."fe^

--#

^^%V\^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

.^i

■s§

1.0

I.I

- jlllM |||M

iJliM

zo
1.8

1.25

1.4

1.6

«• 6" —

►

•Ta

<?j

c^m

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Mlicrofiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute ifor Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

1980

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of thif
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

□

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagee

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couvertu'e restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

□ Coloured maps/
Cartes g^ographiques en couleur

□ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre i!e couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou no

noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

□ Boun(
Relie

Bound with other material/

avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 filmdes.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires;

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peu^^ent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiquds ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pages/

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag6es

□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d^colordes, tachet^es ou piqu6es

Pages detached/
Pages detachees

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Qualite inegale de I'impression

I I Includes supplementary material/

Comprend du mat6riel supplementaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement oi> partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de facon i
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-desso is

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

30X

i
I

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The ccpy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Izaak Walton Killatr. Memorial Library
Dalhousie University

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grSce d la
g6n6rositd de:

Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library
Dalhousie University

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frane on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol —^-(meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont film^s en commengant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une emnreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — *- signifie "A SUIVRE ", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, charts, et<^., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmds d des taux de reduction diff6rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grant pour gtre
reproduit en un seul ciichd, il est filmd d partir
de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

32X

^"^ T.T.S, P^,Bo< ^^

LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

• \

THE ACQUITTAL OF JESUS;

OB,

HIS DIVINITY DEDUCED FROM

HIS CHARACTER AND CLAIMS.

/ •

/ A Sermon preached before the Syno4 of the Presbyterian Church of the-

/ ,1. Iiower Provinces, at New Glasgow, June, 1867.

■4 .'

By rev. JAMES BENNET, A. M., Moderator.

\Puhlithed by request of Stfnod.J

CAN
BV

HALIFAX, N. S.

JAMES BARNES, CORNER SAGKVTLLK AND GRANVILLE STS

1867.

6 4-T

CpBIS

f<^^ /<&/a/

Iliill|uu$ic (iollciir ilibvari)

JOHN JAMES STEWART

COLLECTION

\\K"

Mt I'ajial (S)0Utnmnm

OF THE

ACQUITTAL OF JESUS.

Luke xxhi^ 14. — " Behold, 1, having examined him before you, have found u.- ."ault in
this man touching those tilings whensof ye accuse him."

TiLATE, looking on the accused with the
«ye of a Roman judge, and seeing his inno-
cenoj; of the charges which affectsd the
oatwMrd weal of society, and the authority
of hu sovereign, as well as the uuacinow-
ledgeo' yet apparent envy of lus accusers ;
discerning under all the colourings of n, alioe
the hues of innocence, urges again and again
*' I find no fault in him," and yet *ith
weak and wicked inconsistency, pront'un-
ces Jetuis guilty and delivers him to be
crucified .

Pilate is not alone in his irconsistency.
There are many even in the present dty
who aftt'i" examination of the chargts
which have been brought agaiv.st Christ,
have proEounced his character faultless,
and yet w'ch strange conclusion they con-
demn his Ci'iiims. They would not crucify
him, bat Hiaj would consign him to a place
in which he will hurt the world no longer
with his superstitions. Covering him with
the mockeries of royalty they even pre-
tend to bow to his sceptre, and, while
acknowledging his superiority, they reduce
him to a rank to which he refuses to des-
cend, coupling bis name with that of Con-
fuscius, Zoroaster, Socrates or Mahomet.
Such judgment Christ deems only an-
other sentence to crucifixion, and he will
hold those who pronounce it guilty of his
ifhame.

Only one of two courses is open to his

judges, either to condemn him altogether,
or to acquit him fully. It cannot ho con-
cealed that the charges brought against him
by the Jews were founded on claims which
he made. He did intenl to take the place
of Moses ; to break the shell of Judaism
that the beautiful truth which it contained
might come forth in plumage and in song ;
to raise the temple of his body from its
ruin in the grave ; to establish a kingdom
in which all kings should be subjects ; to
make himself worshipped, as the Father who
was one with him ; to sit chief in the affec-
tions of man, as the veiry God of his life.
All this he claimed, all this he has done.
These claims were just if there be no fault
in him. If unjust, he is one of the highest
criminals or the greatest madmen the world
ever saw. There was no legitimate course
for the Jews to pursue buf, either to con-
cede his claims or to condemn his conduct.
In what form should that condemnation
,'iave been made? The Jewish law de.
rianded death for such crimes. According
ti> the charity of Christianity, punishment
for them is remitted to a higher tribunal.
Bit conscience must ever condemn such
false claims while refusing to .assume the
weapons of justice to destroy him who
mak^s them. The Jew however, had to
acquit him altogether or besides condemn-
ing h>8 assumptions, he must condemn him
to dea A. Pilate might have acquitted him

X" -^>- tj''^

t'C'-i

THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

in the light of Roman Law, but if he really
found no fault in him on account of these
claims, i.e is doubly guilty in decreeing his
death. No dotibt his declaration regarding
Christ's innocence has relation solely to the
requirements of Roman Law. He goes no
deeper. "We must. It is not competent for
us to say he committed no act which Eng-
lish law would make criminal. We have
ahigher law. It is the law of God written
on the heart. By our law if he were not
the son of God and yet made himself such he
ought to die — that is morally — he must be
consigned to the Calvary in which outraged
opinion crucifies all sach characters. We
can have no king who is either a wild en-
thusiast or a deceiver. Is it not blasphemy
to say that Go<rs best gift to man was
tainted with madness, or corrupted with
hypocrisy ?

The controversy about Christ is not es-
sentially changed. The same great ques-
tion remains to be debated, Was he that
which he claimed to be 1 It is important
that we should see this, and that we should
not be blindfolded, by the assumptions
made by the opponents of Christianity, as
though it were not a question of honesty or
imposture. It is on lYL arena not that of
the natural sciences that the main battle of
the evidences i« to be fought and won.

