^A^se*ndewsUis/ 48$ ^

Who Was Jesus Christ ?
AND OTHER QUESTIONS.

Who Was Jesus Christ?
AND OTHER QUESTIONS.

BY
F. W. AVELING, M.A., B.Sc,
principal of Christ's college, blackheath.
author of "the classic birthday book," "light and
heat," " notabilia of greek syntax,"
"church principles," etc.

LONDON:
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO. Ltd.
PATERNOSTER HOUSE, CHARING CROSS ROAD.
I897.
{All rights reserved.]

*f\v33

Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson &• Co.
At the Ballantyne Press

PREFACE
This work is largely a reprint of three little
books which have been a help to seekers
after truth. The author makes no pretence
to any great originality. Readers will note
his indebtedness to such works as Liddon's
" Bampton Lectures," Martineau's " Study
of Religion," and many other books.
This volume is published at the request
of old pupils of the author, whose sincere
prayer is that it may help many young
people, especially those engaged in Sunday
School work and Christian Endeavour
Societies, and students for the ministry.

CONTENTS

PAGE
Is There a God ?  i
I. ALL NATURE POINTS TO DESIGN IN THE MIND
OF A CREATOR  3
II. EVERY EXAMPLE OF CAUSATION FORCES THE
PHILOSOPHIC MIND TO GO BACK TILL IT
RESTS UPON THE " FIRST CAUSE " OR
"FIRST CAUSER"  13
III. ALL REGULATED MOTION IS INDICATIVE OF
MIND AND POWER  20
IV. THE GOD-CONSCIOUSNESS OF HUMANITY
ALWAYS, UNLESS IT IS WARPED OR CRUSHED,
LEADS TO A BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING 22
V. THE PHENOMENON OF CONSCIENCE AND THE
SENSE OF MORAL OBLIGATION POINT TO A
RIGHTEOUS RULER  24
VI. THE EVENTS OF HISTORY INDICATE A JUST
GOVERNOR OVER THE AFFAIRS OF MEN . 26
VII. THE WORLD'S WISEST TEACHER JESUS CHRIST
BELIEVED IN A GOD  28

V1H

CONTENTS.

Can We Believe in Miracles ?
i. the nature of miracles
ii. the use of miracles .
iii. the proof of miracles
Who Was Jesus Christ ?
i. the christ of history
ii. the testimony of the scriptures to
CHRIST 
III. HOW WE MAY THROW LIGHT ON THE DOC
TRINE OF THE INCARNATION
IV. THE HOLY SPIRIT SOMETHING MORE THAN AN
INFLUENCE .
V. HOW WE MAY THROW LIGHT ON THE DOC
TRINE OF THE TRINITY
VI. THE OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
AGAINST CHRIST'S EgUALITY WITH THE
FATHER 
vii. some consequences of the denial of
christ's divinity 
If a Man Die shall he Live again ? . .

PAGE 37
38
48 547i7i
107143
157
161 171
190
211

IS THERE A GOD?

This is a question which many are asking in
these days of unsettled opinion. Often from
the bewildered sceptic the question is put
very honestly and very earnestly. When
good Christians, who are not well acquainted
with what is going on in the world, hear it
asked, they tremble for the future of the
human race. They imagine that our children
after us will lie down to rest in a great dark
ness, with the stones of materialism for a
pillow, and the canopy of atheism for a
coverlet. I have no such fear for the
future. Still it behoves all who do believe
in a Deity to give a reason for the faith
that is in them. This I shall now endeavour
to do, in as few words as possible. To
the question " Is there a God ? " I reply
yes, because —

2 IS THERE A GOD ?
I. All Nature points to design in the mind
of the Creator.
II. Every example of causation forces the
philosophic mind to go back till it rests upon
the "First Cause" or "First Causer."
III. All regulated motion is indicative of
mind and power.
IV. The God-consciousness of humanity
always, unless it is warped or crushed, leads
to a belief in a supreme being.
V. The phenomenon of Conscience and the
sense of moral obligation point to a righteous
ruler. VI. The events of history indicate" a just
Governor over the affairs of men.
VII. The worlds wisest teacher, Jesus
Christ, believed in a God.

IS THERE A GOD ?

ALL NATURE POINTS TO DESIGN IN
THE MIND OF A CREATOR.
The Psalmist expresses this (Ps. xciv. 9)
when he exclaims " He that planted the ear,
shall He not hear ? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see?" We are sometimes
told that to use such words is to make God a
man with eyes and ears like ourselves. But
this is not the fact. No anthropomorphism
is intended. The Psalmist poetically ex
presses this argument : He who made the
eye and the ear must have understood all
about seeing and hearing. And what know
ledge we gain through these senses, He must
have had before He made our eyes and ears.
To expound fully this first proof of God's
existence — viz., The argument from Nature's
adjustment, order, and regularity, to design
in the Creator's mind, would be to go through
every science, and to speak of millions of
natural objects, which we can see or touch.
There are literally millions of illustrations of

4. IS THERE A GOD ?
this argument. One or two shall be picked
from countless others.
If we were suddenly to come upon a house
on a desolate island, with many rooms in it,
differently furnished, and thus supplying
different wants ; if we found taps for hot
water and taps for cold, a larder, a pantry,
and the other conveniences of domestic ar
rangement ; we should at once conclude that
some designing mind had been at work. In
the same manner from millions of instances
in Nature — of the adaptation of means to
ends, of power ruled by purpose, of adjust
ment and of regularity, we argue to a
designing mind. Look at the wing of a
bird. Its feathers and muscles are so
arranged that it can present a firm resisting
surface to the air in its downward stroke,
while it can let loose the firmly compact
feathers in its upward stroke that the air may
find an easy passage through. No thoughtful
man can look at the wing of a bird, without
seeing that it was made for flying. The
webbed feet of the duck were made for
swimming. The stomach was made for
digesting.

IS THERE A GOD ? 5
Again, many thousands of years ago ferns
and trees were buried under the earth. In
that cellar they have been preserved apart
from the light of the sun. Now we use
them as coal. Was it chance or design that
made and kept this coal for man's use ?
Coal and iron were deposited in the earth
many ages ago. Since then many and
many a layer of earth has been deposited
upon them. If there had been no tiltings up
of the geologic strata, coal and iron would
have been too far down for us to use. Was
it by chance or design that the strata have
been lifted up, so that coal and iron are near
the surface and workable by man ?
Take another illustration which points to a
designing mind : — Water's greatest density
is at 40 C. This is a fact noted in all
chemistry books. How full of meaning it
is. Water contracts as it gets colder. Now
when a body contracts, it gets denser and
proportionally heavier. If then, water kept
on contracting, till it became ice, the ice
would be heavier than the water, and would
sink ; more ice would be formed on the
surface, and that would sink. Thus in a

6 IS THERE A GOD ?
severe winter, the ponds would be full of ice;
no summer's sun would be powerful enough
to melt it, while the fishes in the water would
perish. To avoid this, Nature makes an ex
ception to her rule. Thus, after cooling and
contracting down to 40 C, water cools and
expands down to o° where it becomes ice.
Thus ice being lighter floats on the water,
the fishes are preserved and the warm sun
shine is able to melt the icy covering. Does
not this point to a designing mind ?
Take again the definite combining pro
perties of the chemical bodies, the simple
substances. Oxygen always combines in
the proportion of sixteen parts by weight,
hydrogen in the proportion of one part by.
weight. This numerical exactness points to
design in the mind of the Creator. Look at
the plants. The stamens are the male por
tion ; the pistil is the female. A union
between these two must take place, before a
new plant can be generated. This union is
brought about in many ways. When ripe,
the anthers of the stamens burst ; the pollen
dust (the male element) makes its way out
and falls on the already prepared stigma (the

IS THERE A GOD ? 7
summit of the pistil, the female organ). Is it
by chance that the male and female elements
ripen together, that the anther bursts just as
the stigma is prepared to receive the male
impregnation ? Who can read Mr. Darwin's
" Fertilisation of Orchids," and see how even
the passing bee is made to carry the male
pollen-dust from one flower to the female
element of another flower, without seeing in
these adaptations of means to ends, indispu
table evidence of a designing mind ? Science
teaches us that all the parts of a plant are
modifications of a leaf. The petals and the
stamens are alike modified leaves. This
statement has absolutely no meaning what
ever, unless we believe in a designing mind.
To say that the leaf is the type according to
which all the parts of a flower are framed, is
to say that the mind of the Creator had the
idea of a leaf before it, whatever part of the
plant He made.
The adjustment discovered in the organic
world (chiefly), and the regularity observed
in the inorganic world (chiefly), point to a
designing mind. The slightest knowledge
of astronomy teaches us to see regularity,

8 IS THERE A GOD ?
which points to a regulating intelligent being.
Our planet, eg., is so related to the sun and
moon, that seed-time and harvest, summer
and winter, day and night, never fail, while
the ebb and flow of the tides is always regular
and precise. We regard it as an evidence of
the power of the human mind, that we c/an at
last approximately calculate the paths and
perturbations of the planets, and of a few
other heavenly bodies. How great then
must be the mind of the Being who/knows
and regulates ALL the heavenly bodies.
I have put this argument to design and
purpose first, because it is so convincing, and
because there are so many myriads of ex
amples of it. In the words of one who had
little faith in religion (J. S. Mill, in his " Ex
amination of Hamilton's Philosophy]" chap.
xxvi. ). "It would be difficult to find a stronger
argument in favour of Theism, than that the
eye must have been made by one who sees,
and the ear by one who hears." Let it be
remembered that we have the same evidence to
prove the existence of God's mind, as we have
to prove the mind of any one besides ourselves.
We have no immediate knowledge of any

IS THERE A GOD ? 9
mind save our own. I am intuitively con
scious of my own mind. We need not say
with Descartes, "Cogito, ergo sum," (I think,
therefore I am.) We say intuitively " I am."
The existence of my own mind is absolutely
certain to me. But the existence of anybody
else's mind I can only infer. Because I have
a mind, I calculate, talk, move about with
forethought, and work out purposes. When
I see others calculating, talking, moving about
with forethought, and working out purposes,
I infer that they too have minds. Similarly
I argue to the mind of God. I see the works
of a man, thence I infer the mind of a man.
I see the works of God, thence I infer the
mind of God. Each of these inferences is
based on precisely the same fact — viz., the
immediate consciousness I have of myself and
the intelligent acts I perform.
It has been said by an Atheist that the
argument to design does not demonstrate one
God, but might equally be used to prove the
existence of several Deities. But any one
tolerably versed in science knows that this is
utterly incorrect. The question is between
one God or none. For all nature is uniform.

10 IS THERE A GOD ?
The same power that rules in England rules
by precisely the same laws in India or
America. Everywhere we see the same
laws, the same adaptation, the same plan
and purpose. Such perfect harmony and
unanimity could never result from the reign
of several Deities. The latest objection
against the Theists' design-argument is taken,
strangely enough, from evolution. If we
accept to the full Mr. Darwin's hypothesis,
that makes no difference whatever to the
design argument. Mr. Darwin, noticing how
some animals are really the offspring of other
animals slightly differing in characteristics,
and observing how the human child previously
to birth passes through many stages in which
it is similar to the adult condition of lower
animals, has broached the hypothesis that
man has really descended (or rather ascended)
from the highest apes and these have come
from animals lower in the scale and so forth.
Now supposing this true, it would make no
difference whatever to our argument, except
to strengthen it. If a watchmaker makes a
watch, we argue, on seeing the watch, to the
watchmaker's mind. But suppose a man

IS THERE A GOD ? 1 1
comes to us and says the watchmaker never
made the watch, as it is, he only made a little
revolving barrel, but after many months of
revolving that barrel gradually altered its
shape and became a watch. In such a case
should we not all the more marvel at the
designing mind of a man who could make
such a wonderful barrel ? He would have to
be credited with having designed both the
barrel and the ultimate watch.*
Even those evolutionists, who believe that
all the animals in the world came originally
from dead matter, this being transformed
into living matter, which gradually assumed
higher organic functions, cannot get rid of
the design argument. All evolution necessi
tates an evolver. As Huxley has remarked,
the most thorough-going evolutionist must
assume " a primordial molecular arrangement
of which all the phenomena of the universe
are the consequences." Now that primordial
* Those who wish to see the Darwinian hypothesis put
succinctly, cannot do better than read Wallace's " Dar
winism." Wallace accepts the hypothesis fully as to the
bodily frame of man, but shows that natural selection
could not develop man's moral and spiritual nature.

12 IS THERE A GOD?
molecular arrangement as much proves a
designing mind, as a timepiece proves a
planning, contriving brain. Observe too
that, granting everything the most thorough
going evolutionist desires, we must be struck
with the fact that all evolution has been
upwards, from lower to higher, from good to
better. This proves not only a mind, but a
benevolent mind. The circumstances of life
might have been such that the lowest organ
isms were the best endowed in the struggle
for life. Then the whole animal world would
be constantly being degraded, sinking lower.
Evolution has always been upwards because
the organisms have continually been adjusted
to circumstances tending to bring about this
upward and forward movement. And man
has progressed. All these facts point to a
good, as well as a wise, power above and
around us.
Observe the enormous difference between
men's works and God's. Contrast the
exquisite beauty of a fuchsia with a wax
flower, by putting both under the microscope.
As then we argue from human, clumsy, im
perfect works, to an erring human intelli-

IS THERE A GOD ?

gence ; so we argue from divine, exquisite,
marvellous works, to an unerring Divine
intelligence.

II

EVERY EXAMPLE OF CAUSATION
FORCES THE PHILOSOPHIC MIND
TO GO BACK TILL IT RESTS UPON
THE "FIRST CAUSE," OR "FIRST
CAUSER."
The preacher in the book of Ecclesiastes
(xi. 3) says : " If the clouds be full of rain,
they empty themselves upon the earth ; and
if the tree fall toward the south, or toward
the north, in the place where the tree falleth,
there shall it be." Here we have the law
of causation concretely expressed. We feel
intuitively that every effect must have a cause,
and every cause, unless prevented, will pro
duce its effect. Now in the universe around
we see a grand chain of causation. And we
must, if we follow our natural instincts, go
back in thought till we come to the first link

14 IS THERE A GOD ?
in that chain, God, the origin of all force.
The true idea of a cause remains unsatisfied
until the mind reaches and rests upon the
first cause. We see certain effects. We
ascertain their cause. But immediately we
ask what was the cause of this cause, and so
we glance on backwards, till we rest on the
first cause of all. When the infidel says the
words " first cause " convey no meaning
greater than would be conveyed by the
phrase " round triangle," we simply remark
that such language is utterly unscientific. A
round triangle is a contradiction in terms,
and therefore absurd. But there is no con
tradiction in the term " first cause." A man
may deny a first cause, he may say he
believes that matter and motion are eternal
and uncaused, but to say the term is on a
par with the contradiction " round triangle "
is to say what is positively untrue.
A trigger is pulled, this causes the cap to
explode, this causes the gunpowder to go off
bang, this forces out the bullet ; the bullet
piercing a man's heart kills him. Here are
at least four causes before you come to the
last one — viz., the entrance of the bullet into

IS THERE A GOD? 15
the heart. The trigger being pulled is the
first cause. We reason backward from the
bullet, the cause of death, to the trigger
being pulled. To reason to the first cause of
the universe, God, is precisely the same
mental act in kind, the only difference is in
degree. The only possible loophole of escape for
the Atheist is in materialism. Accordingly
one Atheist defines matter as the totality of
existence, thus shutting out force and mind
altogether. This Atheist says : "I affirm
that there is only one existence" — viz.,
matter. His dogmatism, however, does not
prove the point. Nay, more, his very sen
tence disproves it. What does a man mean
by " I," the " Ego," if there is nothing in the
Universe but matter ? So does Nature force
men to contradict themselves, when they
deny the existence of mind. The Atheist
vainly tries to avoid our arguments in proof
of a God, by saying that matter has always
existed. Even supposing matter had always
existed, mind must always have existed as
well. For matter could not have formed
itself into shape, nor could it have given

1 6 IS THERE A GOD ?
itself motion, much less the regulated motion
which some matter (e.g., the planets) possess.
Dr. Martineau has conclusively shown that
you can get out of your atoms of matter no
more motion or vitality than you put into
them. If matter is eternal, so also must
mind be ; else how could the forms and the
regular movements of matter have come into
existence ?
We believe that mind or spirit alone first
existed — i.e., the mind, the eternal spirit, God.
And He created matter. He first caused
both matter and motion. It is less mys
terious and burdensome to the mind to
believe in one Eternal existence than in two
eternal existences ; as matter could not have
created mind, we believe in the one Eternal,
Everlasting Mind who created matter.
One Atheist tells us that he will not
believe creation possible, because he cannot
conceive the act. And this, in the nine
teenth century, is meant for an argument.
God could not create the world, because I,
an Atheist, cannot conceive how. As well
might a worm argue that man could not cal
culate when eclipses should happen, because

IS THERE A GOD ? 17
it could not conceive how that calculation
was done. Ultimately everything is mys
terious. How is it that matter attracts
matter, according to the law of gravitation ?
We can only say, because the Almighty has
so constituted it. What would be thought
of a man saying prussic acid cannot kill a
man, for I cannot conceive how it should do
so ? No educated philosopher of this century
would dream of saying a thing was im
possible because he could not conceive how
it could be. We are told that, if creation is
the origin of existence, then each utterance
of the phrase is an absurdity. Why it
should be an absurdity, no reason is given.
The only one possible is because the Atheist
cannot conceive the origin of existence. But
the conceptions of a finite mind do not cir
cumscribe or limit the possible in the uni
verse. In order to prove his point — viz.,
that a mind could not create the material
universe, the Atheist declares that existences
having different attributes have nothing in
common with each other. This untrue
assertion is made in order to show that the
Great Spirit God could not create or act on

1 8 IS THERE A GOD?
matter. Now, mind and matter are exist
ences having different attributes, having
nothing in common with each other, yet
their influence on one another is proverbial.
Take an illustration. A man's mind is dis
turbed by passion. In his anger he smashes
a vase. Here mind has so much influence
on matter as to result in the breakage of a
vase. The Atheist's only chance rests on two
unprovable assumptions. He must prove
that matter is eternal, and that mind does
not exist. Till he has done this, he is
powerless to argue against the Being of God.
It is easier to believe in an eternal mind
which created matter, than in two eternal
existences, matter and mind. Moreover, the
latest results of science seem to show that
matter is not eternal. According to Sir W.
Thomson's deduction from Fourier's theory
of heat, we cannot trace the heat history of
the universe to an infinite distance in the
past. For a certain negative value of the
time the formulae give impossible values —
i.e., there was some initial distribution of
heat which could not have resulted according

IS THERE A GOD ? 19
to any known laws of Nature from any
previous distributions.
The Atheist's only hope being in materialism
he tells us that thought and emotions are only
attributes of matter. He says, as burnished
steel is bright, so matter under certain con
ditions thinks. Now you can polish steel and
make it bright. But you cannot manipulate
matter and make it think. Until men can
make matter think, materialism is doomed.
If materialists were correct in their explana
tion of thought, then thought would fall under
the laws of motion, and there would be nothing
to distinguish one thought from another, but
the difference in intensity and direction.
While the materialist says there is nothing in
the universe save matter, the idealist says
there is nothing save mind. But neither of
these extreme views leads to Atheism, though
they may to Pantheism.
We observe in the universe enough to
prove the existence of a mind sufficiently
powerful to originate this universe, when it
had the elements of matter. How can we
then show that it could not have created these
things from nothing? Because we cannot

20 IS THERE A GOD ?
conceive creation from nothing is no argument
at all against its happening. Hundreds of
things happen, while no one can conceive
how.

Ill

ALL REGULATED MOTION IS INDICA
TIVE OF MIND AND POWER.
The Psalmist says (Psalm xix. i), "The
heavens declare the glory of God." And any
one, who contemplates the regularity and pre
cision of the planets in their courses, must
admire the intelligence and the power of God.
If we see a huge stone tumbling down the
mountain side without any regulated move
ment, we do not necessarily argue that some
mind has been at work. But when we see a
train moving orderly from place to place, or
a steamboat persistently tending in one direc
tion, till it stops at the harbour, we imme
diately infer a directing, planning, proposing
mind or minds. We observe regulated move
ments in steamboat or train ; thence we infer

IS THERE A GOD? 21
mind and will. Observation and induction
never get beyond movement. The mind and
will of man are inferred from the regulated
movements he has made. Similarly we see
the movements of God's making; and we
infer His mind and will.
All the force in the universe is from God.
In every half-ounce of coal there is power
enough to draw two tons a mile. Yet the
terrific forces of the universe are not employed
to destroy everything and make a chaos.
But they are regulated to effect a cosmos, a
beauteous order. Now the motion in the
universe must have been either an original
property of matter or communicated. If it
was an original property of matter, and matter
is eternal, has always existed, we cannot
understand what should have determined the
beginning of the processes, which have
resulted in the present state of things. If,
on the other hand, as most Theists believe,
matter received the property of movement
which it had not before, whence could this
new property come, unless from the hand of
the Creator ?
If the nebular hypothesis is true, we need

22 IS THERE A GOD ?
a God to account for it. If the solar system
was once a hot nebulous mass, from which
rings of matter cooled off and became con
densed into worlds and planets, we still have
evidence of design, of a first cause, of regulated
motion. The position of the atoms (the
" Da seyn ") of the nebulous mass, which
caused it to issue eventually in this fair solar
system, must have been the result of a design
ing Mind and an accomplishing Power. I see
wisdom and power everywhere in Nature, but
not a blindly acting force. Is it not more
philosophical to believe in a man-like power
than in a brute-like unintelligent force ?

IV

THE GOD-CONSCIOUSNESS OF HU
MANITY ALWAYS, UNLESS IT IS
WARPED OR CRUSHED, LEADS TO
A BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING,
The Apostle Paul told the Athenians
(Acts xvii. 27) how men, being of one blood

IS THERE A GOD? 23
have sought after the Lord, if haply they
might find Him, "though He be not far
from every one of us." In every age, in
every land, in every race, men have almost
instinctively bowed before some unknown
power that they called God. It is an instinct
with man to worship. Even the Atheist
Comte, who refused to see the handiwork of
the Almighty, was forced to worship some
thing; accordingly he elevated his dead
mother and other female relatives into a sort
of Deity, before whom he bowed. The Atheist
sometimes replies to this argument, this quod
semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, by
saying there are some savages without any
idea of God. Well, be it so. What then ?
Who are the more likely to be in the right,
the refined European, who bows before
Jehovah, or the savage brutish man, who has
sunk so low that he has actually blinded his
eyes to all belief in a Deity ? It is not yet
proved that there have been whole races who
had no notion of a Deity, But if it were,
what would that prove to us ? Only that
the most degraded and sunken of tribes can
lose faith in a God and everything else that

24 IS THERE A GOD ? ,
is good, while civilised nations invariably
believe in a Deity. Remember that the
tribes, said to have no knowledge of, or
belief in, a Deity, are the lowest and most
wretched. Yet the Atheist wants us to
share their faith, or rather infidelity. No,
thank you. /

V

THE PHENOMENON OF CONSCIENCE
AND THE SENSE OF MORAL OBLI
GATION POINT TO A RIGHTEOUS
RULER.
The Apostle Paul says (Rom. ii. 14 and
15), " For when the Gentiles, which have not
the law, do by nature the things contained
in the law, these, having not the law, are a
law unto themselves : which show the work
of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience also bearing witness, and their
thoughts meanwhile accusing or else excusing
one another." Even those, who never heard
of the revealed will of God in the Bible, have

IS THERE A GOD ? 25
that inward monitor, which tells them when
they have done wrong, and when they have
done right. The ease and peace which
follow virtuous deeds, the remorse and
sorrow which pain the heart of him who has
trampled on his conscience, have been ob
served in every land and by every people.
But, we are told nowadays, that conscience is
only the result of education. Now education
and custom can never explain the strong
sanction which conscience possesses. But,
if they could, we should still from conscience
argue to a God. For who made our moral
constitution such that it could thus be worked
upon, and led to what is good ? Only a good
God himself.
In these days of endless talk about the
rights of man, it is well sometimes to con
sider, like Mazzini, the duties of man. Now
the solemn sense of duty, witnessed in all
ages, seen in Abraham preparing to offer up
Isaac, in Curtius who leaped into the gulf at
Rome, believing that such an act would stay
the earthquake, in Stephen the first Christian
martyr, in Cranmer at the stake, or in
Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves, this

26 IS THERE A GOD?
solemn sense of duty points to the great
ruler of this world, who has given us our
noblest faculties, and who speaks to us so
unmistakably by conscience. Dead matter
could never have originated anything like
conscience. Your materialist may conjure
with his atoms till Doomsday, but he will
never manufacture a conscience out of them.

VI

THE EVENTS OF HISTORY INDICATE
A JUST GOVERNOR OVER THE
AFFAIRS OF MEN.
Jesus, foretelling the fate of the Jews who
had rejected Him, exclaimed (Luke xxi.
21-24), " They shall fall by the edge of the
sword, and shall be led away captive into all
nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down
of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles
be fulfilled." These words came true. The
Jews were punished for their sin. To ex
pound fully the sixth argument for the exist-

IS THERE A GOD ? 27
ence of a God would be to write the whole
of history. No man can read history, with
his eyes open, and then deny any righteous
power above mankind. In the long run
wickedness always brings a curse, and nothing
but righteousness permanently exalteth a
nation. The greatest Atheist in the world
must admit this, that only righteousness really
makes and keeps a nation great. Is not this
fact then a strong proof of a righteous ruler ?
So clear is this truth to the minds of thoughtful
men, that a clever writer, a man with no bias
towards Christianity, defines God as " The
eternal not-ourselves which makes for right
eousness." There is an eternally abiding
power in the universe who (I cannot say which)
makes for righteousness. Can the materialist
conjure such a power out of his atoms ? When
'Rome died of moral corruption ; when Spain
became most backward and wretched, because
of her Inquisition and slavish obedience to
Popery and its attendant evils ; when the
French Monarchy came to the ground with
such utter collapse in the Great Revolution,
because of its injustice, its licentiousness and
its sin ; then the eternal not-ourselves, who

28 IS THERE A GOD ?
makes for righteousness, lifted bare His holy
arm to smite.
To the individual Christian perhaps the
daily events of his life, and God's providential
guidance, are the strongest indicators of a
divine Being.
But these proofs are individual, so I lay
no stress on them, intensely convincing as
they are to the individual himself, and only
insist on the general tenour of public history.

