^ 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 
 
 IF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 GIFT OK 
 
 Received 
 Accessions No. 
 
 , 1886 
 
 Shelf No. 
 
 fc 
 
THE 
 
 RELIGION OF THE CHRIST 
 
THE 
 
 RELIGION OF THE CHRIST 
 
 ITS HISTORIC AND LITERARY DEVELOPMENT 
 
 CONSIDERED AS AN EVIDENCE 
 
 OF ITS ORIGIN 
 
 THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1874 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. STANLEY LEATHES, M.A. 
 
 \\ 
 
 MINISTER OF ST. PHILIP S, REGENT STREET ; 
 PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON 
 
 <bition 
 
 JReto gnrfc 
 POTT, YOUNG, AND COMPANY 
 
 COOPER UNION, FOURTH AVENUE 
 MDCCCLXXVI 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PREFACE . . . ... Pageix. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 Anticipation of tije eijrist in ?|fatf)en Rations. 
 
 " As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after 
 
 Thee, God." PSALM xlii. 1. 
 
 Permanent interest of Christianity Reasons of this Comprehensiveness 
 of the name Limited by its relation to Christ What the name of 
 Christ implies Its hearing on the Gentile world Witness of the 
 Gentile world First by sacrifice Secondly by mythology Methods 
 of interpreting mythology The solar theory Legends not so under- 
 stood The teaching implied Its result Insufficient to awaken 
 definite hopes Truth in all religions This truth revealed, not dis- 
 covered How did the idea of God first arise? The idea of sin 
 God has given us the power to recognise a revelation when given 
 As He has shown us the difference between right and wrong, which is 
 not derived from nature, only to be expressed by analogies derived from 
 nature Mythology points to a declension The origin of Christianity 
 therefore is not to be referred to mythology Mythology gives its 
 witness to the need for Christianity, not to being connected with it in 
 origin The existence of the want in some sense a promise of its 
 being supplied If therefore mythology was the production of nature, 
 Christianity was not Christianity must have been the product of 
 mythology, unless we admit the influx of Divine light somewhere 
 This is a conclusion dependent on and attested by facts The fact of 
 a moral revelation through the conscience analogous to a similar 
 revelation of Divine truth, of which the proof is in the thing revealed 
 How shall such a revelation be brought home? or how shall we 
 test it when presented ? Internal superiority of the Old and New 
 Testaments to other sacred writings External evidence of history 
 sufficient to arrest attention The Old Testament the basis of the 
 New The conception of the Christ complete in the New Testament 
 Object of the Lectures Method of argument pursued . . 1-36. 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 fje tjrist of geim'si) l^istorg. 
 
 "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." GEN. xxii. 18. 
 The religions of the world bear an indirect testimony to Christ The 
 pedigree of Christianity known The promise to Abraham The 
 
 A 2 
 
vi Contents. 
 
 Exodus The wanderings The prophet The king Summary The 
 hope not groundless The difficulty of explaining it The message 
 by Nathan Illustrated by David's great sin The inference sug- 
 gestedDavid's line maintains itself The prophets Elijah and Elisha 
 Change in the history Its apparent non-fulfilment The history 
 not complete It excites expectation The priest Meaning of the 
 ritual, and of its cessation Result of the death of Christ Con- 
 clusion The seed The prophet The king The priest . 37-72. 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 &t)f i)rist of tije psalms. 
 
 " As it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art My Son, this day 
 
 have I begotten Thee Wherefore He saith also in another psalm, 
 
 Thou shalt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption." ACTS xiii. 33, 35. 
 
 The evidence from the Psalms Their character The portrait of the 
 righteous man The general characteristics of the Psalms The 
 Divine election and trust in God National election Election of a 
 particular line These features independent of date The Messianic 
 Psalms The Second Psalm The Eighth Psalm The Sixteenth 
 Psalm The Twentieth and Twenty-first Psalms The Twenty- 
 second Psalm The Fortieth Psalm The Forty-fifth Psalm The 
 Seventy-second Psalm The Eighty-ninth Psalm The Hundred- 
 and-tenth Psalm The Hundred-and-thirty-second Psalm Sum- 
 mary of the evidence from the Psalms . . . 73-104. 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 &ij* J)rist of $ropi)fC. 
 
 "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all 
 the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." LUKE xxiv. 27. 
 
 Position of the prophets Jonah Amos Micah Obadiah Isaiah 
 
 "The servant of the Lord" The Fifty-third chapter Jeremiah 
 Haggai Zechariah Zechariah ix.-xiv. Malachi Daniel Conclu- 
 sion . . . ... 105-136. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 f)e ijrtst of tfj* fflospris. 
 
 " The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son 
 of Abraham." MATT. i. 1. 
 
 Conclusions derived from survey of the Old Testament Corollaries fol- 
 lowing therefrom Peculiarity of the Old Testament Scriptures 
 Vagueness of the conception of the Messiah But mainly twofold- 
 Unfavourable as a basis, for the gospel history The mission of John 
 the Baptist The results produced by it The character of John not 
 constructed out of the prophets, but wholly original This much 
 
Contents. vii 
 
 more true of Jesus The materials available for Jesus or for the 
 Evangelists These were the Scriptures and the career of John The 
 career of Jesus entirely independent and distinct The evidence on 
 this point clear The originality of Christ's language and teaching 
 Its contrast to that of John, which was real, or else invented by the 
 Evangelists The method pursued by Jesus, which embraced miracles 
 and parables The position He claimed for faith Identifying Himself 
 with the object of it The appointment of the twelve, who were for- 
 bidden to go to the Gentiles The thought of His own death He 
 claimed to be the Christ His betrayal and violent death His resur- 
 rection the third day, not suggested by the Scriptures The parallel 
 not immediately suggested by the facts themselves The triumphant 
 entry into Jerusalem, and other details of His history The disciples' 
 slowness to believe The position assumed and the conclusions drawn 
 The instance of the slaughter of the children The gospel narrative 
 substantially true, and true in subordinate details Comparison of 
 antecedent improbabilities How are the facts to be interpreted ? 
 
 137-170. 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 2Tije ijn'st of tije flcts. 
 
 " For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the 
 Scriptures that Jesus was Christ." ACTS xviii. 28. 
 
 The position at present arrived at The date of the Acts left open The 
 general trustworthiness of the book The evidence fairly deducible 
 from it An earlier condition pre-supposed The Acts did not grow 
 out of the Gospels The probable author The Acts entitled to inde- 
 pendent consideration The birthplace of the new religion The 
 death of Jesus one of the earliest facts proclaimed The agency of 
 the Scriptures The importance of this fact, brought to bear alike 
 upon Jews and Gentiles The Christ-character inseparable from the 
 preaching of Jesus, but manifestly inappropriate Results obtainable 
 from the Acts Independent of the Gospels, but confirmatory The 
 Jesus who had died was accepted as the Christ of the Scriptures 
 Another element at work, which was the announcement that He had 
 risen The conviction produced impossible without it The Acts 
 differs from the Gospels, in giving the history of Christian life, and 
 its growth The originality of the phenomenon Agency of the Holy 
 Spirit The Acts the measure of the results produced, which were 
 evidence of a new life at work, which was not generated by the 
 faith of the disciples The tendency of the new teaching, of which 
 the essence was, " Jesus is the Christ " Baptism and the Lord's Supper 
 indicating a personal life The history presupposes the life of Jesus, 
 and the reality of the facts alleged The Acts illustrative of our Lord's 
 own words Practical conclusions . 171-202. 
 
viii Contents. 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 of tfje Pauline SptstUs. 
 
 "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are 
 dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." COL. iii. 2, 3. 
 
 The certainty of the Pauline Epistles What the Epistles prove The 
 identity of the Person of whom they speak Jesus accepted as the 
 Christ It was thus with the Gentiles as well as with the Jews The 
 persuasion produced by the Scriptures The Epistles corroborate the 
 Acts and the Gospels They show the general trustworthiness of the 
 history of the Acts The Epistles witness to the writer's faith The 
 events implied certain, especially when we take into account the 
 means employed These Epistles carry us back to an earlier time 
 Events cannot be imagined, but may be misunderstood The import 
 of the word "Christ" The relation of the Epistles to the Gospels 
 Features common to the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles The belief in 
 Christ the product of two factors, but could not have been foreseen 
 The Epistles the product of belief in Jesus as the Christ The agency 
 of the Holy Spirit implied The Pauline Epistles prove the life of 
 Jesus, and the effects which followed His acceptance as the Christ 
 The contrast between the Epistles and the Gospels They were not 
 antagonistic Facts which the Epistles presuppose The conclusions 
 which follow The Christ-character of Jesus permanent The seal of 
 the Old Testament Scriptures . . 203-236. 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 ije e$rtst of tfje ottjer iaoofes. 
 
 "I Jesus have sent Mine angel to testify unto you these things in the 
 churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and 
 Morning Star." REV. xxii. 16. 
 
 The Christ-conception the net result of the New Testament Original 
 and unique Pointing to a human life Other aspects of the same 
 idea The Epistle of St. James The Epistles of St. John The First 
 Epistle of St. Peter The Second Epistle of St. Peter The Epistle 
 of St. Jude The Revelation of St. John The results that follow 
 from all this The expression, "The Holy Spirit" Is the witness of 
 a new fact The points of contact in the Christian writings more 
 important than those of contrast The rapid development of the 
 Christ-idea The result of the human life of Jesus The Christ- 
 conception spiritual, producing results not to have been anticipated, 
 which could have been produced by no one else The evidence of 
 origin afforded by it Recapitulation The consequent permanence of 
 this religion Conclusion . ... 237-268. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
WE CAN DO NOTHING AGAINST THE TRUTH, BUT FOR THE TRUTH. 
 
 8t. Paul. 
 >ie Jffiei^ett ift nur in t>er SBafjr^eit. Goethe. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE object of the following Lectures has been to unfold 
 the significance, too often overlooked or forgotten, of 
 the name Christianity, which is neither more nor less than 
 the Religion of the Christ. As a matter of historic fact, 
 the name by which this religion is known does not lead 
 us back so much to Christ as its founder in the way that 
 Muhammadanism leads us back to Muhammad for its 
 founder, as it does to the Christ as the object and substance 
 of the earliest ascertainable faith of the people called 
 Christians. Whatever uncertainty, real or imaginary, may 
 attach to the actual origin of this belief, there is and can 
 be no question whatever as to its earliest expressions. 
 These survive to us in literary monuments, which are 
 imperishable and undoubted. The four great Epistles of 
 St. Paul are themselves a treasury of evidence in this 
 respect, and they must continue to be so until it can be 
 shown on equal evidence, which as yet is not producible, 
 that they represent only one phase, and that a partial and 
 sectional phase, of early Christianity. 
 
 It is, however, commonly admitted now that we need 
 not limit the genuine remains of the great Apostle to these 
 four letters ; and it is certain, whatever our opinion as to 
 the formation of the canon of the New Testament, or the 
 degree of authority attaching to it when formed, may be, 
 that the Eeligion of the Christ, or the belief in Jesus as 
 
xii Preface. 
 
 the Christ, is not only common to every document com- 
 prised in it, but is alike the very backbone and essential 
 framework of all the documents. 
 
 We may take it therefore as a position which is unassail- 
 able, that the distinguishing mark of Christianity, from 
 the very first, trace it back as far as we can, was the belief 
 that Jesus was the Christ. So manifestly true is this 
 statement, that the mere expression of it has all the ap- 
 pearance of a truism. And yet it is not by any means 
 such ; because, what is not involved in the fact, undenied 
 and undeniable, that a vast society was called into exist- 
 ence, and held together, by the confession and belief that 
 Jesus was the Christ, and that but for such a confession 
 and belief this society would and could have had no exist- 
 ence ? There are involved at least these two principles 
 1. That the conception of the Christ, whether right or 
 wrong, was a reality, and a reality fraught with the 
 mightiest consequences; and 2. That the features of the 
 human life of Jesus were adequate to setting in motion 
 the machinery which was latent in the Christ-conception. 
 
 And as to the strength and truth of this position, the 
 evidence of the New Testament, whatever the date and 
 authorship of its various parts may be, is conclusive and 
 unimpeachable. Taking the very widest possible margin, 
 we may say that within the first century and a half of our 
 era this simple formula, Jesus is the Christ, had called into 
 existence the whole of that literature, whatever its value, 
 which is comprised in the New Testament. Within that 
 period of time, from which we must of course deduct the 
 thirty years of our Lord's own life, there had, as a matter 
 of fact, come into existence the four Gospels, the Acts of 
 the Apostles, the Apostolical Epistles, and the Eevelation; 
 that is to say, we have certain literary monuments which 
 must have come into existence between A.D. 30 and A.D. 
 150, and their actual existence is the problem to be solved. 
 
Preface. xiii 
 
 Practically, this period may be considerably lessened. No 
 one wishes to prove the existence of any Christian docu- 
 ment prior to A.D. 50, and it is making unnecessary 
 concessions to suppose that even the latest book of the 
 New Testament is so late as A.D. 150. Within a period, 
 then, probably at the most of seventy or eighty years, 
 our existing documents were produced. To what was their 
 production owing? Solely to the belief that Jesus was 
 the Christ. It is alike impossible to eliminate this funda- 
 mental tenet from any one of the books in question, and 
 to account for their existence without pre-supposing its 
 belief. 
 
 The religion or belief, then, of which the books may be 
 taken as the actual, and in some sense the natural expres- 
 sion, may be called the Religion of the Christ. The 
 immediate result of that religion or belief was the creation 
 of a unique literature, for which no parallel can be found 
 in the literary history of the world. The literature was 
 the product, and is the witness to the existence, of a 
 particular society known to us also from extraneous sources 
 as the Christian society, whose very name brings us back 
 again to the idea which was latent in every one of the 
 books, that the Christ had come, and that Jesus was the 
 Christ. It matters not now whether the society authenti- 
 cates the books, or the books authenticate the society. To 
 a certain extent the books, it must be allowed, have a 
 testimony of their own; they are a fair index of the society 
 which created them, and their relative position with respect 
 to other books which were produced by the society is a 
 proof of the estimate in which they were held by it; while 
 in the case both of the society and the books it was not 
 possible for either to have existed without the previous 
 acceptance of the underlying principle that Jesus was the 
 Christ. This was at once the germ of the society's exist- 
 ence, the means of its cohesion and support when formed 
 
 I 
 
xiv Preface. 
 
 and the root-principle to which the books bore witness, 
 and to which alone they owed their being. 
 
 Not, however, that the maintenance of this principle 
 was the direct object of all the books. It was so with the 
 four Gospels only. We may say of them that the purpose 
 for which they were written was to proclaim Jesus as the 
 Christ. St. John said of his own record of events, These 
 are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ. 1 
 And the same might have been affirmed by the other 
 Evangelists. But with the rest of the books this is not so 
 much the purpose as the cause of their being written. In 
 every one the position is accepted as a foregone conclusion 
 which can only be referred to incidentally, but which is 
 none the less present to the writer's mind and to the minds 
 of all for whom he writes. Eliminate from him and them 
 the belief in Jesus as the Christ, and you destroy the 
 peculiar and essential features of their existence. 
 
 And this, it must be observed, is altogether independent 
 of the abstract truth of the principle they accepted. Here 
 we have this obvious literary fact, the creation and exis- 
 tence of a new and original literature solely in consequence 
 of the belief in Jesus as the Christ. The rise of the Christ- 
 religion proclaimed itself by the rise of a new literature 
 which gathered round the central thought of Jesus as the 
 Christ. This is an undoubted fact, independent alike of 
 the genuineness and authenticity of the several books and 
 of the actual truth of their central thought. 
 
 Nor can it for a moment be maintained that the move- 
 ment thus expressing itself was trivial or unimportant. 
 We cannot pass it by as an insignificant or an uninteresting 
 phenomenon. As a matter of fact the movement which so 
 early produced these literary monuments, and resulted in 
 what we call Christianity, has lasted to the present day ; 
 it has played a most prominent part in modern history ; 
 
 1 St. John xx. 31. 
 
Preface. xv 
 
 by some means or other it supplanted the dominion of the 
 Caesars, and established itself on the imperial throne; it 
 has penetrated all the framework of our social, political, 
 and educational existence, and intertwined itself with our 
 civilisation, morals, and government. Moreover, it is even 
 now from time to time forcing itself into inconvenient 
 prominence, and superinducing complications with which 
 it is by no means easy to deal, and suggesting problems it 
 is hard to solve, and yet not easy to put by. 
 
 The fact, therefore, of the rise of this Christ-religion 
 and Christ-literature derives unquestionably an additional 
 significance from the nature of its subsequent history. It 
 cannot be treated as a merely transient or passing incident. 
 Whether or not it was calculated to be followed by conse- 
 quences so tremendous, these are the consequences by which 
 it was followed. It is possible that the haze of distance 
 may have concealed from view many of the circumstances 
 connected with the rise of this religion which it must be 
 hopeless for us ever to discover ; but the results produced 
 are independent of this obscurity, and are what they are, 
 neither more nor less, even though somewhere in the first 
 origin of the movement there may have been something 
 faulty, or which, at all events, science now regards as un- 
 satisfactory. 
 
 In the long run, however, it is a sound maxim that the 
 work proves the workman, and it is an inference not alto- 
 gether hasty or unreasonable that a movement such as that 
 of the Christ-religion, which has wrought so marvellously, 
 cannot have been inherently defective from the first. No 
 human agency or combination of human agents could have 
 sufficed to produce the effects which have notoriously been 
 produced, and therefore the effects may be estimated, not 
 as the designed production of one or of many individuals, 
 but as those great problems of history which are fraught 
 with their own significance, and demand their own solution. 
 
xvi Preface. 
 
 "We may hold our judgment in suspense as to whether this 
 particular work is of Nature or of God, but at all events 
 it unquestionably is not of man. 
 
 And the alternative is named advisedly, of Nature or of 
 God, because this with regard to Christianity is really the 
 issue at stake. If the actual phenomena of the rise of the 
 Christ-religion can be accounted for naturally, then there 
 is an end to its claim to be in any sense the special expo- 
 nent of the Divine will. Nature may be indeed another 
 name for God, but God and Nature are not convertible 
 terms, and to attempt to make them so is to destroy the 
 special characteristics of both. God may have spoken, and 
 doubtless has spoken, by all the religions of the world, but 
 He has done so in a negative way, by showing us where 
 they failed to apprehend the fulness of the truth, or to 
 supply the actual craving of man's heart. If He has 
 spoken by the Eeligion of the Christ, He has done so in 
 a special and a positive way, which differs alike in the 
 answer given to the wants of humanity and in the manner 
 of His giving it. If the Eeligion of the Christ can be 
 resolved into a mere expression of natural religion a mere 
 variation of other expressions then it forthwith comes to 
 an end, because there is no room for the Christ-function, 
 and no meaning in the Christ-idea ; then, in that case, God 
 and Nature are absolutely identical, and what is done by 
 Nature is done by God, and what is done by God is only 
 done by and in and through Nature ; and then Christ is an 
 anomaly in Nature, interfering not only with the free action 
 of her laws, but antagonistic in the very principle and 
 idea of His existence, as proposing to discharge a function 
 for which Nature has no need. 
 
 It must be observed, however, that, supposing God to 
 have spoken by all the religions of the world, and to have 
 spoken in the same sense by Christianity too, then the 
 message of Christianity must be in virtual harmony with 
 
Preface. xvii 
 
 the message of other religions; it may surpass or excel, 
 but it cannot contradict them. Now, the question whether 
 or not it does contradict them is unhappily not a matter 
 of opinion, but a matter of fact, and capable of conclusive 
 demonstration. The history of Christianity from the first 
 has been a history of conflict of conflict, however, not 
 sought, but encountered ; and the severity of this conflict 
 was originally felt in the contact of Christianity with the 
 elder religion from which it sprang, or at least with those 
 who were the professed and devoted adherents of that 
 religion. Nor has Christianity proved to be more acceptable 
 to the other religions with which it has been brought in 
 contact whether with the paganism of Greece and Home, 
 or with Islam, in the middle ages, or with Brahrnanism or 
 Buddhism in the East. It has never been received as an 
 ally, but always been rejected as a foe. We may assume, 
 therefore, that the message of Christianity is not in accord- 
 ance with, but opposed to, the message of other religions. 
 There is a point where it comes into collision with and 
 contradicts them on their own showing; and this is the 
 point which is expressed in the foundation and central 
 idea of it as the Eeligion of the Christ. As long as Chris- 
 tianity is content to be placed on a par merely with other 
 religions, there is no offence; it is when she asserts her 
 inherent superiority because of her Divine election, it is 
 when she takes her stand upon Jesus as the Christ or 
 chosen of God, that the cause of offence arises. Then it 
 is that the Master's words begin to verify themselves, as 
 they so often have, lam not come to send peace, hut a sword? 
 
 And Christianity may historically be regarded as the 
 Eeligion of the Christ. The earliest monuments of it show 
 that its most essential feature was the recognition of the 
 Christ character of Jesus. But when we come to examine 
 
 2 St. Matt. x. 34, 35; St. Luke xii. 49, 51. 
 
xviii Preface. 
 
 this Christ character we find it was by no means peculiar 
 to Christianity, but was in fact the legitimate and special 
 offspring of Judaism, so that Christianity grew like a young 
 and tender plant out of the soil of Judaism. This also is 
 a fact which cannot be denied. If the Christ idea had not 
 existed in Judaism, the actual foundation of Christianity 
 would have been wanting, and its rise would have been 
 impossible. The Eeligion of the Christ, therefore, may 
 be regarded as reaching both before and after the time of 
 Jesus of Nazareth ; for it is certain that the very earliest 
 records of the Jewish nation either exhibit traces of the 
 Christ idea or manifest features which supplied the actual 
 foundation of the idea. The Religion of the Christ, then, 
 is not merely that which we commonly understand by 
 Christianity, but much more the complete phenomenon of 
 the idea regarded as a whole, and embracing the earliest 
 traces of it, as well as its full development in the writings 
 of the New Testament. And this phenomenon is a literary 
 fact established by literary monuments extending on the 
 lowest possible computation over a period of a thousand 
 years, from the earliest document in the Old Testament to 
 the latest in the New. It is alike impossible to account 
 for the literary existence of the New Testament without 
 assuming the reality of a Christ element in the Old, and 
 to account for its existence on the assumption that it is a 
 mere exaggeration and the natural development of that 
 Christ element. 
 
 It is obvious, moreover, that these two positions are 
 mutually destructive. If the books of the New Testament 
 can be accounted for on the supposition of the intensity 
 and fanatical ardour of the Messianic anticipations of the 
 Disciples, then those anticipations presuppose a sufficient 
 foundation for them in the books of the Old Testament, 
 inasmuch as they can be referred to nothing else; we 
 
Preface. xix 
 
 must acknowledge the existence of a Christ idea, which 
 can only have been derived from them. If, on the other 
 hand, we may assume the non-existence of any such ele- 
 ment, then it is clear that the New Testament cannot have 
 been caused by the exaggerated development of this ele- 
 ment. Or if, once more, it is affirmed that the Disciples 
 had indeed these anticipations in an extravagant degree, but 
 that there was no valid foundation for them in the Scrip- 
 tures, which can be critically explained otherwise, then 
 we must admit that historical phenomena which are most 
 remarkable, and literary phenomena which are unique, 
 were alike the direct and natural consequences of a mis- 
 apprehension so complete, of a blunder so palpable and 
 gross. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the actual historic rise of 
 faith in Jesus as the Christ, and the historic and literary 
 results of that belief, may legitimately be allowed to have 
 a retrospective value as evidence of the true meaning of 
 the Scriptures. It is hardly possible to account reasonably 
 for the character and prevalence of the Messianic an- 
 ticipations, of which we have literary proof in the first 
 century of our era, on the assumption that these antici- 
 pations were not warranted by the language of Scripture 
 were even a deviation from it. At all events, the Scrip- 
 tures alone must be held responsible for their existence. 
 It is surely, therefore, a daring course to adopt, to say that 
 the historic result was one which ought never to have 
 been produced. May we not rather say, that if the voice 
 of God is ever to be heard in history, it may be heard in 
 this historic result ? And is it not a further confirmation 
 of its actual truth, that these ancient Scriptures, even 
 when read now-a-days after so long an interval, are still 
 found to be replete with an inexhaustible treasury of 
 meaning which they could not have had for their original 
 possessors, but which is derived solely from their relation 
 
xx Preface. 
 
 to and association with Jesus as the Christ ? If He has 
 thus shown Himself the light of prophecy, may we not 
 infer that His was the light for which prophecy waited, 
 and to which it was designed to point ? 
 
 But if so, nothing can be more obvious than that such 
 a combination of results is not to be reckoned as the pro- 
 duct of nature ; because the only interpretation of it can 
 be, that this is the expression of personal will manifesting 
 itself through the results of history and the facts of litera- 
 ture. Given the phenomena of prophecy as they are, and 
 the human life of a person in whom, supposing his Christ- 
 character to be a true one, their meaning is not only realised, 
 but intensified and heightened to an infinite and before 
 inconceivable degree, is it possible to regard the juxta- 
 position of the two as an insignificant and casual incident ? 
 If it is fraught with any meaning at all, the meaning is 
 one which can only be other than natural and above nature. 
 It is an expression of God's will such as is not elsewhere 
 found, in the order and harmony of the natural world, in 
 the ordinary course of history, and the like ; it is expressive 
 of moral and spiritual truths which are not to be derived 
 from other sources, and it teaches lessons which nature is 
 incompetent to teach. 
 
 Now this is the position which we claim for the Eeligion 
 of the Christ. It finds its place naturally among the 
 religions of the world, for it was the direct descendant of 
 one of the oldest of them, and it has been brought into 
 contact with all of them. But it stands on a different 
 footing from all. For no religion can point to the same 
 historic and literary development which the Eeligion of 
 the Christ can show. In no other case has the supposed 
 fulfilment of the promises of an earlier religion produced 
 anything like the phenomena which were produced by the 
 first preaching of Jesus as the Christ ; in no other case has 
 the similar proclamation of such a fact, or supposed fact, 
 
Preface. xxi 
 
 produced within fifty years after it was first proclaimed 
 anything like the literary phenomena which we know for 
 a certainty were produced in various writings of the New 
 Testament. These two features, the one historic and the 
 other literary, are unique in the case of the Eeligion of the 
 Christ. May we not then fairly claim this historic and 
 literary development of the religion as a patent evidence 
 of its origin ? It is useless to point to any other literary 
 monuments such as the Vedas, the Kuran, or the like 
 because, independently of the inherent and intrinsic differ- 
 ence of their substantive message, they differ fundamentally 
 in the known circumstances of their origin. The Kuran, 
 no less than the Christian books, may be regarded as the 
 literary offspring of the Old Testament ; but who has ever 
 found in Muhammad the analogue or antitype of the Jewish 
 Messiah, and who would for a moment compare the literary 
 origin of the New Testament with that of the Kuran ? 
 One was the spontaneous growth of circumstances, and 
 the product of many minds ; the other was the deliberate 
 production of a single mind for a definite and deliberate 
 purpose. To confound in any degree the two productions 
 would be to lack altogether the faculty of discrimination 
 the critical faculty. But if their literary and historic 
 difference is so great, it is impossible that the two religions 
 they represent can stand on the same basis. To imagine 
 that they do is to reject the evidence of facts. 
 
 And it is to this broad evidence that we point in 
 attestation of the claims that were undoubtedly advanced 
 by those who first proclaimed the Eeligion of the Christ. 
 We have a marvellous historic and literary result distinctly 
 traceable to no other cause than the supposed fulfilment 
 in a particular person of the obvious and known require- 
 ments of prophecy. Of the nature of this fulfilment we 
 are, to some extent competent judges ourselves. According 
 to one view, the degree of the fulfilment is only to be 
 
xxii Preface. 
 
 regarded as infinite ; it is continually revealing itself to 
 every independent student and disciple. According to 
 another view, the fulfilment is simply nil, and purely 
 imaginary. But this we may safely affirm, that the known 
 results of the supposed fulfilment of prophecy in Jesus of 
 Nazareth cannot be accounted for on the supposition that 
 there was no more apparent correspondence between the 
 person of Jesus and the character of the Messiah than 
 those who hold this latter view would have us believe, or 
 on the assumption that the correspondence was unreal. 
 The Gospels, as we have them, which point to this corre- 
 spondence, may more properly be regarded as the outcome 
 of the belief in Jesus than as the cause of it. The belief 
 itself is still to be accounted for, even if we reject the 
 Gospel view of the character of Jesus, arid so likewise are 
 the consequences which followed the belief. 
 
 It is important, therefore, to remember that it is not 
 merely with literary monuments that we have to deal, but 
 with the known historic fact of great results produced, of 
 which the literature itself, however regarded, is the surest 
 proof. Can the supposition of falsehood in the character 
 and claims of Jesus adequately account for these results ? 
 or, rather, can they adequately be accounted for on this 
 supposition ? Certainly not. 
 
 There must have been other causes at work which we 
 are at a loss to conjecture for these known results to have 
 been produced, on the supposition that there was a lie in 
 the alleged character of Christ ; while, on the supposition 
 that His character was what it is represented to have been, 
 all the phenomena to be accounted for are fully explained. 
 
 The question of the genuineness of particular books is 
 altogether a separate matter, to be decided on other grounds; 
 but it would appear that these considerations are still of 
 weight, however, in particular cases, this question of genu- 
 ineness may be determined. 
 
Preface. xxiii 
 
 And the wholly anonymous character of the first three 
 Gospels would seem to corroborate this position. That the 
 first Gospel is known by the name of St. Matthew does 
 not pledge us to establish his traditional right to be the 
 author of it before the narrative can be received as one 
 substantially trustworthy, any more than it can be justly 
 regarded as a claim advanced by him to have written it. 
 And unless it can be shown that the original results pro- 
 duced by the preaching of Jesus were owing solely to the 
 publication of this and the other existing Gospels, which 
 is absurd, it cannot be maintained that we are bound to 
 substantiate their genuineness as veritable productions of 
 the men whose names they bear, before we can insist upon 
 or appeal to their authority ; because, as a matter of fact, 
 the acknowledgment of these Gospels from a very early 
 period as authentic narratives by the Christian society can 
 be proved, 3 and because the known existence and phenomena 
 of that society cannot be accounted for but on the suppo- 
 sition of substantial identity between the narrative of the 
 present Gospels and the very earliest Gospel narrative that 
 was proclaimed. The existence and peculiar features of 
 the earliest Christian society as we know them can only 
 be explained on the supposition that a particular story was 
 everywhere accepted, the central facts of which it is easy 
 to discover. This story was unquestionably proclaimed by 
 the first disciples of Christ ; and whether the record that 
 we have of it emanated immediately from them or not, it 
 is absolutely impossible that it should be substantially 
 different. 4 
 
 3 See Dr. Westcott on The Canon of the New Testament. 
 
 4 Compare, for example : " If the Gospel of St. Matthew, such as we 
 now possess it, is undoubtedly the work of the publican who followed 
 our Lord from the receipt of custom, and remained with Him to be a witness 
 of His ascension ; if St. John's Gospel was written by the beloved disciple 
 who lay on Jesus' breast at supper; if the other two were indeed the com- 
 panions of St. Peter and St Paul ; if in these four Gospels we have inde- 
 
xxiv Preface. 
 
 For example, it is impossible that the story of the resur- 
 rection should not have been a substantive part of the 
 primitive and original Gospel. Wherever St. Matthew 
 preached, we know as a fact that this is what he must have 
 preached. Whether, then, or not he wrote the Gospel that 
 bears his name is a matter of secondary importance, com- 
 pared with the absolute certainty there is that his testimony 
 on such points as the resurrection and Messiahship of Jesus 
 cannot have been intrinsically divergent from that of our 
 existing record. This consideration, which is perfectly 
 valid, is quite sufficient to show that a doubt thrown on 
 the genuineness of one or more of our existing Gospels 
 is inadequate to disprove the essential truth of the Gospel, 
 because certain known effects could not have been brought 
 about but by an agency in all material and important 
 
 pendent accounts of our Lord's life and passion, mutually confirming each 
 other ; and if it can be proved that they existed and were received as 
 authentic in the first century of the Christian Church, a stronger man 
 than M. Renan will fail to shake the hold of Christianity in England." 
 Froude, Short Studies, i. 242. 
 
 Of St. John's Gospel he himself observes afterwards : " It is enough to 
 say that the defects of external evidence which undoubtedly exist seem 
 overborne by the overwhelming proofs of authenticity contained in the 
 Gospel itself." Ibid, p. 252. 
 
 This latter is a very considerable admission. If it is granted that there 
 are "overwhelming proofs" for the Gospel of St. John being written by 
 the beloved disciple who lay on Jesus' breast at supper, then we have in 
 the admitted genuineness of the Gospel a strong ground for its authen- 
 ticity, the strongest that can be desired. It may be a matter of question 
 how far the credibility of the ordinary events recorded in the other Gos- 
 pels is dependent on the fact of their being by the several authors whose 
 names they bear. It is certain that no one of them professes so much of 
 itself. But at all events we must not forget that there are certain features 
 of our Lord's life and character for which we are not dependent upon the 
 fact that St. Matthew's Gospel was written by St. Matthew, or St. Mark's 
 by St. Mark, but much more upon the known phenomena of an early 
 Christian society, whose very existence would have been impossible with- 
 out the underlying framework of the life of Christ, and whose phenomena 
 determine within certain limits what that life and character must have 
 been. 
 
Preface. xxv 
 
 points identical with that which they represent and express. 
 When, however, it is borne in mind that any such doubts 
 are virtually baseless and unwarrantable, it is satisfactory 
 to know, not only that the main issue is independent of 
 them, as it really is, but also that, if it were not, they are 
 not deserving of the serious attention we are willing to 
 bestow upon them. 
 
 In like manner, when it is asserted, as one has heard 
 it asserted, on ostensibly high authority, that we have no 
 materials for a critical life of Christ because the evidence 
 is not adequate to showing that our present Gospels ex- 
 isted as they are 5 much before A.D. 170, one is naturally 
 disposed to enquire, How is the position of the ordinary 
 Christian of the present day affected by any such state- 
 ment, supposing it to be valid, as he has neither the time 
 nor the power to determine ? And here likewise the con- 
 sideration of Christianity as the Keligion of the Christ 
 will materially assist us. Given the assumption that we 
 cannot rely upon the detailed facts of our Lord's life as 
 stated in the Gospels, because the accounts vary, because 
 some particulars are of later accretion, and because the 
 generally miraculous character of the narrative is alone 
 fatal to its credibility how far are we dependent on any 
 such assumption ? It is certain that the earliest form of 
 Christianity was directly and immediately connected with 
 the belief in and acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. This 
 position is absolutely impregnable. The evidence of it is 
 documentary ; it is abundant, it is unvarying, and it is 
 conclusive. What, then, do we know of the Jesus who 
 was thus accepted as the Christ ? We know that He was 
 
 5 Cf. e.g. only, not as the case alluded to in the text. "The four 
 Gospels, in the form and under the names which they at present bear, 
 become visible only with distinctness towards the end of the second 
 century of the Christian era." Froude, Short Studies, i. 248. Small 
 edition. 
 
xxvi Preface. 
 
 crucified, we know when and where and under what cir- 
 cumstances He was crucified. We know that this death 
 by crucifixion, which was a central and universally com- 
 mon feature of the belief concerning Jesus, was also a 
 feature the most unpromising for the proclamation of His 
 being the Christ to be built upon. And yet the two are 
 found uniformly combined, both among the Gentiles and 
 the Jews. Now, if we knew nothing more of Jesus than 
 this fact, we might, considering what we know of the faith 
 itself, draw certain inferences which would not only be 
 legitimate but inevitable. For instance, we should be safe 
 in concluding that the Jesus who was thus accepted as 
 the Christ was a person who had really lived. His death 
 also on the cross must have been a fact. The reality also 
 of those expectations, whatever they were, which are im- 
 plied in the epithet Christ, is established beyond a doubt ; 
 and that these expectations had been the net historic 
 result of the Scriptures of the Old Testament is a re- 
 markable fact which has no parallel. We can point to 
 no other literature which has produced so striking and 
 manifest an historic result. It is unique in the history of 
 literature. But, further, we must infer also that if the 
 death of Jesus was an unfavourable basis for the establish- 
 ment of His claims to be the Messiah, then the features 
 of His personal character must have been such as to 
 counteract all these unfavourable conditions. He can 
 have been no ordinary man. There must have been very 
 remarkable characteristics attending His person and His 
 career which alone would have made it possible that He 
 should be recognised as the Messiah. Under the circum- 
 stances, the mere fact of His dying the death of crucifixion 
 would simply have been fatal to it. There is evidence, 
 however, to show that, as a matter of fact, instead of its 
 being fatal to it, this was the very cause of His being so 
 recognised. We are compelled, therefore, to the inference 
 
Preface. xxvii 
 
 that there must have been something very remarkable in 
 His life or in His death, or after His death, to account 
 for a circumstance so anomalous as that His death on 
 the cross should be the principal cause of belief in His 
 Messiahship, or at least an element inseparable from that 
 cause, whatever it might be. Consequently, we are safe 
 in the conclusion that the personal character of Jesus was 
 unquestionable, that He must have been pre-eminently 
 virtuous. There is, however, abundant evidence to show 
 that the character of the Messiah was not one that the 
 disciples of Jesus had invented for Him, but also one to 
 which He Himself laid claim. We know nothing of His 
 history if we do not know that He claimed to be the Mes- 
 siah. For example, \ve cannot account for His death but 
 upon this supposition. Consequently, we have these three 
 elements: first, His known death; secondly, the claim 
 which we must assume was advanced by Him; thirdly, 
 the integrity of personal character essential to any wide 
 recognition of the claim. But the last two must stand or 
 fall together. It is impossible that Jesus should have 
 claimed to be the Messiah, and have been content to die 
 for the claim, and yet have been personally upright, if He 
 was not justified in advancing the claim. In that case the 
 integrity of His character comes to an end, and the only 
 estimate we can form of it is one which will throw Him 
 open to the charge of gross and deliberate imposition. 
 We must determine, therefore, whether, in the face of the 
 evidence, we are prepared to form this estimate of the 
 personal character of Jesus. With regard, however, to the 
 elements without which a belief in His Messiahship could 
 not have been established, we may say that while His 
 death on the cross would naturally have been fatal to 
 that belief, it would also materially have corroborated the 
 supposed integrity of His character if His character had 
 previously had the appearance of blainelessness ; and, 
 
xxviii Preface. 
 
 coupled with the fact that He had openly claimed to 
 be the Messiah, it would tend to establish its integrity. 
 But the death of Jesus, together with His claim to be 
 the Messiah, which, combined with the integrity of His 
 personal character, it seemed to establish, could not alone 
 have given the impulse to that belief in His Messiahship 
 which we know to have been so widely diffused. We must 
 throw in the announcement of His resurrection, which was 
 universally made and within the Christian body uniformly 
 believed. Indeed, when all things are considered, it is 
 impossible to account for the general spread of the belief 
 in Jesus as the Christ, without supposing that it was 
 mainly occasioned by the announcement that He had 
 risen from the dead. The question, then, we have to 
 decide is simply this : Is it more easy to account for the 
 phenomena of the early Christian society on the suppo- 
 sition that the resurrection of Jesus was a reality, or on 
 the opposite supposition that it was not ? And in reply, 
 it cannot be denied that, on the supposition of its being a 
 reality, all these known phenomena would be at once and 
 amply accounted for ; whereas, on the supposition that it 
 was not, a known effect is left without any adequate cause, 
 and it may be reasonably doubted whether it is theoreti- 
 cally possible to account for it. 
 
 For in that case we should be reduced to the admission 
 of these causes as really and efficiently operative : The 
 death of Jesus; His claim to be the Messiah; the integrity 
 of His personal character; the belief among His immediate 
 followers that He had risen from the dead; and the an- 
 nouncement persistently made by them and others to that 
 effect. Of these causes the death of Jesus was most 
 unlikely to produce belief in His Messiahship, as we have 
 seen ; His personal claim to be the Messiah was not likely 
 to be more operative ; the integrity of His personal cha- 
 racter alone would have been insufficient; and therefore 
 
Preface. xxix 
 
 we are compelled to assume that the known phenomena of 
 the first Christian society were produced merely by an 
 intense belief in that which was not true. That is to say, 
 the faith of the disciples produced results which, but for 
 it, they were themselves unable to have produced. 
 
 To what, then, is this faith of the disciples traceable ? 
 To suppose that they were intentional deceivers is im- 
 possible ; we can only imagine they were the victims of 
 delusion. How did they themselves become possessed of 
 the conviction that Jesus was the Christ ? Two causes are 
 at once apparent the actual teaching of Jesus, and His 
 personal character. They could not have been for any 
 considerable time in His society, and have arrived at the 
 conclusion that He was the Christ, unless His personal 
 character had been in accordance with His claims. Nor 
 would they have been very likely to adopt the notion of 
 His being the Messiah unless it had been encouraged by 
 Him. When, however, they had seen their Master expire 
 on the cross, there must have been an end to all their 
 anticipations about Him, for it was precisely this death 
 of His which was the least likely to convince them of His 
 Messiahship. We are constrained, therefore, to postulate 
 the occurrence of something after His death which had the 
 effect not only of reviving their hopes, but of establishing 
 on a secure basis their conviction that He was the Christ, 
 in which they never afterwards wavered. If this was not 
 His resurrection, it was at all events the belief common 
 to all of them, that He had actually risen. His resurrection, 
 however, does not appear to have been an event for which 
 they were prepared ; on the contrary, it took them one and 
 all by surprise ; they were not, it seems, without difficulty 
 brought to -believe in it. To what, then, was this belief 
 owing? The fact of the resurrection would at once account 
 for it ? Can it be otherwise accounted for ? In their case 
 also, therefore, we have certain known results produced 
 
 c 
 
xxx Preface. 
 
 which point us to a particular cause, but are not easily to 
 be explained by the supposition of any other cause. And 
 when to these results we add the others, equally patent 
 of the peculiar life the disciples forthwith adopted of going 
 about preaching the story of the resurrection, and of the 
 remarkable consequences which followed their preaching 
 it becomes by no means easy to accept the answer that the 
 belief of the disciples is a sufficient explanation of all the 
 phenomena, on the hypothesis that the resurrection was 
 not a fact, when it is absolutely certain that had it been 
 a fact there would remain nothing which required to be 
 accounted for. We are able, then, to determine how far 
 a critical life of Christ is an indispensable preliminary to 
 our belief in Him. Even on the assumption that we had 
 no materials for such a life, it would not follow that belief 
 in Him was an impossibility; for it is certain that the 
 results which actually followed the first proclamation of 
 Jesus as the Christ are such as to lead us up to a few 
 broad and definite facts as their necessary cause, and to 
 make us virtually independent of all others. Whether one 
 blind man was healed at Jericho, or two, may be more or 
 less uncertain ; but the uncertainty attaching to that event 
 is no measure at all of the degree of positive knowledge 
 we possess as to the death of Jesus and the prevalence of 
 belief in His resurrection. 
 
 In like manner we are enabled, by a due consideration 
 of the historic and literary phenomena of the Eeligion of 
 the Christ, to arrive at a more correct idea of the position 
 attaching to miracles in the scheme of revelation. It is 
 not true to say that " the Eevelation rests upon miracles, 
 which have nothing to rest upon but the Eevelation." 6 The 
 
 e Miracles, of the reality of which there is no evidence worthy of the 
 name, are not only contradictory to complete induction, but even on the 
 avowal of those who affirm them, they only cease to be incredible upon 
 certain assumptions with regard to the Supreme Being which are equally 
 
Preface. xxxi 
 
 revelation is recorded in a literature which presents features 
 altogether unique that no concatenation of purely natural 
 causes is sufficient to account for. Here then we have a 
 solid basis for the miraculous to rest on, for we are con- 
 fronted with phenomena which were not merely exceptional 
 but above nature. It is not this or that detail, this or that 
 text or expression, which cannot be explained, but the vast 
 and complex whole is so remarkable as to challenge to 
 itself the special tokens of a Divinely ordered work. We 
 have the appearance of an historic person, whose position 
 in history, as a matter of fact, whether rightly or wrongly, 
 has been determined by His relation to the ancient litera- 
 ture of His country. That literature did not create His 
 character, but it did create the part He played in history. 
 Stupendous consequences have ensued from His relation to 
 the Scriptures. These consequences themselves are out of 
 the ordinary course of nature. They may well be termed 
 miraculous. 7 Had there been nothing miraculous in the 
 Old Testament, the character of Jesus and the Eeligion of 
 the Christ would have been alike impossible. Had there 
 been nothing miraculous in the person and character of 
 
 opposed to Reason. These assumptions, it is not denied, are solely derived 
 from the Revelation which miracles are intended to attest, and the whole 
 argument, therefore, ends in the palpable absurdity of making the Reve- 
 lation rest upon miracles which have nothing to rest upon themselves but 
 the Revelation. The antecedent assumption of the Divine design of 
 Revelation and of the necessity for it stands upon no firmer foundation, 
 and it is emphatically excluded by the whole constitution of the order 
 of nature, whose imperative principle is progressive development." 
 Supernatural Religion, ii. 480. First Edition. Longmans. 1874. 
 
 7 " When the man of science can find a natural cause, he refuses to 
 entertain the possibility of the intervention of a cause beyond nature." 
 Froude, i. 234. 
 
 By all means ; but surely the converse must hold good likewise ; and 
 when no natural cause can be discovered, and when it plainly does not 
 exist, then let us admit, not only the possibility, but the fact of the inter- 
 vention of a cause beyond nature. It is that which we find in the Religion 
 of the Christ. 
 
xxxii Preface. 
 
 Jesus, the New Testament, as a mere literary phenomenon, 
 would have been impossible, and so would the existence of 
 the Christian church. These things singly are evidences of 
 the miraculous only short of demonstration; taken together 
 they furnish the completest possible moral proof of what 
 can only be regarded as a miracle. But having arrived so 
 far, it is not hard to see that what is miraculous as a whole 
 may also be miraculous in its parts. What is in itself 
 miraculous may be fraught with miracles. Any one of such 
 miracles may be beyond the reach of scientific proof, and 
 must be. 8 The resurrection of Lazarus at this distance of 
 time cannot be investigated, and therefore cannot be proved ; 
 but who shall say that the resurrection of Lazarus was 
 
 8 " Every thinking person who has been brought up a Christian, and 
 desires to remain a Christian, yet who knows anything of what is passing 
 in the world, is looking to be told on what evidence the New Testament 
 claims to be received. The state of opinion proves of itself that the 
 arguments hitherto offered produce no conviction. Every other miraculous 
 history is discredited as legend, however exalted the authority on which 
 it seems to be rested. We crave to have good reason shown us for main- 
 taining still the one great exception." Froude, i. 264. 
 
 If there is any value in the considerations now offered, it is plain that 
 the whole surroundings of Christianity, in its known historic and literary 
 development, are so remarkable as to constitute, at all events, a sufficient 
 claim to our most earnest attention. When we have determined the 
 amount of deference that is due to its moral and spiritual teaching, then, 
 and not before, it will be time to decide about its miracles. If we can 
 determine that the authority on which this teaching rests is merely human, 
 that it is not rooted in the Divine, then we may reject the miracles by 
 which it is accompanied as human likewise, that is to say fictitious. If 
 we are constrained to admit that the teaching is Divine, that the circum- 
 stances under which it was communicated and the method of its communi- 
 cation were highly exceptional, and in fact unparalleled, then we may be 
 willing to allow, not only that the revelation affords a presumption in 
 favour of the miracles, but also that the miracles themselves, if true, 
 would even tend to confirm the revelation. The essential history of the 
 revelation, in all its bearings, itself involves a miracle, the greatest 
 miracle of all. If this miracle is rejected, it is impossible that any other 
 can be received ; if it is acknowledged, it may even carry others in its 
 train. 
 
 Bearing on this matter are the thoughtful words of Mr. Henry Eogers, in 
 
Preface. xxxiii 
 
 beyond the power of one who should Himself rise from 
 the dead ? If His resurrection from the dead was the 
 ostensible and the declared spring of a movement which 
 in all its features cannot be accounted for on the suppo- 
 sition that it was unreal, is amply accounted for on the 
 supposition that it was real, we have then, surely, laid in 
 history a substantial basis upon which [the resurrection of 
 Lazarus may rest, upon which it becomes intelligible, and 
 not only intelligible but consistent. The resurrection of 
 Christ carries with it the resurrection of Lazarus; and 
 though the resurrection of Lazarus does not prove the 
 resurrection of Christ, it may fairly be regarded as a link 
 in the chain of preparation for it, and to those who have 
 already believed in a risen Christ it comes with the force 
 of an additional confirmation of that which has otherwise 
 been found to be true. Miracles were regarded by our 
 
 his recent work. The Superhuman Origin of the Bible, which I had not the 
 pleasure of reading till after these Lectures were in print, but in which I 
 am thankful to find so many of the sentiments expressed in them confirmed. 
 "As to those more extensive excisions which demand the surrender of all 
 that is supernatural in the Bible (however interfused with all its elements, 
 and as incapable of being rent from it without destroying it, as the system 
 of bones or arteries from the human body without destroying that), the 
 advocate of the Bible will justly require, before even listening to such a 
 demand, that science shall not affirm, but demonstrate, the impossibility or 
 incredibility of miracles. When she has done that, 1 for one acknowledge 
 that it will be time to shut the book as a hopeless riddle of fable or false- 
 hood, or both, which it will be hardly worth while to open again. Mean- 
 time he who admits in any degree the reasoning in these lectures ; namely, 
 that the Bible is not to be accounted for by merely human forces, ought 
 not to feel much difficulty in this last matter ; for if he concedes a revela- 
 tion at all, in which are discovered truths and facts undiscoverable by 
 human faculties, and conveyed in modes and forms for which human 
 nature will not account, he has already admitted a miracle & fact as much 
 in the face of that 'invariable order' of nature, and 'those immutable 
 series of antecedents and consequents' on which the objector to miracles 
 insists, as any that can be conceived. The only difference is, that the 
 miracle here has been wrought in the sphere of mind, and not in that of 
 matter a difference which, to a man who knows what the objection to all 
 miracles logically involves, will not affect the question." pp. 422, 423. 
 
xxxiv Preface. 
 
 blessed Lord as a subordinate proof of that mission which 
 He was content to rest on the truth of His spoken word : 
 And if I say the, truth, why do ye not believe me ? 9 But 
 though subordinate, He appealed to them as a valid proof : 
 The works that I do in my Fathers name, they bear 
 witness of me" l The person of Christ, the character of 
 Christ, the teaching of Christ, must ever be the highest 
 evidence of Him. If that evidence is not accepted as in 
 the truest sense miraculous, in the truest sense Divine, no 
 miracles can suffice to prove His mission ; but it may be 
 that the truth of His spoken words implies also the truth of 
 His accomplished works; and if so, we cannot truly accept 
 Him without accepting also the message of His works. 
 
 It remains only to observe that, in proportion to the 
 value of the evidence which the historic and literary de- 
 velopment of the Eeligion of the Christ supplies as to its 
 true origin, will be the prospect of its permanence in the 
 world. If this religion is indeed Divine, as no other is 
 Divine, then it cannot die. As Hooker says, "Truth, of 
 what kind soever, is by no kind of truth gainsaid." We 
 are therefore in no degree careful as to the issue of the 
 various questions which science may from time to time 
 propose. It is possible that these questions can receive no 
 conclusive answer. The answer, however, so far as it is 
 true, must be consistent with the Truth. Or they may 
 remain, at the best, nothing more than theories which are 
 but partly attested by facts. How, then, can the reality 
 of that religion be affected thereby which is based not 
 upon theories but upon facts ? If the coming of Christ 
 was the explanation of a marvellous literature which must 
 ever remain otherwise a hopeless enigma, and if the rise 
 of Christian literature, and the development of history for 
 eighteen centuries since, have tended to prove and confirm 
 the truth of that explanation as nothing else can prove it, 
 
 9 St. John viii. 46. J St. John x. 25. 
 
Preface. xxxv 
 
 here is a manifest and gigantic fact in the world's history, 
 which cannot be set aside, however it may be interpreted. 
 There is, and can be, no consistent interpretation of this 
 fact but one. It is impossible to contemplate it fairly and 
 deny its significance. The very existence of the Eeligion 
 of the Christ is itself a message from God. No discoveries 
 as to the ultimate origin of man, the unity of the human 
 race, the antiquity of the earth, or what not, can avail to 
 set aside that message. On these and other points it is 
 possible we may be mistaken. As to the meaning of the 
 message, if indeed it is from God, we cannot. At least 
 in the message we have a truth which may suffice to be 
 the guide of life, a truth that we can live and die by. 
 Those who have not this conviction may hold their judg- 
 ment in suspense, and live if they can without a religion 
 they can trust, undecided about everything, and chiefly 
 about the nature of God and the claims of Christ ; but to 
 others the belief that in the person of Christ we have the 
 assured fulfilment of the promises of God will be ever- 
 more the pledge that they "shall not walk in darkness, 
 but shall have the light of life? 
 
 Such, then, as it seems, is the inexhaustible significance 
 of that name which in the wisdom of God was joined 
 inseparably to the human appellation of His dear Son; 
 and as long as Christianity retains the name which it thus 
 derives from Him, it will bear upon its surface the mark 
 of its Divine origin, the evidence of its difference from 
 and superiority to all other religions, in being the Eeligion 
 of the Christ, the Keligion of Him whose way was Divinely 
 prepared before Him, and whose goings forth have been 
 from of oldj from everlasting. 3 
 
 8 St. John viii. 12. 3 Micah v. 2. 
 
 89, ST. GEORGE'S SQUARE, S.W., 
 September 29, 1874. 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION 
 
 A SECOND edition of the following lectures having 
 been called for, it is needful to make a few observa- 
 tions in order to remove some misapprehensions with regard 
 to the intention of the argument. It must be obvious to 
 everyone that that argument makes no pretensions to being 
 new; on the contrary, it is as old as Christianity itself; 
 but the form in which it has been presented is perhaps 
 more or less original. I have endeavoured to look at the 
 Christ-character of our blessed Lord in the light of the 
 various recent theories that have been advanced with 
 respect to Him and to the origin of Christianity. At the 
 same time, I have endeavoured to suggest rather than 
 define the exact bearing of the argument upon any of 
 those theories. I have developed it in relation to the tone 
 adopted by those who have been influenced by them, and 
 manifested that influence in the current literature of the 
 day. If the argument is sound, it is impossible that those 
 theories can stand. In proportion as the weight of it is 
 admitted, it will serve to correct them and to counteract 
 their tendency. The general tendency of the thought of 
 the present day is to accept Christianity so far as it is 
 naturally good, but at the same time to divest it of and to 
 disengage it from all that is supernatural and not to be 
 distinctly referred to causes that we can satisfactorily trace 
 and accurately define. 
 
 Now the importance of keeping steadily in view what 
 is virtually meant by the Eeligion of the Christ, and what 
 
xxxviii Preface to the Second Edition. 
 
 is implied in the very word Christianity, is seen in the 
 fact that the entire framework of the supernatural is in- 
 volved in the due recognition of it. The very idea of a 
 Christ is impossible without such a framework. It is 
 impossible to affirm that the notion of a Christ is to be found 
 outside the pale of revelation. It is impossible to say that 
 it is not to be found in the Old Testament ; for if not found 
 in the Old Testament, it could not exist in the New. In 
 fact, the mere existence of the New Testament is a proof 
 of the existence of the Christ-idea in the Old. But the 
 existence of this Christ-idea is itself an evidence of the 
 fact of prophecy; for that which the Christ-idea implies 
 is a promise conveyed to man by a series of operations 
 that cannot be accounted for by the mere working of nature. 
 We may be at a loss to account for the Messianic expecta- 
 tion among the Jews ; we cannot deny its existence, and 
 we cannot explain it naturally. In proportion, therefore, 
 as we acknowledge its reality, we shall be compelled to 
 assume its supernatural origin. No nation could have had 
 the sort of expectation which the Jewish nation had, 
 unless it had been imparted from without; and in con- 
 firmation of this is the fact that no other nation had any 
 such hope. The mythology and theology of various other 
 nations show us how far they could advance naturally 
 towards the formation of the hope, and show us likewise 
 the point to which they could not advance. The history 
 and literature of the Jewish nation show us that they had 
 advanced very much further than this, and in fact had 
 advanced so far that without a supernatural and Divine 
 revelation, however imparted, it would have been impos- 
 sible for them to have done so. The index of this degree 
 of advancement was the fact of the Christ-idea. The 
 Jewish doctrine of the Messiah became the register of it 
 for all time ; and it is a register that we cannot obliterate, 
 and may not, without injury to ourselves, refuse to read. 
 
Preface to the Second Edition. xxxix 
 
 And in order to estimate this degree, we have only to 
 imagine what our condition would be if we were able 
 to blot out of existence the entire history of the Christian 
 church, and the entire literature of the New Testament. 
 The contrast between the Old Testament and the other 
 literature of the world would still be as great as it is 
 now, but the book would be a singularly strange and 
 incomplete one. It would be the record of a nation's 
 mental condition for the period of a thousand years, who 
 had believed themselves exceptionally near to God, and 
 throughout that period ever on the verge of some great 
 event which should place them at the summit of power 
 and glory. Their law, their history, their poetry, their 
 prophecy, would alike bear witness to this impression ; and 
 what is more, we should be able to mark the exact period 
 at which the nation ceased to produce those documents 
 which gave expression to the hope. We should also be 
 able to affirm, that for more than a thousand years after the 
 latest book of the Old Testament was written, the people 
 did not cease to be animated with the same hope which 
 had been the stay of their forefathers. But we should also 
 be able to say that the whole thing had been proved a 
 delusion, for that the stream of history had gone on and 
 had left their hope an unrealised dream, till they had grown 
 utterly ashamed and weary of it, and had begun to regard 
 their national history as a romance, and their national 
 literature as a mistake. 
 
 But we cannot thus blot out of existence the literature 
 of the New Testament, or the history of the Christian 
 Church ; and consequently the existence of this literature 
 and history has completely altered the relation in which 
 the world must ever stand to the literature of the Old 
 Testament. The book which before was singularly strange 
 and incomplete has now become invested with an im- 
 probable and unexpected significance. And yet it was not 
 
xl Preface to the Second Edition. 
 
 possible for any man, or any combination of men, designedly 
 to bring about this significance ; it was wholly and entirely 
 the work of history, and the gradual result of the progress 
 of events. The kind of supplement the New Testament 
 has supplied to the Old is unique in the literature of the 
 world. 
 
 What then is the interpretation of this fact ? The rise 
 of Christianity has given a meaning to the Old Testament 
 which it never had before, and which nothing else could 
 give it. History has shown that there was something in 
 the national life of Israel which there would not otherwise 
 have been. It is, however, beyond the power of any nation 
 to anticipate its own future as Israel did, no less than it 
 was beyond the power of Israel to fulfil its own anticipa- 
 tions. The fact that the anticipations were both cherished 
 and fulfilled can only be accounted for on the assumption 
 that the development of history is not a blind succession 
 of events, but a connected chain of circumstances, arranged 
 according to a plan, and arranged for a particular purpose, 
 and on this assumption there is only one way open to 
 us of explaining the phenomena in question. The plan 
 which is so clearly marked was designed by God, and the 
 purpose He had in view was the indication of the one 
 Man who should receive the homage and adoration of 
 the world. To this end the hope of a Messiah was given 
 to Israel, and the course of history demonstrated the fact 
 that the hope was not fallacious, but was confirmed by 
 the development of events in a way which it was greatly 
 beyond the power of man or nature to bring about or to 
 anticipate. And if it is asked what right we have to 
 make such an assumption, it is sufficient to reply that the 
 assumption is forced upon us when we contemplate the 
 known facts of secular and sacred history. In no branch 
 of the history of the world is there any instance of the 
 kind of correspondence between the facts of Christianity 
 
Preface to the Second Edition. xli 
 
 and the history of the Jewish nation, and the kind of 
 relation there is between the literature of Israel and the 
 literature of the New Testament that we meet with in the 
 history and literature of the Bible. The broad features of 
 both are markedly distinct. Supposing, therefore, that we 
 had a theory that was adequate to solve the problem of 
 the entire history of the world, such a theory would be 
 totally inadequate to the solution of the problem before 
 us, arising from the facts of Bible history. Consequently 
 this would be the crucial test which would serve to falsify 
 our theory. This particular problem would still demand 
 an entirely different solution. Nor would the difficulty 
 be lessened by any attempts to place the phenomena of 
 sacred history on the same footing with those of secular 
 history, because the facts to which we now allude are 
 precisely those which obstinately resist all such attempts. 
 The argument adopted is of the broadest possible cha- 
 racter, and is absolutely independent of all narrow in- 
 terpretations and partial issues. If, therefore, we would 
 find a theory that is capable of application to the facts of 
 sacred no less than those of secular history we must adopt 
 the assumption in point. In fact we must make two 
 assumptions, neither of which is capable of absolute proof, 
 but both of which are in the highest degree reasonable. 
 First, we must assume that there is a God ; and secondly, 
 we must assume that He has spoken and revealed Himself 
 in history, so that we may be enabled to arrive at some 
 knowledge of His purposes through the clear message of 
 history. Granting these two assumptions, the argument 
 of the following lectures may be regared as virtually con- 
 clusive. If God has spoken in history, He has spoken in 
 the broad facts before us in a way that He has spoken 
 nowhere else; and the result is that the testimony thus 
 given to Christ is such as has not been given in any second 
 instance, and it is a testimony that is unmistakable. The 
 
xlii Preface to the Second Edition. 
 
 evidence is of a highly elaborate and complex character ; 
 it is cumulative and convergent to a degree that is entirely 
 without parallel. It is of the nature of a perfect arch 
 which rests on the independent foundations of a twofold 
 history and a twofold literature. 
 
 It must be understood, therefore, that the stress which 
 is laid upon the Messianic character of Jesus is so laid for 
 its ulterior rather than its primary importance. It has 
 been said that we have nothing now to do with the Mes- 
 sianic character of Jesus which had reference to a past 
 condition of thought. That may or may not be true. Into 
 this question we have not intended to enter. The Mes- 
 sianic character of Jesus was that to which Christianity 
 historically owed its existence. But the Messianic cha- 
 racter of Jesus is impossible without the agency of the 
 supernatural before and above and beneath and around it. 
 In accepting that character, as we are bound to accept it, 
 as the historic and originating impulse of Christianity, we 
 are committed to a recognition of the supernatural. We 
 cannot escape from it. We are placed in its immediate 
 presence. It may be very true that the Messianic cha- 
 racter of Jesus is not His only character, nor that character 
 which has most direct reference to ourselves, nor that 
 which is ultimately destined to have the greatest influence 
 upon the world, but it is one which is inalienably and 
 unalterably His, and therefore it is one which compels us 
 to acknowledge the supernatural in Him, and serves to 
 assure us that whatever aspect we regard Christ in must 
 be a faulty and a perverted aspect, if in it the operation 
 of the supernatural is lost sight of or obscured. 
 
