morality quite secular, the soul and its eternal affairs sitting apart in a love quite spiritual." "Which of us," it is asked, "has not felt this distracting antagonism? How many has it not driven to a rejection of all real belief in the Christian revelation? How many more has despair of explaining it, deadened into an apathetic acceptance of Christian doctrines as fatal as their rejection-nay, shall we not say more fatal because more final."

Now there is doubtless a measure of exaggeration in these representations, yet the question raised is most important, and most intensely practical. If there is to be incertitude here, it will carry in it the most serious and far-reaching consequences, both to the individual and to society. The question, therefore, is not to be shirked. On the contrary, it demands in every relation, to be fully investigated. Let us look first at the alleged extent of the evil.

These writers assume it to be commensurate with that whole section of the Christian world which accepts the Christian morality as the authoritative rule of life, whilst the distracting influence is felt, and operates in generating a fatal scepticism, widely beyond. The pulpit proclaims the one standard, and we pretend, and perhaps ineffectually try to live by it, yet practically recognise and act on a quite different one "in the forum and the street."

Now we readily admit that this is to a great extent true. But it is a very hasty and, as we hope to show, unwarranted—conclusion, that the case is so because the New Testament standard of morality (professedly received as binding), is impracticable. Before such an assumption is accepted and proclaimed, it might be well to inquire whether the standard has been rightly understood-whether, rather, it has not been greatly misapprehended. Nothing, at any-rate, is more common than to meet with the grossest misapprehensions (and consequent misrepresentations) of the Christian morality among the class of writers from whom we have quoted. Thus, for example, Mr. Buckle says,-" Every Christian professes to believe that it is good to be ill used and buffeted; that wealth is an evil, because rich men cannot enter the kingdom of heaven; that if your cloak is taken, you must give your coat also; that if you are smitten on the one cheek, you should turn round and offer the other. These, and similar doctrines, the early Christians not only professed, but acted up to and followed. The same doctrines are contained in our Bibles, read in our Churches, and preached in our pulpits. Who is there that obeys them ?"* Another writer of the same school tells us, that the Apostles inculcated indifference to "human culture and affections," as well as to "human needs"-an assertion which every one, who has any just notion of what either true culture, or the deepest human affections are, knows to be grossly, and even ludicrously incorrect. Indiffer* Fraser's Magazine, May, 1859. See also "On Liberty," by John Stuart Mill, pp. 74, 76, 87, 93, passages too long and desultory to be quoted here.

on

ence to human affection! love," than any other class of writers whatever. They declare it to be the deepest spring and source of all right activity; they proclaim it to be the fulfilling of the law; they pronounce all exterior obedience and service to be, in its absence, vain. And what culture equal to the course of moral discipline they set forth and enforce-a discipline embracing, not only all conduct, but all thought and feeling-a discipline dealing primarily and directly with the heart.

The New Testament writers lay more stress

Do they discourage knowledge or inquiry? On the contrary, does not this single precept-" prove all things, hold fast that which is good" -oblige every man to cultivate both, to the utmost practicable extent ?

Three conditions, at least, must be fulfilled ere the moral teaching of the New Testament can be properly understood. 1st, A man must be able to apprehend its true principle, under the special modes of putting and illustration adopted by Christ and his Apostle. 2d, He must distinguish between what He and they enjoin or prohibit, and what they simply pass by as not necessary, or as being beyond their object to prescribe and enforce. 3d, Having a clear apprehension of these distinctions, he will be prepared to make a third, scarcely less essential, viz., that between the morality of the New Testament, and its popular presentation from the pulpit, and apprehension in the pew.

