Its Theological Basis.— Christianity is one of the great monotheistic religions. In general, its theistic presuppositions were derived from Judaism, on whose soil it• took its rise. By its monotheism it is differentiated at once from polytheistic religions, such those of ancient Greece and Rome, and from pantheistic systems, such as Brahmanism and Baddhism. In com mon with Judaism Christianity rests upon the conviction of the personality of God. All those vague and infra-personal descriptions, of the source and ground of all things which have been advanced as essentially equivalent to- the Jewish and Christian ideas of God, such as 'a power not ourselves)) and a 'stream of tendency)) fall utterly short of the idea of God portrayed in the Old and New Testaments. Such philosophical terms as 'ultimate reality)) and 'ground of the world' are useful, but non-committal on the point of prime importance. Christians believe that the fundamental reality is Spirit; that the ground of the world is personal.
So far all Christians would theoretically agree. When, however, we proceed to inquire as to the moral character of God, Christian speculation illustrates wide diversities of view. Men necessarily represent God to themselves by means of analogies drawn from their own life and experience. Hence in different ages, with their differing ideals and standards of life, vari ous human analogies have been used to picture forth the nature and attributes of Deity. The Christian idea of the one personal God, at once gracious and holy, has, accordingly, varied in its form from age to age or within the same age among people of differing inheritance and cul ture. Now one aspect or attribute of his nature has been now another. But amidst all such divergerices of emphasis, there has been a continuous and constant effort to conceive the character of God according to the highest eth ical standards, and to represent him as ing in himself all possible moral perfections.
Many modern Christian divines hold that the truest and most satisfying analogy with which to describe God is that which Jesus chiefly employed, •namely, that of fatherhood. His favorite name for God was the Father. The descriptions which he gave of the nature and action of the Father show that for him fatherhood meant original, self-imparting, all embracing love. Hence the apostolic summary of the Christian doctrine of God: 'God is love,' is true to the thought of Jesus. The kindred formulae: 'God is spirit)) that is, of a spiritual nature, as opposed to what is material and local, and: 'God is light,D that is, perfect purity and beneficence, emphasize special aspects of God as fatherly love. The specifically Chris
tian idea of God is• best expressed by saying: God is Father; God is love.
Christianity and Judaism.— Historically speaking, Christianity arose out of Judaism. Jesus declared that he had not come to destroy, but to fulfil, the law and the prophets. Accord ing to the Fourth Gospel he summarized the relations of his work and teaching to the re ligion of Israel by saying: gThe (Messianic) salvation is from the There is no funda mental doctrine of Christianity the germs of which are not found in Judaism. Christianity presupposes the ethical monotheism, the views of the world and man and the ideals of right• eousness which underlie the preaching of Is rael's greatest religious teachers, the ptophets. The New Testament uniformly regards the gos el as an unfolding, a development from the Jewish religion, and this view is amply justi fied by a cntical study of both religions.
But are they, then, two different religions? Are they not merely two branches growing on the same stem? The differences appeal- by con sidering how much in Judaism Christianity dis cards. In Israel Church and State Were one. The state had no existence except in and through its religious constitution. Israel's great peculiarity was that it conceived itself to be a theocracy, a people whose real king was Jeho vah. Now Christ, in his teaching, entirely dis regarded this civic organization of the forces of religion. His teaching was wholly ethical and spiritual. He framed no constitution, enacted no laws; he did not even formally provide for an outward organization. Many Christians, indeed, hold that the creation of a closely com pacted organization, a new kind of theocracy, was implicit in the principles of Jesus and was the legitimate and necessary outgrowth of his work; but however that may be, it cannot be shown that, in any direct way, he concerned himself with matters of outward organization and policy.
To the ritualistic system which was so prom inent a feature of Judaism, Jesus only incident ally referred. As we have seen, he made no violent break with this system; it is a fair inference that he continued to attend upon' the temple worship. But he laid no stress upon a ritual which had acquired increasing importance in the later history of Judaism, and even de predated it. Like the Old Testament prophets, he does not commend sacrifices, but teaches that the most commonplace moral duty is more im portant. The most sacred rite of all, the badge of Israel's separation from the rest' of the world, circumcision, he never even mentions. From such considerations it is evident that the gospel of Jesus is no mere reproduction of Judaism.