 To acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, is tantamount 
 to acknowledging Him as the chosen of God ; but He can- 
 not be the chosen of God unless God has not only selected 
 Him from among men, but also made the fact of His choice 
 known to man; and He cannot have made His choice 
 
Preface to tJte Second Edition. xliii 
 
 known to man but by special and direct revelation, which 
 involves the agency of special and supernatural means of 
 communicating His will. It is impossible, therefore, that 
 we should accept Christ, or accept Jesus as the Christ, 
 without accepting also the agency of the supernatural. 
 But if we once accept the supernatural in the Christ idea, 
 and acknowledge Christ as a supernatural person, we can 
 have but little hesitation in acknowledging the presence 
 of the supernatural in the words and actions of Christ; 
 and hence the acknowledgment of the Christ functions as 
 a part only of the character of Jesus becomes a sufficient 
 guarantee for our due submission and allegiance to all that 
 comes to us on the approved authority of Christ, and with 
 the fall sanction of His name ; for the actual presence of 
 the supernatural in Jesus is the proof that what He so 
 has He has for ever. He cannot have been a supernatural 
 person once, and have ceased to be so now. His authority 
 must be permanent until it is superseded by authority 
 equally supernatural. A wider acquaintance with the 
 sphere of the natural cannot avail to set aside the super- 
 natural, or intrinsically to modify our relation to Christ ; 
 for He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His 
 feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 
 And not till all things shall be subdued unto Him, shall 
 the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all 
 things under Him, that God may "be all in all. 1 
 
 It is obvious that if Jesus was indeed the Christ whom 
 God had promised to send, then the historic manifestation 
 of Jesus becomes the type and pattern of His continual 
 method of action, and of His permanent relation to us. 
 He is not only the starting-point of our renewed existence, 
 the source of our regenerated life, but He is also the goal 
 to which we must ever return, the anchor of our souls both 
 sure and steadfast, in faithful and firm attachment to whom 
 1 1 Cor. xv. 25-27. 
 
xliv Preface to the Second Edition. 
 
 our bark may at all times ride securely amid all the changes 
 and chances and the storm and sunshine of life. He is 
 not only the express image of the Father, manifested once 
 for all in the person of a man, but, in as far as He is the 
 true manifestation of God, He is a manifestation which 
 can never be altered, which must be independent alike of 
 essential modification and of continual development. He 
 must be the abiding centre and source, the enduring token 
 and pledge, of all the promises of God. He must, in one 
 word, be Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and 
 for ever? 
 
 It can hardly be needful to remind the reader that I 
 have purposely endeavoured in these lectures to divest 
 myself of all Christian predilections, and have tried to 
 frame the argument from an entirely independent point of 
 view, in order to give the greater weight to those conclu- 
 sions which appear to me to be unavoidable. I can truly 
 say of my method of writing as St. John said of his design : 
 These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus 
 is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might 
 have life through His name? 
 
 2 Heb. xiii. 8. 3 St. John xx. 31. 
 
 89, ST. GEORGE'S SQUARE, S.W., 
 June 1, 1875. 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 ANTICIPATION OF THE CHRIST IN HEATHEN 
 NATIONS. 
 
THE registering of doubts hath two excellent uses : the one, that it saveth 
 philosophy from errors and falsehoods; when that which is not fully 
 appearing is not collected into assertion, wherehy error might draw error, 
 but reserved in doubt : the other, that the entry of doubts are as so many 
 suckers or sponges to draw use of knowledge ; in so much as that which, 
 if doubts had not preceded, a man should never have advised, but passed 
 it over without note, by the suggestion and solicitation of doubts, is made 
 to be attended and applied. But both these commodities do scarcely 
 countervail an inconvenience which will intrude itself, if it be not 
 debarred; which is, that when a doubt is once received, men labour 
 rather how to keep it a doubt still, than how to solve it ; and accordingly 
 bend their wits. Of this we see the familiar example in lawyers and 
 scholars, both which, if they have once admitted a doubt, it goeth ever 
 after authorised for a doubt. But that use of wit and knowledge is to be 
 allowed, which laboureth to make doubtful things certain, and not those 
 which labour to make certain things doubtful. Therefore these kalendars 
 of doubts I commend as excellent things ; so that there be this caution 
 used, that when they be thoroughly sifted and brought to resolution, they 
 be from thenceforth omitted, discarded, and not continued to cherish and 
 encourage men in doubting. BACON, Advancement of Learning. 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteih my soul after 
 thee, God. Ps. xlii. 1. 
 
 M THE origin of Christianity has often been found an 
 J- interesting and a fruitful subject of inquiry in our 
 time. Many treatises have been written, and many theories 
 advanced, about it. Any one who could invent an entirely 
 new theory, whether plausible or not, would probably meet 
 with many persons who would be willing to listen to him. 
 For, whatever may have been its actual origin, there can 
 be no question that Christianity in itself is the most 
 remarkable phenomenon that history presents to our con- 
 templation. It has already far outlived in its duration the 
 utmost limits of time that can be assigned to the dominion 
 of ancient Eome. Though its position in the world has 
 ever been one of antagonism, and therefore of peril, it has 
 survived the most desperate assaults whether from without 
 or from within ; and now, in the nineteenth century of its 
 existence, shows no signs of a slackening interest for the 
 imagination, or of a declining influence on the human 
 mind. 
 
 Nor is it hard to see the reason of this. For Christianity 
 appeals alike to the deepest instincts and the highest 
 aspirations of mankind. It lays its hand upon the moral 
 nature, the social constitution, and the undefined and 
 mysterious spiritual sensibilities of man. It concerns 
 itself not only with life here, but professes also to have the 
 promise of life hereafter ; and, notwithstanding the almost 
 
4 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 endless variety of answers that might be given to the 
 anterior question, What is Christianity ? no two inde- 
 pendent minds probably understanding thereby or deriving 
 therefrom ideas in all respects identical that which the 
 term implies is sufficiently definite to be easily intelligible 
 to all, however widely their theoretical conceptions or their 
 individual sympathies may differ. 
 
 Indeed, it is no slight indication of the fascinating 
 power exercised by Christianity, that men abandon with 
 extreme reluctance their personal connection with the 
 name of Christian. Those who have broken loose from all 
 commonly received and traditional forms of belief, and 
 those also who live in habitual disregard of the one 
 ordinance which was designed from the first to be the mark 
 of Christian fellowship, are yet jealously sensitive as to 
 the appropriation of this name. "All who profess and call 
 themselves Christians," to adopt the large-hearted language 
 of our collect, would embrace a considerable number that 
 could not conveniently be assigned to any recognised 
 denomination. Some of those who are uncompromising in 
 their treatment of many things that large bodies, or even 
 the great mass of Christians, hold most dear, are yet second 
 to none in their zeal to retain the name. 
 
 We have no wish to narrow or to limit the claim of any 
 man to be so who desires to regard himself as a disciple 
 of the Son of man. It is He to whom all judgment has 
 been committed, and with whom, therefore, we would 
 gladly leave it ; but we may safely observe that a Christi- 
 anity which repudiates Christ is a contradiction in terms, 
 and that consequently, first or last, the doctrine and person 
 of a Christ must be a prominent feature of Christianity, 
 however interpreted. Whatever may have been the origin 
 of Christianity, it was intimately associated with the person 
 of Christ, for Christianity is the religion of the Christ. 
 Whatever differences may have existed between the teach- 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 5 
 
 ing of Christ and the subsequent developments of that 
 teaching among His disciples, it will probably not be denied 
 that the impulse known as Christianity is rightly and 
 directly traceable to His teaching and influence. At all 
 events, we cannot dissociate Christ from the subsequent 
 and existing phenomena of the religion which bears His 
 name. He is Himself the most prominent and conspicuous 
 feature in connection with it. 
 
 The name of Christ, however, suggests an office rather 
 than a person. It implies the supposed fulfilment of 
 various preconceived ideas. The correspondence of Jesus 
 with the ideal person and character of the Christ was the 
 position assumed by the earliest preachers of Christianity. 
 And as this is a fact which admits of no rational doubt, it 
 is clear that there must have been certain predisposing 
 causes to render the spread of Christianity possible. A 
 belief of which one of the main features was the realisation 
 in Jesus of a character at once clearly defined and readily 
 intelligible could not have achieved any progress in the 
 world, if there had not been adequate preparation made 
 for it in the dissemination of such previous ideas. 
 
 Because it was not the personal character of Jesus that 
 won its way among mankind, but the fact that in His 
 character was fulfilled the conception of the Christ., In 
 the case of the Jewish nation this is sufficiently manifest, 
 since in that nation there had existed for many centuries 
 the conviction that a person known as the Messiah was 
 eventually to arise. The whole conflict of Christianity 
 with Judaism consisted, not in the maintenance of the 
 doctrine of a Christ, but in the establishment of the claims 
 of Jesus to be regarded as the Christ. 
 
 Nor can it have been very different even with the 
 Gentiles, who were led to believe in Jesus. We cannot 
 affirm of them that there were certain definite notions of 
 a coming deliverer existing in their minds, and that they 
 
6 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 believed in Jesus because He fulfilled those notions ; but 
 we may truly say that in "every case their belief in Him 
 involved the conviction that He was the Messiah to whom 
 the Jews looked forward. Of this there is abundant 
 evidence. It does appear, however, that there were sundry 
 latent ideas prevalent in the ancient world, which may 
 have had the effect in no small degree of disposing the 
 popular mind to accept more readily the announcement of 
 One who especially claimed to realise the anticipations of 
 His own people. When we look back over the mass of 
 current traditions afloat in the ancient world, the attitude 
 of expectation indicated in many ways, the impression 
 conveyed by poetry, mythology, philosophy, and literature, 
 that a want was felt in our nature, and a hope that it might 
 be supplied was cherished, we can see that there was much 
 even in the heathen world that answered to the Jewish 
 anticipation of a Messiah, and that this condition of mind 
 was one specially favourable to the preaching of a Christ, 
 who was proclaimed as the good news of God to mankind. 
 And indeed to the Christian, who is fully persuaded that 
 Jesus Christ was all that He professed to be, and that in 
 Him there is the present possession of as much happiness 
 as our condition admits of, and the future promise of all 
 that we can desire, it is not possible to survey the monu- 
 ments of religious thought in any nation or language, and 
 not discern indications of a mental state that bears col- 
 lateral witness to the reality of the want which Jesus came 
 to supply ; if, indeed, it does not manifest what may fairly 
 be regarded as the unconscious hope of His coming. There 
 is independent and corroborative evidence borne to Him by 
 many writers that were ignorant of His name and by many 
 religious systems that are antagonistic to Him. What 
 St. Paul says to the Eomans is doubtless more or less true 
 of every nation, and of all religions, that that which may 
 ~be known of God is manifest in them ; for God hath shewed 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 7 
 
 it unto them} It is not given to all to bear equal testimony, 
 but there are continually traces of a testimony borne, and 
 in its general results it is neither discordant nor incomplete. 
 And we may briefly characterise it as twofold. First, 
 there is the universal consciousness of a deep and radical 
 defect in our constitution, which, if not openly confessed, 
 is at any rate sufficiently betrayed. And secondly, there 
 is frequently revealed a kind of spontaneous impression or 
 conviction that help, if it comes at all, must come from 
 without; that it is not competent to human nature to 
 regenerate or emancipate itself. It is not, of course, 
 affirmed that either of these propositions is distinctly and 
 broadly stated in so many words, but that, turn where we 
 will, we are continually being confronted with that which 
 tends to establish them. Arid, in fact, this testimony is 
 the more remarkable, from the manifestly undesigned and 
 unintentional manner in which it is borne. Human nature, 
 in spite of itself, bears witness to the depth of its own 
 wound. There can, one would think, be no question about 
 this. Every form of ancient civilisation bears evident 
 token of sin, and also of the consciousness of sin. Eites 
 and ceremonies, laws, manners, and customs, which, after 
 all possible allowance has been made for diversity of 
 feeling and opinion, can only be regarded as indications 
 of moral corruption, are common enough in the records of 
 every ancient nation. Whether we look to Egypt or 
 Assyria, to Persia or to Greece, to India or to the north of 
 Europe, the witness is unfaltering, not only as to the 
 depravity of man, but also as to a certain misgiving 
 within the heart that all was not right. The hideous 
 forms of sacrifice which confront us in many quarters are 
 doubtless to be interpreted thus, and cannot fairly be 
 interpreted otherwise. 8 If sacrifice implies a desire to 
 
 1 Rom. i. 19. 
 
 2 See, for example, G. W. Cox, Mythology of the Aryan Nations, ii. 144, 
 
8 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 surrender what is most precious, and so far expresses a 
 good intention and a noble effort, it implies likewise a 
 conviction that to do so is absolutely necessary. But 
 why necessary, unless because no other apparent means 
 are open whereby to redress the balance of right which 
 conscience declares to need and to demand rectification ? 
 All analysis of the theory of sacrifice must ultimately 
 result in this, that it is a witness to disorder within, for 
 which it appears to promise the only available remedy. 
 And when sacrifice takes the more awful and revolting 
 form that it assumed among the Phoenicians and the 
 Aztecs, it only shows the more plainly how deep and 
 terrible the disorder is. But there can be no question 
 that, long before the commencement of the Christian era, 
 human nature had borne the most conclusive testimony to 
 the existence of such disorder, and by many a blood-stained 
 rite had confessed to the consciousness of it. Wherever, 
 therefore, the Gospel of Christ came, it encountered a 
 condition of mind which, being keenly alive to a sense of 
 want within, was so far prepared to receive it. To make 
 use of the vivid expression of an anonymous writer, every 
 one who embraced the Gospel found that it "supplied a 
 positive to the negative in himself." 3 
 
 When, however, we pass to the consideration of the 
 other kind of testimony which was borne rather to the 
 hope than to the need of a Eedeemer, it is perhaps possible 
 to speak with less confidence. A vast field at once opens 
 out to our contemplation, which we can only glance at in 
 the most cursory manner. There have been three principal 
 
 and the note ; also the elaborate essay of Dr. Kalisch on Sacrifice, prefixed 
 to his Commentary on Leviticus ; and the Dictionary of Science, Literature, 
 and Art, art. " Sacrifice." See also Hardwick's Christ and other Masters, 
 part ii. p. 157 seq. 
 
 a A reviewer in the Edinburgh Courant, quoted by S. Baring-Gould, 
 Origin and Development of Reliyious Belief, part ii. p. 8. 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 9 
 
 methods of interpreting the mythological legends of Greece. 
 They have been interpreted on rationalistic principles, as 
 Lord Bacon 4 and others have explained them ; or they have 
 been regarded as distorted versions of historical occurrences, 
 or in some cases as perverted accounts of historical events. 
 Latterly, however, the tendency has been to look at them 
 in their relation to the mythological tales of other countries, 
 as portions merely of a vast whole. And so it has been 
 supposed that one principle pervades them all. This 
 method of interpretation is known as the solar theory. 5 
 The daily natural phenomena of dawn and daybreak, sun- 
 rise, noontide, and sunset, and of the varying seasons in 
 their perpetual recurrence, having been originally expressed 
 in sensuous language, which the mind afterwards outgrew, 
 became ultimately invested with those very passions and 
 accidents which the language literally suggested. And 
 thus the foundation was laid of a copious mythology, in 
 which the repetition of the same ideas in various forms is 
 perpetually discernible. This theory may or may not 
 eventually be regarded as a satisfactory explanation of the 
 rise of the various myths ; it is not even imagined that it 
 expresses the way in which they were actually understood 
 either by the poets who gave them their existing form, or 
 by the people who took delight in the repetition of them. 
 However true it may be as a conjecture of their origin, it 
 cannot for a moment be accepted as the actual message 
 which they bore to the world at large. It would be quite 
 as reasonable to assign to them a directly Christian meaning, 
 as to pretend that their recondite etymological significance 
 was that commonly understood. The poetical interpre- 
 tations of comparative mythology are the natural fruit of 
 comparative philology, and could not have been originated 
 
 4 In The Wisdom of the Ancients, and elsewhere. 
 
 5 Cox, i. 53, seq.; ii. 108, 109, et passim; Gubernatis, Zoological My- 
 thology, &c. 
 
IO Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 till it had given them birth. We are therefore at liberty 
 to regard the ancient mythological legends in their literal 
 form, as we may be sure they were popularly regarded, and 
 consider to what extent they may have served to prepare 
 men's minds to receive the doctrine and religion of the 
 Christ. 
 
 And here it cannot be questioned that all mythologies 
 represented the gods as holding intercourse with men. 
 They had their offspring among men, their friends and 
 companions among men, their enemies among men. The 
 teaching of mythology clearly was, that the notion of 
 communion with the gods was neither absurd nor incon- 
 ceivable. And so far as this mythology expressed on the 
 one hand the popular sentiment, and on the other served 
 to create and foster it, we may believe that to a certain 
 extent it acted favourably rather than unfavourably in 
 predisposing men to receive the message of the Incarnation. 
 In like manner, the notion of assistance bestowed in an 
 unexpected and supernatural way was by no means un- 
 familiar to mythology, and would therefore be subservient 
 to the doctrine of a Divine Redeemer, who came to succour 
 the weak, and to raise the fallen. 6 And, finally, the natural 
 inference derived from mythology, when regarded in its 
 widest survey, is suggestive of the truth that there are 
 sources of wealth and strength for man in heaven which 
 are not to be found on earth ; and that, if he is to be 
 delivered at all, it must be by a power exerted from 
 without him, and not merely by strength developed from 
 within. 
 
 It appears then, that we may fairly say that, notwith- 
 standing much that was in the highest degree revolting in 
 mythology, and much that had undoubtedly begun to pall 
 upon the taste of the healthier and the loftier minds, there 
 
 6 Cf. Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, part ii. p. 160 seq. The pass- 
 age is too long to quote, but it is well worthy of reference. 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 1 1 
 
 was also that in it which would serve as a sufficiently 
 prepared basis whereon to rear the superstructure of faith 
 in a Divine Son of God and Eedeemer of men, who should 
 save His people with a mighty salvation, when His advent 
 was proclaimed upon sufficient testimony. 
 
 While, however, the effect of the ancient mythology, both 
 as regards the disgust and loathing it must have excited, 
 and the relations of beings of a higher nature to man with 
 which it may have made men's minds familiar, may have 
 been on the whole favourable as a preparation for the 
 preaching of the Gospel, it does not appear that at any 
 time it had sufficed to arouse the distinct anticipations of 
 a Eedeemer to come, which obviously did exist among the 
 Jews. We do indeed discover tokens of such anticipations 
 from time to time ; 7 but these were probably derived rather 
 than original, and are perhaps to be referred mainly to the 
 influence of the Jewish Scriptures when they had become 
 widely extended by means of the Alexandrine version. 
 The effect of mythological teaching, therefore, would not 
 be so much of a positive as a negative character, regarded 
 as a preparation for Christ. It would have prepared the 
 mind for the reception of the idea, but could not have 
 communicated the idea itself. Still, we must carefully 
 bear in mind what it could not do, in order that we may 
 
 7 The vetus et constans op'mio of Suetonius ( Vesp. iv. ; cf. Tac. Hist. v. 
 13) must refer among others to Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, 
 then more than 500 years old. Cf. Josephus, B. J. vi. 5, 4, etc.; also the 
 third Sibylline Oracle. 
 
 Kal TOT' 0i>os /j.eyd\oio GeoO ird\i KapTepbv &TTCU, 
 
 ot irat>T(r<rt ppOTOi<ri fiiov Ka6odriyol &TOJTCU. 194-5 
 
 Kal TOTC ST? Geos otipav66ev Tr^ui/'ei ^SacrtX^a. 286 
 
 al TOVTO XpOVOlS 1TptT\\OfJ,^VOlCriV 
 
 &pei, Kal Kaivbv <rr)K&i> 0eou &peT eyelpciv. 288- 290 
 
 Kal r6r' d?r' yeXioio 9e6s Tr^u^ei /3a(nX?7a 
 
 6s ira<rav yalav rratfcret iroXfyoio /ca/coio. 652-3 
 
12 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 the better understand what was actually done. In pro- 
 portion to the poverty of the soil will be our astonishment 
 at the beauty and luxuriance of the plant which afterwards 
 took root in it. 
 
 We need not in any degree be anxious to dispute the 
 position that fragments of truth are to be found in all 
 religions. The reverse is rather the case ; for it is the 
 very presence of these elements of truth that constituted 
 the natural basis on which alone it was possible for the 
 Gospel to be reared. The points, however, on which it is 
 desirable to arrive at clear and definite notions, if we can, 
 are these : The way in which we are to regard the rise and 
 development of these elements of truth as we find them 
 existing, and the way in which they may be compared and 
 contrasted with other elements that we recognise in the 
 Old and New Testaments. 
 
 It may surely then be accepted as an axiom, that what- 
 ever of truth there is in any man, or in any nation, is 
 derived from the fountain of truth, and is not an inde- 
 pendent possession of the mind itself. The eye perceives 
 the light ; there is no light in the eye but that which it 
 perceives, or, having perceived, retains. So in the human 
 mind, there is no truth but that which it derives and 
 appropriates from the fountain of truth. The mind is 
 naturally constituted to apprehend the truth ; and when 
 the channel is unimpeded truth flows in and is apprehended. 
 The truth reveals itself. The mind rejoices in the conscious- 
 ness of having discovered the truth ; but with equal or with 
 greater propriety we may say that the truth has revealed 
 itself to the mind. And if truth is the exclusive posses- 
 sion of the Divine Being, every such manifestation of truth 
 may be regarded as a true revelation from Him. Whatever 
 indications, therefore, we find of a sense of sin, and of the 
 undefined terrors incidental to it, notwithstanding the 
 hideous forms it may have at times assumed, we may justly 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 13 
 
 regard as revelations of a truth, even as St. Paul says, The 
 wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodli- 
 ness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in 
 unrighteousness. 9 We need not, therefore, in any jealous 
 or niggardly manner refuse to acknowledge the operation 
 of the Divine Spirit of Truth in all nations and in all 
 mythologies. Everywhere and always, from the first dawn 
 of intelligence on the earth, we may believe that the Spirit 
 of Truth has been struggling to gain admittance into the 
 minds of men; and as far as the fact is concerned, it 
 matters not whether we speak of His success as the 
 natural achievement of human effort or as the result of 
 Divine revelation. But unquestionably the latter is the 
 more correct, because otherwise we should be at a loss to 
 account for the various degrees of results, where there is 
 every reason to believe that the human effort has been the 
 same. He has favoured some more highly than others, and 
 the effects are manifest. 
 
 What was historically the actual primeval condition of 
 mankind it will never be possible for us to determine. 
 The Mosaic narrative may or may not commend itself to 
 us as the most probable; it is absolutely certain that if 
 we reject it we can discover none that shall be on the 
 whole more satisfactory or more probable. We may ask, 
 How did the idea of God or a god first suggest itself to 
 the human mind ? We may decide that the ever-present 
 vision of the heavens, or the sky, or the light, or the sun, 9 
 
 8 Rom. i. 18. 
 
 9 " One of the earliest objects that would strike and stir the mind of 
 man and for which a sign or a name would soon be wanted is surely the 
 sun. . . Think of man only as man . . . with his mind yet lying fallow, 
 though full of germs germs of which I hold as strongly as ever no trace 
 has ever, no trace will ever be discovered anywhere but in man ; think of 
 the Kun awakening the eyes of man from sleep, and his mind from 
 slumber ! Was not the sunrise to him the first wonder, the first beginning 
 of all reflection, all thought, all philosophy ? was it not to him the first 
 
14 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 supplied a natural expression, borrowed from a natural 
 object for the idea when it arose. But how did the idea 
 arise ? Was it spontaneous ? Was it original ? or Was it 
 altogether secondary or suggested ? This question we have 
 really no means of deciding one way or the other. To 
 draw an inference from the phenomena of language which 
 decides it, obliges us to adopt the inconceivable hypothesis 
 that the earliest individuals of our race were incapable of 
 any other ideas than those of natural objects ; that the 
 first man was a merely sensuous being, who had no lan- 
 guage but for the objects of sense, and no need for any 
 other language. If this really were so, then it is incon- 
 ceivable that the idea of God could ever have arisen. If, 
 on the other hand, the idea of God was a primary and 
 original idea, it must have found an original expression in 
 language, whether or not the traces of such an expression 
 are discernible in any of the existing forms of language. 
 The analogy of the Aryan languages may indeed point us 
 to the former inference ; but it is one which may be modi- 
 fied, if not corrected, by the analogy of the Semitic lan- 
 guages. There the name for God is not derived from any 
 visible object, but is itself expressive of an attribute that 
 may naturally have been adopted as an -original symbol for 
 an idea which was original. To have called God the strong 
 or mighty one, would seem to have been at least as simple 
 and primitive as to have borrowed the idea of God from 
 the sun, or the sky, or the light, or to have used the names 
 of those objects for the expression of that idea. It may 
 be impossible, on scientific principles, to decide whether or 
 not the idea of God is original to man, without a very 
 much larger induction than we at present possess ; but 
 these two considerations appear at least to be worth our 
 
 revelation, the first beginning of all trust, of all religion ?" Max Miiller, 
 Science of Religion, p. 368. Cf. also Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, 
 part ii. p. 12, n. 2. 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 15 
 
 notice; namely, that it is difficult to conceive how the 
 thought of God could ever have been framed if it was not 
 from the first innate in man ; if there had not been that in 
 man's nature which responded to the external fact of God's 
 existence. 1 We cannot imagine how it could have dawned 
 upon the human conception which had before been devoid 
 of it; and if it had lain dormant, then we may doubt 
 whether mere earthly phenomena would have sufficed to 
 arouse it. If, on the other hand, we accept the Mosaic 
 record as authentic, and as furnishing as true an idea of 
 the constitution and condition of the first man as we can 
 obtain elsewhere, if not a truer one, then this question is 
 practically solved for us, for that narrative represents the 
 first man as possessed of free and uninterrupted communion 
 with God. 2 He can have lacked, therefore, neither the full 
 
 1 The analogy of human growth from childhood to maturity may suggest 
 the supposition that the idea of God may have existed from the first in 
 man, but potentially rather than actually. There was a capacity for the 
 conception of God, though that conception existed only in germ, and was 
 undeveloped, just as there was a capacity for all kinds of knowledge, 
 though the knowledge was undiscovered. And thus it may be supposed 
 that natural phenomena, operating on this capacity, developed the idea of 
 God, which was not otherwise original or innate. But it appears that the 
 thought of God is as vivid in childhood as it ever is afterwards, and the 
 tendency of mental development is to expel rather than encourage that 
 thought. The earliest races of man are the most religious, and the effect 
 of intellectual development and mental culture is, at least in many cases, 
 rather unfavourable to religious conceptions than otherwise. It would 
 seem, therefore, that analogy points rather to the opposite conclusion, 
 that the existence of the idea of God in the human mind can only be 
 accounted for on the supposition that it was original and not derived, that 
 it was innate in the first man, and not developed in him by the teachings 
 of external nature. We cannot claim for human nature the power of 
 inventing God, when the history of experience shows us that man's 
 natural tendency, even under the most favourable circumstances, is to 
 forget Him, or even to deny His existence. 
 
 2 Gen. ii. 16, 17; iii. 8, 9, 10. Comparing these passages, we are led 
 to infer that the effect of sin was to impair the freedom of man's inter- 
 course with God. 
 
1 6 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 conception of the idea, nor the language in which to clothe 
 it. 3 
 
 If, however, it is hard to believe that the idea of God 
 was originally suggested to mankind by the teachings of 
 external nature ; if the spectacle of the brilliant and bound- 
 less heaven either developed in man the conception of a 
 god, or at least furnished him with the earliest mode of 
 expressing the hitherto unexpressed idea ; can we suppose 
 that the thought of sin owed its origin in the same way 
 
 3 The opposite theory has found an eloquent exponent in Professor 
 Max Muller. " The first materials of language supply expressions for 
 such impressions only as are received through the senses. If, therefore, 
 there was a root meaning to burn, to be bright, to warm, such a root might 
 supply a recognised name for the sun and for the sky. But let us now 
 imagine, as well as we can, the process which went on in the human mind 
 before the name of sky could be torn away from its material object and 
 be used as the name of something totally different from the sky. There 
 was in the heart of man, from the very first, a feeling of incompleteness, 
 of weakness, of dependence, whatever we like to call it in our abstract 
 language. We can explain it as little as we can explain why the new-born 
 child feels the cravings of hunger and thirst. But it was so from the first, 
 and is so even now. Man knows not whence he comes and whither he 
 goes. He looks for a guide, for a friend; he wearies for some one on 
 whom he can rest ; he wants something like a father in heaven. In 
 addition to all the impressions which he received from the outer world, 
 there was in the heart of man a stronger impulse from within a sigh, a 
 yearning, a call for something that should not come and go like every- 
 thing else, that should be before, and after, and for ever, that should hold 
 and support everything, that should make man feel at home in this strange 
 world. Before this strange yearning could assume any definite shape it 
 wanted a name : it could not be fully grasped or clearly conceived except 
 by naming it. But where to look for a name ? No doubt the storehouse 
 of language was there, but from every name that was tried the mind of 
 man shrank back because it did not fit, because it seemed to fetter rather 
 than to wing the thought that fluttered within and called for light and 
 freedom. But when at last a name, or even many names were tried and 
 chosen, let us see what took place, as far as the mind of man was concerned. 
 A certain satisfaction, no doubt, was gained by having a name or several 
 names, however imperfect ; but these names, like all other names, were 
 but signs poor, imperfect signs ; they were predicates, and very partial 
 predicates, of various small portions only of that vague and vast something 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 17 
 
 to the suggestions of natural phenomena ? What, are the 
 natural phenomena calculated to develop the notion of sin ? 
 It is impossible to determine. But it is likewise impossible 
 to deny the manifold evidence of a knowledge of sin 
 which meets us in the world. The sense of sin, therefore, 
 if it was not prompted by the phenomena of nature, must 
 either have been spontaneously developed, or it must have 
 been caused by the presentation from without of some rule 
 or standard which declared it. But if it was spontaneously 
 
 which slumbered in the mind. When the name of the brilliant sky had 
 been chosen, as it has been chosen at one time or other by nearly every 
 nation upon earth, was sky the full expression of that within the mind 
 which wanted expression ? Was the mind satisfied ? Had the sky been 
 recognised as its god? Far from it. People knew perfectly well what 
 they meant by the visible sky ; the first man who, after looking everywhere 
 for what he wanted, and who at last in sheer exhaustion grasped at the 
 name of sky as better than nothing, knew but too well that his success was 
 after all a miserable failure. The brilliant sky was, no doubt, the most 
 exalted, it was the only unchanging and infinite being that had received 
 a name, and that could lend its name to that as yet unborn idea of the 
 Infinite which disquieted the human mind. But let us only see this clearly, 
 that the man who chose that name did not mean, could not have meant, 
 that the visible sky was all he wanted, that the blue canopy above was 
 his god." Science of Religion, pp. 269-272. And again: "It was by a 
 slow process that the human mind elaborated the idea of one absolute and 
 supreme Godhead ; and by a still slower process that the human language 
 matured a word to express that idea. A period of growth was inevitable, 
 and those who, from a mere guess of their own, do not hesitate to speak 
 authoritatively of a primeval revelation which imparted to the Pagan 
 world the idea of the Godhead in all its purity, forget that, however pure 
 and sublime and spiritual that revelation might have been, there was no 
 language capable as yet of expressing the high and immaterial conceptions 
 of that heaven-sent message." Chips from a German Workshop, i. 240. 
 
 More simple, and, on the whole, not less probable, appears to be the 
 notion of a first man as yet unsinning, who could receive and therefore 
 express the commands of the Almighty, and give names to all His 
 creatures. 
 
 The idea of God is no less simple than it is stupendous or profound, 
 and it was surely capable of being apprehended in its simplicity ages 
 before thought or speech could frame or utter the "idea of one absolute 
 and supreme Godhead." 
 
 C 
 
1 8 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 developed, there is nothing to show that it may not from 
 the first have been a delusion. There is nothing to show 
 that it may not be a delusion now. There is nothing to 
 show that we as sinners are individually guilty before God, 
 unless there has been authoritatively declared to us an 
 outward law that we have violated. The law may indeed 
 be written in the heart* but it must still be the counterpart 
 of a reality which exists in God. Our consciences may 
 accuse us; but why do they accuse us, unless because they 
 reflect a law external to and independent of themselves, 
 which says Thou shalt not, or Thou shalt ? What the 
 historical rise of this consciousness was we know not, and 
 science cannot discover it to us ; but our own nature tells 
 us that there the standard was long before there was any 
 human consciousness to recognise its existence. It is 
 impossible that the natural development of the moral 
 faculties can both have invented the standard, and also 
 have arrived at the knowledge of it. If they arrived at 
 the knowledge of it, there it must have been to be known; 
 they may have perceived it, or rather it must have revealed 
 itself unto them ; but if they invented it, then, being the 
 invention of the moral faculties, we have no guarantee that 
 the standard is not an incorrect one, our very perception of 
 it may be an entire mistake: but then, of course, the 
 inference follows, that if it is an entire mistake we have no 
 right to insist upon our faculty of determining what is 
 just or true. 
 
 Or we may state the matter thus. If God has given us 
 a revelation, then He must also have given us adequate 
 indications of its truth, and He must further have given us 
 the power of recognising them as adequate when given. 
 For if He has not given us this power, then any indications 
 of a revelation, even if given, would be useless. We 
 should be incapable of receiving it. If, on the other hand, 
 
 4 Rom. ii. 15. 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 19 
 
 He has not given us adequate indications of the truth, then 
 the exercise of our faculty of discrimination is impossible. 
 There is no higher sphere for its exercise. But we know 
 that we do, as a matter of fact, possess this faculty of 
 discrimination in some things, and to a certain extent, and 
 we do habitually exercise it, even though at times it may 
 mislead or fail us. Consequently, the possession of this 
 faculty and the power of exercising it in all things but 
 the highest, is reason for believing that we have it also in 
 the highest if the opportunity of exercising it should occur. 
 If, therefore, we possess a faculty of discriminating between 
 truth and falsehood, then, on the supposition that God has 
 given us a revelation appealing to that faculty, we are 
 manifestly competent to recognise it when given ; but the 
 widest possible induction of facts leads us to confess that 
 we do recognise a shalt and a shalt not, an ought and an 
 ought not. This shalt and shalt not, this ought and ought 
 not, cannot be true, we cannot know it to be true, it must 
 be uncertain and unreal, if it is merely the result of our 
 own invention and fancy, and not God's revelation. If, 
 therefore, the shalt and the shalt not, the ought and the 
 ought not, are true ; if the difference between them is a 
 reality ; then that which assures us of this reality is the 
 revelation of God. That is to say, it is by the revelation 
 of God that we recognise the difference between right and 
 wrong, truth and falsehood. God hath showed it unto us. 
 We are surely warranted then, in saying not only that 
 the power of recognising this difference is given by God, 
 but that it is one which could not be given through nature 
 or the teachings of natural phenomena. It was not by the 
 suggestions of these phenomena that man rose to a con- 
 ception of morals or to the perception of the Infinite and 
 the idea of God. It does not appear that the contemplation 
 of any natural objects could reveal the moral difference 
 between right and wrong, the beauty of truth or the hate- 
 
2O Anticipation of tJie [LECT. 
 
 fulness of falsehood. Nor can we believe that the first 
 revelation of God was derived from gazing on the splendour 
 and infinitude of the sky, or on the vastness of the ocean. 
 It did not come from nature or through nature, but from 
 beyond nature, from God Himself. 
 
 On the other hand, it is obvious that it is only by 
 language derived from natural objects that we can express 
 those ideas which are beyond the sphere of nature. It is 
 only by metaphor and analogy that we can speak of the 
 unseen. The eye of the mind has no language, but that 
 which is required and has already been used to denote the 
 impressions derived through the eye of the body, or through 
 the other senses. And language thus employed has unques- 
 tionably a tendency to react on thought, and to debase 
 thought; it has a tendency also to fetter and confine it. 
 And it is probable that to this influence of language upon 
 thought we may more or less directly ascribe many of the 
 dreams of mythology in all nations; but then we must 
 remember that if the true origin of mythology is to be 
 found in language if, as has been so finally said, my- 
 thology is the "dark shadow which language throws on 
 thought" 5 we have to face the question, Why is it that 
 conceptions originally so pure and noble, so true and 
 beautiful, suggested by the glorious phenomena of nature, 
 should not have been preserved in their integrity, or at 
 least from time to time have been renewed by the same 
 inspiring influences ? But, on the contrary, accepting this 
 as their true origin, it cannot even be pretended that every 
 trace of it did not soon vanish, like the dewdrops of the 
 dawn before the rising sun, never to reappear but in 
 
 5 " Mythology is inevitable, it is natural, it is an inherent necessity of 
 language, if we recognise in language the outward form and manifestation 
 of thought: it is in fact the dark shadow which language throws on 
 thought, and which can never disappear till language becomes altogether 
 commensurate with thought, which it never will." Max Miiller, Science 
 of Rdigion, p. 353. 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 21 
 
 debasing and unworthy legends. In short, we can discover 
 no tendency in mythology to regenerate itself. It follows 
 therefore, from the evidence afforded by this method of 
 mythological interpretation, that the natural tendency of 
 man is to deteriorate. His first conceptions of the Infinite 
 were truer and worthier than his latest ; for, whether or not 
 he originally identified the visible heavens with God, he 
 subsequently learnt to confound God with the sensuous 
 images language had associated with the visible heavens. 
 And here was a moral fall. 6 
 
 May we not say, then, that the witness of mythology is 
 clear not only to this moral fall in itself, but also to the 
 reality of that fallen condition of which it was at once 
 the proof and the result ? Why is there a tendency in 
 human nature to deteriorate, an inability to rescue and 
 restore itself, as the development of mythology and as 
 practical experience alike testify, unless because of an 
 
 " There are two distinct tendencies to be observed in the growth of 
 ancient religion. There is, on the one side, the struggle of the mind 
 against the material character of language, a constant attempt to strip 
 -words of their coarse covering, and fit them, by main force, for the 
 purposes of abstract thought. But there is, on the other side, a constant 
 relapse from the spiritual into the material, and, strange to say, a predi- 
 lection for the material sense instead of the spiritual. This action and 
 reaction has been going on in the language of religion from the earliest 
 times, and is at work even now." Max Muller, Science of Religion, p. 268. 
 And again, " The first step downwards would be to look upon the sky 
 as the abode of that Being which was called by the same name ; the next 
 step would be to forget altogether what was behind the name, and to 
 implore the sky, the visible canopy above our heads, to send rain, to 
 protect the fields, the cattle, and the corn, to give to man his daily bread. 
 Nay, very soon those who warned the world that it was not the visible 
 sky that was meant, but that what was meant was something high above, 
 deep below, far away from the blue firmament, would be looked upon 
 either as dreamers whom no one could understand, or as unbelievers who 
 despised the sky, the great benefactor of the world. Lastly, many things 
 that were true of the visible sky would be told of its divine namesake, and 
 legends would spring up, destroying every trace of the deity that once 
 was hidden beneath that ambiguous name." Ibid, p. 273. 
 
22 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 original twist or wrench in our nature from the effects of 
 which we cannot recover ourselves ? All things bear 
 witness to this fact, wherever we turn. All societies, re- 
 ligions, institutions, experience the effects and bear witness 
 to the truth of it. Is it not as useless to deny as it is 
 impossible to explain it ? We may find it difficult to say 
 what we mean by the Fall, and may not care too narrowly 
 to define; but the evidence of facts for the reality and 
 truth of a Fall is irresistible. And if the natural growth 
 of mythology is itself a witness to this tendency to decline, 
 how much more is the mythology full grown ! Can any- 
 thing afford more conclusive evidence of the depravity of 
 the human heart than the ultimate form assumed by many 
 of the legends of Greece, to say nothing of those of India ? 
 Is it possible to excuse or to condone the practices which 
 were the immediate outcome of the cultus associated with 
 those legends, and the deities to whom they referred ? We 
 may try to believe that their origin was more innocent 
 than their result, but there can be no mistake about their 
 result. The Pauline account of the heathen w T orld in the 
 Epistle to the Eomans is too vivid not to be true, and is 
 too true to be disputed. And that was the actual outcome 
 of mythology, for of religion properly speaking there was 
 none. 
 
 And can we believe that this was the method adopted 
 by God for developing the growth of Christianity ? Was 
 Christianity the natural flower and fruit of such a seed. 
 and such a plant as this ? Is Christianity what this de- 
 veloped into? Because, if we are to eliminate all but 
 purely natural causes, we shall be constrained to confess 
 that the Gospel as it appeared at first was the direct 
 outcome, the spontaneous production, of germs and forces 
 such as these. The hideous and the impure originated the 
 lovely and the pure. The unholy generated the holy. If 
 mythology was but the progressive development of religious 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 23 
 
 ideas spontaneously conceived in man, it must have been a 
 direct link in that chain of which the pure Gospel of Christ 
 was the ultimate result. And when we bear in mind the 
 yet grosser and more openly revolting interpretation, which 
 by some has been unhesitatingly assigned to universal 
 mythology, construing its ever- varying development in the 
 east and the west and the north and the south as but the 
 unvarying repetition of the same ever-recurrent foul idea, 7 
 one shudders to think of the awful blasphemy that is 
 involved in any position which implies or seems to imply 
 that the very life-blood of Christianity has been deduced 
 through channels such as these, and owes its natural origin 
 to the same ultimate causes. We may indeed say this may 
 be science so called, but it cannot be truth. Or rather, we 
 may boldly say, this manifestly is not true ; and therefore 
 it cannot be science, for science is the handmaid of truth 
 and leads to truth. 
 
 No ! What God has taught us through the patent and 
 only too obvious facts of the heathen world and the ultimate 
 phases of mythology, is sufficiently clear. He has shown 
 us written thereon in unmistakable characters the actual 
 condition of the human heart, its naked deformity, its 
 real depravity, its natural tendency, when left to itself. 
 He has shown us the place there was in the world of our 
 humanity for a Eedeemer, the deep want of a redemption, 
 the hopelessness and the impossibility of our nature, left 
 simply to its own spontaneous efforts, being competent to 
 regenerate itself. He has shown us that all this was, over 
 and over again, felt and witnessed to by that nature itself. 
 He has shown us that even the greatest teachers in the 
 schools of Athens could not shake themselves free from 
 
 7 See passim, e.g. Cox, Aryan Nations. This writer does not hesitate to 
 refer to the same hideous origin, and invest with the same foul significance, 
 the narratives in Gen. iii. and Num. xxi. 7, 8, 9. Vol. ii. 116, n. 2; 114, 
 etc. 
 
24 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 the trammels of a corrupt nature, that they imperfectly 
 discerned the depth of the corruption, and thereby proved 
 themselves the subjects of it. He has thus shown us that 
 the world by wisdom knew not God, and could not by 
 searching find Him out. 
 
 The witness, then, of the heathen world is to the exist- 
 ence of sin with which it was unable to cope, and to which 
 it was imperfectly alive ; to the consciousness of a want 
 which it was unable to supply ; to the desire for light it 
 was unable to obtain. Mankind yearned for that which it 
 could not find, which in itself it did not possess. But every 
 want, if a real one, argues the existence of that which will 
 supply it. Provision is made in nature for the supply of 
 every true and natural want, as is shown by the adaptation 
 of one thing to another. We should infer, therefore, the 
 abstract existence of that which would meet this want. 
 And thus the universal testimony of the heathen world to 
 the consciousness of the want becomes itself an unconscious 
 anticipation of that which would supply it. The want of 
 a redemption becomes the unconscious anticipation of a 
 redeemer, and may be appealed to as such. The character 
 and conditions of the want show the character and con- 
 ditions he would be required to fulfil who should supply it. 
 And they furnish, so far, a standard by which his actual 
 character may be measured. He may be rightly estimated 
 by his power of adaptation to the wants of humanity. 
 
 But what is the evidence which is afforded us by the 
 study of mythology with reference to the probable origin 
 of Christianity ? If we take the more debased inter- 
 pretation of it, we find it is absolutely impossible that a 
 pure and purifying influence such as Christianity could 
 have been evolved by a natural process from mythology. 
 It could not have sprung from it, or have had the same 
 origin with it. There must have been an entirely inde- 
 pendent external and extra-natural agency at work to 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 25 
 
 produce it. If, on the other hand, we suppose that the 
 earliest ideas of religion were spontaneously developed 
 through the influence of nature, then those ideas must 
 have grown up and arrived at maturity in the same way ; 
 and unless we admit at some point or other the direct 
 operation of a higher, independent and external influence, 
 Christianity itself can have been but the ultimate result, 
 the highest development, of these primary, self-evolved 
 ideas. But we have seen that the actual tendency of the 
 ideas has been to decline and to degenerate, not to become 
 purer and more elevated ; consequently here again we are 
 met by a strong presumption that the actual origin of 
 Christianity must be due to other causes than those sug- 
 gested. That is to say, it does not seem possible to account 
 for the higher development of the religious idea, without 
 the admission of another influence out of, above, and 
 beyond nature, which we can only term the direct revela- 
 tion of God. 
 
 It matters not whether we can understand or define the 
 actual operation of such an influence: if various con- 
 siderations appear to converge towards and point to it, 
 while the contrary supposition appears to be precluded 
 absolutely, then the natural inference surely is that, in 
 spite of ourselves, we must recognise its operation, account 
 lor it or understand it as we may. 
 
 If, therefore, the scientific investigation of the origin of 
 religion leads us to the conclusion that it is a simply 
 natural growth, developed naturally by the spontaneous 
 evolution of religious germs inherent in man, we have a 
 right to test this conclusion by the application of certain 
 facts which are or are not consistent with it. We have seen 
 that it is not possible to regard them as consistent with it, 
 and therefore the inference clearly is that the proposed 
 scientific theory fails to account for that which it professes 
 to explain. There are certain manifest facts which are not 
 
26 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 comprehended in its induction, and which are actually 
 fatal to it. 
 
 If, again, we cannot in any real sense know what is right 
 and true without a virtual revelation to the conscience of 
 the true and the right which consists in such knowledge, 
 then it is clear that a path is at once opened out for us to 
 conceive of other methods of revelation no less real, which 
 shall approve themselves, not so much by the manner of 
 their communication as by the subject-matter of that which 
 they reveal. Thus, for example, given the person of Christ 
 as an actual revelation from God, then those who beheld 
 Him were recipients of that revelation whether they 
 believed in Him or not: the person whom they beheld 
 became an object to their consciousness which admitted of 
 no dispute. The fact of the revelation, however, was 
 antecedent to their knowledge of it. On the other hand, 
 in the case of those who saw in Christ the manifestation of 
 the Father, there was a yet further revelation, which was 
 made known by other agencies that partly were and partly 
 were not dependent on the testimony of their bodily senses ; 
 but here also the true revelation consisted not in the method 
 of its communication, but in the intrinsic glory of the object 
 revealed, of which, whether through the senses or otherwise, 
 they had become conscious. There had been a true reve- 
 lation to the blind man at Jericho before with opened eyes 
 he beheld the person of the Son of man, but he could not 
 have known of this revelation except so far as it was 
 revealed to him, and the proof of the revelation consisted 
 in the object revealed. It follows then, that, just as there 
 could be no knowledge of the person of Christ but for the 
 fact of His manifestation to the eyes of men, so there could 
 be no knowledge of His Divine character but for the fact 
 of its revelation to the spirits of men. The knowledge is 
 no proof of the revelation, but without the revelation there 
 can be no knowledge properly so-called. We must have a 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 27 
 
 Divine revelation before we can really know the Divine ; 
 without it we must abide in darkness. As, however, the 
 moral revelation of right and wrong is not of such a nature 
 as to preclude the possibility of error, so neither is the 
 spiritual revelation independent of the will. There ever 
 have been, there always will be, consciences it is unable to 
 touch. 
 
 The all-important questions, of course, arise, How can 
 such a Divine revelation be brought home to the minds of 
 men ? and How can we recognise it when presented to us ? 
 How shall we know it when we see it, and be sure that we 
 are not deceived ? In answer to these questions we may 
 say that the mind is prepared for the reception of a 
 professedly Divine revelation by the combined weight of 
 many convergent indications and the accumulated force of 
 many independent testimonies. It is notorious that several 
 religions appeal to a professedly Divine revelation. The 
 Vedas of the Brahmans, the Zend-Avesta of the Parsis, 
 the Tripi^aka of the Buddhists, the Kuran of the Muham- 
 madans, all claim to be regarded, and are regarded by their 
 respective followers, as divine. Are we called upon to 
 admit the claim ? Undoubtedly not. Every one of these 
 collections of sacred writings rests upon a totally different 
 basis from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. 
 No man in his senses can compare them and not perceive 
 their essential and intrinsic difference. We have no desire 
 to exalt our own religion at the expense of others, or to 
 depreciate others that our own may be exalted; but our 
 allegiance to our own religion, if we believe in it, forbids 
 us for one moment to place it on the same level with others, 
 as it prevents us from being blind to its generic difference 
 and its immeasurable superiority. 8 
 
 b " Those who would use a comparative study of religions as a means 
 for debasing Christianity by exalting the other religions of mankind, are 
 to my mind as dangerous allies as those who think it necessary to debase 
 
28 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 If it could be proved that this superiority was merely a 
 matter of opinion and of taste, and not a matter of fact, it 
 would, of course, be worth nothing, and the sooner we 
 allowed ourselves to be so persuaded the better it would be. 
 But, forasmuch as the difference is demonstrably a matter 
 of fact, it is useless to ignore it, and absurd to regard it as 
 though it were not. What, in the eyes of the most impartial 
 observer, are the claims of the Kuran in comparison with 
 those of the New Testament or the Old ? There is and can 
 be no comparison. It is not that there is no truth in the 
 Kuran, or that the truth therein is not derived from the 
 one fountain of truth; but the evidence of revelation in 
 it, properly so called, is simply nil. Or take again the 
 Veda, as the knowledge of it has of late years been opened 
 out to us by the unceasing and indefatigable labours of an 
 eminent scholar of this place ; where can we find in the 
 
 all other religions in order to exalt Christianity. Science wants no 
 partisans. I make no secret that true Christianity, I mean the religion of 
 Christ, seems to me to become more and more exalted the more we know, 
 and the more we appreciate the treasures of truth hidden in the despised 
 religions of the world. But no one can honestly arrive at that conviction, 
 unless he uses honestly the same measure for all religions. It would be 
 fatal for any religion to claim an exceptional treatment, most of all for 
 Christianity. Christianity enjoyed no privileges and claimed no immu- 
 nities when it boldly confronted and confounded the most ancient and the 
 most powerful religions of the world. Even at present it craves no mercy, 
 and it receives no mercy from those whom our missionaries have to meet 
 face to face in every part of the world. Unless our religion has ceased to 
 be what it was, its defenders should not shrink from this new trial of 
 strength, but should encourage rather than depreciate the study of 
 comparative theology." Max Miiller, Science of Religion, p. 37. All this 
 is perfectly true when considering the claims of Christianity with a view 
 to forming a decision ; but when those claims have been considered, then, 
 if they have not been rejected, there are other words which come into 
 operation ; namely, " He that is not with me is against me." It is strange, 
 but no less true than strange, that a position of absolute neutrality with 
 regard to Christ, and therefore with regard to the religion of Christ, is 
 one that always was, and always will be, found impossible to be long 
 maintamtd. 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 
 
 Veda, with all its beauty and with all its truth, with its 
 vast antiquity and the glorious visions it has unfolded of 
 the earliest dawn of human society and life where shall 
 we find in it the same distinctive evidence of revelation in 
 the same conscious hold on the Divine that we cannot bui 
 acknowledge, even if we do not feel it, in the Psalms of 
 David and in the vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz ? 
 
 It is not from narrowness, or bigotry, or partiality, or 
 want of sympathy with other religions than our own that 
 we say this, but because the songs of a David or the bur- 
 dens of an Isaiah have palpable evidences of a knowledge 
 of God and of a mission from God that are not to be found 
 elsewhere. If a special revelation has anywhere been 
 vouchsafed, and the record of it exists, and if we have 
 faculties capable of perceiving it when given, then there 
 can be no question to which of these quarters we must 
 turn to find it. We cannot say it is to be discovered 
 equally in all. We may say it is to be found pre-eminently 
 here, for instance, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
 and that to such an extent that the claim of the others to 
 anything like a special or direct revelation is not for a 
 moment to be entertained in comparison with theirs. Their 
 witness is within. 
 
 And then, side by side with these internal marks, we 
 have the sure and incorruptible evidence of history, which 
 step by step can be traced backwards in its broader and 
 more general aspects, till it leaves us in the dilemma of 
 reading the history in the light of the prophets, and the 
 prophets in the light of the history, or else of understanding 
 neither. We have the stream of history flowing on con- 
 temporaneously with the stream of literature, and the 
 phenomena presented by each constrain us to confess that 
 they are both unique. Is this the result of accident ? is it 
 the effect of collusion, of preconcerted arrangement ? or 
 does it serve more naturally to suggest the gradual working 
 
3O Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 out of a Divine plan, of which there is no second instance 
 in the annals of the world ? Doubtless this, with all that 
 it demands, is after all the only reasonable solution of the 
 problem. And the broad and solid results that we are able 
 to arrive at are of a nature to be independent of the more 
 fragmentary and partial criticisms of a philosophy that 
 refuses to be bound by any critical canons; while they 
 present a substantial basis of fact that must serve to 
 correct and modify conclusions that are derived from the 
 assumption of a uniform and dull monotony in the history 
 and literature of the world which has never been broken. 
 Here are the very facts which must serve to check the 
 over-hasty generalisation. They must either be left out, 
 or they must be tortured and perverted before they will 
 fit in. 
 
 Thus we find, at any rate, that there is sufficient to arrest 
 our attention in considering, for example, the claims of the 
 Old Testament to be regarded as a special Divine revelation 
 in a sense in which neither the Yedas nor the Kuran can 
 pretend to be. Treating it with the strictest impartiality, 
 as we naturally should treat any other book, we neverthe- 
 less find it to be marked with exceptional features which 
 are very peculiar. As a matter of historic fact, it has 
 formed the basis for another set of writings very different 
 from its own in style and character, and that in a way that 
 is altogether without parallel. It was the literary progenitor 
 of the New Testament ; and but for the Old Testament as 
 a foundation the New could never have been written. And 
 yet the relation of the New Testament to the Old is not 
 that of a commentary, but of an independent, original, and 
 in some sense antagonistic work. And these statements 
 remain equally true, when the Old Testament and the New 
 are regarded merely as human productions, as the natural 
 growth of literature in times and circumstances very diverse. 
 The Old Testament is a complete national literature : the 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 31 
 
 New Testament cannot in any way be regarded as a 
 national literature, though produced for the most part by 
 writers of the same nation as the Old, after an interval of 
 nearly live centuries. The chief characteristic of the New 
 Testament is that it professes to record the fulfilment and 
 realisation of the hopes and aspirations created by the 
 Old, and to describe the results consequent thereupon. 
 The historic relation, therefore, of cause and effect is that 
 which best expresses the relation subsisting between these 
 two collections of writings, and it is one which it is 
 impossible to deny. There may have been other causes 
 combining to bring about the production of the New 
 Testament, but it is impossible to eliminate altogether the 
 influence of the Old Testament as a principal and pre- 
 ponderating cause. 
 
 In the New Testament, however, we find the conception 
 of the Christ fully developed, and there, if anywhere, we 
 are to discover its ultimate form. It received no appreciable 
 development after the latest of the New Testament books 
 was written, or, at least, none with which we need concern 
 ourselves. And yet this conception of the Christ as there 
 exhibited, whether in historical narrative or in epistolary 
 correspondence, is one that could not have arisen without 
 adequate historical preparation and development. Even 
 the fourfold life of Jesus, whom its several authors agree 
 in identifying with the Christ, could not, if regarded merely 
 as a literary production, have been written, if there had 
 not existed previously certain ideas and notions which 
 served as a nucleus for the crystallisation of the thought. 
 It is hopeless to discover what these ideas and notions 
 were, if we do not seek for them in the Old Testament. 
 There unquestionably the germ of them existed, from 
 thence they sprang, and by this they were nurtured and 
 developed. And the process of their growth is capable of 
 being historically traced. For example, in the book of 
 
32 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 Daniel, no matter when it was written, we find a usage 
 of the word Messiah which is unique in the Old Testament. 9 
 Even allowing, which I do not allow, that this book was 
 written as late as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, it still 
 affords undeniable testimony to the existence at that time 
 of the conception of a person, more or less distinct, who 
 could be spoken of as Messiah, the word being used like a 
 proper name without the definite article. And whether 
 this was in the second or the sixth century B.C., it repre- 
 sents a development of thought, an advancement in the 
 direction of form and substance, inasmuch as not till then 
 is such an expression found. But on every ground there 
 must have been some apparent reason for the conception 
 expressed. There must have been that already existing 
 which favoured the notion, and sufficed to create or to 
 encourage it. Perhaps it may not be easy to determine 
 what this was, but of its existence there can be no doubt. 
 To trace, then, the historic development of what we may 
 term the Eeligion of the Christ will be the object of the 
 following lectures : to follow it out in the three departments 
 of history, poetry, and prophecy, till we arrive at the period 
 when He who was proclaimed as the Christ appeared. 
 The proposition with which we start is this, that there must 
 have been a sufficient basis in the Old Testament for the 
 New Testament doctrine of the Christ to be reared upon. 
 That doctrine could not have rested upon nothing. It 
 appealed to a conception it already found in existence. 
 That conception was exclusively owing to the influence 
 exerted by the Scriptures of the Old Testament upon the 
 popular mind, or else to spontaneous ideas existing in the 
 national mind, of which the only explanation and record 
 must be sought in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. 
 As whatever traces there are of a similar conception in 
 other nations are apparently derived from one and the same 
 
 9 Cf. 2 Sam. i. 21, perhaps the nearest approach to it. 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 33 
 
 source, we shall be able to compare the origin of this 
 conception with the supposed origin of mythological con- 
 ceptions, and to mark the contrast between them. That 
 any such idea was original with the Jewish nation, and 
 peculiar to that people, admits of no reasonable doubt. 
 It is sufficiently clear that they laid claim to the possession 
 of it, and there is no other nation that can dispute its 
 possession with them. They are historically distinct from 
 all other nations in this respect. What is the natural 
 explanation of this fact, or does it admit of any explanation 
 that is simply natural ? 
 
 If then, by pursuing a strictly historical method, we are 
 able to trace the growth of this idea step by step, investi- 
 gating and examining the several indications of its existence, 
 and the various circumstances that may have led to its 
 development the influence of natural causes, the pressure 
 of external events, the example of surrounding nations 
 and the like we shall be in a better position to decide 
 upon these questions. We shall then be able to determine 
 what the evidence is for the first origin of this idea, whether 
 in its rise and development it can be placed in the category 
 of mythological conceptions that can be traced to the double 
 meanings of words, whether there is any natural process 
 capable of leading up to the first thought, or whether we 
 must not consider it as a communication imparted to our 
 humanity rather than originated by it a communication, 
 however, of which the importance and the value consists 
 quite as much in its intrinsic nature as in the method 
 employed for conveying it, and of which the character and 
 the tendency are the highest evidence of its origin. 
 
 If again we can find in mythology no clear indications 
 of the hope of a Eedeemer, which as a matter of fact are 
 found in the history and literature of the Jews, and if in 
 philosophy also, which may be regarded as a protest against 
 mythology, there is no higher indication than that afforded 
 
 D 
 
34 Anticipation of the [LECT. 
 
 by a celebrated passage in the " Kepublic," we may surely 
 arrive at the not unreasonable conclusion that these cha- 
 racteristics of the Jewish Scriptures, being as they are 
 unique, do constitute the very highest evidence of the 
 special revelation which they are alleged to contain. Else- 
 where humanity did not cherish this hope, here it w r as 
 cherished ; this is the way in which it was cherished ; and 
 this is the reason why it was cherished. The hope professed 
 to be based upon a promise : a promise implies a person 
 promising. In this case a person promising implies an 
 unusual and unique operation on the part of God. The 
 evidence of the work done points conclusively to the doer 
 of it. We are led up on all hands to the confines of 
 the supernatural and the Divine. Mythology could give 
 no promise; philosophy could give no promise, human 
 nature itself could not have originated any promise ; but 
 mythology, philosophy, and human nature, alike bore wit- 
 ness to the defect which the promise undertook to supply. 
 Thus far the unaided energies of man could go, but no 
 farther. They cried aloud unto heaven, but they could give 
 no answer ; the only answer was the echo of their cry. 
 
 A period, however, occurred in human history when a 
 distinct answer was given. A note of preparation for that 
 answer was struck by the son of Zacharias in the wilder- 
 ness, when he awoke once more the voice of the ancient 
 prophets. And then the answer itself came in the preaching 
 and the mission of Jesus. He claimed to be the Christ of 
 whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write. That 
 He advanced this claim there is not a shadow of doubt. 
 That His moral character must stand or fall according as 
 His claim was or was not just, is equally certain. His 
 moral and personal character were not the creation of the 
 Evangelists. They did not invent their Jesus, nor invent 
 for Him His character of the Christ. And yet His character 
 as depicted by them stands alone in the history and the 
 
i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 35 
 
 literature of the world. As an invention, however, it would 
 have been little less wonderful than as a history ; for there 
 were no materials out of which to construct it, and they 
 were not the men to use them if there had been. 
 
 We have then a promise, and a person, and a claim a 
 person claiming to fulfil the promise. We are all of us 
 competent to decide how far the promise was fulfilled in 
 Him, how far He failed to realise it. Nor is it very prob- 
 able that we shall reject Him on the ground that He failed 
 to realise the promise. If we reject Him at all, it will be 
 on other grounds than these. And then, in that case, we 
 shall have to face this fact, that the most silent and the 
 most mighty revolution the world has ever known was 
 immediately connected with the belief that the ancient 
 promise was fulfilled in Him, so that the verdict of history 
 will be opposed to the estimate we have formed of Jesus. 
 
