maxims, which are alleged to have anticipated Christ, we shall find that they are very different from that which we term "The Golden Rule." In some respects they resemble it, and resemble it so strongly, that at the first glance the Jewish and heathen rules and Christ's rule appear to be identical; but the difference between them is very great, and very worthy of notice. For what is the Jewish maxim for which some claim equality with this Golden rule? It is, I believe, to this effect, "Whatsoever is hateful to thyself, that do not to thy neighbor." And the heathen maxim supposed to correspond with Christ's royal law is this, "Do not to others what you are unwilling to suffer from others." In this Gibbon thought that he had discovered in heathen literature the identical Golden Rule; and therefore he sneers at Christians for attributing that rule to Christ, and giving him the honor of first publishing it to the world. The Jewish and the heathen maxims are substantially the same, and they amount to this, "Whatsoever evil ye would not that men should do to you, do ye not such evil to them." Is this equivalent to Christ's precept? By no means! it is only the negative side of Christ's precept. The Jews and heathens tell us not to do to others the wrong which we would deprecate if inflicted upon us by them; Christ teaches us to do that good to others which we would desire them to do to us. The Jews and heathens say, Don't be unjust or cruel to your neighbor, because you would not like him to be unjust or cruel to you; Christ says, Be as just and as kind as possible to your neighbor, for you would like him to be as just and kind as possible to you. In fact, the Jews and heathens only

tell us not to wrong others; Christ tells us to benefit them to the utmost extent of our power. Are these maxims the same, then? Most certainly not. The Jewish and heathen maxims are only the law of strict justice; Christ's is the law of love. He took those views and precepts, and gave them a higher form, added to them quite another element; and if they taught men to be just, he taught them to be generous as well. I admit that these maxims were good; let us call them silver rules; but between them and Christ's precept there is certainly all the difference that exists between silver and gold.

Now, many people take the silver rules of Jewish Rabbis and heathen philosophers, and strangely mistake them for the Golden Rule of Christ. They think that if they have done nobody any harm they have fulfilled this glorious precept: and so, because you have never quarreled with your neighbor, never struck him, never blackened his character, or defrauded him of his property, you suppose that you have done to him all things whatsoever you would that he should do to you; whereas the fact only amounts to this, that you have abstained from doing to him what you would have him to abstain from doing to you. Now, not to injure your neighbor is one thing-to benefit him is quite another. But some people appear to overlook the positive character of Christ's command, and in a very unaccountable manner regard it as wholly negative; almost every one in the most complacent temper tells you that to do as he would be done by is his rule, and he challenges you to prove that it is not his practice also. It would be a very easy matter-at all events, not so very difficult a matter-to observe the Golden Rule,

if all that is required were simply this, to do no man wrong; but the Golden Rule is not satisfied with this; the Golden Rule reaches a great deal further than this; the Golden Rule first asks you what are those things which you wish your neighbour not to do to you, and tells you not to do those things to him; and then the Golden Rule puts this question: What are those things which you wish your neighbor would do to you? and tells you to go and do those very things to him, if it is in your power to do so. The Golden Rule first says, You would not like your neighbor to defraud you, therefore you must not defraud him; the Golden Rule next says, You would like your neighbor to pity and to help you in your distress, therefore in his distress you must pity and help him. And if we consider this, the positive requirement of the Golden Rule, we shall perceive that many people who think that they observe it are altogether mistaken; it is the silver rule of justice, at the best, that they observe; the golden rule of generosity is far beyond their mark.

And if we are honest, I think we shall be obliged to say that the silver rule is the highest maxim that we have yet learned to honor. In fact, many persons will say, in plain terms, "If I am just, that's enough. If I do my neighbor no harm, what more can be required of me?" My friend, nothing more is required of you by the silver rules of Jewish Rabbis and heathen moralists; but if you mean to be a Christian, you must make up your mind, and open your heart for a great deal more. I admit that it is something, yea, that it is much, if a man come up to the standard of the silver rule-if a man

carefully abstain from inflicting upon others injury and injustice which he would not have inflicted upon himself. I am afraid that the majority of us have scarcely come up to this point yet; but we must aim at something higher than this; we are not perfect; we are not Christ-like; we are not Christians, unless not only strict justice, but also the most expansive generosity be firmly established in our hearts, and constantly shown forth in our conduct. A just man, who is nothing more than just, does not and cannot fulfil this right royal law; he pays every man his due, and pays punctually and in full; he is never guilty of slander; he bears in his heart no ill-will to any one; he does to no man what he would not have done to himself; but still he does not obey either the letter or the spirit of this command, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."

This law can scarcely be misunderstood by any intelligent and conscientious man. Although Christ says, in unqualified terms, that we are to do to others all things that we would wish them to do to us, it is very plain that he can only mean all things that are really right. But this law, as it stands, with the unqualified "all things whatsoever," is liable to abuse on the part of the unconscientious. For instance, there stands a prisoner at the bar; he has been tried for wilful murder; the jury, after careful deliberation, have returned a verdict of guilty, and the judge is putting on the black cap, and about to pronounce sentence of death. "Stop!" says the prisoner, "your lordship professes to be a Christian, and to take the Golden Rule as your motto. Now, my

lord, if you were in my place in this dock, and I in yours upon that bench, you know very well that you would wish me to spare your life; therefore I ask you to spare mine to do to others as you would they should do to you." To this, his lordship might reply that he was not at liberty to act for himself; that, in fact, he was the representative of the whole nation in that act of passing sentence, and he might further say, "In hanging you, I am doing to others as I would they should do to me. I am doing, if not to you, to the people of this country, what I should wish them to do to me; I am ridding them of a dangerous character; I am consulting their safety, as I would wish them to consult mine." If every scoundrel is to plead the Golden Rule in mitigation of the punishment of his guilt, then there is an end of all public justice. The magistrate has his duties to the people, as well as to the criminal; he must not wrong them, endanger them, out of pity for him; and as in administering the law, the magistrate is doing to the public and to the plaintiff what, if he were the plaintiff, he feels ought to be done to him, the magistrate, in sending a rogue to gaol, in transporting a burglar, and even in hanging a murderer, is doing, if not to the rogue, the burglar, and the murderer, to others, even to the nation, that justice which he would have done to himself; so that I am not at all sure that, even in sending a murderer to the gallows, both judge and jury are not most exactly fulfilling the Golden Rule. Take another case. A man is out of a situation, and wants to get into He comes to you, and asks you to give him a testimonial of character. You know that he is a worthless

one.