Dr. Harnack’s Scheme Tested: His Jesus Is Not Our Divine Lord and Saviour

And let no one be either stumbled or offended by my words. When I here speak of “Jesus” I am referring to Prof. Harnack’s Buddha, the mythical founder and hero of his Neo-Christianity. I am absolutely incapable of speaking, or even of thinking, of our Divine Lord and Saviour in this free and easy fashion. If a book about Wilhelm II. of Germany never once accorded him his imperial title we should know how to account for the omission. ‘To attribute it to accident or “style” would be absurd. And from the first page of these lectures to the last the Lord Jesus or the Lord Jesus Christ is not named as much as once.* In this respect the German Rationalist may be bracketed with the French infidel.

* The invariable use in this book of capital letters in all pronouns that refer to God, and the invariable absence of them for “Jesus,” is a straw that indicates the current of his mind.

And yet there is a difference. Renan’s denial of the deity of Christ does not restrain his enthusiastic homage as he contemplates the supreme tragedy of Calvary. But enthusiasm, is vulgar; and Prof. Harnack’s fastidious culture forbids his being betrayed into the least semblance of emotion in presence of the Cross. Here are the words of an avowed infidel; with what a sense of relief we turn to them from the perusal of these pages, penned by a professing Christian : —

“Rest now in Thy glory! Thy work is achieved, thy divinity established... A thousand times more loved since thy death than during the days of thy pilgrimage here below, thou shalt become so truly the corner-stone of humanity that to tear thy name from this world were to shake it to its foundations. Between thee and God men shall distinguish no longer. Thou hast utterly vanquished death, take possession of thy kingdom.”*

But to return to Prof. Harnack’s scheme. “The teaching of Jesus” is the basis of it. But what do we know of his teaching? Let me test this by an illustration. The Judge’s charge

*Renan’s Life of Jesus, chap. xxv.

to the Grand Jury in opening the assizes for a county always commands attention in Ireland. And for some years I used to supply two of the leading Dublin newspapers with reports of all such charges delivered on the circuit to which I was attached as a barrister. I could not write shorthand; but by recording the key words of every sentence I was able to furnish a verbatim report from memory. On the only occasion that my accuracy was ever challenged, the Judge himself confirmed it when appealed to. I found, however, that if even a few hours intervened the spell was broken, and I could not attempt more than a précis. And after the lapse of months, or even weeks, I should have hesitated to supply a précis. But here we are asked to believe that men who had no special aptitude for such a task, and who, we are told, are not always to be trusted even when they record events that occurred before their eyes, transcribed, long after they were uttered, the very words of prolonged discourses, such as the Sermon on the Mount. Was there ever a suggestion more utterly unworthy of acceptance by sensible people! Is it not clear as light that Matthew is the real author of the Sermon on the Mount ?*

But this is not all. Put the question to a mother, “If you were forced to give up one of your children, which of them would you sacrifice?” and you will never get an answer. But when you ask a Christian, “If you were forced to give up three of the Gospels, which would you retain?” the prompt and unequivocal reply is always “Joun.” To the Christian the words of the great Teacher as recorded in the fourth Gospel are more precious than all the rest. But “the author of it”’ — Prof. Harnack tells us — “drew up the discourses himself, and illustrated great thoughts by imaginary situations.”