biography does His message, in this view, stand or fall, but by Himself whom the facts reveal ; the facts come embedded, and are vital because thus embedded, in one cardinal fact. Himself. He came to them not as a prophet, although He had much in common with the prophets ; nor as a culture-hero, the ottspring of spiritual imagina- tion ; but as an inner force of life absolutely unique ; an inner experience in which God entered into their hearts in a manner heretofore unparal- leled, being borne in on them rather than presented to their imitation, leavening them practically with Himself, and demonstratively in such a way that henceforth to their very existence in God, He, the Revealer, must belong. In the NT we move amid scenes where the common has been broken up by vast events. God from the Unseen has struck into liistory a fresh note, and a new era has opened. The whole suggestion is of possibilities and resources waiting to be disclosed. (Cf. Wernle, Bccfinnings of Christianity). The beginning of Christianity is neither a theological idea nor a moral precept ; it is an experience of a Fact, the Fact of Christ, revealing and imparting the life of God.
The impression Christ made on those who saw and heard Him is a solid fact which no criticism can upset. Is it iiossilile to get behind this fact ? The efibrt is stn niiciii-Iv made by many. What was Hewhi. iimliKdl the impression reported in the Gospels ? Ilrtti i still, What was He who pro- duced not this or that impression, but the result- ant of actual and permanent impressions which He has made upon the world? In seeking an answer, historical and critical research has been lavished on every aspect of the question. Christ's teaching, career, personality, have been studied as never before. Tlie result is that He is better known to us tlLin to .iiiv pievifius age. It is at th.' -:nM.. tiiii.. 1 .in- ill. irri~iii;Jy felt that a natu- rali-ii.' ].■. .rii-iin. tiiiii (.f ]ii> lift' is not possible. ('.■iihiid >in.li'iil> >•{ th.' ;iiiti-suin-inaturalist camps (..</., ill hisi.iiy, Kv\w [.h.'.its uj A«ror«] ; in philo- s(>|iliv, i;.l. c'liiil [KnJ. of MciigionJ; in science, Sir illiv.'r L.i.li:.' [I/ihUit Jovrnal, III. i.] and I'mf. .lames []'(n-ii/iis <f lieliffiovs Experience]) practically confess the failure of past attempts, and succeed in evading the postulate of Divinity only by attributing to the human life so ample .a magnificence as to make it embrace all that Christian tliought understands by Divinity. The new rationalism shows how decidedly the old materialism has spent its force. Of special inte- rest is its frank recognition of the presence and vitality of exiierienees on which hitherto natural- ism has set taboo. The more the new criticism endeavours to re\ ivify tlie dead past and live over again the life tif the disciples who enjoyed the personal communion of Christ, the more it sees it must combine in itiielf all the qualifications neces- sary for seeing and understanding all that He really was. This conviction, however, involves the finding of a place for criteria for the adjudging of Christ, specifically extra-naturalistic, but nol extra-scientific, and spiritual ; and where this happens witliont jirepnsscssion, the irresistible sense of Clni-t's tran^. .ii.li nc.' impresses. His mystery rcinain^ (. f. ',.„/, „/,,. ]'i ritatis. Essay ii. ; also Ra-sbdall, liintiinr <iinl I)< nlopmcnt, v. and vi.).
2. Analysis of the experience. — But if wc cannot go behind the ifact in the sense of reaching some- thing more ultimate, we may analyze its elements. It will be found in content to comjirise at least four constituents : His teaching and works ; His growing consciousness of His own naliiio ; His response to prophetic promise ; His appeal to deeper personality.
DIVINITY OF CHRIST
DIVINITY OF CUEIST
471
tlii
-;/-■ //,.v M<:
(a) Of these tl conteiuiiorary '"/' 'That Jesus 'is 11,1 ideas of the Gospels Hiiil l'4iistles. Mori' than one recent writer (Martiiieau, Meinhokl, Wrede, etc.) liave sought to show that Jesus did not accept tlie title of Messiah ; but not even these deny its attribution to Him by the disciples, and that as their main view of His Person. Careful analysis indicates that in whatever respects the Synop'tirs differ in their representations, — and tlicy an- not absolutely harmonious, — they yet re|in'sriil ;i, general agreement of view, and set forth wIkM IIm' prindtive belief was. In that belief .le ii- slriii^l forth as Messiah, Himself accepting as appiopi ialr what they attribute ; a sublime ligure, nut niuiely human, or exalted to Messiahship only by self- mastery and self -dedication, Ijut l)y peculiar nature and special appointment. The endeavour to reduce the Evangelic description of Messiah to human dimensions is ludicrously inadequate to the facts. If it be the case that His disciples ' caressed Him in the most familiar manner as a fellow-human being' (Crooker, NT Views of Jesxis, p. 25), the statement is crudely one-sided, since the familiar fellowship He vouchsafed, as is very evident, is but the framework of an intimate disillusion- ment on the part of His followns, .dm! a grow- ing revelation on His part. W'' ■;in ii.n.' ih.' stages by which the higher iclr:; w.i- imioMiil id them. It came in a .series of ili^.ipji.iiiituH'nts, intended, jirobably, to wean them from the popu- lar ideas of what the Messiah should be. There is first the death of the Baptist, the prophet of Messiah. Then there is the refusal to commit Himself to the ciilliiisiasm (,f those who would have made Him ii IJn^' (.In li-' (j'"'). Again, Chi'ist avoids or evades (he clKillin^je to manifest Him- self to the world {.In 7'''). Ijastly came the crisis, as it were, llir oj.m ili.illniL'.' to prove His Messiahship liy .■! -^i.jn .in.l Ii-lIi imnlc His claim, a challenge refuseil (Lk --J.''' -'.:■■). Hand in hand with this progre.ssive disillusionment of all _that was contrary to His thought in current Messianic ideas went the progressive revelation of the true Messiah, — a revelation which became at once a testing and a discipline of the character of the disciples, and an unfolding of undreamt of forces in His; so that at last they fell at His feet and worshijiped, while others acknowledged Him as ' Lord and God ' ( Jn 20='') ; and still others plaiidy felt that He was 'ascending to the Father' (v.''j. That Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and gave His sanction to the belief on the part of His dis- ciples is certain* (see ne.xt sect.); no less certain (and admitted) is it that the disciples believed Him to be the Messiah. The point of impor- tance for the present is, how the belief origi- nated with the latter. It is a practice anu>nL; many scholars to reverse the actual facts. They argue .as if the belief had been hrst formulated and officially offered, so to speak, for their accept- ance, a formal external idea taken up Iht.-iusc it h.ad been put forth by Jesus .as a srliemo in \\\nv\\ to frame His person'; in the liL;lit of \\ hii h they are to regard His life and words ; exercising a pru- <ligious influence on, and lending a force to, His words and a sanctity to His person beyond that