VII
THE WORLD'S WISEST TEACHER JESUS
CHRIST BELIEVED IN A GOD.
The officers sent by the priests to catch Jesus
returned empty-handed, and excused them
selves by saying (John vii. 46), " Never
man spake like this man." In very truth the
world has never had so wise a teacher as Jesus
of Nazareth. All the best living morality
of the world to-day is virtue which has come
from the hem of His garment. And the

IS THERE A GOD ? 29
fundamental principle of the teaching of
Christ, the wiseth earth e'er saw, was that we
have a Father in Heaven, viz., God. The
Atheist thinks himself wiser than Jesus. For
my part, if I were inclined to believe in
Atheism, I should remember my ignorance,
which is a shadow that never quits my life,
and I should say, "Well, after all, Christ the
mightiest, wisest, best of teachers, must have
known better than I."
It.^s impossible that one should have so
enormously influenced the world as Christ by
his teachings, if his fundamental dictum was
wrong. These seven proofs should be enough to
show that there is a God who ruleth over the
universe he has created. But now we ask
" What is His character ; what are his attri
butes ? " We have already, by anticipation,
answered them. He is (1) Immaterial ; God
is a spirit ; and (2) Infinite {i.e., practically
unbounded) in power, holiness, and love.
(1) He is the eternal omnipresent spirit.
A great Infidel tells us he searched throughout
all space with his telescope for God but did
not see Him. This may be meant for wit.

30 IS THERE A GOD ?
As a matter of fact it is childish. The
universal mind needs no organic centralisa
tion. Even our own finite minds are not
absolutely dependent on matter. For the
matter which constitutes our brain is con
tinually changing, while the mind remains the
same. God, the eternal omnipresent, is not
attached to any bodily form. It is when
mental power has to be localised that a focus
must be found for it.
The universal mind needs no organic
centralisation. We are told by Atheists that
God cannot exercise power in a place where
he is not. Now why should God be unable
to do what man does ?
We often exercise power in places where
we are not. A commander can give his
troops the signal to advance, when they are
miles off. But as a matter of fact God is
everywhere. Again, we are told that judg
ment and thinking depend upon change.
One idea gives place to another in reasoning.
Therefore it is said by the Atheist, God
being immutable cannot think. But God's
immutability means His not changing His
plans. He can think of Moses one day and

IS THERE A GOD? 31
of David another, and still be the immutable
God who does not alter his plans. He is
immutable in purpose, not in His thought.
He is not eternally contemplating one and
the same idea.
(2) His infinite power, holiness, and love.
An illustration from astronomy will best
exhibit his unbounded power. Neptune goes
round the sun, and is distant from that
luminary nearly 300,000,000 miles. The
nearest fixed star is 700 times as far off.
Light travels at the rate of about 180,000
miles a second. Yet the light from some
nebulous clusters takes millions of years to
reach us. The earth has a diameter of
8000 miles. Jupiter's is 1400 times as large.
The bright star Lyra would fill the earth's
whole orbit. Add to these immense ideas
the reflection that the sun itself moves in
space, carrying with it all the bodies that
circle round it. We are baffled in our en
deavours to think of such enormous dis
tances, and the enormous power that sways
these heavenly bodies.
But we are told God cannot be infinitely
good, because there is evil in the world. Now

32 IS THERE A GOD ?
God did not cause evil to enter the universe.
By the law of relativity, acknowledged by all
philosophers, the very existence of good
involves the possibility of the existence of
evil. The possibility of evil always existed.
The actuality of it came not from God but
from man (and perhaps other intelligent
creatures). If evil was a thing beyond God's
power to deal with, it might be brought, not
as an objection to His goodness, but to His
power. Evil will in the end result in a
higher good : and man redeemed shall be a
nobler being than man unfallen. Continued
evil does not contradict either God's desire
or ability to prevent it. It is better to con
quer evil gradually by religion, by redemp
tion, than to stamp it out and forcibly
prevent men from sin, thus rendering them
no higher or nobler than machines.
By the existence of evil God will train in
man a virtue, which shall be higher than
mere innocence. Struggle with moral evil,
even more than physical difficulties, exercises
and develops the soul. Men should remem
ber there is something nobler and better in
life than pleasure. And this nobler part is

IS THERE A GOD ? 3 3
largely developed by struggle with sin.
Pain, too, the result of human guilt, is turned
by God into a blessing. It is always bene
ficial. Even in the pain of death, which the
lower animals suffer, there is benevolence.
For it is better that animals should die, after
their brief happy existence, and be replaced
by others, than that two or three should live
on for ever. The animal race has more
scope for pleasure by reason of the death of
the individuals. We know very little of the
universe. It is therefore very foolish to
pronounce on the supposed imperfections of
Nature. The least knowledge we have of
any human contrivance is much more
thorough than what we know of God's
works. The universe is a whole. We can
only take in parts of it. Before we can pro
nounce against any part we must understand
the whole. " Of single problems, looked at
by themselves, it may often be easy to
imagine a shorter or a neater solution. But
the universe has no single problems : all
are under reciprocal relations, and run up
into more comprehensive formulae, and to
simplify one may be to complicate another."

34 IS THERE A GOD ?
(Martineau's "Study of Religion," vol. i.
P- 356.)
A thousand things all point to the exist
ence of God. If men do not see this Sun of
Righteousness, Power, and Love, it is not
because He is not shining, but because their
eyes are bandaged. " But," says the Atheist,
" there cannot be a God because you cannot
define Him." A very lame argument. On
the same absurd principle, there is no such
thing as " life ; " for though many have tried
to define life none has succeeded ; yet do we
doubt the existence of " life ? " Perhaps we
can define God thus : " The eternal Spirit,
who made and rules the universe, who em
bodies all force in Himself, and who makes
for righteousness." "Still," continues the
Atheist, "there cannot be a God, because
He is not perceived by the senses." Now
there are many things we cannot touch or
-handle, yet we must believe in them. The
greatest verities are not seen, but inferred.
Who ever saw the velocity of light ? Yet
we all believe in it. On this Atheist's prin
ciple we could not believe in memory.
" Still," urges the Atheist, " God is, after

IS THERE A GOD? 35
all, only a magnified image of ourselves, such
as pilgrims to the Brocken sometimes observe
during an autumn sunrise. For the savage
has the idea of a fierce God ; the cold, con
templative Athenian has the idea of a cold
and contemplative God, and so on." But
this does not prove that the eternal mind is
only a reflection of our own. Let us put a
parallel case. If the mind of the great
mathematician, Newton, were presented to
people who were all at different stages in
their mathematical studies, each would dis
cern and admire only what his own knowledge
enabled him to appreciate. But these
diversities would not disprove the existence
of Newton's mind. The child would look
upon Newton as a man who could count
splendidly, because a child's knowledge of
mathematics is confined to arithmetic. The
boy who had got on as far as algebra and
Euclid would imagine Newton as very great
at arithmetic, Euclid, and algebra. The
man who had learned still more mathematics,
would see and admire still further than the
others ; and so on. Of course, these various
notions about Newton's mind could not be

36 IS THERE A GOD ?
brought as an argument to prove that his
mind did not exist.
"Well," says the Infidel at last, "you
must admit that some Atheists have led good
lives." Doubtless ; when a child turns his
back on his father, the father does not
necessarily turn his back on the child. What
ever earth-born mists of unbelief hide God
from a man, they never hide the man from
God. And the heavenly Father loves and
influences many who profess to disbelieve His
very existence.
Only by a belief in God, and in another
world wherein dwelleth righteousness, can
we explain the mysteries of this life. We
see that the government of the world "makes
for righteousness," but there are many acts of
unrighteousness in the earth. Only a belief
in another sphere of existence, where in
justices will be remedied, can explain the
enigma of this our human pilgrimage. The
facts of life are the same on any hypothesis ;
but a belief in God, and in a future state, is
the only creed which sheds any ray of light
over the otherwise dark sea of human exists
ence.

CAN WE BELIEVE IN
MIRACLES?

A belief in the Supernatural is, said the
late M. Guizot, the special difficulty of our
time. So firmly do some men reject any
thing miraculous, that Strauss calmly re
marks, in the introduction to his " Leben
Jesu," "We may summarily reject all miracles,
prophecies, and the like, as simply impossible,
and irreconcilable with the known and uni
versal laws which govern the course of
events." And an infidel who used to lecture
to the secularists said, " The modern mind
rejects the miraculous."
The destructive force of modern criticism
has certainly overthrown the faith of thought
ful men in mediaeval miracles, and in such
myths as that of Romulus and Remus, the
assumed founders of Rome. But has it

38 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
destroyed all reasonable grounds of faith in
the miracles of the New Testament ? To
some of us it seems only to have made the
Christian miracles stand out all the more
clearly and well defined. In looking at this
question, we may find that men's difficulty in
believing the miraculous has been largely of
their own making.
There are three considerations connected
with this subject which have presented diffi
culties to inquiring minds :
I. The nature of miracles.
II. The use of miracles.
III. The proof of miracles.

I
THE NATURE OF MIRACLES
"The Father of lights, with whom is no variableness
neither shadow of turning." — James i. 17.
Miracles have often been defined as vio
lations of the laws of Nature. Now, these

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? 39
laws are fixed and certain. Physical science
has taught us the regularity of the laws
by which the sun rises, or death occurs,
or heavy bodies sink in water. Knowing
this " fixity," some men have said, " How
can we believe in violations of this order
of Nature, which has been fixed by Him
with whom there is no variableness, neither
shadow of turning ? " But we are not
bound to think that God breaks a law
He has made, every time a miracle is
wrought. It is natural to iron to fall to the
ground ; but if a man holds a magnet over
the iron it will spring up from the earth and
cleave to the magnet. In this case, the law
of gravitation is not "broken," "violated," or
" suspended." The force of gravitation is
simply counteracted by another force. Simi
larly, we are not bound to look upon a
miracle as an infringement of a law of
Nature ; we may regard it as wrought by
some law unknown to us, or by some collo
cation of known laws, which we are unable
to discover, or to bring about.
We talk of the " Reign, of Law." But what
we really mean is certain forces in the universe

40 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
acting according to fixed laws. Christians
believe that God's wisdom and power enabled
Jesus and the Apostles to use these forces in a
very marvellous manner, these marvels being
" signs " to the people. The more we know
of the laws of Nature, the more we can use
them, though our power does not keep p^ce
with our knowledge. Divine knowledge,
combined with divine power, can surely then
work signs and wonders, such as man can
not perform by his natural power and
knowledge, and can work these wonders by
using the laws of the universe.
We cannot imagine that the Divine Being
is obliged to use laws as man must. Yet, it
seems as though God took the same method
of dealing with them, never violating them,
but always ruling them by adjustment or
contrivance. The great law of causation has
been very firmly established, and those, who
look upon miracles as exceptions to that law,
naturally deny them. But to regard miracles
in this unphilosophical way is to raise a dust,
and then complain you cannot see. What is
superhuman is not necessarily a violation of
law, nor does it indicate a will acting without

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ? 41
means. Miracles are supernatural, if the
term " natural " means what ordinarily takes
place,' and everything that takes place with
out superhuman interference, but, in the
highest sense of the word " natural," miracles
may be regarded as coming under that head.
If we say that a miracle has taken place, we
assert that God, out of His infinite knowledge
of the laws of Nature, and His infinite power
of using them as instruments of His will, has
so employed them as to give an extra
ordinary manifestation .of His power and
presence. Belief in the supernatural is very difficult,
when a man regards the supernatural as a
power independent of means, or as a viola
tion of the general laws by which the universe
is governed. But the believer in miracles is
not bound to hold these views of the super
natural. When we wish to prevent a heavy
body from falling, we put something under it,
thus counteracting the law of gravitation,
not violating it. A violation would take
place if, when a ball is dropped from a tower,
it remained in the air, when there was no
counteracting cause to make it remain there.

42 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
In thus placing a support to counteract the
law of gravitation, we make that law sub
servient to our designs. In a similar manner,
God, in working miracles, can make the
natural laws of the universe subservient to
His designs.
Miracles may have taken place by laws
unknown to us. But it is equally probable
that they were by combination of laws that
are known to us. At any rate, we need not
consider them as violations of law, or excep
tions to the universality of causation. When
Christ walked on the Sea of Galilee, we do
not imagine that the law of gravitation was
then and there broken, that the antecedents,
which resulted in His remaining above the
surface, were the same as the antecedents of
a man putting himself upon water, which
resulted in his falling in. Unbelievers seem
to imagine that we, who belive in miracles,
think that, in these signs and wonders, the
same antecedents do not produce the same
consequents. But the scientific believer in
the miraculous only contends that some
antecedent, not in man's power to bring
forward, has been introduced.

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ? 43
Of course the laws of Nature are uniform.
Were they otherwise we could not use them
for our ends. To take a simple illustration :
if the specific gravity of the sea varied con
siderably and irregularly, the art of naviga
tion could not exist. With God is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning. And
the properties He has given to the natural
objects in the world are also invariable.
Professor Jowett, in his " Plato " (Introduc
tion to the "Statesman"), says, "Neither
criticism nor experience allows us to suppose
that there are interferences with the laws of
Nature ; the idea is inconceivable to us, and
at variance with facts." Whether these words
are true or false just depends on the meaning
attached to the word "interfering." If that
means altering or breaking the laws, the
words are true. But if it means (as it ought
to mean) that use of them by which miracles
were wrought, the Christian man of science
denies their truth in toto. Every day we
are interfering with the laws of Nature ;
wherever intelligent beings exist, these laws
are interfered with, and bent to suit the
purposes of those intelligent beings. Every-

44 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES?
where in Nature we witness invariable laws,
but these are bent to the purpose of man.
May not miracles, then, be wrought by
God's combining these laws to suit His own
wise purposes, in a way which is beyond the
power of man ? We are continually told,
that if Jesus had had the power, He could
not have performed miracles, because these
are violations of law, and the lawgiver can
not violate His laws. But a miracle simply
means that He introduced a new power to
counteract or modify others. Now, some
counteraction or modification is taking place
at all times, and in all places. Such inter
ference on the part of the Creator is not
altogether unknown to the students of science.
Geology seems to show that at certain periods
in the history of the world, new forces ap
peared on the scene. Once the earth was in
a state which was incapable of supporting
animal life. Then at a certain period organic
beings appeared. The first of these must
have been by the direct interference of the
Creator. Even those who deny the miracle
of creation must admit interference of some
power here.

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ? 45
The lightning-conductor " interferes " with
the path which, but for it, the lightning would
take. Of course Christ's miracles were far
grander " interferences " with Nature's forces
and Nature's laws than the lightning con
ductor. But we may conceive that miracles
took place in an equally regular and natural
way. Geology seems to show that God has, at
certain epochs in the globe's history, interfered
tremendously. The change of the earth from
a molten mass to a globe with a solid crust may
have proceeded gradually, but the introduc
tion of vegetable life was a wondrous inter
ference, superhuman, but not " supernatural,"
in the extended sense of " natural." The
introduction of animal life, fishes in the
Silurian epoch, reptiles later on, and birds
still later on, were interferences with the
established order of the world. Even a
man who denies creation, and believes that
matter has always existed, cannot be blind
to, or deny, these great " interferences " with
the established order of things.
Again, extraordinary virtue and extra
ordinary genius are wondrous illustrations pf

46 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
the way in which God interferes with what
men call the natural order, by which they
mean the usual order, of the world. James
Watt, Wesley, Luther, and hosts of others can
scarcely be explained as products of " blind,
natural, mechanical forces."
The introduction of such a character as
Jesus of Nazareth is a greater miracle than
the resurrection from the dead.
Darwin's singularly bold hypothesis of
evolution, which has explained so much, but
which is already overloaded with the myriad
things it is called on to explain, has done
theology good service. Too often men had
got into the habit of looking at God as extra-
mundane, far out of, and away from, this
world. The earth was regarded as a sort of
self-regulating football, whirled into space by
its Creator, and left to shift for itself. These
mechanical notions of the great Spirit asked
us to look upon Him as a magnified being,
gazing down now and then on the earth He
made, " while His eternal thought moved on
His undisturbed affairs." Such views were
as unsound in science as in theology. God
is immanent in the universe. Jesus said,

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? 47
" My Father worketh hitherto, and I work"
(John v. 17). All the truth that there is in
the theory of evolution witnesses to the truth
of these words of Jesus. God worketh
always, not with creative activity, from which
He has rested, but with sustaining, infusing,
directing power. Why then should He not
interfere to work miracles for the wisest and
best of purposes — viz., revealing truth to
man ?
Butler pointed out very clearly that
miracles may be regarded as having taken
place by general laws. We need not suppose
that miracles were an after-thought of God,
like the watchmaker's interference with his
instrument when it has gone wrong. They
may have been planned from the very begin
ning of creation. In the fullest sense of the
word "natural," they may be regarded as
coming under that term. We are not, then,
obliged to regard miracles as violations of
law, or as examples of the absence of the
universal law of causation, or as accomplished
without means, or as unnatural.
It is sometimes objected to this view of
miracles, that, when our knowledge is suffi-

48 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
ciently extended, we shall be able to work
the miracles Christ wrought. This by no
means follows. For, supposing our know
ledge to extend until we could point out the
natural laws by which Christ raised Lazarus
from the dead, yet our inability to apply
those laws would prevent our working
miracles. As it is, our knowledge of the
operation of natural laws proceeds much
faster than our power to use them. The
Americans can predict coming storms to us
with wonderful correctness. But we are just
as powerless as ever to prevent them.

II

THE USE OF MIRACLES
"Believe me for the very works' sake." — John xiv. ii.
"Rabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher sent from
God : for no man can do these miracles that Thou
doest, except God be with him." — John iii. 2.
This is threefold : (1) for evidential pur
poses ; (2) for benevolence ; and (3) for

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? 49
instruction. An example of the first is the
answer by fire to Elijah's prayer on Mount
Carmel ; of the second, Christ's healing of
the sick and feeding the multitudes ; of the
third, the withering of the barren fig tree,
teaching the ruin of the Jewish race, which
professed religion, but did not manifest its
fruits. The Christian Church has always held the
evidential character of miracles. The fulfil
ment of a prophecy proves the prediction
true. But when a person proclaims a revealed
truth, which we cannot verify on earth, it is
not unnatural to inquire "what are his creden
tials, how can he show to us that he has been
taught what others know nothing about ? "
Dr. Abbot says (" Through Nature to
Christ "), " The miracles of Jesus must not be
regarded as demonstrations." And he gives
the singular reasons that, if they had been
evidential, they would have been performed
in public, or before the greatest possible
number of witnesses, and that Christ dis
couraged His disciples from publishing them
abroad. But Christ's miracles were not done
in a corner. The prohibition from publishing

So CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
abroad Christ's wondrous works did not
extend to all ; it only applied to certain cases
during His life. When Jesus told men to
say nothing about certain miracles which He
did, it was in order not to be brought to the
cross before He had finished His ministry.
His miracles were so undeniable that the
Pharisees and Scribes hated Him for them,
and pretended to attribute them to demoniac
agency. Each fresh miracle of Christ, which
came to their ears, made them all the more
exasperated. In the early days of His
ministry, He sometimes told the recipients
of His healing favour not to proclaim what
was done, lest He should be brought into
collision with the Pharisees too soon, and be
crucified before the ministry was completed.
After our Lord's death the apostles were
to appeal to all His miracles. On one occa
sion, long before His death, the Saviour said,
" Return to thine own house, and show how
great things God hath done unto thee "
(Luke viii. 39). Jesus distinctly insisted on
the evidential character of His miracles, when
He sent to doubting John the Baptist, saying,
" The blind receive their sight, and the lame

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? 51
walk, the lepers are cleansed," &c. (Matt.xi.5).
When Christ healed the sick of the palsy,
"they were all amazed, and glorified God,
saying, ' We never saw it on this fashion.' "
When Christ was asserting His unique rela
tionship to the Father, He said if they would
not believe Him for His words' sake, they
should do so, " for the very works' sake "
(John xiv. 11).
The more spiritually minded of the Jews
believed in Jesus without any miracles. The
evangelist John needed no wondrous marvel
to draw his heart to the Master. But
spiritually minded Jews were few and far
between. In like manner Moses needed
miracles to prove to hardened Egyptians, and
carnal, enslaved Hebrews, that he was com
missioned by God.
If a person worked a miracle in support of
an immoral doctrine, we might justly refuse
to believe that doctrine, but history does not
give us such a case well authenticated. When,
however, one comes, professing to have a reve
lation from the unseen world, which revelation
is a truth harmonious with our highest views
of morality, but one we could not have dis-

52 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES?
covered, the miracles of such a one are his
credentials, are evidence of his superhuman
legation. The coincidence of miraculous
occurrence, and a professed divine commis
sion on the part of him who claims to be the
channel of this revelation, proves the divine
intention. While recognising the benevolent character
of the miracles recorded in the Bible, and the
instructive character of some of them, we
claim that they were all evidential. If the
Almighty designed to reveal to mankind a
system of religion, distinct from that which is
reflected in the works of Nature, and written
on the consciences of men, He must do so by
the instrumentality of an inspired messenger.
If a teacher claims to be the special organ of
a divine communication, revealing super
natural truths, he may justly be expected to
authenticate his mission in the only way in
which it can be authenticated, by supernatural
acts. Miracles are therefore no more im
probable than a revelation ; " for a revela
tion would be ineffectual without miracles"
(Lecky's " Rationalism," vol. i. p. 160).
It is sometimes remarked, that, if miracles

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ? S3
were facts, they would happen in these days,
or at least they should occur occasionally,
at stated intervals, like an error in a cal
culating machine. But such events would
then cease to be miracles. The essence of
the miraculous is its unique and exceptional
character. We cannot account for the rapid spread of
Christianity, unless we admit these "excep
tional " workings, these miracles of the New
Testament. Christ appealed to these miracles
as a proof of His mission. It may be that
miracles are for the weak ; but most people
were weak in this sense, in Christ's days, and
still more in Old Testament times. Jesus
welcomed those who believed in Him for the
very works' sake, and said, " The works that
I do in My Father's name, they bear witness
of Me" (John x. 25). When we are brought
up from childhood in a certain faith, we need
no miracles to bring it home to us. But the
case is very different, when new truths have
to be taught. So clearly evidential are the
Christian miracles, that the whole of the
religion is staked on one miracle — viz., the
resurrection of our Lord.

54 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?

Ill

THE PROOF OF MIRACLES
"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all
are witnesses." — Acts ii. 32.
A logical mind may deny that miracles ever
occurred. But to say dogmatically, like Strauss,
that they are an impossibility, and cannot
occur, is simply absurd. Professor Huxley
has said, " Denying the possibility of miracles
seems to me as unjustifiable as speculative
atheism." The only question is, " Can
miracles be proved to have happened ? "
proved, that is, not, of course, with absolute
certainty, like the fifth proposition of the first
book of Euclid, but with the strongest moral
certainty. The contest between believers
and unbelievers on this point usually centres
round the miracles of the New Testament ;
for if these are admitted true, it is not difficult
to believe in miracles being wrought for
similar purposes in Old Testament times.
The proof the New Testament miracles may
be divided into five heads.

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? 55
I. The testimony of witnesses.
II. Their intimate connection with the
Christian history.
III. Their help in establishing the Chris
tian religion.
IV. The total change of life men under
went, when they believed in them.
V. The sober character of the miracles
themselves. I. The testimony of witnesses.
The early Christians, notably the apostles,
persisted in teaching the miracles of Christ,
especially that of the resurrection. For bear
ing witness to what they had seen with their
own eyes, they were cruelly persecuted, and
finally murdered. Now here we have a
unique event in the world's history. Here
are men, admitted by all to be honest, moral,
truthful men, who have taught the world its
noblest ethics, who were no fools, but common
sensed to a degree. And one after another
goes to gaol and death, because he declares
he has seen a risen Christ. Men do not
starve, suffer, and die for false witness. They
had nothing to gain, but everything to lose, by
telling the truth.