But here we are met in limine by the en-
quiry about the witnesses. As on the triaj
before Pilate they were false, so we are tald
they are not now to be depended upon-
They deal ia hearsays. We have not the
testimony of the eye-witnesses. The gospels,
it is said, can no doubt be traced up to near
the age in which Jesus lived ; but there is i\
number of years after his death in whch
the gospel was traditional. This region is
inaccessible to the explorer. We cannot
tell whether tho stream of the gospel history
here partakes more of the showers of hea-
ven or the springs of eaith ; whether it
flows from sources of fact or wells of
Tonder. Which of the Evangelists wrote
first •? What is the relation of their writings
to each other 't Have we indeed the records
of those who saw and heard Him, or only
of those who dealt in second-hand rehear-
sals .' Are our Gospels by the authors

whose names they bear, or only according
to ihe report of their reputed authors T
Whence the curious coincidences and
strange differences of the Synoptics ; —
whence, especially, the contrast between
them and John ? Instead of the testimony
of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is
asserted that we have that of ceitain per-
sons after their death, using their name?
and influence to give substance and fixity
to the gigantic shadow of Jesus which the
imagination of a nation of wonder-lovers
had raised and cast athwart the age. The
biography of Jesus is thus a fanciful narra-
tive, having a remote analogy to his real
life. It is evident it will be only after a
great deal of cross-questioning we will get
at the real facts of the case. But in this
we are g'mtly assisted by the critical school,
Wolfenbuttel, Strauss, and others, who have
set themselves to sift the false from the
true, the fiction from the subtratum of fact.
If they had been as successful as preten-
tious, we should have had to thank them.
Their labours, however, have been a fail-
ure. It could not be otherwise. The
purely scientific faculty will ever fail to
comprehend what is above the order of
nature. But let us hear them. The pro-
blem they would solve is how much and
what fact underlies this fiction. As they
have decided that the miracle is impossible,
every thing miraculous is rejected. The
incarnation, the mighty works, the fulfilled
prophecies, the resurrection, the ascension,
are all to be attributed to the popular
imagination ; the residuum is a man of
striking originality, biologizing influence,
and elevated character; carrying captive
the imagination by his fresh and charming
discourses, curing diseases which specially
depend on mental states, and by his vast
popularity aiming at universal empire. As
to the mode in which he came to be accre-
dited with so many wonders — what more
plain ? In his own day, as usual in snch
cases, his doings were exaggerated. In the
next age the proportions swell. Tlie nar-
ratives, oral at first, when reduced to writ-
ing blend fact with fiction, and round oflf
the real with the more charming ideal.
The wonderful life must spring from a

fSH

OF THE ACQUITTAL OF JESUS.

miraculous hirth, and come to a miraculous
close. What so natural as the production
of the supernaturnl ! Given a man of
grand intellect, ecstatic temperament, good
morals — in connection with an ignorant
people of active imagination, and sec the
result, — tlic mythic — historic Christ ! How
beautiful, captivating the taste of our age,
and fully explaining to the critical concep-
tion the most wonderful events the world
ever witnessed !

This theory derives its plaui ibility from
its object — which is not to find out the
truth but to get rid of the miraculous. The
nineteenth century, it is said, does not be-
lieve in miracles. Why reject the incarna-
tion, the works, the resurrection? The
reply is, the science of the nineteentii cen-
tury will not let us admit sucli things as pos-
sible. Universal experience is against them.
Law will not admit them. You have only to
ask Baden Powell. The vote of the scien-
tific world is that the miracle is impossible.
We say no. We summon the scientific
world lieforeus. You say gentlemen that the
miracle is impossible. On what grounds ?
"We have never seen one; all things pro-
ceed according to established laws." That is
good reason for strong improbability. We
hold that the miracle is very improbable,
but we cannot conclude its impossibility on
such grounds. Is it not possible tliat he
who constituted the order of nafare should
for some purpose arrest that progress 1
Here our scientific world will divide into
two sections, the atheist and inipcrsonal
pantheist saying. No, nature is its own
auth"- \* never varies — the theist, admit-
ting . abstract possibility. Well then,
none but atheists and pantheists of the
scientific world will deny the possibility.
Their reason is, that there is no God. —
But those who have tried to get rid of
God as far as possible, making all creation
but development, admit that their hypoth-
esis does not account for the formation of
the first life germ. God is still necessary
tor that. But indeed if the doctrine of the
conservation or correlation of forces be
correct, all the force of creation as develop-
ed to this day, was contained in the forma-
tion of that first germ. The science of the

present day has corrected that metaphysical
philosophy which saw in cause and effect
only antecedents and consequents. Fara-
dy, Liebig, Grove and Thompson, all tell us
there is nothing in the effect which was not In
the cause.* Well, go back and back and
when you have come to the first cause, the
originator of the first life germ, you must
admit that this is the power which formed
all. To form a single life germ may ap-
pear a small affair, but to form a life germ
which contains in it the cause and power to
develope all life germs — behold the almigh-
ty God ! You iiave hid him from us, O
ye men of science as long as possible, with
your development theories, but to make
your theories complete you have at last
confessed the necessity of God.

" But what then ! God has formeil all
to go on by unchanging l^w. Can he in-
terfere with the work of his hand ?" Cer-
tainly, unless you can prove that his force
was 'exhausted in the creative act. Ho
would be a bold man who would affirm
that. Who will so bind God to his work
that he cannot operate upon it, but that he
must helplessly let it run on in obedience to
Is he greater than God f If so the God of

* The theo^ of Brown, that all we ki;ow
of Cause and Effect is that the one invariably
follows the other, is generally acquiesced in
by the metaphysicians. Thus, J S. Mill, in
his recjnt examination of Sir W. Hamilton's
Philosophy, says, Vol. 2, page 279, (Boston
edition). " What experience makes known
is the fact of an invariable sequence between
every event and some special combination
of aritecedent conditions in such sort that
wherever and whenever that union of antece-
dents exists, the event does not fail to occur.
Any must in the case, any necessity other
than the unconditional universality of the fact
we know nothing of."

