Dj^iniry Library
_G_4<_5__i2_

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

€i)ti&tim Social Onion

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BRANCH

THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE

OF THE

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

BY THE REV.
CHARLES GORE, 'lyLA.
PRINCIPAL OF THE PUSEY HOUSE, AND FELLOW, OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD

LonOon
PERCTVAL & CO.
1892
[Price Twopence]

tale Divinity library
New Haven. Germ.

THi__ ECONOMIC REVIEW
APRIL, 1892
CONTENTS
1. THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
The Rev. Charles Gore, M.A.
2. WHAT IS JUSTICE?— II. THE THEORY OF REWARD.
The Rev. H. Rashdall, M.A.
3. PENSIONS FOR THE AGED.
The Rev. W. Moore Ede, M.A.
4. THE ECONOMICAL ADMINISTRATION OF LAW.
Spencer L. Holland, M.A.
5. SOME RESULTS. OF THE GREAT DOCK STRIKE.
The Rev. and Hon. James G. Adderley, M.A.
6. A DIALOGUE ON CO-OPERATION.
J. M. Ludlow.
REPORT ON SOCIAL LEGISLATION IN ITALY.
Prof. Angelo Bertolini.
NOTES AND MEMORANDA: Emile de Laveleye—3. R. Shortt. The
Strike of the Durham, Miners — F. B. Jevons. The Conditions of
Labour in Russia and Holland — T. C. Fry. What is One Pauper?
— E. Cannan. Profit-sharing — W. H. Frere. The Conditions of
Female Labour in Ontario — T. C Fry. The Homeless Poor of London
— 0. B. Marshall. The American Economic Association.
LEGISLATION, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES, AND OFFICIAL
RETURNS. Edwin Cannan, M.A.
REVIEWS AND SHORT NOTICES : Sidgwick's Elements of Politics
— H. Rashdall. Smart's Introduction to the Theory of Value — H.
W. Blunt. Bayard's La Caisse d'Epargne et de Prevoyance de Paris
¦ — J. M.. Ludlow. Taylor's Modern Factory System — J. Carter.
Leroy-Beaulieu's Modem State in Relation to Society und the Indi
vidual, and Naquet's Collectivism and the Socialism of the Liberal
School — R. R. Marett. Benson's Capital, Labour, and Trade, and
the Outlook — E. A. Pearson. Webb's London Programme — W. H.
Frere.' Cunningham's Path towards Knowledge. Price's West Bar-
bary. Blissard's Socialism of Christianity. Millington's Housing of
the Poor. Jeans's Factory Act Legislation. Pizzamiglio's Distributing
Co-operative Societies. Wilkinson's Pensions and Pauperism. Keltie's
Statesman's Year-Rook. Mackay's F eafor Liberty. Symes's French
Revolution. Godard's Poverty: It i Genesis and Exodus. Schaffle's
Impossibility of Social Democracy.
IN MEMORIAM: REV. W. J. H. /CAMPION, M.A.

THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OP THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.1
rjlHE Bible is, as a literature, unrivalled in giving expression
-*- to the true relation of the society to the individual. It
presents an ideal of Christian, i.e. truly human, society in which
the social pressure and the reaction of the individual character
and conscience are in a just equilibrium. It emphasizes
authority over the individual man. It emphasizes also the
Sanctity of the individual personality, the inalienable respon
sibilities and rights of the individual, as a being of action and
of thought.2 The Roman Church may have emphasized the
element of authority in the New Testament, and Protestantism
the element of liberty, but, in fact, both are there, to receive
frank and adequate recognition. Both are there, because already,
outside the region in which Christ is known, both are elements
1 This article is, in substance, a lecture delivered on March 29th, in St. Paul's
Chapter House.
" For the authority of the Church over the individual, see St. Matt. xvi. 19 ; xviii.
18, where the "binding" and "loosing" is the action of legislative authority; St.
John xx. 23, where the forgiving and retaining sins is the action, of disciplinary
authority as applied to persons. The legislative authority is exhibited in action in
Acts xv. 28, 29 ; 1 Cor. vii., viii. ; 1 Tim. v. 14-16, etc. ; the disciplinary in Acts
v. 1-11 ; 1 Cor. v. 1-13 ("judging those within") ; Titus-iii. 10, etc.
On the other hand, our Lord's method with men exhibits the very opposite of a
despotic form of authority : see Bampton Lectures, 1891, on " The Incarnation of
the Son of God" (John Murray), lect. viii. He shows the profoundest respect
for individuality j He makes the deepest requirements on personal effort in appre
hending truth. Again, there is in the New Testament a constant recognition of the
capacity of all men to rise to full Christian knowledge (Col. i. 28 ; 1 John ii. 20),
and of the independence of the "spiritual man" (1 Cor. ii. 15). A moderate ideal
of the exercise of authority is exhibited in such passages as 2 Tim. ii. 23-26. There
is a constant appeal to " the tradition," to reason, and to conscience, rather than to
discipline per se. There is a frank respect for legitimate liberty as expressed in
Rom. xiv., and a dread of not merely Jewish ordinances, but all such ordinances as
represent a Judaic bondage (Col. ii. 16-23).

in the moral progress of mankind. The moral conscience, as
St. Paul describes it in those who " have no law " (Rom. ii. 15),
is both social and individual ; it is an individual '' conscience
bearing witness " to the moral will of God, and " mutual
reasonings " among men " accusing or else excusing " one
another — that is, a social conscience brought to bear upon the
individual. Man, then, is social and individual. And a mau on the way
of redemption, a believer in Christ, is an individual member of
a great society, or kingdom, — the catholic Church ; under the
authority of the Church with its powers of legislation and
discipline — its power of the keys, its authority to bind and
loose, — but not under its authority in an arbitrary sense ;
because its authority extends only to applying the law of its
Master, whom the man's own conscience has recognized arid
adored, and who Himself exhibited so careful a respect for
human individuality.
I am concerned now, not with the wide subject of Christian
authority and liberty, but with a particular form of Christian
authority, namely, the authority which the Church ought to
exercise in matters of social morality; and that, with special
reference to the Sermon on the Mount, considered as supplying
the fundamental moral law of our Lord's kingdom.
The Church at large, and each national or local Church, is to
be a society binding and loosing in the name of Christ : that is
— so far as concerns morality — adapting Christ's moral teaching
to the circumstances of each age and place ; declaring this to
be lawful and that to be unlawful ; and applying these abstract
principles to individuals in moral discipline, admitting this one
and excluding that one, suffering this one to continue in the
privilege of membership and refusing to suffer that one
absolving and retaining sins. This ecclesiastical discipline in
matters of morality has mainly, in later Church history, and
among ourselves, come to be— when it has been exercised at
all— a private matter ; and we have had, in this respect, much
controversy in the English Church about the rightful position
of confession to a priest, penance, and absolution. But in this

discussion, as to one application of Church discipline, the
primary principle has become obscured. We take sides as to
the function of the priesthood in the matter, or the danger of
priestcraft, and leave out of sight what is the prior question —
viz., the prerogative and duty of the Church as a society.
No one, with his eye on the New Testament and the earliest
records of the Church, can deny that the Church was, and was
by Christ intended to be, a society with a common moral law,
which was to be constantly and authoritatively reapplied by way
of legislation in general principle, and applied by way of
discipline to individuals, in admitting them or refusing to admit
them into the Christian society, retaining or refusing to retain
them in membership.
This function of the Church in moral legislation for its
members has been lamentably obscured: in part because, in
the concentration of interest in the Western Church upon the
discipline of the confessional, casuistry, which is the application
of the general law to particular cases, has been developed almost
entirely with a view to absolving individuals. It has thus
become — necessarily, indeed, and rightly for its own right
purposes — not an enunciation of how Christ would have men
act, but rather a statement of the minimum requirement, the
easiest terms on which a priest can give absolution to a penitent ;
or even, when misused, an attempt to evade the plain meaning
of the moral law so as to keep slack consciences within the
terms of Christian communion. "The first object," writes
Macaulay, truly of certain Jesuit casuists, "was to drive no
person out of the pale of the Church. Since there were bad
people, it was better they should be bad Catholics than bad
Protestants. If a person was even ... a bravo, a libertine,
or a gambler, there was no reason for making him a heretic
too." The solemn words of Bishop Butler's sermon Upon the
Character of Balaam have their application to the Church, as
to the individual conscience. " Those courses, which, if men
would fairly attend to the dictates of their own consciences, they
would see to be corruption, excess, oppression, uncharitableness ;
these are refined upon — things were so and so circumstantiated

