truth among these religious needs, and
admit that a reasonable faith must rest on something better than mere
emotion. Fully to exhibit the grounds of this claim of Christ upon us
would involve an examination of the Gospel narratives in detail: it
would involve an attempt to present to you what was this teaching, this
character, this religious consciousness which has commanded the homage
of mankind. To attempt such a task would be out of place in a brief
course of lectures devoted to a particular aspect of Religion--its
relation to Philosophy. Here I must assume that you feel the spiritual
supremacy of Christ--his unique position in the religious history of
the world and his unique importance for the spiritual life of each one
of us--; and go on to ask what assertions such a conviction warrants us
in making about his person and nature, what in short should be our
attitude towards the traditional doctrines of the Christian Church.

You may know something of the position taken up in this matter by the
dominant school of what I may call believing liberal Theology in {162}
Germany--the school which takes its name from the great theologian
Ritschl, but which will be best known to most Englishmen in connexion
with the name of Prof. Harnack, though it may be well to remember that
Harnack is nearer to the left than to the right wing of that school.
The fundamental principle of that school is to base the claims of
Christianity mainly upon the appeal which the picture of the life,
teaching, character, and personality of Christ makes to the moral and
religious consciousness of mankind. Their teaching is Christo-centric
in the highest possible degree: but they are almost or entirely
indifferent to the dogmatic formulae which may be employed to express
this supreme religious importance of Christ. In putting the personal
and historical Christ, and not any doctrine about him, in the centre of
the religious life I believe they are right. But this principle is
sometimes asserted in an exaggerated and one-sided manner. In the
first place they are somewhat contemptuous of Philosophy, and of
philosophic argument even for such fundamental truths as the existence
of God. I do not see that the subjective impression made by Christ can
by itself prove the fact of God's existence. We must first believe
that there is a God to be revealed before we can be led to believe in
Christ as the supreme Revealer. I do not believe that the modern wo