56 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES?
A sincere Mahometan might die for his
faith. But that would not prove its truth,
because he would not be an eye-witness to
the alleged miracles of Mahomet {which were
invented after his death). But the apostles
and the early Christians laid down their
lives, not in testimony to a creed they had
been taught, but in testimony to facts they
had witnessed. No fact in history has had
better testimony than the resurrection of
Jesus. It is well known that the New Testament
we have to-day is substantially the same as
that written in the time of the apostles, and
it insists on the truth of miracles. I have
only time to very briefly indicate this, and
must refer readers for fuller proof to Cooper's
" Bridge of History over the Gulf of Time,"
or Sadler's " The Lost Gospel and its Con
tents." The oldest MSS. of the New Testament
(Alexandrine, Vatican, &c.) contain the same
miraculous story as our Bible. The story
has never been altered. If, at the end of
the third century, Diocletian, in his persecu
tion, had burned every copy of the New

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ? 57
Testament, yet, in the writings of the Fathers
of the first three centuries, we could find all
of it except eleven verses. Could the
miraculous parts have been forged between
Christ's death and a.d. 300? No. For,
from the time of the apostles down to 300
a.d., the Fathers all quote from the same
Gospels as we have to-day.
Eusebius of Csesarea (315 a.d.), the his
torian Victorin from Germany (290 a.d.),
Cyprian of Africa (251 a.d.), Origen of Alex
andria (220 A.D.), and Tertullian (190 A.D.),
all have the same miraculous Gospel which
we possess. Tertullian speaks distinctly of
Christ's miraculous birth from a virgin.
Irenaeus (175 a.d.), living a little earlier,
clearly has the same Gospel as we have,
containing " supernatural " history. Here is
a connecting link with the apostles. Irenaeus
was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a dis
ciple of John. Suppose, in the days of
Irenaeus, some one had forged, in the Gospel
of John, the story of Lazarus being raised
from the dead. Irenaeus would have said,
" Polycarp, who was John's disciple, never
told me that wondrous story. My copy of

58 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES?
the Fourth Gospel does not contain it." But
all the copies of the New Testament were
then substantially the same. Irenaeus, a great
traveller, would have been sure to see diverg
ing accounts, if such existed.
Again, the story could not have been in
vented in Polycarp's time, for in that case
Polycarp would have said at once, " I never
heard this from John, though I was his
disciple." Coming nearer to the apostles,
we find Justin Martyr, a converted philosor
pher (132 a.d.), living within forty years of
the apostle John. His writings show that
he believed in the incarnation, the miraculous
birth of Christ, the resurrection, and the
ascension. The author of "Supernatural
Religion " would have us believe that all the
miracles were later inventions. If so, they
must have been invented between Justin
Martyr's time and the death of the last
apostle — i.e., in forty years. But we can go
back further still, and we find the chain link
ing our Gospels with the apostles unbroken.
Papias (112 a.d.), who heard John, speaks of
the same Gospels as we have, and assumes it
as perfectly well known who were their

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ? 59
authors. Polycarp, who was John's disciple,
and who had spoken to many who saw
Christ, in the few pages of his writings that
have come down to us, speaks of the resur
rection. If, then, miracles were a later invention,
they must all have been forged before Poly-
carp's day ; and similarly forged in all the
copies of the New Testament all over the
world. But this is impossible. There were
those then living who could have contra
dicted these forgeries. Clement of Rome
(a.d. 95-100), in the small work of his we
possess, speaks of the miraculous, and men
tions the resurrection. Thus, by an un
broken chain, we can go from to-day up to
the times of the apostles, and show that of
our Gospels we can say, Quod semper, quod
ubique, quod ab omnibus."
An attempt has been made to account for
the miracles of the Bible on the "myth"
theory. Let us look at it for a moment.
Myths have three characteristics. (1) They
belong to the earlier days of human history
and tend to disappear as we come down the
stream of time. (2) They tend to glorify a

60 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
race or its founders. (3) They take time
to grow. No hero or teacher is exalted to
divine honours by his own contemporaries,
save the Bible heroes and teachers. Now,
every one of these three "tests " of myths is
conspicuously absent from the Bible narra
tives in general, and the New Testament
ones in particular. (See Cox's admirable
book, " Miracles, an Argument and a Chal
lenge.") Adam worked no miracles. For the first
2500 years no miracles are recorded as
wrought by the heroes of old. If any man
would have had miracles ascribed to him
on the myth theory it would have been
Abraham. But the Bible does not tell us of
his curing the sick, raising the dead, or walk
ing on the sea. With Moses, who came to
establish a ne,w religion, miracles appear.
They were his credentials. Without them,
how would Pharaoh have released the Jews,
or how would the sense-absorbed Hebrews
have obeyed him ?
And note carefully these miracles are not
to glorify either Moses or his nation. He
was unwilling to go at God's bidding, and

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? 61
the miracles of his hand becoming leprous,
and his staff turning to a serpent, were be
cause of his unbelief. No glorifying the hero
there ! His miracle of fetching water from
the rock is recorded in connection with his
outburst of temper. The miracles in the
wilderness again tell of the nation's shame.
Not much myth work there, idolising past
ancestors ! When the judges ruled for 450
years, miracles do not appear. But when
the prophets had to recall men to the true
faith, and reveal more fully the will of God,
miracles, their credentials, again abound.
After the last of the prophets, some four
centuries pass by, and no miracles occur till
Christ's day. The three myth tests break
down completely. The story of the resurrec
tion was not the slow growth of a falsehood,
as ages rolled on. It was written by Paul,
who had been an unbeliever, within twenty
years of its happening.
Dr. Abbott has tried to account for the
miraculous element of the Gospels, by saying
that it was inserted afterwards. He refers
to the fact that so little is said in the
Epistles of the, miraculous. But the super-

62 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
natural story of Christianity was taken for
granted by the writers of the Epistles to
their converts, who already believed in the
miraculous facts of the life of Christ, &c.
Dr. Abbott has to admit that the Epistles
speak of the resurrection of Christ. Thus,
the greatest miracle of all is referred to. He
tries to prove that the miraculous accounts
arose from " misconception of metaphor."
What misconception of metaphor originated
the story of Christ's resurrection ?
Dr. Abbott endeavours to account for the
miracle of the feeding of the five thousand,
by saying the story all arose from Christ's
saying, " I am the bread of life." "A de
velopment of this doctrine would declare
that Christ broke the bread of life for His
disciples, and that the disciples administered
it to the multitude" ("Through Nature to
Christ," p. 452). Then the misconception of
metaphor led to their believing that Christ
miraculously fed the thousands ! Such is Dr.
Abbott's shift to explain away the miracle.
It seems to me feebleness itself. His marvel
lous derivation of the miracle of feeding five
thousand from the words "I am the bread

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ? 63
of life," reminds one of the old French verse,
written in satire upon wild derivations :
" Alfana vient d'equus sans doute
Mais il faut avouer aussi,
Qu'en venant de Ik jusqu'ici
II a bien change1 sur la route."
As to his assertion that these erroneous
views about miracles were needful to pre
serve God's truth through rude ages up to
these days of critical acumen, we may observe
that God's truth does not need error to keep
it on its legs. The resurrection of Christ —
that miracle on which Christianity is based —
has always been spoken of by Christian
teachers, from the first apostle downwards.
II. Their intimate connection with the
history of Christianity. — You cannot preserve
the fabric of the history of Christ and His
apostles, if you remove the miracles of the
New Testament ; the building falls to the
ground. They are so blended with the story,
that to remove them is to destroy the whole
history. The greatest miracles are recorded
as calmly and naturally as the most ordinary
events. There is no break between the

64 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
natural and the supernatural in the history,
for the critical penknife to insert itself.
There is nothing to lead us to suppose that
the supernatural portion was added at a later
date. III. Their establishing the Christian re
ligion. — The quick spread of the Christian
faith after Christ's death we can account for,
if we believe in miracles. If not, how could
it overcome such bitter opposition ? Thirty-
five years after the crucifixion, when thoughts
and people travelled vastly more slowly than
they do to-day, Tacitus declared that Chris
tianity had spread as far as Rome, where
" vast multitudes " of believers were living.
This rapid progress was due to the miracles
of Christ and His apostles, and especially
to the great miracle of the resurre^ion.
Deny that, and it is impossible to>account
for the rise and spread of our reHgwri.
Christ's death came as a terrible shock. His
followers did not expect it. For three days
their hopes were buried in His grave. Had
He not risen from the dead, Christianity
would have perished in the tomb of Jesus.
Jesus claimed to work miracles. Now, if

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? 65
ever there was a teacher who would have
dispensed with miracles, unless they were
true and necessary, it was Christ. His foes
admitted that He worked them. The facts
were too clear to be denied. So they tried
to ascribe them to evil supernatural powers
• (Matt. xii. 24). The miracles of our religion
were used to establish it. When a faith is
widely accepted, you can invent miracles in
connection with it. But to establish a re
ligion by miracles, they are bound to be true.
Only Judaism and Christianity claim to have
had miracles in their first publication.
IV. The total change of life men under
went when convinced by them. — Paley has
pointed out, once and for all, how men's lives
were totally altered, solely in consequence of
their faith in supernatural Christianity.
V. The character ofthe miracles. — Those in
the New Testament are dignified, benevolent,
and worthy of God. Contrast them with the
absurd and frivolous legends of saints, or the
unbecoming fables in the apocryphal gospels,
and the true miracles stand out in the
boldest relief. Where in the New Testa
ment is there a miracle so purposeless or

66 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
objectionable, as the apocryphal story of
Christ making clay into sparrows, and clap
ping His hands, at which they flew away ; or
His striking a boy dead for running against
Him ; or paralysing a schoolmaster who tries
to flog Him ?
" The miracles of the New Testament
were always characterised by dignity and
solemnity; they conveyed some spiritual
lesson, and conferred some actual benefit,
besides attesting the character of the worker.
The mediaeval miracles, on the contrary, were
frequently trivial, purposeless and unimpres
sive; constantly verging on the grotesque,
and not unfrequently passing the border." —
Lecky. Such is the overwhelming evidence for the
miracles of Christianity. He who would
destroy it must bring contradictory testi
mony, or show the incapacity or baseness of
the Christian witnesses. He must either
bring forward equally credible witnesses
to assert the contrary, or he must prove
that those men who died for their faith,
and who have "uplifted the world, and
rolled it on another course," were men of

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ? 67
such bad character, that we may reject their
witness. In conclusion, let a word be added on the
three cases which Hume brought forward as
false miracles, equally well-proved with those
of Christianity. Hume does not ask what
proof is there for Christian miracles, but, in a
manner either very illogical or very dis
honest, he calls to the bar certain " miracles "
which stand on a totally different footing.
(1) A blind man in Alexandria is told by
the priests of Serapis to go to the Emperor
Vespasian, on his royal progress, and ask
him to cure him. The historian Tacitus
relates the cure. The miracles of the New
Testament are totally different. They are
related by eye-witnesses ; this is related by
Tacitus, who repeated a reported story.
This is clearly a hoax got up by the cunning
priests, to make of the emperor's presence a
stroke in trade. Everything here favoured
the pretence, nothing opposed. But the
Christian historians' and eye-witnesses lost
their lives, in defence of the miracles they
insisted had happened before their sight.
Probably the priests of Serapis did not like

68 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES ?
the progress of Christianity, and therefore
invented a miracle, somewhat similar to one
of Christ's.
(2) The Cardinal de Retz saw at Sara-
gossa the door-keeper of the cathedral, who
had recovered a limb by rubbing holy oil on
the stump. Now the cardinal never ex
amined any one circumstance of this narra
tion ! It might have been an artificial leg
made by the cunning priests. If the limb
had only been shrunken or partially para
lysed, oil, holy or unholy, might be very
efficacious in restoring its use. Here again
everything favoured the deceit. The
miracles of the New Testament were in
spite of opposition, and to establish a religion
in the teeth of its foes, and men changed
their whole course of life in consequence of
them. (3) The reported cures at the tomb of
Abbe Paris. All of these cases of genuine
cure are perfectly natural. Excitement and
exercise cure a good many complaints. It'
is said that the prostrations at the grave
produced at least as many diseases as they
cured. Most of those who went were none

CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? 69
the better for it. Imposture was detected,
and exposed in some cases. The cures were
gradual, not like Christ's, instantaneous.
Most of the devotees had been using
medicine before, and used it afterwards.
Finally, some of the reported cures were in
complete. So much for Hume's three cases, which
are utterly unlike the miracles of Christ and
His apostles. For these were wrought, not
in support of an established faith, but to
establish one ; were attested by eye-witnesses,
some of whom died for their faith ; were the
cause of men changing totally their lives ;
were dignified, benevolent, wise ; and were
intimately connected with the history in
which they occur. The falsehood of the
testimony to Christian miracles would be a
mightier wonder than the miracles attested.
We therefore demand of unbelievers some
consistent account of the origin and progress
of Christianity from their point of view.
Hitherto, they have not favoured the world
with any hypothesis adequate to account for
the rise and spread of the Christian religion.
Denying the miraculous, they are under the

70 CAN WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES?
difficulty of seeing certain effects, for which
they cannot find adequate causes. It seems
to me that we can only account for
Christianity's origin and diffusion by admit
ting the miraculous.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
I
THE CHRIST OF HISTORY
" Who was Jesus Christ ? " is a question,
regarding which no thoughtful man dares to
be indifferent. That great and good Uni
tarian minister, W. E. Channing, said, " Love
to Jesus Christ depends very little on our
conception of His rank in the scale of being."
I believe this idea is utterly wrong. On our
views of the person of Christ depend, not
only our love to Him, but Christianity itself,
ay, and morality as well, as these discourses
will endeavour to show. Christ is Chris
tianity ; and, without clear views of His
character and person, our religious and moral
life must become vague, unstable, like a
house that is built upon the sand. In dis-

72 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
cussing this sublime theme we are not
indulging in theological hair-splitting, but
treading on the holiest ground, and dealing
with the most precious truths. Agnostics,
or men of the world, often sneer or smile at
the quarrels of Christians, in days gone by,
about " hombousion " and " homoiousion."
We regret these unseemly and unchristian
wranglings ; but we cannot admit that they
were " squabbles over trifles." The very
heat of their controversy showed that the
disputants realised the importance of a right
decision on so momentous a question as the
true doctrine of the Incarnation.
Let us imagine an intelligent, well-educated
man, who had never heard of Christianity,
suddenly finding himself on a Sunday in
England. Observing a number of churches
for the worship of a being called Christ, he
would inquire who Christ was. Suppose him
to receive the New Testament, and, after he
has carefully read the Gospels, let him know
of the history of Christianity. Such a one
would find in the New Testament four
distinct and independent biographies of a
man called Jesus Christ. Finding the history

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 73
largely interwoven with miracles, he would
be disposed to regard the whole story as
fabulous, only he is struck with a sense of
something peculiar in this wonderful man.
The more he studies Christ and Christian
history the more struck he is with this Jesus
of Nazareth. Let us suppose ourselves in
place of such a man, and, without assuming
the truth of the physical miracles of Jesus,
try to answer the question "Who was
Christ?" Eighteen centuries ago a child was born
from a poor and humble mother. He saw
the light of day in some stables, belonging to
an inn which was already full, perhaps of
people who could afford to pay more than the
mother of this babe. Very soon after the
birth of the little one, some shepherds from
the fields of Bethlehem came to see the child.
They declare that a miraculous appearance
brought them there. Whether that is true or
not, it is clear that they thought this a very
wonderful child. So did the Magi, certain
wise men, who came to worship this Son of a
woman, whose husband was only a carpenter.
Moreover, a very good and wise man, called

74 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Simeon, saw so much in this wonderful babe,
that he was ready to die after the sight ; for
he thought nothing greater could he ever
witness, should he live another hundred
years. The baby grew to be a child. As such
everybody loved Him. He was not only a
very affectionate child ; but also a wondrously
clever child. When only twelve. years old,
He was found amongst the most learned men
of His age, hearing them speak and asking
them questions. All this took place without
any word that indicated forwardness or
pertness. The doctors were not offended.
They were only amazed at so young a person
being so very wise.
But the strangest thing in this lad was His
spotless innocence, and this innocence did not
spring from weakness. Some lads are toler
ably innocent, because they are so sickly and
feeble, that they have not energy enough to
get into mischief. But Jesus had very strong
emotions. And when He grew to be a man
His wrath against evil was most severe ; yet
He never lost this wonderful trait of inno
cence.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 75
Nothing more is known of Jesus till He
was thirty years of age. He died when He
was only thirty-three. And yet this young
man, in those three and a half years, did
more wonderful things, said more wonderful
words, and blessed the world more widely,
than all other human beings by their life-long
toils. At the outset of His mission He
undergoes severe temptations of a mysterious
nature. Yet He vanquishes them as no man
ever had done before.
Then we find Him constantly going about
doing good. The poor love Him. Yet He is
not rich, to give them gold. Nor is He a
demagogue to fawn on them, and promise to
lead them in rebellion against the rich. Men
of corrupt practice, and women of impure life,
come to Him, and learn to hate their sins,
and thoroughly to change their character.
His influence over men seems magical. He
calls young men to leave their business and
follow Him, follow Him, who has not where
to lay His head : and immediately they leave
their business, ay, and their relatives, to
share the sorrows and the toils of this man
whose name is Wonderful.

76 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
There is an irresistible authority in Jesus.
He teaches as no man ever taught before, as
no man ever has taught since. His innocence
and purity are such as none had ever seen
before. But this virtue is distasteful to the
Pharisees and Jews in general. They do not
like the way in which He shows up their evil
deeds. They plot against Him, and by the
treachery of one of His followers they cap
ture Him. Then, by false accusations to the
Roman ruler, they procure His death by the
agonising and brutal process of crucifixion.
Yet His wondrous nature only shines out
here the more clearly. Though racked with
agony, while bleeding on the cross, not one
word of anger escapes His lips. Instead of
that, the prayer goes forth that pardon may
be bestowed upon His murderers. Then an
eclipse of the sun takes place, and for three
hours darkness was o'er the land. Is it by
chance that this solar eclipse takes place
when this wonderful man is dying ? At any
rate it is very strange.
But His death did not stop His doctrines
being taught, and Christian Churches this day
are teaching and preaching of Him. This

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 77
very brief glance at the history of Jesus,
noticing only those facts, which infidel and
believer alike admit, show that His name is
truly Wonderful, and urge us to look a little
more closely at this person and consider more
minutely His marvellous words and work.
We may sum up our observations of Him
under three heads :
I. His wonderful wisdom as a teacher.
II. His wonderful innocence and sinless-
ness.
III. His wonderful influence over others.
I. His wonderful wisdom as a teacher. —
This is shown in three ways : (1) His origi
nality. (2) His boldness. (3) The con
sistency of His life with His doctrine.
(1) His originality. — Jesus never went to
college. He had no tutor to instruct Him.
Yet at the early age of thirty, when one's
experience is certainly not at its zenith, He
taught the world the grandest and sublimest
truths that man has ever heard. How was
it that this young man, without any educational
advantages, was yet the wisest of the world ?
He had learned nothing from the sages of

78 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Athens, the philosophers of Alexandria, the
mystics by the Ganges, the disciples of
Zoroaster, or Confucius of China. He be
longed to none of the sects of His day. He
had no great intellectual friends, from whom
He might gain flashes of suggestive thought.
He did not live in a university town or
where reviews and periodicals abounded.
He mingled neither with great thinkers nor
with the wealthy and refined. Yet He was
the most intelligent being that ever trod this
earth, and the most perfect gentleman that
ever adorned society. Previous to the age
of thirty He had lived, hard at work, in a
carpenter's shop. From the depths of mental
and social obscurity He went forth to pro
claim a world-wide kingdom, and to-day in
the most cultivated nations, He ranks before
all others. When we think of the marvellous
originality of this teacher we exclaim, " His
name is Wonderful ! "
He did not teach by human methods.
All other men have had to prove the truth of
what they said. But Christ simply and
directly uttered truths, and men felt that
there was no contradicting them. He

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 79
did not speculate about God. He simply
spoke, and men felt the truth of His
words. Again, He lived in an age of superstition,
yet he never once gave way to this folly.
The people thought that the eighteen, killed
in the accident of the fall of the Tower of
Siloam, must have been specially wicked.
Christ showed them the absurdity of this
superstition. They thought it was a dreadful
thing to fail in the observance of washing
pots and cleansing jugs. But Christ was
above all this superstition.
Other men had taught virtue. But the
difference between their teaching and that of
Christ was enormous. Socrates and Plato
had taught an inferior morality to a very
limited few. Christ came and taught the
purest virtue to the multitudes, making it
" current coin." Men hungered and thirsted
after righteousness, and other teachers gave
them a stone rather than bread. But when
guilty men heard Christ, they became born
again. Truly this teacher's originality was
wonderful. And eighteen centuries of
thoughtful men have never yet been able to

80 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
imagine teaching more elevated and virtuous
than the Sermon on the Mount.
Note especially Christ's dealings with the
poor. Before his day, the teachers of
morality had concerned themselves solely
with the rich. No one, who desired a moral
reform in the corrupted state of ancient
society, ever dreamed of beginning with the
poor. Christ was the first poor man's
philosopher and friend. And now, after
eighteen centuries of weary strife and
struggle, we are just beginning to see the
transcendent wisdom of such a course of
action. We are just waking up to the fact
that blessing and upraising the masses is the
fundamental and most paramount interest of
society. It is just this which is working such
mighty changes in the world, giving liberty
to the enslaved many, seeking their educa
tion, and encouraging them to better their
lot in life. It is worthy of notice that Jesus
was never a partisan of the poor. Herein is
marvellous wisdom, that he could gain the
affection and confidence of the poor, as no
one else had ever done, and yet never be
looked up to as in any sense a demagogue.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 81
Truly His wisdom and His originality were
marvellous. The whole range of literature
offers us nothing to be compared with the
knowledge of men displayed in the parables,
or the infinite tenderness of the story of the
Prodigal Son.
(2) His boldness. — Christ's mission was a
world-wide one. Having never seen a map
of the world in His life, He came forth from
the carpenter's shop, to inaugurate a kingdom
more extensive than the sway of Alexander,
more lasting than the firmament itself. And
history is slowly yet surely exhibiting the
success of this kingdom. He was the
greatest reformer that ever lived. But He
did not start wild theories for facts to make
sad havoc of. He laid down those principles
of love, of doing to others as we would have
them do to us, of forgiving one another [a
virtue entirely unknown till Christ came],' of
righteousness, of truth, of justice, the same
for the poor as for the rich — those prin
ciples, in short, which alone can heal the
wounds of society in the future, which alone
have healed those wounds in the days that
are passed.

82 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Observe, too, the calmness of Jesus under
all circumstances. He was never ruffled or
out of temper, because He knew that His
kingdom would inevitably succeed in the
long run. But His calmness never checked
His zeal. While never ceasing in His un
tiring efforts to spread His gospel, He yet
never fretted and fumed, as other men do
when thwarted. He never became bitter by
reason of the folly and sin that opposed Him.
With the whole world on His hands and a
reform to be carried out in everything, He
was still free from restlessness or wrath.
What other teacher has not shown some
anxiety for the success of his doctrines, or
some anger when fiercely contradicted ?
Christ was a genuine, simple man, who had
never been taught to assume a composure of
manner, when He had it not. Yet, with nearly
all the world against Him, He was calm : He
knew He should eventually win, so He
calmly yet most earnestly worked on. Who
of us can advocate some holy and righteous
measures, and, finding ourselves thwarted by
the ignorance and the sin of men, not feel at
least ruffled, if not completely wrathful ? Yet

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 83
Jesus never lost His temper, though He had
so much of the contradiction of sinners.
(3) The consistency of His life with His
doctrine. — To preach a low standard of
morality, like that of Mahomet, and live up
to it, would have been comparatively easy.
But Christ elevated virtue to her highest
pitch. No one ever heard of so pure and
high-toned a morality as Christ's. Yet He
lived up to it. No one ever pointed out an
inconsistency between His lip and His life,
His words and His deeds. All other teachers
have confessed their falling short of their
ideals. Christ never did.
Note, in passing, the harmony of Christ's
character. All virtues unite in Him, and
none in that excess which dims a virtue's
brightness. His was an evenly balanced
character. Even the best of men have some
asperities in their moral nature. They desire
to be spiritual ; and they become ascetic.
They wish to hold a broad, liberal view of
the comforts of life ; and they become
worldly. They aim at being gentle and
kind; and they become lax in moral principle.
They determine to be very firm on their

84 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
principles ; and they become bigoted. But
Christ's character needed no improvements
added, no extravagance toned down, no
eccentricities removed.
Observe, too, that Christ never altered,
never withdrew anything He had said, or
regretted anything that He had done. How
different in this from every other teacher.
Nor is this the obstinacy of a conceited man.
For the noblest and the best of thoughtful
men confess that He never said, or did,
anything, which needed to be withdrawn.
Some time ago I was arguing with a dis
tinguished infidel, one of the members of the
Congress of Orientalists, and who repre
sented England in Paris at the International
Literary Congress. He upheld Buddha as
equal to Christ. Probably this was only for
the sake of argument ; as every educated
man must admit that Christ was vastly
superior to Buddha. However, I begged
him to observe that there was one vital
difference — Buddha, after several years of
an ascetic life, renounced asceticism, dis
tinctly declaring that for fifteen years he had
been in the wrong. He changed entirely his

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 85
mode of life and teaching. Christ never did.
The reply was "Christ never changed,
because He was an obstinate Jew ; and the
Jews never change." The sceptic was re
minded of a certain unknown Jew, living in
the time of the Persian Captivity, who wrote
the book of Ecclesiastes. That Jew changed
his creed six times. He tried first wisdom,
then pleasure, next business, afterwards
wealth, then indifference, and'finally religion,
in which alone he found true happiness. In the
face of such facts, it is idle to say that Christ's
never altering sprang from Jewish obstinacy.
Truly His consistency is wonderful.
II. His wonderful innocence and sinless -
ness. — This is the most marvellous fact about
Jesus Christ. All our goodness begins with
repentance. But Christ never repented, for
He never sinned. He sets before us the
highest type of morality : He exclaims " Be
ye therefore perfect." But He never hints
that He has need of penitence for His short
comings. Now, in the case of a merely
human teacher, of high moral and spiritual
attainments, we should expect that he would
confess his own personal unworthiness to

86 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
teach. Every true minister feels agonisingly
his own shortcomings, and, when he urges
his hearers to a purer, a diviner life, places
himself first and foremost amongst his
audience. " Conscious of many shortcomings,
a human teacher must at times relieve his
natural sense of honesty, his fundamental
instinct of justice, by noticing the discrepancy
between his weak, imperfect, often miserable
self, and his sublime and awful message."
But Jesus never does. He bids men be like
God. And He gives not the faintest hint that
any trace of unlikeness to God obliges Him to
confess His personal unworthiness.
The greatest of the Hebrew prophets cried
aloud, " Woe is me, for I am undone ; because
I am a man of unclean lips." But Jesus never
speaks like that. You cannot account for
His silence, save by admitting the truth of
Pilate's verdict, " I find no fault in Him."
The holiest souls are most alive to personal sin.
Those, who are ever dwelling under the
shadow of God's wings, have been the very
first to acknowledge that the burden of their
iniquity was intolerable. " The world considers
such heartfelt agonising for sin as only the

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 87
exaggerations of fanaticism, or a proof of more
than ordinary wickedness and hypocrisy."
For blemishes, which a man far off from the
light of God does not observe, are lit up
with torturing clearness when he approaches
the Eternal Light of the Lord. In His
presence the holiest must say, " Thou hast
set our iniquities before Thee, our secret sins
in the light of Thy countenance."
These self-accusing, broken-hearted confes
sions of sin have been the utterances of the
holiest of mankind, of David, of Paul, of
Luther, of Bunyan. The sense of sinfulness
is not banished as we draw near to the Lord,
but made so much the keener, so much the
more sensitive, as we approach "Him whose
perfection casts the shadow of failure on all
that is not Himself, and who charges His
very angels with moral folly." Yet Jesus
never once confessed sin or asked for pardon.
He who so sharply rebuked the self-righteous
ness of the Pharisees, who ignored all piety,
save that which is based upon a broken heart ;
He who deals with humanity as the great
prodigal needing to return to the Father's
bosom, never breathes one syllable of repent-

88 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
ance for Himself. Never did He feel that
anxious dread of a future world which every
sin-burdened son of man must realise* which
His own words make us feel as nothing else
can. He always trod the path of sinlessness
and, with a holy boldness, arising from certain
knowledge of Himself, he exclaimed " Which
of you convinceth Me of sin ? " He publicly
claimed to be sinless, because He was sinless.
No marvel that the ancient prophet, seeing
through the dim vista of the future, exclaimed,
"His name is Wonderful." Which of us
convinceth Christ of sin ? One man has tried
it, and has miserably failed. He says we do
not know enough of Jesus to know that He
was sinless. That is, in effect, though we
cannot prove Jesus to be a sinner, by what
we know of Him, yet if we knew more we
should be able to do so. Now, surely if we
knew of any man all that the gospel writers
tell us of Christ, should we not discover many
imperfections in him? Herein is the marvel :
Those who knew Christ best unanimously tes
tify to His sinlessness.
Those who had been with our Lord on
every occasion, those who had seen Him in

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 89
private as much as in public, those who, had
He been a sinner, must have found Him out,
unanimously testify that He was without spot
or blemish. This is very remarkable. The
more we know of folks, the more we see their
faults and foibles. Weaknesses and blemishes
are discovered by familiarity. " 'Tis distance
lends enchantment to the view." But those
who knew Christ best pronounced Him sinless.
Judas would have detected any imperfection
in Jesus, had there been any, but the sting of
his remorse came from the fact that he had
betrayed one perfectly innocent and sinless.
Moreover, fesus distinctly claims to be sin
less. And He is full of sincerity and humility.
Now, could any man sham perfect holiness ?
The thing is utterly impossible. No mere
human being could claim this sinlessness,
without very soon displaying faults that would
cover him with derision. Piety without one
ounce of repentance, without one confession
of sin, without one tear — let any human being
try that sort of piety, and see how very soon
his assumed righteousness will appear most
impudent conceit. No sooner does a man
begin to be self-righteous, than he begins to

r f

90 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
fall into sins that cry down shame on his
presumption. But it was not so with Jesus.
He consistently upheld His claim to sinless
ness. He was meek and lowly, destitute of
the restless desire for eminence and distinc
tion that others have. His humility marks
Him off from the philosophers of ancient
times. Yet He claims to be without a fault.
He is sincerity itself. Never did a teacher
lay bare all hypocrisy and sham with such an
unsparing hand as Jesus. He told the
multitudes that they sought Him for the
loaves and fishes. He told His followers
that they would have to bear the cross for
Him. Sincerity was the mainspring of His
thought and action. Humility was in Him
most characteristic. Yet He claimed, with all
humility and all sincerity, to be without a sin.
Some folks have attempted to prove that
Jesus was a sinner. They have argued that
His driving the merchants out of the temple
they profaned, was an exhibition of un
righteous anger ! Now, in this driving them
forth, He was only doing what any right-
minded Jew might have done. Moreover,
the very fact that the conscience-smitten

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 91
traffickers made off, when they saw Him
turning out the oxen and the doves, shows
that they knew He was doing right.*
Sometimes we are told that Christ's wither
ing the fig tree was a sin. Now, let it be
observed, Christ did not " curse " the fig tree,
as is so often stated. Let us look at the
case. Jesus was hungry. It was not the
time of the year for figs. But a fig tree by
the road side in the distance promised fruit
by its show of leaves ; for fig trees only
opened their leaves after the fruit began to
appear. However, there was nothing but
leaves ; neither figs remaining from the pre
vious autumn, nor figs of the early season.
He therefore taught the world a lesson, which
the disciples at least never forgot, on the sin
of professing to be virtuous and having only
the leaves of profession. He forbade it to
bear fruit any more, and speedily it withered
away. Here was a parable of the Jewish
nation — all profession and no fruit ; and a
prophecy of how they shall be punished who
* The scourge of " small cords '' — i.e., of the rushes
which strewed the floor — was only applied to the oxen,
not to the men.