 The circumstances, therefore, connected with the historic 
 rise of a particular religion, which are of such a nature as 
 to be independent of the perfectly free discussion of various 
 points relating thereto, and of the particular resolution that 
 may await the questions involved, are a valid presumptive 
 proof that this religion was intrinsically and in its origin 
 different from all others, inasmuch as of no other religion 
 can the same characteristics be predicated. The indications, 
 are many and various : they are independent, cumulative,, 
 and confirmatory. They point us from many quarters ta 
 one and the same conclusion. If the several tales of 
 several mythologies appear to be all resolvable into one- 
 original idea, which is that of the ever-recurrent decay and 
 revival of nature, it is not so here. It is simply impossible, 
 for example, that the record of the Jewish history, interpret 
 it as we may, and reduce it to any extent we please, can be 
 resolved into the mere repetition of the same idea. It 
 stands out in marked contrast with every mythology, and 
 furnishes the broad and solid basis in life and fact for the 
 
3 6 Christ in Heathen Nations. [LECT. i. 
 
 possible existence of other living facts, to which there is 
 palpable evidence in literature and in history, and which 
 but for such a basis could themselves have had no existence. 
 And thus the historic and literary development of the 
 doctrine and religion of the Christ, first as it grew and 
 gathered form before He came, and secondly as it was 
 developed in the early Christian literature, will be the 
 strongest evidence of its origin ; and we shall find that as 
 we cannot believe in Jesus without believing in the Christ, 
 and cannot believe in the Christ without believing in Jesus, 
 so neither can we disbelieve in Jesus as the Christ without 
 rejecting an accumulation of evidence which may justly be 
 regarded as the record that God gave of His Son. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 THE CHRIST OF JEWISH HISTORY. 
 
$)te runt>ung be8 iitbtfc$en @taat8 burc$ 2ftofe id cine ber benfnnirbigflen 33egebcn 
 $etten, twelve bie efc$ic$te aufbewa^rt $at, nnctyttg burc$ bte tarfe be 2>erflanbe3, 
 tt>oburc$ $e in3 2Berf geridbjet orben, totdjttger noc^ butc 1 ^ t^ire gotgen auf bie SBelt, bte 
 nod() St auf btefen 5lugen6Iirf fortbauern. Stoet Sicltgionen, tvel^e ben gro^ten fjctl ber 
 bemo^nten Grrbe be^errfd^en, ba8 ffi^rijient^um unb bee 33tamifmu8, fifteen jt^ beibe auf 
 bte 9iettqton ber -^ebrvier, unb o^ne biefe lourbe e3 niemalS tueber etn S^vijient^um noc^> 
 etnen J?oran gegeben Ijaben. 
 
 3a, in etnem getoiffen @tnne tft e nn)tberleg(td(> n>a$r, baf Vttr ber 9)?ofatfc^en 
 Sieltgton etnen grofen X^ett ber 2lufKarung banfen, beren tr un3 tyeuttgeS flags 
 erfreuen. iDenn burc^ fie rourbe etne fofibare 2Ua^r^eit, ftclctye bte fld^ fetbfl uberlaffenc 
 SSernunft erji nafy etner tangfamen ntnricfelung rt^urbe gefunben ^aben, bie ?el)re con 
 tern eintgen ott, vorUuftg unter bent 35dfe erbrettet, unb afe etn egenjlanb be8 
 bttnben Iauben8 fo lange unter bemfelben er^aften, bi8 fie enbttci(> in ben Ijellern Stotftn 
 ju etnem SSernunftbegriff reifen fonnte. $Daburc^> tturben etnem gro^en ;J^ett be3 
 ajfenfc^engefdb, fectytS alle bte traurigen Srrnjege erfpart, worauf ber laube an 9SteIgotteret 
 jute^t ffl^ren mu^, unb bte tyebraifctye SSerfaffung er^ielt ben auSfcfyliepenben orjug, bap 
 bie JRettgion ber SBeifen mit ber 9?olfreligion nictyt in btrectem JBiberf^ruc^e jlanb, nne 
 e bod() bei ben attfgeftarten ^eiben ber Salt luar. Schiller. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. 
 GEN. xxii. 18. 
 
 IF we are willing to allow that God has spoken more 
 or less by all the religions of the world and in pro- 
 portion to the elements of truth contained in them He 
 must have done so then it manifestly follows that in 
 whatever sense the Christ was His special and chosen 
 way of revealing Himself, all other religions must in their 
 degree bear witness unto Him. That they may directly 
 do so is perhaps not to be expected, for in that case God 
 must have spoken specially by them ; but that they must 
 indirectly do so is clear, for otherwise the voice of God 
 would give an uncertain or even a discordant sound. But 
 in point of fact there is an indirect and silent witness 
 borne by all religions to the Christ. There is no religion 
 which does not profess to deal with sin, and there is no 
 religion which does not virtually confess its inability to 
 deal with it. There is no religion which does not profess 
 to discriminate between right and wrong, and thereby 
 witness to the majesty of conscience. There is no religion 
 worthy of the name which does not profess to come with 
 a message from God, and on that ground to demand the 
 attention of mankind. But surely thus far the testimony 
 of all religions is in favour of, rather than opposed to, the 
 teaching of Him who claimed to be the Christ. To insist, 
 therefore, as there is a tendency to do now-a-days, upon 
 the fact of God's having spoken by other religions besides 
 
4 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 our own can really have no other effect than that of 
 exalting our own, unless it is done with the concealed 
 intention of disparaging it. 1 If we really believe that 
 God's message by Christ was exceptional, paramount, and 
 final, then it must be salutary in a high degree to trace 
 the lines of corroborative evidence as they discover them- 
 selves in the various religions of mankind, and as they 
 converge towards Him ; but if we are to arrive at the con- 
 clusion that God has not spoken by Christ in any other 
 way than He has spoken by Confucius, by Buddha, or by 
 Muhammad, in a higher but not in a different way, then 
 the sooner we clearly understand this the better, because 
 such a conclusion does not appear to be in any sense 
 compatible with the distinct teaching of Him whom we 
 profess to follow. As philosophers we may hold the 
 balance evenly between all religions, and strike it in 
 favour of none; as Christians we cannot do so, because 
 Christ demanded nothing less than the entire surrender 
 of the whole man, and if we refuse this we virtually 
 reject Him. We have, however, already attempted to 
 show that there is very strong presumptive evidence 
 against the development of Christianity by any processes 
 merely natural, after the manner of other religions, be- 
 cause of its strong and essential contrast with them ; and 
 consequently the more we study other religions, provided 
 we study our own fairly, the more we shall be persuaded 
 of its intrinsic difference, and of its unique superiority. 
 
 1 "Many are the advantages to be derived from a careful study of 
 other religions, but the greatest of all is that it teaches us to appreciate 
 more truly what we possess in our own. When do we feel the blessings 
 of our own country more warmly and truly than when we return from 
 abroad ? It is the same with regard to religion. . . . We have done so 
 little to gain our religion, we have suffered so little in the cause of truth, 
 that however highly we prize our own Christianity, we never prize it 
 highly enough until we have compared it with the religions of the rest 
 of the world." Max Miiller, Chips, etc., i. 183. 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 41 
 
 If, however, there was no supernatural origin, properly 
 so called, for Christianity, it is clear that we must seek 
 its origin among the manifold operations of nature. It 
 must have developed itself by a process of evolution from 
 the spontaneous energies and resources of humanity. But 
 as a matter of fact we know its pedigree if we do not 
 know its origin. Christianity was the historical develop- 
 ment of Judaism, or, as it is now called, Mosaism. All 
 the first preachers of Christianity had been notoriously 
 disciples of Moses, and all zealous of the law. The earliest 
 home of Christianity was Palestine, and indeed Jerusalem. 
 And in our survey of the religions of the world, if there is 
 none that does not bear indirect testimony to the religion 
 of Christ, there appears to be one marked out from all the 
 rest by the direct testimony that it bears to Him. This, 
 however, must of course be a matter of inference, and not 
 of proof. Still the inference may be so strong as to 
 amount to reasonable proof. Let us look, for example, at 
 the general tenor of Jewish history. The whole of that 
 history, as we have it in the Old Testament, was very 
 probably completed several centuries before Christ. It 
 can have undergone no material alteration after it was 
 completed. It is in the highest degree improbable that 
 the history of Abraham, for instance, was a late addition. 
 There can be no reasonable doubt that the lives of the 
 patriarchs were as early as the Exodus, perhaps even 
 earlier. But this matters not. Put the date of Genesis 
 in its present form as late as the sixth or seventh century 
 before Christ, or, if it is desirable, even later, monstrous 
 as the theory may be, we find in the first thirty chapters 
 the record of a promise given to the patriarchs no less 
 than five times to the effect that all the families of the 
 earth shall be blessed in them. Three times is this pro- 
 mise given with reference to Abraham ; twice directly to 
 him ; once indirectly of him ; once it is repeated to Isaac, 
 
42 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 and once again to Jacob. The first time it is made per-, 
 sonally to Abraham, the second time it is restricted to his 
 seed, and the form is slightly changed from "be blessed" 
 to " bless themselves." In this changed form the promise 
 is renewed to Isaac, while to Jacob it is repeated as before, 
 but given to him and his seed. 8 
 
 In whatever way, therefore, this promise is explained, 
 there can be no doubt that it is a substantive fact of the 
 literature, and of very ancient date. It appears, however, 
 and this is very important, to have been overlooked, at 
 least to a great extent, for it was imbedded in another 
 promise which evidently took firmer hold of the popular- 
 mind, as it naturally would the promise, namely, of the 
 possession of the land. For it is remarkable that, when- 
 ever this promise is alluded to, as it often is subsequently, 
 
 z " h ffol means ' in tbee ; ' that is, ' in thee as their type,' or ' in thy 
 faith.' In the original passage it has the sense, * by thee ; ' that is, the 
 form of their blessing shall be, by thy name. ' The Lord bless thee as 
 He blessed Abraham and his descendants.'" Jowett on Galatians 
 iii. 8. 
 
 The passages where the promise occurs are Gen. xii. 3, In thee shall all 
 families of the earth be blessed, spoken to Abraham; xviii. 18, All t/>e 
 nations of the earth shall be blessed in him, spoken of Abraham ; xxii. 
 18, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, spoken to 
 Abraham ; xxvi. 4, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless them- 
 .selves, spoken to Isaac; xxviii. 14, In thee and in thy seed, shall all the 
 families of the earth be blessed, spoken to Jacob. In the first and last cases 
 the word used for earth is mplNH. In the other three fpNH. The only 
 other passages in which the reflective form " bless himself," etc., is used, 
 are Deut. xxix. 19; Ps. Ixxii. 17; Isaiah Ixv. 16, bis; Jer. iv. 2. As in 
 three out of the five passages in Genesis the form of the verb is a passive, 
 and as there are certain clear instances in which the reflective form is 
 used in a passive sense e.g. Prov. xxxi. 30; Micah vi. 16; Ezek. xix. 
 12 ; Lam. iv. 1, etc. there can be no reasonable doubt that it is at least 
 permissible to regard the passive sense as the correct one in all ; but the 
 real import of the promise is independent of any such grammatical am- 
 biguity. Let us suppose that the right way in which to take the words in 
 the five cases is in the reflective sense, as the passive is sometimes reflec- 
 tive e.g. Gen. iii. 10; Ps. Iv. 1-3, etc.; and that the "in thee" indicates 
 not the channel of the blessing through which it is derived but the stan- 
 
IL] The Christ of Jewish History. 43 
 
 it is the inheritance rather than the seed which is men- 
 tioned. This is the case, for example, in the Psalms, 3 in 
 the Pentateuch very frequently, and in the Prophets. The 
 oath to Abraham is commonly referred to the occupation 
 of Canaan, and whenever there is any reference to the 
 seed, it is the people that is meant. In fact, there is no 
 repetition of the promise about the person or the seed, 
 which is five times given in Genesis, throughout the 
 whole of the Old Testament. Perhaps the nearest approach 
 to a repetition of it is to be found in the words of Micah, 4 
 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob and the mercy to 
 Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the 
 days of old. This being written probably in the days of 
 Hezekiah cannot be understood of the possession of the 
 land, but may justly be regarded as a spiritual assurance. 
 
 dard or example of blessing according to which it is acknowledged, then 
 we have the assertion that all nations of the earth shall bless themselves in 
 Abraham and his seed; that is, all nations of the earth shall regard 
 Abraham and his seed as the highest examples of blessing a promise 
 which is either significant or meaningless ; if it is meaningless, here at 
 any rate it is for any one who chooses to speculate on its possible mean- 
 ing ; but if it is significant, then its only meaning can be that all nations 
 shall recognise in Abraham the most conspicuous instance of blessing, 
 which at least implies a consciousness on the part of the writer, whoever 
 he was, that the blessing of Abraham was to be acknowledged by the 
 world at large ; that the world at large was to sit at the feet of Abraham 
 in admiration of the extent to which God had blessed him. This is emi- 
 nently true if Abraham was the recipient of real blessings and a real 
 covenant ; eminently untrue if he had been deceived and was the pos- 
 sessor of no covenant. It is eminently true now to those who are par- 
 takers of the faith of Abraham; it is utterly false if the promise to 
 Abraham was a fiction, and the supposed fulfilment of it a mistake. The 
 particular form or manner in which St. Paul uses the promise in no way 
 affects the inherent significance of the language, independently of all 
 grammatical niceties, if there was any actual covenant made with Abra- 
 ham, and if the claims of Jesus were valid. That significance remains 
 even if we demur to St. Paul's argument. Its real significance was not 
 given by him, but by the author of the promise in Genesis, whoever he 
 was. 
 3 Eg. Ps. cv. 9, 11. Micah vii. 20. See also Lecture iv. 
 
44 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 But it must be observed that it is in itself conclusive evi- 
 dence of the existence in Micah's time of the promise in 
 Genesis, and that it was then very ancient. 
 
 There appears, then, on the surface of the Jewish 
 literature, and in one of the earliest portions of it, a 
 promise to the effect that in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, or shall bless 
 themselves. Whether any such promise was ever given or 
 not, there it is; we have only now to deal with literary 
 facts, and this apparent promise is a literary fact. Very 
 far back in the annals of the Jewish nation we meet with 
 this expression of a consciousness on their part that they 
 were to be the channels or the standards of blessing to 
 mankind ; for, whatever else the promise is, it must cer- 
 tainly be so regarded. But what is equally strange, is 
 that this consciousness appears to a great extent to have 
 died away. The nation itself was isolated, and exclusive 
 in its manners, habits, and sympathies. In the prophets, 
 especially in Isaiah, there are indeed many passages in 
 which this consciousness revives, and not only revives, 
 but increases in intensity and depth. This, however, is in 
 strong contrast to the historic development of the nation's 
 life. While we observe that there is no distinct repetition 
 of the promise to Abraham later than Genesis, we cannot 
 forget that in another form it is continually repeated. To 
 take two examples only, Behold, thou slialt call a nation 
 that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall 
 run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy 
 One of Israel ; for He hath glorified thee. 5 And the Gen- 
 tiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy 
 rising. 6 What is this but the same assurance given in 
 another form ? In all these cases, we must acknowledge 
 that there is the clear expression of a deep consciousness 
 that the mission of Israel was to be a blessing to the 
 
 5 Isaiah Iv. 5. Isaiah Ix. 3. 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 45 
 
 nations. This is manifest at the dawn of their history, 
 and it is equally conspicuous in the palmy days of Heze- 
 kiah's reign. But there is only one way in which it can 
 be said that the nations of the world have derived bless- 
 ing from Israel, and that is, as the prophet indicates, 
 through the knowledge of their God. We must, therefore, 
 either acknowledge this obligation, or we must repudiate 
 it. If we repudiate it we shall become involved in the 
 somewhat difficult task of having to show that there was 
 no intrinsic superiority in the sublime monotheism and 
 pure morality of the Hebrew Scriptures over the vague 
 and dubious conjectures of heathenism and mythology; 
 that the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Law, are at most 
 only on a par with the corresponding productions of other 
 nations, if indeed they are not inferior to them. If, on the 
 other hand, we acknowledge this obligation, then we shall 
 have to account for the fact that, ages before it was in- 
 curred, this promise to Abraham was recorded in the 
 national literature, answering in a remarkable way to the 
 subsequent development of events. For in this case we 
 have not to deal with the question of the promise being 
 given, but with the fact of its having been recorded. 
 
 When, however, we bear in mind that Abraham's 
 previous associations had been idolatrous, and that his 
 father, if not he himself, had served other gods, we shall 
 have to account for the additional circumstances of his 
 change of faith, and to consider that the narrative in 
 Genesis is the only narrative we possess of the first 
 commencement of a mighty revolution of thought, which 
 was most important and far-reaching in its consequences. 
 As far as we know, the origin of what afterwards became 
 Israelitish monotheism was this very episode in Abraham's 
 life ; and, according to the narrative, the form it took was 
 that of a definite promise given by God. In other words, 
 as it is highly improbable that Abraham should have 
 
46 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 originated this faith for himself; 7 and as, from the facts 
 before us, it is impossible to deny that the most remarkable 
 results flowed from it, the only natural inference is that 
 the reality of a revelation is proved in the character and 
 greatness of the thing revealed. The call of Abraham and 
 the promise given to him stand out in marked contrast to 
 all that can be explained on merely natural principles, and 
 here if anywhere we are constrained to admit the operation 
 of forces and influences beyond the limits of nature. If 
 we do not postulate the existence and action of a cause 
 which cannot be traced home to nature, we must leave 
 unaccounted for and unaccountable great spiritual results 
 which it is equally impossible to deny. When, however, 
 we further take into consideration the fact that this par- 
 ticular promise to Abraham exists nowhere in the Old 
 Testament 8 so plainly as it does in Genesis, till an allusion 
 to it reappears in the first verse of St. Matthew's Gospel 
 and in St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians ; we must then 
 
 7 The words of Professor Max Miiller show very strikingly that there 
 is only one way in which the spiritual advance we perceive in Abraham 
 is to be accounted for. " And if we are asked how this one Abraham 
 preserved not only the primitive intuition of God as He had revealed 
 Himself to all mankind, but passed through the denial of all other gods 
 to the knowledge of the one God, we are content to answer that it was by 
 a special Divine Revelation. We do not indulge in theological phrase- 
 ology, but we mean every word to its fullest extent. The Father of Truth 
 chooses His own prophets, and He speaks to them in a voice stronger than 
 the voice of thunder. It is the same inner voice through which God 
 speaks to all of us. That voice may dwindle away, and become hardly 
 audible ; it may lose its Divine accent, and sink into the language of 
 worldly prudence ; but it may also, from time to time, assume its real 
 nature, with the chosen of God, and sound into their ears as a voice from 
 heaven. A ' divine instinct ' may sound more scientific and less theological ; 
 but in truth it would neither be an appropriate name for what is a gift or 
 grace accorded to but few, nor would it be a more scientific, i.e. a more 
 intelligible word than 'special revelation.' " Chips from a German Work- 
 shop, i. 373. 
 
 8 A remarkable allusion to both the promises is found in Joshua xxiv. 
 3, 13, but the first is subordinate and incidental. This narrative, how- 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 47 
 
 put over against a very ancient recorded promise, which 
 has all the appearance of a prophecy, the no less certain 
 historical fact of the birth of a remarkable personage who 
 was alleged to have fulfilled it, and whose advent would 
 have been its complete fulfilment if all or nearly all that 
 was related of him was true. 9 
 
 We pass on, however, to notice other points in the 
 historic development of the national life of Israel. First, 
 then, comes the long period of bondage in Egypt, which, 
 according to the narrative, had been distinctly foretold to 
 Abraham. 1 The memory of this bondage and of the re- 
 demption from it was too deeply imprinted on the national 
 mind and on the national literature for either one or the 
 other to be for one moment doubted. Nor, on the sup- 
 position of a post eventum prophecy, is it easy to under- 
 stand why there should have been left upon the face of it 
 a disagreement with the ostensible record of its fulfilment. 2 
 While, however, we cannot prove the actual occurrence of 
 the prophecy, from which of course the whole supernatural 
 character of the narrative and its Divine claims would 
 follow, we can show that a large variety of circumstances 
 in the history points consistently to the inference that we 
 must make allowance for the operation of other than merely 
 natural agencies. Abraham's actual knowledge of God is 
 itself the strongest argument for a direct revelation, since, 
 under the circumstances, it cannot be accounted for with- 
 out; but when we have arrived thus far the antecedent 
 improbability of certain additional features of the same 
 narrative is to a large extent removed. 
 
 ever, not only presupposes that in Genesis, but implies familiarity with it 
 among the people for whose benefit this was written. It is also valuable 
 as showing the earliest interpretation of Genesis xxii. 18. Cf. Hosea i. 
 10 (ii. 1). 
 
 9 For the contrast between the character of Abraham and the highest 
 analogous Hindu conceptions, see Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, 
 part ii. 164 seq. l Gen. xv. 13. 2 Ex. xii. 40, 41. 
 
48 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 And so if we find a highly exceptional deliverance 
 occurring in the history of the people, which in its sub- 
 stantial features cannot be questioned; as, for instance, 
 that it was accomplished without a blow being struck on 
 their part ; that it was preceded by a variety of national 
 calamities befalling the Egyptians, which if not entirely 
 peculiar were at least of peculiar severity ; that this de- 
 liverance was brought about by means of a person who 
 had himself undergone a long period of probation in Egypt 
 and in exile from Egypt ; that he laid the foundation of 
 his people's greatness and of their national peculiarities, as 
 well as of their very national existence, by giving them a 
 law which he succeeded in persuading them was of Divine 
 origin, and which was undoubtedly marked by many 
 features of exceptional prudence, not to say of Divine 
 wisdom ; that, under the circumstances, it is hard to 
 account for the profound submission with which the Law 
 was immediately received, if its promulgation was not 
 accompanied with circumstances of special solemnity and 
 awe, such as those which are recorded in the very narra- 
 tive to which we are indebted for the code itself; that the 
 position occupied by this person was entirely unique in 
 the annals of the nation, so that, in the long roll of their 
 kings and prophets, no second arose like him; that he 
 claimed to stand to his people in the position of a mediator 
 with God, and to be the bearer of a message from God ; 
 that this claim must at least in part be judged by the 
 way in which it was advanced, and by the results which 
 followed it, as well as by the character of the message 
 itself; that it is equally hard to maintain the charge of 
 imposture against Moses in the face of all the evidence 
 which confronts us, and to acquit him of that charge if the 
 narrative which professes, in part at any rate, to be by 
 him, and which, if not genuine, at least claims to be 
 authentic, is not substantially trustworthy as a narrative of 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 49 
 
 fact ; that from the whole tenor of the subsequent history 
 and literature it is hardly possible to overestimate the 
 greatness of his character and mission, and yet at the same 
 time is not possible to estimate them duly and reject the 
 general trustworthiness of the record; if, I say, we find 
 all this, which we doubtless do find, it becomes a question 
 whether an antecedent probability is not thereby created 
 in favour of the highly exceptional significance which the 
 record attributes to the history. We are undoubtedly 
 dealing with a series of events which are altogether be- 
 yond the scope of ordinary human circumstance or national 
 experience. Is it not possible that their significance in 
 the scheme of God's providential government may be 
 something more than ordinary ? Nay, must it not be 
 so? 
 
 Another feature altogether exceptional is to be noted in 
 the wanderings that followed the Exodus. In the face of 
 the corroborative evidence afforded by the Psalms and the 
 Prophets, it is not possible to doubt the truth of their 
 main incidents for example, their general character and 
 long duration. 3 In fact, so deeply did the influence of the 
 nomad life in the wilderness imprint itself on the national 
 character, that traces of it may be said to exist at the pre- 
 sent day. And yet to discover any satisfactory natural 
 causes upon which the wanderings may be adequately ac- 
 counted for is not easy. How is it that a lawgiver whose 
 energy and genius never failed him, having delivered his 
 people from the thraldom of the then mightiest nation of 
 the world, and having successfully maintained their inde- 
 pendence against the tribes and kingdoms of the desert, 
 should be unable to crown the work of his life by leading 
 them to the goal of their common desires ; but after wast- 
 
 3 See, for instance, Ps. Ixviii. 7, 8; Ixxviii. 13 seq. ; Ixxx. 8; Ixxxi. 
 5-10; xcv. 10; cv. 39-44; cvi. 17-19; cxxxv. cxxxvi. Hosea xi. 1; xii. 
 13 ; xiii. 4. Amos v. 25, 26. Micah vi. 4, 5 ; vii. 15, etc. etc. 
 
50 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 ing forty years of fruitless lingering in the desert, should 
 deliberately consign that work to a younger officer of his 
 own appointment, who was not personally better fitted to 
 accomplish it than he was himself ? These things are in 
 themselves so improbable that we must either reject them 
 historically, which we cannot do, or else taken together 
 they point us to the only reason for them, which is that 
 assigned. 
 
 But, in point of fact, the same characteristics confront 
 us at every turn. As we read page after page of the 
 history, we are equally perplexed whether to take it with 
 such supernatural elements as are inseparable therefrom, 
 or to attempt, however hopelessly, to reduce it to such 
 dimensions as may appear not to transcend the limits of 
 the intelligible and the ordinary. For example, the main 
 features of the occupation of Canaan .are undeniable. 4 
 And everywhere the most conspicuous of those features is 
 the consciousness with which the whole nation is pos- 
 sessed that they are about to inherit a country promised 
 to their fathers. The reason of this persuasion is apparent 
 on the surface of their literature. The poetry, prophecy, 
 and history, are alike imprinted with it. If we suppose 
 for a moment that the promise was an after-thought of the 
 literature, then the history becomes unintelligible. If we 
 reject the history as incredible, then the literature and 
 history alike become unmeaning and inexplicable. If we 
 concede the promise as an actual fact, then doubtless a 
 sufficient impulse is discovered for the current of the 
 history ; but then, at the same time, the germ of the 
 supernatural is conceded, and the foundation laid thereby 
 for its occasional if not continual presence afterwards. 
 And it is this general broad conclusion and the natural 
 inference of this dilemma which is vastly more important 
 than the resolution, one way or the other, of any question 
 4 See Psalm xliv. 1-3; Ixxviii. 55; cxxxv. 12; cxxxvi. 21, 22. 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 51 
 
 as to whether the earth's diurnal motion, for example, was 
 arrested at the command of Joshua, or the like. 
 
 The promise given to Abraham, however, might be less 
 significant if it stood alone, remarkable as it would still 
 be in connection with the history; but it does not, and 
 before we close the last of the books of Moses we meet 
 with another promise in strong contrast with it the pro- 
 mise, namely, that he gives the people, of a prophet who 
 shall arise from among them like unto himself. 5 Now 
 this promise, however it is interpreted, has the advantage 
 of being very clear and definite, and it is furthermore dis- 
 tinguished by a comment which is passed upon it in the 
 book itself. For we are distinctly told 6 that there arose 
 not a prophet in Israel like unto Moses after his death. It 
 is impossible, therefore, that the words can refer to Joshua. 
 But it is equally impossible not to accept them as a pro- 
 mise or prophecy. 7 It is clear that they were intended and 
 understood as such. The comment referred to seems to 
 imply no less. And the later we place the date of that 
 comment the more significant it becomes. But in point of 
 fact we are independent of any such considerations, for 
 down to the time of Malachi there is no name in the 
 annals of the nation so great as that of Moses. The moral, 
 therefore, of the promise is that the national expectation 
 
 8 Deut. xviii. 15 seq. 6 Deut. xxxiv. 10. 
 
 7 It has been suggested by Eichhorn and others that the promise given 
 by Moses was virtually and in fact the origin of the phenomenon of pro- 
 phecy as it was afterwards developed in the Jewish nation. But it must 
 be borne in mind that several centuries elapsed between the death of 
 Moses and the era of Samuel, and a long period between the era of 
 Samuel and that of the prophets generally, and that no one of the actual 
 prophets bore any resemblance to Moses, so that on this supposition the 
 promise really failed to accomplish that which is attributed to it so far 
 as personal likeness to the lawgiver is concerned ; in addition to which 
 we should even then have to account for the bold and hazardous predic- 
 tion of Moses, as well as for the ultimate consequences of it over which 
 he could have no control. 
 
52 The CJirist of Jezvisli History. [LECT. 
 
 was aroused, but the entire course of the history gives no 
 hint of its being realised. As far as the testimony of fact 
 goes, the last verses of Deuteronomy might have been 
 added when the canon of the Old Testament was closed, 
 for the Second Temple arose in its glory without witness- 
 ing the rise of any prophet who could claim to be the 
 successor of Moses. But then, on the other hand, it is 
 impossible to regard the promise as a later interpolation ; 
 for it is put into the lips of Moses. And if we can imagine 
 for a moment any late writer, such as Jeremiah for ex- 
 ample, falsely ascribing a promise like this to Moses, what 
 possible meaning could it have had ? The verdict of history 
 had done nothing but falsify the hope expressed, and the 
 remark at the end of the book precluded the possibility of 
 its being interpreted of Joshua, so that we are wholly at a 
 loss to understand it. And yet here, on the very surface 
 of the Pentateuch, ostensibly the oldest portion of the 
 Jewish literature, we find this clear, definite, distinct pro- 
 mise, to the fulfilment of which the rest of that literature 
 bears no evidence. In the light of these facts we are 
 doubtless at liberty to appeal to the New Testament in 
 proof that the expectation thus aroused in the nation 
 had not died out in the time of Christ; but to what 
 can that expectation be referred, if not to this unique 
 promise ? 
 
 If, then, the consciousness of Abraham was that his seed 
 should be the blessing of the world, the consciousness of 
 Moses was that his prophetic office should give place to 
 Another. Each of these facts on the surface of the litera- 
 ture is too patent to be denied. They stand written in clear 
 and legible characters that cannot be mistaken, and they 
 are really typical of the rest of the literature. From first 
 to last it is marked in an extraordinary manner, if we may 
 so say, with the consciousness of being preparatory for 
 something yet to come. There is a fearlessness of pre- 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 53 
 
 dictive assertion about it. Deal with the several predictions 
 one by one as we may, this general characteristic remains 
 indestructible. It is stamped on the history no less than 
 on those writings which are ostensibly and professedly 
 prophetical. We meet with it as early as Abraham, and 
 we encounter it again in the time of Moses. It is indeed 
 possible to deny that the writer of these two passages in- 
 tended them to be predictions, but it is not possible to deny 
 that they have the form of phophecy and the appearance 
 of being predictive. On the other hand, if we accept 
 them as actual prophecies, we shall probably not deny that 
 they were fulfilled in Christ. 
 
 The Jewish history, moreover, as a whole, is distinguished 
 from all other history by its extraordinary parabolic or 
 didactic character. This is true at whatever period we 
 take it. The history of the wanderings, for example, is a 
 wonderful picture of human life. The history of the occu- 
 pation and of the judges is scarcely less so. The conduct 
 of Israel is like the conduct of a wayward child, or of a 
 person whom adversity cannot teach, and the discipline to 
 which the nation is subjected is of a kind similar to theirs. 
 But of no other history is this true to anything like the 
 same extent. It is as though this nation were under the 
 immediate guidance and the special discipline of heaven, 
 and this is shown quite as much by the natural as by the 
 supernatural features of the history. Leave out every 
 incident which does not fall strictly within the limits of 
 natural experience, and you have still in the development 
 of the national history what may well be regarded as the 
 result of peculiar Divine direction, and what has all the 
 appearance of being a model national history, designed 
 expressly for the instruction of all other nations. 
 
 After the subjugation of Canaan, the great turning-point 
 in Israel's history is the election of a king. Under Samuel 
 the offices of judge and prophet were combined he was 
 
54 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 the last of the judges, the first of the prophets after Moses. 
 The movement in favour of monarchy, however, did not 
 proceed from him, but from the people ; but the first 
 monarch was Samuel's appointment ; so that the king 
 was developed out of the office of the judge, and was 
 sanctioned by the authority of the prophet. The history 
 of the choice and subsequent rejection of Saul is so 
 remarkable that it is difficult to divest it of all super- 
 natural elements. Why was Saul accepted by the nation 
 as their lawful sovereign ? Mainly on account of Samuel's 
 appointment. Why was it afterwards understood that he 
 was rejected and that another was chosen in his place ? 
 Solely because Samuel has declared it. He was the virtual 
 king-maker ; he put down one and set up another. Was 
 his authority, then, a pretence merely or a shadow ? Were 
 the whole nation duped into believing Samuel to be a 
 prophet of the Lord, when he was only self-deceived if he 
 was not imposing on them ? Upon reviewing the history 
 calmly, it is impossible to affirm that Samuel's conduct 
 was that of a self-deceiver or an impostor. There must 
 have been truth at the bottom of it, as witnessed by its 
 effects. But if there was truth at the bottom of it, was' it 
 not truth which implied a revelation ? For if there was 
 no authoritative Divine communication, then there was 
 imposture or self-deception that is to say, there was 
 falsehood and not truth at the bottom of Samuel's conduct, 
 in which case the entire framework of the subsequent 
 history becomes unintelligible. We cannot understand 
 how it was that one dynasty should have supplanted 
 another; that the supplanting dynasty should have been 
 believed, as it was believed, to be grounded solely on the 
 Divine word, and that this belief should have been ratified 
 by the event, and not subsequently created by it, as the 
 evidence of circumstances shows it was not, if all this 
 rested on the mere assertion of a professed prophet, who 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 55 
 
 claimed to speak in the name and with the direct authority 
 of God, and whose conduct cannot be sufficiently accounted 
 for if he did not. 
 
 Thus far, then, the history shows us in anticipation a 
 seed, or a world-wide blessing by the seed, a prophet, and 
 a king. As yet, however, it has given us nothing more 
 than the hope of any one of them. As there was no 
 prophet between Moses and Samuel, so in the case of 
 Samuel himself, though the first of the prophets, there 
 was no likeness to Moses. The imagination of the people 
 was ever being disciplined into the desire of the ideal 
 prophet through acquaintance with the actual prophets. 
 It was so likewise with the king, but by an inverse process. 
 Their desire for a king was spontaneous, prompted by the 
 examples of kingly power and glory which they had around 
 them. Their conception of the prophet was based upon 
 recollection and experience, while it was stimulated to a 
 yet greater ideal. No reality could surpass the conception 
 of the prophet which was enshrined in their memory. But 
 the ideal king never came. The hope of the nation was 
 fixed on Saul, but Saul was rejected, and his reign was not 
 one of glory. Then the nation's hopes were transferred to 
 David, and in due time their allegiance became his ; but 
 it was not till the reign of Solomon that the visions 
 of consolidated strength, peace, and prosperity, naturally 
 associated with the thought of a king, were realised, and 
 they were realised for a little while only to be destroyed 
 the more irretrievably. The era of Solomon was never 
 surpassed, and it was not repeated ; for a time it once and 
 again revived, but only to relapse into imbecility, and to 
 result in disappointment; and with the captivity of 
 Zedekiah the hopeful line of Judah's kings was brought to 
 a close. On looking back over the completed list, we 
 cannot say that the ideal king had come ; and long after- 
 wards, when the cry was heard, We have no king but Ccesar, 
 
56 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 it sounded as though the hope itself had been extinguished 
 by despair. 
 
 And yet, here again, it is not possible to survey the 
 history and investigate the foundations of the hope, and 
 not discover that there was valid ground for it. For 
 example, we find, according to the history, that both Saul 
 and Jonathan are aware that David is to be the king. Can 
 it be that such a statement was invented in order to natter 
 the reigning house of David ? We cannot explain its 
 invention thus. Indeed, we cannot understand the history 
 of Saul at all, except on the supposition that he regarded 
 David as the destined heir to his throne. But why should 
 he have so regarded him ? David had no pretensions to 
 supplant Saul, nor any prospect or hope of supplanting 
 him, except on the ground of a distinct promise given by 
 Samuel. This promise was given him, according to the 
 narrative, while he was yet young, and before his combat 
 with the giant of Gath, which might have made him a 
 favourite with the people. 8 Why should it have been given 
 him ? He was the youngest of his father's house, and his 
 father's house apparently not then conspicuous. 9 Samuel 
 does not appear to have known David, or even to have 
 known of him when he was sent to anoint him. We can 
 discover, therefore, no motive for his choice and no principle 
 in his selection. Without doing unnatural violence to the 
 whole tenor of the history, corroborated as it is by the 
 independent evidence of many other passages, 1 it is impos- 
 sible to take into account all the circumstances connected 
 with the anointing of David, and not acknowledge that we 
 are led up by natural and unavoidable inference to the very 
 verge of something which we cannot explain naturally, 
 and which has all the appearance of being a definite pro- 
 
 8 1 Sam. xvi. 1-13. 
 
 9 See Grove's art. "Jesse" in the Dictionary of the Bible. 
 1 Cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 70 ; Ixxxix. 19, 20, seq. t etc. 
 
IL] The Christ of Jewish History. S7 
 
 mise from the Unseen, but how communicated we cannot 
 tell. The narrative itself, no less than the promise, is 
 deeply imbued with these extraordinary elements, and 
 unless we tear it shred from shred, we cannot get rid of 
 them ; and yet, on the other hand, we cannot account for 
 them. They receive a certain elucidation from the process 
 of events, and if we reject that there remains no other. 
 
 If, however, we attempt to resolve the original promise 
 to David into an act of mere arbitrary selection on the 
 part of Samuel, that is not the only significant incident 
 we have to explain. If Samuel's choice had been sufficient 
 to point out David as the future king, and to excite Saul's 
 jealousy in consequence, would not his influence have been 
 sufficient to displace Saul in favour of David, seeing that 
 it was to the same influence that Saul himself owed his 
 crown? But, instead of this, after Samuel has anointed 
 David, we hear no more of him, with the single exception 
 of the episode in Naioth, 2 till we are told of his death and 
 burial; on the other hand, we do hear of Jonathan, the 
 heir-apparent, quietly acquiescing in the career marked out 
 for David, as well as of his unexampled and nobly-dis- 
 interested friendship for him. 8 And it is impossible to 
 deny that, after a series of years, David not only sat on 
 the throne which was Jonathan's by inheritance, but was 
 able successfully to consolidate his throne, and to establish 
 his dynasty. If, then, we resolve Samuel's choice of David 
 into an instance of remarkable foresight, we can scarcely 
 account for it even on that theory without the assistance 
 of other than merely natural powers; and we have yet 
 further difficulties to contend with in the life of David 
 himself. 
 
 For we find that after David is securely seated on the 
 throne of Israel, he receives another prophetic message 
 
 2 1 Sam. xix. 18 ; xxv. 1. Cf. xv. 35. 
 
 3 1 Sam. xviii. 1 ; xxiii. 18. 2 Sam. ix. ; xxi. 7. 
 
58 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 from Nathan, which conditionally promises him the ever- 
 lasting posession of the throne. 4 That such a message was 
 delivered to him there is not a shadow of doubt ; the only 
 question is, From whom did it come? Was it nothing 
 more than the repetition, in another form and by another 
 prophet, of the somewhat similar act performed by Samuel ? 
 Was it nothing more than the adulation of a courtier decked 
 out in a religious and prophetic garb ? However we try to 
 account for it, we have to face this fact, that the last king 
 of Judah was the lineal descendant of David ; and unless 
 it can be proved that the narrative in Samuel was written 
 subsequently to the dissolution of the monarchy, it is im- 
 possible to divest that narrative altogether of its predictive 
 features, or to deny to them a certain correspondence in 
 fact, which chiefly surprises us because it is not greater and 
 more minute. The subsequent history of the kingdom, 
 and the disastrous rent it suffered after the reign of 
 Solomon, is itself the best evidence of the authenticity of 
 the narrative in Samuel ; because that could not have been 
 fabricated after events had to a large extent falsified the 
 promise it contained. And yet, if we accept it as authentic, 
 we find ourselves unable to explain it on merely natural 
 principles. There can be no question that the most exalted 
 aspirations were raised in the minds of the people as to the 
 permanence of their kingdom in the line of David. 
 
 We find, moreover, that the original promise to David is 
 to a certain extent illustrated by the history of his great 
 crime. If criticism has asked us to believe that the fifty- 
 first Psalm is no record or relic of this incident, he must 
 be a bold critic who shall seek to persuade us that the 
 incident itself never occurred. There can be no sort of 
 question that we have in the second book of Samuel the 
 plain unvarnished narrative of its occurrence. But the 
 rebuke which is given by Nathan virtually assumes the 
 
 4 2 Sam. vii. Cf. Ps. cxxxii. 11, etc. 
 
IT.] The Christ of Jewish History. 59 
 
 main features of the previous history. No rebuke more 
 severe was ever administered to a king, and it was coupled 
 with denunciations the most terrible ; and yet it was none 
 other than this same Nathan who had promised to David 
 the perpetual establishment of his kingdom. If we reject 
 the one event as historic, we have equal reason to reject 
 the other. Tremendous, however, as the rebuke was, it did 
 not revoke the original promise while it expressly recog- 
 nised the authority by which David reigned. 5 We have to 
 account, then, for the unflinching boldness of the prophet, 
 for the deference and submission with which his message 
 was received, as well as for the deliberate confidence with 
 which both the promise and the rebuke were given. Can 
 these together be resolved into the mere effects of the 
 mental ascendency over the king which the prophet had 
 acquired ? It must be borne in mind that in the case of 
 the rebuke truth and justice were at any rate on the side 
 of Nathan, and that the denunciations delivered were 
 verified in fact. Were these denunciations inserted in 
 order to add a mysterious import to the events which 
 afterwards occurred ? Was the narrative of the events 
 framed in order to suit the mysterious character of the 
 denunciations ? Or is the way in which the whole are 
 intertwined and interwoven in the narrative but one indi- 
 cation out of many that there are elements of supernatural 
 dealing in the entire transaction, which it is not possible 
 satisfactorily to explain ? Does not the conduct of the 
 prophet and the king from first to last show that, under- 
 stand or account for it as we may, there must have been 
 more in the title by which David held his throne than the 
 vain illusions of self-deception on either side ; and that, as 
 we are dealing with undoubted facts, the only theory which 
 will adequately resolve them is the admission of the agency 
 of an unseen power working in natural human history in 
 
 5 2 Sam xii. 7 *eq. 
 
6o The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 a manner highly exceptional and above nature ? In other 
 words, the narrative of the foundation of David's kingdom, 
 which is distinctly asserted to have been Divine, is of such 
 a character that its foundation cannot be satisfactorily 
 regarded as merely human. 
 
 There is, however, abundant evidence to show that 
 David's kingdom, great as it was, could only be regarded 
 as the promise of one greater. The chief characteristic of 
 its foundation was its hope of perpetuity and its anticipa- 
 tion of an endless future. Solomon was in some respects 
 a greater sovereign than David, and he was enabled to 
 achieve what his father was not permitted to commence. 
 His glory, however, did not last long, and at his death it 
 seemed as though the hopes that were cherished by and 
 for David were about to be falsified. The kingdom of the 
 ten tribes fell away from that of Judah; but here again, 
 as before, not without prophetic announcements on the 
 part of Ahijah the Shilonite, which fully recognised and 
 ratified all that had been promised to David, though at 
 the same time they partially revoked and modified it. The 
 promise, which was at the first conditional, is now condi- 
 tionally and to a certain extent repeated to Jeroboam, and 
 the seed of David is to le afflicted, but not for ever. 6 Be- 
 hoboam was forbidden by Shemaiah to attempt to reduce 
 the alienated tribes by force, because their defection was 
 declared to be from God. 7 The office of the prophet, there- 
 fore, is continually asserting its authority over successive 
 kings, and being acknowledged by them ; and as the broad 
 principles on which it is discharged are uniform, so there 
 is no essential divergence in the definite message delivered. 
 The original decision of Nathan is acknowledged, and the 
 validity of David's title is confirmed. All this is the more 
 difficult to account for if we attempt to eviscerate the 
 original promise of its Divine element. 
 
 6 1 Kings xi. 34-39. 7 2 Kings xii. 22-24. 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 6 1 
 
 As, however, we proceed, we see the original stability 
 of David's line maintaining itself. The condition implied 
 in all the Divine promises, and expressly named to Jero- 
 boam, was not fulfilled by him any more than it had been 
 by Solomon; and in the second generation his dynasty 
 was overthrown, 8 to be succeeded by others no less tran- 
 sient, until Jehu sat upon the throne of Israel and handed 
 down his sceptre to his descendants of the fourth genera- 
 tion, who, in the person of Zachariah, 9 were finally dis- 
 placed, while the monarchy itself not long after came to 
 an end. Henceforth the dominion of the two kingdoms 
 reverted to the representative of the house of David, under 
 whom they were united in the person of Hezekiah, and so 
 continued for about one hundred and thirty years till the 
 time of the great captivity under Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 For the history of the divided kingdom of Israel we 
 are entirely indebted to the books of Kings, which may 
 perhaps be suspected of partiality in favour of the kingdom 
 of Judah; but to whatever extent this is the case, there 
 are certain features to be observed which can hardly have 
 been misrepresented from any such bias. For example, 
 we find in the kingdom of Israel the development of a 
 grander idea of the prophetic office than is ever found 
 in Judah, and one which, in some respects, is altogether 
 original. The prophets Elijah and Elisha are unique con- 
 ceptions in the history, and their execution of their office 
 is unique. It was, however, almost exclusively discharged 
 in Israel. There is something very remarkable in the 
 apostate kingdom being thus highly favoured; and the 
 fact that the prophets' mission, though it was resisted, was 
 nevertheless acknowledged by the kings of Israel, may 
 surely be added to the mass of the evidence which tends 
 to show that their mission was a reality. 
 
 The way, however, in which dynasty after dynasty is 
 
 8 1 Kings xv. 28-30. 9 2 Kings x. 30; xv. 8-12. 
 
62 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 set up in Israel, and removed for rebellion and idolatry, 
 not without prophetic menaces and warnings, is also in its 
 degree a confirmation of the authority on which the pro- 
 mise to David rested ; because our knowledge of both is 
 derived from the same source, and as the one could not 
 have been invented to make the other more credible, 
 whatever illustration either receives from the other is of 
 real and independent value. 1 For example, the constant 
 change of dynasty in Israel corresponds in fact with the 
 prophetic announcement of it. We cannot suppose that 
 the fact was arranged to suit the announcement, and 
 scarcely less can we imagine that the announcement was 
 recorded to embellish the fact; and yet, if not so, the 
 agreement of the one with the other is in the highest 
 degree significant, and shows that the power which was at 
 work in Judah was not unknown in Israel, and because 
 not unknown in Israel, an idolatrous and rival kingdom, 
 is the less likely to have been unreal in Judah. At all 
 events, He who set up and put down kings in Israel, was 
 He who declared that He had chosen the seed of David, 
 and would establish his throne for ever. In fact, the 
 more we examine the history in detail, the more we see 
 that it must be torn piecemeal and totally reconstructed 
 before it can be reduced to the scale of ordinary history, 
 and that, in short, it cannot be so reduced without 
 destroying altogether its historical credibility its value 
 as a record. 
 
 It is, moreover, by no means unimportant to observe, 
 that after a certain period the history itself ceases to pre- 
 sent the same features that it formerly possessed. There 
 is not the same conspicuous correspondence between pro- 
 phetic announcement and historic incident. There are 
 indications, not a few, that the nation was conscious that 
 
 1 1 Kings xi. 31 seq. ; xiv. 7 seq. ; xvi. 1-13 ; xx. 42, 43. 2 Kings i. 16, 
 etc. etc. 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 63 
 
 its prophetic glory had departed. 2 No attempt even is 
 made to reproduce the remarkable phenomena of the books 
 of Kings and Chronicles. Just as the period of the judges 
 was an era when the prophetic impulse was wholly in 
 abeyance, though the ruling power was developing itself, 
 so in the time of the monarchy the king and the prophet 
 are found side by side in full activity ; but after the close 
 of it the office of the king is seen no more, and that of 
 the prophet before long comes to an end. All this tends 
 to show that the period of the prophetic development was 
 distinct and exceptional in the life of the nation. It was 
 a reality, and a reality that is virtually without parallel 
 elsewhere. Still the records of the nation leave this 
 feeling on the reader's mind, that high anticipations, both 
 as regards kingly and prophetic power, have been raised 
 and yet not wholly fulfilled. The book of Malachi closes 
 not only without any manifestation of the prophet like 
 unto Moses, but with a promise only held out of the return 
 of Elijah, whose position and character, though very great, 
 were at once unlike and inferior to those of Moses. 
 
 And what is true of the prophet is yet more true of the 
 king. The distinct assurances held out of a ruler on 
 David's throne were so far from being fulfilled that their 
 very failure is an evidence of their reality and genuineness. 
 They must have been given on the highest authority, 
 because otherwise a natural jealousy for their credit and 
 their apparent agreement with fact would have prompted 
 the desire to suppress or to modify them. But instead of 
 this they remain with so much of historical inconsistency 
 as the reader may be disposed to assign to them, but at the 
 same time with the very vivid impression produced upon 
 him that there is something wanted to complete them 
 something in the future for which they still seem to wait. 
 
 8 Cf. Ps. Ixxiv. 9, whenever this was written. Ezra ii. 63. Neh. vii. 
 65. 1 Mace. iv. 46 ; is. 27 ; xiv. 41. 
 
64 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 It is not, therefore, nearly so much upon the literal 
 assertions of this or that particular text or collection of 
 texts that we dwell, as upon the general tenor of the 
 narrative looked at as a whole, and upon the highly 
 exceptional phenomena of the literature taken at large, 
 which cannot with any degree of fairness be explained 
 away, and yet cannot be truly dealt with without suggesting 
 the very strong presumption, which accumulated evidence 
 renders inevitable, that other forces than those merely 
 human were at work in the history of this nation, and 
 that there are indications of the unveiling of a will which 
 can only be regarded as Divine. And this conclusion is 
 proof against everything but the unwarrantable, because 
 unscientific, d priori assumption that such an idea is to be 
 rejected because of its inherent and absolute impossibility, 
 which must simply depend upon the facts instead of being 
 allowed to sway them. 
 
 The result, then, to which we are brought by the survey 
 of Jewish history as a whole, is the conviction that it is 
 singularly incomplete ; that, starting with the definite and 
 distinct promise that all the families of the earth are to be 
 blessed in Abraham, it leaves us with no very distinct or 
 definite notion how this has been or is to be accomplished ; 
 it awakens an anticipation which, to say the least, it barely 
 satisfies ; that, moreover, this promise, clear as it is in 
 terms, though dark in meaning, is not more clear than the 
 promise subsequently recorded of a great prophet who shall 
 arise, and a king who shall rule on the throne of David, 
 and the perpetuity which shall attend his throne neither 
 of which promises, however, is adequately realised within 
 the limits of the history itself. The most natural con- 
 clusion, therefore, is that the entire history from first to 
 last is a delusion ; it is not worthy of our consideration or 
 regard, for its conspicuous absurdities are its condemnation. 
 But yet, on the other hand, we feel, in spite of ourselves, 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 65 
 
 that this conclusion is one which we cannot adopt. This 
 history, from first to last, is more remarkable than any 
 other. Setting aside its supernatural features, there is no 
 question that its broad and general character is that of 
 substantial accuracy and truth : it is simple, concise, and 
 graphic : it commands our confidence from its obvious 
 impartiality. No one can say that the character of Abraham 
 or of David is dealt with more leniently than that of Saul 
 or Pharaoh. It is impossible to read this history and 
 pronounce it upon internal evidence unworthy of our 
 attention or undeserving of our belief. But the very 
 manifest general character of the history in ordinary 
 matters affords ground, at least so far, for a presumption 
 in favour of its credibility in others which are not ordinary. 
 We are forbidden to dismiss the supernatural features all 
 at once as unworthy of credit, on account of the general 
 character of the narrative which they mark. We are con- 
 strained either to explain them or to accept them unex- 
 plained. They do not really admit of any satisfactorily 
 consistent natural explanation, and therefore we must 
 accept them as they are. 
 
 And this being the case, the final impression produced 
 by the history as a whole is that the promises contained in 
 it, and the hopes excited by it, are in the highest degree 
 noteworthy. And the natural inference is that, so far at 
 any rate, a substantial foundation is laid for any claims 
 which might hereafter be based upon these promises and 
 hopes. It is impossible to deny that there was a primd 
 facie appearance of ground for the expectation that among 
 the seed of Abraham there should arise a prophet and a 
 king, in whom the kingly and prophetic character should be 
 amply realised. And it is altogether beyond the limits of 
 possibility that the expectation of a prophet or a king, in 
 the form in which it appears, should have been modified in 
 such a way as to become the groundwork of the claims 
 
 F 
 
66 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 which were afterwards based upon it. Put the composition 
 of the several books, or of particular parts of them, as late 
 as you please, and their real significance is in no degree 
 affected thereby. In their present form they were long 
 anterior to the first preaching of the Baptist, and yet in 
 that form they supplied a strange and fitting, and yet 
 altogether improbable and impossible, basis for the an- 
 nouncement, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the 
 latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and 
 unloose? It was the spontaneous development of events, 
 and in no sense the will of man, which brought about this 
 adaptation. The character of John the Baptist is one of 
 the greatest in Scripture, but he proclaimed the advent of 
 one greater than himself. If that greater one should be a 
 prophet or a king, the old promises about the king and the 
 prophet would, to say the least, have a wonderful light 
 thrown upon them. They would at once acquire a signifi- 
 cance they never possessed before, and yet the capability 
 of this significance had been there for ages. It was not 
 created by John. And whether or not John's announcement 
 vas verified, the ground upon which it was made was valid, 
 for Moses had spoken of a prophet like unto himself, and 
 Samuel had anointed David in the room of Saul to sit 
 upon the throne of Israel, and Nathan had declared that 
 his house and kingdom should be established for ever. 
 Whether or not these promises were destined to ultimate 
 failure or fulfilment, it is undeniable that there they were, 
 and there for ages they had existed. 
 
 There is yet one other feature in which the history of 
 Israel presents a strong contrast to that of all other nations. 
 It was expressly declared in the law that Israel should be 
 a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation ; 4 and in no respect 
 are this people more strongly marked than in their priestly 
 and sacrificial character. The directions of the Mosaic 
 
 8 St. Mark i. 7. 4 Exod. xix. 6. 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 67 
 
 ritual are minute and elaborate. From the commencement 
 to the close of the Old Testament, sacrifice holds a con- 
 spicuous and prominent place. Aaron and his sons, under 
 the legal system, are expressly set apart to minister in the 
 priest's office. The covenant of an everlasting priesthood 
 is made with Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron. And yet in 
 the time of Samuel we find that the priesthood has passed 
 out of the line of Eleazar into that of Ithamar without 
 any discoverable reason. 5 In the time of David it is found 
 distributed in both lines. (1 Chron. xxiv. 3.) At the time 
 of the captivity, and after the return, it is still in the line 
 of Eleazar, and appears to have continued so. During the 
 historical times, or at least during the period of the 
 monarchy, the high -priest's office was, comparatively 
 speaking, subordinate. After the captivity and later he 
 became the recognised head of the nation, as in a kingdom 
 of priests he would always have a tendency to become ; 
 and yet from first to last there is no one priest who stands 
 out very prominently as the model and pattern of priest- 
 hood, while the entire sacrificial system must have come to 
 an end with the destruction of the Jewish polity. 
 
 Had all this elaborate scheme of rites and ceremonies, of 
 priests and sacrifices, existed for no purpose whatever, or 
 was there a further meaning in its very existence ? because 
 there is no part of the Jewish constitution which can lay 
 anything like the claim to Divine ordinance and prescrip- 
 tion that the furniture and services of the tabernacle and 
 the functions of the priesthood can lay. These were all 
 ostensibly the subject of express Divine injunctions, and if 
 the injunctions were in any sense Divine they shed a light 
 upon the whole theory of sacrifice as it existed also in other 
 
 5 This alone is surely an indication that the promise to Phinehas must 
 have heen either contemporaneous with him or subsequent to the captivity; 
 but the former is more probable because of the manifest violation of the 
 promise in the time of Samuel. 
 
68 The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 nations; but if they were not if there was no positive 
 and external authority for them, if they were based upon 
 imposture and self-deception then they not only become 
 inexplicable in themselves, but the prevalence and univer- 
 sality of sacrifice in the world at large, as well as the very 
 existence of the theory of sacrifice, is a phenomenon that 
 we cannot account for. The origin of the institution of 
 sacrifice is indeed lost in obscurity, but a certain amount 
 of light is thrown upon its existence if in any case it was 
 sanctioned or adopted by Divine authority and precept 
 a light which otherwise fails us altogether. And certainly, 
 if such a sanction is anywhere to be discovered, we must 
 look for it in the extant sacred writings of the Jews; but 
 even if we acknowledge its existence here, these writings 
 themselves fail to give us not only the full meaning of the 
 idea, but also the complete development and realisation of 
 the idea in history. There may never have been any such 
 realisation at all ; but if there was the only person in whom 
 we can hope to find it is Christ. 
 
 In other words, the sacerdotal and sacrificial system of 
 the Jews, as it is expressed in their extant sacred writings, 
 no matter when they were written, taken in its relation to 
 the corresponding systems of other nations, necessarily and 
 naturally leads us to expect some solution of it which shall 
 satisfactorily account for its existence ; but it is impossi- 
 ble to give any such account by searching the records of 
 history in any nation whatever. Unless the very idea of 
 sacrifice from first to last was a mistake, unless its essential 
 principle was a false one, it seems to point us not only to 
 a great moral truth, but also to a definite historic exhibition 
 and illustration of the truth, or at least to a turning-point 
 in history, when the human mind, which before had uni- 
 versally acquiesced in sacrifice, should at once and univer- 
 sally repudiate the repetition of the outward form, and rest 
 content with the realisation of the inward truth expressed 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 69 
 
 by it. Such a turning-point would really present the 
 greatest instance of moral and mental revolution which it 
 is possible to conceive. And such a turning-point was in 
 fact presented by the effects and consequences of the death 
 of Christ. The repudiation of animal sacrifice was the 
 immediate result of the preaching of that death. Nothing 
 else has ever operated in the same way. Nothing else can 
 in this respect come into competition for one moment with 
 Christ's death. The publication of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, no matter who wrote it, was the evidence and 
 the consequence of the mightiest revolution which the 
 human mind can undergo or has ever undergone. Whether 
 or not Jewish sacrifice led up to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 and was intended to prepare for its central fact, certain it 
 is that the central fact of that epistle was the abolition of 
 Jewish sacrifice, and gave the signal for a total change of 
 mind upon the subject. A revolution so mighty as the 
 rejection of the formal expression of sacrifice, in favour of 
 its moral signification and inward essence, is not so likely 
 to have been occasioned by anything as by an especially 
 high illustration of the moral truth of sacrifice. 
 
 We may declare emphatically that no historic event 
 was adequate to produce this revolution but one, as we 
 may likewise affirm that there is no other event which in 
 this respect pretends to rival it. There is a direct relation 
 of cause and effect between the death of Christ and the 
 discontinuance of sacrifice, which is undeniable, because 
 obvious, and which can be paralleled by nothing else in 
 history. We may deny that the existence of sacrifice 
 pointed prophetically and with Divine authority to the 
 historic occurrence of the death of Christ ; it is impossible 
 to affirm that the death of Christ did not exhibit and 
 illustrate, as nothing else ever did, the full meaning and 
 the Divine wisdom of the law of sacrifice. 
 
 And thus it is that we find the promise of a Christ in 
 
7O The Christ of Jewish History. [LECT. 
 
 Jewish history. We find in that history the foundation 
 and the germ of all that was afterwards claimed for Christ 
 and advanced in His name. We find there ages before He 
 came or any such claims were ever advanced, the distinct 
 promise of a seed in which the nations should be blessed. 
 However we interpret that promise, whether of the seed 
 of Abraham or of a certain individual of his family, whether 
 we regard him or his family, or a certain individual of his 
 family, as the channel or as the standard of blessing, it is 
 equally true when applied to Christ. He proclaimed Him- 
 self, and was proclaimed, as the fountain of life and the 
 one source of blessing to mankind. 
 
 We find there the distinct promise of a great prophet, 
 who should stand like Moses between God and man. In 
 the whole cycle of history there is no name but one on 
 behalf of which any such claim can be advanced. Christ 
 may not have been that great prophet, but at least there 
 was none other greater than He ; and in that case the pro- 
 mise which has existed for three thousand years, and is 
 still a promise, has signally failed, and though history has 
 revealed and confirmed its truth, it must be pronounced 
 a lie. 
 
 But we find there also the distinct promise of a king 
 whose throne is to be established for ever ; and yet before 
 many centuries the kingdom of David is overthrown, and 
 in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate we hear the 
 people of David crying aloud, We have no king but Ccesar ; 6 
 while one who claimed descent from the son of Jesse was 
 led away to be crucified, and the superscription was written 
 over Him, containing the indictment upon which He suf- 
 fered, This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews : 7 and 
 before He was born, we are told that it had been said 
 The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father 
 
 6 St. Johnxix. 15. 
 
 7 St. John xix. 19 ; St. Matt, xxvii. 37. 
 
ii.] The Christ of Jewish History. 71 
 
 David ; and Tie shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, 
 and of his kingdom there shall ~be no end. 8 
 
 And, lastly, we find there from beginning to end the 
 deep impress of a sacrificial system, which must have been 
 unmeaning and self-imposed, and is consequently an un- 
 explained phenomenon in history, if it did not lead upward 
 and point onward to the perfect priesthood and sacrifice of 
 one who should be called not after the order of Aaron, but 
 after the power of an endless life. 9 
 
 8 St. Luke i. 32, 33. 9 Heb. vii. 11, 16. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 THE CHRIST OF THE PSALMS. 
 
WHAT is there necessary for man to know which the Psalms are not able 
 to teach? They are to beginners an easy and familiar introduction, a 
 mighty augmentation of all virtue and knowledge in such as are entered 
 before, a strong confirmation to the most perfect among others. Heroical 
 magnanimity, exquisite justice, grave moderation, exact wisdom, repent- 
 ance unfeigned, unwearied patience, the mysteries of God, the sufferings 
 of Christ, the terrors of wrath, the comforts of grace, the works of Pro- 
 vidence over this world, and the promised joys of that world which is to 
 come, all good necessarily to be either known, or done, or had, this one 
 celestial fountain yieldeth. Hooker. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 As it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day 
 have I begotten thee. . . . Wherefore he saith also in another Psalm, 
 Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 
 
 ACTS xiii. 33, 35. 
 