On the other hand, E. G. J. R. Mayer, in
his treatise on the Forces of Inorganic Nature,
published in Liebeg's Journal, says, " Forces
are causes: accordingly we may, in relation
to them, make full application of the princi-
ple — Catisa cemuit Efftctum. If the Cause C
has the Effect E, then C = E. If, in its turn,
C is the Cause of a second Effect F, we have
E = F, and so on : C = E = F = C." He
then proceeds to shew that the Cause passes
into and is to be found wholly in the Effect,
or Effects which oftentimes can be resolved
back into ^heir causes. Is there co mmt, no
necessity here ; no knowledge, as Brown would
affirm, of anything but sequences? and as
Mill continues to say in the teeth of all the
scientists ?

THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

the original impulse no matter whot might
be the advantage of interference? Man at
least is not so helpless. He can interfere
with hia own works to stop tliem, to vary
them, to guide them. Ho interferes even
with God's works every day, breaks chp.ins
of natural causation at a thousand points.
Is he greater than God ? The God of
science is a miserable fetish. The spirits
locked up in caves by genii are less helpless.
Let science at least give God some liberty
—a freedom of will which, either by or
without motive save what he finds in him-
felf, is able to do what his creatures can, in
regard to their works daily perform. But
in doing this it concedes the possibility of
the miracle.

" But though possible, the scientific mind
so accustomed to absolute regularity finds,
itself at last incupable of conceiving the
suspension for a moment of any one natur-
al law. Childh^oo believes any wonder,
youth begins to doubt, manhood to deny,
and as knowledge increases the possibility
of the miraculous vanishes." Well we
cannot deny the tendency. We feel that
all material things go on by fixed laws,
but are we scientific in making our expe.i-
encc the measure of all experience ? We
should not permit our tendencies to pro-
nounce impossible what we have previously
seen to be possible. Science should put
the curb on its tendencies or it will plunge
into absurdity. The wise tongue will be-
come a babbler. Strange that science, the
highest thought of the grandest being made
by God, — the great contradiction of athe-
ism — should affirm atheism as its faith.
But we remember " the world by wisdom
knows not God."

So we return to the consideration of the
trustworthiness of the witnesses with this
thought, that though they should affirm
some things that are miraculous about
Christ, we are not to assume that all this is
mythical, the work of popular imagination.
We refuse to take it for a canon that the
miraculous is to be rejected because it is such.
We are not about to affirm at present the
inspiration of the record, the truth of the
miracle, and, as a conseouence the divine
origin of Christianity. H has been said

that in the present day the miracle is the
great weight which Christianity has to bear.
Miracles do not sujjport it — they are sup-
ported bj' it. If that were true, and in one
sense it is, we have this position to make good
— It is able to Itear them. Only know Christ
and all miracles will be possible unto you.

But wo nmst not forget the Mythical
Philosophers. They have taken away the
miracles ; well, let them in the meantime.
What do they leave us ? Christ's teachings?
Yes, pretty much. Christ's character 1
Yes, that too ; for it would be evidently
more difficult to suppose such a character
invented, than that one actually existed
sustaining it. We have to thank Rousseau
for tiie most eloquent expression of this
truth. The witnesses, then, are trust-
worthy so far. Then we can have Christ
up before us. If Strauss refuses to allow
John to come up as an eye-witness and re-
porter of actual sayings — Renan, his pupil,
thinks there is no good reason why he should
be put out of court. After all, he only
says in his own way what the others have
said in their way. We have no objection
to admit that he presents the doctrine of the
incarnation after a Platonic fashion, but he
presents it. " The word was made flesh,"
contains all that Luke has spread over two
chapters. John, too, has a retentive mem-
ory for the antilogies which often arose in
Christ's communications with the Jews.
We shall not, however, assume anything
which our opponents are unwilling to
grant. If there be any sand beneath our
foundations we are willing that it be re-
moved, if only we at last come to the rock,
and that rock is not John, or Matthew, or
Peter, but Christ.

The point, then, at which we commence,
is that a certain character has been drawn
of Christ by the Evangelists, which is alto-
gether original and unique — tlie history of
the world presents nothing like it. Moses
and Elias, Isaiah and Ezekiel grow pale in
the light of this bright star. It was no
affectation, but simple truth, which led the
Baptist to say, the latchet of his shoe I am
not worthy to unloose. All the world has
looked to it with the long wonder of eigh-
teen centuries. Imposture, or superstition.

or THB ACQUITTAL OF JK8U8.

or charm, or myth, might in that period
have produced some equal if they produced
Him. But \vc seem doomed to know no
second Jetus. Our admiration grows as
each new heroism of his life is evolved.
Even scepticism praises, — is rapturous over
his character.

The character as drawn by the Evange-
lists is wonderfully real. Its completeness
of suprrnature makes it natural. We find
a perfect harmony between the grandeur of
the man and the (Jod that indwells. The
claims, facts, teachings agree, Wc are
struck with this. The followers of Jesus
have hardly recognized tliis more than
many of the sceptical school of the present
day. The sarcasm of Voltaire and the
coarseness of Paine have given place to
compliment and courtesy. I need not
quote Rousseau, an his testimony is so
widely known. Parker says, " he unites in
himself the sublimest precepts and divincst
practice, thus more tiian realizing all the
dreams of prophets and sages; rises free
from all the prejudices of his ago, nation,
and sect ; gives free range to the Spirit of
God in his breast, sets aside law, sacred
and true, — honoured as it was, — its forms,
its sacrifices, its temples, its priests, puts
away the doctors of the law, subtle, irre-
fragable, and pours out a doctrine beautiful
as the light, sublime as heaven, true as

