' set the seal of His disapproval uuon the more subtle and spiritual, but no less real compulsion of a tyrannical public or ecclesiastical opinion, whether formulated into a tradition or into a usage.
His ' Do not your alms before men, to be seen of them ' (Mt 61), was designed hardly more to eradicate pride from the souls of His disciples, than it was to hearten them to throw off the incubus of a perverted public and ecclpsiastical sentiment which threatened to stiHe Cliristiiin hinuilitv ami liodwardn.ss
in their very birth i' ■ ■ '■' <!■-' :iMii ill ii -'lU ^i' i
disciples from all i :
spirit in its quest i i i i
physical i He set th
((■) If what has been said be true, we are not .surprised to find Christ teaching that every mind is equipped for the exercise of this high preroga- tive, that in a certain very true sense the mind has ' the supreme norm of its ideas and acts, not out- side of itself, but within itself, in its very con- stitution' (Sabatier, Religions of Authority, p. xvi).
This also is involved in the passages already quoted. And what else can we make of such statements as these : ' Ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the day of the Sabbath ' (Lk 1316) ? Where would have been the use of submitting such a case to ' the stupid country archi- ^Itnagogos ' (Edersheim), unless, stupid as he was, even he was so equipped as to be able to subject it to some sort of process of ' inner verification'? Or, take the question put to the disciples, ' Wlio do the multitudes s,ay that I am?' and what propriety would there be in it, unless it carried with it the implication that men generally — 'the multitudes'— were equipped for the forming of a rational judgment upon the truth and righteous- ness of His claims, and ha^ some touchstone each within him- self by which he could determine the truth or falsity of those claims, and the moral quality of the character and of the teachings that lay behind them ? The possession of such anorm is involved in every argument framed, in every appeal made, and in every rebuke adininistered by Christ.
Not only does Christ recognize in every man the existence of such a norm, but He goes farther, and shows that He regards tliis norm as ' supreme, ' in the sense, at least, that for the individual man there is no standard of truth or of right more ' ultimate than that embedded in his very constitu- tion. Nothing can be substituted for it. Nothing can be used to supplement or to correct it. No appeal lies from it. Man has nought that he can do but to abide by the decisions reached in the use of it. ' If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins ' ( Jn 8-'') is no arbitrary sentence ; but simply the announcement of the momentous truth, that the beliefs or unbeliefs of those whom He addressed would involve certain consequences for them, precisely because those beliefs or unbeliefs were theirs. Christ does not teach, of course, that men can make or unmake truth or riglit for them- selves any more than for others. But He does teach that the conclusions that men reach in the use of the norm that is embedded in the very constitution of the mind are for them severally and individually final. It is this fact tliat con- stitutes the very heart of the solemnity of His words, when He says, ' If the light that is in thee be darkness, how .u'lcat is that darkness' (Mt 6=»). The liglit that is in a man is the only light that is available for him. It is the light in which he sees light. It cannot itself be tested, so far, at least, as the user of it is concerned, by any other light (cf. also Mt 13^ and the principle laid down in Ro 14*').
(d) Christ, moreover, is equally clear in teaching that in the proper use of the equipment given them, men may and always will arrive at correct judgments in regard both to truth and to duty — that is, in all cases and as regards all matters in reference to which they are called upon, or indeed are entitled, to form judgments. He recognizes, to be sure, the sad fact that men not only may, but as a matter of fact often do, give hospitable entertain- ment both to error and to evil. He is very em- phatic, however, in asserting that this is their fault, and in no sense their misfortune. Whatever the difficulties of the teaching, they need not leave the soul in error or even in doubt. ' If any man willeth to do his will,' says our Lord, 'he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself (Jn 7").
.Any account of Christ's teachings as to the judicial authority
; for a detailed
AUTHORITY IN RELIGION-
AUTHORITY IN RELIGION 157
God for which men are wholly dependent upon Christ. Again, it is evident from Jii 149i>. that whatever other elements this knowledge of God contains, it is a knowledge that is mediated through the understanding. ' He that hath seen me," says our Lord, 'hath seen the Father.' Tlie same conclusion follows inevitabl.v from the great emphasis which Christ laid upon His teaching function. But how is a man to test the correct- ness of propositions for the very knowledge of the contents of which, and much more for their accuracy, he is ex hypothesi wholly dependent upon Christ? We have said that Christ teaches that it is the prerogative of every man to bring every proposition, to the truth of which he is expected to assent, to some sort of process of ' inner verification ' ; but here are matters which, ex hyimthcsi, men must accept upon testi- mony, albeit it is the testimony of no less a witness than Christ Himself. Have we here, then, an inconsistency in Christ's teaching? We think not. We test