kingdom of heaven:”  which again shows, that an abrupt renunciation of wealth was to be the general and ordinary method of entering the kingdom.  Hereupon, when the disciples asked:  “Lo! we have forsaken all, and followed thee:  what shall we have therefore?” Jesus, instead of rebuking their self-righteousness, promised them as a reward, that they should sit upon twelve[5] thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.  A precept thus systematically enforced, is illustrated by the practice, not only of the twelve, but apparently of the seventy, and what is stronger still, by the practice of the five thousand disciples after the celebrated days of the first Pentecost.  There was no longer a Jesus on earth to itinerate with, yet the disciples in the fervour of first love obeyed his precept:  the rich sold their possessions, and laid the price at the apostles’ feet.

The mischiefs inherent in such a precept rapidly showed themselves, and good sense corrected the error.  But this very fact proves most emphatically that the precept was pre-apostolic, and came from the genuine Jesus; otherwise it could never have found its way into the gospels.  It is undeniable, that the first disciples, by whose tradition alone we have any record of what Jesus taught, understood him to deliver this precept to all who desired to enter into the kingdom of heaven,—­all who desired to be perfect:  why then are we to refuse belief, and remould the precepts of Jesus till they please our own morality?  This is not the way to learn historical fact.

That to inculcate religious beggary as the only form and mode of spiritual perfection, is fanatical and mischievous, even the church of Rome will admit.  Protestants universally reject it as a deplorable absurdity;—­not merely wealthy bishops, squires and merchants, but the poorest curate also.  A man could not preach such doctrine in a Protestant pulpit without incurring deep reprobation and contempt; but when preached by Jesus, it is extolled as divine wisdom,—­and disobeyed.

Now I cannot look on this as a pure intellectual error, consistent with moral perfection.  A deep mistake as to the nature of such perfection seems to me inherent in the precept itself; a mistake which indicates a moral unsoundness.  The conduct of Jesus to the rich young man appears to me a melancholy exhibition of perverse doctrine, under an ostentation of superior wisdom.  The young man asked for bread and Jesus gave him a stone.  Justly he went away sorrowful, at receiving a reply which his conscience rejected as false and foolish.  But this is not all Jesus was necessarily on trial, when any one, however sincere, came to ask questions so deeply probing the quality of his wisdom as this:  “How may I be perfect?” and to be on trial was always disagreeable to him.  He first gave the reply, “Keep the commandments;” and if the young man had been satisfied, and had gone away, it appears that Jesus would have been glad to