92 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
honour God outwardly but not with the heart.
It is said that the tree did not belong to Christ.
Now, most Christians believe that " the cattle
on a thousand hills are His ; " much more
this solitary fig tree. Besides^ growing where
it did, it was public property and it was
worthless. The lesson, so important for all
ages, was cheaply learned. For we generally
pay very dearly for our experience, and buy
it in a hard market. It was worth while
destroying a barren fig tree, to teach the
world important truths.
It is sometimes said that Christ's wrath
against the Pharisees was sinful ! " Consider
ing his youth," writes one man, "it was a
venial error." How very charitable of this
writer! Here is one of Christ's noblest
virtues, that of censuring a hypocritical,
domineering caste, looked upon as a blemish !
When one man stands out alone, facing a
whole living order and caste, oppressors of
the poor, hypocrites, is the malediction that
He hurls against them a fault ? One is not
surprised that, in these unheroic times,
righteous indignation should be deemed a
blemish. But right-minded men, who con-

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 93
sider the amount of public influence Christ
must have set against Himself, by opposing
such as the Pharisees, will look upon Him as
a divine champion in the battle with the sin
of this sad world.
It would be amusing, if it were not painful,
to notice what homoeopathic quantities of sin
infidels try to find in Jesus. It wants a great
deal of special pleading to make out the sem
blance of a case. And when we look a little
closer still, we find that these are not sins, but
virtues after all, only of so elevated a character
that short-sighted, sinful men mistook their
divine nature for human frailty.
The truth is we can make nothing out of
Jesus, unless we admit Him to be sinless.
That He should sham His boasted sinless
ness is utterly absurd. If He was conscious
of sin, like other men, He was of course a
thorough hypocrite. Now, it is absolutely im
possible that a hypocrite should set before the
world an example of holiness such as Christ
did. The thing is impossible. Christ claimed
to be sinless. His disciples made the same
claim on His behalf. And we, like Pilate of
old, find no fault in Him.

94 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
III. His influence over others. — (i) No
one has ever yet gone beyond Christ's teachings
in morality. — No one has ever yet improved
upon His ethics. Take any other teacher,
and this is what happens : A few accept His
teaching, and very soon they go beyond their
teacher, even though inferior in mind to Him.
We see in morals what Socrates never saw.
We see in ecclesiastical and theological
matters what Luther never saw. Our children
will see and know more than we do. But
eighteen centuries have passed since intelli
gence such as that of Christ was witnessed,
and we may ask what man, or body of men,
has mastered His thoughts and sounded their
depths, far less gone in advance of Him ?
(2) Note the total change of life adopted
by His followers. — Past habits were altered,
old sins crushed, new undertakings, involving
the greatest hardships and self-denial, gladly
entered upon, and active, vigorous service
performed, which frequently led to martyrdom.
All this came from the influence of Jesus
Himself. His resources were all from within.
He was in opposition to all the religious
prejudices of the times, and gained no help

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 95
but only hindrance from other men. Born
in the midst of Judaism (which had become
very narrow, because it did not understand
its ancient prophecies, telling that it was to
expand till all the world was in its fold),
Jesus has nothing of the sectarian nature of
the Jews. His love was world-wide, His
gospel world-wide, His teaching world-wide.
Born of the most sectarian people, He was
yet most unsectarian, purposing to found a
universal kingdom embracing all nations, a
religion for all the earth.
(3) Note Christ's influence, which has
started and preserved the Christian Church.
— Men may smile at the mention of the
" Church " and tell us it has been a foe to
progress, and a persecutor. But I hold that
the true Church of Christ (i.e., all who believe
in and imitate Christ) has never persecuted,
and has always led the way in progress.
Those demons who massacred the Pro
testants on St. Bartholomew's Day, and
offered up a Te Deum in honour of the
bloody deed, were not a part of the Church,
unless the term " Church " is synonymous
with incarnate fiends of wickedness. The

96 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
true Church, which has so signally blessed
the world, has been the friend of liberty,
truth, and progress, and has never been a
persecutor, though she has often been perse
cuted. We are too familiar with the blessed
presence of the unobtrusive true Church,
to comprehend the enormous influence she
has had in moulding society to what is
good. The sun rises day by day, and
we heed not its surpassing beauty. So,
too, the Christian Church pours floods of
intellectual and moral light, even on those
who love her least. And though amongst
Christians the influence of Jesus is very little
compared with what it was in the days of the
Apostles, yet even now men are influenced
by an adoration and love to this wonderful
being, as nothing else on God's wide earth
can influence them. At this moment there
are millions of souls that are pure, and
humble, and loving, who but for Jesus Christ
would have been proud, and sensual, and
selfish. Some of us can say, with perfect
truth, that, but for Jesus Christ's influence
upon us, we should have been very devils.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 97
To-day, in spite of the chilling effect of
scepticism, in spite of the mammon worship,
in spite of the worldliness of society, there
are to be found men whose intellects gaze
on Jesus with a faith so strong and clear,
whose affections cling to Him with so trustful
and so warm an embrace, that they would
cheerfully die for Him, if they could thereby
express their devotion to His person, or lead
others to know and love Him more. Speak
we of the influence of this wonderful man
upon human hearts ? Why the world has
never been the same, since the holy feet of
Jesus trod the soil of Palestine, and His
sacred tears bedewed Mount Olivet.
To Christ we owe our hospitals. Through
Him the degradation of woman, observed in
all the Pagan world, has been exchanged for
a position of peculiar honour. The sensualism,
which Pagans mistook for love, has been
frowned down by Christian sentiment. The
old and universal feelings of bitter hostility,
between races and nations, are denounced in
the severest terms by Christianity. Inter
national law had no existence before the
teaching of Jesus. Even though semi-

98 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Christian lands are sometimes reddened by
the stream of Christian blood, yet the gospel
of Jesus has lessened the brutality of ancient
war, and many a time has stopped the out
break of that martial harvest, which " is sown
with bullets and reaped with blades." When
we think of the success of Christianity, we
are compelled to say of Jesus, that His name
is Wonderful. When we speak of the success of the
gospel, though it has been so imperfectly
preached, and so imperfectly practised, we
are sometimes reminded that Buddhism and
Mahommedanism have made their way in
the world, though their founders were very
fallible men. Now, in answer to this objec
tion, let it be well noticed that such objectors
are the very ones to show that the causes of
the success of Buddhism (e.g.) are perfectly
natural; but hitherto they have failed to
show that Christianity could have been pro
pagated by natural causes. Buddhism con
tained much that was noble, and good, and
captivating to an Eastern mind. Yet it has
never made its way into a second continent,
or amongst the cultivated intellects of the

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 99
world ; whereas Christianity is found in all
quarters of the globe, and is embraced by
many of the most gifted minds with which
the Almighty ever blessed the world.
As for the rapid growth of Mahom
medanism, the causes are perfectly plain.
Mahomet proclaimed the fundamental truth
of all true religion, that truth which the then
corrupted Christian Church had nearly lost
sight of, viz., the unity of God, a doctrine
which Christians had hidden behind priests,
images, and superstitions. Moreover, it had a
great hold upon sinful humanity, in the great
liberty it allowed to the sinful passions. And
it was propagated by the sword.
Shall we speak of Confucius ? There was
nothing original in him. He only collected
the great moral sayings of his predecessors,
and made them into a political faith. And
he only succeeded in China. His religion
could not even stand against Buddhism. In
the streets of London, Paris, or Berlin, we
do not read of the labours of Moslem, or
Buddhist missionaries. But in Delhi, Pekin,
Africa, and Palestine, ay, all over the world
are earnest men burning to teach the gospel ;

ioo WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
and all this because they have learned to
love, with an immortal love, Him whose name
is Wonderful. Look, once again, at the enthusiasm, which
this wondrous teacher instilled into the early
Christians. The historian Gibbon says their
zeal was only the fanatical habit of mind
they had inherited from Judaism. If so,
how came it to survive after they had broken
with Judaism, and then to grow more intense ?
And how was it that Gentiles, when brought
to love Jesus, were fired with the same
emotions ? What was it that made the first
Christians so zealous amidst surrounding care
lessness, so holy in that impure and vicious
world ? It was through the influence of Jesus.
Truly His name is Wonderful !
Thus have we looked at Christ, without
assuming the truth of His miracles, because
a sceptic might deny these wonders. Every
honest unbeliever, with any logic in his con
stitution, must admit the truth of the facts
that we have observed about this wonderful
being. Without assuming the truth of His
miracles, we must admit (i) that His early
life was very wonderful and wholly innocent.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 101
(2) that as a child He was different from all
other children ; (3) that in adult life His
influence on the people with whom he came
in contact was most marvellous, if not
miraculous ; (4) that as a teacher His
originality was complete, and His boldness
unrivalled ; (5) that He lived thoroughly up
to what He preached (a thing no other
person ever did) ; (6) that in His character
were blended all the attributes of virtue in
complete harmony : (7) that He never alters
in His course of wisdom and of love ; (8) that
His life was sinless, eighteen centuries of
hostile criticism being forced to acknowledge,
with Pilate, that there is no fault in Him ;
(9) that His influence over other men is
something, the like of which the world has
never seen, for He produced a thorough
radical change in their lives, and in the
Church He founded the world has seen a
marvellous illustration of His wonderful
power ; (10) that while the spread of
Buddhism, and other religions, can be ac
counted for by natural causes, nothing will
account for the rise and spread of Christianity,
in the teeth of so many difficulties, save the

102 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
sinlessness and perfect purity, the supra-
human character of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Himself is a greater miracle than
the raising of Lazarus from the dead.
" Yes," says a sceptical friend, "but perhaps
his character is a fiction, the invention of
some skilful author." That is impossible.
The inventor of a Christ must needs be as
wonderful as Christ Himself. Besides, there
are four independent writers who tell us of
His life. They could not all invent His
character. None of the four was very gifted,
and yet they set before us a character such
as no poet has ever been able to create, no
philosopher ever able to conceive. We can
believe any miracle, rather than the monstrous
miracle of Christ being only a man, and yet
so wonderful !
From this very imperfect and cursory
glance, at this marvellous being, we are
forced to admit that He is more than human.
Whatever else we may think of Him, this is
logically certain, we cannot class Him with
men. His sinlessness alone would remove
Him from the species "homo." A whale
has the outward appearance of a fish, when

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 103
in the water ; but every zoologist knows that
its internal structure necessitates its being
classed with mammals, a totally different
division. So Jesus, though to the outward
gaze apparently merely human, must be
classed, by those who know Him scientifically,
as not of human mould.
I have not assumed the truth of the
miracles that Christ wrought. Yet it would
be idle to deny these, because He himself is
the greatest miracle. The truth is, however,
that you cannot separate Christ from His
miracles. No sceptic has ever yet given a
consistent account of Christ and Christianity.
Those who deny His sinless superiority to
all men, and the supernatural origin of
Christianity, have never been able to account
logically and consistently for the phenomena
of the Christian religion as it is to-day, and
the Christian history. These are effects, for
which no sceptic has ever yet produced a
" sufficient cause!'
Christ's name is Wonderful. Who was
He that created a force among His fol
lowers, enabling them to embrace three cen
turies of protracted agony, like that the early

104 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Church went through, remaining "faithful
unto death." What was it in Jesus that so
fascinated and sustained His followers, that
for Him men and tender women, in every age
and rank of life, have gladly sacrificed all that
is dearest to man's heart ? Is He, can Hebe,
a mortal man like us? Who is this wondrous
character, who commands at once our love
and reverence ; whose teaching is so awful,
so searching, so startling, and yet so tender?
We see, as did the early Christians, that
Christ is something more than man. You
can only logically explain His character, by
admitting that He cannot be classed with
men, by therefore believing Him, when He
says that He is the divine Son of God, equal
with the Father. Those who offer us a
merely human Christ, who never worked a
miracle, give us a person who could not
have done the works that Christ did. The
Christ of Strauss or Renan is but life
less flesh, without either vital blood or
compact bones. The Christ of the gospel
history is a warm living Being, one who
is more than man.
Jesus Christ was sinless. And He claimed

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 105
to be the Son of God, and to have equal
authority with His Father.. This claim we
must logically admit. For, if this claim
were false, He would have been the greatest
and most blasphemous sinner on Gods earth.
How then could He in all other respects be
so extremely virtuous ? Every one admits
Christ to be the purest, noblest, and best
creature that ever trod this earth. Now, if
His claim to deity were false, He must have
either been the greatest blasphemer, or the
most deluded and mentally deranged of
mortals. He claimed the power of pardoning
sin. What mere man could do that ? He
was worshipped. What merely good man
would have allowed that ? He asserted His
pre-existence (" Before Abraham was I am"),
declared that He came from the bosom of the
Father and would return thither. Either He
was more than man, or He was not. If He
was not, here is the marvel: That one, who was
most arrogantly blasphemous or most absurdly
deranged in His wits, has done the most of all
the world to teach virtue and religion, and
to this day touches men's hearts as none else
can under the broad canopy of heaven.

106 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
So clear is it that Christ was more than a
man, that a certain sect of Christians (The
Docetae) in the days of the Apostle John,
contended that He was God alone and had
no humanity in Him. His deity had quite
hidden His humanity in their eyes. And
this only a generation after the death of
Christ! It is clear that we cannot classify
Jesus with men. He claimed to be equal
with the Divine Father. The objections
raised to this equality we shall consider in
a later discourse.
We feel that He is wonderful. Logically
we cannot explain His sinless, marvellous
nature, save by admitting His divinity, that
He was the Word Incarnate. Those who
believe this will not find those three glorious
chapters of John's Gospel " full of the dry
ness of metaphysics, and the darkness of ab
stract dogmas " (Renan). Nay, " these have
been watered by the tears of all the purest
love and the deepest sorrow of Christians for
iSooyears "(Liddon). They reveal to us the
mysterious nature of Him who in love, in
self-sacrifice, in labours for men, in wisdom
and in sinlessness, is truly "wonderful."

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 107

II

THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES
TO CHRIST
Jesus Christ, when arguing with the Jews
who opposed Him, bade them search their
justly prized literature, because it all bore
witness to the truth of His words (John v. 39).
We will take up the gauntlet He thus threw
down, and look at the witness of both the
Old and the New Testaments.
The literature of the Jews is essentially
different from that of any other land. No
common purpose runs through all the writings
of English authors, as is the case with the
Jewish writers. What connection is there
between Chaucer's " Canterbury Tales " and
Spencer's " System of Philosophy " ? What
bond of union between Bunyan 's " Pilgrim's
Progress" and a novel of Wilkie Collins ? Yet
the Jewish literature is all connected in an
organic unity. You may deny the truth of its

108 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
leading ideas, its gradual revelation of God in
His wondrous nature, embracing the distinc
tions of Father, Son, and Spirit, and its
gradual revelation of man's destiny ; but you
cannot deny the fact that all through this
literature these ideas run.
I do not now ask for the books of the Bible
to be treated with any special reverence.
Simply regard them as you would the litera
ture of heathen Greece ; then, without be
lieving in every event related or every truth
affirmed, you must at least admit that there
runs through all its books a unity, such as no
other literature in the world possesses. And
remember the Bible is not a book. It is a
library of books, bound together because they
all treat of the same grand themes. More
than fifteen hundred years intervened between
the writing of the first of its books and the
writing of the last. Yet there is a unity
running through all.
Because the Bible is bound in one volume,
men get into the habit of looking at it as the
production of one age. But it is really the
literature of a people, who were most illiterate
themselves, vastly inferior in intellect to the

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 109
Romans or the Greeks, and yet have pro
duced the most wonderful literary marvel in
the world. Nothing will account for the
Jewish Scriptures save the fact that there
was a Divine mind, helping this un-literary
people to write what Greece or Rome could
never rival. Those who believe the Bible to
be simply a natural production, like the
literature of classic Greece, assign effects for
which they cannot produce a sufficient cause.
If an untrained child of five or six years old
wrote works on philosophy, science, and
poetry, far outstripping any and all authors
in the world, we should say there was some
thing supernatural.
Now, all through the Jewish Scriptures of
the Old Testament there are predictions of,
and aspirations after, a being called the
Messiah (or Anointed). This Anointed One
was to unite within himself the offices of
Prophet (forth-teller of God's will, and
foreteller of events), Priest (the mediator
between the human and divine), and
King. Christians believe that Jesus, about
whose nature we are inquiring, was this
Messiah. It is at least likely that He was,

no WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
for though very marvellous things were pre
dicted of the Messiah, yet we have shown
that equally marvellous things must be
predicated of Jesus, who is Wonderful.
We will examine a few of the passages in
the Old Testament which speak of the
coming Messiah, and see if they throw any
light upon the question "Who was Jesus
Christ ? "
Genesis iii. 15. — In the oldest book of that
marvellous Jewish literature (which is also
the oldest book in the world), called Genesis,
we read of a strange occurrence, to the truth
of which our daily lives are constantly bearing
witness. Stripped of its Eastern robe of
imagery, denuded of the mysterious meta
phorical statements in it, the sum and sub
stance of the story is this : That the human
race has grievously fallen into sin; that
the spirit of evil has seduced mankind into
guilt, which has become hereditary in the
species. Such is the sad truth, beautifully and
allegorically set forth in the early poetical
chapters of that most ancient book of Genesis.
But a bright light from God streams across

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? in
the wreck of Eden. No sooner is Paradise
lost, than the promise comes that it shall be
restored; This is what we read : " I will
put enmity between thee (the tempter) and
the woman (the representative of humanity),
and between thy seed and her seed : it shall
bruise thy head,, and thou shalt bruise his
heel." The Jews believed this to refer to the
Messiah, who should crush the evil spirit in
this world. And who has so "trampled
Satan under feet " as Jesus of Nazareth,
whose followers to-day are the most strenuous
champions of right against wrong ?
Genesis xxii. 18. — Abraham was a man far
in advance of his time; for he had learned
truths of religion that no other human being
in his days was aware of. God loved this
holy man so much, that He revealed to him
that in his seed all the nations of the earth
should be blessed. It is true that the earth
has been greatly blessed by the Jewish nation
preserving the truth that there is only one
God. But it has blessed the world infinitely
more in its having given us Jesus Christ, the
teacher, the light, and the life of the world.
The Jew Christ and His followers have done

112 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
more service to humanity than all the
Israelites from Moses down to the present
day. All these quotations we are now
making from the Old Testament are admitted
to be prophecies of the Messiah. We shall
see how they all tally remarkably with what
we know of Jesus Christ.
Genesis xlix. 10. — "A sceptre shall not
depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
between his feet, until Shiloh come ; to him
shall be the homage of nations." So said the
aged Jacob, as he neared the river of death.
This prophecy of the Messiah has certainly
been fulfilled in Jesus. At this day men of
all nations under the sun bow before Jesus
Christ, and pay Him homage. The most
usual explanation of the term Shiloh is
" the peaceful " or " giver of peace." How
exactly applicable to Jesus Christ! (This
prophecy was uttered seventeen hundred
years before the arrival of the Saviour on this
earth.) Deuteronomy xviii. 18, 19. — Some genera
tions after Jacob, it was made known to
Moses that a greater prophet than he was
would arise in Israel. The message from

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 113
God to Moses was, " I will raise them up a
prophet from among their brethren, like unto
thee, and I will put my words in his mouth ;
and he shall speak unto them all that I shall
command him. And it shall come to pass,
that whosoever will not hearken unto my
words which he shall speak in my name, I
will require it (viz., punishment of his dis
obedience) of him." These words may be
applied to any of God's holy prophets in
Israel ; but they must also be applied to Jesus.
Greater has been the punishment of the Jews,
for rejecting Him, than they ever endured
before. Eighteen weary centuries of sorrow
and of suffering should teach the scattered
Israelites, how great was their sin in rejecting
their Messiah, Jesus Christ.
When we turn to the national songs of
the Jews, we find distinct reference to the
expected Messiah, 2 Sam. xxiii.* 1-7, and
Psalms Ixxii. In the last words of David,
expressed in 2 Sam. xxiii., and in Psalm Ixxii.,
which was probably written by Solomon in
imitation of his father's last utterances, we
* Very incorrectly translated in our version — e.g., v. 5
should begin " Is not my house with God ? " H

1 14 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
find a prophecy of one who should judge the
poor and all folks righteously. Here is a
prophecy of the Messiah, tinged with the
king's own views, for clearly David and
Solomon expected the Messiah to be an
earthly monarch literally sitting on their
throne. Though themselves the mouth
pieces of God, in His prophecies of the
Messiah, they did not understand the
spiritual meaning of the prophecies, in which
alone they have been or can be thoroughly
fulfilled. Who, of Jewish great men, has
been the friend of the poor like Christ was ?
"His name shall endure for ever and ever."
Psalms Ixxii. 17.
In the second Psalm we have a prophecy
stating that the Jews would have a king,
before whom the heathen should bow, and
this King is called God's Son. " Thou art
my son ; this day have I begotten Thee,"
are the words which God speaks to this
promised ruler. Now, either this psalm
expresses merely the hope that the Israelites
would subdue their foreign foes in the field
of battle, or else it refers to Christ the King,
the Son of God, who is to-day, and has been

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 115
for eighteen hundred years, subduing the
heathen and making them become Christians
and worshippers of Himself. If the latter is
true, if it is a prophecy of Christ, it is a
glorious poem ; but if the former is true,
then it remains a relic of a forlorn hope, a
bitter satire on Israelitish history. For
after writing this psalm, the nation endured
her many cruel captivities, and is to-day
scattered far and wide, while Jerusalem
remains "down-trodden of the Gentiles."
The psalm points to Christ, the true Messiah,
the hope of Israel.
Take again Psalm ex., written by David.
There we read, " The Lord said unto my
Lord, sit thou at my right hand, till I make
thine enemies thy footstool  Thou art
a priest for ever after the order of Melchi-
zedek." These words, which no one doubts
apply to the priestly and kingly functions of
the Messiah, show that David felt himself
inferior to this coming one. He foresaw that
the Messiah would be like Melchizedek, a
priest as well as a king. Jesus Christ quoted
these words as showing that He was superior
to David. God is making Christ's enemies

116 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
His footstool, by the triumphs of Christianity.
But these words cannot be said of any Jewish
monarch. Moreover, the Messiah is here
prophesied as a "priest for ever" which is
exactly what Christ is, and always will be.
In Proverbs viii. 22-31, we get a descrip
tion of Wisdom, who is ever with God.
Here, as in other portions of the Old Testa
ment, the way is paved for the doctrine of
Jesus Christ, the wisdom of God, being mani
fested in the flesh to men. The revelation
of the nature of God has been gradual. The
light of that truth has shone more and more,
according as men were able to bear it. Solo
mon, in Proverbs viii. 22-31, speaks of
"Wisdom" as something more than a mere
abstraction. For her opposite, " Folly," is a
sinful woman of impure life. This wisdom is
co-eternal with Jehovah, assists Him in the
work of creation, is the delight of God. Is
not this exactly the description of Jesus
Himself? Isaiah (ix. chap., 6 and 7 verses), pro
phesies distinctly of the Messiah who is to be
born, and so wondrous is His nature to be,
that the prophet actually calls Him "The

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 117
Mighty God." If Jesus is not the fulfilment
of this prophecy, who is ? If He is, Isaiah
bears testimony to His superhuman character,
for He is called "The Mighty God." Perhaps
even more striking is Isaiah's prophecy in the
fortieth chapter. Here he tells us that a voice
cries " Prepare ye the way of the Lord," &c,
and that " the glory of the Lord will be re
vealed." He bids Jerusalem say to the cities
of Judah " Behold your God." " Behold,"
says the prophet, "the Lord God will come in
(the person of) a strong one* He shall feed
His flock like a shepherd," &c. Is not this
a distinct prophecy of the Incarnation ?
Who is it that came as the Good Shepherd ?
Surely Jesus. God came in the person of a
strong one, Jesus Christ. If these words
refer to any one, they point to Christ. And
to whomsoever they refer, to Him they
ascribe the indwelling of God, and equality
with God. Here let it be noted that a careful
study of the Old Testament shows two dis
tinct lines of prophecy, both of which converge
in Jesus Christ. Firstly, the prophecies of a
coming Messiah, glorious yet suffering.
* Such is the more correct rendering.

