THE
RELIGION OF THE CHRIST
THE
/tsl/(p,
RELIGION OF THE CHRIST
ITS HISTORIC AND LITERARY DEVELOPMENT
CONSIDERED AS AN EVIDENCE
OF ITS ORIGIN
/
IT! A i
* APICAL S'
THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1874
BY THp ,
Rev. STANLEY LEATHES, M.A.
MINISTER OF ST. PHILIP’S, REGENT STREET ;
PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON
§econb <£bition
Jfteto gorfe
POTT, YOUNG, AND COMPANY
COOPER UNION, FOURTH AVENUE
MDCCCLXXVI
f B-4=^o]
CONTENTS.
PREFACE
. Page ix.
LECTURE I.
&ntt'ttpation of ffie ©fjrtst in Rations.
“As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth tuy soul after
Thee, 0 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 bearing 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.
Z\ )t (Sffirtst of gctotslj llp'storp.
“ 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 — I he
a 2
VI
Contents.
Exodus — The wanderings — The prophet — The king — Summary — The
hope not groundless — The difficulty of explaining it — The message
hy Nathan — Illustrated by David’s great sin — The inference sug¬
gested — David’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.
©ijrist of rije 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 .” — AcTsxiii. 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.
©tjrtst of $ropijrc|>.
“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all
the Scriptures the things concerning Himself ”—Lvky. 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.
©ijrist of tfje (Kosprls.
“ 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.
• •
Vll
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.
&t)e Christ of tlje Beta.
“ 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, “ J esus 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
Vlll
Contents .
LECTURE VII.
&i)e ©fjrist of ttjr Pauline ISptsths.
“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.
t ©Ijrtst of tlje otijn* Hooks.
“I Jesus have sent Mine angel to testify unto you these thitigs 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 Troth, but for the Troth.
St. Paul.
<£te Sffiei^eit ift nur in tit SSBa^cit.— Goethe.
PREFACE.
rpHE object of tlie 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 Eeligion 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
XU
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 Revelation;
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.
Xlll
Practically, this period may be considerably lessened. No
one wishes to prove the existence of any Christian docu¬
ment piior 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. IVlthin 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
b
XIV
Preface.
and the root-principle to which the hooks 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 J
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 he 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 Chris t-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
oiigin 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 fpmi 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
Gocl, 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 Religion 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 Religion 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,
hut it cannot contradict them. Now, the question whether
or not it does contradict them is unhappily not a matter
of opinion, hut 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 Nome,
or with Islam, in the middle ages, or with Brahmanism 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 Religion 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, I am not come to send peace, but a sword.2
And Christianity may historically be regarded as the
Religion 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.
XV111
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 Religion 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.
How this is the position which we claim for the Beligion
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 Beligion 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 Religion 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 religious
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 Religion 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
l
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, and 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 J esus 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 he 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 st^ry 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 he proved that they existed and were received as
authentic in the first century of the Christian Church, a stronger man
than M. Kenan 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 are5 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 Religion 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. 24S. 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. How, 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-
maikable fact which has no parallel. TVb 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
XXV11
Preface.
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, we 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
wras 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 w7ould naturally have been fatal to
that belief, it wTould also materially have corroborated the
supposed integrity of His character if His character had
previously had the appearance of blamelessness ; and,
XXV111
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
wras 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, hut 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 ns to a particular cause, but are not easily to
he 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 Religion 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 Revelation rests upon miracles,
which have nothing to rest upon but the Revelation.” 6 The
6 “ Miracles, of the reality of which there is no evidence worthy of the
name, axe not only contradictory to complete induction, hut 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.
revelation is recorded in a literature which presents features
altogether unique that no concatenation of purely natural
causes D 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. &
XXX11
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 Rogers, 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 jthe 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, hut 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, I 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 — a 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 Father s name, they bear
witness of me! 1 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 Religion 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. 1 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 Religion
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 Religion
of the Christ, the Religion of Him whose way was Divinely
prepared before Him, and whose goings forth have been
from of old, from everlasting?
2 St. John viii. 12. 3 Micah v. 2.
89, St. George’s Square, S.W.,
September 29, 1874.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
SECOND edition of the following lectures having
o o
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 Religion 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 J ews ; 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.
XXXIX
Preface to the Second Edition.
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.
Ihe 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
xli
Preface to the Second Edition.
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-
ractei, 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 w7e 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 the 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 full 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
pei son 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 shccll 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 }
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 tire 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 r
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 Cod ; and that believing ye might
have life through His name.3
2 Heb. xiii. 8. 3 St. John xx. 31.
89, St. George’s Square, S.W.,
June 1, 187o.
LECTURE I.
ANTICIPATION OF THE CHRIST IN HEATHEN
NATIONS.
B
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, whereby error might draw error,
hut 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, hut 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 panteth my soul after
thee, 0 God . — Ps. xlii. 1.
r I ^HE origin of Christianity has often been found an
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 Rome. 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 he 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 he 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 1 epudiates 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
ot Christianity, it was intimately associated with the person
of Christ, for Christianity is the religion of the Christ.