1. When Christ tells us, that if any man will come after him, he must first "hate his father and mother, wife and children, &c.," or says "If any man sue thee at the law and take away thy cloak, let him have thy coat also," no one who cares to know the import of his words (we will not except Mr. Buckle) would, for a moment, conclude that we should be best obeying him by acting according to their literal import. The object of such a putting is not to define duty, but to impress it on the mind and conscience. Often, in the first instance, to startle from the moral lethargy induced by arid conventions, because, until that is done, no impression whatever can be made. Once we have hold of the principle of Christian morality, we shall have little difficulty as to the modes of its embodiment, or the various means taken to enforce it. And that principle is surely set forth with the most explicit plainness-"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." It was so under the old dispensation; it is so under the new. After enumerating a long list of Christian virtues, St. Paul adds "If there is any other precept, it is briefly comprehended in these words-thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." And yet John Stuart Mill can endeavour to persuade the world that the "ideal of the Christian morality is negative rather than positive, passive rather than active, abstinence from evil rather than energetic pursuit of good; and that thou shalt not' predominates unduly over' thou shalt.'"

2. The second distinction requiring to be made is, between what the New Testament enjoins or forbids, and what it simply assumes as already matter of universal recognition, or as not coming directly within its scope and object. For example, the Divine Existence is everywhere assumed in scripture; so are also the common sentiments and moralities essential to the existence of civil society. It is from inattention to the plain principle just enunciated, that it has been objected that the New Testament nowhere inculcates patriotism. Such objections proceed on a misapprehension of the primary and main incidence of Christian teaching-which is on the individual in his personal relations to God and his fellows. Christianity leaves all due authority, parental, municipal, regal, in the full use of all its proper and necessary means and instruments. A simple case will show the absurdity of any other conclusion. Were a child to smite his father on the one cheek, would it be Christian duty in the parent to act-not, say, according to the letter, but-in the spirit of the injunction, "turn to him the other also!" In perfect consistency with the principle just stated, Christianity leaves the duties of the citizen where it found them, only enforcing them by higher motives and sanc tions. This accounts for there being no formal condemnation of slavery in the New Testament. Social evils are there attacked, not directly, but through the inculcation of principles whose adoption and observance would infallibly destroy them. The case is similar with respect to science, literature, and art. These pursuits, and elements of culture, are left to the natural operation of human faculty and susceptibility. And very safely and securely, seeing it is the nature of Christianity, and of the spiritual life which it evokes and nourishes, to quicken, expand, and elevate all human faculty and susceptibility. The history of literature, science, and art, among the Christian nations, furnishes as abundant vindication of the course taken in this respect by Christ and His Apostles, as does the history of the evolution amongst the most advanced and most Christian of them of personal, political, and religious freedom. Every genuine form and instrument of culture-every legitimate pursuit of the human mind-owes its highest stimulus, as well as its best material, to Christianity. The Christian morality lays its interdict on nothing which it is good for man, AS MAN, to acquire, possess, or enjoy. On this negative side, it challenges the fullest scrutiny. On the other hand, it omits nothing proper to the great and primary object of the Christian revelation-which is, to recover, guide, and discipline man in his religious and moral nature.

3. But is this the current apprehension of the Christian morality amongst those who accept it as their rule of life,-amongst those whose duty it is to expound and inculcate it? We have seen that the morality of the New Testament is grossly misconceived of by those who take exception to its being recognised as a standard of duty; but its spirit-in its double aspect of injunction and inhibition-is also misapprehended by a

