influence of Jewish theology and Greek metaphysics, the man whose mission it was to preach the Kingdom of God became known at last as God the Son. In view then of its evident mode of origin, we need not hesitate to set aside this doctrine which so offends our science and philosophy, that we may attempt a more adequate presentation of the reality which it obscurely shadowed forth.

The doctrines of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity were the outcome of the union of the noblest religion that had hitherto arisen in mankind with the later stages of perhaps the greatest development of thought that had been till then. We, living in the epoch of civilization succeeding that in which this took place, must respect these doctrines. But that does not exempt them from criticism. And if in any regard they seem to lead to false conclusions, it is incumbent on us to rethink the same problems, endeavouring to realize the facts of religion which inspired patristic theology, and to appreciate the ancient forms of thought, that no grain of truth be lost. So shall we preserve the elements of value in ecclesiastical dogma, coming to consider it perhaps as a system of symbolic ideas which safeguarded Christian truth until clearer conceptions became possible.

But why, we may ask, did Christian truth need safeguarding? For the original inspiration was convincing and afforded religious satisfaction. Why should dogma be a necessity for the fourth century, if the first century could attain salvation and peace without it? The answer surely is that the communion of the soul with the Divine had lost its early intensity. Men lived religion less and thought about it more. Now, if they thought falsely about it, the intellect being in the ascendant and religion having lost much of its vitality, erroneous ideas about the relation of God and the soul might weaken or even destroy the religion. It was therefore needful that those in whom religion was

still vigorous should frame an intellectual system of its presuppositions which should be favourable to the immature or languishing religion in the others, and ward off ideas which threatened to harm it. But we may also think of theology as promoting the growth of intellect, and so assisting towards the complete development of humanity.

But if we reject this doctrine of Christ, what other may we adopt? Shall we think of Him as a great superhuman Being, who exercises a mighty influence over mankind, hearing and fulfilling prayers, inspiring and strengthening souls, and who will one day appear in visible form before human eyes to inaugurate the Kingdom of Heaven?

But this conception of Christ is closely connected with an expectation of a cataclysm of Nature which, to the modern mind, contemplating the orderly processes of evolution, savours of the mythological. But more than this, the return of Jesus as King and Judge in this fashion was predicted to take place within the lifetime of the generation in which He lived in the flesh (Matthew x. 23; Mark ix. 1, xiii. 30). Were it not better then to discard these supernatural elements from our Christology?

Or was He the ideal human being, the perfect man, and as such the revelation of God? But it is hardly to be denied that He shared with His contemporaries views concerning the world and its destiny which science and the course of events have shown to be false. Such vast scientific and industrial and political progress of man as has since taken place was probably not imagined by Him. How can we take as the perfect image of the Creator one whose ideas concerning the Universe and the future of mankind were so imperfect?

Or does He represent God and the ideal for mankind through being morally perfect? But, in the first place, is it probable that one who appeared so early in the course of the evolution of humanity

realized to perfection the ideal of the moral character of man? And if He had, how could we know that He had till we have seen the term of human growth? And, in the second place, since a human character is composed of numerous elements-namely, habits of emotional and volitional reaction to diverse kinds of stimuli-we must doubt whether these were all complete in Him. But indeed can we be sure that there is only one perfect type of character? May it not be, as with flowers, that there are many human types, each perfect in itself?

But if we look to the ethical teaching of Jesus, we are again confronted with difficulties. What precisely is meant by not resisting evil, giving to all that ask, and lending freely of one's possessions? Or, again, how can we give up all thought for food and raiment, and live as birds and flowers, in trust that God will provide for all our needs? Would not this at once condemn the whole vast structure and machinery of modern industry, whereby the necessities and comforts of human life are produced? Surely man is educated through having to provide for his own needs by means of persistent and intelligent labour.

Granted then that Jesus was the greatest and most God-inspired man that has yet lived, it does not follow from that, it may be argued, that he will for all time be the pattern to mankind and the revealer of God. Others in due course will arise who will surpass him, as the powers of humanity grow. From him, doubtless, has sprung the noblest religion that has yet appeared on the face of the earth. But the teaching of Jesus will be superseded as the lesson-books of childhood.

So it may seem that, with the surrender of the Athanasian doctrine of Christ, the claim of Christianity to be the final religion must presently collapse. We may have thought that by giving up the dogma that Jesus is God we made our religion more credible and

secure. We may have rejoiced at having won a saner and humaner creed. But perhaps only for a while does our satisfaction last. To take away the Divinity of Christ is to place him altogether in the process of human growth, and therefore to make him imperfect, and indeed the more strikingly imperfect as fresh reaches of the evolution of man open out.

And yet need we regret this? May we not assure ourselves that higher and greater ideals will be Divinely revealed as we become capable of apprehending them? Nor shall we have to regard Christianity as false except in its claim to finality. It must anyhow convey certain shreds of the truth concerning God and humanity symbolically and mixed with error, thus preparing for more extensive and direct apprehension of the truth.

Nevertheless, we cannot thus lightly set aside all that theology by which it has been thought to prove that the Divine is in three forms and that in one of these forms man participates. Nor can we ignore the deep and intense yearning of the religious nature towards the Divine Man, as at once the lover and the ideal of human souls. It would appear that somehow in the idea of perfect union of Divine nature and human nature Christianity has given mankind an element of the perfect religion. We seem to be in an impasse.

But there is a way out, and it is this. What mankind really worships under the figure of Christ, it may be said, is the ideal of humanity. The character of the conception is derived partly from the portrait of Jesus in the gospels, but partly also from the imagination of souls in their yearning for perfection. Christ is the Divine humanity, which is the goal of the progress of both individual and race.

That call for Jesus, gentle and patient and pitiful, Jesus who is love stronger than death and hell-what is it but the voice of the new human life, the life that shall supersede all manliness and womanliness, the life that is struggling to its birth and shall grow and be

mighty? Christ is mankind's image of its own ideal, being a reflection of what lies in the mysterious profundities of itself. To the ideal that shall be realized do the doctrines of the Church truly apply. The coming humanity dies in agony and rises to life unfettered by the bonds of mortal flesh. He is the sinless One, He is the Only-begotten of the Eternal, He is the very image and of the very essence of God.

Such an interpretation of Christ, if not the whole truth, must be part of the truth. Men's interest in Christ arises from the belief that they will attain to Divine life because of Him. The doctrine of Christ does respond to deep longings in human nature for escape from earthly limitations and for purity and glory and ineffable love, longings which may be the early symptoms of the stirrings of a greater life.

But the consciousness underlying the doctrine of Christ is not merely the longing for Divine life, but also the sense of attainment of Divine life, though yet in embryo. To know what Christ is, we must take into account the fact that Christians are wont to feel saved from sin and endowed with new life by Divine power in virtue of religion determined by acquaintance with the teaching and character and career of Jesus. What must Jesus have been and what must be His relation to the ideal humanity, according to according to the religious experience of Christians?

Our inquiry will proceed along two main lines. We will first trace the rise and growth of the doctrine of Christ, with the view to discovering what were the factors which produced it. We will then consider the religious experience of Christianity, that we may find what it implies as to the nature of Christ.

How did the doctrine of Christ come into existence? Let us begin by thinking of what Jesus actually taught. The main burden of His message seems to have been that the Kingdom of God was at hand and that men must prepare for it. And this preparation consisted