Whatever difierences 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
G-en tiles, 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 nai/uie to
regenerate or emancipate itself. It is not, of couise,
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. And, 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. Hites
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.2 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
[lect.
Anticipation of the
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 showrs 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 Redeemer, 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.
6 A reviewer in the Edinburgh Courant , quoted by S. Baring-Gould,
Origin and Development of Religious 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 Bacon4 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 iorm, 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 ; Guhernatis, 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.
Christ in Heathen Nations.
ii
ij
■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 Redeemer 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 Redeemer 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, legal ded
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 opinio 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 Zdvos /xeyaXoio GeoO TaXi Kaprepbv frrat,
o'i -irdvreacn fipoToicu (3Lov KadobrjyoL icfovTO-L.
leal tot€ dp Geos oupavodev Trtp.\p€i ^cktlXtjo..
194-5
286
&rrt 5^ ns /SatriX^ios, ^s yhos &rrcu
a7 TTOLLGTOV' KO.L TOVTO XP^VOLS TTepiTeXXop-tvOUnV
(Lp£ei, KaX Kaivov arjKbv GeoO π€T eyeipeiv.
Kal tot air’ rjeXtoio Geds ir £p,\pei ^actX^a
8s iraaav yaiav Tradaei xoXtp.oio KaKoio.
288-290
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 ISTew 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
Christ in Heathen Nations.
13
ij
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 .8 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. Put 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. TV e 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,
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 he wanted is suiely 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 he discovered anywhere but in man , think of
the sun awakening the eyes of man from sleep, and his mind fiom
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 Muller,
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 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 m
man, hut 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 he 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 he
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 he 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 P 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
i8
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 he 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 natuie 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
follows, that if it is an entne 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 ITe 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 gi\en.
Tor 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.
!•]
Christ in Heathen Nations.
19
Pie lias not given us adequate indications of tlie truth, then
the exercise of our faculty of discrimination is impossible.
There is no higher sphere for its exercise. But we knowT
that we do, as a matter of fact, possess this faculty ol
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 ol 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 slialt 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
ou°‘ht 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-
20
Anticipation of the
[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, hut 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 disapj>ear till language becomes altogether
commensurate with thought, which it never will.” — Max Miiller, Science
of Religion, 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
6 “ 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 ol tacts 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 world in the
Epistle to the Romans 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 tne
east and the west and the north and the south as but the
unvarying repetition of the same ever-recurrent foul idea,
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. W e may indeed say this may
be science so called, but it cannot be truth. Or rather, v e
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 Redeemer, 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, ovei
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. Yol. 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
for 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
2 6
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
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 natui e
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 v e
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
Yedas of the Brahmans, the Zend-Avesta of the Parsis,
the Triphaka 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 Hew Testaments.
Ho man in his senses can compare them and not perceive
their essential and intrinsic difference. W e have no desii e
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
a “ 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
Yeda, 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
he 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 Muller, 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,
hut 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
maintained.
Christ in Heathen Nations.
29
ij
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 but
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
30
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
lit 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, wre 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 Hew Testament ; and but for the Old Testament as
a foundation the Hew could never have been written. And
yet the relation of the Hew 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 Hew
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 five 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 hook 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 Religion 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
Hew 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
A nticipation of the
[lect.
by a celebrated passage in the “ Republic,” we may surely
arrive at the not unreasonable conclusion that these cha¬
racteristics of the Jewish Scriptures, being as they aie
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 was
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
Christ in Heathen Nations.
35
s
I.]
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 J ewisli 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
36
Christ ill Heathen Nations.
[lect. t.
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 gam of His Son.
o
LECTURE II.
THE CHRIST OF JEWISH HISTORY.
JDie ®rftnbung be? iftbtf<$en ©taat? burc$ £D?ofe3 ift ctnc bcr benftm'trbigfien 93egeben*
^>citen, roetc^e bte ®efcfyic$te aufbetuafjrt l)at, tnictytig burd) bie (Starfe be? 53erftanbeS,
Ynobuvd) (te in? SBerl gectcjjtet tuorben, tnid) tiger nod) burcty ityre Solgen auf bte 2Bett, bie
nocf) bis auf biefen 5lugenblicf fortbauern. 3tnei 9icligionen, tueldje ben gropten $f)ei( bet
betrofjnten ®rbe befyerrfdben, ba? (Sljrifbentljum unb ber 3?tamifmuS, fiiiljen ftdt> beibe auf
bte Religion ber Jpebtaer, unb oljme biefe triirbe e? niemat? tneber ein Sljcijlentfmm nod)
einen .Reran gegcben Ijaben.
3a, in einem geitriffen @inne ift e? umritertegtid) tuafjr, bap teir ber £D?ofaifc$en
Religion einen graven Sljeit ber Qlufflarung banfen, beren trir tin? fjeutige? Sag?
erfreuen. Senn burcty fie tnurbe eine fofibare 5fi>at;r^cit, trelctye bie ftd) felbft iibertaffene
SSernunft erft nad) einer tangfamen ©ntimcfelung triirbe gefunben Ijaben, bie Seljre ran
bem einigen ®ott, norlauftg unter bent SSoIfe rerbreitet, unb at? ein ©egenfianb be?
blinben ©laubeit? fo tange unter bemfetben erljaiten, bi? fie enblid) in ben Ijellern .Rityfen
ju einem SSernunftbegriff reifen fonnte. SDaburcfy tmirben einem gropen Spoil be?
