion, reinforced the Impulse to gambling,
stimulated depraved appetites, corrupted business
and politics, brought in new varieties of crime,
oppressed the poor, deepened the bondage of exces
sive labor, increased the alienation of social classes,
materiahzed the popular ideals, weakened religious
influences, and made heavenly things seem far away.
From this craze of the love of money the voice of
Jesus calls the people back to the sane life in ethics
and religion In which he is leader.

XIII
CHRISTIANITY
The ideal of Jesus sounds out in his words and
deeds, and we have listened to him long enough to
understand of what sort it is. I have not been
anxious to gather in every utterance that might help
to complete the story, for that seemed neither pos
sible nor necessary. But I have tried so to interpret
his testimony as to present in the large a true Im
pression of what he was minded to offer to the world.
Incomplete though the work has been, I feel that
enough has passed before us to show what man
ner of ideal for human Hfe and destiny Jesus
had at heart. Imperfectly, but really, we can see
what conception of the highest good he left in the
world, to be wrought out in experience. I have not
gathered It up into a summary statement, because I
was waiting to use it at this point for a practical
purpose. Now, after nineteen centuries, the Christian peo
ple are inquiring once again, more eagerly than ever,
what Christianity really is. I propose that in the
light of the study that we have made we ask Jesus
himself to interpret Christianity for us. He cer
tainly is the one to ask. We will gather up his ideal
259

260 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
as well as we can Into unity of expression, and in
quire in the light of it what his permanent gift to
the world appears to be. Christianity exists among
us and within us, a great complex fact, which has
come down to us through ages from him, and we
desire to understand it better in order that we may
do It better justice. Our own life is waiting, and
the world Is waiting, for us to find out just what it is.
Ask the Master himself. Look at his own ideal and
judge from that what Christianity must be.
The search is often prosecuted In another way,
not so good as this. It is a common practice to
study Christianity as we observe it, and try to gather
the sum of it into a single definition. The defining
of Christianity Is an enterprise upon which many
have labored. I have tried the experiment more
than once, in the hope that In some single statement
I might be able to set forth the essence of Chris
tianity — a favorite name for that which we are seek
ing. But I have always found two difficulties that
I could not overcome. One was that in any compact
expression that I might frame very much had to be
implied which I had no room to express, but which
needed to be expressed if I was to make a good defi
nition. I could not get it all In. My brief clauses
rested on unseen foundations, which, however, were
too essential to the purpose to be left unseen. This
is a difficulty that all defining is liable to encounter,
but in the present case it assumed such proportions
as to defeat the entire attempt. It means that from

CHRISTIANITY 261
the interior nature of the case a satisfactory single
definition is impossible: Christianity contains too
much to be gathered Up in a definition. If I con
fine myself to its pecuHarities or special points, I
omit the underlying principles, without which they
are not properly accounted for; but if I fill my state
ment with the underlying principles, I cannot set the
peculiarities of Christianity in the right perspective.
If I try to include the whole, my statement becomes
too large and cumbrous to serve the purpose of a
definition. I encountered a similar difficulty in defining Chris
tianity when It was viewed in a more external light.
It is a jewel of many facets. It appeals to various
minds in various ways, and in differing conditions
it takes forms that cannot all be justly represented
by a single statement. If I framed a definition and
tried to test it by comparing it with facts, I kept
finding expressions or aspects of Christianity to
which it did not well apply, or for which it did not
make sufficient provision. There were sure to be
Christians who would not recognize what I set be
fore them. I felt certain that I must have thought
out only a provincial definition; another man might
make another equally good and equally defective.
In its actual development Christianity is too large
and various a thing to be sufficiently characterized
by any single statement. Even if I discern Its cen
tral characteristic aright, that by itself is not suffi
cient to form a definition.
So, after many experiments, I finally gave over the

262 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
attempt. I must report, too, that what I discovered
in my own experience has been confirmed by my
observation of other men's work. Many beautiful
and enlightening expressions have been reached in
the effort to define Christianity, and some of them
arfe very dear to me, but as definitions they are dis
appointing. Either they leave implied much that
needs to be expressed if a definition Is to serve its
purpose, or they present some one aspect of Chris
tianity and do injustice to others equally Important.
The result of it all has been that I have ceased to
expect justice to be done to Christianity by a defini
tion. It is wise and profitable to multiply descrip
tive statements, and to make them as correct and
rich and comprehensive as possible, for these may
finely commend it, calling attention to its manifold
truth and beauty; but It Is hopeless to attempt to
gather the whole great meaning into a sentence or a
group of phrases.
I am glad, therefore, to be engaged in a study that
suggests another method. We have been listening
to Jesus; now we will ask him what Christianity is.
We will project the lines from his ideal and see what
they enclose. We will question his large view of life
as to what the religion is that came forth from him.
He never talked of any religion at all, as we name it,
coming forth from him, but one did come forth, and
in his large utterance of the best that he knew and
the best that he desired he has given us means of
judging what It is. If we are deeply in doubt as to
its nature, it is because we have not sufficiendy

CHRISTIANITY 263
consulted the Master — or if we have consulted
him, we have not heard him through when he
answered us.
The present question, therefore, is. What, judging
from what we have learned to be the ideal of Jesus,
shall we say that Christianity is ?
If we follow the Hnes of the Ideal of Jesus, we
shall have no difficulty In seeing that Christianity,
springing from him. Is first of all a hfe. It is a hfe
as good as life can be made, in all the three great
relations, namely, toward God, in one's self, and
toward other men.
The most striking fact about the ideal of Jesus is
that it is so thoroughly a vital and practical Ideal.
It is a working ideal, to be realized by living men
in real character and conduct. It is no dream, no
poetical fancy, no vision in the clouds. If Jesus
walks with his head In the heavens, his feet are
always on the earth. His ideal is as present and
practical as an Ideal of perfection in a handicraft.
His work has no place except in Hfe. We cannot
have studied his utterances without being aware of
this. He does not even teach men a doctrine of
Hfe: he simply teaches them to live. This is a clear
and unquestionable deduction from all that we have
been studying about what he said and did. Was
it not always his aim to give men principles to act
upon, and inspire heart and will to action ? Was it
not his purpose that truth in the Inward parts should
work Itself out in all virtue and godliness, righteous-

264 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
ness, and helpful work ? What he had in view was
action, living response, the soul at work.
Look back at what we have already seen in this
study. When we looked at the picture of the high
aim that was shown us in his temptation and his
ministry, we beheld Jesus himself as a living soul,
meeting the facts of life, living in the midst of
them as God's own Son, and winning a concrete
victory on the field of life. When he spoke of the
kingdom of God, he spoke of a spirit and manner
of life that was entering this present world, to trans
form personal character, to make religion vital, and
to fill society with self-devoting service. When he
discoursed of righteousness, he did not lay down a
doctrine of its nature or give scholastic instruction
about the way to obtain it: he spoke to living men
who needed it but had false ideas of It, and told
them what character it consisted In, and in what
kind of conduct they must put It in practice.
When he talked of love to God and the neighbor,
he was not laying down a doctrine, but was pro
claiming the spirit in which men must needs live in
the secret heart and in the open daylight, In the
hour of prayer and in the day of neighborly service.
When he expounded the filial life with God as
Father, he was simply exhibiting the normal Hfe of
man in its eternal connection with divine reality,
and bringing supreme fulness into the daily round.
When he gave counsel concerning deliverance from
evil, and offered It to men, of course he was deaHng
with nothing else than actual life; he touched it

CHRISTIANITY 265
even more closely and deeply than if he had spoken
of the heahng of disease. When he instructed his
friends about the Hberty of the sons of God, he was
not giving them a doctrine of liberty, but was actually
setting live men free from the bondage of dead institu
tions and false authorities. It is from his imparta
tlon of the fact of liberty that we draw a doctrine
of liberty. When he taught the principle of human
value, and Insisted upon justice in human dealings,
he was teaching men how to live together, and ele
vating their life by the breath of the highest. In all
that he said of wealth, and of the rich and the poor,
he was working on the plane of the common world,
dealing with tangible things, warning against vital
temptations, giving object-lessons of daily hving.'
In all his teaching he was teaching men to live, and
by his bringing near of the reign of God he was
Inspiring them to live, offering the grace of God as
the source and support of the Hfe to which he would
lead them.
If this is Jesus, then any religion that comes forth
from him will be, first of all, a life — not primarily a
doctrine or an Institution, but a life of real men in
their real relations. We need not have gone back
to his ideal for support of such a statement, however,
for religion is life. Other things are true of it, but
in its very nature all real religion is a living, experi
mental thing; no hfe, no religion. He could not
send forth a religion that was not a Hfe. Yet the
appeal to the ideal of Jesus Is most valuable, for it
places it beyond question that if we wish to under-

266 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
stand, Christianity we must approach it with the
conception of life at the front. It will have its doc
trines, but they are expositions of the life and of
what It ImpHes. It will have its institutions, but
they are servants of the life, just as the Sabbath was
made for man. But the Hfe itself will be the central
fact.
' In briefly describing the quahty of the life that
forms the heart of Christianity, I just now called it
life as good as life can be made. I do not know
how to set forth the broad and high intent of Jesus
any better. If we follow discerningly through his
I teaching we shall say that he counts upon making
life the best that life can be — ^the best to-day that
is possible to-day, and the best that Is possible at
all when all is done. For this he makes provision.
'The life that he tells of is a hfe of man in God, and
the divine paternity sustains it as a holy life, the
Father's character pouring its quahty Into the sons.
God's own perfection is the type of it, and the impel
ling power. So the central principle provides for
goodness of any and every kind, and makes good
ness the goal and expectation of every child of God.
This quality In the ideal and counsel of Jesus has
never been disputed: Jesus aimed to make good men;
so does Christianity. Good men living well the best
life — this is the aim of the religion that comes forth
from Jesus.
I said also, In my brief summary statement, that
this life, which is as good as life can be made. Is

CHRISTIANITY 267
life In all the three great relations. There are just
three great relations that make up life for every man,
and we cannot have studied the Ideal of Jesus with
out perceiving how wonderfully he makes provision
for them all. In the hfe that he lives a man Is related
to God, to himself, and to other men. There are no
other relations to be counted; these make up hfe.
Now, the life that Jesus sets forth is life in each and
all of these relations, and in each of them It is the
best Hfe that can be. Jesus has not spoken of this
in scholastic terms or proposed this analysis of life.
But if we have followed attentively through the study
of his words we have heard him tell most clearly and
impressively how a man must live with God, how
he must live in himself, and how he must live in his
relation with his fellow-men. And we know that
when we are studying life In these three relations that
Jesus described we are studying the life that is
characteristic of Christianity, since Christianity is
his. The life that his Ideal sets forth is the Hfe in
which Christianity as a fact In the world consists.
Therefore, In order to represent Christianity aright,
we must summarize the testimony of Jesus respect
ing the true life In the three great relations.
Toward God, it Is a hfe of filial trust and loyalty,
the life of a child in the divine family. It is a hfe
in which a man trusts the grace of God to dehver
him from evil, and labors with it loyally to that end.
A life of undying fidelity to God the Father and the
Lord; of love to him because he is supremely wor
thy; of love that finds expression not merely or