God Eighteen centuries have

passed since the sun of humanity rose so
high in Jesus. What man — what sect has
mastered his thought, comprehended his
method, and so fully applied it to life." —
Then Renan says : " Jesus had no visions.
God is in him ; he feels that he is with God,
and he draws from his heart what he says
of His Father, The highest consciousness
of God that ever existed in the breast of
humanity was that of Jesus." Indeed, the
whole of the " Origins of Christianiti/," is a
laboured panegyric on Jesus according to
the ideal of the Frenchman, tempered by
the airs and scenery of Galilee and Jerusa-
lem. Strauss is too cold to express admira-
tion for the noble tower of character he set
himself to destroy. Newman is depreciat-
ory. But with few exceptions the critical
school pronounce him divine. Whenever

they doprcciato they have first had to de-
stroy. How 1 By attempting to show that
the character of Jesus is in large meosare
the result of imagination. They do not
say it was invented. That has been shown
to be impossible. What is the process then ?
There was an actual Christ; but what
we have is this Christ sul)limed, elevated.
What there was of actual nobleness in the
real Jesus was made nobler, of purity, purer,
by passing through the contemplative soul
of John, the ardent mind of Petor, the
loving heart of Mary, — the golden charac-
ter was refined in the alembic of the church's
enthusiasm — the rough angularities were
all polished off— the gross was filtered, and
the flawed became perfect. What a grand
work of moral art is this Galilean imagina-
tion capable of ? A fortuitous concourse
of moral ideas has agglomerated round a
rough pretentious character, and behold the
glorious, the divine image, which men have
worshipped To;- eighteen centuries — and yet
worstip ! It is strange that no such result
over was seen before or since. What was
there in that patristic Pharisaic age which
so sublimed the minds of the followers of
Jesus, if not himself, that could produie this
unparalleled spiritual sculpture 1 If we
should affirm that the Venus de Modicis
was fashioned by a hundred sculptors, not
one of whom had learned the art, by each
one taking up the chisel and working a lit-
tle on the rough block, without common
design, we should not say such a foolish
thing. Admit that the report of a wonder-
ful work may grow into a miracle, we are not
helped thereby to see how the character of
God in man can be the growth of an imagi-
native enthusiasm, as an exquisite aroma
rises from a garden of flowers. The traits
of His character are too distinct, as well as
proportionate, to be the result of such social
efflorescence.* The account of the miracle

* " The complete catalogue of the virtues
could give no adequate view of the great pe-
culiarity in the character of Jesus ; the abso-
lute similarity in all moral faculties, the per-
fect inward harmony unruffled by the slight-
est passion or selfishness. Never a moment
withdrawn from the closest communion with
the father in heaven, or from unreserved de-
votion to the welfare of mankind." — Schaffg
History, page 56, Vol. 1.

THE LOOICA.L CONBEQUENCES

may grow, but this if no (luestion of tize,
hut of quality. While tlio Hto.y grows the
popular imagination makes it grotesque.
All proportion is lost, and the original har-'
mony bocomes a discord. All the mytho-
logies prove this. On the other hand think
of the beauty, the proportion of Christ's
rharacter. Ask how any portion thereof
had its excellent beauty if not from Himself.
Did the sermon on the Mount instead of
proceeding as we have it from hims«If, ro^
reive a grandeur to which it had no preten-
sions from floating in the cloud-land of
tradition for some years, till at last it was
condensed as an exquisite but combinate
essence of Jesus and His Church, by Mat-
thew. Or have wc not rather to fear that
much of the original beauty and force have
been lost ? Jesus is in some respects to us
but the shadow of what he was. We have
but a few of his sayings and doings — a frag-
ment. The world could not contain the
l)ook of the whole. But fragmentary as is
the life as shadoweJ forth by the Evange-
lists, we sec as in a picture the glory of
the Lord. Ex pede Herculem. These frag-
ments indicate the colossal grandeur of the
Jesus who was — the lowest estimate of the
greatest sceptic being that He was the great-
est and best of the sons of men — the more
adequate being that here indeed is God
manifest in tiie flesh.

The character of Jesus as indicated in
the gospels is then real. There may bo
great differences in its shading as presented
by John and Matthew, but whatever there
is of grandeur in each is from Him. The
sermon on the mount is his, the para-
bles are his, the discussions with the Jews
are his, the instructions to the disciples are
his, the prayers are his, the claims arc iiis.
No one would have had the hardihood to
write unless he had uttered those daring
words, " I proceeded forth and came from
God," " I and my father are one," "Which
of you convinceth me of sin," " the son of
man which i? in heaven." "I am the
bread of life " " he that eateth me shall live
by me. Except ye eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink his blood ye have
no life in you." The idea that John in-
vented such expressions would go far to

elevate him to the throne of Joius, but for
the diabolism of the deceit. To say that
these great words are but the echo of the
imagination of the disciples who saw in
Jesus a sublimity of character, in correii-
pontlenco with such clainis is to leave the
problem for solution which it was intended
tc get rid of — the same character ; only in
this way we have no means of finding out
how that character was made known to the
disciples. If they did not get their ideas of
his character from the sublimity of his
words and claims and personality, where
did they get them ? From the miracles "?
Well let us say we are agreed. But this
would at once establish the divine character
of the whole. Ah, scepticism will take
care of that. They got the character from
the imagination that the miracles were
wrought. Well, let us see how this will
work. We want a basis for the invention
of these grand claims. If, having reduced
the grandeur of his teachings and clainriS,
you now take away the miracle as a reality,
what is left as the foundation of the inven-
tion T You must have some basis for popu-
lar fancy to build upon — some material to
work with. To make bricks without straw
was hard, but this were like requiring them
to be made without clay as well. No
doubt popular fancy is capable of great
feats, but they are grotesque, and hardly
equal to the formation of a grandcon-
sistent character, with only a few tricks
of legerdemain to begin with. With won-
derful works the popular imagination may
make their author a saint — the man of hair-
cloth and cells, of fasting and prayer — but
never a Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, all the
miracles in the world, without the one
miracle, his supernatural character, could
never have given us The Lord and Master.
But we are going too fast. It is,
admitted he is a great and glorious chai-ac-
ter, — a good man, a great teacher, an ex-
cellent moralist ; one who knows more ot
God than all the world besides — the breath
of his voice is redolent of heaven. All this
the sceptical school say. This is much ; but
had this been all we should have had no
historic Christianity. We should have read
some things of him along with the sayings

OF THE ACQUITTAL OF JK8U8.

of Solon, or the philosophy of Plato of
Zeno. No — Jesus does not come before us
iw a teacher or a philosopher, but as heaven-
sent, God-oounsellcd — as the Son of (»od.
Ho proceeded forth and came from God.
lie and His Father are one. He that hath
iieen Him hath seen the Father. Ho is
King — by truth and right King of all.
Why, these claims of His arc the very
charges on which he was condemned. He
speaks blasphemy — he wants to be a king.
Well, we must take one of two positions.
Kither his claims, which wc have seen were
made, are just, or it was right to put him
to death, or at least confine him to some
asylum. Christ was what he claimed to
be, or ho was the greatest of madmen or or
impostors.* The sceptical world resile from
•uch conclusions.