SDJenfcpengefcplecpt? atle bie traurigen Srrtnege erfpart, tnorauf bcr ®Iaube an SSielgotterei
gulegt fitpren mup, unb bie pebraifcpe SSerfaffung erpielt ben au?fd)liepenben Saorjug, bap
bie Dteligion ber SBeifen mit ber SMfSreligion nicpt in birectem SBiberfyrucpe jlanb, trie
e? bed) bei ben aufgeflfirten <§eiben ber Sail trar. — 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 hear 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 leligion
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
40
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, hut 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 wTe 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 Muller, 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 roust 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.2
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. Tor it is remarkable that, when¬
ever this promise is alluded to, as it often is subsequently,
2 “ ev aoL means ‘ in thee ; ’ — 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 he, 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 the
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 nfOTNII. In the other three VlXil. The only
T T - ; T » V T T
other passages in which the reflective form “bless himself,” etc., is used,
are Deut. xxix. 19; Ps. lxxii. 17 ; Isaiah lxv. 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 he no reasonable doubt that it is at least
permissible to regard the passive sense as the correct one in all ; hut 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. 13, etc.; and that the “in thee” indicates
not the channel of the blessing through which it is derived but the stan-
II.]
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.
4 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 J ewish
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 shalt call a nation
that thou Jcnowest 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 lv. 5. 6 Isaiah lx. 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. Por 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 ns, 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
Testament8 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 Muller show very strikingly that there
is only one way in which the spiritual advance we perceive in Ahraham
is to he 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, hut passed through the denial of all other gods
to the knowledge of the one God, we are content to answer that it was hy
a special Divine Eevelation. We do not indulge in theological phrase¬
ology, hut 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 ; hut 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 ;
hut in truth it would neither be an appropriate name for what is a gift or
grace accorded to hut 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, hut 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. 1 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. lxviii. 7, 8; lxxviii. 13 seq. ; lxxx. 8; lxxxi.
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.
E
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; lxxviii. 55; cxxxv. 12; cxxxvi. 21, 22.
II.]
The Christ of Jewish History,
5i
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 blow
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 told6 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
6 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 Christ of Jewish 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 fur
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 J ewish 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 an 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 Jezvish 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, hut from the people ; hut the first
monarch was Samuel’s appointment ; so that the king
was developed out of the office of the judge, and was
sanctioned hy 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 hy 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 ? Bor 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
The Christ of Jewish History.
55
n.]
claimed to speak in the name and with the direct authority
of God, and whose conduct cannot he 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. Ho 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 tliQ 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 J onathan are aware that David is to be the king. Can
it be that such a statement was invented in order to flatter
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. lxxviii. 70; lxxxix. 19, 20, etc.
II.]
The Christ of Jewish History.
57
mise from the Unseen, but bow 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 ISTaioth,2 till we are told of his death and
burial; on the other hand, we do hear of Jonathan, the
lieir-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.
_ i _ _ _ _ _ -
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.
II.]
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, w7e 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.6 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 he 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. seq.
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 be afflicted , but not for ever.6 Iie-
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.
n.]
The Christ of Jewish History.
6 r
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 he 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.
Dor the history of the divided kingdom of Israel we
are entirely indebted to the books of Kings, which may
perhaps he suspected of partiality in favour of the kingdom
of Judah; hut 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 dudah 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.
2 Cf. Ps. lxxiv. 9, whenever this was written. Ezra ii. 63. Neh. vii.
65. 1 Macc. iv. 46 ; ix. 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 he explained
away, and yet cannot he 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 onlv he regarded as Divine. And this conclusion is
proof against everything hut the unwarrantable, because
unscientific, a 'priori assumption that such an idea is to he
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 yrimd
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 hooks, 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 .3 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, hut 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 f 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.]
6/
The Christ of Jewish History.
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 been either contemporaneous with him or subsequent to the captivity;
hut 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
nj
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 J ewish 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
J ewish 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
70 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. John xix. 15.
7 St. John xix. 19 ; St. Matt, xxvii. 37.
II.]
The Christ of Jewish History.
7 1
David ; and lie shall reign over the house of J dcob 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 he 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 slialt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Acts xiii. 33, 35.
E have no reasonable cause to doubt that St. Paul
VV 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
III.]
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 he 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 ish 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.
yS 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 22d 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
III.]
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 ? 3 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 lxxxvi. 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, hut 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 he so near to him.
Yerily, 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.
Hot 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 thee shall all the families of the
earth be blessed. The ultimate confession of the psalmist
is, He hath not dealt so with any nation ;4 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.
III.]
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
Cfod 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 , 0 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 seeing to have failed..
Por 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 lxxxvi. 9, 10.
G
82
The Christ of the Psalms.