4
— great difficulties are raised about fixing bounds and degrees ;
and thus every moral obligation may be evaded. There is scope,
I say, for an unfair mind to explain away every moral obligation
to itself."
Amongst ourselves, the disastrous identification of Church and
State, which has allowed the Church to lose its free legislative
functions within its own sphere, has altogether obscured, among
ordinary Church-people, the sense that there is a social law bind
ing upon their consciences — as in matters of matrimony or of
commercial dealings — which is distinct from, and which goes
beyond, the law of the State.
How are we to set about applying a remedy to this evil ? In
the way in which it has been actually in great measure remedied
in other departments of Church life. The distinctive theological
doctrines of the Church have largely, in recent years, come to
be recognized afresh through the voluntary combination of
Churchmen to assert their principles and put them into practice.
The same course must be pursued in regard to the Christian
moral law. We must get genuine Christians together to think out
for themselves, and formulate for their own guidance, the moral
law of Christ, as applied to modern conditions. Then a clearer
Christian public opinion will form itself, and it will prevail among
Churchmen, as theological opinion has prevailed ; and the Church
will stand out again, in the public eye, as a body which has a
clearly understood moral code, for politics and business and'
society, as it has a clearly understood creed. This is, at any
rate, the preliminary step towards the revival of legitimate dis
cipline. At present, we have a great many earnest followers of
Jesus Christ in all classes of society, but no adequate organization
of Christian moral opinion.
There is indeed in some matters of public policy, external or
internal, a vigorous " non-conformist conscience," on the opium
trade, for instance ; there is a vigorous Church conscience, as
on other subjects, so especially on the pastoral care for souls and
on the relief of the poor : but there is not an adequate organ
ization of Christian moral opinion, or, specially, of Church
opinion, on such matters as concern the life of commerce, or the

distribution of wealth, on the principle of justice, or the mutual
obligations of classes to one another. I will return to this
subject before I conclude.
Let us, then, who wish to be servants of Jesus Christ at what
ever cost, because there is nothing else in the world worth'
being, place ourselves again at the feet of our Master, as He
sits conspicuous upon the mount and opens His mouth to teach
us the moral law of His kingdom. This can be done only by
constant and zealous private meditation on His words. But
I would endeavour now to call your attention,_/£rs£, to what seem
to be some leading principles in His moral method, and, secondly,
to some leading features in the moral contents of His doctrine.
I.
(a) Our Lord demands, not conduct merely, but character. He
says, not " Blessed is he who does this or that," but "Blessed is such
and such a character." But, on the other hand, the character is
described as it finds expression in particular, detailed acts — "turn
ing the left cheek," " giving,the cloak also," etc. Many considera
tions require us^to interpret these acts in their principle, not in
their details. Thus, for instance, no man has ever struck me on
my right cheek, as far as I remember ; or taken my coat ; or com
pelled me to go a mile on the public service : but I am not there
fore free hitherto from the observance of these precepts. They
express principles. But — this is what I want to emphasize —
our Lord expresses the principle in the detail, and this means
that he requires the Christian character to find expression in
like acts, as overt, as definite, as detailed. The vast danger is
that we should avail ourselves of a popular misinterpretation of
St. Paul's language, and observe these precepts, as we say, " in
the spirit," — which is practically not at all in the actual details of
life. Christ bids us do particular, overt, characteristic acts, such
as express publicly, though not with publicity as our motive, the
inward fact that we are not anxious about our own interests, and
that we are trampling on our pride. Therefore we must apply
Christ's teaching in detail to the circumstances of our day. This
may be said to constitute in great measure the prophetic or preach-