It is always to be borne in mind that a
large part of the character of Christ is made
up of his claims. His teachings raise him
above philosophy, his innocency and iamb-
like nature captivate our affections ; his
goodness and beneficence are a new leaven
introduced into the lump of humanity; but
his claims, wo hesitate not to say, have
clothed him, to us, with the attributes of
God. That which gives him most dignity
in the Church's estimation, is that which
the sceptic thinks extravagant and absurd.
We should never have seen in him that
grand presence which makes us bow, but
for the consciousness of right and power
evidenced by these claims. So far from

• The divinity of Christ . . . appears . . .
in his own express testimony respecting him-
self. This must be either true or fearfully
presumptuous, and indeed downright blas-
phemj'. But how can the latter supposition
stand a moment before the moral purity and
dignity of Jesus in his every word and work,
Hud acknowledged by the general voice even
of Unitarians and Rationalists? Self-decep-
tion in a matter so momentous, and with a
mind in other respects so clear and sound, is
i)f course equally out of the question. Thus
we are shut up to the divinity of Christ, and
reason itself must at last bow in silent awe
before the tremendous word, " I and my
father are one."— Schaff^n History, Vol. 1,
page 57.

The above and preceding extracts or notes
were not seen by the author till after his ser-
mon had gone to press. Similar views are
presented by Ullman and many other devout
thinkers.

thinking him fanatical or audacious in mak-
ing them, they seem to ui most reasonable.
To affirm the supernatural is in him most
natural. On men of medium dimensions
the armour of the giant is ridiculous, but how
iHJsecming on the giant. Ulysses easily
bends his own bow. Alexander affect-
ing tlic nod of Jupiter is only a fit bur-
lesquo in the midst of drunken orgies.
When Phaeton attemptctl to drive the
horses of fho sun, he could not sustain the
character ho assumed a single day. Christ
sustained the claims he made for years —
ha'J sustained them for eighteen centuries.
Upon what part of his character will the
scepticism of the nineteenth century inflict
a wound '. Which of you convinceth mr
of sin 1 still rings through our ears. Shew
us an immorality. Is it the dead fig-tree
that is objected ? —as if God by his light-
nings had never blasted a vine. Is it his
denunciation of the Pharisees ? As though
virtue became vice by the strength of its
denunciatipns of vice. The charge may be
made an^ong those who think that the
manifestation of a divine anger against the
false and hypocritical is itself criminal.
But we must not forget that complicity in
the miracle working character, which it ap-
pears the disciples forced upon him, is
charged, — and if the charge be true, (the
miracles being, of course supposed false,)
then his innocency vanishes. The forbid-
den fruit has been eaten, and the world is
lost a second time. Satan has been sucess-
ful, and the leaven of the Pharisees, which
is hypocrisy, infects his whole chara6ter.
He who could join in complicity to deceive,
may lay aside the claim? of Mcssiahship
and honesty at the same time. It is not so,
however. The record gives us no shadow
for such a charge. That the disciples be-
lieved him to work miracles ; that he be-
lieved in his own power to do so, is as plain
ae noon-day — unless we agree with Strauss,
that the whole of the accounts were manu-
factured from some mythic germs. Kenan,
who accepts the accounts generally as
a record of what was supposed to have
taken place, tells us that Christ pretended,
contrary to his better judgment, to work
the miracles forced on him. In making

THE LOGICAL CONSEQUBNCES

thic charge, though he does not seem to
know it, 'le has reduced aeeua to the level
of the mc untebank. No doubt, he tells uj,
that Chridt, to withdraw himself from this
false position, thought it necessary to urge
on the crisis which would destroy him-
self, but establish his cause. Admirable
resolution for one who deceived both his
disciples and the multitude. By martyr-
dom he will establish a cause which is be-
ginning to totter, because founded on sup-
posed miracles which he cannot further
supply. Tired of sustaining a false posi-
tiop, he rushes to death that he may become
the patron of the true and the hope of the
world ! It is too absurd. He who claimed
to have come from God, to be the image of
God, and to have sustained in the opinion
of the author of the " Origins of Christian
ity," that character with dignity, was surely
not the one to preteful miracles,

Yet the claim to work miracles is every
where made by him. This is no* to bo for-
gotten. Deny the miracles still they v/ero
supposedlto be wrought by him oryoucannot
have a starting point for the myth. They
could not be supposed to be wrought with-
outan attempt to work them. If he attempt-
ed them and they were not re x\, he either
deceived liimself or he deceived others. The
latter is impossible. The natuic of man
does not admit of such antitheses. That
the most nob!'? being of all the ages — thus
according to recent sceptic opinion —
should be a deceiver, no honest man can
candidly affirm. Did he deceive lumsclf ?
TMs would seem a weakness incompatible
wit'i his great strength. Then if the mira-
cles were not wrought they could neither
have 'leen attempted nor pretended. But
where then is there any foundation for
the accounts? Tnere is none. Had there
been no ittempt there had been no history
of the success of the attempt. Had there
not been m,\ny attempts there had been no
such numercus and detailed accounts as we
have. The u'^.most fertility of imagination
could produce .10 fruit without seed. Some
of this must have been sown. It must
have been scattered broadcast to ])roduce
Boch an abundant harvest in so short a
tlroe. Without doubt then Jesus attempt-

ed the cure of many diseases, hut did he
only attempt them ? Is imagination or
faith — if you will — to be accredited with
their success ? Was there no reality in the
hundreds of cures which the grave evangel-
ists sot down to the account of Jesus f Be
it so. But wliat becomes of ilie noble
character of Jesus ? Self deceived was he ?
We cannot admit it. Did he deceive
others 1 With his character that is impos-
sible.

