e of society. In
the past, society was allowed to advance and prosper only if this advanced
the prosperity and security of its ruling classes. Jesus proposed that
this be reversed, so that the leaders would have to earn power and honor
by advancing the welfare of society by distinguished service at cost to
themselves.

The desire for private property has been the chief outlet for selfish
impulses antagonistic to public welfare. To gain private wealth men have
slaughtered the forests, contaminated the rivers, drained the fertility of
the soil, monopolized the mineral wealth of the country, enslaved
childhood, double-yoked motherhood, exhausted manhood, hog-tied community
undertakings, and generally acted as the dog in the manger toward
humanity. Jesus opposed accumulation without moral purpose, the inhumanity
of property differences, and the fatal absorption of money-making. Yet he
was not ascetic. It is probably safe to say that he would not be against
private property in so far as it serves the common good, and not against
public property at all.

Like ambition and the property instinct, the religious impulse may go
wrong, and subject society to its distortions or tyranny. Jesus always
stood for an ethical and social outcome of religion. He sought to harness
the great power of religion to righteousness and love. With a mind so
purely religious we might expect that he would make all earthly and social
interests subservient to personal religion. The fact that he reversed it,
seems clear proof that he was socially minded and that the Kingdom of God
as a right social organism was the really vital thing to him.

IV

We have seen, finally, that Jesus had a deep sense of the sin and evil in
the world. Human nature is frail; men of evil will are powerful; organized
evil is in practical control. Consequently social regeneration involves
not only growth but conflict. The way to the Kingdom of God always has
been and always will be a _via dolorosa_. The cross is not accidental, but
is a law of social progress.

These conceptions together seem to shape up into a consistent conception
of social life. It is not the modern scientific scheme, but a religious
view of life. But it blends incomparably better with modern science than
the scholastic philosophy or theology of an age far nearer to us than
Jesus. It is strange how little modern knowledge has to discount in the
teachings of Jesus. As Romanes once pointed out,(8) Plato