118 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
Secondly, a manifestation of Jehovah Himself
to redeem Israel. In Christ both lines of
prophecy are fulfilled.
Again, Isaiah's prophecy in the forty-second
chapter, verses 1-4, is a testimony to the
high character of Jesus, though not distinctly
to His superhuman nature. " Behold my ser
vant, whom I uphold ; mine elect in whom
my soul delighteth. I have put my spirit
upon him ; he shall bring forth judgment to
the Gentiles  A bruised reed shall he
not break, and the smoking flax shall he not
quench  He shall not fail nor be dis
couraged, till he have set judgment in the
earth ; and the isles shall wait for his law." A
prophecy is this, which Christ exactly fulfils.
Micah v. 1-5 has a prophecy that distinctly
points to the birthplace of Christ, His close
connection with Jehovah, and His eternal
pre-existence. " Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth
unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ; whose
goings forth have been from of old, from ever
lasting. .... And he shall stand and shall
be shepherd in the strength of the Lord, in

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 119
the majesty of the name of the Lord his God;
and they shall dwell in quietness, because
now shall he be great unto the end of the
earth. And this man shall be the Restorer."
Could these words be spoken of a frail and
sinful created man ? Could they be spoken
of any one save Jesus ?
As we go farther on in Jewish literature,
and approach nearer the times of Jesus, the
veil of revelation is more and more withdrawn
and the divine character of the Messiah more
clearly seen. For example, consider Jere
miah's prophecy, uttered six centuries before
Christ came on earth (Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6),
where he says, " Behold the days come, saith
the Lord, that I will raise unto David a right
eous branch, and a king shall reign and
prosper, and shall execute judgment and
justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall
be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ; and
this is his name whereby he shall be called,
The Lord our Righteousness." (See also
Jeremiah xxxiii. 15-16.)
This prophecy by itself might not indicate
very great glory in the Messiah. But, in con
nection with the others and the whole tenor

120 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
of Scripture, it must be held as a declaration
of the divine nature of the Messiah, Jesus
Christ. If it be observed that Judah is not
yet saved, nor Israel dwelling in safety, we
must remind the objector that Christ's days
are not finished and over. In His days, i.e.,
during His reign, which lasts henceforth for
ever, the Israelites will be saved when they
accept Him as their Messiah. Coming down
in time to Daniel, we have in the seventh
chapter a prophecy of the Son of Man (a term
for the Messiah) approaching the " Ancient
of days" (the eternal God), and receiving
universal power and dominion, (chapter vii.
9, 14). Is universal sway the attribute of a
mere man ?
It is worth noticing that the Messianic
doctrine is unfolded in four stages of develop
ment, three within the limits of the Old
Testament writings, and one after the Canon
of those Scriptures was closed.
(1) That which ended with Moses. Here
is a general statement of the victory of
humanity over evil and the foretelling of a
great ruler. Genesis xlix. 10 ; Deuteronomy
xviii. 18, 19.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 121
(2) That which centres in the reigns of
David and Solomon. Here an "Ideal
David " is upheld. Psalm xiv. may be con
sidered as representing the union of King
Messiah with His bride, the Church of the
redeemed. The empire of this ideal King is
to be spiritual. It is to confer peace on the
world by righteousness (Psalm lxii. 3).
(3) That which extends from the reign of
Uzziah to the time of Malachi. Here details
of the Messiah's life on earth are given ; and
His divinity strongly asserted. (Isaiah and
Jeremiah, &c.) Still more clearly does His
spiritual power shine forth.
(4) After the close of the Hebrew Scrip
tures the nation lost its political power. Thus
they became carnally minded, and wished for
a political conquering emperor, rather than a
religious restorer. They looked for a Jewish
Caesar. (Vide Liddon's Bampton Lecture,
pp. 78-91-)
Thus have we looked at some of the Mes
sianic prophecies which bear upon the ques
tion "Who was Jesus Christ?" Other
portions of Scripture portray His humanity
and sufferings (e.g., Isaiah liii.). Those we

122 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
have looked at point to Christ's exalted
superhuman nature. They cannot be merely
the excited utterances of patriotic dreamers.
For consider the variety of writers who
speak of this coming great One, consider too
the gradual unfolding of the Messiah's char
acter as you come later down the stream of
time, and consider the organic unity of the
Old Testament writings.
It is worthy of notice that one of the two
names for God in Hebrew is " Elohim." Now,
this is a plural word. It may be that, as it
means literally "Powers," it is only a plural
form used to indicate greatness (" plural of
majesty.") But it is not at all likely that the
Jews would have used this plural term, unless
it was to indicate some diversity in the one
Being called God. For the great thing the
Jews had to do was to avoid the worship of
idols, to avoid polytheism, to maintain most
strenuously the doctrine of there being only
one God. Now the word Elohim, a plural,
would have tended to draw their thoughts
from the oneness of God, and would therefore
probably have been displaced altogether by
the word " Jehovah " (the self-existent one),

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 123
unless it was intended to foreshadow that
diversity in the divine nature which is now
clearly revealed as Father, Son, and Spirit.
In the Old Testament, then, we discover a
series of prophecies, reaching from the com
mencement to the close of the Jewish dis
pensation, promising a great deliverer from
evil, who is to be the desire of all nations, a
descendant of David, a heavenly teacher
(Isaiah xi. 2), the wisest councillor (Isaiah
ix. 6), peculiarly the Son of God, (Psalm ii. 7),
existing from eternity (Micah v. 2), and called
the mighty God (Isaiah ix. 6). Thus some
thing more than a hint was given to the Jews
that the coming one was to be divine as well
as human. The great lesson the Jews had to
understand and teach the world was the Unity
of God. " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God
is one Lord." Now, had the Christian
doctrine of the three distinctions in the God
head been revealed to the Jews before Christ's
days, they would inevitably have run into
tritheism and then polytheism. Their bitter
captivities quite cured them of the worship
of any but Jehovah. It effectually and for
ever taught the Jews to be Monotheists.

124 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
After their bondage there was no danger
of their falling into polytheism, and they were
ripe for the doctrine of the threefold nature
of the one God. Yet, though this doctrine
was withheld from them till they could bear
it, the prophecies of the Messiah, and the
peculiar work of God's Spirit in the Old
Testament times, were foreshadowings to
thoughtful Jews of some mysterious distinc
tions in the divine nature, which distinctions
were more plainly taught by Jesus and His
apostles. Now let us look at the testimony of the
New Testament to the character of Christ.
It is sometimes said that the divinity of
Jesus Christ would never have been dreamed
of, unless crazy Paul and hero-worshipping
John had deluded themselves into the belief.
Now, it is very unfair to try and set aside the
irrefragable testimony of these two common-
sensed individuals. The apostle Paul was
about as keen and clever a man as ever
breathed. He would have made his fortune
in any business ; and detected any flaw in
evidence, had he been a lawyer. However,
we will for the present set aside the evidence

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 125
of these two apostles, and see what the testi
mony of the other writers tells us of Jesus
Christ. Matthew, the tax-gatherer, and Luke, the
physician, relate that Jesus was born of a
virgin, out of the ordinary way of nature.
The holy mother herself must have borne
testimony to this fact. If we believe this, we
shall believe as well that Jesus was more than
man. And, after what we have seen of Jesus,
we should have no difficulty in believing it.
For His supernatural birth is just what we
should expect from His supernatural character.
That one born with the difficulties, and in
the obscurity of Jesus, should yet influence
the world so infinitely more than all other
great and good men, is far more miraculous
than Christ's supernatural birth from the
virgin. Mary tells us that the angel informed
her that the " holy thing " which should be
born of her should be called the Son of
the Highest, and should have an everlast
ing kingdom. (Luke i. 32, 33.) Matthew
(xi. 27) tells us that Jesus said on one
occasion, " All things are delivered unto me

126 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
of my Father : and no man knoweth the
Son but the Father; neither knoweth any
man the Father, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him."
There Christ asserts a knowledge of, and
intimacy with, the divine Father that no
created living mortal would dare to claim.
Matthew again (xxviii. 19, 20) tells us that
Christ commanded His disciples to teach
to all nations His gospel, and to baptize them
in the one name of the one God, who em
braces the three distinctions of Father, Son,
and Spirit. " And lo ! " says Jesus, " I am
with you always to the end of the world."
The Evangelist Mark (i. 11) tells us that,
when Jesus was baptized, there came a voice
from the skies, saying, "Thou art my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased " — a
strong testimony to Christ's deity. For, even
if this was only thunder, which the followers
of Christ mistook for the divine voice, it
shows how wondrous a being Christ was in
their eyes for them to have made the mistake.
And they knew Him best. The Apostle
Peter was ready to bear his testimony, and,
when he was asked the question " Who is

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 127
Jesus ? " replied, " Thou art the Christ
(Messiah), the Son of the living God." (Mat
thew xvi. 16.) This same disciple, in his
address to Cornelius, distinctly calls Christ
" Lord of all " (Acts x. 36), which would be
blasphemy if Christ were only man. In his
first epistle (i. 11, &c), where you would
expect him to say " The Spirit of God," he
says, " The Spirit of Christ," thereby clearly
indicating his faith in the deity of Jesus.
From these few specimens you will see
that, could you take a penknife and cut out
from your Bible all the testimony of the
apostles Paul and John to the truth of the
Incarnation, it would not remove or even
shake that rock of truth.
If we extend our search into other parts of
the New Testament beside the three synoptic
Gospels, we have passage upon passage ex
hibiting Jesus of Nazareth as divine.
The Scriptures exhibit the Son of God as
having the same attributes, exercising the
same powers, sharing the same honour as the
Father, and claiming from men a love which
only God may claim.
Christ, after His resurrection, told His

128 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
disciples that all authority was given to Him
(i.e., given back, restored) in heaven and on
earth. (Matthew xxviii. 18.) Again, He
says (Matthew x. ^7), " He that loveth father
or mother more than me is not worthy of
me. Paul writes (Romans x. 13), "Whosoever
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved." And the following verses show that
the term Lord refers here, not to the Father,
but to the Son of God. These words show
the high function and office of the eternal Son,
viz., that of saving men from their sins.
Christ tells His hearers that He will come
in the glory of the Father (Matt xvi. 27).
In another part of the same Gospel, He says,
" He will come in his glory" — i.e., His own
glory (Matt. xxv. 31.) The apostle John
in the Revelation (i. 5) speaks of Jesus not
only as the faithful witness and the first-born
of the dead, but also as the ruler of the kings
of the earth. Jesus declares Himself to be
greater than the Temple, wherein men
worship (Matt, xii., 6) ; for He is the object
of worship. As the object of divine worship
He declares that where two or three are

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 129
gathered together in His name, there is He
in the midst (Matt, xviii. 20).
As we might expect from these preroga
tives of Christ, the Scriptures teach that only
the Son can reveal the Father. " All things,"
says Jesus, " have been delivered unto me of
my Father, and no one knoweth the Son
save the Father, neither doth any know the
Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever
the Son willeth to reveal Him" (Matt. xi.
27). Not even Moses was able to declare
God. No mere man on this earth hath seen
God at any time (John i. 18, vi. 46 ; 1 John
iv. 12 ; 1 Timothy vi. 16) ; i.e., no man hath
seen and comprehended God ; the only
begotten Son, who is in. the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared Him.
The powers which Jesus exercises are such
as only Deity can possess. His harmonious
working with the Father naturally follows
from the sublime truth, that He and the
Father are one — one in essential being, in
power, in working, in will, in love (the
essence of Deity). Jesus says He can do
nothing of Himself without the Father
(John v. 19). This inability to work contrary

130 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
to, or independently of, the Father is moral
inability, not metaphysical inability. He can
do nothing without the Father, because they
are one in will, in love, in nature. Of
course Christ could have disobeyed the
Father, or worked against Him, had He so
willed. His obedience unto death was no
pretence. He had the power, but not the
will, to disobey. He can do nothing without
the Father.
The world and man were made by the
divine Logos. " All things were made by
Him, and without Him was not anything
made that hath been made " (John i. 3).
" For in Him were all things created, things
in heaven and things on the earth, things
visible and things invisible .... the whole
universe has been created by Him, and for
Him, and He Himself is before all things,
and in Him is the universe held together"
(Colos. i. 16). Compare 1 Cor. viii. 6 and
Hebrews i. 2. In Hebrews ii. 10 Christ is
spoken of as one, for whom are all things,
and through whom are all things. Thus the
universe, time, space, and man were created
by the Father through the Son.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 131
A closer scrutiny of the Scriptures shows
that Jesus exercises a power even more
divine than creation, viz., that of pardoning
men's sins. No one but God can forgive.
A sinless archangel could not forgive another
being. Sin is an offence against God. When
they brought the man who was sick of the
palsy unto Jesus, He said to him, " Son, be of
good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee "
(Matt. ix. 2, &c).
Another divine prerogative of Jesus is that
of giving psychical and spiritual life. " For
as the Father raiseth the dead, and
quickeneth them, even so the Son also
quickeneth whom He will" (John v. 21).
The evangelist John teaches us that only by
abiding in Christ can we bear the fruit of a
holy life (John xv. 2-6). Spiritually as well
as psychically the Son of Man quickeneth
whom He will.
The divine \6yog, who humbled Himself
to be a man upon this earth, having the
power, of forgiving sins, and of granting
spiritual life, and possessing an intimate
knowledge of man's struggles, by that bitter
experience which He bought in the hard

132 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
market of human life, has received from His
Father the office of judging all men. The
Father giveth all things into His Son's
hands (John xiii. 3). Accordingly we find
Jesus, after mentioning His Father, describ
ing Himself as the judge of life and death.
He says, " Whosoever shall deny me before
men, him will I also deny before my Father
which is in heaven " (Matt. x. 33). Again,
" For neither doth the Father judge any
man, but He hath given all judgment unto
the Son, that all may honour the Son even
as they honour the Father. He that
honoureth not the Son honoureth not the
Father which sent Him " (John v. 22, 23).
Christ judges men, for He not only has
knowledge of men, but by the Incarnation
has human experience. He is the standard
of judgment, because He is perfect man.
He, the Son of God and Son of man, has
the whole experience of humanity, with the
exception of sin (which is no real part of
humanity but a hideous excrescence, or a
disease). He can, therefore, succour them
that are tempted, and fairly judge those that
have fallen.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST/ ? 133
As judge, the Son will pronounce the
doom of all who oppose His kingdom, and
the final triumph of Christianity over all
obstacles. " For He must reign, till He hath
put all things under His feet " (1 Cor. xv. 25).
In accordance with these divine pre
rogatives, at which we have been looking,
the Scriptures give to the Incarnate Logos a
name which is above every name. Higher
than the name of the highest archangel is
the name of the Son of God. Jesus is called
the only begotten Son of God. Strictly
speaking, what is generated cannot be eternal.
But the underlying thought in this expression
is the eternal Sonship of the Logos. Of
course even the expression, eternal Sonship, is
not strictly literally true ; for sonship involves
procreation. But that holy relationship
between the Divine Father and the Logos,
which in our human speech we call fatherhood
and sonship, was not a created relationship
but an eternal one.
He calls the Father in heaven His Father,
in a sense specifically different from that in
which we call God our Father. We call God
"our Father;" Jesus says "My Father."

134 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
The expression "our Father" in the Lord's
Prayer was only intended to be used by
Christ's followers, not by Himself. The
Saviour could not pray the Lord's Prayer for
Himself. He could not pray "Forgive us
our trespasses," for He never sinned.
Jesus calls the Father by the words " My
Father."* When Jesus addressed Mary
Magdalene, after His resurrection, He said,
" I ascend to my Father and your Father,
and my God and your God" (John xx. 17).
When Joseph and Mary found Jesus in the
temple, and Mary upbraidingly said, " Thy
father and I have sought Thee sorrowing,"
our Lord replied so as to show that Joseph
was not His father, for His Father was in
Heaven, "Wist ye not," said He, "that I
must be about My (real) Father's business ? "
(or in My Father's house). Jesus had brothers,
and sisters, and a mother on this earth, but a
Father only in heaven. He says, "Whoso
ever will do the will of my Father which is
in heaven, the same is my brother and sister
and mother " (not Father) (Mat. xii. 50).
* Matt. x. 32, 33: "My Father which is in heaven,"
and xviii. 35, " My heavenly Father."

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 135
The Father — God is the Father of Jesus in
a unique sense, eternally His Father. The
Scriptures teach us that Jesus was always the
Son of God, and that God was always His
Father. Christianity is Monotheistic, but not
Unitarian. The Bible expressly rejects the
hard mechanical Unitarianism, which denies
any distinctions of Father and Son in the
Godhead. In the work of creation God said
not "let me make man ;" but "let us make
man " (Gen. i. 26). The Father God was
always a Father. The Father had from
eternity the Son to love. Had it not been
so, then at the first creation of intelligent
beings, with affectionate feelings, a mighty
change in the nature of God would have oc
curred, and He would have been for the first
time possessed of the feelings of fatherhood.
As Jesus calls God His Father in a unique
sense, so the Father calls the Saviour His
Son in an equally unique sense. This is the
name above every name. Christians are
sons of God. But Christ is the Son of God
(Mark i. 1). The Father in heaven acknow
ledged the correctness of the term Son of God
applied to the Incarnate Word. At the

136 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
baptism of our Lord "the Holy Ghost de
scended in a bodily form like a dove upon
Him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou
art my beloved Son ; in Thee I am well
pleased " (Luke iii. 22). The same approval
from the heavenly Father took place at the
Transfiguration (Mat. xvii. 5). The aorist
tense here employed indicates that the Father
always was, and always will be, pleased with
this Son.
Further, we observe that the Logos is not
only the Son of God, but also equal with the
Father. Jesus claims equality and oneness
with the Father, and therefore allows men to
worship Him. Now, worship offered to the
highest created being is idolatry. When the
evangelist John fell down at the feet of the
ange] in Patmos to worship him, the angel
said, " See thou do it not " (Rev. xxii. 9). Such
an act of homage was an infringement of the
first commandment. But Jesus was wor
shipped on many occasions ; as a babe in the
manger (Mat. ii. 11), by a leper (Mat. viii.
2), by a ruler in Israel (Mat. ix. 18), and
after His resurrection by His disciples (Mat.
xxviii. 9-17). So John (v. 23) says ....

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 137
" that all may honour the Son even as
they honour the Father. Again, in Phil. ii.
9, 10, we read that God has highly exalted
Jesus, and " given Him a name above every
name, that in the name of Jesus every
knee should bow .... and every tongue
confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of the
Father." Thus this exaltation of the Son is
not at the expense of the Father. It is to
the Father's honour.
But if Christ had been only a good man, he
must have stopped this worship ; otherwise
he breaks the first commandment and commits
a great sin.
Thus we can truly say to Christ :
" The homage that we render Thee,
Is still the Father's own ;
No jealous claim or rivalry
Divides the cross and throne."
We find in the Bible that prayers are
offered to Jesus, as when Peter cried " Lord
save me " (Mat. xiv. 30), and when the
disciples in the boat cried. Lord, save us, we
perish (Mat. viii. 25).
The equality of Jesus with the Father is

138 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
seen in other texts. He bids men honour
the Son even as they honour the Father
(John v. 23). When unbelieving Thomas
had his doubts removed he exclaimed to
Jesus, " My Lord and my God " (John xx. 28).
This equality Christ expressly claims. " I
and the Father are one," said He (John x. 30)*
i.e., essentially one (the word is %v) not per
sonally one (which would be e'lg).
In Colos. i. 15 we read that Christ is " the
image of the invisible God." In Heb. i. 3
He is called the effulgence of God's glory,
and the impress (i.e., very image) of His
substance (i.e., essential being). Christ is
the brightness of the Father, the effulgence,
not a mere reflection, but the expression, of
the divine Light itself. This verse shows
the consubstantiality of the Father and the
Son, their identity of essence, i.e., in power,
purity, and love.
After Christ as model, man was made. If
we regard the Angel of the Covenant of the
Old Testament as the Word (Xo-yoe), and
remembered that He appeared in a beauteous
human form (but not in flesh oap£), we see
still more clearly the meaning of man being

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 139
formed in the divine image. Jesus is the
ideal or prototype, after which, and by which,
man was created, not an idea merely, as in
human creations ; not a law, as in nature, but
a divine Person.
Turning to the evangelist John, we read
(John i. 1) " In the beginning was the word,
and the word was with God." The pre
position (ttjooc) with the accusative case after
it signifies active personal intercourse with
the Father.
And the word was God.
He was Oeog, God in essential being, not
o 6s6g, the Father in person. He was Os-og
not foioe (divine), a term applicable to a
holy man. Nor is Qeoq to be rendered " a
God." The Bible does not teach Polytheism.
It is distinctly Monotheistic, but not Unitarian
(the hard, mechanical view, which denies all
distinctions in the Godhead, and views Jesus
as not 0£oe).
When it is said in verse 14 that the Word
became flesh (adp£ hyi-vsro), the term flesh
expresses that state into which the divine
Word entered, at a definite period of time by
a definite, voluntary act.

140 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Only John gives the truth of the Logos
doctrine, showing the personal nature of the •
Word. The term Logos was familiar in the mouths
of the Jewish and the Christian theologians
in the days of the Evangelist John. He,
observing the mischievous Gnosticism that
was springing up, was led by the Spirit of
God to set before the world the real truth of
the Logos. He rescued it from the perver
sions of erroneous Theosophy, and set before
us the sublime teachings of his marvellous
introductory chapter.
All things were made by Him, and without
Him was not anything made that hath been
made. The Bible, I think, denies the eternity of
matter, and all the kindred errors which
Greek philosophers have concentrated around
the term vX?j. John's prologue also cuts at
the root of Gnosticism, and shows that even
spirits, in their various ranks, were made by
the Logos. All theories of emanation are
here contradicted. All things were made by
Him. In Him was life (John i. 4), spiritual

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 141
life (Zwri, not |3ioc, is used here). Compare
John iii. 15, 16.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us. This is a verse of the sublimest
and most profound importance. Its full
meaning seems to have been largely missed
by those who steer their theological vessel "by
chart of creeds " alone. The Word became
flesh. Every part of this sentence is full of
weighty truth. The Word was God (John
i. 1) in essential being ; but He became flesh.
These words (i. 14) destroy Docetism. Christ
was no phantom ; He became flesh, wore our
nature, was like us in all things, excepting
sin. Our words reveal our thoughts. By them
we express to others what we wish them to
know. The Word reveals God.
The Jew Philo was led by the Spirit of
God to make an approach to this sublime
truth, and to pave the way for John's doctrine
of the Logos. Philo's doctrine was a
mixture of Judaism and Platonism. He did
not carefully distinguish the Logos from the
Spirit, nor does he closely connect the Logos
with Messianic ideas. Again, Philo keeps the

142 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Deity from all that is material, not admitting
that the Godhead can touch matter. But
the essence of John's teaching is that the
Word became flesh.
We are told sometimes that our Lord
assumed human nature into union with His
pre-existent divine personality. This is
hardly the Scriptural doctrine. The Word
became flesh, not merely assumed humanity.
"God being already related to man as
Father, becomes in Christ our Brother also,
that, by this two-fold relation, we might be
drawn into yet closer affinity with God."
The Bible does not teach that the divine
Word became united to a man. There is no
double personality in Christ.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 143

III

HOW WE MAY THROW LIGHT ON THE
DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION.
The two previous chapters have led us to
see that Jesus Christ, though a man, tempted
like we are, was yet something different from
us ; that He was not only sinless, but that
He was in some unique sense the Son of
God. We have been led by the force of
logic to admit that Christ was the "God-
man," that in Him Deity was in some
manner incarnate. So clear was it to the
early Christians that Christ could not be
classed with men, that some of them actually
denied His humanity, believing only in His
divinity, and, in the latter days of the apostle
John, a sect " called Docetae " arose denying
that Christ had come in the flesh (1 John
iv. 3). To them Christ's deity was so appa
rent, that they lost sight of His humanity.
In some sense then Christ was clearly God

144 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
and Man. Our aim in this discourse is to
try to throw some light on this sublime
mystery. Many good Christians accept the
fact of the Incarnation which logic forces
upon them, and make no effort to understand
this marvel. They say, with perfect truth,
Christ is human as I am, only sinless, and
He is also divine, equal with the Father ; that
is enough for me.
" Their faith is fixed and cannot move ;
They darkly feel Christ great and wise ;
They dwell on Him with faithful eyes ;
They cannot understand, they love."
Now, for a sin-burdened penitent, yearning
for salvation, such views are quite enough.
But for the thoughtful Christian man, some
thing more is desired. Intelligent men
demand some light on this great mystery.
They yearn for some idea of the nature of
God. Men who accept the doctrine of the
Incarnation almost always accept a doctrine
of Trinity, of a threefold distinction in the
one God who rules the universe. The word
"Trinity" is not a scriptural term, nor is it
altogether suitable to express the mysterious

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 145
nature of the Triune God. But there is no
other better, or equally good word, therefore
the Christian Church has retained this term.
Before proceeding to the main subject of
this discourse let me make the following
observations: While holding very firmly
the truth of the Incarnation, and therefore
the truth of the Trinity, I must express
entire dissent from the spirit and the letter
of the Anathasian Creed. There we are
told that " whosoever will be saved " must
hold the faith of the Trinity as described in
this Creed. Now, even if one could under
stand thoroughly the words of this Creed,
how could we say that others, who do not
accept it, shall without doubt perish ever
lastingly ? Salvation does not depend on a
theological creed. Many good Christians
have gone to heaven knowing hardly any
thing of theology ; just trusting in Christ and
His words, and trying, by living close to Him,
to tread in His holy footsteps. So far
is it from being true that he who will be
saved must thus (i.e„ according to the
Athanasian Creed) think of the Trinity, that
many of the best Christians, those of the first

146 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
centuries of the early Church, had not this
Creed, and did not " thus think ofthe Trinity."
Who of us will dare to say that one who
rejects the doctrine of the Trinity must
without doubt perish everlastingly ? There
are holy men and women who have been so
staggered by the stupendous mystery of the
Incarnation, that they have been unable to
believe in it, and yet they have bowed in
such reverence before Jesus, loved Him with
such passionate, self-sacrificing affection, imi
tated so nobly His glorious example, and
bedewed His cross with such bitter tears of
sorrow, that no one can doubt the Holy
Spirit of God and Christ is dwelling in them ;
and, though intellectually they deny the
Saviour's deity, yet in the great revealing
world beyond the gate of Death, Jesus will
pass by this error of the head, because of the
-affectionate heart. Because they "loved much,''
they shall enter into the joy of their Lord.
The miraculous birth of Jesus Christ from
a virgin, who was overshadowed by the
Holy Ghost, indicates, what all we know of
Christ confirms, viz., that somehow Christ
was God and Man, or rather the God-man.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 147
Let it be observed that here we have a
mystery, but not a contradiction. Spinoza
said he could no more believe in a God-man
than a round square. I am sorry for his un-
philosophic simile. A round square is a
contradiction, and, therefore, like all other
contradictions, human. The God-man is
not a contradiction, but a mystery, and there
fore like all other mysteries, divine. " The
union of deity and humanity is very wonder
ful, we cannot explain it, therefore I will not
believe in it." So argue a great number of
men. Out of their own mouths will we judge
them. What would be thought of a man
who said, " The union of body and soul is
very wonderful, we cannot explain it ; there
fore I will not believe in it " ? Let us clearly
understand, then, that the Incarnation is not
to be denied or doubted, just because it is
something we cannot at present fully com
prehend. Jesus was perfect man, but also the God-
man. He was perfect man ; for He com
bines all that is good in humanity. Jesus
combines in full measure both the masculine
and the feminine virtues. In Him we

148 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
witness the manly "calmness that never
quailed in all the uproars of the people ; the
truth that never faltered .... the justice
that never gave way to weak feeling." And
in Him we witness a woman's tenderness, a
woman's sensibility, a woman's loving care.
Were Romanists not so blind to Christ's real
character, they would never have felt the
need of Mariolatry. Jesus was perfect man ;
but also the God-man. How shall we
picture to ourselves this mystery ? There
are two methods of doing this.
Man's nature is threefold. He has a
body, a soul, and a spirit. The soul em
braces his desires and his sensations. It is
what gives life to the body and it is what
man has in common with the brutes. His
body is one thing. His soul or psychical
nature is another. His spiritual or highest
nature is a third. This spiritual nature em
braces will, conscience, and the worship of
God. Animals have soul and body ; but no
spirit. They cannot adore a Creator. Now,
the first attempt at the explanation of the
Incarnation is as follows :
(a) Christ, it is said, is a Man with body,

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 149
soul, and spirit, and in addition to this he
has the second distinction in the Trinity, the
Word of God, dwelling in this Man. Thus,
according to this view, Christ has two spirits,
a divine and a human, and therefore two
wills, a divine and a human ; but the human
will always obeyed His divine will. Now, if
this were the case, Christ would not be
specifically different from a holy Christian
man, in whom God dwelt by His Spirit. If
Christ had the body of a man, the soul of a
man, and the will of a man, and added to
these the will of God, wherein does He
specifically differ from a holy Christian ?
The Word became man, not merely united
with a man. This theory of Christ's person
makes Him to have two souls, a human and
a divine. But there is nothing in Christ to
indicate this duality. This view, again let it
be said, makes Christ not essentially different
from other good men, in whom the Spirit of
God dwells. It represents Christ as a union
of God and man, but not as the God-man,
and therefore not as a real Incarnation.
Many theologians speak of the Incarnation
of God. It is more scriptural to speak of the

150 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Incarnation of the Son of God, because the
word " God " by itself naturally suggests the
Divine Father, or the Trinity. Now, not
the Father, nor the Trinity, became incarnate,
only the Son. The Son became man, because
(as we have seen) He is the archetype
" according to whose pattern man was created
at the beginning, and according to which there
fore he must be restored" (Thomas Aquinas).
In the Saviour we have no mixture of
God and man, but the Logos became man.
The error of dithelitism, or supposing Christ
had two wills, could never have arisen, had men
studied the Bible more closely. We never
find in the Bible any mention of a human
soul distinct from the divine ; and there is
no mention of the Logos in Christ distinct
from, or united to, His humanity. If it is
said Christ must have had a human soul to
be truly human, I reply, he had a human
soul. Jesus was not a man to whom the
Logos united Himself. It is true that Jesus
had a psychical principle in connection with
His body, and this was derived from His
mother. It was the seat of His natural desire
and temptation. But the higher rational

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 151
principle, the spirit (irvivpa), alone con
stituted His personality, as our spirit alone
constitutes our personality. In the person of
Christ this is the divine word (Xoyoc),
from whom all human souls are derived, and
in whose image they are created.
The error of dithelitism arose from obser
vation of the conflict in Christ between the
human desire and the divine will. There
seems no more reason to argue, from the
words and deeds of Christ, that He has two
wills, than to conclude the same of ourselves,
from the internal conflict we pass through,
when our conscience is fighting against our
selfish or sinful inclinations.
Failure to apprehend the grand signi
ficance of the emptying (kevoktic) has led to
the error of dithelitism, and the consequent
splitting up of Christ into two beings. To
say He willed and knew some things as to
His divine nature, which as to His human
nature He did not, seems to me juggling with
sublime truths, or destroying the unity of our
Lord. " The Scripture proclaims no apo
theosis of the man, but the incarnation of the
Logos."