But it may be said there were no doubt
cures of such diseases as may bo acted on
by an exceedingly powerful nature working
beneficially, medicinally upon weak diseas-
ed ones. What then ! Why then it is only
the amount of the curative virtue that is
objected to by scepticism. Grant tliat any
disease was really cured by the power of
his great presence, by the virtue which went
out of him, why not admit that some dis-
ease more difficult of cure in our estimation
might be operated on bv the same presence
and nature — and more difficult ones still
tell you come 10 the most difficult of all —
the arrest of death — the resuscitation of
the corpse. The least is in some degree
miraculous, which having admitted you can«
not say unless you know the amount of cu-
rative virtue in the cause, how great must
be the power of that disease which its
agent cannot conque •.

But this does not touch those miracles in
which material npturc bent like a worship-
per to his wishes. Did he attempt any of
them ? The same line of argument would
shew that the attempt was made, or the
story could not have had its necessary germ.
But why should tliere be difficulty in ad-
mitting them. Is it impossible that spirit-
ual will can operate on matter save tlirongh
material media and contact? Then crea-
tion was impossible. God is a spirit yet
he wheels the worlds. Grant this claim
that Christ came from God, wliere is the
difficulty about the delegation of such
power. Why should he who guides the
planets not be able to grant power to
another to control the eca. Tell us the
scientific reason against this rational posi-
tion. Many of the most sceptical believe
in the mesmeric will as a mechanical ageat.

or THE ACQUITTAL OF JESUS.

There is certainly no absurdity in auch
suppositions althoagh science has not dis-
covered any naediam through which the
action can take place — nor is there any
proper reason why the Creator, who is the
prigin of all the forces of the universe both
spiritual and physicial, should i.^ t, to his
own Son grant a potency which He con-
stantly exercises. If we have the proof
that Jesus is the Son of God, and that, he,
attempted such works it is certain they
were done. The moral certainty neutral-
izes the natural improbability. To be as-
sured that Christ wrought these miracles it
is only necessary to know that he was wise
good and true.

We approach another point — the Incar-
nation. We may observe he never aCirmed
t'Us explicitly of himself. But is it not
the only legitimate explanation of his life ?
It has been said th.'it the account of his
origin must have been derived from the
mother of Jesus. Well but this account
can be judged of by its verisimilitude with
the other facts. The truth of the mother's
account is corroborated by the son's charac-
ter. Had not the life of Jesus already
nc'.'ossitated the incarnation as a logical
postulate prior to a word on the subject
from Mary? Such^ seems to have been
John's judgement. '* We beheld his glory
the glory , as of the only begotten of
the Father full of grace and truth." Why
has none like him appeared on earth?
Doet net the reply sound natural — because
none had a similar origin. After Alexan-
der came Hannibal, CiBsar and Napoleon,
and with Socrates are associated Pluto
and Aristotle ; but Jesus sits os. his own
unapproachable throne. Wo speak of or-
ders of warriors, poets, philosophers, pro-
phets, but there is only one Christ. It is
no disparagement of Socrates, to say that
he mght have sat at the feet of Paul and
listened to his wonderful discoursings, with
rapture, yet Paul afar off worships Christ
If Plato had heard John he would have
given up his charming dialectics to wonder
at the discourses Inspired by the word that
was made flesli. The influence of Jesus
upon the disciples, and upon the world, is
the standing miracle of history. Did all

this influence flow from a man like ourselves?
Yes like y«t how unlike — like sinners yet
holy. And whence the holiness ? Is it the
foul well of humanity that has ever kept
pouring out muddy, dirty, slimy, fetid wa-
ters before and since, which for one short
hour sent out such a sweet stream, that the
centuries as it flowed down have rejoiced
to drink of it ? Strange inexplicable life i»
God be not his special Father. Ab, it is the
incarnation alone which explains how this
sweet life flows from the bitter fount of
humanity. Tell mo not of the impossibili-
ty of the incarnation. Jesus had been im-
possible without it. The incarnation is the
only correct solution of the Problem
Chbist.

Wht'tiier in an enquiry of this kind we
should start with ine assumption of the
incarnation or arrive at it as our goal, is a
question for each enquirer, Neander, the
author of " Ecce Deus," and others, take
the fcMitier course. The author of " Ecce
Homo " having commenced with the mere
man life, has ascended to something ap-
proaching a Divine origin. "It pleased
the Father to l)eget no second son like
him,' is an expression pointing this way.
The course pui"sued by Strauss and Rcnan,
and others, assuming the miracle as impos-
sible, is utterly unscientific. It seems fairer
to assume nothing, to interrogate the facts,
letting them devclope conclusions, rather
than assuming conclusions to make the
facts accord with them. Th«! last mode
was that of necessity pursued by the disci-
ples. Having seen the works, companied
with the man, heard his words, considered
his claims, they were at last in a position
to answer the question, " Whom do you
say that I am ?" and intelligently to aflBrm,
" Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God." It may be, however, thought that
this is an experience which cannot be re-
peated. They have announced a conclu-
sion which it is for us to verify. The
discoverer of a law in nature stands in a
diflbrent relation to it from any one who
may come after him. It is allowable .or
the follower to interrogate all the facts
which hav« led to the discovery, but from
the beginning he v/ill have reference to the

THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

conclusion of his predecessor — not, how-
ever, as having adopted it implicitly, but
as a thec-y by which the facts may be ex-
plained. I believe tiiat starting with the
incarnation es a doctrine, we shall find all
the facts take their proper place under it ;
and also that from the mere consideration
of the facte, we shall ultimately arrive at
the deity of Christ as the necessary law
from which such a life must flow. We ex-
press our conviction that the indisputable
character of Christ will necessitate the
affirmation of the miracle and of the incar
nation. This method of testing the cha-
racter with a view to the discovery of the
nature from which it springs, has great ad-
vantage with the sceptic. The character of
Christ puzzles him, confounds him. It is
a Sphinx which eats up all the daughters
of his thoughts. No Edlpus will ever solve
for him the riddle. I have seen no expla-
nation of the confessedly lofty, glorious,
pure character of Jesus from the pen of
Rationalism, which is not self-destructive, —
affirming what it denies, denying what it
affirms, — allowing so much to Christ that
it must allow all — a perfect manhood, sin-
lessness, sovereignty, God — nature. He is
a miracle, and why should He not begin in
miracle, evolve miracle, triumph over the
grave, trample on death, and ascend to God
as His natural fathei, and to heaven as His
native home ?