ing office of the Church. But, in fact, the preacher is usually con
tent with generahties. Why ? In part, no doubt, because he lacks
courage to say what will be disagreeable to his congregation.
In part, also, from the more respectable motive — that he is afraid
to make ignorant suggestions which will do harm. A curate
fresh to the country, distressed with the amount of agricultural
work which he found going on on Sunday, once suggested to his
flock that they might at least be content with milking their cows
once on the Sunday. We are afraid to make like mistakes in
speaking on the morality of business or of traffic in stock. We want
more exact moral knowledge. For the sake of brevity, let me
leap to a conclusion which will make my drift apparent. It is
that we need consultation among small bodies of representative
Christians, who know exactly what life means in schools and
colleges, in athletic contests, in business, in workshops, in political
life, in law courts, so that a central public conscience of the
Church may be deliberately formed as to the sort of typical acts
and refusals to act in which the Christian spirit must exhibit
itself in the various situations of life.
(b) Our Lord lays down laws for a kingdom, a society ; but
He seeks the establishment of the society through the sanctifi-
cation of the individual, according to the law " For their sakes
I sanctify myself," and in view of the fact that each man, as
" fallen," needs individual regeneration and sanctification before
he can enter upon his heritage of sonship and brotherhood.
Thus, in the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord aims at a social
end by laying a severe claim on the individual character. This
is, I think, the explanation of the difficulties presented by such
a passage as chap. v. 38-42 : —
" Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth : but I say unto you, Eesist not him that is evil : but whosoever
smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him
have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile,
go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that
would borrow of thee turn not thou away."
" Surely," people say, " society would be undone if I gave simply

to him that asked me, or rewarded the thief by bestowing on him
more than he had taken, like ' le bon evSque, Bienvenu.' " The
answer is : Our Lord is here laying His requirement primarily on
the individual life considered apart. Elsewhere He provides for
the .social good, as such, as where He bids the offended brother
carry his plaint first to the offender ; then, if his conscience is
not awakened, to a small group of Christians ; at last, to the
whole Christian body ; and to proceed to an extremity in exact
ing and expressing moral judgment upon the wrong-doer (St. Matt.
xviii. 15-18). But this social judgment can only safely be put
into practice by individuals who are themselves rising above
the motives of personal pride or self-seeking. Therefore, in
any sphere where the individual profit or pride is concerned,
or so far as in any transaction those considerations alone are
concerned, we are to simply suppress our selfish selves, and " lay
ourselves in the dust to them that go over." When we are, in this
sense, really meek personally, we can safely execute the Divine
Wrath socially, that is, we can be worthy, effective members of
the kingdom of God.
Thus, throughout the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord is
aiming at a social end, mainly through the elimination of
selfishness, in its various forms of lust, pride, greed, ambition,
censoriousness, out of the individual character.
Thus Christian effort for social improvement must always
have its stronghold in the regeneration and sanctification of
individual characters. True, there are social works which can
be carried out without regard to this. When Lazarus was to be
raised from the dead, it was the life-giving word of Christ alone
which could impart life ; but before it could find access to the tomb
the stone had to be taken away : " Take ye away the stone."
Which things are an allegory. Christ alone, in direct, quicken
ing grace, can restore the moral health of individuals, but there
are preliminary obstacles to its influence to be removed. Bad
dwellings, inadequate wages, inadequate education, inability to
use leisure — these are stones which lie Upon the graves of men
Spiritually dead. We must take away the stones. Only we shall
hot exaggerate what merely external reform is likely to accoin*

