the truth. The method of Christ seems here again to differ from the
method of the Christian teacher. Christ reserved his denunciations for
the complacency of virtuous people. We do not see him rebuking the
sinner; his rebukes are rather heaped upon the righteous. He seems to
have had nothing but compassion for the sins that brought their own
obvious punishment, and to have been indignant only with the sins that
brought material prosperity with them. He treated the outcast as his
friend, the respectable as his enemy. He seems to have held that sin at
least taught people to make allowances, to forgive, to love, and that
this was the nearest way to the Father's heart. Christ was very
critical, and relentlessly exposed those of whom he disapproved, but he
was never critical of weakness.

But, we may say, the moral principles which we have won with such
difficulty will collapse and fail if we do not make a resolute stand
against gross faults and strike at them wherever they show their heads.
It is true that we have not got on very fast, but may it not be that we
have mistaken the right method? Perhaps we should have got on faster still
if we had reserved our indignation for the right things--self-satisfaction,
complacency, injustice, cruelty. What we have done is to fight against
the faults of the weak, against the faults of which no defence is
possible, rather than against the faults of the strong, who can resent
and revenge themselves for our criticism. Christ himself seems not to
have been afraid of the sins of the flesh, but to have shown his
severity rather against the sins of the world. Would it be rash to
follow his example? We can all see the havoc wrought by impurity and
intemperance, and there are plenty of rich respectable people, chaste
and moderate by instinct, who are ready to join in what are called
crusades against them. But as long as sins do not menace health or
prosperity or comfort, we easily and glibly condone them. As long as