88 
of this science, althougli they give a true account of the great 
facts of life, yet, owing to the many-sided aspects presented 
by the condition of man, are incapable of regulating the entirety 
of human action..' In the infinite complications of society there 
must not unfrequently arise a conflict of obligations, when the 
higher ones of mercy ought to outweigh those of an inferior 
character. 
91. Within these limits the science of political economy 
must admit that a wide sphere exists for the exercise of the 
virtue of charity, and that the demands made on us by the 
miseries of mankind may be so powerful that they ought to 
overweigh all considerations derived from the duty of pro- 
moting the employment of labour. It follows, therefore, that 
no question can arise between the teaching of Christianity and 
science, unless it can be shown that the teaching of Christianity 
counteracts and condemns the principle of accumulation on 
which the fabric of society rests, or that it enjoins indiscriminate 
almsgiving as a duty. 
92. For the solution of these questions we must revert to 
first principles. The principle of accumulation is one which 
is so deeply impressed on man's constitution that it requires 
little external aid to stimulate it. If it were not that 
man has many passions which urge him in a contrary 
direction, it would act with a universal potency. On the 
other hand, the kindlier feelings are the weaker portion of our 
moral constitution, and are especially liable to be overborne by 
the violence of selfishness and of passion. As I have often 
observed, Christianity does not enunciate a moral code. Her 
business is to proclaim great principles, and to briug powerful 
moral forces to bear on those parts of our nature which are 
comparatively weak. How, although I maintain that it is not 
true that the duty of accumulation is not recognized by her, 
I allow that it occupies a place far from prominent in her 
teaching. But as this was not designed to elaborate a com- 
plete system of morals, and as the principle in question had 
been firmly planted in man's moral constitution as the founda- 
tion on which society rests, it might well be left to take care 
of itself. Firmly imbedded as it is in the principles of our 
nature, Christianity has taken ample care for its well-being, 
when it applied the powerful forces at its command to the 
uprooting of those passions by which it is overborne. On the 
other hand, the kindlier feelings are not only weak in them- 
selves, but are in constant danger of being overpowered by 
the selfish ones, and also by the violence of the passions. 
Christianity, therefore, has pursued a perfectly reasonable 