plish. The real obstacle to social advance is selfishness or sin.
No external reform will remove this. Nothing but the conversion
of souls from self to God. Real social reform, then, will proceed,
not by the method of majorities, but from small groups of
sanctified men, like the apostles; and that is, in very truth,
" the secret of Jesus."
(c) Our Lord here is speaking to the Church, not to the State ;
He is founding a society which is to subsist on moral sanctions,
not material. If it is a socialism that is being established, it is
a socialism of free choice, not State compulsion. It is true that
this Christian society or brotherhood must needs have had an
immense influence on State life : it must needs have become the
very soul of the States among which it spread — as, in fact, the
early Christians boasted that they were the soul of the empire. It
must needs have become this, if for no other reason, then because
the greater the number of individuals who have trampled on
selfishness, and who seek the kingdom of God and His righteous
ness, the easier becomes the process of legislation. So that, if all
citizens were real Christians, legislation would be in abeyance,
for heaven would be come —
"Where love is an unerring light,
And joy its own security."
But great as must needs have been the influence of Christianity
upon the State and the obligation of Christians to the State, it is
none the less true that Christ is legislating for a distinct society ;
not for humanity as it is, but for the humanity of redemption,
"the brotherhood," the Church. The reason of this method is
sufficiently plain. The fact is that, because humanity is spoiled
by sin, it must be given a fresh start from a new centre, even
Jesus Christ, who is the second Adam. The Church, where
men are in very truth sons and brothers, is to be a sphere
hedged in and kept distinct ; a sphere wherein is realized what
human life is meant to be, and, rightly dealt with, is capable of
becoming. This is meant to have a double result. On the
one hand, that Christians may learn from " love of the brethren,"
i.e. love in the narrower and select society, the wider love of

man — as St. Peter expresses it (2 Pet. i. 7), " In your love of the
brethren supply love ; " on the other hand, that the world may
find in the Church " a city set on an hill," a " light " to show
it what human life may really be, a " salt " to keep it from
corruption. That the Church is not the State and the State not
the Church, is a truth we cannot realize too clearly. The Church,
in fact, can only do its duty to the State, as salt or light, when its
distinctiveness is kept in clear recognition. False methods of
diffusion — attempts, like our Anglican attempt, to merge the
Church in the State — have done incalculable harm. We must
recall ourselves to the scriptural principle — which, I may add, is
quite consistent with an ecclesiastical establishment, though some
particular forms of establishment have somewhat imperilled it
— we must emphasize the fundamental distinctiveness of the
Church as a general truth.
And we are to apply this principle in single parishes and
districts of human life by endeavouring to concentrate Church
feeling, and to accentuate its moral meaning and requirements ;
we are really to " correct its tendency to diffusiveness," if diffusive
ness is to be purchased at the cost of intensity. " Ye are the salt
of the earth" — a salt which purifies by distinctiveness, which
influences by dissimilarity, which keeps up health by emphatic
savour. I would strive that the Church in every parish should
represent, not s,uch and such a number of adherents, but the
morally best, be they many or be they few, in every class ; or,
to put it more truly, those who are honestly striving after moral
excellence, and ready to make sacrifices in its interests. The
Church is not to represent public opinion, but to be the home
of the best moral conscience of the community.
Upon " State Socialism " the Ser,mon on the Mount appears to
have no direct bearing. It does not suggest that unselfishness
is to be secured by any other than methods of moral pressure.
But, on the other hand, the State is regarded by St. Paul as
entrusted with the administration of Divine justice, and the
officers of the imperial administration are regarded by him as
bearing a priesthood of Divine service : they are "God's ministers "
to " attend continually upon this very thing " (Rpm. xiii. 1-7).