[lect.
tliis. God’s election of Israel, then, is clearly seen to he
summed up in David and his house. On the evidence of
the Psalms, there can he no question that he is the inheritor
of whatever promises were made to Ahraham, 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
to 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
III.]
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 hooks 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 he 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 he 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 jprimd 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;
III.]
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.
III.]
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 attached1 we of course know.
It is that which is derived from the familiar phrase, 0 king ,
live for ever, or the expression, I 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 l. c. and xxiii. 6 ; lxi. 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.
III.]
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 too. 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 he
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,
III.]
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
Septnagint and the Epistle to the Hebrews, regard it as an
evidence that he saw in the volume of the look 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.
9 2 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 onr 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 king's 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
III.]
The Christ of the Psalms.
93
were not only cherished, hut 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 Mascliil 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. Eor
some reason or other the nation had become possessed
94
The 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-
3 It is inscribed a Psalm of David.
III.]
The Christ of the Psalms.
95
matter of this declaration, Sit thou on my right hand ,
becomes extravagantly inappropriate, not to say wholly
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 fights, 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.
9 6
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 the order of Melchizedec. 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
III.]
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, hut to the Most High, then it is clear
that in the mind of the poet he is not only king, warrior,
and priest, hut 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 I), seated at thy right hand ,
0 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 monarchs 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 fVlNtn 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 wras 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
III.]
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 fall 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 np 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
100
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. Por it is not unreasonable
to infer that effects unique and unparalleled in themselves
hi.] The Christ of the Psalms. ioi
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
102 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
III.]
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 veidict 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 wdiole earth was covered
with the shadow and the riches of it.
6 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.
SKUTin citharis et hujusmodi organis musicis, non quidem omnia, quae
tanguntur, canorum aliquid resonant, sed tantum chordae : caetera tamen
in toto citharae corpore ideo fabricata sunt, ut essent ubi vincirentur, unde
et a quo tenderentur illae, quas ad cantilenae suavitatem modulaturus et
perculsurus est artifex : Ita in his propheticis narrationibus, quae de
rebus gestis hominum propbetico spiritu deliguntur, aut aliquid jam
sonant significatione 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.
TAKING 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 liteiatiue. 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 hut 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, hut
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 he forgotten, as
they cannot he 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 King ; 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
herdman 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
1 10
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 vnll 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 .2 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,
unit perform the truth to Jacob , and the mercy to Abraham ,
which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the claps 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. 3 PI3D. Cf. Is. xvi. 5, where the word is bn'K.
T \ 7 V
IV.]
The Christ of Prophecy.
1 1 1
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 die ell 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 Bdar,6 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
JEphratah should come forth he that was to be ruler in Israel,
whose goings forth had been from of old, from the days of
eternity .8 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
wTay, 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 iv. 8. 6 iv. 8. 7 v. 1. 8 v. 2.
1 12
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 be the Lord's, which
manifestly shows that he looked forward to the setting np
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 be 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, I 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
The Christ of Prophecy.
[lect.
114
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 J esse
shall stand for an ensign of the people, that unto it shall the
Gentiles seek, and that his rest shall be 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. Tor 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. I x ^
In further proof also that such expressions were meant
to he 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
ot 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 lull 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, reguiles 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
weie 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 ?
[lect.
i 1 6 The Christ of Prophecy.
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 j1 sometimes it is
as evidently a personification of the people at large, as in
xliv. 1, Yet now hear , 0 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. Bor
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, noi
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.
The Christ of Prophecy.
T
ii 7
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
ii 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 lxxxix. 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 .3 And the Gentiles shall come to
thy light , and kings to the brightness of thy rising .4 1 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 lxv. 1.
120
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.
1 2 1
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
b}^ 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.0
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 Zedekiali,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.
8 Jer. xxiii. 5-8.
7 Ezra i. ; Dan. ix. 2.
9 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 wfith 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
J eremiah, 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 woidd 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. Twm 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 Jeremiahs 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 Christ 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 spealceth the Lord of hosts ,
saying , Behold the man whose name is the Branch: and he
shall grove 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 f that is, apparently, between the priest and the
kin" 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 Zecli. 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 he 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 , 0 daughter of Zion ; shout , 0
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
J erusalem ; 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 v:ill
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. lxxii. 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, 0 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. 7 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 death, 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, wThich 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 Lord , 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
9 jnsn. 1 Is. lxiii. 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, 0 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 Malaclii, 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. Tor 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 fin'd an entirely different use of
2 Dan. ix. 25, 26.
iv.] 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
3 vaa nTO.
• T " * T
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 he 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 he 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 he 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,
J eremiah, 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 2 2d 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 wdiich 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 w7as
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 LorcCs doing , and it is marvellous in our eyes.
LECTURE V.
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS.
£>a3 (S^rifient^um rear, el)e ©rangelifien unb Styofkf gefcfjric&en fatten. ©8
tterlief cine geraume Beit, ef>e bcr erfie wn itynen fbfjtieb unb eine fc$r betrfie$tlic$e, et;e
bet gaitje tfanon ju <Stanbe fam.