The argument against the miracles of
Christ often presents itself in the following
form. Miracles have been pretended in
all ages. We have apparently well attested
accounts of some of them. What can be
said to those of Port Royal &c. Where
shaH we stop? Admit those of Ciirist and
it is argued wo have no barrier against a
perfect inundation of the miraculous,
sweeping away the deductions of reason
and the facts of observation in a general
deluge — not even leaving us a Newton in
his Principia, like another Noah to float over
snbmerged science. Such is the form
which the reasoning assumes. But is this
reasoning reasonable? Having a good
claim to an estate should I be debarred
from an action at law for its recovery, on
the ground that other unfounded claims to

that or other estates will be encouraged by
my deed ? Absurd ! Because I believe
that those flashing brilliants in the crown
of the queen of the greatest empire are
dit\monds of incalculable worth, I am not
necessitated to admit, that the tiara of a
stage heroine, who assumes for the night
the sovereign character, is set with gems of
like worth, although their sheen may be as
dazzling. We come to probable conclus-
ions about paste and pearl, about coloured
glass and rubies, about tinsel and gold,
from a knowledge of the position and char-
acter of their wearers. In the moral world
we make like deductions. We want to
know who this priest, prophet, prince is, be-
fore we accredit him with the diamonds of
heaven and the signet of God. If indeed we
could bring them to the trial — make a per-
sonal eye witness examination, it would not
be necessary to say, or think much of the
quality of the possessors. But this we,
who live long after the shining acts, have
been hid in the night of the ages, only as it
were gleaming fitfully on us from the past,
cannot do. To an extent we still can do
this with telescopic thought — we can still
bring them near, and view their wondrous
majesty. But when dealing with those who
deny the evidence, who talk of the impro-
bability of God's granting those jewels of
his crown to be worn by any one — we may
shew that what were otherwise improbable
becomes only a natural assumption when
we find that it is from the head and bosom
of His own Son, that they flash their light
over the naturalism of the world. Is He, the
sinless one, the ohiy perfect man, the only
begotten of the Father, whose claims to
Godhead have been accepted by the highest
thinkers and the best of men — from Thomas
the leader of sceptics, and Paul the con-
verted persecutor, down to all who accept
his religion in its vital power, — as their
Lord and God. — I say, is he to stand in the
world without any other ornature save that
of His own transendent character ? Well,
He might have done so ; but assuredly
when we have accepted the miracle of his
being and character, we can feel but little
hesitation in accepting the belief that God
also by His own supernatural Son should

OP THE ACQUITTAL OF JESUS.

perform supernatural works — not more in
attestation of his mission as God's ambas-
bassador and revealer, than as the proper
and fitting setting of the crown of moral glory
with which his own proper Godsonship had
already encircled his head. We believe him,
first for his words, which reveal to us his
character ; and we believe his works as the
secondary evidence of that great doctrine
which we have already received, — that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living
God.

Christ, then, when truly seen, known
with the feeling and heart, becomes to the
Christian his own evidence. I say seen —
rather than affirmed as the result of any
logical process. Indeed they who trust
alone to a verbal and constricted logic will
never know Christ, or only at a great dis-
tance. Lopic and reason are greatly lauded
by the sceptical school — and justly too ; —
but some other fine faculties of our nature
are too much despised in weighing religious
questions. Perhaps the sceptic will smile
when we quote Paul, that " with the heart
man believeth unto righteousness." What
have the heart and feeling to do with evi-
dence 1 it bus been said. Ah, it is a miser-
ably dry barren logic that tries to deal
with moral questions without them ! It is
like the tap-root of the tree proposing to do
without the million fibres which search
after all nourishments bringing them up
fo( the use of the root, which is thus but
as the channel through which the juices
pass, to the elaboration of bud and leaf-
flower and fruit. Upon the state of the
fibre as much as on that of the root is the
health of the tree dependent ; and upon the
.state of the feeling, as much as on that of
the reason, are true judgments and healthy
conclusions in the moral world founded.
A man of dull feeling, hard heart, and de-
praved moral sentiments, will as much miss
a true apprehension of the character of
Jesus Christ, as though reason were unseat-
ed and lunacy were ascendant. Indeed,
our perception of Christ's character is de-
pendent on our whole being — on our capa-
city as reasoners, and on our cliaracter as
men. What is Jesus to each man but his
ideas of Jesus ? What is anv man to us

but our ideas of him 1 The Jesus of the
Gospels is one, but the Jesus of each pers^yn
is many. There will be a general simili-
tude in the images within the souls of his
many worshippers, but each man will give
him a subjective colouring from the charac-
ter of his own reason and heart. There
are, no doubt, great specific types of opinion
regarding him, differing widely, not merely
as the leaves of the same tree differ, but as
the bramble from the pine. There is the
low humanitarian view, like ivy creeping
along the earth, taking hold of Christ a»
though he were some ancient tower to be
adorned with the graceful foliage of senti-
ment and compliment, but as belonging
essentially to the decaying past. Then
there is the view of the Arian, clinging
with its tendrils to his superhnm&nity, and
drawing its nourishment from the Divine
unigenitus ; and there is the still higher
Trinitarian view, which beside all that, lays
hold on Him with its hopes and worship as
very GodAjf very God, although within the
limits of the human. In these great types
of belief there is vast variety, corresponf'ant
with the clearness of the perceptions of
those who bold them, setting at defiance
the definitions of Athanasius. But as there
is a true type of the tree or of man, to
which each individual more or less conforms,
and yet is not absolutely alike, so there
is the true type or idea of Christ, to which
all men's souls which are made strong in
reason, and pure in heart, tend to conform,
— that is to say, who are regenerate, for
what is regeneracy in its effects but the
restoration of our whole being to strength
of reason, to purity of nature, to holiness
of purpose and life — the spirit of God
having used the truth for this very end,
that the Man of God might be made perfect.
Of course sanctification implies that the
capacity for truth and for righteousness
requires still further to be enlarged and
filled up, leaving room for differences of
opinion of Christ. Nor should there be
any attempt to force men to the adoption of
opinions which may have closer conformity
to the objective truth than those to which
they have already attained. By our con-
fessions and our catechisms, and our teach-

