tion or people can long continue a happy existence in open violation of them. To them, however, there are two widely different interpretations, both claiming to be moral—that is, the just and true rule for the conduct of man, to secure him the greatest happiness in harmony with the conditions of his existence. The first is, though second in time, what is presented as truly the divine interpretation. It is given to man by Christ, who represents that he came, not to destroy the law, but to fulfill, and by precept and example to illustrate and make plain its true meaning and force according to the divine will. It is positive in its nature and is founded upon the broad, fundamental principle that no man belongs to himself or has the right to do as he pleases with himself, but that he holds his body, mind, soul, and property of every description by divine grant in trust for the benefit of his fellow men. It requires the doing of good at all times, the love of enemies, the giving to him that asketh, the loaning to any one that would borrow without the expectation of any return, and the complete devotion of self to the commonwealth of humanity and the establishment of a kingdom of perfect righteousness. It condemns resistance to evil. War under any plea, even for humanity's sake, it does not justify, but condemns in unmistakable terms. It goes still further, enters the human heart as the foundation of all evil, and denounces the very conception thereof without overt act. It destroys all distinction between morality and religion. It makes the laws of morality concur fully with the laws of religion. According to it, he who serves man best worships God best, and he who worships God best serves man best. All other religion it denounces as pure hypocrisy. Because of their incapacity to understand it through inability to live it, men deny it or wrest its meaning to suit their living, of whom it is said: "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God." Its ostensible purpose is to make men perfect in all their conduct as their Creator is perfect. Man's environment, including his heritage and hereditary traits of character, customs, laws, business relations, and acquired necessities, is to an almost immeasurable degree directly opposed thereto. Hence they are immoral, not being in conformity with the will of God, and render man immoral. Thus have mankind woven around themselves, thread by thread, an invisible web which they are powerless to break. Nor does this interpretation admit of degrees of morality, for all disobedience is equally heinous in the sight of God and all immorality gross immorality. "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep my commandments." To accept it we are compelled to admit at once that all mankind, either consciously or unconsciously, are guilty of gross immorality. Hence most men reject it, for they would rather be blind and leaders of the blind and perish in the same pit than sit in condemnation of their own lives. To live in accordance with it in the present condition of the world's affairs requires a complete surrender of self, the giving up of worldly pleasures and enjoyments, the repression of all lustful passions and ambitions, and an entire devotion of time, service, and energies to the elevation of mankind in regaining for them that greater liberty which must follow when the knowledge of truth fills the earth as the waters cover the sea. This interpretation of the laws of morality cannot govern in this case, for it has never been accepted as or become a part of the law of the land. If such were the case, we would have no need of prosecuting attorney, judge, or court. The other interpretation, known as the Mosaic, human, or negative, is founded on absolute justice between man and man. It is made necessary by the bold assumption that every man belongs to himself and has the right to do as he pleases with himself so long as he accords the same right to others and does nothing hurtful to interfere with their enjoyment thereof; in short, that he does not do unto others what he would not have them do unto him. If he does so, he is guilty of immorality, which may be slight or gross, according to circumstances. This interpretation demands "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." While the former is intended to secure perfection, the latter is intended for the government of an imperfect, self-willed, ignorant, stubborn, and hard-hearted people and for the suppression of vice, injustice, and wrong among them. If all people were truly moral, human laws and government would be unnecessary; for the laws of nature, written in their hearts and perfectly understood by them, would be a sufficient guidance in their dealings with each other. Where no wrongs are committed there exists no necessity for punishment, compensation, or restitution, and human enactments in relation thereto become obsolete. No man need say to his neighbor, "Know the law"; for all would know it, from the least to the greatest. But where society is constituted on such an immoral basis as to continually increase the wants and arouse the selfish propensities of mankind, and yet render them proportionately harder of attainment and satisfaction, human law becomes of increasing necessity to suppress and control these wants and propensities for the common good; otherwise a state of immoral anarchy would be the result, deserving the just condemnation, once requiring his extinction, that "the imagina tions of a man's heart are evil continually from his youth up." The morality of our laws is the morality of the Mosaic interpretation of the Ten Commandments, modified only as to the degree or kind of punishment inflicted. The impossibility of the invention of such a character as that of Jesus Christ is beautifully and forcibly expressed by Rousseau: How petty are the books of the philosophers, with all their pomp, compared with the Gospels! Can it be that writings at once so sublime and so simple are the work of men? Can He whose life they tell be Himself no more than a mere man? Is there anything in His character of the enthusiast or the ambitious sectary? What sweetness, what purity in His ways, what touching grace in His teachings! What a loftiness in His maxims, what profound wisdom in His words! What presence of mind, what delicacy and aptness in His replies! What an empire over His passions! Where is the man, where is the sage who knows how to act, to suffer, and to die without weakness and without display? My friend, men do not invent like this; and the facts respecting Socrates, which no one doubts, are not so well attested as those about Jesus Christ. These Jews could never have struck this tone or thought of this morality; and the gospel has characteristics of truthfulness so grand, so striking, so perfectly inimitable that their inventors would be even more wonderful than He whom they portray. ΙΟ CHAPTER VIII INSPIRATION 1. The authors of the four Gospels were inspired to recall the events and teachings of Jesus Christ, but inspiration did not extend to the very language used nor to unimportant details of fact. No chance to attack Christianity has ever been allowed to slip by unnoticed. When Christ said that the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church, the counter proposition was evidently implied that is, that the portals of hell would be opened against it. Possibly the swiftest arrows of infidelity have been shot at the Christian doctrine of inspiration. It has been denounced for the slightest inconsistency of statement, ridiculed as unreasonable, and laughed at as foolish. However, it has withstood all the assaults that have been hurled against it and still stands out as one of the great doctrinal Gibraltars of the Church and still receives the assent of thinking and intelligent men and women. Before proceeding to argue the affirmative of the |