3)te Religion ifi nic$t nmtyr, tteit bie Soangelifien unb Styoftet fte (efirten : fonbern
fie kitten fie, rceil fie toafyt ifi.
2lucf) ba3, teas ®ott te^rt, ifi nic$t hja^r, toeil e8 @ctt lenten n? i 1 1, fonbern ®ott
le$rt e8, n>eil e8 ioaljr ifi. — Lessing.
Non disse Cliristo al suo primo convento :
Andate e predicate al mondo ciance,
Ha diede lor veraee fondamento.
JJante.
LECTURE V.
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ , the son of David , the son
of Abraham. — St. Matt. i. 1.
RAPID survey of the literature of the Old Testament
-LA. hag 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
[lect.
The Christ of the Gospels.
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 Republic we can detect traces of somewhat
similar elements, yet the clearness, the definiteness, 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. Eor 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 Roman 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
peison 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
JLoi d, 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 which 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 f 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 he 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? 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. bTo 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 wTith 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 ol 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 the 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 avenging4
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
4 Ps. ii. 9. ✓ 5 Is. lx. 17, 13.
L
6 Ps. xlv. 8.
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
7 St. John iii. 24. St. Matt. xiv. 10. St. Mark vi. 27. St. Luke iii. 20.
V.]
The Christ of the Gospels.
14 7
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
lemarkable that He should have adopted from the first the
very language of J ohn, 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 J ohn the
Baptist.
We know very little of John if he did not profess to he
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.
Eor 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 f 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
1 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 J esus open His mouth than He says, Blessed are the
poor in spirit , for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ? 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 ;3 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 to 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
2 St. Matt. v. 3. 3 v. 16. 4 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 he
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 not only are the two portraits of
V.]
The Christ of the Gospels. 151
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 J esus, hut 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 Isaiah5 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 J esus. 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.
Hot less remarkable is the substance of the teaching
which was inculcated by J esus. 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
threefold7 quotation of the words of Habakkuk in the
Hew Testament, The 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. 7 R0m. i. 17 ; Gal. iii. 11 ; 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 Tliy 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
b 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 Messiah ship. 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 J esus, 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, lie, 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? 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 ; 1 to-
9 Zech. ix. 10. 1 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, but a
sword? For a mans foes shall be they of his own household .3
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
he universal, hut not as it might he presumed it would
he. He intended to rule over the Gentiles, hut 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. Ho
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
university6 of this land and with the younger6 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.
The Christ of the Gospels.
15 7
vj
institution of a distant hemisphere ? Verily we have
cause to pray, So teach 71s to nurnbei - 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.8 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 be 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.
9 St. Matt. xi. 6.
8 x. 38.
1 xii. 14.
i58
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,
2 St. Matt. xii. 14.
V.]
The Christ of the Gospels.
J59
He had twice3 before that event spoken of taking np 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
J esus 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.
i6o
The Christ of the Gospels.
[lect.
to the Gentiles , to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him P
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, hut 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. 7 xx. 28.
8 St. Matt. xii. 40, 41. 9 xvi. 4. 1 xvi. 21.
The Christ of the Gospels.
161
v]
He charges the three disciples to tell the vision to no man ,
until the Son of man be risen again from the dead f and
once more, shortly afterwards, He says again, And they
shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again.5
In the twentieth chapter, as they were going up to Jeru¬
salem, He says once more, And the third day he shall rise
again} And at the last supper He tells His disciples,
After I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee .5
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, I am able to destroy the temple of God,
and to build it in three days} 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}
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.
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 hearing 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 he no question as to the verdict of these Scrip¬
tures. All men knew, or could ascertain with sufficient
accuracy, what w~as 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 hear, 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 he fairly open to the
observations in the text, whether the actual writers were known or not.
364 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
itlie 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. Eor 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.J
The Christ of the Gospels.
165
wi iters, 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-
tuies 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 } We involuntarily ask What Scripture ? and we
may lest 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.
[lect.
i 66 The Christ of the Gospels.
stances, which forcibly brought home the conviction to
their minds that the Jesns whom they had known and
served and loved was in truth the promised Messiah.
Let it then he clearly understood what is the position
we desire to assume, and what are the conclusions we
would base upon it. There is and can he 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.
1 67
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
The Christ of the Gospels.
[lect.
i 68
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 he 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 he anticipated nor discovered till it
was sufficiently matured, hut 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 he
explained.
At all events, we are warranted in saying that unless
there is a method more consonant with reason to he 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 he
used as a solid foundation on which to rear the edifice we
have yet to build.
LECTURE VI.
THE CHRIST OF THE ACTS.
litres odv e8o^dcrdgaav Kai ep.eyaXvvdgaav, ov 81 avrCov, rj tQu> epycjv avru>v,
i) rys dLKciLOTrpdyias, ^ s Kareipyacravro, aXXa dla rod OeXyparos avrov. Kai
rj'xei s ovv oi d deXrjparos avrov ev Xpicrrap ’I yaod KXrjdevres, ov 81 eavrCov SiKai-
ovpeOa, ov8e Sid rijs rjgerepas crocpias, r) avvbcrecos, 7} einrefieias, rj Zpywv, &v
Kareipyaaapeda ev benorgri KapSias’ dXX a Sea rrjs rricrreojs, 81 ?)s irdvras rod
air’ alQvos b TvavroKpdrwp Geos eSiKaiwaev’ ip 8arcj 7/ 86% a eis rods aiwi^as ruv
aiQvcov. ’Apyv. — Clem. Horn.
