and Roman life, something like true facts of Greek and Roman history; and with patience we shall, no doubt, arrive at clearer and more accurate views of Jewish and Christian history. The process is going on, but I do not see that the three positions which I have pointed out are in any danger of being destroyed by historical criticism.

It must be a clear gain to learn more accurately what Jesus Christ really was, what he really did, what he really said. An accurate study of history must greatly help us here.

It must be a clear gain to realise more fully the type of life which Jesus created. History can show us what that was, and how it has been grasped in different ages and by different churches.

It must be a clear gain to watch more closely the victorious struggle of Christianity with the evil tendencies of human nature. History unfolds before our eyes the great and exciting drama of that struggle, its failures, its vicissitudes, and its triumphs.

32. When, then, people ask us, What has Christianity done? we point to the actual facts around us. What are the influences in this populous city which make for righteousness? What is the leaven that is working at this moment in the lump? Almost every active, moral, and spiritual influence in the world at this instant is directly or indirectly connected with Christianity. If it does not directly date back to the work of Christ Himself, it yet flows from the Spirit of Christ. We can

civilisation, for Christianity has mixed itself up with the forces of the new world. It insists upon not being distinct. It refuses to be set apart by itself. It claims, in the name of the Son of Man, all that belongs to man. It hunts man; it will have him for its own; it cares for all that is his, for all that he is. It comes with the fire to purify; it comes with the washing of water to cleanse ; it comes with the bread and wine to build up and strengthen the fibres of his natural and spiritual body; it has come into the world to remain there and to regenerate society.

33. You may think that I am shutting my eyes to the evil that remains, that I am claiming more than can be claimed for the present state of the world. There are still gigantic evils in this city of London. In New York, in Paris, in Vienna, in Rome, we have still got brutal passions to contend with, and all sorts of abuses and corruptions. There is, perhaps, hardly any form of crime once prevalent in old Rome which is not still to be found in our great European capitals. I acknowledge that. Then you say, 'What has become of your Christianity?' I will tell you what has become of it. It has become a chief element in the regenerating influences about us; more than a part, the very mainspring of those influences. The aspect of public opinion is changed towards vice. That is the difference between old world and new world crime. In this respect there is an immeasurable gap between the crime of old Rome and the crime of London. The crime of Rome, in its degenerate days, went on under the sanction of public

opinion, or with very little public feeling to oppose it; only a few men stood aside and attempted to make head against the stream of immorality which threatened to overwhelm them. Public opinion sanctioned it; whereas in London public opinion is dead against it. I know the public mind wavers about certain points of morals, and some big ones too. But that is generally because the really moral course is still somewhat doubtful, in detail at least. Where there is no doubt there is no hesitation. Practically, there is a dead set being made in decent society against immorality. The literature of a country is a tolerably good reflector of a country's manners and morals. If you look at our literature, although we are getting a little unscrupulous in certain directions, yet, take the literature of the country throughout, its tone is morally sound; it is in spirit a Christian literature. The tendency is certainly upwards, whereas in other ages and countries it has been as certainly downwards. It may be asked, 'Why does not Christianity make the world good all at once?' It never professed to make all good at once. It never professed to supersede free will, to act the despot, to ruin man's personal responsibility, and the value and dignity of his life along with it. To be conjured into goodness would involve the destruction of what we mean by goodness, which is a preference for righteousness and a sustained and joyful activity in a right direction. Goodness is an energy and a growth, not a miracle.

34. I have nearly done, my brethren; but I must meet

H

one more objection. People tell us that Christianity is only part of a system, that it takes a narrow view of life, that it does not take into account the whole of human nature, that it takes no notice of political economy, that it does not sanction a great many things now found to be true, and that it recommends others which are found to be deleterious. What do people expect Christianity to be and to teach? Did you expect Jesus Christ to point out to you the continent of America? Did you expect Jesus Christ to show you how to construct the steam-engine? Did you expect Him to explain to you the laws of supply and demand, or regulate wages, or unfold to you the laws of historical evidence? All these things are left to man to find out for himself. No special revelation will be given-none is needed. We are not servants-we are free sons. To us will come not the despotism of an arbitrary law, but the revelations of time, of history, of science, and of experience. These will teach us their own lessons; but Christ moves in a different plane altogether. The few rules He gave were for the time in which He lived, not for ours; the principles which He revealed for the general conduct of life, were for our time and for all time. For they were such principles as could be applied to various states of knowledge, forms of government, and conditions of life.

It has been said that Christ must have been opposed to a great deal that is lovely, and good, and natural in itself; that His Gospel gives no countenance to the influence of the arts and sciences. Is it so? Is it so? The 'pale Galilean' who has conquered, is He opposed to all these

things? I admit a certain form of Christianity is opposed to them; that, very soon after Jesus Christ passed away, people emaciated themselves and got into a mad ascetic life, which brought forth a mad ascetic form of the Christian religion. But Christ never recommended this; He never taught it, He never lived it. When He spoke of the world in terms of reprobation, as a thing to be shunned, He meant the evil that was in the world, nothing more, nothing less. He never shunned the world Himself like John the Baptist; he never taught His disciples to be sad or to fast constantly. He said they could not be sad, they could not fast, as long as the Bridegroom was with them. Sacrifice He taught, but never sacrifice for its own sake; always sacrifice for a worthy object, for the kingdom of heaven, in the cause of Christian progress; for truth, for honour, for love. The early Christians were, no doubt, against art, which they associated with only Pagan influences. They were also against family ties, and many social pursuits, which they dreaded as obstacles to Christian progress. But this was a misreading of the mind of Christ. Christ morose!

Christ a solitary, a selfish monk! Christ a scorner of human affection! Christ an enemy to the arts and sciences, the utilities, the recreations and the beauties of life! That is not my Christ. My Christ has a large heart, a clear, divine, piercing intellect; my Christ is one who loved nature and loved men; one who used to watch the clouds changing their colours at sunset and sunrise; who loved to walk out on a clear morning and see the corn growing, and watch the shadows on the