inseparably connected with them, &c., in particular cases. If, then, Christ did claim to be Messiah and to work miracles, it does not appear which of the above propositions Christian prejudice would have any interest or tendency to pervert. We have in them a perfectly consistent and, as it seems to the writer, an irrefragable outline of that part of Christ's life which is discussed in these pages. The writer has adopted it as his framework, and has not attempted to add to it anything fundamental, but has simply sought to find in the Gospels matter illustrative of it. This illustrative matter which is drawn from particular Gospels rests, of course, on inferior evidence. But evidence inferior to the best may have very great probability, and there are certain obvious criteria by which this probability may be estimated. In the case of teachings, or maxims, the best criterion is their congruity with that general outline of Christ's system in which all the Evangelists agree. If they explain it and make it consistent, then, coming from witnesses not ill-furnished with the means of acquiring true information, they will deserve to be received. Their genuineness is often confirmed by other circumstances. For example, the same thought, in itself agreeable to Christ's character, sometimes appears over and over again, clothed in different forms, expressed in different figures of speech; or two doctrines complementary to each other-that is, such that the person who holds one must logically hold the other also-appear in different Gospels or in different parts of the same Gospel ; or something striking in the expression seems to bear the stamp of a remarkable mind. In this manner there may be collected a considerable body of illustration both of Christ's character and of the great Christian moral principle, the divine inspiration which makes virtue natural, active, tender, elevated, resentful, forgiving. On the other hand, isolated maxims occurring once only, and not readily connecting themselves with what is radical in the system, are in this book generally passed over. Similar criteria may, to a certain extent, be applied to Christ's acts. Acts which are evidently in character gain credibility, and this credibility is increased when there is about them something beyond the ordinary reach, or beside the purpose, of invention. The account of the woman taken in adultery has scarcely any external authority. But it seems to derive great probability from the fact that the conduct attributed to Christ in it is left half explained, so that, as it stands, it does not satisfy the impulses which lead to the invention and reception of fictitious stories. The peculiar mannerism, if the expression may be used, of the Fourth Gospel, has caused it to be suspected of being at least a freely idealised portraiture of Christ. In this book, therefore, it is not referred to, except in confirmation of statements made in the other Gospels, and once or twice where its testimony seemed in itself probable and free from the suspected peculiarities. Resting then upon a basis of absolutely uniform testimony, upon facts merely illustrated and explained by less certain tradition, the writer has endeavoured to describe a moralist speaking with authority and perpetuating his doctrine by means of a society. It is this union of morals and politics that he finds to be characteristic of Christianity. But some of his readers, he has observed, fail to grasp the conception. They insist (the objection is repeated from a private letter) that Christ, as far as concerns morality, does not differ from Seneca, except in the matter of his teaching. Seneca says, 'You ought to do this,' and Christ, however authoritative his style may be, can say no more. It is part of the same objection, as will be shown further on, when they maintain that those discoveries in morality, which have been attributed to Christ in this book, are no discoveries at all, but were known to the world already. Let us look to the facts. Let us compare a disciple of Christ with a Stoic and reader of Seneca. They existed side by side at the end of the first century. Was their view of the obligations resting upon them similar? It was totally different. The Stoic rules were without sanctions. If they were violated, what could be said to the offender? All that could be said was, Nempe hoc indocti,' or Chrysippus non dicet idem.' To which how easy to reply, 'I esteem Chrysippus, but on this point I differ from him!' To Christian lapsi it was said, ‘You have renounced your baptism; you have denied your Master; you are cut off from the Church; the Judge will condemn you.' Is this distinction a verbal or a practical one? Now it is maintained in this book that the distinction is not only real but all-important, and that without a society, and an authority of some kind, morality remains. speculative and useless. Every man is conscious that of the morality which he theoretically holds there is one part which he always and easily practises, and another part which he often neglects. He knows as well, theoretically, that the pleasure he finds in telling scandalous stories is vicious, as he knows that the taste for theft is vicious. Yet he falls sometimes into the one vice, and he is in no danger of falling into the other. The inducements to theft may be greater than the inducements to scandal, and yet he finds them casier to resist. Again, scandal is generally more inexcusable and may easily be more mischievous than theft, and yet when he has been guilty of scandal he feels only that he has done wrong— nempe hoc indocti-when he has committed theft he feels that he is disgraced for ever. The simple reason of this is, that theft is the vice which political society exists to put down, and that laws are directed against it. The civil union then, and positive laws, create a certain amount of practical morality. Certain principles of moral philosophy, through this organisation, cease to be merely speculative, and become powerfully operative. But it is not this organisation only which has such an effect. Almost every organisation which has an object calling for the exercise of any moral virtue creates in some degree the virtue it wants. It may be advisable to produce another example. The effect then of an army in creating moral virtue is most striking and manifest. It developes the virtues of manly courage and subordination, not in a few favourable cases merely, but with an almost irresistible power through its whole body. To face death, to obey one who has a right to command, two of the most difficult lessons, lessons which assuredly philosophers have seldom been found able effectually to inculcate, are taught by this organisation with success almost uniform and absolute, even to people who bring with them no intellectual culture. Nor would the importance of this fact be at all diminished if it should be admitted that armies have at the same time in other respects a vicious influence. As Christ habitually compared his Church to a state or kingdom, so there are traces that its analogy to an army was also present to his mind. A story is preserved of a centurion who sent entreating his help for a sick servant, and when Christ promised to come and exert his power, deprecated, with an ingenuous embarrassment, an honour which seemed to him subversive of the distinctions of rank. He represented himself as filling a place in a graduated scale, as commanding some and obeying others, and the proposed condescension of one whom he ranked so immeasurably above himself in that scale shocked him. This spirit of order, this hearty acceptance of a place in a society, this proud submission which no more desires to rise above its place than it will consent to fall below it, was approved by Christ with unusual emphasis and warmth. What states are to the moral virtues of justice and honesty, and armies to the virtues of courage and subordination, that the Christian Church is intended to be to all virtues alike, but especially to those which are nursed by no other organisation, philanthropy, mercy, forgiveness, &c. When, therefore, the writer has spoken of these virtues as having been introduced among mankind. by Christ, he does not mean to say that they had never before been declared by philosophers to be virtues. He has expressly guarded himself, and that several times (see particularly p. 130), against this misunderstanding. He has expressly said (p. 168) that the province of Christianity is not the province of the moralist. But the difference between stating the principles of morality and |