!r~

THE lOGlCAL CONSEQUENCES

ings, we ought to present the various Chris-
tian doctrines as near as possible to the
truth, as seen through the translucent mind
and pure heart ; but remembering, that the
only true teacher is Jesus himself, — and
that it is by seeing Jesus that the soul is
made fitter to see him better ; that it is by
the Gospel history that the spirit works in
purifying the soul, so that at last the trans-
figured Son of Grod stands before the illu-
minated mind of his disciples. It is only
by companying with Him, by hearing His
words, by considering His sweet inno-
cence. His dove-like purity. His unwearied
labour, His self-renunciation, His meekness
under suffering, — that, with Peter, we are at
last led to exclaim — " Thou art the Christ
the Son of the living God." ' -

We have thus, starting from the basis
which scepticism itself allows, arrived, by,
as we believe, a fair enquiry, at an intelli-
gent affirmation of the supernatural charac-
ter, Divine nature, and marvellous works
of Christ. Perhaps some of you may think
that I might have better employed my time
than in rehearsing and discussing objections
against our faith, with which the great
body of the Christian people are not trou-
bled. Probably, however, such a view will
be found to underrate the advances which
scepticism is making among the ranks of,
especially, the educated classes. In the
workf=hops of our cities among our artizans,
the theories I have brought before you are
subjects of common conversation. Scien-
tific men ignore Christianity. A portion
of the periodic press makes its daily, week-
ly, monthly and quarterly attacks upon it.
Scepticism is in th<; murky air of our cities;
our steamboats carry it on the seas and
rivers ; our locomotives through our towns
and villages, and the rural homestead often
feels the infection of doubt, and denial of
whatever is sacred. It is of Importance
that those who have been set apart to de-
fend the faith should be especially conver-
sant with the Attacks which have been and
now are being made upon it. The ostrich
hiding its head from the pursuer, is no
proper example to follow. Ignorance is a
shield through which the shafts of the
enemy reach the heart. Knowledge is a

better buckler He that would gain the
battle, must be able from a commanding
height to survey the whole field. It is as
necessary we shonid know what and where
the enemy's forces are, as the position and
powers at our disposal. To contemn the
enemy is often to lose the field. On the
other hand, ignorance often so magnifies
the foe as to induce retreat and bring dis
aster. He possesses poor courage who is
afraid to look both truth and error in the
ey?. We need to know what Christ's
enemies say of him, with their own lips,
and to deal fairly with their own words.
To misrepresent them is bad policy and
worse morals. — Christ listened to Satan and
answered him. He was not afraid to stand
before the judgment seat to be judged
fairly ; nor is he now afraid. All he wants
is that his disciples should not forsake him
and flee, but stand by him, and with the
words of truth defend him. He cannot
speak now, but by us. Let him not be
crucified among us, as he often has been
since Pilate gave sentence against him.
We may shrink and cower like the disci-
ples, while Jesus again bears his cross, and
bemuse we hide oui heads in ignorance,
think that all goes well with him and with
his cause. We may be debating who shall
be greatest in the kingdom, like the Jews
when the battering' rams of Titus were
shaking the solid walls of Jerusalem. Let
the people be at rest, but it is not good that
those to whom the leadership of Christ's
armies is entrusted "honld sleep through
the whole night, while attacks are made.
We ought also to make Wch enquiries for
our own sakes. It may be more comfort-
able to be at ease, free from the cares which
enquiry and discussion impose, as well as
from the doubts they may originate ; but it
is not good for an intellectual soul, were
no general issues at stake. " Never are the
truths of salvation properly received by us
without the free exercise of our own mental
powers." The reception of dogmas fron*
authority never produces right fliith. Even
thd faith which has sprung up in the soul
from the evidence of Jesus in his own
Gospel, will bear all the more and better
fruit from the stirring of the soil at the

'■■-f

OP THE ACQUITTAL OF JESUS.

proper time. It seems as though it might
kill the tree to bare its roots to the cold
nipping frosts — yet true culture requires
this. Has not the Divine Husbandman
said, I will dig about it 1 What has He
been doing by those processes of thought
which the sceptical school have necessitated,
but baring, as it were, the very roots of
faith in all Christian souls, that they might
grow better. I can say from experience,
that I feel more truly and certainly chris-
tian, from re-investigation of the evidences
in the light of recent objections, but espe-
cially the gr^t evidence — the character of
Jesus. But, indeed, are we not doing this
always 1 "Whenever we open the Gospels
in a right spirit we are conscious of the
pure presence of Him who proceeded forth
and came from God. But, you bay, every

sceptical book and argument is a lui dark
shadow obscuring that character. Yes, but
I have observed that the Sun of Righicous-
nesss turns these clouds to heavenly glories.
In them we may, if wc are in His com-
pany, see Him transfigured. Jesus has so
shone, even upon many sceptic minds, that
they have raised for Him a tabernacle for
worship. We have gone beyond them Ik
their conclusions. They will rise to our
conceptions, we cannot descend to theirs.
We have placed on the mount of trans-
figuration the temple to which all nations
shall flow, and the eyes of all the ages shall
turn— where Jesus sits, in its holy of holies,
the sinless, the holy, the perfect— the Son
of Man and the Son of God, the only-
begotten — very Goo ot very God, Saviour,
Propitiation, Ruler and Judge.

'^^^