beautifully into the whole context. Suffice it for the present to note this. The Parable

itself is more fully repeated in another connection,67 in which it will be more convenient

to consider it.

Yet a further depth of Christian love remained to be shown, which, all self-forgetful,

sought not its own, but the things of others. This also bore on the circumstances of the

time, and the dispute between the disciples, but went far beyond it, and set forth eternal

principles. Hitherto it had been a question of not seeking self, nor minding great things,

but Christ-like and God-like, to condescend to the little ones. What if actual wrong had

been done, and just offence given by a 'brother'?68 In such case, also, the principle of

the Kingdom - which, negatively, is that of self-forgetfulness, positively, that of service of

love - would first seek the good of the offending brother. We mark, here, the contrast to

Rabbinism, which directs that the first overtures must be made by the offender, not the

offended;69 and even prescribes this to be done in the presence of numerous witnesses,

and, if needful, repeated three times.70 As regards the duty of showing to a brother his

fault, and the delicate tenderness of doing this in private, so as not to put him to shame,

Rabbinism speaks the same as the Master of Nazareth.71 In fact, according to Jewish

criminal law, punishment could not be inflicted unless the offender (even the woman

suspected of adultery) had pre viously been warned before witnesses. Yet, in practice,

matters were very different: and neither could those be found who would take reproof,

nor yet such as were worthy to administer it.72

Quite other was it in the Kingdom of Christ, where the theory was left undefined, but the

practice clearly marked. Here, by loving dealing, to convince of his wrong, him who had

done it, was not humiliation nor loss of dignity or of right, but real gain: the gain of our

brother to us, and eventually to Christ Himself. But even if this should fail, the offended

must not desist from his service of love, but conjoin in it others with himself so as to give

weight and authority to his remonstrances, as not being the outcome of personal feeling

or prejudice - perhaps, also, to be witnesses before the Divine tribunal. If this failed, a

final appeal should be made on the part of the Church as a w hole, which, of course,

could only be done through her representatives and rulers, to whom Divine authority

had been committed. And if that were rejected, the offer of love would, as always in the

Gospel, pass into danger of judgment. Not, indeed, that suc h was to be executed by

man, but that such an offender, after the first and second admonition, was to be

rejected.73 He was to be treated as was the custom in regard to a heathen or a publican