All this gives to the work a real attractiveness, in spite of the vagueness of the ideas which reign there, and in spite of the perceptible incertitude of the author's conclusions upon the solemn questions which he approaches, but upon which he does not enter.
I have no intention of saying more; I have not to render an account in detail of this book or to discuss any of the author's opinions or assertions upon which I may not agree with him; my aim is only to determine the character of his work, and to show plainly, first its tendency and then its insufficiency. There precisely is his originality; in setting out, and dealing with the subject of the purely human nature both of Christ and of Christianity, he seems not far from participating the opinions of Rationalistic criticism; but the more he advances, the farther he departs from the goal at which the Rationalists arrive: he appears predisposed in their favour; the process of his thought seems often to conform to theirs; his conclusions are not clearly contrary, but in effect, under the empire either of his instincts or under the influence of his historical and moral studies, he is more Christian than he appears, perhaps even more so than he believes himself to be; and if the firm doctrines of Christianity find in him no sure and declared defender, neither do they encounter in him the consistent hostility of a severe logician or the indifferentism of a mere sceptic.
There are several passages of this remarkable work which are particularly distinguished by these characteristics. To these I feel pleasure in referring the reader. They are in both parts of the book; that is to say, in the first part, chapter fifth, entitledChrist's Credentials, and chapter ninth, [Footnote 51] entitledReflections on the Nature of Christ's Society;in the second part, chapter tenth, entitledChrist's Legislation compared with Philosophic systems, and chapter the eleventh,The Christian Republic[Footnote 52] A perusal of these passages will, if I do not deceive myself, fully justify the impression which the work has made upon me, and satisfy the reader that I am right in what I have said of the author's inconsistency with respect to religion.
[Footnote 51: Ecce Homo, ed. 1866, pp. 41-51, 81—102.][Footnote 52:Ibid, pp. 108—119, 120—126.]
Without expressly referring to any other passages I simply remark, that there are in this book ideas expressed and particular assertions made, which suggest numerous questions and call for many observations. I find in the entire volume a singular mixture of plain and practical common sense with a subtlety sometimes tinctured with piety, and sometimes with philosophy. There reigns in it, upon the nature of man and of human societies, an intellectual elevation, both moral and religious, which embarrasses and obscures itself in a long and painful process of refinements. It bears the impress of a grandeur of thought and of sentiment, without presenting them, however, in a form sufficiently simple and vivid. But I have no idea of examining or discussing here in detail this remarkable work; my aim is only to make the result clear to the reader, to which I have already referred, and indeed it appears incontestable. The author's aim has been to study and portray the human part of Christ, the human part of his doctrine as well as of his life. He has declared this to be his aim by entitling his book "Ecce Homo," and by saying that he deferred to another volume "every theological question, every study of Christ as the Creator of Theology and of Modern Religion."He has already done much more than he is aware; the striking inference from his first volume being that there was in Christ much more than man, and that if he had been but man, however superior we may picture his nature to be to that of ordinary humanity, the work of Christianity, such as it in fact was and is, would have been to him a thing not only which he could not have accomplished, but which he could not even have conceived.