 WE have no reasonable cause to doubt that St. Paul 
 in his speech at Antioch in Pisidia made reference 
 to these two Psalms, and applied them to Jesus Christ, 
 But whether or not he did, it is at least certain that the 
 writer of the Acts of the Apostles believed in the fitness 
 of such an application, and desired his readers also to be- 
 lieve in it. If proof, therefore, were wanting, we have it 
 here, as we have it abundantly elsewhere, that the early 
 Church was accustomed to find in the Psalms of David 
 much that it understood to be spoken prophetically of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 But my object now is not to defend or establish the 
 truth of any such interpretation, but rather to trace in the 
 Psalms the growth and development of those ideas which 
 subsequently contributed as a matter of fact to supply the 
 basis for the Messianic conception. 
 
 We have seen already that the pattern or scheme upon 
 which the known history of the Jewish nation developed 
 itself was one which was eminently adapted to sustain, if 
 it did not originate, the after-growth of the national ex- 
 pectation, that an illustrious Person would arise. Kingly, 
 priestly, national, and human, that Person was to be, and 
 blessing was to be associated with His name and office 
 
76 The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 so much, at least, the people might have been justified in 
 expecting from the records of their history. Let us in- 
 quire now what evidence the Psalms afford of the early 
 rise of such an expectation, and how far they contributed 
 to its growth. 
 
 It is not improbable that in the matter of date there 
 are productions in the book of Psalms which range over a 
 period of a thousand years. There are some, perhaps, as 
 early as the Exodus, and there are others as late as the 
 return from captivity. We do not dwell, however, so 
 much upon the antiquity of particular Psalms, or of the 
 evidence they may contain, as upon the testimony sup- 
 plied by this branch of the national literature, which may 
 be called its poetry or hymnology. Taking the Psalms, as 
 represented at least by the works of David, they may be 
 placed as a whole anterior to prophecy as a whole, and 
 consequently may be examined first. They stand, more- 
 over, in the position of national songs or odes, and therefore 
 have less of that which characterises the works of an in- 
 dividual author than the writings of the several prophets. 
 They may be taken, more or less, as fairly representing 
 the spontaneous expression of national sentiment. What, 
 then, is their evidence as to the nature of this sentiment ? 
 
 The Psalms open with the description of an ideally 
 righteous man; a description which is repeated in the 
 15th and 24th Psalms, becomes the expression of a strong 
 personal resolve in the 101st, and is expanded and enlarged 
 upon in the 112th Psalm. Two of these Psalms, the first 
 and last, have no inscription; the others are ascribed to 
 David. But it matters not who wrote them : they are a 
 witness to a certain longing after an ideal standard of 
 humanity, of which the natural tendency would be to 
 reproduce itself in the minds of the people. The fact that 
 they are couched in merely general language, and applied 
 to the righteous generally, is no proof that they had not 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 77 
 
 their share in tending to produce and deepen the impression 
 that the great want of humanity was a righteous man, and 
 that the mission of Israel would be unfulfilled till the 
 ideal of righteousness had been produced. In proportion, 
 therefore, as the people could grasp the promise of blessing 
 for the nations in the seed of Abraham, they would learn 
 from the teaching of these and similar Psalms that any 
 one who claimed to fulfil that promise must himself be 
 righteous to the utmost limit of their standard, of which 
 David himself had but too conspicuously fallen short. 
 
 True, however, as this may be, the notion is too vague 
 to be construed into any evidence of what was actually 
 understood. Nor is it so advanced. "We can only perceive 
 here an indication of the kind of soil in which the foun- 
 dation was laid for that superstructure which was afterwards 
 to be reared, and we can determine how far it was favourable 
 or otherwise how far the foundation itself was solid and 
 substantial, or insecure and sandy. 
 
 It may be well, however, to notice the more general 
 characteristics of the Psalms first, before passing on to 
 those which are special and personal. We cannot proceed 
 far without discovering that the Psalms are the expression 
 of real and continual trouble. The writer is constantly 
 exposed to persecution. The wicked are ever oppressing 
 and deriding him, and not seldom this appears to be on 
 account of his integrity. They also that render evil for 
 good are mine adversaries ; because I follow the thing that 
 good is, 1 may be taken as a fair sample of a large portion 
 of the Psalms. The writer appears to be set in the very 
 midst of the conflict between good and evil, and to bear in 
 himself the brunt of it. Not seldom this is expressed in 
 terms which must have transcended not only the special 
 circumstances in which David was placed, but those also 
 which we can conceive to have been literally true of any 
 
 1 Psalm xxxviii. 20. 
 
78 The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 one; and yet they have an intense reality. If the ex- 
 pressions are hyperbolical, we still feel that they are true. 
 Though the language of the 22 d Psalm cannot have been 
 warranted by the exigencies of David's case, it is too real 
 and vivid not to be true; and in whatever sense it was 
 true, there must have been in the mind of the writer a felt 
 reality answering to its truth. What this was we may 
 perhaps find it difficult to determine ; but the language is 
 its own witness, and there is only one vision, ideal or 
 actual, in all history which can claim to have fulfilled it. 
 We may certainly affirm of the Psalms that they first gave 
 expression to this element of ideal suffering, and added 
 it to those, whatever they were, which were already in 
 existence. 
 
 Not more conspicuous, however, than the daring character 
 of the language used, and its literal inapplicability to the 
 writer's circumstances, is the manner in which the suffering 
 is depicted as the writer's own. He everywhere identifies 
 himself with the person suffering. So that the two oppo- 
 site statements may be maintained with equal truth, 
 because the maintenance of both will alone express the 
 whole truth, that no writer whoever he was can have 
 spoken of that which was literally verified in himself, and 
 yet that each several writer, if there were more than one, 
 was by sympathetic appreciation a partaker of the suffer- 
 ings he so vividly described. 
 
 It was the office, then, of that portion of Jewish litera- 
 ture known as the Psalms to bring out in humanity, and to 
 give expression to, the conception of righteous manhood, 
 the experience of integrity borne down by oppression, the 
 being persecuted for righteousness' sake, the notion of 
 being made perfect through suffering, as well as the picture 
 of an ideal degree of suffering, and consequently of an 
 ideal sufferer, which men must have learnt to feel, the 
 more they pondered it, could only wait for its complete 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 79 
 
 fulfilment, if it was to be fulfilled. And inasmuch as the 
 expression of this from first to last was everywhere cast in 
 the form of personal experience, it became more and more 
 impossible that the various characteristics should not group 
 themselves round a person, and combine to form a whole, 
 which, as it grew by constant but gradual accretion, was 
 found to be not altogether in the likeness of David, or of 
 any other historic character to whom it might be referred. 
 Another prominent feature which is seen to characterise 
 the Psalms to even a greater degree than any other portion 
 of the Old Testament, is the consciousness of Divine election, 
 and of consequent trust in God, which they express. This 
 is everywhere not the result of personal devotion to the 
 Most High, but of the going forth of special regard on the 
 part of God towards him who has been assured of it. 
 There is nothing more conspicuous than this in the Psalms 
 as a whole. So deep and abiding is this consciousness, 
 that the sense even of intense personal guilt cannot shake 
 it. The usurping presence of sin has only the effect of 
 making the Psalmist cleave with the greater earnestness to 
 God. He feels that the honour of God will be compromised 
 if one who has trusted Him so unreservedly is left to 
 perish. And so, with entire abandonment of soul, he 
 throws himself upon the Lord. Preserve thou my soul; for 
 I am holy : my God, save thy servant that putteth his trust 
 in thee. 2 He never has any doubt that his cause is the 
 cause of God. The Lord is on my side ; I will not fear : 
 what can man do unto me ? 8 At the same time he feels 
 that this exceptional nearness to the Divine presence has 
 laid him under an obligation to exceptional righteousness; 
 and it is not too much to say that this twofold consciousness 
 of the Divine election, and of the consequent obligation to 
 personal righteousness, is the unique characteristic of this 
 ancient literature, and pre-eminently of the Psalms. We 
 
 2 Psalm Ixxxvi. 2. 3 Psalm cxviii. 6. 
 
8o The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 have nowhere, as we have here, the picture of a man bowed 
 down with affliction and sorrow of every kind, yet not 
 losing his confidence in God, nor his conviction of God's 
 righteousness ; not charging God with injustice on account 
 of what He has laid upon him, but clinging to the right- 
 eousness of God, not only as the ground of his own hope 
 for brighter times, but as the means of raising him out 
 of that personal sin which he feels to be so near to him. 
 Verily, this portraiture is in itself Divine. 
 
 It is obvious, then, that the union of these several 
 elements in the Psalms, and their combination in one and 
 the same person because if the writers were various their 
 experience was uniform shows that the election of God 
 secures no immunity from suffering, that the righteous man 
 is often exposed to the greatest trials, and that trial and 
 suffering are designed to elicit faith in God, and give no 
 occasion in themselves to distrut His goodness. All this 
 was a distinct advance in the knowledge of God's dealings, 
 and was itself a preparation for the advent of One who 
 should be made perfect through suffering, and should prove 
 Himself the righteous man by the ignominy of unmerited 
 death He was content to endure. 
 
 Not less remarkable than the sense of personal election 
 expressed in so many of the Psalms is the conviction of 
 national election which continually pervades them. This 
 is but another form of the ancient belief expressed in the 
 promise to Abraham : In tkee shall all the families of the 
 earth le blessed. The ultimate confession of the psalmist 
 is, He hath not dealt so with any nation;* but it is one 
 which has frequently been anticipated in various ways. 
 And yet, in spite of the intense patriotism and strong 
 national sentiment that characterises the Psalms, there are 
 no compositions of the Old Testament so universal in their 
 scope, so world-wide in their human sympathy, or that 
 
 4 Psalm cxlvii. 20. 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 8 1 
 
 express so deep a conviction of the future that is reserved 
 for Israel. The assertion is distinct and emphatic that the 
 God of Jacob is the God of the universe, and the ultimate 
 triumph of His cause is certain. All nations whom thou 
 hast made shall come and worship before thee, Lord, and 
 shall glorify thy name; for thou art great and doest wondrous 
 things : thou art God alone. 5 To say the least, it is very 
 remarkable that at a time so early a nation so obscure 
 should have been so confident of the relation in which it 
 stood to God, and have seen so clearly that the faith with 
 which it was entrusted was destined to become the faith of 
 the whole world, even as it is now recognised by the most 
 civilised portions of mankind. If it were possible for such 
 convictions to be justified by any result, one might plead 
 that the known verdict of history had certainly justified 
 these. 
 
 But then it is also manifest that the election of God, 
 which is felt to be the distinguishing glory of the nation, 
 is not, so to say, distributed equally over the entire mass, 
 but is gathered up and concentrated in a single line and 
 even in a single person. Whatever be the origin of such 
 Psalms as the 78th, the 89th, and the 132d, there can be 
 no question of the prominence they assign to David ; and 
 none of them, be it observed, is ascribed to him ; indeed, 
 it is not improbable that they are all later than his time. 
 So far, therefore, they may be taken as expressing the 
 popular opinion regarding him, and the future in store, 
 for his line. And yet it appears in the two last of these 
 Psalms that the hope is clung to with the greater tenacity, 
 because the prospect of its fulfilment seems to have failed. 
 For this reason, therefore, we cannot doubt the reality of 
 the original hope, nor of the ground on which it was 
 supposed to rest. Nor is there any counter-evidence dedu- 
 cible from other Psalms which might lead us to question 
 
 5 Psalm Ixxxvi. 9, 10. 
 G 
 
82 The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 this. God's election of Israel, then, is clearly seen to be 
 summed up in David and his house. On the evidence of 
 the Psalms, there can be no question that he is the inheritor 
 of whatever promises were made to Abraham, to Isaac, and 
 to Jacob. If Israel as a nation inherited the promises 
 made unto the fathers, then David, as the representative of 
 the line of Judah, contained in himself whatever belonged 
 to his nation. He and his family, at the time when these 
 Psalms were written, were regarded as the most prominent 
 possessors of whatever had been promised to the first 
 fathers of the nation, or was believed to have been promised 
 t;o them. 
 
 And it is further evident as a matter of fact that the 
 belief in the promise to the fathers must have preceded 
 the belief in any promise to David; because, otherwise, 
 the effect of the promise to him would have been weakened 
 by the subsequent invention of any wider promise which 
 should equally include the entire mass of the nation. 
 
 We see, therefore, on the unquestionable evidence of 
 the Psalms, that at or after the time of David, for it 
 matters not, there was understood to be a repetition of 
 Divine promises to him and his seed a narrowing in of 
 the channel of blessing originally promised to the nation 
 at large, a concentration and limitation of it in his par- 
 ticular line. 
 
 We may say, indeed, that the two promises are not 
 identical, that they are distinct and independent: that 
 may or may not be so : the one is general the other is 
 special ; and we have to account as a literary phenomenon 
 for their existence in the Jewish literature, and for their 
 existence in this particular form; and we cannot deny 
 that at no period, say between the captivity and the era 
 of the Maccabees, would it have been possible to create 
 the record of these two promises and the independent evi- 
 dence which exists, so that their occurrence and their 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 83 
 
 peculiar features should be less significant than they are 
 at present. 
 
 That is to say, up to the period of the Maccabees, and 
 we need not go later, no man could have foreseen that 
 such a combination of literary phenomena as are presented 
 in the historical books of the Old Testament and the 
 Psalms would have been capable of supplying the ground- 
 work for that broad and general interpretation of them to 
 which any acceptance of the facts of Christianity, or of 
 the ordinary doctrines of the Christian Church, must of 
 necessity shut us up. So far then, and no farther, as these 
 phenomena lend themselves to the interpretation which 
 the writers of the New Testament and the Christian 
 Church generally have passed upon them, it cannot be 
 the result of human foresight or design, but must be re- 
 garded as a matter of simple accident if its Divine signifi- 
 cance is rejected. We maintain, however, that the way in 
 which these various phenomena gradually prepared them- 
 selves, if we may so say, for the reception of the burden 
 which was afterwards to be laid upon them, is far too sig- 
 nificant to be reputed as the work of chance, and supplies, 
 indeed, the strongest possible moral evidence of design. 
 
 If, however, we can see in the Psalms, as a whole, a 
 wonderful anticipation and assertion of those particular 
 spiritual truths which are commonly regarded as more or 
 less characteristic of Christianity ; and if, looked at merely 
 in this light, they supply the outline of that character of 
 combined suffering and majesty, the subject at once of 
 oppression, deliverance, and triumph, which was afterwards 
 exhibited in full by Christ; we must not forget that in 
 many other instances they furnish a yet higher evidence 
 of their purpose as landmarks along the ages of a distant 
 past to point us onwards to Him. 
 
 It is manifest that in this way they were originally 
 understood and appealed to. But then such a use of 
 
84 The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 them implies an acknowledgment of the Divine intention 
 which they served, an intention which we would rather 
 indicate than assume. Certain it is that the special Mes- 
 sianic characteristics of the Psalms, if such there are, as- 
 sume altogether a different aspect if taken in connection 
 with other features which are patent and undeniable, from 
 that which they have when looked at by themselves, and 
 charged with the responsibility of sustaining the entire 
 weight of the argument to be based upon them. 
 
 The very fact, then, that certain Psalms have been 
 termed Messianic, while many others have never been so 
 designated, is evidence in some degree of an essential dif- 
 ference between them. It proves, at least, that there are 
 many Psalms on account of which no such claim has or' 
 can be advanced; while the zeal with which the special 
 character of the others has been attacked and defended 
 may seem to show that there is at any rate a primd facie 
 appearance of some marked difference in them. Is it 
 possible to determine wherein this difference consists ? 
 
 The Psalms that have commonly been regarded as 
 Messianic are some ten or twelve. The second Psalm 
 depicts the dignity and permanence of the throne of Zion. 
 The person sitting upon that throne declares, The Lord 
 hath said unto me, Thou art my Son ; this day have I 
 begotten thee. Upon His request the heathen are promised 
 Him for His possession. Kings are to pay Him homage, 
 and all that trust in or take refuge with Him are pro- 
 nounced blessed. The writer's idea then clearly was that 
 Zion was to be the centre of universal sovereignty. The 
 person who rules or is to rule there is called the Anointed 
 or the Messiah of the Lord, a term which was certainly 
 applied to Saul and to David, but does not appear to have 
 been used in the same way of any later king. 6 There is 
 
 6 The only exception is Lam. iv. 20, which probably refers to the king ; 
 other kings are said to have been anointed (1 Kings i. 34; xix. 15; 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 85 
 
 abundant evidence, then, to show that David was regarded 
 in some special sense as the anointed of the Lord ; and in 
 view of this fact it seems more probable that the Psalm 
 has primary reference to David himself than to any other 
 monarch. But if this be so it is clear that he speaks of 
 himself, or the writer speaks of him, as he has nowhere 
 else been spoken of before. A new element, therefore, 
 was added by this poem to the existing conception of 
 David's throne ; or, supposing the conception existed 
 before, it was here for the first time expressed. It is 
 quite obvious, however, that at no period of David's 
 history was there any prospect of such a development of 
 his kingdom as would fit in at all appropriately with the 
 language used. Making the fullest allowance for hyper- 
 bole, there still seems to be an ideal before the writer's 
 mind, of which the real and actual must have fallen short. 
 And yet this ideal was embodied for ever in the form he 
 had given to it, and supplied for his own and for all sub- 
 sequent generations a standard by which the actual might 
 be measured. Henceforth a glory was added to the throne 
 of Zion which, if it was never fulfilled, and in proportion 
 as it lacked fulfilment, would tend to stimulate the hope 
 that it might be. We may truly say that a want which 
 had never been felt before had been created by the pro- 
 duction of this second Psalm. 
 
 And as the glory of the throne was directly connected 
 with the term Anointed of the Lord, which the national 
 historic records do not ascribe to any king later than 
 David, it is probable that any longing which existed for 
 an ideal sovereign would be associated likewise with the 
 hope of one who should pre-eminently bear that title. 
 This, however, will appear more fully as we proceed. 7 
 
 2 Kings ix. 3, 6, 12, etc.), but are not called The Lord's anointed. Cyrus, 
 however, is so called. (Isa. xlv. 1.) 
 7 See, for example, Lecture iv. 
 
86 The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 The eighth Psalm has reference to the Mosaic narrative 
 of the original constitution of man, and is quoted by our 
 Lord in connection with an incident in His own career, as 
 well as by St. Paul and in the Epistle to the Hebrews ; 8 
 but inasmuch as it does not seem to add greatly to the 
 definiteness of the Messianic idea in its earlier develop- 
 ment we need not dwell upon it now. It seems, however, 
 to associate God's highest glory in the heavens with the 
 greater manifestation of His glory in man upon the earth, 
 and therefore to show that it is only in man and in the 
 nature of a man that His praise can be adequately set 
 forth. Man is thus the fullest recipient of God's glory, 
 which is true, whether it is understood generally or of the 
 Incarnation. We cannot affirm that David intended to 
 express more than the general truth, but it becomes addi- 
 tionally true when referred to the perfect Man. 
 
 The next Psalm which requires to be noticed is the 
 sixteenth. In this the writer prays earnestly for preser- 
 vation, and declares his unbounded and unshaken con- 
 fidence in God. He feels that the reserve of wealth which 
 he has in God will outlast the utmost trials of life, and 
 survive even the grave itself; that in fact it is only in the 
 immediate presence of God that there is the fulness of 
 joy, and at His right hand pleasures for evermore. This 
 is the earliest and perhaps the strongest expression in the 
 Old Testament of that eternal life which is independent 
 of things temporal, and superior even to death itself. It 
 became, therefore, the permanent record of that portion in 
 God which was the possession of the Lord's anointed or 
 holy one, and was a perpetual witness to the delight in 
 God, and the sense of security in and through death which 
 he found in God. That there were other more definite 
 elements in his hope does not appear from the language 
 used ; but here was the very essence of that hope which 
 
 8 St. Matt. xxi. 16 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27 ; Eph. i. 22 ; Heb. ii. 7. 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 87 
 
 was afterwards presented in a concrete form and established 
 by the resurrection. Here was the evidence that David 
 himself had unmistakably expressed a hope which a 
 subsequent event, if true, had fully confirmed; a hope 
 which could alone be proved to be valid by the manifesta- 
 tion of its truth in one particular and crucial instance. 
 But when it was clear that such a hope had a thousand 
 years before been expressed by David, there was at least a 
 written warranty for an expectation which was then declared 
 to have been verified. To say that David's language was 
 intended, not by David but by the Holy Ghost, to refer to 
 the event which verified it, could be within the power only 
 of men who themselves spake by the Holy Ghost. If we 
 call in question their claim to do this, we cannot prove 
 the truth of what they affirmed; but it is not open to 
 question that such a hope as this had been expressed by 
 David, or by the writer of the sixteenth Psalm, whoever 
 he was ; and if we accept the fact which the apostles of 
 Christ proclaimed, we can see not only the reasonableness 
 of this hope, but the probability there is that the God who 
 implanted it reserved the accomplishment of His own 
 purposes in the language chosen to express it. 
 
 The 20th and 21st Psalms, it is generally supposed, 
 must be taken together. They are ascribed to David, and 
 as the first of them makes mention of the Lord's anointed, 
 we may presume, for the reasons already given, rightly so. 
 They occupy a remarkable position between the 16th and 
 the 22d Psalms. The 16th Psalm expressed the writer's 
 confidence of deliverance in and through death, the 21st 
 Psalm speaks of his coronation and his endless life. He 
 is also manifestly the anointed king who has been made 
 exceeding glad with the countenance of God. Now here, 
 whatever else there is, there is certainly the expression of 
 a hope full of immortality. We have evidence that the 
 Jews long afterwards interpreted this Psalm of the King 
 
88 The Christ of the -Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 Messiah; 9 but the point I wish to observe is, that the Psalms 
 clearly ascribe to the anointed king, whoever he may be, 
 deliverance in death, length of days for ever and ever, and 
 special glory in the Divine salvation. We may fairly ask, 
 What possible meaning could David have in saying that 
 he had asked life of the most High, and that He had given 
 it him, even length of days for ever and ever ? We may 
 with equal fairness ask, What possible meaning could 
 future generations attach to such language, after David 
 had been laid unto his fathers and had seen corruption ? 
 The meaning that has been attached 1 we of course know. 
 It is that which is derived from the familiar phrase, king, 
 live for ever, or the expression, / will dwell in the house of 
 the Lord for ever, and the like; and it is plainly possible 
 so to understand it. But it is no less certain that so to 
 understand the language, does not exhaust its possible 
 meaning. 2 And is there not an abiding witness in the 
 language itself, to a fuller and further meaning, which needs 
 only to be suggested to commend itself as at once the truest 
 and the best ? Was there not in such language another 
 foundation-stone laid for the superstructure which was 
 afterwards to be reared ? And is it not possible that the 
 more ardent spirits in Israel may have grasped a hope 
 which was suggested, if it was not implied, in such words 
 as these ? Material was at any rate thus being accumulated, 
 which, in times of great national or individual trouble, 
 would supply the groundwork for anticipations which had 
 not been felt before. Elements were held in solution which 
 affliction might precipitate in a very distinct and definite 
 form. The language itself was pregnant with hopes which 
 
 9 See the Targum and Rashi. 
 
 1 See Perowne on 1. c. and xxiii. 6 ; Ixi. 6 ; xci. 16. 
 
 2 The proof that this was not the only meaning that it had is the fact 
 that this and similar language became the groundwork of hopes and 
 expectations that could not have been formed if it had been. 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 89 
 
 future circumstances might develop into being, and awaken 
 to conscious life. 
 
 Nor must we forget that the writer of the 20th Psalm, 
 while looking for his help from God, invokes Him as the 
 God of Jacob. This is the first occasion on which the 
 Psalmist has used this phrase. It can have had no meaning 
 to him but the meaning which we understand by it a 
 meaning which is derived from our acquaintance with the 
 facts of the Mosaic history, with which he therefore must 
 have been familiar top. But the use of this phrase implies 
 not only his knowledge of those facts, but his belief also 
 that there was a special relation in which Jacob stood to 
 God, that he was a party to a real covenant and the 
 inheritor of a real promise. It serves therefore at once, 
 collaterally and independently, to authenticate this portion 
 of the Mosaic narrative, and also to give additional mean- 
 ing to the Psalmist's view of his own position. God was 
 the God of Jacob because He had chosen Jacob because 
 He had given him a special promise and dealt with him in 
 a special way. As far as David represented the seed of 
 Jacob, and gathered up in himself the blessing vouchsafed 
 to Israel, he must have regarded that promise as, in a 
 special sense, his own. He was the focus in which all the 
 rays of it converged. And consequently every indication 
 of God's dealings with himself was an indication of His 
 dealings with the chosen seed, and his language shows us 
 that he felt it so to be. 
 
 The next Psalm which we have to deal with is the 22d. 
 This Psalm affords a striking instance of a feature which 
 is characteristic of so many ; namely, the abrupt transition 
 from sorrow to joy. Two-thirds of it are taken up with 
 the utterance of the extremest misery ; but in the last ten 
 verses the writer is as triumphant as he was before dejected. 
 Before he has been crying from the depths of despair ; now 
 he suddenly passes into praise and becomes hopeful and 
 
90 The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 confident. But neither the sorrow nor the joy can be 
 understood as applying to David or to any other con- 
 ceivable writer. We not only cannot imagine that David 
 himself was ever the subject of the treatment here de- 
 scribed, but that he would ever have described any personal 
 afflictions to which he was exposed in such a way. The 
 language becomes practically unmeaning in his case, making 
 every possible allowance for hyperbole, and the national 
 records furnish us with no other character to whom it is 
 likely to have been more appropriate. The same expecta- 
 tion, however, of universal dominion, which was expressed 
 in the second Psalm, finds place also here ; but it is 
 distinctly said that the kingdom is the Lord's, and that He 
 is the ruler among the heathen. It is also said that a people 
 yet unborn shall recognise the work of the Lord in the 
 particular deliverance which the Psalm records a state- 
 ment entirely without meaning in the case of David, but 
 pregnant with the fullest significance when otherwise 
 understood. And it is plain that any one who pondered 
 such language as this after David's time must have had 
 perplexing inquiries stirred within him if he tried to 
 understand it. Whatever the writer may have meant or 
 understood, it is clear that his language was marvellously 
 suggestive. It seemed to express and to open out antici- 
 pations which it was difficult to limit, and still more diffi- 
 cult to define. Hopes had manifestly centred in David's 
 throne which were never realised ; but as long as David's 
 language remained, they could not die. It is no wonder 
 if they gave the impulse to other hopes destined likewise 
 to disappointment, and yet the more likely to be fulfilled 
 the more the spirit of the language was entered into. 
 
 The 40th Psalm is, in many respects, analogous to the 
 22d, but it is more within the possible limits of the writer's 
 own experience, and it closes without the same confident 
 expressions of triumph. Like the 50th and 51st Psalms, 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 91 
 
 also, it expresses a conviction of the uselessness of sacri- 
 fices, and the far greater importance of conformity to the 
 Divine will. It is thus a proof that the author had risen 
 to a high spiritual appreciation of the law, which he 
 admitted to be binding on him, if we do not, with the 
 Septuagint and the Epistle to the Hebrews, regard it as an 
 evidence that he saw in ike volume of the book prophetic 
 allusions to himself and his seed. But the fact is, that 
 this, in common with the other Psalms, becomes far more 
 significant when understood of Another, than it can pos- 
 sibly be when referred to David or to any one else, and fitly 
 therefore takes its place among those marvellous composi- 
 tions which waited for their elucidation till the fulness of 
 time should come. 
 
 In vivid contrast with this is the 45th Psalm, to which 
 we now turn. This is manifestly and professedly a song of 
 love an epithalamium, or marriage ode, in honour of some 
 king, whoever he may have been. But it is not a little 
 surprising that, in the sixth verse, his throne is identified 
 with the throne of God, and that he himself is addressed 
 as God. Taken in connection with the 2d, the 20th, and 
 the 21st Psalms, it shows plainly that there was in the 
 Psalmist's mind an eternal King and an eternal kingdom 
 with which the throne of David was, in some mysterious 
 way, not identified, but associated. Had it not been for 
 such an association, he could never have spoken of himself 
 or his kingdom as he so often did. But when we connect 
 this, as we are obliged to do, with the promise to the fathers, 
 of which David was aware, we not only see that there was 
 already a development, as well as a limitation, of the 
 original idea, but that the writer himself must have been 
 conscious of it. And if in any case, as apparently here in 
 the 45th Psalm, that writer was not David, the persistency 
 with which his conceptions attached themselves to David, 
 and centred in him, is not the less remarkable or significant. 
 
92 The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 The fact that the convictions concerning David's throne 
 were shared by others besides himself, that they were not 
 only personal but national, must be held to make them at 
 least more worthy of our regard. It could have been no 
 ordinary afflatus which, going forth, in the first instance, 
 perhaps from David, thus extended and communicated 
 itself to the sons of Korah, and inspired them with senti- 
 ments which, like his own, found expression in language 
 transcending the limits of the temporal or the human, to 
 be fulfilled and warranted only by the eternal and the 
 Divine. Certainly, at this time, whatever hopes had been 
 raised by the promise to Abraham, had centred in the 
 person of a king, and in the desire for a universal and an 
 endless kingdom. 
 
 In no Psalm, however, is this expressed so plainly as in 
 the 72d, which is apparently ascribed to Solomon, and at 
 all events has reference to him. Here, again, the subject 
 is the king and the kings son. But the language is utterly 
 unintelligible when interpreted of any temporal king. 
 There can be as little doubt, however, that it was suggested 
 by the actual circumstances of a living monarch ; and it 
 seems, therefore, to contain indisputable proof that, at the 
 time of its composition, the very existence of the Davidic 
 throne had suggested to the foremost minds of the nation 
 the conception of a Divine kingdom, which should be 
 established in righteousness, which should be the refuge 
 and the security of the oppressed, which should receive the 
 homage of, and be supreme over, all kingdoms ; which 
 should be as permanent as the sun and the moon, and be 
 the centre and source of universal blessing. Common 
 sense protests against the notion that the most ardent and 
 patriotic Israelite can ever have imagined this to be literally 
 true, or to be intended to be understood literally of the 
 personal throne of either David or Solomon. But it is 
 equally obvious that such ardent and enthusiastic hopes 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 93 
 
 were not only cherished, but expressed. The natural 
 inference therefore is, that at this time the establishment 
 of what promised, and was hoped, to be a permanent throne 
 in Israel, had given a powerful impulse in the nation to 
 the longing for a great and glorious dominion, which should 
 be superior to all other monarchies, should gather up all 
 into itself, and should last for ever ; while the utterance 
 that such longings found in the poems of David and others 
 was calculated to spiritualise and elevate their character, to 
 ennoble and direct their tendency, to raise them off the 
 earthly and the human, and to plant them in the heavenly 
 and the Divine. 
 
 The 89th Psalm, which is inscribed as a Maschil of Ethan 
 the Ezrahite, is highly important, because it gives an inde- 
 pendent and poetical version of the original promise made 
 to David, and of which the historic record is preserved in 
 2 Sam. vii. At whatever period the poem was composed, 
 there can be no reasonable doubt that the record, in some 
 form or other, was already in existence. If the poem was 
 not based upon the record, as it is most natural to suppose, 
 then the record must have been suggested by the poem, or 
 borrowed from some earlier document no longer extant. 
 But in any case the poem and the narrative may be taken 
 as affording independent evidence to the same event. The 
 existing form, moreover, of the poem is almost conclusive 
 proof of its later origin. But the writer had so little doubt 
 of the reality of the original promise, that he was staggered 
 solely by its non-fulfilment. The reproach that he bore in 
 his bosom was on this account, and by such discipline his 
 faith in the promise was rooted and confirmed. But it is 
 unintelligible that a belief so deep should have taken hold 
 of the national mind in the way it evidently had, if no 
 foundation for it had existed in fact. In this respect the 
 poem and the history are mutually corroborative. For 
 some reason or other the nation had become possessed 
 
94 T/te Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 with the idea that the permanence of David's throne was 
 something to which the Divine faithfulness was pledged. 
 And for the first time we find this conviction expressing 
 itself in the terms of a forward-looking hope. The eye of 
 the writer is turned from the contemplation of the past to 
 the distinct anticipation of the future. His enemies have 
 reproached him for the tardiness of the Lord's anointed. 
 The loving-kindness that had been sworn unto David had 
 not yet been fulfilled, but had called forth a definite 
 longing for fulfilment. The real anointed one was yet to 
 come. David and Saul had each borne that title, but the 
 next that was to bear it with truth and justice was the 
 object of hope : his footsteps were delayed ; but so ardently 
 was his advent longed for, that his very delay had become 
 the occasion for reproach and ridicule. The writer's enemies 
 had reproached him for his absurd and visionary hopes. 
 An extraordinary evidence this, no matter when the Psalm 
 was written, to the reality of an anticipation of some kind, 
 and of the way in which it was connected in the popular 
 mind, so far as the Psalmist was a type of it, with promises 
 alleged to have been made to David, and commonly believed 
 in as pertaining to him. Moreover, the whole glory of the 
 nation is clearly regarded as centred in and represented by 
 the occupant of David's throne and the covenant by which 
 it was established. The national honour was in the dust 
 because the throne of David was cast down to the ground, 
 and because the days of his perpetual youth and the long 
 life which had been promised him had been shortened. 
 
 The next important Psalm which requires to be noticed 
 is the 110th. This Psalm opens with a declaration of the 
 Lord the revealed God of the nation to a person whom 
 the writer calls his lord. Disregarding the ascription, 3 or 
 doing violence to the interpretation of it, that person may 
 be presumed to have been David; but then the subject- 
 
 8 It is inscribed a Psalm of David. 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 95 
 
 matter of this declaration, Sit thou on my right hand, 
 becomes extravagantly inappropriate, not to say wliolly 
 unintelligible. Nor is there any evidence that a covenant 
 of priesthood had ever been made, or was ever supposed 
 to have been made, with David. There is no trace, 
 anywhere in the history, of a combination of the royal 
 and priestly functions in the person of David or of any 
 other king, similar to that which is recorded of Mel- 
 chizedec, who is the type or pattern selected. For though 
 certain kings may have exercised certain functions more 
 properly sacerdotal, such as blessing the people and the 
 like, it was never said of any king that he was the priest 
 of the most High God, nor does it seem at all probable that 
 David could ever have been addressed, or have suffered 
 himself to be addressed, in the language of the Psalm, 
 which, in fact, if applied to him, is contradicted by the 
 whole tenor of the existing history. Not more possible is 
 it to regard this poem as a later production of Maccabsean 
 times, when the functions of the priest and ruler were 
 combined. 4 Its archaic appearance is then inexplicable, 
 as well as the ascription which it bears and the traditional 
 belief of its origin which had already obtained in the time 
 of Christ, But if it is really ancient, and cannot have 
 been addressed to David or to any descendant of David, 
 we can only infer that it was written by David, and 
 addressed to an unknown person whom he calls his lord. 
 This person is described as a warrior, but a warrior for 
 whom the Lord lights, while he sits calmly and passively 
 at His right hand. The rod or symbol of his strength is 
 to be sent forth by the Lord from out of Zion, and he is to 
 rule in the midst of his enemies. His people, for he is 
 king as well as warrior, are to be free-will offerings in the 
 day of his power, and are to throng around him thick as 
 the dewdrops of the dawn upon the mountains and the 
 
 4 1 Mac. xiv. 41. 
 
96 The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 plains, clad in the bright and glorious array of holiness. 
 His own youth is to be fresh and vigorous from the 
 fountains of the dawn. He is to be rejuvenescent like the 
 " beam celestial" 
 
 "Which evermore makes all things new," 
 
 according as we prefer to understand the marvellously 
 condensed language and profuse imagery of the poet. 
 But more conspicuous than his character as warrior and 
 king is the fact of his priestly office. This has been the 
 subject of the most emphatic declaration of the Almighty. 
 The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for 
 ever after tJie order of Melchizcdec. As this is the only 
 allusion in the Old Testament to the mysterious King of 
 Salem, it is of course conclusive proof that the fourteenth 
 chapter of Genesis was in existence at the time when this 
 Psalm was written, whenever that was. But it is likewise 
 proof that the writer must have contemplated another 
 priesthood than that of Aaron, and apparently have re- 
 garded it as more complete and permanent than his. The 
 possessor of this priesthood was the warrior king to whom 
 his poem was addressed. So that the person he has in 
 view combines in himself these various functions, but by 
 far the most prominent is that of priest, for his priesthood 
 is after a new order, or rather after an old order revived. 
 The function of warrior also appears to be less real than 
 figurative, for he is content to let the Lord fight for him, 
 as indeed He continues to do throughout the Psalm, 
 smiting kings in the day of His wrath, judging among the 
 nations, filling their countries with the slain, and destroying 
 the most powerful of their monarchies. And, lastly, like 
 Gideon's warriors, this priestly king is himself to be 
 refreshed on his way to victory by water from the brook, 
 and so to pass on conquering and to conquer. 
 
 If, however, in order to avoid the somewhat violent and 
 unnatural change of position assigned to this mysterious 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 97 
 
 personage, who first sits on the Lord's right hand, and then 
 fights with the Lord on his, we regard the fifth verse as 
 addressed not to him, but to the Most High, then it is clear 
 that in the mind of the poet he is not only king, warrior, 
 and priest, but entitled also to the Divine and incommu- 
 nicable name Adonai. 5 The, Lord (whom before in the first 
 verse the poet has called my Lord), seated at thy right hand, 
 God, hath smitten through kings in the day of his wrath: 
 he is judge among the nations, whose lands are filled with 
 slain, while their most powerful monarclis are overthrown by 
 him. 
 
 In either case there is a change of imagery in the one 
 with regard to the position of the subject, in the other with 
 regard to his personal action ; for he who before was seated 
 on his throne is now represented as engaged in active fight : 
 but this matters not the main point is that the Psalm is 
 a witness to the conception in the mind of the writer of a 
 person whom he called his Lord, and who was king, warrior, 
 and priest. His cause is evidently the cause of the Most 
 High, for it is He who fights for him. And as in the second 
 Psalm the establishment of the king's throne was the sub- 
 ject of Divine appointment, so here the king's priesthood 
 is the subject of a Divine and irrevocable oath. Dark and 
 mysterious as these utterances must have seemed to the 
 people of that time, and not improbably to him who wrote 
 them, they are at least evidence as to the nature of ideas 
 then prevalent of a person at once royal and priestly, 
 exalted to a position of great eminence, and going forth to 
 victory which should place the kings of the earth in 
 subjection under him. Whatever may have been the 
 incidents and circumstances which gave rise to such con- 
 ceptions, we are not only competent to estimate their 
 character when formed, but able likewise to see that the 
 
 5 Cf. the apparent application of jVlKn to the angel of the covenant in 
 Mai. iii. 1. 
 
 H 
 
98 The Christ of the Psalms, [LECT. 
 
 brilliancy of their colour would remain long after the 
 aspirations which originated them had failed, and, like 
 that of autumnal leaves on the mountain or the forest, 
 would deepen as they decayed. And when the fortunes 
 of the nation sunk to their lowest ebb, the permanent 
 record of such thoughts would be precisely that around 
 which the hopes and affections of the people would gather, 
 and to which they would cling most tenaciously. 
 
 In illustration of this there remains one other Psalm of 
 probably a much later period which calls for particular 
 notice, namely, the 132d. This, like the 89th Psalm, is 
 independent evidence of the promise that had been made 
 to David, Of the fruit of thy 'body will I set upon thy 
 throne. It appears also to be evidence that, whenever it 
 was written, that promise was not considered to have been 
 fulfilled ; but it is likewise proof that such fulfilment was 
 anxiously looked for and ardently believed in. The phe- 
 nomenon, therefore, that we have to account for is the 
 existence of this belief. If we could determine accurately 
 the date of every psalm, we might speak with additional 
 confidence. But the internal evidence of this particular 
 poem is sufficient warrant for what has been said. During 
 the lifetime of David there would have been no room for 
 such a production, still less during that of Solomon, when 
 the primary fulfilment of the promise was obvious. We 
 are constrained, therefore, to refer it to a later period, when 
 it seemed that the Lord required to be reminded of all 
 that had been sworn in truth unto David when, for the 
 sake of all that had been so sworn to him, God might be 
 entreated to turn not back the face of His anointed. In fact, 
 the later we place the date of this Psalm the more remark- 
 able that expression the Lord's anointed becomes; while, on 
 the other hand, if we refer it to the time of David himself, 
 it is almost needful to assume the exercise of a prophetic 
 gift to account for its production at all. Here also we meet 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 99 
 
 with the same identification of David with the anointed 
 one (ver. 17) which has been mentioned before, and yet it 
 is expressed in a way that seems to show that he personally 
 was not entitled to the full significance of that name. 
 But at all events we have here again an evidence of the 
 belief that in the seed of David there was laid up a hope 
 for the nation, and that the nation, so far as this writer 
 represented them, clung to the promise of the hope. 
 
 This, then, is the nature of the evidence which is afforded 
 by the Psalms to the development of those national antici- 
 pations that gradually, and after a long period, shaped 
 themselves to a definite form. Although as compositions 
 the Psalms are plainly to be referred to various ages ; yet, 
 as anonymous productions, as they often are, they have a 
 certain claim to be regarded as a fair expression of the 
 national thought uttering itself in popular odes and hymns. 
 They are, in the first place, a clear proof of the way in 
 which the people regarded themselves as inheritors of a 
 blessing pronounced upon their fathers. It was as the 
 seed of Jacob that they were near to God. There is no 
 other explanation of this belief than that which is supplied 
 by the Mosaic record of a promise attaching to the seed 
 of Jacob. The form in which this promise is originally 
 found is vague and general. It is the Psalms that show 
 us a gradual limitation of the national ideas in a special 
 direction. The promise believed to have been given origin- 
 ally to Abraham, and connected with his seed at large, 
 is now found to be centered in David, and attached to 
 the permanence of his throne. The identification of the 
 promises in both cases needs not to be shown. We may, 
 if we please, regard them as distinct. It is the fact that 
 requires to be grasped, which the literature itself demon- 
 strates, that in the time of David, and ever afterwards, his 
 family and throne were regarded in a special manner as 
 inheriting Divine promises and a Divine blessing ; while 
 
ioo The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 the additional fact of this very limitation is itself a proof 
 that in point of time it must have followed after, and not 
 preceded, a wider, less limited, and more general belief. 
 To have invented the notion of promises made to Abraham 
 after the belief had originated of blessings which centred 
 in David, would have been unmeaning and impossible ; 
 while the rise and origin of this belief would still remain 
 to be accounted for. 
 
 The earliest traces and records of the nation which we 
 possess or can discover leave us in no doubt as to the way 
 in which they regarded themselves. The mere existence 
 of a character like David, and the belief which was centred 
 in him, would have been impossible except in a people who 
 believed themselves to hold the exceptional position which 
 their records assign to them. While, therefore, the evidence 
 of the hope which centred in David is patent and docu- 
 mentary, we cannot account for it without postulating an 
 earlier, more simple, and more general belief, of which we 
 have indeed ostensible records that on the whole may be 
 judged to present a trustworthy account of its origin, 
 inasmuch as none can be devised at once so natural, so 
 simple, or so complete. 
 
 And looking at the matter in this light, it is for us to 
 determine the relation between the promise to Abraham 
 and that to David, or whether they are wholly distinct 
 and independent. All that we can say upon the evidence 
 presented by the Psalms is that they are a very remarkable 
 expression of the national belief centred in David, and a 
 very remarkable effect arising from it. 
 
 Nor is there any similar result which can be produced 
 as a parallel to this from any other literature. We may 
 even doubt whether some confirmation of the reality and 
 validity of the belief is not afforded by the very pro- 
 ductions to which it gave rise. For it is not unreasonable 
 to infer that effects unique and unparalleled in themselves 
 
in.] The Christ of the Psalms. 101 
 
 are indications of a unique and unparalleled cause. And. 
 consequently, as the literature produced by the Davidic 
 promise is some evidence of the reality of the promise 
 itself, so is the presumable reality of the Davidic promise 
 some confirmation and evidence of an earlier promise 
 some proof that it must have existed, and if it existed, 
 some proof likewise of its fulfilment. 
 
 Of course, if we assume the possibility and the actual 
 occurrence of a Divine communication, the explanation of 
 the whole matter is simple enough ; but we desire to forego 
 this assumption, and to arrive if possible at a result which 
 shall be at once unbiassed and satisfactory, upon an 
 impartial consideration of the evidence at hand. And 
 considering the nature and amount of this evidence ; that 
 it is in the truest sense documentary, because comprised 
 in a national literature ; that it is to be referred to many 
 epochs and many authors ; that it is consistent with itself 
 and not contradictory, for from first to last there is no rival 
 to dispute with David the inheritance of the promise made 
 to him, since the case of Jeroboam is not analogous ; con- 
 sidering that the form it assumes, whether of suffering or 
 of triumph, whether of glory or of shame, is one that no 
 theory of exaggeration will sufficiently account for; that 
 this hope, while it centres in the family and seed of David, 
 is at one time the hope of victory over death, of pleasures 
 at God's right hand for evermore, at another of endless life 
 and coronation with eternal felicity, at another of universal 
 dominion and the perpetuity of his throne, of a king who 
 is to sit at God's right hand and yet to be a priest for 
 ever, but not like the sons of Levi ; that when the nation 
 is at its lowest, the hope is still bright and vivid that the 
 house of David will flourish, that the Lord has ordained a 
 lamp for His anointed; considering all this, and even 
 more than this, it is hard to say that the impression pro- 
 duced by the whole is not one that bears witness to the 
 
IO2 The Christ of the Psalms. [LECT. 
 
 originating cause of all as being something more than 
 ordinary, and more than human. 
 
 Even if we refer these literary phenomena to an intense 
 faith in the writers, yet there must have been some cause 
 to produce it. There must have been something to account 
 for its origin. There is no second instance of a similar 
 national faith producing similar national results. We 
 cannot refer it to causes purely natural. No form of 
 nature- worship, or development of ideas suggested by the 
 national language, or outgrowth of previously existing 
 heathen notions, would have sufficed to produce it. The 
 way in which David was selected for his high office, was 
 disiplined and prepared for it, was recognised first by the 
 reigning family and afterwards by the people at large, all 
 points to some external motive power such as that which 
 is supplied by the conduct of Samuel. Here would have 
 been an adequate cause for the effect produced, and we can 
 find no other ; but then the reality and the genuineness of 
 this cause finds its evidence in the national literature, and 
 in the current of the national history. Take away the 
 cause and the effect will cease; but the effect remains 
 permanent and indestructible, and therefore the cause was 
 real. 
 
 It is important also to bear in mind that the occurrence 
 of the several allusions in the Psalms, which presuppose 
 events in the national history, is of the highest possible 
 value; for if these allusions are genuine, they afford 
 independent confirmation of the history, and if they are 
 otherwise, then they can only have been produced after 
 the history was in existence. 
 
 Moreover, it is abundantly plain that the era of David 
 was fruitful in the production of many elements, which 
 subsequently, and with good reason, became the foundation 
 of national hopes that centred in an ideal personage who 
 should be royal, priestly, national, and human. We find 
 
HI.] The Christ of the Psalms. 103 
 
 marked indications of these characteristic elements which 
 were original with David, and find their first expression in 
 the Psalms. Nothing can shake this evidence, because it 
 is cumulative and it is obvious. It does not rest on one 
 circumstance alone, but on many. It is not found in one 
 Psalm, but in many. It does not depend upon the 
 genuineness of particular Psalms, but is equally significant 
 whether they are the productions of David or of any one 
 else, because their uniform testimony points to David, and 
 to the promise which centred in him. They are the per- 
 petual record of a nation's faith, the unalterable verdict of 
 a nation's judgment, which, being as it is entirely without 
 parallel, requires to be accounted for, and is fully accounted 
 for on one supposition, but on one only. If the promise to 
 David was a fact, 6 then the Messianic Psalms are accounted 
 for and explained. If there was in that promise no foun- 
 dation of Divine reality and truth, then they are a hopeless 
 puzzle, a phenomenon without a cause, destitute of interest 
 and devoid of meaning ; while, on the other hand, the very 
 way in which the Psalms transcended the limitations of 
 the original promise as the history records it, is itself an 
 evidence of yet further development and growth, a proof 
 that in the promise there was a germ which was destined 
 to expand and fructify till the whole earth was covered 
 with the shadow and the riches of it. 
 
 * It can hardly be needful to observe that David's title, as it is expressed 
 in the Psalms, cannot be resolved into a poetic or hyperbolical expression 
 of the truth of Prov. viii. 15 : By me kings reign, and princes decree justice, 
 and the like ; because all the peculiar features that characterise it suggest 
 something very much more than any such vague and general statement, 
 and are clearly intended to do so. David's title is manifestly understood 
 to be not ordinary but special altogether, and alike exceptional in the 
 annals of contemporary nations and his own. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE CHRIST OF PROPHECY. 
 
Srcuxin citharis et hujusmodi organis musicis, non quidem omnia, quse 
 tanguntur, canorum aliquid resonant, sed tantum chordae : csetera tamen 
 in toto citharse corpore ideo fabricata sunt, ut essent ubi vincirentur, unde 
 et a quo tenderentur illse, quas ad cantilenae suavitatem modulaturus et 
 perculsurus est artifex: Ita in his propheticis narrationibus, quse de 
 rebus gestis hominum prophetico spirit a deliguntur, aut aliquid jam 
 sonant signification futurorum: aut si nihil tale significant, ad hoc 
 interponuntur, ut sit, unde ilia significantia, tanquam sonantia connec- 
 tantur. S. Augustinus. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them 
 in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 
 ST. LUKE xxiv. 27. 
 
 HHAKING the Psalms broadly as originating in the age 
 * of David, to which, doubtless, many of them belong, 
 they represent a condition of thought some two centuries 
 earlier than the earliest of the prophets, while there is 
 probably no Psalm so late as the time of Malachi. 
 Prophecy, moreover, was a distinct and separate develop- 
 ment of the national life, while the writings of the 
 prophets, taken as a whole, are perhaps the most remark- 
 able and original monuments of the national literature. It 
 is not too much to say that they are unique in the 
 literature of the world, and have no parallel elsewhere. 
 They constitute, therefore, an independent field for inves- 
 tigation, and exhibit generally the results of a further 
 advance of national thought and life. 
 
 It is also manifest that the prophets were not in the 
 position of absolutely new writers, who had inherited 
 nothing from the past. They had not only the national 
 history but the Psalms of David to work upon. They 
 were certainly familiar with, and believed in, the promise 
 to David. They were also undoubtedly familiar with the 
 history of the patriarchs, and with the promises said to 
 have been made to them. The writings of Hosea, one of 
 the earliest of the prophets, afford conclusive evidence that 
 he was acquainted not only with the Mosaic narrative, but 
 
io8 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 likewise with the history recorded in the books of Joshua 
 and Judges, to which therefore we may presume he was 
 indebted for it. 1 These facts must not be forgotten, as 
 they cannot be denied, in dealing with the writings of the 
 prophets. 
 
 We have got, then, at the time when the first of the 
 prophets began to write, a deep conviction of the destiny 
 of the people, and of the relation in which they stood to 
 God. We have got the rooted belief that they were the 
 depositories of Divine promises, covenants, and blessings. 
 We have got the knowledge of the rise and establishment 
 of David's throne, of the special covenant associated there- 
 with, of the apparent and repeated failure of the promise 
 made to him, inasmuch as a rival kingdom had arisen. 
 We have got, at any rate, some of the more important 
 Psalms, such, for example, as the 2d, the 16th, the 20th, 
 21st, and 22d, the 72d, and the 110th. The schools of the 
 prophets could not have existed and the prophets them- 
 selves have been ignorant of these productions, to say 
 nothing of the very object of those schools being the 
 encouragement of a Divine afflatus, and the fostering of a 
 Divine education. 
 
 The prophets, then, obviously had materials to work 
 upon when they entered on their mission. Nothing that 
 they wrote could have been written in ignorance of these 
 materials, or independently of any influence which the 
 knowledge of them may have had. It is more reasonable 
 to suppose that some of their utterances may have been 
 
 1 Hosea refers to Joshua vii. 26, in ii. 15 ; to Judges xix. 22, in ix. 9 ; 
 and to Judges xx. in x. 9 ; also probably to the language of the song 
 of Deborah, Judges v. 14, in v. 8. In him also is found the remarkable 
 prophecy, iii. 5, Afterward shall the children of Israel return and seek the 
 Lord their God, and DAVID THEIR KINO ; for which see a sermon by the 
 writer in Good Words for April 1874. This prophecy is of the greater 
 importance as bearing on our argument, because emanating from Israel 
 and addressed to Israel. 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 109 
 
 suggested by them. It would be doing violence to both to 
 dissociate altogether the one from the other. 
 
 The book of Jonah, the earliest of the prophets, no 
 matter when it was written, is a wonderful illustration of 
 Israel's mission to the world at large ; and the conception 
 embodied is one which at any period is marvellously 
 significant. The mission of Jonah to Nineveh, which, so 
 far at any rate, is unquestionable, is a marked instance of 
 the constraining power of the prophetic impulse, and also 
 of the way in which Israel was made to feel himself 
 charged with a message to the nations. Moreover, the 
 incident must be referred to a very early date, whenever 
 the narrative of it appeared ; and it supplied a running 
 commentary on the ancient words, In thy seed shall all the 
 families of the earth be blessed. A prophet shall the Lord 
 your God raise up unto you of your brethren. 
 
 The same is equally true of Amos, who was neither a 
 prophet nor a prophet's son, but one of the herdmen of 
 Tekoa. He takes up the language of Joel, and proclaims 
 the message of the Lord to Syria, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, 
 Ammon, and Moab, as well as to the palaces of Jeru- 
 salem and the mountains of Samaria. Surely it is, under 
 all circumstances, a remarkable phenomenon that a simple 
 herdinan and gatherer of sycamore fruit should have felt 
 himself moved at that early age to denounce the foremost 
 nations of his time, and to confront the most powerful 
 monarch of his own nation ; and that his mission should 
 have been acknowledged, as it was, in an idolatrous and 
 apostate land, and should have produced the result it did, 
 and should have left to all time the permanent record 
 that it has. All this becomes intelligible on the suppo- 
 sitions just mentioned, and, granting those suppositions, 
 it becomes to a certain extent even natural; whereas, 
 rejecting them, it is neither intelligible nor natural. 
 
 And it is in this ancient prophet that we meet with a 
 
no The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 recognition of the promise made to David, which shows at 
 once his firm belief in it, and the fact that in his time it 
 had apparently failed : In that day will I raise up the taber- 
 nacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches 
 thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it 
 as in the days of old? The expression "tabernacle" 3 is 
 remarkable, because it seems to imply the giving place to 
 a more permanent edifice, as though the temporal throne of 
 David was nothing more than a provisional arrangement ; 
 while the mention of "the days of old" serves to show 
 that after the lapse of two centuries the prophet still had 
 a sufficiently distinct remembrance of it, and of the promise 
 on which it rested. 
 
 And if the language of Amos indicates any change from 
 the way in which the promise had been understood by 
 David, such change can only be regarded as a proof of 
 development, inasmuch as the substance of the promise is 
 still clung to, though the expected manner of its fulfilment 
 is different. Time was gradually unfolding the essential 
 character of the Davidic anticipations. As the husk 
 decayed and died away, the real permanence and vitality 
 of the kernel was more and more revealed. 
 
 Another prophet whom we must notice in passing is 
 Micah, who flourished in what may be called the Augustan 
 age of prophecy. The last words of his book are an 
 obvious proof of the way in which he regarded the destiny 
 of his nation, and may be taken as presumptive evidence 
 that he had the record of the promises before him : Thou 
 wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to A braham, 
 which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old. 
 And it was given to Micah to add his contribution to the 
 growing definiteness of the ancient and indefinite promise, 
 just as it was given to him, in common with other prophets, 
 to achieve a more spiritual conception of the Divine service ; 
 
 2 Amos ix. 11. 8 B3D. Cf. Is. xvi. 5, where the word is 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. in 
 
 for he saw that to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk 
 humbly before God, was more acceptable than thousands 
 of rams, or ten thousands of rivers of oil. 
 
 He, moreover, has established his claim to be a prophet 
 from his clear enunciation in the palmy days of Hezekiah, 
 that Zion should be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem become 
 heaps ; 4 and that the daughter of Zion should go forth out 
 of the city, and dwell in the field, and go even unto Babylon. 5 
 But even if such declarations are resolved into the utter- 
 ances of acute foresight, it is not so easy to account for or 
 to assign any meaning to his assertion, any time during 
 the age of Hezekiah, that the first or former dominion 
 should come to the tower of Edar? in the neighbourhood of 
 Bethlehem, and the kingdom to the daughter of Jerusalem. 
 Still less intelligible is the statement, They shall smite the 
 judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek ; 7 and his yet more 
 distinct and reiterated assertion that out of Bethlehem 
 Ephratah should come forth he that was to be ruler in Israel, 
 whose goings forth had been from of old, from the days of 
 eternity. 9 Bearing in mind that this prophet had inherited 
 a considerable mass of oracular and prophetic utterances, 
 it becomes impossible to dissociate his own enunciations 
 from them, or to suppose that he had no designed reference 
 to them. If the throne of David was to be rebuilt after 
 the promise of Amos, who preceded Micah, it is impossible 
 to say that the kingdom and the first dominion of him that 
 was to be ruler in Israel was not a repetition of the same 
 idea, an expression running in the same channel and in the 
 same direction. The prophets, as a matter of fact, appear 
 to have been possessed, one and all, with a similar con- 
 ception, to which they gave utterance, each in his own 
 way, but independently, and yet in such a manner that 
 the several elements are susceptible eventually of the most 
 successful and significant combination. This may be 
 
 4 Micah iii. 12. 5 i v . 3. iv. 5. 7 v. 1. 8 v. 2. 
 
112 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 accident, and indeed its whole value consists in its not 
 being the result of conscious design on the part of the 
 writers, which it cannot be ; but if the final and complete 
 effect is accidental, it is hard to say what indications of 
 the working of a conscious moral will would be sufficient 
 to prove design. At all events there is evidence in Micah 
 that he looked for a coming ruler in Israel at a time when 
 actually no such ruler was wanted, inasmuch as Hezekiah 
 was then sitting on the throne of David, and not without 
 honour and renown that were worthy of his ancestral line. 
 
 And it is certain that in this prophet we have one or two 
 new and original characteristics added to those already 
 existing of the person who is the object of anticipation. 
 He is called distinctly the ruler and judge of Israel. He 
 is to be smitten on the cheek with a rod, which implies 
 apparently some rejection of his claim. He is to be a 
 person of so much dignity as to ennoble and glorify his 
 birthplace, which is identified with Bethlehem, a town 
 already famous alike in the annals of David and of Jacob ; 9 
 and lastly, his goings forth are declared most mysteriously 
 to have been from of old, from the days of eternity. 
 
 Whatever may have been originally meant or understood 
 by all this, it is impossible not to see that this is what was 
 written in the reign of Hezekiah, some seven centuries 
 and more before the Christian era. And if we take it, as 
 we are bound to do, in connection with other declarations 
 and promises already in vogue, some light is undoubtedly 
 thrown upon the meaning intended to have been conveyed, 
 and not improbably understood. At all events, the meaning 
 is susceptible of progressive illumination, and is the subject 
 of constant but gradual development. 
 
 The shortest of the minor prophets need only detain us 
 for a moment before passing on to him who is the greatest 
 of all. Obadiah concludes his very brief "vision" with 
 
 9 Gen. xxxv. 19. 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 113 
 
 the declaration, And the kingdom shall le the Lord's, which 
 manifestly shows that he looked forward to the setting up 
 of a Divine kingdom in a way that is not without its 
 bearing upon similar and innumerable statements. 
 
 Any detailed examination of the prophet Isaiah becomes 
 impossible here. But it is more requisite to consider his 
 writings in a broad and general manner than to attempt to 
 erect an argument on particular texts. There are two 
 allusions to the throne of David in Isaiah which require 
 notice : that in the ninth chapter, where it is said of the 
 child that is born whose name is Wonderful, that there 
 shall le no end of the increase of his government and peace 
 upon the throne of David, but that he shall order it and 
 establish it for ever; and that in the fifty -fifth chapter, 
 where it is said, / will make an everlasting covenant with 
 you, even the sure mercies of David. It matters not now in 
 the slightest degree whether these two passages are by the 
 same writer, as I believe they are, or not. If there was an 
 interval of a century and a half, or two centuries, between 
 them, the second is virtually the endorsement of the first. 
 Whatever was meant by the sure mercies of David cannot 
 have been very different from the hope which centred in 
 an occupant of the throne of David who should order and 
 establish it for ever. Whether such epithets as Wonderful, 
 Counsellor*, Mighty God, Father of eternity, Prince of Peace, 
 can ever have been intended for any child of Ahaz, or have 
 been appropriated by him or his people, we must determine 
 with ourselves ; but, in the face of other considerations 
 already enumerated, it seems at least possible that they 
 might have been otherwise understood, and at all events 
 they do not stand alone, but are parts of a complex and 
 elaborate whole. If the second allusion is Isaiah's own, 
 then it has all the force of an authentic comment on the 
 former one, and if it is not, then it still possesses an 
 independent value as an instance of deliberate recurrence 
 
 I 
 
114 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 to the previous idea, of refusal to acknowledge any failure 
 in the former promise notwithstanding its extraordinary 
 language, and of postponement of its realisation to the yet 
 distant and conditional future. 
 
 There is, however, yet more manifest proof that Isaiah 
 looked for the realisation of the Davidic promises in a 
 particular person, from the remarkable prophecy which 
 immediately follows his denunciation of the Assyrian army 
 in the tenth chapter, when he says that there shall come 
 forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall 
 grow out of his roots ; and further, that this root of Jesse 
 shall stand for an ensign of the people, that unto it shall the 
 Gentiles seek, and that his rest shall le glory. It is simply 
 absurd to suppose that the prophet could have had in his 
 mind any existing scion of the royal house, or that his 
 glowing language, coupled as it was with inappropriate 
 and unintelligible promises about the recovery of the 
 remnant of his people, was intended to be understood of 
 any present or actual king. The visions of returning 
 prosperity to his afflicted land may have led him to adopt 
 exuberant language, but that language became the soil in 
 which a germ was imbedded that could find no adequate 
 field for its development in existing or probable circum- 
 stances. For nothing less than the return of the condition 
 of paradise was associated with the growth of this branch 
 out of the roots of Jesse. It is, indeed, possible to affirm, 
 with some show of truth, that the glowing visions of the 
 prophet have never been fulfilled, and are only visions; 
 but it is absurd to say that their meaning was exhausted 
 in any anticipations he may have cherished of present or 
 immediate prosperity. We can only decide, in accordance 
 with reason and common sense, that another page was 
 being added in these mysterious utterances to those de- 
 clarations already in existence which spoke of a distant 
 glory for the house of David. 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 1 1 5 
 
 In further proof also that such expressions were meant 
 to be understood of the indefinite future and not of any 
 actual definite present, we may refer to the 32d and the 
 35th chapters, the former of which speaks of a king 
 reigning in righteousness, and describes the character of 
 his kingdom in language that is singularly unmeaning, if 
 interpreted of the reign of Hezekiah. The anticipations 
 of good, however, are not unmixed with forebodings of evil, 
 and it is not until the Spirit be poured from on high that 
 judgment is to dwell in the wilderness and righteousness 
 to remain in the fruitful field. 
 