152 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
(b) The correct way, I believe, to look at
this profound mystery is as follows : We
have said that a man possesses body, soul,
and spirit. Body and soul the beasts have,
but not spirit. Now, Christ had a soul, the
life-giving principle, and a body. These he
derived from Mary. But His spirit was not
derived from human sources. His spirit was
the divine Word, the second distinction in
the Trinity. His soul, the seat of desires, and
so of temptations, was human. His spirit,
the source of will was divine, was the Word
who was in the beginning with God, who
was God. If we can grasp the idea that
Jesus of Nazareth had a human body, and a
human soul, the seat of desires and appetites,
both received from the Virgin, while His
spirit came not from humanity, but was the
eternal Word, we shall comprehend some
what how Deity became incarnate. God in
His three-fold nature was not in Christ.
But the Word, the eternal Son, the second
person of the Triune God, took the place of
the spirit in the man Christ Jesus.
A man consists of (i) body, (2) soul, which
gives life to the body and creates desires and

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 153
appetites, and (3) spirit, his true self. In Christ
the God-man, I believe the spirit (3) was sup
plied by the eternal Word, the second dis
tinction in the Trinity, from whom all human
spirits are derived, and in whose image man
was created, to whose image man redeemed
will be conformed. The Word or the Son
of God, the second distinction in Trinity,
the divine original of humanity, became in
carnate by taking a human body and a
human soul, Himself supplying the place of
a human spirit. The divine Word really
became man, by divesting Himself of His
equality with God, and taking upon Him
human nature, i.e., a human body and a
human soul or life principle. Thus he sub
jected His divine nature to human limita
tions, and to all the conditions and expe
riences of humanity, sin only excepted.
Herein is Christ's humiliation and emptying
of Himself, that He the Son, the Word of
God, should limit Himself for thirty-three
years, by a body and soul derived from Mary,
and therefore truly human.
Christ as He was before He came to the
earth is sometimes called the Son of God,

154 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
sometimes the Word. The meaning of these
terms is plain, yet very instructive. The
word " Son " indicates that, between the first
and second distinctions in the Godhead, there
exists a relationship so affectionate and close,
that the only human words we have to indi
cate it by, are Father and Son. The term
Word is used of Christ as the Revealer of
the nature of Deity. A word reveals a
thought. So Christ reveals God. If it be
asked why the Son rather than the Father
or the eternal Spirit became incarnate, the
answer is very simple. It was because the
Son is the archetype, the pattern, according
to which man was created. When the
Almighty said, " Let us make man," human
beings, who are the children of the heavenly
Father, were formed after the type of the
Son of God, the second distinction in the
Triune Deity.
Remember that Jesus was the Son of
God before He trod this earth. Eternally,
from the very beginning, God has included
the three-fold nature of Father, Son, and
Spirit. It may be asked, "Well, if Christ,
the Son, is the pattern according to which

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 155
man was made, did He before His Incarna
tion wear a spiritual body like that He
had after the Resurrection ? It is possible.
But we do not know. Christ was the Head
of humanity. And it is possible that
previous to His advent on earth He wore a
glorious spiritual body, unlimited by time or
space. Even in these our earthly bodies we
may be actually in Northampton, while our
thoughts are in Australia. So we can believe
that with His spiritual body, which He now
has, Christ is limited neither in knowledge
nor in power.
In heaven now, He wears a glorious
spiritual body, such as ours will be copies of,
after His second coming. It may be that
He wore a spiritual body before He became
incarnate. But the difference between such
a body, or the one He now wears, and the
body He wore for thirty-three years in
Palestine, is very great. All human, earthly
limitations are removed. On earth He was
not omniscient. Now He is. The divine
attributes of His original glory are resumed.
It is not a body, but an earthly body, flesh,
that limits us, as it limited Christ on earth.

156 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
It is quite possible for Christ now to manifest
His presence only through His outward form
in heaven, and yet be spiritually omnipresent
and omniscient. Even in this life we are
sometimes unlinked, as it were, from the
fetters of the body. Witness the Apostle
Paul's being caught up into the third heaven.
Does it seem strange, incredible, that God
should become incarnate ? Why should it ?
Man is not so essentially different from God,
as to render a God-man impossible. It is
sin which separates mankind from God.
But sin is an accident, not an essential
characteristic, of humanity. God is not
totally separated from man by omniscience
and omnipotence. For man has knowledge
and power, only in an inferior degree. Man's
goodness, too, what little he has, is the same
in quality, though not in quantity, as God's
goodness. It is only sin, then, that makes
the enormousness of the gulf between
humanity and deity. But sin is no real part
of our nature. It is an accident, which by
Christ's grace will one day cease altogether.
Man is not so essentially different from God
as to render the Incarnation impossible.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 157

IV
THE HOLY SPIRIT SOMETHING MORE
THAN AN INFLUENCE.
We need not dwell very long upon this,
because we have already shown that the
Deity is not a cold, hard, mechanical unit, as
the God of Mahomet, or of a hard-and-fast
Unitarian. We have ,seen that the dis
tinctions of Father and Son in the Godhead
must be admitted. And to admit the third,
viz., the Holy Spirit, will not be difficult to
us, after what has been already observed;
and will be still easier, when we glance at
our fifth head in this discourse, viz., the
Trinity itself. While Christians admit that
sometimes the expression " Spirit of God " in
the Scriptures means little more than the
influence or energy of God, they contend
that there are many Biblical expressions
which prove incontestably that the Spirit, the
third distinction in the Trinity, is something

158 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
vastly more than a mere influence, is indeed
as much a distinction in the Godhead as the
Father or the Son.
For example, even in the Old Testament
we read (Gen. vi. 3), " Jehovah said, My
Spirit shall not for ever strive with man."
The Holy Spirit is the Convincer of sinful
men. He is ever pleading with man to
renounce his wickedness. 2 Sam. xxiii. 2,
" The Spirit of Jehovah speaketh by me ; "
Zech. vii. 1 2, " The words which the Lord
of hosts sent by His Spirit, through the
former prophets ; " Psalm li. 11, "Take not
Thy Holy Spirit from me ; " Ezek. iii. 24,
" The Spirit came upon me and made me
stand upon my feet," &c. &c. This Holy
Spirit has infinite intellect. "The Spirit
searcheth all things, even the deep things of
God," 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. Paul says (Rom.
xv. 30), " I beseech you, by our Lord Jesus
Christ, and by the love of the Spirit." In
the same chapter (Rom. xv. 13) he speaks
ofthe power ofthe Holy Spirit.
Further, note carefully the command given
to baptize into the one name of the Triune
God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 159
Spirit. This shows the equal dignity of the
Spirit with either of the other two in the
Trinity. Christ's words concerning the awful
sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
(Mat. xii. 31 and 32) show that the Spirit is
something more than an influence from God.
The Holy Spirit's special work is to convince
and convict of sin. He had to a certain
extent, in some of the Pharisees, convinced
them of the truth of Christ's claims. But
they wilfully resisted this conviction. Hence
the denunciation of their crime. When
Ananias tried to deceive the Apostle Peter,
he was met with the rebuke, "Why hath
Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy
Ghost ? " (Acts v. 3).
Again we read these expressions : " Grieve
not the Holy Spirit of God " (Ephes. iv. 30) ;
" The Holy Spirit said, separate unto me
Barnabas and Saul " (Acts xiii. 2) ; " The
Spirit said to Philip, go join thyself to that
chariot" (Acts viii. 29). Compare, also,
Luke ii. 26, 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2, Rev. ii.
29, &c. " They began to speak with
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance "
(Acts ii. 4). " Signs and wonders were

160 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit "
(Rom. xv. 19). "The Holy Spirit shall
teach you in that hour what ye should say "
(Luke xii. 12). Christ says " But when the
Comforter (or Advocate) is come, whom (not
what) I will send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of Truth, He (not it) shall
testify of me " (John xv. 26) ; " I will pray
the Father, and He shall give you another
Comforter. .... Even the Spirit of Truth,
whom the world cannot receive, because it
seeth Him not neither knoweth Him " (John
xiv. 16).
Again, the Comforter is spoken of as He not
it in John xiv. 26, and again in John xvi. 8,
" He will reprove the world of sin." Now,
the Greek word for Spirit is neuter. Yet in
the New Testament we find this Spirit spoken
of as He. Compare also Acts v. 32, Rom.
viii. 16, Heb. x. 15, Acts xx. 22 and 23,
Acts xiii. 2 and 4, 1 Cor. vi. 19, 2 Tim.
i. 14, 2 Cor. iii. 18, 1 Cor. ii. 11, Jude 20,
Rom. viii. 14. From these passages it will
be evident, that the Holy Spirit is not an
influence, but one of the three distinctions in
the Triune God.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 161

V

HOW WE MAY THROW LIGHT ON THE
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
We who hold firmly our belief in Christ
being the God-man, and in the nature of
Deity being Triune, are sometimes told it is
absurd to maintain that three are one and one
is three. Of course it is, and we do not think
that anything could prove that one is three.
We contend that Deity has three distinctions,
which we cannot thoroughly comprehend, but
can to some extent grasp, which are revealed
to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; and
that one of these distinctions, viz., the Son,
became man on earth, by taking a human
body and a human soul, Himself taking the
place of the human spirit. That this is
mysterious we admit ; that it is impossible we
deny. We may get some help in grasping
this profound truth by looking at man. Man's
mental and moral life consists of Feeling,

1 62 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Intellect, and Will. A man has a pain in his
leg, that is feeling ; or he works out a problem
in mathematics, or adds up his accounts, that
is intellect ; or he determines to go for a walk,
that is will.
Feeling and emotions, intellect or mind,
and volition or will, constitute man's three
fold mental and moral nature. These three
distinctions are very marked. Yet they are
all one, constituting the unity of our higher
living nature. Here is a thorough Trinity ;
Feeling, Intellect, and Will, three distinctions
but one man-head. Just as there are these
three distinctions in the man-head, so are
there three in the Godhead. The union of
Father, Son, and Spirit in one God corre
sponds to the union of will, intellect, and
feeling in one man. We may even follow
out the comparison and say : The Father
corresponds to the will, which is the centre of
personality, the self-determining ruling power.
The Son corresponds to the intellect or reason
(the Greek term for "word" means also
reason ; the Word of God is also, in Greek,
the Reason of God). The Spirit, uniting
Father and Son, corresponds to feeling.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 163
Now, the doctrine of the Incarnation con
tends that the second distinction in the God
head, viz., the Son, became incarnate. We
do not worship three Gods ; but one. We
are taught in the Scriptures to baptize into
the name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. There is one name for all these
three. Had the Scriptures taught "tritheism,"
or the worship of three Gods, there would
have been three names. The expression
" God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Holy Ghost," is not found in the Bible, and is
objectionable, as seeming to express tritheism.
But when we read of " The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father,
and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit," we
witness the three-fold nature of Deity, tri-
unity, but not tritheism.
The chief reason why people have such a
difficulty in comprehending the doctrine of the
Trinity, is just because they picture Deity as
a magnified man ; then being told that Deity
consists of Father, Son, and Spirit, they im
mediately picture three magnified men, and
fall into tritheism. Now, if we would but
think of Deity as we think of man's mind,

164 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
apart from his body, the difficulty in grasping
the sublime truth of the Trinity vanishes.
Think of the three distinctions in the God
head as you would of the three distinctions
in the manhead, viz., feeling, intellect, and
will. Then you will see that Trinity is not
tritheism, and that there is nothing absurd in
one of the distinctions of the Trinity becom
ing man, in the Son dwelling upon this
earth. It is occasionally objected that there is
something like the Trinity in the Hindoo
theology, and something like the Incarnation.
But to any one, who has studied the Hindoo
literature, it is clear that the parallel does not
hold. If it did, it would be no argument
against the Christian doctrine, but would
show that so important was the truth of the
Incarnation, that God had taught it to Hindoo
thinkers, not by way of open revelation, but
gradually to the minds of their great religious
thinkers. However, to show the difference be
tween the Hindoo doctrine of the Incarnation
and that of Christians, note the following: The
Incarnation of Christ is an event which takes
place only once. The Hindbo Chrishnavatar

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 165
was one of a similar series of events. When
Christ's work is completed, the redemption of
the world is secured. According to the Hin
doos, when Chrishna returned to heaven, evil
again resumed its sway.
Thus have we tried to grasp the adorable
mystery of God's nature. We must not be
vexed if we cannot altogether comprehend
the Almighty. What we know not now, we
shall know hereafter. If a worm were told
that there was such a thing as Babbage's cal
culating machine, it might say, " The thing is
impossible," because it could not understand
it. But the worm would thereby only adver
tise its folly. Equally foolish would be the
man who said, " I can't understand the Trinity,
therefore it's an impossible doctrine."
God's revelation of Himself and of our
selves has been gradual. In Old Testament
times He was known as the one Jehovah.
Had the Jews then been taught the truth of
the Trinity, they would have been in great
danger of running into tritheism, and wor
shipping three Gods ; for they were ever prone
to idol worship. When Christ stood on this
earth, His disciples learned about his Son-

1 66 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
ship, and the diversity of nature in the God
head, hinted at in the Old Testament, began
to grow more clear. Then after Jesus had
taught them of the Holy Spirit, and when
that Comforter had come, as He did on the
day of Pentecost, the apostles saw the glorious
truth of the triune nature of the Deity.
The world has been under three dispensa
tions. In olden days it was under the dispen
sation of the Father ; in Christ's days on the
earth it was under the dispensation of the
Son ; since then it has been under the dispen
sation ofthe Spirit. Thus the revelation of our
Scriptures has been progressive. By this they
are marked off from the sacred books of any
other religion. Take the Koran. There
Mahomet lays down certain precepts and sup
posed truths, which are stereotyped for all
ages. There is no flexibility, no life, no pro
gress in the Koran. All is fixed and final,
once and for ever. There is no growth in
the faith of Mahometans, nor any power to
adapt itself to the new ages. In progressive
Europe its old life is exhausted. " Mahomet
as he was rules Mahometans as they are. His
word was petrified in Mecca, and can assimilate

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 167
no new truth. It is a faith not only founded
on, but imprisoned in, a rock." Take again
the sacred books of the Hindoos. There you
may trace a progress of development from
the childhood of their religion to its manhood,
and after that a decline from its manhood to
its second childhood. Now, our Scriptures
contain a gradual growing light of revelation ;
and an advance to higher and higher con
ditions of instruction. Thus we have had
revealed to us far more than Abraham of old.
And God has yet more light to break forth
from His word, if only men will devoutly and
earnestly peruse its pages.
We have had revealed to us the mysterious
nature of the TriUne God. We have tried
in this discourse to make that theme more in
telligible, knowing that now we see through
a mirror darkly ; and also knowing that the
day will come, when God- will have so illu
mined the minds of Christians, that they will
understand the Trinity as thoroughly as we
understand the laws of gravitation, when we
shall know even as we are known.
In our first chapter (pp. 71-106) we have
shown, from the life of Jesus, that you cannot

1 68 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
classify Him with other men. The evidence of
the Old and New Testaments points to the
same conclusion. The men who knew Christ
best (e.g., John) are those who speak most ear
nestly and dogmatically of His being divine as
well as human. The fact ofthe Incarnation,
that Christ was " God manifest in the flesh,"
must be admitted, unless we set down Christ
and His apostles as knaves, or fools, or both;
If any man doubts the fact of the Incarna
tion, let us ask him this question : Which is
easier to believe, that for the wisest purposes,
to redeem mankind, Deity tabernacled in
human flesh, or that the one life which out
shines every other, the one pattern of our
race, in whom all virtues combine, yet as
sumed to himself an arrogance, a self-seek
ing, and an insincerity, which would degrade
him into being one of the worst of men ?
Jesus was what He claimed to be, what all
His followers declare He was, or else He
was one of the wickedest of men, or mad.
No one dares to call Him wicked. Will
any one dare to call Him mad ?
One thing at least is clear from our very
brief glance at the opinions of the apostles

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST i 169
about Jesus. It is certain that they (who
knew him best) believed Him to be Incarnate
Deity. The doctrine of the Incarnation is
no myth that grew up in after years, when
distance in time threw a " halo " round the
life of Christ. It was no love of followers,
who knew Him only by hearsay, that invented
the doctrine of the Incarnation. No. Those
who had touched the Word of Life Himself,
and knew Him most intimately, unanimously
testify that he was the Son of God, equal
with the Father. Of the fact of the In
carnation we have no doubt, after what we
have seen and heard of Christ. Are we told
that this doctrine involves an enormous
miracle ? We admit it. But we say, mys
terious as the Incarnation is, it is the only
hypothesis which explains Christ and Chris
tianity. It is less marvellous that Christ
should be Deity Incarnate, than it is that a
man who blasphemously asserted his equality
with the Almighty, and actually let men
worship him, should set before us the purest,
sublimest, noblest, and most virtuous character
the world has ever seen.
Will God indeed dwell on the earth ?

170 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
That is the cry of every earnest heart.
" Show us the Father " is the prayer of every
true and thoughtful man. Christ has satisfied
the longings of human breasts. In Him
God has dwelt on the earth and man has
been linked to Deity. He that hath seen
Christ hath seen the Father, as much as it is
possible for the eyes of earthly mortals to
gaze on God. Our intellects could not com
prehend the eternal Spirit, God ; so he
veiled Himself in human flesh. To look at
the sun, our feeble eyes require a piece of
darkened glass. The pure light of the sun
is too dazzling. So, too, we cannot look
upon pure deity. His eternal light is too
dazzling for us. But we can behold Him
obscured, to suit us, in the person of Jesus
of Nazareth. One great reason of the hold
that Christianity has on human hearts arises
from the Incarnation. All religious hearts
have longed for a close link between God
and man. And this Christianity gives.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 171

VI
THE OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT AGAINST CHRIST'S
EQUALITY WITH THE FATHER.
Some students of the Bible, when they
read the life of Christ, and see His humilia
tion, exclaim, " How could the Son of God
be equal with His Father ? " Now, all such
objections arise from losing sight of the fact
that Jesus on earth, previous to His resurrec
tion, was not so exalted a being as He was
before His birth of the Virgin, and after His
death. The divine Word, the Son, the
second distinction* in the Triune Deity,
humbled Himself, limited Himself, contracted
His glory, during the thirty-three years He
lived on earth.
* I use the term distinction in preference to the term
" person," because the latter always suggests a limited
being with human form, and the expression "three
persons in one God " suggests tritheism.

172 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
The Apostle Paul exactly describes what
took place in Philippians ii. 6, 8, where he
tells us that Jesus "subsisting in the form
of God deemed not His equality with God
a matter for grasping" (i.e., was not so
jealous of His Deity as to object to limit
it by becoming Incarnate, for the good of
man), "but emptied Himself" (i.e., dimi
nished His glory, limited His majesty) " by
taking the form of a servant, being made in
the likeness of men, and when He was in
human form, as a man, He humbled Himself,
becoming obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross." Christ, then, on this
earth, for thirty-three years, was in some
respects inferior to the Father ; not in holi
ness, but in some other points. But this
humiliation, this emptying Himself of His
glory, only lasted thirty-three years. Now,
in all respects, He is equal with the Father,
as He was before He came upon this earth.
Our Lord distinctly asserts His inferiority
to, and dependence on, the Father, during
His earthly mission. " My Father is greater
than I " (John xiv. 28), said Christ. And,
mark it well, this saying is related by the

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 173
evangelist John, who says the most of all of
them about Christ's deity. Again, Jesus,
speaking of the coming of the Son of man,
says (Mark xiii. 32), " But of that day and
hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father." Theologians have sometimes tried
to get over the supposed difficulty here, a
difficulty entirely of their own making, by
saying that Jesus as human was ignorant of
the day, but as divine was omniscient. But
this is absurd. Christ was not like the twin
ship Calais-Douvres, consisting of two dif
ferent halves bound together. When He said
He did not know a certain thing, He meant it.
He was limited in knowledge, on this earth.
On earth we observe of Jesus that : 1. He
underwent human development. Though He
was a Son, yei * He learned obedience by the
things which He suffered (Hebrews v. 8).
2. He was tempted like we are (Hebrews
iv. 15). 3. He was dependent on the Father
(John v. 30). 4. He was in ignorance of the
date of the Day of Judgment (Mark xiii. 32).
He prayed to His Father ; He underwent
struggles and conflicts of soul (Luke xxii. 42).

174 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Some of His temptations would have been no
temptations, if He had been omniscient.
Everywhere on earth, Jesus manifested a real,
conscious, yet voluntary, subjection to all
human conditions.
That Jesus temporarily limited His powers
in becoming man is certain, and what was to
be expected ? Nor is this so mysterious a
thing as is sometimes imagined. The phe
nomena of growth are not less wonderful
than those of limitation. Cases have been
known of men having lost their knowledge of
some language by illness ; they set to work to
begin again from the very elements, and after
having plodded on for a time, the whole of
their former knowledge comes back with a
rush. This temporary absence of knowledge
formerly possessed is exactly on a par with
Christ's temporary inferiority in knowledge
to the Father. Indeed, the more we study
man, the less mysterious do the doctrines of
the Incarnation and the Trinity become.
That Jesus temporarily limited His powers
is just what the Incarnation, properly under
stood, would lead us to expect. How can there
be any real incarnation of God, without a

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 175
humanisation of the divine, a limitation of
the infinite f Do not imagine that Christ's
essential divine nature was changed. The
king on his throne, and the same man in tem
porary voluntary exile for the good of his
people, are one and the same person, only
different in conditions. Christ before His
Incarnation differed from Christ during that
period, not in nature or essence, but in
form and condition. In Christ, Deity limited
its power and knowledge, but not its essential
nature, which is love. For Christ to have re
tained his full Deific consciousness, while
appearing as man, would have been not an
incarnation, but only a theophany. Christ
recognised that His Father was greater than
He, when on earth. It must have been so,
for Christ was then in His humiliated state.
Now He is exalted to His former glory, and
is in all respects equal with the Father.
To understand the doctrine of the Incarna
tion, we must admit all that is implied in the
(ksvoxtiq, or) emptying Christ of His pre
vious glory. Our Lord laid aside much of
His glory, in order to be in all things like
His brethren, sin only being excepted.