10

II.
If we turn from the moral method of our Lord to the social
principle which the Sermon on the Mount expresses, we find it
to be what may be broadly expressed as the principle ef the
sonship and brotherhood of man as based on the Fatherhood
of God.
It is worth while pausing to notice how this great principle
has the advantage of inclusiveness. Mr. Leslie Stephen, at the
beginning of his Science of Ethics, rightly reminds us that a
true theory is able to account for the prevalence of partial and
even false systems, by bringing to light and giving scope for
the element of truth which each contains. This note of a true
theory is stamped upon the Christian ethics. The truth of in
dividual hedonism — the truth that each single individual claims
by an ineradicable instinct his own self-realization, his own
happiness — Christianity recognizes : each man is to " come into
possession of his" own life ; " he is " to see of the travail of his
soul, and be satisfied;" he is to "save his life." The truth,
again, of the older utilitarianism — that " each man counts one,
and nobody more than one" — is at the heart of Christianity.
The Christian is "to love his neighbour as himself," because
" with God is no respect of persons." The principle, again, of
modern evolutionist moralists, the recognition of the social
organism, the search for the equilibration of the society and
the individual— who can fail to find in this an echo of that
language about the "one body" which Christianity at least
made its own from the first ? Once again, and for the last time,
there is nothing upon which idealists spend themselves, so far
as positive principles go, nothing in idealism, from the " hymn
of Cleanthes " to the Prolegomena to Ethics, which Christianity
does not fairly and strictly embrace. The worth and claims of
the individual, the worth and claims of the society, the supra*
social dignity and authority of the moral law,1 — all this is of the
1 There is a magnificent expression of this principle in a fragment of Cicero, De
Republica, which is so little known that I venture to quote it. "There is a true

11
fabric of Christian ethics. ' But it has an altogether new pulse
of life sent through it when the Fatherhood of God comes into
recognition to make practicable a belief in the brotherhood of
man, and give meaning to the sense of personal obligation in
the relation of sons to a Father. I do not think that we bring
out strongly enough the strength of the Christian ethical prin
ciple, considered philosophically, from the power which it has to
account for more partial theories, and to integrate them in a
completer whole which can make a more living appeal to human
wills and hearts. But I must not do more than touch upon
a subject capable of much expansion.
The fundamental Christian principle involves, among others,
three subordinate principles, which shall be noticed here.
(a) The principle of justice — that each individual man is an
end, and not a mere means ; or, that each man counts one, and
nobody more than one, to state the principle as Kant and
Bentham respectively stated it. This principle of justice was
admirably interpreted by Mr. Rashdall, in a recent number of
this 'Review. It means, not equal position for each — for men
are by nature inevitably unequal in capacity, and therefore in
position — but equal consideration for each, free opportunity for
each to realize his nature, to become what God meant him to be.
Our neighbour is what we are, a child of God, and to be loved
with the same considerateness as we rightly give to ourselves.
" All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do
unto you, even so do ye also unto them."
law which is right reason, agreeable to nature, diffused among all men, constant,
eternal, which calls us to duty by its injunctions, and by its prohibitions deters
us from wrong; which upon the good lays neither injunction nor prohibition in
vain; while for the bad, neither its injunctions nor its prohibitions avail at all.
This law admits neither of addition nor subtraction nor abrogation. The vote of
neither senate nor people can discharge us from our obligation to it. We are not
to look for some other person to expound or interpret it ; nor^will there be one law
for Rome and another for Athens, nor one at this date and another later on ; but
one law shall embrace all races over all time, eternal and immortal; and there
shall be hereby one common master and commander of all — God, who originated
this law, and proposed it and arbitrates concerning it ; and if any one obeys it not,
he shall play false to himself, and shall do despite to the nature of man, and by
this very fadt shall pay the greatest penalties, even if he should escape all else that
is reckoned punishment."

