the world is an ideal that is ascribed to the Devil in the story of the temptation. The city over which he wept was the ideal city of Second-Isaiah that was to be a light to the Gentiles.

Jesus' kingdom of righteousness is no inner oriental condition of mind. Those who made sacrifices for the kingdom would receive a hundred fold. He taught us to pray for our daily bread and for the forgiveness of our debts. He said that we have need of food and clothing and the things after which men in general seek. And he taught that all these things would be added with the realization of the prophetic ideal. The things he says of property hold true only of property as functioning in his ideal kingdom. The bread and debts which he mentions in his prayer are not the bread and the debts of a pagan feudal society or of a competitive individualistic society, but of his ideal society of righteousness. He does not say that it is more blessed to give than to receive in a feudal or a competitive society. He says it is more blessed to give than to receive when we give to those who will coöperate with us in achieving a kingdom of righteousness. It might not be impossible to give and forgive in such a society.

From this point of view the command to give all that one has becomes intelligible; for, if the individual is to live in a kingdom of righteousness there will be no necessity of hoarding. In a society of brothers, of friends, in which each gives his best, in a society in which there is the prophetic will to righteousness, all things that are needed will be added. Every one's life

will be a moral vocation in which he will be as productive, as creative, as his ability allows.

In the teaching of Jesus the ideal of the family is thrown around the whole scheme of living. One is our Father and all are our brothers. We are to be merciful and to love even our enemies because our common Father sends his sunshine and his rain on the evil as well as the good.

It was not that Jesus did not love woman and had no place for the family in his ideal kingdom. The Gospel stories—of the woman who anointed Jesus just before his death, of Mary and Martha, of Mary Magdalene, of his mother-reveal the most profound love of woman of which we have record. But Jesus could not love Magdalene as a prostitute, nor Martha as a domestic drudge, nor could he obey his own mother because of her position in a pagan feudal family system. Jesus' love of woman was determined by his idea of the new kingdom. He loved woman with an unutterable love, but the woman he loved was woman as he interpreted her in the light of the new ideal. One must be able to hate father and mother and even his own life if he would enter the kingdom of righteousness.

Jesus loved children, but children in the kingdom of Jesus could be born only through love. This, however, was an ideal which in the ancient world could be embodied only in the form of myth. The birth stories in the gospels were an outgrowth of the teaching of Jesus.

It was not that Jesus did not love woman and child, property and city and nation. He loved them more

deeply, but he loved them in a new way. He could not love in the old way and the world was not ready to love in his way. It was only as aspects of his ideal kingdom that family and property and state could be loved by Jesus.

Wherever the philosophy of the Orient-Egypt, Persia, India,-influenced European philosophy, we find a tendency to depreciate ordinary life and everyday conduct. There is a contempt of life, of the world, of human industry, of politics. There must have been a certain amount of Oriental influence in the thought of Jesus. His ideas of evil, of spirit, of purity, and of death suggest Oriental influence. But Jesus did not surrender the great social objective of a kingdom of righteousness which was the world's legacy from the prophets. The ideal of Jesus did not center in national glory and salvation, the Jewish ideal; it was not a fixed inner mental world, the Stoic ideal; it was not a salvation from the world through ecstasy or sacrament; his ideal was the old objective social ideal of the prophets, deepened and spiritualized through Oriental influence and rendered more subtle through conflict with Rome.

This objective social interest gave the will something to strive for. There was still something to live for, and it was this social objective-reorganized, to be sure, by the newer inner life-that gave the teaching of Jesus its power over all its rivals.

Jesus accepted the new idea of immortality but it did not subordinate the idea of a kingdom of righteousness to be set up on earth. The coming of the kingdom

and its reorganization of the objectives of the will kept the mind of Jesus true to the prophetic ideal.

There is in the teaching of Jesus no salvation for the inner life of the individual except in and through a life in a righteous kingdom.

The inner aspect of life, the heart, the will, the motive, is clearly stressed by Jesus. But it is not an end; it is not abstracted from the outward deed and transformed into an independent, absolute, ethical reality. We are not to become conscious of our inner world to make ourselves independent of the objectives which we share as social beings. The real value of an inner world of motive and thought is to raise the objectives of the will to a higher level of moral life.

In modern Christian ethics there is an unconscious synthesizing of the objective ethics of the earlier classical period and the inner universalistic ethics of historic Christianity. Our inner life can be made real only by being expressed in objective social ends. The objective ends of family, property, vocation, state, projected into an apocalyptic ideal and suppressed and interiorized and projected into an otherworldly ideal by the tragedy of the crucifixion, must again become with full consciousness the objectives of our will and conscience. Such a conception of the inner life implies a reorganization of the traditional moral objectives of family, property, state, vocation. And such a reorganization will create fresh and free fields for the expression and enlargement of individuality. This is a genuine second coming of Jesus and of his kingdom.