176 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Again, when Jesus saw the barren fig-tree
afar off He thought there was fruit, but there
was none (Mark xi. 13). Possibly want of
knowledge is displayed in the question ad
dressed to the mourners at the grave of
Lazarus, when our Lord asked, " Where have
ye laid him ? " (John xi. 34). Our Lord's
struggles and conflicts of soul, His yearning
for human sympathy in the time of trial,
His frequent prayers for deliverance, show
the inferiority of the Son on earth. All
His divine prerogatives are declared then to
be given Him from the Father. " For as
the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He
given to the Son to have life in Himself"
(John v. 26). " All power is given unto me
in heaven and upon the earth," said Jesus
after His resurrection (Matt, xxviii. 18).
Jesus laid aside His power, deposited it in
the hands of His Father, during His sojourn
upon this earth. After He had finished the
work, this power was restored to Him by the
Father. Our Lord's constant habit of prayer shows
His dependence on, and inferiority to, the
Father, while upon earth. It is idle and false

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 177
to say Christ's prayer was no real prayer, as
He was omnipotent and needed nothing. And
it is ridiculous to say that Christ's human soul
prayed, while His divine soul slumbered, or
stood aloof, unable or unwilling to grant that
support for which He supplicates the Father.
The fact of our Lord's praying to the Father,
and His spiritual dependence on the Father,
show that the view which regards Jesus as
God united to a man is utterly untenable.
But it is in perfect harmony with the truth of
Scripture, that the divine Word became flesh.
The divine Logos could not assume our
flesh on this earth, without undergoing for a
time limitations to His powers. When theo
logians tell us that as God Jesus did know the
hour of His second coming, but as man he
did not, they not only juggle with words, but
also destroy the unity of the God-man. No
where does the Bible represent Jesus as a dual
character, God united to a man, but God
become man, the Word made flesh. When
on earth, Christ's divine functions and honours
were largely handed over to the Father, and
again bestowed by the Father upon the Son
after His resurrection from the dead. The
M

178 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
divine work of the Logos, for example, in
sustaining the worlds, which the Father ac-.
complished through (Sm) Him, was probably
all transferred to the Father during the In
carnation. Jesus resumed all His powers
and functions, retook them from the hand of
the Father, after His glorification.
There can be no real incarnation of God
without a humanising of the divine. Our
Lord's avowed ignorance of certain things,
His constant dependence on the Father, and
all His life of humiliation, show a real and
conscious, though voluntary, subjection to all
human conditions. He could not have been made
in all things like unto His brethren (Heb. ii,
17), if he had still retained His divine pre
rogatives in addition to His human nature.
Again, our Lord's human development
would be only a pretence, were it not that He
really emptied himself of some of His diving
glory for a time. He was once a child, and
then a boy, before He became a man. No
human experience, save sin, was unknown to
Him. Sorrows were His daily companions.
Joys were His rare associates. He was in
weariness oft, in righteous wrath occasionally,

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 179
while love was always in His heart. He had
to learn common things, as we do, in the school
of Dame Experience, who so often raps our
knuckles for our ignorance and our follies. In
that school Jesus always knew His lesson.
Yet he had to learn it. He passed through the
stage of immaturity and imperfection when
His mind and character were being enlarged.
Immaturity was His at first ; fault or blame
never. He advanced in wisdom and stature
(age), and in favour with God and men (Luke
ii. 52). He went from strength to strength,
from one degree of wisdom to another. He
advanced in wisdom, though in His essential
being He was Himself the Wisdom of God,
who was with the Father when He laid the
foundations of the earth. In His sacred home
at Nazareth the child Jesus learned from the
Old Testament, the sacred Scriptures of His
nation, and from his own marvellous powers
of observation. In that calm retreat, whose
stillness was then, as now, broken by the
sound of the artisan's hammer and chisel, the
boy Jesus advanced in all that was good,
baffling all the power of the tempter, and
basking in the sunny smile of His Father, who

i8o WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
was proud to say of Him, " This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased." The dif
ference between his growth and education
and ours, lay not in His exemption from trial
and moral discipline, nor in an inability to do
wrong (He had none), but in His never
slipping into errors of judgment, and never
falling into sin. "The conflict in Him
was .to retain His integrity ; in others to
recover it."
We do not know when the consciousness
of His divine character and mission took
definite form in His mind. Probably it arose
gradually. The discovery of whence He
came, and what He was born to do, probably
dawned gradually upon Him. There were
doubtless periods, even in childhood's days,
when these questions filled his holy soul with
awe, and opened up the great depths of His
consciousness. Jesus was "very man." One
essential condition of a true humanity is a
real growth and development ; another is
moral freedom, involving the. power of sinning.
Such a development Jesus had. If, as some
magine, He had only gradually revealed to
others, in ever-increasing measure, the inner

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 181
treasures of His being, which remained in
themselves the same, then he would not have
passed through a truly human course of life,
and His childhood would have been only a
pretence. We must insist upon this emptying, if we will
understand the condescending love of the
Lord, and the real character of the Incarna
tion. Christ's own words when, addressing
His Father, He speaks of the glory He had,
imply a diminution of that glory when on
this earth. "His dependence on the Father,
maintained by prayer and faith, His ignor
ance (of some things), weakness, temptation,
and other human experiences, all indicate
not only a limitation of His deific attributes
and consciousness, but that the divine in
dwelling of the Father in the Son, which
previously was perfect and without limit, was
now bestowed in a human measure, or accord
ing to His human (humiliated) capacity to
receive it." Yet in all His laying aside
divine honours for a time, Jesus never gave
up His essential qualities. He handed into
His Father's possession some of His know
ledge and some of His power; for a time He

1 82 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
was not omniscient and not omnipotent. But
He never laid aside one iota of the dis
tinguishing attribute of God, viz., Love. The
brightness of His love and His holiness were
never dimmed by the Incarnation. We are
too prone to think that the essential nature
of Deity lies in those attributes which are
furthest from our comprehension, such as
omnipotence and omniscience. But, as a
matter of fact, they consist in those which
are nearest to us, in the moral and the
spiritual, viz., holiness and love. So much is
love the supreme attribute of God that while
the Scriptures say God possesses omnis
cience and omnipotence, God is clothed with
majesty, they say God is Love (not loving,
but Love). Thus His majesty may be laid
aside, and temporarily relinquished with
out any contradiction or detriment to His
deity. But God cannot renounce love without
ceasing to be God. Thus, "the essential
nature of Deity was unchanged by the Incar
nation. The real divinity of Christ, too, is
seen not in His miracles, considered as ex
hibitions of physical power, but in the trans
cendent and marvellous love, the infinite

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 183
compassion, the all-embracing sympathy that
streams from His spiritual nature, and which
no veil of flesh or human limitations could
conceal or dim." Yes, verily
" The Man of sorrows and the cross of Christ
Are more to us than all His miracles."
The Word became flesh. The Logos took
a human form and human nature. Man con
sists of body, soul faxri), and spirit (irvEVfia).
The divine Logos became the pneuma of
Jesus of Nazareth, and in so doing humbled
Himself, emptied Himself for a time of His
divine glories, so that He was in all things
like His brethren, save that He knew no
sin. After His glorification he retook, re
ceived from the Father's keeping, those
glories He had for a time laid by. He re
took His glory with, if possible, additional
honour, in consequence of His having re
deemed the world, in consequence of His
having become the life, by being the sacrifice,
of men. "When he had made purification
of sins He sat down on the right hand of
the majesty on high " (Heb. i. 3). This
verse shows Jesus resuming His equality

1 84 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
with the Father, and as therefore seated
on the same throne. So, too, in Heb. viii. i,
the superiority of Jesus to all other high
priests, and all ministering angels, is shown
by the exalted position He retook, after His
ascension into heaven. " We have such a
High Priest who sat down on the throne of
the majesty in the heavens." Again (Heb.
x. 12, 13), "But He, when He had offered
one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on
the right hand of God, from henceforth ex
pecting till His enemies be made the footstool
of His feet." In this exalted position Jesus
is not quiescent. From it He shed down
the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts ii. 33), He
makes intercession for us (Rom. viii. 34), and
He works harmoniously with the Father.
After the resurrection Jesus retook His
glory. There was perhaps more of awe and
reverence on the part of the apostles towards
Him, as they thought of His mysterious
being, but there was neither more nor less of
love either on their part or on His. The
Saviour is conscious of His regained glory.
He exclaims " All power is given unto me, in
heaven and in earth" (Mat. xxviii. 18). In

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 185
His previous, humiliated condition, He was
not omnipotent. Go ye therefore and make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them
into the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I command
you, and lo I am with you even unto the end
of the world." Possibly our Lord's resump
tion of power did not take place entirely till
after His ascension. The words in Acts i. 7
(" It is not for you to know the times and
seasons which the Father hath set within His
own authority ") may mean that even then, as
before His resurrection, Jesus did not know
when that great day would come.
Our Lord at His glorification removed all
those human limitations which were neces
sarily incident to the Incarnation, and re
sumed His deific attributes and original glory.
Also He took back to His fatherland,
called Heaven, whatever His human life and
experience may have added to His divine
consciousness, together with a human body,
now glorified and made immortal. Thus
His present state is not a mere resumption of
former glory. It has in it new elements or

1 86 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST !
increments of blessedness, resulting from His
incarnation. He has earned a reward for
all His voluntary humiliation and suffering.
For the joy that was set before Him (not the
mere recovery of a past joy, but also the
attainment of a newer and higher one) He
endured the cross, despising the shame, and
hath been set down at the right hand of the
throne of God" (Heb. xii. 2). "Wherefore
also God hath highly exalted Him, and given
Him a name, which is above every name" (Phil.
t ii. 9). This is something more than even
the name son (v16q). It is that, and Saviour,
aurrip, also. This is an acquired honour.
" To him that overcometh," says Jesus, "I will
give to sit down with me in my throne,
as I also overcame, and sat down with my
Father in His throne" (Rev. iii. 21). Jesus
renounced for a time His rightful inheritance
in glory, in order to increase the ancestral
patrimony, by entering the lists with men, by
struggling through temptation, suffering, and
a sinless obedience to the Father's will. God
has magnified His law; for God in Christ
has kept it.
All through His existence the personality

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 187
of Jesus has remained the same. It was the
same Person who was with the Father in
glory before the Incarnation, who became a
man by birth from the Virgin, and who finally
retook His divine honours, amplified and
increased. See the instructive words in
John xvii. 5, " And now, O Father, glorify
Thou me with Thyself, with the glory which
/had with Thee before the world was." It
is the same " ego " all through.
Jesus has resumed His eternal glory with
the highest honours. He is equal with the
Father in power, in purity, in wisdom, and in
love (the essence of God). In order, how
ever, to remove those difficulties in believing
this sublime truth which a careful study of
the Bible might suggest, let us remember
that Jesus was and is subordinate to the
Father in office, though equal in divinity.
Unless we admit this it seems impossible to
explain two mysterious texts of the Holy
Scriptures. The first is the 28th verse of the
1 5 th chapter of the first epistle to the Corin
thians, " And when all things have been
subjected unto Him, then shall also the Son
Himself be subjected to Him that did

1 88 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
subject all things unto Him, that God may
be all in all." The Son will finally be sub
ordinate to the Father in office and place, but
not in nature.
The other text is one whose difficulty does
not seem to occur to most readers of the
Bible, as they rarely notice it. In John xvii.
22 we read, "The glory which Thou gavest
me I have given to them." These words
might possibly be explained by saying that
they referred only to Christ's earthly life,
wherein His glory was certainly received
from the Father, with whom He was in con
stant communion. But they are usually taken
as referring to our Lord's glory before the
Incarnation. If so, then Christ's glory was
given to Him by the Father, and a subordina
tion in office must be admitted, a subordina
tion, however, which is no more than is
implied in the very terms Father and Son.
May we say that from eternity the Father
and the Son were equal in holiness and love,
then the Father bestowed upon the Son some
fresh glory, that of creation (for to the Son
this work was entrusted), and of giving spiritual
life ? From these two difficult texts, together

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 189
with John vi. 57 (I live by the Father*) it
seems that there is an official subordination
of the Son to the Father, which in no way
destroys their perfect equality in holiness, in
power, in knowledge, and in love.
* 8ii rrpi narepa. Sia expresses the efficient cause.
The Father then is the fountain of life. These words,
again, may only refer to Christ's condition on earth.

[90 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?

VII
SOME CONSEQUENCES OF THE DENIAL
OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY.
Channing said that it did not matter much
where you ranked Christ in the scale of
being ; that, for practical purposes, the
question as to His nature was not of very
great importance. This discourse will
examine this statement, and show that it
does make an enormous difference, whether
you regard Christ as only Man, or as some
thing more. While holding that it is vastly
better to be a devout and Christ-like Uni
tarian, than a thoughtless, worldly, selfish
believer in Christ's divinity ; while surely it
is better far to be an honest doubter, or even
unbeliever, than one who heedlessly gives
his intellectual assent to a Creed, while his
life is utterly uninfluenced by the sublime
truths of that Creed; we cannot fail to notice
that several very weighty and undesirable
consequences flow naturally from disbelief in
Christ's superhuman nature.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 191
A man may not be able to comprehend
this mystery, yet he may use the fact for his
spiritual good ; just as we may not be able to
comprehend magnetism, of which even Prof.
Tyndall had no satisfactory theory, yet we
can make a useful application of its facts.
So, if a man thinks he cannot understand the
Incarnation, he may yet make a practical
spiritual use of that wondrous and consoling
truth. The deeper our conviction of sin,
the more easily shall we believe the doctrine
of the Incarnation. For how otherwise, how
save by the appearance of Deity upon the
earth, could this plague of sin be stayed, and
human hearts be healed ?
We shall notice seven undesirable con
sequences which flow from the denial of
Christ's divinity :
I. It tends to destroy the fatherly charac
ter of God, and to lead men to Deism or
Pantheism. II. It lessens the perfection of God's
character. III. It robs us of the one infallible teacher
men possess.

192 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
IV. It robs us of the sublimest example of
condescension and self-sacrifice.
V. It robs humanity of the honour which
is put upon it by the Incarnation.
VI. It mutilates and spoils both Jewish
and Christian history.
VII. It takes away the life-blood from the
Christian faith.
I. Disbelief in Christ's divinity tends to
destroy the fatherly character of God, and to
lead men to Deism or Pantheism. Nothing
will satisfy the religious emotions of man save
a personal God. We cannot worship Force,
and we will not love Fate. Creative Power
is an object for admiration, but not for love ;
and our hearts must have affection for the
Deity, or they cannot worship Him. Now,
it is a very significant fact, that Unitarianism,
pure and simple, has led and is leading to
disbelief in God's personality. In the last
century, as more or less to-day, men said
that humanity would be brought nearer to
God, by throwing aside faith in the divinity
of Christ. But history contradicts this state
ment. Facts teach us that those who believe

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 193
Christ to be only a man, tend rapidly to
believe that God is only a Power, a Force,
or at best a Great Mind. Men who reject
Revelation, men who believe not in the
truths of Scripture as to the nature of God
and Christ, sunder the link that brings God
near to man, cut down the bridge between
the divine and the human. The consequence
is they get so awe-struck with the greatness
and power of Deity, that they soon lose sight
of His heart of love, and rapidly forget His
personality. We, who believe in Christ as the God-
man, can never lose faith in the personality
of God, because our faith tells us continually
that there is a Father in heaven, because
our faith reminds us so much more of God's
affections than of His power and might.
When men look around upon the world, and
the starry heavens, they become awed by the
majestic splendour and unlimited power of
God. If nature is all their revelation of the
Supreme Being, they are sure to lose sight
of God's love and fatherly character, and
think only of what is uppermost and most
apparent in nature, viz., God's power and
N

194 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?
wisdom. Thus they come to look on the
Almighty as Infinite Force or at best Infinite
Mind. They lose sight of what Christ is
ever revealing in Himself, viz., God's affec
tion, and they soon learn to deny the per
sonality of the Supreme Being.
On the other hand, faith in Christ as the
God-man keeps the Almighty near to us.
The Incarnation bridges over the abyss
between earth and heaven. It points to
Jesus as the Almighty restraining His powers,
as God brought nigh to us. Thus those who
have believed in Christ's divinity have always
held most tenaciously to the personality of
God ; while those who have denied it have
always tended to sink into Deism or Pan
theism. Here it is marvellously true that
"whosoever denieth the Son the same hath
not the Father."
Faith in Christ's divinity has also been the
best safeguard against Pantheism. The
Pantheist believes that God is everything.
Each dewdrop glittering in the sunshine,
each blade of grass that serves as food for
oxen, each man, with all his imperfections
and his sins, must be regarded as a part of

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 195
Deity by the Pantheist. Simple folks may
ask, " How can men ever believe so strange a
thing ? " The reason is not far to seek.
Man yearns for union with God. He wants
to feel the Eternal One close to himself. He
sees God's power very near to him, for he
sees it in everything around. Therefore, in
his longing to be near the Creator, he identi
fies that Creator with His works, which are
near to every man. It is the yearning of the
human heart for intercourse with God which
is at the bottom of the error of Pantheism.
Now this natural yearning is answered by
the Incarnation, so that there is no need of
Pantheism. Thus, to the believer in Christ's
divinity, God is not "the grand totality of
Being," nor is He "the Eternal not our
selves," nor is He "a stream of tendency."
He is a living, loving, personal Friend.
II. Disbelief in the Incarnation lessens the
perfection of God's character. — Unitarianism
makes Deity a cold unit, before the creation
of man or some intelligent being. Believers
in the Trinity recognise that Deity always
consisted of Father, Son, and Spirit. If we
deny this faith, then we must believe that at

196 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
first God stood in immense solitariness, in a
state of absolute quiescence, so that it must
have been an intense relief to Him, when the
first intelligent being was created. This
denial of an eternal plurality in the divine
essence, robs Deity of some perfection, viz.,
that perfection which existed in the family
and social emotions, in the reciprocity of in-
tellectual and moral enjoyment, which sprang
from the three-fold nature of Father, Son,
and Spirit.
Unitarianism leads logically to this con
clusion, that there was a time when God was
not a Father. If we are to believe that the
Father has always existed, we must believe
that He has existed as a Father. Disbelief
in Christ's eternal Sonship makes God's
power His first and chiefest attribute, instead
of His love ; it makes the throne of Heaven
in the beginning a lonely one, where a cold
Unit dwelt in the solitude of the eternities,
till it was a positive relief to It to create a
man or an angel. We believe, however, that
God did not, at one period of time, become a
Father; but that He was always a Father;
that before all worlds "He was essentially

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 197
the Father, essentially Love, essentially some
thing infinitely more than Knowledge or
Power, essentially communicating and receiv
ing a living affection, essentially all that the
heart can desire."
III. Disbelief in Christ's divinity robs us of
the one infallible teacher men possess. — Man
cannot rest satisfied without some creed.
He cannot bear to be out on the open sea of
opinion without compass or chart. The
thinking man yearns for a rock of certain
truth under his feet. What man who has
ever felt, even for a very brief while, the ice
of his faith cracking beneath him, has ever
forgotten his agony of mind and heart ? The
craving of the Papist for infallibility is a very
natural desire. His error consists in believing
that the Pope must be infallible. Now those
who have faith in Christ's divinity find in Jesus
Himself the infallible rock of truth. Here our
weary hearts rest with certainty. We may
admit that Christ was not omniscient on earth.
But that does not injure His infallibility.
There may have been certain things He did
not say, because He did not know them. But
what He did say, that is absolutely true.

198 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Christ is the one teacher, who never had to
withdraw one assertion, or to alter any state
ment that ever fell from His lips. But, of
course, this infallibility vanishes, if Christ is
a mere man. If Christ, who forgave sins,
who was worshipped, who was prayed to,
who claimed to be the divine eternal Son,
who had dwelled in the bosom of the Father
before the world was — if , this Christ is after
all only a man, who had no existence till
eighteen centuries ago, then instead of being
our infallible teacher, he is an arrogant, self-
conceited, erring man, who cannot be our
teacher, and the one to whom mankind has
ever looked up, as the purest, best, and
noblest teacher, must be set aside altogether.
It is just this which logically compels us to
believe Christ's deity, viz., that if His claim
to be divine had been a false one, it is utterly
impossible that He should have been so
marvellous and elevated a teacher. That a
man should usurp the prerogatives of God,
and yet continue to be the world's wisest,
holiest, humblest, yet best of teachers, is a
miracle against which one's understanding
revolts altogether.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 199
Deny His divinity, and you cut man off
from his moorings to the rock of infallible
Truth. Those who deny the Incarnation of
course believe that Christ was fallible, and
they, logically, attempt to improve upon His
teachings. Here, they say, he was too
ascetic ; there, too fanatical ; and so forth.
And where will this end? Every man will
set up a standard of his own ; and Heaven
help us then ! The last century has seen to
what depths of wickedness, under the guise
of morality, those men have been led who
try to improve on Christ's teachings. Com
munism of wives, suicide in time of trouble,
and the murder of incurables ; these are
specimens of human speculation, which tries
to improve on Christ. And this is the logical
issue of denying His divinity. Let men
once do that, and they say : — " Christ was a
fallible, misguided enthusiast, who imagined
himself more than man. There was some
thing good in His teaching ; but I can and
will improve on it." Such is the issue of
unbelief in Christ as the God-man. The
mere fact that the world has never yet,
during eighteen centuries, improved on

200 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Christ should teach men to see that He is
infallible. It is sometimes objected that if Christ is
the God-man He cannot be our example,
because we are only human. The answer
to this objection is very simple. First, as a
matter of fact, Christ has been most closely
imitated by those who sincerely believed in
His divinity. Secondly, the objection loses
sight of the truth, revealed in Scripture and
in the daily experience of Christians, that
we can do all things through Christ which
strengtheneth us ; whereas, if Christ were
not divine, He could not strengthen us.
Divine aid is given to all who ask for it, so
that they may copy Christ's perfect example.
A merely human example we might surpass.
The perfect example of Christ we can never
outstrip, but we may, we shall, at last per
fectly imitate it, when in heaven we arrive
"unto a perfect man, unto the measure of
the stature of the fulness of Christ."
IV. Disbelief in Christ's divinity robs us
of the sublimest example of condescension and
self-sacrifice. — Those who believe in Christ's
Incarnation have been intensely touched

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 201
with the condescending pity and the infinite
love of God. There was self-sacrifice in its
highest form. There was exhibited a hatred
of sin so intense, that no humiliation was
deemed too great, if thereby sin might be
destroyed. And this lesson of God's infinite
love, in the Word's becoming flesh, has been
the strongest motive to holiness man has
known for eighteen hundred years. It
would be a sad day for the world when this
faith died out. No man has ever yet found
a motive equal to it. But if we did not
believe in the Incarnation, all that ineffable
humility of Jesus is gone, and in the place
we have arrogance never equalled, pride
never matched in the history of the world.
We read, " He that loveth father or mother
more than me, is not worthy of me, and he
that loveth son or daughter more than Me,
is not worthy of me." What an assertion
for one to make, if that one is only a man !
It is an assertion only the more inconsistent
and incredible, the better the man really is.
Again, all down the ages broken hearts and
wearied spirits have soothed their aching
sorrows by resting on the bosom of that

202 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Infinite Love which once exclaimed, " Come
unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest. Take my
yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am
meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find
rest unto your souls : for my yoke is easy and
my burden is light." Millions have come to
Christ and found this rest, because they
believed His word, because they believed
Him to be divine. But if He were only a
fallible man after all, then these words on
which the noblest hearts during eighteen
weary centuries have rested with infinite
calm, are arrogant blasphemy, and betray
a pride and self-assertion never before
equalled, never since surpassed. The
humility of Christ, which has touched so
many hearts, vanishes, and gives place to
the proudest self-assertion, if Jesus was only
man. We believe in the Incarnation, there
fore to us these words of Paul come with
the intensest force, " For ye know the grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He
was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor,
that ye through His poverty might be rich."
The self-sacrifice of Jesus has ever been

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 203
men's greatest incentive to bearing one
another's burdens, and crushing their own
selfishness. Self-sacrifice has ever been the
essence of a virtuous life ; as Cicero said,
"Quod si curam fugimus virtus fugienda
est." Christ's humiliation is the greatest
sacrifice the world has ever known, if He is
divine. But if not, then in what does His
self-sacrificing character differ from that of
Socrates drinking the hemlock ?
V. Disbelief in the Incarnation robs
humanity of the honour put upon it by the
Word becoming flesh. — Those who believe
that Christ was Emmanuel, God manifest in
the flesh, are not likely to slight humanity,
or to have degrading views of mankind.
Hackel holds the most degrading views of
human beings, declaring that they are only
animals without the faintest hope of a future
life. He is even materialist enough to
declare that there is no essential difference
between an animal and a log of wood. You
may smile at this German dogmatist setting
himself up for a man of Science. But re
member there are many other materialists
besides Hackel, men who have the most

204 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
degrading views of human nature. Now,
from such miserable ideas, faith in the In
carnation frees us. Christ would never have
taken upon Himself a human body if it were
no better than that of a dog ; if a brick-bat
could for ever put an end to a man.
Men, who do not reflect upon the dignity
of man, are sometimes amazed' that God
should take such interest in us. But the
Incarnation shows that man has a dignity
which God clearly recognises. If man were
a mere animal, born of the dust, like the
lower creatures, and sharing their destiny,
then one would be astonished that God
should care so much for us. But as man is
endowed with divine powers for a divine
destination, then to recover such a being
from ruin and raise him to bliss, is an end
worthy of God's condescension, worthy of
the Incarnation.
Our faith in Christ's divinity sets a high
value on human nature, a value very neces
sary in these days when some men preach
the most degrading views of man's character
and destiny.
VI. Disbelief in the divinity of Christ

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? 205
mutilates and spoils both Jewish and Chris
tian history. — If Christ be not the divine
Messiah, then the history of the Jews, as
contained in the Old Testament scriptures,
is "a gradual ascent without a summit, a
chain of purposes without a consummation."
As the world went on, the Jewish prophets
felt more and more the need of a King whose
kingliness consisted in a righteous humility ;
and the hearts of the Israelites began to
crave for a Messiah to fill up the chasm
between humanity and pure deity. Besides
the Father, they sought for one who should
be as "a shadow of a great rock in a weary
land," and who should be something more
than man.
In our second discourse we saw that the
Messianic prophecies pointed in this direc
tion. If, then, Jesus was only a man, the
Jewish scriptures remain truncated, like a
story never finished; and all those glorious
prophecies were but the dreams of fanatical
minds. Again, if Christ be not the divine
Messiah, the history of Christianity is a
" permanent stream with a shallow and tem
porary source, a new life for man, without a

206 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
new inspiration." Whence has come the
zeal of the Christian Church ? What has
ever been its vital force? Faith in the In
carnation. If that faith is a false one, if the
Incarnation is not true, then it follows that a
profound illusion, the wildest dream, has for
centuries exercised more power for good than
the truth.
Look at the sort of men that Christianity
has produced. Look at its best specimens,
those that approach nearest its ideal. These
are vastly superior to the noblest men of any
other faith. And nearly all these believed
in Christ's divinity. Neither Buddhism nor
Mahommedanism can give us a saint equal
to Paul, whose untiring energy, manly firm
ness, deep humility, and woman-like purity,
are inexplicable to those who deny the
Christian faith. Has Positivism a John
Howard, the philanthropist, a Wilberforce,
the liberator of the slaves, or a man who will
sacrifice all that is dear for his fellow-
creatures, like such missionaries as Knibb
and J. Williams ? Can any other religion
produce a king with one-tenth the virtue,
earnestness, and holy influence of Alfred the

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 207
Great ? These all died in faith, and lived in
faith, believing Christ's Incarnation. Will
unbelievers show us a reformer as bold, as un
selfish, and as noble as Martin Luther?
None of these men would have been what
they were, had they believed Christ to be
only a man.
We must admit that the doctrine of the
Incarnation has been the source of life and
energy in the Church of Christ for eighteen
hundred years. Now if this doctrine is false
it is awfully false ; and would a good God of
Providence have allowed an enormous illu
sion, a most consummate error to have worked
more good than the real truth ?
VII. Disbelief in Christ's divinity takes
away the life blood of the Christian Faith. —
What was it made the early Christians pure,
humble, and forgiving in the midst of an age
that ignored purity, despised humility, and
never dreamed of forgiving a foe ? It was
not the example merely of Jesus Christ. It
was the strength which came from Him who
is the God-man, and whose divine energy
flows into every believer who trusts in Him.
We have already noticed how faith in the

208 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
Incarnation gives us the sublimest example
of self-sacrifice and humility that the world
has ever seen. But take away this faith in
Christ's divinity, and His humility becomes
pride, the glory of His self-sacrifice is gone,
and His strength to help men vanishes
away. A merely human Jesus cannot help us by
His instruction, because such a one is only a
fallible teacher after all, one so fallible as to
imagine himself divine! A merely human
Jesus cannot atone for sins. Any atonement
necessitates the keeping God's laws without
one breach. But if Jesus were not divine,
He was a long way from keeping the law, a
long way from being spotless, for in such a
case He would not be a truthful man. Take
away, then, faith in the Incarnation, and you
take away the very life-blood of the Christian
Church. A little movement might be visible
for a while after this faith was gone, owing
to its previous impetus, just as an animal's
heart goes on beating for a little while after
death, but 'tis only for a little while. Every
Christian has been pained at the coldness,
betokening coming death, which settles upon

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ? 209
Churches that regard Christ as nothing buf a
man. Unitarian ministers have lamented to
me that their congregations are small and
not warm-hearted, and that it is difficult to
get them to attend twice on a Sunday. This
is not surprising. While numbers are by no
means a sure test of real success, yet does
not the fact deplored by Unitarian preachers
indicate some serious want in their faith ?
Yes, Christianity without a divine Christ is a
body without a soul.
We have but briefly looked at some of the
more prominent consequences of Unitarian
faith. They are a very solemn warning.
When we think of them, when we think of
the evidence of Jewish and Christian scrip
tures to Jesus, and when we think of the
words and deeds of the Saviour, we are
compelled to answer the question, "Who
say ye that I, the Son of Man, am ? " as
Peter did, and say, " Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God." We feel that
no mere man could have so influenced the
world as He has done, starting with every
disadvantage (if he were only man), yet
reigning supreme as teacher, philanthropist,

210 WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST ?
and saint. We gaze upon the face of the
sinless Jesus, and we believe His words,
when He assures us that He lived with the
Eternal Father before He came upon this
earth; we believe that He was, and is, and
ever will be the Eternal Son of God.