12
This principle of justice is one which is not approximately
realized in what we call Christian society at present. It is com
paratively few men who have a real opportunity of work and
remuneration, according to their faculties, of spiritual knowledge,
of legitimate education, physical and moral. Yet this every
Christian ought to be able to claim, including what, without
Christianity, he cannot have — the true knowledge of God and of
His provision for man. Till this is secured, in the Christian
society in its completeness, and in society as a whole as far as it
falls within State functions, the Christian must not rest. But
that gives us a great deal to do, through Parliament, through
County Councils, as also by more directly ecclesiastical methods,
(b) The principle of trust in God's Fatherhood. God made
man, and desires impartially man's good. " He maketh His sun
to rise on the evil and on the good : and sendeth rain on the just
and on the unjust." So long as man is doing his duty, God will
provide for him, as for the birds of the air and the flowers of
the field. Now, the birds and the plants accumulate to-day the
resources which are to serve them hereafter. The birds could
not hatch their eggs if they had not in due time previously
built their nests. The flowers could not bring forth their bloom
if they had not been accumulating their resources long before.
But all this takes place without anxiety. Granted the fulfilling
of function day by day, God will provide. The Christian society,
then, recognizing this principle in the conscious life of man, is
to know the limits of its responsibility. It did not create the
world or found the Church. It cannot alter the predestined
goal of the world's movement. But it can facilitate or thwart
the purpose of God within its own area. The individuals who
compose the Church can " lose their own lives " by refusing to
Co-operate with God or "save them" by taking part with Him.
Here, then, is both the reality of responsibility and its limit. All
we can do is joyfully to fulfil our duty and trust the providence
of God. This means— only to touch on great subjects— that in
commerce we shall resolutely do the will of God and abide by
the consequences ; in dealing with individuals, we shall not be
more merciful than our Master, or attempt, as He did not

13
attempt, to save men in spite of themselves. We shall aim at
appealing to men's wills and strengthening their sense of responsi
bility. We shall not, once more, be afraid of letting truth loose
for fear of its causing havoc. We shall be ready to say in our
turn, " I am not come to send peace on earth, but a sword."
The Christian has an immense advantage over other social
reformers in the " clear knowledge " of God, as revealed in Jesus
Christ. It is sometimes suggested that to "seek the face" of
God and exactly study His character is to divert the faculties
without profit from the really useful end of human improve
ment — "... Presume not God to scan :
The proper study for mankind is man."
What a shallow philosophy ! For why is it that we make, in
fact, so little social improvement ? Why is it we are so falsely,
ignobly tolerant of injustice, and selfishness, and lust in society
and within ourselves ? Why are efforts for the good of man so
seldom persevered in through disappointment or so frequently
allowed to degenerate into effortless routine ? Why ? In a word,
because we do not think enough about God. If we constantly
and systematically gazed up at Him, and let His inexorable
holiness,. His truth, His beauty, His love,, His power — more than
all, the claim of His Fatherhood over us His sons, penetrate our
whole beings, we should be more vigorous and persevering in
moral effort — ay, and more successful. It was the Apostles,
who were so full of the vision of God, who turned the world
upside down.
(c) The principle of co-operation, not competition. In every
department of life Christians are to seek the good of all. The
Church must carry this principle into all its transactions. It must
be, in the fullest sense of the word, spiritually and physically, a
profit-sharing company. This means (see 1 Tim. vi. 9) a stern
discouragement of the accumulation of wealth, except as held
consciously on trust for the public good ; a strenuous opposition
to the development of luxury, as distinct from knowledge and
beauty; a constant practical realization of the temper of con
tentment with sufficient and wholesome food and lodgment, air,

14
and clothing, work and leisure, and of the greater blessing of
giving as compared to receiving.
The principle of justice or equality of consideration; the
principle of God's Fatherhood, deepening and also limiting our
responsibilities and our anxieties ; the principle of co-operation
as contrasted with competition ; — these are the main principles,
admitting, of course, of indefinite expansion, which I have only
just had time to suggest. Upon these principles the Church is
really to act ; and in order to this end I return to my earlier
suggestion, that we need to concentrate Christian influence;
that we need to reorganize definite Christian centres of moral
opinion, where Christ's principles are simply acted upon, so that
a more concrete impression may be presented to men's mind of
what the life of a Christian is in the various legitimate callings
of society.
The suggestion may be worked out in detail thus : —
1. We need a careful organization of Christian moral opinion —
that is, a new Christian casuistry. The new casuistry will be a
formulating in detail of Christian moral duty, with a view to
seeing, not how little a Christian need do in order to remain in
Church communion, but how a Christian ought to act. It will
need combined labour of experienced men, who are before all
things Christians, in the different walks of life. I think it would
be possible, perhaps for the Christian Social Union, to form small
circles of representative men in each district, where special
occupations prevail, or within the area of special professions, to
draw up a statement of what is wrong in current practice, and
of the principles on which Christians ought to act. A central
body would meanwhile be formulating with adequate knowledge
the general maxims of Christian living. I do not see why ten
years' work should not give us a new Christian casuistry, that
is a general and applied statement of Christian moral principles.
To what better work could the Christian Social Union devote
itself ? When it was done by private means, it might come under
more official sanction.
2. So far as we have our Christian code now, or are on our
way to get it, we shall league ourselves together to observe it.