268 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
mainly in worship or admiration, but more in delight
in all outworkings of his character and consecration
to the doing of his will. A life in which the Fath
er's character is welcomed as one's inheritance, the
Father's presence Is light and joy, and the Father's
will is the chosen good. It is a Hfe of liberty under
God's sole lordship, and one in which the free effort
of the entire man goes out toward living in the
Father's character. Such Is Jesus' ideal of the life
with God. Thus he lived himself.
In one's self, it is a life of simple and genuine good
ness. It Is a life from above, not born of this world
though It is truly human, but offspring of God the
Saviour of' men. A life of dehverance from sin
through God's free grace and one's own strong
striving. A life simple, lowly, sincere, genuine. In
which there Is no pretence but honest reality before
God, and virtue is one's own. A life not governed
by external rules that dictate and must be obeyed,
but directed by inward principles that control and
affections that inspire. In one's self, by a most
blessed paradox, it Is a life in which self is least:
it Is devoted to ends without one's self. In the realm
where selfishness does not rule. A life, as Jesus him
self illustrates, in which self-consciousness is scarcely
more than a means to something better, and aspira
tion in one's own behalf is but a minor thing, and
the self with all that it Includes is at the disposal of
God and men. Here is its true Innermost: it has
learned from the cross-bearing Christ the lesson of
the burden-bearing God, and seeks to bear his Hke-

CHRISTIANITY 269
ness. This sympathy with the redeeming heart of
God is the highest goodness. Such Is Jesus' ideal
of the life that a man should live In himself.
Toward other men, we see at once. If we follow on.
It is a life of love and of the helpfulness of love, ani
mated by eager desire to do good and the highest
good. A life unselfish and self-sacrificing, in fellow
ship with him who came not to be ministered unto,
but to minister; hence a life of strong social im
pulse and service. A life aglow with the sense of
human value in sympathy with Jesus, and quick to
recognize and act upon it in all relations; responsive
to the call of justice; irrepressible in the spirit of
help. A life not narrow or short-sighted, but broad
in its inclusion of the many kinds of helpfulness and
means of doing good. A life whose impulses recog
nize the identity of the call of men with the call of
God and Christ, and whose vital breath is outgoing
love. In it divine forgiveness, cleansing from sin,
the uplift of hope, and the personal welfare and vic
toty are all precious for their own sake, but precious
also and still more because they release and empower
the soul for fellow-workmanship with God In saving
men and bringing In the kingdom of his righteous
ness. Such is Jesus' ideal of the life that one should
Hve in relation to other men. Thus he lived and died.
It is thus a Hfe of union and fellowship with God
and his Christ in all goodness of character, and in
self-devotion to the good of men. In it the redeem
ing work of Christ has become not only a means of
personal salvation, but a revelation of God in heaven

270 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
and a mastering inspiration for service on earth. It
follows the King who has gone to his throne through
sacrifice. And in everything it is a life of high and
steadfast aim, held unswervingly from first to last,
in the face ahke of threatening and allurement, of hfe
and death.
I think this Is a fair description of the life that
Jesus has portrayed for us as his ideal. We know
that Christianity is a life, and one that corresponds
to the Ideal of its Founder; wherefore we may be
sure that we are now in the way of finding out what
it really is. If we sum up this testimony of Jesus,
we shall say that Christianity is a life, toward God
of filial trust and loyalty, in one's self of genuine
goodness, and toward men of self-sacrificing helpful
ness, the inner principle being fellowship with God,
who loves that he may save. This Is not a definition
of Christianity, but I offer It as a statement of the
essential nature of Christianity. It has been derived
from no source but the Lord Jesus Christ himself,
and it is a fair summary of his testimony. It Is so
true that we cannot conceive of replacing it by any
other statement differing radically from It. If at
heart Christianity is something different from this,
then our sources of knowledge concerning it are alto
gether misleading. It is safe, therefore, to affirm
that the vital quality of Christianity has here been
truly set forth. This is the ideal that filled the soul
of Jesus: this Is the ideal that he cast forth into the
world for men to learn and live by. And our ac
count of it Is not complete until we have said that

CHRISTIANITY 271
Jesus gave it forth as a gift of almighty God, that
the realizing of it in human life is the enterprise of
God, and that the power by which the new life is to
be produced, maintained, and completed is the gra-
. clous power of God. Christianity Is of God, and
God is in Christianity.
In the comprehensiveness and completeness of this
ideal of Jesus we find a lesson concerning the range
and scope of Christianity. If It corresponds to the
ideal of Jesus, Christianity Is no fractional thing,
applying only to some part of life. It covers the
whole. All parts, aspects, and qualities of human
life are included here. Jesus has spoken to us con
cerning the living of man with God, or the religious
life. He has spoken of Individual character and
conduct, or the ethical life in the personal field. He
has spoken, too, of the living of man in relation with
his fellows, or the social life. He has gathered these
three into an effective moral unity, pervading them
all with a single character and motive, making suc
cess in each essential to success in the others. His
ideal Hfe is a life that is totally Christian, Christian
throughout. All its standards are Christian, and all
its activities are inspired by the Christian heart and
mind. There are no omitted places. He sees life
whole, and designs to make it whole. Christian alto
gether. We do injustice, therefore, to him and his
religion if we ever think of Christianity as a stream
flowing through the field of life, or as a department
of our existence, or as an influence that Is intended

272 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
to affect a certain part of our character and conduct.
Vety often It has been represented so; the name
Christian has been confined to that which is dis
tinctly and technically religious. Once for all we
must drop that usage and habit of thought if we are
to follow the Ideal of Jesus. When we have learned
of him we shall think of Christianity as a power that
penetrates and transforms the whole of life. All
character Is to be Christian character, all activities
are to become Christian activities. No longer is
any part of life secular as contrasted with sacred,
for the secular is sacred ; no longer Is any part ethical
as distinct from religious, for the ethical is religious;
no longer Is any part exempt from the one all-per
vading quality and power. Life is not divided; now
alone has it become one.
The Ideal of Jesus shows us with equal clearness
that Christianity is no fractional thing with refer
ence to Its relation to the human race. As life is
not divided, so neither Is humanity. In the thought
of God It is sent forth as his gift to all men. We
cannot think otherwise when we compare the life
that Jesus has portrayed with human nature. The
truth is that the ideal of Jesus represents the normal
human life. This is the life to which man is adapted,
and in which his natural destiny can be attained.
Life rightly and happily grounded in God, life full of
all goodness in itself, life unselfishly devoted to the
good of all — there is nothing better than this: this
is the ideal and normal human existence. Life is
not normal with any part of this left out. This is as

CHRISTIANITY 273
good for one man as for another, and for one tribe
or nation as for another. It is not good for any part
of humanity to be without It. Bent upon lower aims
and cherishing lower tastes, men may often think
they want something else, but what they really want
is the religion, the character and the consecration
that Christianity proposes . The Christianity of Jesus
is universal In its adaptation. But we know that a
God who has provided a gift of normality for his
creatures cannot have provided It with merely a frac
tion of them In his mind. He has not divided the
race of man into parts, and determined that only
a fraction of them can be allowed to have the gift.
God means Christianity impartially; that which he
has adapted to all men he has addressed to all men.
"God so loved the world." It is therefore no inci
dental fact that Christianity Is a missionary religion.
The impulse to extend itself and impart itself is of
its vety life. They who have received so inestimable
a gift of God and have no Impulse to bring the same
to others have not really received It for what it is,
but have misunderstood it; they have discerned some
of Its points, but Its great vital point they have not
seen. When Christianity is rightly grasped, there
is no need of special commands to create misslonaty
duty. The missionary impulse is of Christianity
itself The normal religion for mankind cannot be
t In a corner.

Native to Christianity is the Impulse to do good of
evety kind to men of every kind. We have been

274 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
speaking of the two great unities, unity of life and
unity of mankind, that are contemplated in the ideal
of Jesus. In the same ideal these two are blended
in a great unity of fellowship and help, world-wide In
its range, and wide as human need in its variety.
All kinds of service for the good of mankind are con
templated by Christianity, suggested by the Chris
tian motive, and fostered by Christian influence.
This has not always been perceived or believed in,
and works of help for humanity have often been
divided into classes and reckoned as Christian and
non-Christian; but it Is only by misunderstanding
that they can be classified thus. Christianity is the
parent and impeller of effort of evety kind to do
good to men. Nothing human is foreign to its
heart. The absolute universality of its field of use
fulness cannot be denied or doubted if our judgment
is guided by the Ideal of Jesus. Christians have no
right to look askance at any endeavor to do good to
men, as if it were not of their kin and company.
Christian fellowship has often been taken to be fel
lowship in doctrinal belief, or even In churchly prac
tice. Better far, it has been found in experience of
the great salvation, in common prayer and praise,
in mutual affection. In one faith on earth and one
hope of heaven. This is all genuine, but the fellow
ship that is most profoundly Christian Is fellowship
with Jesus In the spirit and practice of doing good.
Christians are in deepest fellowship when they are
comrades of the cross with Christ and one another,
in self-sacrificing usefulness. It Is on the cross that

CHRISTIANITY 275
Jesus shows us what his spirit Is, and the cross is
not only the symbol of self-giving love, but the sum
mons to fellowship in the same.
The hfe that thus constitutes Christianity is a
life of salvation; that is to say, it Is a life of
human beings who have been and are being saved
by God out of evil into the goodness for which
they were created. It is a life in which such sal
vation is going on, and in which salvation gives its
tone of joy and hope and power to the common ex
perience. I have said that whoever looks at the ordinaty Hfe
of mankind and then at the ideal life according to
Jesus will know that between the two as facts there
must lie a deliverance from evil. As Jesus testifies,
God is the Saviour of men, and man works together
with God In his salvation. The Christian life is one
in which this work of God Is going on, and man's
work with it, and men are growing in the true char
acter of sons of God. The Christian experience is
not precisely the same to any two persons, but It is
ahke to all In being an experience of salvation. Ac
cordingly it is full of vitality. God's forgiveness of
sins is in it, received by faith. God himself Is in it,
the Father. Sense of new life is in it, exhilarating.
New love of goodness is in it, transforming. Love is
in It, cheering the heart and sustaining all good en
deavor. Hope is In It, for this life and that which is
to come. It opens out everywhere Into the infinite
and eternal, and the joy of God belongs to it. This