"IF A MAN DIE, SHALL
HE LIVE AGAIN?"
Job xiv. 14.
The Book of Job is the oldest and the
grandest drama in the world. And this
question is one of the oldest that the lips of
man have framed. When Job uttered it he
was groping after a faith in a future world.
That faith came at last, and he knew that
" though worms destroy this body, yet, freed
from my flesh, shall I see God " (xix. 26).
Death to the lower animals is a trifle : to
man it is an awful thing. Some people fool
ishly cry out against the lower animals devour
ing each other. But that is a better method
of death than slowly wasting by old age.
And death is a necessity to the beasts that
perish, unless God had created animals that
are to live for ever on this earth. There is
only food enough for a certain number of

212 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ?
beasts ; and far more happiness comes to the
lower creatures by replacing one generation
by another, than by letting the same ones live
on for thousands of years.
But death to reasoning, loving man is a very
different thing. It has been a gain to the
inferior creatures. By death weaker species
and lower types have given place to stronger
and higher ones. But when death broke
man's fair companionship,
" And spread her mantle dark and cold,
And dulled the murmur on the lip,
And bore him where we could not see,"
the bitter cry escaped our lips : " If a man die,
shall he live again ? "
From the physical point of view there is
not much to encourage the hope of another
world for man. The dead body of our friend
has no word for us ; no light flashes from his
eye to greet our gaze. And the materialist
says, " All is ended ; there is no hope of seeing
your friend alive again." Yet, somehow, the
heart and conscience of mankind have always
revolted against this idea. " We feel we do
not live like dogs ; and we fancy we are not

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ? 213
going to die like dogs." We cry to the
Creator, " Thou madest man ; he knows not why.
He thinks he was not made to die ;
And Thou hast made him : Thou art just."
If we closely consider death from the mere
physical point of view, while we shall not find
our hope of a future world very strongly sup
ported, we shall not find it very strongly
negatived. Even from the physical point of
view, there is a good deal to point to a here
after. A sound philosophy reveals that there
is something more in us than mere functions
of nerves and brain-tissue; something in us
over and above what is merely material or
merely organic. Close inspection of man's
intellectual and moral nature points to some
thing immaterial, which shall " outlast the war
of elements, the wreck of matter, and the crash
of worlds."
Look at man's wondrous power of recol
lection, of comparison, of drawing inference,
above all, his marvellous power of will. You
can scarcely account for these by the known
laws of nervous energy. Even in the thoughts

214 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ?
and reasonings of a child, there is something
far above mere currents or vibrations of the
brain, however much these may accompany
each thought or wish. For several years now
the philosophers have preached about " atten
tion." They have happily swung away from
the dismal sensational philosophy of Bain and
Hume. They are beginning to realise that
man is not a mere machine. He is not a mere
"penny in the slot automaton sweet deliverer,"
the strongest motive always setting the
machine going ; a being gifted with the
power of attention is not a mere machine or
animal, but a person, an "ego," a soul,
something more than the mere carcase he now
inhabits. Hume used to talk of man being only a
bundle of sensations. It never occurred to
him, or his blind devotees, that forty loose
sticks do not make a bundle, till some one ties
them up ; and all the sensations I may have
would never form a bundle till myself, my
ego, my personality strings them together.
The very word bundle shows that man is
much more than merely a lot of passing sen
sations or thoughts. Vibrations passing up

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN? 215
and down nerves are one thing; thought,
emotion, will, love are totally different things.
And no one has yet bridged over the chasm
between mind and matter, between physical
processes and consciousness; the gulf between
vibrations of nervous matter and the thoughts,
feelings, and will connected therewith. The
union of mind and matter is so profound a
mystery, that their separation can hardly be
deemed impossible.
When a child is conceived and born into
the world, God puts into what had been dead
matter that marvellous thing called life. At
death the dead matter is left to decay. What
has become of the life ? Where has it gone ?
God who puts it into the dead matter has
taken it away again. Materialists would have
it that He has destroyed it. But, by the very
law of conservation of energy, one would
believe that it was only removed elsewhere.
Our souls are no more made by our bodies,
than electricity is made by the conductors
through which it flows. "At our birth we
emerged from the infinite, from non-existence.
In comparison with that it is a small matter
to emerge at death into some other realm.

216 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ?
There is now at all events the ready-made
self" (Martineau).
And when we look at the higher faculties
of man, still less can we believe that these
are only functions of nerve and brain. The
creations of a Shakespeare, a Handel, a
Wagner, are something more than the result
of molecular discharges along nerve tissue.
The heroism of the martyrs ; the daily struggle
of every Christian against sin; the self-sacrifice,
which is the noblest thing on God's earth —
nobler than the greatest creation of art or
the greatest discoveries of science ; the rever
ence for what is noble, and the yearning desire
to see God ; these are something infinitely
more than mere vibrations of the tissue of
our nerves and brain.
But, the materialist tells us, we only know
of thought, love, will, and all man's higher
life in connection with a body. We have
never seen a spirit, a soul apart from body.
That may be true : and yet here is a fact
which speaks volumes : — We are the same
persons we were six years ago. We remem
ber what we did twenty or thirty years ago.
Yet not one single particle of matter which

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ? 217
was in our body six years ago is in our body
to-day. The material of our body has been
entirely changed. We, however, are the
same persons. " Yes," replies the materialist,
" the matter of our body alters daily, but the
properties of my brain of six years ago have
been handed on to the fresh matter of which
my brain to-day consists." If that be so,
I reply, then at death why should not the
properties of our brain be handed on to some
other matter in God's keeping ? The fact
that we are the same, with the same loves
and sorrows, the same hopes and fears, as
we were in 1886, while not a particle of
the matter in our brains and bodies is the
same, shows that the soul is not such a
prisoner of the body as infidelity assumes ;
the old body and brain have gone completely
and given place to another. But our self,
our soul, our will, remain the same.
Think of the enormous mass of informa
tion, the enormous stores of experience, in
the person of some great and learned man,
ay, in the person of the humblest of us. Is
that going to be snuffed out, annihilated, at
death. The law of conservation of energy

2i 8 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN?
says no physical force is ever lost, but
only transformed or transferred. So, too,
I believe that no moral or spiritual force
is ever lost, not even at death, but only
transferred. Some who have lost faith in personal im
mortality, who do not believe that they will
live as individuals after death, take refuge in
what they call "the immortality of the race."
They say we shall die, but the race will live
on, and all we can do to improve it, will make
a happier lot for those who come after us.
These are noble sentiments. But the immor
tality of the race is " cold comfort." For the
end of this universe is doomed. The ele
ments shall melt with fervent heat, when
our world smashes into the sun ; and where
will the earthly immortality of the race be
then? Others, who do not believe in personal
immortality, and who yet cannot believe that
all this wondrous life of man will cease en
tirely, tell us that we shall be swallowed up
in God. Now, to be absorbed in God, to
lose our personality, is not progress, but re
gress, very bad regress. It is a step up from

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ? 219
dead matter to living vegetable matter;
another step up from the vegetable to the
animal world ; another from the animal to
intellectual and moral being ; a step up from
the low savage to the saintly hero. And in
these steps up, as Miss Cobbe shows, the
crowning point is more and more personality.
To lose this personality is to lapse back into
nothingness. " Personality is not the largest,
but it is the highest, fact in the known
cosmos." After all, however, our faith in the future
life would be only a faint hope, if we had
nothing but physical facts on which to base
it. We must turn to the intellectual and
moral life of man. All who believe in a
loving and good God cannot disbelieve in a
future world. If a man reflects on our lot
on earth, and believes in a good God, he will
believe in a hereafter. Three considerations
show this. It seems to me that —
(1) Without a hereafter, man would be
largely a failure, and God would have made
a profound mistake.
(2) Without a hereafter, justice would

220 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ?
be dethroned, and God would not be
righteous. (3) Without a hereafter, human love would
be pitiful folly, and God would be cruel.
(1) Is any man's life here complete and
satisfactory? For the great majority of us,
life here is one round of toil, of disappoint
ment, of struggle. And even if better laws,
better government, and better morals made
the average human life vastly happier than
it is to-day, that life would still fall very short
of the ideal of human existence. Everything
else save man has a certain completeness and
perfection in itself. Every star, every plant,
every animal, has a completeness in itself
which no human being has. It discharges
the duties for which it was created. But not
so man. " Every lion," says Theo. Parker,
"is a type of all lionhood; but there is no man
who is the type of all manhood, save Christ."
" The best and the greatest of men have only
been imperfect types .... never the full
orbed man." And if we are doomed at death
to " vanish like a streak of morning cloud
into the infinite azure of the past," man is an

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ? 221
awful mistake. The present life is quite
unable to satisfy our truest, highest, holiest,
noblest desires.
Our life is a continued preparation for
something else. The first half is spent in
gaining knowledge and experience to get us
to live ; " and we have scarcely qualified our
selves to become good citizens, and to dis
charge the duties of life, when the summons
is issued to us to prepare for death." No
man is, or can be, completely developed in
this life. How little the most learned man
knows of the great secrets of nature which
God is ever unrolling to our men of science.
How little even Faraday knew when on
earth. But he is continuing his education in
another sphere. It would be tantalising to
see the vistas of knowledge open to us as
they do, if we could never walk down them
after three score years and ten. No man is,
or can be, completely developed in this life.
Our children cannot begin where we leave
off. They must buy their knowledge in the
same hard market, where we bought ours.
They too must drop their tears over the
same dog's-eared lesson books, as they learn

222 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ?
in the school of life "to do, to be, and to
suffer." Without a hereafter man would be largely
a failure. We hold communion with an
author, like the immortal Plato, who passed
away two thousand years ago. Why ?
Because we instinctively feel that he is not
annihilated. Shakespeare would not speak
to us as forcibly as he does speak, if -we
thought that there was no Shakespeare now.
Again, a genius or a great reformer may be
lonely and neglected in his day ; " and
only when the reflection which he leaves of
himself travels down the ages, does he select
and gather together his natural associates
and lovers : and shall he never hear the
chorus of that great company ? " Shall
Wickliff never know the multitude that
reveres his name ?
Even the most talented and learned are
not complete upon this earth. If men are
not to climb to vastly higher planes of know
ledge in the grand hereafter, then " the most
brilliant genius bursts and vanishes as a fire
work in the night." If there is no hereafter,
wherein our lives continue to be developed,

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN? 223
man is a failure, and all the prayers, the
tears, the sufferings, the sacrifices of humanity
" are such stuff as dreams are made of, and
our little life is rounded with a sleep."
Browning was not a bit too severe, when he
wrote " Truly there needs another life to come.
If this be all,
And other life awaits us not, — for one
I say 'tis a poor cheat, a stupid bungle,
A wretched failure. I for one protest
Against it, and I hurl it back with scorn."
(2) Without a hereafter, justice would be
dethroned, and God would not be righteous.
History is painful reading. Tyranny,
injustice, oppression, have had a big innings,
and in many places are at the wickets stilL
To-day we hear the cry of the poor
Armenians, slowly done to death by the
blood-stained assassin of Constantinople,
while Christian (?) nations on the Continent
look on, vultures ready to pounce on the
carcase and grab all they can. And, think
you, God is deaf ? Ah, no. It is only our
belief in the ultimate triumph of right over
wrong, the ultimate establishment of justice,

224 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ?
that prevents us from despair. A hundred
thousand of those poor creatures have been
done to death recently, with every species of
brutality ; the men massacred, the women
worse than massacred and then destroyed.
Without faith in another world, where
righteousness will flourish, where perfect
justice will reign, where that murderer will
be tried, one would despair. This is no
feeling of revenge, only a cry for justice.
No courage could make us endure the
thought that wrong would be finally trium
phant. But if this world is all, wrong is
often finally triumphant. We must have
another world to remedy the injustices in
this one. Men may be callous to the wrongs
of the Armenians, which are largely due to
England's policy in the past. And one of
our politicians, holding official position, may
declare that England has greater interests in
Turkey than the Armenians, our interests
being £ s. d., theirs being the lives and
liberty of men, the lives and honour of
women ! But the reckoning will come in
another world, " behind the veil, behind the
veil." We do not crave another world, that

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ? 225
the poor here may be wealthy there, or that
the rich here who have been wicked may
have a bad time of it there. No. No. It
is justice we want. The heroes of old did
not die at the stake to get it all made up to
them in heaven, but they did believe that ,
they would meet hereafter with the heroes
who had gone before, and that they would
share in eternal communion with God.
A sensitive reader of history would go
mad, if he did not believe in a hereafter,
where justice will prevail and the wrongs of
the world be all set right. Read the history
of the third Punic War. It makes us blush
for humanity. I know it was better for the
world that Rome should destroy Carthage
rather than Carthage destroy Rome. But
why should either destroy the other ? How
much better to have lived together and
traded with each other ! And nothing can
excuse the fiendish cruelties and the treacher
ous lies of Rome.
Again, how many noble heroes in France
rotted their lives out in the Bastille ! How
many martyrs were tortured by the Holy (?)
Inquisition, that instrument devised by

226 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN?
Satan ! Shall these hot be righted before
the universe by God Himself in the grand
future world ? Unhappily, Rome still claims
the heathenish right to punish by the sword
those who reject her creed. Until another
Pope, more infallible than his predecessors,
reverse that unchristian claim, Rome must
expect people who believe in what Christ
says, rather than what the Pope says, to be
suspicious of her power. History is painful
reading; and the pity of it is that these
persecutions of the past, ay, and the per
secutions of to-day, are not the work of the
lowest classes and the ignorant, but of the
rulers of the earth. Instinctively we cry for
justice, for another world to right the wrongs
of this. " And the cry and the prayer of the
conscience, for this is the more emphatic,
because in almost every age which has stoned
its prophets and loaded its philosophers with
chains, the ringleaders of the anarchy have
been, not the lawless and infamous of their
day, but the archons and chief priests and
decorous men of God, who could protect
their false idols with a grand and stately air,
and do their wrongs in the halls of justice,

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ? 227
and commit murders as a savoury sacrifice ;
so that it is by no rude violence, but by clean
and holy hands, that the guides, the saints,
the redeemers of men have been poisoned in
Athens, tortured in Rome, burned in Smith-
field, crucified in Jerusalem " (Martineau).
And none the less do we cry for another
world, when we desire that justice may be
done for the social wrongs so cruelly inflicted
in this world. I will only touch on one of
them, and, not daring to trust myself to speak
the burning thoughts within me, I will quote
Miss Cobbe's noble words : " I do not hesi
tate to say that the intolerable cruelty with
which sins of unchastity in women are visited,
in comparison with the immunity from disgrace
enjoyed by profligate men, decides for me the
question (of another world). Could we realise
the reflections of many a poor wretch banished
from her home for her first transgression, and
driven on helplessly, scourged by hunger and
infamy, deeper and deeper into ruin, till she
lies wrecked in body and soul ; could we under
stand her feelings as she compares her lot
with that of the man who first tempted her
to sin, and whose fault has never stood in the

228 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ?
way of his prosperity or reputation, we
should then learn somewhat of how the
supposed justice of the world appears from
the other side of that on which the happy
world beholds it." Yes, there must be a
hereafter, and an awful doom for men who
ruin women.
When the sentiment of justice burns within
us, we feel that either man is immortal, or
God is not just.
(3) Without a hereafter, human love would
be pitiful folly, and God would be cruel.
Those who have bent over the dead body of
a friend, or of a child they loved, will re-echo
with intense feeling the sentiment just ex
pressed. We feel that, if death were the end of
all, we would never love again ; we would steel
our hearts against affection, and so remove the
noblest part of our nature. And God would
indeed be cruel, if He put into our hearts the
flames of passionate, undying love, and then
let death play havoc amongst us. The yearn
ing for reunion with our friends after death is
an instinct God has put into our breasts, and
we may be sure He has not put it there to
mock us.

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ? 229
" One writes that other friends remain,
That loss is common to the race ;
And common is the commonplace,
And vacant chaff well meant for grain.
That loss is common would not make
My own less bitter, rather more ;
Too common ; never morning wore
To evening, but some heart did break."
God gave this instinct of longing for reunion
with the departed. " We cannot consent to
treat the supreme aspirations of our nature
as a delirious disease." " How can it be,"
Jean Paul asked, " that our breast is parched
and fretted, and at last crushed, by the slow
fever fire of an eternal love for an infinite
object, and must be assuaged by nothing
better than the hope that this heart-sickness
will sometime be removed by laying on it the
ice-slab of death ? "
Not only would our love for one another
be a profound folly if death ended all, but our
love to God would certainly be ruined, if we
thought we should never see Him as He is.
In all ages the noblest souls have cried for a
vision of God. Job felt that. Job could not
believe that he could love his Maker more
than his Maker loved him. Man wants to go

230 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ?
home to his Father in heaven. And the
Father in heaven wants to welcome home His
child. But, once believe that death is the end
of us, and a canker worm is put into the plant
of our love for God, and that plant must die.
The facts of human life are the same, what
ever be our creed. Only a belief in God and
in a future state can throw any rays of light
over the dark sea on which we are all sailing.
Without this faith men must tend to become
carnal, caring only for this world ; and our
highest aspirations would be nipped in the
bud. All that lifts man above the animal,
and gives to love and duty a halo of glory,
would gradually perish in a nation of infidels.
Desolation would settle like a pall on every
heart that had seen a dear friend go down to
the river of death. That lovers, separated in
this life, should be separated eternally would
be the death of love. That those who battle
for truth and justice, and meet the martyr's
death, should become extinct ; that our chil
dren, who, we believe, fled in early life to
heaven, are no more in existence — such a
creed would crush the strongest heart and sour
the sweetest nature. Mankind would become

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN ? 231
more and more carnal under such a creed.
Food and clothing, houses and dividends,
motor cars and money would be the gods of
such a nation ; and self-sacrificing love or
justice would be scorned and derided as folly
and quixotic madness. The educated Romans
lost faith in a hereafter, and the best of them
sought by suicide an exit into the everlasting
night. Pliny wrote (as well he might with
such a creed) : " Man is full of desires and
wants that reach to infinity, and can never
be satisfied. His nature is a lie, uniting the
greatest poverty with the greatest pride.
Among such terrible evils the greatest good
God has bestowed upon him is the power of
taking away his own life." Contrast that
dismal wail of the well-to-do Pliny with the
words of the apostle Paul, persecuted, im
prisoned, beaten with rods, as he was : " We
are troubled on every side, yet not distressed,
we are perplexed, but not in despair ....
for .... we look not at the things which are
seen, but at the things which are not seen ;
for the things which are seen are temporal,
but the things which are not seen are eternal."
Paul did not, like J. S. Mill, consider human

232 SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN?
life a poor thing, after the age of youth had
passed by. Paul knew it was but the prelude
to another and a better world.
This faith in a hereafter, the common heri
tage of all religions that give brightness to
human life, we feel assured to us by the
righteousness and the love of God our Father
in heaven. But, better still, Christ has made
it our sure and certain hope by His resurrec
tion from the dead. To the thinkers of old,
straining their eyes that they might catch
some glimpses from beyond the river of death,
came the risen Christ, bringing life and im
mortality to life, bidding them wait patiently
till the day should dawn, and the shadows flee
away. If we are asked why we believe in such a
stupendous miracle as that of a risen Christ,
we reply, because hard-headed, sensible men,
who had not expected the resurrection, were
so convinced of its truth that they laid down
their lives in testimony to the fact. Mark
you, they did not die in testimony to a creed;
that would only have proved that they
believed the creed, not that the creed was
true. Many Mahometans would die for their

SHALL WE LIVE AGAIN? 233
creed. The apostles died in testimony to
facts. They swore they had seen a risen
Jesus, and they sealed their testimony with
their blood. Stronger evidence than that
man cannot have. Indeed, nothing but the
fact of the resurrection of Christ can account
for the change in the apostles' views and cha
racter, and the rapid spread of the Christian
faith, in the teeth of all the world. One
question alone settles the matter with many
of us. What became of Christ's body if he
rose not from the grave ? Had He not risen,
Christianity would have perished in the tomb
of its founder.
" If a man die, shall he live again ? "
" Yes " is the answer of our minds and
hearts; if we believe in a righteous and loving
God. " Yes " is the reply of the empty grave
where Jesus was.

Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson &° Co.
London and Edinburgh

Works by F. W. Aveling, M.A. B.Sc.

1 is published by Messrs. KEGAN PA UL <£r= Co.
i. THE CLASSIC BIRTHDAY BOOK.
Containing the Birthdays of Celebrities, Ancient and Modern, with
1464 appropriate quotations in Latin, French, Greek, and German,
with an English Translation of the same.
Specially suited for School Prizes, Birthday Gifts, and Wedding
Presents. Full of suggestive thoughts for Ministers of Religion.
Cloth, 8s. 6d. ; Leather, 15s. Edition de Luxe, tree-calf or watered
silk. One Guinea.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS AND LETTERS.
From the Times. — "The collection of so many estimable apothegms from
French, German, Latin, and Greek authors argues remarkable industry.
Mr. Aveling's taste for heroes is as miscellaneous as the fruit of his pen.
That a taste for Birthday Books may co-exist with a wide range of talent
seems to be shown by the Classic Birthday Book."
From the Saturday Review. — "Choice and luxuriant quotation is the
mark ofthe Classic Birthday Book."
From H.R.H. thePrincess of Wales. — " Miss Knollys presents her com
pliments to Mr. Aveling, and is desired to express the Princess of Wales'
best thanks for the beautiful book he has sent her." — Mar Lodge, Braemar,
September 6, 1892.
From Lady Aberdeen. — ". . . . Your beautiful book  "
From Truth.— " One. of the best Birthday Books I have seen has just
been brought out by Dr. Aveling. There are quotations for each day in
Latin, Greek, French and German, all exceedingly well chosen ; and, for
the benefit of the moneyed classes, they are all translated."
From Miss Mary Anderson. — ". . . . your delightful present. ... I
fully appreciate your charming book, and the compliment you have paid
me in putting me in the midst of such a distinguished company surrounded
by great thoughts, so greatly expressed .... with sincere admiration for
your valuable work." Yours very truly, Mary Anderson de Navarro.
From The Star. — " An up to date Birthday Book, which even the severest
classical scholar could study with interest."
From The Manchester Examiner and Times. — " The volume, so far as
we are aware, is absolutely unique among birthday books. Admirably as
it will answer the purpose of a birthday book, it is of greater importance
because of its educational value, and we hope that the great labour which
its compilation must necessarily have involved will be duly appreciated by
those who will be its fortunate possessors. The paper and printing leave
nothmg to be desired."
From the Printing World. — " The palm for birthday books must be
given to the one published by Kegan Paul & Co., and the clever author of
it Mr. F. W. Aveling, M.A., B.Sc.

From the Literary World. — "The most sumptuous Birthday Book we
remember to have seen. It is also one of the best. The whole get up is
beyond reproach."
From the Bridghouse Gazette. — " It could not be more attractive in appear
ance, it could not contain wiser utterances, it could not be more suitable
for the purpose, and it could not be offered at a lower price. In a double
sense this gorgeously got up volume is the Classic Birthday Book. It is the
best of our Birthday Books.
2 to 6 are published by Messrs. RELFE BROTHERS.
2. LIGHT AND HEAT. Second Edition. 2s. 6d.
For the London Matriculation, n8 Diagrams, 200 Problems; the
hardest Matriculation Problems fully worked out. Second Edition,
enlarged, revised, improved, with 4 coloured spectra.
" It will be of considerable service for examination purposes." — Nature.
"Really too good for merely cramming purposes." — Knowledge.
' ' For its purpose it is admirably suited. The explanations are clear and
simple, the chapter on lenses being quite a model." — Journal of Education.
3. NOTABILIA OF GREEK SYNTAX, is. 6d.
Specially adapted for London University Examinations and the
Oxford and Cambridge Locals.
"Abetter guide they could not possibly have, The chief merit is its
arrangement, grouping, and its excellent tabular forms. — The Schoolmaster.
4. NOTABILIA OF CHEMISTRY, is.
Contains all the principles and the facts of Chemistry, so far as is
necessary for the London Matriculation.
5. FREE TRADE. Second Edition. 4d.
"I have never seen a more forcible or satisfactory paper on the subject."
The Dean of Winchester.
" I do not think I have ever seen the case put so clearly and in such
detail, in so compact a form." — Professor Sydney Webb.
" A capital pamphlet it is." — Wiltshire Times.
" As plain as a pike staff . . . . we hope it will circulate widely."
South Wales Daily News.
7 to 9 to be had from the Author.
7. CHURCH AND STATE. Third Edition. 2d.
8. THREE CENTURIES OF PURITANISM. 4d.
1588, 1688, 1888.
9, CHURCH PRINCIPLES. Third Edition. 6d.
Third and Fourth Thousand.
"Simplicity of style, clearness of exposition, and lucidity of argument
and illustration characterise it throughout." — South Wales Daily News.

3 9002 08867 7332