15
I do desire that the Christian Social Union shall become a widely
ramifying league, through all classes, of persons anxious before
all else to prove to themselves, and so to others, that they really
own Jesus Christ as their moral Master. They would, therefore,
be bound to protect one another in cases where loyalty to prin
ciple means loss of work. And masters and men anxious to
serve Jesus Christ would be drawn together. I believe we
under-estimate, not over-estimate, the number of such persons.
3. We should do again what was done in the early monastic
movement, as it is represented in St. Basil's rule. We should draw
together to centres, both in town and country, where men can
frankly start afresh and live openly the common life of the first
Christians. This can, of course, be most easily done in the case
of those who are deliberately celibate. There is much talk of
brotherhoods. Forgive the expression of an ideal. I desire to see
formed — not in interference with existing methods — a commu
nity of celibate men, living simply, without other life- vows than
those of their baptism or (if priests) of their priesthood, the life
of the first Christians : a life of combined labour, according to
different gifts, on a strongly developed background of prayer and
meditation, and with real community of goods, which, of course,
would cease in the case of any persons who might leave the
community. The details are not difficult to arrange. I have
some experience such as warrants a belief that such an ideal
might become real. Such a community, " continuing steadfastly
in the apostolic doctrine and fellowship, the breaking of the
bread and the prayers, and having all things common," — such
a community would surely be calculated to make men see how
holy and happy a thing is Christian life when it can free
itself from entanglements and begin again " au pied de la lettre."
I say I have some experience warranting a belief in its possibility.
A part of this experience lies in an association of unmarried
priests, numbering, some seventy men, who are bound together,
not in community, but in observance of a rule such as naturally
might lead on to, and form a background for, the sort of
community I have described.
I have been speaking of the unmarried, and I have said that

16
the literal reproduction of the earliest Christian community-life
is easiest in their case. But the same ideal needs application to
married life also. I do not see why such an ideal as the Mora
vians have, in fact, realized, of companies of married people
living by a common rule, should not be of immense power
among ourselves. I have spoken of what lies within my own
experience, but the principle is applicable to laity as to clergy,
and to married as to single.
In a word, what I want to suggest is this. The moment has
come for the Church, and more particularly for the Church of
England, to put social morality, Christian living, in the forefront
of its effort. At present, we are making much too much of the
development of the outward exhibition of worship. We trust
too much to church building and organizing of " plant." We try
too much to " get people to come to church." We want, on the
other hand, " to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteous
ness ; " to consolidate Christian moral opinion in each district of
Church life ; to let it be known what Christian living means ; to
stand by one another in voluntary league to carry it out ; to let
its charity, its beauty, its attractiveness, its possibility be more
apparent ; to silence cynicism a little by the drawing together
in groups and leagues of the life which already exists scattered
and in isolation. I am sure I am not unduly optimistic. I hope
I am not wholly unpractical. Chakl.es Gore.
P.S. — In a brief discussion which followed the reading of the above lecture, I was
reminded that, besides the metaphor of " salt," our Lord used also the metaphor of
"leaven " to describe the relation of the Church to the world ; and that I had left
out of sight the lessons which this latter metaphor would convey. There is a sense
in which the Church is to merge itself in the society around it. To this I should
only reply that it is the teaching of the former metaphor that we in England to-day
most imperatively need. The latter we are not in so much danger of ignoring.

9442