 But nowhere more conspicuously than in the 35th 
 chapter does the language of the prophet,, whoever he 
 was, transcend all possible reference to the circumstances 
 of his own time. It can only be interpreted of that day 
 of the Lord, when the good things promised to the house 
 of David shall have been fulfilled; then it is that the 
 ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with 
 songs and everlasting joy upon their heads ; then it is that 
 they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing 
 shall flee away. 
 
 Nor must we forget that if we are to discover in existing 
 circumstances the full explanation of the prophet's language, 
 we can only do so by depriving him of the peculiar charac- 
 teristics of his office, which was certainly recognised in his 
 own day, as we learn from the testimony of contemporary 
 history. He was regarded as a person standing in a special 
 relation to God, and having special access to the knowledge 
 of His will. This estimate of his position, whether right or 
 wrong, requires to be accounted for, and we cannot account 
 for it on the assumption that those utterances of his which 
 we can see to be unintelligible presented no mystery, but 
 were clear and commonplace to the men of his own time ; 
 because, then, why should he have been reckoned as a 
 prophet or as an exponent of the will of God ? 
 
1 1 6 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 That the national estimate of Isaiah's mission may have 
 been false is conceivable ; but, judging from the evidence 
 before us of the part he played, and from the works he 
 has left behind him, we are not in a position to affirm this, 
 and we cannot account for his prophecies on the assumption 
 that he was no prophet, when the very feature of them 
 which requires to be explained is their apparently pro- 
 phetical character. It is impossible not to see that the 
 natural tendency of his language must have been to arouse 
 anticipations in the minds of the people which were 
 certainly not realised in the present nor in the immediate 
 future, and which in fact seemed to grow in brilliancy as 
 the political horizon became darker. 
 
 In like manner it is not to be denied that the latter 
 portion of the book of Isaiah, no matter when it was 
 written, contributed certain original elements, which, taken 
 in connection with others already in existence, may have 
 combined to make the hope of deliverance to come yet 
 more ardent. Here it is that we meet with the well- 
 known phrase, the, servant of the Lord. It is manifest 
 that Isaiah's use of this phrase varies. Sometimes it is 
 distinctly applied to the prophet himself; 1 sometimes it is 
 as evidently a personification of the people at large, as in 
 xliv. 1, Yet now hear, Jacob, my servant, and Israel whom 
 I have chosen. But there are other occasions when it is 
 impossible that either one or the other can be meant. For 
 example, the delineation of the Lord's servant at the 
 commencement of chapter xlii. can only with violence 
 be interpreted of the nation at large : Behold my servant, 
 whom I uphold ; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth : 
 I have put my Spirit upon him ; he shall bring forth judg- 
 ment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor 
 cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed 
 shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench : 
 1 Cf. xliv. 26; xlix. 5; 1. 10. 
 
iv.J The Christ of Prophecy. 117 
 
 he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail 
 nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth : 
 and the isles shall wait for his law. Is it possible to main- 
 tain that if this was intended to be understood of the nation 
 at large, it was intended to be so understood apart from 
 that clear notion of a successor to David's throne already 
 known to be in existence ? Can we suppose that the 
 anticipations of the 32d chapter were intended to be 
 severed from those of the 42d? If the interval of a 
 century and a half elapsed between the production of 
 the two, is it probable that in the mind of the people 
 they would not be associated ? Is it likely that the later 
 writer, granting his existence, and granting also, as we 
 must grant, his acquaintance with the materials already 
 at hand, and his conscious participation in the same pro- 
 phetic office with those who had gone before him, should 
 have spoken as he did, and given utterance to a hope for 
 his nation at large which he deliberately disconnected from 
 the long-cherished hope of the promised scion of the house 
 of David ? 
 
 The known phenomena of prophecy, judging from the 
 monuments before us, forbid the assumption of the pro- 
 phetic utterances being thus isolated and independent ; or, 
 even if they do not, the effect produced by the work as a 
 whole, which is like that of the perspective in painting, 
 is such as to. make it difficult without violence to disregard 
 the apparent relation of the parts. 
 
 We are, however, at all events, at liberty to assume a 
 certain amount of unity in the latter chapters of Isaiah, 
 which, for special reasons, we must not presuppose in the 
 work as a whole. And thus it will probably not be denied 
 that the figure of the Lord's servant in chapter xlii. is 
 resumed in the 52d and 53d chapters. In the mind of 
 the writer it was one and the same image, whatever in his 
 own mind he may have understood, or have intended others 
 
1 1 8 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 to understand by it. Let it, however, be granted that the 
 idea in the prophet's own mind was that of the nation as 
 the ideal servant of the Lord. Then he has for the first 
 time sketched this ideal under peculiar aspects. He who 
 before was to bring forth judgment to the Gentiles, while 
 the isles were to wait for his law, is now seen in the 
 character of one who suffers for the sake of others, who is 
 unjustly afflicted and oppressed, who is led as a sheep to 
 the slaughter, and whose soul is made an offering for sin ; 
 who, while he is numbered with the transgressors, yet 
 bears the sin of many, and makes intercession for the 
 transgressors. It will not be denied that this is altogether 
 a novel and original conception. The germ of it may 
 possibly be found in some of the Psalms, with which the 
 writer may have been familiar, but nowhere is the picture 
 so elaborately drawn and so highly coloured as here. It is 
 not to be denied also, that, whether or not the servant of 
 the Lord here is identical with that in chapter xlii., it is in 
 the strongest possible contrast to the visions of royal glory 
 that were supposed to be reserved for the house of David. 
 The picture is altogether of another kind; and yet it is 
 said of this man, with a strange combination of images, 
 that he shall see his seed, and shall prolong his days, and 
 that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. So 
 that, as the line of David was to have long life and a 
 numerous posterity, 2 and to accomplish the purposes of 
 God, so was it also with this servant of the Lord. It cannot 
 also be maintained that such a portrait as this was sketched 
 from the life : there was no one in the nation or among the 
 prophets who may have sat for it. For if so, it is very 
 singular that all memory of him should have passed away. 
 The picture, marvellous as it is as a work of art, is evi- 
 dently an ideal conception, and as such was an entirely 
 new contribution to the gallery of ideals already in ex- 
 
 2 Psalm Ixxxix. 36. 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 119 
 
 istence, which took its place by their side, and would 
 eventually establish its relation to them, or be rejected as 
 an incongruous and irrelevant addition. 
 
 No sooner, however, has the prophet sketched the portrait 
 of the Lord's servant, and drawn that picture of his ideal 
 sorrow, which is unique in Scripture, than he bursts forth 
 with the expression of triumphant joy, and declares that 
 the barren woman shall become fruitful and her seed inherit 
 the Gentiles. Indeed, it is one of the most remarkable 
 characteristics of this writer that he distinctly declares an 
 unlimited field for the mission of Israel. It is a light thing 
 that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, 
 and to restore the preserved of Israel ; I will also give thee 
 for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation 
 unto the end of the earth? And the Gentiles shall come to 
 thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising* I am 
 sought of them that asked not for me, and I am found of 
 them that sought me not. I said, Behold me, behold me, unto 
 a nation that was not called by my name. 5 Such language 
 as this is expressive of some hope and of some conviction 
 in the mind of the writer. What does it mean ? We can 
 only take it in connection with other hopes he has himself 
 expressed for the house of David; in fact any hopes for 
 the nation would, in the mind of the prophet, have centred 
 in hopes for the national throne. However great the 
 humiliation of the servant of the Lord, it is to be suc- 
 ceeded and surpassed by his exaltation and glory, whether 
 that servant is the nation at large, or the prophet himself, 
 or an ideal personage but dimly discerned in vision. 
 
 And thus far there can be no doubt that the writings of 
 this prophet, whenever they were produced, contributed 
 greatly to the development of ideas existent already in 
 germ; and that while they by no means repudiated the 
 ancient expectations that had been cherished for the house 
 
 3 Is. xlix. 6. * lx. 3. 5 Ixv. 1. 
 
I2O The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 of David, they originated a far more spiritual conception 
 of the ideal servant of the Lord, who, after being chastened 
 and afflicted as an offering for the sin of others, was to be 
 exalted to universal and world-wide dominion. The proof 
 of this is in every one's hands ; it is patent and undeniable, 
 and alike independent of questions arising from critical 
 interpretation, from the date of composition, and from 
 uncertainty of authorship. Can the phenomena presented 
 be accounted for naturally ? Do they exhibit the natural 
 and obvious development of one idea ? Is the servant of 
 the Lord in Isaiah the natural product of the son of David 
 in the Psalms ? Admitting that the form assumed by the 
 one was purely natural, was the later form it took in the 
 other such as might have been expected ? Is there any- 
 thing analogous to this gradual development of one ideal 
 in classical or in any other literature ? Is it not peculiar 
 to and unique in the literature of the Old Testament? 
 And, even if the essential unity of the several ideas be 
 called in question, their essential and distinctive character 
 is not to be denied. We may still deal with them as 
 separate elements, and note their historic rise at different 
 epochs of the national history; the patriarchal idea in 
 patriarchal times ; the royal idea when the crown was 
 brightest and most glorious ; the idea of a universal law- 
 giver when the mind of the prophet was fixed on the 
 nation's return to the free exercise of its ancestral laws ; 
 but it will, after all, be the possible consistency of these 
 various thoughts, their possible relation to one another, 
 and their mutual completeness, that we shall have to 
 account for; and in endeavouring to account for this it 
 will not be easy to exclude the possibility of design, when 
 it is obvious that the actual result produced is precisely 
 that which design alone would account for. 
 
 The peculiar position of the ancient prophet receives a 
 distinct and vivid illustration from the personal history of 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 121 
 
 Jeremiah. We see very plainly his extreme reluctance to 
 undertake his office, the sense of deep responsibility under 
 which he laboured, the conviction from which he was 
 unable to escape, that the work he had to do was imposed 
 by God. He would fain have held his peace, but the word 
 of the Lord was unto him as a burning fire shut up in his 
 bones, and he was weary with forbearing, and could not stay? 
 This sense of an imperative and inevitable mission, extra- 
 ordinary as it was, which characterised the ancient prophets, 
 must be allowed to lend considerable weight to what they 
 say. Their sincerity was unimpeachable, notwithstanding 
 the extravagance of their assumptions. People, and priest, 
 and king, moreover, alike acknowledged their authority, 
 even though they might combine in persecuting them. 
 
 There is no doubt as to the time that Jeremiah prophe- 
 sied, neither is there any doubt that he distinctly assigned 
 the duration of seventy years to the captivity at Babylon. 
 The computation of this period may be a matter of dispute; 
 as to the fact that it was foretold there can be none. 7 It is 
 also certain that, living as he did at the close of the Jewish 
 monarchy, he spoke of a righteous branch being raised unto 
 David, and of a king who should reign and prosper ; 8 while 
 he joined with that promise the assurance that Israel should 
 be brought back out of the north country. Judging from 
 what Jeremiah has himself told us of Zedekiah, 9 it is not 
 probable that he should have had him in his mind when he 
 wrote thus, though it is possible that his name may have 
 suggested the words: The Lord our righteousness. But, 
 anyhow, we see here a repetition of the familiar thought 
 of a king being born to David'. If we might assume that 
 the writings of Isaiah, as we now have them, were in 
 existence, then we could say without hesitation that the 
 language of Isaiah is borrowed, and the promise he had 
 
 6 Jer. xx. 9. 1 Ezra i. ; Dan. ix. 2. 
 
 8 Jer. xxiii. 5-8. 8 xxxvii. 2 seq., and lii. 2. 
 
122 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT 
 
 given renewed ; but, at all events, we have here from an 
 independent hand a repetition, whether earlier or later, 
 of the old idea. 
 
 And it is impossible not to say that the expectation of 
 future good for Israel is expressly associated with that of 
 the king who is to be born to David. The restoration of 
 Israel is to take place in his days, and Judah and Israel 
 are again to be one, for we must not forget that at this 
 time Israel had no national existence. Now, the inter- 
 pretation of this language may be a very difficult and 
 doubtful matter, but as to its literal meaning there can be 
 no doubt. This is what the prophet said, whatever his 
 words meant. And, perhaps, the clearest and most explicit 
 promise that yet existed in relation to the expected heir of 
 David, was thus added to all that had gone before. Psalms 
 like the 72d, the 89th, the 132d, and others, received a new 
 meaning when language such as this was uttered by a man 
 in the position of Jeremiah, who claimed and was acknow- 
 ledged to be a prophet of the Lord. It is manifest that the 
 original thought was becoming clearer and more definite ; 
 it was undergoing development ; it was a growing con- 
 ception, and each age and epoch contributed to its growth, 
 each prophet added something of distinctness to the original 
 idea. And yet, what the full idea was to be no single 
 prophet knew, and no single age could tell what was or 
 was not reserved for its own epoch to produce. The fulness 
 of time alone could show whether the aggregate was com- 
 plete, or whether more was still waiting to be added. 
 
 This promise also is the more remarkable from the fact 
 that it presents a strong contrast to the other prophecies of 
 Jeremiah, and from the circumstance of its being reiterated 
 and expanded by him, subseqently, when he was shut up 
 in the court of the prison. 1 His prophecies generally have 
 more of a domestic and local character, and are concerned 
 
 1 Chap, xxxiii. 15-26. 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 123 
 
 rather with the immediate destiny of his people ; but here 
 he takes a much wider range, and looks forward to the 
 remotest future, and declares that the covenant with day 
 and night shall be broken before David shall want a son 
 to reign upon his throne. And yet this is in immediate 
 connection with the promise of the branch of righteousness 
 that is to grow up unto David, in whose days Judah shall 
 be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely. That is to say, 
 at the very time when the throne of David was tottering 
 to its fall, and its last occupant was passing away into 
 captivity, a man, who felt himself compelled to declare the 
 message of the Lord in spite of all inward reluctance and 
 of all outward opposition, is found in the most solemn 
 manner affirming his belief in the ancient promises, and 
 consoling his nation with the prospect of their fulfilment, 
 when, humanly speaking, there was none. 
 
 For the moment, then, we must hold our judgment in 
 suspense as to the intrinsic value of such prophecies, and 
 confine our attention to the undoubted fact of their exis- 
 tence as part of the literary and prophetic inheritance 
 with which the people went into captivity. There can be 
 no question that at that time, as far as the writings of the 
 prophets and psalmists had influenced the nation, it was 
 more than warranted in expecting a restoration of the 
 throne of David in the person of some one who should 
 unite in himself the various characteristics that had been 
 assigned to his ideal representative and heir. And with 
 this expectation rife among the people, the monarchy 
 collapsed, and the nation was carried captive to Babylon. 
 
 We pass on now to the prophets of the return, beginning 
 with Haggai, in the second year of Darius, or about fifteen 
 years after the foundation of the second temple. With 
 the circumstances of that foundation we are familiar, from 
 the touching narrative in the second chapter of Ezra, which 
 is illustrated and confirmed by the words of Haggai : Who 
 
124 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 is left among you that saw this house in her first glory ? 
 sixty-eight years before ; and how do ye, see it now ? is it 
 not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing ? 
 
 And this comparative inferiority of the second temple 
 was made the basis of a very striking promise, that the 
 glory of the latter house should be greater than the glory of 
 the former, and that in it the Lord would give peace. We 
 may omit altogether the disputed words about the desire of 
 all nations coming, because, as it happens, they in no way 
 affect the material sense, however much to understand them 
 of a person rather than of material wealth may heighten it ; 
 for here is the distinct assertion that the second house shall 
 surpass the former one in glory, and that apparently because 
 peace shall be given in it. Two points, however, must be 
 borne in mind first, that the ark of the covenant, which 
 was the special glory of the first temple, did not exist in 
 the second, and consequently the declaration of the prophet 
 was the more daring ; and secondly, that, daring as it was, 
 he confirmed it in the most solemn manner possible, on his 
 faith as a prophet, by the five-times-reiterated declaration, 
 Thus saith the Lord of hosts. It cannot be doubted, there- 
 fore, that this statement was made as a substantive addition 
 to the prophetic elements already in existence, and would 
 be so regarded by the people who recognised the mission 
 of Haggai. 
 
 About the same time arose another prophet, Zechariah, 
 who likewise took part in encouraging the work of Zerub- 
 babel in building the second temple. He maintained and 
 illustrated the continuity of the prophetic succession after 
 the captivity, by reviving in his prophecies two of the 
 most prominent images in Isaiah and Jeremiah. For more 
 than two generations Jeremiah's promise of the coming 
 Branch had lain in abeyance, with no apparent hope of 
 fulfilment. And, under any view of Isaiah's epoch, his 
 famous prophecies and portrait of the servant of the Lord 
 
iv.] The CJirist of Prophecy. 125 
 
 must have been in existence now, and were "beyond all 
 doubt familiar to Zechariah. With these materials, then, 
 ready to hand, he represents the Angel of the Lord saying 
 to Joshua the high priest, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, 
 Behold I will bring forth (literally, Behold me bringing in) 
 my servant the Branch;' 2 ' and describing the era of his 
 advent as a time of ideal peace and prosperity. This 
 promise which is first given, or apparently given by the 
 Angel of the Lord, is subsequently repeated by the prophet 
 himself to Joshua the high priest, in the word of the Lord, 
 with a slight variation : Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, 
 saying, Behold the man whose name is the Branch : and he 
 shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple 
 of the Lord, which was now nearly finished : Even he shall 
 build the temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the glory, and 
 shall sit and rule upon his throne ; and he shall be a priest 
 upon his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between 
 them both; 3 that is, apparently, between the priest and the 
 king, which twofold office this man whose name is the 
 Branch is to unite and fulfil in his own person. It is 
 hardly possible to doubt that such words were spoken 
 and recorded not only with full knowledge of, but with 
 intentional reference to, what had been said before by 
 Jeremiah, by Isaiah, and perhaps by David in the 110th 
 Psalm. Even if there was no conscious and designed 
 allusion to their statements, which we cannot prove, the 
 mere fact of the remarkable manner in which the several 
 utterances fit into and sustain each other, is a phenomenon 
 not a little extraordinary, and one which may be in a high 
 degree significant. 
 
 The independent character also of Zechariah's prophecy 
 is seen in this, that whereas the last words of Haggai were 
 addressed to Zerubbabel,and were fraught with a blessing for 
 him as the representative of the house of Judah, Zechariah's 
 
 2 Zech. iii. 8. 3 Zech. vi. 12, 13. 
 
126 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 promise of the Branch was twice given to Joshua the high 
 priest, and the first time was coupled with a personal 
 promise to him. This circumstance is perhaps sufficient 
 to show that the central promise in either case was intended 
 to be kept distinct from the particular person to whom it 
 was immediately given. Both Zerubbabel and Joshua 
 must necessarily have had their thoughts directed to some 
 one else. Neither could have supposed that the prophet's 
 language ended in himself, or that the personal blessings 
 announced were all that was declared. 
 
 The critical questions connected with the last six 
 chapters of Zechariah are so intricate that they need not 
 detain us here. Suffice it to say, that in these chapters, 
 whenever they were written, there are three remarkable 
 passages which must not altogether be passed by. The 
 first is Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion ; shout, 
 daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy King cometh unto thee : 
 he is just, and having salvation ; lowly, and riding upon an 
 
 ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass And he shall 
 
 speak peace unto the heathen ; and his dominion shall be from 
 sea even to sea, and from the, river even to the ends of the 
 earth* If this was post-captivity, there was still a re- 
 currence in it to the favourite idea of the universal king- 
 dom, with an evident allusion to the 72d Psalm ; 5 if it was 
 earlier than the captivity, then it is impossible to refer it 
 with propriety to any actual king ; besides, the time of his 
 dominion is to be coeval with the cessation of the chariot 
 from Ephraim, and of the horse and the battle-bow from 
 Jerusalem ; in other words, the national power shall have 
 ceased at the time when the rule of the national king, who 
 is spoken of, commences. 
 
 The next passage is in the twelfth chapter : And I vrill 
 pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications; and 
 4 Zech. ix. 9, 10. 5 Ps. Ixxii. 8, 12, etc. 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 127 
 
 they shall look upon me whom they have pierced ; and they 
 shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and 
 shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for 
 his first-born. 6 It is impossible that the person here 
 spoken of can have been the prophet himself, because he 
 was unable to pour upon the house of David, and upon 
 the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of 
 supplications, an essentially Divine gift. The words, 
 therefore, as they stand, if thus understood, appear to have 
 no discoverable meaning. 
 
 And hardly less mysterious in any aspect are those other 
 words in the thirteenth chapter : Awake, sword, against 
 my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith 
 the Lord of hosts : smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be 
 scattered : and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. 1 
 If this was post-captivity there was manifestly no one to 
 whom it could refer ; but it is no less difficult to determine 
 to whom such language is likely to have been applied 
 by any earlier writer. There is no instance of the rare 
 expression, the man that is my fellow, being used of the 
 reigning monarch; and even if it was so used here, we 
 know not who he could have been, for there is no one 
 whose history at all corresponds. 
 
 But whether these three passages are by one and the 
 same writer or not, it is clear that they all purport to be 
 spoken prophetically and in the name of God. They are 
 therefore but integral elements in the whole mass of similar 
 statements. They reproduce familiar ideas ; that, namely, 
 of dominion and glory in the person of a king, and that of 
 exceptional suffering. 
 
 Whether we are right also in grouping these and similar 
 statements together, it is certain that there are special 
 characteristics common to all ; for example, a peculiar 
 obstinacy in not being readily intelligible of ordinary 
 
 6 Zech. xii. 10. 1 xiii. 7. 
 
128 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 known circumstances, and a certain facility of cohesion, 
 which is the more remarkable, inasmuch as they are con- 
 fessedly the production of various writers and of various 
 periods. 
 
 Looking, then, at the writings of the prophets as a 
 whole, there appear to be one, or at the most two, principal 
 ideas, which gradually become more distinct and definite, 
 until the conclusion is inevitable that the national literature 
 of the Jewish people contained clearly-expressed antici- 
 pations of one who should arise in the house of David 
 and restore his throne to more than its pristine glory, 
 although these anticipations were at times perplexed and 
 interwoven with others of a permanent priesthood, whether 
 or not combined in the same person, and with obscure 
 intimations of suffering, degradation, and cbath, which 
 were to be undergone. The glory, perhaps, predominates 
 over the suffering, but of the presence of the suffering as 
 an element contemplated there can be no question; the 
 only question at the time even could have been whether 
 the suffering was an antecedent condition of the glory or 
 a totally distinct conception. 
 
 There is, however, this feature to be observed in the 
 latter prophecies of Zechariah, which is more consistent, 
 perhaps, with the supposition of a later date for their 
 origin, that the subject spoken of is found to blend with 
 the person of the Divine being ; and this also is character- 
 istic of the latest of the prophetic utterances that, namely, 
 in the book of Malachi. The writer there says, speaking 
 in the name of God : Behold, I will send my messenger, and 
 he shall prepare the way before me : and the Lord, whom ye 
 seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of 
 the covenant, whom ye delight in : Behold, he shall come, saith 
 the Lord of hosts? 
 
 We must remember that this passage undoubtedly comes 
 
 8 Mai. iii. 1. 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 129 
 
 after the entire bulk of prophetic enunciations that we 
 have been considering was in existence. The second 
 temple was built ; Haggai's promise concerning it had 
 been given ; Malachi was no doubt familiar with it and 
 with all the recorded sayings of Isaiah, Jeremiah Zecha- 
 riah, David, and the rest. Speaking, then, late in time as 
 he did, Malachi said : The Lwd, whom ye seek, shall suddenly 
 come to his temple. The expected advent of a glorious king 
 is in abeyance. It is now the Lord himself who is to come 
 to His temple, and fulfil the former promise of giving peace 
 in it. He is to come as a judge. If He is not to come as 
 a priest, He is at any rate to purify the sons of Levi, and 
 purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto 
 the Lord an offering in righteousness. 
 
 If the earlier prophetic notion of a great king is foreign 
 to the writings of Malachi, we cannot say that his concep- 
 tion of the future glory is in any sense inferior to that; 
 on the contrary, it seems even to surpass it ; for the person 
 who is to come is called the Lord, 9 and the place whither 
 He is to come is called His temple. He is also apparently 
 identified with the messenger of the covenant, a phrase 
 which most probably contains an allusion to the Angel of 
 His presence mentioned in Isaiah, 1 who is represented as 
 having interposed on behalf of the nation at various critical 
 periods of their history. 
 
 We seem, therefore, to be justified in saying that in the 
 time of Malachi the national hope, so far as he expressed it, 
 had become more elevated and spiritualised. The earthly 
 metaphors were dropped; temporal power and rule were 
 forgotten. The Lord Himself was a great king, whose 
 name was dreadful among the heathen : the Lord Himself 
 was the hope of His people, and to those who feared His 
 name the Sun of righteousness would arise with healing 
 in his wings. If this is so, the former words, They shall 
 
 ! Is. ixiii. 9. 
 
 K 
 
130 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 look on me whom they pierced, acquire a fresh significance, 
 to say nothing of those others, Awake, sword, against my 
 shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the 
 Lord of hosts. Whatever may have been the intention of 
 the several writers, the combined phenomena presented by 
 their writings cannot fail to strike us as very remarkable ; 
 and it is scarcely possible to imagine that Malachi, the 
 latest writer of all, was not conditioned by what had gone 
 before, and is not to be understood accordingly. 
 
 There remains, however, yet one collection of writings 
 which must be noticed, because, whatever its date, it throws 
 considerable light upon the interpretation of the rest, and 
 this is the book of Daniel. Starting with the assumption 
 that this book may be as late as the second century before 
 Christ, we are yet led by it to certain conclusions with 
 respect to other prophetic writings that it is difficult to set 
 aside. For example, it is certain that in Daniel we meet 
 with the use of a particular term which cannot be ambig- 
 uous any longer. In the second century before Christ, then, 
 at the latest, a writer could be understood who spoke of 
 Prince Messiah, and of Messiah being cut off. 2 It is clear, 
 therefore, that by this time the conception of a person who 
 should fulfil in himself the several conditions going to 
 make up whatever was meant by Messiah was fully de- 
 veloped, or else that he originated its full development. 
 This latter alternative, however, is not likely. The writer, 
 no doubt, appealed to a condition of thought already exist- 
 ing. In his time the conception of a Messiah was fully 
 formed, and any allusion to -it was intelligible. But how 
 could this be, were it not for the materials out of which 
 such a conception could alone be formed already existing 
 in the national literature ? The term Messiah was one 
 which had been applied to kings, prophets, and priests, in 
 former times ; but here we find an entirely different use of 
 
 2 Dan. ix. 25, 26. 
 
iv.j The Christ of Prophecy. 1 3 1 
 
 it, as it was applied to an ideal person whose advent is yet 
 future. This person is himself pre-eminently Messiah: 
 he is called Prince Messiah. 3 He cannot be any one of 
 those persons to whom the term has been applied officially 
 before. He must be one to whom it is more applicable 
 than to any. 
 
 The belief, then, in the advent of such a person must 
 have been mature and definite, but it could only have been 
 so because it had been fostered and inculcated by the 
 writings of the prophets and the national literature. There 
 must, therefore, have been that in the literature which was 
 capable of fostering it. The writings of the prophets must 
 have been understood in such a way that they furnished a 
 groundwork for the support of the notion. The matter is 
 not at all one of opinion; it is simply a matter of fact. 
 It is not a question as to the propriety of any such ideas 
 being derived from the writings of the prophets, but a 
 matter of fact that they were so derived ; and of this the 
 evidence of the book of Daniel, whenever that book was 
 written, is conclusive. 
 
 Nor does the question of date materially affect the issue, 
 because here, a hundred and fifty years before Christ, is 
 the evidence that the prophets were thus understood. This 
 was the long result of their education of the national mind. 
 They had led the people up to this position. And it was 
 not the work of one writer, but of many. There is good 
 ground, then, for a strong presumption that this, which was 
 the combined effect produced by many writers, was more 
 or less nearly the particular effect which they intended to 
 produce. If, therefore, we find one writer deliberately 
 adopting the language and images of an earlier one, we 
 can only infer that he did it with the intention of adopting 
 and expanding his meaning. And when this is done by 
 many writers successively, and the final result is what it 
 
132 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 proves to be, we can only conclude that the result corre- 
 sponded with the object which the writers had in view. 
 They did intend their language to produce and cherish the 
 hope that a deliverer would arise in the house of David ; 
 and the people were warranted in investing him with the 
 various attributes which the several writers assigned to 
 him. When Daniel spoke of Prince Messiah, he virtually 
 added his endorsement to all that had been promised to the 
 throne of David, while he gave also an unmistakable proof 
 of the manner in which he had received and understood 
 those promises. 
 
 The book of Daniel, then, on any supposition of its date 
 and authorship, is a witness to the historic development 
 of the Messianic conception. In the second century 
 before Christ we find the notion of Messiah as a coming 
 Prince accepted and in vogue. How much earlier it may 
 have been, we are unable to say, but here at any rate it 
 was then. But, in point of fact, a popular notion such as 
 this can only have been of gradual and protracted growth. 
 It could not have started into existence suddenly; and 
 looking over the various stages of the national literature, 
 as they are indicated with sufficient accuracy in the writ- 
 ings of the prophets, and in the Psalms, we can trace the 
 different stages of its growth. We can see how stone by 
 stone was added by one writer after another, till the edifice 
 assumed the definite shape and outline which are con- 
 .spicuous in the writings of Daniel. 
 
 Of course if we decide, as we very reasonably may, 
 upon the genuineness of that book, then the considerations 
 already mentioned receive additional weight. Then the 
 writings of Zechariah and Malachi must have been pro- 
 duced in the knowledge of the prophecies of Daniel, and 
 must be interpreted accordingly ; but as all these writings 
 were unquestionably in existence in their present form in 
 the second century before Christ, that is more than enough 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 133 
 
 for our purpose, inasmuch as we know that then the actual 
 historic result produced "by the various characteristics of 
 the prophetical writings was the anticipation in the national 
 mind of a person to come who could be spoken of intelli- 
 gibly as Messiah the Prince. It matters not whether all 
 the notions connected with that idea were in strict accord 
 and harmony; they cannot have been. The conceptions 
 may have been conflicting and contradictory ; they could 
 scarcely be otherwise, if the elements that gave rise to 
 them were realities manifesting an historical growth, and 
 assignable to different epochs and to various minds. 
 
 To sum up, then, what has hitherto been said. We have 
 treated the existing literature, and the several books of the 
 Old Testament, as we should treat any other literary 
 documents. We have endeavoured to estimate them only 
 as an honest examination of the features they present 
 obliges us to estimate them. We have assumed nothing 
 in their favour. We have conceded hypothetically almost 
 every, if not every, position that has been debated, which 
 might tend to modify the conclusion to be arrived at. And 
 what is the result ? It is this : that at least in the second 
 century before Christ, and most probably in the sixth, the 
 conception of a Messiah had attained so much consistency 
 and solidity among the Jewish nation, that we find in 
 writings of one period or the other, and for argument's 
 sake it matters not which, a usage of the word which can 
 only be understood of an ideal and a future person. Such 
 an application of the term is conclusive proof of the popular 
 existence of the notion. We are not concerned now with 
 the character of the notion, or the form it had assumed. 
 Here it was in actual and living reality. It was a thing 
 which had found expression in a word. It was a thought 
 which had become crystallised and formulated in speech. 
 What was the origin of that thought ? Taking the book 
 of Daniel hypothetically, as the latest expression of it, we 
 
134 The Christ of Prophecy. [LECT. 
 
 find it present to the national mind at a time of great 
 national debasement. But it is far more probable that it 
 had already been in existence for centuries. If it was not 
 originally derived from the literature, we have no other 
 means of tracing its origin but from the phenomena pre- 
 sented by the literature ; and there we can see, from time 
 to time, germs of the same thought bursting through the soil 
 of surrounding incident. From time to time the language 
 used is such as to be more naturally explained with refer- 
 ence to this latent thought than to any other accidents of 
 the age. The recurrence of this language is to be detected 
 in the Psalms and Prophets alone over a period of at least 
 500 years. Writer after writer takes it up, and deals with 
 it in his own characteristic manner. David, Isaiah, Micah, 
 Jeremiah, Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, not to men- 
 tion others, are all distinguished by passages which appear 
 to have a common allusion to this same idea, and which, 
 if they have, are more intelligible than if they have not. 
 In all these remarkable passages there are characteristic 
 features in common. There is a perpetual falling back 
 upon the throne of Judah and the house of David; and 
 this even after the throne was at an end, and the family 
 no longer reigning. No such feeling is ever associated 
 with any dynasty of Israel. It cannot be resolved into 
 mere patriotism, because the same onward-looking hope is 
 to be found equally when the throne is illustrious and 
 when it is fallen. It consistently disdains the present, 
 and is continually projected into the distant future. No 
 present glory is adequate; nothing less than endless du- 
 ration and universal sovereignty is alike demanded and 
 assured. No exaggeration of individual differences is 
 capable of destroying the combined harmony. Each 
 writer worked independently, but the combined effect of 
 the whole is unity, or at least the natural semblance of 
 consistent unity. Such an effect, however, was manifestly 
 
iv.] The Christ of Prophecy. 135 
 
 beyond the reach of any series or succession of writers, 
 because the earliest were ignorant of, and could not con- 
 trol, the utterances of those who wrote subsequently. And 
 the utmost that the latest could do was to revert to an 
 earlier thought, to develop and expand it. No reason, 
 however, can be assigned for the correspondences, any 
 more than for the differences, between the 22d Psalm and 
 the 53d of Isaiah. It is impossible to say that the one 
 borrowed from the other, or that the one suggested the 
 conception of the other. And yet, looked at together, or, 
 if you will, in a particular light, there is an incompre- 
 hensible unity. Are we to be debarred from pronouncing 
 this unity real simply because it is incomprehensible ? 
 The mere appearance of unity that undeniably exists 
 cannot be accounted for by any supposed similarity of 
 condition and circumstances in the different writers, added 
 to which no conceivable circumstances can adequately 
 account for the language used. No adequate reason can 
 be assigned for the correspondences, any more than for 
 the differences, between the 21st Psalm and the 33d of 
 Jeremiah. It is impossible to say that the one was 
 borrowed from or suggested the other here ; and yet, after 
 the lapse of more than four centuries, there is a certain 
 undeniable similarity. Was this similarity, such as it is, 
 intentional on the part of the later writer ? Was he bent 
 upon producing the kind of effect and unity which, looked 
 at together with other productions, or in a particular aspect, 
 his own work has produced ? Was Ezekiel, when drawing 
 his wonderful potrait of the faithful Shepherd, in his 34th 
 and 37th chapters, 4 late in the times of the captivity, and 
 when the throne of Judah was no more, reverting merely 
 
 4 Worthy of special note in the former chapter are verses 23, 24, and 
 in the latter, verses 24, 25. It is my servant David who is to reunite the 
 divided houses of Israel and Judah : and my servant David shall be their 
 prince for ever. 
 
136 The Christ of Prophecy. 
 
 to a former thought ? or was he not rather adding important 
 elements of his own, the harmony and essential unity of 
 which with the writings of other prophets he could not 
 himself perceive, but which, after the lapse of many 
 generations, it would be little less than wilful blindness 
 to ignore ? And are we in all these cases to reject that one 
 particular aspect in which these independent and diverging 
 rays are found to converge in a marvellous unity ? Surely, 
 rather, forasmuch as the unity was one which the writers 
 confessedly could not have agreed together to produce, 
 while we can see for ourselves how striking and significant 
 it is, the most natural and the not unreasonable inference 
 will be to confess in the language of the Psalmist of old : 
 This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
8 (Sljitjienttyum rear, e^e (Sroangetiflett imb Styoflel gefctyrtcfcen fatten. (ir 
 ltef cine getaume 3eit, elje ber erjle son i^nen f4)rieB unb cine fc^r betradjtlidje, e^)e 
 tcr ganje Jvaitoit ju @tante tarn. 
 
 2)ic JRettgion ift ntc^t a^r, h?eit tie Mngeliflen unb 2tyofiel fie (c^rten : fonfcern 
 fu le^rten fie, roeit fie tca^r ifi. 
 
 2lucf> ba8, toaS ott le^rt, tfl ntc^t nja^r, toell e3 ott le^ren w i U, fonbern ott 
 Ic^itl eS, teett e8 tta^r ijl. Leasing. 
 
 Non disse Christo al suo primo convento : 
 Andate e predicate al mondo ciance, 
 Ma diede lor veraoe fondamento. 
 
 Dante. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son 
 of Abraham. ST. MATT. i. 1. 
 
 AEAPID survey of the literature of the Old Testament 
 has thus far brought us to some important conclusions 
 First, to the existence, in the second century before our 
 era, not to put it earlier, of the doctrine or conception of a 
 Messiah ; secondly, to the inference that that doctrine or 
 conception was itself a kind of commentary on the books, 
 inasmuch as it could only have been derived from them. 
 It may therefore be taken as a proof of what they were 
 understood to mean by the nation who were their natural 
 guardians, and up to a certain point as evidence of their 
 actual meaning. At all events, we find an impression rife 
 in the minds of the people, for which these books alone 
 can be held responsible. 
 
 From the position thus arrived at, moreover, certain 
 corollaries follow. If an effect like this, which was unique 
 in history, was produced, the cause producing it must 
 have been unique also. We are led therefore to the 
 actual existence of certain elements in the Old Testament 
 literature, which are not to be accounted for as we find 
 them. If it had not been felt with respect to these 
 elements that the full cause of their existence was not 
 supplied by the local and temporary conditions under 
 which they were produced, their special effect upon the 
 nation would not have been what it was. But, seeing 
 
140 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 that this effect was what we know it to have been, the 
 actual existence of these elements is thus far an evidence 
 of the special and peculiar character of these books, a 
 distinct and unmistakable mark of their exceptional 
 position in literature. 
 
 Judged therefore by the effects of its teaching, and by 
 the phenomena it presents, the Old Testament in itself is 
 a remarkable literary monument, possessing characteristics 
 that we cannot naturally account for. There must have 
 been causes operating in its production to which we have 
 no key or clue. We are compelled to postulate the exis- 
 tence of other forces at work than those which we recog- 
 nise in the production of other and ordinary literature. 
 Even if in such writings as Virgil's Pollio and the second 
 book of Plato's Kepublic we can detect traces of somewhat 
 similar elements, yet the clearness, the defmiteness, and 
 the extent and multiplicity of those which are found in 
 the Old Testament, are sufficient to distinguish it very 
 widely from the whole of classical literature. There is no 
 doubt that the books of the Old Testament, as a whole, 
 are distinguished from all other literature, no less by their 
 contents than they are by their character and style. And 
 their contents may be briefly summed up and expressed 
 in one word by the conception or doctrine of a coming 
 Messiah. 
 
 If, therefore, the existence and the highly exceptional 
 features of this doctrine or conception cannot be traced 
 back or assigned to any natural origin, it is itself an 
 evidence so far of an origin other than natural, an indica- 
 tion and presumptive proof of an external and Divine 
 communication having been made to man. For if other- 
 wise, not only must the natural origin of this doctrine be 
 clearly discoverable, but the actual features of its mani- 
 festation must be clearly explicable on natural principles ; 
 which they are not. 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 141 
 
 Having, however, thus far reviewed the materials from 
 which alone the conception of a coming Messiah could 
 have been derived, we have next to consider the way in 
 which, as a matter of historic fact, the proclamation that 
 He had come was spread abroad. After the completion of 
 the books of the Old Testament, whenever that took place, 
 it does not appear that any elements of importance were 
 added to the existing conception of a Messiah. That con- 
 ception was undoubtedly to a great degree vague and 
 indefinite. The predominant and favourite idea was that 
 unquestionably of a victorious king. The subject condition 
 of the people under the Koman sway would naturally cause 
 them to cling to that idea with fond tenacity. The foreign 
 oppression made them long for a deliverer, made them 
 cherish their recollections of the past of David's throne, 
 and indulge the ancient hope of one who was to sit thereon. 
 
 But it is not to be denied that there were also vague 
 impressions of suffering and death associated with the 
 notion of a Messiah. The distinct assertion of Daniel 
 that the Prince Messiah should be cut off, would alone and 
 of itself account for these. And we can see for ourselves 
 the kind of confirmation they would receive from other 
 parts of the literature. The natural result of these con- 
 flicting ideas would be the notion which certainly prevailed 
 to some extent among the people, of two Messiahs : if that 
 was rejected, the only solution would be that the same 
 Messiah was to suffer and to reign. 
 
 Such were the materials which were in existence when 
 the son of Zacharias came preaching the baptism of re- 
 pentance in the wilderness of Judaea, and declaring himself 
 the forerunner of One whose shoe-latchet he was not 
 worthy to unloose. There is no reason whatever to doubt 
 that this was the first movement in that mighty chain of 
 convulsive revolutions which stirred the heart of the Jew- 
 ish nation towards the close of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. 
 
142 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 After the lapse of upwards of four centuries, a remarkable 
 person had appeared, who seemed to aim at the restoration 
 of the prophetic office, and to emulate in himself the 
 traditional characteristics of Elijah. Unquestionably this 
 was done by him with special reference to the writings of 
 Malachi. He is said to have described himself as the voice 
 of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the 
 Lord, quoting words of Isaiah which were obviously in 
 the mind of Malachi when he wrote about the messenger of 
 the Lord of hosts who should prepare His way before Him, 
 and of sending Elijah the prophet before the coming of the 
 great and dreadful day of the Lord. 
 
 The way, then, in w^hich John fulfilled his mission is 
 itself a proof of the kind of anticipation which had either 
 been created by the prophets or was capable of being 
 created by an appeal to them. They were regarded as the 
 bearers of a message which waited for its fulfilment. It 
 was not supposed that the actual circumstances of their 
 time had exhausted all the meaning of their language. It 
 was a fact that expectations had been aroused by them, and 
 these expectations were a reality which could be turned to 
 account as they were by John the Baptist. While, however, 
 this was the case, John does not seem to have encouraged 
 the popular notion that a powerful ruler was about to appear. 
 The key-note of his preaching was repentance; the most 
 conspicuous feature of his character was austerity. The 
 movement he originated was purely moral, and in no sense 
 political. The kingdom to which he referred was not that of 
 Herod or Tiberius, but the kingdom of God. This particular 
 phrase, also, which was characteristic of his teaching, was 
 without doubt not original with him, but a reminiscence of 
 the old prophetic teaching, and showed more especially a 
 reversion to the language of Daniel, without which it is 
 hardly to be understood. That prophet had said that the 
 God of Heaven should set up a kingdom., which should 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 143 
 
 never be destroyed but stand for ever; 1 and of the Son of 
 man, whom he saw in the night visions, he had said that 
 there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, 
 that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him ; 
 that His dominion was an everlasting dominion, which should 
 not pass away, and His kingdom that which should not be 
 destroyed. 2 
 
 There can be no question that this figure and language 
 was adopted by John, and that he believed his own time to 
 be cast on the eve of the establishment of this kingdom ; 
 but he does not appear to have conceived of it as earthly 
 or as the rival of other kingdoms already in existence. 
 Certainly he took no steps to prepare for any such kingdom, 
 though he believed he was preparing the way before the 
 Lord by the preaching of the baptism of repentance for 
 the remission of sins. 
 
 While, however, he bore his testimony to Jesus, he seems, 
 at all events latterly, to have had misgivings about Him ; 
 and he certainly died without seeing the advent of that 
 kingdom which he had proclaimed as near. 
 
 His career, however, had produced certain results. It 
 must have had the effect of resuscitating the popular faith 
 in the promises of the ancient prophets. For a long time 
 that faith had languished ; it now revived with unusual 
 vigour, so much so that all men mused in their hearts of 
 John whether he were the Christ or not. s He declared, 
 however, that he was not the Christ, but that he was sent 
 before Him. The preaching of John, then, had had the 
 effect of raising men's minds to the very verge of im- 
 mediate expectation. It had also the further effect of 
 warning men that the kingdom which they expected could 
 only be prepared for by a moral reformation. As it had 
 been said of the coming Elijah that he should turn the 
 heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the 
 
 1 Dan. ii. 44. 2 vii. 14. 3 St. Luke iii. 15. 
 
144 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 children to their fathers, so the mission of John was 
 directed to the moral regeneration of society. This, how- 
 ever, he distinctly declared himself unable to complete; 
 it was to be the work of the " one greater Man " who was 
 to come. 
 
 I think, then, we may fairly say that the character of 
 John the Baptist as drawn by the Evangelists is not one 
 that could have been constructed out of the materials 
 already existing in Isaiah and Malachi. No pondering 
 over the obscure language of these prophets could have 
 resulted in such a picture as the Gospel -writers have 
 delineated. And if, availing themselves of the foundation 
 of fact that was ready to hand, they coloured it to suit 
 their own purposes, they did not bring it more into har- 
 mony with the original as sketched by the prophets. In 
 fact, their own portrait of the Baptist was an original of 
 itself. As a fabrication it was no counterpart to the 
 shadowy outline of the prophets. It was therefore drawn 
 from the life, or it was nothing. 
 
 But if we take the character of John as presented in 
 the Gospels to be a true representation of an historical 
 personage, it is not at all more easy to understand how 
 it could have been designedly produced upon the model 
 already existing. To suppose that John deliberately set 
 himself down to mark out for himself a career that should 
 have the effect of corresponding with what had been writ- 
 ten of the messenger of the Lord, -is in the highest degree 
 improbable. Even if so, his character had all the merit of 
 profound originality. And, therefore, as it could not have 
 been naturally created by an effort of the personal will out 
 of the slender materials to be gathered from the prophets, 
 the character of John can only be regarded as an inde- 
 pendent and spontaneous creation of history; and any 
 correspondence it may have with the prophetical portrait 
 of the messenger of the Lord must be judged simply on 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 145 
 
 its own merits, and cannot be ascribed, on the one hand, to 
 the deliberate intention of John, or, on the other, to the 
 constructive literary skill of the Evangelists. 
 
 And if this is true of the very first character we meet 
 with in the Gospel history, it becomes so in a far higher 
 degree of the great character of all. The only reasonable 
 theory of that history, if it is not accepted as a trustworthy 
 record of fact, is that the writers were supplied with a 
 remarkable character in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, 
 and that they designedly moulded their representation of 
 His character in such a way as to make it appear to be the 
 historical counterpart of the prophetic Messiah. 
 
 To estimate the probability of this being the case, we 
 must carefully remember the materials which they had 
 ready to hand. These were the dreams of th& prophets, on 
 which rested the ancient but apparently the long-forgotten 
 hope of an heir to the house of David. As that family 
 was now in a very prostrate condition, it was apparently 
 quite hopeless that it should again emerge to power. If 
 David's family was ever to rule again, there was no visible 
 or immediate prospect of its ruling. 
 
 But on this point, if on any, the ancient prophets were 
 with one voice unanimous. That rule, however, was uni- 
 formly depicted in the prophetic language with the adjuncts 
 of worldly glory and material splendour. Kings were to be 
 smitten to the earth beneath the iron rod of the avenging 4 
 King. Gold and silver were to be brought in abundance 
 to adorn the footstool of his throne. 5 All the regal gar- 
 ments were to smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia, out of the 
 ivory palaces. 6 A very unpromising subject that of Jesus 
 of Nazareth out of which to construct a portrait which was 
 to be accepted as the counterpart of this. But these were 
 the materials with which the Gospel-writers had to work. 
 Like the Egyptian bondsmen of old, they were reduced to 
 
 * Ps. ii. 9. 3 Is. Ix. 17, 13. 6 Ps. xlv. 8. 
 
 L 
 
146 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 the necessity of making bricks without straw. But how 
 this was to be done might have taxed a finer ingenuity 
 than theirs. 
 
 And it must be remembered that all the knowledge we 
 possess of the origin of that movement which is associated 
 with the name of Jesus Christ, is comprised in the Gospels. 
 If they are not actually the earliest Christian writings, 
 they at least profess to deal with a time anterior to any 
 other compositions, epistolary or narrative. Whether or 
 not, therefore, they are to be taken exactly as we find them, 
 they are absolutely the only sources from which we can 
 derive our information. And while in endeavouring to 
 form an entirely dispassionate judgment, we may justly be 
 required to reject everything of a supernatural or miracu- 
 lous character, there are certain natural features inseparable 
 from the narrative which we are bound to accept. And 
 among these are the claims advanced by Jesus to be the 
 Messiah, and the way in which He advanced them, or is 
 said to have advanced them. 
 
 It is obvious therefore that the only materials that Jesus 
 himself or the Evangelists had to work with in advancing 
 these claims were the writings of the prophets, the national 
 expectations derived from them, and the movement origin- 
 ated by John the Baptist. There is no reason to doubt 
 that the preaching of Jesus commenced before that of John 
 had come to an end, or at all events before the death of 
 John. 7 Early Christian tradition, which we need not 
 hesitate to accept, places but a difference of six months 
 between their respective ages. Each of the Gospels 
 represents the ministry of Jesus as immediately connected 
 with that of John. The fourth Gospel seems to hint at a 
 kind of rivalry as from the first subsisting between the 
 disciples of John and of Jesus a rivalry, however, which 
 
 ^ St. John iii. 24. St. Matt. xiv. 10. St. Mark vi. 27. St. Luke iii. 20. 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 147 
 
 elicited some of the noblest features of John's character, 
 and which was certainly not encouraged by Jesus. 8 
 
 One of the first questions, then, which suggest themselves 
 in considering this portion of the narrative is how far what 
 we may call the idea of Jesus was derived from that of 
 John. All the Evangelists agree in representing Jesus to 
 have been baptised by John, 9 and to have had a special 
 designation of his career given him at that moment. And 
 they declare unanimously that John was the first to 
 acknowledge this. It was indeed essential to the part 
 which John may be supposed to have assumed that he 
 should point out his great Successor. But after he had 
 done this it was clearly open to his successor how He 
 should determine His own career. It is not a little 
 remarkable that He should have adopted from the first the 
 very language of John, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven 
 is at hand. But having begun from the same point, He 
 had before Him a totally independent and a far more 
 difficult course to fulfil than that of John. 
 
 But if the conception of John was original, it was also 
 unaccountable that he should have chosen the particular 
 character he did. With the two characters of Christ and 
 His forerunner both before him, why should he have chosen 
 the forerunner's instead of Christ's ? And yet there is no 
 evidence that these two characters were ever reversed, or 
 that the relative positions of John and Jesus were ever 
 different. And from what we know of John it is certain 
 that his character would never have supplied the materials 
 for a counterpart of the prophetic Messiah, while, according 
 to the testimony of all the Gospels, he expressly disclaimed 
 that office. 
 
 It must be confessed, then, that Jesus when He entered 
 on His career had before Him a task of no ordinary magni- 
 
 8 St. John iii. 25 ; iv. 3. 
 
 9 St. John implies this, i. 31, 33. 
 
148 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 tude and difficulty, if from the first He intended to propose 
 Himself as the Messiah. What is the evidence that he 
 had this intention ? The ministry and career of John the 
 Baptist. 
 
 We know very little of John if he did not profess to be 
 the forerunner of Christ, and there is sufficient evidence 
 that Jesus regarded John and taught others to regard him 
 in that capacity. With this evidence before us we cannot 
 say that the distinctive character of John was one assigned 
 to him only by the Evangelists. We must assume that 
 he claimed to fulfil this office, and that from a very early 
 period of his ministry Jesus acknowledged him in it. But 
 if so, the Messianic character of Jesus was a conception 
 present to His mind from the beginning of His ministry. 
 It did not first dawn upon Him in consequence of unex- 
 pected success. It was not an afterthought, but He aimed 
 at fulfilling it from the first. 
 
 For example, in the sermon on the mount He says 
 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets : 
 I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil ; l and at the same 
 time announces Himself as a greater lawgiver than Moses. 
 This from a Galilsean peasant who had been brought up 
 in obscurity is sufficiently significant of His claims, and 
 indicative of the office He assumed. In the same discourse 
 He not only gives His disciples new principles of conduct, 
 but provides for them a new model of prayer, and distinctly 
 announces Himself as the future Judge of the world as 
 well as the Saviour of mankind, whose doctrine is a sure 
 foundation. Is it possible that the Man who in one of 
 His earliest discourses made use of language such as this 
 should have felt any hesitation in His own mind as to the 
 career on which He was entering ? 
 
 It is to be observed, also, that though His preaching 
 
 i St. Matt. v. 17; xi. 10, 14; xvii. 11, 13; xxi. 23-26. St. Mark ix. 
 12, 13 ; xi. 30-32. St. Luke vii. 27; xx. 4-6. St. John v. 32-35. 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 149 
 
 commenced with the same key-note as John's, it at once 
 passes into a higher strain and assumes on His lips a 
 deeper significance. John had not ventured to define 
 what he meant by the kingdom of heaven ; but no sooner 
 does Jesus open His mouth than He says, Blessed are the 
 poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven? 1 What 
 a turning of things upside down was there not here 
 for those who looked for a temporal king, and what an 
 original conception for one who claimed to be the king for 
 whom they looked, or of whom the prophets had spoken, 
 but who had no other materials to work with than those 
 which were common to the multitudes and to Him ! Nor 
 is this all, for He claims to know so well the nature of 
 that of which He speaks, that He declares without hesita- 
 tion who shall respectively be called least and first in the 
 kingdom of heaven. At the same time He promulgates a 
 new name for God, which fell upon men's ears like music 
 from another world, which had never before had the same 
 significance, and is even now but feebly apprehended and 
 imperfectly understood after being repeated for more than 
 eighteen centuries that, namely, of your Father which is 
 in heaven;* while, with an eye that sees into the very 
 depth of truth, wisdom, and beauty, and a heart that can 
 pass an original interpretation upon the commonest works 
 of nature, He says of Him, that He maketh His sun to rise 
 on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and 
 on the unjust. 4 " He knows who they are whom this Father 
 which is in heaven will reward, and who they are whom 
 He will not forgive. He exhorts His disciples t0 seek first 
 this kingdom of heaven, as though it were something 
 already within their reach, and only required to be sought 
 for earnestly ; and to seek it even before food and clothing, 
 because there was a higher life which God alone could 
 supply, and because He who was mindful of the greater 
 
 3 St. Matt. v. 3. 3 v. 16. * v. 45. 
 
1 50 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 would assuredly not forget the less. He knows who they 
 are that shall enter into this kingdom, and leaves it to be 
 inferred that the determination of them rests with Him. 
 
 It is easy to see, then, that already the remarkable 
 phrase, the 'kingdom of heaven, has assumed a very different 
 meaning in the language of Jesus from that which it had 
 in the teaching of John ; and if one conception was original, 
 so was the other too. Jesus cannot have derived from John 
 the first thought of His career, the first suggestion of the 
 character He was to personate, because the method He at 
 once adopts is totally different. No language such as this 
 had ever been used by John. No pretensions similar to 
 these had ever been advanced by John. Jesus from the 
 first enters another orbit, and the circle he describes differs 
 from that of John as the infinite differs from the finite. 
 
 And here there are but two courses open to us. Either 
 these were respectively the characters of John and Jesus, 
 or else they were the invention of those who wrote the 
 Gospels. If the characters of John and Jesus respectively 
 were such as they are described to have been, and if the 
 one man claimed to be the forerunner, and the other the 
 Messiah, then we know exactly the kind of foundation 
 upon which each had to build. And certainly, prior to 
 the fact, no one could have ventured to predict for either 
 the slightest prospect of success. The conception of the 
 Messianic office as it was fulfilled by Jesus was so novel, 
 and so unlike anything that had been or was likely to be 
 derived from the prophets, and welcome to the popular 
 mind, that we can only wonder at its daring originality. 
 
 If, on the other hand, these two characters were the 
 invention of the Evangelists, and were instances of the 
 way in which they misrepresented facts, then, as we have 
 no means of determining what the facts were which they 
 misrepresented, we can only estimate their misrepresenta- 
 tion as we find it. And riot only are the two portraits of 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 1 5 1 
 
 John and Jesus, as given by the Evangelists, such as we 
 cannot understand to have originated with men of the 
 stamp of the disciples of Jesus, but they are also the exact 
 opposite of what we should have expected them to construct 
 out of the writings of the prophets and the popular antici- 
 pations based thereon. 
 
 Looking at the Gospels merely as fictitious narratives 
 purporting to record the fulfilment of the prophets, we 
 have to account, first of all, for the extreme and obvious 
 dissimilarity between the prophetic ideal and the professed 
 historic fulfilment of it. And this is equally true whether 
 the claim to be the Messiah was advanced by Jesus Himself, 
 or by His followers on His behalf. 
 
 But, in order to see this more clearly, let us examine the 
 method pursued by Jesus in advancing this claim. It will 
 not be doubted that miracles were an essential part of it. 
 That Jesus professed to work miracles there can be no 
 question. This was a fundamental difference between the 
 course adopted by John and that followed by Jesus. It 
 was a conspicuous mark of the originality of the latter 
 compared with the former. It was a distinct return to the 
 method of the old prophets Elijah and Elisha. But though 
 we can see that there were passages in Isaiah 5 which might 
 have prepared men's minds for such a putting forth of the 
 Divine power, it is not in the least degree probable that 
 they would have suggested the anticipation of it. And 
 yet, from the very first, the mind of Jesus seized upon this 
 feature as an essential characteristic of the part He had 
 assumed. And he never abandoned it to the last. It is 
 not a question now of the reality of the miracles, but of 
 the fact whether or not they formed a part of His con- 
 ception of the Messianic office. And of this there can be 
 no doubt. But it is hard to say whether such a conception 
 is to be considered more probable if originating with Him 
 
 5 Isa. xxix. 18 ; xxxv. 4, 5, 6 ; xlii. 7. 
 
152 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 or with the writers of the Gospel narrative. Supposing 
 the Evangelists to have had before them the task of con- 
 structing the figure of a Messiah out of the materials 
 already existing in the Scriptures, what reason is there to 
 suppose that they would have performed it in this way, 
 and selected these particular features, by no means the 
 most prominent? 
 
 The same is to be said of the method of teaching by 
 parable so frequently adopted by Jesus. This was a method 
 of which there were but few examples in the Old Testa- 
 ment ; it was, comparatively speaking, altogether new. 
 And, taking the reason assigned for the choice of it by 
 St. Matthew, 6 we certainly cannot see either that it was 
 essential to the prophetic conception of the Messianic 
 character, or that it was a feature likely to commend itself 
 to men like the Evangelists, or those for whom they wrote. 
 And yet it was a method actually followed by Jesus, or 
 deliberately assigned to Him by those who wished to 
 represent Him as the promised Messiah. 
 
 Not less remarkable is the substance of the teaching 
 which was inculcated by Jesus. Bearing in mind that the 
 character He was to personate had to be constructed out of 
 materials already existing, or at all events to be conformed 
 naturally to them, it appears that the special prominence 
 given by Jesus to faith was not likely to suggest itself to 
 the ordinary student of the Scripture record. We pro- 
 bably find it difficult at times to justify to ourselves the 
 threefold 7 quotation of the words of Habakkuk in the 
 New Testament, TJie just shall live ~by faith, with the 
 superstructure that is reared upon it. Even the repeated 
 reference to this very passage may serve to show that the 
 doctrine based upon it was not the most conspicuous on 
 the surface of the Old Testament. But it cannot fail to 
 strike the most casual observer of our Lord's teaching that 
 6 St. Matt. xiii. 35. ? R om< . 17 . Q a i. itf. \\ . Heb. x. 38. 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 153 
 
 the inculcation of personal faith occupies perhaps the very 
 foremost place in it. What words more common on His 
 lips than Thy faith hath saved thee, and the like ? while 
 with many of His discourses it is this root-principle of 
 faith that they seem intended to develop more than any 
 other, or at least as frequently as any other. After we 
 have accepted His teaching, or at any rate been instructed 
 by it, we find it easy to discover the very same principle 
 underlying a very large portion of the Old Testament, but 
 it is He who has guided us to it ; and from this fact we 
 have to estimate the nature of the discovery in the first 
 instance, and to judge of the originality of Him who made 
 it. Surely to gather up into one root-principle the sub- 
 stantial teaching of a large portion both of Psalm and 
 Prophecy was an achievement of originality and genius 
 second only, if second, to that which could declare to 
 professed doctors of the law, that to love the Lord with 
 all the heart and to love one's neighbour as oneself were 
 the two commandments on which depended all the law 
 and the prophets. 
 
 But if such teaching as this contained in itself the 
 marks of striking originality, how much more daring and 
 hazardous was the undisguised attempt on the part of 
 Jesus to identify Himself with the ultimate object of this 
 faith ! And yet it cannot be doubted that this, and nothing 
 short of this, was in many cases the direct and expressed 
 intention of Jesus. For what other reason was the woman 
 with an issue of blood healed, but that her faith in Him 
 had made her whole ? 8 For what other reason was sight 
 given to the two blind men in the same chapter of St. 
 Matthew's Gospel, but that they believed He was able to 
 give it ? And let it be most carefully observed, that we 
 neither assume these miracles to have been actually wrought 
 by Jesus, nor that Jesus had the power to work them, but 
 
 * St. Matt. ix. 22. St. Mark v. 34. St. Luke viii. 48. 
 
154 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 only that He really did profess to work them ; or, what 
 the severest criticism cannot deny us, that the Evangelist 
 represented the man whom he would have us believe to 
 have been the Messiah as having actually wrought them, 
 and as having wrought them under these conditions. More 
 than this we do not ask, and thus much all are bound to 
 concede, that these were fair samples of the way in which 
 Jesus advanced His claim to be the Messiah, or at least of 
 the way in which that claim was advanced for Him by the 
 Evangelists. And we say that in either case the position 
 to be maintained was one of which we are able to form a 
 sufficiently correct idea. The only foundation which either 
 the one or the other had to build upon was what had been 
 written of old, and what was then cherished by the people 
 in consequence of it. And it certainly does not appear 
 that either was, or that both together were, a basis ade- 
 quate to sustain the superstructure to be reared upon it. 
 And yet we cannot doubt that it was in this manner, and 
 in this manner only, that the earliest attempts to delineate 
 the personal character and conduct of Jesus were made. 
 
