HPB-SB-10-558

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 10, p. 558	volume 10, page 558 vol. title: vol. period: 1879-1880 pages in vol.: 577
Legend HPB note HPB highlighted HPB underlined HPB crossed out <Editors note> <Archivist note> Lost or unclear SBT, DT Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

< Miracles and the Broad Church (continued from page 10-557) >

Any one listening to the simple and powerful explanation given in his first sermon, of his reason for leaving the Church, wide and elastic as his place was believed to be, must have felt that his retirement could not be an event by itself. It must form the first of a series, probably a long one, of similar occurrences, for many a good man will doubtless ask himself whether the arguments used by Mr. Brooke are not equally cogent in inducing others to follow in his steps. For he has quitted the Broad Church, a part of the establishment supposed to admit of such indefiniteness of belief and elasticity of doctrine, that many clergymen belong to it whose whole belief might be comprised in the first four words of the Apostle’s Creed; while many others, with perhaps less of honesty than of desire to do good, cannot trustfully say they believe anything at all.

Mr. Stopford Brooke’s declaration in his first sermon will touch this class of men and probably these alone. The Broad Churchman, admitting that discrepancies and contradictions and things impossible to believe as they are usually held, exist in the Articles and Creeds of the Church and the dogmas of Christianity, still believes that a clergyman can be more useful by using, as many a one has done most admirably, the means of helping the suffering and ignorant poor, and promoting the good works which come in their way, than by consulting his own conscience and following out the immediate details. Accordingly he “sets aside those questions which he cannot answer, speaking of Christianity as a beautiful moral system, not really founded on miracles or dogmas, but on the life and religion of the heart.” It is never wise or right to impute motives, and we cannot attribute to these good men the unworthy motive of a wish to retain worldly wealth and position. Many of them evidently trouble themselves little enough about the latter, and many have little enough of emolument to make it a question whether their continuance in the Church is not financial imprudence. But while making the compromise described, all Broad Churchmen are supposed to believe that they are governed by conscience, or a principle which will not permit them to affirm a lie.

This is the situation formerly held by Mr. Stopford Brooke, and from which he has set himself free. Among his arguments for so doing, is the following. He was convinced that the whole of religion was suffering from this state of compromise, not those already religious, but the chances of religion on the great mass. The High Church and the Low Church did not compromise at all, but the liberal party compromised the matter by putting aside the question; speaking of Christianity as a beautiful moral system, not really founded on miracles or on dogmas, but on the life and religion of the heart. This was a clear position but he thought it might be carried too far for the advantage of religious life in this nation. To say nothing about miracles, when the question was leaping into the mind of every one, to say that Christianity did not rest on them, was to act as it was said the ostrich acted.

In his remarks on the position of the Broad Church, Mr. Stopford Brooke carefully guarded against the supposition that they were directed against those individual members of it who have not yet felt impelled to the course he has taken. But it is very probable that, after his clear statement of the circumstances in which he was, and they are, these good men may take a different view of their position; and, if they believe in a superintending Providence and His powers to govern His creatures aright, may find that the end they aim at will be better attained by resisting falsehood in any form, however tempting, than by yielding up God’s first requisition, “Truths in the inward facts,” in order to help Him to do His own work.

Mr. Stopford Brooke’s own future course will be watched with interest, for it cannot be denied that there is some ambiguity in his present position with regard to Christianity.—Daily News Report of Rev. Stopford Brooke’s Sermon, October 17th, 1880. He has said or implied that Christianity is founded on miracle and dogma, or, to be quite accurate, he has said that, “To say nothing about miracles when the question was leaping into the mind of every one, to say that Christianity did not rest on them, was to act as it was said the ostrich acted.” But what does Mr. Brooke mean by Christianity here? Is it the belief derived from the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, or something independent of His history as we have it, but embodying the essence of His teaching? As far as can be gathered of Mr. Brooke’s meaning, the Christianity which the Broad Churchmen tacitly hold, and which he now openly professes, is the substance of the teachings of Jesus Christ, the morality inculcated by them; that which is left after the claim to, and evidences of, miraculous power, by which the teaching was strengthened and accompanied, is set aside.

It is an easy thing to profess belief in any phenomenon of which we ignore or deny the cause; but in the case of Christianity, and the actions of Jesus Christ, there is unusual difficulty. Let us take the idea Mr. Brooke has of the character and work of Jesus as expressed in his recent sermon.

“He should now be able to declare that, while he frankly accepted the proved conclusions of science and criticism, there remained untouched and clear the great spiritual truths of the soul, the eternal revelation of God, the deep life of Christianity.” . . . “He should speak of God as revealed in the best way by Jesus Christ, of the true life of man which He had disclosed in His life. . . . of God incarnate in all men in the same manner, though not in the same degree as in Christ. . . . He asked his congregation to pray . . . that humbly and faithfully he might follow the steps of God his Father, in the footsteps of his Master Christ.”

Jesus Christ then is the great exemplar and divine teacher whose moral perfections Mr. Stopford Brooke acknowledges, and in whose footsteps he desires to follow. But Jesus Christ’s own express declaration is that through Him, “The blind see, the deaf hear, the lepers are cleansed, and the devils (or demons) cast out.” He speaks of “The works that ye see me do.” He says, “I can of my ownself do nothing, the Father that is in me, He doeth the works,” &c., &c., &c.

It would be vain to attempt to multiply instances of the claim made by Jesus to the performance of the miracles. Exegesis and criticism may try to prove that the insertion of the narratives of the miracles in the Gospels was an afterthought—an interpolation; but let any one take from all the Gospel narratives these interpolations, with all the words of Jesus referring to and explaining them, and what will be left? Certainly some fine moral teaching, perhaps half a step in advance of Buddha or Confucius, but no distinct promise of a future state, and no appearance after death to confirm it?

Why should it not be said, with Strauss, that the whole history is a mythological embodiment of some philosophical truth—equally valuable, whether Jesus Christ existed on earth or not?

But let us look at the question as it is. Jesus Christ, the founder of a system which is to regenerate the world, the Being in whom God had revealed Himself in the best way, the promulgator of the highest morality made known, claims distinctly and repeatedly that he did these things which the proved conclusion of science and criticism have declared he did not and could not do. Surely such a claim on the part of Christ was a false one, and if the conclusion of science and criticism are correct, He was an impostor, whose criminality can only be measured by the amount and magnitude of His deception.

Yet this impostor is, according to recent exegesis and criticism, the One in whom God revealed Himself most fully.

“Do men gather grapes off thorns, or figs off thistles?”

It is for these reasons that I think Mr. Stopford Brooke’s present relation to Christianity an ambiguous one.

C. D.