276 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
incomparable quahty varies in all possible degrees
because of human weakness or limitation, but by Its
nature the life that constitutes Christianity has the
vigor of newness, the strength of confidence, the
glow of joy, the sense of being the best life that
can be.
This life, with Its triumphant quality as a life of
salvation, rightly bears the name of Jesus Christ,
by whom it has been established as a living fact.
Looking upon him we do not merely see his visible
self; he stands for God. In him God has been
manifested In the flesh; that is. In him God has been
clearly expressed to men upon the vety plane of their
life. He has revealed the saving love of the holy
God, and rendered it effective in the new divine life.
All the untold sum of Christian good stands identi
fied with him, and he must always stand as the rep
resentative of the religion and the salvation. Jesus
is the messenger of the grace that saves, the bearer
of our sins in our sight as God is the bearer of our
sins beyond our sight, the evidence that real redemp
tion Is actually wrought for us through divine self-
sacrifice, the Word of God uttering salvation, the
brother with divine heart breaking with the love that
it bears, the living embodiment of the character that
salvation works, the winner of men Into fellowship
with God, the King who goes to his throne bearing
his cross and empowering men to follow him in his
redemptive pilgrimage. He can never lose his place
as the head of Christianity, not merely because he Is
its historical initiator, but because in his self-expres-

CHRISTIANITY 277
slon he brings us to God, and unites us to himself as
he Is united with the Father.
When we consider the high nature of Christianity,
it is not surprising that the word Christian Is used
with much latitude of meaning. If we put Into the
word all that ideally belongs to it, it denotes all that
is high and worthy both In religion and in ethics.
If the complete significance is understood to be
always in the name, no one will dare call himself a
Christian. Using the word at ah in this imperfect
world, we are compelled to apply it where the facts
fit it only in part. But the Master would approve
this. Looking out upon the world at any given
moment, he could not behold a Christendom of com
pleted Christians. All that he can expect to behold
is men on the way. No one has yet attained to the
full result of his salvation, or will attain it in this
world: there is more beyond. All Christians are
unfinished; wherefore all Christian facts and works
are such as can exist in a world of uncompleted chil
dren of the good Father. Christianity Itself is still
a living and growing thing. Therefore the word
Christian constantly bears something less that its
ideal fulness of meaning. A man who may be called
a Christian is not necessarily a perfect specimen. He
Is living the life with some degree of success, and
counts fairly on the Christian side. It doth not yet
appear what he is to be, but he is a man who is on
the way to a child's likeness to the Father. There
is no way of defining a Christian more closely, for the

278 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
experience of the new hfe takes Innumerable forms,
and minutely exacting definitions are certain to be
unjust. In consequence of all this it naturally fol
lows that the name Christian is applied somewhat
loosely to facts and institutions in the world. We
call our civilization a Christian civilization — ^which
It Is In parts, while in some respects the ideal of
Jesus is utterly at war with it. We must learn to
distinguish things that differ, and apply the sacred
name with discernment and keen conscience; and
yet our Lord would have us just and charitable
judges, able not only to see faults, but to recognize
the Christian reality wherever it exists.
Because Christianity Is a life, it will always have
its institutions, servants of the life, and Its doctrines,
explanations of the life. Because it is thus far an
uncompleted life, its institutions must be expected
to lack something of the ideal character, and its doc
trines will be feeling their way toward perfect appre
hension of the truth. The institutions will natu
rally vaty from age to age, for life means variety.
Different nations and races, living in various times
and conditions, will build up institutions for the
Christian life under the various impulses of their
own nature, and the Master would encourage such
variation as living reality requires. At the end of a
chapter that assigns to Christianity such qualities as
have been attributed to it here, it Is quite impossible
to say that it will be represented through ages by un
changing Institutions. It is too much alive for that.

CHRISTIANITY 279
As for the Christian doctrines, they are explanations
of the Christian life, and expressions of the various
truth which it involves. So vital a fact must have its
doctrines, burdened with the greatness of God, rich
with the tenderness of Christ, practical as love and
righteousness. Its doctrines are men's analysis and
description of it, the best that they can make. Of
course they can never be single and uniform, the same
to all, for genuine spiritual visions can never be the
same to all who behold them, and there is no way to
represent a great experience in unchanging formulas.
Nor, so long as Christianity is a living thing and not
a relic, can any statements of doctrine be final.
Thought will always be busy with the great themes,
and as long as men think they will see new light.
Progress is a necessary form of the life of doctrine,
each generation adding something to the work of
the past and offering something new to the future.
Christian doctrine is thus bound to be an ever-
moving stream of intellectual and spiritual apprecia
tion, and in its movement is Its power. The stead
fastness and the variability are both due to the fact
that doctrine is the expression of a life that never
fails. The word that best gathers up the central truth
concerning Christianity is the great word of the
Fourth Gospel, " I am come that they may have Hfe,
and may have It abundantly."

XIV
THE CHURCH
If we have obtained some conception of the Chris
tianity into which the ideal of Jesus has wrought itself,
we must go farther and inquire about the Christian
Church. I do not propose to define it as an existing
thing, but to inquire what in the light of the living
Jesus It ought to be. What would it be if it were
formed upon the lines of his ideal ? What manner of
organized body would correspond to the Christianity
of Jesus ? It may seem overbold to ask this ques
tion and attempt an answer. It may be thought, at
any rate, that one man's answer to It can be only a
subjective thing, worthy of no general attention.
Nevertheless I cannot feel that It ought to be so vety
difficult to trace the ideal of Jesus out to its appro
priate result in organization and be reasonably sure
that we are reaching a congruous conclusion. It
seems to me that this lesson is one that can be
learned. Our best guide is the manner in which the earliest
organization arose. It did not arise in Jesus' life
time. Save that he gathered twelve men about him
to be trained for service, he built up no organization
and started none. Even to these apostles he gave
no organization, so far as we know, and he never
280

THE CHURCH 281
intimated that they would have successors to serve
perpetually as officials in his church. But organi
zation was sure to come after he had gone. Men
will combine when they have a powerful common
life and purpose, and these the Christians had.
The organization, first at Jerusalem and afterward
elsewhere, was so natural and simple that we can
understand It well. It came spontaneously, because
it was wanted: there was something for it to do.
It arose^ to accomplish a purpose, and the purpose
is so plain that we can state it without the slightest
uncertainty. Churches sprang up, in Jerusalem, in
Antioch, and elsewhere, for the purpose of taking
care of the life in which Christianity consisted, and
of promoting the work which the life had to do.
The church was called into being to maintain Chris
tianity, and to accomplish its object.
This origin of the church corresponds entirely, I
am sure, to what I have called the ideal of Jesus.
It sounds like him as we have been hearing him.
If he had been asked to what intent his disciples
should organize themselves when he was with them
no longer, we know enough of him to judge that he
would have bidden them organize for the protection,
nourishing, and training of the new life that they
were Hying, and for the promotion of the work which
the new life was bound to undertake. And, if we
have felt his atmosphere rightly in the Gospels, he
would not have been Hkely to dictate the form and
manner of their organization. Counsel that is like
the Jesus to whom we have been listening would be.

282 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
"Organize to make the most of the new Hfe and its
work, and do it in the way that will serve the pur
pose best." This at any rate is just what they did,
for their churches were not all ahke. We cannot
well picture the Jesus whom we know as deciding
beforehand upon the form of organization that would
serve the new life best in all times and conditions,
or affirming that any one form would do that. The
early Christians were faithful to the mind of their
Master when they organized themselves as simply
and informally and variously as they did.
I suppose that my statement of the purpose of the
church would be accepted by all bodies that have
ever called themselves churches. They would all
say that they existed, and ought to exist, in order to
take care of the Christian life and promote the Chris
tian work. But of course this is a very flexible idea
of purpose, and certain to produce much variety in
organization and In organized life. What does the
Christian life need for Its support and welfare, and
what is the work which it is called to do ? Churches
will differ in their structure according as these ques
tions are differently answered. Differences in con
ditions also will modify the needs that organization
must meet. So one form for all times and seasons is
impossible. At first vety simple structure sufficed,
and for a time the original simplicity was not much
modified. But as the new faith spread, new condi
tions arose that seemed to require, and probably did
require, new modes of organizing to serve the origi-

THE CHURCH 283
nal end. Scattered Christian communities were
lonely, often ill-trained, and often insufficient to the
work that opened before them. Unity was hard to
maintain, and even to establish. Neither local in
terests nor larger interests seemed well provided for,
and there seemed to be need of more organization,
administration, and centralization of control. Grad
ually the stronger bodies assumed more charge over
the weaker. An official unity grew up to guard the
spiritual unity and to do the large work with better
effect. To fulfil the original purpose as it had come
to be understood, organization became more elabo
rate and comprehensive, until at length a world-fill
ing church had been built up, vested with authority.
But a natural result was that the official unity
tended to take the place of the spiritual unity which
it had risen to guard.
Meanwhile it had come to be believed that the
Christian life was dependent upon sacraments. Out
ward acts performed by due authority were taken
to be the means of effecting the regeneration that
Christianity involves, and of bringing in that divine
presence on which the life depends. The sacra
mental method was unknown to Jesus if we may
judge from his utterances and the tone of his life,
and certainly there Is no place for it in his ideal of
the relation between God and man. He always con
templates divine reality in inward experience, and
instead of providing for having it mediated through
indispensable outward acts, he sends the soul straight
to the Father who seeth in secret, and makes com-

284 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
munication between spirit and Spirit direct. But
when the later idea had been accepted, it was natural
that the church should claim the privilege of minis
tering to her children the grace of God through sac
raments, and this practice in turn modified the
church and confirmed its high prerogatives. But this
process did not altogether destroy the simpler idea of
Christian organization, and in later times it bloomed
anew. In the modern age, many organizations have
grown up to fulfil the original purpose of the church.
Where the dictation of an authoritative church was
absent, all the more various grew the churches. They
have taken many forms, differing widely though they
fell into a few groups. It is safe to say that no one
of them has existed In vain. They have all existed,
whether most wisely and effectively or not, for the
service of the Christian life and work, and with
greater or less efficiency they have all done what the
church arose to do.
Thus Christian organization began in a manner
that corresponded well to the Ideal of Jesus, and
has never wholly departed from it. Yet we cannot
claim that his ideal contemplated such a condition
as the present. Now we have two great authorita
tive churches denying each other's authority, and a
host of minor churches recognized by neither and
strenuously rejecting both, while among themselves
they can scarcely call one another churches with a
free heart and a full meaning. Something has gone
wrong. The ideal of Jesus certainly has not had its
way. We cannot hope to revolutionize the situation

THE CHURCH 285
by discussing it, but I think I see what Is the most
wholesome thing that we can do. If we can only set
the whole matter in the light of the countenance of
that matchless Personality to whom we have been
Hstening; if we can submit it all to the influence of
the sane and spiritual ideal that is characteristic of
him, he who never described the church but left his
followers to frame it In accordance with what they
had learned of him will be our best guide in present
judgment. If the first Christians began rightly, as I judge that
they did, it would seem that Jesus projected into the
future the need and purpose of a church, rather than
the form of a church. He was leaving in the world a
life to be lived, and a church would be adapted to pro
tect it and to utilize it. For this the early churches
sprang up, each in its own field. They were not all
alike, for some were patterned after the Jewish syna
gogue and some after local organizations of the Gen
tile world, but they were all aimed at the one purpose,
and therefore all were Christian churches. This is
well akin to the mind of the Jesus of the gospels, to
whom purpose Is so much and form so little. His
view of life, so far as we can read It, would seem to
suggest many Christian bodies, not necessarily all
alike in mode and structure, all devoted to the care
of the Christian life and the doing of its work, recog
nizing one another in the feUowshlp of this common
purpose, and held together in the unity of this com
mon work.