'Tpels odv ryv irpavirdOeLav avaXaSovres dvaKrlaacrde eavrobs ev 7ricrrei, 8
eerrev crap £ rod Kvpiov, Kai ev ay airy, 0 eerriv alp. a ’ lyaod Xpt-crrov. — Ignat .
ad Trail.
LECTURE VI.
For he mightily convinced the Jews , and that 'publicly, shewing by the
Scriptures that J esus was Christ. — Acts xviii. 28.
E have thus far been led to see that there were
Y 1 undoubtedly anticipations of a coming Christ among
the J ewish 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 J esus 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 impiession 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
174
The Christ 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 he 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.
1 75
to decide upon the relative date of this hook 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.
k or 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 J ews 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 J esus 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.]
i/7
The Christ of the Acts.
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, howevei, 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
i;8
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 ns 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
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. jyg
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
lad taken place in the city, at which a young man who
ad achieved a remarkable notoriety in a remarkable
manner had met with his death, owing to the jealousy of
ie priests in consequence of his extravagant pretensions.
Alt this, according to the writer, was distinctly stated
by Peter m 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
VI.]
The Christ of the Acts.
1 8 1
which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his
prophets , that Christ should suffer , he hath so fulfilled}
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 .2
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 sms.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 0 — namely, that Jesus was the prophetic
Messiah. The same argument must at least have been
included among those with which the same apostle reasoned
m 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} 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, born at Alexandria, an eloquent
man, and mighty in the Scriptures, who, after being instructed
1 Acts iii. 18. 2 ix. 22. 3 x. 43.
5 Actsxvii. 11. 6 xviii. 4. 7 xviii. 11.
4 xvii. 2.
182
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 .8 And lastly, before Agrippa, Paul declared —
Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this
day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other
things than those which the prophets and Moses did say
should come?
Prom 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 J esus 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
184
The Christ of the Acts .
[lect.
Christ, it follows that we must 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 powrer
of Borne.
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 Gqppels 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 J esus, 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 spoken
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
1 86 The Christ of the Acts . [lect.
everywhere and always accepted as the Messiah. Yet, in
His character, as it is presented to ns 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 J esus who
wras 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 briimiuGr
o o
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.
1 87
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 Koman 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
Bom 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 m 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 , 0 Lord d 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 knoio 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 David5 _ 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 event6— daring to confront the
murderers of Jesus with the charge, Him have ye taken ,
and by ivicked hands have crucified and slain 7 — and rebut-
1 St. Luke v. 8. 2 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. 6 ii. 16. ^ y 23.
190 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 stiff 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 fuff 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 he forgotten, that, as far as the
history of this new life is unfolded to us in the Acts, it is
not even to he referred exclusively to the Lord’s resurrection.
Omnipotent as that fact might he 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
hut imperfectly understood till the day of Pentecost. Then
it hurst forth with a sudden accession of life. Peter had
indeed felt, in the interval between the ascension and
Pentecost, that one must he ordained to he 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 he, hut 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 he endued with power from
on high. We may safely infer from this that in the opinion
of the writer it was not even the hare fact of the resur¬
rection that was sufficient to call the new society into
existence, hut 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 he 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, hut
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 he 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 hook, 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 he 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 toe. among
men, for the existence and origin of which some rational
account must he 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.
0
194 The 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 dnect 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 nothin^
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,3
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,13 His office as the appointed
channel of forgiveness,13 and of baptism by the Holy Ghost,14
His being made both Lord and Christ f a Prince and a
Saviour f 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 bread19 in token
of their fellowship with one another and with the Lord.
How, 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. 3 ii. 14. 4 ii. 13. 5 n 23 ; v. 30.
6 xiii. 29. ? x. 40. 8 i. 3 ; x. 41. 9 ii. 34. 10 v. 31. 11 x. 42.
12 iii. 13; iv. 27, etc. 13 x. 43. 14 ii. 38. 15 ii. 36. 16 v. 31.
u xiii. 47. is 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
liis 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
lefei 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 conld 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 ot
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
The Christ of the Acts.
199
VL]
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.
200
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 man/y as received him , to them gave he 'power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name ; which
were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of
the will of man, but of God } 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 1 John v. 11.
J!
I
■ J i
*
I
J
LECTURE VII.
THE CHRIST OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
IloWuh' 8’ avdpwTrwv X8ev afreet, /cat voov tyvoj.
Mom. Od.
- pues creo
De la clemencia 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 numero pequeno
De los pecados que sahe
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.
rTHE 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
20 6
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 Rome, 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. Ho 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 Rome and
VII.]
207
The Christ of the Pauline Epistles.