large proportion of those who professedly accept it. They fail clearly to apprehend its proper incidence, as well as adequately to feel its obligation. And this is greatly due to an imperfect realization of its scope and objects on the part of Christian teachers. This, again, is very much the result of adherence to a rigid doctrinal system, and to traditionary conventions, along with an inadequate knowledge of the state and wants of current society. The Christian teacher requires fixity of principle, no doubt, but it is not less important that he should have an open eye to every new development of human knowledge, and of social life around him. For, as we shall see in our next paper, his capacity, not only to apply properly the Christian morality, but even to understand it, depends very much upon this. The Christian teacher, as is well remarked by Dr. Arnold, ought fully to understand the nature of the society which he is to endeavour to influence; the relations of its several parts to one another; what may have disordered those relations; the views which the several classes entertain of each other and of themselves; and how far these are founded on prejudice or on truth." How little adapted the formal education our Christian teachers receive is to induce these qualifications, must be only too painfully obvious to every one who reflects on the matter. They would require to come more directly and practically into contact with industrial, commercial, and social life, in order intimately to know the present state and wants of society. But, in the absence of such knowledge, the Christian morality can never receive justice at their hands. One main reason, why so many have come to regard the morality of the New Testament as an impracticable ideal is, that the moral teachings of the pulpit are incommensurate with—are very much apart from, the moral wants of the time. The persons referred to do not find the Christian morality, either realised in its breadth, or applied at the exigent points of contact. This nowise excuses their gross and flagrant misconceptions respecting it, but it, in great measure, serves to account for them.

Were the Christian, morality studied, clear of these three grounds of misconception, and with adequate mental and moral preparation, we should anticipate the result without any apprehension. We should then run no risk of a conclusion, such as we have been combating-a conclusion which divests the New Testament of all authority, and leaves Christians, as well as others, to regulate their lives, and shape their course by the current conventions of the time,-a conclusion which would not only discredit, but extinguish the martyr spirit, and with it all aspirations after a higher and a purer life than current opinion requires or sanctions.

XIII. MORAL TRUTHS-IN WHAT SENSE STATIONARY, IN WHAT PROGRESSIVE.

THE Christian morality presents to us a standard, not of mere “ideal,” but of practicable excellence; yet, at least, two qualifying elements, so to speak, must enter into a just estimate and appreciation of it as such. Morality, to a being like man, though absolute in its essence, is practically progressive. Its great elements or principles are fixed, but their apprehension-as to clearness, scope, and depth of impression-is variable. Hence, the standard, whilst the same, intrinsically, does not present itself as the same, either to all men, or in all states of Society. The foundationprinciple of the Moral Law recognises this variation of capacity, and susceptibility; recognises and lays hold on it-" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ALL thy heart and soul," &c.; "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." And the Christian law, in all its outgrowth of detail, makes provision for, and meets, this advancing power of apprehension, and growing capacity for obedience.

It is the standard, as apprehended or seen by any one, that takes practical hold of him; and the law according to which the standard rises in the apprehension of the individual, precludes its appearing at a hopeless altitude. Moral insight is not like mere intellectual insight. It depends on other conditions; or rather, on the same, with others superadded. It implies capacity and attention, but it still more intimately depends on obedience. Light comes through obedience. We see more and more clearly, the more faithfully we act up to our present light. The standard rises with our moral stature, and is ever seen to be borne aloft and to beckon upwards. At every step the prospect widens, and another and higher crest of the mountain emerges.*

This subjective element as it bears relation to, and affects the standard of morals, is entirely ignored by Mr. Buckle. The perverse impercipience of his treatment of the influence of moral truths among civilizing agencies, may be judged of from the following specimens. The extracts are from his chapter entitled, "Comparison between Intellectual and Moral Laws, as Respects the Effects Produced by Each on Society." "There is unquestionably nothing in the world which has undergone so little change as those great dogmas of which moral systems are composed. To do good to others; to sacrifice for their benefit your own wishes; to love your neighbour as yourself; to restrain your passions; to honour your parents; to respect those who are set over you: these, and a few others, are the sole essentials of morals; but they have been known for thousands of years, and not one jot or tittle has been added to them by all the sermons, homilies, and text-books which moralists and theologians have been able to produce. But if we contrast this stationary aspect of moral truths with the progressive aspect of intellectual truths, the difference is indeed startling. In reference to our moral conduct there is not a single principle now known to the most cultivated Europeans, which was not likewise known to the ancients. In reference to the conduct of our intellect, the moderns have not only made the most important additions to every department of knowledge, that the ancients ever attempted to study, but,