sented to his followers, and it was required, indeed, by the belief that the priests of the deity were in some sense his incarnations. It is evident how much the feeling of reverence would be increased by intercourse with the human representatives of the God, if these revealed in their characters the attributes ascribed to the God himself. And thus it would be if Jesus was looked upon by his followers to be God incarnate. By his sympathy and teaching he aroused into passionate activity the emotion of love, which was at first concentrated not on God so much as on himself. Meditating on his life and death, the early Christians naturally thought that a man who could so live and die, and who could thus stir up within them the divine passion, must be himself divine, the Son of God in deed and in truth. It required only the application, whether by St Paul or St John, of the ideas embodied in Mithraism to the phenomena presented by the history of Jesus, to see in him the divinely-begotten Son of the heavenly Father, who was incarnate that he might, by the offering up of himself as an acceptable sacrifice, take away the sins of the world. The love at first generated towards the man Jesus, was perpetuated towards him as the Son of God; and it is this love, centred in the person of the divine Christ, which is still the strength of Christianity.

As a religion of humanity, it must be affirmed, nevertheless, that, while recognising the claims of God to love and reverence, primitive Christianity was rather a moral system than a religious one. Essentially "the law of love," its aim was to arouse into vital activity that part of man's moral nature which had hitherto remained almost in abeyance. The author of " Ecce Homo" expresses this truth, when he says "the Christian reformation may indeed be summed up in this-humanity changed from a restraint to a motive." He adds, "we

shall be prepared, therefore, to find that while earlier moralities had dealt chiefly in prohibitions, Christianity deals in positive commands." 1 The former statement in this sentence is true in relation to the Mosaic religion, but it is not true so far as Buddhism, or even Mithraism, is concerned. Gautama strongly insisted on the importance of the active virtues, on the necessity of cultivating the benevolent side of the moral nature. Indeed, Buddhism may be said to agree with early Christianity in the moral precept, differing only in the motive for its observance. The command "do good to all men," belongs as much to one system as to the other, but while, according to the former, obedience to the injunction is urged on the ground that it will aid in the obtaining of salvation, according to the latter it is insisted on because it is the necessary fruit of the Christian character. That which to the Buddhist is expedient becomes to the Christian a duty, springing from the authority of the law of love. No doubt, the latter betokens a considerable advance in the development of the altruistic side of the moral nature, but it springs from the same source as the former. The original motives of the two faiths differed, indeed, so little, that the teaching of Gautama might well have been the source of the altruistic sentiments which actuated the conduct of Jesus. The " salvation" of man was the aim to which the apostle of Buddhism, as well as the founder of Christianity, devoted his life, attracted by pity for the sufferings of poor humanity. Moreover there is so much

1 P. 175. Dean Milman indeed says, that the distinctive characteristic of Christian morals is, that "it is no system of positive enactments; it is the establishment of certain principles, the enforcement of certain dispositions, the cultivation of a certain temper of mind.” ("History of Christianity," vol. i., p. 206). It is evident, however, that there is no real contradiction here to the statement in the *ext.

similarity between the legends which have gathered round the birth and early life of Jesus, to those which are associated with Gautama,1 that it is almost impossible to doubt that the early Christians had by some means come in contact with Buddhist missionaries, and been affected by their teaching. Buddhism having originated at least six centuries before Christianity, must be supposed to have given its ideas to the later faith rather than the reverse. On the other hand, Christianity, by the fact of its later origin, can hardly fail to have improved on the earlier system to which it was indebted. no doubt was so. The subjective value of an action depends more on the motive which actuates it than on its result, and Christianity provided the principle which was to give to Buddhist practice the moral tone which it required. The new element is that which the more modern system possesses in common with, if it did not. obtain it from, Mithraism, and the addition to which of the altruistic element must result in a type of morality far in advance of any which had preceded it.

And it

We thus see that Christianity takes a very advanced position as a system of morals. It exhibits the stage of moral development which was sure to be reached, so soon as it was perceived not only that it was a duty to abstain from those injuries of one's fellows which are the fruits of the non-exercise of the passive virtues, but that there were certain actions beneficial to others, the performance of which was required as a duty towards self. When once the idea was enounced that the performance of benevolent actions would be attended with a spiritual result beneficial to the agent, or would be pleasing to the deity, and that those who thus acted would be

1 One of the most remarkable of these legends has been translated by Dr Muir into English verse. See Trübner's "Literary Record," Feb. 28, 1871, p. 95.

rewarded in the future life, there would be an ever increasing tendency to look upon the practice of benevolence as a duty, the neglect of which would be visited with future punishment. Much, of course, depends on the motive by which such action is governed. Where, as with Buddhism, the motive is almost purely selfish, the idea of moral obligation in relation to the active virtues would necessarily be defective. But where it is founded in love, the case is far different. The practice of benevolence would meet with a response in the mind itself, and the feeling from which it springs would increase in strength from generation to generation, until the observance of the active virtues came to be regarded as the duty of every man, just as that of the passive virtues was so regarded long before the former existed in human experience. Thus it is with Christianity, which was not possible until the age in which it appeared, and which was possible then only because the mind of man had been prepared for it by the gradual moral progress which has been traced in the preceding pages. Then it was that the moral maxims of earlier systems were replaced by the living precepts of Christianity, which by their very utterance seem to awaken in the mind the feeling necessary for their observance. "He that giveth," saith St. Paul, "let him do it with simplicity, he that ruleth with diligence, he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which

is evil, cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another. Not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing instant in prayer. Distributing to the necessity of saints, given to hospitality. Bless them which persecute you: bless, and

curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. lf thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

"1

Christianity being at first rather a moral than a religious system, the theological element was among its earliest followers subsidiary to that of practical morality. But there soon showed itself a tendency to develop out of the simple moral teachings of Jesus a system of theological dogma, which was destined in future ages to almost destroy Christianity itself. It is true that the "dogmatism" of the apostles was founded on a passionate love for its object. "Believe in Jesus because he showed his love by dying for you," was the teaching of the Apostolic Age. The author of the gospel of St. John sought further to measure the love of Jesus by his divinity, thus introducing a principle which led in later ages to the doctrine that belief in Jesus was required, not on account of his love, but of his nature as God. This resulted in a complete misapprehension of the object and value of the miraculous acts ascribed to Jesus. From being proofs of his love, they became evidence of his divinity, a notion which in its turn affected other portions of Christian teaching. In the Greek and Romish Churches the manhood of Jesus is lost sight of in his Godhead; while Mary and the Saints

2

1 Romans xii., seq.

2 Compare various passages referring to the pre-existence of Jesus as the Divine Word, S. John, i. 1, seq.; vi. 32, seq.; x. 36; xvii.