 Again, it is perhaps legitimate to detect in the appoint- 
 ment of twelve apostles an indication on the part of Jesus 
 of a claim to be the founder of a new society or kingdom, 
 which is implied in the Messiahship. In it there was a 
 manifest imitation of the twelve tribes, of which the nation 
 was originally composed, and their founders. If the nation 
 was to be reconstructed, it was certainly not unnatural that 
 it should be so upon this scheme. But it nowhere appeared 
 as a characteristic of the coming Messiah that He should 
 act thus. Here, therefore, there was an original step taken 
 which was not calculated to advance the claims put forth 
 by Jesus, and which could only be interpreted as a parody 
 upon the patriarchal history, if it was not accepted accord- 
 ing to the spirit and intention of its Author. But if the 
 act of Jesus had an anterior prejudice against it, that act 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 155 
 
 becomes yet more unaccountable, not to say absurd, if re- 
 garded as the invention of the Gospel-writers. It is hard 
 to see that their case for Jesus being the Messiah would 
 be in any degree advanced by His being made to choose 
 twelve men, for the most part fishermen, and sending them 
 forth to preach. What prophecy was fulfilled by His so 
 doing? And to suppose that the object was to give the 
 imagined king the semblance of a court, and on that ground 
 to commend Him as the glorious monarch spoken of by the 
 prophets and cherished in the day-dreams of the people, is 
 simply preposterous. 
 
 The charge, also, that was given to the twelve suggests 
 at least one point in which the conception of Jesus and of 
 the Evangelists appears to have been in direct opposition 
 to the prophets. The apostles are expressly forbidden to 
 go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans, and on another 
 occasion we know that our Lord refused to hear the peti- 
 tion of an alien on the ground that He was not sent but 
 unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; whereas it 
 must have been clear to the men of that day that the 
 promise of unlimited dominion had been given to the 
 future king, and at least one passage, which must have 
 been regarded both by Jesus and His disciples as Messi- 
 anic, had said, He shall speak peace unto the heathen : and his 
 dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river 
 even to the ends of the earth. 9 Surely, then, it was a gratui- 
 tous violation of apparent Messianic characteristics, either 
 for Jesus to confine His attention so rigorously to the 
 people of His own nation, or for His biographers to repre- 
 sent Him as doing so. And yet in this same charge to the 
 twelve we have the spontaneous conviction breaking out 
 that a much wider field than Palestine lay before them : 
 And ye shall be brought before governers and kings for my 
 sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles;* to- 
 
 Zech. ix. 10. * St. Matt. x. 18. 
 
156 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 gether with a clear perception of the consequences of their 
 teaching and of His own mission : Think not that I am 
 come to send peace on earth : I came not to send peace, hut a 
 sword? 1 For a man's foes shall he they of his own household? 
 We may accept this as an indication that any such apparent 
 divergence from the path prescribed to the Messiah was 
 intentional on the part of Jesus. It was a token of con- 
 scious reserve of power. He intended His dominion to 
 be universal, but not as it might be presumed it would 
 be. He intended to rule over the Gentiles, but not till He 
 had first been rejected as king of the Jews. 
 
 And all this must be reckoned as a part of the Messianic 
 idea as it was sought to be realised by Jesus, or else as a 
 part of that idea which His disciples attributed to Him. 
 And in either case it does not fit in well with those 
 materials which we know were then in existence, out of 
 which, and of which alone, it was possible for it to have 
 been originated. 
 
 There are, moreover, other points which appear to have 
 been present to the mind of Jesus as an integral part of 
 His plan, if not from the very first, at least from a very 
 early period. The first of these was His own death. No 
 wise man can ever be unmindful of death and bear with 
 me, brethren, if I pause for a moment to ask, Have not we 
 here, as well as the world of science at large, been reminded 
 but now of the ever solemn, but, to the believing Christian, 
 the never awful nearness of death, even in the midst of 
 ease, honour, and usefulness, by the lamentable accident 
 of Thursday last, which has deprived this university of 
 one of her brightest ornaments, 4 and united her in what 
 was so recently to both an equal sorrow with the sister 
 university 5 of this land and with the younger 6 but kindred 
 
 2 St. Matt. x. 34. 3 x. 36. 4 John Phillips died April 24, 1874. 
 
 5 Adam Sedgwick died Jan. 27, 1873. 
 
 6 Louis J. R. Agassiz died Dec. 14, 1873. 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 157 
 
 institution of a distant hemisphere ? Verily we have 
 cause to pray, So teach us to number our days that we may 
 apply our hearts unto wisdom, for the wise man is ever 
 mindful of death and therefore we need not wonder if 
 we find allusions to His own death in the recorded words 
 of Jesus. But the allusions we do find are of a very 
 different character from these. Even the beatitudes in the 
 Sermon on the Mount contained an ominous foreboding 
 of persecution for His sake; 7 and in the charge to the 
 twelve already mentioned we find the yet more remarkable 
 words, He that taketh not his cross and followeth after me 
 is not worthy of me? Indeed, the greater portion of that 
 address is a solemn and unambiguous warning not to 
 be dismayed at persecution. If it was merely put into 
 the mouth of Jesus by the writer, even then it must be 
 reckoned as part of the writer's conception of the Messiah, 
 and it is an indication of the consistent development of 
 his plan from the first. He did not suddenly pause in his 
 career and change his course, but held on steadily, knowing 
 when he started what the goal was to be and the way to 
 reach it. When the disciples of the imprisoned John 
 came to Jesus to ask whether He was the Messiah, the 
 answer given was an appeal to certain language of Isaiah, 
 which spoke of the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, and the 
 like, coupled with the admonitory benediction : Blessed is 
 he, whosoever shall not le offended in me. 9 This not only 
 showed the idea which Jesus had formed of the Messiah's 
 office, but the kind of fate He anticipated for Himself. 
 Shortly after we read of the Pharisees holding a council 
 how they might destroy Him, 1 and of Jesus withdrawing 
 Himself and charging the multitudes not to make Him 
 known. This appears to the writer to be a fulfilment of 
 other language of the prophet, but it is such as could 
 
 7 St. Matt. v. 10, 11. e x. 3 8 . 
 
 9 St. Matt. xi. 6. * xii. 14. 
 
158 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 hardly have suggested itself spontaneously to him if he 
 were inventing his portrait of the Christ, and it would 
 have been unlikely to commend itself to those who 
 expected the advent of a powerful king. 
 
 It appears, however, according to him, that shortly after- 
 wards the question was actually raised, Is not this the son 
 of David ? 2 And there can be little doubt that this ques- 
 tion was debated in our Lord's lifetime. We may fairly 
 ask, therefore, If it was, why was it ? For, considering the 
 mean origin of Jesus, and the unpromising circumstances 
 of His position, there appears to have been no adequate 
 cause for any such question to be raised, unless the 
 surroundings of His character were not altogether unlike 
 those assigned to Him by the Evangelists. But if men 
 really did ask this question, it can only have been in 
 consequence of the teaching of John, and the teaching of 
 Jesus about Himself, and the works wrought by Jesus: 
 it cannot have been because of the striking external 
 resemblance between the person of Jesus and the descrip- 
 tions given by the prophets of the Messiah. Unless, 
 therefore, we can actually disprove the fact of this question 
 having been asked, it may surely be taken as an incidental 
 corroboration of a considerable part of the Gospel narrative. 
 Jesus did profess to be the Christ : He did profess to work 
 miracles : His claims to be the Christ were advanced, and 
 were to a certain extent admitted, notwithstanding the 
 many outward difficulties in the way of any such admission. 
 Surely no treatment of the Gospel history can demur to 
 these inferences being drawn from its broad and general 
 tenor. 
 
 There appears, however, to have been a point in the 
 
 career of Jesus when His allusions to His own death 
 
 became more explicit and distinct, and this was after what 
 
 is called His transfiguration. According to the first Gospel, 
 
 a St. Matt. xii. 14. 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 159 
 
 He had twice 3 before that event spoken of taking up the 
 cross and following Him, so we cannot regard it as a new 
 idea; but as the three chosen disciples came down from 
 the mountain of vision, He said plainly, after speaking of 
 the death of John, whom He called Elijah, Likewise also 
 shall the Son of man suffer of them* It is true that we 
 are forbidden to regard any of these expressions otherwise 
 than as natural forecastings of the future by one who 
 could shrewdly interpret the present; but if spoken by 
 Jesus they show clearly that He had counted the cost of 
 the part He had chosen, and that the notion of death, and 
 apparently of violent death, entered into His conception of 
 that part. At all events, it is plain that this was the notion 
 which the Evangelists had formed of the Messiah's career 
 before they wrote. 
 
 Shortly afterwards we find Him speaking more definitely: 
 The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men : 
 and they shall kill him. 5 Here then we have the two ideas 
 of betrayal and of violent death. It is not hard to see that 
 each of these ideas could be sustained by reference to 
 Scripture ; but the question is whether either of them, and 
 certainly that of betrayal, was one which was likely to 
 suggest itself, as a necessary element in the Messianic 
 character, to any one who was bent upon finding a 
 counterpart, imaginary or real, to that character as it 
 existed in prophecy, or upon combining the various ele- 
 ments of it scattered throughout the Scriptures. And the 
 most natural, not to say the only possible, answer, is that 
 prior to the fact it was in the highest degree improbable. 
 
 This forewarning of betrayal and death was repeated 
 with additional particulars on the way up to Jerusalem 
 before the last passover, when Jesus said, The Son of man 
 shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, 
 and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him 
 
 3 St. Matt. x. 38 ; xvi. 24. 4 xvii. 12. 5 xvii. 23. 
 
160 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 to the Gentiles, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: 6 
 and immediately afterwards He said to James and John 
 that the Son of man had come to give his life a ransom, for 
 many ; 7 declaring not only the fact, but assigning a reason 
 for the fact. We find once or twice subsequently an indi- 
 cation of the same ideas of betrayal and of violent death 
 pervading the language and the mind of Jesus ; so that we 
 are warranted in saying that if this was not His own 
 original conception of the part He had assumed, it was at 
 all events regarded by the Evangelists as essential to that 
 part, not only that He should die and be betrayed, but 
 should foretell His betrayal and His death. We lay no 
 stress upon the prediction, except so far as it seems to have 
 been inherent in the plan of the Evangelists. 
 
 Before, however, we can form a complete conception of 
 their plan, there is at least one other important point which 
 requires to be noticed, and this is the idea of resurrection, 
 and of resurrection within a definite and given time. 
 Following for the present St. Matthew's narrative, we 
 find the first indication of this thought as early as 
 the twelfth chapter, when, in answer to the Scribes 
 and Pharisees who sought a sign of Him, Jesus said, 
 no sign but that of the prophet Jonas should be given 
 to the men of that generation; for as he was three 
 days and three nights in the whale's belly, so the Son 
 of man should be three days and three nights in the 
 heart of the earth ; and implied that His own deliverance 
 should be greater than that of Jonas. 8 Again in the 
 sixteenth chapter He repeats the same sign. 9 We are 
 shortly afterwards told that from the time of Peter's con- 
 fession of Him as the Christ, He began to show unto His 
 disciples that He must suffer, and be killed, and be raised 
 again the third day. 3 Again, after His transfiguration, 
 
 6 St. Matt. xx. 18, 19. ' xx. 28. 
 
 8 St. Matt. xii. 40, 41. 9 xvi. 4. * xvi. 21. 
 
v] The Christ of the Gospels. 161 
 
 He charges the three disciples to tell the vision to no man, 
 until the Son of man be risen again from the dead ; 2 and 
 once more, shortly afterwards, He says again, And they 
 shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. 3 
 In the twentieth chapter, as they were going up to Jeru- 
 salem, He says once more, And the third day he shall rise 
 again. 4 " And at the last supper He tells His disciples, 
 After I am risen again, I will go before you into G-alilee? 
 That is to say, according to the first Gospel, there were 
 seven distinct references to a rising again from the dead, 
 during the lifetime of Jesus, to which we must add, from 
 the same source, the testimony of the two false witnesses, 
 that He had said, / am able to destroy the temple of God, 
 and to build it in three days, 6 and the taunt based on this 
 expression with which He was reproached upon the cross, 
 together with the application made by the chief priests and 
 Pharisees to Pilate, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, 
 while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. 7 
 All this, it must be borne in mind, is in addition to the 
 Evangelist's own narrative of the actual resurrection of 
 Jesus from the dead. We are surely justified in saying, 
 then, that, supposing the Evangelist to have sat down with 
 the intention of representing his master as the Christ, he 
 had conceived the notion that it was indispensable He 
 should rise from the dead, and rise from the dead the third 
 day, in order that His character and history might corre- 
 spond the more accurately with what had been written of 
 it in the Scriptures. 
 
 But where was there anything written of it in the 
 Scriptures, which, prior to the invention of the story, 
 could by any possibility have suggested the invention of 
 it? So much so is this a fair and reasonable question, 
 that it is not seldom, I fancy, difficult for us to harmonise 
 
 2 St. Matt. xvii. 9. 3 xvii. 23. 4 xx. 19. 
 
 5 xxvi. 32. 6 xxvi. 61. 7 xxvii. 40, 63. 
 
 M 
 
1 62 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 our theories of Scripture and its fulfilment with what is 
 stated on this subject in the apostolical writings. Our 
 difficulty rather is to determine whether, and to what 
 extent, there was any properly so called fulfilment of the 
 several passages in the Old Testament which are applied 
 to the Lord's resurrection in the New. Our tendency is to 
 vindicate the words of David and others from any possible 
 direct reference to, if not from any legitimate bearing on, 
 the subject. We find it somewhat of an onerous task to 
 save the credit of the apostles in their treatment of these 
 Scriptures, and feel that we can only do it by an elastic 
 use of the Psalms and Prophets. But to whatsoever extent 
 this is the case and it certainly is so sometimes and to 
 some extent precisely to the same extent is it a measure 
 of the likelihood there was of such Scriptures becoming to 
 such men the suggestive origin of the story they propa- 
 gated. And yet it is obvious that, short of the fact, they 
 not only had, but could have had, no materials out of 
 which to construct such a story but these very Scriptures 
 themselves. 
 
 The Evangelists were men who were, first of all, con- 
 cerned to make their portrait of Jesus of Nazareth cor- 
 respond outwardly and in detail with that which they 
 found in the Jewish Scriptures of the Messiah. It is not 
 too much to say, that if death was one of the features that 
 might have occurred .to the minds of attentive students as 
 essential to that character, it was absolutely impossible 
 that resurrection from the dead the third day should have 
 done so. But this we find consistently and unvaryingly 
 to have been the case notably so with the synoptical 
 Evangelists; manifestly so with St. John likewise. It 
 was indispensable to the notion they had formed of the 
 Messiah when they sat down to write, 8 that He should 
 
 8 It is hardly needful to observe that this position is independent of 
 the question, who may have written the Gospels whether they were the 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 163 
 
 suffer and die, and rise again from the dead the third day. 
 However their several narratives may vary, they do not 
 vary in these respects. For some cause or other they had 
 learnt to interpret the ancient Scriptures thus. There was 
 and could be no question as to the verdict of these Scrip- 
 tures. All men knew, or could ascertain with sufficient 
 accuracy, what was written in these Scriptures. To those 
 who agreed with and to those who differed from themselves 
 they were a recognisable standard of appeal. If the cor- 
 respondence they alleged did exist, it was at least remark- 
 able; if it did not, the idea could be at once rejected. 
 Every one knew and was capable of appreciating the broad 
 merits of the case. One thing we can see and determine 
 for ourselves that it was absolutely impossible, or at least 
 in the highest degree unlikely, that these existing Scrip- 
 tures should have suggested the invention of the story of 
 Jesus to the Evangelists, if it was an invention. 
 
 The next point, therefore, that we have to determine 
 is the probability of the main features of the history of 
 Jesus, supposing them to have occurred as they no doubt 
 did, having suggested to the Evangelists the parallel they 
 drew between His character and history and the prophetic 
 portraiture. And here it must be observed, that we must 
 leave out altogether the incident of His resurrection, be- 
 cause, if that was a fact, it changes at once the whole 
 character of the argument. On this hypothesis we are 
 bound to assume that the incident of the resurrection 
 was the imaginary creation of the Evangelists. Whatever 
 accident, in fact, may have suggested it, the only Messianic 
 materials they had to work upon, with which it must be 
 made to correspond, were a few scattered and obscure 
 
 premeditated productions of the men whose names they bear, or the 
 spontaneous accretion of accumulated Christian tradition, as some would 
 have us suppose. In the latter case the phenomena presented would he 
 virtually miraculous ; in the former they would be fairly open to the 
 observations in the text, whether the actual writers were known or not. 
 
164 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 allusions in the Psalms and Prophets. And here the 
 improbability is precisely as great as it was before, that 
 the narrative of the prophet Jonas should have suggested 
 to four independent writers, or, regarding the synoptics as 
 essentially one, to even two writers so independent as 
 they and St. John must be considered, the story of the 
 Lord's resurrection the third day. And yet, if we except 
 some obscure words in the prophet Hosea, 9 there is no 
 other Scripture authority or allusion to which its origin 
 can possibly be referred. And yet that origin must, from 
 the nature of the case, be distinctly traceable to Scripture 
 as the only source from which the suggestion could have 
 been derived. 
 
 The same may, to a great extent, be said of the tri- 
 umphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, of His being 
 ordained as the future judge of the world, of His being 
 crucified with two thieves, of His raiment being parted 
 by the soldiers, and the like, about which the several 
 Evangelists are agreed, or at all events are not at variance. 
 If there was not something, in fact, answering to these 
 various circumstances, there was unquestionably not suf- 
 ficient in any of the several Scriptures, or in all of them 
 combined, to suggest the invention of the incidents to the 
 writers. For what was there to guide them to the com- 
 bination or selection of these several Scriptures ? 
 
 And certainly, in the case of Jesus Himself, it was 
 manifestly out of and beyond His power as a man to bring 
 about the correspondence alleged between some of these 
 incidents and the Scriptures to which they are referred; 
 as, for example, His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the 
 parting of His raiment, the piercing of His side, and the 
 like. 
 
 We are constrained, therefore, to treat these and similar 
 incidents as if they were the mere invention of the Gospel- 
 9 Hosea vi. 2. 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 165 
 
 writers, and not part of the original plan of Jesus. And, 
 treating them thus, we are at liberty, nay rather we are 
 bound, to ask, Is it possible that the Scriptures alone before, 
 that is to say without the facts, could have suggested the 
 narrative of the facts ? And is it possible that to this 
 question there can be in the mind of any fair and unbiassed 
 critic or student any answer but one ? 
 
 If, therefore, looking at the matter in this light, we may 
 assume the several incidents to have been facts, the further 
 question is not unreasonable, and occurs naturally, Is it 
 likely that, supposing the incidents to have taken place in 
 succession, the correspondence between them and the Scrip- 
 tures would have immediately suggested itself to the minds 
 of the disciples ? And I think we must answer No. St. 
 John does indeed tell us, with reference to the resurrection, 
 that their slowness to believe it arose from the fact that as 
 yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from 
 the dead. 1 We involuntarily ask What Scripture ? and we 
 may rest assured that a remark like this was not thrown in 
 to give a greater appearance of consistency or of natural- 
 ness to the conduct of the disciples, but was expressive of 
 their real attitude of mind on many similar occasions. It 
 was not before the fact that the similarity suggested itself, 
 it was not immediately after the fact even that it at once 
 occurred to them. The fact, therefore, was not created by 
 the similarity, but much more the similarity by the fact. 
 But when the full effect of the combined whole was borne 
 in upon their minds by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, 
 then and then only it was seen, in the light of His presence, 
 that there was an inexplicable harmony between the con- 
 nected whole of their Master's life, the incidents of His 
 personal history, and the majesty of His Divine character, 
 and the portrait sketched generations and ages before by 
 many writers in various times and under varying circum- 
 
 1 St. John xx. 9. 
 
1 66 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 stances, which forcibly brought home the conviction to 
 their minds that the Jesus whom they had known and 
 served and loved was in truth the promised Messiah. 
 
 Let it then be clearly understood what is the position 
 we desire to assume, and what are the conclusions we 
 would base upon it. There is and can be no question that 
 at and before the time of our Lord a Christ of some kind 
 was anticipated solely in consequence of the popular in- 
 terpretation passed upon the Scriptures. Prior, however, 
 to the fact of His appearance, not only had no such Christ 
 been anticipated, but it was impossible to anticipate such 
 a Christ as He is represented to have been. Either, there- 
 fore, there must have been a substantial basis of historical 
 truth in the Gospel representation of the Christ, or else 
 it must have been an imaginary creation. If it was an 
 imaginary creation, then the only materials out of which it 
 was possible for the Evangelists to create it are before us, 
 as they were before them and before the men of their time. 
 We know, however, that there is no trace of any such con- 
 ception having been in existence, and we are competent 
 judges of the actual impossibility there was of this con- 
 ception being created out of the materials that did exist. 
 
 To take, for example, one single instance. St. Matthew 
 alone of the Evangelists records the slaughter of the chil- 
 dren at Bethlehem, nor is it mentioned by Josephus or any 
 other historian of the age. We have it therefore solely on 
 the authority of St. Matthew; but he apparently records 
 it for the sake of pointing out the correspondence between 
 it and a certain prophecy of Jeremiah, which is no doubt 
 extremely slender. If, therefore, the writer invented this 
 story, he must have done so for the sake of this very slender 
 correspondence, and for no other imaginable reason. Surely 
 then we are not incapable of returning an answer to the 
 question, Was it possible, prior to the fact related, that the 
 mere existence of these words in Jeremiah should have 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 167 
 
 suggested even to the imagination of St. Matthew the 
 invention of the story he relates ? Given the occurrence 
 of the fact, one can partly understand the application of 
 the prophecy suggesting itself, but one cannot understand 
 the prophecy alone giving occasion to the invention of the 
 alleged fact. It is at least reasonable to ask, Is it more 
 probable that the story should be true, or that it should 
 have originated in this way ? For it could have originated 
 in no other. 
 
 And it is the same with the great bulk of the Scriptures 
 which are alleged to have been fulfilled in the Christ of 
 the Evangelists. We are constrained, therefore, to reject 
 the notion that the Christ whom they depicted was an 
 imaginary creation of their own, and are thrown back upon 
 the conviction that there was a substantial basis of his- 
 torical truth in their representation of the Christ. And, 
 as a matter of fact, this substantial basis of historical 
 truth cannot be doubted. 
 
 Given, then, this undeniable foundation of fact in the 
 Evangelists, the question next arises, How much of their 
 narrative is true ? And here we must of course reject 
 everything of a supernatural character, however we may 
 account for it consistently with their general reputation 
 for truth, which it is difficult to disallow. It must be 
 granted, for example, that we know nothing of the charac- 
 ter and life of Jesus of Nazareth except what is fairly 
 deducible from the Gospel narrative. The teaching of 
 Jesus Christ either was what it is represented to have been 
 in the first three Gospels, or this is how the writers of those 
 Gospels conceived of it. In the latter case, they must be 
 allowed the credit of whatever estimate is formed of that 
 teaching. On the same principle, moreover, we cannot 
 doubt the main facts of the history of Jesus; as, for 
 instance, His birth of humble parentage, the comparative 
 seclusion of His early years, the brief duration of His 
 
1 68 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. 
 
 ministry, the general character of it, the purpose and aim 
 of His conduct, the opposition it excited, the effect it 
 produced, the manner in which the crisis was precipitated, 
 the circumstances of His death and burial, the incidents 
 which were believed to have followed it. Of all this we 
 know nothing, but what may legitimately be drawn from 
 the Gospel narrative, just as we should arrive at a conclu- 
 sion about facts from any other narrative. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that this narrative may legitimately 
 be suffered to bear witness to itself in its unmiraculous 
 parts, wherever coincidences can be discovered which can- 
 not be referred to design, or whenever statements are made 
 for which no hidden motive can be detected. And when- 
 ever, as in the case already referred to, no motive can be 
 detected but a desire to make the narrative correspond 
 with prophecy, we may fairly compare the antecedent 
 improbability of the fact with the improbability of the 
 particular fact under the circumstances having been sug- 
 gested merely by the prophecy. 
 
 For example, is it more likely that Hosea's words, "I 
 called my son out of Egypt," should have suggested to 
 St. Matthew the narrative of the descent into Egypt, or 
 that that descent should really have occurred ? Is it more 
 likely that St. John's narrative of the piercing of the side 
 should have been suggested by the words in Zechariah, or 
 that the side should really have been pierced ? And then, 
 when this comparison in isolated instances is found to 
 preponderate largely in favour of the events related, we 
 are in a better position to estimate rightly the cumulative 
 effect of the whole combined. There can be no question, 
 for example, as to the betrayal and death of Jesus Christ. 
 There can be no question that what is alleged to have been 
 said of those events in the Prophets was insufficient to 
 suggest their occurrence to the minds of the Evangelists. 
 There is no question that they could not have been brought 
 
v.] The Christ of the Gospels. 169 
 
 about by any arrangement between Jesus and His dis- 
 ciples. 
 
 We are left therefore in this position, that we have 
 before us the events as real historic occurrences of un- 
 questionable authenticity, and we have also before us the 
 passages in the Scriptures of the prophets which are 
 known to be of far higher antiquity than the narrative 
 of these events, and to which they are referred. We are 
 consequently able to judge of the degree of correspondence 
 between the two. That there is a correspondence is 
 undeniable. That what correspondence there is should 
 be the effect of previous arrangement on the part of the 
 prophets is impossible. That it should be the result of 
 the manipulation of facts on the part of the disciples is 
 likewise impossible, where there is no other ground to 
 doubt the facts, and where this correspondence is insuf- 
 ficient to have created them. The descent into Egypt, 
 the murder of the innocents, the residence at Nazareth, 
 the removal to Capernaum, the method of teaching by 
 parables, our Lord's love of retirement, His betrayal by 
 Judas, the circumstances of His death on the cross, the 
 parting of His raiment, the piercing of His side, these 
 and a hundred other things can neither singly nor collec- 
 tively have been originated by any study of the prophets, 
 nor have derived from them any significance which they 
 would not possess as facts apart from the narrative of 
 the Gospels. The correspondence between them, as it was 
 not suggested by the Prophets, so neither was it created 
 by the Evangelists. If it exists at all, and to whatever 
 degree it exists, its existence is independent of both. 
 
 And therefore the question, and the only question, for 
 us to determine is, What is the correct significance and 
 interpretation of this correspondence, being such as it is, 
 neither more nor less ? Is it a pure accident ? Is it one 
 of the freaks of chance ? Is there no meaning in it what- 
 
170 The Christ of the Gospels. [LECT. v. 
 
 ever? Is it as purposeless and as meaningless as the 
 formations of the hoar-frost on the window-pane, or the 
 marvellous combinations of the kaleidoscope ? Or is there 
 a clue to its meaning ? Does the Gospel narrative record 
 the one event in history which is the interpretation of all 
 history, and which being so, was transacted on a plan of 
 which indications had been given in the prophets and in 
 the history of their times ? Are we right in inferring the 
 existence of a purpose which began to be carried out of 
 old, and which in the fulness of the times was completed ? 
 And was it that, from the nature of the case, this purpose, 
 if it existed, could not be anticipated nor discovered till it 
 was sufficiently matured, but that when it was adequately 
 fulfilled it revealed itself? This is at least a theory which 
 would appear to be consistent with the facts, if indeed 
 there is any other by which the facts as they exist can be 
 explained. 
 
 At all events, we are warranted in saying that unless 
 there is a method more consonant with reason to be dis- 
 covered of accounting for the broad and patent Gospel 
 facts, the historic existence of the Christ -idea for ages 
 before Christ came, and the alleged realisation of that idea 
 in Him, is no slight indication of its origin, and may be 
 used as a solid foundation on which to rear the edifice we 
 have yet to build. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 THE CHRIST O'F THE ACTS. 
 
HcWes o$v edo^dcrdtja-av KOL ^eyaXvvdrjcrav, otf 81 O.VT&V, ?} r&v fyyuv avruv, 
 ?} TTJS diKeuoTrpdyias, fy Karetpyda-avro, O\\CL dia rod ^eX^/iaros avrov. Kal 
 8ta ^eX^/xaroj ai^rou tv X/)t(TTy 'If)<rov K\f]6vTes, ou SI eavrdov 5t/ccu- 
 i)5^ 5ta T^J Tj/ier^pas tro0tas, ^ truv^o'eajs, ^ eixrefieta.?, $i fyyiav, cDj/ 
 Ka.Tetpya<r<ifj,eda fv dcribT'rjTi /ca/)5tas* dXXa 5td r^s Trtcrreajs, 5t i 
 CITT' al&vos o TravTOKpdrojp 0eds tdiKaibHref y lara) -^ 56a ets roi)s otcD^as 
 v. Clem. Rom. 
 
 j' Tr/i' TrpavTrdSeiav &va\a,86vTS hvaKrivaffde eauroi^s ei' irlffTei, 8 
 <TTIV (r&pj; TOU Kvplov, Ko.1 iv tiydiry, 8 e<TTtv ai/jia. 'lyffov Xpi(TToO. Ignat. 
 ad Trull. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shelving by tlie 
 Scriptures that Jesus was Christ. ACTS xviii. 28. 
 
 TTTE have thus far been led to see that there were 
 * * undoubtedly anticipations of a coming Christ among 
 the Jewish people at and long before the commencement 
 of our era ; that these anticipations were produced by the 
 influence of the Scriptures, and by them alone ; that they 
 were more or less indefinite and probably inconsistent, but 
 that the portrait of Jesus presented in the Gospels could 
 not, by any possibility, have owed its origin to the scat- 
 tered and fragmentary sketches of a Messiah to be found 
 in the Old Testament, if for no other reason, at least for 
 this, that in many cases it is not by any means clear that 
 they referred, or were understood to refer, to a Messiah ; 
 that oftentimes, prior to the corresponding facts, there was 
 no possibility that they should be so understood ; that the 
 facts, therefore, alleged to correspond, could not have been 
 suggested by the particular Scriptures, or invented in order 
 to correspond with them ; that this is more especially the 
 case in points of minute detail, as, for example, the descent 
 into Egypt, the casting lots for the raiment, and the like ; 
 while, at the same time, though after the occurrence of these 
 and similar incidents it is conceivable that they would 
 make deep impression on the disciples' minds when viewed 
 in relation to the several Scriptures, yet it is not by any 
 means upon such minute details that the claims of Jesus 
 must ultimately rest, but much rather upon the broad and 
 
1/4 The CJirist of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 patent facts of His history, the nature and far-sighted and 
 deep-searching truth, and exquisite beauty of His teaching, 
 the purity and sublimity of His moral character, the mar- 
 vellous wisdom of His conduct, the unique circumstances 
 of His death, and the cumulative evidence, when all things 
 are considered, for His resurrection; that while, however, 
 these features of His character may be presumed to be as 
 much beyond the Evangelists' powers of invention as the 
 prophetic correspondences, it is even more improbable that 
 they should have recognised in these features the true 
 realisation of the prophetic ideal, or that such a Jesus as 
 they represented should have been the kind of Messiah 
 they would have chosen to depict ; that, in fact, it is no 
 less impossible that His character should have been the 
 outgrowth of Scriptural study, than that the minor inci- 
 dents of His history should have been suggested by the 
 language of the prophets ; and that consequently there is 
 a presumptive reason for accepting, not only His character 
 as historically true, but likewise the detailed incidents of 
 His history as real occurrences ; and that, having done so, 
 we are in a position to attach what weight we please to 
 the correspondences between the life of Jesus and the 
 several passages of Scripture in which they have been 
 traced ; but that, as we cannot deny the prior existence of 
 the Scriptures, so neither have we any valid ground for 
 rejecting the incidents as real, or for doubting antecedently 
 their possible relation to the Scriptures. 
 
 Taking, then, the Gospel portraiture of Christ as resting, 
 to a certain extent, upon the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 ment, but as a creation which it was impossible should 
 have grown out of them, and taking it also as representing 
 historically the earliest conception of the actual Christ, we 
 pass on to review another aspect of Him that, namely, 
 which is presented to us in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 And here it must be understood that we do not profess 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 175 
 
 to decide upon the relative date of this book and any one 
 or all of the Gospels. It will probably be allowed that, 
 whenever it was written, one Gospel at any rate was already 
 in existence. But what we mean is this, that whenever 
 the Acts of the Apostles and any or all of the Gospels 
 were written, the period of time described in the book of 
 the Acts was certainly subsequent to that depicted in the 
 Gospels. They represented an effort to reproduce an earlier 
 time, were intended and understood to refer to an earlier 
 time, and so far may themselves be regarded historically 
 as expressing an earlier conception of the Christ. 
 
 Again, we have no wish to assume the actual historic 
 accuracy of the Acts of the Apostles. As before, we must 
 disregard altogether its supernatural statements. But when 
 there is no deliberate motive conceivable for misrepre- 
 sentation, we may hold ourselves at liberty to acquit the 
 writer of an intention to misrepresent. 
 
 And certainly we have a right to regard this book as 
 the earliest and the only existing attempt to record the 
 history of the first years of the Christian movement. All 
 that we can ascertain of the earliest phases of Christian 
 life must be derived from this book; so that if, in its 
 broad features, we may not trust it, we are without the 
 means of arriving at any certain knowledge of the earliest 
 history of the Christian church. There is no question, 
 however, that to this, and to a much further extent, we 
 may fully trust it. 
 
 For example, this book professes to record the origin 
 and earliest fortunes of a society that was gathered together, 
 first in Palestine, and afterwards in Cyprus, Asia Minor, 
 and Greece, in consequence of the preaching of some of 
 the original disciples of Jesus, and their converts, who 
 proclaimed Him as the Messiah. In the first instance, it 
 was always the Jews to whom this proclamation was made. 
 In some cases it was made successfully, and the Jews were 
 
176 The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 baptised as believers in Jesus as the Christ, and were 
 enrolled among the members of the new society. More 
 frequently, however, the Jews manifested a determined 
 opposition to the idea that Jesus was the Christ; and 
 then the maintainers of this doctrine proclaimed it to the 
 Gentiles, and in many cases with much greater and with 
 conspicuous success. I think we may fairly say that there 
 is no misrepresentation of the matter as thus stated, and 
 not the slightest reason to doubt that the earliest known 
 development of the Christian church took place in this 
 manner, as the Acts of the Apostles leads us to suppose. 
 At all events, whenever the book was written, this was the 
 only account which the Christian church could give of its 
 own origin, or the only account which it seemed probable 
 would commend itself to the Christian society. 
 
 And there certainly is no doubt that the state of things 
 not only described in but witnessed to by the existence of 
 the Acts of the Apostles pre-supposes an earlier condition, 
 which is either that of the Gospels or such as the Gospels 
 have attempted to describe. That is to say, the Acts could 
 not have been written without the previous foundation of 
 the personal history of Jesus of Nazareth. Putting the 
 most extreme case, that the book was a pure romance, 
 its very existence pre-supposes the existence of another 
 romance, which must be that of the Gospels or like that 
 of the Gospels. It pre-supposes the existence of the 
 romance of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 It is, however, likewise impossible that the Acts of the 
 Apostles can have grown out of the Gospel narrative as 
 we now have it. Granting the existence of the four Gospels 
 as they are now, it is beyond the power of human ingenuity 
 to have constructed on their basis such a sequel as the 
 history of the Acts presents to us. There was nothing in 
 the construction or composition of these Gospels to have 
 suggested a continuation like that supplied by the Acts of 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 177 
 
 the Apostles. It expresses a conception as entirely original 
 as they are themselves. Just as it was impossible for the 
 Gospel portraiture of Christ to have been constructed out 
 of the materials supplied by the prophetic Messiah, so 
 was it impossible for the Gospel portraiture of Christ to 
 have originated the conception expressed by the Acts of 
 the Apostles. The book has therefore the weight and 
 importance, so far, of an independent witness to Christ. 
 We cannot regard the history as pure romance. No one 
 proposes to do so. In its ordinary features it is entitled to 
 the credit of ordinary history, and therefore its testimony 
 to Christ is in addition to and independent of that of the 
 Gospels, or at all events of three of them. 
 
 But if there is any statement in which we may trust 
 the writer of the Acts, it is in the fact that the early 
 disciples proclaimed Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. 
 There can be no question whatever about this. The very 
 name Christian, which attached to the early followers of 
 Jesus, and has continued to attach to their successors ever 
 since, is conclusive proof that they identified Him with 
 the promised Messiah. The very name Christianity, which 
 is our greatest glory and our highest problem now-a-days, 
 is an indissoluble bond between us and the early church 
 at Antioch, as it was between that and the known antici- 
 pations of the Jewish people and the Jewish Scriptures. 
 
 As, however, the author of the third Gospel was appa- 
 rently the author also of the Acts, there can be no question 
 as to the identity of the Jesus of the Gospels with the 
 Jesus of the Acts. And as antecedently there was no 
 reason whatever why the history of the third Gospel 
 should develop into the history of the Acts as no one 
 could have predicted or imagined beforehand, from any 
 one of the other Gospels, or from this, that such would be 
 its development there is perhaps an additional presump- 
 tion of general credibility attaching to the history of the 
 
 N 
 
178 The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 Acts and to that of the third Gospel, from the fact of the 
 same person having been the author of both. If his 
 history of the first years of the early church is generally 
 trustworthy, then the greater deference is probably due to 
 his narrative of the life of Jesus; or, at all events, we 
 know from him the conditions under which Jesus was 
 proclaimed and accepted as the Messiah, for they must 
 have been substantially those under which He is presented 
 to us in the third Gospel. 
 
 If, however, there is, as we have seen, an antecedent 
 improbability that such a general portraiture as he has 
 given should have been the invention of the writer, and 
 a yet further improbability that the history he has given 
 of Jesus should be followed by an imaginary sequel like 
 that of the Acts, or that such a sequel as that of the Acts 
 should have been developed out of it, then we may not 
 unreasonably infer that his later treatise is entitled to a 
 degree of independent consideration and deference, seeing 
 that, if not in this way, at least in some other, as a matter 
 of fact, the belief did gain ground and spread abroad that 
 the Jesus of the Gospels was the Christ. 
 
 We have to take, then, the Acts of the Apostles as the 
 earliest known record of the spread of this belief, and as 
 a record which may in the main be trusted. 
 
 And it appears from this record that the original centre 
 of the belief and the place where it was first propagated 
 was Jerusalem. There is no sufficient reason to doubt this. 
 But it is certainly very important. According to the same 
 writer, one of the last directions given by Jesus was that 
 those who were intrusted with His message were to preach 
 in His name and among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 
 Unexpectedly, and perhaps in a manner unintended by the 
 speaker and unnoticed by the writer, both conditions were 
 fulfilled at the day of Pentecost, when there were gathered 
 together and dwelling at Jerusalem devout Jews out of 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 179 
 
 every nation under heaven, as there very probably would 
 be. It was doubtless fresh in the recollection of many that 
 but six weeks before a notable execution of malefactors 
 had taken place in the city, at which a young man who 
 had achieved a remarkable notoriety in a remarkable 
 manner had met with his death, owing to the jealousy of 
 the priests in consequence of his extravagant pretensions. 
 All this, according to the writer, was distinctly stated 
 by Peter in his address on the day of Pentecost. And 
 whether or not it was stated by Peter, the facts were 
 unquestionably known and could not be disputed. 
 
 But the marvel is that there was no disposition to hide 
 them. According to the writer, they were thrown in the 
 teeth of the audience. And it must be remembered that 
 all these people had exactly those notions of the Messiah, 
 whatever they were, which were prevalent at that time, 
 and none others. They had then nothing whatever to 
 rest on but the declarations of the Scriptures, the popular 
 anticipations based on them, and whatever change of sen- 
 timent may possibly have been produced by the preaching 
 of John and the ministry of Jesus. 
 
 On this foundation, and on no other, any conviction of 
 Jesus being the Christ had to be based. The outward 
 features of His person and life were most unpromising. 
 But there is no trace of their ever having been presented 
 otherwise than as we ourselves know them. From the 
 first it was that same Jesus whom ye have crucified . . . 
 whom ye slew, having hanged him on a tree, that was 
 proclaimed as the Christ. 
 
 Nor could there be any thought more hateful to the 
 mind of a Jew than the notion of such a death. It was 
 not only unwelcome but revolting. It was most opposite 
 to all the day-dreams which they had entertained of the 
 Messiah. It struck at the root of their fondest imagina- 
 tions. And yet it is neither to be denied nor questioned 
 
i8o The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 that the earliest preaching of the disciples of which we 
 have any record was of this character ; and as a matter of 
 fact it must have been, because we know nothing of Jesus 
 Christ if we do not know that He died upon the cross. 
 
 Just, therefore, as it is impossible that the portrait of 
 Jesus presented to us in the Gospels should have been 
 created out of the materials supplied by the Old Testa- 
 ment, prior to or without the corresponding facts, so it is 
 impossible that the early success of the disciples, so far as 
 they were successful, should have been created by this 
 writer's imagination, or should have been substantially 
 other than he described it. Of its actual success we 
 shall have abundant proof hereafter: while we may be 
 sure that no one could have been admitted into the Chris- 
 tian body, or have called himself a Christian, who did not 
 believe, or profess to believe, that the Jesus who was cru- 
 cified was the Christ. By every one so calling himself He 
 was identified with the Jewish Messiah. 
 
 We may accept, then, without a particle of discredit, the 
 historian's statement that the Jesus who had been crucified 
 was proclaimed as the Messiah. The first fact of which 
 we may be certain is, that the death of Jesus on the cross 
 was an undisguised element in the preaching which declared 
 Him to be the Christ. No hesitation as to the historian's 
 veracity can go far enough to warrant us in distrusting his 
 accuracy in this respect. 
 
 But then there is another point which his narrative 
 supplies. The principal, if not the sole argument to which 
 the disciples appealed in their endeavours to exhibit Jesus 
 as the Christ was the argument from Scripture. This also 
 is a fact which it is impossible to question. The evidence 
 from the Acts of the Apostles is cumulative and very 
 strong. The appeal to Scripture is the staple of Peter's 
 argument on the day of Pentecost. To the multitudes 
 assembled in Solomon's porch he declared Those things 
 
VL] The Christ of the Acts. 181 
 
 which God before had shewed ~by the mouth of all his 
 prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 1 
 The instruction of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip was 
 based upon his knowledge and belief of the prophet 
 Isaiah. The argument from Scripture, and none other, 
 must have been that by which Saul confounded the Jews, 
 which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ? 
 At his first interview with Cornelius, Peter affirmed of 
 Jesus To him give all the prophets witness, that through 
 his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission 
 of sins. 3 At Antioch in Pisidia the argument from 
 Scripture was that which was dwelt upon by Paul the 
 convert. At Thessalonica we are told of this same Paul, 
 that he went into the synagogue of the Jews, and for three 
 Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures* 
 concerning Jesus as the Christ. The Bereans are charac- 
 terised as being more noble, or of better origin, than the 
 Thessalonians, because they not only recognised the appeal 
 to Scripture, but searched the Scriptures daily, whether 
 those things were so 5 namely, that Jesus was the prophetic 
 Messiah. The same argument must at least have been 
 included among those with which the same apostle reasoned 
 in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews at 
 Corinth; 6 and it is scarcely possible that the same argument 
 should have been altogether omitted when for a year and 
 six months he continued in that city teaching the word of 
 God, 7 apparently among the Gentiles ; or, at all events, 
 among a people composed of Jews and Gentiles. Nor can 
 it have been otherwise, when he reasoned with the Jews at 
 Ephesus, as it were by a dialectical process, bringing them 
 to book out of their own Scriptures. It was manifestly so 
 with the Jew named Apollos, lorn at Alexandria, an eloquent 
 man, and mighty in the Scriptures, who, after being instructed 
 
 1 Acts iii. 18. 2 ix. 22. 3 x. 43. 4 xvii. 2. 
 
 5 Acts xvii. 11. 6 xviii. 4. 7 xviii. 11. 
 
1 82 The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 in the way of God more perfectly, mightily convinced the Jews, 
 and that publicly, shewing ~by the Scriptures that Jesus was 
 the Christ? And lastly, before Agrippa, Paul declared 
 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this 
 day, witnessing loth to small and great, saying none other 
 things than those which the prophets and Moses did say 
 should come? 
 
 From this evidence, backed as it is by a mass of other 
 evidence to which we need not now refer, there can be no 
 question as to the fact that the argument from Scripture 
 was that mainly employed by the early disciples of Jesus. 
 The historian cannot have misled us here. Even if his 
 narrative were otherwise unhistoric, we might implicitly 
 trust it in this respect. The speeches ascribed to Peter, to 
 Philip, and to Paul, may be more or less imaginary, but 
 they cannot be wide of the truth as far as regards the 
 method of argument which the speakers adopted. 
 
 And let it not be said that it follows, as a matter of 
 course, that this would be the method adopted by men in 
 their position when arguing with Jews, for it is precisely 
 upon this undeniable fact that the weight of our own 
 argument rests. Where would have been the force of such 
 reasoning with the Jews if they could have turned round 
 upon the disciples of Jesus and replied, We have never 
 looked for the advent of any Messiah, nor did our Scrip- 
 tures ever lead us to expect one. It was precisely because 
 it was a fact so well known, and so confessedly incontro- 
 vertible, that the premises adopted by the disciples were 
 actually unassailed, and were virtually unassailable. That 
 the Jews should not have travelled with them to their 
 conclusions is easily intelligible ; but with respect to the 
 premises assumed the disciples were on common ground 
 with their opponents, and there was neither the wish nor 
 the ability to drive them from it. 
 
 8 Acts xviii. 24-28. 9 xxvi. 22. 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 183 
 
 But it is not a little strange that the argument from 
 Scripture was not by any means confined in its applica- 
 tion to the Jews. In the two specimens we have of St. 
 Paul's method of dealing with persons entirely beyond the 
 influence of Jewish teaching, as at Lystra and Athens, 
 there is of course no direct reference to Scripture, however 
 much we can discover the traces of Scriptural thought and 
 language in his addresses ; but when he is dealing with a 
 mixed assembly, or with persons who may be presumed to 
 have had some acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures, 
 no matter whether they are Jews or Gentiles, he employs 
 this argument or makes allusion to Scripture as a precious 
 and a common possession. This is evident from his own 
 Epistles, and it appears also from his speech before Festus 
 and Agrippa. And in fact it was not possible that the 
 appeal to Scripture should be omitted from any connected 
 scheme of Christian instruction, because it was impossible 
 to understand what such elementary terms as Christ and 
 Christian meant, without pre-supposing the entire frame- 
 work of that written record of revelation which the ancient 
 Scriptures contained and constituted. 
 
 The preaching of Jesus Christ, wherever it went, carried 
 with it in its train a certain unavoidable and preliminary 
 acceptance of the Jewish Scriptures. Unless it was pos- 
 sible to divest Jesus of His inseparable title Christ, and 
 to eviscerate the essential and inherent significance of the 
 name Christian, which every believer in Jesus was proud 
 to assume, it was not possible to do away with an implied 
 admission that in some way or other the Scriptures pointed 
 to and were fulfilled in Him. 
 
 Since, therefore, we cannot as a matter of fact get rid of 
 these Messianic accidents and elements, either from the 
 portrait of Jesus as delineated in the Gospels, or from the 
 earliest records and traces of the original spread of the 
 Gospel, which implied and involved belief in Jesus as the 
 
1 84 The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 Christ, it follows that we miist recognise such belief both 
 as a substantive part of the original movement which we 
 call Christianity, and also as a valid and potent instru- 
 mental cause in the success of that movement. That is to 
 say, we cannot separate the early success of the Christian 
 movement, whatever it was, from belief in the complete- 
 ness of the parallel between Jesus and the Christ of the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 And yet there was everything in the conception of Jesus 
 presented to us by the Acts to contradict and to do violence 
 to those notions of the Messiah which had been previously 
 entertained. There was nothing in the humble lot, the 
 inglorious career, and, above all, the violent and disgrace- 
 ful death of Jesus, to captivate the imagination of men 
 who hoped for a powerful and victorious king. And if 
 this portrait was unattractive to the Jews, it can scarcely 
 have been less so to the Gentiles, whether they were repre- 
 sented on the one hand by the intellectual subtlety of 
 Greece, or on the other by the imperial pride and power 
 of Rome. 
 
 The position, then, at which we have now arrived is as 
 follows : There is in the history of the Acts, divesting it 
 of everything miraculous and regarding it only as an ex- 
 pression of early Christian life, a framework of personal 
 history pre-supposed, which is substantially that of the 
 Gospels, and from which a death by crucifixion cannot by 
 any possibility be eliminated. The particular develop- 
 ment, however, of Christian life portrayed in the Acts, 
 though it pre-supposes such an earlier history, identical in 
 its main features with that which we possess, was by no 
 means to have been anticipated from the Gospels. They 
 may even be regarded as the result of an endeavour to 
 supply a want created by the kind of movement recorded 
 in the Acts, an attempt to gratify the not unnatural curi- 
 osity of early Christians. And even supposing that in 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 185 
 
 certain details they were untrustworthy, it would still 
 follow that in the broad and characteristic features of the 
 personal life of Jesus they must be deserving of credit, 
 because without such a foundation of fact not only would 
 the incidents of the Acts of the Apostles be inconceivable, 
 but also the kind of life of which that book must anyhow 
 be the natural expression and result. 
 
 "What we may term, then, the Christ of the Acts is a 
 creation to a certain extent distinct from, and in some 
 sense independent of, the Christ of the Gospels. The 
 Christ of the Acts comes before us as a belief already in 
 existence and operative; the Christ of the Gospels is a 
 Person, and not a belief. But the belief is a belief in a 
 person similar to that portrayed in the Gospels ; similar, 
 that is, in the manner of His life and death. Though one 
 of the Gospels may be by the writer of the Acts, it matters 
 not, because his portrait is not materially different, at least 
 in these respects, from that of the other Evangelists ; 
 while his later narrative, regarded only as an indication 
 of the kind of people for whom it was written, may be 
 considered as giving an average, or even, if you will, a 
 favourable specimen of the life which it describes. At all 
 events, men did at an early period of the Christian era 
 travel about the world as Paul and Barnabas are described 
 to have done, for the simple purpose of proclaiming the 
 main facts of the life of Jesus, and of persuading people 
 that He was the Christ. They were not the apostles of a 
 political creed; they cannot be suspected of any ulterior 
 motive ; they were not the founders of a philosophy, the 
 heralds of a scheme for social advantages or worldly 
 advancement. They preached that a man had lived and 
 died in Palestine, and that He was the Messiah 
 of before by the prophets. 
 
 And there is no question that wherever they were suc- 
 cessful, and so far as they were successful, this man was 
 
i86 The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 everywhere and always accepted as the Messiah. Yet, in 
 His character, as it is presented to us in the Acts and 
 described in the Gospels, there was nothing that was cal- 
 culated antecedently to win the belief that He was the 
 prophetic Christ, for in all the most conspicuous features 
 He was very different from what might have been, and from 
 what actually was anticipated. This belief, however, was 
 everywhere produced by, or was nowhere produced without, 
 the Scriptures. It was the likeness between the Jesus who 
 was preached and the Christ of prophecy which convinced 
 men that the one was the fulfilment of the other. Whether 
 or not this was what we should consider a valid, or satis- 
 factory, or logical means of bringing about the particular 
 result, there is no question whatever that it was histori- 
 cally the means by which the result was brought about. 
 The testimony of the Acts of the Apostles is to this effect ; 
 and it is not possible in this respect to doubt its testimony. 
 It is plain, however, both from the Acts of the Apostles 
 and from the nature of the case, that we have not yet 
 taken into account all the elements at work in bringing 
 about the result produced. It is simply impossible that 
 the story of the life and death of Jesus alone should have 
 wrought the conviction that He was the Messiah. There 
 must have been, and there was, another element combined. 
 And this was the proclamation that He had risen again 
 from the dead. The history of the Acts may be accepted 
 as evidence that the resurrection was proclaimed, and that 
 its proclamation entered to a very large extent into the 
 preaching of the disciples. While, as we have seen, it 
 was impossible from the vague and obscure statements of 
 Scripture to anticipate or invent beforehand the fact of 
 the resurrection, it is easy to calculate and to understand 
 the enormous momentum which would be added to the 
 weight of the evidence for Jesus being the Christ, when 
 it could be definitely announced that He had actually 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 187 
 
 risen from the dead, and when the present agency of the 
 Spirit could be appealed to in confirmation of the fact. 
 
 And we know for a certainty that it was thus that the 
 full message of the Gospel was proclaimed. Jesus could 
 not have been recognised as the Christ in the way He is 
 represented to have been recognised in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, unless we may throw in as a powerful element 
 in the early preaching of the disciples the announcement 
 that He had risen from the dead. It was alike impossible 
 that, prior to the Lord's resurrection, the ingenuity of the 
 disciples should have detected the special element that 
 was lacking in the power and efficiency of their message, 
 and that the conviction of Jesus being the Christ should 
 have been produced without the declaration that He had 
 burst the bonds of death. When that fact had been pro- 
 claimed, it swallowed up all the shame and degradation of 
 the cross, the lowliness of the origin, the meanness and 
 the poverty of the lot and life of Jesus. Then that life 
 and death of shame and suffering became invested with a 
 new, and before, impossible glory. Then the colours of 
 the rainbow which spans the waterfall were seen in the 
 brightness of the rising sun as it fell athwart the cloudy 
 spray. Then a new meaning was given to the grief and 
 triumph of the Psalmist, a new cause was revealed for the 
 hope and longing of the Prophet, a new treasury of sub- 
 stance and expressiveness was added to the shadows and 
 symbols of the Law. Then it was that the regal glories 
 of the universal King were identified with the spiritual 
 self-mastery of the crown of thorns, and the reed that was 
 put into the hand was hailed as a nobler sceptre, and the 
 title that was written by Pilate was recognised as a truer 
 ensign of royalty than those of the mightiest kings. Then 
 it was that the purple robe was regarded as a prouder 
 token of majesty than the imperial vesture of the Caesars, 
 and the death of the Eoman malefactor more glorious and 
 
1 88 The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 heroic than the death of the warrior in the shout of 
 victory. 
 
 But we may safely affirm that there was nothing in the 
 incidents of the death of Jesus alone and by themselves 
 that was capable of bringing about this change of sentiment. 
 Neither these incidents alone, nor any combination of 
 them, would have wrought the conviction that He was the 
 Messiah. There was another element wanting ; an element 
 which they were incompetent to suggest, but which, when 
 it was thrown in, was all-powerful to interpret and to 
 glorify them. It is obviously true that we cannot argue 
 from all this to the reality of the resurrection, but we may 
 legitimately argue from it, that without the proclamation 
 of the fact that Jesus of Nazareth had risen from the dead, 
 the conviction of His being the Messiah could not have 
 been produced ; while the incidents of His life and death, 
 apart from His resurrection, were alike as incapable of 
 originating the story of it as they were of producing that 
 conviction. 
 
 Not only, however, was it impossible that the doctrine 
 of Jesus being the Messiah could have been sustained for 
 a moment, or propagated, without the story of His resur- 
 rection, which, according to the Acts, was everywhere and 
 always proclaimed, but there are certain characteristics of 
 that book which we find ourselves at a loss to account for 
 on the assumption that the story was fictitious. And it is 
 here that we discover the greatest contrast between the 
 Gospel history and the history of the Acts. The Gospel 
 history is the history of Christ and the record of certain 
 germinal principles inculcated by Him. We nowhere see 
 any life in detailed action except His own. The glimpses 
 that we catch of other lives serve only to throw out His 
 into more prominent relief. 
 
 In the Acts of the Apostles it is altogether different; 
 and necessarily and obviously so. There we have not the 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 189 
 
 history of Christ, but the history of Christian life. The 
 person of Christ is entirely withdrawn from view. The 
 Christ that we meet with in the Acts is a Christ who lives 
 in the persons of His followers. In the Gospels we have 
 no such phenomenon, properly speaking, as Christian life. 
 It is a thing unknown, and as yet not experienced. If it 
 exists at all, it exists only in germ, and is undeveloped. 
 The foremost of the Apostles behave very much as other 
 men, and are not under the influence of any more powerful 
 motive or impulse than that of personal attachment to their 
 Master, which is scarcely distinguishable from ordinary 
 friendship. The last chapter of the fourth Gospel has 
 given us a picture of some of the chief disciples pursuing 
 their ordinary avocations on the Lake of Galilee, after their 
 Lord's resurrection. But in the Acts of the Apostles things 
 are entirely changed. We no sooner open the first pages 
 of that book than we find the character of the disciples 
 transfigured. The Peter of the Acts is a totally different 
 man from the Peter even of St. Luke's Gospel. Depart 
 from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord: 1 Master, it is good 
 for us to be here? on the mountain of glory : Lo ! we have 
 left all, and followed thee: 3 Woman, I know him not ; 4 by 
 no means represent the same man that comes before us 
 immediately in the Acts, ready to place Himself at the 
 head of the hundred and twenty disciples, to indicate the 
 course of action they are to take, and to reveal the inten- 
 tion of the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David 5 ready 
 again to interpret an unusual phenomenon on the day of 
 Pentecost as more nearly fulfilling the words of the prophet 
 Joel than any other former event 6 daring to confront the 
 murderers of Jesus with the charge, Him have ye taken, 
 and by wicked hands have crucified and slain 3 and rebut- 
 
 1 St. Luke v. 8. ix. 33. St. Matt. xvii. 4. St. Mark ix. 5. 
 
 3 St. Luke xviii. 28. St. Matt. xix. 27. St. Mark x. 28. 
 
 4 St. Luke xxii. 57. 5 Acts i. 16. ii. 16. 7 ii. 23. 
 
The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 ting the injunction not to speak at all, nor teach in the 
 name of Jesus, with the home-thrust and matter-of-fact 
 argument, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken 
 unto you more than unto God, judge ye ; for we cannot but 
 speak the things which we have seen and heard. 8 Here we 
 detect the presence of elements which are altogether absent 
 from the Gospel history those, namely, of Christian life 
 and of deliberate and unshaken Christian belief; although, 
 at the same time, there are traits enough of individual 
 character to show the identity of the person in both cases. 
 But not only so, for it is manifest that this conviction 
 of the disciples is most infectious. It spreads itself in all 
 directions, it excites the special animosity and opposition 
 of the Sadducees, as it naturally would, though they, with 
 their characteristic indifference and apathy, appear to have 
 been less prominent antagonists of Jesus during His life- 
 time than the Pharisees. 9 It communicates itself even to 
 the priests, it penetrates into Samaria, and reaches as far 
 as Damascus. The new society is found to increase to 
 such an extent that new principles of organisation have 
 necessarily to be adopted, and powers of deliberation and 
 of self-government are spontaneously developed, of which 
 the exercise may be regarded as almost if not entirely new 
 in the history of the world. All this, if it is not distinctly 
 traceable to the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, cannot 
 by any possibility be separated from that belief. In fact, 
 the belief in His resurrection was the motive power and 
 
 8 Acts iv. 19, 20. 
 
 9 This is shown in a very simple way. The Sadducees are only men- 
 tioned in the Gospel history some eight or nine times, and chiefly in St. 
 Matthew (Mark xii. 18; Luke xx. 27): the Pharisees appear more fre- 
 quently, and in each Gospel they are always mentioned first, and nearly 
 always with disapproval expressed or implied. In the Acts the Pharisees 
 are never unfavourable to the believers in Jesus, and even take their part 
 (Acts v. 34 ; xxiii. 9) ; while the Sadducees, on the three occasions they 
 are mentioned, are their strenuous opponents, (iv. 1 ; v. 17 ; xxiii. 7.) 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 191 
 
 impulse of it all, for it was involved in the conviction of 
 His being the Messiah, for which the disciples and their 
 followers were willing to forego everything, and to incur 
 anything. 
 
 Such, then, is the picture of Christian life presented to 
 us in the Acts of the Apostles. It is impossible to ques- 
 tion its general accuracy, because it is capable of abundant 
 corroboration from other sources. There is nothing, how- 
 ever, directly answering to it in the Gospel history, for the 
 conduct of Jesus was arranged on a different plan, and the 
 persecution of Jesus arose from a different cause. This 
 manifestation, therefore, of Christian life was an entirely 
 new phenomenon, possessing new and original features 
 never exhibited before, and pointing consequently to a new 
 and original cause. This cause we may rightly specify as 
 the personal influence of Jesus not the influence of His 
 teaching, because as far as we can tell from the Acts, the 
 disciples do not seem to have reproduced His teaching; 
 they were concerned less with His teaching than with 
 Him; but it was His personal influence and attachment 
 to His person. If, however, attachment to His person 
 while He was alive had produced no such results, why 
 should it produce these results now He was dead ? In 
 fact, the attachment exhibited was in no sense attachment 
 to one departed, nor to the principles for which He had 
 died, but much rather to a person whose direct influence 
 was still present and operative ; it was devotion to a new 
 set of principles, to new truths, and above all, to a new 
 fact of which the full weight and significance had not been 
 felt before, as during His lifetime it had not been possible 
 to feel it. 
 
 In reading the Acts of the Apostles we cannot fail to 
 see that we have entered on the stream of a new life, to 
 which even the Gospel history offers no true parallel. We 
 note the spontaneous action and development of a new : 
 
192 The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 society working on new principles and for new purposes, 
 and the mainspring of all this is the resurrection of the 
 Lord. 
 
 It is not, however, to be forgotten, that, as far as the 
 history of this new life is unfolded to us in the Acts, it is 
 not even to be referred exclusively to the Lord's resurrection. 
 Omnipotent as that fact might be considered in itself, if a 
 fact, it lay, comparatively speaking, dormant in the minds 
 of the disciples for a period of fifty days. Its power was 
 but imperfectly understood till the day of Pentecost. Then 
 it burst forth with a sudden accession of life. Peter had 
 indeed felt, in the interval between the ascension and 
 Pentecost, that one must be ordained to be a witness with 
 him and his fellows to the Lord's resurrection; he must 
 have had, therefore, a fore-feeling of what his own mission 
 was to be, but we read of no missionary effort whatever 
 during the period of the fifty days. We read further in 
 this narrative that the disciples were commanded to tarry 
 at Jerusalem until they should be endued with power from 
 on high. We may safely infer from this that in the opinion 
 of the writer it was not even the bare fact of the resur- 
 rection that was sufficient to call the new society into 
 existence, but the revelation of a new dynamical force 
 consequent upon the resurrection and in addition to it. 
 The writer wished it to be distinctly understood that a 
 new energy had begun to be put forth, and that the mate- 
 rials with which it worked were the life and death, the 
 resurrection and ascension, but pre-eminently the resur- 
 rection, of Jesus of Nazareth. Not these facts alone, but 
 these facts wielded by the power of the Spirit of God, had 
 wrought with a new influence upon men, and had produced 
 new results in men. 
 
