XL.

SINNING BY PROXY.

"Meitber be partaker of other men's sins.”—1 TıмOTHY V. 22.

In the case of Mr. Parnell a few years ago, the question arose as to how far it were possible for men to co-operate politically with a man whose personal character had been blasted. It was no theoretical question. It involved practical politics. Here was one of the born leaders of men; he was a political genius. What his followers. believed to be a great cause was dependent upon his leadership. But the world had pronounced him to be hopelessly bad personally. Could they any longer follow him politically? They were compelled to decide reluctantly that they could not, and Mr. Parnell passed out of sight. The question which arose there was one which is constantly confronting the disciple of Christ. How shall he bear himself toward bad men and women? It happens ai times that he has to associate with people upon whom charity cannot exercise itself. One has to do with such in society, in business, in politics, in the mutual exchanges of human interest. How shall the

consistent Christian act toward them so as not to be in any sense a partaker of their sins? Of course, I assume that I speak to those who wish to know their duty in order to do it. My purpose is not simply to discuss a knotty question in casuistry.

Now, to be more specific, shall a Christian woman retain upon her list the name of a notoriously bad man? Shall she send him an invitation to her reception? I assume that his badness is beyond all question. Charity has done its utmost work for him, and has exhausted itself. He is lewd, unclean, dishonorable, although he still retains his standing in society. My lady believes him to be thoroughly unworthy. She loathes his offenses and despises him, and believes that he ought to be made to feel the whip of public scorn. Shall she invite him under her roof on any occasion, or to sit at her table?

Take another instance. Shall a Christian man continue to hold stock in and receive dividends from a corporation which, in its corporate capacity, notoriously violates the laws of God and the laws of man? There are such corporations. The men who manage them are personally men of standing, but the corporation itself is one which has been judged by the public and has been pronounced bad. It grinds the faces of the poor. It abuses the necessities of its employees. It systematically breaks faith with the commun

ity. It bribes the legislature. It disregards the promises involved in its franchises. It is greedy, unscrupulous, vile. Now, what about the ownership of stock in it? Its shares are widely scattered. They were honestly bought and are held by good men and women. These men and women detest and abhor the methods of the corporation, which have been mentioned, when they become aware of them. Shall they still continue to draw their dividends? If not, what shall they do with their stock?

Or, take another instance. Shall one go to the theater to see a notorious adultress upon the stage? She is a genius, the queen of her art, but her character, or her brazen lack of character, is notorious. She has taken no pains to conceal it. She flaunts it in the world's face. "Her fault is not an accident, 'tis her trade!" Assuming, then, that theater-going is as innocent intrinsically as tennis-playing, does it remain innocent when the star is such a notoriously fallen star?

One could multiply such instances by the dozen. They confront the Christian daily, hourly, in his walk through life. How shall he escape the pollution of other men's sins? In a primitive community the problem would be, and was, much less difficult. Human lives were not entangled with each other as they now are. A man or a family lived a self-contained life-as they cannot now. The conditions of all living are so complicated that they have made the con

ditions of Christian living far more difficult. For example, in the case of the bad man whom the pure matron hesitates to invite to her home, it unfortunately happens that he has a wife or sisters, a mother or father, who are clean, honorable. With the "human blindness kindly given," they refuse to believe in his unworthiness. If his name is omitted from the invitation they will decline to come, and maybe the sweet friendship of years will be destroyed. What is she to do?

Or, again, a man in business says, "I know very well the evils of the men, and the methods, with whom I am compelled to deal, but I do not make the conditions of business. They are as hard and as inevitable as are the physical laws of the universe. I cannot set up a different code of my own. There is no chance for it. I must shut the eyes of my conscience, and open its mouth, and swallow the things which I loathe." Or one says: "I am aware of the character of the actor upon the stage before which I sit. But I love art. I need relaxation. If I absent myself from the theater every time that a man or woman of doubtful reputation appears upon the stage, I shall be compelled to starve an innocent appetite for an innocent amusement."

The difficulty of the situation seems to many to be incurable. It is so perplexing that thousands of good people have given up trying to solve it. They simply follow the fashion, what

ever it may be. They observe the conventional requirements of business, society, politics, or what not, and rest content with that. Is there no clew to this labyrinth? How shall the Christian live his life in the midst of the complexities of modern society, and at the same time keep himself unspotted from the world?

There have been two solutions which have commended themselves to multitudes of good Christians, which seem, however, to be both faulty and dangerous. The first is what is known as "spiritual direction." The individual Christian begins by confessing that the practical problem of Christian living is too difficult for himself. He therefore puts his life under the guidance of an expert. He goes to the priest. He confesses to him day by day, or week by week, his deeds of the past and his intentions for the future, and asks to be directed. If he be docile his spiritual director will guide him and will assume the responsibility. The method has great attractions. It appears to be a simple and natural solution of the difficulty. It has been adopted in many Churches and in many ages. There are thousands of good Christians who still believe in and practice it. Still, I venture to think and to say that it is wrong, and doubly dangerous. Experience is against it. Once consistently carried out, it ends by making the individual who adopts it a confirmed spiritual child, if not a hopeless imbecile. If he begins by being