Galatia, of persons who believed in Jesus. All these per¬
sons had been baptised : they were baptised in the name
ot Jesus, or at least in baptism they were considered to
have put on Christ.1 All these persons were unquestion-
a y m hakit; of breaking bread in commemoration of
the death of Jesus. If there is no allusion to this latter
practice in the letters to Eome 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 m 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.
For 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.
4 Gal. iv. 4 ; Rom. i. 3. 5 2 Cor. i. 5.
7 1 Cor. ii. 8. s Gal> vi 14
10 Rom. vi. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 4. 11 1 Cor. xv. 5-7.
13 Rom. viii. 34. h 1 Cor> L 7> 8>
3 Gal. iii. 16; Rom. i. 3.
6 1 Cor. xi. 23.
9 1 Cor. xv. 4.
12 Rom. viii. 17, 29.
20 8
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 Pome, 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 Romans
are all of them Greek or Roman, 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.
VII.]
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 Romans are told that the
Gospel had been promised before by the prophets in the Holy
Scriptures ,2 that Jesus Christ teas 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 knoiv the law?
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? They are taiudit
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ,
that He was buried, and rose again the third day accord¬
ing to the Scriptures? The Galatians are instructed from
the allegories of the Law8 the greater excellence of the
wray 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 in
all the churches to which they were addressed the same
conclusion had been arrived at of which we found traces
m the Acts of the Apostles and in the Gospels— namely
that a J esus 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 1 3
5 Rom. vii. 1. 6 l Cor. x. 11.
P
4 Gal. iii. 6 ; Rom. iv. 6.
7 xv. 3, 4. « Gal. iv. 24.
210
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 Romans, 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, Rome, Corinth,
Galatia, Philippi, Colossi, 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 ; 1 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 Pauline e.
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. Paul , vol i. p. 36.
VII.]
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.”— Jo wett, 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.1 Here was the entire foundation assumed of
facts which must have taken place but little more than
4 “ There is a growth in the Epistles of St. Paul, it is true ; hut 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.
VII.]
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, arid to which he alludes here when he says,
he was allovsed of God to be put in trust ivith the Gospel1
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 death2 of Jesus
spoken of; twice His resurrection from the dead3 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 toy
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 ,8 but their first
entrance into the Gospel was with joy of the Holy Ghost?
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 } 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, pei-
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. 6 1 Thess. iii. 4. 7 Acts viii. 8.
8 1 Thess. v. 16. 9 i. 6. 1 i* 10.
21 6
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.2 3 Within about twenty years
after that 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, quassitissimis poenis adfecit, quos,
per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos adpellabat. Auctor nominis ejus
Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum sup-
plicio adfectus erat ; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursus
erumpebat, non modo per Judasam, originem ejus mali, sed per urbem
etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.”
VII.]
The Christ of the Pauline Epistles.
21 7
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 unblameably we behaved
ourselves among you that believe .4
Results 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,
218
The Christ of the Pauline Epistles. [lect.
every Epistle. It is tlie foundation corner-stone which
lies at the bottom of the whole edifice of Pauline teaching.
It is the stout knotted gnarled root which hears 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. W e 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 it 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 ol the
Christ as it was declared and accepted within a quarter ot
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
220
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 hut 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 ? Hot 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 he 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, hut 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 Nazareth 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 speaks6 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 years7 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 death
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.
6 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 eailier.
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 wdiich 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 I, 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.
VII.]
The Christ of the Pauline Epistles.
223
We indeed may reason tlius upon the facts before us,
hut 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 woild
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 intei-
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
was 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.
tlie death of Christ. Whether or not there was any other
form prevalent elsewhere, or what that form was, we are
nnable to determine, except from indications in the letters
themselves, and so far as the Gospels or the Acts may he
supposed to show it. The Acts of the Apostles, moreover,
as a matter of fact, whether the hook 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 ot the soundness
of the principle which governed their union ? Experience
justified the application because it proved the truth of the
principle.
For 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-
VII.]
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
he 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 he recalled in the form of
history. It would he 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 wTould he 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. 1 Gal. iii. 2. 2 1 Thess. i. 5.
vil] 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.
Hot 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
VII.]
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. Tor,
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 Pauline 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.
vii.] 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 wdiat 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
orkdn, 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 Hew
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
VII.]
The Christ of the Pauline Epistles.
235
the phenomena they present and imply to be accounted
for on the supposition, that J esus was not the Christ : on
the supposition, that is, either that the facts which proved
Him to he 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, hut 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 he 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 ol 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.
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.
THAT which we know as the doctrine or conception of
the Christ is only to he gathered from the New Testa¬
ment as a whole. The writings which by accident or design
are comprised in that collection present ns with a certain
idea which is completely contained in them, and which
cannot he 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 oi
the Revelation.
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
2 40
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.
Tor 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
VIII.]
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 Bevelation.
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 God 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 rich 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, Repent ye and believe the Gospel ; 5 the Gospel of the
kingdom ;6 many be called but few chosen } and the like.
