liavinf' preserved with purity and precision the formal creed, fixed more than a thousand years ago, from which, it is alleged, all other Christians have more or less seriously departed. The Pro- testant regards his religion from an entirely dif- ferent standpoint. He may be of the ' evangelical ' type, in which case he will probably define Chris- tianity as the religion of those who have accepted the authority of an inspired and infallible Bible, and who trust for salvation to the merits of the death of Christ as their atoning Saviour. If he claims to be a ' liberal ' Protestant, he will de- scribe Christianity as a life, not a creed, and declare that all attempts to define belief concern- ing the Person of Christ and other details of Christian doctrine are so many mischievous re- strictions, which only fetter the free thought and action of the truly emancipated followers of Jesus.
Under such circumstances, can any considerable measure of agreement as to the real essence of Christianity be reached, or a truly scientific defi- nition be attained ? The acceptance of the super- natural authority of a single community would ]iul an end to all discussion, but those who appeal 111 -mil ,nitliority are not agreed amongst tnem- -. Ki- As an alternative, it has been usual of laie to lall back on history as the sole possible arbiter. The historian can only recount with as much impartiality as possible the sequence of events in a long and chequered career, and leave the warring sects and parties to settle their diHer- ences as to what true Christianity is, without making any attempt to judge lietween them.
Both these methods— the purely dogmatic and the purely historical— virtually give up the pro- blem. A better course than eitlier may be adopted . The historical method must be employed at the outset ; a careful induction must lay the basis for subsequent deduction and generalization. Chris- tianity is an organism jx)ssessing a long and com- plex history, not yet finished. That life-histoi-y is better known and understood now than ever, from the upspringino; of the earliest germ onwards, and the laws which have regulated its giowtli and the principles operating in its development, can be determined in broad outline by the scientific his- torian without much fear of contradiction. But the analogy between the growth of the Christian religion and that of an animal or vegetable organ- ism in physical nature, fails in certain important respects. ' On the one hand, the growth of Chris- tianity is not yet complete, the great consumma- tion is as yet invisible. On the other, the origin of the religion of Christ cannot be comjiared with thedeposit of a tiny ami iii.ieiiTiiniiatr ami almost invisible germ. Befon- tla' |i.i iml ■ i'\ i n 'I liy the NT writings had pa.-Mii. uhai iiia.\ 1.. .all.-.'l the formative and normative .stage ul the leligiun was complete. Sufficient advance had been made to enable any critical student to arrive at a standard by which the true character of subsequent develop- ments may be judged. Critirisni. fur tlie purpose of determining the faiN ut lii-ti.iy. niust not be excluded from any seienl ilir iiii|iiii \ . a- it \ iituall.y is by tho.se who invoke (lie inlallii.le aiitlmrityof u Church or a Book. IJut, on the other hand.
CHRISTIANITY
CHRISTIANITY
criticism must not be merely subjective and arbi- trary, else religious truth is simply that which every man troweth, and Christianity nothing more than what individual Christians choose to think it. By a candid and careful comp.arison of the religion in its simplicity and purity witli the vari- ous forms it has assumed in the course of centuries amongst various nations and races, an answer may be obtained to the question, What is Christianity 1 which is neither purely dogmatic on the one hand, nor purely empirical on the other. As Dr. Hort said of the Church, ' The lesson-book of the Ecclesia is not a law-book but a history,' so the history of Christianity becomes a lesson - book for all who would understand its real essence.
The question thus opened up is emphatically modern. As the name ' Christian ' was not given till those outside the pale of the Church found it necessary to differentiate the believer in Christ from the adherent of other religions, so the need of a scientific definition of Christianity was never felt by faith, nor could one be formed, till the standpoint was occupied from whicli the young science of Comparative Religion has taken its rise. We have therefore to ask. What was precisely the nature of the religion founded by Christ as recorded in the Gospels and Epistles ? Has it remained in substance the same without fundamental change ? If, as is obvious, it has markedly altered during a long period of growth and expansion, has its de- velopment been legitimate or illegitimate ? That is, has the original type been steadfastly main- tained, or has it been seriously perverted? Is a norm fairly ascertainable and a return to type from time to time possible?
iii. Changes in Christianity in the course OF ITS development. — During the lifetime of
Jesus, discipleship was largely of the nature of personal attachment ; it implied confi by the teaching, the ( the Master. Even d
lidence created works of however, not only was there room Un ivll,'\iuii and inquiry to arise, but eager inquiry was mrMtaljle. The appearance of a unique personality who spoke as no other man sjiake and wrought works such as none other man did, irresistibly suggested the question, 'Who art thou, what sayest thou of thyself?' Jesus Himself occasionally prompted such inquiry, and was not satisfied with an un- defaned loyalty. Once, at least, He i^ointedly asked His disciples, 'Who say ye that I am?' (Mt W^). Again and again in the course of His ministry a sifting took place, as the Master made more exact- ing demands upon the allegiance of His followers, and showed that a cleavage must take place be- tween those who really understood the drift of His teaching and were prepared at all costs to obey it, and those who did not. The tests which were applied were for the most part practical in their character, ' Whosoever doth not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple ' (Lk 14-'). But the ' offences ' which caused many to forsake Him as a teacher were often occasioned by His departure from traditional and familiar teaching. His assertion of superiority to the highest Jewish law (Mt S^i-is), and His claims to a unique know- ledge of the Fatlier (Mt 11=') and such a relation to Him, that His disciples were called on to believe not only the words that He spoke, but in Himself. Christ's ministry ended, however,— and, considering its brief and tragic character, it was liound to end, —without any clearly formulated answer to the question as to what constituted true discipleship, and how His followers were to be permanently dis- tinguished from the rest of their nation and the world.