BUDDHISTS v. CHRISTIANS.

271

Buddhists may (as far as numbers go) be set over against the number of Christians, and that both Jesus and Buddha taught that total unselfishness is a high moral quality; yet when we compare the results and the reasonableness of their lives and their teachings, we see that they are not at all comparable. Buddhists teach that Buddha, during one of his many lives, at one time saw a tigress and her cubs famishing with hunger, and he carried his benevolence so far as to give his body to satisfy their hunger; which certainly was benevolence run mad. We find no such unmeaning benevolence in the teachings of Jesus.

Again, in and beyond his moral teachings, Jesus asserted the existence of a kind, compassionate, and forgiving Heavenly Father. But such a Deity has no existence in any other religion. Forgiveness is the peculiar attribute of the Deity whom Jesus claimed to be his Father.

Is it not exceedingly strange that this child of poor parents, who, it is supposed, worked at the trade of a carpenter until within three years of death, should, during those last three years of his life, flash out meteor-like, and shed a moral light which threw all moral lights which preceded into comparative darkness? Can we believe that such a clear and strong moral light was inherited from his peasant parents? If so, from which of his parents did he inherit such extraordinary moral strength? There is nothing in the record to show this, except that his reputed father, Joseph, was a just man, and that he and his wife, Mary, were careful to conform to the Jewish forms of worship. The record does not indicate that either his parents or grandparents had any very strong development of the moral faculties.

It is true that in the genealogy from David through Solomon several prominent names appear; but in none do I rec

ognize any moral exhibitions at all comparable to those of their immortal descendant.

Every observing student of human intelligence knows that mental tendencies are to some extent inherited, and several men of extraordinary intellectual and moral strength have appeared during the ages who probably inherited a tendency towards those lines of thought in which they have become eminent. But most of these have given a lifetime to study in the departments of science, literature or moral teachings, through which they became distinguished. But in Jesus we meet a man concerning whom there is no record of any considerable previous intellectual or moral training, who, near the commencement of his public life, delivered a speech on the side of a mountain, which, for high moral principles and deep insight into the inner nature of man, is without a parallel in any other human effort. Surely the production of such a man must indeed be wonderful, and one is inclined in all soberness to ask, Is it not as easy to believe the story of the unusual manner of his procreation as to believe that such extraordinary moral powers were simply inherited in such an age of moral darkness? However, the record asserts that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and that he taught as he was directed by his Father.

Perhaps one here may be inclined to ask whether, from a philosophical point of view, that last statement may not furnish a clue to the probable reason why the moral and religious light of Jesus shone with such exceeding bright

ness.

The writer expects that exceptions will be taken to the question put in this way, and that some will see in it lingering traces of old religious beliefs and old-fashioned teach

CONCLUDING QUESTION.

273

ings. But it is pertinent to ask, If these former beliefs and teachings accord with actual truth, shall they be disregarded because they are now thought to be rather old-fashioned? Did not the very best men who lived in those former times assent to these teachings?

CHAPTER XII.

ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES.

ONE reason why so many are pleased when anything is discovered which seems to contradict formerly accepted opinions concerning religious theories and beliefs is because of the spirit of the times, which cannot brook spiritual dictation, and because so many seem to connect in their minds the very idea of religion with dictation in spiritual matters. But such greatly err when they confound religion with certain doctrines which dogmatic expositors of religious doctrines formerly taught, and which many modern expositors would have men believe it is a sin to doubt.

If such apparently irreverent ones would remember that the essence of religion consists in the worship of God and love for our fellow-men, they would see that religious feelings should be cultivated rather than opposed. But I am not surprised at wrong conclusions on this subject when I recollect that religious teachers are men, and some of them selfish too,and that some, perhaps unconsciously, use religion or religious feelings for their own advantage rather than for the good of their fellow-men. Such desire to impress upon the minds of less independent thinkers the belief that they (being. the expositors of the will of God) should be obeyed, and that to act contrary to their instructions is to rebel against God. Thus who can wonder that when anything occurs which gives these dogmatic teachers a set-back it naturally pleases those who have observed their ill-advised assumptions? Some,

RELIGIOUS TEACHERS.

275

by thinking they are in the service of God, and thus are speaking for or in the place of God, may perhaps honestly come to the conclusion that, of right, they should be listened to and obeyed. But if those who object (and justly too) to such a state of things will consider that religion is one thing and the teachings of any man or class of men may be quite another thing, they will not be willing to encourage a spirit which naturally leads the minds of men away from that reverent belief and trust in the Deity which certainly is a source of much enjoyment to the faithful believers in God.

But however consoling a belief in the existence of an All-Merciful and Overruling Providence may be, I think there is no doubt that there is need of being decidedly sceptical in regard to much which is now taught for scientific truth; yet some are disposed to be extremely uncharitable towards those who do not accept their speculative dogmas, however much they may praise the independent and philosophic spirit of religious sceptics. The fact that religious sceptics have fared badly at the hands of professed religious men is no excuse for scientific uncharitableness. Religious sceptics do not need any defence at my hands; but in justice to them it may be truthfully said that they have not done so badly for pure religious belief as many think. On the contrary, on account of sceptical objections, religious men have been obliged to look carefully to the foundations of their belief, and thus they know much better what can be really defended as truth than they would if these objections had never been raised.

All have a right to ask the why concerning what they are requested to believe. Again, if there were no objectors, much of religious belief would degenerate into mere superstition. If there were no sceptics, religious pretenders