271 
science/' and she must content herself with that exposition 
of the “ stream of tendency whereby we fulfil the law of our 
being/' which has been given to the world by means of what 
Mr. Arnold calls the “ method/' the “ secret/' and the 
“ mildness and sweet reasonableness" of Jesus.* 
2. This is a sweeping, and will be to many a startling, pro- 
position. To most of us it will appear to refute itself. For it 
comes to this, that we are not only to sacrifice ninety-nine 
hundredths of the Scriptures, but all the distinctive features 
of Christianity. If all that the Bible does is to tell us that 
there is a “ not ourselves that makes for righteousness," we 
can do without it, for conscience tells us as much, and con- 
science can surely stand in no need of assistance from a book, 
the greater part of which, if Mr. Arnold is to be believed, is 
simply very earnest nonsense. And the world, after all, can 
hardly be said to be deeply indebted to Jesus Christ, if all He 
has done has been to be “ mildly and sweetly reasonable," to 
have suggested a “method" whereby the change of the 
“ inner man " may be effected ; and to have disclosed a 
“ secret," namely, the value of self-renunciation as a way to 
peace. f But this is Mr. Arnold’s way of saving Christianity, 
and if we do not accept it — if we do not reject the “ glosses ” 
which “ the Churches put upon " the Bible, neither the 
Bible, nor Christianity, in his opinion, “ can possibly live.";}; 
3. It is, of course, impossible, in the brief space to which my 
remarks must necessarily be confined, to do more than take a 
general view of his line of argument, and to point out, as far 
as I can, the fallacies which undeidie it. To attempt to refute 
all the statements contained in the two books to which I am 
referring, would fill a volume twice the size of both together. 
But, inasmuch as Mr. Arnold's attitude is a fair specimen of 
that which men of culture are fond of assuming towards 
Christianity, without giving themselves much trouble to 
examine the grounds on which they have assailed it, it may 
not be altogether useless to examine how far such an attitude 
is justified by the facts of the case. 
4. I do not deny that some portions of Mr. Arnold's book are 
true and useful enough. Judaism is not the only religion in 
which men have “ made the word of God of none effect by 
their traditions." There has been, and is still, a traditional 
Christianity as well as a traditional Judaism. Bishop Taylor, 
in his treatise on Repentance, complains that the ele- 
mentary truths of religion have been ovei’laid by human 
* P. 215. 
f P. 222. 
t 2 
+ Preface, p. ix. 