286 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Against this reading of the mind of Jesus stands
the widespread assumption that Christianity must
necessarily be represented in the world by one sole
organization, single and unique. Of course millions
believe that there Is such an organization and they
are members of It, and many besides feel that such a
body ought to exist. The ideal of an organized uni
versal church, which grew up In the early centuries,
still dominates the most of Christendom, and has not
been displaced from the reverent imagination of the
divided Protestant world. But in the presence of
the Ideal of Jesus as we have seen it we are led to
question the whole assumption. We know that if it
Is claimed that the religion of Jesus must have a sole
organization to represent it, the claim must have the
best of support. It must be supported not by a text
or two, or by a few expressions here and there, nor,
on the other hand, by some ingenious argument.
These will never suffice. The claim must have the
cordial suffrage of the ideal of Jesus. The figure of
the living Jesus must be shown to be in keeping with
such an institution. It must appear that the con
ception of a sole churchly body accords in spirit
with the broad view of God, man and life which he
proclaimed, and that no other conception does ac
cord with his ideal. For certainly we must assume
that he has not projected into the future a demand
for something unhke the ideal that appears In his
life and words. But when it comes to the case In
hand, probably no one ever breathed in the doctrine
of a sole and universal church from the unmixed

THE CHURCH 287
atmosphere of the Jesus of the Gospels. We should
have to modify deeply the picture of him that the
Gospels afford, before we could think of him as
uttering for aU the future the demand for such a
church. His ideal in the Gospels looks to a sim
pler, broader, freer method. Vast formal institutions
may have gathered around him, but they cannot
look to him for their original inspiration. He spent
much of his time In combating the requirements of a
great uniform Institution and bringing his disciples
out from under it, and the tone of his work does not
seem favorable to the setting up of another in his
name. The original Master was not one to project
into the future a successor to the Roman Empire,
or any single world-filling Institution. Only by read
ing our own ideals into his can we understand him
so. The simpHcity and informality of the earliest
Christian organization harmonizes with the tone and
influence of his life. Simple and flexible structure
must belong to an organization that represents the
real spirit of the living Jesus.
In one respect, however, the present situation cor
responds somewhat to his ideal. There is no one
body in the world that can properly be called the
Christian church to the exclusion of all others, and
there are many bodies that exist to fulfil the purpose
of the church. That is, no body Is the church In
form, many bodies are the church in purpose. Any
body that claims to be the only authorized represen
tative of Christianity is Ignoring facts concerning
other bodies. No such claim can be substantiated in

288 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
view of the histoty of God's work among men. But
this is as it ought to be: the Master never meant that
any such claim should be defensible. On the other
hand, Christendom is full of bodies organized to do
just what a Christian church must do, and putting
forth their strength for that vety purpose. The great
bodies that call themselves Catholic or Orthodox, and
the smaller bodies that bear a hundred forms and
work in a hundred ways, are all one in practical
intent, and their intent is exactly that for which the
church in Jerusalem was formed and which matches
so well the ideal of Jesus. They are all imperfect,
but they all exist to take care of the Christian hfe
and promote the work of Christianity in the world.
They differ in their methods, but they are one in their
end. This also is as it should be. If we read the
Master rightly, he never can have intended anything
else. If we follow the light of the ideal of Jesus, it would
seem that any body that was organized and living In
order to take care of the Christian life and promote
the service of Christianity to the world should be
recognized as a Christian church. One would think
that before now this somewhat obvious Christian
definition might have commended itself to the many
churches as one that should be applied all round.
One would think that a church might long ago have
been defined in the light of its purpose, rather than
by description of its form or method. Certainly
the Master would define it so. But this has not
occurred to the Christian people. The many churches

THE CHURCH 289
have in common the great point that they all exist
for the true purpose of the Christian church, some
serving it better than others, no doubt, but aU de
voted to it, each in a way of its own. Yet they define
themselves as churches, and define the church, in view
of their differences and specialties. Each of them
has defined the church of Christ in its own way, and
each in view of some distinguishing mark borne by
Itself. They do not claim to be true churches be
cause of their relation to the Lord's ideal and pur
pose for the church, but because of their differences
and peculiarities: one is a church because it has the
Pope, another because of Its orthodox doctrine, an
other because it is equipped with bishops or with
presbyters, another because it is an independent con
gregation, another because it has the right baptism,
and so on. If only they could learn of Jesus here,
and look with his eyes, they would view themselves
and one another first of all in the light of their com
mon relation to the ideal of their Lord for his
church. The definition is an easy one. A church
Is a body that exists to serve the purpose of a church.
I do not claim that I can draw a true picture of a
church as It would be if the ideal of Jesus had its
way. No one can do that accurately, and yet to a
certain extent the picture is not an impossible one.
There is no living model to draw from, for all
churches depart more or less from the ideal. Some
are practising ideas that harmonize but vety poorly
with the mind of the Master, and aU, in some way

290 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
or other, live in another atmosphere than his. All
need alike to get a vision of what Jesus would have a
church to be, if his view of God and life could have
its way. I cannot go far toward a description, but I
can set forth the vital points in what a church would
be if it accorded with the ideal of Jesus, and even a
slight exhibition of them may not be in vain.
The true key for all time Is set in the first period,
and we hear it sounding there. As we have seen,
the church sprang up in the interest of the Christian
religious life. Religion is the note. The specialty of
the church is religion. The world has been right in
calling that which sprang from Jesus a religion.
Christianity is a religion first and foremost; its relig
ious aspect Is its chief aspect. Therefore It is that
the church, which sprang up In the interest of relig
ion, is its chief representative. It stands for Christi
anity in its religious spirit and power, and there
fore represents it in the world as nothing else can.
The church is the characteristic institution in which
the peculiar life-power of the Christian religion is
gathered as nowhere else.
In the Acts of the Apostles we see the church begin
ning its agelong work In taking care of the Christian
life. See what it does. It provides the Christian life
with a home, warms it with fellowship, feeds it with
spiritual food, keeps it in health through activity.
This Is a fair picture of the permanent work which
it has to do. The church welcomes the Christian
life, nourishes it, trains It up. It summons it to
acknowledge the divine goodness In worship, prayer

THE CHURCH 291
and praise. It ministers for Its nourishment and
edification the truth as it is in Jesus, the word of
hfe. It encourages the Christian life in its proper
habits of expression, and sets before it its normal
work. It makes warm company for it to live and
grow in. It keeps the divine hopes and consola
tions ready for use in time of need. It keeps the
windows open toward heaven, and the heart at
tuned to heavenly influence. It Is thus the helper,
sustainer, educator of the Christian life within itself
How beautifully this work coincides with the evident
intention of Jesus, who left the life young, weak, and
unguarded In an unfriendly world ! He meant it to
unite for self-defence and training, and still are his
disciples organized for the common protection and
development of their highest life in him.
Equally do they honor his ideal when they organize
to do the work of Christianity in the world. This lies
beyond self-training as an end. This is for others.
So the church preaches the gospel of the grace of God,
not only to nourish itself but to save men around it.
It expounds to the world the truth that is in Jesus.
It makes converts to the faith, by Its best endeavors
both in persuasion and in godly example and influ
ence. It seeks to convey the gift of Christ to man
kind. So it organizes missions near and far, and
sends the hfe abroad to win Its way. It is the living
expression of the love of God in Christ toward men,
loving the world as God loves it and seeking to save.
The church is the voice of Christianity, uttering its
heart. It does good as it has opportunity to all men

292 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
in all ways. It stands for righteousness and human
fellowship. It promotes good morals as a part of the
true life of man. It proclaims and helps forward the
coming of the kingdom of God. In all this how
beautifully It is Hving out the Ideal of Jesus, who left
the new life unorganized, but sure to follow its nature
into such a union of its forces for doing its work upon
the world!
With religion as thus the specialty of its work, it Is
plain that the church of the ideal of Jesus will have
religion as the specialty of its character. It cannot
efficiently nourish or extend a life that it does not
possess and make much of. That is to say, the fine
religious quality that we find in Jesus himself and in
all his ideal is its characteristic. Its heart is open to
the Father, Its resort is unto him who sees in secret.
Its trust In God is a loyal confidence, its righteousness
Is the genuine response of the soul to the voice of
God within, its morality is inspired from above, and
Its love to man Is a part of its devotion to God.
There Is one word that expresses a quality central
to the life of the church of the ideal of Jesus. That
word Is helpfulness. We trace the quality in the
beginning, for were not all the churches formed to
help — to help the Christian life that needed nourish
ing and cherishing, and to help the world to find its
life in Christ ? The same quality shines out in the
church as I have just portrayed it. Helpfulness tow
ard one another within, toward the neighbors who
need to know their God, toward the world far and
near, helpfulness as opportunity offers — this Is the

THE CHURCH 293
tone In which the keynote of religion sounds. Re
ligion Itself is helpfulness as soon as it looks out
through the eye and moves out in the hand of the
individual. Religion is helpfulness as soon as It or
ganizes itself for its congenial work. Was not this the
spirit of the kingdom ? He who said, "I am among
you as he that serveth," he who caUed himself the
physician of the sinful, has this for the type and
character of his church, that it is a helpful body,
serving men in the spirit of him who came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister. It lives not unto
itself, but serves God in serving men.
The church is the central representative of Chris
tianity in the world, as we have seen; but when we
have looked at it in the light of this quality of help
fulness, it is plain that it cannot be the sole rep
resentative. There are others. Christianity inspires
helpfulness so broadly that no one institution can
possibly be its only representative. It inspires all
kinds of self-sacrificing service: it serves the King
by serving the least of his brethren, wherever they
are. Not all works of helpfulness lie equally near
its spiritual centre, but they all lie within the circle
of Its inspiration. This means that Christianity in
spires work of helpfulness of which no one body
could possibly undertake the whole. If it tried to
act as the sole and complete representative of Chris
tianity, the church would be compelled to neglect
its first calling, scatter its energies, and do nothing
weU. There must be division of labor. Numberless
human betterments that Christianity Inspires must

294 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
have their own organizations distinct from the church,
and these represent Christianity too in their own
place, being true offspring of Its heart and servants
of its purpose. To use the common illustration,
some one else will clear the Jericho road of robbers,
while the good Samaritan takes care of the wounded
man, and they wIU both be serving one cause. But
if the church lives in the ideal of Jesus, its warmest
heart and hand are given in fellowship to these
works. Humanitarian works outside the distinctly
religious field are well accustomed to receive the cold
shoulder from the church, which has suspected their
motives and withheld from them Its sympathy. But
when the ideal of Jesus inspires the church, it will
know that organizations for human benefit are Its
allies. It will hold them in warm sympathy and
give them its perpetual benediction. It will not be a
question whether such works are to have its friend
ship, counsel, and commendation. It will be at their
right hand, and will train its people to take part in
them when their help Is needed.
There Is no hint in the ideal of Jesus that the
church will exercise its function of helpfulness in the
method of authority. The church might be the
authority In religion according to the ideals of this
world, but not according to that of Jesus. "It shall
not be so among you." An authoritative church is
not like the Jesus to whom we have been listening.
His appeal is made without reserve to the human
judgment and conscience, and we rise from listening
to him with the impression that nothing must inter-

