Of the investigations of modern criticism the most serious are those
which have concerned the person of our Lord. It has been felt both by
assailants and by defenders of the Faith that, so long as His supremacy
remains acknowledged, Christianity has not been overthrown. Other
doctrines once considered all-important may fall into comparative
abeyance: whether they are upheld or rejected or modified, matters
little to Christianity as Christianity. But more and more it has grown
clear that Christ Himself {174} is the Article of a standing or a
falling Church. If this doctrine is not of God, if He is not the Way,
the Truth, and the Life, Christianity, whatever benefits may have been
associated with its career, must be ranked among religions which have
passed away. But so long as He is admitted to be the Authority and
standard in the moral and spiritual realm, so long as His name is above
every name, the work of destruction is not accomplished.
Hence, renewed attempts have of late been made to tear the crown from
His brow, to reduce Him to the level of common men, to relegate Him to
the domain of myth, even to deny that He ever existed. Although, in
certain quarters at present, this last and extreme position is loudly
asserted, it is hardly necessary to occupy much time in examining it,
the trend of all criticism, even of the most rationalistic, being so
decidedly opposed to {175} it. To deny that He existed is commonly
felt to be the outcome of the most arbitrary prejudice, the conclusions
of Whately's _Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Buonaparte_
remaining grave and weighty in comparison. That Jesus of Nazareth
lived and taught and was crucified, that, immediately after His Death,
His disciples were proclaiming that He had risen, and was their living
inspiration, these are facts which can be denied only by the very
extravagance of scepticism. And the admission of these simple facts
implies a great deal more than is commonly supposed.
I
It is the fashion for hostile critics to say, 'Christianity is not
dependent upon Christ: it is the creation of the semi-historical Paul,
not of the unhistorical Jesus. There is at best no more connection
between Christendom and Christ than between America and {176} Amerigo
Vespucci.[2] See how much Christians have been obliged to give up: see
how belief after belief has had to be surrendered; see how they are now
left with the merest fragment of their ancient Creed, how evidently
they will soon be compelled to part with the little to which they still
desperately cling.' The conclusion is somewhat hasty and premature.
The fragment which remains is after all the main portion of the Creed
of the early disciples. Where that fragment is declared and held and
lived in, there is the presence and the power of the Christian Faith.
We need not trouble ourselves about sundry points which, at one epoch
or another, have come to be denied or ignored: we need not say anything
either for them or against them. We have to take our stand on what is
accepted, not on what is rejected. And for the moment we may {177}
venture to take our stand only on what is accepted by the critics least
biassed in favour of the traditional views of Christendom. Those who
have come to imagine it to be a mark of advanced culture to break with
all religion, to confine their attention to the fleeting present, to
reject all that claims to have Divine sanction, may listen with respect
to the words of some who appear in fancied hostility to Christianity.
We are not assuming that because men are great in Science or History or
Philosophy they must be great in spiritual things. Their achievements
in their own sphere, let us gratefully recognise; their uprightness,
their single-heartedness, let us imitate; and if by chance they are
sincere Christians as well as able men, let us rejoice; if they are not
professing Christians at all and yet bear witness to the beneficial
influence of Christianity and the unique power of the words and
character of Christ, let us hail with {178} pleasure their tribute of
admiration as a testimony impartial and unanswerable to the
pre-eminence of our Lord, but let not our faith in God, our knowledge
of our Saviour, be dependent on their verdict. The Faith of the Gospel
does not stand or fall with their approval or disapproval. In matters
of criticism we do well to defer to scholars, in matters of science we
do well to defer to men of science. But in matters pertaining to the
inner life, to the development of character, to the knowledge of things
pure and lovely and of good report, such men have no exclusive claim to
be listened to. And it would be absurd to say that we cannot make up
our minds as to whether Christ is worthy to be revered and loved and
followed until we have ascertained what is said about Him by
authorities in physics, or geology, or astronomy, by statesmen or
novelists or writers of magazine articles, by inventors of ingenious
machines or authors of {179} sensational stories. If they speak
scoffingly, if they do not recognise any sacredness in His Spirit and
Life, it will be impossible for us to take Him as our Moral and
Spiritual Guide.
We might almost as well say that we will not trust the truthfulness or
goodness of our father or mother or brother or friend of many years,
unless, from persons eminent in literature or science or politics, we
have testimonials assuring us that our affection for those with whom we
are so closely associated is not a delusion. That is a matter, we
should all feel, with which the great and distinguished, however justly
great and distinguished, have really nothing to do. It is a matter for
ourselves, a matter in which our own experience is worth more than the
verdict of people, however learned in their own line, who do not, and
cannot, know the friend or relative as we know him ourselves. Still,
we regard it as an additional {180} compliment to his worth, and an
additional confirmation of our own faith, if those who have been
jealously scrutinising his conduct declare that they can find no fault
in him.[3]
If it is made plain that the positive teaching of men unconnected with
any Church, untrammelled by any creed, is a virtual assertion of much
that is most dear to Christianity, if it is made plain that even where
there is strong denial there is also much reference to Christ, it may
have more weight than the most cogent arguments or the most glowing
appeals of orthodox divines or devout believers. The Evangelists
delight to record instances of unexpected, unfriendly, unimpeachable
testimony to the power of Christ. It is not only that the
simple-minded people were astonished at His doctrine, but that the
soldiers who were sent to silence Him {181} returned, smitten with
amazement, saying, 'Never man spake like this Man.' It is not only
that a grateful penitent washed His Feet with tears, but that the
unprincipled governor who sentenced Him to death declared 'I find in
Him no fault at all.' It is not only that an Apostle confesses, 'Thou
art the Christ the Son of the Living God,' but that the centurion who
watched over His Crucifixion exclaimed, 'Certainly this was a Righteous
Man: this was a Son of God.' It is similar unprejudiced witness that
we may hear around us still, the witness of those who profess to have
another rule of life than ours, and to be in no degree influenced by
our traditions. We must not expect too much from this kind of
evidence: we must not expect clear logical proof of every article
rightly or wrongly identified with the popularly termed 'orthodox'
Creed. It would destroy the value of the evidence {182} simply to
quote orthodox doctrines in orthodox language. What we rather offer is
the testimony of those who have resigned their grasp on much that we
may deem essential. It is because in a sense we may call them
'enemies' that we ask them to be 'judges' in the great controversy. It
is exactly because they are incredulous, or sceptical, or irreligious
that we cite them at all. We confine ourselves to the utterances of
men who are commonly cited as hostile to the commonly accepted Faith of
Christ, or who do not rank among the number of His nominal disciples,
or who at least have discussed His claims by critical and historical
methods, endeavouring fairly to take into account all the facts which
the circumstances warrant. We say to those who disown the authority of
Christ: It is not to the words of Evangelists or preachers that your
attention is sought: it is to the words of those whom you {183} profess
to respect, of those because of whose supposed antagonism to
Christianity you are rejecting Him. We ask you to listen to them and
to consider whether He of Whom such men speak in such terms is to be so
lightly set aside as you have fancied.