 And though it is possible that we may not be com- 
 petent judges of the cause alleged to be in operation, we 
 are to a certain extent competent judges of the results 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 193 
 
 produced. And of these results the Acts of the Apostles 
 is a sufficient proof. Leaving out of the question all the 
 miraculous features of that book, the picture it has pre- 
 served to us of the early Christian society is absolutely 
 unique in the literature of the world. What if that picture 
 can be shown to be misrepresented or overdrawn ? it even 
 then remains to a very large extent a witness to the ex- 
 istence of a new society capable of appreciating the mis- 
 representation ; it is a proof of a new literary taste among 
 men, for the existence and origin of which some rational 
 account must be given. It professes itself to supply the 
 true, and is the only extant, account. It is actually, in all 
 substantial particulars, of unimpeachable authority, and 
 consequently the picture it presents may be taken as a 
 proof of the mode in which the new influence operated 
 among men, and of the peculiar results produced by it. 
 
 And, assuredly, these results, as we see them there, can 
 only be regarded as evidence of a new life, while the new 
 life is itself the evidence of a new principle of life at work, 
 and this new principle of life is the principle of deathless 
 and eternal life revealed and exemplified in the actual 
 resurrection of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 Nor is there any way of escaping from this or a similar 
 conclusion but by referring the results produced, not to 
 the fact believed, but to the belief of the fact. The mar- 
 vellous phenomena of the new Christian life displayed in 
 the Acts were simply the product of the faith of the dis- 
 ciples. They were the victims of their own delusions, and 
 their own delusions produced these effects. Their own 
 delusions, it must be remembered, were these that Jesus 
 was the Messiah, as proved by His life, and death, and 
 resurrection, and as witnessed and confirmed by the gift 
 of the Holy Ghost, to which alone, as it appeared, the 
 rapid growth of the Christian society, in spite of all un- 
 favourable circumstances, could be referred. 
 
 
 
194 TJte Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 If, then, the outward circumstances of the life of Jesus 
 were most unfavourable to His claims to be the Christ, no 
 less so were those of the early Christian society to the 
 diffusion of that belief ; and, seeing that the cardinal fact 
 of that belief was one which, if unreal, at once admitted 
 of a ready and complete disproof, it appears that the most 
 natural and rational way of accounting for the diffusion of 
 the belief is by supposing that the fact could not be dis- 
 proved. When we consider who were the first propagators 
 of the belief, where they first propagated it, the means 
 employed in doing so, and the success with which they 
 did so, it appears certainly more reasonable to interpret 
 these things as indications of an underlying element of 
 truth, than to assume, in the face of them, that the crucial 
 test of Jesus being the Christ was one which neither was 
 nor could be applied, and that with the failure of that test 
 every vestige of His claims to be regarded as the Christ 
 of necessity came to nought. 
 
 But this is not all, for we are competent judges also of 
 the general moral tendency and character of the new life 
 depicted in the Acts of the Apostles. When men, without 
 hope or prospect of temporal advantage or reward, could 
 live, as the first disciples lived, in the fear and love of 
 God, and suffer, as they suffered, rejoicing that they were 
 counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus, we 
 are constrained, in spite of ourselves, to decide whether 
 the fruits produced were those of the good tree or the bad ; 
 whether they were worthier of the spirit of evil or of the 
 Holy Spirit ; and conscience itself seems to determine that 
 it is not possible to reject these things as the special mani- 
 festations of the Holy Spirit's working. To do so would 
 but too nearly resemble what is spoken of in the Gospels 
 as the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. 
 
 We point, then, not to the miraculous features of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, as commonly understood, but to the 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 195 
 
 far greater miracle of the new and Divine life which that 
 book exhibits in operation, as the irresistible proof of the 
 new and Divine energy at work in the world ; and we say 
 that it would be a libel on the truth to suppose that such 
 results could be sufficiently accounted for on the suppo- 
 sition that they were created by a belief which, if not 
 literally and virtually true, was entirely and absolutely 
 false. 
 
 The results referred to were the direct consequence of 
 faith in Jesus as the Messiah. To His being the Messiah, 
 not only faith in His resurrection was essential, but much 
 more the fact that He had truly risen from the dead. If 
 He was merely believed to have risen, but had not risen 
 from the dead, then He could in no sense be the Messiah 
 the belief in His Messiahship was based upon a false- 
 hood, and to that falsehood must be attributed, as the sole 
 and direct cause, all the marvellous phenomena of moral 
 regeneration and of new spiritual life to which the Acts 
 of the Apostles is an undeniable witness. 
 
 There is and can be no manner of question, that faith 
 in Jesus as the Christ came upon men with the force of a 
 new and Divine principle of life, producing results most 
 opposite to the naturally selfish and unloving tendencies 
 of the human heart, and purifying the springs of indi- 
 vidual and social existence to a degree with which nothing- 
 can compare. Nor has this original impulse ever spent 
 itself. Nowhere in history do we find it so pure and 
 strong as in the Acts of the Apostles. There we see it 
 bubbling up from the fountain-head clear, and bright, and 
 sparkling as it is destined never to be again; but the 
 stream that issues from the fountain has never failed to 
 this hour, nor can it ever fail. The fountain is perennial 
 as the source of truth itself, and the head of that fountain 
 is Jesus as the Christ. 
 
 In the historic development, then, of the doctrine of 
 
196 The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 the Christ, the Acts of the Apostles has its place. It 
 shows us the earliest known phases of belief in Jesus as 
 the Christ. It exhibits a belief in the entire framework 
 of the Gospel history concerning Him as in vogue among 
 men: His life of persevering goodness, His wonderful 
 works, 1 His betrayal, 2 His rejection in favour of Barabbas, 8 
 the share of Pilate in His execution, 4 His violent death 
 by crucifixion, 5 His burial, 6 His resurrection from the dead 
 the third day, 7 His frequent appearance during forty days 
 after His resurrection, 8 His ascension into heaven, 9 His 
 session on the right hand of God, 10 His return to judg- 
 ment, 11 His Divine Sonship, 12 His office as the appointed 
 channel of forgiveness, 18 and of baptism by the Holy Ghost, 14 
 His being made loth Lord and Christ, 15 a Prince and a 
 Saviour to give repentance to Israel, and to be a light of 
 the Gentiles. 17 We cannot question that all this was a 
 part of the earliest known belief of those people who 
 were called Christians first in Antioch. 
 
 But, furthermore, we find these people from the first 
 baptising believers in the name of the Lord Jesus, 18 or of 
 Jesus as the Lord, and of their breaking bread 19 in token 
 of their fellowship with one another and with the Lord. 
 Now, the former of these customs, namely baptism, is not 
 to be accounted for by the Gospel of St. Luke. There is 
 no reference in it to any such command by Jesus; and 
 yet, on the testimony of the Acts, the universal prevalence 
 of the custom is not to be denied. The prevalence of the 
 custom, then, from the first, is a presumptive witness to 
 some injunction having been given respecting it. The 
 only possible inference is, that the injunction was given 
 by Jesus ; but there are few more striking phenomena in 
 
 1 Acts x. 38. 2 - i. 16; vii. 52. 8 ii. 14. 4 ii. 13. B ii. 23; v. 30. 
 6 xiii. 29. ^ x . 40. 8 i. 3; x. 41. 9 ii. 34. 10 v. 31. n x. 42. 
 12 iii. 13; iv. 27, etc. 13 x. 43. 14 ii. 38. 15 ii. 36. 16 v. 3i. 
 17 xiii. 47. 18 ii. 38; viii. 16, etc. 19 ii. 42, 46; xx. 7. 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 197 
 
 the records of the early church than the silence of St. 
 Luke's Gospel on the matter of baptism, and the pro- 
 minence of the rite in his history of the Acts. The latter 
 book is an unimpeachable witness to the early prevalence 
 of the custom; but the custom is itself a witness to a 
 prior belief in Jesus, and a belief in Jesus as the Christ. 
 What manner of man the Jesus believed in was we have 
 already seen ; one who was betrayed, crucified, dead, and 
 buried; one who had risen from the dead and ascended 
 into heaven. It was impossible that one who was crucified 
 and buried merely should have been the Christ, or have 
 been supposed to be the Christ. The only means by which 
 his death could become not simply glorified, but divested 
 of its inherent shame, was by a belief in that which, prior 
 to the fact, it was not possible to anticipate from the 
 scanty and obscure allusions in the Scriptures, and which, 
 after the proclamation of the fact, had nothing to rest on 
 but those obscure allusions, unless it was the reality of the 
 fact proclaimed. 
 
 We may, therefore, take the prevalence of baptism and 
 the breaking of bread as a clear indication of the personal 
 influence, the personal command, and consequently of the 
 personal life, of Jesus. We have nothing to which to 
 refer these customs, unless it be the direct command of 
 Jesus, to which in three of the Gospels the breaking of 
 bread is referred, and to which in St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark the practice of baptism is referred. 
 
 Thus the history of the Acts is a direct witness to a 
 previously existing life, and to a belief that the person so 
 existing was the Christ of prophecy. The principal agency 
 employed in producing the belief was that of the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old Testament. By them the Jews were con- 
 founded, or were mightily convinced that Jesus was the 
 Christ. 
 
 And so the history may be taken as a proof of the 
 
198 The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 historic reality both of the person and of the Messianic 
 office which He claimed to fill. Men could not have been 
 called Christians had that office been an unreality, an idea 
 which had no existence, or which rested on no ostensible 
 foundation. Jesus could not have been believed in as the 
 fullest realisation of that idea if His life had been a 
 shadow and not an historic existence. Shadows do not 
 originate customs so definite and so persistent as those of 
 baptism and the breaking of bread. The Christ of the 
 Acts is a phenomenon which cannot be accounted for but 
 on the supposition of the prior existence of the Christ of 
 the Gospels. The Christ of the Gospels, however, is a 
 conception entirely distinct from the Christ of the Acts, 
 and cannot have been originated in order to account for 
 the phenomena presented by that book. Without the 
 foundation of a human life similar to that of Jesus, the 
 history of the Acts, containing such a substantial frame- 
 work of truth as we know it must contain, could not have 
 been written. 
 
 But just as it was impossible that the Christ of the 
 Gospels should have been constructed out of the Messianic 
 materials previously existing in the Scriptures, so is it even 
 more clearly impossible that the Christ of the Acts should 
 have been constructed out of those materials. And, in 
 fact, the apparent and conspicuous unlikeness between the 
 Christ of the Acts and the Christ of prophecy affords a 
 strong presumptive argument that the belief in Jesus as 
 the Christ could not have obtained to the extent it did but 
 for the underlying fact of the resurrection. It was that 
 fact alone, and not the belief in the fact, which gave 
 whatever semblance of probability there was to the state- 
 ment that He was the Christ. That such a statement 
 should have been to a large extent discredited, being as it 
 was contrary to all experience, is in no way surprising; 
 that it should have been believed so firmly, so widely, and 
 
vr.] The Christ of the Acts. 199 
 
 with such results as it was, affords the strongest possible 
 presumption that the faith had been created by the fact, 
 and not the fact invented by the faith. For every indi- 
 vidual who believed the fact did so with precisely the 
 same reason for disbelieving which they had who rejected 
 it. 
 
 The picture of Christian life, then, presented in the Acts, 
 is the necessary and natural result of the picture of the 
 life of Christ presented in the Gospels : the necessary and 
 natural result, if that life was a reality, but by no means 
 natural or necessary if it was not : by no means an obvious 
 result if that life was an invention ; by all means an 
 unnatural and an impossible result if that life was unreal 
 or was other than it professed to be. 
 
 The history of the Acts was the most vivid illustration 
 of the words Because I live, ye shall live also. The Gospels 
 contained the narrative of all that Jesus began both to do 
 and teach. The Acts contained the record of what He 
 still taught and did after His visible presence was with- 
 drawn. It was not the spirit of His teaching which pro- 
 duced these results, but the power of His unseen personal 
 presence and influence. The evidence of His life was in 
 the life and action of His followers. There was a new 
 development or manifestation of His existence, a develop- 
 ment which would have been impossible had His existence 
 been unreal. 
 
 Of the historic existence of this new development there 
 can be no doubt : the Acts of the Apostles is not the only, 
 though it may be the oldest and most original, monument 
 a monument which is a permanent illustration of the 
 truth that Christian life is an evidence of the life of 
 Christ. It is impossible to account for the phenomena 
 of Christian life when displayed in their simplest and 
 purest forms, as they are in the Acts of the Apostles,, 
 except on the supposition of the unseen life of Christ. 
 
2OO The Christ of the Acts. [LECT. 
 
 The pulses of spiritual life are to be felt in all ages and 
 in every clime, but the heart from which they are derived 
 is in heaven. If the pulse of regenerate life is felt to beat 
 within ourselves, we shall not question the source from 
 whence it is derived. We shall know that it can have no 
 origin but one, and that origin the living person of the 
 Lord. If we are strangers to the reality of His life in our 
 own hearts, we may well question its reality in Him, for 
 we shall lack the highest evidence which can be offered to 
 the world or to ourselves the only evidence, in fact, which 
 can ever be complete, the evidence of life derived from 
 life. If we are conscious of a new life within, we shall 
 know that it cannot be referred to nature, or to self, or to 
 our fellow-men that it is not of the earth earthy, but to 
 be referred only to the Lord from heaven. 
 
 As many as received him, to them gave he power to become 
 the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name ; which 
 were lorn not of Hood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of 
 the will of man, but of God. 1 This is the simplest and the 
 only true explanation which can be given of the phe- 
 nomenon of Christian life. It is a life which Christ gives 
 to as many as receive Him, and believe on His name. It 
 is a life which is unique in the history of the world 
 unique as it was seen in germ in the manifested life of 
 Christ, and unique as it was displayed in its earliest efforts 
 at development in the life and action of His first disciples. 
 If the stream of its existence had come to an end we 
 might hesitate to decide about its origin; but as every 
 Christian has within himself a life which answers to that 
 of the first believers, and which he cannot but recognise 
 as identical, or at least as cognate with it, he knows that 
 the stream is flowing still, and is destined to flow on for 
 ever ; and, consequently, we cannot consider it premature 
 to adopt the inference suggested by Gamaliel eighteen 
 
 1 St. John i. 12, 13. 
 
vi.] The Christ of the Acts. 201 
 
 centuries ago, and to decide that a stream which has 
 flowed with a volume so deep, and broad, and strong, 
 must have its fountain-head with God. 
 
 We might indeed tremble for the future of Christianity 
 if God had left Himself utterly without witness in the 
 present, and we were thrown back only on the past, which 
 is ever receding farther and farther from the recognition of 
 experience ; but, forasmuch as the power of awakening a 
 sympathetic response in the individual heart is unques- 
 tionably the endowment of this religion in a way that no 
 other can boast, we may point to this characteristic of it 
 as at once a sufficient and abiding indication of its true 
 origin, and as being also the special feature to which St. 
 John appealed, in saying, This is the record, that God hath 
 given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 2 
 
 It was no development of man's natural instincts of 
 religion which produced such a manifestation of it as that 
 of the Acts of the Apostles ; but the Christian life of the 
 first disciples was itself a supernatural production, point- 
 ing to the existence of one who had been proved to be the 
 Christ, not because He had died upon the cross and been 
 buried, but because He had risen from the dead and as- 
 cended into heaven, and had shed forth gifts of spiritual 
 grace upon the whole body of believers, showing Himself 
 thus the fulfilment of psalm and prophecy more than if 
 He had restored again the kingdom to Israel, and had 
 gathered in subjection to the throne of David all the 
 kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. 
 
 2 i John v. 11. 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 THE CHRIST OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
Ho\\u>j> 5' &vQp&Truv l'5ei> oVrea, /cat voov 
 
 Horn. Od. 
 
 pues creo 
 
 De la dementia divina, 
 Que no hay luces en el cielo, 
 Que no hay en el mar arenas, 
 No hay atomos en el viento, 
 Que, sumados todos juntos, 
 No sean nfimero pequeno 
 De ]os pecados que sabe 
 Dios perdonar. 
 
 Calderon. 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 
 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 
 
 COL. iii. 2, 3. 
 
 next stage in the development of that conception 
 -*- of the Christ which is derived, or to be derived, from 
 the New Testament, is supplied by the Epistles of St. 
 Paul. The Acts of the Apostles gave us the picture of a 
 work in progress; the Epistles of St. Paul give us the 
 picture of a work done. No one would hesitate to place 
 the Acts, as it stands in the New Testament, before any 
 of the Epistles, whatever the actual relative dates of com- 
 position may be, because for the most part it has reference 
 to a period of time which must have preceded those events 
 which made it necessary for the Epistles to be written. It 
 professes to supply us with an earlier link in the chain of 
 circumstances reaching from the human life of Jesus to 
 the latest utterances of the Christian mind in the New 
 Testament. The Christian life depicted is Christian life 
 at an earlier stage. Nor is it possible to doubt the general 
 accuracy of the portrait sketched. 
 
 When, however, we come to the Pauline Epistles, we at 
 once enter upon ground even more certain and clearly 
 undeniable still. Here we are able, in the case at least of 
 the most important letters, to fix the actual date within a 
 year or two. And, in fact, we may safely say that the 
 bulk of the Pauline writings was in existence within thirty 
 years after the death of Christ, and that in all probability 
 
206 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 the four great and undisputed Epistles were written within 
 five-and-twenty years of that time. 
 
 Here, then, at all events, we have firm and solid ground 
 to tread upon. The letters to Eome, Corinth, and Galatia, 
 are undoubted ; they were written by St. Paul, and they 
 were sent to the Christians at those places, and sent within 
 the time specified. No reasonable doubt as to authorship 
 attaches to any of the other letters to which the apostle's 
 name is affixed, but here at least we are secure. We have 
 in the greatest of St. Paul's writings undoubted genuine 
 productions of the early Christian mind, and probably the 
 very earliest productions. These productions, moreover, 
 are in the form of letters, and their testimony is therefore 
 the more valuable from this fact. A narrative or history 
 is always more or less open to the suspicion of being written 
 with a bias, but a genuine letter presupposes a second 
 witness to the writer in the person to whom it is written. 
 Putting aside the imaginary case, inapplicable to St. Paul's 
 Epistles, of a letter being written to a second person for 
 the purpose of conveying a false impression to a third, it 
 is not possible to reject the evidence supplied incidentally 
 in the letters written by St. Paul to his various corre- 
 spondents. 
 
 For example, they one and all assume and establish 
 beyond dispute the existence of a Christian society in the 
 places to which they were sent. They tell us something 
 about the constitution of this society, something about its 
 character and life, and a great deal about the nature of its 
 belief. We are able, at all events, to gather from St. 
 Paul's Epistles a very fair notion of the kind of teaching 
 which the several persons addressed had received from 
 him. What is written is no doubt in agreement with 
 what had been taught. Within five-and-twenty years, 
 therefore, after the death of Christ, there was a consider- 
 able society, in centres so far separated as Eome and 
 
VIL] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 2O/ 
 
 Galatia, of persons who believed in Jesus. All these per- 
 sons had been baptised : they were baptised in the name 
 of Jesus, or at least in baptism they were considered to 
 have put on Christ. 1 All these persons were unquestion- 
 ably in the habit of breaking bread in commemoration of 
 the death of Jesus. If there is no allusion to this latter 
 practice in the letters to Kome and Galatia, there is abun- 
 dant reference to it in the first of those to the Corinthians, 2 
 who occupied geographically a middle position between 
 the Eomans and Galatians, and are therefore an additional 
 instance of the extension of the new society. 
 
 It is evident, moreover, from these Epistles, that the 
 societies in question were bound together by faith in one 
 and the same person, who is called Jesus Christ ; and it 
 is certain that this was the same Jesus of whom we read 
 in the Acts, and whose life is recorded in the Gospels. 
 From the Epistles of St. Paul we have all the principal 
 facts of the life of Jesus, and these correspond with what 
 we know of it from the Gospels and the Acts. 
 
 Eor example, we have His descent from the family of 
 Abraham and from the family of David; 3 we have His 
 supernatural birth implied; 4 we have His sufferings, 5 His 
 betrayal, 6 His rejection by Pilate and Herod, 7 His death 
 upon the cross, 8 His burial, 9 His resurrection from the 
 dead the third day, 10 five of His manifestations after His 
 resurrection, 11 His ascension into glory, 12 His session at the 
 right hand of God, 13 His return to judgment. 14 
 
 It is impossible, therefore, to doubt that the person to 
 whom St. Paul refers as Jesus Christ is the same Jesus 
 of whom we read in the Gospels and the Acts. All the 
 
 1 Gal. iii 27; Rom. vi. 3. 2 1 Cor. xi. 20-34. s Gal. iii. 16; Rom. i. 3. 
 
 4 Gal. iv. 4 ; Rom. i. 3. 5 2 Cor. i. 5. 6 1 Cor. xi. 23. 
 
 7 1 Cor. ii. 8. 8 Gal. vi. 14. 9 1 Cor. xv. 4. 
 
 10 Rom. vi. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 4. 1 Cor. xv. 5-7. 1S Rom. viii. 17, 29. 
 
 13 Rom. viii. 34. 14 1 Cor. i. 7, 8. 
 
208 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 main features of His history correspond with them as 
 there given. It is clear, moreover, that the writer im- 
 plicitly believed these facts in His history, and that the 
 persons to whom he wrote believed them too. It is certain, 
 moreover, that both he and they identified Jesus with the 
 Christ, and did so on account of the remarkable character 
 of His history. So manifestly is this the case, that the 
 two names Jesus and Christ frequently appear conjoined 
 in the writings of St. Paul as the single appellation of one 
 and the same person. It is a foregone conclusion both 
 with him and those to whom he writes that Jesus is the 
 Christ. The Acts of the Apostles gave us some account 
 of the process by which men were brought to this con- 
 clusion. In the Epistles of St. Paul the conclusion is a 
 thing of the past. 
 
 And we must bear in mind that it was so certainly 
 with many people at Ptome, Corinth, and Galatia, five-and- 
 twenty years after the death of Christ. It is manifest 
 also, from the mere mention of these places, that it must 
 have been so not only with the Jews, but even to a larger 
 extent with the Gentiles also. Though there may have 
 been Jews among the converts in all these places, the 
 larger portion must have been composed of Gentiles. The 
 names of the persons saluted in the Epistle to the Eomans 
 are all of them Greek or Eoman, only one is Jewish. 1 It 
 is impossible to compute the aggregate numbers of these 
 several churches, but they must have been many thou- 
 sands. Among all these people the conviction was firmly 
 established that Jesus was the Christ. Frequently He is 
 spoken of by no other name than Christ or the Christ. 
 
 But everywhere there are traces of this persuasion 
 having been wrought by means of the Jewish Scriptures. 
 A foundation of Scriptural teaching is implied wherever 
 the term Christ is used, and the references to Scripture 
 
 1 Rom. xvi. 6. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. 
 
VIL] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 209 
 
 statements are frequent. The persons addressed must 
 have been very familiar with the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment. They must have accepted it as an elemental prin- 
 ciple that the Scriptures spoke of a Christ to come. Other- 
 wise, their baptism in the name of Jesus, and their belief 
 in Him, would have meant nothing. They would have 
 been strangers to the import of the new name they bore, 
 and had so gladly adopted. The Eomans are told that the 
 Gospel had been promised before ly the prophets in the Holt/ 
 Scriptures, 2 that Jesus Christ was made of the seed of David 
 according to the flesh* Abraham and David are quoted as 
 instances of persons who were accounted righteous with- 
 out the law, and knew the blessedness of being so. 4 Every- 
 where the writer speaks as to them that know the law.' 6 
 The Corinthians are reminded that whatsoever things 
 happened unto Israel, happened unto them for ensamples : 
 and they are written, he says, for our admonition, upon 
 whom the ends of the world are come. 6 They are taught 
 that Christ died for our sins according to tlie Scriptures, 
 that He was buried, and rose again the third day accord- 
 ing to the Scriptures. 1 The Galatians are instructed from 
 the allegories of the Law 8 the greater excellence of the 
 way of faith which they had forsaken. All this is evi- 
 dence of a marvellous revolution of thought, but it is a 
 revolution which is presupposed in their condition as 
 Christians. 
 
 The Epistles of St. Paul, then, are evidence (1) that iu 
 all the churches to which they were addressed the same 
 conclusion had been arrived at of which we found traces 
 in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Gospels namely 
 that a Jesus who had been crucified was the Christ ; and 
 (2) that it had been arrived at principally, or in part 
 through the influence of the Scriptures. 
 
 2 Rom. i. 2. 3 i. 3. 4 Gal. iii. 6 ; Rom. iv. 6. 
 
 5 Rom. vii. 1. 6 1 Cor. x. 11. 7 xv. 3, 4. * Gal. iv. 24. 
 P 
 
2io The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 It is surely remarkable that in persons whose intellec- 
 tual and moral peculiarities must have been so different 
 as those of the Komans, Corinthians, and Galatians, not 
 only the same result should have been obtained, but that 
 it should have been obtained by the same logical process 
 namely, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament spoke 
 of a Christ, and that Jesus was the Christ of whom they 
 spoke. It cannot be regarded as an idiosyncrasy of par- 
 ticular cases, for it was the universal and unvarying cha- 
 racteristic of the faith in Jesus, wherever it was spread 
 abroad. The moral lever by which the early heathen 
 world was converted to what we call Christianity, was the 
 complete fulfilment in the person of Jesus of the prophetic 
 ideal of the Christ. And of the extent to which this con- 
 version had spread within thirty years after the death 
 of Christ, the Epistles to Thessalonica, Eome, Corinth, 
 Galatia, Philippi, Colossse, Ephesus, are sufficient and 
 conclusive evidence. They are the historic proof of the 
 development and acceptance of the doctrine or religion of 
 the Christ at that time, and to that extent, and to that 
 degree. 
 
 Furthermore, the Epistles of St. Paul, as we have them, 
 are evidence to a large extent, as has long ago been 
 shown, 9 of the generally trustworthy and authentic cha- 
 racter of the history of the Acts ; * and they would be evi- 
 dence, even if that book did not exist, of a period and 
 condition somewhat similar to those therein described 
 having preceded the acceptance of the Gospel in the 
 various centres to which they were addressed. The con- 
 dition of implanted and established faith to which they 
 
 9 By Paley in the Horace Paulina}. 
 
 1 So Professor Jowett says, speaking of the First Epistle to the Thes- 
 salonians : " The statements of the Epistle are a real confirmation of the 
 narrative of the Acts ; and the degree of coincidence in the narrative of 
 the Acts is a sufficient evidence that the Epistle must have been written 
 on the second Apostolical journey." Epistles of St. Paid, vol i. p. 36. 
 
VIL] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 21 1 
 
 witness could only have been brought about, as indeed 
 they themselves show it was, by a long-continued course 
 of itinerant and missionary effort, such as that which the 
 Acts ascribe to Paul and Barnabas, and the other early 
 preachers of the faith. Even if the Acts could be shown, 
 which they cannot, to be unhistoric, 2 the Epistles which 
 are undeniably genuine would show that the state of 
 things to which they witness must have been preceded by 
 an historic period not altogether dissimilar from that 
 which the Acts had fictitiously described. Indeed, the 
 Epistles themselves are abundant evidence to the " Acts " 
 manner of life, and habitual conduct of one at least of the 
 apostles, namely Paul himself. He has left on permanent 
 record, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 3 the kind 
 of life which he and his fellow-disciples had voluntarily 
 undertaken, in the long catalogue of sufferings by which 
 he proved himself the minister of Christ. He must have 
 been a madman, or a fool, to have acted in such a way for 
 no conceivable end, unless the end for which he acted was 
 so plainly set before him, that as a wise man he could not 
 refuse to suffer gladly the loss of all things for it. And to 
 the end of time his life and character, as portrayed in his 
 own writings, will be an unsolved and insoluble enigma 
 
 2 " Whatever may be the reason, the amount of discrepancy between 
 the earlier chapters of the Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians contrasts 
 with the precise agreement of the later chapters with the Epistles to the 
 Romans and Corinthians, as well as with the internal consistency of the 
 Epistle to the Galatians itself. In inquiries of this sort it is often supposed 
 that, if the evidence of the genuineness of a single book of Scripture be 
 weakened, or the credit of a single chapter shaken, the whole is over- 
 thrown. Sometimes the danger of losing the whole is made an argument 
 against criticism of any part. Much more true it is that, in short portions 
 or single verses of Scripture the whole is contained. Had we but one 
 discourse of Christ, one Epistle of Paul, more than half would have been 
 preserved." Jowett, Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 400. It is precisely 
 in this belief that the object of the present lectures has been to show how 
 much virtually remains as a solid basis for faith after the largest critical 
 concessions have been made. 3 Chaps, vi. and xi. 
 
212 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 to all who are ignorant of or who reject the key to it, 
 which participation in the faith and hope and love of the 
 writer, and that alone, supplies. 
 
 But again, as the Epistles of St. Paul are a witness to 
 the marvellous progress of faith in Jesus, within thirty 
 years after the crucifixion, so they are clear evidence like- 
 wise to the general character of that faith as it was em- 
 braced by the writer himself. They contain the record of 
 his mind probably for the last ten or a dozen years of his 
 life. It is impossible that in that period he should not 
 have been subject to the modification and growth of wider 
 experience and of longer life. 4 But the substantial frame- 
 work of his belief is as manifest in the First Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians as it is in the Second Epistle to Timothy. 
 It is still the same Jesus who was killed 5 by the Jews 
 about twenty years before, who is acknowledged as both 
 Lord and Christ; it is He who is to return to judgment, 
 who therefore hath ascended up on high. 6 There can be 
 no question whatever as to the reality of the person spoken 
 of, or as to His identity. It was no dream, it could have 
 been no impersonation of a vague idea, no concrete em- 
 bodiment of a mere notion or set of notions. The Thessa- 
 lonians had been taught to wait for the Son of the living 
 and true God from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, 
 even Jesus? Here was the entire foundation assumed of 
 facts which must have taken place but little more than 
 
 * " There is a growth in the Epistles of St. Paul, it is true ; but it is 
 the growth of Christian life, not of intellectual progress the growth not 
 of reflection, but of spiritual experience, enlarging as the world widens 
 before the Apostle's eyes, passing from life to death, or from strife to peace, 
 with the changes in the Apostle's own life, or the circumstances of his 
 converts. There is a rest also in the Epistles of St. Paul, discernible not 
 in forms of thought or types of doctrine, but in the person of Christ 
 Himself, who is his centre in every Epistle, however various may be his 
 modes of expression, or his treatment of controversial questions." 
 Jowett, Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 3. 
 
 5 1 Thess. ii. 15,. 19. 6 i. 10. 7 i. 9, 10. 
 
VIL] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 213 
 
 twenty years before they had been proclaimed to the 
 Thessalonians : 8 the natural human life, the death, the 
 resurrection, the ascension of a person who is called Jesus, 
 and is acknowledged as the Christ, and to such an extent, 
 and for so long, that the two names have become incor- 
 porated into one, Jesus Christ, expressing at once both the 
 office and the person filling the office. When we remember 
 that this same Epistle makes mention of the. churches of 
 God which in Judcea were in Christ Jesus? and implies 
 both that they had undergone persecution and that the 
 Thessalonians were partakers with them of a common faith, 
 and of a similar persecution for the sake of Jesus, we see 
 at once that a considerable portion of this twenty years is 
 virtually bridged over by the period of time requisite for 
 the transmission of the faith from Palestine to Macedonia, 
 from Asia to Europe, and for that personal change in the 
 writer himself, which we know from other sources had 
 taken place, and to which he alludes here when he says, 
 he was allowed of God to be put in trust with the Gospel. 1 
 
 It becomes then morally and absolutely impossible, that 
 in the brief space of a dozen or fifteen years, which is the 
 utmost that remains unaccounted for after the known 
 historic death of the person called Christ, and the rise of 
 the churches here mentioned in Judcea, there should have 
 
 8 If we place the date of the crucifixion March 27, A.D. 31, and the 
 founding of the church at Thessalonica, A.D. 52, the actual interval would 
 have been about one-and-twenty years, but it can hardly have been more. 
 Some with less probability place the date of the crucifixion, April 7, A.D. 
 30. Even if the preaching of Paul at Thessalonica is brought down to 
 A.D. 53, the greatest possible interval is three-and-twenty years, which is 
 virtually lessened by the considerations mentioned in the text. We have 
 a genuine letter of A.D. 53, containing incidental reference to sundry 
 events, which, on the evidence of the same letter, had been "well known 
 for several years before in the country where they occurred, and which, 
 from the collateral and independent evidence of another letter (the Epistle 
 to the Galatians), written not later than A.D. 58, must have been familiar 
 to the writer for a period of nearly twenty years when it was written. 
 9 1 Thess. ii. 14. 1 ii. 4. 
 
214 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 gathered any haze of uncertainty as to the actual character 
 of the events alluded to as the death and resurrection of 
 the Lord Jesus in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
 We have what amounts practically to an unbroken chain 
 of corroborative testimony, extending from the crucifixion 
 of Jesus to the time, twenty years later, when, in an im- 
 portant maritime city of Macedonia, He was implicitly 
 believed in as the Christ, and multitudes were prepared 
 to submit to persecution rather than surrender that belief. 
 Is there anything but the actual historic reality of the 
 main events recorded in the Gospels to which a revolution 
 so momentous can satisfactorily be referred ? This is a 
 question which irresistibly suggests itself to us, and there 
 does not seem to be any reasonable answer to it but one. 
 
 It is important, however, to observe, that whatever we 
 may regard as the ultimate drift of the First Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians, it is impossible to be unconscious of the 
 basis of historic fact underlying it which we everywhere 
 encounter. No less than four times is the death 2 of Jesus 
 spoken of; twice His resurrection from the dead 8 is dis- 
 tinctly declared as an article of the common faith ; five 
 times allusion is made to His future return. 4 It is true that, 
 for the most part, this reference is incidental, but it is all 
 the more worthy of our attention from that circumstance. 
 The substratum of solid fact is broad and deep, or else we 
 should not so often come upon it. 
 
 We see, moreover, that the teaching which had been 
 imparted to the Thessalonians is spoken of as the Gospel. 
 It is our Gospel ; the Gospel of God ; the Gospel of Christ. 
 It is called the word of God. It is said to have come to 
 them in power and in the Holy Ghost ; to have been re- 
 ceived with joy, not as the word of men, but as the word of 
 God, which wrought effectually in them that believed. It 
 
 2 1 Thess. i. 10; ii. 15; iv. 14; v. 10. 3 i. 10; iv. 14. 
 
 4 1 Thess. i. 10; ii. 19; iii. 13; iv. 16; v. 23. 
 
vii.] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 215 
 
 was recognised apparently as the Gospel of salvation "by 
 our Lord Jesus Christ. It was a Gospel which required 
 holiness of life, and the Thessalonians had been charged 
 to walk worthy of God, who had called them unto his king- 
 dom and glory. All this reminds us vividly of that gospel 
 of the kingdom which had been the one theme of Christ's 
 preaching. The alternate and concurrent affliction and 
 joy with which it had been received at Thessalonica cor- 
 responds exactly with the account of its reception every- 
 where, as recorded in the Acts. If in Asia Minor the 
 disciples had been reminded that we must through much 
 tribulation enter into the kingdom of God, 5 we read in the 
 letter to Thessalonica, Verily, when we were with you, we 
 told you before that we should suffer tribulation ; even as it 
 came to pass, and ye know? If the mission of Philip to 
 Samaria had caused great joy in that city, 7 the Thessalonians 
 are not only exhorted to rejoice evermore, 9 but their first 
 entrance into the Gospel was with joy of the Holy Ghost. 9 
 On the other hand, the message of the Gospel had found 
 them in a state of idolatry ; it was from idols that they 
 had turned to serve the living and true God, and to wait for 
 his Son from heaven. 1 It is impossible not to accept all 
 this as a literal and accurate statement of the condition of 
 the church at Thessalonica. But it implies as certainly, 
 in the disciples there, a knowledge of all the main facts 
 of the life of Jesus ; a belief in the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures as documents which had been fulfilled in Him, for 
 otherwise He would not have been received as Christ ; a 
 recognition of Him as the Son of God, who within, per- 
 haps, the last twenty years, had lived and died on earth, 
 and had ascended into heaven ; a conviction that, in some 
 way or other, they were partakers of the Holy Ghost in 
 consequence of their faith in Jesus, which reminds us of 
 
 5 Acts xiv. 22. 1 Thess. iii. 4. ? Acts viii. 8. 
 
 B 1 Thess. v. 16. 9 i. 6. * i. 9, 10. 
 
2i6 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 various accounts in the Acts describing the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost, as well as of the promise ascribed to John 
 the Baptist, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost? 
 
 A revolution of thought more remarkable than that 
 which is thus implied it is impossible to conceive ; but of 
 the fact the Epistles to the Thessalonians are the abiding 
 monument, and, being in all probability the very earliest 
 Christian writings extant, they are invaluable as an index 
 of Christian faith at that time, of the progress it had made, 
 and of the means by which it had been diffused. The faith 
 of the Thessalonian church was substantially the faith of 
 the Gospels and the Acts. The Jesus of the one was the 
 Jesus of the others, and undistinguishable from the person 
 who is known to us in history as having suffered death in. 
 the reign of Tiberius Csesar. 3 Within about twenty years 
 after t^at event the story of His death had penetrated, at 
 all events, as far as Macedonia, and had produced the 
 peculiar results of which the apostle's writings are proof, 
 in a body of men who had renounced idolatry, and given 
 evidence of a moral reformation, and become so attached, 
 not to the memory, but to the person of Jesus, that they 
 were willing to endure persecution for His name's sake. 
 The comparatively brief space of time which had elapsed 
 between the known occurrence of the life and death of 
 Jesus, and the prevalence of belief in Him as the Christ 
 and the Son of God, which must have obtained for several 
 years before Paul preached at Thessalonica, precludes the 
 possibility of the events proclaimed being cunningly devised 
 
 2 St. Matt. iii. 11 ; St. Luke iii. 16. 
 
 3 Tac. Ann. xv. 44. The words cannot be too often quoted: "Ergo 
 abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, quaesitissimis pcenis adfecit, quos, 
 per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos adpellabat. Auctor nominis ejus 
 Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum sup- 
 plicio adfectus erat ; repressaque in prsesens exitiabilis superstitio rursus 
 erumpebat, non modo per Judaeam, originem ejus mali, sed per urbem 
 etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque." 
 
vii.] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 217 
 
 fables, as far at least as the circumstances of His life and 
 death are concerned ; and that life and death alone would 
 have been insufficient to suggest the notion that He was 
 the Christ, or to produce the results which we know to 
 have been produced. Here again then, as before, everything 
 turns upon the testimony which was borne to Jesus as the 
 Christ. The desire to represent Him as the Christ would 
 have occurred to no one, had not the events which followed 
 His death suggested it; and certainly the results which 
 everywhere followed the proclamation of Him as the Christ 
 are more intelligible, on the supposition that those events 
 were realities, than they are upon the alternative suppo- 
 sition that they were not. 
 
 And this becomes even more evident when we take into 
 account the means by which the results were brought about. 
 The Epistles to Thessalonica bear the names of three men 
 of whom we know scarcely anything but what is told us in 
 the Acts. It is plain that they were the authors of the 
 revolution. These itinerant preachers had carried the pro- 
 clamation that Jesus was the Christ through Palestine and 
 Asia Minor into Macedonia, so as to work conviction and 
 moral reformation in men who had before been idolaters. 
 This had not been done with flattering words nor for the 
 hope of gain ; their exhortation had not been of deceit, nor 
 of uncleanness, nor in guile, but as before God which trieth 
 the hearts, so that they could say, Ye are witnesses, and 
 God also, how holily and justly and uriblamedbly we behaved 
 ourselves among you that believe* 
 
 Eesults so remarkable, which become more remarkable 
 when we consider the agency which produced them, cannot 
 be separated from the fundamental assertion by which they 
 were preceded and accompanied, that Jesus was the Christ. 
 This assertion, like a thread of different colour, runs 
 through the tissue and texture, not only of this but of 
 4 1 Thess. ii. 10, 
 
2i8 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 every Epistle. It is the foundation corner-stone which 
 lies at the bottom of the whole edifice of Pauline teaching. 
 It is the stout knotted gnarled root which bears up the 
 trunk and branches of the tree. All the ethical precepts, 
 and the wise moral exhortation so abundant everywhere 
 and so conspicuously excellent are but the flowers and 
 fruit of this fair and wide-spreading tree. It was because 
 believers were engrafted into Jesus Christ, who was de- 
 clared to be the Son of God with power according to the 
 Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, that 
 they were not only required and exhorted to be holy as He 
 was holy, but had likewise themselves received an impulse 
 to holiness to which they had before been strangers. It 
 was because the disciples at Colossse had been taught and 
 believed that they were dead and risen with Christ that 
 the appeal could reach them, to set their affections on things 
 above, and not on things on the earth. We may fairly claim 
 the high, novel, and unexampled moral tone everywhere 
 pervading these early Christian writings as the most satis- 
 factory and conclusive evidence of the reality of that 
 operation and influence of the Holy Spirit of which they 
 speak so much. If ever the tree is known by his fruits 
 whether it is good or bad, we can have no hesitation in 
 pronouncing on the character of these fruits. And if they 
 were the undeniable and unique production of a tree which 
 specially claimed to be of the Divine planting, then cer- 
 tainly, so far as the fruits could be evidence of it, the claim 
 was made good. Before the tree could be shown to be one 
 which the Lord had not planted, it would be requisite, 
 not only to call in question the evidence upon which that 
 one fact rested which declared Jesus to be the Christ, 
 and which, as far as the senses are concerned, could 
 never be conclusive ; but likewise to disprove, which was 
 not possible, the abiding testimony of those living fruits 
 which ever accompanied the recognition of Jesus as the 
 
vii.] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 219 
 
 Christ, and of which the Epistles of St. Paul are the true 
 measure, as they are the unalterable expression. 
 
 These early writings, then, may be taken as original 
 and genuine exponents of the doctrine or religion of the 
 Christ as it was declared and accepted within a quarter of 
 a century after Jesus had been crucified. The writings 
 themselves contain internal and incidental evidence that 
 substantially the same belief had been in vogue for a 
 period of at least twelve or fifteen years previously. (The 
 Epistle to the Galatians alone shows this.) Consequently 
 we are carried back by undeniable and documentary 
 evidence to a time distant by about ten years only from 
 the principal events upon which the belief as it was 
 received was based. 
 
 For we cannot separate the earliest expressions of that 
 belief from the historic event of the death of Jesus. The 
 same Epistle to the Galatians speaks of the death and 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ in terms which leave no 
 doubt upon the mind that the events referred to were the 
 actual crucifixion of Jesus and the resurrection which was 
 declared to have succeeded it. What the Apostle's faith 
 was at the time of writing this letter, that it had been 
 certainly for fourteen, possibly for seventeen, years before, 
 and possibly even for a yet longer period. 5 He bears 
 
 5 It is plain that St. Paul identifies the Gospel which he preached to 
 the Galatians (i. 11.) with that which he had received at his conversion, 
 (i. 12-16.) There can have been no material change in his own belief 
 during that interval, or he would not have spoken as he does in the first 
 chapter. It would also seem that all the events alluded to in Galatians i. 
 and ii. had preceded the first preaching in Galatia, and therefore the 
 period virtually covered by this Epistle must be much greater than that 
 given in the text. At all events, it carries us back to the time of St. Paul's 
 conversion. Professor Jowett places "an interval of four or five years" 
 between the Epistles to the Thessalonians and that to the Galatians. 
 Epistles, i. 281. I cannot accept the inference drawn by him that in 
 Galatians v. 11 and 2 Cor. v. 16 (vol. i. p. 8 seq.} we have indications of 
 what would have been a natural change of belief in St. Paul himself 
 
22O The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 implicit and emphatic witness that it had and could have 
 undergone no material change. So that when he first 
 became possessed by the conviction that the crucified and 
 risen Jesus was the Christ, there had elapsed but an 
 interval of time since His death which was fairly and 
 accurately within the grasp of memory. What is a period 
 of ten or even fifteen years for any man in middle life to 
 look back upon ? Not seldom casual words, fragments of 
 conversations, and the most commonplace incidents which 
 happened at that distance of time, retain their hold upon 
 the memory with unrelaxed tenacity, and remain engraven 
 on the imagination with indelible clearness. And how 
 much more is it so with public events of prominent and of 
 stirring import ! Let any one of us seek to recall events, 
 personal or public, which happened ten years ago. Is it 
 possible that we can be deceived about them ? The haze 
 of distance may indeed invest them at times with indis- 
 tinctness, and give them all the appearance of unreality, 
 no matter how vivid our recollection of them may be ; 
 and not unfrequently it may seem hard to believe that 
 circumstances actually occurred through which we are 
 conscious that we ourselves have passed. But does the 
 converse ever happen ? Does any man in his senses ever 
 believe that events actually took place ten years ago which 
 exist only in his own imagination? Is it possible that 
 internal impressions of his own should be able to project 
 themselves on the outer world so vividly as to beget the 
 belief that they had a veritable existence in the world of 
 fact ? And is it possible for impressions so projected to 
 
 after his conversion. Much more in accordance with the truth, as it 
 seems to me, is the remark of Alford on 2 Cor v. 16 "The fact alluded 
 to in the concessive clause, is, not any personal knowledge of the Lord 
 Jesus while He was on earth, but that view of Him which Paul took 
 before his conversion, when he knew Him only according to His outward 
 apparent standing in this world, only as Jesus of Kazareth." The italics 
 are his. 
 
vii.] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 221 
 
 have a conspicuous and remarkable influence on his whole 
 after life ? And is it possible that the writer, when the 
 Son of God was revealed in him, when that revelation of 
 Jesus Christ of which he speaks 6 had become a spiritual 
 fact to his consciousness, should, out of the consciousness 
 so influenced, have projected into the world of fact a life, 
 death, and resurrection, which had no existence, which 
 were but the offspring of his own perverted imagination 
 and distempered fancy it being all the while a known 
 fact that a life and death under similar circumstances had 
 taken place in Jerusalem about ten years 7 before, and that 
 it was this person so living and dying whom he believed 
 to be the Christ ? Surely the question is one which forth- 
 with answers itself. 
 
 On the other hand, however, it must not be forgotten 
 that there are many events which have happened, whether 
 to ourselves or to the world at large, which we have not 
 adequately understood till long after they have happened. 
 It is not always easy to recognise the full significance of 
 events at the time when they occur. The life and deatli 
 of Jesus Christ were events of which St. Paul can hardly 
 have been unconscious at the time when they took place. 
 His own determined opposition to the faith which he 
 afterwards preached, is proof, at all events, of the identity 
 of the Jesus whom he preached with the Jesus whom he 
 had opposed. And even if his faith could be accounted 
 for as a thing devoid of historic foundation, the same could 
 not be said for his vehement opposition. If it was an 
 imaginary or unreal Jesus in whom he believed, it must 
 have been a real historic Jesus whom he persecuted, and 
 the same Jesus whose life and death we have recorded in 
 the Gospels, and mentioned in the Acts. 
 
 Gal. i. 15, 16. 
 
 7 The real interval was probably much less. Saul's conversion is 
 placed by Alford in A.D. 37. It may have been earlier. 
 
222 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 While, therefore, the Epistle to the Galatians virtually 
 carries us back, as a witness to the historic reality of the 
 events implied, to a very short period after the death of 
 Christ, and to events contemporaneous with the early 
 manhood of the writer, it is also a permanent witness to 
 the changed aspect in which he had learnt to regard these 
 events. A name which had once been hateful to him, and 
 to which he had offered strenuous and bitter opposition, 
 had now for more than fourteen years been the object of 
 devoted and affectionate regard. He had himself been the 
 principal agent in making known that name. He had been 
 taught the meaning of an event which had happened within 
 his own recollection, and which was unquestionable ; and 
 he could now say, I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless 
 I live ; yet not /, but Christ liveth in me : and the life which 
 I now live in the flesh 1 live by the faith of the Son of God, 
 who loved me, and gave himself for me. 8 
 
 And the whole point of the change which had passed 
 upon him was involved in that word Christ. About the 
 death of Jesus there was and could be no question; the 
 only question was, Who was He that had died ? It was 
 not about the reality of certain facts, without which the 
 persecution of St. Paul was as unintelligible as his con- 
 version, but about the meaning and import of those facts. 
 Had Jesus died for Himself or for others ? Was His death 
 the one event anticipated in the Scriptures and fulfilling 
 them, or was it not ? If His death was but the natural 
 culmination of His life, did not His life and death together 
 show that the story of His resurrection which Paul himself 
 had before rejected, might after all be possibly not untrue ? 
 And if His resurrection was a fact, did not that event, 
 together with His life and death, combine to throw a flood 
 of light upon the whole of the Old Testament, which 
 nothing else could throw ? 
 
 8 Gal. ii. 20. 
 
viij The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 223 
 
 We indeed may reason thus upon the facts before us, 
 but we cannot thus reproduce the line of reasoning in the 
 Apostle's mind. To him there was a yet more cogent 
 argument, to which he is himself a witness. The perse- 
 cuted and risen Jesus had revealed Himself in him. He 
 had given that revelation of Himself to the inner world 
 of his spiritual consciousness of which he speaks in the 
 opening of his letter to the Galatian church. To resist 
 that revelation would have been to resist the Holy Ghost : 
 to resist the force of inevitable moral conviction. He 
 could not resist it. He was constrained to surrender 
 himself from henceforth a willing and obedient servant 
 to the Jesus whom he had persecuted. And his life 
 remains to this day an indestructible monument to the 
 vitality and significance of those events, whose historic 
 reality it is impossible to deny. 
 
 We are led, then, by these considerations to the further 
 question, which can hardly fail to suggest itself to every- 
 one, and of which so much has oftentimes been made : How 
 is it that the Epistles of St. Paul are so different in their 
 character from the Gospels ? Is it possible that the Christ 
 of the Gospels can be the Christ of the Pauline Epistles ? 
 If we take St. Paul for our guide in his representation of 
 Christianity, do we not necessarily reject that conception 
 of it which has been embodied in the Gospels ? 
 
 In attempting to deal with this question we must 
 remember that St. Paul's Epistles may be taken as the 
 accurate record of the effect produced upon his own mind 
 by the events of the life of Jesus, as those events inter- 
 preted themselves to him. They are also, no doubt, an 
 accurate record of the Gospel which he preached among 
 the several churches which he founded, or with which he 
 w r as brought in contact. They are therefore, so far, an 
 accurate record of the form which Christianity had as- 
 sumed in those various churches within thirty years after 
 
224 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 the death of Christ. Whether or not there was any other 
 form prevalent elsewhere, or what that form was, we are 
 unable to determine, except from indications in the letters 
 themselves, and so far as the Gospels or the Acts may be 
 supposed to show it. The Acts of the Apostles, moreover, 
 as a matter of fact, whether the book was written with 
 that design or not, serves as an intermediate and connecting- 
 link between the Epistles and the Gospels. Not only does 
 the history of it bridge over the interval of time, but the 
 book itself supplies the inevitable transition. The Acts 
 recorded the preaching of Jesus as the Christ, the Epistles 
 imply the existence of various churches which had so 
 accepted Him, and give us a more detailed picture of the 
 effect and influence of so accepting Him. But the tone of 
 thought expressed in the Acts is virtually far nearer to the 
 Epistles than it is to the Gospels; and the history is a 
 clear witness that Jesus was proclaimed as the Christ, and 
 that there was no faith in Him where He was not so 
 acknowledged. It can, however, scarcely be doubted that 
 the writer of the Acts was also the writer of the third 
 Gospel, which does not differ materially in its exhibition 
 of the life of Jesus from the other synoptics. We may 
 presume, therefore, that the writer was not himself con- 
 scious of any material or substantial divergence between 
 the picture of Jesus he had given in the Gospel and the 
 conception of Him embodied or implied in the Acts. And 
 if he was, as we may reasonably suppose, the friend and 
 companion of St. Paul, we can hardly imagine that he was 
 conscious of any real divergence between the Epistle to 
 the Galatians, for example, and his own evangelical narra- 
 tive. Not making these assumptions absolutely, we may 
 at all events infer that the early traditions on which they 
 rest are so far in favour of the conclusions we have drawn 
 from them ; and may tend to show that the differences some 
 have supposed may, after all, be more imaginary than real. 
 
vii.] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 225 
 
 And certainly, the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles, 
 have at any rate this feature in common, that they repre- 
 sent Jesus to have been the Christ. They all of them 
 agree that the Jesus whom they thus represent was cruci- 
 fied, dead, and buried; they are unanimous in affirming 
 that He rose from the dead the third day, that He was 
 several times seen of His disciples during a period (ac- 
 cording to St. Luke or the writer of the Acts) of forty 
 days after His death, but was never so seen afterwards; 
 they one and all declare or imply that He ascended into 
 heaven at the end of that time, and that His personal 
 return, under whatever circumstances, is an event to be 
 ever anticipated till it comes. Lastly, they all agree that 
 this same Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah promised 
 of old, and the ultimate judge of the world. The frame- 
 work of fact, then, is unquestionably the same in all, and 
 so also in these last particulars is the framework of doc- 
 trine. But the central, fundamental, and essential point 
 of the doctrine, which was based upon the facts and pre- 
 supposed them, which is everywhere implied, and never 
 omitted or lost sight of, is the declaration that Jesus is 
 the Christ. 
 
 We have, then, this circumstance to deal with, that 
 there is no known document of an earlier date than the 
 earliest of St. Paul's Epistles, in which the doctrine of 
 Jesus being the Christ is found. But it is found stated 
 there in all its clearness and integrity. The doctrine was 
 at that time fully developed, the belief mature ; and what- 
 ever Christian literature came into existence afterwards, 
 whether Gospels, Acts, or Epistles, did not add materially 
 to its essential features. But the doctrine or belief already 
 existing in this form was necessarily the product of two 
 factors, an effect produced by the combined operation of 
 two causes the Old Testament Scriptures and the life of 
 Jesus. Neither of these causes alone was sufficient to 
 
 Q 
 
226 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 produce the result which as a matter of fact we know was 
 produced. The life of Jesus alone could not have given 
 existence to the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, or the 
 Epistle to the Galatians. The study of the Old Testa- 
 ment alone could not have produced either of them. They 
 were in no sense a reproduction of the ancient prophets. 
 They were new and original creations, necessarily presup- 
 posing the human life of Jesus and the Scriptures of the 
 prophets. Of the historic reality of either of these factors 
 at that time namely, of the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 ment or of the human life of Jesus there is not the 
 slightest doubt. 
 
 But, further, it could not by human ingenuity have 
 been foreseen that what we may call the fusion of these 
 two principles, the combined operation of these two 
 factors, would have produced these results any more than, 
 prior to experience, it could have been foreseen that the 
 combination of oxygen and hydrogen would produce water. 
 The results, however, as we know them for a certainty 
 from the writings of St. Paul, and as we see them in those 
 writings themselves, were produced. But, as a matter of 
 fact, we could not have had the belief that Jesus was the 
 Christ, nor the results which followed the proclamation of 
 that belief, without the previous existence and combined 
 operation of the two causes specified. Is not then the 
 known effect an evidence of the inherent vitality of the 
 causes producing it, and a corroboration of the soundness 
 of the principle which governed their union ? Experience 
 justified the application because it proved the truth of the 
 principle. 
 
 Eor it cannot be too carefully noted that the effects of 
 which the Pauline Epistles are evidence were not pro- 
 duced by any mere abstract admiration for the character 
 of Jesus, but by belief in Him as the Christ ; and it is 
 this which guides us to a just appreciation of the neces- 
 
VIL] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 227 
 
 sary difference between the Epistles and the Gospels. The 
 one aim at giving us the presentation of a life, the other 
 record the influence of that life. It is natural that in an 
 early and unconscious age of the Church the record of the 
 influence of the life, occurring in the form it does, should 
 be older than and different from the portrait of the life, 
 and that it should have preceded the portrait of the life. 
 The influence registered itself spontaneously in the form 
 of letters; the life could only be recalled in the form of 
 history. It would be the colossal framework of the life, 
 and not its minute detail, to which the influence would be 
 mainly due. And this influence, within certain broad and 
 comprehensive limits, would be the same everywhere. 
 There would be an outward difference of expression, but 
 an internal identity of operation, wherever the same 
 vital principles were received, just as the expression 
 of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians may differ from 
 that of the Second Epistle to Timothy; but the motive 
 spiritual influence implied and at work in both is the 
 same. 
 
 Thus the Epistles of St. Paul are the record of the effect 
 or influence of the life of Jesus, but of the life of Jesus as 
 the Christ ; not as a philosopher, or a teacher of morality, 
 or a legislator of rules of life ; but as the Christ or anointed 
 one of God, who was in Himself the fountain and channel 
 of all spiritual life ; the giver of the Holy Ghost ; the one 
 mediator between God and man, who was in Himself the 
 bond of union between man and God, the reconciler of 
 the two divided and antagonistic natures, because the 
 revelation under a new and unprecedented aspect of the 
 character of God, and therefore the last and fullest ex- 
 ponent of the will of God. 
 
 All this if Jesus was the Christ He would be, for it was 
 implied and signified in His being the Christ, that is the 
 chosen and appointed human channel of approach to God. 
 
228 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 Consequently, if Jesus were declared to be the Christ, 
 there would be no action of his life which would not be 
 fraught with the deepest possible meaning for man. He 
 would be the representative of every man before God and 
 in his approach to God. His life would be man's perfect 
 life, His death would be man's death as a sinner, His 
 resurrection would be man's resurrection in righteousness 
 and His full and free absolution and release from sin, His 
 ascension would be man's spiritual ascension to the pre- 
 sence of God, and His continual session in the heavenly 
 places. 
 
 That He should be so recognised and accepted implied, 
 indeed, and involved the teaching of the Holy Spirit ; but 
 to this agency and influence continual reference is made 
 in the Apostle's writings, as we see it at work in the Acts 
 and find it was promised in the Gospels. It was in de- 
 monstration of the spirit and of power that his speech had 
 been to the Corinthians. 9 It was by the hearing of faith 
 that the Galatians had received the Spirit ; 1 it was in the 
 Holy Ghost, and therefore in much assurance or certainty 
 of conviction that the Gospel had come to the Thessa- 
 lonians. 2 And therefore it was that the life of Jesus was 
 recognised and accepted as the typical or symbolic life of 
 man when He was acknowledged as the Christ. But in- 
 asmuch as the Gospels dealt with the life of Christ not in 
 its effects but in its historic unfolding, as it was in itself 
 and not as it was destined to influence others, it was not 
 possible that they should present the same phenomena, 
 however much the germ of that influence may have been 
 embodied in the words of Jesus as it was of necessity 
 contained in His acts. 
 
 Moreover, the Gospels themselves give us to understand 
 that mightier results than any as yet witnessed were at 
 hand ; if not, why should the command to go into all the 
 
 9 1 Cor. ii. 4. x Gal. iii. 2. 2 1 Thess. i. 5. 
 
viz.] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 229 
 
 world have been given to men who as yet had never passed 
 the confines of Palestine ? 3 
 
 While, therefore, the manifest difference between the 
 Gospels and Epistles is itself a proof that these Epistles 
 could not have been originated as the natural and proper 
 sequel to the facts which the Gospels record, the Epistles 
 themselves are likewise evidence to the prior existence of 
 certain facts which were substantially those of the Gospels. 
 If Jesus was the Christ, as the Gospels uniformly declare 
 Him to have been, then the Epistles are the record and 
 abiding evidence of certain results, not indeed such as we 
 might beforehand have expected the Gospels to produce, 
 but such as could not have been produced but for the 
 reality of the facts they record, and the belief they are 
 written to proclaim, that Jesus was the Christ. 
 
 The Pauline Epistles, then, are evidence, first, of certain 
 facts, such as the life and death of Jesus Christ, which, as 
 long as these writings last, cannot be resolved into myth 
 or fiction; and, secondly, they are evidence of the very 
 widespread acceptance of a particular belief, and of the 
 results which followed its acceptance. This was the con- 
 viction or belief that Jesus was the Christ. The Epistles, 
 moreover, are evidence, conclusive and undeniable, of the 
 acceptance of this belief, which was based upon facts, 
 within a short space of time after the occurrence of the 
 facts upon which it was based. It is certain also that the 
 widespread acceptance of this belief, and the rapid growth 
 of the religion involving it, cannot be accounted for on 
 the assumption that it was due solely to the influence of 
 the life and teaching of Jesus, because, if so, it is pre- 
 sumable that there would not have been the marked 
 difference there is between the only records we possess of 
 that life and teaching, and the effects of its influence as 
 we see them in the Epistles. Consequently, in order to 
 
 3 Cf. St. Matt. xxvi. 13; St. Mark xiv. 9, etc. 
 
230 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 account for its acceptance, we must throw in the operation 
 of another element, without which it is not possible that 
 Jesus should have been the Christ, or that the declaration 
 that He was should have met with any widespread 
 acceptance, and this element is the bestowal of new life 
 which is implied in His resurrection and in the gift of the 
 Holy Spirit which followed it. 
 
 Not only is the statement of the resurrection as a fact 
 implied in every one of the Epistles, but the evidence of 
 its effect and operation as a new principle of life is present 
 and conspicuous everywhere. And it is the presence of 
 this element which at once accounts for and explains not 
 only the existence of the Epistles themselves, but also the 
 fact of the marked difference which exists between them 
 and the Gospels. The Gospels are ostensibly the records 
 of certain facts and teaching, and of certain facts and 
 teaching which ostensibly lead on and up to another great 
 and transcendent fact which is supposed to rest upon them, 
 while the effect that the whole together are intended to 
 produce is the conviction that Jesus is the Christ. The 
 Epistles, on the other hand, are the expression of the 
 results which followed this conviction. The Gospels show 
 us how Jesus claimed to be and was the giver of new life ; 
 the Epistles show us the operation and reality of that new 
 life He gave. The Gospels, therefore, one and all, stop 
 short exactly there where the Epistles begin. The Gospels 
 declare and disclose to us a great fact ; the Epistles show 
 us the operation and consequence of that fact. It is 
 impossible that the outward aspect of the two should be 
 identical. The teaching of Jesus, marvellous and novel 
 as it was, as a motive power was and could be nothing in 
 comparison of His resurrection, if that resurrection was a 
 fact. The Epistles themselves, regarded as mere literary 
 productions, are evidence that it was a fact. For they 
 could not have been produced at the time and under the 
 
vri.] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 231 
 
 circumstances they were produced, and by the man who 
 produced them, and with the essential features that cha- 
 racterise them, unless it had been a fact. They are not 
 merely the transcript of certain personal opinions, but 
 evidence to the reality of a fact producing them. For, 
 otherwise, we must admit that the phenomena presented by 
 the Pauline Epistles, and by the early Christian churches 
 to which they were sent, were the product of deception and 
 delusion, which is verily absurd. 
 