THE CHURCH 295
fere with the direct relation between the soul and
God. He knows no one between God and man. In
the name of God he sets men free from ecclesiastical
domination of the olden time, and the principle that
sets them free would keep them free. No one can
come between — unless indeed God should depute his
authority to the church and make it equal to himself
But that, in the light of Jesus, appears impossible.
The peculiarity In God that sets the soul free from all
other masters is not of a kind to be deputed, even
to a church. It Is grounded in an unchangeable and
untransferable relation. The soul that responds to it
must recognize this authority in God himself and
there alone. While we listen to Jesus we cannot im
agine him telling his disciples that any one whatever
could represent God in his relation to their con
sciences, or that any one could be deputed by him
to decide what they must think of truth, or believe
about facts, or judge concerning duty. A church
that corresponds to his ideal will be a church of
freemen, and its help to its people will be such help
as freemen can best profit by. It will be a guide
and counsellor to them, but will not be burdened
with the responsibility of ruling their souls. For
exemption from this it will be thankful. For men
created to think, authority is not the best form of
help. Accordingly the Ideal church is not an imposer
of creeds. This form of authority in a church seems
especially incongruous with the personality and influ
ence of Jesus In the Gospels. We cannot imagine the

296 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Jesus whom we know as dictating beliefs in theology
to his disciples, or directing them to dictate to one
another, or authorizing man or church to dictate to
them. He gave no sign of any disposition to require
intellectual agreement or uniformity among those
who learned of him. He never discussed the intel
lectual aspects of the truth that he proclaimed. He
proposed no creedal tests, and his influence is not of
a kind to suggest them. He calls men to live the life
with God, he teaches them righteousness, love, and
self-sacrifice, he gives them liberty to welcome the
voice of God whispering In the ear, he trains them
for the service of the kingdom, but he does not speak
as a master of rigidity, insisting upon uniform belief.
Not that he does not encourage thought, the deepest
and the keenest. He must, for his appeal is to the
living soul of man. His people need knowledge, and
deep pondering on the deep things of God is a
vital part of their experience. Some of them must
give their lives to knowing God In thought, and
progress in clear thought of him will be one of the
great evidences that God is with his children. But
thinking and uniformity are impossible companions.
If men really think they will differ more or less.
Jesus' appeal to the conscience of the Individual is an
appeal to Independent personal thought. We have
seen how he delights in genuineness and originality
In the inner man. No word of his requires that all
who think shall think alike or reach Identical con
clusions. No word even faintly intimates that the
individual Christian must accept the beliefs of the

THE CHURCH 297
majority, or agree with great thinkers ancient or
modern, or have doctrines dictated to him by the
church; nor does his ideal indicate any such expec
tation or demand. His thought moves in another
atmosphere. A prescribed creed is no part of his
ideal. He is too thorough a master of reality for
that. With him belief, like virtue, must be one's
own. A belief accepted because it is prescribed is
unreal, and belongs more to the righteousness of
scribes and Pharisees than to the better righteous
ness of the kingdom. The ideal of Jesus calls for
a church that will be a wise and friendly helper of
Its people in respect of their believing, but not a
church that will tell them what they must believe.
To sketch the church of the ideal of Jesus in this
manner is to stir up a host of practical questions.
Probably no reader has failed to see them emerging.
If creed retires from Its old prominence, still how
much creed must there be ? and how is it to be
formed, and what position shall it hold ? What will
be the terms of membership in the church of the
ideal of Jesus ? Will there be any such thing as
discipline there ? How largely will existing churches
come together as they advance toward the goal ?
But these questions do not need to be answered now.
Indeed they are not practical questions yet, but only
inquiries. Until we are ready for action they may
wait. The first thing is for the Christian people to
catch the vision of Jesus and accept their calling.
When it has done this it will be time enough to meet
the questions of detail that will arise. By that time

298 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
the Christian people will have more of the enlarged
heart and judgment that is required to deal with
them. By that time, too, some of them may have
disappeared. Frequendy questions are not setded,
but left behind.
At present, Christendom Is in a situation in which
it greatly needs instruction about the church from
the Ideal of Jesus. In view of Its deep divisions
Christendom ought to be ctying out from the heart,
"Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Faintly
as yet, but really, the cty is beginning to arise. It
would be wrong, therefore, not to inquire what is the
main counsel of the ideal of Jesus for the present
time. The need is vety sore that all the churches
learn their true relation to the great head of the
church and to one another, and thus become ready
to do their work. What is the lesson for the time ?
The ideal of Jesus would teach the Christian peo
ple to-day that the duty of the hour is mutual recog
nition. Churches must recognize one another, ac
cording to the principles of the Master's vision. They
have been judging one another by tests that would
not stand in his presence; they must learn to judge
one another by tests that spring from the vety heart
of his personality and his religion. In his presence
we say that the tests of a true church are not
external, formal, visible, but spiritual and practical.
The essential thing is the life, and devotion to the
care and working of the life. It is not necessaty that
churches be all alike in their organization and prac-

THE CHURCH 299
tice, or that all conform themselves to the pattern of
any one. They may be vety unlike. That which
makes them Christian churches is the fact that In
spite of imperfection they are alive unto God in
Jesus Christ, and are devoted to the care of the
Christian life and the doing of the work of Chris
tianity in the world,. For defence of this definition
there is no need of ingenious arguments, which
equal ingenuity may combat: it grows directly out
of the life and work of the Master himself On this
principle, spiritual, practical, and true, the ideal of
Jesus would send the churches looking for one an
other for the sake of coming together into working
fellowship. The test is a searching one. A church that has
become a club for its own pleasure or advantage is
denying the ideal of Jesus. So is one that in any
manner has become Indifferent to vital religion and
lost its desire to live in the divine atmosphere. So
is one that holds back its hand from the service of
humanity or is indifferent to good morals. So is one
that tyrannizes. So is one that is content to go on
just as it is, not caring whether the Lord would have
it revolutionize its life. A church is loyal to the ideal
of Jesus in so far as it makes much of warm and liv
ing religion, delights in communion with the Father,
believes in divine redemption, is sustained by Christian
faith and hope and love; in so far as it seeks the salva
tion of men at home and abroad in Jesus Christ; in so
far as it is a free helper to free souls, a guardian of
sound morals, a preacher of the eternal righteousness

300 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
and love; In so far as it is a self-forgetful servant to
mankind as It has opportunity. The test is a search
ing one. Tests that relate to form and order are
trivial in comparison.
In order that Christian churches may righdy recog
nize one another, there is need of Christian charity
overlooking faults, and of Christian justice giving full
weight to virtues. Or, in a word, there is need of the
mind of Christ, looking with his eyes upon his own.
Of course there is need of disentanglement from the
old external methods of judgment, and growth into
the spiritual method of the Lord. But with justice
and charity combined, and with patience, and with
unquenchable purpose to find the inner unity and
do justice to the ideal of the common Lord, the road
is not so vety long to a better Christendom than the
Lord has ever seen. When the existing forces have
become able to work together according to the mind
of Christ, the greater coming of the kingdom will
be at hand.

XV
SOCIETY
I CAN remember very well when it would have
seemed sufficient to trace the ideal of Jesus to its
appHcation in the church, the personal life, and the
field of missions. But we must go further. We have
not done justice to the intention of the Master until
we have looked beyond the distinctly religious em
bodiment of his ideal, and gained a vision of its appli
cation to human society in the large. We must see
what it would make of the life that men live together
in all the relations in which they stand. This vision
Jesus has not sketched for us with any fulness, but
he has given us abundant means of sketching it for
ourselves, at least In outline. When we ask how men
would live together, and what society would be if his
ideal were realized in the world, the answer lies vety
near us and can be indicated in few words. In one
aspect the words seem commonplace, they are so
familiar; but in a truer light they may well be start
ling. They will be startling if we shake off our
familiarity with them and allow ourselves to perceive
how much they mean. Look at them.
Jesus contemplates a state of things in which men
shall be inwardly good with a real goodness, and shall
be gladly devoted to doing the will of their heavenly
301

302 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
Father. In this sincere and genuine loyalty to God
he expects them to conduct the life that they live
together as men. All are to bring what they learn
from God Into their relations with one another.
Each is to love his neighbor as himself. All are to
act out the Christlike spirit of self-sacrificing helpful
ness. Their life together is to be governed by justice,
of which the golden rule is the working law. The
arrangements of social life are to do justice to the
high value of human beings. No man is to be or
claim to be master over another's soul, and evety
conscience Is to be answerable to God. Under these
vital laws of love, justice, helpfulness, and human
value, all life Is to be organized and to proceed. In
this spirit must be conducted the entire administra
tion of property, gain, wealth, and the relation of the
rich and the poor. These are the main points that
we have heard Jesus himself expound and illustrate,
but we see at once that these are only samples of
the whole of life. Classes and nations are to live
together on the same principles. No part of the life
that men live together is to be exempt from the sway
of these simple, righteous, and gracious laws, and
men must learn to organize or reconstruct the society
in which they live in such manner that these prin-
ples may have their way.
This is a tremendous statement. Incomplete
though it Is, it is so tremendous that we may start
back and wonder whether it can be true. Did Jesus
really mean all this ? There Is strong temptation to
deny that any such sweeping application of Christi-

SOCIETY 303
anity to society was ever intended or can be made.
There are enormous Interests that are bound to deny
it in self-defence. As a matter of indifference, the
common inertia denies so agitating a view. As a
matter of practice, it is vety often assumed that
Christianity is not a revolutlonaty force, except upon
the hearts and habits of individual men. As a mat
ter of biblical interpretation, many maintain that
Christianity is not intended to revolutionize society,
but only to transform a group of individuals, while
society is left to perish. Thus sin and selfishness and
inertia and the testimony of many Christians con
spire to assure the social organism that it is to be let
alone by the redemptive power of God, honey-combed
though It is with unchristian practices.
But if we wish to know whether in its nature
Christianity is a revolutlonaty thing or not, we have
only to look at the Ideal of Jesus and then at the
present world. A vety , imperfect recapitulation of
the working principles of the ideal of Jesus was
given in the last paragraph but one. If a reader will
count up the institutions and practices known to him
as now existing, that would be brought to an end or
radically changed by the application of that idea, he
can tell at once whether Christianity is a revolu-
tionaty thing. Sometimes it seems as If Christianity
would make a clean sweep of the methods and institu
tions of society if it had its way. But that feeling
is excessive; it would not do that. There is very
much that is good in the life that men live together,
and much that Christianity would not destroy, but

304 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
would preserve and improve. But all the good is
imperfectly developed and expressed, and all is ham
pered and embarrassed by combination with evil, so
that it nowhere has perfect opportunity to be itself
and do its work. The good in the social order needs
to be set free from the body of death to which it is
bound. There are Institutions and practices that
grew up for the common welfare, that have been
sadly perverted to the service of selfishness. The
social organism itself grew up to promote the com
mon good, but self-interest has mastered great sec
tions of its life. The evil that is wrought into the
social structure has always been in evidence, but is
better known to-day than ever. I should be ashamed
to put details of social evil upon this page a^ if they
were needed for conviction. Any one who does not
know that Christianity would work deep revolution
in society if It had Its way is ignorant either of society
or of Christianity, or of both.
Yet many hold that although Christianity is a rev
olutionist it is not intended to revolutionize: It is
designed to save a group of men for another world,
but not to work in this world the beneficent revolution
that corresponds to its character. That Is to say,
God has placed in this world a revolutlonaty force,
but does not intend it to do its work and Impart its
character to society which Is perishing for want of It.
This is the outlook of many Christians, but how It
differs from a deep infidehty it is hard to see. It sig
nifies that God does not really mean the goodness
that he has put in the world in the gospel of his Son.

SOCIETY 305

It comes into the world as a living and powerful good
ness, and if it had its way it would undo innumerable
evils and purify the all-pervading relations of human
ity; but God does not mean that it shall do this. He
limits its sphere and intends it for far less good than
it is adapted to accomplish. It cannot be, then, that
he is as good as In Christianity he seems. Christi
anity reports a better God than there is, and the
being whom Jesus proclaimed as the all-trustworthy
Father has no existence. A God who does not mean
his own good tidings to the full is not a God to trust.
No, Christianity is revolutlonaty in power and
revolutionaty in purpose. It is in the world to make
its assault upon the evils that prey upon the human
race, and put in their place the fulfilment of the ideal
of Jesus. And if this is to be done at aU it must
be done in the large. Society is the field of Chris
tianity. To bring the sound and godly life to per
fection in the narrow field of individualism is impos
sible. The great laws of life depend upon reciprocity,
and cannot be brought to fuU effect until men are
obeying them together. There are duties that are
altogether social; high virtues, too, that cannot be
exercised except in the social field. The Christian
character Is a social character as well as a private,
and the full victoty of Jesus' ideal can be won only
by a revolution that touches evety fibre of the social
heart and evety action of the social life.
I do not propose to go through the list and specify
the practices and institutions that the revolutionaty

306 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
ideal of Jesus would condemn and destroy. My
purpose does not require that, and besides he would
be a bold man who thought he knew enough to pass
through the world thus bearing the lamp of judgment.
But I am Inclined to propose a catechism for private
meditation — for discussion, too, if any should care to
use it in examination of facts. In studying the Gos
pels we have had the working principles of the ideal
of Jesus set before us in no uncertain form. They
are the principles on which Jesus Christ would make
a new world of men. It is our duty to look about the
world in the light of them, and let their light do its
legitimate revealing of facts and needs. They sug
gest a long line of questions which we are required to
ask. The world will have to ask them yet, and not
only to answer them in words, but to make its prac
tice correspond. They are beginning to be asked,
and the right answers are coming out; but the work
is only begun, and the questions are pressing for
attention now. They make a heart-searching cate
chism, profitable for us to ponder on and pray over.
I cannot give them ah, for the list is endless, but
some of them may be set in order here.
What changes would universal deference to God
make in the tone and quality of the hfe that men live
together ? What if men and women livingly believed
in the good God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and really thought that his holy and gracious will
was the will for them to do ? What would follow if
a willing and cheerful reverence for God became
the ruling temper in their social existence ? What

SOCIETY 307
changes would follow if they habitually looked up
in spirit, instead of looking around them or below,
and took their standards from that higher world
where God gives character to all ? What if the desire
to be good like the Father, and to act accordingly,
were carried into the relations that the business of the
world involves ? What would happen to all who
work together If all the daily work were done as in
the sight of God ? What if men and women evety-
where were possessed by the sane and industrious
optimism that springs from faith in the God of all
goodness as the God of all ? How great and far-
reaching a change would such godliness bring in ?
In what respects would the tone of life be altered ?
What would the new atmosphere effect? What
would retire ? and In what order would the ancient
evils go ?
What has Jesus' ideal of human value to say of
existing social facts ? How well does common prac
tice correspond to the valuation that he set upon hu
man beings ? How is that valuation respected in the
use that is made of men, women, and children in great
manufactories ? How far does It approve the treat
ment of the great laboring class in general ? How
justly is human value estimated in the laws and
customs that deal with Intoxicating drinks ? How
worthily and honorably do these practices treat
the human being ? How justly is the real value of
women considered in the various uses that men make
of them ? Do the usages of business put due value
upon children, and help them to realize their worth ?

308 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
What kind of justice Is done to human value in
dealing with criminals, in the prison systems of the
world and in other schemes of punishment or ref
ormation ? How far Is government devoted to the
conservation and Improvement of human value ?
Indeed, how much attention does organized society
deliberately pay anywhere to the intrinsic and po
tential value of anything and evetything that is
human ? How long would it take to impress a legis
lature with the Idea ? According to Jesus, human
beings are of high intrinsic value, precious to God,
Invaluable to themselves, capable of great service.
To him they were worth the devotion of a lifetime
and the laying down of a life. When they were in
need he would minister to them; when they were
morally sick he would be their physician. What
consideration of men does his Ideal demand now ?
In a new construction, what would it substitute for
the present treatment of men In manufacturing, of
children in labor, of women in the nether world ?
How would he save these values, now recklessly
wasted ? What would he substitute for the present
elaborate encouragement of drunkenness for which
society is responsible ? What for the present theories
and practice of punishment? What would he do
with the great mass of laboring men as they exist
to-day, regarded as men precious to God and to
themselves, and what would he inspire them to do
in their relations with the world which they serve ?
In these conditions, and In others like them, how
would Jesus' Ideal of human value work construe-

SOCIETY 309
tively, building up in place of the horrors it had torn
down ?
What institutions and practices would be affected
if the ideal of Jesus came Into effect through acting
upon the golden rule, "As ye would that men should
do unto you, do ye even so unto them"? What
practices would cease without daring to ask whether
they might continue ? What Institutions would per
ish in a night ? What modes of living, what con
tacts and relations between person and person, would
be possible no longer ? What revolutions would
come sweeping in ? According to Jesus, this prin
ciple of equality and just interchange Is the righteous
principle for all life of men together. Alongside it
too he places the law of love, similar in effect, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." The two laws
are not the same, and yet what one of them demands
the other demands also. The question is not merely
what customs they would expel, and what ancient
works they would make Impossible. Still more vital
is the question what they would bring in. It is a vast
question that cannot be fully answered at the present
stage, but it can be asked from the heart. What cus
toms would society take up if it were to undertake
living according to the golden rule and the law of
neighbor-love ? What new ranges of personal action
would be opened ? What new methods in the field
of business ? What new modes of neighborly asso
ciation ? What new and wiser forms of help ? What
abandonment of ancient social axioms ? What dls-
covety and acceptance of new ones on a higher plane ?

310 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
What would the golden rule and the law of neigh
bor-love and the sense of human value make of
the present system of competition ? How would
they work among nations ? What would they do
with war?
What would the ideal of Jesus, godly, just and
generous, do with the present modes of getting wealth
and handhng it? How would it clear the field of
ancient wrongs, and what new methods would it set
at work ? How would It readjust business after dis
honesty had gone out and greed had been eliminated ?
What would it substitute for the old exploiting of
human value for the sake of money value ? How
would it curb the spirit that loves to combine for the
sake of power and builds up strong protection for
selfish interests ? How would it alter the standards
of expenditure ? What effect would it have upon
habits of luxuty ? According to Jesus, it Is impos
sible to serve God and mammon. How would his
ideal convict men of having the spirit that cannot
enter the kingdom of God ? and how would It cure
them of it? By what strong Inward convictions
and spiritual persuasions would his ideal bring men
over from mammon to God ? What new modes of
distribution of property would come in, more just
and equal as well as more helpful ? Through what
new arrangements would both the rich and the poor
live worthier lives, and inherit richer blessing through
a better fellowship than they have ever known ?
What would happen to-day if society were trans
formed into the kingdom of God through adoption of

SOCIETY 311
Jesus' spirit of self-sacrificing helpfulness as the
spirit of all life ? What awakenings would there be ?
What agelong neglects would cease? What unex
pected recognitions would occur ? What mighty in
spirations of service would take possession of powers
long indolent or turned to selfishness ? What great
new works of fellowship and helpfulness would be
undertaken and carried through ? What reinforce
ment of spiritual power and means of working would
flow into old enterprises for good ? In what new
forms would the new passion of grace go forth in the
place of the ancient passion of self-seeking and self-
interest ? According to Jesus, godliness and love to
men and justice and the sense of human value all
unite to Inspire this divine passion, this necessity of
helping at whatever cost; and our deepest hearts
know that Jesus' view of this divine passion is utterly
reasonable and right. What will this passion of the
cross be when it becomes a power and runs through
the world ? Against what will it blaze as wrath ?
What tyrannies and injustices will it burn up ?
Into what forms of loving service will it throw itself
as life ? How long could a thousand disgraces last
If the self-giving spirit of Jesus had free course.
Inspiring men to take up the cross and follow him ?
How long could any one think that God was unre-
vealed or had forsaken the earth ? How long could
humanity resist the warm tide of blessing that came
flooding in ? How long could the kingdom of heaven
be delayed ? Nay, the kingdom would have come in
power.

312 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
So the questions might run on, for there is no end
to them. It is a heart-breaking catechism, though it
is an inspiring one; inspiring because of tbe vision
that it shows hanging in the air, heart-breaking
because the vision still hangs in the air, and the
world is so unready to call it down to earth. But
this is the catechism that the world has to study.
These are the questions that the ideal of Jesus thrusts
in upon men living together, to judge the manner in
which they live. The problems of society cannot be
solved until these questions are answered in Jesus'
way, not in theory but in practice. And that a result
worthy of the ideal is to be wrought out is the hope,
founded in God, that Jesus has Inspired. Not that
life in this world, with its brief generations and per
petual change, is likely ever to reach a condition In
which there can be no change for the better. Tran
sient life does not seem to be organized for moral
perfection. But a revolutionary work that shall bring
the Christian Ideal to successful expression in the
common life is to be expected in the world of God.
His kingdom Is yet to come far more completely.
When we think of such a revolution in the social
organism, we cannot help wondering by what kind
of process it will be accomplished. The kingdom
that Jesus founded will come where he founded It,
upon the plane of this present life. It will be brought
by God working through man and ma.n working
with God. But how ? Will the order and methods
of the existing world be suddenly abandoned under

SOCIETY 313
the impulse of an awakened conscience, and an or
ganization on new principles built up in its place ?
Or, in the more evolutionary mode, will changes
be made one after another as worthier convictions
become strong enough, until society is a Christian
thing? Which Is the right way in view of the
ideal of Jesus ? Which hope Is the more Christian ?
Should we plan to take part in the overthrow of the
present social order, or in a progressive improvement
of it?
Questions of reconstruction often present them
selves as first questions, entitled to first attention,
but they are not. They are important, but do not
hold the primacy. The indispensable revolution
does not need to be planned until It has been in
spired. Not until then Indeed can it be planned in
the spirit that must accomplish It. It is not a new
theoty of society that is needed at once, but a new
conscience, a new sense of the manifold need, a new
resolve, a new readiness to act. The first question
is whether the heart and mind of Christians and of all
lovers of their kind are to be awakened to the bringing
of the Christian revolution. The first task is that of
awakening society to the Christian and the unchris
tian facts that belong to its life, arousing the sense of
responsibility, quickening human fellowship, enlist
ing the army for the spiritual war. Not that all this
can be done in a vacuum: there must be work in
hand or the awakening will be no better than interest
in a debating society. But there is unquestionable
reform enough instantly needed to employ the newly

314 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
awakened interest, and the way to much of It is
entirely plain. But for the vast issue of universal
reconstruction the time is not yet ripe.
Yet the question of future method casts its shadow
before, and it is difficult to leave it unnoticed. Many
feel that the present social order is so fuH of wrong
as to be incapable of reformation; gradual changes
for the better would amount only to patching up an
old system that can never be made Christian or any
thing like It. The only way is to throw it all down and
reorganize our common life throughout on more
righteous principles. Many are convinced that the
world is rushing on toward a reconstruction, not by
mending, but by abandonment and complete re
building. Since I have spoken so positively about the ideal of
Jesus, claiming that it is adapted to all the require
ments of life, I might perhaps be expected to go fur
ther and tell what kind of reconstruction it, demands
and would provide. Does it call for the overthrow
of the existing social order, or for its improvement ?
Which should we plan for, destruction of the ancient
system, or renovation ? Perhaps I might be expected
to record here the convictions of a Socialist or an
anti-Socialist, and tell which Jesus would be if he
were among us now. But I cannot go into that.
On the vast question of the future organization of
society I am not certain that I have any present
message. I do not feel that I know the great world
well enough to know the true solution of the problem
of social method. I am not wise enough to see just

SOCIETY 315
how the ideal of Jesus would work itself into expres
sion In the institutions of a world.
But meanwhile some things are certain. It Is cer
tain that the Christian way is to put social evils away
as rapidly as we can see the way to do so. If we
cannot annihilate them at a stroke, as on the field
of society we certainly cannot, the Ideal of Jesus
would inspire us to limit them, to diminish them, to
deprive them of their opportunity and cut off their
power, to educate the people away from them. This
duty belongs to Individuals and to groups; but Indi
viduals and groups have but limited opportunity to
do such work. For many evils no individual is re
sponsible, and no group, but society itself — If not for
their origin, at least for their preservation, protection,
and encouragement — and society ought to do its
duty In putting them away. But how? Society
seems a scattered and unmanageable thing. Yes, In
some respects, but not in all. For many purposes
of righteousness, society is expressly an organized
body by virtue of its law-making power. This being
so, the ideal of Jesus would bid society use its power
of government against vety many social evils.
Much cynical nonsense has been talked about the
impossibility of making people moral by legislation.
Of course It is true that the Christian ideal of inward
righteousness cannot be attained in that manner;
that is too plain to be talked about. But that is no
reason why that which is possible should not be
done. We cannot make men righteous by law, but
by law we can make diem quit a host of unrighteous

316 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
practices. Society legislating can restrain the wicked
and protect the weak and give life its opportunity;
It can lift the pressure of injustice from many who
suffer wrong; it can rank itself on the side of hu
manity in a thousand matters; it can organize many
a work of helpfulness and assist the Christian spirit
in its service. It cannot do any of these things
completely, but it can do them well enough to work
vast improvement in the present situation. The
Christian ideal summons all governments to be its
agents, doing what lies within their power to help
it win its victoty. In this there is no union of Church
and State; the truth is simply that Jesus utters his
call to society organized as government, to join in
working out his righteous principles. All this seems
so obvious as scarcely to deserve the space that I have
given it on the page. Nevertheless it is not in vain
to speak once more of the sound relation of human
law to the Christian ideal. The ideal of Jesus re
quires that society should freely use its self-governing
power for promotion of the righteousness with which
life must be filled.
And of course it is equally obvious and yet equally
worth saying, that the ideal of Jesus calls for effort,
labor, patience, concert, combination, organization,
of evety effective sort, for doing away with evils In
the social field. All workers must be welcome, and
a new unity must grow up, the unity of effort to
bring the kingdom of God in social righteousness and
help. The church has Its caUIng, but cannot do
more than a little fraction of the work. All organi-

SOCIETY 317
zations for social betterment are workers together
with God and the church for the fulfilment of the
ideal of Jesus. The church that has not a warm
right hand of fellowship for each and aU of them is
not acting therein as a church of Jesus Christ, but
is laying its high character aside.
It may be felt that these hints of present duty look
toward the realization of the ideal through progressive
change, rather than through a sudden overthrow; by
breathing life into the old social organism, rather than
by slaying it that another may be created. That
is true, I must confess. It certainly is our Christian
duty to make progressive change in the social organ
ism just as fast as we can; whether a convulsion is
coming or not, this is the method that is now in opera
tion, with the sanction of all that is good. Thus far
certainly God has brought in his kingdom step by step.
Histoty bears witness and encourages our hope of the
coming of the kingdom through progressive change.
That is to say, it encourages our hope if we can lift
up our eyes to look at long periods. If we are In
great haste, there Is no way to be hopeful but through
expecting a great convulsion — though how convul
sion Is to do the work of experience it is hard to see.
But if we can wait for the end while we are in haste
for the progress, we may take hope from the testi
mony of the past that God brings his kingdom step
by step.
A glance at the fortunes of the ideal may help us
to see in what quarter hope lies. It may help us too

318 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
to bring the tribute of our loyal sympathy to Jesus,
whose ideal we are watching on its way to victoty.
When Jesus gave voice to his ideal in his life, it
was his and no one else's. He knew that no other
saw the vision that he beheld; no one else saw God
and man and hfe as he saw them. He sought to
Impart his Ideal to his disciples and educate them in
power to discern it, and he offered it to all who heard
him, for them to receive it as they were able. In
some degree he gave it to his friends, but only in
rudimentary fashion did they discern what was so
clear to him. They were still at the beginning of
their education. So when he went away he knew
that the ideal that filled his heart was left in a world
where no one saw It as yet, except in glimpses. Never
theless he went away and left it so; and vety beauti
ful and touching is the confidence In which he left
his vision of what ought to be, in a world that had
scarcely yet begun to see it. And yet that the world
might see it was the purpose of his appearing.
Of course he could not expect that his ideal would
be realized soon. He could only throw It out into
the world for men to learn, to practise as they were
able, and to master when time and opportunity might
permit. That is to say, his ideal had nothing before
It but long warfare to find expression through imper
fect agents, and realization through crude endeavors.
It was certain that different men, groups, nations,
races, would not only apprehend it differently, but
misapprehend It differently, and bring all sorts of
faults and errors into its company. Various modes of

SOCIETY 319
life would bring it into various appHcations and work
out various results, and all would react upon the ideal
itself to modify it in their minds. Understanding of
it could be wrought out only by long experience, that
is, by experiment, success, and failure. There is
unspeakable pathos in the fortunes of the good in an
evil world, and nowhere is it deeper than in the his
toty of Jesus' Ideal of human life. Naturally, for it
is the highest ideal of life that has ever been cast forth
into the world of men, and it was offered to men
whose vety need of it rendered its troubles certain.
After his departure the great enlightenment of the
divine Spirit came upon his friends, and their eyes
were opened to see the beauty and value of what he
had given them. As a result the ideal of Jesus, now
better discerned and loved, took its place among the
life forces of the age. It was the purest ideal of life
in existence, and the most exacting, and yet the most
winning, for all who felt their need. It inspired such
life and character as the world knew not of, and It
glowed with a contagious energy such as no other
ideal possessed. But the Inevitable variation began
at once. It appears already within the New Tes
tament. The Pauline and Johannine conceptions
of God and life are there, and others besides, and
while they are all alike at heart they reveal genuine
differences. To all these new watchers for the future,
what Jesus intended to accomplish was the same, and
yet it was not conceived in the same manner by any
two of them, nor did they think alike of the way in
which he was to win his victoty. Each in his own

320 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
way the Christian laborers were working toward the
coming of the kingdom, but with various conceptions
both of the means and of the end. The vision of
Jesus hung before them all, but they saw it in many
lights and with unequal clearness. It was the same
to them all, and yet not the same.
The cause of the difference is perfectly simple.
The ideal of Jesus, discerned by various men with
various degrees of clearness and justice, entered in
their minds Into union with their various experiences,
characters, views, prepossessions, and modes of life.
It influenced all these by its high quality and power,
but In turn It was influenced by them In as many
ways as there were minds, and modified in its quality
as a working force.
We might wonder at this and regret it. Why, we
might ask, could not the gift of Jesus be kept un
changed and pure ? But instead of wondering we
should see how natural it was and how necessaty.
This Is the only way in which a great ideal could ever
exert power in the world. In no other manner could
It live from age to age and be effective. A great
ideal that did not thus plunge Into life and enter as a
vital force into the common thoughts of men would
be a fruitless thing. An ideal must take its place
among actual working forces, and, so to speak, must
take Its chances among them. Its entrance into real
life must be thorough and Intimate, and its union
with the living motives of humanity unreserved;
otherwise it Is a mere opinion on the shelf, open to
consultation, but with no power to inspire. In this

SOCIETY 321
necessaty manner the Ideal of Jesus has entered into
union with Innumerable conceptions and modes of
life that were current in the world, and in a sense
it has inevitably become entangled among them. It
has never lost its power, but it has been much
hindered of its force; for it blended often with
something that could unite with it but poorly, and
sometimes with something absolutely hostile. These
chances it had to take if ever it was to win its victoty.
Nothing else has ever been so certain of such for
tune with all that it involved as the ideal of Jesus.
Described in a word, it is the ideal of the highest
living in religion and morals. Plainly this ideal Is
akin to all that is best and worthiest in man, and
combines naturally with all the virtues. How ready
they are to welcome it and be exalted by It! But
plainly also it can be taken up without the abandon
ment of all that contradicts it. If it could not, it
could have no saving power and no contact with a
sinful race. Men may adopt it according to their
light and virtue, and set their hearts upon it, and tty
to realize it, while yet there is much in them that
would forbid or modify its victoty. They may hold
it, and love it in their measure, while yet they are
selfish, or superstitious, or bound by bad habits, or
too ignorant to know what it involves. Indeed, an
Ideal of lofty living is the vety thing that cannot
choose its company. If It is to do its work. It must
enter for redemption's sake into union with all the
existing forces of the worid. The greatest evil will
reject it. But all the intermediate grades between

322 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
that and its own high character will take it in, and
bring it down somewhat toward themselves, and be
purified by it into something better. All Christian
histoty is one long tragic and glorious lUustration of
this process.
The ideal of Jesus long ago entered Into union
with a strong habit of metaphysical thinking. Seekers
of God have felt the right and necessaty Impulse to
think out subjects that loomed large in the field of
religious experience, and have easily imagined that
the thinking out of the religion was a part of the
religion itself. Consequently, men have Identified
their mental constructions with the truth which they
were intended to ascertain or to clarify. The truths
that Jesus threw out into life have been robed in
these intellectual garments of human make, and have
come to be almost unrecognizable without them. Of
course the garments changed the appearance of the
truths; and yet it was in the robes that the truths
were now known and accepted. Thus there grew up
an ideal of metaphysical theologians, differing both in
tone and In contents from the ideal of Jesus as we
gather it from the Gospels; and hence there has come
to exist for the church an Ideal of orthodoxy. Essen
tial to the Ideal of life has been correctness of thought,
by which was meant conformity to accepted beliefs.
In the ordinaty working Christian Ideal, the idea of
orthodoxy has thus taken a place that is out of pro
portion to its importance, if we judge its importance
in the light of the Gospels. Consequently, in intimate
association with this overworked idea of conformity

SOCIETY 323
the ideal of Jesus has had to work Itself out as best
it could. Attention has been much transferred from
life to thought, from character to correctness in doc
trine, from work to belief, from the soul to the mind,
from the broad field of society to the limited field of
ecclesiastical relations; and the result has been that
the ideal of Jesus has been somewhat deprived of its
opportunity. Never altogether indeed, for that was
impossible; but it has been distorted somewhat, and
thrown out of its proportions, and weakened for its
work, by too close blending with the ideal of ortho
doxy. Long ago the Ideal of Jesus entered into union also
with the idea and institutions of authority. This came
most naturally to pass, in view of the character of
the first period of Christianity. The Roman em
pire was a tremendous institution for an ideal to
reckon with. It had its own ideals, not all unworthy,
and served the world by means of them, but spiritual
conceptions it had little power to apprehend, and it
had no help to give to the Ideal of Jesus. Indeed
when the conflict came. It would have extinguished
the ideal in blood if the ideal could have been so
extinguished. But in its death, by one of the strang
est turns in history, the empire handed on the be
quest of its essential character to Christianity Itself.
The sense of the need of an authority on earth when
the mighty power that had ruled the world was fall
ing inspired the Christian force of the time to seize
the throne and reign In the empire's stead in the
name of God. The motive was more good than bad.

324 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
and it is hard to see how the event could have failed
to occur; nevertheless the result was that the ideal
of Jesus was compelled to live and work amid the
manifold temptations that beset the possession of
spiritual sovereignty. For centuries the church was
veritably the successor to the empire, and the ideal
of Jesus was wedded to the institutions of authority.
In the largest part of Christendom the union stlH
continues, and we are even now witnessing strong
efforts to prevent the ideal of Christianity from getting
away at all from that of authority. In this alliance
the Christian ideal, so far from being disowned, has
been held high, and the sincerest endeavor has been
made to control life In the interest of its realization.
But the Christian ideal does not contemplate such
authority, or blend harmoniously with the idea of it.
It is not a master, and it has no master, except God.
Bearing a sceptre and a sword, it has not been able
perfectly to be itself.
On the other hand, of course the Ideal of Jesus
has had to enter into union with the conception of
liberty that is characteristic of the modern age. It
has done much to encourage the democratic spirit,
and, as it must, is blending with that spirit now
wherever it Is abroad. A Christian disciple of the
modern democracy might think that the ideal had
but to be set free from the bondage of external au
thority to come to perfection. But the faults are
not all of one kind or in one place. Liberty has its
dangers too. The ideal of Jesus finds itself striving
for mastety In the broad struggle of free society.

SOCIETY 325
At its side strong passions are released, mighty am
bitions are awakened, powerful interests are at work.
Its beloved people are open to the subtle temptations
of freedom, and often hold it In alliance with a false
independence. Not even in alliance with its kindred
spirit, liberty, does it have its fuU opportunity and
do its perfect work.
These glimpses are enough to show us that it is
no reproach to the ideal of Jesus that we do not find
it fully realized in the life of the world, even after all
these centuries. It is inevitable that we should find
it always combined and complicated with inferior or
hostile forces, working its conquests by means of
such alliances. Only so can its victories be won
and Its quality be Imparted to the life of the world.
It exists In these combinations, not in weakness but
in power, not in despair but in hope. It is there to
leaven the world in which Jesus left it. The task
of history Is to bring humanity into harmony with
God, and the fortunes of the ideal of Jesus simply
represent the process by which that work must be
accomplished. That high ideal of life has to be tried
out in histoty, and so do the Inferior ideals that are
tied to It with hampering effect. As we look on we
pray. May the best cause win ! and more and more it
wiU win, and does. The mind of the world must be
educated, and won, to judge and choose with God,
and that is the work that is in progress. It is far
enough from being finished, but we see the ideal
of Jesus slowly winning victoty after victoty. No
cataclysm has come to the rescue, taking the work

326 THE IDEAL OF JESUS-
out of the hands of spiritual forces, but step by step
thus far God has brought his kingdom on. In the
same manner it seems likely that he is to continue.
Spiritual forces have to take their time, but there are
no other forces that can make spiritual conquest of a
world. But spiritual forces are quite able to produce some
thing more than gradual and progressive change. It
is quite possible that in due time the unexpected may
occur. The day may come when society is so far
awakened and enlightened as to take deliberate hold
of the task of reforming itself on a magnificent scale,
throwing out its old false principles, introducing
methods of life that will work good Instead of evil,
reconstructing itself according to the ideal of Jesus.
But if that comes to pass, as God grant It may, it
will be simply an acceleration or concentration of the
mighty work of God through human conscience and
endeavor. It will not be a convulsion from without,
but a continuation of the manner that Jesus initiated.
Step by step will still be the method, but that step will
be a great one; and after it many other great steps
unpredictable by us may be found necessaty and taken
by the better-taught soul of mankind.
The present duty of Christian people may be illus
trated from an Interesting situation of our own time.
The process of evolution has always been going on,
of course, and the movement of nature and man has
gone upon this principle, but no one knew It. The
fact had not come Into knowledge and been defined.

SOCIETY 327
Only in the last half-century have men begun to
understand the great process in which they are all
involved. Lately men do begin to feel themselves
in the midst of a great process, onward and mainly
upward, of such nature that all that is put into the
process of life will come out again in the quality of
later stages. Since the dawning of this knowledge
some have been awakened to feel that they are no
true sons of their race unless they contribute their
best will and effort to help the upward movement of
humanity. That movement Is not automatically
certain to be the best; Its upward tendency may be
thwarted at any point by the ignorance or folly of
men; but every human soul may actually take part in
making it a better movement. The hope is, indeed,
that the race itself may yet be awakened to take its
evolution into its own hands and guide it by its own
best intelligence and conscience. Therefore in the
light of this new opportunity some true souls are
studying the world and their own powers, and learn
ing where to place their best endeavors, and putting
their might into the promotion of a better evolution
for mankind. Not a few have come to call it a privi
lege of the first order that they can thus place them
selves at the service of the evolution of their race.
The case of the kingdom of God is unlike that of
the doctrine of evolution, in that the knowledge of it
Is no new thing. From of old the kingdom of God
has been known and loved and waited for, and men
have been its servants. But the case is similar, in
that men have not fully understood the service which

328 THE IDEAL OF JESUS
it was in their power to render to the kingdom. Here
too is a great and all-pervasive movement in the
world. It is divinely good, but humanly imperfect.
It is working for the vety noblest end, but is not work
ing perfectly or tending straight toward the accom
plishment of its purpose. The ideal of Jesus, worthy
of God, Is working toward the redemption of all hu
man life from its characteristic evil, but It is working
under difficulties. It Is not alone and unhindered.
It is combined, as a working force, with all manner
of human Imperfections. It works through human
agents who do not altogether understand it or sym
pathize with it. It is burdened with results from
ancient faults and errors. It is claimed in support
of many an evil that has become allied with it. So it
is hampered without and within in its work of winning
the world to itself. Thus the movement of the king
dom of God in the world, which Is identical with the
work of Jesus' ideal, is not Inherently certain to be
the best: It is liable to inconsistencies of many kinds
and is certain to fall below its own best possibilities.
That this situation Is Inevitable and a necessaty part
of the divine process, does not make it less worthy of
our attention. It ought, rather, to call our attention
all the more sharply to our own duty. The lesson is,
that evety soul is summoned to take part with the
pure ideal of Jesus and help it toward its victoty.
We are all called to help the gospel of Christ to be
itself. We must learn to distinguish things that
differ, and approve the true. The Christian heart of
to-day must set itself to release the high ideal of Jesus

SOCIETY 329
from union with whatever contradicts it or prevents
its power from going forth. It has suffered long
from entangling alhances; it is ours to disentangle it
from some of them and offer it free opportunity to
do Its work of blessing. It is in this way most of all
that we are summoned to be workers together with
God and with his Christ.

BOOKS BY
WILLIAM NEWTON CLARKE.D.D.
Professor oJ Theology at Colgate University

SIXTY YEARS
WITH THE BIBLE
A Record of Experience
12mo $1.25 net, postpaid $1.35
" He persuaaes and defends by telling simply, with
convincing sincerity and frankness, how he himself
was led very gradually, but irresistibly, away from
the common view which all evangelicals held a half
century ago to that which obtains among moderate
progressives of the present. The process is described
in detail, always with clearness, and without the shght-
est touch of bitterness or partisanship." — The Independent.
" It is difficult to see how any one can find him at
fault at any point. . . . This frank recital of his ex
perience will serve admirably as a guide to less
thorough and discerning minds." — The Nation.
"We heartily appreciate and are glad to recognize
the beautiful spirit in which this book is written."
— The Examiner.
" This book has the great advantage of travelling
along an altogether practical road, and leads the
reader along a path which he himself has doubtless
trodden in part." — New York Christian Advocate.
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, NEW YORK

BY WILLIAM NEWTON CLARKE, D.D,
THE CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE OF GOD
(International Theological Library)
Crown 8vo $2.50 net
" It is a book which will enter current religious
life as a sweetening and purifying influence revealing
to many the truths by which they have lived, but
which they knew not how to state. It will make for
faith, for wiser and deeper faith, and will instruct in
method of approach to religious truth as well as
convey large portions of the truth itself-." The Independent.
" Dr. Clarke eschews absolutely all metaphysical and
philosophical questions and furnishes us instead a
persuasive and winsome exposition of the religious
content of the God-idea as held by the Christian
Q,\aic\i."— Biblical World.
" No one can read the book with intelligent interest
and not have a more vivid realization of the match
less character, the infinite greatness and gracious near
ness of the only true and living God. . . . The author
has done his work nobly and well."
— The Baptist Review and Expositor.
" An instructive book, full of clear thought and in
dependent insight ; but it is something better ; it is a
live book, dealing with realities and not with words
merely, and relying for its appeal upon the assent of
the reader's own experience."
— The American Journal of Theology.

oi-ee 171^880

mMm^ .

s7"i U