CHRISTIAN LOVE RECIPROCAL AND ORIGINAL. 231

The extent

lay down our lives for the brethren."* of this love is also indicated when Jesus says, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

The love which is the controlling principle of Christian social ethics may be defined as the outgoing of the spiritual heart toward man as spiritual. This indicates both its subjective spiritual origin and the spiritual character of its object. It is thus viewed as a spiritual act of the whole man, the heart being the centre of man. This love implies a spiritual appreciation of the object loved, a deep interest in the object, an earnest desire that it may attain its ideal, and a readiness to sacrifice, so as to aid it in this attainment.

There is another element in this love which is essential to a full understanding of its nature. The heart loves spiritually because it is loving in its nature; for the exercise of this love it is not, therefore, dependent on the love of others. It has already been shown that God's love is original with him, is the expression of a loving nature. For its exercise, God is not dependent on others, but its inexhaustible fountain is in himself. "God is love." Christian love is derivative, being created in the believer by the love of God; or rather, it is reciprocal, since we love him because he first loved us. God's love to the believer makes him loving, creates a fountain of love in his heart, just as there is in God himself. been created in the heart of the his fellow-men as God loves, for the reason that his nature is loving, and therefore has in himself an irresistible impulse to love. With reference to God, then, this love is responsive; but with reference to * 1 John 3: 16. + See Matt. 5: 44-48.

When this love has believer he is to love

In

other men, it is not merely to be reciprocal to their love, but it is to be original and independent of their love, so that it is exercised toward them even if they are enemies. If the love of the believer to other men were reciprocal only, then who could love first? that case this love could not exist, for the first Christian love must be original, as there is none yet to reciprocate. Even if the person is only potentially or in idea worthy of love, it is still to be exercised. Christian social love is, therefore, the action of a heart which, in its unworthiness, experienced God's love; and as God loved it, though unworthy, so also is it to love even the unworthy. Its act in loving is, therefore, to be original with the heart, not a mere reaction; it is the native voice of the redeemed soul, not merely an echo of the love of another soul. But it can also be said with truth, that it is the response of God's love.

By making Love the controlling principle of Christian social ethics, the Second Part of Christian Sociology naturally divides itself into four parts.

I. The love of the Christian in its application to himself as a member of society.

II. Christian love in its social application to others, irrespective of their character.

III. Christian love in its application to other Christians.

IV. Christian love in its application to those who are not Christians.

FIRST DIVISION.

THE LOVE OF THE CHRISTIAN IN ITS APPLICATION TO HIMSELF AS A MEMBER OF SOCIETY.

CHAPTER XI.

SELF-LOVE AND SOCIETY.

THE relation of the individual to society is one of the most important subjects discussed in Christian Sociology, and on it very largely depends the character of social ethics. By generalization, we get four views, under which all the views which have prevailed on this subject in Christian countries can be placed. It may be that sometimes these views have been held in a modified form, or two or more of them may have been combined.

First. The Selfish View.-According to this view, a man ignores the claims of God and of his fellowmen, and lives for self only. He treats himself as if he were independent of his Maker and of other men, and as if he were the centre of the universe, for which all other things were created. He is lord, others are slaves to him. His selfishness determines his relation to others. He cares for them only so far as they promote his selfish purposes.

The selfish view may assume a great variety of

forms. Thus, it may be sensuous, making a man licentious, gluttonous, brutal; or it may be more intellectual, seeking by means of culture nothing more than selfish ends; it may even enter the spiritual domain, seeking religion because it will save from perdition, not because this view cares for truth, and right, and purity, and God. So there may, also, in these different spheres be degrees of selfishness, though in all cases the end sought is selfish.

Whatever men may hold theoretically, practically this view is very prevalent. It adopts the principle

that might makes right. It is the principle of the oppressor, whether of the tyrant on the throne or of the master who subjects others to slavery. It is the most frequent source of injustice and of cruelty. In the Gospel, Herod, misnamed the Great, Pilate, the unjust judge (Luke 18: 2−5), and the rich fool (Luke 12:16–19), are types of this class. In history the representatives of this class are innumerable.

Second. The Naturalistic Social View. This expression is here used to designate that irreligious view which ignores God altogether, but has some regard for the claims of society. He who adopts it regards himself as a member of society, which can exist only by mutual sympathy and help. But however highly he may appreciate the claims of others on him, he ignores the spiritual nature of man, and, consequently, all religious duties to his fellow-men. This is the view adopted by all who treat Sociology as one of the natural sciences.

The socialism and communism of the day are largely an embodiment of this view. They are, as a rule, irreligious; and while they profess to seek solely the

THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY.

235

interests of society, they seek only such interests as are purely earthly. There may be socialistic and communistic societies which are religious; these, of course, do not come under this head. The sociology of the day belongs largely to this naturalistic social view.

Herbert Spencer's Sociology is not yet complete, and we do not know what the final conclusions of that work will be. But unless we have mistaken his principles of evolution as thus far developed, he will find no room in his Sociology for the spirit, conscience, free will, or for God. He may use these terms, but we suspect that it will not be in the usually received sense. Like Comte's Sociology, we expect that of Spencer to be a department of physics.

Third. The Monastic View.-Those who adopt this view recognize God, and may be zealous in his service, But it makes this service consist in poverty, chastity, seclusion from the world, and the like. Society and its claims on the individual Christian are either entirely ignored or at least greatly depreciated. The lonely cell, not society, becomes the sphere for the exercise of godliness; contemplation, often idle, takes the place of a faith which works by love; and mortification of the flesh takes the place of sacrifices for the welfare of the brethren. The monastic view may lead to a spiritualistic selfish life.

We must not confound this class with those who retire from the world in order the better to serve society. Nor must all monks be put under this head, for some of them have been great social benefactors. Students who withdraw from the excitement of the world may prove a great blessing to mankind, and