THE GREATEST ILLUSION 51 



Sometimes it is argued that, although the morality of the 

 Gospels does not contain any new elements, it receives, in the 

 synthesis provided by the personality of Christ, a form which 

 is unique in its perfect beauty. The moral character of an 

 individual is assumed to have properties different from the 

 sum of his moral principles, much as a chemical compound 

 has properties not possessed by its elements. This is a less 

 easily argued proposition, because no two people form the 

 same conception of Christ. Apart from the doubt whether 

 Christ ever existed in the flesh, the data given in the Gospels 

 are so meagre and so confused that they do not afford material 

 for anything like a complete synthesis. The innumerable 

 lives of Christ are a proof of the difficulty. It is a fact, how- 

 ever profane it may appear to be, that we are able to form a 

 far closer conception of Don Quixote or Dr. Johnson than of 

 the character who is alleged to be the unique expression of a 

 saving ethic. The result is that each reader of the Gospels 

 fills in the blanks according to his own notion of an ideal 

 personality, and cuts away one or other of the various contra- 

 dictory features which the Gospels reveal. Most of this 

 process of moulding is unconscious, so that the artisan of the 

 ideal is unaware how far his own prepossessions about the 

 divinity or the human perfection of Christ enter into the final 

 form. 



The personality of Christ is, therefore, a frail reed on 

 which to hang the massive claim of a complete moral revela- 

 tion never foreshadowed and never to be surpassed in the 

 evolution of the soul. We need hardly pause to point out 

 how dubious this claim is in the light of all we know about 

 human development. People who regard morality as some- 

 thing extra-human, stamped upon us like the die which gives 

 the base metal of a token coin a higher than intrinsic value, 

 will not be impressed by the scientific study of moral evolution. 

 Nor will those who regard Christ as a supernatural being 

 admit that science has anything to say on the matter. But 

 those who realize that morality, no less than the habits, 

 instincts, and mental powers of mankind, is a natural growth 

 will need something more than anonymous gospels and 

 conflicting ecclesiastical authorities before they agree that 

 Christianity is a divine graft upon the tree of life. There is a 

 place in natural evolution for moral as well as intellectual 

 genius, but not for anything which does not derive its origin 

 and sustenance from the roots of the past. 



The more convincing argument, because its evidence is 