His reference to the engrafted word , which is to be received
with meekness , and is able to save the soul} brings back to
ns 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}0 reminds us of the conclusion
1 St. James i. 1. 2 ii. 1. 3 v. 8. 4 ii. 5.
5 St. Mark i. 15. 6 St. Matt. xxiv. 14. 7 xx. 16.
8 St. James i. 21. 9 iii. 18. 10 i. 22.
242
The Christ of the Other Books.
[lect.
of tlie sermon on the mount ; and the injunction to ash in
faith , nothing wavering} recalls the promise of the Lord,
Ash , and it shall be given you .2 Such admonitions as, Let
patience have her perfect worh , that ye may be perfect ,3 and
Take, my brethren , the prophets who have spohen in the name
of the Lord for an example of suffering affliction and of
patience ,4 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} and be ye
therefore perfect? The worthy name by which ye are called1
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 8 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}1
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. 2 St. Matt. vii. 7. 3 St. James i. 4.
4 St. James v. 10. 5 St. Matt. v. 12. 6 v. 48.
7 St. James ii. 7. 8 v. 11. ® St. Matt. v. 10.
10 St Matt. xxiv. 13. 11 St. James i. 12. 12 St. James i. 17, 27.
VIII.]
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 hind of firstfruits of his crea¬
tures ,4 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 wras 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
The 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. J ames
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 ;l that it is not of him that willeth , nor of him
that runneth , but of God that showetli 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. Eor 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.
3 Rom. iii. 19, 20.
2 ix. 16.
VIII.]
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
laic, and yet offend in one point , he is guilty of all,6 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 Solomon6 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 wTay 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 Rom. iii. 21. 5 St. James ii. 10.
6 1 Kings viii. 46. 7 Ts. 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 cleansefh us from all sin ? 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. For 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 .3
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. Cf. also iii. 24; iv. 13. 4 iv. 17.
vii r.] The Christ of the Other Books. 247
day of His appearing we detect another point of contact
with St. Janies, 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 he 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
5 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 ; 3 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,5 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.
4 1 Peter i. 25.
7 1 Peter ii. 10.
10 1 Peter iv. 13.
2 i. 23. 3 i. 2, 11, 22.
5 i. 12. e j 19
8 ii. 7. 9 iv. 12, 14, 16.
11 iii. 21. 12 i. 15, etc.
viii.] The Christ of the Other Books. 249
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 .3 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* 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 .8 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 .10 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. 6 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 f 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? the Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world? who hath redeemed
us to God by his blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and
people, and nation 7 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? 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
he shall reign for ever and ever? 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
Revelation, 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. 2 ii. 23. 3 iii. 1. 4 v. 5.
5 Rev. xxii. 16. 6 xiii. 8. 7 v. 9. 8 vii. 13, 14.
8 Rev. xi. 15. 10 xix. 10. 11 xix. 16.
viti.] 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 Revelation, 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 Hew 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 Hew. 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
Ho 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 Hew 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.”
VIII.]
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 Boman and Greek, by
Barbarian, Scythian, bond and free, and has left for all
aijes 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
2 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 Bitliynia ,3
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 .4 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 Hew 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. 4 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 whicli is
presented in the collective books of the New Testament.
At the close of the reign of Tiberius Csesar 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
The Christ of the Other Books.
[lect.
256
fact of the human, life and death of J esus. 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 liteiature, unless theie
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
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, which 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-eonception 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 Reve¬
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 J esus 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 Eev. 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® 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-
sliip, the glorification, and the future return of Jesus — are
as characteristic of St. J ames 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 Hew 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
Religion 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.
26o
The Chi ist 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 sepaiate 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 till 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 mun, 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 Pome
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 lia\e
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 bad 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-
2 62
The Christ of the Other Books.
[lect.
ating not as a past but as a present influence, not only in
Limself 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—/ am not mad , most noble Festus, but
speak forth the words of truth and soberness.7
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. I am
come to send fire on the earth , and what will I if it be 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.
2 63
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 beloved 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 Religion 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 tlie 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 he a matter of indifference
whether or not we cease to regard J esus 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 Hew 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 J esus, 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
VIII.]
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.
VIII.]
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
2 St. John vi. 68.
268 The Christ of the Other Books. [vm.
to adopt the conclusion of the men of Samaria — We hnoiv
that this is indeed the Christ , the Saviour of the World f
hut with the fixed assurance that what is thus true once
must inevitably be true for ever, let us go to J esus 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 creatures dedisti , et
lucern Intellectualem ad fastigium operum tuorum in faciem hominis
inspirasti ; Opus hoc, quod d tua bonitate profectum, tuarn gloriam
repetit, tuere et rege. Tu postquam conversus es ad spectandum opera
ques fecerunt manus tues, vidisti quod omnia essent bona valde ; et
requievisti. At homo conversus ad opera ques fecerunt manus sues, vidit
quod omnia essent vanitas et vexatio spiritits ; nec ullo moelo requievit.
Quare si in operibus tuis suclabimus, facies nos visionis tuee et Sabbati
tui participes. Supplices petimus, ut hesc mens nobis constet : utque
novis eleemosynis per manus nostras et aliorum, quibus eandem mentem
largieris, familiam humanam clotatam velis.
THE END.
rv
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11