 Although, then, it is true that the Gospels have drawn 
 the portrait of the human life of Christ, while the Epistles 
 have presented us with the contrast of internal conception, 
 and although the record of the latter is undoubtedly earlier 
 in point of time, as it naturally would be, there is no 
 essential antagonism or difference between them. If we 
 know anything of the teaching of Jesus, one prominent 
 and inseparable feature of it must have been that He was 
 Himself the Christ, for otherwise the continual proclama- 
 tion of the kingdom of heaven, as from the first it was 
 proclaimed, and the appointment of the twelve and of the 
 seventy to proclaim it, would have been unmeaning. 
 
 But it is precisely this truth which is the kernel of the 
 Epistles of St. Paul. He has himself accepted Jesus as the 
 Christ, and his writings are the monument of his accept- 
 ance and the record of all that it implied. To have such 
 a record as this so early in point of time is a proof that 
 the leaven had begun to work, while it is itself an indica- 
 tion of the manner in which it worked. But just as the 
 leaven is distinct from the meal in which it works, and 
 from the effect produced by its mode of working, so also 
 necessarily is the record of the human life of Christ dis- 
 tinct and different from the picture of that new life to 
 which it had given the impulse. 
 
 Nor is it otherwise than natural that traces of the 
 existence and operation of this new life, while carrying us 
 
232 The Christ of the Paidine Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 back inevitably to a cause producing it, should have come 
 into existence as they did in the letters of St. Paul, before, 
 possibly, any detailed record of the life of Christ had been 
 committed to writing. 4 This, indeed, it may not be given 
 us to decide, but all that we are concerned to shoW is that 
 the unquestionable testimony of St Paul's Epistles, as- 
 suming as they do the framework of the Gospel narrative 
 and the essence of the Gospel teaching, is in no way con- 
 tradicted, and is not necessarily modified by the possibly 
 subsequent attempts to present in detail a record of the 
 human life and teaching of Jesus Christ. The consistency 
 of the various extant narratives among themselves is alto- 
 gether a different matter, upon which we need not now 
 touch ; but it may be safely affirmed that the utmost that 
 can be made of their alleged contradictions and incon- 
 sistencies is as nothing compared with the weight and 
 significance of their combined testimony, confirmed and 
 corroborated as it is by the wholly independent and 
 necessarily unconscious witness of the writings of St. 
 Paul, to the main central and essential facts of the 
 history. 
 
 In the face, then, of the various considerations which 
 we have had in review before us, it appears that we cannot 
 set aside the evidence afforded by the Pauline writings to 
 the nature and origin of the earliest Christian belief, and 
 of the first Christian society. However numerous and 
 interesting the questions that may arise on these matters 
 which we cannot answer, they are 'really inconsiderable 
 when compared with the amount of positive and satisfac- 
 
 4 This would naturally be the case in a society as yet hardly conscious 
 of its own existence ; and the fact that it historically was so is no slight 
 indication of the reality and genuineness of the causes at work. There 
 could hardly he a greater proof of the historic origin of Christianity than 
 the known existence of writings like the Pauline Epistles within a quarter 
 of a century after that event which was alike the foundation of them and 
 of the religion from which they sprang the death of Christ. 
 
VIL] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 233 
 
 tory evidence that is fairly within our reach. We see that 
 the same foundation of belief is virtually implied in all 
 the Apostle's letters, and that this is a foundation of fact. 
 He could not have appealed to the Colossians, as he did, 
 to set their affections on things above, and not on things 
 on the earth, because they were dead, and their life was 
 hid with Christ in God, unless the resurrection and as- 
 cension of Jesus had been proclaimed at Colossse, unless 
 Jesus had been accepted as the Christ accordingly, and 
 unless the acceptance of that truth had been followed, in 
 those to whom he wrote, by the answer of their own con- 
 science to it in the personal experience of the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost. They were themselves conscious and inde- 
 pendent witnesses to the fact that the teaching of the 
 Apostle had wrought in them, as truth alone could work. 
 They knew that, as they were not the victims of delusion 
 on the part of the Apostle, so they were not acting in col- 
 lusion with him, but were free, responsible, and indepen- 
 dent witnesses to the truth which he proclaimed, as well 
 as to the tendency of that truth to act upon their lives. 
 This, which is alike the grand result of one and all his 
 letters, and a result about which we may be quite sure, is 
 at once superior to and independent of a multitude of 
 minor and subordinate questions about which we must for 
 ever be content to remain in ignorance. 
 
 There are then, from what has been said, certain broad 
 conclusions which we may safely draw. The body of the 
 New Testament writings, but peculiarly the Epistles of St. 
 Paul, both from their manifest character and their known 
 origin, afford irresistible and conclusive evidence to the 
 operation of a new principle in the world to which there 
 is no parallel in secular literature. This principle openly 
 declared itself as the influence of the Holy Spirit. As 
 to its novelty there can be no doubt, for the only instance 
 of a similar agency at work, and this is but a partial 
 
234 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [LECT. 
 
 parallel, is to be found in the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 ment. As to its tendency, also, there can be no doubt, 
 unless we are prepared to assert that the moral tendency 
 of the Pauline writings is pernicious, and the principles 
 inculcated bad. As to its origin, therefore, there can alone 
 be any doubt, whether it was righteous and true, or 
 whether it was virtually unrighteous because inherently 
 and radically false. And this is practically determined 
 by the former consideration ; for ~by their fruits ye shall 
 know them. 
 
 But further, this gift of the Holy Spirit, which was 
 continually appealed to and claimed by the first preachers 
 of the Gospel, and implied and evidenced in the early 
 Christian correspondence of St. Paul, was ever promised 
 and bestowed in confirmation of the truth which was 
 embraced when Jesus was acknowledged as the Christ. 
 As a matter of fact there is no evidence of a principle at 
 work analogous to that of which the writings of the New 
 Testament, regarded merely as writings, are the abiding 
 monument, outside the limits of the early Christian society. 
 This is simply a question of literature, and not at all an 
 assertion of dogma. These are written that ye might believe, 
 may fairly and conclusively be taken as the motto of the 
 New Testament Scriptures. We do not assume inspiration 
 in order to exalt those Scriptures; but we take those 
 Scriptures as they are, and deduce from their existence 
 and their highly exceptional phenomena, the necessary 
 postulate of a special and unique inspiration. As a matter 
 of fact the confession of the name of Jesus as the Christ 
 was followed by results new and unparalleled in the history 
 of the world. If the Gospels and the Acts were lost to us, 
 the measure of those results would be preserved imperish- 
 ably in the known and undoubted Epistles of St. Paul. 
 As they could not have been written but for the conviction 
 and confession that Jesus was the Christ, so neither are 
 
VIL] The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. 23 $ 
 
 the phenomena they present and imply to be accounted 
 for on the supposition, that Jesus was not the Christ : on 
 the supposition, that is, either that the facts which proved 
 Him to be the Christ were fallacious and unreal, or 
 that there was something essentially hollow and unsound 
 in the conception of that office, and those hopes which He 
 was declared to have fulfilled. For Jesus was proclaimed 
 as the Christ, not to the Jews only, but to the Gentiles 
 also. Jesus was accepted as the Christ, not by the Jews 
 only who believed, but by the Gentiles also. 
 
 There is therefore, in the Christ-office of Jesus, that 
 which is alike independent of nationality and of time. 
 We, in the present day, cannot afford to surrender the 
 claim advanced for Jesus to be the Christ, for, in so doing, 
 we shall renounce our title to the name of Christian. It 
 was to the validity of this claim, no less than to the 
 historic reality of the person advancing and fulfilling it, 
 that the gift of the Holy Ghost was promised and bestowed 
 as an attesting witness. His testimony would have been 
 invalidated, and God, in the language of St. John, have 
 been made a liar, had there been any flaw in the cardinal 
 facts of the life of Jesus, or in the reality of that office 
 which He claimed to fill. 
 
 And thus, lastly, the fact of Jesus being the Christ, 
 which is witnessed to by the historic gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, which alone will enable us adequately and satis- 
 factorily to account for the essential and characteristic 
 features of the earliest Christian literature, as we find 
 them in the writings of St. Paul, becomes the effectual 
 and conclusive seal of the substantial and essential truth 
 of the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole. There was 
 a hope embodied in those Scriptures, which was not of 
 man's discovery or conception, which was Divinely -in- 
 spired, and based on a promise which was God-given. It 
 was a hope which grew brighter and brighter as the time 
 
236 The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [vn. 
 
 of its fulfilment drew near. It was a hope of which we 
 can clearly trace the development, and yet a hope to which, 
 neither in its origin nor in its development, can we assign 
 a sufficient natural cause. It has never been given to any 
 nation but one to indulge instinctively an irrepressible 
 hope like that of the Messiah, which the progress of the 
 ages has fulfilled. It has never been given to any literature 
 but one to express this hope in a thousand forms, un- 
 consciously to conceive, to nurture, and to develop it, in 
 manifold parts and in divers manners, till it became a 
 substantial and consistent whole, and to leave this ex- 
 pression for centuries as an heirloom to mankind, the 
 significance and preciousness of which time alone would 
 declare and history conclusively reveal. But to this 
 nation and to this literature it was given. The national 
 mind of Israel was pregnant with a mighty thought, a 
 thought which we cannot fail to detect from the earliest 
 to the latest monuments of its literature. As it was im- 
 possible that this thought should be self-originated, we 
 can only recognise it as the fruit of the nation's excep- 
 tional nearness and dearness to God, the offspring of 
 God's covenant and union with the nation ; and when the 
 life of Jesus could be looked back upon and regarded as 
 a whole, then it was found, and not before, that that life 
 was the fullest and the complete realisation of the mighty 
 thought. When He was recognised as the man-child 
 whom Zion travailed to bring forth, the fulness of the 
 hope which, for long ages, patriarchs, prophets, and poets 
 had cherished, and the law itself had foreshadowed and 
 symbolised, when He was accepted as the Christ and 
 the Prophet that should come into the world, then it was 
 seen that the hope of the fathers was not a dream, and 
 that He who had spoken by the prophets was none other 
 than the Holy Spirit of truth. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 THE CHRIST OF THE OTHER BOOKS. 
 
THE Bible is not such a book as man would have made, if he could ; or 
 could have made, if he would. Henry Rogers. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 / Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the 
 Churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright 
 and morning star. REV. xxii. 16. 
 
 r I ^HAT which we know as the doctrine or conception of 
 -*- the Christ is only to be gathered from the New Testa- 
 ment as a whole. The writings which by accident or design 
 are comprised in that collection present us with a certain 
 idea which is completely contained in them, and which 
 cannot be added to by anything outside of them from the 
 rest of Christian literature. This is, first, the conception 
 of the human life of Jesus as it is recorded in the Gospels, 
 and secondly, the idea that He was the Christ or Messiah 
 promised of old, which is common to every book of the 
 New Testament, the early progress of which we read in 
 the Acts of the Apostles, and the various expressions of 
 which we find in the several Epistles and in the book of 
 the Eevelation. 
 
 The substantive result of this aggregate of writings is 
 the doctrine or religion of the Christ which is presented to 
 us under various aspects and by various minds. It is quite 
 open to us, then, to regard this conception or idea, contained 
 as it is in the New Testament, as a positive fact of literature 
 produced approximately within the first century of our era. 
 
 And it is to be observed that there is no other literary 
 phenomenon answering to this fact since its appearance 
 eighteen centuries ago. Neither was there any strict 
 parallel to it before its appearance. For, wonderful as 
 
240 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 the phenomena presented by the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament really are, and supplying as they do the foun- 
 dation upon which those of the New Testament are based, 
 they nevertheless offer no true parallel to them. 
 
 For the doctrine or conception of the Christ as we have 
 it, which is the essential and necessary basis of the religion 
 which we call Christianity, is unquestionably the product 
 of a human life. In whatever aspect we regard the Gospels, 
 every one of them leads us up to a human life as the 
 ultimate reason of its existence. Even if the narrative is 
 overlaid with unhistoric details, it is impossible but that 
 there must be an historic foundation for the main events 
 of it. And the fourfold testimony of the existing Gospels 
 is probably to be regarded as corroborative of this con- 
 clusion. The history of the Acts, trustworthy as it 
 undoubtedly is in its general tenor, is likewise impossible 
 without supposing the previous existence of the life of 
 Jesus. And when we come to the Pauline Epistles, written 
 as some of them probably were before any of the other 
 books, and leading us up, as we have seen they do, to a 
 much earlier period in the life of the writer, who must 
 himself have been contemporary with the Person whom he 
 first persecuted and afterwards preached, it is abundantly 
 evident that the human life of that Person is not only the 
 corner-stone of every epistle that he wrote, but the indis- 
 pensable foundation of his after history, without which 
 almost all that we know of him remains inexplicable. 
 
 So far then as the Christ idea or the doctrine of the 
 Christ is connected with the person of Jesus, the reality of 
 His human life is established beyond a doubt, for the 
 existing phenomena of the literature, as we have it, would 
 be impossible otherwise. 
 
 It remains then to notice other aspects of the same idea 
 presented to us in the New Testament, and to inquire what 
 their relation is to those we have already considered. These 
 
VIIL] The Christ of the Other Books. 241 
 
 are principally three ; those, namely, of the Epistle of St. 
 James, the First Epistle of St. John, and the Eevelation. 
 The Epistles of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude do 
 not present the same marked contrast to the other writings 
 that these do ; and the Epistle to the Hebrews is mainly 
 the development of one idea, that, namely, of the priest- 
 hood of Jesus Christ, which, though not foreign to some of 
 the other writers, is worthy of separate and independent 
 consideration, but not for our present object. 
 
 The Epistle of St. James naturally comes first, because 
 of its supposed antagonism to the writings of St. Paul, to 
 which our attention was last directed. The writer calls 
 himself a servant of Gfod and of the Lord Jesus Christ?- 
 thereby implying not only that Jesus was the Christ, but 
 that in some way He was unexceptionally near to God. 
 He speaks afterwards of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Lord of glory? which it seems hardly possible to under- 
 stand unless He had in some way been glorified. And 
 His resurrection and ascension to glory after His death of 
 shame are virtually implied when he speaks of the coming 
 of the Lord? Moreover, the poor who are rick in faith, the 
 faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and heirs of the kingdom 
 which God hath promised to them that love Him, are said 
 to be the chosen of God ; 4 which recalls the preaching of 
 Jesus, Eepent ye and believe the Gospel ; 6 the Gospel of the 
 kingdom ; 6 many be called but few chosen, 7 and the like. 
 His reference to the engrafted word, which is to be received 
 with meekness, and is able to save the soul, 8 brings back to 
 us very forcibly the parable of the sower, as also does the 
 fruit of righteousness, which is sown in peace of them that 
 make peace. 9 The earnest exhortation to be doers of the 
 word and not hearers only^ reminds us of the conclusion 
 
 1 St. James i. 1. * ii. 1. 3 v. 8. 4 ii. 5. 
 
 5 St. Mark i. 15. 6 St. Matt. xxiv. 14. * xx. 16. 
 
 8 St. James i. 21. 8 iii. 18. 10 i. 22. 
 
 B 
 
242 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 of the sermon on the mount ; and the injunction to ask in 
 faith, nothing wavering* recalls the promise of the Lord, 
 Ask, and it shall be given you. 2 Such admonitions as, Let 
 patience have her perfect work, that ye, may be perfect? and 
 Take, my brethren, the prophets who have spoken in the name 
 of the Lord for an example of suffering affliction and of 
 patience? so frequently repeated as they are, follow on 
 wonderfully from Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for so per- 
 secuted they the prophets which were before you, 5 and be ye 
 tJieref ore perfect. The worthy name by which ye are called 1 
 can hardly be other than the name of Christ in baptism. 
 
 And though there is no direct allusion to the sufferings 
 of Christ, yet as a time of persecution and suffering is 
 implied, and patience is continually enjoined, we must 
 presuppose His death who had given so conspicuous an 
 example of patience and was now exalted to glory : while, 
 Behold we count them happy which endure* is borrowed 
 from the words of Jesus, Blessed are they which are perse- 
 cuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of 
 heaven, 9 and He that endureth unto the end, the same shall 
 be saved, 10 as also is, Blessed is the man that endureth temp- 
 tation, for when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life 
 which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 11 
 
 In fact there is probably no document of the New 
 Testament that has so many points of contact with the 
 synoptical Gospels as the Epistle of St. James; clearly 
 showing that, whatever was his conception of the Christ, 
 the person in whom he so believed was none other than 
 the Jesus whose history they record. We have then as a 
 common framework in this Epistle, the Fatherhood of 
 God, 12 the exaltation of Jesus who is acknowledged as the 
 
 1 St. James i. 6. * St. Matt. vii. 7. 3 St. James i. 4. 
 
 4 St. James v. 10. 5 St. Matt. v. 12. v. 48. 
 
 7 St. James ii. 7. 8 v. 11. St. Matt. v. 10. 
 
 10 St Matt. xxiv. 13. n St. James i. 12. 12 St. James i. 17, 27. 
 
VIIL] The Christ of the Other Books. 243 
 
 Christ, 1 His return to judgment, 2 and manifold allusions 
 to His recorded teaching. 3 The conception embodied in it 
 is that rather of a glorified than a suffering Christ, and 
 yet the aspect of Christian life which is most prominent 
 is that of fellowship with His sufferings in unceasing 
 patience, and imitation of His example in the consistency 
 of righteous conversation. The clear and emphatic recog- 
 nition of Jesus as the Christ is sufficient, at all events, to 
 add this Epistle to the number of those early writings 
 which the doctrine and religion of the Christ originated, 
 however various its testimony may be. 
 
 But there are certain points in which it approximates 
 with remarkable closeness to the Pauline teaching, not- 
 withstanding its apparent difference. For example, when 
 the writer says, Of his own will begat he us with the word 
 of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his crea- 
 tures,* he virtually implies that the Gospel had acted with 
 a regenerating influence on himself and his converts, as 
 the effect of it is so frequently described by St. Paul. It 
 had come with a new power, and had given them new 
 life, even as the Apostle of the Gentiles had said, You 
 hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins. 5 
 The spiritual operation which is thus implied is a clear 
 proof that to the minds of both writers the same effect 
 was present. The word or message of Jesus Christ, which 
 was the word of truth, was no dead formal precept of 
 morality, or repetition of a mere historical statement, but 
 a living energetic principle capable of begetting and im- 
 parting life. A confession like this is invaluable as com- 
 ing from St. James, because the common-sense ethical 
 character of his Epistle is apt to blind us to the necessary 
 foundation of spiritual life which is pre-supposed in it. 
 And this spiritual life was as much the gift of Jesus 
 
 1 St. James ii. 1. 2 v. 8. 3 v. 12; St. Matt. v. 34, etc. 
 4 St. James i. 18. 5 Ephes. ii. 1. 
 
244 T/ ie Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 Christ, and the effect of belief in His word, to him, as it 
 was to St. Paul. 
 
 This assertion on his part is evidence, therefore, not 
 only of a common basis of facts which each writer as- 
 sumed, but of a common method of operation implied as 
 being inherent in the facts. The belief that Jesus risen 
 and glorified was the Christ, is acknowledged by St. James 
 to have had the same quickening and reviving power in 
 obedience to the will of God, which is affirmed by the 
 great Apostle of the Divine election, who says that the 
 gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, 
 who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our 
 justification; 1 that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him 
 that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy? 
 
 Nor is there the same hopeless divergence between 
 these two writers on the question as to how man can be 
 just before God, which is frequently supposed, and as at 
 first sight appears. It is impossible to resist the cogency 
 of the trenchant practical arguments of St. James on the 
 worthlessness of faith which has no influence on works. 
 They are obviously conclusive. Whatever may have been 
 their historic relation to the teaching of St. Paul, there 
 can be no question that they form a wholesome ethical 
 complement to that teaching ; one, however, which is 
 virtually implied in every Epistle of St. Paul himself. 
 But just as the practical conclusions of St. James are 
 implied and expressed in St. Paul, so likewise are the 
 principles of St. Paul implied and virtually expressed in 
 St. James. For what is the foundation principle of St. 
 Paul, but that all the world must become guilty before 
 God if judged according to the strict letter of the Law. 3 
 Therefore it is that God hath set forth in the Gospel a 
 more excellent way whereby the guilty may be accounted 
 
 1 Rom. vi. 23 ; iv. 25. 2 ix. 16. 
 
 3 Rom. iii. 19, 20. 
 
VIIL] The Christ of the Other Books. 245 
 
 righteous in Jesus Christ. 4 This is the very word of truth 
 which quickens and saves the soul. But since, as we have 
 seen, this latter truth has already been stated by St. James, 
 so also is the previous foundation principle established by 
 him. For when he says, Whosoever shall keep the whole 
 law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all? what 
 does he do virtually, but bring in the whole world guilty 
 before God, as St. Paul has already done ? Judged by the 
 strict letter of the Law, there is no man living who sinneth 
 not. This was alike the teaching of Solomon 6 and of David, 7 
 and consequently St. James can neither have been ignorant 
 of nor have run counter to it; but when he asserts this 
 foundation principle in the way he does, we are able to 
 see precisely where the operation of that word of truth 
 comes in, which being received with meekness and engrafted 
 in the heart is able to save the soul. 
 
 Surely, therefore, we may fairly say that St. Paul and 
 St. James represent two aspects of Christian truth, but 
 only two aspects of the same Christian truth. The same 
 Divine light fell upon minds of different hue and colour, 
 and the effect produced differed accordingly; but as we 
 can detect evidence of the same operation in both, so 
 likewise have we conclusive proof that the origin of the 
 light was the same to both, for it streamed forth from the 
 glorified Jesus who was by both acknowledged as the 
 Christ, the chosen of God. 
 
 We pass on next to the Epistles of St. John, which we 
 treat as documents falling perhaps within the first century, 
 and valuable for our purpose for the evidence only which 
 they furnish as to the writer's conception of the doctrine and 
 religion of the Christ. In the opening of the First Epistle 
 we have the emphatic assertion that the writer was an 
 eyewitness of the human life which had been manifested 
 
 4 Rofei. iii. 21. 5 St. James ii. 10. 
 
 6 1 Kings viii. 46. 7 Ps. cxliii. 2. 
 
246 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 and had come forth from the Father. This was the human 
 life of His Son Jesus Christ. 1 Nor is there any doubt as to 
 the identity of this person with the historic Jesus who lived 
 and died, because the writer says that the blood of Jesus 
 Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 2 Here is the recog- 
 nition of that idea of the high priesthood of Jesus Christ 
 which is the main subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 The cleansing is a spiritual cleansing, but it is the inward 
 analogue of the ceremonial purification and atonement for 
 sin typified under the Law. As the fact of our Lord's 
 death is not expressly alluded to in the Epistle of St. 
 James, so neither is the fact of His resurrection in the 
 Epistles of St. John, but is continually implied. Eor He 
 is recognised as the advocate with the Father, and as being 
 Himself the source of life, which involves therefore His 
 resurrection and ascension. In the Epistle of St. James, 
 the writer's mind was chiefly filled with the glorified con- 
 dition of Jesus, and the necessity of a life conformable to 
 it in the brethren; but St. John seems mainly occupied 
 with the thought of the death of Christ, and of the life 
 which is centred in Him. As St. James also presupposed 
 without alluding in terms to the work of the Spirit, so 
 St. John, on the other hand, not only presupposes but 
 expressly refers to that work; for, says he, ye have an 
 unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things? 
 
 But that which will at once be recognised as the most 
 characteristic feature of the teaching of St. John's Epistles 
 is the prominence he assigns to love. The bent of St. 
 James's character was moral righteousness and integrity, 
 that of St. John's is devout and fervent love. It was a 
 love borrowed from the love of Him who laid down His 
 life for sinners. It is this love whereby we are to have 
 boldness in the day of judgment? in the expectation of which 
 
 1 1 John i. 1-3. 2 i. 7. 
 
 3 1 John ii. 20. Of. also iii. 24; iv. 13. * iv. 17. 
 
VIIL] The Christ of the Other Books. 247 
 
 day of His appearing we detect another point of contact 
 with St. James, as likewise with St. Paul. The notion of 
 a death for sin, the effect of which has been to put away 
 sin and to cleanse from sin, 5 is so common in St. Paul that 
 we need not dwell upon it; and the notion of a love 
 derived from the love of Christ cannot be foreign to him 
 who has drawn for us the famous picture of love in his 
 First Epistle to Corinth. 
 
 It is clear, then, that these various writings are so many 
 illustrations of the effect produced upon individual minds 
 by the facts of the life of Jesus and the belief that He 
 was the Christ. It is not upon their authority that we 
 dwell, so much as upon the undeniable evidence they afford 
 of the operation of a particular belief, based upon a series 
 of facts which are manifestly common to all the writers. 
 That this belief and these facts would operate variously 
 on various minds was only natural and to be expected. 
 The differences, however, are plainly differences of indi- 
 vidual character, and the identity of operation and the 
 sameness of results produced, which are recognisable in 
 all, are the more remarkable from this necessary contrast 
 of individual character. And it is the general and broad 
 result thus produced in a variety of minds manifestly so 
 independent as to be capable of being not seldom repre- 
 sented as antagonistic, that we call the doctrine, or concep- 
 tion, or religion of the Christ. The unity and completeness 
 of the full idea are to be gathered only from a survey of 
 all the records. One part of the conception is more 
 prominent in some writings than it is in others. But as 
 a matter of fact, all are requisite for the expression of 
 the complete conception before we can deal with it as a 
 substantive whole. 
 
 With a view to this, the Epistles of St. Peter and St. 
 Jude may be briefly mentioned next. In the First Epistle 
 
 s 2 Cor. v. 21, etc. 
 
248 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 of St. Peter, it matters not now who wrote it, we have in 
 the opening verses the sufferings, death, resurrection, and 
 future appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 " The strangers" 
 to whom it is written are addressed as elect according to 
 the foreknowledge of God the Father, and they are charac- 
 terised as having been born again, not of corruptible seed, 
 but of incorruptible, by the word or reason of God, who 
 liveth and abideth for ever. 2 Furthermore, we have men- 
 tion made of sanctification of the Spirit, which is the spirit 
 of Christ, through which the disciples have purified their 
 souls in obeying the truth ; B and the Gospel, which is iden- 
 tified with the spoken word of the Lord, 4 is said to have 
 been preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. 5 
 The redemption of believers is said to be with the precious 
 blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without 
 spot, 6 showing that the writer recognised in the death of 
 Jesus the complete fulfilment of the types of the law. 
 The Epistle is evidence also that many Gentiles, which in 
 time past were not a people, had now become the people of 
 God; 7 that they willingly regarded themselves as spiritual 
 heirs of the promises made to Israel ; and that this change 
 in their position had been brought about by their acknow- 
 ledgment of Jesus as the Christ. 8 It is clear, also, that 
 times of trouble were at hand, and that some had begun 
 to be reproached for the name of Christ, and to suffer for 
 being called Christian ; 9 but the day of Christ's glory was 
 about to be revealed, when they would be glad with ex- 
 ceeding joy. 10 The practice of baptism as a common rite 11 
 is also spoken of in this Epistle, and the responsibility of 
 godly conversation is strongly insisted upon. 12 
 
 The Second Epistle of St. Peter is chiefly remarkable 
 
 1 1 Peter i. 1-11. 2 i. 23. 3 i. 2, 11, 22. 
 
 4 1 Peter i. 25. 5 i. 12. 6 i. 19. 
 
 7 1 Peter ii. 10. 8 ii. 7. 9 iv. 12, 14, 16. 
 
 10 1 Peter iv. 13. iii. 21. 12 i. 15, etc. 
 
viii.] The Christ of the Other 
 
 for its vivid anticipation of judgment, for its strenuous 
 inculcation of holiness and denunciation of ungodliness, 
 and for the additional title of Saviour, 1 which it frequently 
 assigns to our Lord Jesus Christ. Familiarity with the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament, and frequent allusion to 
 them, are characteristic of both these Epistles. 
 
 Passing on to St. Jude, we find that his Epistle is ad- 
 dressed to them that are sanctified by God the Father and 
 preserved in or reserved for Jesus Christ, and called. 2 The 
 writer speaks of the common salvation, which he implies 
 was obtained through the grace of God and our Lord Jesus 
 Christ? He exhorts his disciples, by confirmation in the 
 faith and prayer in the Holy Ghost, to keep themselves in 
 the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ unto eternal life. 4 He makes mention of certain 
 feasts of charity, 5 and speaks of the apostles of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, whose spoken words must have been fresh 
 in the memory of those to whom he wrote. 6 We are here, 
 then, as it were, brought face to face with men who had 
 listened to the teaching of those who had received their 
 commission from the Lord himself, and we have collateral 
 evidence of the general tenor of their teaching. 
 
 The opening of the Eevelation of St. John bears witness 
 to belief in Jesus as one who had died and risen again; 7 
 who was to come with clouds, when every eye should see 
 him, and they also which pierced him? His death had not 
 only been a priestly expiation for sin, but it had conferred 
 a priesthood upon believers, 9 even as St. Peter had called 
 them a royal priesthood. The offices of king and priest, 
 which were united in Jesus Christ, were united also in 
 believers. The sublime vision of the Son of Man in 
 glory is the most remarkable feature of this part of the 
 
 1 2 Peter i. 1, 11 ; ii. 20 ; iii. 2, 18. 2 Jude 1. 3 Jude 4. 
 4 Jude 21. 5 12. e 17> 7 Rev . i. 18< 
 
 8 Rev. i. 7. 9 i. 6. 10 1 Peter ii. 9. 
 
250 The Christ of the Other Boohs. [LECT. 
 
 Apocalypse, the whole of which book is itself an exhibition 
 of the glorified Jesus in His character of judge. The 
 Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia recognise Him as 
 the Son of God; 1 as he which searcheth the hearts and reins, 
 and will give to every one according to his works. 2 Each of 
 these Epistles ends with the remarkable words, He that 
 hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the 
 churches, the Spirit being clearly the Spirit of Christ or 
 of Him which hath the seven Spirits of God. 3 Jesus Christ 
 is further represented in the Apocalypse as the Lion of the 
 tribe of Judah* the root and offspring of David, 5 the Lamb 
 slain from the foundation of the world, 6 who hath redeemed 
 us to God by his blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and 
 people, and nation. 1 The saints arrayed in white robes are 
 said to be they which came out of great tribulation, and had 
 washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the 
 Lamb. 8 When the seventh angel sounded, there were great 
 voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are 
 become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; and 
 lie shall reign for- ever and ever. 9 The testimony of Jesus is 
 declared to be the spirit of prophecy ; 10 and finally, He is 
 Himself called The Word of God, and is said to have on 
 his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, 
 and Lord of lords} 1 
 
 Such is a brief summary of the Apocalyptic conception 
 of Jesus as the Christ. Whatever may be the date of the 
 lievelation, it expresses, perhaps, the fullest development 
 of the Messianic character and glories of Jesus, and it is 
 unquestionably the work of a man who had been nurtured 
 in Judaism. It represents, moreover, the fullest effect 
 produced by turning the many-coloured light of prophecy 
 upon the personal history of Jesus. The writer sees in all 
 
 1 Rev. ii. 18. * ii. 23. 3 iii. 1. 4 v. 5. 
 
 5 Rev. xxii. 16. 6 xiii. 8. ? v. 9. vii. 13, 14. 
 
 9 Rev. xi. 15. 10 xix. 10. " xix. 16. 
 
viii.] The Christ of the Other Books. 251 
 
 prophecy, from Genesis to Daniel, a testimony bearing 
 witness to Jesus. It is plain, moreover, that the two 
 features of the Godhead and of the priesthood of the 
 Messiah, which are more especially wrought out in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, are contained in form and essence 
 in the Eevelation, as they were implied in the First Epistle 
 of St. Peter and in many of those of St. Paul. Though 
 this last great anonymous Epistle has expanded more fully 
 the priesthood of Jesus, it has not, in doing so, added any 
 new feature to His character. 
 
 We are, therefore, now in a position to survey as a whole 
 the doctrine or religion of the Christ, as it is contained in 
 the earliest Christian writings we possess, and developed 
 by them out of materials previously existing in the sacred 
 writings of the Jews. 
 
 And first, there is the clear fact, not only attested by 
 history but which we must also postulate in order to 
 account for the phenomena presented in these writings, of 
 the human life and death of Jesus. That human life and 
 death is the corner-stone of their existence, which, without 
 it, would have been impossible. Secondly, there is the 
 fact, equally certain, that this same Jesus was proclaimed 
 by men of various minds and characters as the Christ, for 
 without it also the Christian literature could have had no 
 existence. Thirdly, there is the necessary inference that 
 the Christ-character which He was declared to have fulfilled 
 was a substantive reality, not only in the minds of those 
 who received Him, but of those also who rejected Him in 
 that character, and consequently that this ideal conception 
 had been, as a matter of fact, produced by the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament. Fourthly, there is the no less 
 necessary inference that it was impossible for Jesus to 
 have been thus accepted in consequence of the effect pro- 
 duced only by His life and death. We must postulate 
 other influences, which are mainly two, first, the reality of 
 
252 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 His resurrection; and secondly, the reality of the effects 
 which accompanied and followed His recognition as the 
 Christ in the gift of the Holy Spirit. The evidence of the 
 reality of this gift is in our own hands, and consists in the 
 existence of the earliest Christian literature embodied in 
 the New Testament. There is irresistible and conclusive 
 evidence there of the operation of a new power, to which 
 there is no complete analogy in the history or literature of 
 the world, but to which corroborative witness is borne even 
 in the linguistic phenomena of these writings. 
 
 For example, there is no phrase in the Old Testament 
 directly answering to the Holy Spirit of the New. We 
 have of course such phrases as, the, Spirit of God, the 
 Spirit of the Lord, my Spirit, and the like. We have thy 
 Holy Spirit once in the fifty-first Psalm, and his Holy 
 Spirit twice in the sixty-third of Isaiah, but even these 
 phrases nowhere else; but the Holy Spirit never occurs. 1 
 No sooner, however, do we open these pages, than we 
 encounter, for the first time, a new and original phrase, 
 the Holy Ghost, which occurs repeatedly, in all nearly a 
 hundred times, is found in almost every book, and is used 
 by every writer of the New Testament with the single 
 exception of St. James, who, however, as we have seen, 
 implies, in very remarkable words, the operation of the 
 Holy Spirit. The natural inference, therefore, is, that 
 this new phraseology is expressive of a new fact ; and we 
 know that the Apostles laid claim to the bestowal of the 
 Holy Spirit as a new gift, and appealed to it as the most 
 convincing proof that their message was a true one. 
 
 It is surely, then, incidental evidence of the reality of 
 
 1 In the later Apocryphal books we have only in Wisdom ix. 1 7 " And 
 thy counsel who hath known, except thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy 
 Spirit from above?" And in 2 Esdras xiv. 22: "But if I have found 
 grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me." Cf. the statement of 
 St. John vii. 39 : " The Holy Ghost was not yet, because that Jesus was 
 ot yet glorified." 
 
vni.] The Christ of the Other Books. 253 
 
 the new gift they claimed to bestow, that their writings 
 are so full of allusions to it which are couched in language 
 that is also new. There is nothing even in the Old Testa- 
 ment answering to the continual reference to the Holy 
 Spirit in the New. The idea exists there in germ, as does 
 also the idea of the Christ; but the full development of 
 both ideas is the great literary fact of the New Testament, 
 which is patent and demonstrable. 
 
 If, therefore, this new and original gift, which was con- 
 fessed alike by Jew and Gentile, by Roman and Greek, by 
 Barbarian, Scythian, bond and free, and has left for all 
 ages its indelible mark and its indestructible monument 
 in the literature of the New Testament, was, as a matter 
 of fact, the product of the acknowledgment of Jesus as 
 the Christ, and its accompaniment; if, as an historic 
 result, which there is no denying, the confession of Jesus 
 as the Christ, and that alone, was the origin of this litera- 
 ture, and the effects to which it witnesses may we not 
 affirm that the credit of the Spirit of truth, which is also 
 the Spirit of promise, is, in a manner, staked upon the 
 validity and truth of that to which He so clearly testified 
 namely, that Jesus was the Christ, the chosen of God, 
 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, accord- 
 ing to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the 
 dead. 2 
 
 It must be borne in mind that the broad issue thus 
 presented is virtually independent of a variety of questions 
 which may be proposed as to the authorship and date of 
 various books. The acknowledged Epistles of St. Paul are 
 themselves a mine of testimony to the nature of early 
 Christian belief, and the facts on which it rested. They 
 carry us back far within the limits of the generation in 
 which Jesus lived and died, and they show the kind of 
 effect which belief in Him had produced. Whether this 
 
 8 Rom. i. 4. 
 
254 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 or that other Epistle is by him, or when it was written, 
 does not really affect the main issue, which is clear enough 
 without. Putting the extreme case that the name of Peter 
 has been wrongly affixed to the first Epistle bearing it, 
 the whole value of the document as a witness to Christ 
 does not turn upon that. We may still believe that it 
 truly represents the condition and faith of many scattered 
 throughout Pontus, Galatia> Cappadocia, Asia,and Bithynia? 
 who, being the elect of God as lively stones had been built up 
 a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 
 sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ* The patent 
 phenomena of it as a literary monument have still to be 
 accounted for. And taken only as such it is one witness 
 more to the marvellous effects brought about by belief in 
 Jesus as the Christ, which from other sources were suffi- 
 ciently plain already. 
 
 Nor is it possible that this position can be seriously 
 affected by the most that can be made out of the obvious 
 divergencies of Christian teaching, as, for example, those 
 of St. James and St. Paul. It is not the divergencies that 
 are the most remarkable feature. These exist in the 
 acknowledged writings of St. Paul himself, and they must 
 exist in the writings of any man. The common foundation 
 of underlying fact that is apparent, and the implicit unity 
 of originating motive at work, in both, are the points of 
 real moment to be observed. And these are no less patent 
 in one than in the other ; and the conclusion to which they 
 lead us is the same, that the Jesus who was glorified and 
 would return to judgment was acknowledged as the Christ, 
 and that belief in Him was an obligation to consistent 
 holiness of life. 
 
 Thus the books of the New Testament present us with 
 the full development and expansion of an idea which 
 existed in germ in the Old Testament, the idea, that is, of 
 3 1 St. Peter i. 1. * ii. 5. 
 
viii.] The Christ of the Other Books. 255 
 
 the Christ or the Messiah. The historic growth of this idea 
 is distinctly traceable in the ancient Scriptures. The 
 earliest indications of it are to be found in Genesis, the 
 latest in Daniel, and the post-captivity prophets. Each 
 successive stage of the history and each successive period 
 of the literature added its own contribution to the thought, 
 till the actual result of the whole was the undefined and 
 yet definite expectation of the Messiah which was rife in 
 the Jewish nation long before the commencement of the 
 Christian era. As, however, it was impossible that any 
 one element in the Old Testament conception should have 
 been the natural parent of any other, that the fifty-third 
 of Isaiah, for instance, should have been suggested by or 
 grown out of the twenty-second Psalm, or Daniel's pro- 
 phecy of the Messiah have been originated by Jeremiah's 
 prediction of the captivity, or the like so also is it 
 impossible that all these elements combined should have 
 created that full development of the conception which is 
 presented in the collective books of the New Testament. 
 
 At the close of the reign of Tiberius Caesar all that the 
 world knew of this Messianic conception was contained in 
 the sacred writings of the Jews and the popular faith 
 derived from them. Within the space of two generations 
 afterwards, that doctrine of the Christ, as it is contained 
 in the bulk of the New Testament literature, existed in its 
 integrity. That the seed had expanded into the tree of 
 mighty growth, is an undoubted fact both of history and 
 of literature. For it is with literary monuments that we 
 are now dealing. The four great Epistles of St. Paul are 
 impossible phenomena if they had nothing but the Old 
 Testament to rest on. As a matter of fact, the one could 
 not have originated the other. And yet the Pauline 
 letters could not have existed without the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. Between these two great literary facts, as an 
 inevitable and connecting link, there occurred the historic 
 
256 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 fact of the human life and death of Jesus. As that human 
 life and death can alone account for the relation subsisting 
 between the two, so is it also the one historic and originat- 
 ing cause without which these Epistles could not have 
 existed. But the mere life and death of a Man who Him- 
 self left no abiding memorial behind Him, could not, 
 together with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, have 
 given birth to a new and unique literature, unless there 
 were elements in His character and history as unique as 
 the results which they produced. That Jesus was the 
 Christ is the uniform and consistent testimony of the New 
 Testament writers, and the belief that He was is the only 
 occasion for their existence as writers. That He, being the 
 Christ of prophecy, contained in Himself the fulfilment of 
 all the past and the promise of all the future that He 
 was at once the root and the offspring of David, and the 
 bright and morning star, 4 the realisation of the old and 
 the inaugurator of the new dispensation, the fountain of 
 eternal life and the giver of the Holy Ghost, and thus 
 should have been the adequate and sufficient origin of 
 effects so mighty and so marvellous, is conceivable; but 
 that the effects, being no less mighty and marvellous than 
 they are, should have been produced when His alleged 
 character was a fiction, and His personal influence an un- 
 reality, is not conceivable, and reduces us to the necessity 
 of rejecting a cause commensurate with the effect in order 
 that we may choose one which would be altogether and 
 wholly inadequate. 
 
 As, moreover, the Epistles of St. Paul are unfaltering 
 and decisive in their testimony to the reality of the human 
 life of Jesus, so also do they contain within themselves 
 the germ of the perfect conception of His character as the 
 Christ. That character is of necessity an ideal because it 
 is a spiritual one. Christ as He was known after the flesh 
 
 4 Rev. xxii. 16. 
 
viii.] The Christ of the Other Books. 257 
 
 was the son of Mary who was crucified through weakness. 
 The conditions of His natural life were confounding to 
 flesh and blood, and they culminated in the offence of the 
 cross. The very assertion that He was the Christ involved 
 a certain idealisation of those spiritual functions the title 
 implied, w T hich could not be discernible by flesh and blood. 
 The priesthood of Christ, His eternal Sonship, His future 
 return to judgment, even His resurrection and ascension, 
 to some extent appealed to the imagination and to the 
 spiritual faculties to apprehend them. They could not be 
 the objects of experience to the natural senses. Their 
 contemplation involved the exercise of other powers. The 
 fact that it was these topics that the Epistles dealt with, 
 would itself explain the marked difference existing be- 
 tween them and the Gospels or the Acts. The Christ 
 was of necessity an internal conception endued with all 
 the glory and majesty which was hidden from the natural 
 eye in the human Jesus. It was the discovery of the one 
 in the other, and the fulfilment in Jesus of the ideal 
 character of the Christ that produced the phenomena of 
 conversion, and gave the impulse to those mighty results 
 of which the Epistles themselves are the lasting monument 
 and the abiding proof. 
 
 But then these results were the very last that the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old Testament would have produced. It was 
 the person of Jesus acting through those Scriptures that 
 produced the results. It was His life, His death, His 
 resurrection, His ascension, but pre-eminently the Holy 
 Spirit which He promised to send, that awoke in those 
 ancient writings their latent fire, and produced, through 
 their agency and through the answer given to their pro- 
 phetic promises and hopes, those phenomena of new and 
 spiritual life of which the New Testament itself is the 
 greatest witness. 
 
 And this is what we mean by the historic development 
 
 s 
 
258 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 of the Christ-conception or of the religion of the Christ. 
 Within thirty years after the death of Jesus, all the 
 essential features of that doctrine or conception were fully 
 developed. Whatever was added afterwards by the Keve- 
 lation of St. John, for example, or by other books, was not 
 a substantive addition ; it had existed long before in the 
 faith of believers and in the record of their belief. This 
 is a matter of history, resting upon documentary evidence 
 which is unexceptionable. 
 
 It is plain, moreover, that the effects which followed the 
 acknowledgment of Jesus as the highest and complete ful- 
 filment of prophecy, were not only unique as a matter of 
 history, but also that there is no other life or character 
 which could have produced the same results through the 
 operation of the same means. There is no other person in 
 the annals of history, who being contemplated in con- 
 nection with the same writings of the Old Testament, is 
 capable of producing such a combination as would effect a 
 similar result. Nor have we any reason to believe there 
 ever will be. But, as an unquestionable historic fact, these 
 great results were the direct and immediate fruit of belief 
 in Jesus as the Christ. It is hard indeed, therefore, to 
 resist the cogency of the apostolic assertion that the testi- 
 mony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. 5 We are con- 
 strained to acknowledge that the unity and completeness 
 of the full conception of the Christ, the marvellous way in 
 which it fits into the anticipations of the Old Testament, 
 and more than fills up the measure of its significance, and 
 yet from this very fact could not have been suggested by 
 those writings, as it historically was not, is its own wit- 
 ness. This could not have been, as it assuredly was not, 
 the work of man. Here, if anywhere, is to be seen the 
 finger of God. By these indestructible facts of history and 
 of literature, even more plainly than by a voice from 
 
 5 Kev. xix. 10. 
 
VIIL] The Christ of the Other Books. 259 
 
 heaven, He has declared of Jesus, This is my beloved Son, 
 in whom I am well pleased, 6 and has set the seal of His 
 Divine approval to the testimony of Apostles and Evan- 
 gelists that He was the Christ. 
 
 We are precluded, then, from regarding the Christ-doc- 
 trine, even as it is expressed in St. Paul's Epistles, as a 
 merely Pauline conception, because some of the most 
 essential features of that doctrine such as the Messiah- 
 ship, the glorification, and the future return of Jesus are 
 as characteristic of St. James as they are of St. Paul ; and 
 because other features no less prominent in him. are com- 
 mon with him to the other writers of the New Testament. 
 These are, the belief in Jesus as the Christ, the fulfilment 
 in Him which that implied of the Scriptures of the Pro- 
 phets ; the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and final 
 manifestation of Jesus; His perpetual priesthood, or the 
 mystic power to cleanse from sin involved and inherent 
 in His death ; the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, which 
 was the natural and yet the supernatural consequence of 
 belief in Him ; and the requisite consistency in holiness 
 of life enjoined upon and commonly produced in those who 
 became followers of Him, as well as the union of believers 
 with God and with one another through their union with 
 Him. 
 
 And to this historic and literary development of the 
 Eeligion of the Christ, arising as it did out of the facts of 
 the life of Jesus, and the light which was shed by them 
 on the Scriptures of the Prophets, we point as a sufficient 
 and conclusive evidence of its origin. 
 
 The variety, the independence, and the gradual deve- 
 lopment of the materials existing in the Old Testament, 
 which supplied the foundation of it, are facts that 
 cannot be gainsaid. Neither can their existence, regarded 
 merely as literary phenomena, be accounted for on purely 
 6 St. Matt, iii 17 ; xvii. 5. 
 
260 The Chnst of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 natural principles. The ordinary impulses of human 
 authorship or flights of human genius will not account 
 for or explain the mysterious utterances of an Isaiah or 
 a Zechariah. There is that in them which no theory of 
 merely human causation will resolve. Each separate stage 
 in the marvellous growth is a witness to the existence 
 of the earlier one, but not the natural or the necessary 
 result of it. Each individual writer stands out in his 
 own clearly-marked and characteristic personality, spon- 
 taneously but unconsciously adding his own fragment to 
 the mass ; and not till the last echoes of the latest Prophet 
 have died away is the result seen to be a uniform and 
 consistent whole. Not ti]l the Son of man has come, and 
 died and risen and been glorified, is it perceived, because 
 before it could not be, that His portraiture was sketched 
 of old by the Prophets. 
 
 And when we come to that life itself, it is not till we 
 find the impress of the seal on the plastic clay of human 
 life which has been regenerated, renewed, and elevated, 
 recreated, cleansed, and glorified, that we discover what 
 the seal itself had been. The death which could commu- 
 nicate itself to a corrupt and sinful nature, and prove the 
 destruction of the old man, could have been no ordinary 
 death. It must have been the death of Him on whom 
 the Lord had laid the iniquity of us all, and who had 
 made His soul an offering for sin. The resurrection of 
 Him who had bestowed spiritual life on others, which had 
 brought forth such fruit in them as the Epistles to Eome 
 and Ephesus are samples of, must have been itself a reality, 
 the demonstration of an inherent principle of eternal life 
 which was undying and had cast out death. To Him who 
 had shed forth on the new society gifts of the Spirit so 
 unmistakable and so abundant, the Spirit itself must have 
 been given without measure. He had indeed received 
 gifts for men, yea even for His enemies, because He had 
 
viii.] The Christ of the Other Books. 261 
 
 ascended up on high, and had led captivity captive, that 
 the Lord God might dwell among them. 
 
 And lastly, in the historic development of the religion 
 and doctrine of the Christ, appearing as it does first in the 
 Prophets in a form inchoate and germinal, next in the 
 Epistles in a form fully matured and complete, and lastly 
 in the historic books of the New Testament, which endea- 
 vour to recall the image of the living Jesus in the form of 
 reminiscences of an actual human life, we have the clearest 
 possible proof of the real origin of that doctrine. The 
 Epistles of necessity presuppose the fact of a previously- 
 existing human life in all material points identical with 
 that portrayed in the Gospels. It cannot be alleged that 
 these Epistles owe their existence to the prior existence of 
 the Gospels. On the contrary, they exhibit the central 
 fact of the Gospels in active operation, probably, or at 
 least possibly, long before they were any one of them 
 written. At all events, their testimony is entirely inde- 
 pendent, as from the nature of the case it is undesigned. 
 We have then to account for the phenomena they present 
 without drawing upon any existing sources, or sources 
 known to have existed, except those which already existed 
 in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. 
 
 But these of themselves are manifestly inadequate to 
 account for them. We must throw in the human life of 
 Jesus, including the central and essential facts of that life, 
 without which it alone would have been inadequate to 
 account for them. If the Epistles could possibly be re- 
 garded merely as the expression of individual sentiment 
 and opinion, the case would of course be very different. 
 But they cannot be so regarded. They are themselves the 
 evidence of certain facts, as also is the personal history of 
 their author. His early, no less than his later career, is 
 only to be accounted for on the supposition of the reality 
 of the life of Jesus. His writings show us that life, oper- 
 
262 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 ating not as a past but as a present influence, not only in 
 himself but in others. They spring from no morbid attach- 
 ment to a dead man, but are instinct with the Almighty 
 power and with the Divine Spirit of a risen and trium- 
 phant Saviour. Judged, therefore, merely as literary re- 
 sults, they can only be assigned to delusion or to madness, 
 if their real origin is not that which it claims to be. The 
 hypothesis of delusion is untenable, because it demands 
 too wide an area. The hypothesis of madness was long 
 ago anticipated and precluded in a defence attributed to 
 the writer himself 1 am not mad, most noble Festus, lut 
 speak forth the words of truth and soberness.' 1 
 
 The historic development, therefore, of the Christ-doc- 
 trine is a manifest proof of the historic origin of Christi- 
 anity, of that religion of which it is the essential basis. In 
 Christianity we are brought face to face with a religion 
 which as a matter of fact sprang from facts, and was based 
 upon the foundation of a human life. All evidence is fatal 
 to the notion that it was a congeries of coagulated senti- 
 ment. It was no cobweb of fictions spun from the brain 
 of overwrought and deluded preachers. We cannot trace 
 it home to any such origin or birthplace. Its simplest and 
 most elementary expression was Jesus is the Christ. And 
 this was not only simple and elementary, but it was essen- 
 tial and uniform. There was and could be no Christianity 
 where this expression did not obtain. If the Christ was 
 an ideal conception, it was one which owed more than 
 half its existence and all its glory to the realities of the 
 life of Jesus. That life was the vital spark, which, falling 
 on the prepared substance of ancient prophecy, produced 
 a conflagration which set the whole world in a blaze. / am 
 come to send fire on the earth, and what will I if it le already 
 kindled ? 8 
 
 But that the material was prepared beforehand, was the 
 
 7 Acts xxvi. 25. 8 St. Luke xii. 49. 
 
viii.] The Christ of the Other Books. 263 
 
 work of God, and not of man, and that the vital spark was 
 deposited in a human life which through death could destroy 
 him that had the power of death, is evidence that that 
 human life was the gift of God, and derived from God as 
 no other life could be. This is my leloved Son, in whom I 
 am well pleased. 9 No other fact of history, no other human 
 life, falling on the same substance, could have produced 
 the same result, nor would this human life, falling upon 
 any similar substance not similarly prepared. It was the 
 union of these two, but of these two only, which resulted, 
 or could have resulted, in the way it did. 
 
 What is the inference, therefore ? Verily, that the 
 expression Jesus is the Christ was, as the Apostles declared 
 it to be, and as the Holy Spirit testified, the utterance of 
 the truth of God. This was the record that God gave of 
 His Son. 
 
 But we find in this Christ-doctrine and Eeligion of the 
 Christ not only an evidence of its historic origin in the 
 world of fact, but an indication also of its destined per- 
 manence. It is independent alike of the changes of for- 
 tune and the chances of time. Empires may dissolve and 
 monarchies may fall, but this religion will stand. No 
 revelations of science in the future can reverse or unwrite 
 the record of the past, which is deep graven in the facts 
 of human literature and history. If as a matter of unde- 
 niable fact the consequence of the proclamation of Jesus 
 as the Christ was what we have seen it to be, it becomes 
 impossible to imagine that the Christ-doctrine was nothing 
 more than a temporary and a transient feature of the move- 
 ment. We cannot see in these results a marked indication 
 of the finger of God, a setting of the seal of the Divine 
 Spirit to the truth of a message proclaimed in obedience 
 to the Divine will, and refuse to acknowledge that the 
 message was something more than of temporary signifi- 
 
 9 St. Matt. xvii. 5. 
 
264 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 cance and of transient import. If this was the Divine 
 message in a way that no other message ever was Divine, 
 then we can hardly venture to affirm that the essential 
 terms of it were in their essence transitory. We can 
 scarcely suppose that it will be a matter of indifference 
 whether or not we cease to regard Jesus as the Christ. To 
 take Him only as He is known to the wildest unbelief 
 as a human teacher of great originality, as a successful 
 reformer, as an enthusiast who was Himself the victim of 
 extraordinary delusions will in no degree be compatible 
 with the literary phenomena of the New Testament which 
 we possess as the actual outcome and result of His per- 
 sonal influence, whatever His personal character may have 
 been. If a similar estimate of the character of St. Paul will 
 fail to account for the remarkable features of the Pauline 
 writings, still less will this theory of the character of 
 Jesus be consistent with those features, because it implies 
 on His part not only delusion, but deliberate and energetic 
 deception. The centre of Pauline teaching was Jesus, but 
 the centre of the teaching of Jesus was Himself, and every 
 estimate of His character is inadequate which does not 
 recognise this fact. If, therefore, we cannot have the 
 complete conception of the Christ-character without the 
 human life of Jesus, so neither can we have any adequate 
 or just notion of the personal life of Jesus without the 
 essential elements of the Christ-character combined with 
 it. Who was Jesus, if He was not the Christ ? We are 
 at a loss to determine. He was an anomaly in human 
 history, standing out in remarkable relation to the ancient 
 literature and history of His people, but having nothing 
 to do with it, and assuredly not produced by it shedding 
 marvellous light on all other times and histories, but Him- 
 self dwelling in darkness undeniably the centre and 
 source of a unique collection of writings, to which there 
 is no approximate parallel in literature, but presenting, in 
 
VIIL] The Christ of the Other Books. 265 
 
 His own character, the strongest possible contrast to the 
 acknowledged tendency of those writings, because Himself 
 indifferent to truth as a first requisite of virtue. If Jesus 
 was not what the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, agree in 
 confessing Him to have been, we not only are unable to 
 say what He was, but are at a loss to account for their ex- 
 istence as the actual product of the belief that He was 
 the Christ. On the assumption that their combined testi- 
 mony is true, His character at once becomes consistent 
 and intelligible, and their existence is explained. They 
 were the substantial and permanent bequest of Him who 
 was the Mediator of the New Testament. They are the 
 abiding proof of the reality and the fulfilment of that 
 promise of the Holy Ghost which He made to His disciples. 
 If it is asked, How do we know that He made it, except 
 on the authority of these writings themselves ? we can 
 only reply, It is more in accordance with reason to suppose 
 He did than it is, judging from the nature of the result 
 itself, to imagine that the promise was invented to give 
 the appearance of greater mystery to that which already 
 was but too mysterious ; to seem to account for that which, 
 with or without it, was equally unaccountable. 
 
 The historic development, then, of the doctrine and 
 religion of the Christ is a strong moral evidence of its 
 origin. It was not invented by man. In the highest and 
 truest sense it was God-given. It has all the characteristics 
 of an actual and a genuine revelation. Not only was the 
 character of Jesus the character of the Son of God, but the 
 way in which His life gave vitality to the germinal elements 
 of the Christ-idea latent in the ancient Scriptures, and the 
 way in which that conception gathered strength and grew, 
 as it were, naturally, and yet not without an energy at 
 work which was other than natural, in the threefold and 
 mutually independent forms of correspondence, history, 
 biography, till, within the period of an ordinary human 
 
266 The Christ of the Other Books. [LECT. 
 
 lifetime from the death of Jesus, it had attained its fullest 
 development, and was substantially complete long before ; 
 and the way in which it wrought, like leaven, in the mass 
 of a decaying and corrupt humanity, till the whole was 
 leavened and renewed, is the highest moral evidence we 
 can have of the character of the energy at work, and of the 
 nature of the Will whose operation it revealed. 
 
 No mere worship of humanity unredeemed and unre- 
 generate can aspire to supersede the religion of Jesus as 
 the Christ ; no vague residuum of the various religions of 
 the world, reduced to their common elements of morality 
 and truth, can hope to supplant this, for it is possessed of 
 special characteristics which mark it out as separate from 
 all. No other religion has an origin so distinct and mani- 
 fest as this. No other faith has the evidence of an inherent 
 vitality like this. No other has the promise or the prospect 
 of permanence like this. No other is capable of producing 
 fruits that redound so much to the glory of God and to the 
 good of man as this. No other religion may so fitly be called 
 Divine, or so justly be attributed to God, as this ; for none 
 can so clearly establish her credentials or make good her 
 claim. 
 
 It is no question, however, of mere superiority between 
 this religion and any other. If Christianity is true, that 
 is to say if the religion of Jesus as the Christ is true, it is 
 true as no other is true. If God has indeed set His seal 
 to this religion, He has set it in a way that He has not set 
 it to any other. No other religion but this, saving only 
 that from which it sprang, which must stand or fall with 
 it, can point to anything like the same pedigree of fact. 
 No other religion but these which are virtually both one 
 as regards their origin, can point to monuments so enduring, 
 so remarkable, so sublime, so holy. Heaven and earth shall 
 pass away ; but my words shall not pass away? was a bold 
 1 St. Matt. xxiv. 35 ; St. Luke xxi. 33. 
 
VIIL] The Christ of the Other Books. 267 
 
 and magnificent challenge ; but it was something more, for 
 it was a challenge, daring as it was, which may be safely 
 left to vindicate and prove itself. 
 
 Lord, to whom shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal 
 life? is language that was addressed to Jesus, and which 
 can be addressed to no human teacher. We may be un- 
 certain as to its propriety when addressed to Him ; but we 
 can scarcely venture to address such words to any other. 
 He is either worthy of them, or He is not ; if He is not, 
 then there is no one else that we can name in comparison 
 of Him ; but if He is worthy of them, then let us go to 
 Him ourselves with them. Let us make them our own. 
 Let us give ourselves in heart and soul and mind and 
 strength to Him. Let us go to Him for the life which He 
 alone can give, for the pardon of all the sinful past, for the 
 light of the darkened present, for the hope of the endless 
 future. Let us resolve that, while many are falling away, 
 and some are making shipwreck of faith, and some are 
 tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, and some 
 have no steadfastness and no hope, and some are without 
 God in the world, and while times are changing and things 
 temporal are passing away, and things eternal, are hastening 
 on and drawing near, it shall be ours to cling fast to Jesus 
 as the Christ, the chosen of God to serve Him in health 
 and strength, when all is bright and joyous, and the powers 
 are vigorous and unimpaired, and to trust Him in the time 
 of trouble when days are dark and dreary, and to believe 
 in Him to the saving of the soul now and when the solemn 
 hour of departure is at hand. There is no other friend but 
 He who will not fail us now. There is no other friend but 
 He whom we can dare to trust then ; for He alone hath the 
 promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to 
 come. 
 
 Let us then not be too proud or too cold or too frivolous 
 
 8 St. John vi. 68. 
 
268 The Christ of the Other Books. [vin. 
 
 to adopt the conclusion of the men of Samaria We know 
 that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the World; 3 
 but with the fixed assurance that what is thus true once 
 must inevitably be true for ever, let us go to Jesus ourselves, 
 with the noble, the generous, the sublime confession of 
 Simon Peter, and say to Him, as the heart-felt utterance 
 of our own personal conviction and unchanging faith, We 
 believe, and are sure, that thou art that Christ, the Son of the 
 living God. 4 " 
 
 3 St. John iv. 42. 4 vi. 69. 
 
 Itaque Tu Pater, qui lucem visibilem primitias creaturce dedisti, et 
 lucem Intellectualem ad fastigium operum tuorum in faciem hominis 
 inspirasti ; Opus hoc, quod a tua bonitate profectum, tuam gloriam 
 repetit, tuere et rege. Tu postquam conversus es ad spectandum opera 
 quce fecerunt manus tuce, vidisti quod omnia essent bona vald& ; et 
 requievisti. At homo conversus ad opera quce fecerunt manus SUCK, vidit 
 quod omnia essent vanitas et vexatio spiritus ; nee ullo modo requievit. 
 Quare si in operibus tuis sudabimus, fades nos visionis tuce et Sabbati 
 tui participes. Supplices petimus, ut hcec mens nobis constet : utque 
 novis eleemosynis per manus nostras et aliorum, quibus eandem mentem 
 largieris, familiam humanam dotatam velis. 
 
 THE END. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 PFC'D L.O 
 
 MAR 181960 
 
 LD 21A-50m-4,'59 
 (A1724slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY