THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 AND 
 
 RECENT THOUGHT
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 
 
 LONDON BOMBAY CALCUTTA 
 MELBOURNE 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 NEW YORK BOSTON - CHICAGO 
 ATLANTA SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. 
 
 TORONTO
 
 THE 
 L PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 AND 
 
 RECENT THOUGHT 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES FREDERICK NObLOTH, M.A. 
 
 ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 FORMERLY RECTOR OF ALL SAINTS, LEWES 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 
 
 ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON 
 
 1 908 
 
 OH
 
 GLASGOW : PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 BV ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD.
 
 PREFACE 
 
 A VAST amount of research and criticism has been 
 directed, during the last few years, upon the New 
 Testament representation of the Person of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
 The object of the present work is to show that 
 the result of this labour, taken as a whole, has 
 been to confirm the views which the Christian 
 Church has always held on this, the most sacred 
 of all subjects of religious thought. 
 
 Works of the ' liberal ' and negative schools of 
 criticism have been largely cited. In the opinion 
 of the present writer, their admissions, made after 
 searching examination of the Sources, are full of 
 significance. They afford a solid, because fully 
 tested, ground on which to place our construction 
 of the mystery of the Person of Christ as it is 
 shadowed forth in the New Testament Scriptures. 
 If writings of a more conservative tone have been 
 less frequently quoted, it may be remembered that,
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 for our purpose, what is admitted by scholars of 
 more or less ' advanced ' schools of thought is 
 more important than statements of a traditional or 
 apologetic character. 
 
 It is hoped that the book will be useful, not only 
 to professed students of Theology, but to educated 
 laymen. Passages from German works cited in the 
 notes are, in nearly every case, translated into 
 English, in order to make them serviceable to a 
 larger circle of readers. 
 
 Our subject is of the highest moment to all 
 serious thinkers. It has for some time engaged the 
 attention of scholars, more especially in Germany. 
 Scarcely a month passes without the publication 
 of some work indicating the intense interest which 
 it possesses for all thoughtful minds. Never, in 
 the sphere of thought at any rate, have those words 
 of the Saviour been so abundantly fulfilled, 'I, if I 
 be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men 
 unto Me' (St. John xii. 32). 
 
 The scope of the present work is indicated by the 
 title. It is limited to the Person of our Lord. 
 Topics of importance, such as the Redeeming 
 Work, the Teaching, or the Example of Christ, 
 are hardly touched upon. Attention is concentrated 
 upon the Divine Figure Himself. 
 
 There is no doubt that a certain amount of un-
 
 PREFACE vii 
 
 settlement is being caused by the thoroughgoing 
 tests which are being applied to the Gospel history. 
 Narratives that have helped to mould the religious 
 life of generations of Christian people cannot be thus 
 handled without producing pain and apprehension 
 in many minds. Yet it is believed that the main 
 result will be a great gain, and that the Person of 
 the Son of God will, as the years pass, be seen in 
 clearer outline and in more convincing reality than 
 at any former period of Christian thought. 
 
 September, 1908.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTORY i 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 THE SOURCES 9 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 METHODS OF INQUIRY - - - - - 51 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON - 62 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 THE MAN CHRIST JESUS (THE SON OF MAN) - 90 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 THE MESSIAH 108 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE - - - - - 149
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 PAGE 
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER AND ITS RESTRAINT - 185 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 THE WITNESS OF THE SACRAMENTS - 212 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 SlNLESSNESS. JUDGMENT 223 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 THE RESURRECTION - - 237 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 SON OF GOD - 254 
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS. I. MAN, BUT MORE 
 
 THAN MAN - - - 277 
 
 CHAPTER XIV 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS. II. JESUS CHRIST 
 
 is GOD - 296 
 
 CHAPTER XV 
 CONCLUSION 337 
 
 INDEX - ... - 359
 
 CHAPTER I 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 THE present is a time of much unrest. In 
 many departments of thought and energy, a 
 process of re-adjustment is going on. Things 
 are in a state of transition. The result of all 
 this intellectual movement will probably be a 
 considerable change in the point of view from 
 which educated men will regard some of the 
 most important facts of human life 
 
 All periods have been more or less transi- 
 tional. Life and thought are becoming rather 
 than being. And there is always a tendency 
 to over-rate the unsettlement and movement 
 of our own time. We cannot get far enough 
 away to be able to see things in their true 
 relation. Another factor, which hinders the 
 attainment of a just estimate, is the well-known 
 truth that those movements of thought which
 
 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 are aggressive and which seek to disturb posi- 
 tions long held and prized, receive far more 
 attention than processes of a constructive char- 
 acter. There is more stir and apparently more 
 life in them. Attack is always more inspiring 
 than defence, and the qualities which it enlists 
 are, if not higher, at least more showy. 
 
 These observations are specially applicable 
 to the Christian Religion and to the attitude 
 towards it of thinking men. During its long 
 history there have perhaps been only two 
 epochs in which thought and interest have 
 been so keenly aroused as they are at the 
 present moment. One such time was that of 
 the Reformation : the other was the age of 
 the great Councils. Then, as now, the activity 
 of thought was stimulated, if not actually 
 caused, by the existence of some special intel- 
 lectual movement. In the fourth and fifth 
 centuries, it was philosophic speculation resulting 
 largely in the production of heresies destructive 
 of Christianity. In the sixteenth century, it 
 was the revival and diffusion of classical learning. 
 Now, it is the general advance and application 
 of scientific knowledge and method. 
 
 In those earlier periods, the results were
 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 mainly of a purifying, yet conservative character. 
 In the process of eliminating foreign accretions 
 from the deposit of the faith, reference was 
 always made to the primitive standards of truth. 
 Men sought for first principles. Authority was 
 appealed to. 
 
 In the process of re-adjustment which is now 
 in progress, a different course is being pursued. 
 The Christian Religion is being subjected to 
 an examination based, roughly speaking, on two 
 factors. One is the comparative study of religions. 
 The other is the critical study of the original 
 Christian documents. The results of this examina- 
 tion it is impossible at present to forecast with 
 certainty. It looks as if it would issue in some 
 modification of the mode of statement, but not 
 the substance, of beliefs which have become tradi- 
 tional in the Christian Church, leading in the 
 end to a broader and therefore more truly 
 philosophic foundation of the Christian Faith. 
 
 But whatever its issue, the process is going 
 on. It is useless to resent the application of 
 modern methods to the sources of our know- 
 ledge of all that we hold most sacred. We 
 cannot we should be foolish if we would 
 build a wall round certain districts of thought
 
 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 and forbid all access. The more vital the 
 truth we are investigating, the more we need 
 to be sure that our representation of it is just 
 and that we have not allowed any subjective 
 tendency of thought, any fixed prepossession, 
 or unfounded bias, to confuse our perception 
 of it. If, by the application of all instruments 
 at command, it should happen that some loss 
 results ; that we find we can no longer regard 
 as part of the faith something which is dear 
 from old association we lose indeed in the bulk 
 of our possessions, but there is corresponding 
 gain in security of tenure, in sharpness of outline 
 and in the clearness with which we can see 
 what we are able to retain. 
 
 At the same time we must not lose sight 
 of the dangers not to the Christian Faith 
 itself, but to its adherents which are inevitable 
 in a time of unsettlement like the present. 
 The very fact that old and cherished matters 
 of belief are being challenged and scrutinised 
 is intensely painful and disturbing to many. 
 Exaggerated statements are made ; discussion 
 and inquiry are characterised as doubt ; while 
 the enemies of Christianity lose no opportunity 
 of making capital out of the process of examina-
 
 INTRODUCTORY 5 
 
 tion and sifting which is everywhere going on. 
 Hence it is the more incumbent on all who 
 deal with what is sacred and vital to the 
 average Christian man, to approach its con- 
 sideration under a deep sense of responsibility. 
 ' It must needs be ' in this as in other matters 
 of human concern, ' that offences come ; but 
 woe to that man by whom the offence cometh.' 1 
 
 But if our investigation is in pursuit of truth 
 as its primary object, and is undertaken with 
 a sense of responsibility towards God, towards 
 the Church at large, and towards individual 
 Christians, the motive will ensure a spirit of 
 reverence in carrying it out. Only we have to 
 look closely into the matter to be certain that 
 that is our object. It is a question in which 
 we may very easily be self-deceived. Of this 
 the history of controversy affords many instances. 
 
 Our subject is the highest and most important 
 that can be presented to human thought the 
 Person of our Redeemer, Jesus of Nazareth, the 
 Son of God. It is the central point of Christi- 
 anity. Everything revolves round that Person. 
 Christianity is Christ. 
 
 That central point never moves ; ' Jesus Christ 
 1 Matt, xviii. 7.
 
 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 is the same, yesterday, to-day and for ever.' 
 But round about Him ebb and flow the changing 
 tides of human thought and speculation. One 
 age brings certain gifts of insight and knowledge 
 and passes away, leaving it to others to ap- 
 proach the august Figure of the Crucified and 
 form their estimate and take their side. 
 
 If we need to be reassured as to the fitness 
 and propriety of such an approach to Christ, 
 we have only to think of the way in which He 
 invites consideration of His Person, 1 His claims, 
 His authority. To each generation, the risen 
 One comes with the command, ' Handle Me and 
 see.' 2 He submits Himself to critical judgment. 
 He will have us see for ourselves and not 
 trust entirely to the report of others : for our 
 knowledge of Him is a personal matter. We 
 have to find Christ and be found by Him one 
 by one. Others may clear the way, remove 
 obstacles and bring us face to face, but in the 
 last resort, our own hands must ' handle the Word 
 of Life.' We must be able to say ' we have 
 seen and bear witness.' 3 
 
 It could not be otherwise, if Christianity is 
 
 J Matt. xvi. 13, 15. 2 Luke xxiv. 39. 
 
 8 i. John i. i, ^.
 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 the religion of the Incarnation ; if it be true 
 that God has presented Himself to mankind in 
 terms of humanity in order that man, by direct 
 knowledge of Him in the form of flesh and blood, 
 may get ' to see Him Who is invisible.' 1 
 
 There are many ways of approaching the 
 subject. In the present work, it is proposed to 
 begin at the point of least resistance. Taking 
 the admissions of advanced criticism as the 
 bed-rock on which to lay our foundation, we 
 shall go on to see what they imply. Beginning 
 with sources of information admitted by all 
 reasonable schools of thought, we shall proceed 
 to others of less widely acknowledged validity, 
 using them to strengthen the impressions gained 
 from those more generally accepted, but not 
 as of themselves sufficing to establish our case. 
 
 To some this method may appear too cold 
 and cautious. Their faith leaps forward, ap- 
 propriating at once the full truth to which we 
 endeavour to advance. For instance, with 
 complete confidence in the historical character 
 of the narrative portions of St. John's Gospel, 
 they would apply it at once to the elucidation 
 of the mystery of Christ's Person. They are 
 1 Hebr. xi. 27.
 
 8 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 not content with the synoptic portrait of the 
 Redeemer, and they chafe at any reluctance to 
 use to the full a kind of evidence in which they 
 see the truest delineation of His Form. 
 
 It is impossible not to respect this attitude ; 
 but in view of much of the ' liberal ' criticism 
 of the day, we believe it to be a surer and in 
 the end more satisfactory plan, to work upward 
 from a foundation which, if narrower, is the more 
 solid. It is better to proceed slowly and 
 cautiously, if in so doing we can carry with us 
 reasonable seekers after truth, than to assume at 
 the outset positions which would at once be 
 contested, however rapid our progress may appear 
 at first to be. 
 
 Accordingly, the sources of our knowledge of 
 Christ will be discussed and an attempt will be 
 made to form an estimate of their relative value. 
 Next will have to be determined the methods 
 of using them. After that we shall have to 
 deal with the results of our inquiry, and finally 
 to endeavour to arrive at what they mean.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 THE SOURCES 
 
 ALTHOUGH not the earliest, the non-Christian 
 sources of our knowledge of Christ may be 
 conveniently considered first. 
 
 It comes as a surprise to some that the life and 
 work of One whose appearance in the world con- 
 stitutes so great a crisis in its history should have 
 made to judge by what has come down to us 
 so small an impression on the contemporary and 
 immediately succeeding literature of the world, 
 outside the community which He founded. Our 
 Lord's contemporary Philo is altogether silent. 
 In Josephus 1 there is one certain allusion of slight 
 value. Tacitus, 2 in a famous passage, says of the 
 
 1 circa A.D. 93, 94, Antiq. xxi. 9, i ; v. Wernle, Die 
 Quellen des Lebens Jem, 1904, p. 3 ; Kalthoff, Das Christus- 
 problem, 1903, p. 44. 
 
 2 circa A.D. 115-117, Annul, xv. 44. Kalthoff's statement 
 (pp. cit. p. 44), that Tacitus's mention of Christ only proves
 
 io THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Christians : ' The founder of that title, Christus, 
 was put to death in the reign of Tiberius by 
 the Procurator Pontius Pilate.' A still earlier 
 allusion occurs in a letter of the younger Pliny. 
 These are the only traces of Christ's life and work, 
 in the contemporary and immediately subsequent 
 literature of the world (outside the Christian litera- 
 ture), which has come down to us. 1 Of course, 
 clear and definite allusions may have existed and 
 may yet be discovered. Nothing is more pro- 
 bable. Meanwhile, is it not disconcerting to see 
 how little evidence extraneous to Christianity and 
 therefore, it may be supposed, wholly unbiassed 
 in its favour, we have to appeal to? So, at first 
 sight, it appears ; but not if the circumstances are 
 taken into account. 
 
 The younger Pliny is the first profane Roman 
 writer who makes any clear and undoubted 
 allusion to Christ. As governor of Bithynia 
 and Pontus he writes 2 in about the year A.D. 
 
 that he had heard and appropriated the account of His 
 death from Christian tradition, is without foundation. 
 
 1 Suetonius, who wrote c. 120 A.D., speaks of Chrestus, 
 meaning, as Loman (v. infra, p. 13 n.) admits, Christ, v. 
 Rovers, Stemmen uit de vr'ije gemcente, pp. 51-64. 
 
 2 Epist. x. 96. As to the genuineness of the letter v. 
 J ahrbticher fiir Prof. Theologie, 1891, p. 645, etc. Wernle,
 
 THE SOURCES 11 
 
 104 to the Emperor Trajan, asking for instruc- 
 tions as to the treatment of Christians. In 
 the course of his letter, he makes this remark- 
 able statement : ' Affirmabant autem (Christiani), 
 hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae, vel erroris, 
 quod essent soliti stato die l ante lucem con- 
 venire, carmenque Christo, quasi deo, dicere 
 secum invicem, seque sacramento non in scelus 
 aliquod obstringere sed ne furta, ne latrocinia 
 ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, 
 ne depositum appellati abnegarent.' 
 
 As regards Philo, there is no doubt that he 
 was acquainted with the existence of Christ 
 and Christianity. He was in Palestine in A.D. 
 39 on business connected with an embassy to 
 the Emperor Caligula. His knowledge of the 
 religious life of Judaea was extensive, yet he 
 is wholly silent both as to the Person of Christ 
 and the early Christian Community. It is easy 
 
 Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu, p. 3, is perhaps correct in 
 saying that the passage in Tacitus, Annal. xv. 44, is the 
 first notice of Christ to be found in profane history. But 
 the letter of Pliny is at least 1 1 years earlier, and if not part 
 of an actual history, is certainly an historical document of 
 primary importance. 
 
 l i.e. 'the Lord's Day.' Cf. Justin Mar., Apol. i. p. 82, 
 ed. Bened.
 
 12 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 to account for such an attitude of silence. He 
 was a pious Jew. As such he would naturally 
 shrink from allusion to One whom he believed 
 to be a pretender and whose adherents at that 
 date were still but a small and insignificant 
 minority in the midst of the Jewish people. 
 Christianity was still ' a sect everywhere spoken 
 against,' if mentioned at all. Philo would con- 
 sider that the best refutation of its claims which 
 he could give, would be the refusal even to 
 name it. At any rate, the silence of a hostile 
 contemporary can never be alleged as disprov- 
 ing the historical reality of a Person or a Cause. 1 
 Then as to Josephus. The same may be 
 said of his evidently studious avoidance of the 
 Name and Life of Christ. He casually mentions 
 John the Baptist and in one passage, 2 which 
 may well be authentic, he speaks of the death 
 of James ' the brother of Jesus, who was called 
 
 1 Cf. Renan, Vie de Jesus, p. xl. He thinks that Philo 
 did not hear of Christ : ' Philon est vraiment le frere aine 
 de Jesus. II avait soixante deux ans quand le prophete de 
 Nazareth etait au plus haut degre de son activite, et il lui 
 survecut au moins dix annees. Quel dommage que les 
 hasards de la vie ne 1'aient pas conduit en Galilee ! Que 
 ne nous eut-il pas appris ! ' 
 
 2 Antiq, xx. 9, i.
 
 THE SOURCES- 13 
 
 Christ.' The much discussed passage in Antiq. 
 xviii. 3. 3, if containing, as is probable, some 
 historic nucleus, 1 has been too much interpolated 
 in the Christian interest to admit of citation. 
 There is no other allusion. The explanation 
 is not far to seek. 'Josephus was only too 
 well aware that the Christians regarded the 
 destruction of Jerusalem as the penalty of the 
 condemnation of Jesus. He would not give 
 them the satisfaction of bringing the fate of 
 
 1 This is the view of Scholten in ' Flavius Josephus und 
 Jesus' (Theclogisch Tijdschrift for 1882, pp. 428-451), in 
 which, in reply to Loman, who from the supposed silence 
 of Josephus as to Christ, argued that He did not exist, 
 he points out that the Christian Church is not named 
 by Josephus and yet he must have become acquainted with 
 it in Rome after 63 A.D. v . Van Manen in Jahrbttcher fur 
 prot. Theologie for 1883 and Knowling, The Witness of the 
 Epistles, p. 151. Cf. Renan, Vie de Jesus, p. xl: ' Je 
 crois le passage sur J6sus (Ant. xviii. 3. 3) authentique 
 dans son ensemble. II est parfaitement dans le gout de 
 Josephe, et, si cet historien a fait mention de J6sus, c'est 
 bien comme cela qu'il a du en parler. On sent seulement 
 qu'une main chretienne a retouchd le morceau, en y 
 ajoutant quelques mots . . .' Rovers in Stemmen uit de 
 vrije gemeente, pp. 51-64, says, if the passage as a whole 
 is not considered genuine by any competent critic, why 
 does not Loman mention Antiq. xx. 9. I ? Josephus, 
 if he knew of Jesus, was likely to be silent about Him. 
 v. Van Manen, op. cit. p. 607, and ib. for 1844, PP- 5^2, 3-
 
 14 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Jesus into connection with these political com- 
 binations.' l Bousset, 2 who does not admit the 
 authenticity of the reference to our Lord as 
 brother of James, considers the silence of 
 Josephus unimportant, adding, ' At the time 
 when he wrote, Josephus must have known 
 much of the Christians. If he does not mention 
 them, it is because he does not wish to do so.' 
 To summarise this part of the evidence, we 
 have in Jewish writers of the first century 
 but one passing allusion to Christ. In profane 
 literature, we have to wait for the opening years 
 of the second century for the letter of Pliny 
 and the brief mention in Tacitus. In the one 
 case, the avoidance of reference is intentional. 
 In the other case, the absence of reference 
 during the first age is partly due to the writers' 
 
 1 Wernle (D. Quellen des Lebem Jesu, p. 4) who has been 
 speaking of Herod's downfall being regarded by the people 
 as a punishment for the death of John the Baptist. ' The 
 silence of Josephus does not imply ignorance on his part 
 of Christianity, but only that to his mind it did not 
 possess sufficient importance to deserve special mention, 
 or that he thought it unwise to refer to the subject' 
 (Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, p. 181). Cf. Haus- 
 rath, Neuteitamentliche Zeitgeschichte, i. p. 374, who considers 
 it quite conceivable that Christ was unknown to Josephus. 
 
 2 Was tvissen wir von Jesus ? 1906, p. 16.
 
 THE SOURCES 
 
 contempt for an insignificant sect as they held 
 the Christian community to be partly to their 
 confusing it with Judaism. It must also be 
 borne in mind that our knowledge of this 
 subject is conditioned by the paucity of the 
 documents which have come down to us. 
 
 Those who, notwithstanding such considera- 
 tions, find the want of non-Christian evidence 
 disturbing, need to be reminded that man for 
 man the testimony of a Christian is at least 
 of equal validity to that of a heathen or a 
 Jew : while danger lent additional weight to 
 its utterance. 
 
 When we pass to Christian literature, the 
 change is at once apparent. We are met by 
 a stream of evidence reaching back to about 
 20 years after the date of the Ascension. The 
 earliest literary witness is St. Paul. i Thess. 
 i. i, the first of his writings which has come 
 down to us, contains the first mention of our 
 Lord to be found in all literature. There we 
 see at its source the stream which was quickly 
 to widen into the most copious literature which 
 the world has seen. It is the *irst naming 
 we possess of ' a Name which is above every
 
 16 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Name.' l Behind the written document, and 
 reaching back still farther, lies the experience 
 which it embodies. The Epistle presupposes the 
 community founded on the same principles and 
 practice which form the basis of the letter. 
 Each writing takes us back to a far earlier state 
 of knowledge. The great desideratum of con- 
 temporary evidence is supplied, contemporary 
 in its experience, if not in its transmission to 
 writing. 2 We have as we shall see first-hand 
 information of Christ. But we must seek it 
 elsewhere than in the earliest of the Christian 
 writings ; not in St. Paul, but in St. Mark. And 
 here, a curious fact is to be noted. The earliest 3 
 Christian documents contain an organized and 
 systematic theology ; but little detail of incident 
 and event. We get a Christology before we 
 have a history : for although St. Paul is the 
 first writer who speaks of our Lord, we cannot 
 cite him for the earliest information as to His 
 Life and Words. He only deals by slight 
 allusion with the career and Ministry of Christ. 
 His attention is fixed on the Death, Resurrection 
 
 1 Phil. ii. 9. 2 But v. p. 63, note I. 
 
 3 That is, the earliest that have come down to us in their 
 original form.
 
 THE SOURCES 17 
 
 and Heavenly Life of the Son of God, and on 
 the consequences which flow therefrom. He 
 cares not to trace the steps which led to that 
 result. Miracles are without interest to him ; 
 the teaching of Christ is only occasionally referred 
 to. His gospel is almost contained in the verse 
 ' Who was delivered for our offences and was 
 raised again for our justification.' l And yet, 
 paradoxical as it may seem this later stage 
 of Gospel history, which sums up all that 
 St. Paul was concerned to deal with in his 
 Epistles, was the Gospel that was preached by 
 the earliest Christian teachers. It was the 
 Crucifixion-Resurrection element of the story of 
 Christ that made a Gospel possible, that made it 
 necessary, that fired its first preachers. It was 
 the Gospel at its highest, in the climax of its 
 majesty and importance, which formed the 
 starting point of the earliest oral teaching. We 
 see this, not only from St. Paul's Epistles, but 
 from St. Luke's account of the teaching of St. 
 Peter at Pentecost and after. The suffering 
 and death, with the ' glory ' that ' followed,' form 
 the kernel of the first Gospel to be preached 
 among men, and they form it still. The glorified 
 
 1 Rom. iv. 25. 
 B
 
 1 8 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Christ is presented to the world : the Resurrection 
 is the central and decisive element. It at once 
 challenged attention to the message and made 
 it a Gospel. 
 
 But the narratives which form our four 
 Canonical Gospels have a different end in view 
 and pursue a different method. They set out 
 to quote St. Mark's first words to give ' the 
 beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,' and 
 through the various historical incidents of His 
 Life and teaching, lead up to the climax. But 
 if their method differs from that of the Pauline 
 Gospel, their purpose is not contradictory. They 
 aim at supplying an answer to the question 
 naturally occurring to the hearers of the Gospel, 
 as the first witnesses were passing away, What 
 manner of Person was this crucified and risen 
 Jesus, in His life and conversation ? If the first 
 preaching of the Gospel deals with the chief 
 Gospel element, the first written Gospels (so- 
 called) trace the story of their Hero during His 
 public Ministry ; or, to be more correct, they 
 give incidents of that Ministry which enable us 
 not to form a consecutive and complete history 
 but to see what manner of life His was. 
 
 Therefore, for direct knowledge of Christ, we
 
 THE SOURCES 19 
 
 must, if we would follow the true, historical 
 course, go first to the Gospels. Through them 
 we get into touch with the first impressions made 
 by Christ on His contemporaries. We find 
 recorded what Christ said of Himself and its 
 effect on His hearers. He lives and moves before 
 us. And there is another reason for consulting 
 the Gospels before the writings of St. Paul. Not 
 only do we have access to earlier experience and 
 impressions of Christ, but we approach our 
 Subject at an earlier stage of His career ; seeing 
 Him, as men first saw Him, as Man, as Friend 
 and Teacher, before there dawned upon the mind 
 the conviction that He was something more than 
 these. This, as we shall see, is the natural order, 
 as well as the historical one. 1 Christ came in 
 
 1 That is, if we consider the fact that the literary ex- 
 pression of Christian experience is not the first form 
 which that expression took. It presupposes a course of 
 knowledge, meditation, oral announcement. It enshrines 
 a stage of experience earlier than itself. And it is to 
 this that we must go back, if we would know how Christ 
 appeared to the men of His time. We must find the 
 Gospel as it was received and preached before it was 
 committed to writing. ' In the life time of Peter and Paul,' 
 says Prof. T. Zahn, Einleltung In d. N.T. ii. p. 164, 'the 
 possible existence of beginnings of evangelistic literature 
 remained without perceptible influence on Church life ; 
 and up to the end of the first century, at any rate where
 
 20 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the flesh, presenting Himself in His humanity 
 before the true character of His Personality 
 could be apprehended. Its unfolding was 
 gradual, and it is in the Gospels that we can 
 trace the process and follow its stages. 
 
 As we advance, we shall illustrate what we 
 find in the Gospel narrative by reference to 
 St. Paul and other New Testament writers. 
 
 eye- and ear-witnesses were at hand, the Evangelic 
 literature, which had up to then arisen or was understood 
 to be commenced, was not considered as the chief source 
 out of which the community had to fashion its knowledge 
 of Christ's words and acts.' So Dr. H. Holtzmann, Die 
 Entstehung des N.T. p. 14 : 'There is no question that the 
 proclamation of the Gospel was entrusted to the living 
 Word. We must dismiss from our minds the paper world 
 which now surrounds us. ... The disciples were not 
 bidden to sit and write, but to go and preach. The spoken 
 word must do it and the Old Testament, as we see from St. 
 Peter's speeches in the Acts, afforded the written text for 
 this preaching.' While therefore, we have recourse to the 
 Gospels as containing early impressions of Christ, we have 
 to try to capture those impressions in their still earlier 
 form, before they passed into Christian literature. We 
 have to get at the experience which lay behind the writings. 
 Justin Martyr (4pol. i. 67) marks the transition from oral 
 to written authority in Christian tradition, where he speaks 
 of the reading of the dTrofj.vrjfj.oi'ev/j.aTa of the Apostles in 
 the congregation assembled on the Lord's Day. v. B. 
 Weiss, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1897 
 p. 41.
 
 THE SOURCES 21 
 
 In accordance with the method described on 
 page 7 we shall begin to analyse the sources 
 and to take those which are admitted by all 
 reasonable Schools of thought, as the starting 
 point of our investigation. 1 The attempt will be 
 made to show that, in those portions of the 
 Gospel narrative which are thus received as 
 undoubtedly authentic, there is to be found the 
 highest possible conception of the Person of our 
 Lord, expressions which can only imply the 
 Divinity of the Son of Man ; and that if which 
 we do not for one moment admit the results of 
 criticism forbid us to refer to other portions of 
 the Gospels, we should still be in possession of all 
 we need for evidence of the Divine Personality of 
 the Redeemer. We begin at what is universally 
 admitted, that we may take up our position on 
 unassailable ground. But having done that, we 
 shall not hesitate to appeal to evidence which, if 
 
 1 If 'reasonable' is considered too relative and question- 
 begging an epithet, it may be observed that it is generally 
 allowed that what is admitted by men like Harnack, 
 Bousset, v. Soden, J. Weiss, etc. may be considered 
 to belong to authentic tradition. The extreme Dutch 
 School has never been able to influence the best thinking of 
 Germany or of this country and is becoming more and more 
 discredited even in Holland itself.
 
 22 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 not so generally admitted, can yet make good 
 claim to be heard. 
 
 Accordingly, our analysis of the Gospel sources 
 of our knowledge of Christ is as follows : 
 
 I. Those portions of St. Mark which, em- 
 bodying the substance of the preaching of St. 
 Peter, are incorporated with slight alteration, if 
 any, in the parallel passages of St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke. 
 
 II. The remaining parts of St. Mark placed 
 next for convenience, but of less authority than 
 those specified above and than the source 
 numbered III. 
 
 III. Speeches and sayings of Christ in St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke, taken from a collection 
 bearing the name and authority of St. Matthew, 
 the Apostle. 
 
 IV. (a) Material special (' Sondergut ') to St. 
 Matthew. 
 
 () Material special to St. Luke. 
 
 V. St. John, to be used as stated below on 
 p. 44. 
 
 Before we consider this analysis of the Gospel 
 evidence, it should be noticed that two Gospels 
 St. Matthew and St. John come to us with
 
 THE SOURCES 23 
 
 the traditional repute of being the work of 
 eye-witnesses of Christ, while for St. Mark and 
 St. Luke no such claim is made. 1 But it is 
 one of these latter which we must take as 
 representing the oldest stratum 2 of evidence the 
 Gospel of St. Mark or, as we shall see, a certain 
 part of St. Mark. Nearly, if not quite equal in 
 age is the substance of the non-Marcan material 
 which is common to St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 I AND II. 
 
 It is generally agreed that, taking the Gospels 
 in their present form, that of St. Mark was the 
 first to be written down. According to Irenaeus 
 (Adv. Haeres. iii. I. i) this was after the death 
 of St. Peter. If that death took place, as is 
 usually believed, in A.D. 64, the earliest and, with 
 respect to its contents, the latest date for the 
 
 1 With regard to St. Matthew, v. p. 37. 'I believe 
 myself that the author of the Fourth Gospel was an eye- 
 witness ' (Sanday, The Life of Christ in recent Research, 
 1907, p. 221). 
 
 2 r. Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des Christentums, 1905, 
 p. 1 86 : 'At the present time it holds good, as the assured 
 result of the diligent investigation of the Gospels during the 
 last century, that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the 
 canonical Gospels, and that it forms the ground-work of the 
 Gospels of Luke and Matthew.'
 
 24 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 composition of the Gospel will be A.D. 65-70. l 
 Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a contemporary of 
 Polycarp and, with him, a hearer of St. John 
 the Divine, made, according to Eusebius, 2 the 
 following statement. " The elder (i.e. John) said 
 this : ' Mark, having become the interpreter of 
 Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he 
 remembered, etc.'" Irenaeus says: 3 'Mark, the 
 Disciple and Interpreter of Peter, delivered to us 
 in writing, after the death of Peter and Paul, 
 the things preached by Peter.' 
 
 1 v. Zahn, EMeitung in das Neue Testament, ii. p. 164. 
 ' Perhaps it appeared before the year 70 A.D.' Cf. v. 
 Soden, D. wichtigsten Fragen, p. 22. 
 
 2 #. E. iii. 39. 'Mark was "interpreter" of Peter 
 in the sense that he conveyed in his Gospel Peter's teach- 
 ing, not that he acted as interpreter to people of Peter's 
 missionary preaching. Peter was master of Greek and did 
 not require such interpretation.' Zahn, Einleitung in da* 
 Neue Testament, ii. p. 210. v. Lightfoot-Harmer, Apostolic 
 Fathers, p. 529. 
 
 8 Adv. Haeres. iii. i. i. Cf. Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 5. 
 v. Bousset, Was wissen wir von Jesus I p. 32. Justin Mar., 
 Dial, cum Tryph. p. 106, no doubt refers to St. Mark's 
 Gospel, when he assigns an incident which is only found 
 in our Second Gospel, to the Memoirs of Peter, ei/ TOIS 
 a7ro/xvT//iovu/xao-tv airrou (/'.. Tltrpov). Cf. B. Weiss, Die 
 Geschichtlichkelt des Markusevangeliums, 1905, p. 6.; Swete, 
 St. Mark, p. xxx.
 
 THE SOURCES 25 
 
 According to these statements, the trustworthi- 
 ness of which there is no reason to doubt, the 
 main fabric of the Gospel of St. Mark is due to 
 the constantly repeated preaching of St. Peter, 
 written down from recollection and given to the 
 Church, when the voice of the Apostolic Primate 
 had been stilled by his martyrdom. 1 
 
 This traditional evidence for its origin is neither 
 confirmed, nor is it contradicted, by reference to 
 the contents of the Gospel itself. 2 St. Peter 
 appears in it early and late. While his good 
 confession is faithfully recorded, so are the stern 
 rebukes, which he received soon afterwards, and 
 the three-fold denial. 
 
 But St. Mark had access to other sources of 
 information. His Gospel is not wholly Petrine. 
 His close intercourse with members of the 
 primitive community must have given him a 
 
 1 ' (Mark) was and remained a "Son" of Peter (i Peter 
 v. 1 3) since, for a decade, he must have heard the narra- 
 tives and speeches of Peter in the house of his mother 
 (Acts xii. 12-17) before he entered the foreign mission 
 service ' (i.e. with Barnabas and Paul from A.D. 44 onwards). 
 Zahn, op. cit. ii. p. 204. 
 
 z v. Wernle, Die Quelkn des Lebens Jesu, p. 55. v. Mark, 
 viii. 29, 32, xiv. 66-72. 'There is no doubt that Peter 
 is especially prominent in this Gospel.' Jlilicher, Einleltung 
 in das Neue Testament, p. 319, E.T.
 
 26 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 thorough knowledge of the facts requisite for 
 his purpose, which, as he tells us (i. i), was to 
 write ' the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son 
 of God.' v. Soden l endeavours to distinguish 
 between the Petrine and the non-Petrine elements 
 which compose the Gospel. Opinions vary as to 
 his success. One thing is very certain. The 
 attempt is provisional. To base an argument for 
 or against a passage on the ground of its Petrine 
 or non-Petrine source is quite unallowable. 
 Some other test must be applied ; for this alone 
 is wanting in the requisite certainty. 
 
 But in accordance with our proposed method, 
 let us take the bare Petrine element, as allowed 
 by v. Soden, as our starting point, and see 
 what it yields. It is as follows: i. 4-11, John 
 the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus ; 21-39, a 
 Sabbath in Capernaum with many miracles, ii. 
 i iii. 6, Causes of offence to the Jews (Forgive- 
 ness of sins, etc.). xii. 13-44, How the Jews 
 tried to arrest Him. iii. 21-35, vi. 1-6, How 
 Jesus everywhere encountered want of under- 
 
 1 Die wuhtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, p. 24. Though 
 he does not include them in his detailed Petrine element, 
 v. Soden admits that recitals of Peter lie at the foundation 
 of the passages xi. i xii. 12 (the days of Jerusalem) and 
 chapters xiv., xv. (the History of the Passion).
 
 THE SOURCES 27 
 
 standing, iv. 1-9, 21-32, Parables of the King- 
 dom, x. 13-45, Who enters the Kingdom? 
 i. 16-20, iii. 13-19, vi. 7-16, viii. 27 ix. I, 
 33-40, the Development of the Disciples, xiii. 
 1-6, 28-37, Glances into the Future, v. Soden 
 characterises these passages as fresh in local 
 colouring, free from remarks intended to edify, 
 always clear in meaning, redolent of the soil of 
 Palestine. They aim at representing Christ as 
 He was and as men received Him. 
 
 They are free from theological motive. Miracles 
 are occasional and incidental. 1 They contain no 
 ground for doubt as to their historical character. 
 
 The non-Petrine elements on the other hand, 
 although composed by St. Mark, bear, according 
 to this critic, quite a different character. We 
 have a lengthy speech inserted among short, 
 sharp expressions ; a tendency to be dogmatic ; 
 a certain want of clearness ; above all there are 
 three great miracles (iv. 35 v. 43). These, says 
 v. Soden, ' show many points of concord with Old 
 Testament histories, occasionally with Pauline 
 
 1 lb. pp. 37, 38, 40. Cf. p. 41 : 'The most severe and 
 fundamentally mistrustful criticism would be powerless to 
 raise any well-grounded doubt as to the historical character 
 of these narratives.'
 
 28 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 ideas, mirrorings of the experiences of individual 
 believers and of the Church. . . . All these 
 pieces were written down for the first time by 
 the author of our Gospel.' 1 
 
 1 lb. pp. 38-40: ' Sie alle . . . zeigen zahlreiche An- 
 klange an alttestamentliche Geschichten, nicht selten an 
 Paulinische Vorstellungen, Spiegelungen von Erlebnissen 
 der einzelnen Glaubigen und der Gemeinde. Sie zwingen 
 dazu, durch Allegorisierung sie erst ftlr den Hdrer fruchtbar 
 zu machen. Alle verraten sie das Interesse, Jesus als mil 
 libermenschlicher Macht ausgestattet zu zeigen, so wie sie 
 der Glaube der Christenheit dem erhohten Herrn zutraute 
 und im Verkehr mit ihm erlebte. Alle diese Stiicke sind 
 zweifellos von dem Verfasser unseres Evangeliums zum 
 erstenmal niedergeschrieben.' 
 
 A. Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906, p. 302, 
 severely criticises the arbitrary character of v. Soden's 
 method of distinguishing between the ' Petrine ' and the 
 * secondary ' elements in St. Mark. He says : ' By means 
 of this arbitrary method of dealing with the points of con- 
 nection Schmiedel (i.e. Otto Schmiedel) and v. Soden 
 pronounce it quite easy to distinguish between Mark and 
 ' Urmarkus,' that is, to retain only that part of the Gospel 
 which fits in with their construction.' As for v. Soden's 
 detection of Pauline influence in St. Mark, Schweitzer 
 observes, * Es ware doch einmal an der Zeit, dass man, 
 statt immer paulinische Einfliisse bei Markus zu behaupten, 
 solche nachweise.' And he asks, why should not the parts 
 which do not deal with the supernatural contain Church 
 theology and experiences converted into history ? Only 
 because they confine themselves within the limits of the 
 natural ? The difficulty consists in the fact that passages 
 which von Soden suspects of being edited, 'stand in
 
 THE SOURCES 29 
 
 Now, that certain portions of St. Mark's Gospel 
 are due to experiences of disciples other than St. 
 Peter is probable enough. 1 That he had access 
 
 strongly knit historical connection, so much so that the 
 historic connection is nowhere so close as in those very 
 parts.' The strength and soundness of Schweitzer's 
 criticism can be easily tested by reference to the text of 
 St. Mark. Coming from so acute and widely-read a 
 writer, it is of extreme value, as applying not only to v. 
 Soden, but to a whole school of writers whose methods 
 are characterised by what Schweitzer calls ' dieser halber 
 Skeptizismus.' 
 
 1 ' Allowance must probably be made, especially in the 
 last six chapters, for the use of other authorities, some 
 perhaps documentary, which had been familiar to the 
 Evangelist before he left the Holy City.' Swete, St. Mark, 
 p. Ixv. J. Weiss, Das alteste Evangelium, 1903, p. 95, 
 considers that St. Mark owed something to St. Paul's 
 influence : ' If one conceives of our Gospel just as it is, as 
 the committal to writing of the apostolic announcement 
 of Christ crucified and risen, if one comprehends it as a 
 living whole, in the peculiar frame and spirit which the 
 writer has imparted to it, one will notice how the ideas 
 and interests of the Pauline circle are reflected in its pages. 
 No one will wish to dispute this who regards John Mark 
 as the writer of the Second Gospel. For this man was the 
 pupil and intimate of Paul (Col. iv. 10, Phil. 24, 2 Tim. 
 iv. II, Acts viii. 5, 13 ; xv. 37, 39), and it would be in the 
 highest degree remarkable if, in a work of his, there was 
 no sign of the influence of the most masterful spirit among 
 all his teachers.' Pfleiderer surely exaggerates the extent of 
 St. Mark's indebtedness (if such there were) to St. Paul, 
 Die Entitehung des Christentums, pp. 188 ff.
 
 30 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 to sources of information equal in authority to 
 that of St. Peter is certain. From his early 
 residence in Jerusalem, he was in the closest 
 touch with members of the primitive community. 
 But when v. Soden gives his reasons for the 
 distinction which he draws between Petrine and 
 non-Petrine elements, he at once betrays the 
 arbitrary character of his method. All ' edifying,' 
 ' didactic ' portions at once show that they do 
 not belong to the Petrine nucleus. Why St. 
 Peter should, in the course of his mission preach- 
 ing, have been anxious to exclude whatever might 
 instruct and edify, he does not stop to explain. 
 ' Great miracles,' as contrasted with the few 
 1 incidentally ' occurring ones, are at once regarded 
 as suspicious. 1 One has only to read v. Soden's 
 description of the character of what he regards 
 as the non-Petrine part of St. Mark, to see that 
 his criticism suffers from that fault of ' tendency ' 
 which is so commonly laid to the charge of 
 
 1 ' If we wish to exhibit Urmarkus while preserving the 
 arrangement of our Mark, we must not draw a distinction 
 between the natural and the supernatural elements, for the 
 supernatural scenes, such as the Feeding of the Five Thou- 
 sand and the Transfiguration, form chief stages in the 
 outline of Mark (sind Hauptetappen im Markusaufriss).' 
 Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, p. 304, n i.
 
 THE SOURCES 31 
 
 portions of the Gospel records. He gives us no 
 scientifically grounded analysis of the contents of 
 the Gospel. Presuppositions are everywhere at 
 work. He has first formed his conception of 
 what a primitive Gospel should be, and places on 
 a lower level of authority all that does not accord 
 with that conception. 
 
 But, after this protest, let us take v. Soden's 
 division of St. Mark and see what his ' Petrine ' 
 element yields, remembering that, in his words, 
 ' the strongest fundamentally suspicious criticism 
 can raise no well-grounded doubt against the 
 historical character of these recitals.' 
 
 To sum them up briefly, we have the Baptism 
 of our Lord with the supernatural accompani- 
 ments of the opening heavens and the voice of 
 the Father and the abiding Spirit. 
 
 The healing of the man with an unclean spirit, 
 of Peter's wife's mother, of the many at sunset, 
 together with the testimony of the outgoing 
 spirits to the Messiahship of Christ. 
 
 The healing of the paralytic, with the claim 
 to forgive sins. 
 
 The healing of the man with a withered hand. 
 
 Christ claims for His words a permanence 
 outlasting that of heaven and earth (xiii. 28-37).
 
 32 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Three facts stand out upon the surface of 
 these recitals, the historical value of which is 
 admitted to be beyond question. i. The power 
 to work miracles is attributed to Christ. 2. He 
 claims authority to forgive sins. 3. To His 
 words He imputes an Eternal significance and 
 validity. 
 
 From the remaining portion of the Gospel, 
 called by v. Soden non-Petrine, we get the 
 following among other material : 
 
 Three great miracles (iv. 35 v. 43). 
 
 Miracles of the healing of the leper, of the 
 blind man at Jericho. 
 
 The feeding of the 5OOO. 1 
 
 The walking upon the sea. 
 
 The Transfiguration and following miracle. 
 
 Now, there is nothing in these portions of the 
 Gospel to warrant our attributing their origin to 
 other than the Petrine source. If stress is laid 
 on a distinction between ' the three great 
 miracles ' and those of the (Petrine) healings on 
 the ground that the latter belong to a class of 
 
 1 Yet this miracle has the fullest Gospel evidence of all, 
 being related by all four Evangelists, v. A. Schweitzer, 
 Von Reimarus zu Wrede, p. 305, and v. Infra, p. 196, n. 2 
 and p. 210, n. 3.
 
 THE SOURCES 33 
 
 miracle which, through advance of scientific 
 knowledge is being gradually brought under the 
 category of known, though little understood, 
 natural law (suggestion, etc.) what shall we 
 say of the occurrence of the (Petrine) Baptism 
 passage? Can we say that the miraculous 
 element is more pronounced in ' the three great 
 miracles ' than here ? Clearly we have no power 
 to discriminate in such a case, and any attempt 
 to distinguish the primitive elements of the 
 Gospel on this principle cannot succeed. There 
 is nothing to show that the less miraculous is 
 the more primitive element. 
 
 Nor is there greater prospect of success, if 
 the attempt to distinguish between the Petrine 
 and non-Petrine portions of the Gospel is based 
 on the presence or absence of an edifying or 
 didactic tendency. 1 A bare, simple narrative is 
 
 1 How little ground there is for the distinction which 
 v. Soden draws between the Petrine and non-Petrine 
 portions of St. Mark on the score of a didactic tendency, 
 may be estimated by reference to Dean Armitage Robinson's 
 remark when speaking of the whole Gospel : ' St. Mark 
 offers us scene after scene in quick succession with scarcely 
 a single comment and with no desire to enforce a doctrine 
 or a moral.' (Advent Lectures on The Historical Character 
 of the Fourth Gospel, 1907.) Cf. B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der 
 Einleitung in das Neue Test. 1 897, p. 484 : ' Upon a Gospel,
 
 34 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 not necessarily older than one written with a 
 purpose ; and before you argue on what is 
 involved in the presence of a didactic element, 
 you must be sure that it is not for the sake 
 of that very element that the narrative is 
 given. 
 
 But however this may be, v. Soden recognises 
 the Marcan authorship of the Gospel as a whole 
 and considers that the ' non-Petrine ' as well as 
 the ' Petrine ' elements belonged to this earliest 
 of the four Gospels as it was first promulgated. 
 
 which is manifestly intended to portray and to demonstrate, 
 in which too the most unrestrained delight in narrative 
 and portraiture so evidently prevails, a character for ten- 
 dency can only be impressed, if one arbitrarily allegorises 
 its historical representations, and in the most designing 
 manner reads into it objects which are as far as possible 
 removed from the naivete of its narrator. This Gospel 
 is certainly not a purely historical work, but was composed 
 in the interest of religion and calculated to serve the 
 needs of the Church. But its didactic aim has nothing 
 to do with dogmatic questions, or with the controversies 
 of the Apostolic age.' v. Salmond in Hastings, D.B. 
 in. p. 260 : ' To give witness to Christ as the Messiah, 
 no doubt, was in the purpose of Mark as in that of the 
 other Synoptists. But beyond this Mark has no other 
 object than to tell a simple story of things as they 
 happened, and for the most part as Peter reported them 
 to have been seen and heard.'
 
 THE SOURCES 35 
 
 III. 
 
 It is generally admitted that our Gospel of 
 St. Mark forms the historical groundwork of the 
 First and Third Gospels, 1 whose writers used it 
 with more or less freedom in composing their 
 own. 2 As Wellhausen says : ' Mark is known 
 to the two other Synoptic writers in the same 
 form and with the same contents in which we 
 possess it now.' 3 But, having access to other 
 
 1 v. Wernle, Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu, p. 47 : ' The 
 chief result, Mark the source of Matthew and Luke, 
 remains, through the fourfold series of grounds material, 
 arrangement, language, contents adequately sure as the 
 fair reward of a century of labour.' von Soden, Die 
 Wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, p. 42 : 'There is no 
 doubt that in the case of both Gospels (Matt, and Luke) 
 our Gospel of Mark forms the woof.' 
 
 2 v. Soden, op. cit. p. 41, remarks that Matthew and 
 Luke show great respect for the * Petrine ' parts of St. 
 Mark, scarcely venturing to alter a word. 
 
 3 Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 1905, p. 57: 
 ' Markus ist den beiden anderen Synoptikern schon in der 
 selben Gestalt und in dem selben Umfang bekannt gewesen, 
 wie wir ihn jetzt haben.' 
 
 On the other hand, Salmon, The Human Element in the 
 Gospels, 1907, p. 494, says : ' I do not think St. Luke could 
 have known St. Mark's Gospel as a written document ; 
 and . . . was, in my opinion, only acquainted with those 
 portions of it which he had heard orally recited.' Most 
 critics would agree with Wellhausen rather than with 
 Salmon on this point.
 
 36 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 primitive sources of information, they supple- 
 mented and occasionally altered the Marcan 
 account. 
 
 A comparison of the First and Third Gospels 
 shows the existence of a primitive source of the 
 highest importance and authority, containing a 
 record of Christ's speeches and sayings. As 
 employed by the Evangelists, it must have been 
 in the Greek language, for the expressions tally 
 to some extent in both Gospels. External 
 evidence confirms that of the Gospels themselves. 
 Papias of Hierapolis states l that ' a collection 
 of the sayings (of Christ) was made by Matthew 
 in the Hebrew tongue and everyone interpreted 
 them as he was able.' Here the separate inter- 
 pretation of the Hebrew by individuals corre- 
 sponds with the translation into Greek, which 
 the evangelists, from internal evidence, appear 
 to have used. So precious a collection accumu- 
 lated by the Apostle would not be allowed to 
 remain buried in its original Aramaic, but would 
 naturally be made available for the use of the 
 Greek-speaking communities. Its value and 
 
 1 In Euseb. H.E. Hi. 39. v. Preuschen, Antikgomena 
 (1905), p. 94. Lightfoot-Harmer, The Apoitolic Fathers, 
 p. 517.
 
 THE SOURCES 37 
 
 authority stand on the same level as that of 
 the chief source which lies behind St. Mark. 
 It goes back to the Apostle and eye-witness 
 St. Matthew, as the source of St. Mark goes 
 back to St. Peter. 1 
 
 1 v. v. Soden, op. cit. p. 62, who says (p. 61) : 'This 
 Ur-evangel speaks by its contents for its age and the 
 authenticity of those contents.' It is often spoken of as 
 the Logia (TO, Aoyia). Wellhausen (Einleitung In die drei 
 ersten Evangelien) and others designate it Q. The similarity 
 of expression in the matter common to the First and 
 Third Gospels has perhaps been too strongly emphasized. 
 V. Bartlet in Hastings, D.B. iii. p. 297, remarks : * The 
 strange divergence of the Logian elements in Matthew 
 and Luke respectively seems inconsistent with a common 
 written basis.' Harnack, however, writes, Beitrage zur 
 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, ii. 1907, p. 80: 'That 
 one and the same Greek translation of an Aramaic original 
 forms the basis of both Gospels is rendered certain by the 
 large number of paragraphs which remain verbally identical. 
 But as to unity and extent of the source we are as yet 
 unable to express an opinion. The copy, which Matthew 
 used, may have differed already in one point or another 
 from the copy which was at the disposal of Luke.' Allen, 
 ' St. Matthew ' in the International and Critical Com- 
 mentary (cf. Art. 'Matthew (Gospel)' in Dictionary of 
 Christ, ii. p. 147) has shown that there are considerable 
 differences in expression as well as in arrangement due, 
 possibly, to the use by St. Luke of other sources of our 
 Lord's sayings besides that of the Logia used by St. 
 Matthew. The similarities between the two Gospels may 
 be due in part to St. Matthew's Gospel itself being known
 
 38 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 If we examine the portions of the First and 
 Third Gospels which embody this primitive 
 collection of Christ's sayings, we find, among 
 other things, the following : l 
 
 The ' Sermon on the Mount,' St. Matt. v. vii ; 
 St. Lu. vi. 20 vii. i. Our Lord here claims to 
 have the last and decisive word on human life 
 
 to St. Luke. We must not leave out of account the 
 influence of oral tradition. Many of our Lord's sayings 
 and certain speeches must have firmly fixed themselves in 
 men's memories, and played their part in forming and 
 guaranteeing the original material used by the evangelic 
 writers. 
 
 1 The Temptation narrative of the First and Third 
 Gospels is not included by v. Soden in his material attributed 
 to the Logia. Allen (St. Matt. p. 31) assigns its source 
 to unknown matter used by the two Evangelists. But 
 Harnack, Beitr'dge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 
 ii. p. 34 ft".), uninfluenced by consideration of the differences 
 in the two accounts a consideration which weighed with 
 Allen declares decidedly for its forming part of Q, 
 observing : * We see at once that we have to do with a 
 text which is essentially the same. The chief point of 
 difference is that in Luke the third temptation has become 
 the second.' He adds : ' The text of the history of the 
 Temptation in Q can, in my judgment, be exhibited with 
 almost complete certainty ; in nearly every part the special 
 material (Sondergut) of each of the two witnesses appears 
 as a secondary element.' p. 37. We have therefore high 
 authority for deriving the record of the Temptation 
 from .
 
 THE SOURCES 39 
 
 and action. His recognition or rejection will, 
 at the last day, save or condemn. 
 
 The healing of the centurion's servant, with 
 accompanying sayings, St. Matt. viii. 5-13; St. 
 Lu. vii. 2-10. Christ proclaims the fate of those 
 cities and peoples who reject Him and His mess- 
 engers. St. Matt. x. 5 ff., St. Lu. x. 1-16. 
 
 The casting out of a dumb spirit, by ' the 
 Finger of God.' He reveals facts of the spirit 
 world. St. Matt. xii. 22-30, 38-45 ; St. Lu. xi. 
 14-36. 
 
 These are given merely as specimens of the 
 contents of this original Gospel source. Its 
 authentic character may be regarded as one of 
 the fixed points attained by criticism. For, as 
 v. Soden says, 1 f there is no ground for thinking 
 
 1 op. cit. p. 61. Denn es ist kein Grund ausfindig 
 zu machen warum sp'ater in den Gemeinden gerade solche 
 Ausspriiche, wie sie hier vorliegen, Jesu in den Mund 
 gelegt sein sollten. . . . Sie (i.e. the * Spruchsammlung ') 
 kann ihre Entstehung nichts anderem verdanken als dem 
 Interesse eines Jlingers Jesu, die Ausspriiche des verklarten 
 Meisters, deren Ohrenzeuge er war, festzuhalten und 
 denen zu vermitteln, die ihn auch verehren.' 
 
 Cf. Kuhl, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 1907, pp. u, 12. 
 ' The Gospels present us with a large number of sayings 
 of Jesus and of traits in the picture of His life, which 
 bear the impress of their genuineness (Unerfindbarkeit),
 
 40 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 that such sayings as these must have been placed 
 in the mouth of Jesus at some later date by the 
 Christian community. . . . Their origin can be 
 due to nothing else than the interest taken by 
 a disciple in perpetuating and imparting to other 
 adherents the utterances of the glorified Master, 
 whose ear-witness he was.' 
 
 IV. 
 
 Material special to (a) St. Matthew, (b) St. 
 Luke. Over and above the material of the First 
 and Third Gospels derived from St. Mark and 
 from the Logia (Q) there remains a considerable 
 amount of material peculiar to each Evangelist 
 (Sondergut), which, in all probability, is taken 
 partly from the Logia, but mainly from other 
 sources of which we have no definite knowledge. 
 
 (a) St. Matthew. The narrative of the Birth 
 and Infancy of Christ (i., ii.). 
 
 and which are simply incomprehensible as productions 
 of constructive legend, of poetic fancy, or of the creatively 
 active dogmatism of the Church of a later age. . . . The 
 community or member of a community of the Apostolic 
 or sub-Apostolic age has yet to be discovered which, for 
 example, was capable of composing the noble self-confession 
 narrated in Matt. xi. 25 ff. = Luk. x. 21 ff. and placing 
 it in the mouth of Jesus.'
 
 THE SOURCES 41 
 
 The teaching on almsgiving and fasting in 
 the Sermon on the Mount (vi.). 
 
 Certain sayings in xii. 5 flf., 1 1 ff., xviii. i o, 
 xix. 10-12, xxv. 31-46. 
 
 Certain parables (xiii., xviii., xxi., xxv.). 
 
 The promise to St. Peter (xvi. 16 ff.). 
 
 (b} St. Luke. The Greek prologue (i. 1-5). 
 
 The strongly Jewish narrative of the birth of 
 St. John the Baptist, the Annunciation, Birth, 
 Infancy and Boyhood of Christ (i. 5 iii.). 
 
 Certain parables : eighteen out of the twenty- 
 three which he records ; among them that of the 
 Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, Dives and 
 Lazarus. 1 
 
 Certain miracles : The draught of fish (v. 1-12). 
 The raising of the widow's son (vii. 11-19). 
 The healing of a woman with a spirit of infirmity 
 (xiii. 11-18). The healing of a man with dropsy 
 (xiv. 1-7). The healing of ten lepers (xvii. 
 11-20). The healing of Malchus's ear (xxii. 
 
 47-54)- 
 
 Certain short sayings (' Augenblicksworte,' as 
 Wernle z calls them) : Satan's fall from Heaven 
 (x. 18-21). Fire on earth (xii. 49). Reply to 
 
 1 For a complete list see Plummer, St. Luke, p. xii. 
 
 2 D. Qucllen des Lebens Jesu, p. 79.
 
 42 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 a brother (xii. 14). Reply to a woman's greeting 
 (xi. 27). The message to Herod Antipas (xiii. 
 32), etc. 
 
 Certain short narratives : The names of the 
 ministering women (viii. 2, 3). Samaritans refuse 
 hospitality to Christ (ix. 51-57). Treatment of 
 a would-be disciple (ix. 61, 62). The seventy 
 disciples (x. I ff.). Mary and Martha (x. 38 ff.). 
 The incident of Zacchaeus (xix. 2-II). 1 
 
 Certain sayings and narratives in the history 
 of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ. The 
 mere naming of these shows the incalculable 
 debt which we owe to St. Luke : The agony in 
 Gethsemane (certain details), (xxii. 43, 44). 
 Christ sent to Herod (xxiii. 6-13). The daughters 
 of Jerusalem (xxiii. 27-32). The first word from 
 the Cross (xxiii. 34). The two thieves (xxiii. 
 39-44). St. Peter at the tomb (xxiv. 12; cf. 
 St. John, xx. 3, 6). The walk to Emmaus 
 (xxiv. 13-33). Christ appears to the eleven 
 (xxiv. 36 ff.; cf. St. John, xx. 19-24). The Ascen- 
 sion (xxiv. 50 ff.). 
 
 How are we to estimate the historical value 
 
 1 Wernle (pp. at. p. 80) speaking of some of these 
 narratives, says : ' It is highly probable that Luke composed 
 these valuable pieces of information out of a lost Gospel.'
 
 THE SOURCES 43 
 
 of these portions of the Gospel narrative which 
 are peculiar to St. Matthew, or to St. Luke? 
 v. Soden applies the following test : ' So far as 
 this separate material fits into the circle drawn 
 by the two original Gospels, 1 it can be employed 
 unhesitatingly to form an historical representation. 
 We must at once abandon it when it lies outside 
 that circle.' This test, if fairly used, cannot be 
 objected to. Inconsistency with those portions of 
 the Gospel narrative which come to us with the 
 most complete attestation would reasonably throw 
 suspicion on a passage : but the application of the 
 test needs to be made with the greatest reverence 
 and caution. The singly attested portions furnish 
 us with some of the most assured historical data 
 and bear upon the surface the most certain marks 
 of their genuineness. 2 Besides, we do not know 
 enough of the comparative value of the sources 
 lying behind the ' Sondergut ' to say that any 
 failure to harmonise with the ' Ur-evangelien ' 
 
 1 I.e. the ' Petrine ' Mark and the Logia element of the 
 First and Third Gospels : but, as may be inferred from 
 what has been said above, we should extend the term 
 ' original Gospel ' in the first case so as to include practic- 
 ally the whole of St. Mark (with the exception of c. xvi. 
 9-20). 
 
 2 v. infra, p. 152 n. 2, 154 n.
 
 44 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 must necessarily place a passage out of the 
 category of history. An apparent failure to fall 
 into line with a passage of the highest attestation 
 is not of itself sufficient to discredit a narrative ; 
 for the simple reason that we do not know enough 
 of the attendant circumstances to say whether the 
 seemingly opposing narratives are irreconcilable. 
 
 V. 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 
 
 So far, we have been considering the historical 
 character of the material contained in the 
 Synoptic Gospels. Can we bring the Fourth 
 Gospel under contribution in our study of the 
 Person of Christ ? In view of the divergence 
 of opinion existing among scholars on the 
 authorship and historical character of the Gospel, 
 its evidence will not be used in these pages with 
 the freedom with which that of the Synoptics 
 is cited. It will be employed to illustrate, to 
 confirm ; occasionally to complete and elucidate 
 results obtained from the other Gospels. 
 
 No position of first-rate importance in the 
 argument will be made to depend upon it. 
 What we shall endeavour to prove as to the
 
 THE SOURCES 45 
 
 Person of our Lord will take its stand on the 
 evidence supplied by the Synoptic Gospels. 1 
 
 That our claim to use the evidence of the 
 Gospel under these limitations may be willingly 
 conceded, it is perhaps worth while to remind 
 readers of certain admissions made by more or 
 less ' advanced ' critics on the Johannine problem, 
 v. Soden 2 says : ' The Gospel of John affords 
 expressions which must have actually come from 
 
 1 But it must be remembered that in spite of the 
 efforts of adverse criticism to depreciate the historical 
 worth of this Gospel, its trustworthiness and importance 
 as embodying the mature reflection of an eye-witness of 
 Christ are fully recognised by scholars of the first rank. 
 v . infra, p. 8 1 ff. Renan, for instance, writes : * En ce 
 qui concerne le recit de la resurrection et des apparitions, 
 le quatrieme Evangile garde cette superiorite, qu'il a 
 pour tout le reste de la vie de Jesus (i.e. over the Synoptic 
 Gospels). Les Apotres, p. ix. Cf. Ktihl, Das Selbst- 
 bezvusstsein Jesu, p. I o : ' We professed Theologians 
 (Theologen von Fach), even when we are so far convinced 
 of the historical trustworthiness of the Fourth Gospel, 
 have long been accustomed to treat scientific questions 
 which concern some point in the Life or Teaching of 
 Jesus in such a way that, in the first resort, we only allow 
 the three first Gospels to speak, and then when they 
 have spoken, put the question of the attitude of the 
 Gospel of John towards the problem which is under 
 discussion.' 
 
 2 Die Wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, p. 64.
 
 46 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Jesus, and a still larger number, which are so 
 entirely formed out of the Spirit of Jesus that 
 they might well have originated with Him if 
 He had spoken the language of the Evangelist.' 
 He also speaks l of the fact ' that authentic 
 traditions have connected themselves with this 
 Gospel.' Bousset 2 admits that if the Fourth 
 Gospel may not be used as a primary source of 
 information, yet it may come in as a secondary 
 source. 3 
 
 Much of the criticism directed against the 
 historical character of the Fourth Gospel is based 
 on superficial comparisons drawn between it and 
 the Synoptics, comparisons which omit to take 
 account of the difference of purpose of the several 
 writings. For instance, Wernle says : 4 ' Seldom 
 
 l op. cit. p. 85. 
 
 2 W 'as wissen wir von Jesus ? \ 906, p. 29. 
 
 3 ' Apart from interpolations (v. 4, vii. 53 viii. 12) 
 and the concluding chapter added by way of supplement, 
 the work in form and substance, in arrangement and 
 thought, is an organic whole without additions or 
 omissions ' the seamless coat,' etc. Holtzmann, Ein- 
 leltung In das Neue Testament, p. 431. Cf. Reynolds in 
 Hastings, D.B. ii. p. 694 ; Loofs, Die Auferstehungsberichte 
 und ihr Wert, p. 33. 
 
 4 Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu, p. 18. But cf. Burkitt, 
 The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 237, 'The ideas
 
 THE SOURCES 47 
 
 have two men ever spoken more unlike one 
 another than the Synoptic and the Johannine 
 Jesus.' St. John had before him the three first 
 Gospels. Writing, as he did, a long time after 
 the events which they narrate, and with a specific 
 object before him, we should at once be prepared 
 for difference of treatment. His object was so 
 to present Christ as to call out belief in Him, 
 that through belief men might have Life. 1 The 
 Synoptic Gospels, on the other hand, set out 
 with no such precise end in view. In their 
 original form (' Petrine ' Mark and the Logia) 
 they record incidents and sayings of Jesus of 
 Nazareth. To condemn as untrustworthy a far 
 later writing, composed with quite a different 
 object, because the portrait of the hero is 
 differently coloured and because of the presence 
 of theological inference, is to deal unfairly with 
 the facts. Indeed, in the case of the Fourth 
 Gospel, the presence of theological inference, the 
 constant insistence on the value of the Person of 
 
 (of the Fourth Gospel) are the ideas which animate the 
 sayings in the Synoptic Gospels.' J. Weiss, Das alteste 
 Evangeltum, p. 97, 'The Christology of Mark stands 
 far nearer to that of John than people usually admit.' 
 
 1 Jo. xx. 30 ff.
 
 48 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Christ and the Christian's attitude towards Him, 
 is, when we consider the purpose of the Gospel 
 and the circumstances under which it was written, 
 a guarantee of its genuineness. A disciple and 
 eye-witness of such a character as the writer, in 
 reviewing from the distance of old age the scenes 
 and incidents which had formed the subject of 
 life-long meditation, could not fail to show his 
 sense of the eternal significance of Christ. Thus 
 his history, while vividly true and accurate in its 
 local knowledge l and in its presentment of 
 striking incidents, is so woven into the texture of 
 his own devout thoughts and beliefs, that we 
 
 1 Dr. Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 1 29, 
 justly censures v. Soden for saying (D. Wichtigsten Fragen, 
 p. 9) 'The entire absence of Palestinian local colouring 
 betrays the distance at which the writer stands from 
 historic reality.' The many instances to the contrary will 
 at once occur to the memory of every reader of the Fourth 
 Gospel. Cf. Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. vii. B. Weiss, 
 Das Leben Jesu, i. p. 86, 'Throughout he shows himself 
 accurately acquainted with the localities of Palestine.' 
 The famous traveller and geographer, K. Furrer, says of the 
 author of the Fourth Gospel : ' He must have been a writer 
 who was acquainted with the home of Jesus through 
 personal inspection, so that we at once have the feeling 
 that, in his narratives, we have to do with occurrences 
 which we might have looked upon with our own eyes.' 
 Das Leben Jesu Christi, p. 19.
 
 THE SOURCES 49 
 
 cannot always say where the record ends and the 
 soliloquy begins. 1 It would be a psychological 
 impossibility for such a disciple, at such a 
 distance in time, to tell the story of the Saviour 
 in the form of a bare narrative without letting 
 his own convictions appear. No evidence of 
 theological inference should be allowed to cast 
 suspicion on its authority in the matters of fact 
 which it narrates. 2 When Wernle 3 writes : ' The 
 difference between the two portraits of Christ can 
 be brought under the simple formula, Here (in 
 the Synoptics) the Man ; There (John) the 
 God ; ' he sacrifices accuracy to the desire to 
 be epigrammatic. For while, as we shall see, 
 the Divinity of Christ shines out of the pages 
 of the Synoptic Gospels, the humanity of Christ 
 
 1 e.g. iii. 16-22. 
 
 2 Zahn (Einleitung in das Neue Testament, ii. p. 162) 
 says : ' According to the state of the facts which we can 
 recognise from a comparison of our Gospels with the 
 common tradition as gathered from the remaining N.T. 
 Scriptures, the three first Gospels have no greater claim to 
 be an accurate or complete expression of the tradition of 
 Christ's words or acts, existing in the Apostolic Com- 
 munities, than the Fourth Gospel.' This is a strong 
 statement, but it proceeds from one who is second to none 
 in knowledge of the subject. 
 
 3 Z). Que/fen des Lebens Jesu, p. 25. 
 
 D
 
 50 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 is nowhere more apparent than in the narrative 
 of St. John. 1 
 
 1 * In no early Christian document is the real humanity 
 of Jesus so emphasised as in the Fourth Gospel.' F. C. 
 Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission, 1906, 
 P- 233.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 METHODS OF INQUIRY 
 
 WE have next to consider how we can best make 
 use of the sources of our knowledge of the Person 
 of Christ. In studying a great personality there 
 are two fields of inquiry open to us. There is 
 his self-witness what the subject says of himself 
 and his purpose in life ; and there is the witness 
 of other people. 1 
 
 As to the first of these methods, the amount 
 of evidence available depends largely on the 
 disposition of the person. Some people are open 
 and unreserved. Others speak little of them- 
 selves and of their aims. But in all cases, every 
 indication of a true unveiling of self must be 
 carefully noted. A man is to be credited with 
 
 1 In the present chapter, the sources which appear to 
 contain the transcendental aspect of our Lord's Person 
 will alone be taken as the object of inquiry.
 
 52 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 being the best authority as to his own motives 
 and as to the view of life which he takes for 
 himself, unless it can be proved that he is the 
 victim of self-deception. This self-report, in any 
 case, requires checking by reference to the impres- 
 sion which he makes on his contemporaries ; and 
 where passion or party feeling take from the 
 value of contemporary judgment, the impression 
 made on the following generation becomes of 
 high importance. 
 
 In both of these lines of inquiry as directed 
 on the Person of our Lord, there is ample material 
 for forming an estimate. He speaks definitely 
 and fully of Himself. The impression which He 
 made on His contemporaries is profound ; while 
 as regards the judgment of the next generation, 
 the evidence is equally striking and complete. 
 
 i. What does our Lord say of Himself? It 
 will be well to confine ourselves at first to the 
 report contained in the ' Petrine ' part of St. Mark 
 with its Synoptic parallels the primitive Gospel 
 admitted by all to be authentic. 1 
 
 He claims authority to forgive sins (ii. 5-10, 
 Matt. ix. 2 fif., Lu. v. 17 fif.). It is the first time 
 that such tremendous words had fallen from 
 
 Cf. p. 31-
 
 METHODS OF INQUIRY 53 
 
 human lips. Not only had no prophet dared to 
 utter them, but, as Dalman shows, 1 Judaism, at no 
 period of its history from that of the Old Testa- 
 ment to the present, has claimed such a power 
 for the Messiah. 
 
 In the same connection (ii. i-ii) He asserts 
 His possession of miraculous power and in many 
 passages belonging to this original Gospel narra- 
 tive, we have accounts of His Miracles. 
 
 In the same passage (ii. 10) He uses for the 
 first time 2 the self-designation ' Son of Man.' 
 
 He claims the right to legislate for Sabbath 
 observance and the power to abrogate it, if 
 requisite (ii. 27, 28). 
 
 He promises to rise again the third day, after 
 foretelling His coming Passion (viii. 31, Matt, 
 xvi. 21, Lu. ix. 2). 
 
 He claims for his words a permanence greater 
 than that of heaven and earth (xiii. 3 I , Matt. xxiv. 
 35, Lu. xxi. 33). 
 
 He accepts the title of Messiah (viii. 29, Matt, 
 xvi. 17, Lu. ix. 21). 
 
 1 Die Worte Jesu, pp. 214, 215, in opposition to J. 
 Weiss's statement (Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 
 1892, p. 57) : 'None of His opponents have doubted that 
 the Messiah had this authority (to forgive sins).' 
 
 2 i.e. in the Synoptic narrative.
 
 54 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Passing over for the present the non-Petrine 
 portion of St. Mark we come to the Logia (Q) 
 element of the First and Third Gospels, having 
 behind it the collection of our Lord's sayings and 
 speeches attributed to the Apostle and Eye- 
 witness, St. Matthew. 1 
 
 What does Christ say of Himself in this 
 (equally with Petrine Mark) undisputed piece of 
 Gospel ? 
 
 In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. vii., Lu. 
 vi. 20 vii. i) He takes upon Himself to abrogate 
 the Law, where necessary, 2 to deepen and enlarge 
 its meaning and application, to fulfil and spiritualise 
 it, where He holds it to be of universal obligation. 
 He handles the most sacred part of the ancient 
 Scriptures of His people with a freedom which no 
 prophet however highly empowered would have 
 ventured to employ. He legislates for the new 
 world as God, through the Mosaic dispensation, 
 had legislated for the old. With an authority 
 that we can only characterise as presumption, if 
 it were not Divine, alike in its origin and its 
 sanction, 3 He gives utterance to principles, which 
 
 l Cf. pp. 35 ff. ' 2 e.g. The 'Lex Talionis,' v. 38. 
 
 3 It is often said by people impatient of dogma, ' Give 
 
 us the Sermon on the Mount ; that suffices for our guid-
 
 METHODS OF INQUIRY 55 
 
 can never become antiquated and never need 
 to be superseded, in language which the con- 
 science of men, in every succeeding age, has 
 acknowledged to be the last word on human 
 life and conduct. That majestic utterance, six 
 times repeated, ' But I say unto you,' carries with 
 it at least the pretension to speak as from the 
 very Throne of God. 
 
 Self-assertion is still more pronounced in 
 Matt. vii. 21-24 (cf. Lu. vi. 46). The final 
 destiny of man will depend on whether or not 
 he is recognised and owned by Christ ' at that 
 day.' 
 
 In Matthew xi. 27 = Luke x. 22, we have 
 an assertion of knowledge which carries with 
 it far more than is apparent on the surface. 
 Setting Himself over against the Father, He 
 declares that the knowledge of the Father and 
 of the Son is mutual and similar. It is therefore 
 coeval and implies the pre-existence of the Son. 
 In this passage, belonging be it remembered to 
 
 ance. We can do without Creeds.' They fail to see that 
 the Sermon contains, by implication, in the self assertion 
 of its Preacher, the central dogmas of the Christian Faith. 
 You cannot interpret the Sermon on the Mount without 
 answering the question, Who and What is He Who uttered 
 it ? The reply must constitute dogma.
 
 56 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the earliest stratum of Gospel tradition, we have 
 a Self-estimate of Christ as comprehensive and 
 far reaching as any contained in the Gospel of 
 St. John. The significance of the passage in 
 the study of the Person of our Lord cannot be 
 ignored. 1 It is the highest point attained by 
 His Self-witness and it comes from a source 
 which cannot honestly be disputed. 
 
 So far, we have extracted from the two primal, 
 undisputed Gospel sources Petrine Mark and 
 the- Logia (Q) element of Matthew .and Luke- 
 certain assertions by our Lord which bear upon 
 His own Person. We overhear Him talking of 
 Himself. When we come to deal with the results 
 of our investigation, we shall have to consider 
 what contribution to a knowledge of Christ 
 from His own lips is afforded by the special 
 matter of Matthew and Luke, the ' non-Petrine ' 
 Mark and the Fourth Gospel. At present it will 
 suffice to call attention to the above universally 
 acknowledged instances of His Self-witness. 
 
 2. The report of contemporaries. Next in 
 
 1 v . further, p. 161 ff. 'It contains the whole of the 
 Christology of the Fourth Gospel.' Plummer, Sf. Luke 
 x. 22. Allen (Sf. Matthew xi. 27) draws attention to the 
 aorists in xi. 25-28 as denoting ' pre-temporal acts of God 
 wrought in the prehistoric "beginning" or eternity.'
 
 METHODS OF INQUIRY 57 
 
 importance to what our Lord says of Himself 
 is the evidence of those with whom He lived. 
 That evidence is of two kinds. It comes from 
 friends and from foes. 1 
 
 It is difficult if not impossible for us, with 
 nineteen centuries of Christian experience behind 
 us, to place ourselves at the stand-point of the 
 first followers of Christ and to realise the conflict, 
 which the advancement of such claims as we 
 have just noted must have produced in their 
 minds. As we shall see, those claims involved 
 the assertion of Divine prerogatives. What must 
 have been their effect on the disciples ? As 
 Jews they knew that, in the long process 
 of their people's history, belief in the Unity, 
 the solitary Majesty of God, was the dearly 
 bought possession, which it had taken centuries 
 of struggle and suffering to secure for them. 
 The winning and the holding of that truth was 
 their task in world-history, and anything that 
 
 1 There is also the evidence of demons. Whatever may 
 be our explanation of the incidents connected with our 
 Lord's casting out of evil spirits, we have to reckon with the 
 attested fact that the spirits in the moment of their expul- 
 sion acknowledged Him as Son of God, and (which is 
 strong proof of the authentic character of the narratives), 
 were rebuked for their acknowledgment.
 
 58 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 seemed to go back upon it would stand self- 
 condemned. How then did the claims of Christ 
 gain a hearing, when the mere idea of One 
 possessed of Divine prerogatives moving among 
 them would appear to be a suggestion of 
 Satan ? 
 
 It has perhaps never been fully realised how 
 great a step must have been taken, when the 
 idea came even to be entertained and considered, 
 nor how gradual and hesitating must have been 
 the process of conversion from the idea as idea 
 to belief in a fact of binding authority. 1 For 
 Jewish disciples to receive our Lord as He claimed 
 to be received, the first principles of the old 
 faith had to be abandoned ; not because His 
 claim was opposed to them, but because, as 
 interpreted by the traditional standards, they 
 seemed to forbid it. 2 
 
 Can we trace the steps by which the change 
 was effected ? If so, we shall see something of 
 the way in which the greatest advance in the 
 spiritual history of mankind was made. 
 
 1 Cf. Mason in Cambridge Theological Essays, p. 423. 
 
 2 v. Jo. v. 1 8, x. 33. Cf. Wernle, Die Quellen des Lebens 
 Jesu, p. 29. 'The Evangelist must now hear and meet 
 the reproach of the Jews : " Christians have departed from 
 their Monotheism. They worship two gods." '
 
 METHODS OF INQUIRY 59 
 
 From ' Petrine ' Mark, we get the following, 
 among other, indications of the way in which the 
 Person of Christ came to be regarded as in some 
 sense One with God, or at any rate as endowed 
 and empowered as no other man had been : 
 i. 27. Amazement at His power over un- 
 clean spirits, 
 i. 1 7. His influence over the disciples to draw 
 
 them away from their occupations, 
 i. 22. Their astonishment at the authority 
 
 with which He taught, 
 ii. 1 2. Wonder at His healing of the palsied 
 
 man. 
 
 x. 28. Disciples forsake all to follow Him. 
 x. 32. Amazement of the disciples as they 
 follow Him on the way to Jerusalem, 
 viii. 29. St. Peter's confession, ' Thou art the 
 
 Christ.' l 
 
 These instances of the effect of companionship 
 of Christ with His disciples belong to the 
 
 a Cf. Luke ix. 20. St. Matt. (xvi. 16) adds 'the Son of 
 the Living God ' 6 mos TOV 6eoi5 rov oWos. Against 
 Dalman's (Die Worte Jesu, p. 224) contention that this is an 
 unauthorised addition to the text, Dr. Sanday shows reason 
 for thinking that the words are original and probably derived 
 from the Logia. (Hastings, D.B. Article 'Son of God,' 
 vol. iv. p. 572).
 
 60 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 primitive tradition, and present an entirely trust- 
 worthy picture of the early stages of His conquest 
 of the minds and hearts of those who followed Him. 
 
 We have next to review the evidence of hostile 
 contemporaries, and of those (other than disciples) 
 brought into contact with Him. 
 
 St. Mark i. 22. A Sabbath in Capernaum. 
 ' They were astonished at His doctrine.' 
 
 i. 27. 'They were all amazed.' They acknow- 
 ledged that unclean spirits obey Him. 
 
 ii. 1 2. After the healing of ' the sick of the 
 palsy,' ' they were all amazed and glorified God 
 saying, We never saw it on this fashion.' 
 
 Hi. 22. Scribes from Jerusalem own that He 
 casts out devils. 
 
 vi. i -6. Astonishment of the people of Nazareth 
 at His wisdom and works. 
 
 Thus from Petrine Mark comes evidence of 
 wonder, on the part alike of friends and foes, at 
 His power, wisdom and beneficence. 
 
 In the present chapter, the methods by which 
 the Gospel sources will be employed are thus 
 briefly indicated. When we come to deal with 
 the results of our inquiry, we shall have to go 
 more into detail and to bring into use evidence of 
 a later kind than that now adduced.
 
 METHODS OF INQUIRY 61 
 
 Meanwhile, to sum up the present position, it 
 has been shown by appeal to sources universally 
 recognised, firstly, that our Lord, according to His 
 own Self-witness, stood in an unique relation to 
 God, claiming and exercising supreme authority 
 among His fellow countrymen and in the spirit- 
 world ; secondly, that He came by degrees to be 
 owned by His followers to be the Christ, the Son 
 of the Living God ; thirdly, that friends and 
 enemies agreed in admitting His power and 
 wisdom.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 
 
 IF we use our sources of knowledge according to 
 the method above indicated, we arrive at certain 
 main results. The first of these is that Christ 
 comes before us as an historical Personage living, 
 a Man among men, at a definite time. He is 
 Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ. 
 
 It may seem an insult to the intelligence of 
 persons of ordinary education to occupy time in 
 showing that we have historic proof of the Per- 
 sonality of Jesus Christ ; that when we speak of 
 Him, we deal not with the embodiment of a 
 conception, but with an actual Person, Who lived 
 and died at a certain period. Yet, such is the 
 eccentricity of a certain class (if not a school) 
 of criticism, that doubt has been cast on this 
 all-important point : and the question once raised 
 requires to be met. As in physiology, abnormal
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 63 
 
 developments are occasionally to be met with and 
 are thought of sufficient interest to be preserved 
 in museums, so in the province of history, 
 grotesque and eccentric theories will sometimes 
 deserve mention, if only it be to serve as warnings 
 against the consequences of unhealthy prejudice 
 and warped methods of inquiry. 
 
 In weighing the evidence for the historical 
 certainty of our Lord's life on earth and of the 
 fact that He did and said certain things, there is 
 a disposition on the part of some critics to 
 demand a kind of proof which is never required 
 in other lines of historical investigation. Of how 
 few of the great figures of early times do we 
 possess contemporary written evidence ! But the 
 absence of such documentary proof does not for a 
 moment weaken our belief in the existence of 
 men whose personality lives in the achievements 
 attributed to them by later writers. Instances will 
 at once occur to memory. Yet the supposed l 
 absence of any contemporary writing has been 
 
 1 This expression is used in view of the interesting 
 hypothesis of Sir W. M. Ramsay (Expositor for May, 1907) 
 that the Matthaean Logia (Q) were written down in the 
 lifetime of our Lord and constitute our oldest Evangelic 
 document. Harnack, Beitr'dge zur Einleitung in das Neue 
 Testament, ii. 1907, p. 171, says that Q is older than Mark,
 
 64 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 held by some to countervail the mass of evidence 
 of every other kind which has come down to us, 
 and this notwithstanding the fact that our Lord's 
 public life was of the short duration of three years 
 at the most. Taking the literary characteristics 
 of the age into account, it would have been 
 remarkable if during that brief time anyone had 
 
 but adds that ' if Q had been long in circulation, we could 
 not understand how Mark did not know it, or use it 
 although he wrote at a distance from Palestine.' On the 
 other hand, Bousset considers that the Gospel of Mark 
 presupposes the existence of the Logia ; for unless such a 
 collection were lying before him, we could not understand 
 his not incorporating in his Gospel the many sayings of our 
 Lord which were current at the time. Was wissen wir von 
 Jesus ? p. 34. ' The Christian Church has always regarded 
 the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as equally 
 historical facts, because they have been transmitted by a 
 continuous tradition, dating ultimately from the testimony 
 of eye-witnesses recorded and emphasised in practically 
 contemporary documents documents, that is to say, either 
 written by or in close connection with the eye-witnesses 
 themselves.' Illingworth, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 1907, 
 p. 37. Salmon, in a remarkable passage, The Human Element 
 in the Gospels, 1907, p. 274, takes a view similar to that of 
 Ramsay cited above. Speaking not only of Q but of the 
 sources of the Synoptic narratives generally, he writes : * The 
 more I study the Gospels the more convinced I am that we 
 have in them contemporaneous history ; that is to say, that 
 we have in them the stories told of Jesus immediately after 
 His death, and which had been circulated and, as I am
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PEKSON 65 
 
 committed to writing a report of the ' Rabbi,' who 
 went about healing and teaching. The significance 
 of His Person was, on the showing of the Apostles 
 themselves, only realised fully after the Resur- 
 rection : if it had been understood earlier, the 
 necessity for committing impressions to writing 
 would not have appeared, so long as eye and ear- 
 witnesses in abundance could narrate what was 
 said and done. The custom of writing a bio- 
 graphy of a living person is a modern one. 1 The 
 
 disposed to believe, put in writing while He was yet alive.' 
 A judgment of this character arrived at independently by two 
 such scholars is worthy of every consideration. The fact 
 that Q contains few, if any, of the sayings of the Passion 
 time (cf. Harnack's construction of the Text of Q in his 
 Beitrage zur Einleitung In d, Neue Testament, ii. p. 102), 
 makes it highly probable that, as a document, it had been 
 compiled before the closing days of the Saviour's earthly life. 
 1 v. Holtzmann, Die Entstehung des N.T. p. 14. * There is 
 no question that the proclamation of the Gospel was 
 entrusted to the living Word. We must dismiss from our 
 minds the paper world which now surrounds us. ... The 
 disciples were not bidden to sit and write, but to go and 
 preach. The spoken word must do it and the Old 
 Testament, as we see from St. Peter's speeches in the Acts, 
 afforded the written Text for this preaching.' Cf. J. 
 V/eiss, Das alteste Evavgelium, p. 14. Speaking of the 
 absence of biographical interest in St. Mark, as shown in 
 the omission of any history of our Lord's Childhood, he says : 
 * This plan of writing, which appears so self-evident to us 
 
 E
 
 66 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 absence, if absence there be, of such a record in 
 the case of our Lord is no argument against His 
 existence. His Person and Life are of such 
 transcendent importance, that we may wonder 
 why some records of undoubtedly contemporary 
 origin have not conveyed to us His appearance, 
 His doings and sayings. But it may well be 
 that such a need was not felt at the time ; or, if 
 felt, met in a way which has not survived to the 
 present. Meanwhile it is to be remembered that 
 whether or not we have written contemporary 
 evidence, we have the evidence of contemporaries 
 which was committed to writing not long after 
 the earthly life had closed. 
 
 Yet Kalthoff 1 can quote Professor Ka'hler of 
 Halle, whom he calls ' a representative of Church 
 orthodoxy ' as saying that ' we possess no single 
 authentic word of Jesus ' ; and Professor Steck 
 of Berne, 2 ' a representative of Church Liberalism,' 
 
 modern people, was far removed from Mark.' Again, p. 15, 
 Weiss adds : ' But not only is the bodily appearance not 
 portrayed ; a description of the character of Jesus is also 
 wanting. . . . What need is there to bring forward and 
 paint separate virtues, where the whole form is the picture of 
 perfection ? The character of Jesus is His Sonship of God.' 
 
 1 Die Entstehung des Christenthums, 1 904, p. i . 
 
 2 Cf. Bousset, Was wlssen wir von Jesus? p. 18.
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 67 
 
 as writing that ' we have no unimpeachable 
 certainty for a single word of the Gospels that it 
 was thus and not otherwise spoken by Jesus.' 
 And Kalthoff himself assures us l that the fact 
 that Christianity must not be considered as the 
 work of an individual religious Founder, and 
 that the origin and essence of Christianity must 
 not be sought in an historical Jesus, stands 
 firm for all who are in some degree conversant 
 with the methods of modern historical science. 
 If Kalthoff's contention could be made out, 
 we should be deprived not indeed of an historic 
 Jesus, 2 but of the Personality of Jesus of Nazareth 
 
 1 Op. cit. p. 3. Cf. du Bose, The Gospel in the Gospels, p. 9. 
 
 2 Kalthoff does not deny that Jesus existed, but that the 
 Jesus of Christian belief had any place in history. Accord- 
 ing to Schweitzer, Von Reimr t rus zu Wrcde, 1906, p. 312, 
 Kalthoff's belief was, ' Jesus von Nazareth hat nie existiert.' 
 But Kalthoff himself writes : ' In the matter of the historic 
 Jesus, we have not to do with the question whether once 
 upon a time there lived a Jesus Who came forward with 
 a claim to be the Christ, in the Messianic tide which flowed 
 so strongly (in der grossen Messianischen Flut), but with 
 the question whether the historical character of this Jesus 
 can still be recognised in the New Testament Gospels and 
 whether we can place Him at the rise of Christianity 
 as the Founder of the Religion,' op. cit. p. 23. Cf. 
 J. S. Mill, Three Essays on Religion, p. 253: 'It is of 
 no use to say that Christ, as exhibited in the Gospels, is
 
 68 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 as He is made known to us in the New Testa- 
 ment, and as He lives in the experience of 
 nineteen centuries of Christianity. If there exists 
 no certainty as to any word or deed of Christ 
 as an historical Personage, He must recede into 
 the shadowland of poetry and fiction. As our 
 Lord and Saviour, He must cease to be. 
 
 But apart from such and similar assertions, 
 showing as they do an utter lack of all historic 
 sense, we can appeal not only to the unbroken 
 tradition of Christendom but to the testimony 
 of bitter enemies, Jewish and Pagan, of the 
 Christian Faith to the account which the Chris- 
 tian Church has always given of its origin l - 
 to the existence of customs and practices which 
 
 not historical and that we know not how much of what 
 is admirable has been superadded by the tradition of His 
 followers. . . . Who among His disciples or their prose- 
 lytes was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus 
 or of imagining the life and character revealed in the 
 Gospels ? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee ; as 
 certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies 
 were of a totally different sort ; still less the early Christian 
 writers.' 
 
 1 A great historical institution must be allowed to possess 
 some trustworthy knowledge of the cause and manner of its 
 coming into being. To refuse this is to descend to the 
 very bathos of criticism.
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 69 
 
 professedly owe their inception to the personal 
 authority of Christ 1 above all to those portions 
 of the Gospel narrative which are admitted by 
 all responsible critics to contain the authentic 
 evidence of contemporaries of Christ. 
 
 Now, to endeavour to negative the effect of 
 this mass of evidence by alleging the fact 
 if fact it be that no narrative exists which was 
 written down during the public ministry of Christ, 
 is to play fast and loose with every sound 
 principle of historical criticism. On such a 
 principle, we should have to re-write history 
 and abandon as fictitious a large part of 
 the intellectual possessions of mankind. Test 
 many of the universally received accounts of 
 persons and events of ancient and mediaeval his- 
 tory by such a demand as that made on the 
 story of Christ and you would have to admit 
 that you could not substantiate them. One 
 result would be a general confusion in our con- 
 ception of the processes of historical evolution. 
 We could not say how things have come to be 
 as they are. We should have to deal with 
 patent phenomena of which the antecedents would 
 
 1 Cf. Dean Armitage Robinson, Guardian for 1905, 
 
 p. 2 I 2O.
 
 70 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 be for ever undetermined. This would mean 
 a serious intellectual loss ; but it would be as 
 nothing compared with the loss which humanity 
 would suffer if it could be shown that we possess 
 no authentic account of the Founder of the 
 Christian religion, and that the Saviour of men 
 so far from having any standing ground in sober 
 history is the creation of poetic fancy. 
 
 The absurdity of the conclusions into which 
 a well-informed thinker who lacks common sense, 
 can be landed, is usefully shown by Kalthoff's 
 paradoxical attitude towards the sacred history. 
 Such methods of criticism have commanded, 
 and will command, no general adhesion. Their 
 unscientific character has been well exposed by 
 Professor Bousset. 1 
 
 But the trustworthiness and authenticity of the 
 New Testament witness to Christ has, however 
 unscientifically, been disputed by a section of 
 critical thought, which, although it has attracted 
 no serious adhesion, is yet calculated to cause 
 uneasiness ; not from the strength of its position, 
 but because, on so vital a question, the least 
 
 1 Wai wiaen wir von Jesus? He speaks of Kalthoff's 
 customary confidence ' which stands always in his case in 
 inverse ratio to the soundness of his contentions,' p. 40.
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 71 
 
 breath of doubt or suspicion must seem intoler- 
 able. It will therefore be worth while to state 
 some of those considerations which establish the 
 historic character of our Lord, and to show that, 
 as His Church has always held, in Him we have 
 to do with a real Person. 
 
 Jesus Christ comes before us as a Man living 
 at a certain period. 1 It is remarkable that the 
 earliest account of His life and doings, that of 
 St. Mark, deals entirely with His open, public 
 career. 2 We must turn to later records (St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke), to find that corre- 
 spondence with our modern style of biography, 
 which traces the story of the hero from his birth 
 and describes preceding incidents, giving the 
 circumstances and atmosphere into which he is 
 born. 
 
 1 Some difficulties of Gospel chronology have never been 
 satisfactorily cleared up, but a fairly general agreement as to 
 the year of Christ's birth has been arrived at B.C. 7, or 
 early in B.C. 6. v. Hastings, D.B. i. p. 405, with which 
 Sanday (ib. ii. p. 610) agrees, v. Plummer, St. Luke, iii. 
 Bousset, Jesus, p. 5. 
 
 2 This is the case both as regards the beginning and the 
 close of His earthly life, but in the latter portion the 
 omission is due to the loss of the concluding verses, xvi. 9 
 end of the Gospel. For their reconstruction v. S. ROrdam 
 in Hibbert Journal for July, 1905.
 
 7-2 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 St. Mark's own words explain his method. 
 He is not intending to write an orderly biography. 
 What he wishes is to make known the Message 
 of good news, the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth ; 
 and in i. I he gives a concise description of the 
 contents and object of his recital. He is not 
 so much interested in the Life itself, as in the 
 meaning and consequences of the Life. His 
 object is not to write the history of a Person, 
 but to show, by a few characteristic examples 
 of His acts and teaching, what was the work 
 which He came to do and the message which 
 He came to bring. Now, in the course of 
 carrying out this purpose, he gives certain 
 descriptive touches showing a minute knowledge 
 of the incidents recorded which could only have 
 been gained from eye-witnesses. Thus his 
 Gospel, though not professing to be a complete 
 account, is historical in the full sense of the 
 term. 1 
 
 Taking the ' Petrine ' portion of the Gospel 
 as the bed-rock of its historical element, we get 
 the following matter-of-fact recital. To John 
 
 1 The following are instances of minute and accurate 
 knowledge : i. 31, ii. 4, iii. 5, v. 32, vi. 40, vii. 30, viii. 
 12, ix. 24, x. 1 6, 50, xii. 15, 16, xiv. 72, xv. 36, etc.
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 73 
 
 the Baptist, who was baptizing in the wilderness, 
 a great multitude of people came out and, among 
 them, Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee. He was 
 baptized like the rest. Now, two points in this 
 narrative require special notice. Written down, 
 as it was, only a generation after the events 
 recorded, it challenged contradiction from the 
 large number of people still living who took 
 part in them. The writer would not have placed 
 in the forefront of his Gospel a statement so 
 easy of verification or contradiction unless it 
 had been true. The Baptism of our Lord 
 has therefore a firm historical setting. It has 
 a place in a movement which, from its remarkable 
 character and from the multitude of people who 
 took part in it, would be well known and often 
 referred to as years went on. 
 
 The other point to be noticed is the way in 
 which the circumstances of the Baptism confirm 
 its historical truth. 
 
 They are not what a writer of fiction would 
 have invented. A writer inclined to magnify his 
 hero would have shrunk from so questionable an 
 incident as that of his baptism. It seemed at 
 once to place him on a level with other men. 
 Christ comes out, one among a motley crowd of
 
 74 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the roughest and lowest of the people, and claims 
 baptism as if He, as well as they, needed the 
 purifying lustration ! 1 No inventor would have 
 thus prejudiced his work at the outset. The 
 story is so unlike what he would have written. 
 It thus guarantees its own truth, and the incident 
 of the Baptism is recognised by critical thought 
 as among the fixed points of the career of 
 Christ. 
 
 Another fact of historic importance is the call 
 and subsequent instruction of the Twelve (St. 
 Mark, i. 16-20, etc.). It implies that Christ had 
 a purpose and a mission in life. He chose and 
 disciplined the instruments who were to carry it 
 out. Here, again, the facts rest on the firmest 
 possible basis. The ever increasing members of 
 the first Christian communities could question 
 these earliest adherents of the Master and ascer- 
 tain the simple facts. Several of them lived for 
 many years after His death. 
 
 1 Cf. the Fragment of the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews cited by Jerome, Adv. Pelag. iii. 2. * Ecce Mater 
 Domini et Fratres Ejus dicebant Ei : "Joannes Baptista 
 baptizat in remissionem peccatorum ; eamus et baptizemur 
 ab eo." Dixit autem eis ; " Quid peccavi, ut vadam et 
 baptizer ab eo ? nisi forte hoc ipsum, quod dixi, ignorantia 
 est."' v. Preuschen, Antllegomena, p. 4.
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HIS7VRIC PERSON 75 
 
 They were naturally held in great reverence 
 and their witness to the historic Personality and 
 to the life and teaching of our Lord, was 
 regarded as the chief evidence available. 1 Now it 
 will be admitted that evidence of such a character 
 would in any other matter of importance carry 
 with it convincing proof. When sober and trust- 
 worthy persons living in various countries agree 
 together in the report of their experience of one 
 whom they have known and who, as they allege, 
 has had great influence in moulding their lives 
 and characters, their testimony cannot be set aside 
 on any other grounds than that of ascertained 
 inaccuracy of statement. In the present case no 
 such ground exists. The report of the Apostles, 
 as received by the members of the primitive 
 communities, has come down to us embodied in 
 Gospel narratives and in the Epistles. It presents 
 a picture of the Saviour which is consistent. 
 Differences of expression only attest independence. 
 There is no contradiction. It is a living Person 
 Who stands before us. 
 
 Another kind of evidence for the historic 
 Personality of our Lord is contained in the Gospel 
 
 1 Cf. Holtzmann, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments, 
 p. 14.
 
 76 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 accounts of His teaching. The statement of 
 Kahler, 1 denying that we possess any authentic 
 word of Christ, is confuted by the general assent 
 that in the Logia (Q) sections of the First 
 and Third Gospels, we have His genuine and 
 undoubted utterances. They possess an individu- 
 ality and consistency which show that they are 
 not invented and put into the reputed Speaker's 
 mouth, but are His own spontaneous sayings. 
 They come from a Teacher of great force of 
 character and of a quite revolutionary and epoch- 
 making turn of mind ; One Who handled the Old 
 Testament as if He possessed the key to it, and 
 as though it belonged to Him in a peculiar sense ; 
 One, too, Who spoke with an authority which 
 startled His hearers and differentiated Him from 
 all the teachers they had ever heard. 
 
 And if we take those narratives of Christ's 
 teaching which are given only by St. Matthew or 
 by St. Luke the ' Sondergut ' of the First and 
 Third Gospels, we get the same impression as 
 from the Logia. St. Matthew records ten parables 
 peculiar to himself; St. Luke, eighteen. Both 
 Evangelists must have had access to special 
 sources of information ; or, if they used the same 
 1 v. above, p. 66.
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 77 
 
 material, they must have been led, by considera- 
 tions which are unknown to us, to select it 
 differently. Now there is nothing in these pieces 
 of teaching which are peculiar to St. Matthew or 
 St. Luke, to put them out of harmony with the 
 Matthaean Logia. Indeed, if we were to select 
 one parable rather than another which breathes 
 the characteristic spirit of Christ's teaching, we 
 should go to one reported exclusively by St. Luke 
 that of the Prodigal Son. As v. Soden says : l 
 ' There remains in this " Sondergut " a kernel 
 which resists all criticism ; recitals whose origin 
 would be inexplicable, if they were not simple 
 reflections of the historical fact.' Here, again, an 
 unique and consistent Personality is disclosed by 
 the character of the teaching imputed to Him. 
 That teaching can only be accounted for by 
 the supposition that it proceeds from Him to 
 Whom tradition has always referred it Jesus of 
 Nazareth. 
 
 Then there is the evidence of St. Paul to the 
 historic Personality of our Lord. It is striking 
 
 1 Die Wichtigsten Fragen, p. 63. ' Aber es bleibt ein Kern 
 zurilck, der jeder Kritik Stand halt, unter welchen Gesichts- 
 punkten immer man Bedenken erheben mag, Berichte deren 
 Entstehung ganz unerklarbar wiirde, wenn sie nicht einfache 
 Wiedergabe der geschichtlichen Tatsachlichkeit waren.'
 
 78 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 for two reasons. His reference to Christ in 
 I Thess. i. i is the earliest that has come down 
 to us in all the literature of the world. According 
 to Harnack, 1 it is to be placed about eighteen 
 years after the Crucifixion, and therefore is much 
 earlier than any written Gospel which we possess. 
 Thus to St. Paul belongs the glory of first 
 ' naming the Name of Christ ' in the literature 
 which has survived through the lapse of centuries. 
 Then there is the unique fact that a great 
 Personality like St. Paul, once conscientiously 
 hostile, became, probably during the year of the 
 Crucifixion, 2 an Apostle, devoted body and soul 
 to the service of the cause which he had opposed. 
 
 1 v. Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Th. ii. Bd. i. 
 p. 239, n. i. 'The Epistles to the Thessalonians are to be 
 set down to the year 48-49.' According to Wernle, Die 
 Quellen des Lebens Jesu, p. 4, the reference is 'scarcely twenty 
 years removed from the life of Jesus.' Sanday in Hastings, 
 D.B. ii. p. 648, says: 'Written probably about A.D. 51, in 
 any case not later than A.D. 53.' v. Dean Robinson in 
 Guardian, December 13, 1905. 
 
 2 'According to the tradition, his conversion goes back 
 quite near to the death of Jesus.' Bousset, Was tvissen tvir 
 von Jesus? p. 18. According to Harnack, Geschichte der 
 altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, Th. ii. Bd. i. Chronologic, 
 p. 237, 'St. Paul's conversion occurred in the year A.D. 30 
 that is, either the year of Christ's death or the following 
 one.'
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 79 
 
 Now, on St. Paul as an actual historic person- 
 age no responsible writer has ventured to throw 
 discredit : the evidence for his existence is abun- 
 dant and conclusive. The man and his work live 
 among the certain possessions of the human race. 
 And the career of St. Paul can only be explained 
 by the Person who gave him henceforth his object 
 in life, and to Whose cause he dedicated all he 
 was or hoped to be. On no principles of critical 
 investigation can the evidence of the historic Paul 
 for the historic Christ be set aside. ' From his 
 Epistles,' says Bousset, 1 ' the historic existence of 
 
 1 Was w'tssen wir von Jesus? p. 18. ' Aus seinen Briefen 
 tritt uns mit aller Klarheit die historische Existenz Jesu 
 entgegen.' Ib infra, ' Wer die Existenz Jesu bestreiten 
 will, muss auch die Existenz des Paulus, wie er uns aus 
 seinen Briefen entgegentritt streichen. Er muss die Unecht- 
 heit der paulinischen Briefliteratur behaupten.' 
 
 This is what Bruno Bauer, Loman (v. Infra, p. 86, note i) 
 and Steck of Berne have ventured to do, thereby setting 
 themselves in opposition to the general body of responsible 
 criticism. The 'Hauptbriefe,' Galatians, Romans, i and 2 
 Corinthians are recognised as genuine writings of St. Paul, 
 even by the Tubingen School. Strauss, much as he would 
 have wished, if it had been possible, to neutralise their 
 evidence in the interest of his mythical interpretation of the 
 Gospel history, could not do so. As Ullman says : * Let us 
 suppose for the moment that Strauss had achieved his 
 purpose with his criticism of the sources and had produced 
 tenable results, still there remains a rock which he cannot
 
 8o THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Christ comes out with all clearness.' ' He who 
 would dispute the existence of Jesus must strike 
 out the existence of Paul as he meets us in his 
 Epistles. He must maintain the unauthenticity 
 
 roll away the Apostle Paul and his writings. 1 ' The 
 greater number and at the same time the most important 
 of the Pauline Epistles are, as regards their authenticity and 
 originality, raised above all doubt, and Strauss cannot refute 
 this fact.' Historisch oder Mythisch, p. 63. Cf. Knowling, 
 The Witness of the Epistles, p. 1 9. Kalthoff (Die Entstehung 
 des Christentums, p. 110) has seized upon the peculiar 
 standpoint of Loman towards the Pauline Epistles for his 
 own purposes. But as Bousset points out (Was tvissen wir 
 von Jesus? p. 18), speaking of the negative attitude taken by 
 Loman and others : * The productions of this School are 
 unanimously rejected by the combined theological science, 
 the German at the head. Even in Holland the influence 
 of the school is on the wane (im Riickgang begriffen) ' : 
 and he adds shrewdly : ' But we have often experienced 
 how academic theories at the very time they are driven out 
 into the cold, manage to find their way into the community 
 at large (gerade in der Zeit, in der sie abgewirtschaftet 
 haben, erst in die Masse hinausgetragen werden ).' 
 
 As Bousset goes on to say, Kalthoff and Steck, following 
 the so-called Dutch School, reject St. Paul's Epistles. 
 In this extraordinary contention they are opposed by, 
 roughly speaking, all scholars of repute, English, German, 
 and American. Cf. tb. p. 25, 'The Person of Jesus is 
 bound up with the person of Paul,' and p. 26, ' As a matter 
 of fact, for Paul Jesus was essentially a heavenly Being, but 
 the first Disciples, whose existence is certified by Paul, had 
 lived with their Lord.'
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 81 
 
 of the Pauline literature.' ' This Paul,' writes 
 v. Soden, 1 ' explains that for all he possesses he 
 has to thank the Christ, Who, passionately longed 
 for by himself and his fellow-countrymen, has 
 appeared in the Person of Jesus. That means, 
 he bears witness to Jesus as the Founder of 
 Christianity.' Wernle, after remarking upon the 
 little information afforded by St. Paul as to the 
 life of Christ, goes on to say : ' We do learn from 
 him that a Man, Jesus, in spite of His death upon 
 the Cross, was able after His death to extend 
 such an influence that a Paul became conscious 
 of such constraint, such redemption and blessing, 
 that he divided his own life and the world at 
 large into two parts without Jesus, with Jesus.' 
 There is also the witness to the historic Christ 
 which is supplied by the Gospel of St. John. 
 We do not require it to establish the fact : but 
 
 1 Die Wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, p. 2. 'Dieser 
 Paulus aber erklart, alles, was er habe dem Christus zu 
 verdanken, der von ihm mit seinem ganzen Volk heiss 
 ersehnt, in Jesus erschienen sei. Das heisst, er zengt fiir 
 Jesus als dem Stifter des Christenthums.' As Van Manen 
 says of Loman's theory : ' The pre-supposed genuineness 
 of the four chief Epistles of Paul is in complete antagonism 
 to it. The Apostle would not have been forthcoming if 
 Jesus had not lived.' J ahr bile her fttr prot. Theohgle, 1883, 
 P- 595- 
 
 F
 
 82 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 it would be mere pedantry to refrain from citing 
 what after making every allowance for its 
 different character is a document of great 
 historic value. 1 The uncertainty which still exists 
 as to its authorship, does nothing to take from 
 that value. The Gospel bears all the marks of 
 being what it professes to be, the work of one 
 who saw what he describes, and who looks back 
 from the distance of a ripe old age on scenes and 
 events which left ineffaceable impressions upon 
 his mind. The writer's object was not to furnish 
 a history of our Lord : it was to show that He 
 Whom he knew on earth as Jesus of Nazareth 
 was none other than the Eternal Son of God, 
 manifest in the flesh. In pursuit of his plan, 
 he selects and uses his material not as a mere 
 biographer, but as one who writes with a purpose. 
 Now, the fact that he has a purpose in writing 
 in no way invalidates his record of the events 
 which occur in the course of his story ; for, be it 
 remembered, the Fourth Gospel is not an allegory, 
 but a meditation on matters of fact. In the 
 
 1 Cf. K. Furrer, Das Leben Jesu Christi, p. 19. 'Only 
 one who had been taken hold of by the historical Christ 
 could produce so philosophical a picture of his Lord and 
 Master. So far this Gospel possesses very great historical 
 significance.'
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 83 
 
 course of the meditation there is ample scope 
 for the employment of a memory sharpened by 
 constant thought, and by a keen sense of the 
 transcendent importance of the subject. Indeed, 
 the higher the author's conception of his task, 
 the more would he strive for accuracy in those 
 details in which his subject touches earth. It is 
 admitted that he had the Synoptic Gospels 
 before him when he wrote. Occasionally he 
 differs from them in matters of fact ; but it 
 must be acknowledged that he does so with 
 his eyes open and with a full sense of his 
 responsibility, believing that the incidents, as he 
 remembered them, were such as he reports them. 
 In many cases the difference from the Synoptic 
 recital is by way of addition not contradiction 
 and is required if we are to understand the 
 Synoptic account. For instance, the immediate 
 and complete obedience of the Apostles to the 
 call of Christ as narrated in the First and Second 
 Gospels (and, with additions peculiar to himself, 
 by St. Luke), would be inexplicable if we had 
 not St. John's story of the interviews which 
 preceded it. 1 The visits to Jerusalem, which 
 
 1 ' The fourth Gospel is written to prove the reality of 
 Jesus Christ. But the Evangelist was no historian : ideas,
 
 84 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 St. John alone reports, are required to explain 
 the ' How often ' of the great lamentation over 
 the city which forms one of the most precious 
 gems of the Third Gospel. What could the 
 Apostles have understood of our Lord's mystic 
 sayings at the institution of the Eucharist, as 
 reported by the three first Evangelists, if the 
 discourse given by St. John (vi.) had not, at 
 least in substance, been spoken ? Without the 
 contributions of St. John to the Evangelic 
 history, the Synoptic accounts of the incidents 
 named would seem to be suspended in mid-air ; 
 the historical basis would be wanting. With the 
 elements contributed by the Fourth Gospel, every- 
 thing falls into its place. We may say that the 
 historical kernel of St. John's Gospel and such 
 a kernel is freely admitted 1 is essential, if we 
 
 not events, were to him the true realities.' Burkitt, The 
 Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 256 ; but v. supra, 
 p. 45, n. I. Cf. Westcott, St. John, p. lix. 'That Jesus was 
 a real Man is an obvious inference from the Synoptic nar- 
 rative, but in the fourth Gospel it is a Dogma.' Burkitt, 
 op. cit. p. 233. v. O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesti, p. 144, 5. 
 
 1 v. above, pp. 45, 46. B. Weiss, Die-Geschichtlichkeit des 
 Markusevangeliums, 1905, pp. 47 ff., gives instances of the 
 way in which difficult situations which confront us in 
 the Synoptic Gospels are rendered clear by St. John, e.g. 
 our Lord's conduct after the entry into Jerusalem, Mk. xi
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 85 
 
 are to understand in any degree the course of 
 the Saviour's earthly life. 
 
 The bearing of these considerations on our 
 present point is evident. No dispassionate reader 
 of the Fourth Gospel can deny that, behind its 
 witness, lies a solid groundwork of fact. What- 
 ever views we may take of the proportion which 
 subsequent meditation and reflection bear to the 
 element of actual history, we must acknowledge 
 that the historic Christ was personally known to 
 the writer of the Gospel. A striking feature of 
 his work is the repeated asseveration of its 
 truth. 1 The Gospel and the First Epistle are 
 
 n, is explained in Jo. xii. 'The so-called entry meant 
 rather that He was fetched by the pilgrims to the feast, 
 the motive for which is clearly revealed in Jo. xii. 9, 12.' 
 Again, Jo. ii. 19-23 throws light on the narratives Mk. xiv. 
 57 ff. and xv. 29 fi. 'Without a discussion as to the 
 sense in which the kingship claimed by Jesus was to be 
 understood, such as John seeks to give in his characteristic 
 way (xviii. 33-38), the attitude of Pilate is incompre- 
 hensible.' Ib. p. 51. 
 
 1 By himself, xix. 35. By others, xxi. 24. 
 
 Cf. B. Weiss, Das Leben Jesu, i. p. 105. 'Everywhere, 
 in matters of detail, as in the general picture of the life 
 of Jesus, we come upon the hard rock of historical remi- 
 niscence, which presents an invincible obstacle to that 
 critical method of explanation, which seeks to change it 
 into ideal forms.' Ib. p. 120. 'Here (in the Fourth
 
 86 THE PERSON OP OUR LORD 
 
 alike committed to the assertion of the actual 
 life, as Man among men, of the Son of God. 
 
 To sum up briefly what has been said. We 
 have ample documentary proof, of varying degrees 
 of strength and cogency, not merely that a Jesus 
 of Nazareth existed that is not actually dis- 
 puted by Kalthoff but that the Christian religion 
 was founded by the Jesus Who lived and suffered 
 and, as the first Christians believed, rose again 
 from the dead ; that He was not the creation 
 of the Christian fancy the mere incarnation of 
 a conception but a true and actual Personage. 1 
 
 Gospel), we have to do, not with ideas whose value 
 consists in the fact that they are the result of thought, 
 but with truths which are only of value if they deal 
 with facts.' 
 
 1 ' Christianity is based on history ; it rests not on ideas, 
 but on facts.' Barnes in Cambridge Theological Essays, 
 p. 343. 'It is the glory and the strength of Christianity 
 to be able to point to a historic origin, and to have 
 ever open to it the appeal to the Founder.' Gardner, 
 Exfloratio Evangelica, p. 178. Bousset has shown in 
 Was toissen wlr von Jesus? how completely the factors 
 by which Kalthoff thinks to account for the origin of 
 Christianity fail to meet the circumstances of the case. 
 He admits that they contributed their share in forming 
 it, or at least in modifying its form, but ' the Jewish 
 Messianic hope, Greek Philosophy, the social relations of 
 the Roman Empire, the longing of the destitute for air
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 87 
 
 To the alternative, as suggested by Kalthoff's 
 view either the Church the creation of Christ 
 or Christ the creation of the Church common- 
 sense, apart from the whole stream of historic 
 evidence, should be able to reply without hesi- 
 tation. A great movement necessitates the exist- 
 ence of a great personality. There has been 
 
 and light, the organisation and the spirit of the mystical 
 societies of the later Greek religion,' could never have 
 produced the religion of Christ. ' Can life come out of 
 death ? . . . True, all those factors have contributed to 
 the rise of Christianity, but they do not account for it 
 (aber nicht ist dieses aus jenen begreifbar.) You cannot 
 make an unit out of a row of noughts. A new reality, 
 a fresh strong stream of life must pour itself forth, receiving 
 into its bosom the little feeble streams, which without it 
 would be choked in the sand,' pp. 68, 69. It is worth 
 noting that the attempt to account for the origin of 
 Christianity by the embodiment of an idea, or set of 
 ideas, in a supposed person was no invention of A. Kalthoff. 
 The Dutch Theologian, Loman, had already in 1881-3 
 suggested that Jesus Christ was the embodiment of Messianic 
 conceptions, * the symbol and personification of thoughts 
 and principles which were fully developed in the second 
 century of the Christian era.' v. Van Manen, Jahrbiicher 
 fiir Prof. Theologie, 1883, pp. 573-618 ; Knowling, Witness 
 of the Epistles, p. 145. As Kalthoff's views have been 
 controverted by such critics as Bousset, Loman's were 
 rejected by the most advanced even of Dutch critics of 
 his time, e.g. A. Kuenen and Van Manen. v. Holtz- 
 mann, Einleitung in das N.T. p. 192. At a conference
 
 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 no greater world-movement in all history than 
 Christianity. If we had not the overwhelming 
 evidence for the historic reality of Jesus Christ, 
 we should have to cast about for a Founder 
 who should be equal to the task. But in Him 
 we have what reason demands and the heart 
 desires. ' Religion,' says Bousset, ' lives only in 
 and from great Personalities. Ever and anon 
 we must kindle our little flame at theirs. But 
 the Centre and the highest point of all these 
 religious leaders is the Person of Jesus.' 1 
 
 in Amsterdam in 1882 no one agreed with Loman when 
 his theory came up for discussion in this form, * Wie ist 
 zu denken tiber die symbolische Auffassung der Person 
 Jesu in Verbindung mit der Entstehung des Christen- 
 thums ?' Van Manen, op. cit. p. 605. But we remember 
 that the denial of an historical Christ had to be met by 
 St. John. The Docetic Gnostics of his day, who refused 
 to confess * that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,' and 
 whose attitude he characterises as the * spirit of antichrist,' 
 are the true precursors of the eccentric teachers to whom 
 we have been referring, i Jo. iv. 3 ; cf. 2 Jo. 7. 
 
 1 Was wissen wir von Jesus? p. 72. 'Die Religion lebt 
 nur in und von grossen Personlichkeiten. Immer von 
 neuem mlissen wir unser kleines Feuer an ihrem grossen 
 entztinden. Mittelpunkt und Hohepunkt aber aller dieser 
 das Leben der Religion tragenden Fiihrer ist die Person 
 Jesu.' Mensinga (Theol. Tijdschrift for 1883, pp. 145 fF.) 
 observes, according to Van Manen, op. cit. p. 648, 'Was 
 ubrigens die Hypothese von der Nicht-Existenz Jesu
 
 JESUS CHRIST, AN HISTORIC PERSON 89 
 
 betrifft, so unterstellt sie eine undenkbare Eile in der 
 Mythenbildung iiber seine Person und eine unwahrschein- 
 liche Mythenbildung ohne persSnlichen Kern.' Compare 
 Pfleiderer's criticism of Kalthoff in his Die Entstehung des 
 Christentums, 1905, p. II. 'How is it conceivable that, 
 out of the chaos of the masses, the new community could 
 have spontaneously fashioned itself without any decisive 
 act, without some fundamental experience, which could 
 form the germ for the embodiment of the new ideas ? 
 If, on the other hand, in the case of new historical 
 organizations, it is the fact that the forces and strivings 
 which are present in the people generally, are first brought 
 into a definite line of effort through the stimulating action 
 of heroic personalities, and thus become united in a living 
 organism ; even so must the impulse to the formation of 
 the Christian Church have proceeded from a definite point 
 which, according to the witness of the Apostle Paul and 
 of the oldest Gospels, we can find only in the Person, in 
 the Life and Death of Jesus.'
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE SON OF MAN 
 
 WHEN we approach the historical Person, Jesus 
 of Nazareth, as He comes before us in the 
 New Testament, two phenomena at once arrest 
 attention. He is like other men. He differs 
 from other men. 
 
 The Christ of the primitive Gospel Petrine 
 Mark is presented to us as a fully developed 
 man. It knows nothing of the steps by which 
 He reached that stature. ' But if Jesus was 
 human, He was so not only in what He was at 
 His height, but in the process by which He 
 attained that height and became what He was.' * 
 Now, if one great object of the Gospel narrative 
 is to set before us what manner of man He 
 was, it is unlikely that that period of life so 
 supreme in importance during which He was 
 1 Du Bose, The Gospel in the Gospels, p. 28.
 
 THE SON OF MAN 91 
 
 becoming what men found Him to be child- 
 hood and youth should be entirely passed over. 
 This consideration of itself recommends the 
 tradition embodied in the early chapters of 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke. The absence of 
 some such narrative would leave the Gospel story 
 truncated and defective to a degree which we 
 can hardly realise, familiar as we are with those 
 most beautiful of Gospel recitals. Omitting, for 
 the present, 1 consideration of the supernatural 
 Birth in which the two Evangelists agree, 
 different as are the points of view from which 
 they approach their subject, it may be admitted 
 that these early chapters embody a stratum of 
 Gospel tradition which became known to them 
 comparatively late. It would naturally be so. 
 The Gospel of the public Life and Ministry 
 would be required and supplied first. When 
 attention had been called to the Person of 
 Christ on account of His work and claims, then 
 and not before, interest would be aroused as to 
 His origin and early years. It is so in all 
 ordinary biography. The hero, because he is a 
 hero, interests us, and every particular of his 
 early life and training is investigated. But though 
 l v. infra, pp. 114 ff.
 
 92 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the materials of these chapters would naturally 
 have come to the Evangelists after the materials 
 underlying their accounts of the public Ministry, 
 there is nothing to show that the chapters were 
 added as an afterthought. Before they began 
 to write, the Evangelists must have become 
 acquainted with the traditions of the Birth and 
 Childhood. To take the Lucan narrative, the 
 marks of true history are frequent and evident, 
 and in the undoubtedly genuine preface the 
 writer claims to have perfect knowledge of all 
 things from the first. 1 The brief description of 
 our Lord's early years commends itself by its 
 precise and restrained narration. We learn from 
 it how, in perfectly human fashion, He grew 
 physically, intellectually, spiritually. He was not 
 sprung upon the world like Athene issuing full 
 fashioned and complete from the head of Zeus. 
 There was seen exemplified in Him that law 
 
 1 v . Ramsay, IV as Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 15. 'He 
 claims to trace the whole series of events from their origin 
 i.e. he has in view the narrative which he proceeds to 
 give of Christ's birth and early days.' H. Holtzmann, 
 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 377. <avo>0ev, still 
 beyond that which the first reporters were able to narrate, 
 dTr'upx^s i-t' according to Mark i. 14, since the baptism 
 by John.' v. further infra, p. 272, n. i.
 
 THE SON OF MAN 93 
 
 of development which regulates all human life. 
 His spirit expanded day by day in communion 
 with ( the Father of Spirits.' His mind always 
 observant, as His subsequent teaching shows, of 
 the incidents of town and country life, became 
 more and more receptive and creative, and withal 
 His bodily growth kept pace, until He ' attained 
 unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the 
 stature of His fulness.' 1 
 
 Then there is the same ' likeness of men ' in 
 the varied experience of His public career. He 
 submits to baptism along with His contemporaries 
 of lower class. He is subject to temptation. 
 According to v. Soden, 2 St. Mark's allusion to 
 it is ' obscure ' and he excludes it from the 
 ' Petrine ' element But a recital, which, if brief, is 
 expanded and emphasized by the other Synoptics 
 and which bears upon its face every sign of 
 authenticity, is not to be set apart as of inferior 
 authority by the use of a subjective epithet. 
 The very fact that such a story appears in the 
 Gospels is itself a guarantee that it is not 
 an invention. The authority for it could be 
 none other than our Lord Himself. No disciple 
 
 ^ph. iv. 13 (R.V.). v. infra, p. 175. 
 
 2 Die Wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, p. 38.
 
 94 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 would have dared to write it, if he had not the 
 highest authority for doing so. Reverence and 
 the awe, which would have naturally been felt 
 in the presence of such a mystery, would have 
 suflficed to withhold it. And if Christ alone could 
 have communicated the facts, to whom would 
 He have been more likely to make them known 
 than to Peter, himself, with one exception, the 
 most sorely tempted of the Twelve ? The fuller 
 accounts of the First and Third Gospels, bearing 
 out as they do the Marcan one, have as their 
 basis some more circumstantial record of which 
 we know nothing. It is one of those instances 
 of the use by St. Matthew and St. Luke of 
 some document other than the Logia l and which 
 
 1 Harnack, Eeitr'dge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 
 ii. p. 88, refers the account to the Logia. But it is very 
 improbable that such a recital, due, as it must have been, 
 to a private communication by our Lord to a disciple, or 
 disciples, should have found a place in a collection of 
 more or less public sayings, such as the Logia. Harnack's 
 treatment of it, however, shows his high sense of the antiquity 
 and trustworthiness of the account. Hawkins, Horae 
 Synopticae, p. 88, refers it to the Logia. B. Weiss, 
 Lehrbuch der Einleitung in d. Neue Testament, 1897, p. 
 467, is inclined to place it in the Logia, although, as he 
 says, * The three Temptations of Jesus . . . are chiefly 
 narrative, although the words of the Lord form their special 
 point.' Cf. his Leben Jestt, i. p. 314. * From the essential
 
 THE SON OF MAN 95 
 
 was either unknown to St. Mark or neglected by 
 him. 1 
 
 For the public part of His Life, the evidence 
 of our Lord's complete humanity is clear and 
 decisive. It will suffice to name one or two 
 instances, physical and mental. We find Him 
 subject to hunger, thirst, weariness, ignorance, 
 astonishment, anger, a sense of desolation border- 
 ing on despair, the possession of a will not 
 necessarily one with the will of God, grief, pain. 2 
 To lose these portions of the Gospel would be 
 to part with one of its most precious elements. 
 But apart from this abundant witness to the 
 truth of His humanity, there is the fact that our 
 Lord first came among His disciples and made 
 His first appeal to them as Man. His favourite 
 and self-chosen title for Himself is ' The Son of 
 
 and partly verbal agreement of the first and third Gospels, 
 it follows irresistibly that a single account of the three 
 separate Temptations lay before both Evangelists ; this must 
 have stood in the apostolic source and have gone back to 
 a communication of Jesus Himself.' 
 
 J But see Encycl. Biblica, Art. 'Gospels,' p. 1855. 
 Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels, p. 69, considers 
 that ' St. Matthew and St. Luke were both indebted to 
 Q for the narrative.' 
 
 2 Matt. iv. 2, Jo. iv. 6, 7, xix. 28, Mk. xi. 13, vi. 6, 
 iii. 5, xv. 34, xiv. 36, iii. 5, Jo. xi. 35, Lu. xxii. 44.
 
 o6 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Man.' It is always in the Gospels l applied by 
 Christ to Himself; never by others to Him. 
 Whatever may be our view of the precise implica- 
 tion of the term, it is difficult to resist the 
 impression that our Lord's constant and remark- 
 able use of it was intended to fasten attention 
 upon Himself as Man coming among men, with 
 a mission on behalf of men. It would be 
 hardly correct to speak of Christ as meaning, by 
 the expression, to denote His assumption of a 
 representative character, as though mankind were 
 summed up in Him for a new departure, as in 
 the Pauline antithesis. 2 But it must be admitted 
 
 1 The only use of the term in the New Testament, 
 outside the four Gospels, is in Acts vii. 56 where St. 
 Stephen applies it to our Lord. In Rev. i. 13 and xiv. 
 14, * One like a Son of man,' O/HOI/ w&v (vt<J>) dvOputirov, the 
 term is alluded to, but is differently expressed, v . Swete on 
 Rev. i. 13. Cf. Lietzmann, Der Memchensohn, p. 15. 'If 
 (the Apocalypse) speaks of One op.oi.os vl$ dvOpunrov, it 
 clearly shows by that expression that inos dvOpunrov as a title 
 of Jesus is unknown to it.' This conclusion of Lietzmann's 
 is not warranted. The fact that an expression somewhat 
 similar to the title is employed by the writer of the 
 Apocalypse is no proof that the title itself was unknown 
 to him. The evidence points the other way. The term 
 occurs also in a fragment of the * Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews ' preserved by Jerome, De Vir. Illustr. ii. v. 
 Preuschen, Antilegomena, p. 8. 
 
 2 i Cor. xv. 22.
 
 THE SON OF MAN 97 
 
 that the Manhood, which He emphasizes by the 
 use of the term, is true and real, and that it is 
 related to that of other men in a sense quite 
 unique and remarkable. In the method of our 
 Lord's employment of it, the expression seems to 
 touch mankind as a whole. It is individualising, 
 or it would be untrue to the facts of human 
 nature, but using the word under limitations 
 it is also representative. 
 
 So far we have been concerned with showing 
 the fact that our Lord came before men as true 
 Man. That was the aspect of His Person, which 
 naturally and in accordance with His own wish, 
 was the first to appeal to men. It was His 
 own view of Himself and it was the view men 
 took of Him. 
 
 When we come to look more closely into the 
 title ' Son of Man,' into its history and into its 
 meaning for Christ Himself and His contempor- 
 aries, we find in it a certain Messianic sense. 
 But we have first to deal with the theory of 
 Lietzmann l (partly anticipated in 1870 by 
 
 1 Der Menschensohn, p. 85. ' Accordingly, in all places, 
 where 6 vt&s rov dvdpurirov can only be explained as a 
 paraphrase for " Jesus the Messiah " and they form the 
 far greater number the Aramaic word which answers to 
 
 G
 
 98 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Volkmar), who was followed at first by Well- 
 hausen, 1 that the expression, if referred back to 
 its original Aramaic KfcJOtf *O> bar 'nasha, means 
 simply ' man ' in a general sense and would 
 therefore be useless as a personal designation. 
 
 avQpu)Tro<i and o u/o? rov avOpunrov, ' the Man ' and 
 
 1 the Son of Man,' would each represent the same 
 Aramaic word. 2 Christ therefore, when speaking, 
 as was His usual custom, in Aramaic did not apply 
 
 the Greek formula does not supply its basis ; that is, the 
 expression could not proceed from the lips of Jesus in 
 the form presented by the text : Jesus has never applied 
 the title " Son of Man " to Himselfj because it does not 
 exist in the Aramaic and, from linguistic reasons, cannot 
 exist.' This extreme view, if not fully anticipated, was 
 probably suggested by Volkmar, who drew attention to 
 the non-occurrence of the title in St. Paul and in the 
 Apocalypse and said that it was ' a distinctively Christian 
 growth, the work of that imitator of the Apocalypse and 
 exponent of the present Lordship of Christ the Evan- 
 gelist Mark.' v. Lietzmann, op. cit. p. 15. 
 
 1 Skizzfn und Vorarbeiten, v\. 1899; p. 187 and passim ; 
 but see his Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 79. 
 ' He (Jesus) names Himself (Mk. viii. 31, etc.) not the 
 Christ but rather the Son of Man. Under that title, 
 He understands a transfigured and heavenly Messiah in 
 contrast to the earthly Messiah of the Jews.' This shows 
 a considerable change in Wellhausen's position in 1905. 
 
 2 Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologte, 
 i. p. 256, calls this 'a discovery.'
 
 THE SON OF MAN 99 
 
 the title to Himself. Lietzmann * further holds 
 that the expression originated through the LXX 
 rendering of Dan. vii. I 3, and after finding its way 
 into Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature 
 came into the Gospel tradition, being mistakenly 
 put into the mouth of Christ by the Evangelists. 
 This view has naturally met with the greatest 
 opposition. It so entirely fails to meet and to 
 do justice to the facts of the case. The explana- 
 tion, as Barth says, 2 is rather an admission of 
 despair of arriving at any explanation. For, to 
 begin with, Dalman 3 asserts that the genuine 
 
 1 op. cit. p. 93. 'In any case, Dan. vii. 13 has been 
 the creative passage and the representations here given were 
 authoritative for the content which was assigned to the 
 title " Son of Man." ' * In the primitive community, whose 
 sinews of life were formed by the hope of the Parousia, 
 this passage provided the most fertile soil for taking over 
 the formula.' Ib. 
 
 2 Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, 1903, p. 237. ' There 
 is no question that by the expression " Son of Man " Jesus 
 has many times designated Himself; it is pure arbitrariness 
 to deny it.' Cf. O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 129. 
 Harnack, Beltrage zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 5i. 
 1907, p. 165. 'We must lay it down as a fact (konstatieren) 
 that the expression has been, according to ' Q,' a current 
 self-designation of Jesus.' 
 
 3 Die Worte Jesu, p. 210. He remarks that ' Man ' and 
 ' Son of Man ' do not go back to the same Aramaic expres- 
 sion. Ib. p. 216.
 
 ioo THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Aramaic expression suggested by o uioy rov 
 avdpwTrov (bar 'nasha) was not the usual term for 
 ' man ' among Jews of Palestine. It was the 
 exalted language of poetry and prophecy. The 
 Jews knew it as a biblical expression. As used 
 by Christ, they would, in their surprise, turn to 
 the Scriptures for its meaning. This would be 
 found in Dan. vii. 13, where it applies to a Person- 
 age understood, according to Jewish exposition, 
 to be the Messiah. ' Jesus applies the term to 
 Himself not as the lowly one (den " Niedrigen ") 
 but as according to His nature a weak child 
 of Man, whom God will exalt to be Lord of 
 the world, and it is highly probable that Jesus 
 found the " Son of Man " of Daniel vii. in Psalm 
 viii. 5 ff.' l No doubt there are instances of the 
 use of the expression in which it simply means 
 ' man.' 2 But the frequency and the striking 
 character of its use by our Lord point clearly 
 to a deeper signification. Holtzmann 3 supposes 
 
 1 I6. p. 218. 
 
 2 Such as Num. xxiii. 19 ; Ps. viii. 4. 
 
 3 Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie, i. pp. 249, 250, 
 261. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die 3 ersten Evangelien, p. 
 79, makes the curious and unsupported assertion that Christ 
 uses the expression, instead of the simple personal pronoun 
 * I,' always and only where suffering, death and resurrection
 
 THE SON OF MAN 101 
 
 that the bare, impersonal meaning, ' man ' was 
 all that He intended by its use during the 
 earlier part of His Ministry, and that it was not 
 until St. Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi 
 that it became in His mouth a term of personal 
 and Messianic meaning. This is improbable. 
 As Lepin 1 says, if it is admitted that our Lord 
 employed the expression from the outset of His 
 Ministry, it is very unlikely that it would only 
 receive from Him its true signification at a later 
 date. 
 
 Then the nature of the term itself is an answer 
 
 are the predicates ; predicates which directly contradict the 
 usual Jewish Messianic conception. Cf. H. Holtzmann, 
 Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu, 1907, p. 67. 'To sum 
 up, it may accordingly be said : " Son of Man " Jesus is and 
 designates Himself, partly on all occasions when, forgiving 
 and saving, teaching and suffering, He announces, spreads 
 and represents the Kingdom of God, but on the other hand 
 and before all, when He perfects it as He comes upon the 
 clouds of Heaven. No passage is entirely excluded from this 
 interpretation.' Cf. Kiihl, Das Selbstbezvtisstsein Jesu, p. 68. 
 1 Jesus, Messie et Ftls de Dleu, 1905, p. 112. So too 
 Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 216. 'In the absence of any 
 historic evidence in this direction, we can make no terms 
 with the supposition adopted by Pfleiderer, J. Weiss and 
 J. H. Holtzmann, that Jesus originally styled Himself 
 merely " The Man," and only later, by combining it with 
 Dan. vii. 13, gave the title a Messianic designation.'
 
 102 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 to the contention that Christ did not use it, but 
 that it was afterwards put into His lips by the 
 Evangelic writers. It is the last expression they 
 would be likely to use of Christ, if He had 
 not Himself sanctioned it. ' Son of God ' would 
 more nearly express their feeling. We are 
 always being warned against trusting for our 
 knowledge of Christ to elements of the Gospel 
 narrative which betray a tendency to heighten and 
 exalt the original conception. Those who think 
 they can detect such passages must admit that 
 here, at any rate, we have an expression which is 
 in every respect free from such a tendency, and 
 the imputed use of which by our Lord can only 
 be explained reiterated as it is by the fact 
 that He actually did employ it. 
 
 But there is another guarantee of the authentic 
 character of the use of the expression. It has 
 the strongest possible documentary attestation. 
 Over and over again, it is to be found both in 
 St. Mark and in Logia (Q) passages of the First 
 and Third Gospels. 1 St. John reports its use 
 
 1 ' When Q and Mark appear to report the same saying, 
 we have the nearest approach that we can hope to get to 
 the common tradition of the earliest Christian society about 
 our Lord's words.' Burkitt, The Gospel History and its 
 Transmission, p. 147. Compare the following important
 
 THE SON OF MAN 103 
 
 eleven times on occasions which are not parallel 
 to Synoptic ones. 1 
 
 From these considerations, it may be taken for 
 certain that our Lord used the expression ' Son of 
 Man ' when speaking of Himself and that, in 
 choosing that designation, He had a very definite 
 object in view. Can we arrive at the meaning 
 which He intended to convey ? As, regarding 
 the question of His actual use of the term, we 
 found some difference of opinion, so among those 
 who acknowledge that He employed it, there is 
 disagreement with regard to its implication. 
 
 In the first place, there can be little doubt 
 that in our Lord's mouth the expression stands 
 for manhood in a special sense. The fact that 
 
 remarks : ' Our knowledge of the preaching and history 
 of Jesus rests, at any rate in the main, upon two sources 
 which are close together in point of time but are mutually 
 independent. Where they agree, they present a strong 
 guarantee and they do agree in much that is important.' 
 ' Auf zwei zeitlich sich nahe stehenden aber von einander 
 unabhangigen Quellen beruht wenigstens in der Haupt- 
 sache unsre Kenntniss der Verkundigung und Geschichte 
 Jesu. Wo sie zusammenstimmen bieten sie eine starke 
 Gewahr, und sie stimmen in Vielem und Grosserc 
 zusammen.' Harnack, Eeitrdge zur Elnleitung in das Neue 
 Testament, ii. p. 172. 
 
 1 v. Driver in Hastings, D.B. iv. Art. ' Son of Man,' pp. 
 579, 581.
 
 104 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 He uses it frequently though as we have seen 
 not exclusively, in speaking of His Passion, 
 Death and Resurrection, of that which He was 
 to undergo as Man for man ' tasting death for 
 every man ' in the language of St. Paul l gives 
 a representative character to it. He, if men 
 would receive it, is the Man, and though they 
 could not understand how, and though the idea 
 of representation and ideality would be a later 
 stage of the conception, yet He clearly means 
 that men should fasten their gaze upon Him, 
 as upon One Whom it concerned them to watch 
 and know. But we cannot stop here. As we 
 have seen, there is little doubt that the apocalyptic 
 passage, Dan. vii. 1 3, played a considerable part 
 in the selection and use of the term. It furnished 
 a point of connection with the ideas of the time, 
 and though it has been stated 2 that the expres- 
 sion ' Son of Man ' was not one of Messianic 
 significance to the ordinary religious thought of 
 
 1 Cf. Driver in Hastings, D.B. iv. p. 587. 
 
 2 e\ Dalman, Die IVorte Jesu, pp. 197-204. Balden- 
 sperger, on the other hand, says : ' Notwithstanding the 
 rarity of the allusions in the post-Christian period, the use 
 of the name " Son of Man " in certain limited circles of the 
 older Judaism may well have been nothing unwonted.' 
 Das Selbstbewusstiein Jesu, p. 142 and n. i.
 
 THE SON OF MAN 105 
 
 our Lord's day, yet directly He used it, men's 
 minds would revert to the vision of Daniel, which 
 was certainly interpreted at the time in a 
 Messianic sense. Not only so, but the use of 
 the term in the first century Book of Enoch in 
 a Messianic sense may have contributed towards 
 our Lord's choice of it. However that may be, 
 it is very generally admitted that, in using the 
 expression, He intended to emphasize the close 
 relation to mankind in which He believed 
 Himself to stand, and that He deliberately chose 
 it to convey the idea of His Messiahship. And 
 for this reason. The ordinary Jew's conception 
 of the Messiah, in the time of our Lord, was a 
 perpetual hindrance to the work which He came 
 to do. At every step He found Himself mis- 
 understood and His purposes thwarted. ' Lord, 
 wilt Thou at this time restore again the Kingdom 
 to Israel ? ' is a question which St. Luke tells us l 
 was asked of the Saviour by the assembled 
 Apostles, even after the experiences of the Passion 
 and the Resurrection. 
 
 For they had not yet learned to recognise 
 the true character of His Messiahship. And if 
 they were still in error, what must have been 
 
 1 Acts i. 6.
 
 106 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the case of the people at large during the 
 public ministry ? A temporal restoration of a 
 lost Sovereignty, the expulsion of the Roman 
 Eagles, the primacy among the kingdoms these 
 were the expectations which the Jew associated 
 with his conception of the Messiah. Against 
 this prevailing tendency of thought our Lord 
 was striving during the whole course of His public 
 Ministry : 1 where it existed, it was a barrier to 
 the reception of His message and a hindrance 
 to His work. No wonder then that, when He 
 found to His hand a term, expressive at the 
 same time of close brotherhood and fellowship 
 with mankind at large and of old association 
 with the idea of the Messiahship, He, the Son 
 of Man in an unique sense, and the Christ of 
 God as only He could be, took it to Himself 2 
 
 1 ' He would satisfy no patriotic desires. What he felt to 
 be a yoke was not the dominion of the heathen, but that 
 of a deadening tradition.' Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei 
 ersten Evangelien, p. 93. 
 
 2 * It appears to me to be very probable that it (i.e. the 
 expression * Son of Man ') has never had any other meaning 
 (than the Messiah).' Harnack, Beitrage zur Einleitung in d. 
 Neue Testament, ii. p. 166 note. * It is difficult to expound 
 the phrase " Son of Man " as used by Jesus without falling 
 into the language of philosophy, which would be quite 
 foreign to the lines of thought which belong to the Master.
 
 THE SON OF MAN 107 
 
 and used it to express the truth of His humanity 
 and the real character of His claim. It was 
 His own designation for His Messiahship, and 
 the fact that the title is always self-applied is 
 a proof that it expresses a conception which 
 He formed of His Person and His work. 1 
 
 If we say that He claimed to embody the ideal Man or the 
 idea of man, we use Platonic language. If we say that He 
 stood as high priest for the human race, we fall into the 
 way of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and do 
 not use the language of the earliest Christianity. If we 
 say that he represented humanity as perfected and so made 
 divine, we speak more in the fashion of Buddhism than 
 of Christianity. But of these interpretations the first is 
 more consonant to the Jewish genius than the others.' 
 Gardner, Exploratio Evangelica, p. 189. 
 
 1 v . Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus, 1906, p. 19. Dalman, 
 Die Worte Jesu, p. 251. 'The designation was chosen by 
 Jesus with the express purpose that the people might 
 transfer their thoughts of the Messiah to Himself.'
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE MESSIAH 
 
 IT has been warmly debated, whether our Lord 
 did or did not ' claim ' to be Messiah. If ' to 
 claim ' implies in this context a determined and 
 constant assertion of the title and the office, 
 then we can go with Dalman, when he says: 1 ' It 
 
 1 op. clt. p. 251. But St. John, iv. 26 ought not to be 
 left out of consideration. One of the passages cited by 
 Dalman in support of the latter clause of the above statement 
 is Mark i. 34, where Christ forbids unclean spirits to own 
 Him, and should therefore not be quoted in this connection. 
 v. supra, p. 57, n. i. 'In any case, He does not openly 
 proclaim Himself, He does not follow the plan of the false 
 Christs and say, " It is I." ' Wellhausen, Einleitung in die 
 drei ersten Evangefien, p. 92. But Wellhausen unduly 
 minimises the force of our Lord's acceptance of the 
 Messianic office when it is imputed to Him. We cannot 
 conceive that He would have posed as what He was not, 
 and suffered silently as Messiah if, as a matter of fact, He 
 had admitted no such claim. Cf. Stanton in Hastings, D.B. 
 '" P- 355- Loisy, L'Evangile et /'Eg/ise, p. 84.
 
 THE MESSIAH 109 
 
 is true that Jesus has in fact neither proclaimed 
 Himself as " Messiah," nor wished others to make 
 Him known under this designation.' But to deny 
 that He accepted the title when it was applied to 
 Him a thing impossible if it did not by right 
 belong to Him is to contradict the evidence and 
 to oppose the judgment of the best scholars of 
 every school of thought. Indeed, the evidence 
 is so strong that one cannot help suspecting that 
 the efforts made to ignore or evade it are 
 prompted by the presence of certain presup- 
 positions ; that to admit our Lord's acceptance of 
 the title would involve too high an estimate of 
 His Person, and that therefore the force and 
 implication of the evidence must be resisted as 
 disturbing the representation formed of Him. 
 
 At the outset, it may be premised that the 
 question is complicated by certain difficulties. 
 At what point in His career did our Lord become 
 conscious of Messiahship ? What exactly did the 
 office mean to Him ? Have we any gauge by 
 which to determine whether the faith and en- 
 thusiasm of the Church are responsible for placing 
 in His lips assertions which, however true and 
 warranted by the facts of His Personality, were 
 not actually uttered by Him ? And again, can
 
 no THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 we be sure that confessions of His Messiahship by 
 disciples were, in every case, made under the 
 circumstances narrated ? These questions have 
 to be faced ; and it must be admitted that they 
 are not easy to answer. 
 
 But before these details are dealt with, let it be 
 said that, on the question as a whole, there need 
 be no uncertainty. Our Lord believed that, in 
 the fullest and truest sense, He was the Messiah 
 of prophecy, the Christ of God, ' He that should 
 come ' into the world, the Anointed King of His 
 people, the Son of David. 1 
 
 14 One of the positions which, in spite of opposition of 
 varied kinds, appears on repeated examination to be assured 
 and impregnable (uneinnehmbar) is the fact that Jesus 
 considered Himself to be the Messiah of His People.' 
 Bousset, Jesus, p. 82. 'That Jesus regarded Himself as the 
 Messiah, that He possessed Messianic self-consciousness, 
 comes out more and more as a point which resists the 
 sharpest criticism.' Id. Was wissen wir von Jesus ? p. 60. 
 ' The expression " Son of Man " seems to me to be only 
 capable of being understood in a Messianic sense that 
 Jesus Himself made use of it is not to be doubted 
 and ... a history such as that of the entry of Christ into 
 Jerusalem must be simply struck out, in order to make good 
 the assertion that He did not regard Himself as the promised 
 Messiah and did not wish to pass for such.' Harnack, 
 Das Wesen da CAristentums, pp. 82, 83. 'Car, c'est pour 
 s'tre avoue Messie, et parce qu'il se croyait tel, que Jesus
 
 THE MESSIAH in 
 
 In other words He believed Himself to be the 
 fulfilment of the hopes and expectations, the 
 answer to the questionings, the Deliverer from 
 
 * x 
 
 est mort sur la croix.' Loisy, L Evangile et FEglise, p. 104. 
 ' I doubt not that Jesus was put to death as Messiah.' 
 Wellhausen in Mk. xv. 3. 'Had the Crucified not been 
 crucified as Messiah . . . the rise of the belief " then He 
 is the Messiah " would have been a complete riddle.' Id. 
 Einkitung in die drel ersten Evangelien, p. 92. 
 
 ' That Jesus at the end of His Life drew towards Jerusalem 
 as Messiah, that He solemnly owned that He was Messiah in 
 open court before the High Priest, that Pilate caused " The 
 King of the Jews " to be written over His Cross, appears to 
 stand unshaken in spite of the many considerations which 
 have been alleged to the contrary.' Bousset, Jesus, p. 83. 
 Speaking of St. Matt. xi. 27, Schmiedel (Das vierte 
 Evangelium, 1907, p. 52) says: 'Thenceforth the way was 
 open for Jesus to regard Himself as the supreme Emissary of 
 God, Whom His people and His time recognised as the long 
 promised Messiah.' Wernle, reviewing N. Schmidt's ' The 
 Prophet of Nazareth ' in Theol. Liter aturzeitung for Nov. 9, 
 1907, says : 'The whole Gospel narrative, as it now lies 
 before us, is steeped in the Messianic idea:' and he asks: 
 ' How is the continuance of the Messianic faith in the circle 
 of the disciples conceivable, if Jesus opposed it as 
 determinedly as Schmidt thinks it was His duty to do?' 
 Schmidt's attitude, if characteristic, is certainly surprising. 
 Even Strauss had admitted that our Lord's consciousness 
 that He was Messiah is an historic fact. If Bruno Bauer 
 denied it, we can hardly be astonished, seeing that ten years 
 later he became one of the few eccentric critics who have 
 declined to recognise His historic existence, v. Schweitzer,
 
 H2 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 sin and evil, not only of the ancient people from 
 whom He sprang, but of mankind as a whole. 
 What Messiahship meant to the men of His 
 time is not what it meant to those prophets 
 
 Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906, pp. 90, 142, 157. As 
 Schweitzer points out (p. 144) Bauer had replaced the 
 Mythical explanation of Christ's life by Strauss, with that 
 of reflection the reflection of the primitive community, 
 based on its own experience and put into shape by the New 
 Testament writers. But it is easy to show that such an 
 explanation of the Person of Christ, as represented in the 
 Gospels, is as unsatisfactory as that of Strauss which it 
 claimed to supplant. In each case, the composition of the 
 Gospel narratives is too near the events recorded to permit 
 such an explanation. Besides, as Schweitzer remarks (tb. 
 p. 283), the use of the term * Son of Man ' is itself a proof 
 of the certainty and the trustworthiness of Gospel tradition. 
 Cf. A. Meyer, Wer hat das Ghristentum begriindet, Jesus odcr 
 Paulus, 1907, p. 96. 'The first disciples of Jesus regarded 
 Him as the Messiah ; He Himself has never repudiated 
 this belief.' For Strauss's view, see his Leben Jesu, 1840, 
 vol. ii. p. 6, E.T. 'Jesus held and expressed the conviction 
 that He was the Messiah ; and this is an indisputable fact.' 
 Id. ib. ' The fact that His disciples after His death believed 
 and proclaimed that He was the Messiah is not to be 
 comprehended unless, when living, He had implanted the 
 conviction in their minds.' Cf. Kirn, Art. ' Trinitat ' in 
 Real-Encyhp. filr prof. Theohgie und Kirche, Bd. xx. 1908, 
 p. 112. 'The general primitive Christian witness to the 
 Messiahship of Jesus contains the assumption that He 
 stands near to God, as the organ of the realisation of the 
 Theocracy, and belongs to Him in a special sense.'
 
 THE MESSIAH 113 
 
 and spiritual leaders of His people who had 
 gone to their rest, ' not having received the 
 promises, but having seen them afar off.' 1 For, 
 except in the case of those higher spirits such as 
 Simeon, there had entered into the general con- 
 ception of Messiahship an almost exclusively 
 national and temporal significance, which assorted 
 ill with the traditions which had come down. 
 The remembrance of this fact will often throw 
 light on the otherwise strange and inexplicable 
 reluctance of our Lord to assert His Messianic 
 office. We can trace signs of mental conflict 
 in His attitude towards it. The grateful out- 
 burst of joy with which He welcomes the 
 confession of St. Peter at Caesarea Philippi, is 
 followed by efforts to silence those who would 
 publish the fact. The reason lies in the 
 temporal and worldly connotation which the 
 title had come to have. What should have 
 been a help to the work of His ministry, a 
 link connecting His claims with the true spirit 
 and meaning of ancient prophecy, had become 
 a positive hindrance to Him. Just because 
 He was, and felt Himself to be, the Messiah, 
 He could not use the title for His pur- 
 iHeb. xi. 13. 
 
 H
 
 H4 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 poses ; l while at the same time He could not 
 refuse it when applied to Himself by others. The 
 position seems paradoxical, but it corresponds 
 with the evidence and is explained by the historic 
 situation. 
 
 When we come to examine the passages which 
 identify our Lord with the Messiah, we are at 
 once confronted with the question, At what point 
 are we to begin ? 2 
 
 The halo of supernatural announcement and 
 
 1 v . Bousset, Jesus, p. 85. 'Why then this entire and 
 almost anxious reluctance ? We can only find the answer 
 to this question, in my opinion, in one direction. Jesus 
 Himself in this matter was under a difficulty which He 
 could not overcome. He must have been overmastered 
 by a deep and immediate feeling that the title of Messiah 
 was quite inadequate to express what, in His own inner 
 consciousness, He knew Himself to be.' 
 
 2 For the critical moment of the origin of His conviction, 
 some look to His Baptism, when the Voice from Heaven 
 acknowledged and proclaimed Him, Mark i. 9-12; e.g. 
 Bousset, who says (Jesus, p. 85) : ' It remains in the highest 
 degree probable that the tradition is correct which places 
 the awakening of the Messianic consciousness in the 
 incident of the Baptism, and therefore before His public 
 ministry.' O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 106. 'The 
 experience of Jesus at His Baptism constituted the vision 
 of His call, like the visions which gave their call (den 
 Berufungsvisionen) to the Old Testament prophets (Is. vi., 
 Jer. i., Ezek. i. ii.).'
 
 THE MESSIAH 115 
 
 circumstance which, according to the first and 
 third Evangelists, surrounded the Saviour's Birth, 
 might lead to the supposition that from the first 
 He would be recognised as the Christ ; that, with 
 the dawn of His human intelligence, He Himself 
 would awaken to the fact that He was not as 
 other children, and that one day He would have 
 a work to do, which none but He might do. 
 The incident of the visit to Jerusalem, when He 
 was twelve years of age, which St. Luke alone 
 has preserved, favours that supposition. Whether 
 we translate ev TO?? TOV Tiarpos /xou ' in My 
 Father's house ' or ' about My Father's business,' 
 His question shows that there must have been 
 already stirring within Him anticipations of His 
 coming career, thoughts of a relation to God which 
 was of a special character, either suggested by 
 the Mother who had kept in her heart the events 
 of His birth, or making themselves known by the 
 working of the Holy Spirit within Him. But how- 
 ever that may be, there is no trace to be found in 
 the Gospel record of any remembrance in after 
 years of the wonders 1 which are said to have 
 accompanied His birth, or of any sanctity due to 
 
 1 Unless the conduct of the Blessed Virgin at Cana, 
 John ii. 3-6, points in that direction.
 
 Ii6 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 them being believed to belong to His Person. The 
 supernatural gleam, which illumined His entrance 
 into the world, seems to have died down, and it 
 is as the reputed son of Joseph and Mary and as 
 a village carpenter that He appears before men. 
 Few things in the Gospel story are more remark- 
 able than the way in which the incidents of the 
 Birth and Childhood seem to have passed into 
 oblivion, considering the number of persons (shep- 
 herds, etc.) who came into connection with them. 
 Two links between the past and the future 
 remained for a time Joseph and Mary. Directly, 
 or indirectly, it is to them that we owe the pre- 
 servation of those incidents in the Gospel sources. 
 It has been remarked l that the early chapters of 
 
 1 v. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? pp. 74, 
 88. Lepin, Jesus, Messie et Fils de Dieu, p. 60. ' De fait 
 ces premieres pages portent, pour ainsi dire, en elles me'mes, 
 la preuve qu'elles sont un document palestinien, remontant 
 aux origines memes du Christianisme.' Notice the extreme 
 abruptness of the transition from the classical Greek Prologue 
 of St. Luke (i. 1-5) to the record of the Birth and Child- 
 hood ; from his own natural style of writing to the 
 narratives, strongly Hebraic, which follow. The inference 
 suggested is that the Evangelist was translating from early 
 perhaps contemporaneous documents, preserving literal 
 exactness, careless of style, and possibly giving reminiscences 
 of conversations with the Virgin Mother herself. St. Matt, 
 i., ii. bear all the marks of early Jewish-Christian tradition.
 
 THE MESSIAH 117 
 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke bear all the marks of 
 primitive Palestinian tradition, with Joseph as the 
 primal authority in the first case, the Blessed 
 Virgin in the other. Each narrative bears strong 
 
 Cf. Allen, St. Matt. (International Critical Commentary), 
 pp. 19-21. v. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 31. 'The 
 accumulation of Hebraisms, which Luke employs especially 
 in the early chapters of the Gospel, has led de Lagarde 
 to form the fitting judgment that the colouring of these 
 chapters is Hebraic not Aramaic and not Greek.' 
 
 Wellhausen commences his notes on the Gospels of 
 Matthew and Luke (1904) in each case at the third 
 chapter, paying no attention to the narratives of the 
 Infancy, although the title of the books is Das Evangelium 
 Matthaei, (Lucae), ilbersetzt und erkldrt. He entirely ex- 
 cludes these four chapters from the Canon of Scripture, 
 without explanation or comment. If this subjection to his 
 own presuppositions is ' scientific criticism,' a fresh defini- 
 tion of the term will be required. The presumption dis- 
 played in this silent rejection of Gospel narratives, which 
 have ever been regarded as among the most precious of the 
 Church's possessions, and which scholars of the first rank 
 consider to be authentic and genuine portions of the Gospels 
 to which they belong, would be ridiculous, if the matter 
 were not so serious. 
 
 Compare B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, i. p. 283. 'It has been 
 said that it is a contradiction in terms to admit a Messianic 
 consciousness of Jesus before His Messianic Call. But in 
 saying so, people confuse the consciousness of the choice 
 to the highest Messianic calling, which came to Him as 
 part of His Messianic consciousness, with the call of God 
 to enter upon His Messianic work.'
 
 u8 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 evidence of authenticity. There is the conviction 
 that the entrance into the world of Jesus of 
 Nazareth was attended by circumstances of a 
 ' supernatural ' character, and in its expression it 
 is linked with details which have every appearance 
 of being historical. We have therefore a record 
 of primitive tradition, the contents of which can 
 only be rejected on the a priori ground of their 
 ' supernaturalism,' so firmly are they imbedded 
 in a narrative which bears its own witness to 
 its congruity with the circumstances and life of 
 the time. 
 
 How far these chapters can contribute to the 
 settlement of the question as to the time of the 
 awaking in Christ of His Messianic consciousness, 
 it is not easy to say ; but they seem to point to a 
 gradual development preceding the Baptism. 
 The mere fact that He went out to the Baptist 
 demanding Baptism at his hands, goes to show 
 that, prior to the Baptism itself, our Lord must 
 have been possessed by the conviction that He 
 stood in a certain peculiar relation to God, and 
 that the career upon which He was entering 
 would be one of very special significance. The 
 story of the visit to the Temple at the age of 
 twelve years is in keeping with that view ; while
 
 THE MESSIAH 119 
 
 it is more than probable that His Mother would 
 have taken occasion to speak of ' the things ' 
 which she had ' kept and pondered in her 
 heart.' 
 
 On the whole, it seems reasonable to regard the 
 Baptism as the point of the awakening of the full 
 Messianic consciousness. 1 The evidence for the 
 facts is full and complete, 'Petrine' Mark, 
 Matthew, Luke, with allusions in the Fourth 
 Gospel which can only be accounted for by the 
 facts described in the Synoptics. These facts 
 are of two different kinds. There is the actual 
 process of the Baptism with the overcoming of the 
 Baptist's reluctance to administer it ; and there 
 are the attendant miraculous occurrences of the 
 descent of the Holy Spirit in visible form, and the 
 voice of God owning Jesus as His Beloved Son 
 and assuring Him of His good-will towards Him. 
 St. Mark, closely followed by St. Matthew, speaks 
 of these miraculous occurrences as known to 
 Christ. Nothing is said of the bystanders. St. 
 Luke speaks more generally, simply narrating the 
 
 1 Wellhausen remarks : ' People have talked and written a 
 great deal, even to the degree of weariness, about " the 
 Self-consciousness of Jesus " ' (Einkltung in die drei ersten 
 Evangelien, p. 94); but after all there is no term so fitted to 
 express what is required.
 
 120 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 facts themselves. It is therefore to be inferred 
 from the Synoptic account that they were ex- 
 periences of Christ, the knowledge of which was 
 afterwards communicated by Himself and so 
 passed into the Gospel tradition. St. John speaks 
 of the descent of the Holy Spirit, in the form of a 
 Dove, being manifested to the Baptist as well as 
 to Christ. The Evangelist, as a disciple of the 
 Baptist before he became a disciple of Christ, 
 would be likely to have first-hand information on 
 the subject ; and considering the part that the 
 Baptist played in relation to the Messiah, it is 
 only reasonable to suppose that he may have 
 received some special intimation as to the identity 
 of His kinsman with the expected Christ. 
 
 But, if there is one thing which comes out 
 clearly in the Gospel narrative of the Baptism, it 
 is that our Lord certainly from that moment if 
 not before regarded Himself as the Anointed 
 One, the Messiah of His people. 1 
 
 In close connection with this critical point in 
 
 1 Oscar Holtzmann, who regards the miraculous ex- 
 periences of Christ at His Baptism as a process of an 
 internal, spiritual character, says that they lose, on that 
 account, none of their worth or meaning. 'Their world- 
 historical and religious-historical significance is, at any rate,
 
 THE MESSIAH 
 
 His career and with His knowledge that He is 
 the Messiah, stands that mysterious yet very real 
 process the Temptation. Apart from its full 
 Synoptic authority, its truth is guaranteed by the 
 fact that, without the express assurances of our 
 Lord Himself, no Evangelist would have ventured 
 on such a recital. Its place in the Gospels is its 
 own verification. As Harnack remarks -, 1 ' This 
 recital goes on the supposition that He already 
 regarded Himself as the Son of God . . . and 
 that He has resisted temptations which bear upon 
 His Messianic consciousness.' Like the first 
 temptation to which man was exposed, this is 
 symbolically described. It took place within the 
 chamber of the inner spiritual life, although for 
 
 the awaking of the belief of Jesus in Himself as the Messiah. 
 Christianity has from the first taken its stand upon the 
 confession that Jesus is the Messiah, and this faith first 
 entered into the soul of Jesus Himself, when He was 
 baptized by John in the Jordan.' Leben Jesu, p. 106. 
 ' The Gospel that lay sleeping within Him needed a special 
 impulse to get free and become useful to the world. And 
 Jesus received this impulse in the inspiring revelation at the 
 Jordan.' Ib. p. 104 note. 'Ever since His Baptism, He 
 had borne within Himself the consciousness of His Messiah- 
 ship.' Wendt, Die Lehre Jem, E.T. ii. p. 123. Cf. Just. 
 Mar. Dial. c. 8. 
 
 1 IVesen des Christentttms, p. 88.
 
 122 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 our comprehension, sensible images are employed. 1 
 Briefly, it is a challenge to the newly proclaimed 
 Messiah to act upon and exploit the position 
 assigned to Him, and to advance to His crown 
 not in the way of obedience and suffering (if need 
 be), but by a royal road of masterful assertion 
 and power. It represents, however mysteriously, 
 a distinct stage in the recognition of His Messianic 
 claims. The spirit-world has become aware of 
 them, and that knowledge re-appears in the 
 narratives of demoniacal possession. 
 
 At what period the disciples became acquainted 
 with the Messiahship of Christ is not so easily 
 determined as some seem to think. It is generally 
 held that their perception of the fact found its 
 first articulate expression at the mouth of St. 
 Peter at Caesarea Philippi, and our Lord's warm 
 acknowledgment of that great Confession seems 
 to confirm this view. Had the truth been part of 
 the Apostolic equipment at an earlier time, we 
 should expect a less epoch-making event than the 
 
 1 ' Les difterentes tentations furent invisibles, Jesus les 
 eprouva dans sa pensee ; c'est dans une vision de son 
 imagination que le demon lui apparut ; c'est en Esprit qu'il 
 s'envola sur une haute montagne.' Le Pere Rose, Evangile 
 scion 5. Mathieu, 1904, p. 23 (quoted by Lepin, op. cit. p. 93, 
 note), f. B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, i. p. 323.
 
 THE MESSIAH 123 
 
 scene at Caesarea appears to have been. But as 
 it stands in the Synoptic narrative, it is clearly a 
 central incident in the Life of our Lord. He is 
 profoundly moved by the convinced and warm- 
 hearted outburst of His Apostle. Moreover, the 
 incident marks a turning-point in the substance 
 of His teaching. 1 No sooner does He find His 
 followers possessed of some knowledge of His 
 office and His claims, than He begins to reveal to 
 them the method by which that office will be 
 fulfilled. He does not take up and repeat the 
 expression used by St. Peter, welcome as it had 
 been to Him. But He employs His own Messianic 
 Self-designation. 2 
 
 On the other hand, there are indications that, 
 before the occurrences at Caesarea Philippi, our 
 Lord was, with more or less clearness, seen 
 and acknowledged to be the Christ. The 
 Baptist sends an embassy from his prison 3 to 
 ask, 'Art Thou He that should come?' In 
 
 1 ' From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto His 
 disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem and suffer 
 many things, etc.' Matt. xvi. 21. 
 
 2 Mark viii. 31 ; Luke ix. 22. Matt. xvi. 21 describes 
 Christ's teaching, but does not give the words, v. previous 
 note, and supra, p. 113. 
 
 3 Matt. xi. 3-6; Luke vii. 19-24.
 
 124 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 His answer our Lord, in the presence of the 
 multitude, bids the messengers report to John 
 what they had seen and heard. Now every one 
 of those matters which were to be reported was of 
 Messianic character, especially the preaching of 
 the Gospel to the poor. 1 If words mean anything, 
 this incident is a proof that our Lord in the 
 hearing of the people allowed it to be understood 
 that all the signs of Messiahship were being 
 exemplified in His own Person, and that the 
 bystanders must have admitted, and acquiesced 
 in, the fact. It is just one of those incidents in 
 His Self-manifestation which imply more than 
 the words appear literally to convey. 2 
 
 Again, according to St. Matthew xiv. 33, after 
 the stilling of the storm upon the lake, ' the 
 disciples came and worshipped Him, saying, Of 
 a truth, Thou art the Son of God.' In this 
 there is at least an acknowledgment of His 
 Messiahship. 
 
 Then there are the confessions of disciples, 
 
 J Cf. Luke iv. 18. 
 
 2 'To the question How soon Jesus began to declare 
 Himself the Messiah and to be regarded as such by others 
 the Evangelists almost unanimously reply, from the time of 
 His Baptism.' Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1840, vol. ii. p. 6, E.T.
 
 THE MESSIAH 125 
 
 reported by St. John as taking place at the very 
 beginning of our Lord's public Ministry. That 
 these occurred in the precise forms which the 
 Evangelist assigns to them has appeared to many 
 to be difficult to believe. As they stand in the 
 narrative, they represent a stage of knowledge 
 which the Synoptic record places at a much later 
 date. The first chapter of the Gospel contains 
 two incidents in the course of which, Andrew 
 in the one case (v. 41), and Philip in the 
 other (v. 45), state that Jesus is the Messiah. 
 Twice in the same chapter is our Lord 
 declared to be the Son of God ; by the Baptist 
 (v. 34) and by Nathanael (v. 49). Earlier in 
 the chapter (v. 29), the Baptist, looking at Jesus 
 as He comes towards him, utters the remarkable 
 words, which are a Gospel in themselves ; ' Behold 
 the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of 
 world.' l If the Baptist may be said to possess 
 the gift of prophecy an explanation which is 
 quite reasonable 2 how are we to account for the 
 other confessions ? It has been suggested that 
 St. John looking back upon His Master's Life as 
 a whole, and knowing that there was in Him from 
 the first that which only came to be recognised 
 a Cf. v. 36. 2 f. Matt. x\. 9 = Luke vii. 26.
 
 126 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 later on, put into men's mouths expressions which, 
 however true, were, as spoken by them on the 
 occasions named, anticipations, anachronisms. 
 But we have to bear in mind that the expectation 
 of the Messiah was in the air, and would be 
 especially entertained by those who were attracted 
 by the preaching of the Baptist. Then it is to be 
 observed that the Fourth Gospel is no less clear 
 than the Synoptics in showing that our Lord 
 forbore, throughout His ministry, to urge His 
 Messianic claims, and that the people generally 
 remained in doubt concerning them l for a 
 considerable time until, after a certain course of 
 development, their Messianic faith culminated in 
 the events of Palm Sunday. 2 But after all 
 allowance is made for these considerations, it must 
 be admitted that the confessions of Christ as 
 Messiah and as the Son of God, which St. John 
 places so early in His Ministry, do appear to be 
 somewhat coloured by the reflectiveness of the 
 Evangelist himself. They have doubtless an 
 
 l t>. Jo. x. 24. 
 
 2 p. Lepin, op. cit. p. 123. 'The main course of the 
 Ministry is not conceived differently in the Fourth Gospel 
 and in the Synoptics.' Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth 
 Gospel, p. 165.
 
 THE MESSIAH 127 
 
 historic basis. Here and there elect souls did 
 recognise in Jesus that which the devout Jew 
 expected to find in 'The Coming One'; 1 but in the 
 memory of the aged Evangelist, their utterances 
 are perhaps heightened by the glow and warmth 
 of his own devotion to the Person of his Lord. 
 
 To sum up the evidence as a whole we shall 
 not be far wrong if we take the confession at 
 Caesarea as the expression of a firm and, by this 
 time, settled conviction, on the part of the disciples, 
 of the Messiahship of Jesus. On account of its 
 calm and steady assurance it was welcomed by 
 Him as no preceding expression had been. But 
 we cannot refuse to notice the indications in the 
 Synoptics as well as in St. John which point to 
 previous intuitions of the fact with here and there 
 an utterance, more or less intelligent, of growing 
 faith. 
 
 We have next to inquire what Messiahship 
 meant to our Lord ; and this question involves 
 
 1 Cf. Earth, Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, p. 231. 
 ' Even in the case of the disciples, it was only here and 
 there that the impression that Jesus was the Messiah 
 ventured to assert itself, and it is psychologically under- 
 standable that this occurred on their first becoming 
 acquainted with Jesus and again after the miraculous 
 Feeding (Matt. xiv. 33).'
 
 128 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 another. Did its meaning vary during the 
 the course of His Ministry, or was it throughout 
 
 *^ 
 
 same? 
 
 Nothing comes more clearly out of the Gospel 
 narrative than the strongly marked Jewish type of 
 our Lord's Personality and mode of thought. He 
 was steeped in the knowledge of the ancient 
 Scriptures of His people. To fulfil by spiritualising 
 the Law was one of the objects of His Mission. 
 If He could not claim anticipation of Himself in 
 His reading of those Scriptures if there was no 
 link between Himself and the life and hopes of 
 Israel, He could not be the Christ. It was one of 
 the first tasks which the Pentecostal Church had 
 to carry out, to show the identity of Jesus of 
 Nazareth with the Messiah of the Old Testament. 1 
 
 As our Lord found the title ready for His use, 
 He adopted it. But His attitude towards it was 
 of a double character. While it connected Him 
 with the past History of His people and was 
 therefore of the utmost value in the authentification 
 of His claims, He was hampered by its connotation 
 at every turn ; and so we find Him admitting it, 
 and yet shrinking from its employment : owning it 
 when challenged, but choosing another designation 
 J Acts ii. 36, ix. 22, etc.
 
 THE MESSIAH 129 
 
 when speaking of Himself. This double attitude 
 has given rise to various theories and is not 
 always easy to explain. That it gave occasion to 
 much questioning at the time is shown repeatedly. 1 
 In addition to this difficulty, there is also the 
 curious fact that, although Christ Himself came 
 preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom the good 
 news of the reign of Messiah and although He 
 commissioned and sent out His Apostles with the 
 same message, yet we find Him again and again 
 urging upon people not to make Himself or His 
 doings known. 2 So that we again have a double 
 attitude to explain the command of publicity and 
 the command of silence. 
 
 As we have seen already, the Messianic 
 conception of the Jewish people had become so 
 involved with temporal and material expectations 
 that it hindered our Lord in the course of His 
 work. Hence, in part, His choice of ' the Son of 
 Man ' as a term of Self-designation. But can we 
 assign any change if not in the sphere of His 
 Self-consciousness yet in the mode of expression 
 of His Messianic character, to any period of His 
 Ministry? That His course stood out clearly 
 
 1 e.g. John vii. 2. 3, x. 24. 
 
 2 Mark ix. 30, v. 43 ; Matt. ix. 30. C Mark vii. 24.
 
 130 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 before Him, at least from the moment of His 
 Baptism and Temptation, we may feel sure. He 
 was not surprised into the rdle of the suffering 
 Redeemer. 1 ' He knew what was in man/ and 
 with the lives of the Prophet-Saints of His 
 people always in His mind, He could foresee the 
 certain conflict which would arise when the true 
 character of His teaching was grasped. From the 
 first, suffering and death would appear only too 
 probable a result ; and coming as He did, to do 
 His Father's will, He was prepared for whatever 
 issue might be before Him. But there are not 
 wanting indications of a change in His point of 
 view, as well as in His method. More than once 
 He is astonished at the reception which He gets. 
 It is as if He stands aghast at a hardness and 
 obstinacy which He was not prepared for. He is 
 'astonished,' 'grieved,' 'angry'; 2 and as these 
 epithets are no mere figures of speech, but cover 
 mental phenomena, we cannot avoid the conclusion 
 that, if not in its main purpose, yet at least in the 
 
 1 The murder of the Baptist evidently came to our Lord's 
 ears as a note of warning. We can gather this from 
 St. Matthew's way of hinting at its effect on Him. 'A/ccn'tras 
 Se 6 'Irjo-ous ai>X<o/3jcri' tKtlOfv tv irXoitp ei's 
 /car' iSiav (xiv. 13). 
 
 2 Mark vi. 6, iii. 5.
 
 THE MESSIAH 131 
 
 method of its expression, and in the mode of its 
 operation, the Messiahship of our Lord underwent 
 modification. 1 It encountered obstacles which had 
 to be taken account of. It was not a work which 
 could be equally carried out with, or without, the 
 co-operation of those whom He came to save. 
 It was no magical act which could work its 
 charm on men with or without their consent. 
 Circumstances alter cases ; and if these con- 
 siderations do not entirely remove the difficulties 
 we have indicated, they at least help us to 
 understand that the double attitude taken up by 
 our Lord in respect to His Messiahship, now 
 admitting, now veiling it, now publishing, now 
 silencing its proclamation, arose from the mode 
 of its reception. His unchanging purpose was 
 modified because He would not work against, but 
 with, men. What seems at first sight inconsistent, 
 is but that accommodation of method to circum- 
 stance, which wisdom requires. 
 
 A critical turning point for our Lord in His 
 teaching if not in His own conception of His 
 
 1 Cf. Gardner, Exploratio Evangelica, p. 1 79. ' We may 
 perhaps distinguish two periods in the Master's Life : first, 
 a time of joyous serenity and unclouded hope ; and second, 
 a time when a temporary failure of His mission, culminating 
 in His own death, dwelt before His eyes.'
 
 132 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Messiahship, occurred at Caesarea Philippi. From 
 that time the idea of rejection by His people, of 
 death and resurrection, stood out clearly before 
 Him and became the subject of His teaching. It 
 was an idea quite foreign to the Jewish mind. 
 The suffering Servant of Isaiah found no place in 
 popular Messianic thought, 1 and when our Lord 
 uses expressions which are reminiscent of that 
 prophetic description, He as usual speaks as ' Son 
 of Man.' 
 
 It is probable that the change in His mode 
 of teaching was attended with a certain amount 
 of disappointment. The expressions used by 
 St. Mark admit of such a view of His attitude. 
 And along with the disappointment at the recep- 
 tion of Himself and of His Message, would 
 naturally come the reluctance to be spoken of 
 and followed about, by people who were attracted 
 by His Miracles, or ' because they did eat of the 
 loaves and were filled.' Hence, while holding to 
 His part as Messiah and resolute in His purpose, 
 He again and again prohibits men from making 
 Him known. 
 
 But the apparent contradictions which, as is 
 suggested, arose from the attitude of the people 
 1 v. Stanton in Hastings, D.B. ii. p. 354 2 .
 
 THE MESSIAH 133 
 
 and from the effect which it had upon our Lord's 
 method, require no such theory for their resolution 
 as that of J. Weiss. According to this scholar, 
 our Lord's Messiahship will be realised at the end 
 of all things. The Kingdom of Heaven being 
 entirely in the future, the Messiah-King will only 
 begin His reign ' when that which is perfect has 
 come.' If therefore Jesus allowed Himself to be 
 called Messiah, it was only in anticipation of His 
 future role, not as the expression of a present 
 fact : and hence the admissions, together with the 
 prohibitions, which seem to stand out in such 
 glaring contrast in the Gospel narrative. 1 For 
 Jesus was not the Founder of the Kingdom : He 
 merely announced it. He exercised no Messianic 
 activity. He only waited, along with the rest of 
 mankind, for God to bring in the Kingdom super- 
 naturally. The Missionary journey of the disciples 
 was not for the extension of the Kingdom, but was 
 simply an announcement of its nearness. But 
 it was not so near as Jesus suspected at the 
 time. The cause of the delay was the hardness of 
 unrepentant hearts. His death would evidently be 
 
 1 J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Re'iche Gottes, p. 158, etc. 
 Schweitzer, Das Abendmahl, ii. 66, etc. Loisy, U&vangile 
 et rEglise, p. 84 ff.
 
 134 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 required as an atonement, to be followed by a return 
 in glory within the life-time of the present genera- 
 tion. The setting up of the Kingdom would be pre- 
 ceded by the Judgment. 1 In this construction of 
 our Lord's attitude by Weiss, there is much which 
 is suggestive ; but to throw the Kingdom of the 
 Messiah so entirely into the future, and to limit 
 the activity of the Messiah Himself, as regards 
 His earthly life-time, to mere proclamation of its 
 advent, is surely to fail in doing justice to the 
 facts in evidence. Nothing is more certain, if we 
 follow the Gospel narrative, than that our Lord 
 founded and legislated for a kingdom upon earth. 
 As Bousset has pointed out, the life of Christ was 
 not spent in anxious expectation, but in cheerful 
 activity. So far from being only distinguishable 
 from that of John the Baptist by His Messianic 
 Self-consciousness, His Ministry was characterised 
 by an interest and joy in life, which His contem- 
 poraries noted and compared with the severity and 
 isolation of the Baptist. His career is already 
 Messianic, as shown by His answer to the emis- 
 
 1 v. Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu (Prede, p. 236 ff. He 
 gives an account of J. Weiss's views, strongly expressing his 
 approval. Cf. Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, 
 p. 56 ff.
 
 THE MESSIAH 135 
 
 saries of the Baptist. ' It is among the certainties 
 of our Gospel narratives that Jesus acknowledged 
 Himself already in His earthly life, in the presence 
 of His disciples and of the High Priest, to be the 
 Messiah and that as such He made His entry into 
 Jerusalem.' l 
 
 The theory of J. Weiss may therefore be said 
 not to be borne out by the evidence. Reference 
 to the passages in which our Lord is represented 
 as acknowledging His Messiahship, at once shows 
 that He is thinking of the present age, as well as 
 of that which is to come. No doubt the full 
 glory of His reign and the complete fulfilment of 
 His Messianic office lie beyond this present dis- 
 pensation ; but in fact and in reality Jesus is King, 
 and at this moment, as when He was on earth, is 
 accomplishing the work which He came to do. 2 
 
 In germ and in actuality the kingdom is begun : 
 Jesus is Christ in Galilee and at Jerusalem ; and 
 if there is change in His own conceptions of His 
 
 1 v. Schweitzer, op. fit. p. 242. Cf. Bousset, Jesus, pp. 82, 
 83. Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 64. 
 
 2 Although many of the parables are clearly eschatological, 
 a certain number no less clearly deal with the life of the 
 present age. J. Weiss is surely at fault, when he denies to 
 Christ the office of a Teacher and limits His activity to 
 that of the Prophet.
 
 136 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 office and in His mode of dealing with it in His 
 teaching, such change can be accounted for by the 
 attitude of His hearers and by the fact that on 
 an unwilling people, He would force neither Him- 
 self nor His claims. 
 
 We have next to inquire what was the precise 
 meaning which the Messiahship had for our Lord 
 Himself. As stated above, His conception is 
 rooted in the religion of the Old Testament. If 
 He is the Christ, He is the subject of prophecy 
 and the object of the expectations of His people. 
 ' To Him give all the prophets witness,' is the 
 assertion of St. Peter at Caesarea ; l and in our 
 Lord's own language, and in His acceptance of 
 the language applied to Him, we find the same 
 admission. He enters upon His Ministry sur- 
 rounded by the atmosphere of the Old Testament, 
 filled with its spirit and conscious of its applica- 
 tion to Himself. 2 
 
 The Old Testament conception of an anointed 
 people, which should one day reign over its 
 
 1 Acts x. 43, v. supra, p. 128. 
 
 2 * The revelation of God in the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament, which formed the foundation of the religion of 
 Israel, had been always fully recognised by Jesus ; only in 
 constant intercourse with it had His own religious con- 
 sciousness become developed.' B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, i. p. 272.
 
 THE MESSIAH 137 
 
 enemies, became focussed in that of a single 
 Person. Messianic expectations began to centre 
 in a Messiah. But before that change took place 
 the hopes of the people rested on a line of Davidic 
 Kings, who should recall and continue the glorious 
 period of David and Solomon. The transition 
 from a Messianic succession of Kings to a King- 
 Messiah is to be traced in Isaiah and Micah. 1 
 The Psalter is full of a personal Messiah. In 
 Daniel ix. 25, 26, we have the term itself employed 
 for the first time in Scripture. 2 
 
 In the post-Canonical Apocalyptic literature 
 the Messianic conception varies considerably. 
 Writings of the second century B.C. allude to a 
 
 1 Is. vii. 14-17, ix. 1-8, xi. ; Micah v. There is no 
 sufficient evidence for Cheyne's contention that the Isaiah 
 passages are post-Exilic. Perhaps the question is one to 
 which Cheyne's own remark applies : * The student must 
 not be in a hurry and must sometimes let difficult problems 
 wait till he is riper for them.' Encycl. Blbl. ii. pp. 
 2193 ff. v. G. A. Smith, Art. 'Isaiah' in Hastings, D.B. 
 ii. pp. 487-8. 
 
 2 According to Kamphausen (in Encycl. Bibl. i. p. 1006), 
 in Dan. ix. * the range of vision is limited to the time of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes,' and ' the anointed one,' in vv. 26, 27, 
 ' is the high priest Onias III., who was put to death in 
 171 B.C.' However this may be, a Messianic application is 
 clearly intended.
 
 138 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 personal Messiah and to an Eternal Kingdom set 
 up on earth. 1 
 
 In the next century there is still hope of a 
 Messiah, but he will be an ordinary man and his 
 Kingdom temporary. Side by side with this 
 conception, we find that of a supernatural Being, 
 who is called ' the Son of Man,' ' the Anointed 
 One,' etc. 2 
 
 Into this inheritance of thought, Canonical and 
 post-Canonical, our Lord entered at the usual time 
 for the instruction of Jewish boys. We cannot 
 doubt that its influence in the development of His 
 consciousness of the object and scope of His 
 Mission must have been very great. It would 
 form a background and a setting for those acknow- 
 
 1 Orac. Sibyll. iii. 652. Kcu TOT' UTT' ^eAioto Gcos Tre/x^et 
 f3ao-i\fja K.T.A.. The Sibylline oracles are generally assigned 
 to the latter half of the second century B.C. Ethiopian 
 Enoch, circa B.C. 166, speaks (xc. 37) of a personal Messiah 
 under the symbolism of a white Bullock. Apart from these 
 two allusions, the non-canonical Apocalyptic literature of 
 this century contains little or no reference to Messiah. 
 
 2 In Ps. of Solomon, xvii. 36, the Messiah is called 
 Xpwrros Kvpt&s but His temporary character is denoted by 
 the expression (xvii. 42) owe acr&vrycrei V TCUS r/p-epais avrov. 
 In Ethlop, EnocA, xlvi. 1-6, He is represented as the Son of 
 Man, subduing and punishing sinners, putting down the 
 Kings from their seats (cf. i Sam. ii. 6 and Lu. i. 52). 
 More than human powers are assigned to Him.
 
 THE MESSIAH 139 
 
 ledgments of His Person and office which the 
 Evangelists tell us were given from heaven at His 
 Baptism and at His Transfiguration. If He could 
 not appeal to the testimony of Scripture, if there 
 had been no preparation for Him in thought, He 
 could not have advanced His claims with any pros- 
 pect of success. 
 
 When, therefore, we try to make out what 
 Messiahship meant to Jesus, we have to bear in 
 mind that His conception would be conditioned by 
 what He found awaiting Him in the religious 
 thought of His people. He came not to destroy, 
 but to fulfil, the hope and faith which had been 
 men's comfort during the ages of patient waiting. 
 Now the burden of that Messianic hope was 
 deliverance. Centuries of captivity and of oppres- 
 sion had made it appear to be the one great 
 need, both for the nation and the individual, 
 and it was round that idea that men's thoughts 
 clustered. 
 
 Deliverance was consequently the object which 
 Christ set before Himself in forming plans for His 
 Ministry. But deliverance from what? As 
 stated above, the greatest hindrance to our Lord's 
 work among men lay in the national and political 
 aspirations which had become connected with the
 
 140 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Messiahship ; for the deliverance which He con- 
 templated was from the bondage of the heart and 
 will : it was moral and spiritual and had to do, 
 not with the nation as a whole, but with the indi- 
 vidual. It was deliverance from the control and 
 guilt of sin. His Kingdom was not of this world ; 
 and when He learned by experience that men 
 would not receive Him in the capacity in which 
 alone He had set Himself to act, He was dis- 
 appointed, and we hear Him giving expression to 
 the feeling ; ' Ye will not come to Me that ye 
 might have life.' l There was nothing in what 
 He had to offer that appealed to the people at 
 large. Only here and there He met with a 
 response. 
 
 And along with disappointment came the grow- 
 ing conviction that the end would be a tragedy. 
 Rejection became hostility, and such hostility could 
 only issue in one way. How far our Lord was pre- 
 pared for this result, we cannot tell. We know 
 that He came to do His Father's will, and that He 
 would go straight on in the way of obedience, 
 whatever it might involve. We have seen reason 
 to think that the method of His teaching was 
 conditioned by the attitude of the people ; and 
 1 John v. 40.
 
 THE MESSIAH 141 
 
 from the various expressions of disappointment 
 and sorrow which escape Him from time to time, 
 we can infer that it was only gradually that He 
 came to realise what His Ministry would cost Him. 
 At the same time, the increasing hostility which 
 He met with would deepen in His own mind the 
 conviction of the seriousness of sin and lead Him 
 to clearer understanding of the necessity of the 
 Cross. 
 
 If, therefore, He knew Himself to be the 
 Messianic Saviour from sin, we should expect to 
 find some indication of the fact in His own words, 
 and also of the part which His own Person would 
 play in the working out of redemption. In St. 
 Mark x. 45 l we have the idea that the life of the Son 
 of Man will be an expiatory sacrifice, voluntarily 
 offered up. The specific object deliverance from 
 sin is not named, but we get it in St. Matthew's 
 account of the Last Supper. 2 And the purpose 
 of the Saviour, to be accomplished by His death, 
 is at least hinted at by His assumption of autho- 
 rity to forgive sin. 3 His own teaching must have 
 
 1 Matt. xx. 28. Cf. Lu. xxii. 19, 20. 
 
 2 xxvi. 28, eis a<ecriv a/zaprtwv. On the critical treat- 
 ment of this phrase see Robertson in Diet, of Christ, i. p. 73. 
 
 3 Mark ii. 10 ; Matt. ix. 6.
 
 142 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 conditioned the form taken by the prophecy of 
 Caiaphas concerning Him, 1 that He was to ' die 
 for that nation and not for that nation only.' In 
 the thought of our Lord Himself and of His con- 
 temporaries, we have the germ of the elaborated 
 theology of Redemption which forms so large a 
 part of Apostolic teaching Redemption from sin 
 through the Death and Resurrection of the 
 Messiah. 2 
 
 It was with this object before Him that our 
 Lord set His face stedfastly towards His passion 
 and death. In the final ascent to Jerusalem, He 
 makes His Sufferings, Death and Resurrection the 
 subject of distinct forewarning to the disciples, 3 
 and declares that they are the object of prophecy 
 concerning the Son of Man. The entry into 
 
 J John xi. 49-53. 
 
 2 Julicher asserts ' that for Redemption in the sense of the 
 subsequent dogma, for Reconciliation, for Justification, 
 there is no place in the Gospel of Jesus, that it is a fact 
 that Paul first constructed all these doctrines.' Paulm und 
 Jesus, 1907, p. 9. The passages cited above suffice to 
 negative this assertion. The Pauline Gospel is not 'another.' 
 It is the logical expression of the Synoptic Gospel with its 
 application to the needs of men. The * Kluft ' between 
 Christ and St. Paul is the work of the critic's spade. It 
 had no existence in fact. 
 
 8 Mk. x. 33 and parallels.
 
 THE MESSIAH 143 
 
 Jerusalem is the coming of the Saviour King to 
 His own city ; and when He stands before the 
 Council and before Pilate, His Messianic claim 
 comes out with a clearness which none can mis- 
 take. The original narrative, St. Mark xiv. 61, 
 62, gives the answer of our Lord to the question 
 of the High Priest, ' Art Thou the Christ, the Son 
 of the Blessed ? ' as a direct affirmative, ' I am.' 
 The strongly Jewish designation, ' the Blessed,' is 
 itself an indication of the originality of the Marcan 
 account. St. Matthew modifies St. Mark's ' I am' 
 by the more vague ' Thou hast said.' l St. Luke 
 gives ' Ye say that I am.' But that the answer as 
 thus modified amounts practically to the Marcan 
 version is clear from the words which immediately 
 follow, ' And they said, What need we any further 
 witness ? for we ourselves have heard of His own 
 mouth.' 2 They understood Him to claim to be 
 
 1 * The phrase is an implied affirmative.' Allen, op. cit. in 
 loco (xxvi. 64). * Matthew's form arv ewras and Mark's eyw 
 elfjii clearly mean the same thing.' Salmon, The Human 
 Element in the Gospels, p. 503. 
 
 2 Lu. xxii. 71. When therefore Schmidt says (The Pro- 
 phet of Nazareth, p. 125) 'The meaning is unmistakably, 
 " Ye say that I am the Messiah, but I have made no such 
 statement," ' he is making an assertion which is entirely 
 without support from the sources, and which is negatived 
 by the plain meaning of the immediate context.
 
 144 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the Messiah, the Son of God ; and with that 
 claim as the basis of their charge against Him, 
 they bring Him to Pilate, laying stress, when they 
 come before the Governor, rather on the Kingly 
 than the Messianic pretensions of their prisoner, 
 as being more likely to influence his decision. 1 
 The Roman would naturally pay more attention 
 to a political claim than to one which concerned a 
 religion which, so far as he was acquainted with it, 
 he treated with contemptuous indifference. But 
 when our Lord stood before him and Pilate asked 
 about this reputed Kingship, there is again the 
 same assent given. He admits the Royal dignity. 
 He could not do otherwise, far as the Roman's 
 interpretation of the fact might be from the truth. 
 He endured to have written over His cross Pilate's 
 inscription, half satire, half acknowledgment, of 
 the Kingly claim. 2 It was a title foreign to His 
 
 J Lu. xxiii. z, 3. Cf. Mk. xv. z ; Matt, xxvii. 1 1. 
 
 2 Cf. John xix. 21, 22, a passage which is confirmed by 
 what we elsewhere read of the character of Pilate. ' We 
 have no ground for doubting that the am'a, on account of 
 which Pilate carried out the death sentence, is correctly 
 given in the phrase 6 /JocriAevs TMV 'louSauov.' Wellhausen, 
 Einleitung in die drei ertten Evangelien, p. 92. 'He has 
 asserted His Jewish Kingship before Pilate, and thereby 
 given him legal ground for His condemnation.' Dalman, 
 Die tVorte Jesu, p. 256.
 
 THE MESSIAH 145 
 
 own spiritual purposes, distracting men's minds 
 from His main office and mission ; but its truth 
 must be admitted and He receives it for what it 
 is worth. 1 
 
 Our Lord displays the same reserve in the case 
 of another Messianic title, ' Son of David.' He 
 does not actually apply it to Himself, but He 
 accepts it. The promise of a perpetual Kingship 
 of the house of David was a standing fact for 
 every Israelite and formed the background of the 
 Messianic prophecies of Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, 
 Ezekiel and Zechariah. 2 In the Psalms of Solo- 
 mon, we find the expression ' Son of David ' as a 
 Messianic title for the first time. 3 The Gospel 
 
 1 According to Dalman (Die Worte Jesu, pp. 256, 7) it 
 was not the mere assertion of His Messiahship, but the form 
 which He gave to it, that procured Christ's condemnation. 
 The bare claim to the title of Messiah would not have been 
 construed as blasphemy. Wellhausen appears to follow 
 Dalman, but adds that the actual cause of our Lord's con- 
 demnation was His threat of the destruction of the Temple. 
 Das Evangelium Marri, p. 132. In any case it was the 
 political, rather than the religious aspect of His claim, 
 which the Jews emphasized before Pilate. 
 
 2 Dalman, D. Worte Jesu, p. 260. v. 2 Sam. vii. 16. 
 Cf. Pss. ii. and ex. 
 
 3 Id. ib. P. Ps. Sol. xvii. 23. "ISe, Kvpie, /ecu avda-Trja-ov 
 airrois TOV /3acriA.ea airrwi/ vlov Aavi'S. Ets rbv Kaipbv ov 
 ei'Aov <rv, 6 Geos, TOV /Sao-iXevcrai eirl 'Icrpa^A TraiSa crov. 
 
 K
 
 I 4 6 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 tradition represents the feeling current in our 
 Lord's day that the Messiah will be actually a 
 member of the family of David. 1 ' Son of David,' 
 applied to our Lord, is therefore equivalent to a 
 recognition of His Messiahship. 
 
 Now, although He does not in so many words 
 apply the title to Himself, our Lord makes it the 
 subject of a searching question which He puts to 
 the Pharisees on the eve of His passion. Citing 
 Ps. ex., He asks, if David call the Messiah Lord, 
 how is He David's Son ? Can He be both David's 
 Lord and David's Son ? The inference is clear. 
 It is not, as some have strangely drawn it, that 
 Christ repudiates His Davidic ancestry. 2 What 
 He implies is the more than merely human 
 
 1 v. Matt. i. I, Lu. i. 32 (the Angel at the Annunciation), 
 ii. 4, Mk. x. 47, Jo. vii. 42. 
 
 2 e.g. Wellhausen, Evangcllum Marti, p. 104. 'Jesus 
 designates it a mere opinion of the Scribes that the Messiah 
 is the Son of David and refutes it with a saying of David 
 himself, which proves the opposite.' But our Lord names 
 the Scribes as acknowledged interpreters of Scripture : it 
 was not their idea only. As we have seen above, the 
 Davidic ancestry of the Messiah was a fixed point in current 
 Jewish thought and belief. It is surely an unwarrantable 
 interpretation of our Lord's question so provocative of 
 thought ' How is He then his Son ? ' to say that it is a 
 contradiction of the idea.
 
 THE MESSIAH 147 
 
 character of One Who is according to the belief 
 of His hearers in their own Scriptures the Lord 
 of His royal ancestor. His argument was a warn- 
 ing. If such was the true character of the Messiah, 
 let them beware how they dealt with One Whose 
 claim to Messiahship had at least come before 
 them, and was soon to be so wonderfully vindi- 
 cated. 
 
 For it was but two or three days before, that, 
 at His entry into Jerusalem, Jesus had been 
 greeted as ' Son of David ' by a great and 
 enthusiastic crowd. The narrative has fourfold 
 attestation. The original account (St. Mark xi. 
 1-12) makes the people hail the advent of the 
 Kingdom of David i.e. the rule of the Messiah 
 in the Person of Jesus. We can trace in their 
 salutation both the Old Testament idea of a 
 Davidic Kingship, and the later concentration of 
 the Messianic hope in a descendant of David. 1 
 St. Matthew (xxi. 1-12) modifies the Marcan 
 description. The people directly acclaim Jesus as 
 the Son of David ; and the Evangelist preserves 
 the kingly idea by his quotation from Isaiah 
 
 1 v . supra, pp. 136 ff. Cf. H. Holtzmann, Das Messian- 
 ische Bewusstsein Jesu, 1907, p. 27, note 4, for different 
 views of the question.
 
 148 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 and Zechariah in verse 5. To St. Luke (xix. 
 28-41) it sufficed to record the greeting to 'the 
 King.' He omits the name of David, as of less 
 interest to his Gentile readers, and also the 
 Hebrew expression Hosanna. But to him, as to 
 the other Evangelists, the title ' King ' would at 
 once be associated with the Davidic ancestry of 
 Jesus. So with St. John (xii. 1 2-20) ; ' Hosanna : 
 Blessed is the King of Israel, that cometh in the 
 Name of the Lord,' is suggestive of Christ's descent 
 from the great king of God's undivided people. 
 Thus all four Evangelists state or imply the 
 ascription of Davidic ancestry to Jesus : all alike 
 record that the multitude cried ' Blessed is He 
 (St. Mark, " the Kingdom," St. Luke and St. John, 
 " the King ") that cometh in the Name of the 
 Lord.'
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 
 
 So far we have seen reason to think that our 
 Lord believed Himself to be the Messiah, and that 
 He was acknowledged to be such by His own 
 disciples and by the people at large. 
 
 This appears in the authority with which He 
 spoke, and in the character of His teaching. 
 
 As we have seen, 1 our Lord, according to the 
 Logia (Q) element of the First and Third Gospels, 
 claims the right to revise, by expurgation or by 
 addition, the ancient Law of His people. Prophets 
 had spoken in God's Name and by His command. 
 They were mouthpieces giving utterance to the 
 Divine Will. Christ, as we see by His language, 
 considers Himself the fountain of authority ; ' I 
 say unto you.' 
 
 As ' Son of Man,' He takes upon Himself the 
 
 1 P . 54-
 
 150 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 right to legislate for the observance of the 
 Sabbath, 1 and to over-ride if necessary every fixed, 
 historic rule pertaining to it : a claim which, in 
 view of the regulations guarding the day, must 
 have seemed to His hearers one of extraordinary 
 audacity. It is for man's use, not for his slavish 
 observance. It lies within man's power 2 to order 
 his attitude towards it, for man is lord of the 
 
 1 Mark ii. 27, 28. 
 
 2 * The Son of Man ' here, according to Grotius = * man.' 
 So Wellhausen, who says that Christ 'does not justify 
 Himself with the principle "man is Lord of the Sabbath," 
 but His disciples, for it is they who have broken it.' 
 Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 94. ' If the 
 conclusion is to be valid, the leading word must be the same 
 in it as in the premise the Sabbath is for Man and not 
 Man for the Sabbath, therefore Man is Lord of the Sabbath.' 
 Id. Das Evangelium Matri, p. 22. On the other hand, in 
 Matt. xii. 8, where the words ' The Son of Man is Lord of 
 the Sabbath ' come in a different connection, Wellhausen 
 (ad loc. Das Evangelium Matthaei, p. 59) says : 'Not as Man, 
 but because He is the Messiah and greater than the Temple, 
 is Jesus Lord of the Sabbath.' 
 
 Cf. Lemme, ./>/ Wissen und WeisAeit, 1907, p. 24. 'Such 
 an interpretation (Mk. ii. 27), could never have been given 
 by a Jewish prophet ; it constituted a radical breach with 
 all the sacred history of Israel ; it was only possible in the 
 mouth of One Who was more than a Prophet, Who looked 
 upon the Mosaic revelation of God merely as a shadow of 
 what He Himself was bringing, because He was rooted in 
 the depths of Eternity.'
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 151 
 
 Sabbath Day. But it is ' The Son of Man ' who 
 confers that power, and it is only through and in 
 Him, and so far as he is possessed of His Spirit, 
 that man can lord it over the Sabbath. That 
 the impression caused by Christ's attitude was 
 profound, can be gathered from the way in which 
 His action, embodying as it did His teaching, 
 inflamed the minds of the ruling classes against 
 Him and led to His apprehension. 1 In their 
 judgment it involved His setting Himself above 
 the Law, and therefore a trenching upon the 
 Divine prerogative. Our Lord took no steps to 
 remove this interpretation, nor could He, for it was 
 the only one which answered to the facts. 
 
 His authority reaches into Eternity. To be 
 known by Him ' in that day ' as one who has done 
 the will of God will give right of entrance into 
 heaven. To be unknown by Him will mean 
 rejection. Mere lip-service will not avail. Hearing 
 and doing Christ's words will alone safeguard our 
 future. 2 
 
 !Mk. iii. 6. 
 
 2 Comparing Matt. vii. 24 and 26 with vii. 21, we get the 
 result that to do the will of God, and to do (to carry out in 
 action) the words of Christ amount to the same thing, in 
 Christ's own judgment. 
 
 Cf. Harnack, Eeitr'dge zur Elnkitung in da$ N. Testament,
 
 152 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 His knowledge of what passes in that unseen 
 world, in which the intercourse and communion 
 between the soul and God takes place, is complete. 
 He can lay down the Laws of Prayer, for He 
 knows what occurs beyond the veil of sense, when 
 prayer is being offered, and reports to us 
 accordingly. In touch with man on the one side 
 and with God on the other, He and He alone can 
 watch the phenomena of prayer, can trace the 
 causes of its success or failure, can regulate its 
 methods, giving us the language and character of 
 the prayer that will always be heard, warning us 
 against the prayer that will always fail. 1 
 
 He claims a power over the spiritual life of 
 mankind which would argue nothing short of a 
 delirious presumption in a mere man. ' Come 
 unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden 
 and I will give you rest.' 2 The invitation is 
 
 ii. p. 1 64. ' On obedience to His (Christ's) commands, which 
 is the same thing as the doing of the Father's will, will rest 
 the decision whether a man has built his house on the rock 
 or on the sand.' 
 
 1 Matt. vi. 9-13, vii. 7-11 ; Lu. xi. 1-14. 
 
 2 Matt. xi. 28 ff. Von Soden omits this passage from his 
 Logia material. It occurs only in Matt. Harnack, Beitrdge 
 zur Einleitung in d. Neue Testament, ii. p. 211 ff. hesitates, 
 partly on this ground, to assign it definitely to * Q,' but
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 153 
 
 extended to mankind as a whole, in so far as 
 burden and distress of soul are experienced. No 
 one man, however gifted, could assume such an 
 attitude, or issue such an invitation. If the words 
 are taken seriously and there is no passage in the 
 Gospels which conveys a fuller sense of earnestness 
 and directness of purpose the speaker claims to 
 take up a position towards sin- and sorrow-burdened 
 humanity, which would mock, if it could not relieve. 
 Unless some deep truth is involved in this 
 invitation, it clearly betrays the inflated and 
 ecstatic accents of a vain presumption. Imagine 
 any ordinary man, of whatever power or eminence, 
 issuing broadcast to the human race such an 
 invitation. If Jesus Christ issues it, it means that 
 He claims the possession of a personal gift which 
 can affect and ameliorate the lot of all sorts and 
 conditions of men. Something in Himself, which 
 He alone can impart, can touch all humanity for 
 their good. Who can He be, Who speaks thus, 
 
 seems to incline to that, and not to the secondary source, 
 from internal reasons. As he observes, the Aramaic 
 character of its origin is unmistakable. It follows 
 appropriately on vv. 25-28, which belong certainly to * Q.' 
 The fact that the Cross and Passion are not named he 
 considers to be a strong indication that the passage was in 
 4 Q' (v . supra, p. 63 n.) and that it goes back to Jesus Himself.
 
 154 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 and the truth of Whose words has been experienced 
 by the multitudes who, in every age, have 
 responded to His call ! 
 
 Again, at the end of the long discourse, de- 
 livered upon the Mount of Olives shortly before 
 the last Passover, Christ makes known the 
 principle on which He, the Son of Man, sitting on 
 the Throne of His glory, will decide the destiny of 
 ' all nations.' It will depend for each individual 
 person on whether or not he has befriended the 
 King Himself in the person of the least of His 
 brethren, in his time of need. The Judge will 
 make the attitude and conduct of men towards 
 Himself, as shown in their treatment of the 
 humblest of those who serve Him, the decisive 
 factor in the disposing of their lot. A more far- 
 reaching and tremendous utterance it would be 
 hard to find in the Christology of St. Paul or 
 St. John. l Even those who have not heard of 
 
 1 The passage Matt. xxv. 31-46, occurs only in Matt, and 
 is not assigned by v. Soden to * Q,' but it is manifestly 
 authentic and may well have formed part of the Logla to 
 which Allen, Comm. in loco refers it. Harnack, Beitr'dge 
 zur Einleitung in das N.T. ii. p. 1 29, excludes it from ' Q ' 
 (as not being contained in Luke), ' For every support for its 
 belonging to it is wanting/ but he does not enter into 
 particulars to show this.
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 155 
 
 Christ, who unconsciously have been acting in 
 His Spirit and according to His will, He claims as 
 actuated by love to Him, though they know it not. l 
 Only Christ Himself could have spoken thus. 
 The primitive church would not have dared to 
 place such words in His mouth. Christian charity 
 could not have ventured thus to interpret His 
 mind. If it be argued that such a claim is an 
 indication of its own lateness, as embodying a high 
 conception of the Person of Christ, it must be 
 remembered that the conception of the Person is 
 accompanied by strong insistence on the ethical 
 character of His requirements. The Person is 
 honoured, but indirectly through charity and 
 tenderness to His people. This is entirely in 
 keeping with what the Gospels elsewhere say of 
 Him, ' Who came not to be ministered unto, but 
 to minister ' ; and it is illustrated by such sayings 
 imputed to Him as ' He that receiveth you 
 receiveth Me.' 2 
 
 To the risen Lord St. Matthew assigns the 
 
 lt God's purpose is larger than His Church on earth. 
 There are last in the knowledge of God, who shall be first 
 in His acceptance, because they practised all they knew.' 
 Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 45. 
 
 2 Matt. x. 40. Cf. v. 42.
 
 156 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 fullest and most far reaching declaration of His 
 own authority, contained in the Gospels, ' All 
 power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.' l 
 Such is His greeting as He comes forward to 
 meet (TrpocreX&wv) the disciples, who had come 
 together upon a mountain in Galilee, the trysting 
 place, which He Himself had appointed (ov erd^aro 
 avroi? 6 'Irjcrovs). 2 The passage is remarkable for 
 several reasons. Our Lord speaks in the first 
 person, as on other occasions after His Resurrec- 
 tion. The need for the reserve which so often 
 seems to cling to His use of the third person (the 
 Son of Man) has passed away. The authority 
 claimed is universal ; all cosmical relations, all the 
 activities of heaven as well as all earthly history 
 are in His hand, by the will of the Father. The 
 saying receives support from such passages as St. 
 Matthew xi. 27, St. Luke x. 22, and is in accord- 
 ance with the teaching of the Fourth Gospel. 
 It finds points of contact with St. Paul. 3 To say 
 
 1 xxviii. 1 8. It seems natural to connect the Father's 
 gift of power with the Resurrection : but the verb is a 
 timeless aorist, e866r), and may therefore imply a wider 
 and earlier ground for its bestowal than the fact of the 
 Resurrection. 
 
 2 By the angel at the Tomb, vv. 5-8. 
 
 3 Col. i. 16-19; I Cor. xv. 27, 28.
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 157 
 
 the least, it brings us very far on the road to the 
 full Christian conception of our Lord. 1 
 
 Then, as to the character of Christ's Teaching. 
 There is the same sure touch about all His say- 
 ings ; no doubt or hesitation ; nothing tentative, 
 as though He were feeling His way towards the 
 truth. He never has to recall or modify a state- 
 ment. Different truths and aspects of truth, 
 sometimes so unlike as to appear at first sight 
 contradictory, come from His lips with the same 
 directness. It is not always easy to reconcile 
 them with one another. He flings them out 
 upon the world as though careless of their future, 
 leaving them to be understood or not, trusting to 
 time to justify them, knowing that it will require 
 more than one age for them to find their full 
 application, and an eternity to exhaust their 
 meaning. 
 
 Another characteristic is the universality of His 
 teaching. It is effective because it corresponds 
 with what is highest and best in every kind 
 of character. He is Himself Oriental, Semitic, 
 Jewish. His language is that of His people. It 
 would be unreal and lacking in power if it were 
 
 1 For further discussion of the passage and its context v . 
 infra, pp. 217 ff.
 
 158 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 not It would fail to touch the hearts of men if 
 it were wanting in individuality, in local colour ; 
 if it showed no signs of the influence of His 
 surroundings. 1 But it is never imprisoned in 
 those surroundings. There is that in it which 
 exceeds the bounds of time and place. It passes 
 naturally over the borders of the East, and is 
 recognised by the West as true to the life of the 
 West. Indeed one of the marvels of Christ's 
 teaching is that, though a child of the East, it has 
 found in the West its widest and most fruitful 
 acceptance. Compare this fact with the fate 
 which has attended the teaching of Buddha or 
 of Mahomet. Each, like Christ, was an Oriental. 
 Each, unlike Christ, has been powerless to 
 influence the West. But the race has yet to 
 be found which cannot find in the teaching of 
 Christ the expression of its best and deepest 
 thought, the answer to its most pressing question- 
 ings. Authority, sureness, universality of scope 
 and bearing, lift His teaching above that of every 
 other religious Leader. 
 
 s s 
 
 1 Cf. Loisy, L'Evangi/e et J'Eg/ise, p. 106. ' Rien ne 
 pouvait faire que Jesus ne fut pas juif ; il n'etait homme 
 qu'a la condition d'appartenir a une branche de 
 I'humanit^.'
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 159 
 
 And it has all the elements of permanence. 
 This is His own claim for it. 1 His words are 
 living. As they pass down through time, they 
 require fresh interpretation, regarding from new 
 standpoints, perhaps re-setting like a costly jewel ; 
 but no change. While human nature lasts, they 
 will never fail to teach. ' He was conscious of 
 speaking the last decisive word ; was persuaded 
 that He was final and that none would come after 
 Him.' 2 It is true that all great literature has 
 something of universality and finality in it, or it 
 would live but for a day. But what prophet or 
 poet has dared to claim for his utterance a life 
 beyond that of heaven and earth ? Christ does 
 make that claim ; and those who have known 
 Him best see nothing incongruous in it, for 
 they have experienced, with many besides St. 
 John, the truth of His saying, ' The words that 
 I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are 
 life.' 3 
 
 The secret of the authority, the sureness, the 
 universality and the permanence of our Lord's 
 teaching lay in the knowledge which formed its 
 basis. We must therefore examine what is said in 
 
 1 Mk. xiii. 31. 2 Bousset, Jesus, p. 87. 
 
 3 vi. 63. v . Westcott, ad loc.
 
 160 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the Synoptic Gospels of the nature and extent of 
 that knowledge. 
 
 In approaching this perhaps the most difficult 
 of all the subjects connected with the Person of 
 our Lord, we need to keep close to the original 
 sources and to beware of reading them under 
 the influence of theory. If we find that our 
 Lord does not know something, it is not for 
 us to suggest that in a sense, He does know it, 
 because the theory which we have adopted re- 
 garding His knowledge, seems to require some 
 such ' Vermittlungshypothese.' Any view of His 
 Person, which can only be consistently maintained 
 by the omission or neglect of something which is 
 authentically reported of Him, stands self-con- 
 demned. It is not the Gospel view. 1 
 
 Two facts come out clearly in the Synoptic 
 narrative. 
 
 Our Lord's knowledge is infallible, unerring. 
 But it is limited. There is no contradiction in 
 these two statements. To be infallible and 
 
 1 ' We shall bow in awful reverence before the deep 
 things of God, but we shall, none the less, in this as in 
 other departments of inquiry, seek to go as far as we can, 
 and at least to be true to all the facts which are, and can 
 be brought to be, at our disposal.' Gore, 'Dissertations, 
 P- 73-
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 161 
 
 incapable of error is not the same thing as to be 
 omniscient. 1 If our Lord were not sure and unerr- 
 ing, He could not be to us the revelation of the 
 Father, He could be no Guide and Illuminator to 
 the wandering soul of man, no mediating bridge 
 between Heaven and earth. We should still be 
 waiting for One Who should speak the last, 
 decisive word on human life and destiny. 
 
 But a knowledge which requires no correction 
 within its own province, which is perfect so far as 
 it goes, is not necessarily encyclopaedic. Perfect- 
 ion is complete adaptation to function and require- 
 ment. Knowledge is none the less perfect if, 
 beyond its proper scope, there are phenomena of 
 which it does not need to take account. 
 
 The most remarkable of the Synoptic references 
 to our Lord's knowledge is that of St. Matt. xi. 27 
 and its parallel, St. Luke x. 22. 2 Here we have 
 
 1 Cf. Lemme, Jem W'usen und Weisheit, p. 10. 'There 
 is no more wrong-headed representation than that which 
 regards a complete universality in His knowledge as belong- 
 ing to the absolute authority of Jesus in matters of truth. 
 The opposite is the case.' 
 
 2 f. supra, p. 56. According to v. Soden, the passage 
 forms part of the Logia (Q). v. Plummer, ad loc. (Lu.). 
 ' It is impossible upon any principles of criticism to ques- 
 tion its genuineness or its right to be regarded as among 
 
 L
 
 162 
 
 two pairs of Entities; in each pair one being set 
 over against the other in the form of an equation, 
 in an unique sense to be shared by none : The 
 Father, the Son the knowledge of the Father, 
 the knowledge of the Son. These mutual rela- 
 tions are partly conditioned, as to the first pair, 
 by the fact which introduces them, ' All things 
 are delivered unto . Me of My Father': as to the 
 second pair the mutual knowledge wholly by 
 that fact. 1 ' The Son ' presupposes ' the Father.' 
 The knowledge of the Son is imparted by the 
 Father. The Fountain of Being and the Fountain 
 of Knowledge are the same. It stands to reason 
 that, if the mutual knowledge of one another by 
 the Father and the Son is thus regarded by our 
 Lord as something equivalent, that of the Son is 
 within its own sphere, as conditioned by Sonship, 
 as perfect and complete as the knowledge of the 
 Father. ' As conditioned by Sonship,' because 
 
 the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists, v, 
 Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 223 ; and cf. infra, 
 p. 256 ff. Gardner observes: 'The remarkable verse, 
 Matt. xi. 27, stands quite isolated.' Exploratio Evan- 
 gelica, p. 386, note. But isolation is here a question- 
 begging epithet and does not necessarily point to un- 
 authenticity. 
 
 1 Cf. Jo. xii. 49, xvii. 8, 14, xiii. 3.
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 163 
 
 the nature of what is ' delivered ' unto the Son is 
 determined by the context. As Dalman says, 1 
 'we are concerned here with the body of the 
 Revelation of Jesus which imparts the complete 
 knowledge of God.' The Son, from His full and 
 perfect knowledge of the Father, is ' the perfectly 
 trustworthy Revealer of the whole wealth of Divine 
 Mysteries.' 2 This degree of Christ's knowledge is 
 nothing less than divine; 3 and the fact that He 
 
 1 Die IVorte Jesu, p. 232. 
 
 2 Id. ib. ' der absolut zuverlassige Offenbarer des ganzen 
 Reichthums gottlicher Geheimnisse.' Cf. O. Holtzmann, 
 Leben Jesu, p. 221. We can estimate from these words the 
 exceeding height of His Self-consciousness. Jesus knows 
 that He alone knows God. 
 
 3 Much has been made by Harnack (Beitr'dge zur Ein- 
 leitungin das Neue Testament, 1907, ii p. 196 ff.), of the reading 
 efyvu), aorist for yivuxncei, present. It is characterised by 
 Irenaeus {Adv. Haeres. iv. 6. i) as an heretical falsification of 
 the text. But however that may be, the change from present 
 to aorist becomes indifferent, when it is realised that in the 
 unvocalised Aramaic the two tenses would be expressed by 
 the same word. v. Dalman, D. Worte Jesu, p. 233. Cf. 
 Earth, Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, p. 2 5 1 . ' Both texts 
 go back with respect to the verb (eTriyivaxrKei, eyvw, owk) 
 to one and the same Aramaic word, which Jesus employed.' 
 The contention of Schmiedel (who admits that the passage 
 is an original saying of Christ), that the aorist denotes that 
 there was a time when the Son did not know the Father, 
 and that His pre-existence with the Father is consequently
 
 164 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 is not the original source of it, but that it is 
 ' delivered ' to Him ' of the Father,' in no way 
 takes from its divineness. 
 
 denied, falls to the ground. Prof. Monatshefte, 1900. 
 But, as Allen points out in Matt xi. 27, the. aorists in 
 xi. 25-27 e/c/av^as, d.TreKa.Xv\l/a<s, irapeSoOr) refer to pre- 
 temporal acts of God wrought in the pre-historic ' begin- 
 ning' or 'eternity.' If lyvw is the true reading its 
 explanation is similar. The aorist is used as elsewhere to 
 denote timeless action. Cf. euSox^o-a, iii. 17, fSodrj, xxviii. 
 18, evSoKi^o-a, Mk. i. II (v. Swete's note). 'La parole 
 evangelique a done une tout autre portee qu'il ne faudrait 
 pour la these de la filiation acquise a Jesus, dans le temps, 
 par la connaissance du Pere.' Loisy, UEvangile et rEglise, 
 p. 79. Harnack (op. cit. p. 210) considers that as the 
 text stands in our copies, ' a formal equality of Father 
 and Son . . . and a relation of Father and Son, which 
 has never begun but remains ever the same, is expressed. 
 ... If Matthew has written thus his Christology very 
 nearly approached that of John in a point of the greatest 
 importance.' The weight of this admission is not lessened 
 by the fact that Harnack considers that 'Q' originally 
 read e-yvw (v. above), and it is only slightly affected 
 by his supposition that the phrase, 'No one knoweth 
 the Son, but the Father,' was a later insertion of the 
 Evangelist. Nor is the received reading discredited by 
 Harnack's statement that it is 'johanneisch und unhaltbar.' 
 (Ib. p. 210). As Wendt remarks (Die Lehre Jesu, E.T. 
 ii. p. 126), 'This full, unique, mutual knowledge on the 
 part of the Father and the Son is not fortuitous, but 
 stands in necessary connection with their Fatherhood and 
 Sonship.' It will be noticed that this relationship of
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 165 
 
 If this passage is the classical Synoptic state- 
 ment on the nature of our Lord's knowledge, it 
 must be remembered that it does not stand alone, 
 
 Father and Son remains as part of 'Q' as amended by 
 Harnack (pp. clt. p. 94). Cf. Zahn, Das Evangelium Matt., 
 ad loc. 'The Son is not only the medium of revelation, 
 Who imparts the knowledge of God to him who is capable 
 of receiving it, but He is Himself, in the first instance, 
 a mystery fast locked to man, which itself needs disclosing.' 
 The discussion of the passage in Schmidt's The Prophet of 
 Nazareth is as usual coloured by his own presuppositions. 
 Granted that it is unique in the Synoptic narrative (but 
 cf. 'The Son,' 'The Father,' Mk. xiii. 32); that fact 
 would not discredit it. The same kind of argument 
 appears in his article ' Son of God' in Encycl. Bibl. iv. 
 and is equally unconvincing. It is vitiated by the same 
 prejudices. Such criticism, however disturbing at the 
 moment, can never have lasting effect. 
 
 Ktihl, Das Selbstbezvusstsein Jem, p. 1 1 , observes that 
 in the Third Gospel the occasions on which the separate 
 sayings of 'Q' were spoken are more accurately preserved, 
 while the first Evangelist is almost always more trust- 
 worthy in reporting the language itself. So here, ' the 
 words of the First Gospel are introduced independently 
 of any definite historical occasion. . . . But the first 
 sentence betrays the fact that the confession of Jesus is 
 due to a particular situation. An evident result of the 
 activity of Jesus is presupposed. Accordingly it will be 
 an historical recollection tallying with that result, which 
 the third Evangelist has preserved, when he lets the words 
 of Jesus be spoken under the impression of the tidings 
 which the disciples were able to give of their richly blessed
 
 1 66 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 or without connection with other New Testament 
 writings. 
 
 It gives a background of historical probability 
 to many of those profound utterances which the 
 Fourth Gospel places in the mouth of Christ. 1 It 
 
 mission work, performed by commission from Jesus.' Ib. 
 p. 19. 
 
 In view of the opinion of Zahn and Schmiedel that 
 the passage contains an actual saying of Christ, the words 
 of Pfleiderer will not carry much weight : 'The refer- 
 ence of this dogmatic idea of an unique metaphysical 
 relation of the Son to the Father, to the self-consciousness 
 of the historical Jesus, by which a new Platonic-Augustinian 
 Mysticism is ascribed to this Hero of reform, is historically 
 unthinkable.' Die Entstehung des Christentums, p. 202. 
 
 1 Cf. John xvi. 15, xvii. 25. v. especially vii. 29, 
 viii. 55, of His knowledge of the Father, (otSa) and x. 15 
 (yirwo-KU)). Ktihl of KOnigsberg in the most recent 
 discussion of this passage takes a similar view, Das 
 Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 1907, p. 26: 'The agreement of 
 our passage with the mode of speech of Jesus in the Fourth 
 Gospel is, in truth, embarassing for those who have given 
 up this Gospel as an historical source . . . But if it has 
 without doubt been an element of the Logia source in the 
 form which lay before Matthew and Luke, which has 
 remained untouched by Johannine and Pauline influences 
 and by influences of the later dogmatism of the Church, 
 and on that account no one could seriously think of dis- 
 puting its originality ; so must the upholders of the trust- 
 worthiness of the Fourth Gospel attach weight to the 
 fact, indisputable as it is in view of this passage, that the
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 167 
 
 goes far to prove that, in this respect, the Johan- 
 nine tradition rests on a basis of good evidence. 
 It creates for it an atmosphere and conditions 
 which make its statements thoroughly reasonable. 
 If this deep and penetrating saying comes from 
 the heart of contemporary testimony as we have 
 seen good reason to believe it becomes in the 
 highest degree probable that similar sayings, 
 reported by St. John, represent actual Self-revel- 
 ations of Christ. Accordingly we get a very 
 strong presumption that a firm substratum of fact 
 lies beneath the Johannine tradition, and makes it, 
 to a larger extent than some critics would allow, 
 trustworthy and available for use in the study of 
 the Person of our Lord. 
 
 A further implication contained in this passage 
 is, that all true knowledge of God is imparted to 
 men by the Son. 1 And this in two ways. He is 
 
 Self-consciousness and discourse of" the Synoptic Christ 
 could reach so high a level.' Cf. ib. p. 37. 
 
 1 v. Gore, Bampton Lectures, p. 117. Dalman, Die Worte 
 Jem, p. 232. 'His disciples do indeed acquire through Him 
 the same knowledge of God which He possesses. But their 
 knowledge remains indirect ; His own is gained by direct 
 contemplation.' Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums, p. 
 8 1. 'Jesus is persuaded that He knows God as none before 
 Him, and He knows that He has the call to impart
 
 168 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the direct representative of the Father. From His 
 union with the Father He takes His place on 
 earth in such sort that, in Him, God is manifested 
 to man. And secondly, because in character, 
 in word and act as observed by man, He 
 reveals the character and the mind and action 
 of God. 
 
 Here again we get a dogmatic basis for such 
 expressions, put into the mouth of Christ by the 
 fourth Evangelist, as 'He that seeth Me, seeth 
 Him that sent Me ' ; 'He that hath seen Me hath 
 seen the Father'; and for that profound saying of 
 the Evangelist in reference to the Word, ' That 
 was the true Light, which lighteth every man that 
 cometh into the world.' l The truth underlying 
 both the Logia and the Johannine statements 
 is the same : the knowledge of God can only 
 come to man through the Person of the Son, 
 
 by word and deed to all others this knowledge of God 
 and, with it, Sonship to God.' Bousset, Gottesglaube ; 
 1908, p. 62. 'Among all those who, as Leaders endowed 
 by God, have rent the heavens and called down the 
 fire of Faith, there stands supreme above them all and 
 plain to every eye, the Form of Jesus of Nazareth. All our 
 experience of faith in God stands in every point in the 
 closest connection with His personal Life and is inseparable 
 from Him.' 
 
 ijo. xii. 45, xiv. 9, i. 9.
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 169 
 
 and can only find expression understandable by 
 man through the man Christ Jesus. 1 
 
 If the Father is the supreme object of the 
 knowledge of our Lord, if the mind and will and 
 character of God are open to Him, and can be 
 imparted by Him to man, according as he is able 
 to receive such knowledge we also learn from 
 the Synoptic Gospels as well as from St. John, 
 that His own life and destiny, as the Son of Man, 
 lies open before Him in perfect clearness. Again 
 and again we find indications of His possession 
 of this more than prophetic illumination. He 
 realised His Mission, and from the beginning of 
 His Ministry, He could see the end. According to 
 St. John, 2 at His first Passover, He gives a hint of 
 His Death and Resurrection. Later on He speaks 
 
 1 ' In this His consciousness as Bringer and Lord of the 
 Kingdom of God, He knows that He is one with the 
 Father, and is the instrument of God, moved only by the 
 Divine Will. A sight of God is vouchsafed to Him, which 
 is far removed from the common understanding of man. 
 He dwells in the enjoyment of a purity and sublimity of 
 religious atmosphere, in which no breath of man has yet 
 been discovered. . . . The passage brings the conception 
 of an exclusive Bearer of revelation and of a final Founder 
 of religion to classical expression.' H. J. Holtzmann, 
 Lehrbuch der neutest. Theologie, i. p. 275. 
 
 2 ii. 19 ; cf. Mk. ii. 20.
 
 170 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 in plain terms of His betrayal, passion and death. 1 
 From the standpoint of full knowledge, the way 
 of the Cross stretches out before Him. It forms 
 the background of His thought, and at times He 
 lets fall intimations which betray its presence. If 
 not before, at least from the Temptation onwards, 
 the destiny to which He was moving must have 
 formed part of His consciousness. Only at a 
 certain point in His Ministry does He speak of it 
 to His disciples in definite terms. 2 Christ's know- 
 ledge of Himself and of the successive stages of 
 His earthly career is no transient gleam such as 
 that which enables a prophet to anticipate the 
 future ; which comes and goes again, leaving the 
 mind of the seer like that of other men. It is an 
 abiding consciousness, which does not leave Him. 
 We see cause for believing that His knowledge 
 was progressive : it was due in part to experience, 
 and it seems to have become more minute and 
 comprehensive as the time of accomplishment drew 
 near. But what it is important to observe is the 
 fact that open-eyed and conscious of what lay 
 before Him, the Saviour went through the time of 
 His Ministry. He had come to do His Father's 
 
 1 Mark viii. 31 and parallels. Cf. Lu. xii. 50. 
 2 Cf. p. 131.
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 171 
 
 will. He had made that will His own, not only 
 by a primal choice, but by subsequent deliberate 
 rejection of wrong method, when He was tempted, 
 and by tenacious cleaving to the right way. 
 
 And there is a deeper and more mysterious 
 department of His Self-knowledge. He knew 
 Himself as He knew the Father. 1 He had 
 sounded the depths of His own Personality and 
 was conscious of His own Eternal relations with 
 the Father. Whether this knowledge was 
 awakened within Him by reflection on the 
 character of His public Ministry, or whether it 
 dawned upon Him in early youth as He thought 
 like other instructed Jewish boys of God, His 
 Father, we cannot tell. The incident of the 
 Temple visit points to the latter probability. 2 
 How the impression became fixed and deepened, 
 during the remaining years of preparation for His 
 Ministry, we are not told. But at His Baptism 
 it is confirmed, according to the Gospel narratives, 
 by the Testimony of the Father, and henceforth 
 
 1 Cf. Rev. xix. 12, f)(<Dv ovofj.a yeypa.fj.iJ.evov o ovSels oTSev 
 el /AT) avros, and Swete's note. 
 
 2 Lu. ii. 41 ff. However we interpret ev rots TOV 
 [j.ov we cannot fail to see that a special tie, an unique 
 relation between God and Himself, is implied.
 
 172 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 must be reckoned as an abiding fact of His 
 consciousness. It comes into view fitfully and at 
 times can only be inferred. Here and there in 
 the Synoptics, it is required to account for 
 language which would otherwise be unreasonable. 
 The repeated ' but I say unto you ' of the Sermon 
 on the Mount ; the charge to evil spirits to be 
 silent ; the claim to be greater than the Temple 
 and more than Solomon ; l the great passage so 
 often referred to, St. Matthew, xi. 27 : in all these 
 instances the implication, more or less clearly ex- 
 pressed, that He Who so speaks is more than man, 
 cannot be avoided. When we turn to the Fourth 
 Gospel, the evidence of our Lord's consciousness 
 of His eternal relation to the Father and of 
 the transcendence of His own Personality is 
 abundant. Let one instance suffice ' I and my 
 Father are One.' 2 Therefore among the elements 
 of His Self-knowledge, we must reckon the 
 consciousness that whatever the circumstances 
 of His mortal life, He was still the Eternal 
 
 1 Matt. xii. 6, 41, 42. v. Mason, Conditions of our Lord's 
 Life on Earth, p. 174, who draws attention to the neuter 
 TrXeiov in vv. 41, 42. 'There is a difference in their very 
 essence.' 
 
 2 Jo. x. 30. Cf. v. 1 8, xiv. 9, v. 22.
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 173 
 
 Son of the Father, one with Him in unbroken 
 union. 
 
 Christ's knowledge of men was in keeping with 
 His knowledge of Himself. We have many 
 instances of it. In some cases, it does not appear 
 to differ from the gift of insight into character or 
 disposition, which others are recorded to have 
 possessed. There is nothing transcendental in His 
 greeting to Peter and in the instantaneous 
 summing up of his character. 1 The ordinary 
 experience of life will suffice to impart to some 
 minds an extraordinary capacity for the quick 
 reading of character, and many such rapid 
 judgments have been justified by time. But 
 experience and prophetic insight fail to account 
 for such acts of discernment as those of which 
 the names of Nathanael, Zacchaeus, Judas, 
 remind us. 2 ' He knew what was in man.' Like 
 His word, His mind's eye was ' quick and 
 powerful . . . piercing even to the dividing 
 asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints 
 
 1 Jo. i. 42. 
 
 2 Jo. i. 47, 48 ; Lu. xix. 5-11 ; Jo. vi. 64, 71. 'All 
 the Evangelists agree in representing the Lord as moving 
 among men with a complete and certain knowledge of 
 their characters and needs.' Westcott, St. John, ii. 24 
 (additional note).
 
 174 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts 
 and intents of the heart.' 1 
 
 Under these three heads His Father, Himself, 
 Man are comprised those departments of our 
 Lord's knowledge which it most concerns us to 
 consider ; and in all these points His knowledge 
 was, for its purpose, adequate and complete. 
 What He taught of God His own personal 
 manifestation of God admitted of no correction. 
 It was perfect, so that He could say, ' No one 
 knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to 
 whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.' ' He that 
 hath seen Me hath seen the Father.' What He 
 taught about Himself was equally complete. He 
 was sure of Himself, His office, His destiny. 
 There is no sign of ecstasy leading to exaggeration, 
 neither is there trace of hesitation. Everything 
 moves on to its appointed end calmly and 
 majestically. He had set Himself to do His 
 Father's will and He knew what that would 
 involve. What He knew of man was, for the 
 work He had come to do, equally sufficing. It 
 was knowledge of the spiritual and moral elements 
 of human nature. It had to do with man as the 
 subject of redemption. Christ knew man, as no 
 1 Hebr. iv. 12.
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 175 
 
 one but God knows him ; for, as in a book, He 
 could read the heart and could detect motives, 
 where man can only note actions. Such know- 
 ledge was necessary to the Saviour. He must be 
 able to diagnose the disease He would cure and 
 to probe to the depths every wound which He 
 meant to heal. Thus the knowledge of our Lord 
 was sufficient for His purpose and, in its sphere, it 
 was complete and perfect. It was part of His 
 prerogative as the Son of God and it was un- 
 affected by the Incarnation. It was His still, in 
 the days of His flesh. The object of His Self- 
 humiliation did not require Him to abandon it. 
 Rather it required its retention. He Who would 
 lead man back to God must know unfailingly each 
 party to the great transaction. 
 
 Along with this exalted conception of the 
 knowledge and authority of Christ, we meet with 
 what seems at first to strike a jarring note. The 
 knowledge of ' the Son ' in the days of His flesh, 
 however perfect and unerring within its own 
 proper range and scope the revelation of God 
 had its limitations. This fact comes out in the 
 Gospel narrative as clearly as that of the know- 
 ledge itself. To what are we to attribute it ? At 
 first sight it seems to present a contradiction ; and
 
 176 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 there is no doubt that the question has been so 
 handled as to confuse and blur the image of the 
 Saviour as He stands before us. There are two 
 phenomena which we can place side by side, 
 which we cannot wholly reconcile, yet which we 
 dare not try to explain away a perfect know- 
 ledge, divine in its grasp and thoroughness, and 
 an ignorance such as is common to man. In 
 other words, our Lord's knowledge was limited. 
 Of this fact we have the following evidence, 
 supplied in part by the Evangelists, in part by 
 Himself. His knowledge was, in certain depart- 
 ments, acquired ; which means that it was not at 
 one time what it afterwards became. St. Luke 
 expressly and repeatedly mentions this in his 
 Gospel of the Childhood ; ' Jesus increased in 
 wisdom and in stature.' 1 Therefore, at one period 
 of His life our Lord's knowledge was inferior to 
 
 1 Lu. ii. 40, 52. Cf. St. Thorn. Aquinas, Summa Theol. 
 iii. Quaest. xii. Art. ii. 2. ' Proficere est imperfect!, quia 
 perfectum additionem non recipit.' * Wisdom ' is the 
 capacity of rightly using knowledge, but in St. Luke ii. it 
 no doubt includes knowledge itself as well as the handling 
 of it. Cf. Mason, Conditions of our Lord's Life on Earth, 
 p. 127. ' However much we may admit the ethical aspect of 
 that " wisdom " in which Jesus advanced, it cannot at any 
 rate altogether exclude the element of knowledge in one 
 important direction.'
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 177 
 
 what it was at a later period. To that extent 
 He was at one time ignorant. We trace the same 
 fact in what the Evangelists say of the effect of 
 certain experiences upon His mind. Surprise and 
 indignation show that He was not prepared for 
 men's conduct by previous knowledge. 1 He acts 
 on information supplied by others, and therefore 
 presumably unknown to Him before. 2 As West- 
 cott shows ; in some instances His knowledge is of 
 
 1 Lu. vii. 9. ' When Jesus heard these things, He 
 marvelled at him.' Cf. Plummer, ad loc. 'Those who 
 are unwilling to admit any limitations in Christ's know- 
 ledge, have to explain how wonder is compatible with 
 omniscience.' Mark vi. 6. ' He marvelled because of 
 their unbelief.' iii. 5. 'When He had looked round 
 about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness 
 of their hearts.' 
 
 2 Matt. xiv. 13. 'When Jesus heard of it (the death of 
 John the Baptist) He departed thence by ship into a 
 desert place apart.' John ix. 35. 'Jesus heard that they 
 had cast him out (the man born blind whom He had 
 healed) : and when He had found him . . .' (apparently 
 after searching for him). John xi. 3, 4, 6. 'Therefore 
 his (Lazarus') sisters sent unto Him saying, Lord, behold, 
 he whom Thou lovest is sick. When Jesus heard that, 
 He said . . . When He had heard therefore that he was 
 sick, He abode two days still in the same place where 
 He was.' ' He was aware of a thing at one instant, of 
 which He was not aware the instant before.' Mason, 
 op. cit. p. 133. 
 
 M
 
 178 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the acquired kind (yivuxrKetv'), as distinguished 
 from that which is absolute (elSevai). 1 
 
 Again, our Lord asked many questions during 
 His Ministry. In the greater number of instances, 
 His object was clearly to direct the attention of 
 the questioned to what He Himself had in mind 
 to do or to say. But there remain one or two 
 cases in which we seem obliged to conclude that 
 His question was intended to supply some defi- 
 ciency in His own information. St. Athanasius 
 is probably right when he cites St. John xi. 
 34, 'Where have ye laid him?' as such an 
 instance. 2 'How many loaves have ye?' may 
 
 1 Matt. xii. 15. 'When Jesus knew it (yvovs, "came to 
 know") He withdrew.' Jo. iv. i. 'When therefore the 
 Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made 
 and baptized more disciples than John (ly v<o, " came to 
 know").' Jo. vi. 15. 'When Jesus therefore perceived 
 (yvovs) that they would come and take Him by force, to 
 make Him a King.' Jo. v. 6. ' When Jesus saw him lie 
 and knew (yvovs) that he had been now a long time in 
 that case.' v. Westcott, St. John, ii. 24 (additional note). 
 Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 48. 'His manhood 
 can be real only as it remains a manhood realized within 
 the limits necessary to man.' 
 
 2 Contra Arian. Or. iii. 456. Westcott remarks in St. John 
 ad loc. 'The question is remarkable as being the single 
 place in this Gospel where the Lord speaks as seeking infor- 
 mation. Yet see v. 17 (found).' v. Mason, op cit. p. 143.
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 179 
 
 well have been a request for information. Still 
 more clearly the question, ' Who touched my 
 clothes ? ' implies not the desire to call attention to 
 what occurred, but a definite wish for knowledge 
 which He did not possess. ' He kept looking 
 round about (TrejO/e/SXeTrero) to see her that had 
 done this thing.' 1 In the case of the barren fig 
 tree, it is probable that until our Lord went up to 
 it, He was quite unaware that under the abundant 
 leafage there was no fruit. He gave the im- 
 pression to His disciples that He was looking for 
 figs. He would not have done so if He had 
 known that the tree was fruitless. 
 
 In all these cases, the natural and straight- 
 forward interpretation of the circumstances is, 
 that our Lord desired information on the several 
 points because He needed it. That is what 
 the Gospel narratives convey. It was the 
 impression which their writers received. 2 
 
 1 Mk. vi. 38, v. 30, 32. v. Mason, op. cit. p. 150. Bp. 
 d'Arcy of Clogher in Diet, of Christ, i. p. 365. ' There is 
 no trace in the Gospels of His possessing supernatural 
 knowledge of human and secular things beyond what was 
 necessary for His work.' 
 
 2 * If Christ in His historical life be conceived as a 
 conscious God Who lives and speaks like a limited man, 
 then the worst of all forms of docetism is affirmed. For it
 
 i8o THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Then there is our Lord's own statement of a 
 limitation of His knowledge : ' But of that day 
 and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
 angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but 
 the Father.' 1 Here our Lord states that, on a 
 
 is one that dissolves Him into infinite unreality. If He 
 knows as God while He speaks as man, then His speech is 
 not true to His knowledge, and within Him a bewildering 
 struggle must ever proceed to speak as He seems, and not 
 as He is.' Fairbairn, Chr'ut In Modern Theology, p. 353. 
 
 1 Mk. xiii. 32. In the parallel passage, Matt. xxiv. 36, 
 ouS 6 IHOS is probably, as in A.V., to be omitted with the 
 Sinaitic MS. As Allen shows (ad. loc. and Introduction, 
 p. xxxi), such omission is in accordance with St. Matthew's 
 practice relative to Christ. The passage as it stands in 
 St. Mark is one of the foundation statements, on which 
 Schmiedel would base our knowledge of Christ. N. Schmidt, 
 on the other hand, considers that in St. Mark, as well as in 
 St. Matthew, ovSt 6 vios is a late addition. Thus these 
 critics deal with this passage in an opposite way, but with 
 the same intention. Schmiedel accepts the reading as 
 against our Lord's Divinity. Schmidt rejects it, as 
 embodying the expression ' the Son ' used of Christ in an 
 absolute sense and therefore conveying the idea of His 
 Divinity. The Prophet of Nazareth, p. 147. That, at 
 least, is what his criticism implies. Anything that conflicts 
 with his own views can be pronounced ' a late addition * 
 an easy method of disposing of awkward evidence. When 
 two negative critics disagree as to the reading of a passage 
 in which they are interested from their own special stand- 
 points, the ordinary student will consider himself justified
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 181 
 
 matter of first importance, the date of the 
 Judgment at which He Himself will act as Judge, 
 He Himself is in ignorance. ' The Son ' is used 
 in its absolute sense as in St. Matthew xi. 27, and 
 is set over against ' the Father.' It would there- 
 fore be untrue to the meaning of the passage to 
 say that our Lord is here speaking simply of His 
 human consciousness that as Man, He does not 
 know that of which, as the Eternal Son, He 
 is cognisant : for it is as ' the Son ' that this 
 particular piece of knowledge is withheld from 
 Him. Like the disposal of the places in the 
 future Kingdom, this is a matter which is the 
 concern of the Father alone. ' It is not Mine to 
 give.' There are limits to the power and 
 knowledge of the Eternal Son. Certain things 
 are in the Father's hand. Several passages in the 
 Fourth Gospel point to the same principle of 
 subordination of the Son in His eternal relations 
 
 in keeping to the evidence at his disposal, even if it should 
 support the ' orthodox ' position. It should be noticed 
 that even if ovSe 6 DID? were proved to be an addition to 
 the Text of both Gospels, the passage would still convey the 
 thought that the Son shared in the ignorance imputed to 
 angels and men, for ' no one,' (not ' no man ') ouSeis otSev 
 . . . ei pr) 6 irar-rip, includes the Speaker Himself. The 
 Father only knows.
 
 1 82 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 with the Father. The Father is the source of 
 all knowledge and power. The Son receives from 
 the Father what He possesses. ' I do nothing of 
 Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I 
 speak these things.' 1 
 
 When we place these limitations of our Lord's 
 knowledge, as they appear in the Gospel, side by 
 side with what is told us of His knowledge of His 
 Father, of Himself and of man, we find it 
 impossible to frame a theory which shall do justice 
 to all the facts. 2 On the one hand, there is 
 Divine, transcendent knowledge, embracing the 
 greatest mysteries of heaven and earth. On the 
 other, there is ignorance of certain things, showing 
 that His knowledge, in the days of His flesh, was 
 capable of development and growth, and that it 
 was dependent on such aids as we ourselves have 
 to depend upon the senses, inquiry from others, 
 
 1 Jo. viii. 28. Cf. ib, v, 26. ' I speak to the world those 
 things which I have heard of Him.' v. 19. 'The Son can 
 do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do.' 
 v. 30. * I can of Mine own Self do nothing : as I hear 
 I judge.' 
 
 2 ' I shrink from dealing with a question which I hold to 
 be beyond the reach of human faculties, namely, to explain 
 how the Finite and the Infinite could be combined in one 
 Person.' Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels, p. 476.
 
 AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE 183 
 
 investigation. Had it not been so, the Incarnate 
 Life of our Lord must have failed in its purpose. 
 Without His perfect knowledge of Divine things, 
 He could not have been to us the manifestation 
 of God. Without the mental experience involved 
 in those conditions of acquiring knowledge to 
 which we have been referring, we should not have 
 had among us One Who was in all points tried 
 as we are. There would have been something 
 wanting in the perfection of His humanity. 1 But 
 it is for us to see that we keep clear and distinct 
 in our minds each fact of His Personality. They 
 come to us on the best evidence. How they can 
 
 1 This consideration applies to the vexed question of our 
 Lord's dealing with literary questions of the Old Testament, 
 such as the authorship of Psalm ex. He spoke as a Man of 
 His time and as one Who was acquainted with the literary 
 judgments of His time. The perfection of His humanity 
 required that He should belong to a certain period : He 
 could not be Man in the abstract. In such matters would 
 He not use the conventional language which would be 
 understood by those to whom He spoke ? On the other 
 hand, we have Dr. Mason's wise words of caution : ' He 
 may well have sometimes used names like Moses and David 
 in conventional senses ; but Moses and David were real 
 persons to Him, whom He had not forgotten.' Conditions of 
 onr Lord's Life on Earth, p. 188. Cf. Denney in the Diet, of 
 Christ, i. p. 148. Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des Christentums, 
 p. 78, 'He (Christ) has not only accommodated Himself to
 
 1 84 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 co-exist in the same Person we cannot say. 
 There are many seeming antinomies each 
 member of which is a certain fact of our ex- 
 perience whose resolution lies beyond this stage 
 of our career. So it may be with what is told us 
 of the knowledge of our Lord. 
 
 this popular representation (i.e. of the devil and his host, the 
 demons), as has often been remarked ; but He has shared it 
 in all earnestness ; it belongs to those parts of His picture 
 of the world in which He shows that He is a child of His 
 time, but which for us could no longer influence thought.' 
 Dr. Mason's words, quoted above, apply equally to this 
 dogmatic statement of the Berlin Professor. Satan was to 
 Christ a real person, whom He had not forgotten.
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 
 
 THERE has been a remarkable change in the 
 attitude of serious thinkers towards the subject of 
 miracles. In days not so far distant the miracle 
 was regarded as the chief proof- material of the 
 Christian Faith. It guaranteed the Divine Per- 
 sonality of Christ. It was quoted as a sign that 
 the Worker Himself belonged to the ' super- 
 natural ' order, and that the external, visible result 
 of His power was surety for the infallible truth 
 of His revelation of God. In the present day, 
 although miracles are still widely recognised as 
 elements of the Life of Christ which have to be 
 accounted for, and which go to form the picture 
 which He presents to the thoughtful mind, yet 
 they are regarded from quite a different point of 
 view. Instead of arguing from the miracle to 
 Christ, the habit is rather to argue from Christ to
 
 1 86 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the miracle. So far from the miracle possessing 
 the power to commend a Divine Christ to us, 
 we require Him to make the miracle itself 
 credible. The process is reversed. And, on the 
 whole, the modern standpoint is the one which is 
 more true to the nature of the case. The Person 
 of Christ is the Miracle of miracles. The works 
 which He performs in the course of His Ministry 
 are the natural result of the contact of such a 
 Personality with the necessities of man. We do 
 not require them as evidence of His Personality, 
 although they do form part of any constructive 
 representation of Him, which aims at complete- 
 ness ; while, according to St. Matthew, 1 our Lord 
 
 1 xi. 2-7 = Lu. vii. 18-24 fr m the Logia (Q). In the 
 Fourth Gospel He again and again cites His ' works ' as 
 evidence of His Person and claims. Jo. v. 36, x. 25, xv. 
 24. It therefore seems an exaggeration to say (Fairbairn, 
 Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 149): 'Miracles, once 
 regarded as the great bulwark of the Christian faith, are 
 now regarded as its greatest burden.' Cf. Beth, Das 
 Wander, 1908, p. 13. ' If Miracle was once an instrument 
 of Apologetics, it has now become an object of apology.' 
 Granted that we approach the subject from a different 
 point of view and that, very rightly, the moral and 
 spiritual character of the Worker Himself is more con- 
 vincing than the works, yet is it not presumption to 
 slight a kind of evidence to which Christ Himself assigned 
 value ? Is the * modern ' man at so much higher a level
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 187 
 
 makes special appeal to them as proofs of His 
 being what He claimed to be. But if our attitude 
 is changed, we should be clear as to the ground of 
 
 spiritually, and is his ' Weltanschauung ' so philosophically 
 superior, that the appeal of the Saviour to His works is 
 no longer applicable ? To the present writer it appears 
 to be time to call a halt to the tone of thought and 
 language prevalent is some quarters on this subject. One 
 can understand that miracles are a stumbling-block and 
 offence in any purely humanitarian view of our Lord : but 
 the apologetic and deprecatory reference, which it is now the 
 fashion to make to them in some Christian circles, is neither 
 wise nor reverent. With regard to Gospel Miracles with 
 which alone we are dealing in this chapter the evidence 
 is at first-hand. Dr. Sanday (The Life of Christ in Recent 
 Research, p. 221) seems somewhat to minimise its value. 
 Yet, as he allows, the author of the Fourth Gospel was an 
 eye-witness, and the process of long reflection and the lapse 
 of time could neither have changed ordinary acts into 
 miracles, nor suggested appeals to them as His witnesses, if 
 such were never made by Christ. Besides the Johannine 
 testimony, we have the report committed to writing by the 
 eye-witness St. Matthew, in the Logia narrative of Mat. xi. 
 2-7 = Lu. vii. 18-24. This, apart from other evidence which 
 could be cited, certainly seems to bring the testimony to 
 the historic character of the Gospel miracles to about as 
 near to being first-hand as it is possible to be. As B. Weiss 
 says (Leben Jesu, i. p. 539) 'Mat. xi. 5 shows that the oldest 
 source takes it for granted that awakenings from the dead 
 actually occurred in the ministry of Jesus.' 
 
 Schweitzer is no doubt correct in saying that the attitude 
 of Strauss towards miracles formed an epoch in the study of
 
 1 88 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the change. If it is a heightened appreciation of 
 the Saviour's wonderful Person and character that 
 puts His actual miracles into the background, and 
 takes from their power to convince, the change is 
 to be commended. If, on the other hand, it is 
 due to the supposed requirements of scientific 
 thought ; if it is because we cannot assent to the 
 occurrence of phenomena which refuse to be 
 brought under the category of any known laws, or 
 of the inferences deducible from such laws then 
 we refuse to accept facts, which come to us on 
 excellent historical evidence, at the bidding of a 
 
 the Gospels. Negative writers have made no appreciable 
 advance on his method of attack. But Schweitzer is entirely 
 overestimating the results of the critical work of Strauss 
 when he says (Von Reimarus zu Wrede, p. 109) that the 
 problem of miracles is in consequence simply left on one 
 side. It is quite untrue to fact to say that, since Strauss, 
 ' das Wunder die historische Darstellung weder positiv noch 
 negativ beschaftigt.' Instances to the contrary will at once 
 occur to every reader. 
 
 St. John xx. 29 is sometimes quoted as conveying the 
 idea that our Lord thought lightly of the convincing 
 power of miracles ; cf. i Pet. i. 8. But, as Fisher says, 
 ' It is not on faith independent of miracles, but on faith 
 independent of the ocular perception of miracles, that Jesus 
 pronounces His blessing.' Grounds of Theistic and Christian 
 Belief, p. 258. It is a benediction on the readiness to 
 believe on the testimony of others.
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 189 
 
 demand which has neither philosophy nor science 
 to enforce it. We fail to account for a large 
 department of phenomena, the evidence for which 
 we are unable to set aside, and which have played 
 a great part in the history of the world. 
 
 The belief that our Lord worked miracles forms 
 an original part of the Gospel tradition. State- 
 ments to that effect are an integral portion of the 
 Petrine Mark Gospel with its Synoptic parallels. 1 
 We may therefore take it as an admitted fact that 
 the oldest Christian tradition represents Christ as 
 a worker of miracles. 2 
 
 But before we consider the value of the 
 Gospel evidence, it must be observed that, if 
 our Lord possessed this power, it is one which 
 He shared with other men. Taken by itself 
 it would not prove any special eminence. We 
 
 1 v. p. 31. 'Our Gospel tradition has made Christ a 
 miracle-worker in the extraordinary and absolute sense. 
 Here He is the supernatural Son of God, Who without any 
 psychological mediation directly lays hold of bodily life, 
 Who wakes the dead, Who walks on the sea ... for Whom 
 there are no limits of possibility.' Bousset, Jesus, p. 26. 
 
 2 It is unnecessary for our present purpose to cite other 
 parts of the Synoptic Gospels or St. John to multiply the 
 evidence. * The Gospels contain a full measure of miracle- 
 histories and mean to give accounts of miracles.' Traub, 
 Die W under im Neuen Testament, 1905, p. 23.
 
 190 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 must therefore examine the moral and spiritual 
 conditions under which He is reported to have 
 worked miracles. 
 
 First, then, as to the value of the Gospel 
 tradition. Did our Lord work miracles? If the 
 question can be met by the d priori statement 
 that miracles are impossible, or by the simple 
 assertion that wholly apart from the question 
 of their possibility as a matter of fact, they 
 do not happen then our task would be easy. 
 Whether or not we concern ourselves with the 
 cause of the insertion of these narratives in 
 the Gospel story, we could safely leave them 
 on one side as mere accretions to the record 
 of what actually occurred. Now, in reply to 
 the position that a miracle is impossible, it will 
 suffice to quote the saying of Huxley: " Deny- 
 ing the possibility of miracles seems to me 
 quite as unjustifiable as speculative Atheism.' 1 
 But do they happen ? 
 
 1 Spectator, Feb. 10, 1866. In the present state of 
 scientific thought a far more strongly worded answer 
 could be given. Cf. Paulsen who, while -not admitting 
 the miraculous, remarks that 'should occasion demand, 
 philosophy has a place for miracles.' Einleitung in die 
 Philosophic, p. 297, E.T. v. Diet, of Christ and the Gospels, i. 
 p. 727.
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 191 
 
 It will at once be seen that, granted their possi- 
 bility, it is quite a different thing to establish the 
 fact of their actual occurrence. The conviction 
 that there is a settled order in God's world disposes 
 one to question any presumed infringement of 
 that order. It seems more consonant with the 
 Divine Sovereignty of the universe that those 
 laws of nature, which are the expression of 
 God's will, should retain their action unmodified 
 by any exceptional interposition. At first sight 
 this appears the higher and more reverent view 
 to take as we look out on the world. The 
 evenness and fixity of the operations of nature, 
 so far as our observation extends, form the found- 
 ation of our security in dealing with its pheno- 
 mena; and this uniformity observable in the 
 processes of nature, though incapable of proof 
 by reason of the limitations of our knowledge, 
 furnishes an hypothesis which is as necessary 
 for all scientific research as for the ordinary 
 purposes of life. 
 
 This fact, of itself, inclines many thoughtful 
 people to be impatient of anything that lays 
 claim to the miraculous. They relegate it to 
 the infancy of human thought. They think that 
 they honour God more by attributing to Him
 
 192 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 an equal perfection in design and result, than 
 by supposing that He should find it necessary 
 to intervene at a subsequent stage, in order 
 to set right what had gone wrong. 1 
 
 Now this is not an unfair description of the 
 attitude of many educated people towards the 
 whole question of miracle. They are too sensible 
 to deny its possibility; but, for the reasons stated, 
 they do not admit that it happens. Several 
 causes contribute to this mental attitude. Per- 
 haps the chief of these is the confusion of idea 
 which seems to be almost inherent in the expres- 
 sion ' law of nature.' 2 It is a convenient term 
 
 1 Beth. Das founder, p. 13, alludes to this point of view : 
 * The absolute and harmoniously ruling God would not 
 disturb His arrangement of the world by miracles, or correct 
 His own handiwork, which would mean the admission of 
 His own former incapacity.' He goes on to say, * That 
 such arguments are possible and are applied with apparent 
 effect shows how mistaken was the view of miracles which 
 once prevailed. . . . They do not even touch the question 
 of miracles.' 
 
 2 If by ' nature ' is meant the totality of that which 
 exists and of the forces which pervade it, then miracles are 
 but instances of the regular operation of natural law. 
 There is no supernatural element in them. Nature is an 
 unity. But if, according to the usual meaning of the 
 term, the physical world and its forces are alone described, 
 then, if we believe in the existence of a spiritual Power,
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 193 
 
 to denote the result of our observation of the way 
 in which phenomena act upon one another. It 
 is a generalisation based on experience. It holds 
 good up to the extent of that experience; but not 
 beyond it. The neglect to take this plain fact 
 into account lies at the root of the existing 
 prejudice against the miraculous. Arguing from 
 phenomena which have come under their own 
 observation or under that of trustworthy reporters, 
 people form the idea that the operations of nature 
 are governed by law ; and this mental process 
 is justifiable. Law and order do pervade the 
 universe. 
 
 But they forget that the field of their observa- 
 tion is not a wide one. It does not coincide with 
 the whole range of the processes of nature, or of 
 its possible operations. The accumulated exper- 
 ience of mankind would fail to cover it. There 
 would still be phenomena which have not yet 
 been brought under any known law. This is not 
 saying that they cannot be so brought. Arguing, 
 as we cannot help doing, from the known to the 
 unknown, we conclude that processes of nature, 
 
 transcending and yet immanent in that world, its law 
 and order may be modified as to their results, in the 
 interest of a higher purpose. 
 
 N
 
 194 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 which transcend or in some other way elude our 
 power of observation, are equally subject to law. 
 It would be irrational to imagine that so far as 
 our experience goes, law reigns; but that beyond 
 that limit, its rule ends. 1 
 
 Now a ' miracle ' is a phenomenon which 
 cannot be classified under any generalisation 
 known, or reasonably to be inferred, by 
 us. If it take place, it lies outside our power 
 of observing the method of its operation. But 
 there is nothing to forbid our presumption that, 
 equally with phenomena which we can assign to 
 this or that natural law, it is in connection with 
 order. To take an instance. The raising of 
 Jairus' daughter was a phenomenon which we 
 cannot classify under any series of antecedents 
 and consequents at present known. But that 
 does not mean that it stands outside the domain 
 of law. There must have been some external 
 ' cause ' or antecedent followed necessarily by the 
 only possible result. Such an antecedent was, 
 
 1 Compare the wise remark of St. Augustine De Chit. 
 Dei, xxi. 8, ' Omnia quippe portenta contra naturam dici- 
 mus esse : sed non sunt. Quomodo est enim contra naturam, 
 quod Dei fit voluntate, cum voluntas tanti utique Conditoris 
 conditae rei cujusque natura sit ? Portentum ergo fit, 
 non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura.'
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 195 
 
 according to the Gospel narrative, the will of 
 Christ. How it operated remains a mystery, and 
 constitutes the miracle. We ourselves, in every 
 part of our daily life, are constantly modifying 
 and counteracting the result of natural laws by 
 introducing into the sum of this or that process a 
 fresh antecedent. Each law involved remains the 
 same. It is the result which becomes modified, 
 through the contribution effected by the new 
 antecedent. When I raise my arm, there is no 
 violation of the law of gravitation, but the coming 
 into play of a new factor produces a modified 
 result. 1 In the miracle cited, the laws of life and 
 death were not changed. A fresh antecedent or 
 series of antecedents was introduced, and this 
 introduction naturally and orderly modified the 
 effect of those laws, and the dead came to life 
 again. Against such a position as a possibility 
 science has nothing to say. It is a matter of 
 evidence. 
 
 But our reception of that evidence will be 
 for each of us a subjective matter at any 
 rate on its intellectual side. Belief in the 
 
 1 P. Gardner, Exploratlo Evangelica, p. 232, uses the 
 expression for the working of miracle, * the power of sus- 
 pending natural law.'
 
 196 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 occurrence of a miracle will be determined 
 according to our estimate of the value of the 
 direct evidence, and of the adequacy of the 
 interests involved. 
 
 What is the value and force of the Gospel 
 evidence ? Attempts have frequently been made 
 to preserve the ethical and spiritual element 
 of the Gospel narratives, while excising the 
 miraculous. But this cannot be done. Miracle 
 is inextricably bound up with it. If you accept 
 the accounts given of Christ's teaching and of 
 the historical incidents of His life, you find that 
 you cannot exclude the miraculous element. Its 
 attestation is equally complete. It is interwoven 
 with the whole fabric. The best certified facts of 
 His life refuse to be explained, if you deny its 
 presence. 1 Bousset admits 2 that ' in the extensive 
 
 1 v. Illingworth, Divine Immanence, pp. 88-90. ' We can- 
 not separate the wonderful life, or the wonderful teaching 
 from the wonderful works." Cf. Sanday in Hastings, D.B. 
 ii. p. 627. B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, i. p. 138. 'What the 
 Gospels tell of miracles stands everywhere in the closest 
 connection with the activity of the calling of Jesus.' 
 
 2 Jesus, p. 26. Canney says (Encycl. Bibl. iv. p. 535), 
 'Writings in which miracles figure are not historical in the 
 modern and scientific sense of the word,' an instance of 
 the confusion of thought so common in the treatment of this 
 subject. A narrative which embodies the story of a miracle
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 197 
 
 accounts of miracles in our Gospels, there 
 remains an eminently historical kernel.' Without 
 them the course of events would remain inex- 
 plicable. ' Had there been no exertions of power 
 
 is not thereby rendered unhistorical. The supposed 
 miraculous element is reported ; and the fact that that 
 element is considered by the reporter to be miraculous does 
 not destroy his capacity for accurate and truthful narration 
 of the facts which have come under his observation. His 
 subjective interpretation of the phenomena which he reports 
 is no bar to his faithful report of them. It is the province 
 of the ' scientific ' historical critic to endeavour to distin- 
 guish between the objective and the subjective, or interpre- 
 tative, elements in a narrative. He forfeits his claim to be 
 'scientific' when he rejects a narrative en bloc on the plea 
 that it contains the report of miracles. ' What occurred 
 at Nain or Bethany eludes precise description as does death 
 itself; but it is as little withdrawn from the province of 
 history as the fact that death awaits ourselves.' Earth, Die 
 Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, p. 137. Schweitzer points 
 out that parts of St. Mark which v. Soden refers to a 
 secondary source ' stand, in spite of their mythical coloring in 
 close historical connection, so much so, that the historical 
 connection is nowhere so strong as in those parts.' And 
 he asks : * How is one going to exclude the Feeding of the 
 5000 and the Transfiguration without destroying the 
 historical web of the Mark-Gospel ? . . . This scepticism 
 is completely untenable, for in Mark the natural and the 
 supernatural stand in equally good and sound historic con- 
 nection.' J^on Reimarus zu Wrede, pp. 303, 304. ' It is 
 impossible to separate miracles from the historical Christ : 
 they are inextricably interwoven with the evangelical
 
 198 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 to impress the senses, it is incredible that the 
 Apostles should have believed in Christ and clung 
 to Him in the teeth of all the influences fitted to 
 inspire distrust.' 1 
 
 No one will dispute the fact that the Gospel 
 Miracles are reported in entirely good faith. The 
 accounts bear upon their face the evidence that 
 they represent the firm belief of the first disciples. 
 Is it possible that they were deceived ? The 
 character of the narratives which have come down 
 to us excludes such a supposition. The occur- 
 rences are too numerous and varied to allow of 
 mistake ; the issues involved, too definite and 
 strongly contrasted with one another to be capable 
 of any compromising explanation. In most of 
 them the question of their occurrence or non- 
 history. The words of Jesus often imply works that were 
 held to be miraculous : no theory that allows veracity to 
 the first can deny reality to the second.' Fairbairn, Studies 
 in the Life of Christ, p. 159. 
 
 1 Fisher, Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, p. 162. 
 Cf. Christlieb, Modemer Ztoeifel, pp. 41, 45 (E. T.). 
 Sanday in Hastings, D.B. ii. p. 627, and in The Life of 
 Christ in Recent Research, p. 213 : We may well doubt 
 whether, without miracle, the belief would ever have grown 
 up that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in view of the 
 striking absence of those attributes and functions which 
 the Jews expected in their Messiah.'
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 199 
 
 occurrence was perfectly easy to answer. There 
 could be no middle position. If the process was 
 inexplicable, the result was evident. ' Whereas I 
 once was blind, now I see/ was an argument 
 which could be applied by the witnesses as well 
 as by the subjects of many of our Lord's miracles. 
 This is especially true of the crowning Miracle of 
 the Resurrection. 
 
 If the evidence for the Gospel miracles is 
 trustworthy, if the accounts possess ' an eminently 
 historical kernel,' we have next to inquire as to 
 the adequacy of the purpose and interests involved 
 in their working. If this be found sufficient, the 
 evidence itself will be immensely strengthened. 
 The miracles will come to us not only with testi- 
 mony, but with probability, to favour them. 
 According to the Gospel account, they are not 
 bare, isolated exhibitions of power. They are 
 signs. They attend and exemplify and enforce 
 the carrying out of a great object the restoration 
 of man to that sonship of God for which he was 
 created, but which sin had practically destroyed. 
 If creation itself is a miracle ; if man's attainment 
 of self-consciousness is a miracle ; his salvation 
 may well have become the occasion of miracle. 
 From the Christian standpoint, no purpose could
 
 200 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 be greater, no occasion more momentous, than 
 that implied in the Mission of the Son of Man. 
 If ever there could be a call for the exercise 
 of ' supernatural ' power, for the introduction 
 into human life and experience of new, creative 
 forces, it was then ; 1 when the Saviour stood for 
 God and man against the enemy of both. And 
 when we pass from the occasion as a whole to the 
 circumstances of each separate miracle, we find 
 them worthy of the Actor and of His object. 
 What distinguishes the Gospel miracles from the 
 Apocryphal and from others of dubious authentic- 
 ity, is the spiritual atmosphere, the solemn setting, 
 in which they are stated to have taken place. 
 Every one of them is an acted parable of pene- 
 trating and illuminating meaning. If intended, as 
 they doubtless were, to convince and prove, they 
 appeal rather to the heart than to the intellect. 
 They are never worked to satisfy curiosity, or to 
 influence one whose will is set against the truth. 
 When Renan says, 2 ' Un Miracle a Paris, devant 
 des Savants competents mettrait fin a tant de 
 doutes,' he shows his want of appreciation of the 
 whole attitude of our Lord towards those whom 
 He came to save. He shows his ignorance of the 
 
 1 Cf. Beth, Dai Wunder, p. 33. 2 Lei Apotrcs, p. xliv.
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 201 
 
 human heart : he forgets the teaching of history. 1 
 ' La condition du Miracle est la credulite du 
 temoin,' says Renan again. 2 It would be more 
 true to say that it is the enlightened understand- 
 ing of the subject and his need, which makes a 
 miracle possible. 
 
 Another characteristic of the Gospel miracles is 
 the restraint, the reserve one might say the 
 economy which our Lord practised in regard to 
 them. ' They are studiously restricted to the pur- 
 poses of His Mission.' 3 Often they are wrung 
 from Him under pressure of sympathy with suffer- 
 ing. There is neither love of display nor selfishness 
 of motive to be detected. ' He steadily refused 
 to work miracles for any purely self-regarding 
 end.' 4 
 
 1 Lu. xvi. 31. Cf. Beth, op. clt. p. 44. ' Miracles occurred 
 not to awaken men's faith or to lead them for the first time 
 to God . . . but to confirm a faith which was theirs 
 already.' v. Traub, Die Wunder int neuen Testament, 1905, 
 p. 71. 'Miracle is faith's favourite child. Therefore it is 
 not the father of faith. Miracles do not beget faith.' 
 
 2 Ib. p. xliv. 
 
 3 v. Sanday in Hastings, D.B. ii. p. 626. 
 
 */(. Cf. Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, p. 352. 
 ' His supernatural powers are for others, not for Himself. 
 He performs no single, self-regarding miracle. The priests
 
 202 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 If it be argued that the power to work miracles 
 would naturally be assigned to Christ by His 
 followers, because belief in it was part of the 
 intellectual outfit of the time ; it may be replied 
 that if, as time went on, they found that they were 
 mistaken, and that no evidence of such power 
 were forthcoming, their belief that He possessed 
 it would never have crystallised into the conviction 
 which, we know, did obtain. But more than this: 
 if no miracles could be assigned to Him, if no act 
 on His part had lifted the veil of the unseen 
 world, it is certain that He Himself could never 
 have won and held the place in their belief that 
 He did. He would not have been regarded as 
 
 mocked Him because while He saved others, He did not 
 save Himself (Matt, xxvii. 42) ; and we may add, He could 
 not both save Himself and be Himself.' * To the Evan- 
 gelists, the most miraculous thing in Christ was His deter- 
 mination not to be miraculous, but to live our ordinary life 
 amidst struggles and in the face of temptations that never 
 ceased.' Ib. p. 354. 'The miraculous action of Christ is 
 distinguished by what can only be called miraculous modera- 
 tion. His abstention from the use of His power is even 
 more remarkable than His exercise of it.' Id. Studies in the 
 Life of Christ, p. 1 60. ' He was never untimely, extrava- 
 gant, or ungracious in the exercise of His supernatural gifts. 
 They were never used on His own behalf. He had power 
 above nature but He lived under the laws and within the 
 limits she sets for all her sons.' Ib. p. 161.
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 203 
 
 Divine, as we shall go on to prove that He was so 
 regarded. 1 
 
 Another method of meeting and disposing of 
 the evidence for the miracles of Christ is to assign 
 them to the mythopoeic faculty, which, it is 
 asserted, was a characteristic of His own and of 
 
 14 The theory of Strauss that the narratives of miracles 
 are a mythology spun by the disciples out of their expecta- 
 tion (based on the predictions of the Old Testament and the 
 example of the prophets), that the Messiah would be a 
 Miracle-worker, is refuted by the answer that, if there were 
 no actual miracles, the disciples themselves would not have 
 believed in Him. Strauss can give no answer to this 
 difficulty which does not refute his own hypothesis.' 
 Fisher, Grounds ofTheistlc and Christian Belief, p. 163. The 
 same refutation is applicable to the theory of Cheyne 
 (Bible Problems, p. iioff.) that the myths of Ishtar, Osiris, 
 Isis, Adonis, etc., becoming current first among Jews and 
 afterwards among Jewish Christians, formed the basis of the 
 Gospel narratives of the Resurrection of our Lord. If the 
 event itself had not taken place, there would have been no 
 belief on the part of the disciples to account for their 
 narratives. But all schools of criticism admit the existence 
 of the Resurrection belief. The mythical explanation, 
 therefore, falls to the ground. Cf. Salmon, The Human 
 Element in the Gospels, p. 323. ' Strauss's own hypothesis 
 has certainly now outlived its day of popularity ; and more 
 recent critics have not had more success, who have hoped 
 to reach the same results by different roads . . . These 
 attempts . . . provoke the remark how much ingenuity can 
 be combined with a wonderful lack of common sense.'
 
 204 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the preceding ages. Two considerations are fatal 
 to this view. One is the fact that the first century 
 of the Christian era was a period, in which critical 
 insight and learning played a far greater part in 
 thought than is commonly supposed. 1 The New 
 Testament writers themselves frequently show 
 traces of this temper. It was an age of great his- 
 torians. 2 The intellectual atmosphere of the time 
 was unfavourable to the origin and propagation 
 of myth. Then, when we turn to the miraculous 
 narratives themselves, the phenomena which they 
 exhibit give no support to the theory of a mytho- 
 poeic source. The mode of insertion of the 
 narratives of miracles in the text of the Gospels is 
 eminently natural. The miracles are there, not 
 for their own sake, but as part of the story which 
 would be incomplete without them. 3 There is 
 entire absence of anything which looks like inven- 
 
 1 * It is an age of great intellectual activity and even of 
 scepticism (cf. Pilate).' Christlieb, Moderner Zweifel am 
 Chnstlichen Glauben, p. 403, E.T. 
 
 2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who died B.C. 7, Pausanias 
 (the Geographer), Livy, the elder Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius. 
 
 8 ' In our Gospels the most disputed narratives are bound 
 up with definite localities . . . they figure on the ground 
 of recognised historical relations.' Weiss, Leben Jesu, i. 
 
 P. 153.
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 205 
 
 tion : nor is there to be found the slightest indica- 
 tion of a desire to dramatise incidents, or to invest 
 them with a poetic character. Considering the 
 tendency, natural to the Eastern mind, to richness 
 of diction, the miraculous narratives of the Gospels 
 appear bare and literal to a degree. There is no 
 sign of any attempt to construct a myth. When 
 we find something which, on account of its 
 miraculous element, might be objected to as 
 ' mythical,' it always appears to be based on the 
 conviction that the description is accurate, and 
 we feel that the miraculous element is needed to 
 account for the plain facts which are included in 
 the record of the result. In other words, the 
 natural and the ' supernatural ' elements of the 
 story are complementary. Together they form a 
 connected whole. 
 
 To some minds, the apparent resemblance be- 
 tween the Gospel miracles and certain incidents of 
 legendary history constitutes a difficulty. But the 
 mere fact of the resemblance is no indication that 
 the former are on the same historic plane as the 
 latter. It may be accounted for in several ways. 
 A truth of the spiritual world, such as those 
 which underlie so many of the Gospel miracles, 
 has a certain character of universality. It is to
 
 206 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 be met with in other connections and under totally 
 different circumstances. Nor does the presence of 
 myth in one set of incidents prove the existence 
 of the same in another set, which bears some 
 resemblance to the first. The Gospel miracles 
 are not thus to be discredited. But there is one 
 consideration, which is quite fatal to a comparison 
 between the miracles of the Gospel and those with 
 which the legendary history of many peoples 
 abounds. The mythical elements in the stories 
 of heroes and other legendary personages have 
 grown up round their forms in the process of 
 time. Whereas, the Gospel conception of our 
 Lord's Person and His acts was formed by con- 
 temporaries and those who had conversed with 
 them. It is certain that an exalted estimate of 
 Him obtained within a year of His earthly life. 
 It has been worked out in detail subsequently and 
 has been made the basis of dogma. It has not 
 been added to. 1 
 
 1 To get time for the growth of myth as an explanation 
 of the Gospel history, Strauss and the Tubingen School 
 each transferred the composition of our Gospels to a period 
 far within the second century. But the facts do not permit 
 this proceeding. The early (more or less coinciding with 
 the traditional) dates of the composition of the Gospels are 
 now fully admitted by the most competent critics. That
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 207 
 
 It has been alleged that the need of the fulfil- 
 ment of Messianic expectations has given rise to 
 narratives containing supernatural elements ; that 
 the demand for a miracle-working Messiah created 
 the Gospel story with its miracles. But as Weiss 
 has shown, 1 no such detailed conception of the 
 Messiah as this theory presupposes had any 
 existence in the times immediately preceding our 
 Lord's appearance upon earth. Not only so, but 
 the disciples, following His own example, had to 
 part with many of the features which went to 
 form the popular conception of the Messiah. If 
 we look closely at the Gospel narratives, we shall 
 find no sign of the working of any miracle on 
 behalf of Messianic fulfilment. 2 
 
 Strauss s has endeavoured to find an explanation 
 for the insertion of miracles into the Gospel, in 
 
 fact effectually bars the way to the mythical interpretation 
 of their contents, v. Weiss, Leben Jesu, i. pp. 154, 5. 
 
 1 Op. cit. i. p. 147. 
 
 2 The expression 'that the prophecy might be fulfilled,' 
 when used in conjunction with, or in reference to, the 
 recital of a miracle, in no way invalidates the evidence for 
 it. As Gardner remarks (Exploratio Evangelica, p. 155), 
 ' It would be absurd to assume that a recorded event of 
 Gospel history did not take place merely because it con- 
 formed to prophecy.' 
 
 3 Leben Jesu, 1840, ii. pp. 423, 439 etc., E.T.
 
 208 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the transfer of incidents from the lives of Old 
 Testament men of God to the history of Jesus. 
 But it has been pointed out 1 that, although the 
 sacred narratives of the Old Testament would 
 naturally hover before the minds of the Evangelists, 
 when they began to fix in writing the Gospel 
 narrative, yet there is no sign of any imitation or 
 copying. Strauss can only get instances to illus- 
 trate his theory by combining incidents arbitrarily 
 collected out of different Old Testament narratives. 
 Now, it is evident that the occurrence of a 
 miracle wrought by our Lord can no more be 
 demonstrated than that of any other event in 
 the distant past. It cannot compel assent from 
 a mind which sees, in the orderly and accus- 
 tomed sequences of nature, a more sure evidence 
 
 1 v. Weiss, op. clt. i. p. 148. P. Gardner (Exploratio 
 Evangelica, p. 230) after quoting 2 Kings iv. 42 ft", remarks : 
 ' This narrative was familiar to those who wrote the Gospels, 
 and it would make them ready to receive any report of 
 similar miracles as wrought by Jesus.' To imagine that the 
 full and circumstantial evidence of the Feeding of the 
 5000, reported by all four Evangelists, closely connected 
 as it is with historic incidents of the deepest moment in 
 Christ's life (v. Jo. vi. 15), can be set aside by quoting a 
 supposed parallel from the history of Elisha, is to take a 
 very light view of the task set before historical criticism. 
 Few will agree with Gardner in thinking that * the position 
 has been turned' by such a device.
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 209 
 
 of the power and love of God than in any 
 single, isolated acts of a 'supernatural' character. 
 Nor can it gain credence from one whose 
 position obliges him to refuse belief to a 
 miracle, on the ground that no amount of 
 human testimony can be alleged, which is 
 sufficient to prove the occurrence of so excep- 
 tional and unique a phenomenon ; one which, 
 moreover, seems to destroy our confidence in 
 the steady, undeviating operation of natural 
 laws, and would therefore be detrimental, rather 
 than advantageous, to the true interests of 
 humanity in the long run. Let it be freely 
 admitted that miracles are signs to those who 
 believe, not to those who come to their con- 
 sideration under the influence of adverse pre- 
 suppositions. We have our Lord's own authority 
 to make such an admission. 1 
 
 But the maintenance of such an attitude 
 cannot be considered satisfactory, whether intel- 
 lectually or spiritually. Miracles come to us 
 
 1 Lu. xvi. 31. Cf. K. Miiller, Unser Herr, 1906, p. 13. 
 ' Jesus has performed miracles not to awaken, but to 
 strengthen faith (Mk. vi. 5, viii. 1 1 ff.) : they serve to 
 prove that faith in the living God and in the Lord 
 Whom He has appointed is not mere fancy, but reality : 
 but faith in itself has deeper roots.' 
 
 O
 
 210 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 in the Gospel narrative on evidence which, on 
 the admission of such a critic as Bousset, 1 
 cannot be set aside : and it is allowed that 
 the question is one of evidence. The challenge 
 cannot be evaded by taking refuge in a pre- 
 supposition, which has neither science nor 
 philosophy to recommend it. 2 From a spiritual 
 point of view, such an attitude is equally unsatis- 
 factory. To refuse assent to the Gospel narra- 
 tive when it reports the miraculous, while 
 accepting the account of His teaching, is to 
 receive a Christ mutilated in life and character, 
 bereft of one all important means of revealing 
 the Divine Love, and of emphasizing and proving 
 the authority of His teaching. The word and 
 the work went together. They are interwoven 
 in all the most certain records of Christ that 
 have come down to us. We cannot dispense 
 with the one and keep the other. ' To separate 
 between the natural and supernatural in Mark 
 is purely arbitrary, for the supernatural is part 
 of his history.' 8 If the preaching of the Gospel 
 
 1 v. supra, p. 1 96. 2 v. above, p. 1 90. 
 
 8 ' Eine Scheidung zwischen Natttrlichem und Uber- 
 nattirlichem bei Markus ist WillkUr, well das UbernatUr- 
 liche bei ihm zur Geschichte gehOrt.' A. Schweitzer, 
 Von Reimarus zu Wrede, p. 305.
 
 MIRACULOUS POWER 211 
 
 to the poor was, on our Lord's own showing, 
 one of the convincing proofs of His Messiah- 
 ship, so was His raising of the dead. 1 A vain 
 enthusiast, who should boast of powers he never 
 possessed, would have no Gospel for the poor, 
 no message from God to man. A Christ 
 stripped of His power to heal, restore and bless 
 is not the Christ of the Gospels. His form is 
 but a shadowy abstraction, unknown to history 
 and to Christian experience. ' Jesus has worked 
 enough and to spare of miracles which no 
 criticism can touch, but the greatest of all 
 miracles is Himself.' 2 
 
 1 Matt. xi. 5 ; Lu. vii. 22. 
 
 2 Earth, Die Hauptprobleme da Lebens Jesu, p. 142, 
 * Jesus hat genug der Wunder getan, an welche keine 
 Kritik hinanreicht, und das grosste aller Wunder ist er 
 selber.' Compare A. Meyer, Die Auferstehung, 1905, 
 p. 3 : ' Zwar widerspricht eine Auferstehung aller Ubrigen 
 Erfahrung : aber es kOnnte doch bei einer ausser-ordent- 
 lichen Pers5nlichkeit einmal etwas ausser-ordentliches ge- 
 schehen sein.* ' No doubt a resurrection contradicts all 
 experience: but in the case of an extraordinary Personality, 
 something extraordinary may happen.'
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE WITNESS OF THE SACRAMENTS 
 
 AMONG the certainties l of the Gospel tradition 
 is the fact that, on the eve of His death, Christ 
 instituted the Sacrament of His Body and 
 Blood. Our authority for its continuance, as a 
 standing rite of the Church, is partly derived 
 from St. Paul. 2 A portion of the Western text 
 of St. Luke xxii. omits vv. ig } \ 20. If they were 
 not in the original text yet, as Dr. Sanday has 
 pointed out, the words were certainly inserted at 
 a very early date, and therefore bear witness to 
 the practice of the primitive Church. 3 Besides, 
 
 1 v. Beyschlag in Knowling, Witness of the Epistles, 
 p. 97. 
 
 2 i Cor. xi. 24, 25. v, Hastings, 'D.B. ii. pp. 636, 638. 
 
 3 If St. Paul is the only original authority for the 
 command of continuance, we may be certain that he 
 would not have ' delivered ' it to the Christian Church 
 (l Cor. xi. 23) if he was not in harmony with the rest
 
 THE WITNESS OF THE SACRAMENTS 213 
 
 in the Acts, we have the clearest evidence to 
 the fact that ' the breaking of the bread ' was 
 the chief object of the meeting of the members 
 of the Community on the Lord's Day. 1 But 
 as regards the words and manner of the institu- 
 tion itself (apart from provision for its con- 
 tinuance) we have full Synoptic evidence, besides 
 that of St. Paul. For our present purpose, we 
 
 of Apostolic teaching and practice upon this point. 
 Justin Martyr distinctly says that ' the Apostles, in the 
 memoirs produced by them which are called Gospels, 
 related that Jesus gave them this command ; that is to 
 say, having taken bread and given thanks He said, " This 
 do in remembrance of Me ; this is My body," ' etc. {Apol. 
 i. 66). Justin must have either read these words in St. 
 Luke, or have had access to some other primitive source 
 which referred the words to the Gospel narrative, v. 
 Plummer in Hastings 2)./?. iii. p. 147. 
 
 x Acts xx. 7. Cf. ii. 42, the technical term for 
 the Eucharist. v. Salmon, The Human Element in the 
 Gospels, pp. 492 ff. : 'I must reject as unfounded the 
 suspicions that have been raised as to the genuineness of 
 the section from TO virep vp-iav SiSopevov (Lk. xxii. 19) 
 to the end of verse 20. The MS. evidence for the 
 words is overwhelming, the Eastern testimony for them 
 being unanimous and the Western testimony being 
 divided ... It is no reason for suspecting these verses 
 that they correspond closely with St. Paul's account of the 
 institution of the Eucharist in 1st Corinthians. Why 
 should they not correspond ? '
 
 214 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 need only ask what is their bearing upon cur 
 conception of the Person of Christ. 
 
 The main idea conveyed by the words and 
 acts of the institution is that of union of the 
 partaker with Christ. As nothing so clearly 
 and vividly represents union as eating and 
 drinking because that which is eaten and drunk 
 becomes, as sustenance, part of the body of the 
 consumer so this rite expresses and effects as 
 nothing else can, real, corporate union between 
 Christ and the Christian. But it should be 
 noticed how the significance of the matter is 
 heightened by its correspondence with the prac- 
 tices of other creeds. In all great ethnic religions, 
 the partaking of the sacrifice offered to the god 
 formed a chief part of the worship. The idea 
 underlying this custom was that of securing 
 unity with the deity. When then we find our 
 Lord, on the eve of His atoning death, estab- 
 lishing a practice emblematic of the closest 
 union between Himself and His disciples, we 
 see in it the true realisation of an idea universal 
 in the human mind the need of man's union 
 with his God. At least, we are strongly reminded 
 of such a conception. What must be the Per- 
 sonality of One Who, at such a crisis in His
 
 THE WITNESS OF THE SACRAMENTS 215 
 
 career, could act in a manner so suggestive of 
 the deepest underlying idea of all religions ? 
 Would our Lord have so acted if there had not 
 been in Him something more than humanity? 
 The reverence with which the sacrament has 
 been regarded, from New Testament times to 
 the present day, is itself a strong indication of 
 its sanctity and a tribute to the Person of its 
 Founder. 
 
 The evidence afforded by the existence of the 
 other great sacrament that of Baptism is equally 
 significant. As regards its institution, our means 
 of information are far less than in the case of the 
 Holy Communion. The only Gospel account 1 is 
 that of St. Matthew xxviii. 19, and that passage 
 has been much disputed. It has been thought 
 to contain too advanced and definite an expres- 
 sion of Trinitarian doctrine to be other than a 
 late insertion. 
 
 Nor can we bring St. John iv. i, 2 to support 
 it as evidence for the existence of full Christian 
 
 x The appendix to St. Mark contains an allusion to the 
 same incident (xvi. 15-17), 6 TrwrTevcras KCU /3a7TTio-0eis 
 (ra>6^(TTai. ' There is nothing here which is not consistent 
 with St. Matthew's version of the story or with the general 
 teaching of the New Testament.' Swete, The Appearances 
 of our Lord after the Passion, p. 78.
 
 216 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Baptism, during our Lord's Ministry. At the 
 time indicated, there was no such condition of 
 things as would admit of Baptism in our Lord's 
 Name. As practised with His approval, it was 
 clearly similar to that of John the Baptist. 1 
 For, if the time had been ripe for Christian 
 Baptism in the full sense, the preparatory rite 
 of the Baptist that of Repentance would itself 
 have ceased to be performed. It would have 
 been recognised that the Kingdom had come, 
 and that the time of preparation was over. 
 But this was not the case ; 2 and the fact that 
 the baptism of John continued side by side with 
 that of the disciples of Christ, shows that in 
 substance the two rites were identical. But if 
 
 1 * If not identical with the baptism of John, it would 
 be more akin to that than to Christian baptism. It was 
 preparatory and not perfecting, symbolical and not sacra- 
 mental.' (Plummer in Hastings D.B. i. p. 240.) 
 
 2 St. Mark (i. 14, 15) tells us that the early preaching of 
 Christ was of the same character and substance as that of 
 the Baptist. It was the warning that the Kingdom of God 
 was at hand, and it concluded with the same call to repent- 
 ance. Until the kingdom was actually established, by the 
 death and resurrection of the Lord and the consequent 
 outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Christian Baptism the rite 
 of entry into it would have been premature. Cf. Tertull. 
 de Eapt. cc. x-xii.
 
 THE WITNESS OF THE SACRAMENTS 217 
 
 the actual institution of Christian Baptism cannot 
 be pointed to, or its exact date determined, on 
 evidence as full and complete as that of the 
 institution of the other sacrament, we are at 
 once confronted by the fact of its actual exist- 
 ence and use, in the earliest period of the Church's 
 life after Pentecost. It is Baptism into the Name 
 of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but it is 
 referred to as Baptism into the Name of the 
 Lord Jesus. 1 If its use was thus early and 
 general, as the slightest examination of the facts 
 will show, it is certain that it must have come 
 into being under the highest sanction. If St. 
 Matthew xxviii. 19 is cast in a form which has 
 no support from other sayings of our Lord in 
 the Synoptic Gospels and, so far as its Trini- 
 tarian expression is concerned, suggests later 
 theological interpretation of the mind of Christ, 
 
 1 Acts ii. 38, x, 48, xix. 5. Cf. Rom. vi. 3, Gal. iii. 27. 
 If the Triune Name was not at first employed in the act 
 of baptizing, the conception of the Father and of the Holy 
 Spirit would not be absent from the practice of the rite. Cf. 
 Tit. iii. 5, 'the washing of regeneration and renewing 
 of the Holy Ghost. 5 It is probable too that the term 
 ' Baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus ' early became 
 the distinguishing, abbreviated expression for Baptism in 
 the Threefold Name, as our term ' Christian Baptism ' is 
 at the present day.
 
 2i8 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 rather than a report of His actual words ; yet 
 it is certain, from what we see of the prevalence 
 of the baptismal rite, that behind it must have 
 been some such direct command and authority 
 as are to be found in this passage. If so, we 
 can imagine no occasion more opportune for 
 its promulgation, than that of His bestowal of 
 Mission upon the assembled Apostles, as here 
 recorded by St. Matthew. The presence of a 
 gloss l if gloss it be should not affect our 
 
 1 The Trinitarian formula ei's TO ovopa. TOV Tlarpos KO.I 
 TOV Ylov /cat TOU 'Aytou H^tu/ia-ros stands in the text of 
 all MSS. It has been shown by Professor Rttrdam of 
 Copenhagen (in Hibbert Journal, July, 1905, p. 781), 
 that in all probability the passage Matt, xxviii. 16-20 
 formed part of the lost ending of St. Mark's Gospel. If 
 so, there was double attestation of the passage, and the 
 supposed reproach of its being a airag Xeyofievov would 
 be removed. The same view was taken in the same year 
 (1905) by Arnold Meyer in his 'Die Auferstehung Christi, 
 p. 28, also by Chase in The Journal of Theological Studies for 
 July, 1905, p. 482. Meyer says: 'Matthew follows Mark 
 in his narrative in everything essential step by step, often 
 almost word for word . . . Matthew goes right on where 
 our Mark ceases the guard does not come into considera- 
 tion with Mark : the eleven disciples repair to Galilee to 
 the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. There 
 Jesus appears and gives the commission to preach the gospel 
 to all peoples. Of this, what is essential could well have 
 stood in Mark ; the command answers, in simple form, to
 
 THE WITNESS OF THE SACRAMENTS 219 
 
 reception of the historical record of which it 
 forms a part. And it is the belief of the 
 Church from the first, that Baptism originated 
 
 the promise, Mark xiii. 10.' All that can be said against 
 the formula in v. 19 is that it possibly belongs to a 
 later stratum of theological thought, and that the fact of 
 its having a theological tinge excludes it from the sayings 
 of Christ. It is alleged that He nowhere employs such 
 an expression. But, as Sanday has pointed out, Hastings 
 "D.B. iv. p. 574, 'The combination (of Father and Son) 
 is proved to have been in common use less than twenty- 
 five years after the command (Matt, xxviii. 19) is said to 
 have been given, and the complete Triad is proved to 
 have been recognised very little later (Pauline Epistles, 
 etc.).' The passage, therefore, is not only of good MS. 
 authority, but is supported by the fact that conceptions of 
 the same character obtained in the Church within a few 
 years of the period to which it refers. This fact is a 
 sufficient answer to the contention of Harnack, who bases 
 his opinion that our Lord never uttered the words 
 ( f Dogmengeschichte, i. p. 79, E.T.), partly on the plea that 
 the formula did not possess the authority in the Apostolic 
 age which it would have had, if it had proceeded from 
 Christ Himself. Besides, it is inconceivable that St. Paul 
 should have so soon and so boldly co-ordinated the expressions 
 ' Father, Son and Holy Spirit ' without authority of the 
 highest kind. Some such saying as that of Matt, xxviii. 19 
 is required to account for the historic circumstances of the 
 time. It is given in the present passage as having been 
 uttered by our Lord immediately before His Ascension. It 
 suffices for a basis for Apostolic expressions and practice, 
 and affords sanction for much that we find in the thought
 
 220 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 as a Christian sacrament in the actual institution 
 of Christ Himself. That belief in connection 
 with a matter of such universal obligation is 
 itself, an evidence of the strongest character. 
 
 What is its significance as regards the Person 
 of Christ? First, it may be replied that the 
 
 of primitive Christianity. Cf. Plummer in Hastings 'D.B. 
 i. p. 242 ; Chase, Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1905 ; 
 Mason, in Cambridge Theological Essays, p. 456, note. 
 A. Meyer is not historically justified in saying * Doch lasst 
 sichleichtzeigen, dass die Gestalt die er (i.e. der Taufbefehl) 
 gerade in diesem Evangelium hat, nicht aus der apostolischen 
 Zeit stammt, sondern viel spaterer Herkunft ist.' 'Die 
 Auferstehung Christi, p. 151. Chase (pp. cit. p. 479) says : 
 'The attestation of Matt, xxviii. 19 can only be described 
 as overwhelming ' ; and again : ' The whole evidence 
 such, I believe, must be the verdict of scientific criticism 
 establishes without a shadow of doubt or uncertainty the 
 genuineness of Matt, xxviii. 19'; and (p. 512) 'There is 
 no reason to question that in Matt, xxviii. 19 we have 
 the substance of words actually spoken by the risen Lord.' 
 Cf. Kirn, Art. 'Trinitat' in Real-Encyclop. fttr prot. Theologie 
 und Kirche, Bd. xx, 1908, p. 114, 'There is no doubt that 
 in this passage, the belief of the Christian community in 
 God is designated with unmistakable clearness. . . . This 
 brief resume of the Christian Faith has become the founda- 
 tion and type of the later baptismal confession.' Cf. 
 ' Didache',' vii. 10, which, according to Lightfoot-Harmer, 
 The Apostolic Fathers, p. 216, is to be assigned to the 
 first, or the beginning of the second century A.D. v. infra, 
 p. 259.
 
 THE WITNESS OF THE SACRAMENTS 221 
 
 baptismal formula co-ordinates Him with the 
 Father, a position inconceivable in the case of 
 any created being. The first Christians were 
 Jews. What must have been the conception 
 which they formed of Christ, to justify their 
 combining His Name with that of the Eternal 
 Father, in the initiatory rite of the new faith ! 
 How could they have arrived at the concep- 
 tion, if it did not correspond with Christ's 
 expressed or tacit acknowledgment of the truth 
 of His Personality ? Every hereditary instinct, 
 as well as every page of their ancient Scrip- 
 tures, would struggle in their minds against 
 the admission of such a thought. Nothing less 
 than the force of truth, irresistible and com- 
 pelling, could have given them the assurance 
 which led to their change of view, and induced 
 them to place the name of their Master in the 
 some category as that of Jehovah. 
 
 Then, secondly, the form of thought implied 
 in Baptism obliges us to conceive of Christ as 
 more than man. The expression ' into Christ,' 
 or ' into the Name of Christ,' implies a rela- 
 tionship which is transcendental. No footing 
 of duty or respect as between man and man, 
 no tie between Master and disciple, can account
 
 222 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 for the peculiar connection expressed in the 
 baptismal formula. 1 The institution of Baptism 
 by Christ, taken together with the mode of its 
 practice and interpretation by the primitive 
 community, points to something which is tran- 
 scendental in His Person. 
 
 1 Cf. the explanations of it given in the Pauline Epistles 
 and in the Acts: 'baptized into Christ,' 'baptized into His 
 death,' ' buried with Christ by baptism.'
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 SINLESSNESS. JUDGMENT 
 
 WHEN we look closely into our Lord's bearing, 
 we are at once struck with the absence of one 
 quality which we always associate with loftiness 
 and purity of character. There is no sign of 
 self-depreciation, or of that feeling of personal 
 unworthiness which has been a characteristic 
 of so many of the greatest men. Of humility 
 and modesty there is abundant proof. As 
 regards outward circumstances, He was always 
 willing to take the lowest place. ' He came 
 not to be ministered unto, but to minister.' 
 ' He humbled Himself and became obedient unto 
 death.' He accepted without a murmur the place 
 between two thieves which the world assigned 
 to Him. But, with all this humility, there is no 
 sign of a sense of moral or spiritual deficiency ; 
 no trace of that want of correspondence between
 
 224 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 aim and result which the noblest of men have 
 ever experienced ' To will is present with me, 
 but how to perform that which is good I find 
 not.' * Hence there is no feeling of discord to 
 mar the serenity of His bearing. 2 In the 
 
 1 Rom. vii. 1 8. 
 
 2 ' Why callest thou Me good ? There is none good 
 but One, that is, God.' Mk. x. i8 = Matt. xix. 17, 
 Lu. xviii. 19, has been strangely misunderstood. The 
 passage has been taken to imply repudiation of goodness 
 on the part of our Lord. His meaning was something 
 quite different. Goodness in its perfect, absolute, sense 
 is the property of God alone. As H. J. Holtzmann says 
 (Das Messianische Betvusstsein Jesu, 1907, p. 82): 'He 
 forbids the address ' Good Master ' because it would mean 
 an invasion of the exclusive prerogative of God.' That 
 is, from the ruler's defective knowledge. But so far from 
 rejecting the address of the young ruler as inapplicable 
 to Himself, He rather concentrates the man's attention 
 upon the real meaning of his words, as apart from any 
 mere approach of courtesy or politeness. He draws his 
 thoughts to Himself. The reply may be compared with 
 such questions as 'Whom do men say that I am?' 
 (Mk. viii. 27). 'What think ye of Christ?' (Matt. xxii. 
 42). Goodness is a Divine quality. Our Lord would test 
 the meaning of the ruler's address. He must consider 
 what his words imply, and to Whom he is speaking. 
 But whatever our interpretation of the passage, that is 
 certainly wrong which tries to fasten upon our Lord's 
 words a repudiation of His own sinlessness. Cf. e.g. 
 Pfleiderer, Die Entftehung det Christentums, p. 94, who
 
 SINLESS1VJ5SS. JUDGMENT 225 
 
 criticisms and rebukes which He distributes so 
 freely, as He looks round about Him, He never 
 includes Himself. With unmatched insight He 
 reads every character that appears before Him. 
 His ' word is quick and powerful.' He is 
 unsparing. His are the sternest of all sayings 
 recorded in Scripture. He shows no mercy to 
 certain states of heart. We get some indication 
 of what is implied in those tremendous words, 
 ' the wrath of the Lamb.' And when we turn 
 from the trembling objects of His denunciation, 
 and ask who is this who so unsparingly rebukes 
 sin, we find that He speaks as one apart. There 
 is entire aloofness in His attitude. It is clear 
 that between the Reprover and the reproved 
 there is an impassable gulf. The sins which He 
 denounces are without Himself. Deeply as He 
 feels for sinners, there is nothing in common 
 between Himself and them, where the sin is 
 
 characteristically remarks : ' Jesus has in noble humility 
 declined the attribution of moral perfection ; He has 
 replied to the address, " Good Master," " Why callest thou 
 Me good? None is good but God" (Mk. x. 18).' But 
 where is the humility in refusing what He had no right 
 to ? Common honesty would suffice in such a case ! 
 There is the same misunderstanding of the passage in 
 K. Weidel's pamphlet, Jesu Personlichkeit, 1908. 
 
 p
 
 226 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 concerned. When He speaks of evil, He cannot 
 draw upon His own experience. ' The Prince of 
 this world cometh and hath nothing in Me.' l 
 He is untouched by what He rebukes, as is the 
 sun, by the foulness on which its beams may 
 chance to rest. ' For Him, all men are sinners ; 
 He has no wounded conscience. They need 
 repentance and forgiveness ; He does not.' z 
 Here is something which marks Him off from 
 friends and foes as unique. ' He stands before 
 us unattainable.' 3 He alone can fling out to 
 friends and foes alike, without fear that it will 
 be taken up, the great challenge, ' Which of you 
 convinceth Me of sin ? ' If ' to err is human,' 
 inerrancy must point to that in Christ which is 
 more than human. 
 
 But Christ's attitude towards sin comprehended 
 much more than indignation against it and rebuke 
 
 1 Jo. xiv. 30. Except of course by way of temptation. 
 Evil when presented to Him remained outside of His 
 will. It only becomes sin when it is harboured and 
 consented to. The terror and evil of sin were known 
 to Him as to none else, as we see from the story of the 
 Passion ; but His inner life remained untouched. There 
 was no sin in Him. 
 
 2 v. Soden, Die toichtigsten Fragen, p. 91. 
 
 3 Bousset, Jesus, p. 72.
 
 SJNLESSNESS. JUDGMENT 227 
 
 of the sinner. His love for man allowed Him to 
 make no terms with man's greatest foe, and 
 when the sinner was indifferent to, or even 
 gloried in, his sin, that same love impelled Him 
 to language which seems at times to identify 
 the sinner with his sin. 1 For love is always true 
 and strong. Like the surgeon's knife, it often 
 has to wound in order to heal. But where even 
 the slightest sign of repudiation of sin, of desire 
 of amendment, of sense of guilt, appeared, then, 
 with an affecting eagerness, a very abandon 
 of tenderness, the Saviour stepped forth. The 
 Reprover absolves. The sinner stands before Him 
 in all his wretchedness and need. With a word 
 the sin is made to disappear. ' I have blotted 
 out as a thick cloud thy transgressions and as 
 a cloud thy sins.' 2 The prophetic promise is 
 realised to the letter. ' Jesus said unto the sick 
 of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.' 8 
 When bystanders are aghast, as well they might 
 be, at the claim implied in such words, saying, 
 
 1 Cf. the rebuke to Peter, Afytoi/, "Yiraye oiricria pov 
 Sarara, Mk. viii. 33, and the language employed towards 
 Pharisees. 
 
 2 Is. xliv. 22. 
 
 3 From ' Petrine ' Mark ii. 5 = Matt. ix. 2, Lu. v. 20, 
 v. supra, p. 31.
 
 228 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 ' Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies ? 
 Who can forgive sins but God only ? ' there is 
 no withdrawal, or explanation, forthcoming on 
 the part of Christ : but He gives a sign, by a 
 miracle of healing, that He, the Son of Man, 
 has the power which His words imply, and that, 
 as God Himself whose only prerogative it is to 
 forgive, He can absolve the sinner from his sin/ 
 There is the same claim, and He takes up the 
 same attitude, in the house of Simon. 1 To the 
 ' woman which was a sinner,' when He saw 
 the proof of her love and of an awakening faith, 
 He said those simple words of Divine authority 
 which were registered in heaven, while they were 
 being spoken on earth ; ' Thy sins are forgiven.' 
 There is the same wondering comment : ' Who 
 is this that even forgiveth sins ? ' the same 
 steadfast, undeviating attitude on His part ; no 
 reply to the questioning of the people, but to 
 the woman the added benediction, ' Go in peace.' 
 If the source of this power which is claimed 
 by Christ be inquired after, there is but one 
 reply adequate to all the circumstances contained 
 in the Gospel narratives. It did not lie in the 
 fact of His own sinlessness. Innocence is power, 
 1 Luke vii. 48.
 
 SINLESSNESS. JUDGMENT 229 
 
 no doubt, but not such as that which is implied 
 in the forgiveness of the sins of others. Purity 
 can influence. It cannot command. It can lead 
 and attract. It cannot occupy the seat of the 
 Judge. Nor did the power lie in any principle 
 of delegation, such as that which Christ Himself 
 gave to the Apostles, that they might bind and 
 loose in His Name. He does not speak as a 
 delegate or representative of the Father, ' because 
 the forgiveness of sins, though essentially a 
 divine prerogative, may be sometimes exercised 
 by man.' 1 If that had been His position in the 
 two cases referred to, He would not have allowed 
 the incidents to close with a misunderstanding. 
 The bystanders considered that He was speaking 
 the language, and asserting the prerogative, of 
 God ; and He the man Christ Jesus suffered 
 them to think so. Why ? Because they were 
 right in the principle they laid down, though 
 wrong as to its application. He Who could law- 
 fully speak thus was, to use an expression of 
 v. Soden, 2 (though employed by him in another 
 
 1 Gardner, Exploratio Evangelica, p. 188. 
 
 2 Die wichtigiten Fragen im Leben Jesu, p. 9 1 . * Er sich 
 mit Gott auf die eine und die Menschen auf die andere 
 Seite stellt.'
 
 230 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 connection) placing Himself ' on the side of God.' 
 The source of His power, and of what gave 
 His claim validity, was that in Him which was 
 Divine. 1 
 
 Closely allied with His claim to forgive sins, 
 is our Lord's assumption of the office of Judge. 
 The penetrating gaze, which He directed on the 
 hearts of men whom He met in the days of 
 His flesh, here condemning and there forgiving, 
 will one day be directed upon every member of 
 the human race, with the result that to each 
 will be apportioned his proper destiny. The 
 Son of Man will return as Judge. ' It seems 
 impossible to deny not only that Jesus pre- 
 dicted His own return, but that this expectation 
 was an important element in His own Messianic 
 
 1 Christ's manner of dealing with the woman taken in 
 adultery is, as Westcott remarks, (additional note on St. 
 Jo. viii. I- 1 2), akin to the tone of the common Synoptic 
 basis. If the incident formed no original part of St. John's 
 Gospel, it commends itself as resting on good tradition. 
 Our Lord does not, as in the cases we have been dealing 
 with, pronounce forgiveness, but He abstains from con- 
 demnation, and utters a final warning against repetition 
 of the sin. 
 
 2 Adams Brown in Hastings D.B. iii. p. 680. 'This 
 coming is by Christ Himself associated with the end of
 
 S/NLESSNESS. JUDGMENT 231 
 
 the evidence for this statement. Our Lord's 
 eschatological discourses and many of His 
 parables abound in allusion to His return to 
 
 the age and the day of final judgment.' Ib. p. 677. 
 ' Other doctrines are based on detached texts, this on 
 whole chapters and on great sections of that Common 
 Tradition which is perhaps the most primitive part of the 
 Gospels.' Gardner, Exploratio Evangelica, p. 278. But he 
 goes on to quote Harnack (Dogmengeschichte i. p. 101, 
 E.T.) with approval : ' In the matter of eschatology no 
 one can say what sayings come from Christ and what 
 from the disciples,' a remark which is not borne out by 
 the evidence. It is in the parables and sayings descriptive 
 of the end of the age, that perhaps the most characteristic 
 of all the recorded teachings of our Lord may be found. 
 ' Expunge the eschatological sayings from the Gospels . . . 
 and one of the great formative influences in the history 
 of Christian life and character is to be traced not to the 
 mind of Christ, but to the after-thought of disciples.' 
 Streatfield, The Self-Interpretation of Jesus Christ, p. 164. 
 And Dr. Gardner admits (op. clt. p. 283) that ' the majority 
 of recent critics regard it as almost indisputable that He 
 did give utterance to such predictions.' He does not 
 represent the view of thoughtful Christian people when he 
 says : (p. 286) 'The bodily coming of Christ in the clouds 
 has become to us a fanciful notion ;' and again : ' The vision 
 of a great final judgment . . . now seems to us to be 
 an image only.' An actual, visible * return ' of Christ, 
 followed by the final apportionment of his future lot to 
 every member of the human race, is a fixed point in the 
 belief of instructed Christian people of every school of 
 thought. In proportion to the sincerity with which this
 
 232 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the earth as Judge, and to the principles on 
 which He will exercise that tremendous office. 
 Not only is this conclusion to be drawn from 
 His own words, but the earliest Christian belief 
 and expectation pointed to the Lord's return, 
 and to His assumption of the office of Judge. 
 
 The first distinct promise of His return occurs 
 in our Lord's saying reported by ' Petrine' Mark 
 (viii. 38 and parallels). St. Matthew 1 adds the 
 reason for judgment : ' Then shall He reward 
 every man according to his works.' And it is 
 St. Matthew who records the great saying : 2 
 
 conviction is held, is the strength and seriousness of the 
 individual character. And there is an alternative to be 
 faced. It is admitted that our Lord predicted His return 
 to Judgment. What could He be to us as Saviour and 
 Guide if, in so vital and far-reaching a matter as this, He 
 is found to be giving expression to idle, baseless dreams? 
 The case is one in which the difficulty created by the 
 attempt to explain away the meaning of the text is far 
 greater than that of its straightforward interpretation. 
 
 1 xvi. 27. St. Luke follows Mark more closely. 'These 
 passages are intertwined with much that is most characteristic 
 of the teaching of Jesus.' Gardner, ib. p. 280. 
 
 2 xxv. 31, 32, belonging, according to Allen (in /of.) to *Q'. 
 Harnack does not include the passage in ')' because it does 
 not form part of material common to Matthew and Luke. 
 He says, after conceding the possibility that Matt. xxii. 
 i-l I and xxv. 14-30 belong to *Q': * Everything else,
 
 SfWLESSNESS. JUDGMENT 
 
 ' When the Son of Man shall come in His glory 
 and all the holy angels with Him, then shall 
 He sit upon the throne of His glory : And before 
 Him shall be gathered all nations : and He shall 
 separate them one from another as a shepherd 
 divideth his sheep from the goats.' Here, as in 
 xvi. 27, we have the coming with the angels 
 coupled with the object for judgment. St. John 1 
 gives the remarkable explanation of the com- 
 mittal of the authority to judge, as made by 
 the Father to the Son ' because He is the Son 
 of Man.' 
 
 The Epistles of St. Paul and the Book of 
 Revelation abound in references to the Second 
 Coming of our Lord. There is no doubt that 
 Christian thought from the first was constantly 
 turning to the prospect of His return. If we ask 
 for the authority underlying this universal con- 
 viction, we can go back to nothing short of that 
 of Christ Himself. That alone could account for 
 the belief admitted by critics of every school 
 
 which still stands in Matthew, in the way of parables and 
 discourses, in the last chapters preceding the Passion, is 
 probably to be excluded from ' Q ' ; for every indication 
 that it belongs to it is wanting.' Beitrage zur Einleitung 
 in dai Neue Testament, ii. p. 129. 
 1 v. 22, 27.
 
 234 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 that the Saviour would sooner or later return as 
 the Judge. Can any prerogative be imagined 
 which more convincingly implies consciousness of 
 Divinity than this? If ever we have presented 
 to us alternatives from which there is no getting 
 away, it is here. We cannot avoid the conclusion 
 that the moral character of the Speaker stands 
 committed. There is either the calm assertion 
 of a great and solemn truth, or the inflated 
 language of mere self-delusion : and such delusion 
 passes from the intellectual to the moral sphere. 
 Here, indeed, we can say, ' Aut Deus, aut non 
 bonus homo.' 
 
 For, the exercise of judgment has always been 
 regarded as a peculiarly solemn office. When 
 called upon to determine the moral character of a 
 person, we feel that we are venturing out of our 
 depth. We go by external indications, and use 
 our experience of life ; but ever before us stands 
 a closed door. We cannot read the heart, or be 
 sure of the motives which have been at work. In 
 every civilized community the office of a Judge is 
 surrounded with respect. Nowhere is St. Paul 
 more emphatic than when he warns men against 
 unwarranted assumption of it. Strictly speaking, 
 we have neither the right nor the capacity to sit
 
 SfNLESSlVESS. JUDGMENT 235 
 
 in judgment upon one another : and if, for the 
 preservation of society, it has been found necessary 
 to set up a tribunal to decide between man and 
 man, there is always the tacit admission that 
 human judgments are not necessarily true or final 
 and that, behind the bar at which these tentative 
 and imperfect estimates are formed, stands the 
 throne of ' the Judge of all the earth.' 
 
 Christ has claimed to occupy that throne. He 
 has distinctly said that He will take upon Him- 
 self that ofiice, which for its right fulfilment, 
 requires the power to read the inmost heart, and 
 a knowledge which can command every detail of 
 the life ; which can determine motives and separate 
 their elements where mixed, as motives so often 
 are : and this, not in the case of a few here and 
 there, but at the great Assize, when every soul 
 that has ever lived will be haled before Him. 
 For ' we shall all stand before the judgment seat 
 of Christ.' l Thus does St. Paul meet and confirm 
 the Gospel tradition. 
 
 It is impossible, on any but arbitrary grounds, 
 to reject this claim of Christ. The evidence for 
 it is unimpeachable. It is admitted by the general 
 consent of the Apostolic Church. It means that 
 
 1 Rom. xiv. 10.
 
 236 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 He advanced, and His people received, the claim 
 to exercise a right which none but God Himself 
 can fulfil. 1 
 
 1 Speaking of the tendency (traceable from the time of 
 Daniel and the Similitudes of Enoch to the Gospel age), to 
 connect the office of Judge more and more with the 
 Messiah. Baldensperger remarks : 'The appointment of the 
 Anointed One to an office, which God had always retained, 
 denotes a decided approach of the Son of David, Who had 
 once been thought of merely as an earthly being, to God 
 Himself. It is an ascent from the throne of David to that 
 of God.' Da s Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, p. 1 20. In Old Testa- 
 ment prophecy generally, the office of Judge is conceived as 
 belonging to God alone. Cf. Charles, Expos, for 1902, 
 p. 258. 'As claims which are without any parallel in the 
 Old Testament prophecy of the Messiah, we should men- 
 tion first His claim to judge the world ; and next to forgive 
 sin ; and finally to be the Lord of life and death. In the 
 Old Testament these prerogatives belong to God alone as the 
 essential head of the Kingdom and appear in those pro- 
 phetic descriptions of the Kingdom which ignore the figure 
 of the Messiah and represent God as manifesting Himself 
 among men. Here, then, we have the Christ of the Gospels 
 claiming not only to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies of 
 the various ideals of the Messiah, but also to discharge the 
 functions of God Himself in relation to the Kingdom.'
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE RESURRECTION 
 
 IN studying the Personality of Christ, we have 
 to take into account the fact, admitted by critics 
 of all schools, that He was believed by His 
 disciples to have risen from the dead, and to have 
 given proof of His Resurrection by appearing to 
 them in Person. 1 It is not intended, in this 
 argument, to make our conception of Christ's 
 
 1 For evidence of this admission v. Schmiedel in Encyclop. 
 TSiblica, iv. p. 4061. 'Appearances of the risen Jesus did 
 actually occur i.e. the followers of Jesus really had the 
 impression of having seen Him.' Loisy, I'Evangile et 
 r 'Eglise, p. 1 1 9. ' Le fait des apparitions lui (i.e. to the 
 historian) semblera incontestable, mais il ne pourra en 
 preciser exactement la nature et la portee.' Ib. p. 120. 
 ' Quoique la critique puisse penser des difficultes et des 
 divergences que presentent les recits concernant la resurrec- 
 tion du Sauveur, il est incontestable que la foi des apotres a 
 etc excitee par les apparitions qui ont suivi la mort de Jesus, 
 et que les apotres, meme Saint Paul, n'ont pas eu 1'idee 
 d'une immortalite distincte de la resurrection corporelle.'
 
 238 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Person dependent in any way upon the fact of 
 His Resurrection ; as in our discussion of His 
 alleged miracles, we forebore to draw inferences 
 in that direction. 1 But though we do not appeal 
 to the Resurrection in order to establish our 
 position, we have to deal with the belief in it, 
 and with the results of that belief facts which 
 not only cannot be disputed, but which themselves 
 must be accounted for, among the phenomena 
 connected with the historic aspect of the Person- 
 ality of Christ. If, in answer to our demand for 
 an explanation of these facts, we receive one 
 which can be shown to be inadequate, we have 
 the right to press our opponents for the admission 
 that our own explanation, if not acceptable to 
 themselves, has a claim to be considered in the 
 study of Christ's Person. We are not to be 
 charged with begging the question if, in drawing 
 the portrait of our Lord, we go for colour, if not 
 for the main outline, to the evidence of men who 
 tell us, in all good faith, that they have seen the 
 Crucified in life again ; any more than St. Paul is 
 to be so charged, because he boldy asserts that 
 the Sonship of Jesus Christ has been defined 
 (6pi(r6evTO$) by His Resurrection. 2 
 
 1 v, supra, p. 1 86. 2 Rom. i. 4.
 
 THE RESURRECTION 239 
 
 What we claim is, not to base our argument 
 for the Divine being of Christ on a fact which our 
 opponents dispute, but to use, in enforcing our 
 view, the consideration that He was believed by 
 men of good faith and saneness of mind to have 
 appeared to them in actual life, more than once, 
 after His death. In other words, we assert that 
 His reputation that which was believed about 
 Him is one of the determining factors in form- 
 ing an estimate of His Person and Character ; 
 and if it can be shown that the course of history 
 can only be explained on the ground that His 
 followers from the first believed that He rose from 
 the dead, we have the right to demand for that 
 belief a hearing which shall do justice to its 
 intensity and power. 
 
 For, the process of forming a just representa- 
 tion of Our Lord's Personality is, as we have 
 seen, a complex one. It is derived partly from 
 facts of His own consciousness as reported by 
 the Gospels to have been disclosed by Him, 
 partly from the report of those who had to 
 do with Him, and in part from the effect 
 which He is known to have had on the course 
 of subsequent history, and on the lives of those 
 who have submitted themselves to Him. We
 
 240 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 have no other means than these of arriving at a 
 sound estimate. 
 
 In the first place, it should be observed that we 
 have Christ's own distinct assurance that His 
 death would be followed by His rising again. 
 ' He began to teach them that the Son of Man 
 must suffer many things, and be rejected of 
 the elders, and of the chief priests and scribes, 
 and be killed, and after three days rise again.' l 
 There is no doubt that these words were spoken. 
 The rebuke to St. Peter one of the most remark- 
 able evidences of the trustworthiness of the Gospel 
 records depends upon their having been said. 
 Another undoubted narrative relates to the dis- 
 ciples' failure to comprehend Christ upon this point 
 a further proof of the fact of His declaration. 2 
 
 1 Mk. viii. 3i=Matt. xvi. 21, Lu. ix. 22. 
 
 2 Mk. ix. 31, 32 = Lu. xviii. 31-35. Yet Pfleiderer 
 argues that our Lord did not foretell His Death and 
 Resurrection, for the disciples did not understand Him ! 
 ' Besides, the Evangelists themselves say that the Passion 
 and Resurrection prophecies of Jesus, unambiguous as they 
 must have been, were nevertheless constantly misunderstood 
 by the disciples ; in this they betray the fact that, in the 
 circle of disciples, nothing was known of the ostensibly 
 foretold fate of Jesus before His actual entry (into Jerusalem), 
 and that that prophecy can never have been uttered.' Die 
 Entstehung des Christentums, p. 100. The testimony of the
 
 THE RESURRECTION 241 
 
 In the closing chapters of the Gospels, we have 
 the fourfold recital of the fulfilment of His pro- 
 mise as it appeared to the judgment of the several 
 writers. 
 
 Now, if nothing answering to Christ's promise 
 has occurred ; if His foretold death has not been 
 followed by a Resurrection (equally foretold), the 
 Christian religion is without foundation in fact : it 
 must have originated in a mistake. 1 But how did 
 the mistake arise ? Notwithstanding the disciples' 
 entire failure to grasp our Lord's meaning and to 
 anticipate a Resurrection, they must have come 
 to the thought of one, and conceived that which, 
 as we have seen, has been proved to have been 
 the thing farthest from their thoughts. Now such 
 
 disciples against themselves is evidence of the fact which 
 Pfleiderer rejects. Narratives like these, with their full 
 Synoptic attestation, cannot be set aside by such a line of 
 argument. Men do not gratuitously publish abroad their 
 dulness or hardness of heart. The nature of the state- 
 ments proves their truth. 
 
 1 Cf". A. Meyer, Wa$ tins Jesus heutc isf, p. 34. ' The 
 reality of Jesus is, in any case, assured through His Cross. 
 . . . This shameful disaster was certainly not invented. 
 Neither is it an invention that men, in spite of it, believed 
 in Him and loved Him and, after His death, held closely 
 to Him as the ever Living One ; otherwise, Liter on, there 
 had been no such thing as Christianity.' 
 
 Q
 
 242 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 a process is psychologically impossible. To ask 
 us to believe that the disciples, out of their own 
 inner consciousness, came to the conviction that 
 Christ had risen and that they had seen Him, at 
 a time when they were plunged in despair and in 
 physical fear, is to present for our acceptance a 
 thing incredible. 1 If we are offered it as an 
 
 1 ' He appeared, not through any co-operation of their 
 faith, but precisely when that faith had failed, by the sole 
 operation of His own will and power. No one saw, or 
 was able to see, Him until He showed Himself. Such is 
 the plain statement of all the accounts. The appearances 
 as described . . N . were in the fullest degree objective, in 
 our modern sense of the term. And we cannot therefore 
 deny them the name of historical, simply for being new 
 facts in history, of however strange a kind.' Illingworth, 
 The Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 39, 40. * Spiritual facts 
 are not complete until they have expressed themselves ; and 
 matter, as we call it, is their language, the medium of their 
 expression. And the risen body of Christ was to His 
 disciples this expression ; the exhibition, the manifestation, 
 and therefore the assurance of the spiritual triumph which 
 it revealed.' Ib. p. 228. 'The appearances on Easter 
 Day regarded as a whole, bear the stamp of the mind of 
 Jesus Christ ; the Easter sayings are such as no sane 
 criticism can attribute to the imagination of the Apostolic 
 age. It needs a sturdy scepticism to doubt that these 
 narratives rest on a solid basis of fact, or that words so 
 characteristic of the great Master are in substance the 
 words of the risen Christ.' Swete, The Appearances of Our 
 Lord after the Passion,' 1907, p. 40.
 
 THE RESURRECTION 243 
 
 alternative to the creed of Christendom, we must 
 say, as reasoning beings, that the miracle involved 
 in the Resurrection is, under the circumstances 
 pointing as they do to the naturalness of such an 
 event in view of the character, the Self-assertion 
 and the claims of Christ more easy of credence 
 than that alternative. 
 
 But, as already observed, we do not in this 
 argument take our stand or rest our case upon 
 the Resurrection, firmly as we think it to remain 
 on a basis of historic fact. 
 
 What we do claim is to have it acknowledged, 
 not only that the disciples experienced a mighty 
 revulsion of feeling within a short time of the 
 Crucifixion, and that the cause of this revulsion 
 was according to their own showing the belief 
 that the Crucified One was bodily alive and had 
 been seen by them, but that they regarded this 
 supposed Resurrection as a sign of the unique 
 relationship between God and the Risen One. 1 
 
 And yet He, of Whom such things were 
 believed, lay, if they were untrue, still and lifeless 
 in His grave. All was over with Him. He was 
 but a memory. There had been a birth, round 
 which strange hopes had clustered, of which 
 
 1 Rom. i. 4.
 
 244 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 wonderful tales had been whispered a birth sung 
 in strains which have become the priceless 
 treasures of the world's devotion. Then a time 
 of silence, of growth and ordinary occupation, 
 hidden away from the haunts of men among the 
 hills of Nazareth. Then a short public career of 
 uncertain duration at the most of two years and 
 a half 1 spent in teaching and healing, and in 
 forming a small band of followers for the same 
 work. Then a sudden, and to all appearance, 
 a fatal and final catastrophe a death violent 
 and shameful beyond expression, compassed by 
 the combination of every existing authority, 
 ecclesiastical and civil, and confirmed by the 
 approval of the people. 
 
 Explain, on any rationalistic theory that has 
 yet been advanced, how such a phenomenon as 
 the Christian Faith and the Christian Hope could 
 have followed on such an ending, no one has yet 
 succeeded in doing. Unless we take the Christian 
 
 1 f . Turner, Art. * Chronology of the New Test.' in 
 Hastings, D.B. i. p. 406 ff. Zellinger, Die Dauer der offent- 
 llchcn IVirksamkeitJesu, 1907, in opposition to Fendt,who held 
 that it lasted only one year with two Passovers St. John's 
 chronology being wrong shows that a larger number of 
 years can be proved from the Synoptics as well as St. John. 
 v. v. Dobschtitz in Theol. Literatur-Zeitung, June, 1907.
 
 THE RESURRECTION 245 
 
 explanation of the historic facts to which we have 
 referred, we have to leave the chief world- 
 phenomenon hanging in mid air, with no visible 
 connection with any adequate cause. The 
 Christian religion is inexplicable. Such a state 
 of things is as absurd as it is unnecessary. 
 
 Whereas, in the belief of the Church, we 
 have, at any rate, an explanation against 
 which nothing can be alleged which is not of 
 the nature of an a priori argument a pre- 
 supposition based on a partial examination, not 
 on complete knowledge, of phenomena ; 1 while 
 it is supported by a wide and varied range of 
 evidence, which subsequent events have astonish- 
 ingly confirmed. 
 
 It therefore appears justifiable to maintain that, 
 in the circumstances of our Lord's Death and 
 Resurrection as narrated in the Gospels, and in 
 the primitive belief which they evoked, we have a 
 mass of evidence which may be brought to bear 
 
 1 v . above, p. 192 ff. Speaking of the novelty of the 
 Resurrection being considered a bar to its historical 
 character, Illingworth says : * Nor must we for a moment 
 imagine such procedure to be scientific. For it is precisely 
 against such a priori repudiation of novelties that science 
 has made all its progress and therefore perpetually protests.' 
 The Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 40.
 
 246 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 upon the mystery of His Person; evidence which 
 points to the conclusion that He was more than 
 Man. 1 
 
 The character ascribed to our Lord's bodily 
 appearances to His disciples, after His Resurrec- 
 tion, prepares the mind for the account of His 
 Ascension. The disciples are conscious of a 
 great change. They do not always recognise 
 Him. 2 He comes and goes in a manner which 
 
 1 Although the conception of Christ's Person, which we 
 are endeavouring to make good, is not founded on the 
 fact of the Resurrection, it may be observed that the 
 evidential power of the Resurrection was recognised by 
 the first disciples and by the primitive Church. The 
 course of our argument lies in a different direction. It 
 is not to determine the character of our Lord's Personality 
 by the aid of His miracles even by the greatest of them 
 His own Self-Resurrection. It is rather to ascertain the 
 truth of His Person from evidence which is admitted by 
 all reasonable criticism and then, having got at our 
 conception of the Person, to urge that such facts as His 
 Resurrection are but the natural expression of so Divine 
 and unique a Being. Hence, in the present chapter, the 
 belief of the Church and its right to be heard as an 
 explanation of phenomena which come to us on the best 
 authority, is brought forward as one of the contributory 
 factors in determining the Person of Christ : the fact 
 itself, if, as we believe, there be such a fact, is not 
 employed to prove His transcendental character. 
 
 2 Lu. xxiv. 16; Matt, xxviii. 17.
 
 THE RESURRECTION 
 
 betokens the possession of powers which, if He 
 possessed them, were for the most part kept in 
 abeyance during His Ministry. At the same 
 time, the Body, of which they became cognisant, 
 was identical with that which was crucified. Of 
 this fact, as we are assured, they had varied and 
 repeated evidence. ' They did eat and drink with 
 Him after He rose from the dead.' To their 
 natural thought that they saw a ghost, Christ 
 Himself offers the convincing test of touch ; 
 ' Handle Me and see : for a spirit hath not flesh 
 and bones as ye see Me have.' He took care 
 that the men, whom He had chosen to be 
 1 witnesses of His Resurrection,' l should have the 
 fullest authority for their message. There was to 
 be no uncertainty. A passing, momentary 
 glimpse of a vanishing figure would have left 
 them uncertain of the report of their senses. Eye 
 and ear and touch are all appealed to. Every 
 faculty of understanding, every sensible approach 
 to reason is enlisted. 2 The Risen One appears 
 
 1 Acts x. 41 ; Lu. xxiv. 39; Acts i. 22. 
 
 2 * It is not merely a form which the disciples see, and 
 a voice which they hear ; Jesus walks with them, sits at 
 table with them, breaks the bread and hands it out to 
 them (Lu. xxiv. 30, Jo. xxi. 13); He shows His hands
 
 248 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 and, in spite of the despair and grief which He 
 finds, leaves them in joy and hope and a 
 certainty, which neither time nor persecution 
 can destroy. 
 
 The Evangelists narrate these appearances as 
 they occurred, without attempting to reconcile 
 the apparent discrepancies in recitals which re- 
 present a Being Who belongs to two worlds, 
 that of sense and that of spirit. 1 In this 
 firm and stedfast attitude towards their mys- 
 terious to the world their impossible subject, 
 they present to the thoughtful mind strong 
 evidence for the truth of what they relate. It 
 may be said that, in this naive presentation of 
 
 and His side, and presents His wound-prints to their 
 touch (Jo. xx. 20, 27).' B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, ii. p. 562. 
 v. Hibbert Journal for April, 1905, p. 540. Cf. the 
 remarkable version of Christ's words in Ignat. ad Smyrn. 
 3. Aa/^ere, ^Aa^>^(raT /AC, KUI uSere on ov/c flfti 
 Saifioviov a.<T(ap.a.Tov. 
 
 1 Cf. Loofs, Die Auferstehungsber'uhte und ihr Wert, p. 37 : 
 'The sensible hidden as within a veil of the super- 
 sensible ; or, shall I say, the supersensible veiled in a 
 robe of the sensible ? ' * Die wie in einen Schleier der 
 Uebersinnlichkeit gehtillte Sinnenfalligkeit oder soil ich 
 sagen ; die in ein Kleid der Sinnenfalligkeit gehtillte 
 Uebersinnlichkeit ?'
 
 THE RESURRECTION 249 
 
 seeming opposites, they reveal the gulf which 
 separates them from the thought of the modern 
 world. But such an inference does not neces- 
 sarily follow. They relate their experiences 
 without modification. Their task is to report 
 facts of their consciousness, and this they do. 
 There is nothing to show that they were less 
 aware of the presence of apparent inconsist- 
 encies than we should be. The way in which 
 they give their testimony, without explanation 
 or apology, shows that here, at any rate, we 
 are introduced to a body of genuine and 
 precise evidence, transmitted in a manner which 
 invites our confidence. 
 
 The Gospels give no date for the cessation 
 of the appearances of the risen Lord. Neither 
 St. Mark in the appendix to his Gospel, nor 
 St. Luke, 1 the only evangelists who refer to it, 
 give any hint as to when they ceased. To 
 St. Luke, in Acts i., we owe the knowledge 
 that it was on the fortieth day after the 
 Resurrection. 2 Nor are the Gospels precise as 
 to the cause or manner of the ceasing of the 
 
 1 Mark xvi. 19, Luke xxiv. 51. 
 
 2 i. 3. Cf. Acts xiii. 31, where St. Paul at Antioch says : 
 ' He was seen many days of them.'
 
 250 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 appearances. 1 St. Luke states that while ' He 
 blessed them, He was parted from them.' The 
 author of the last twelve verses of St. Mark 
 states that ' after the Lord had spoken unto 
 them, He was received up (ave\rifji<pOii) into 
 heaven and sat on the right hand of God.' 
 The fullest description of the last stage of the 
 Saviour's earthly life is furnished by St. Luke 
 in the opening of his history of the Church. 
 And this is fitting ; for the passing of the Lord 
 from earth to heaven, from the seen to the 
 unseen, His session at the right hand of God, 
 with the resulting outpouring of the Holy Spirit, 
 made the founding of the Church a reality ; 
 and thus the description of the Ascension, as 
 it appeared to the witnesses, belongs not so 
 much to the Gospel of the earthly life as to 
 the Gospel of the heavenly activity of the exalted 
 Christ. 
 
 Here, as in the case of the Resurrection, we 
 have to do with phenomena with which science, 
 
 1 The MS. evidence for St. Luke xxiv. 51, KCU dve<f>epTo 
 eis rbv ovpavov, is defective. Plummer points out in loc. 
 that St. Luke considered that he had recorded the Ascension 
 in his Gospel, for in the Acts (i. i, z) he expressly states that 
 6 Tiyjwros Aoyos contained the work of Jesus, v.\pi ijs ^/ne
 
 THE RESURRECTION 251 
 
 in its present stage, is powerless to deal. But 
 if it cannot follow and test the facts as they 
 are narrated by the New Testament writers, 
 science knows enough of the possibilities which 
 as yet lie hidden in the borderland of spirit 
 and matter, to refuse to pronounce the impos- 
 sibility of such an event as the Ascension. 
 Like the Resurrection, it is a matter in which 
 evidence, congruity with circumstances, and corre- 
 spondence with known facts of life, will influence 
 us for or against its acceptance. We shall argue 
 from our view of Christ's Person to the proba- 
 bility of His Ascension ; not from the Ascension 
 to the Person. Yet again, as in our treatment 
 of His Resurrection, we claim that the belief 
 of His Apostolic witnesses and the consenting 
 mind of His Church are factors, which have 
 to be taken into account in forming our esti- 
 mate of His Person. 
 
 We have to reckon with the fact that the 
 appearances, which the risen Lord is admitted 
 to have granted to the disciples, 1 came to an end. 
 The Gospel testimony to the character of His 
 risen body makes it clear that, at the Resur- 
 rection, He had entered upon another sphere 
 1 v . supra, p. 240, n. I.
 
 252 THE PERSONA OF OUR LORD 
 
 of being. 1 His solemn withdrawal, in the act 
 of blessing His disciples, at the last meeting 
 with them, is interpreted as His passing de- 
 finitely within that sphere of existence which 
 we call heaven. He had Himself, according 
 to St. Matthew, implied it, and according to 
 St. John, directly foretold it. 2 The belief that 
 in His risen body, He entered heaven as His 
 
 1 According to Schmiedel, Enc. Bibl. iv. pp. 4060 and 
 4059, who cites the Epistle of Barnabas xv. 9 in support 
 of his view, ' the Resurrection and Ascension are a single 
 act ; Jesus is taken up directly from the grave or from the 
 under-world into heaven ... In his gospel the author of 
 Acts has assigned the Ascension to a time late in the evening 
 of the day of the Resurrection.' Harnack takes a similar 
 view in Dogmengeschichte, \. p. 146, and in 'Das apostolische 
 Glaubensbekenntniss ; also in Beitrage zur Einleitung in das 
 Neue Testament, iii. 'Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908, p. 128. 
 ' (Luke) makes it (the Ascension) follow not after forty 
 days but on Easter Day.' But see Swete, The Apostles 
 Creed, p. 69, and the present writer in The Hibbert Journal 
 for April, 1905, p. 537. Cf. Swete, The Appearances of 
 Our Lord after the Passion, p. xvii. Plummer in Luke 
 xxiv. 50. The passage in Ep. Barn. xv. 9, Sto KCU ayo/xev 
 Tr\v rjfJiepav TTJV oySorjv ets fixftpocrvvrji', ev rj KOL o IT^O-CCUS 
 avfa-Tf) eK veKpuv KOU <f>av(p<a6tl<s ave/^Tj et's oupavous, simply 
 states that Jesus both rose and ascended on a Sunday, not 
 necessarily on the same Sunday. Cf. A. Meyer, Die Aufer- 
 stehung Chris ti, p. 54. 
 
 2 Matt. xxvi. 64 ; John xvi. 5, 10, \6, 28, etc.
 
 THE RESURRECTION 253 
 
 natural home, became the possession of the 
 Apostolic Church, and passed into the creed of 
 Christendom. Like the Resurrection, it bears 
 witness to the conviction held by the first disciples 
 that He, Who so overcame death and so passed 
 from their sight, was more than man. 1 
 
 1 Cf. B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, ii. p 577. 'Since the appear- 
 ances of the Risen One were all intended to make the 
 disciples sensibly certain of His bodily resurrection, it is 
 quite conceivable that this, His definite departure from the 
 earth, was demonstrated to their senses (veranschaulicht 
 wurde) by His disappearance in a cloud and seeming to be 
 raised up to heaven with it.'
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE SON OF GOD 
 
 CLOSELY connected with the Messiahship of Jesus 
 is the title ' Son of God ', which we find applied to 
 Him in the Gospels. 1 For, although this title had 
 no specially Messianic significance either in early or 
 late Jewish thought, 2 we find it very soon adopted 
 in reference to Christ by His contemporaries, 3 
 
 1 * L'on trouverait sans peine, dans les Evangiles, plus 
 d'un passage d'oii il resulte que le litre de Fils de Dieu, etait 
 pour les Juifs, pour les disciples et pour le Sauveur meme, 
 1'equivalent de Messie.' Loisy, L'Evangi/e et PEgUse, p. 76. 
 
 2 Cf. Dalman, ( D. Worte Jesu, p. 22$. 'Son of God was 
 not a customary Messianic designation.' 'The Jewish 
 people never expected that the Messiah would be born 
 without an earthly father.' Ib. p. 226. But v. Sanday, 
 Art. * Son of God' in Hastings, 'D.R. iv. p. 571, and v. 
 next note. Cf. Lepin, Jesus, Messie et Fils de 'Dieu, p. 282 ; 
 Swete on Mk. xiv. 61. 
 
 3 Matt. xvi. 1 6, where the words 6 nios TOV 0cou row 
 
 expand the idea contained in 6 Xpicrros. In Lu.
 
 THE SON OF GOD 255 
 
 doubtless under the influence of Pss. ii. and 
 Ixxxix. 
 
 But it is much more than a Messianic title, 
 as will appear on referring to its employment, 
 either in full or by implication, in the Synoptic 
 narrative. Strictly speaking, in the consciousness 
 of our Lord Himself, His Sonship to God pre- 
 ceded His Messiahship. The higher intuition 
 came first. 1 The title had been applied in the 
 Old Testament to the theocratic people 2 and also 
 to their King. 3 It would commend itself as 
 singularly applicable to the Christian Messiah, 
 in Whom men saw the fulfilment of promises 
 which had their first application to the chosen 
 people and the chosen King. The more general 
 and indeterminate use of the term, as they met 
 with it in their Scriptures, did not hinder them 
 from applying it to Christ, with all the greater 
 confidence as their appreciation of His Person 
 deepened. 
 
 xxii. 66-71, the two expressions, Messiah and Son of God, 
 are used by the priests as equivalents. 
 
 1 Cf. Earth, 'Die Hauptprobleme da Lebem Jesu, p. 249. 
 
 2 Ex. iv. 22. 
 
 3 2 Sam. vii. 14. ' Der Sohn Gottes in Sonderheit 1st 
 Israel und der Konig von Israel.' Wellhausen in Mk. i. 
 
 9-11.
 
 256 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 There are two lines along which our investiga- 
 tion may proceed ; historically, in the order in 
 which we find any allusion to the subject, or 
 with regard to the relative authenticity and 
 importance of the allusions, apart from chrono- 
 logical sequence. The latter method appears 
 preferable. 
 
 We shall therefore in the first place take the 
 Synoptic passages in which unique Sonship of 
 God is referred to Christ. Of these, perhaps 
 the most important is St. Matt. xi. 27. 1 Here 
 Christ Himself is speaking. The occasion of 
 His utterance is His claim to a knowledge of 
 the Father, which is confined to Himself and to 
 those to whom He may impart it. As Harnack 
 puts it, 2 ' Knowledge of God is the sphere of 
 His Sonship of God.' It is not the cause of 
 His Sonship. That He does not allude to. But 
 we may be certain that the relation, in which He 
 believes Himself to stand with the Father, is no 
 
 1 For a discussion of the authenticity of this passage v. 
 supra, p. 163, note 3. 
 
 s 
 
 ^Wesen des Christenthums, p. 81. Cf. Loisy, UEv angile 
 et rEgRse, p. 78. ' II n'y a qu'un Pere et qu'un Fils, con- 
 stitues, en quelque fa9on, par la connaissance qu'ils ont 
 1'un de Uautre, entites absolues dont le rapport aussi est 
 absolu.'
 
 THE SON OF GOD 257 
 
 mere tie of moral 1 or intellectual or official 
 (Messianic) 2 affinity. It is something which goes 
 down to the depths of Being ; which, as the 
 aorist eyvw shows, is a timeless relationship. The 
 point to be emphasized in this great passage is 
 the fact that the filial relation between Jesus 
 Christ and God the Father is entirely unique. 
 
 1 As Pfleiderer urges, 'Die Entstehung des Christentums, p. 
 94. * Accordingly, He ranged Himself alongside of other 
 men . . . He felt that He was Son of God in no other 
 sense than a moral-religious one.' But see Dalman, Die 
 Worte Jesu, p. 235. 'Never do we find that Jesus styled 
 Himself Son of God in such a sense that a mere religious- 
 ethical relation to God was to be thought of, such as others 
 possess, or could and therefore ought to possess.' Earth, 
 T)ie Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, p. 247. ' With Jesus 
 there confronts us a mysterious exaltation, as opposed to the 
 religious-moral consciousness of Sonship to which other 
 men could attain.' Loisy, L'Evangile et I'Eglise, p. 78. 'II 
 s'agit visiblement d'un rapport transcendant, d'oti ressort la 
 haute dignit6 du Christ, et non d'une r^alite psychologique, 
 dont on ne voit pas la possibility par rapport a Dieu. Pere 
 et Fils ne sont pas ici des termes purement religieux, mais 
 deja des termes metaphysiques, theologiques, et la specula- 
 tion dogmatique a pu s'en emparer, sans en modifier beau- 
 coup le sens.' 
 
 2 As held by Loisy, L 'Evangile et I'Eglise, p. 90. ' En 
 tant que le titre de Fils de Dieu appartient exclusivement 
 au Sauveur, il 6quivaut a celui de Messie, et il se fond sur 
 la qualite de Messie.' Ib. p. 91. ' J6sus se dit Fils unique 
 de Dieu dans la mesure oil il s'avoue Messie.' 
 
 R
 
 258 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 This becomes still more evident, if we refer to 
 passages in which our Lord addresses God as 
 Father, and to those in which He is speaking 
 to the disciples of the Fatherhood of God. He 
 never includes them with Himself in this con- 
 nection. God is His Father. God is their Father. 
 He never speaks of Him as our Father. 1 The 
 relation in which He stands to God cannot be 
 shared by His followers, however devoted and 
 loyal to Him. It is something quite apart. 
 
 Another passage, the authenticity of which is 
 admitted by critics of various schools, 2 is St. 
 
 1 The beginning of the Lord's Prayer is of course no 
 exception to this rule. There, our Lord is giving the dis- 
 ciples a special form of prayer for their own use. Cf. 
 Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 230, who remarks that our 
 Lord's unique relation to God as the Son follows from the 
 distinction which He consistently draws between ' My 
 Father ' and ' your Father.' Cf. Ktihl, Das Selbstbewusstsein 
 Jesu, p. 1 8. 'It is not mere chance that Jesus never 
 includes Himself with his contemporaries, or even only 
 with the disciples, His companions in the kingdom of God, 
 when He speaks of God as His Father. He says either 
 ' your Father' or ' My Father' ; and it is quite conceivable 
 that it was just from this fact that the Jews got the im- 
 pression of blasphemy, because He placed Himself on a par 
 with God when He called Him His own Father. Jo. v. 18.' 
 
 2 e.g. Schmiedel, who considers this passage one of the 
 foundation texts for a scientific study of the Person of
 
 THE SON OF GOD 259 
 
 Mark xiii. 32. Here, again, there is the same 
 special and unique relation. There is an ascend- 
 ing scale in those to whom ignorance of the time 
 of the coming of the Day of God is imputed 
 man, angels, the Son. Angels separate ordinary 
 man from the Son. But the Son is placed in 
 such juxtaposition to the Father as to entirely 
 separate Him from the other beings named, 
 although He is one with them in ignorance of 
 the time of the Judgment Day. There is the 
 same correlation Father and Son as in the 
 passage previously discussed. 
 
 Closely akin to the above passages is the bap- 
 tismal formula of St. Matt, xxviii. 19. It may 
 well have been derived from the lost ending of 
 St. Mark's Gospel. 1 It is supported by the two 
 
 Christ. Art. 'Gospels,' p. 1881, in Encycl. Bibl. ii. Dalman, 
 speaking of this passage and Matt, xxviii. 19, makes the 
 curious comment : ' Die Fassung beider Worte, welche eine 
 sonst in Jesu Rede unerhOrte Verwendung des Sohnes- 
 namens enthalten, wird durch die Ausdrucksweise der 
 Urkirche bestimmt sein.' 'Die Worte Jesu, p. 235. St. 
 Matthew's omission of ovSe 6 inos is characteristic of him. 
 v. Allen on xxiv. 36, and v. supra, p. 218, note i. 
 
 1 v . A. Wright's Synopsis of the Gospels, p. 1 74, and T. S. 
 Rordam in Hibbert Journal for July, 1905, p. 781. If this 
 view is well grounded, the importance of the passage is 
 greatly heightened. From a ' Sondergut ' of St. Matthew,
 
 260 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 passages which we have been considering, and 
 the addition of ' the Holy Spirit ' to ' the Father,' 
 ' The Son,' may be due to the fact that both in 
 
 it becomes a doubly attested passage. The fact that within 
 a few years of the Crucifixion, Baptism in the Three-fold 
 Name had become a regular institution of the Church, 
 requires some such authorisation as that which is supplied in 
 this passage, to explain it. Much has been made of the fact 
 that, in his citations up to the time of the Nicene Council, 
 Eusebius quoted the text in this form : HopevQevrfs fJunOrj- 
 reva-are TTOVTO. TO. edvrj ev TW OVO/MLTI fiov. v. Conybeare 
 in Zeitschrift filr neutest. Wissenschaft, 1901, pp. 273-288. 
 Cf. Loisy, Autour a"un petit Livre, 1903, p. 232, who 
 observes, ' Si le passage est une Glosse, ce serai t en effet, la 
 liturgie baptismale qui 1'aurait suggere.' But it has been 
 shown that the Text, as we have it, appears in the most 
 ancient MSS. Baptism in the Three-fold Name is enjoined 
 in the Didache 1 , dating, according to Lightfoot (Apostolic 
 Fathers), from the end of the first or the beginning of 
 the second century. Irenaeus {Adv. Haeres, iii. 17), Justin 
 Martyr (Apol. i. 61), Tertullian (De Baptismo, c. xiii.), 
 Origen (Scholia in Evan, secund. Matt, xxviii. 18) and others 
 cite it in similar terms. Besides, for our purpose, the 
 Eusebian form emphasizes, rather than detracts from, the 
 position taken up by our Lord in the words attributed to 
 Him. Disciples who were initiated by Baptism, which as 
 we know was soon administered in the Threefold Name, 
 are to be enlisted in His own Name. Thus the formula of 
 Eusebius would, as Loisy observes (Autour d'un petit Livre, 
 p. 232), accord with those passages in the Pauline Epistles 
 and in the Acts which speak of Baptism administered in 
 the Name of Jesus Christ. Barth quotes St. Matt. xvi. 1 8
 
 THE SON OF GOD 261 
 
 Jewish and Christian circles, the Name and office 
 of the Third Person of the Trinity were familiar, 
 and that the time had come for the clear co-ordi- 
 nation of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the 
 Son, in the Unity of the Godhead. 1 
 
 Then we have the use of the term ' The Son ' 
 in a special sense in parables. In that of the 
 Wicked Husbandmen, 2 where the ' beloved Son ' 
 
 ('Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, p. 249) where Christ 
 calls the Church ' His,' while the O.T. only knows of a 
 Church of Jehovah (not of Moses, Joshua, etc.), as further 
 evidence of the character of His claim, v. supra, pp. 2 1 7 ff. 
 Origen's words are as follows : Xw/oav ftr^ev r/ an) irpurov 
 /zev ev TOIS avto, efra vvv KCU e'v TOIS /carer ous Oappovvres 
 /JaTTTicraTt ets TO ovo/J-a TOV Harpos /cat TOV Ytov, Kal TOV 
 ayiov IIveu/JiaTos. Efs o crti^wv, pia rj (ramj/ata. Efs o ^wv 
 Harrjp, o Yibs, /cat TO aytov Tlvcvfia. Efs eo-Tiv ov (rvva- 
 \OKJ3y riov rptwv, dAA' oucrta^ita' rpeis Se uTrocrTacrets reAeiai 
 ev Tracri /cat 
 
 1 Cf. Swete in Hastings, D.B. ii. p. 408(7). v . Dalman, 
 Die Worte Jesu, p. 166. Cf. ii. Cor. xiii. 14, ande>. Sanday, 
 Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 219. 
 
 2 Mk. xii. 6. * He presents Himself to them openly to 
 be acknowledged as the Son of God.' Wellhausen, in loc. 
 v. 12. The contention of Loisy, Etudes Evangeliques, 1902, 
 pp. 51, 52, and of N. Schmidt in Encycl. Eibl. iv. p. 4699, 
 following Julicher, D. Glelchnisreden Jesu, 1899, p. 116, 
 that this parable is not an utterance of Christ, has found no 
 favour with Wellhausen (in Me. xii.), B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, 
 ii. p. 423, O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 333, and H. J. 
 Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der Neutest. Theologie, i. p. 266 ; and
 
 262 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 is recognised as the heir, He is, as Dalman, 
 Sanday and Earth point out, distinguished from 
 all other Messengers. In the Marriage Feast 
 which the King makes for His Son, 1 the same 
 uniqueness of relationship is apparent. 
 
 Bearing in mind the distinctive use by our 
 Lord of the expression ' My Father,' alluded to 
 above, importance attaches to such incidents as 
 that narrated by St. Luke of His Childhood. 
 Comparing the saying attributed to Him, ' Wist ye 
 not that I must be about My Father's business ? ' ' 
 with such passages as the Logian ' he that doeth 
 the Will of My Father Which is in heaven,' and 
 ' Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before 
 men, him will I confess also before My Father 
 Which is in heaven,' we get the impression that 
 our Lord is speaking of an unique relationship 
 to His heavenly Father, and that very early in 
 His career He was fully conscious of it 3 
 
 may well be dismissed from consideration. N. Schmidt is 
 particularly unconvincing when he gives the reasons for 
 his decision, v. Sanday in Hastings' D.B. iv. p. 572 ; 
 Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 230 ; Earth, D. Hauptprobleme 
 dei Lebem Jfsu, p. 249. 
 
 1 Matt. xxii. 2. 2 Luke ii. 49 ; Matt. vii. 21, x. 32, 33. 
 
 3 Earth, D. Hauptprobleme des Lebem Jesu, p. 248, observes 
 that doubt has been cast on St. Luke ii. 41 ff. owing to
 
 THE SON OF GOD 263 
 
 We have next to consider the occasions on 
 which the Sonship of Christ is said to be acknow- 
 ledged ' supernaturally ' by the Father. If the 
 passages containing them are historically reliable, 
 we have the Self-consciousness of Christ as to His 
 Divine Sonship confirmed by a witness, which the 
 evangelical narrative does not hesitate to ascribe 
 to God Himself. Here we transcend, of course, 
 the limits of ordinary historical inquiry. But we 
 can at least approach the narratives with a resolve 
 to ascertain how far the setting of the reported 
 occurrences, and the mode by which they became 
 known, wear the appearance of probability. 
 
 The first of the occasions is the Baptism in the 
 Jordan by the Baptist. It is contained in Petrine 
 Mark i. 1 1, with its parallels Matt. iii. 17, Luke iii. 
 
 similar incidents being reported by Josephus of Moses, 
 Samuel, and even of Josephus himself; but adds that one 
 has only to compare such generalities and rodomontades 
 (Prahlereien) with St. Luke's account, to see the genuine 
 character of Christ's answer to His parents, with its depth 
 and simplicity. ' At first He was not fully conscious of the 
 uniqueness of His relation to God : that consciousness must 
 have been awakened by outward testimony of His parents 
 itself a Divine revelation.' Garvie in Expositor for April, 
 1902. v. Earth, op. clt. p. 249. 'Here already speaks His 
 consciousness that His relation to God is something more 
 sacred than even His duty as a child to His parents.'
 
 264 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 22, and is one of the recitals which, in the words 
 of v. Soden, ' do not offer the slightest ground for 
 doubt as to their historical character.' 1 There 
 was a voice from heaven, addressed according to 
 St. Mark and St. Luke directly to Christ ; accord- 
 ing to St. Matthew, speaking of Him in the third 
 person, as if to bystanders. But in each case, the 
 testimony is the same ' My Son, the Beloved.' 2 
 Two persons only would be in a position to 
 report what occurred our Lord Himself and the 
 Baptist. In the case of the Temptation, it must 
 have been our Lord from Whom the disciples 
 heard what had happened. So it may have been 
 here. 3 
 
 In this incident we have a kind of testimony 
 which appeals to those who accept the miracu- 
 lous elements of the Gospel History. It has no 
 weight with those whom a priori considerations 
 bar from accepting them. But coming to us on 
 the authority of the most undoubted sources 
 
 1 Die Wichtigsten Fragen, p. 40. 
 
 2 'A-ycwrTjTos in Gen. xxii. 2 and elsewhere is the LXX 
 rendering for "PPJ* (pjvoyevr/s). v. Hort, Two Dissertations, 
 p. 49 ff. and Swete in Mk. i. 1 1 . 
 
 3 etSev ... TO Trveiyia a>s Trepia-repav Ka.rafta.lvov eis 
 avTov points to our Lord as informant. It was He who 
 saw the descent of the Holy Spirit.
 
 THE SON OF GOD 265 
 
 the triple Synoptic tradition starting from Petrine 
 Mark it has all the appearance of representing 
 an actual event of the greatest moment in the 
 experience of Christ, setting Him apart as Messiah, 
 defining His relationship to the Father, meeting 
 His own convictions and placing upon them the 
 seal of the Divine sanction. 
 
 The Transfiguration rests on the same triple 
 Synoptic evidence as the Baptism. 1 For our 
 present purpose, the only point to be observed 
 is the statement that, from the overshadowing 
 cloud came a voice, presumably of the Father, 
 saying, according to St. Mark and St. Matthew, 
 ' This is My Son, the Beloved ' ; according to 
 St. Luke, ' This is my Son, the Chosen One.' 
 St. Matthew alone adds ' in Whom I am well 
 pleased.' 2 Each Evangelist concludes with the 
 words ' Hear Him.' 
 
 The similarity of expression, as compared with 
 what is narrated of the Baptism, is striking and 
 points to similarity of internal conditions in the 
 two incidents. In each case, there is testimony 
 
 1 Matt. xvii. I ff. ; Mark ix. 2 ff. ; Luke ix. 28 ff. 
 V. Soden arbitrarily excludes the Transfiguration from his 
 Petrine Mark selection. 
 
 2 Note the timeless aor.
 
 266 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 to the unique Sonship of Christ together with 
 approval of Him. That the second incident is 
 not a mere doublet of the first, is clear from 
 the totally different circumstances and from the 
 fact that its disclosure, though made to the 
 disciples, was by our Lord's express command 
 to be kept for a time to themselves. 1 
 
 Can we form for ourselves any precise repre- 
 sentation of what actually occurred ? That a 
 definite, historical incident took place, appears 
 from the impression to which the writer of 
 2 Peter bears witness. That it was not as an 
 
 1 Schmiedel is inclined towards a view which is the 
 converse of that here controverted, and to consider the 
 voice at the Baptism as resting on an anticipation on the 
 part of the narrators. He holds that, at the first period of 
 our Lord's life, He had not begun to consider Himself 
 the Messiah ; such a declaration therefore at the Baptism 
 would be premature. Encyclof. Bibl. iv. p. 4570. O. 
 Holtzmann curiously suggests that the account of the 
 Transfiguration represents the internal experiences of the 
 Disciples during the incident at Caesarea Philippi, Matt, 
 xvi. 13-21. Leben Jesu, p. 268. It was rather, as Sanday 
 observes (Hastings' D.B. ii. p. 629), 'an outward Divine 
 sanction to the Apostolic confession.' A. Schweitzer asks, 
 if Holtzmann is right, ' how then does Mark come to date 
 the former scene (the Transfiguration) expressly and to place 
 it (Mark ix. 2) six days after the words of Jesus about 
 His death upon the Cross f ' Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 
 p. 295.
 
 THE SON OF GOD 267 
 
 experience confined to Christ Himself as was 
 the case at the Baptism is clear from that 
 fact and from the association so fully borne 
 witness to by all three Evangelists of the 
 three leading disciples. The suggestion of B. 
 Weiss, that the process was that of a divinely 
 caused vision, is difficult to apply to the circum- 
 stances narrated. A vision, which should appeal 
 both to our Lord and to three of His disciples, 
 could not be one and the same. It would not 
 be applicable. The circumstances of the case 
 are perhaps best met by the supposition that 
 the process was of a mixed kind an appearance 
 of Christ glorified to the bodily sight specially 
 illuminated of the disciples ; l a voice from 
 heaven actually heard ; 2 and (possibly) a vision 
 of Moses and Elijah. 
 
 1 Alluded to in John i. 14. 
 
 2 Cf. John xii. 28-31. It was the hearing of a voice 
 from heaven, besides the witnessing of Christ's majesty, 
 which is specially called to mind by the writer of 2 Peter 
 i. 17, 1 8. Whatever our position as to the genuineness of 
 the Epistle, it undoubtedly represents early belief in the 
 historical character of the Transfiguration. Spitta and 
 Zahn consider that the allusion is independent of the 
 Gospel narratives, v. Chase, Article ' Peter ' in Hastings' 
 D.B. Hi., who assigns the Epistle to about the middle of 
 the second century. But cf. Bigg, The Epistles of St. Peter 
 and St. Jude, p. 242 ft.
 
 268 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 As in the case of the Baptism, there is nothing 
 in the narrative of the Transfiguration which, 
 however hard to represent to ourselves in every 
 detail, need make it difficult to receive, if, as 
 Weiss says, 1 we are prepared to believe in 
 Divine revelations and to credit the witnesses 
 with freedom from self-deception. 
 
 The ascription of Divine Sonship to Christ 
 by men must be considered next. The most 
 important, if not the first, instance 2 is St. Mat- 
 thew's account of the confession of St. Peter 
 at Caesarea Philippi. 3 It is an extension whether 
 
 l Lcben Jesu ii. p. 296. * Fur den, welcher an gOttliche 
 Offenbarungen glaubt und um nicht hervorragende Manner 
 des Alten und Neuen Testaments des Selbstbetrugs oder der 
 Luge zu zeihen annimmt, dass Gott sich auch der Vision 
 als eines Mittels dazu bedient, flir den hat unsere Ges- 
 chichte durchaus keine Schwierigkeit.' 
 
 2 Not to speak of the instances reported in John i. (John 
 the Baptist, Nathanael), Matt. (xiv. 33) states that, on an 
 occasion before that of Caesarea Philippi, when Christ had 
 been walking upon the sea, the disciples worshipped Him, 
 'saying, of a truth, Thou art the Son of God.' The 
 tendency of critical thought is to regard these as 
 instances of the transference of a later stage of belief to 
 earlier incidents. But such an explanation, in view of 
 the clearly defined historical settings of the occurrences, 
 does not appear to meet the conditions. 
 
 3 Matt. xvi. 1 6, Mark viii. 29, Luke ix. 20. According
 
 THE SON OF GOD 269 
 
 by way of explanation or as due to reference to 
 another source of the Petrine Mark confession, 
 ' Thou art the Christ.' There is no reason to 
 doubt that it correctly represents the words 
 actually spoken. 1 What it implied of St. Peter's 
 knowledge and faith, we cannot say. That, as 
 
 to Wellhausen in Matt. xvi. 1 6, we must take the confession 
 thus 'The Son of God, the Saviour' ; Filr WVTOS bietet 
 D (rwovTos. Im Aramaischen ist o-weiv das Aphel von 
 (fjv. Aber da im Aram. Nominativ und Genitiv sich 
 nicht unterscheiden, so musste dann verstanden werden : 
 der Sohn Gottes, der Heiland.' 
 
 1 If, as is probable, the source of St. Matthew's version 
 of the confession was the Logia, then in view of the opinion 
 of Harnack (Beitrage zur Einleitung in das N. Testament, 
 ii. 1907), Ramsay (Expositor for 1907), and others, that 
 the Logia was the oldest Gospel source, we have in 
 Matt. xvi. 1 6 a version which goes back behind Petrine 
 Mark and may be taken as the original report of the 
 incident. An additional indication that St. Peter said 
 more than St. Mark reports, is to be found in Christ's 
 glowing words of commendation and in His declaration, 
 ' Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My 
 Father Which is in heaven.' Such a pronouncement would 
 be exaggerated if St. Peter had merely owned to His 
 Messiahship. As O. Holtzmann says (Leben Jesu, p. 253), 
 'Der Inhalt der Worte verbtirgt ihre Echtheit.' In His 
 answer, Christ confirms the relation in which, as St. 
 Peter owns, He stands to God, with the words ' My 
 Father Which is in heaven ' an additional proof of the 
 accuracy of St. Matthew's account of the confession.
 
 270 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 in other cases, the words meant more than the 
 speaker knew, is probable enough. The reach 
 of faith is not to be confined within the limi- 
 tations of precise knowledge, nor can it always 
 be logically justified. It was enough that the 
 large heart of the Apostle guided him aright, 
 and that he became capable of receiving and 
 expressing what was nothing less than a Divine 
 revelation. 
 
 Next in importance to this incident is the 
 exclamation of the Centurion at the Cross. 
 Moved, according to St. Mark, by the manner of 
 Christ's death, ori oimo? efceirveva-ev, according to 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke, by the attendant 
 circumstances, he cried, ' Truly this was a Son of 
 God.' As Wellhausen remarks, 1 he used the 
 expression in a heathen sense ; but it meant, we 
 may be sure, that the things which he had heard 
 said of Christ that He was a Divine Being, 
 and so forth were in his opinion true. The 
 incident is an illustration of the effect produced 
 by the character and bearing of our Lord upon 
 those outside His own people. 
 
 From this we may pass to the testimony 
 alleged to have been given by evil spirits. For 
 
 1 Das Evangelium Marci, xv. 39.
 
 THE SON OF GOD 271 
 
 the fact that, when cast out of those possessed, 
 they addressed our Lord as the Son of God, we 
 have full Synoptic evidence. 1 Our attitude 
 towards these phenomena will depend largely on 
 our presuppositions with regard to intercourse 
 with the spiritual world ; but we have to take 
 into account that, in the belief even of His 
 enemies, our Lord had power over it. We also 
 gather from what is told us of His silencing the 
 testimony of the evil spirits, that it was believed 
 that they had some knowledge of Him which 
 disciples had not yet acquired. Here, again, 
 it is perhaps impossible to obtain a clear 
 representation of what occurred : but we have 
 at least to acknowledge that, in the belief 
 both of disciples and of enemies, our Lord had 
 power which was obeyed and confessed by evil 
 spirits. 2 
 
 1 Mk. iii. II, v. 7. Cf. i. 24, Matt. viii. 29, Lu. iv. 
 41, viii. 28 ; cf. iv. 34. 
 
 2 In this connection we may refer to what must be 
 considered an allusion to what had passed at the Baptism. 
 ' If Thou be the Son of God,' as had been so recently 
 declared by the voice from heaven, ' command that these 
 stones be made bread,' ' cast Thyself down.' This 
 challenge of the Tempter in the wilderness is repeated, 
 satanically, by man at the Cross ' if Thou be the Son 
 of God, come down from the Cross.' Matt, xxvii. 40.
 
 272 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Then, on the evidence of material peculiar to 
 St. Luke, we have the account of the Annuncia- 
 tion, in which the angel Gabriel makes the 
 statement that the Child promised to Mary ' shall 
 be called the Son of the Highest' (i. 32), and 
 again, 'the Son of God' (V 35). In this, we see 
 implied a divinely given forecast of the place 
 which the Saviour will hold in the estimation 
 of mankind a forecast amply fulfilled in the 
 event. Our sense of the importance of the 
 Annunciation, as a foreshadowing of the entrance 
 of Christ into the world and of the significance 
 attaching to it, will of course depend on our view 
 of the historical character of the early chapters of 
 St. Luke's Gospel. But there can be no doubt 
 that the labours of recent scholars have done 
 much to recommend the trustworthiness of this 
 most beautiful portion of the Gospel narrative. 1 
 
 1 As Ramsay remarks on avtaBev (Lu. i. 3), the writer 
 * claims to trace the whole series of events from their 
 origin that is, he has in view the narrative which he 
 proceeds to give of Christ's birth and early days.' Wai 
 Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 15. Cf. H. Holtzmann, 
 Einleitung in dai N. Testament, p. 377. 'Still beyond 
 that which the first reporters were able to narrate, air' 
 dpx?}?, i.e. according to Mark i. 14, since the Baptism 
 by John reaching up to the circumstances of the birth 
 not only of Christ Himself (as Matt. i. i ff.) but also
 
 THE SON OF GOD 273 
 
 Lastly because our argument is not intended 
 to rest upon evidence derived from the Fourth 
 Gospel we have to consider the weight to be 
 assigned to St. John's allusions to the Divine 
 Sonship of Christ. Not only are they more 
 frequent than in the Synoptics, but they pervade 
 the Gospel from beginning to end. We miss the 
 traces of a gradual development of the idea, 
 whether by way of manifestation on the part of 
 Christ, or of recognition on the part of the 
 disciples, which are apparent in the Synoptic 
 record. In the very first chapter, confession of 
 Christ as the Son of God and as the atoning 
 Saviour ' the Lamb of God that taketh away 
 the sin of the world ' is directly assigned to 
 John the Baptist ; and Nathanael exclaims, 'Thou 
 art the Son of God.' Along with these direct 
 confessions we meet, very early in the Gospel, 
 with such expressions as ' His disciples believed 
 
 of the Forerunner.' v. Swete, Apostles Creed, p. 49. ' The 
 style of St. Luke i. 5, ii. 52, points clearly to sources older 
 than the Gospel itself. ... It has an archaic tone.' v. 
 Sanday in Hastings' D.B. ii. p. 646. * The historical value 
 of the documents, especially Lu. i, ii has been gradually 
 rising in the estimation of scholars. . . . The opening 
 chapters of St. Luke are full of small indications of 
 authenticity.' 
 
 S
 
 274 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 on Him.' We have to account for this 
 phenomenon. Does it oblige us to part with all 
 confidence in the historical character of the 
 Fourth Gospel ? Are we listening to the reflec- 
 tions of the writer thrown back into historical 
 form, not to a recital of actual events ? 
 
 In the opinion of the present writer, the answer 
 must be in the negative. Several considerations 
 point to an historical ground for the Evangelist's 
 statements. The expectation of the Messiah was 
 in the air, and would be especially entertained by 
 those who were in the entourage of the Baptist. 
 The early chapters of St. Luke indicate this fact. 
 Simeon and Anna are living persons : everything 
 said of them and of their belief sounds true to 
 fact. It is entirely probable that, here and there, 
 certain people would be in advance of their 
 fellows in intuition and spiritual perception, as 
 well as in faith. With regard to the utterances 
 ascribed to the Baptist himself, not only do they 
 stand in connection with definite incidents which 
 point to foundation in fact ; but, if we consider our 
 Lord's own tribute to the standing and character 
 of the speaker as a prophet, such utterances were 
 to be expected from him. 1 The greatest of all 
 1 Matt. xi. ii; Lu. vii. 28, from the Logia.
 
 THE SON OF GOD 275 
 
 the prophets may well have been enabled to see 
 in the Person of Him, Whose way it was his 
 mission to prepare, what others with no such 
 prophetic gift as his came to see only at a later 
 time. If in the Fourth Gospel, there is an 
 absence of that progress in the apprehension of 
 our Lord's Person which is apparent in the 
 Synoptic record, we are not on that account 
 precluded from trust in its historic value. The 
 circumstances explain, to a great extent, the 
 reason for this state of things. 
 
 Besides, as has been pointed out, 1 in the way in 
 which St. John describes our Lord's reticence in 
 asserting His claims and the hesitation of the 
 people at large in accepting them, 2 there is entire 
 agreement with the gradual, progressive nature of 
 the Synoptic course of events. ' The main course 
 of the Ministry is not conceived differently in 
 the Fourth Gospel and in the Synoptics.' 3 
 
 It is, of course, possible that such isolated 
 outbursts of faith as that of Nathanael, such 
 favourable reports of the attitude of the Twelve 
 as that which obtained at Cana, may owe some- 
 thing of their form to the reflection of the writer ; 
 
 1 v. Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 162 ff. 
 2 vii. 3-10, x. 24, xviii. 33. 3 Sanday, ib. p. 165.
 
 276 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 but the confession of the Baptist stands, for the 
 reasons stated, on an altogether higher level of 
 probability. There must have been something 
 answering to such an account as that of the 
 Fourth Gospel, to justify the extreme praise 
 which our Lord awards him. The Evangelist 
 tells us what that something was. The Fore- 
 runner and Prophet points to the realisation of 
 his prophecy in Jesus of Nazareth, and proclaims 
 that He is the Son of God.
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 
 
 I. MAN, BUT MORE THAN MAN 
 
 WE have now to endeavour to interpret the 
 meaning of the results of our study of the 
 Person of Christ. What, for us, is their signi- 
 ficance ? What is the estimate which they 
 oblige us to form concerning Him ? What 
 think we of Christ ? 
 
 Following the historical order of His own 
 Self-manifestation, we have first of all to deal 
 with the fact, which has come out in our 
 investigation, that He was a Man among men. 1 
 Every essential element of true human life was 
 observable in Him, and has been recorded for 
 us in the New Testament. 2 This appears in 
 
 1 Cf. pp. 90-97. 
 
 2 Cf. the Apostolic assurance (which must have been 
 based on Christ's own account of the Temptation as we
 
 278 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the forefront of St. John's Gospel 1 no less than 
 in the Synoptic record. In his First Epistle, 2 St. 
 John says that it is a sign of Antichrist to deny 
 that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. In short, 
 the Johannine writings are as clear and decided 
 in their presentation of Christ's humanity as the 
 Gospel of St. Mark. St. Paul is equally pro- 
 nounced. 3 In the accounts of the earliest 
 Christian speeches given by St. Luke in the 
 Acts, the Manhood of our Lord is emphasized 
 in a way which, considering the Pentecostal 
 ardour of the speakers, is surprising. 4 There is 
 the same insistence on the Manhood in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, 5 while allusions to it are 
 to be met with in other New Testament writings. 
 The first contact of Christ with men in His 
 earthly life was effected by means of His human 
 nature. Hence the intercourse of Man with 
 man, the hourly interchange of thought, all those 
 
 have it recorded in the Gospels) that * He was in all points 
 tempted like as we are.' 
 
 1 i. 38 ff. Disciples of the Baptist, on being referred 
 by their Master to Christ, ask Him where He is staying, 
 and go to stay with Him. 
 
 2 i Jo. iv. 3. 3 Gal. iv. 4; Phil. ii. 5-9. 
 4 Acts ii. 22, iv. 27, 30, vii. 56. 
 
 6 ii. 14, 17, x. 12.
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 279 
 
 exchanges of courtesy and fellowship, of depend- 
 ence and obligation, of kindness and forbearance, 
 which make up social life. These things were 
 possible to Him, because He lived as Man with 
 His contemporaries. 
 
 But when we look more closely into what is 
 told us of the Manhood of Christ, we find that 
 our conception of it is affected by what is revealed 
 of His Personality. The human nature of Christ 
 is not that of a separate individual with whom 
 Deity allied Itself. Here the Prologue of the 
 Fourth Gospel becomes our guide. The Word 
 of God, coming into this world and into relations 
 of time and space, did not assume trie humanity 
 of any one particular man, but ' became flesh.' He 
 took to Himself of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, 
 all that belonged to the truth of Manhood, so 
 that He became Man. But in so doing, He did 
 not become another Person. He adopted a new 
 nature, but retained His Personality. Otherwise 
 His Personality would be double, involving contra- 
 diction ; whereas it is for us vital to conceive of 
 Him as One, possessing as we shall see the 
 nature of the Godhead and that of Man. And 
 it is because of this universality, so to speak as 
 apart from any individuality of His Manhood,
 
 280 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 that what He is and what He has done in 
 that Manhood affects all mankind. So He was 
 able, as St. Paul says, to taste death for every 
 man ; for He was not merely one among men, 
 but One clothed with the flesh and blood which 
 are common to all men. He was not a Divine 
 Person Who became a human Person. He was 
 a Divine Person Who took another nature to 
 His own, maintaining to the full His own original 
 Personality. 1 
 
 How it came to pass that two whole and 
 perfect Natures with their separate endowments 
 coalesced, as it were, in one Personality, must 
 remain a mystery to us. We can observe charac- 
 teristics of each as we find them recorded in 
 the Gospels, but we cannot formulate any satis- 
 fying theory which shall reconcile them. 2 
 
 1 v . Moberly, Atonement and Personality, pp. 86, 96 ; Du 
 Bose, The Gospel in the Gospels, pp. 211-13, 227, 228, 230. 
 But cf. Moberly, op. cit. p. 94, and v. R. Seeberg, 
 Grundwahrheiten der Christlichen Religion, 1903, p. 112. 
 ' Jesus was a Man, no empty abstraction " Manhood," 
 but an individual Man richly endowed with a mighty 
 personal life.' The single, Divine Personality of Christ 
 must be so held as not to conflict with our hold upon 
 His complete and true life as Man. 
 
 2 The history of the Monothelite controversy illustrates 
 the tendency of the mind to effect a reconciliation which
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 281 
 
 Very early in the Church's career, it became 
 necessary to contend for the reality of Christ's 
 Manhood. His Deity was recognised to the full, 
 and the power of that august conception coming 
 upon men's minds as with the rush of an 
 advancing tide so new, so unheard of was it 
 swept away many into the error of losing their 
 hold of the other aspect of His Person. The 
 Manhood was, to their thinking, only in appear- 
 ance ; an economic provision intended to veil 
 the Divine Christ, and so make it possible for 
 men to hold communion with Him. It had no 
 actual existence. Against this mutilation of the 
 Person of our Lord, devised though it was out 
 of a spirit of mistaken reverence, St. John utters 
 a solemn warning. 1 It cut at the root of the 
 Incarnation. It was fatal to Christianity as a 
 religion. At whatever cost it must be resisted. 
 
 For, that Jesus Christ was truly Man means 
 everything to us. As Man among men, He came 
 within reach of human experience and within the 
 precincts of history. He could be questioned, 
 and His claims could be inquired into. St. John 
 
 shall simplify at the cost of truth. Cf. Liddon, Bampton 
 Lectures, pp. 25, 261. 
 
 1 2 Jo. 7.
 
 282 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 makes the personal knowledge of Christ, which 
 arose from such examination, the basis and 
 ground of his message. 1 
 
 It is the Manhood of Christ which throws a 
 bridge between heaven and earth, spanning the 
 gulf that had separated man from God. It makes 
 atonement and reconciliation possible. It is the 
 bed-rock on which Christianity rests. 
 
 In view of human failure and sinfulness, the 
 Manhood of Christ is a Gospel of hope and pro- 
 mise. A perfect life has been lived on earth 
 within the limitations of humanity. The world 
 has seen what man can be and what he can 
 become. If Christ has revealed God, He has 
 no less revealed man. Until He lived on earth, 
 it was never known to what height human nature 
 could ascend. Since He lived on earth, all that 
 is excellent in man is measured by reference to 
 the standard which He has set. 
 
 More than this, He has set going in humanity 
 a new process. Without it, His Gospel could 
 not have been a Gospel of hope. He can enable, 
 as well as incite, to His imitation. He is 
 ' quickening spirit.' 2 Because of this power of 
 
 *i Jo. i. 3. 
 
 2 v. J. S. Mill, Theism in Three Essays on Refigion.
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 283 
 
 life and action available for man, we have the 
 Apostolic appeals, ' Let this mind be in you, 
 which was also in Christ Jesus'; 'Be ye followers 
 of me, as I am of Christ'; and other like calls to 
 be up and doing. 
 
 If the tendency of thought directed on the 
 Person of Christ in the Apostolic age was to 
 lose sight of the reality of His Manhood, the 
 tendency in our own day is so to emphasize the 
 Manhood as to part with all higher conceptions 
 of His Personality. The Man Christ Jesus is a 
 great reality to vast numbers of devout and 
 humble souls. 1 In many of such cases, the hold 
 upon Him is effected through His human nature. 
 It is the Saviour Who has learnt sympathy 
 through suffering, for Whom their souls are 
 craving. And this is only natural. But such a 
 position is incomplete. If men need sympathy, 
 they also need power ; and that comes through 
 the Manhood of Christ indeed, but not from the 
 Manhood. If Christ were but Man, He could 
 inspire by His example, instruct by His teaching, 
 
 1 Cf. the words of Charles Kingsley : ' I could not do 
 without the Man Christ Jesus.' This has been the feeling 
 of many who, like Kingsley, hold closely to the Divine 
 nature of our Lord.
 
 284 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 reveal what Man might be, but the power to live 
 the life thus revealed would be wanting. He 
 could not be ' the Saviour of all men.' 1 
 
 Do the results of our study of the New 
 Testament representation of Christ enable us to 
 advance upon the conception of His Manhood? 
 Was He more than Man? We found that the 
 predicate of Manhood does not correspond to all 
 that may be said of Him. On the ground of 
 His Self-revelation and of the evidence both of 
 disciples and opponents as recorded in the 
 Gospels, there appeared to be something in 
 Him which transcended ordinary human nature. 
 We also saw that this extraordinary element of 
 His being was so bound up as to its reported 
 manifestations with the incidents of His earthly 
 life and with the matter of His teaching that, if 
 we try to eliminate it, we have to mutilate the 
 most authentic portions of the Synoptic records 
 to such an extent that they become scarcely 
 recognisable. The historic form of Christ is 
 resolved into a phantom, which, however it may 
 correspond to theory, has no counterpart in fact. 
 This is at least tacitly acknowledged by the best 
 among the exponents even of advanced criticism. 
 1 1 Tim. iv. 10.
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 285 
 
 While striving to form a representation of a 
 merely human Christ as a necessity created by 
 scientific criticism of the sources, they again and 
 again betray the impression that their definition 
 of the content of His Personality is inadequate. 
 There is that which eludes them, a mysterious 
 something which they characterise as transcen- 
 dental, or Divine, for which they can find no 
 place in their scheme of thought, but the existence 
 of which they are bound to acknowledge. 
 
 For, those who take purely humanitarian views 
 of Christ's Person seem to be conscious of an 
 uneasy feeling that they are not dealing with all 
 the facts of the case. We meet with admissions 
 and reserves, which appear to others practically 
 to yield what they require. At times, we seem to 
 be admitted to the spectacle of a struggle going 
 on between the conviction that Christ must be 
 more than Man and the supposed requirements of 
 strict historical investigation. Like Moses on 
 Pisgah, they catch sight of a world of thought 
 on which they may not enter. And these 
 intuitions, breaking out into expression in 
 spite of themselves, speak eloquently of the 
 truth of that which will come out, because it 
 is so true.
 
 286 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 t 
 
 But their formal construction of the Person 
 of our Lord is unsatisfying. A constituent 
 element of His being remains unaccounted for. 
 While this is the case, there is no rest for the 
 mind. 
 
 On the other hand, those who hold the creed 
 of Christendom maintain that they have a solution 
 to offer, and that while it in no way conflicts with 
 ascertained results of science, it does justice to 
 those parts of the primitive Gospel tradition which 
 the critics acknowledge, as pointing to an unex- 
 plained element in Christ's Person. 
 
 That explanation is to the effect that He was 
 true Man, but more than Man ; that, if He 
 be compared with Prophets, Saints, religious 
 Founders and Leaders, a difference appears, vital, 
 profound, not easily defined, yet not to be 
 explained away. 
 
 But no sooner is this interpretation of the 
 Person of Christ suggested, than we are confronted 
 with what appears to some a serious obstacle to 
 its acceptance. 
 
 As the first Christians exalted their Founder 
 and ascribed to Him more than human power and 
 authority, in like manner have the adherents of 
 other Faiths raised their Founders above the lot
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 287 
 
 of man in some cases attributing to them 
 Divinity. Now, if it be found that this process 
 of deification is one of the regular stages in the 
 history of religion, and is common to the ethnic 
 faiths, ought it not to be taken into account in 
 our study of Christianity, due allowance being 
 made for it as exemplifying a well-known ten- 
 dency of human thought ? Nay, more than this, 
 does it not discredit the Christian position, if 
 in this vital matter, it be found merely to fall in 
 line with what is observed as a common tendency 
 of thought ? 
 
 Such questions as these cannot be avoided ; 
 nor is there any need to avoid them. The com- 
 parative study of religion has, within the last fifty 
 years, greatly widened our view of religious phe- 
 nomena. We seem to be worshipping in a 
 Temple loftier far and more ancient than we 
 thought. Truths, which had been considered the 
 exclusive possession of the Christian faith, are 
 now found to have their parallels in other 
 religions. Things which New Testament writers 
 say of Christ were said, ages before, of Arabian 
 and Babylonian gods and heroes, of founders 
 of religions, of Egyptian and Babylonian 
 kings, of Greek sages and, later, of Roman
 
 288 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 emperors. 1 Teaching highly spiritual and pene- 
 trating, bearing, moreover, a close resemblance 
 to recorded sayings of Christ, is to be found in 
 the sacred books of the ancient East 
 
 1 Cf. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, pp. 223, 224. Earth, Die 
 Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, p. 259. These resemblances 
 centre chiefly in the birth-stories and in those of death, 
 resurrection and ascension. The tendency to attribute a 
 divine, or at least an abnormal, origin to kings, sages and 
 heroes, is to be met with all over the ancient East. In 
 Egypt and in Babylon the kings were regarded as begotten 
 by the deity. Romulus and Remus are sons of Mars. 
 The birth of Buddha became the subject of legend. 
 ' Phantastische Verherrlichung floss indes auch dort schon 
 ein und wurde spater immer starker.' Hackman, Der 
 Ursprung des Buddhismus, 1905, p. 9. Plato was said to be 
 a son of Apollo. If the narratives of the birth of Christ 
 are, in a sense, anticipated by such stories, there are also 
 striking parallels to those of His death and resurrection. 
 Osiris, identified with the Babylonian god Sari, is the hero 
 of an Egyptian myth of death and resurrection. The 
 myth of Adonis, raised to life and translated to heaven, 
 appeared in various forms in Greece and the East. Zoro- 
 astrianism possessed a doctrine of resurrection which has 
 been thought to have influenced Jewish belief. It should 
 be remembered that these myths have, in most cases, been 
 familiar to students long before the Science of the compara- 
 tive study of Religion came into being ; but it is only 
 recently, and as a result of the study of that science, that 
 they came to be applied to the elucidation of Gospel 
 narratives. At present it may be affirmed that, however 
 interesting and startling some of these parallels appear, there
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 289 
 
 One result of attention being called to these 
 facts, has been to cast doubt and suspicion on the 
 Divine origin and truth of Christianity and on 
 
 is not the slightest proof that they have had any influence 
 on the origin of those narratives. They have had no effect 
 upon the form, much less upon the substance, of the Gospel 
 stories. 
 
 Cf. Grtitzmacher, Die Jungfrauengeburt, 1906, p. 32. 'Just 
 as in respect of Buddhism and the other oriental religions, 
 so it is here ; not the slightest proof has been adduced 
 through what means of communication, or by what bridges, 
 the heathen Mythology could have penetrated into the 
 exclusive Jewish-Christian circles that it was not present 
 with the Jews themselves has been shown above out of 
 which the early narratives of Matthew and Luke take their 
 rise.' H. J. Holtzmann in the Theolog. Literaturzeitung 
 for April, 25th, 1908, speaking of the origin of the phrase 
 ' He rose again the third day,' which, as he says, ' was taken 
 over by Paul as an assured element of early Christian 
 tradition,' declines to admit ' such explanations as Old 
 Testament examples, Jonah, Hosea vi. 2, 2 Kings xx. 5 
 (the two last not being mentioned in early Christian 
 writings) or as the legends of Attis, Adonis, Osiris, etc.' 
 Cf. v. Dobschiitz, Qstern und Pfingsten, 1903, pp. 12, 13. 
 Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung da CAristentums, pp. 1 29 ff., after 
 mentioning parallels between the Christian Sacraments and 
 certain mystical rites and beliefs of the cult of Mithras, 
 which was so widely spread over the Roman Empire at the 
 beginning of the Christian era, suggests that St. Paul was 
 not unaffected by its influence. The desire for purity and 
 for personal union with God, which Mithraism discloses, 
 would have no doubt called forth the sympathy and respect 
 
 T
 
 290 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the unique character of its Founder. The resem- 
 blances which have been traced, are thought by 
 some to prove that the transcendental features in 
 the Person of Christ, to which the Gospels bear 
 witness, are but fresh instances of old-world myth- 
 building. In other words, the presence of certain 
 coincidences between the Christ of the Gospels 
 and the god or hero of other religions, places the 
 One on the same plane of authority as the rest, 
 and shows that if the fancy of the devotee has 
 been at work in one case, it is probable that it 
 has been equally active in the other. 
 
 There would be force in this argument if it 
 covered the whole ground. But if there are 
 resemblances, there are also differences, profound 
 and vital, in what has come down to us of the 
 records of Christ and other Masters. 1 More than 
 
 of the Apostle ; but Pfleiderer is not borne out by the facts 
 of the case, when he says that ' the mystical doctrine of the 
 Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which is 
 peculiar to St. Paul, cannot be accounted for by the older 
 tradition of the Church.' There was no such distinction 
 between Pauline and primitive teaching as to lead us to 
 suppose that the Apostle had recourse to such a source 
 of doctrine as that which Pfleiderer suggests, v. infra, 
 pp. 3 1 2 ff. 
 
 1 Grtltzmacher has shown, Die J ungfrauengeburt y pp. 
 28 ff., that the Babylonian, Buddhist and other supposed
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 291 
 
 this, the resemblances admit of explanation and, 
 as we shall see, go to confirm the Christian 
 position ; while the differences require us to 
 acknowledge that, in the case of the Founder of 
 Christianity, influences have been at work which 
 are wanting in the case of other religious Leaders. 
 To take the first point that the resemblances 
 between the records of Christ and those of other 
 Heroes of religion tend to confirm the Christian 
 position. The argument may be stated thus : 
 All world-movements are prepared for. They 
 are not sprung suddenly upon mankind. Nor are 
 they isolated events, bearing no relation to other 
 world-phenomena. They are interwoven with 
 
 antecedents of the Gospel account of the Virgin birth of 
 Christ, contain elements which differ fundamentally from it. 
 There is a certain resemblance, which suffices to establish 
 the conviction that the thought of a Divine interposition in 
 human history forms a widely held possession of the human 
 mind : but the differences between the sacred and the 
 pagan stories are profound, and exclude the possibility that 
 the former are in any way indebted to the latter. 
 
 Cf. ib. p. 33. 'All that they have in common is the 
 conception which appears on both sides, that a great 
 Personality, who is marvellous and unique in the sphere of 
 religion, must have also had a wonderful origin. But the 
 more frequently a thought crops up quite independently, 
 the more probable it becomes that it expresses something 
 which is necessary and which tends to be realised.'
 
 292 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 them and there is action and re-action. The 
 greatest of all world-events is the entrance into it 
 of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in visible form. 
 According to the nature of things, such an event 
 could not come about with the suddenness and 
 unexpectedness of a bolt from a clear sky. It 
 must have its points of contact with other 
 phenomena and, once happening, it is bound to 
 make history and to mould the future. If, then, 
 we find as we do that certain principles of the 
 Christian Faith, such as atonement, reconciliation 
 and union with God, are to be met with in other 
 creeds, outside of what is generally admitted to 
 be the preparatory religion of Judaism ; if, too, 
 a superhuman or Divine character is assigned to 
 their Founders or Leaders, reminding us of what 
 the New Testament attributes to Christ, we are 
 justified in regarding these resemblances as so 
 much external evidence to the truth of Christianity. 
 For, the solidarity of the human race makes it 
 antecedently probable that elemental ideas would 
 be widely held. If a conception closely analogous 
 to a Christian conception is found to be distri- 
 buted over large portions of the human race before 
 the rise of Christianity, that fact of itself lends a 
 large measure of probability to the Divine truth
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 293 
 
 of the conception, as it presents itself in the 
 Gospel record. In other words, my belief in the 
 religion of Jesus Christ is strengthened, when I 
 find it to contain principles and ideas common to 
 the best thought of the ancient world, and to 
 possess, among its elemental facts, resemblances 
 to what is told of the history of earlier faiths. I 
 am led to see the hand of God in these points 
 of contact and to conclude that human reason, 
 illumined by the ' Light which lighteth every man 
 that cometh into the world,' l has been guided 
 towards the possession of truths which, however 
 haltingly and fallibly expressed, are yet in sub- 
 stance identical with those that underlie the 
 religion of Christ. For purity and precision of 
 definition, for accuracy of application, I go to 
 the religion which is embodied in the New 
 Testament ; but I am not confined to it, when I 
 try to investigate the origin and significance of 
 fundamental religious beliefs. In the light of this 
 wider outlook, I recognise with Tertullian z that 
 ' the soul of man is by nature Christian,' and 
 that God has never left Himself without witness 
 
 'Jo. i. 9. 
 
 2 ' O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae.' Apol. 
 c. xvii.
 
 294 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 to those facts and truths, which find their fullest 
 and truest expression in the religion of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 But, whatever their points of likeness or of 
 contrast with the Gospel narrative, it has yet to 
 be shown how religious and official myths could 
 have been adopted by the Evangelists and 
 become part of the Christian Faith. The sturdy 
 resistance of Judaism to the intrusion of alien 
 ideas and beliefs, continued as it was through so 
 many centuries, would not have suddenly ceased 
 with the advent of Christianity. The Jewish- 
 Christian community would have been as much 
 opposed to such an importation, as was the 
 ancient Jewish Church. If the new Gentile 
 adherents of Christianity are credited with effect- 
 ing the change, we have only to reply that the 
 time required for such a process is wholly want- 
 ing. The Life of Christ and its incorporation 
 into the Gospel records are too close together for 
 such a fusion to take place. 1 Besides, there is no 
 trace of any such attempt being made. The 
 slightest sign of it would have roused the hostility 
 of the Jewish element and, if persevered in, would 
 
 1 v. Zenos in Diet, of Christ and the Gospels,' ii., Art. 
 Myth.'
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 295 
 
 have split the Church into two rival factions. In 
 whatever way we may try to account for certain 
 elements in the Gospel representation of our 
 Lord, we can be sure that the transference of 
 pagan myth to Christian soil has had no hand 
 in the process. 
 
 On the whole, it may be said that the com- 
 parative study of Religion has done nothing to 
 discredit, but has rather confirmed, the truth 
 of the high conception of the Person of our Lord 
 to which the Gospel narrative bears witness.
 
 CHAPTER XIV 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 
 
 II. JESUS CHRIST IS GOD 
 
 IT will be found impossible to rest content with 
 the position now reached that Christ is Man, but 
 something more than Man. Such an interpreta- 
 tion of the results of our investigation is clearly 
 provisional. A man, who is at the same time 
 more than man, would be not merely abnormal. 
 If we could give no further account of him, he 
 would appear to be a portent, a being who could 
 only repel instead of attracting. He could never 
 take the place in the hearts of men which Christ 
 has taken. Human nature instinctively shrinks 
 from anything which, while human in form and 
 appearance, possesses characteristics which belie 
 or traverse the truth of humanity. We have 
 therefore to account for our Lord's possession 
 of qualities to which human nature, as we know
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 297 
 
 it, can lay no claim. We have to explain those 
 elements of His being which, as we found, on 
 His own showing as well as on that of His 
 contemporaries, exceeded the limitations of normal 
 manhood. 1 
 
 The explanation of a manhood carried to a 
 point of extreme development, the result of close 
 and unimpeded communion with God, will not 
 suffice. Such a theory would account for certain 
 of the phenomena which have come out in our 
 investigation. Some miracles of healing, certain 
 elements of His teaching, could be explained in 
 this way. The power of a pure soul, which has 
 exposed itself to the mind and will of God, is 
 very great to influence others. In certain 
 directions we can hardly assign limits to its 
 action. But here, a whole range of characteristics 
 which, as we have seen, stand on sure evidence, 
 remains to be accounted for. No conceivable 
 stage of development on the lines of human 
 nature will explain them. The authority and 
 sureness of His teaching, the knowledge God- 
 ward and man-ward on which it was based, His 
 power over the forces of the natural world, His 
 
 1 v. Seeberg, Grundwahrheiten der christlichen Religion, 
 p. 110.
 
 298 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 sinlessness, His claim, based on Self-knowledge, 
 to be the Messiah and the Final Arbiter of the 
 destiny of all mankind on all these points we 
 have the testimony of Christ Himself, embodied 
 in the most authentic portions of the Gospel 
 records. They cannot be evaded, nor their 
 significance explained away. What light do 
 they throw upon His Personality ? 
 
 There is no middle course to be adopted. 
 If Christ manifests in His Person qualities which 
 exceed the capacity of human nature, He must 
 be more than man. But being more than man, 
 there is no halting-place in our search for Him 
 on this side of Divinity. Unless we are prepared 
 to admit a being half-human, half-divine untrue 
 to the nature alike of God and man we dare 
 not pause. We must think of Him as God. 
 
 And this in view of our examination of the 
 primitive sources we are justified in doing. His 
 definite and persistent claim of an unique relation 
 to the Father, coupled with His assertion of 
 exclusive knowledge of God, gives us the clue 
 which we require. 
 
 It is true that, in the Synoptic Gospels, our 
 Lord nowhere asserts His Divinity in so many 
 words. He does not say, ' I am God,' nor does
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 299 
 
 He use the expression, ' I am the Son of God.' l 
 He would do or say nothing to weaken men's 
 hold on the unity of the Godhead the central 
 article of the Hebrews' Faith, that precious 
 possession which it was their mission to preserve 
 for the world. 2 Any apparent competition with 
 that truth He consistently avoided. At the risk 
 of His true Personality being under-estimated 
 and mistaken, He leaves It to be interpreted to 
 reflective minds by the Holy Spirit, certain that 
 in time He will be understood. Hence, what 
 we may think His strange reluctance to assert 
 the truth of His Being ; a reluctance which we 
 found displayed in the question of His Messiah- 
 ship. Besides, the deepest truths hardly admit 
 of categorical expression. 3 Rather, they are to 
 
 1 But He assented to the designation when it was 
 applied to Him ; Mk. xiv. 62, Matt. xxvi. 64, Lu. xxii. 
 70. ' Jesus has never applied to Himself the designation 
 " the Son of God," but He has given it clearly to be 
 understood that He is not merely "a" but "the" Son of 
 God.' Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 230. His appropria- 
 tion of the term in the Gospel of St. John is frequent. 
 v. v. 25, ix. 35, x. 36, xi. 4. 
 
 2 Cf. supra, p. 57. 
 
 8 There is a passage in Faut's Chr'utologie self Schleier- 
 macher, p. 98, which bears upon this point. He says, 
 ' Logical thought seems to leave us nothing but the
 
 3oo THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 be learned in patience and reflection. They 
 must grow upon the mind. They are not at 
 the mercy of a phrase : they cannot be contained 
 in a formula. Our Lord was content to leave 
 to subsequent thought the full appreciation of 
 His Person and His claims. 
 
 But, if He nowhere proclaims His Divinity in 
 categorical terms, if He leaves it to be concluded 
 from His admissions rather than from direct 
 statements, we are left in no uncertainty as to 
 His own mind on the subject, or as to that of 
 His contemporary followers. 
 
 As we have seen, Christ was profoundly 
 
 alternative : either Jesus is God then Monotheism, nay 
 the very Gospel itself, is endangered ; or Monotheism must 
 prevail throughout then Jesus can be but ^lAos avdpanros. 
 Only it is not the Logic of concepts, but the Logic of religious 
 facts, which is to determine the matter. It shows this 
 dilemma to be false ; rather it maintains that our faith 
 in God the Father rests on faith in Jesus as the perfect 
 revelation of God.' But it should be observed that the 
 dilemma is only a false one if Monotheism is rightly 
 understood. The ascription of Divinity to Christ is in 
 no way fatal to the Monotheistic idea, v. Infra, pp. 335 ff. 
 It is the inference in each of the alternatives that is 
 wrong. Cf. Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, p. 399, 
 * God is a unity, but He is not a simplicity, and so can 
 be more truly described in the terms of ethical and con- 
 crete than of metaphysical and abstract existence.'
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 301 
 
 conscious of standing in an unique relation to 
 God. That relation found expression in Sonship, 
 and its characteristic sphere of exercise was a 
 state of complete mutual understanding and 
 mutual knowledge existing between the Father 
 and the Son. 1 This result of the study of the 
 most authentic sources, though often assailed, 
 remains as one of the foundations of our 
 knowledge of Christ's Person. 
 
 But we have to consider the question whether 
 the Sonship of Christ, as made known to us in 
 the Gospels, implies an eternal relationship and 
 
 1 Matt. xi. 25-27, v. supra, pp. 161 ff. Cf. Loisy, 
 VEvangile et I'Eglise, p. 78 : ' Pere et Fils ne sont pas 
 ici des termes purement religieux, mais dja des termes m6ta- 
 physiques, theologiques, et la speculation dogmatique a pu 
 s'en emparer sans en modifier beaucoup le sens' ; a sufficient 
 reply to such a statement as that of Pfleiderer, Die 
 Entstehung des Christentums, p. 94, * Er stellte sich somit 
 in eine Reihe mit den andern Menschen . . . er ftlhlte 
 sich als Sohn Gottes in keinem anderen Sinne als in 
 dem sittlich-religiosen. . . . Auch wo ihm von anderen 
 der Name " Sohn Gottes " in besonderem Sinne beigelegt 
 wurde . . . ist das Wort in den alteren Evangelien 
 allemal nur eine andere Bezeichnung ftir Messias ohne 
 einen transzendenten oder metaphysischen Sinn einzu- 
 schliessen.' Cf. Loisy, ib, p. 79. ' La parole eVangelique 
 a done une tout autre ported qu'il ne faudrait pour la 
 these de la filiation acquise a Jesus, dans le temps, par 
 la connaissance du Pere.'
 
 302 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 therefore identity of being with God Divinity ; 
 or whether, being begun in time, it is merely an 
 economic relationship, existing for the accomplish- 
 ment of a certain purpose, but not a necessary 
 connection, or one that belongs to the essence 
 of the Divine Nature. 
 
 If we take the evidence of the Synoptic 
 Gospels discussed above, as to our Lord's filial 
 consciousness, His timeless knowledge of the 
 Father, His claim to exercise the exclusively 
 Divine office of Judge, the peculiar relation in 
 which He professes to stand with regard to 
 humanity as a whole ; we seem forced to conclude 
 that He Who could so feel and speak, must, 
 unless He is to be charged with hallucination, 
 possess qualities which belong to God alone. 
 If there is but one passage which implies pre- 
 existence in the Synoptic record of our Lord's 
 sayings (St. Matt. xi. 27 and parallels), yet, as far 
 as it goes, it suffices to give us a completely 
 attested foundation for that conception. He did 
 not become the Son of God at His Birth as 
 Jesus of Nazareth, nor when His Sonship was, 
 for men, clearly defined at His Resurrection. 1 
 The completeness and the timeless character of 
 1 Rom. i. 4.
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 303 
 
 His knowledge of the Father point to a Sonship 
 which had no beginning in time. 1 It is true 
 that the Synoptic Gospels do not go on to draw 
 the inference which their narratives suggest ; and 
 if we had no other source of information, we 
 might hesitate to arrive at such a conclusion. 
 The edifice might seem too vast to stand on so 
 narrow a foundation. But our interpretation of 
 the passage is borne out by the general Synoptic 
 view of Christ's Person, and by the conception 
 known to have been formed of Him in the 
 Apostolic circle. If the Synoptic Gospels abstain 
 from theologising and, in accordance with their 
 scope and purpose, leave the inferences which 
 they justify to be drawn by others, 2 we are at 
 no loss to supply the omission. 
 
 And because they contain the premises required 
 for such inferences, we can feel assured that, in 
 having recourse to other evidence, we are not 
 
 1 Cf. Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, p. 393. 'To 
 Christ, God does not become Father He is Father 
 just as He is God ; and He Himself does not become 
 Son He is Son, and were He not Son He would 
 not be.' 
 
 2 Cf. Fairbairn, op. cit. p. 346. * They (the Evangelists) 
 were content to speak as witnesses, leaving the task of 
 conciliation to those who felt it to be necessary.'
 
 304 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 departing from our intention to base the argument 
 for the transcendental character of Christ's Person 
 mainly on the evidence of the Synoptic Gospels. 
 For explicit unfolding of what these premises 
 contain, we are free to go to the Fourth Gospel, 
 to St. Paul and to the writer to the Hebrews. 
 They give us only what is implied in the natural 
 sense of the Synoptic references. 
 
 The Christ of the Fourth Gospel is undoubtedly 
 described as One Who existed before His Incarna- 
 tion. He is the Ao'-yo? of the Prologue, Who ' in 
 the beginning was with God.' l His saying, 
 ' Before Abraham was, I am,' implies pre- 
 existence. Its historical value is guaranteed for 
 us by its connection with the violent outburst 
 on the part of the Jews, which it is plainly 
 said to have occasioned ; an incident which 
 would have sunk deeply into the memory of an 
 eye-witness, and one which required some remark- 
 able utterance or act of our Lord to account for 
 it. 2 ' He that hath seen Me hath seen the 
 Father.' ' He that seeth Me, seeth Him that 
 
 1 Cf. Fairbairn, The Philosophy of the Christian Religion, 
 p. 455. Justin Martyr (Apol. ii. 6) identifies the Aoyos 
 with the Son. 
 
 2 Jo. viii. 58, 59.
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 305 
 
 sent Me.' ' I and My Father are One ' (/) : x 
 such sayings as these are impossible in the 
 mouth of a Jew, who believed himself to be 
 merely a man among men. Nay, more, they 
 could not have been imputed to such an one 
 by the Evangelist, who among all the Gospel 
 writers was most strenuous in asserting the true 
 humanity of Christ, 2 if he had not the surest 
 
 1 Jo. xiv. 9, xii. 45, x. 30. ' It seems clear that the 
 unity here spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence.' 
 Westcott in Jo. x. 30. ' Unum dicit neutrali verbo, quod 
 non pertinet ad singularitatem, sed ad unitatem. . . . 
 Unum sumus dicens ego et pater, ostendit duos esse quos 
 aequat et jungit.' Tertull. Adv. Prax. xxii. 'In the 
 mind of Jesus, Father and Son were conceived as forming 
 a unity over against man. The relation the Father had 
 to Him He had to no other ; the relation He had to 
 the Father no other person had. They two were so 
 related that each was known only to the other, and could 
 therefore only by and through the other be made known. 
 The unity was so real that to see the Son was to see the 
 Father, to know the Father was to know the Son. Hence, 
 while Jesus conceived Father and Son as distinct from each 
 other, He also conceived them as having a common being.' 
 Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, p. 392. 
 
 2 ' The thing he (St. John) most fears is the denial that 
 Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.' Fairbairn, op. cit. 
 p. 455. It is noticeable that the last of these three 
 passages, St. John x. 30, is closely bound up with a 
 remarkable historical incident. The Jews take up stones 
 
 U
 
 306 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 warrant for so doing. Pre-existence and Divinity 
 are each taught by the Evangelist in the state- 
 ment, ' God only begotten Which is in the bosom 
 of the Father,' 1 where the truth of the Sonship 
 of Christ is as plainly conveyed by the reading 
 GeoV as by the common reading 
 ut'o?. The adjective fixes the inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 St. John's conception of the Person of Christ 
 is not to be put into opposition to the Synoptic 
 view, as so many have endeavoured to do. The 
 same spirit breathes in each. What is implied 
 in the Synoptic narrative becomes explicit in 
 the Fourth Gospel, and in so doing is in entire 
 harmony with the mind of the Apostolic Church. 
 The speeches of St. Peter in the Acts, the spirit 
 of which if not the ipsissima verba is faithfully 
 
 to cast at Him on the ground that He had spoken 
 blasphemy. 
 
 1 Jo. i. 1 8. Westcott and Hort. v. Hort, Two Disserta- 
 tions, in I. ' On Moyoyevr)? Oeos in Scripture and Tradition.' 
 He says, p. I, 'The result, I think it will be found, is to 
 show that fj.ovoyevr]<; 0eos should be accepted in place of 
 the received reading o fj.ovoyevr)<i uids, alike on grounds 
 of documentary evidence, of probabilities of transcription, 
 and of intrinsic fitness.' Hort's views are approved of 
 by Sanday in Hastings' D.B. iv. p. 576, by B. Weiss, 
 and by Harnack in Theol. Literaturzeit. for 1876, pp. 541 ff.
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 307 
 
 reported by St. Luke, 1 show the Apostle to be 
 under the influence of the Resurrection. That 
 tremendous experience colours his method of 
 expression, and he speaks as if the transcendence 
 of Christ dated from it. But the expressions 
 which He applies to the risen One can only be 
 fully interpreted by reference to ideas, which we 
 have found to be common both to the Synoptic 
 writers and to St. John : ' both Lord and Christ,' 
 ' A Prince and a Saviour,' ' the Giver of the 
 Holy Spirit.' There is nothing incongruous in 
 these titles, when we compare them with what 
 we find in the Gospels. We are not transported 
 into another atmosphere, when we try to enter 
 
 1 ' We find the style of the author, but the matter of 
 the authority,' Headlam in Hastings' D.B. i. p. 33. The 
 speeches ' are too lifelike, real, varied and adapted to their 
 circumstances to be mere unsubstantial, rhetorical exercises.' 
 Ib, p. 34. It is significant to hear a critic like A. Meyer 
 saying of the Acts, ' its trustworthiness is at the present 
 day increasingly winning respect.' Wer hat das Christentum 
 begrtindet, Jesus oder Paulus ? 1907, p. 10. Harnack draws 
 attention to the fact that the lexical and stylistic agree- 
 ment of the first half of the Acts with the second half 
 (the ' We ' section) is much greater than the disagreement 
 between them. This makes strongly for the unity of the 
 authorship of the entire book and for its great historical 
 importance. Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 
 iii. Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908, p. 131.
 
 308 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 into the thought of the Pentecostal Church. If 
 the speeches of St. Peter are dominated by the 
 overmastering effect of the Resurrection, they 
 are full of the conviction that the crucified and 
 risen One is the Messiah of prophecy, and that 
 this fact is guaranteed by His rising again. We 
 are carried back into a primitive stage of 
 thought, 1 which is evidence of the fact that St. 
 Luke's narrative is based on original sources of 
 information. There is greater affinity with the 
 Synoptic Gospels and their standpoint than with 
 the position of St. Paul in his Epistles or St. 
 John. But an examination of the titles applied 
 
 1 Schmiedel (Encycl. Bibl, \. p. 48) says that the 
 Christology of the speeches of St. Peter is important 
 (historically) in the highest degree, and that it is hardly 
 possible to doubt that it came from a primitive source. 
 In Lukas, der Arzt, pp. 88, 93, Harnack says of the 
 writer, ' the chief point in his picture . . . sustains 
 historical truth.' ' He has personally consorted with the 
 first Christians.' J. Weiss in Hastings' Diet, of Christ and 
 the Gospels, i. p. 26, says : 'These chapters are a true repre- 
 sentation of the spirit of early Jewish Christianity. Very 
 specially is this the case with the Christology.' Harnack, 
 Das Christenthum und die Geschichte, 1896, p. 16, remarks : 
 * Besides the four written Gospels, we possess a fifth, 
 unwritten, and in many respects it speaks more clearly 
 and impressively than the other four I refer to the com- 
 bined testimony of the primitive Christian Community.'
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 309 
 
 in the early chapters to our Lord shows that, if 
 the statement of the Christology is in close 
 accordance with that of the Synoptic Gospels, 
 and bears all the marks of the period to which 
 it refers, like the Synoptic narrative it is in 
 harmony with the more developed conceptions 
 of St. Paul and of the Fourth Gospel. 1 
 
 To St. Peter, the risen Saviour is ' the Prince 
 of Life.' ' It is the heavenly Lord that per- 
 meates the life of His Church and His Apostles, 
 the Ki/jOto? on whom Christians believe. This 
 divine name is very often applied in the Acts 
 to God, but not infrequently also to Christ.' 2 
 ' This same Jesus, Whom ye crucified, hath God 
 made both Lord and Christ.' It was the 
 Resurrection which brought out into the light of 
 day the implicit Lordship and Messiahship of 
 Jesus the Crucified. To use the language of St. 
 Paul, it ' defined ' Him to be the Son of God in 
 
 1 Although ' Son of God ' is not employed in the early 
 chapters of Acts, we find Hats (in. 13, 26; iv. 27, 30). 
 Dalman has shown that Ileus is occasionally used to express 
 'Son' or 'Child,' e.g. in Wisd. ii. 13, xii. 20, also in the 
 Didache, ix. 2, 3, x. 2, and in Clem. Rom. c. lix. 2. 'Son,' 
 rather than ' Servant ' may therefore be the true meaning 
 of Ilais in Acts. Cf. Lepin, Jesus, Messie et Fils de Dieu, 
 
 P- 34 1 - 
 
 2 J. Weiss, ib.
 
 310 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 power. 1 It did not constitute Him such. The 
 way in which the Resurrection was regarded as 
 an epoch-making event, in the experience of 
 Jesus Himself and of His disciples, by no 
 means implies that the earliest Christology after 
 Pentecost is formed on the supposition that He 
 became the Son of God, the Lord, only at His 
 Resurrection. 2 The title ' Lord,' applied, as Weiss 
 says, both to God and to Christ in the Acts, 
 
 1 Acts ii. 36. Rom. i. 4. ' This ' says J. Weiss (ib. 
 p. 27) of Acts ii. 36, 'is the principal extant proof passage 
 for the earliest Christology.' 
 
 2 St. Paul (Acts xiii. 33) applies the words of Ps. ii. 7, 
 ' Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,' to the 
 Resurrection. But, as we see from passages in his Epistles 
 (Col. i. 1 8, Phil. ii. 5, 6, Col. ii. 9, etc.), the Resurrection 
 was not, in his view, the cause or beginning of Christ's 
 Divine Sonship. Nor must St. Peter be understood to date 
 Christ's Divinity from His Resurrection, because he begins 
 his Sermon at Pentecost with allusions to the Manhood, 
 before speaking of the exaltation, of our Lord. He was 
 bound to identify the exalted Lord with Jesus of Nazareth. 
 (v. Lepin, Jesus, Messie et Fils de Dieu, p. 329.) In St. 
 Stephen's vision of Christ in glory, he applies to Him the 
 title, * Son of Man,' for the appearance and form of Man 
 were there ; but he addresses Him in terms implying 
 Divinity, ' Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,' as Christ Him- 
 self had resigned His own spirit into the hands of God 
 the Father. It is untrue to the evidence to say, * Fdr 
 die jiidische Urgemeinde aber war Jesus noch ein mensch-
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 31! 
 
 suffices to show that the Bearer of that divine 
 Name, could not, in the estimation of those 
 who applied it to Him as to God, have had 
 His beginning in time. In the speeches of the 
 early chapters of Acts, He is spoken of as a 
 Divine Being. 
 
 When we pass from the primitive Apostolic 
 Community to St. Paul, we find ourselves in the 
 same atmosphere : but there is greater fulness and 
 clearness of definition. The fact that a favourite 
 idea of some critics is to attribute to St. Paul the 
 Deification of Christ 1 is, however untrue to his- 
 
 licher Messias.' (A. Meyer, Was urn Jesus heute lit, 1907, 
 p. 1 8.) In his speech in the house of Cornelius, St. Peter 
 says, ' . . . Jesus Christ, He is Lord of all.' * It is 
 He which was ordained to be the Judge of quick and 
 dead.' Belief in Him secures remission of sins. (Acts x. 
 36, 42, 43.) Thus, 'the Christ of the first days of the 
 Church is the Son of God, sharing in the powers and 
 privileges of God, the Christ all Divine.' Lepin, op. cit. 
 p. 341. Cf. O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 59. 'They 
 (the miracle narratives of St. Mark) show clearly enough 
 that, even in the circles which specially preserved historical 
 reminiscences of the Life of Jesus, His Form exceeded 
 all standards of human measurement at an early date : 
 this estimate can only have been based on the original 
 impression of Jesus.' 
 
 1 A. Meyer, Wer hat das Christentum begriindet, Jesus oder 
 Paulus, p. 95. ' Versteht man unter Christentum den
 
 312 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 tory, a witness to the Apostle's estimate of His 
 Divinity. St. Paul undoubtedly regarded Christ 
 as partaking of the Divine nature ; but he was 
 not the first to form that conception. The 
 Synoptic Gospels, as we have seen, inform us, in 
 passages of indisputable authenticity, that our 
 Lord in His own and in His disciples' belief and 
 consciousness was a Divine Being. St. Paul, on 
 becoming an adherent in place of a persecutor of 
 Christianity, succeeded to that belief. He in no 
 
 Glauben an Christus als den himmlischen Gottessohn, der 
 nicht zur irdischen Menschheit gehorte, sondern in gott- 
 licher Ebenbildlichkeit und Herrlichkeit lebte, der vom 
 Himmel auf die Erde herabkam, in die Menschheit einging 
 und ihre Gestalt annahm, um ihre Slinde mit seinem Blute 
 am Kreuz zu stihnen, der dann vom Tode ervveckt und als 
 der Herr der Seinen zur Rechten Gottes erhftht wurde, 
 . . . der einst als Weltrichter mit den Wolken des Himmels 
 kommen . . . dann hat hauptsachlich Paulus und nicht 
 Jesus ein solches Christentum begrtindet.' Meyer goes on 
 to admit that some at least of these representations are not 
 the creation of St. Paul, or applied to Christ by him for the 
 first time. He admits that the first disciples regarded Jesus 
 as Messiah and His death as an offering for the sins of the 
 people ; but if Christianity is belief in ' a heavenly Son of 
 God,' then, he considers St. Paul not Christ as the 
 originator of it. How untrue this is to the evidence of 
 the oldest Gospel sources can be seen by reference to what 
 has been said above of the nature of that evidence. If 
 Meyer goes on to say that, though St. Paul was instrumental
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 313 
 
 way originated it. It is among the most para- 
 doxical of modern critical positions, to regard him 
 as more responsible than Christ Himself for 
 the Christian Religion. His influence in widen- 
 ing the conception of the Church, in rescuing it 
 from the confining and conservative ideas of 
 Judaism, in bringing it into touch with Greek 
 thought and life, in setting forward its claim to be 
 nothing less than a world-religion, was of incal- 
 culable value. But in so doing he was merely 
 
 in extending the range and scope of Christianity, Christ 
 was after all its real Founder, yet he admits this only in the 
 sense of a limited and defective Christianity a religion 
 unknown to Gospels and Epistles alike. Wrede, Paulus, 1905, 
 p. 96, speaks of St. Paul's doctrine of Christ as new, 'weil 
 bei Paulus Ursprung und Wesen Christi himmlisch geworden 
 ist.' Cf. p. 1 01. 'Er (Paulus) ist der erste Christliche 
 Theologe gewesen und hat durch seine Theologie die 
 entstehende Religion entscheidend umgewandelt.' Jiilicher, 
 Paulus und Jesus, 1907, p. 68, in answer to the question 'ist 
 wirklich Paulus der zweite Stifter der Christlichen Religion ?' 
 replies that, if by this expression is meant the Christian 
 Church, ' Paul in no sense founded it, for it already existed 
 a good while before he entered it,' and he concludes, 
 ' Christendom has much for which to thank St. Paul, but 
 not for its existence. For that, it is indebted to One 
 greater, Jesus' (p. 72). v. Sanday, Art. 'Paul' in Diet, of 
 Christ, ii. ' It would be an utter mistake to suppose that 
 St. Paul's teaching as to the Person of Christ was a new 
 invention of his own.'
 
 314 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 carrying out Christ's own ideas and wishes. He 
 was importing nothing new. 1 The Preacher of 
 the Sermon on the Mount could aim at nothing 
 
 1 Cf. J. Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus, 1906, p. 58. 'The 
 Gospel of Jesus and the preaching of Paul are in close 
 internal connection; they move in the same sphere of 
 fundamental thought.' Harnack, Das Wesen des Christen- 
 tums, 1905 Aufl. p. 113. 'Paul has converted the Gospel 
 into an universal Religion without destroying its essential 
 and vital characteristics . . . and has laid the foundation 
 for the Church as a whole.' Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des 
 CAristentufns,p. 127. 'From this danger (i.e. of Christianity 
 being involved in the downfall of the Jewish nation) the 
 life-work of Jesus was saved by Paul. Converted from a 
 passionate persecutor to an adherent of the Faith of Christ, 
 he came to understand what was new and characteristic in 
 the Faith more profoundly than the first disciples and, with 
 a greater decision than they had shown, he set it free from 
 the legal religion of Judaism and raised it to the position 
 of an independent Religion for Mankind.' Faut, Die 
 Christologie sett Schleiermacher, p. 82. 'If, in the primitive 
 community, faith in Jesus is already an essential, the essential 
 element of the new Religion, we have no right to make 
 Paul answerable for converting the Religion of Jesus into 
 faith in Jesus. Paul has neither adulterated (verfalscht) 
 nor has he founded the Christian Religion. But it is correct 
 to say that, by means of his theological culture, he built 
 more widely on the foundation of Christology which had 
 been already laid.' Cf. Bousset, Gottesglaube, 1908, p. 48. 
 ' The Christian belief in God is, in a very special sense of 
 the word, belief in Redemption. It was not Paul who was 
 the creator of this belief. It comes out clearly in the Gospel.'
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 315 
 
 less. If the religion of Christ, as we find it out- 
 lined in our oldest sources, makes any claim on 
 men's allegiance, that claim is paramount and 
 absolute, and it is the claim of One Who 
 speaks with the authority of God. St. Paul 
 has made no advance upon this position. But 
 he saw more clearly, and perhaps earlier 
 than other Apostles, the real significance of 
 Christ's claim, and the extent of its require- 
 ments. 
 
 It will suffice to refer to two or three passages 
 in which his meaning is unmistakable. In Phil, 
 ii. 5, 6, he speaks of Christ as being ' in the form 
 of God,' l yet not considering His (actual) equality 
 with God a thing to be ambitiously displayed or 
 taken advantage of, but divesting Himself (of His 
 glory). Here is plainly implied our Lord's 
 Divinity and His Pre-existence. This was how 
 St. Paul regarded His Divine condition, before 
 the Incarnation, when ' He took upon Him the 
 form of a servant and became in the like- 
 ness of men.' The pre-existent state of our 
 
 1 fi> [wp<f>rj Geou vTrdpx<ai'. ' The possession of the fu>p<T/ 
 involves participation in the ova-ia also : for fji,op(fy^ implies 
 not the external accidents but the essential attributes.' 
 Lightfoot in loc.
 
 316 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Lord is constantly before the Apostle's mind 
 when he treats of His earthly life and 
 work. 1 
 
 In Coloss. i. 15, Christ is the Image of the 
 unseen God, 2 representing and manifesting Him. 3 
 He is the First-born of all Creation, 4 the Maker 
 and Sustainer of all created things, before all and 
 above all. This passage may well have been 
 in the mind of the Fourth Evangelist, when 
 writing the Prologue to his Gospel. 5 It expresses, 
 as perhaps no other passage does, the cosmical 
 relations of the Eternal Son, His immanence in 
 
 1 As Sanday (Hastings' D.B. iv. p. 577) and Lepin (Jesus, 
 Messie et Fils de Dieu, pp. 343, 4) point out, in Rom. viii. 
 3, 32, the Son existed before He was 'sent' forth into the 
 world for our salvation. 
 
 2 v. Lightfoot in loc. Inge, Personal Idealism, p. 48. 
 
 3 Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 4. "Os ecrrn/ CIKWV TOU 0eou. 
 
 4 n/0(UTOTOKOS TTCWTTJS KTUTCODS. II/HOTOTOKOS 3CCOrding tO 
 
 Lightfoot (in loc.} implies priority to all creation, the 
 absolute Pre-existence of the Son. On Jewish ideas of 
 pre-existence see Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jeiu, 
 p. 148; Inge, Personal Idealism, p. 51. Dalman (Die Worte 
 Jesu, p. 107), allows that there was a heavenly Pre-existence 
 of the Messiah taught in Ethiop. Enoch. He comes down 
 from heaven. Dalman rejects Ethiop. Enoch, xlviii. 6, which 
 teaches existence before the worlds, but he gives no reason. 
 
 5 * The doctrine of the prologue is, so far as I can see, 
 identical with that of St. Paul.' Inge, op. fit. p. 52.
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 317 
 
 the world which He made, but which, at the 
 same time, He transcends. The steps by which 
 St. Paul attained to this conception cannot be 
 traced with any certainty. Once attained, it is 
 found to be so satisfying to the philosophic and 
 the religious sense alike, that it must always 
 exercise a profound influence upon thought. 
 
 Closely allied to Pauline Christology is the 
 passage Hebr. i. 1-5. The Son is here the instru- 
 ment of God in Creation, 1 ' the effulgence ' or 
 'raying forth of His glory,' 2 'the expression of 
 His essence,' 3 ' bearing along all things by the 
 word of His power.' Here we have at once sub- 
 ordination, and identity of being. The Father is 
 always Father, the Son is always Son. To that 
 extent there must always be subordination. But 
 in truth and essence of being there is no distinc- 
 tion to be found. 4 
 
 1 Cf. I Cor. viii. 6. < God the Father from Whom (e 
 ou) are all things one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom (81 ov) 
 are all things.' v. John i. 3. 
 
 2 Vulg. 'Splendor gloriae.' Cf. Nicene Creed, 'Light 
 of Light.' 
 
 3 Westcott, in loc. Cf. Clem. Rom. i. 33. 
 
 4 This passage contains expressions peculiar to the writer. 
 He brings fresh colours to portray the Divine Figure, but he 
 works in the same outline. There is nothing contradicting
 
 3i8 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 When we turn to the Book of Revelation, 
 we are brought face to face with the sublime 
 Figure of the exalted Christ. He has passed 
 through death and is ' alive for evermore.' We 
 are reminded of His own Self-imposed designation 
 in the Gospels. He is ' One like a Son of Man.' l 
 He is human still, but the humanity is transfigured 
 and glorified. We see it in its perfection, The 
 ascended Christ is the Christ of the Trans- 
 figuration and of the Forty Days, but now He 
 is on the Throne of God. 2 Divine honours and 
 prerogatives are ascribed to Him. He receives 
 the worship of the host of heaven. He is 
 called 'the Son of God,' 'the Word of God,' 
 
 the conception obtainable from the Synoptics and St. Paul 
 and St. John. The subject is vast and it is viewed from 
 fresh aspects and under new light. An enrichment of the 
 conception formed of the Person of our Lord was to be 
 expected after His departure. The Holy Spirit was 'to 
 show ' the things of Christ : but the point for which we 
 contend is, that it is the same Christ Who was known to 
 the first witnesses. The Stiller of the storm in Petrine 
 Mark and the Upholder of all things in Hebr. i. 3, are not 
 different persons, nor do they move on different planes. It 
 was natural for writers coming from various schools of 
 thought Jewish and Hellenic to contribute what was 
 peculiar to those schools to the increasing sum of Christo- 
 logy. 
 
 1 i. 18, 13; xiv. 14. 2 xxii. i, 3.
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 319 
 
 ' the Prince of the Kings of the earth,' the 
 Alpha and the Omega. 1 Passages in the Old 
 Testament which relate to God are without 
 hesitation applied to Christ. Yet the writer is 
 careful to identify the ascended Christ with the 
 Christ of the humiliation. ' The Lamb ' is a title 
 frequently applied to Him, and it becomes a 
 standing memorial of the atoning suffering of 
 the Cross. Thus, ' the Christ of the Apocalypse 
 is the Christ of the Gospels, but a change has 
 passed over Him which is beyond words.' 2 The 
 conception of the risen and ascended Lord is 
 enriched by the vision of His glorified existence, 
 which is imparted to the Seer : but it is the same 
 Lord to Whom the other New Testament writers 
 bear their witness, and the identification is em- 
 phasized by the frequent use of the name Jesus, 3 
 recalling Bethlehem and Nazareth, and all the Life 
 of love and sacrifice which culminated in the 
 Cross. 
 
 Thus we have a chain of evidence from Apos- 
 tolic writers St. John, St. Paul, the Author of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews which, taking up the 
 
 1 v. I iff. ; ii. 1 8 ; xix. 13 ; i. 5 ; xxii. 13. 
 
 2 Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, pp. clvii, clviii, civ. 
 
 3 i. i, 2, 5, 9; xvii. 6 ; xxii. 20, 21.
 
 320 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 line of thought already existing in the primitive 
 community, gave it fresh and amplified expres- 
 sion, but never exceeded its content. The Self- 
 consciousness of Christ and its reflection in the 
 minds of His first disciples, as delivered to us by 
 the Synoptic record, contain the doctrine of the 
 Son, as we have it illustrated in the writers just 
 cited. Speaking of the witness which our Lord 
 bears to Himself in the Fourth Gospel, Barth 
 remarks, ' We have the same Jesus presented to 
 us as in the Synoptic Writers.' 1 
 
 1 Die Hauptprobleme des Lebeni Jesu, p. 254. 'We have 
 the same Jesus before us as in the Synoptics ; but John 
 turns away from the mass of particulars in His historical 
 life, in order to concentrate attention on its main point 
 the mystery of the Life of Jesus.' I find the view taken 
 above confirmed by Illingworth, who in his recent work, 
 The Doctrine of the Trinity (Nov. 1907), warns us against 
 the wrong use of the term development in connection 
 with the formulation of the Christian Faith, e.g. ' a 
 development in which alien elements gradually filtered 
 into and became incorporated with primitive Christianity 
 till they had altered it past all recognition ' (p.Jo). As 
 he says, ' The existence of the Trinity and the significance 
 of His own Advent had, as we believe, been taught by 
 Christ Himself. And no addition was made to this 
 revelation, nor could, as far as we can conceive, be made 
 by any human interpreter' (p. 91). ' Thus the teaching of 
 St. Paul and St. John constitutes a new development of 
 Christian doctrine, in the sense of being an inspired
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 321 
 
 We have now to consider the conclusion to 
 which we are led by the evidence which we have 
 been reviewing. Messiah, Son of Man, Son of 
 God, the Logos, Judge of quick and dead. All 
 these terms are found to be applied to Jesus of 
 Nazareth, and rest upon evidence of varying 
 strength. We have seen that, according to the 
 admissions of advanced criticism, the undisputed 
 
 explanation of what was implicit, but never an addition to 
 what was implicit in the teaching of Christ Himself (p. 101. 
 The italics are our own). ' We find a development of 
 doctrine, or teaching, in the sense of a new mode of 
 stating the old truth ; but not in the sense of the invention 
 or proclamation of any new truth ; and though this 
 distinction may sound subtle it is profoundly real ' (p. 
 121). 'Within the bounds of Scripture itself we believe 
 St. Paul and St. John to do no more than explain with 
 inspired insight the meaning of what Jesus Christ had 
 Himself revealed through His Personality and in His tench- 
 ing, by His words and work ' (p. 208). Cf. Faut, Die 
 Christohgie seit Schleiermacher, p. 84. ' What the Goppel 
 of John says of Jesus is, in the last resort, nothing but 
 what was contained in the original Gospel itself. He 
 was for His disciples, in very deed, "The Way, the Truth, 
 and the Life"; through Him alone they came to the 
 Father. In Him they saw " the glory of God, full of 
 Grace and Truth." In Him they saw the Father.' 
 Kuhl, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, p. 36. 'The peculiarity 
 of the Fourth Gospel in relation to the Synoptics does 
 not lie in the character of the Self-witness of Jesus. If 
 we except the one thought of Pre-existence ... the 
 
 x
 
 322 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 parts of the Synoptic tradition bear witness to the 
 existence in the Person of Christ of a transcen- 
 dental element, of a relation to God which is 
 quite different from that of ordinary men. 
 
 It is allowed by the best critical scholars 
 that Jesus was conscious of standing to God 
 in the relation of Son to Father in an unique 
 sense. This unique relation is acknowledged 
 and enforced in varying degrees of clearness 
 and cogency by a chain of writers extending 
 from St. Mark to St. John, from one end of 
 the New Testament to the other. 
 
 To the primitive Apostolic circle Christ was 
 the Son of God, the Lord. By St. Paul, the 
 writer to the Hebrews and St. John in his old 
 age, this conception was retained, but illustrated 
 and amplified. There was no addition to the 
 creed of the primitive community ; but the bear- 
 residue of the sayings of Jesus about His Person, about 
 the character and object of His historical mission and 
 about His relation to the Father, do not go in a single 
 point beyond the sayings to which the Christ of the 
 Synoptics gives utterance.' With regard to Pre-existence, 
 Ktthl observes later on, that the consciousness of His 
 Pre-existence and of His having come forth from God, 
 formed a constituent element of the Self-consciousness of 
 Jesus during all the time that He knew that He was 
 the Messiah. Ib. p. 80.
 
 323 
 
 ings of what it held were more fully realised, and 
 its consequences were better understood. 1 
 
 The Synoptic writers abstained from drawing 
 the conclusion to which their statements logically 
 point. It is one of the chief signs of their 
 
 1 Jesus Christ was recognised by His followers as the 
 very Person for Whom their race had been confidently wait- 
 ing, the Messiah. And this point being once definitely 
 reached, it was perfectly possible to lead men to a larger 
 and deeper conception of Messiahship, especially in the 
 light thrown upon His Person by His Resurrection. That 
 conception would have been hardly comprehended or 
 sustained by His followers while He walked the earth 
 among them, but could be borne as soon as the awe of 
 His personal presence was removed ; as He had said, ' I 
 have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear 
 them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth, 
 is come, He will guide you into all truth . . . He shall 
 receive of Mine and shall show it unto you.' Jo. xvi. 
 12 ff. 
 
 Cf. Faut, Die Cbristo/ogie selt Schleiermacher, p. 82. 'It 
 is correct to say that a particular doctrine of the Person 
 of Jesus is not to be found in the original Gospel. The 
 faith of the disciples rested on no doctrine of Christ, but 
 from the very first upon the Person of Jesus. . . . On 
 the other hand, it is clear that, after His Death and 
 Resurrection, the conviction that in Jesus Christ had 
 appeared Salvation required clear expression. It is no 
 departure from the Gospel of Jesus, if the Apostles place 
 His Person in the very centre of their life and thought ; for 
 Jesus was this centre, as a matter of fact, from the very 
 beginning.'
 
 324 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 historical value, that they are content to narrate 
 the bare facts, unadorned and unidealised. They 
 tell us what Jesus said, what He did and, to a 
 slight extent only, what disciples and other 
 people thought of Him. But true to the pur- 
 pose with which they wrote the committal to 
 writing of the recollections of the eye-witnesses 
 of His life, before the lapse of time could 
 obliterate the sharpness of the historical outline 
 they forbore to dogmatise. They speak of 
 Christ as the Son of God. They do not draw 
 out for us what the term implies. 
 
 But before they had written a line of their 
 Gospels, there were in existence the letters of an 
 Apostle who did not hesitate to state, in the 
 clearest and most unmistakable language, the 
 meaning of the facts which were already in the 
 possession of the primitive community, and which 
 were hereafter to be recorded in those Gospels. 
 St Paul gives us what, to his own mind and 
 to the judgment of the rest of the Apostolic 
 circle, was the only possible explanation of the 
 phenomena which the Synoptic record has handed 
 down. He distinctly tells us that he compared 
 the Gospel, as he held it, with that of the primi- 
 tive Apostolic circle. He conferred with James,
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 325 
 
 Peter and John ; and all were at one on all 
 essential points. If the Epistles of St. Paul are 
 referred to, it will be found that his presentation 
 of the Person of Christ is consistent throughout. 
 In the undisputed Epistles, as well as in those 
 that have been challenged, we can find the same 
 conception of our Lord, and that a conception 
 which the Apostle has submitted in conference 
 to those ' who were in Christ before ' him. 
 
 This consideration is of great importance. It 
 means that, although the writers of the three first 
 Gospels were content to keep to their purpose 
 of recording recollections of the words and acts 
 of Christ, without proceeding to explain what 
 their narrative implied, they were not unconscious 
 of its meaning. They must have shared the 
 knowledge and the belief of the Church as a 
 whole, the full and clear expression of which is 
 embodied in the letters of St. Paul. The Syn- 
 optic writers while they record with faithfulness 
 as shown by their abstention from dogmatism 
 the words of Christ as He spoke them, and His 
 deeds as He performed them, are yet alive to the 
 tremendous issues which depend upon their story. 
 When they speak of the Son of God they know, 
 if they do not say, what that title means. Of
 
 326 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 this we are assured by what St. Paul tells us 
 of his conference with the leaders of the Church 
 at Jerusalem ; for the result of that conference 
 comes out in his writings. And the fact of this 
 consciousness on their part has this further result. 
 It means that, when they are drawing their 
 portrait of Christ and employing terms which 
 convey the impression that His Personality is 
 Divine and transcendental, they have no fear 
 that they will be misunderstood, and that an 
 unduly exalted conception of Jesus of Nazareth 
 will be formed. There is no single sentence 
 guarding their readers against such an idea, for 
 none was needed. The primitive Church was of 
 one mind in ascribing to her Lord ' a Name 
 which is above every Name,' in seating Him in 
 glory at the right hand of God. 
 
 And* what is the conclusion to which the 
 evidence points? Who is this Son of God to 
 Whom the New Testament writers bear their 
 witness ? When we try to get behind the 
 language employed, and to penetrate the mystery 
 of a Being Who is as truly possessed of Divinity 
 as of humanity, and yet is one Christ, we find 
 that nothing short of the ascription of Godhead 
 satisfies the requirements of the case. St. Paul
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 327 
 
 supplies the terms which we need, though, as 
 we have argued, he is at one with primitive 
 Christian thought and expresses what it held. 
 In Coloss. ii. 9, speaking of Christ, he says, ' in 
 Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
 bodily.' 1 'Non modo divinae virtutes, sed ipsa 
 divina natura ' is the comment of Bengel. A 
 further step is taken by St. Paul in Rom. ix. 5. 
 He is speaking of the Israelites, his own kinsmen, 
 and adds, ' Whose are the Fathers, and of whom 
 as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over 
 all, God blessed for ever. Amen.' 2 Christ is 
 God. There, in plain and direct language, we 
 
 1 This refers to Christ as the Eternal Word, not as 
 Incarnate, v . Lightfoot in loc. Cf. ' God was in Christ 
 reconciling the World unto Himself.' 
 
 2 According to the text of Westcott and Hort. Cf. Godet 
 in loc. The punctuation adopted by Westcott and Hort, a 
 comma at ardpKo, (in the margin they place a colon), has 
 the authority of the most ancient MSS. and of the Versions 
 which are not ambiguous. Dean Burgon (The Revision 
 Revised, p. 2ioff.) characterises the marginal punctuation 
 of the R.V. as a ' Socinian gloss ' and states that the clause 
 6 &v irl -TrdvTiav 0ebs e^Aoy^Tos et's TOVS attorns refers 
 to Christ, according to sixty Fathers. ' Were there no 
 theological considerations in the case, 6 Xptcrros would be 
 naturally taken as the antecedent of o <ov ; and this appears 
 also as the connection which the argument requires.' 
 Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, p. 308, n.
 
 328 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 have what we have found implied in the Synop- 
 tic Gospels, in the thought of the Pentecostal 
 Church, in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the 
 Johannine writings. 1 
 
 Jesus, the Son of Mary, the Prophet of Naz- 
 areth, the Messiah, the Son of God, is Himself 
 God. That is the position which alone satisfies 
 the evidence afforded by the New Testament 
 writers, and it is the only logical conclusion to 
 the argument which we have been following. 
 
 But it requires explanation. In the statement, 
 Christ is God, the subject and the predicate are 
 not identical. We can predicate Godhead of 
 Christ : but we cannot invert the statement and 
 say, God is Christ. In other words, the God- 
 head is a term of greater content than Christ. 
 When we say that He is God, we do not exhaust 
 the conception of Godhead. This is apparent 
 from our Lord's own references to His Divine 
 Sonship. Godhead, according to Him, contains 
 within itself Fatherhood and Sonship. There is 
 distinction. It is no bare abstract unity. The 
 conception of the Godhead is infinitely enriched 
 
 1 Cf. Jo. i. I, KOI Gebs fy 6 Adyos. Hebr. i. 8, Trpbs 
 8e TOP vidv, o Opovos (TOD, o 0eds, tis rbv attuva TOV 
 ataivos.
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 329 
 
 through the revelation of the Eternal Son. 
 The Fatherhood of God was a fact known 
 and fully acknowledged by the Old Testament 
 writers; but it was a Fatherhood which had man 
 for its correlative. Apart from a few scattered 
 indications to the contrary, it cannot be said 
 that the Old Testament knows anything of 
 relationship within the Godhead. The greatest, 
 the most inestimable gift of Jesus Christ to the 
 religious thought of mankind is the knowledge 
 that, within the Godhead, stand over against 
 one another, yet in perfect union, the Eternal 
 Father and the Eternal Son. Fatherhood no 
 more exhausts the conception of the Godhead 
 than does Sonship. 
 
 When the New Testament writers speak of 
 Christ as God, they do not consider the question 
 of adapting their language to Old Testament 
 conceptions of the Godhead, although as Jews 
 it was the Old Testament that supplied them 
 with their idea of God. They take the thought 
 of Christ as they had known Him personally 
 or by report of witnesses, and finding Him to 
 be divine, they speak of Him as such. They 
 feel that, if they know anything of God, Jesus 
 is divine, and they do not shrink from calling
 
 330 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Him God, or from speaking of Him in terms 
 which are only applicable to God. 1 
 
 They do not concern themselves with the task 
 of drawing out into dogma the meaning of their 
 belief. They leave that to after-thought. 2 But 
 they have come to realise that the God, Whom 
 they and their fathers worshipped as the One 
 God and Father of all, admits within the circle 
 of His Being a distinction, not of essence, but 
 of Person. To say this is, of course, to use the 
 language of a later age : but the thought, if not 
 its expression, was there. 3 In thinking of God, 
 in the light of their Saviour's teaching on the 
 Father and the Son, their hereditary conception 
 of a solitary Personality, as constituting the 
 
 1 ' Out of the oldest tradition, along with Kvptos and 
 2wT7/p, the name 6 vios row Oeou was fastened on Jesus 
 and in Gentile Christian Communities was strongly held. 
 Out of this name it directly followed that Jesus belongs 
 to the sphere of God.' Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, i. p. 130. 
 
 2 Cf. O. Holtzmann, Leben Jcsu, p. 223. 'They might 
 well be content, at the saying of Jesus that * the Son alone 
 knows the Father,' to wonder at the lofty flight of His 
 Self-consciousness, without drawing further conclusions 
 from it.' 
 
 3 Cf. du Bose, The Gospel in the Gospels, p. 281. 
 * Practical faith in the Trinity antedated any speculative 
 thought or doctrine of the Trinity.'
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 331 
 
 Godhead, began to take a fuller and a manifold 
 form. To put the idea pictorially, within the 
 one rounded whole of Godhead they began to 
 see the dim outline of shapes co-existing and 
 correlated. The unity is no bare abstraction. 
 There is diversity within it, and they learned from 
 Christ that that diversity comprehended Father- 
 hood and Sonship, eternally bound each to each 
 in the bond of Eternal Love. 1 This conception 
 
 1 ' What the Apostolic writers attempt is to express the 
 notion which they owed to Christ, of a God Who is both 
 Father and Son, Who is a unity which is the home of 
 distinctions, the distinctions not dissolving the unity nor 
 the unity cancelling the distinctions.' Fairbairn, Christ 
 in Modern Theology, p. 393. ' I fully believe that the hints 
 and intimations of a Trinity that we find scattered about 
 the New Testament have their origin ultimately in the 
 teaching of Christ.' Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 
 p. 219. v. supra, p. 320, note. 'There are Trinitarian 
 passages in the earliest Christian literature which are not 
 easily to be explained, unless we may suppose that the 
 Lord Himself had associated the Father, the Son and 
 the Spirit in some saying attributed to Him by the 
 tradition of the first generation, e.g. 2 Cor. xiii. 14 ; 
 Eph. iv. 4, 5 ; I Pet. i. 2 ; Rev. i. 4, 5 ; Clem. R. Cor. 
 46, 6.' Swete, The Appearances of Our Lord after the 
 Passion, p. 77. 'The formula, Father, Son and Spirit, 
 must, with almost entire certainty, be referred to Christ 
 Himself.' Seeberg, Grundwahrheiten der Christlichen Re- 
 ligion, p. 1 18. 'In the New Testament, the Trinity is
 
 332 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 is no new, unheard of, one, sprung upon the 
 world by the influence of St. Paul. It lies 
 already enfolded within the teaching of Christ 
 Himself, as handed down to us in what, as we 
 have seen, is probably the oldest Gospel source 
 the Logia element, common to St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke. St. Paul found it, on his conversion, 
 among the possessions of the primitive Church. 
 It gained much in clearness of definition and 
 in force of expression from the combined 
 application to it of his intellect and his 
 enthusiasm ; but it was not his invention. We 
 may feel sure that nothing short of the authority 
 of Christ Himself would have given to the 
 Apostolic Church the confidence, or the justifica- 
 tion, to enrich the conception of the Godhead, 
 which they had received from the tradition of 
 the Fathers and in the language of the succeed- 
 ing age ' to think of Christ as God.' * 
 
 not brought forward as doctrine : it comes out as the result 
 of New Testament sayings, if they are put together and 
 followed back into their presuppositions.' Kirn, Art. 
 ' Trinitat ' in Real-Encyclop. filr prot. Theologie und Kirche, 
 Bd. xx. 1908, p. 112. 
 
 1 Clem. Rom. ad Corinth, ii. (so called) i, assigned to the 
 first half of the second century (Lightfoot-Harmer, Apostolic 
 Fathers, p. 41). The fact of St. Paul's former hostility to
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 333 
 
 Christ's ' essential equality with God ' is not 
 then, as A. Meyer would have it, the result of 
 a gradual development of thought, or the 
 expression of the gratitude of Christendom to 
 Him Who has led men to God ; nor is it to 
 be regarded as a necessity, in order to make 
 clear the pre-eminence of Christ over the Caesars 
 and other heroes so freely deified by men. 1 
 
 everyone and everything bearing the name of Christ ' I 
 thought I ought to do many things contrary to the name 
 of Jesus of Nazareth' shows that before his conversion, 
 he believed the Christian Faith to be a standing act of 
 blasphemy, and that he was jealous of the majesty of the 
 One God, which he held to be invaded by the Christian 
 devotion to the Person of Our Lord. Thus his attitude to 
 Christianity, as a persecutor, is an indication of what the 
 first Christians thought of Christ. According to Harnack 
 (Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur, Th. ii. Bd. i. 
 Chronologie, p. 237), his conversion took place within about 
 a year of the Crucifixion. He is therefore, by the fact 
 of his hostility and the presumable motives for it, a direct 
 witness to the earliest Christology. Cf. Illingworth, The 
 Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 207. ' ... we believe God the 
 Son to have become incarnate and to have revealed the 
 existence of Father, Son and Spirit in terms which, again 
 under divine guidance as we further believe, led to the 
 subsequent Creed of the Church.' 
 
 1 Cf. A. Meyer, Was uns Jesus heute isf, 1907, p. 19. 
 Wernle, Die Anfange unserer Religion, p. 294, with equal 
 disregard to the evidence, denies that the idea of Christ's
 
 334 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 Rather is it the logical conclusion which follows 
 from consideration of His unique relation to 
 the Father, His Lordship over the world, His 
 part in creation, His office as Judge, His pre- 
 existence. It is the crystallization into one 
 statement of fact, of the various qualities and 
 powers which have been revealed by His own 
 Self-consciousness, as reported by His first 
 witnesses. It is contrary to the evidence 
 to attribute to St. Paul a conception of 
 Christ to which His earliest disciples were 
 strangers. 1 
 
 Divinity could be arrived at except through the instru- 
 mentality of the converted pagan, who had no difficulty 
 in finding a place for Him in his worship. As we have 
 seen above, the truth was already the possession of the 
 primitive Palestinian community, v. Contemp. Review for 
 Jan. 1908, p. 6, Lit. Sup. 'We can trace both the assertions 
 of the Trinity and of the Incarnation in their unvarying 
 substantial form back to within ten years of their origin. 
 But the importance of this continuous tradition of a great 
 Society does not stop here. The connection is too close 
 to allow of the explanation of a gradual deification of 
 Christ or of the intrusion of the doctrine from the East, 
 the Triads of India or Egypt.' 
 
 1 Cf. Illingworth, The Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 54. 
 * Christians have sufficient justification, from their own 
 point of view, for believing that the existence of the 
 Trinity was taught by Christ Himself.'
 
 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 335 
 
 And if the first Christians left the definition of 
 their newly found conception of the Godhead to 
 be laid down by the thought of the future, they 
 were equally indifferent to the metaphysical 
 reconstruction which it required. It had been 
 borne in upon their minds with irresistible force 
 that the Jesus of Nazareth, with Whom they had 
 lived in closest intimacy, was more than Man. 
 His own Self-confessed relation to the Father as 
 Son, in a sense peculiar to Himself, His teaching, 
 His works, the effect, impossible to convey, yet 
 hinted at again and again, of His conduct and 
 bearing upon themselves all gave the impression 
 that He, Who could so speak and act and behave, 
 was a Divine Being. As Jews, they could not 
 dream of adding a God to the God of their 
 Fathers. Nor could they refuse to own the 
 Godhead of One, Who was so manifest a 
 revelation of all they had learned to associate 
 with the Name of God. Hence their worship 
 and adoration, the Divinity which they ascribed 
 to Him, careless of harmonising their attitude 
 with their ancient creed, caring only to be true to 
 the convictions which it would be treason to resist. 
 But, if the reconciliation of this belief with 
 the central truth of the Unity of God was the task
 
 336 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 of succeeding centuries, the primitive community 
 possessed, in their hold upon the Incarnation, 
 a complete justification for their position. They 
 believed that, in the Person of His Eternal Son, 
 God had come among them ; that Jesus Christ, 
 as Man, was born at a certain moment into the 
 world, but that He came as One Who was sent 
 and Who, in His pre-existent life, was One with 
 God. As we have seen, this is especially the 
 teaching of St. Paul and St. John. Each held 
 the truth of the pre-existence of the Eternal Son, 
 although they expressed it in very different 
 terms. 1 Each taught that He laid aside that 
 glory which He ' had with the Father, before the 
 world was,' to come and dwell among men. And it 
 is to the revelation imparted by the Incarnate Son, 
 that we owe the certainty of that manifold nature 
 of the Godhead, which the Church afterwards 
 defined to be a Trinity in Unity, and which alone 
 corresponds to the requirements of philosophical 
 thought when directed upon the Being of God. 2 
 
 14 Jesus is to all the Evangelists a supernatural Person. 
 . . . They differ in their discernment and appreciation of 
 what this belief involves, but not in the fact or matter of 
 the belief.' Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, pp. 346, 7. 
 
 2 For the philosophical justification of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, v, Illingworth, Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 238
 
 CHAPTER XV 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 IN our study of the Person of Jesus Christ as we 
 find Him portrayed in the New Testament, we 
 took our stand upon those portions of Scripture 
 which are admitted by advanced critics of the 
 highest repute to be genuine and authentic. In 
 the Petrine portion of St. Mark and in the 
 Matthaean Logia, common to the First and Third 
 Gospels, we found sources which may be regarded 
 with entire confidence, as forming an unshaken 
 foundation for our knowledge of the Person and 
 the work of Christ. 
 
 No main position of the argument contained 
 in these pages has been reached by the use of 
 sources other than these two primary elements of 
 the Gospel. We claim to have found in them all 
 we need to establish our conception of the Person 
 of Whom they speak.
 
 338 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 But we have not hesitated to employ, in 
 illustration, or in enforcement of positions already 
 gained, other portions of the Synoptic Gospels, 
 believing that their assignment by certain critics 
 to a lower level of historic value is largely the 
 result of unscientific presupposition, or of subjective 
 methods of criticism. 
 
 Further, we proceeded to use not as sole, but 
 as parallel or confirmatory evidence, the Fourth 
 Gospel, believing that it contains the report of an 
 eye-witness who has long meditated on what he 
 saw, but whose reflections give a true account of 
 the essential facts which he relates. 
 
 In the speeches of St. Peter in the Acts, we 
 found the mind of the primitive community while 
 under the overmastering influence of the Resurrec- 
 tion. In the Epistles of St. Paul, the teaching 
 on the Person of Christ was found to be in 
 harmony with the thought of the first Apostolic 
 circle. 
 
 The course of our argument has run from the 
 visible to the invisible, from the external to the 
 internal, from the human life that could be seen 
 and handled and noted, to the Divine life which 
 the visible and external enshrined and manifested. 
 Taking the plain and obvious as a starting point ;
 
 CONCLUSION 339 
 
 working from what is admitted by all reasonable 
 schools of thought, it passed to a line of cleavage, 
 where men take their sides and come to a 
 decision for, or against, the position which is 
 adopted. This method is argumentatively correct. 
 But it has the disadvantage of obscuring the fact 
 that the true order is the reverse. For, if the 
 visible and external elements of Christ's Person 
 are not an after-thought, if the Incarnation was 
 eternally determined, 1 yet the primal and necessary 
 constituents of His Personality are to be found in 
 His Divine Nature. He was God before He 
 became Man. His Personality is Divine. He is 
 not a human being exalted to Divinity. He is 
 the Divine Word Which 'became flesh.' 2 There- 
 fore, to study His Person in the natural order, 
 His Divinity must come first, and we see the traces 
 of this conviction in the method both of St. Paul 
 and St. John. Their hold on the Divinity of 
 their Lord is so complete, that it is the thought 
 which is constantly uppermost in their minds. 
 But here we have to do with what is matter of 
 
 JCf. i Pet. i. 20. 
 
 2 ' Assumpsit quod non erat, non amisit quod erat. 
 Apparebat homo et latebat Deus.' Aug. Sermo ccxli in 
 die A seen s. Domini (i.).
 
 340 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 controversy and the opposite order, if unnatural, 
 is expedient. We have to proceed from what is 
 admitted to what is disputed, and on the ground 
 of those admissions to endeavour to advance to 
 other positions. Like a line of skirmishers 
 moving forward to the capture of a stronghold, 
 we have to secure our hold upon the ground we 
 have won, by digging ourselves in, before we can 
 advance over the bullet-swept plain which is 
 ahead of us. 
 
 On this principle, we have considered the 
 evidence bearing upon our Lord as an historical 
 Person, living at a certain time. On the strength 
 of His own Self-consciousness, as reported in 
 undisputed Gospel narratives, we found that He 
 acknowledged Himself to be the Messiah, that 
 He was accepted as such by His own followers, 
 and that He was crucified, on account of the 
 nature of His claim, by the authorities of the 
 time. Along with His Messianic claim as Son 
 of Man, there is indisputable proof that He 
 considered Himself to be the future Judge, the 
 Disposer of the eternal destiny of every member 
 of the human race and, in a sense quite apart 
 from the ordinary use of the words, ' the Son of 
 God.'
 
 CONCLUSION 341 
 
 And the claims which He advances are, 
 according to our most authentic sources, allowed 
 by His followers. His enemies bear witness to 
 the fact that He advanced them, and the practices 
 and rites of the Christian Church are to-day a 
 proof of their historical character, and of their 
 acceptance by all who in every succeeding age 
 have called upon His Name. 
 
 The interpretation of these results of our 
 investigation led to the only possible conclusion. 
 He Who could so speak and act, to Whom His 
 disciples yielded the reverence and adoration 
 which are due to Divinity, Who accepted their 
 worship without rebuke, the sinless Saviour, the 
 Son of God, is Himself Divine. Jesus Christ is 
 God. 
 
 It is the only possible conclusion, if we take 
 account of the actual facts. Any position which 
 stops short of it, fails to do justice to the evidence. 
 The construction which the Christian Church has 
 placed upon that evidence for nineteen centuries, 
 which she has embodied in her creeds and made 
 a condition of her membership, has the advantage 
 of taking account of all the facts and circum- 
 stances of the case. No difficulty is shirked. 
 Every ascertained truth is allowed for ; and with
 
 342 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 the result neither philosophy nor science have any 
 ground of quarrel. 
 
 The position of the more ' advanced ' wing of 
 the critical school, on the other hand, remains 
 unsatisfactory from every point of view. The 
 process of historical criticism, which has been 
 going on for the last 150 years, has resulted in 
 a general agreement among reasonable students 
 of the New Testament upon certain questions, 
 which are of the highest importance in the study 
 of the Person of our Lord. One of the conse- 
 quences of this agreement has been the admission 
 that Jesus Christ stands apart from other men, 
 in His character and in the nature of the claims 
 which He advanced. 
 
 As we have seen, such an admission as this 
 goes far towards conceding the whole Christian 
 position. Critics of great learning and repute 
 allow that Christ was the Messiah of His people, 
 and that He believed Himself to stand in an unique 
 relation to God. They agree that He was sinless 
 and that, as no other has done, He revealed to 
 man the mind of God. 
 
 But, varying as these critics of the more 
 advanced school do in the nature and extent of 
 their admissions, they agree in shrinking from
 
 CONCLUSION 343 
 
 drawing the logical conclusion of the facts before 
 them. In some cases, this is due to the influence 
 of presuppositions which appear to forbid such 
 a conclusion. In other cases, they are deterred 
 by consideration of the analogies afforded by the 
 comparative study of Religion ; while, in many 
 instances, their methods are too arbitrary and 
 subjective to allow them to arrive at an unbiassed 
 conclusion. 
 
 The result of the negative attitude which, as 
 they hold, is forced upon them by their point 
 of view, is to land them in an impasse. The 
 evidence points to a great, an unique Personality 
 They admit the Divine in Him. Their language 
 rises frequently into heights of religious fervoui 
 and devotion, which would be extravagant and 
 uncalled for, if their subject were but human 
 after all. And yet, constrained by their Weltan- 
 schauung, and by the supposed requirements oi 
 scientific criticism, they will not carry then 
 convictions to their only logical conclusion. The 
 Person of Christ remains to them something 
 undefined, midway between God and Man. The 
 influence which is regenerating the world is 
 unexplained, and we get the strange result, that 
 the greatest spiritual force which the world has
 
 344 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 known, is misunderstood by all who have 
 yielded to it, and found in it their inspiration. 
 Thus, legitimate inferences, such as would be 
 drawn in any other set of circumstances, are 
 checked by the supposed necessity of a priori and 
 subjective judgments. It is not as of old, ' We 
 will not have this Man to reign over us.' They 
 feel and, in spite of themselves, at times they own 
 His sway ; but, from their standpoint, they cannot 
 act upon their convictions. 
 
 Unsatisfactory as this condition of things must 
 be to the Critics themselves, the result of their 
 labours has, in many instances, advanced the 
 cause of truth and therefore the cause of Christ. 
 The original sources have been subjected to so 
 minute and unsparing an investigation, that we 
 can feel doubly certain of our right to rely upon 
 them. Even where negative conclusions have 
 been arrived at, the general result has often been 
 positive and valuable to a high degree. There is 
 a sureness and definiteness about what is retained, 
 which often compensates for the loss of what had 
 to be given up. If certain outlying positions 
 have had to be abandoned, the fortress itself 
 stands firm. 
 
 But there is another side of the question which
 
 CONCLUSION 345 
 
 must not be lost sight of. Too often, the negative 
 conclusions which have been arrived at with 
 regard to some precious incident of our Saviour's 
 life, or some Word of His which has brought 
 peace and hope to generations of His people, 
 have betrayed the presence of unworthy prejudice, 
 and been found to rest on all too insufficient 
 grounds. The responsibility incurred by those 
 who, lightly and without justification, throw doubt 
 on narratives which have furnished spiritual 
 sustenance to thousands of believers in every age, 
 it is impossible to overestimate ; and of this sort 
 of thing there is still too much. It is specially 
 to be deprecated when, as so often happens, the 
 judgment pronounced is spoken as ex cathedra, 
 unsupported by argument, and resting on no 
 evidence. 1 
 
 In the study of such a question as the Person 
 of our Lord, where the phenomena which can 
 be critically tested and examined form only a 
 small proportion of the subject-matter, it be- 
 comes all important to inquire the nature of 
 the presuppositions with which we approach it. 
 
 1 Instances have been noticed in the above pages and 
 could be largely multiplied. Cf. Salmon, The Human 
 Element in the Gospels, p. 312.
 
 346 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 The practice of many of the advanced school 
 of New Testament critics is to rule out of the 
 province of historical inquiry all ' transcendental ' 
 phenomena, and thereby to close the door to 
 any consideration of the Divine claims of Christ. 
 In this way the Gospel History is limited, as 
 history, to the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth 
 as Man. All attempts to follow Him into the 
 other region of His Personality, in which the 
 Church has always believed, are foreclosed by 
 a blank non possumus. The belief in the trans- 
 cendental side of the subject is noted and 
 observed as a fact of history, a stage in the 
 process of human thought and experience. But 
 the matter of the belief is left out of account, 
 as a subject with which science has no power 
 or right to deal. For instance, the Easter belief 
 of the disciples is acknowledged and discussed 
 as an historical phenomenon. The object of 
 the belief is passed over as something (if some- 
 thing there be) which stands outside the province 
 of the critic. In this he is an Agnostic. The 
 presuppositions and the Anschauungen, with which 
 he comes to the subject, preclude his dealing 
 with this aspect of it. 
 
 Is there not in this attitude a confusion of
 
 CONCLUSION 347 
 
 thought between two distinct objects the fact 
 and the mode of the fact ? It is one thing 
 to disclaim the power to enter into the how 
 of a phenomenon of the spiritual world, and 
 quite another thing to refuse to deal with the 
 fact that there is such a phenomenon. In the 
 first case a reverent agnosticism is the only 
 fitting attitude. It is that of the inspired 
 writers of both the Old and New Testaments, 
 and of the greatest thinkers among the Fathers. 
 But to say that, because I cannot know all about 
 a phenomenon, I am compelled to ignore its 
 existence as a fact and to leave it out of 
 account, where it conditions and underlies phe- 
 nomena which are open to my investigation, 
 is a very different thing, and runs counter to 
 universal practice in matters of common concern. 
 Electricity is a force of which little is known, 
 but it is taken account of and employed. The 
 reality of the external world admits of no 
 complete proof, but we hourly act as if it did. 
 
 Why, when the subject matter is the most 
 important with which we can have to do, is the 
 practice of everyday life, in all other depart- 
 ments of thought and action, cast aside ? 
 
 Why, because we cannot now know all, should
 
 348 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 we act as though we could know nothing ? Yet, 
 in the case of the school of critics referred 
 to, there is the fullest acknowledgment of the 
 presence of phenomena in the Person and Life of 
 Christ, to which the known categories of ordinary 
 human life and character do not apply. They 
 recognise a something v/hich transcends the 
 measures of humanity, and the very fact of that 
 recognition is supposed to preclude their attempt- 
 ing to account for it, or to allow it a place in 
 their scheme of thought. So it comes about 
 that we have Lives of Christ, studies of His 
 Person, or of His place in world-phenomena, 
 which are penetrating and illuminating in all 
 that concerns His life on earth as Man, yet leave 
 us in the dark as to all those many points, in 
 which the transcendental side of His Personality 
 seems to come into view ; and this, too, by the 
 writers' own confession; for they are unable to 
 reject the evidence of it which their criticism 
 leaves untouched. 
 
 And yet these writers are serious Theists. 
 They believe in the Fatherhood of God, in His 
 love as manifested in the creation of man, and 
 in the reality of His providence, ordering the 
 events of man's life. When the Life and Person
 
 CONCLUSION 349 
 
 of Christ are approached under the influence 
 of such presuppositions as these, one might 
 suppose that the way would be open to the 
 reception of all that is conveyed in the New 
 Testament witness to His transcendental nature. 
 For, if man is made for God and in His image ; 
 if all that we conceive to be most Godlike in 
 the character of God is mirrored in what we 
 prize most highly in human nature ; if there 
 is something Divine in every man, and there runs 
 through all the varied strains of life's music an 
 undertone of deep longing for perfection in 
 union with God is it not to be anticipated 
 that God, Who created, might in His time visit 
 His creatures, and reveal Himself personally to 
 them ? And if, in the New Testament and in 
 the traditional experience of the Christian Church, 
 we find it recorded that One has been here, 
 Who claimed to know the mind of God, and to 
 represent Him among men in such a way that 
 as one reports He could say with truth, 
 'He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father'; 
 and if the life and bearing of the Speaker 
 corresponded with His claims and, in the estima- 
 tion of those who knew Him best, belonged 
 to One Who was more than man is not the
 
 350 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 anticipation justified ? And, if its justification 
 cannot be expressed wholly in terms of humanity, 
 this is no more than we should expect from 
 the nature of the case. 
 
 Something more than human, a Divine element 
 in the Person of Christ, is recognised by such 
 writers ; but, from their Kantian standpoint, 1 they 
 refuse to admit it as a factor to be considered 
 and reckoned with, although it is in harmony 
 with their conception of the relation of God 
 and Man. The result of this conflict of presuppo- 
 sitions is negative. They can give no adequate 
 or satisfactory account of the phenomena which 
 meet us in the Gospel narrative. Their portrait 
 of Christ is defective. We cannot recognise 
 the Original. There is no soul looking through 
 the eyes. 
 
 If their work is marred by this a priori defect, 
 it is further affected by faultiness of method. It 
 is subjective and one-sided. This is especially 
 apparent in their treatment of the Text, a de- 
 partment in which subjectivity is fatal to the 
 attainment of truth. A well-attested reading has 
 
 1 Kant, Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bkaen Vernunft, 
 ed. Rosenkranz, pp. 73, 142. v. Wallace, Logic of Hegel, 
 1874, p. lii.
 
 CONCLUSION 351 
 
 a right to stand until it can be shown to involve 
 an impossible, or at least an improbable, con- 
 dition of thought. Where there is doubt, a 
 conservative attitude should have the preference. 
 The very fact of the existence of the reading is an 
 argument in its favour. On the other hand, 
 where there is every appearance of a later 
 stratum of thought, the MS. authority, however 
 complete, may be safely disregarded. The pas- 
 sage is an early intruder. 1 
 
 But attempts are constantly being made to 
 get rid of well-attested passages containing im- 
 plications of Christ's Divinity, not from any proof 
 
 1 There is something to be said on this ground against 
 St. Matt. xvi. 1 8. Cf. Wernle, Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu, 
 p. 75 ; Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drel ersten Evangelien, 
 p. 93 n. It certainly corresponds closely with a later and 
 local (Rome) state of thought. On the other hand, it is 
 quite in accordance with our Lord's way to single out 
 individuals for commendation, e.g. Mary of Bethany, 
 Zacchaeus. But it is a passage which cannot fairly sus- 
 tain the weight of inference which has been placed upon 
 it. Its authenticity is not above suspicion. Cf. Pfleiderer, 
 Die Entstehung des Cktistentums, p. 2 1 1 . ' This saying, the 
 historical impossibility of which in the mouth of Jesus is 
 apparent at a glance, contains the germ of the " Primacy 
 of Peter," and of those claims to authority which the 
 Roman Church deduces from it.' It>. p. 95. 'The un- 
 historical glorifying of Peter as the rock . . .'
 
 352 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 of their belonging to a later and intensifying 
 stage of thought, but solely because they run 
 counter to certain preconceptions, or do not 
 tally with the critic's line of thought. Thus, in 
 spite of the evidence of the most authentic 
 sources, and notwithstanding his reverent and 
 penetrating analysis and appreciation of our Lord's 
 Life and Personality, Bousset asserts that He 
 did not overstep the limitations of pure 
 humanity. 1 That assertion is in plain contra- 
 diction to what may be inferred from other 
 parts of Bousset's own writings. 2 This is 
 something more than a mere question of in- 
 consistency. Bousset uses his assertion as a 
 foil to whatever evidence may be adduced to the 
 contrary. He has subjectively settled the ques- 
 tion of Christ's Person, and is therefore in- 
 different to evidence bearing upon His Divine 
 Nature. Accordingly, a passage which asserts it 
 is at once condemned. There is no idea of 
 revising the grounds of such a judgment. The 
 positive, tangible proofs to the contrary must be 
 
 1 Jesus, p. 91. Cf. Griitzmacher, 1st das liberate Jesusbild 
 Modem ? \ 907, p. 20. 
 
 2 E.g. such passages as those quoted on page 354 and 
 elsewhere in the present work.
 
 CONCLUSION 353 
 
 rejected. They do not fit into Bousset's scheme 
 of thought. 1 
 
 Now, the methods generally adopted by critics, 
 who more or less belong to this school, claim to 
 be scientific. But by such means as these, any 
 historical narrative can be emptied of its chief and 
 most precious elements. It is enough to say that 
 an incident is without a parallel, or is not clearly 
 represented, 2 to justify its excision, however 
 strong its attestation and however forcible its 
 appeal to the judgment of critics equally com- 
 petent to express an opinion. Pronouncements 
 are made with great show of authority, no reason 
 being assigned. Their only justification is the 
 inner light of the critic. In every other branch of 
 study, such methods would be declared contrary 
 to the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Why 
 should they be tolerated in theology ? 
 
 1 N. Schmidt deals with awkward passages in the same 
 high-handed way. ' Cases will readily occur to anyone 
 at all familiar with the subject, in which personal opinion 
 has run reckless riot under the guise of scientific criticism.' 
 Illingworth, The Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 25, who quotes 
 Loisy's treatment of St. Matt. xi. 27 as an illustration of 
 the subjective temper in criticism. UEvangile et I'Eglise, 
 p. 79. 
 
 2 Cf. v. Soden, Die Wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, p. 38. 
 
 z
 
 354 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 But, if some protest against the methods of 
 certain critics seemed necessary, there is cause for 
 gratification, on the part of believers in the Creed 
 of Christendom, at the large and increasing 
 amount of positive testimony which so many of 
 them bring to the traditional conception of our 
 Lord's Person. Faultiness of method does not 
 avail to stem the expression of reverent devotion, 
 which men of the most advanced type of criticism 
 lay at the feet of Jesus of Nazareth. At times, it 
 seems that all we could wish for is there. The 
 neart, disregarding the supposed intellectual neces- 
 sity, asserts itself and comes nearer to the Christian 
 view than the cold, critical faculty would allow. 1 
 
 1 E.g. Renan, Lei Apotres, p. 23, speaking of the events of 
 the first Easter Day, says, * such were the incidents of this 
 day which has determined the destiny of the human race.' 
 N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, p. 360, says : 'Out of 
 the bosom of humanity deliverers come forth, each giving 
 what he has to give. While other teachers may and will 
 do much for our modern world, the healing, purging, 
 elevating influence of Jesus is of priceless value. When His 
 teaching, conduct, spiritual attitude and character are 
 rightly understood, they become a source of strength and 
 inspiration. No man can come in contact with Him with- 
 out feeling that life goes out from Him. His touch is 
 quickening.' Bousset, Was tvissen tvir von Jesus, p. 63. 
 ' His form stands before us so secure and at home in the 
 realm of the invisible, that it comes over us like a breath
 
 CONCLUSION 355 
 
 No effort of criticism has been able to eliminate 
 from the New Testament portrait of Christ, the 
 
 from that higher world.' Ib. p. 65, where he speaks of ' the 
 strong, kingly nature, the consciousness of carrying things 
 out to a conclusion and of speaking the last, decisive word ; 
 the confidence in the nearness of His heavenly Father ; the 
 luring force with which He constrained the souls of His 
 disciples and laid on them the highest demands, " Who 
 hateth not his father and mother cannot be my disciple 
 . . ." That is the person of Jesus so far as we can attain 
 to it.' Cf. his closing words (Ib. p. 73): 'We say to the 
 Guide of our souls, Whom we know, so far as it is necessary 
 to know Him : "Thou art the way, the Truth and the 
 Life ! " V. Soden, Die Wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, 
 p. 72. 'We recognise that Jesus stands in a quite unique 
 position. . . . He stands before us unattainable.' Ib. 
 p. 97. 'He valued the authorities of the past, but placed 
 Himself over them. . . . Whom He fought, He branded 
 for ever ; to what He recognised He gave eternal value.' 
 O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 417. 'In the Person of Jesus, 
 religion offers man the highest which it is possible for it to 
 offer him. . . . The Church in every age will join in the 
 confession of the first generations as we have it laid down in 
 St. John i. 14 : "We saw His glory, glory as of the only 
 begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth." ' 
 Harnack, Wesen des Ckristenthums, p. 81, commenting on 
 St. Matt. xi. 27, says : 'Jesus is convinced that He knows 
 God as no one before Him ... in this consciousness He 
 knows Himself to be the Son of God and can say My God 
 and My Father, and in this address He places something 
 which He alone can put into it. ... The confidence 
 with which according to John He speaks to the Father, 
 " Thou hast loved Me before the foundation of the world,"
 
 356 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 sinless character, the uniqueness of Personality, 
 the Majesty in word and deed, which generations 
 
 is certainly overheard from Jesus' own consciousness. Here 
 all investigation must call a halt.' Ib. p. 82. 'This Jesus 
 has called Himself and Himself alone, the Son of God.' 
 O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 221, speaking of the profound 
 Self-consciousness revealed in St. Matt. xi. 27, adds, 'Jesus 
 knows that He alone knows God.' Wernle, Die Anf'dnge 
 unserer Religion, p. 32. 'Thank God, Jesus is something other 
 and greater than Jewish Messiah.' Konrad Furrer, D. Leben 
 Jesu Ckristi, p. 261. 'Jesus Christ, Son of Man, but at 
 the same time Son of God, in Whose love, the eternal love 
 of God is reflected upon us in pure radiance. If we 
 unreservedly put to the proof the Life and Death of Jesus 
 Christ, with the stedfast gaze of science, we shall always end 
 with the confession of the Roman Centurion at Golgotha, 
 but in tones of joy, " Truly this man was Son of God." ' 
 These are but a few of the instances of positive testimony 
 to the Person of Christ, which are furnished by critics whose 
 standpoint is more or less negative. Others have already 
 been noticed in these pages and they could be easily 
 multiplied. It should be remembered that brilliancy of 
 scholarship is no more to be identified with a negative 
 attitude in New Testament criticism in Germany than in 
 England. Two of the most illustrious names in German 
 (New Testament) Theology, Bernhard Weiss of Berlin and 
 Theodore Zahn of Erlangen, belong to the positive school ; 
 and men like R. Seeberg of Berlin, F. Barth of Berne, Grlitz- 
 macher of Rostock, Lemme of Heidelberg, and many others 
 are to be found in the same camp. In England, the best 
 critical work is being done by scholars who have more in 
 common with B. Weiss and Zahn than with such writers as 
 Bousset or Schmiedel.
 
 CONCLUSION 357 
 
 of His adoring followers have found in it. 1 The 
 only fair construction to be placed on the admis- 
 sions of the writers referred to, is to credit them 
 with belief in a certain transcendental element in 
 the Personality of Christ, a Geheimniss which 
 separates Him from ordinary men, and brings 
 Him into touch with God as no prophet has ever 
 been. If they shrink from drawing what we 
 believe to be the only logical conclusion from the 
 
 l v. J. S. Mill, Three Essays on Religion, p. 253. 'What- 
 ever else may be taken away from us by rational criticism, 
 Christ is still left ; an unique Figure , . .' Cf. a letter 
 from Strauss to Ullman quoted by the latter in his Historisch 
 oder Mythischl 1838, p. 97. 'To me also, Jesus is the 
 greatest religious Personality to which history can point. . . . 
 His position on the loftiest heights of religious consciousness 
 expressed itself in language as elevated as the words of 
 instruction and thought in which His purely human intellect 
 and originality found expression ; His fate, like His Person, 
 was, from the beginning to the end of His life, an extra- 
 ordinary one.' Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des Christentums, 
 p. 63. ' Whoever heard and saw Him received the impres- 
 sion that here was some new phenomenon, a Teacher unlike 
 the Scribes, a Teacher of the Grace of God, in Whom a 
 higher power was energising, a Divine Spirit, as the faithful 
 felt, a demoniacal spirit, according to the blasphemy of His 
 opponents ; in any case, a wondrous Power, to grapple 
 hearts, to cast out evil spirits, and heal the bodies of the 
 sick.' Cf. Gesprache mit Goethe, Eckermann, 1837, iii. 
 P- 37i-
 
 358 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD 
 
 admitted facts ; if they hesitate to call Him Lord 
 and God, we cannot help feeling that their position 
 is unsatisfactory and that, in some instances, a 
 close scrutiny of their presuppositions and of their 
 methods of work would lead to revision of their 
 attitude. Be that as it may, the full Christian 
 belief, founded on the study of God's Word, 
 and on the spiritual experience of those who 
 hold it, guaranteed too by the illuminating 
 presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, 
 can be held with the confidence that it can be 
 rationally accounted for, and that the keenest 
 application of critical tests has only increased its 
 certainty. 1 
 
 1 'We have come to distinguish, with increasing clearness, 
 between criticism proper and the negative assumptions of 
 particular critics assumptions that the doctrines in question 
 were antecedently incredible and must therefore be explained 
 away. These assumptions do not arise out of the documents 
 criticised, by any logical process of deduction ; but as in the 
 parallel case of science, they are imported into the facts ; 
 they are presuppositions in the minds of the individual 
 critics formed on other than strictly critical grounds. And 
 when once this distinction has become clear, negative criti- 
 cism need be no longer so disconcerting as it formerly was 
 to many minds.' Illingworth, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 
 pp. 251, 2.
 
 INDEX TO THE TEXT AND NOTES 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Acts, the Book of, - - 307 
 Allen, on Matt. xi. 27, 56, 164 
 Annunciation, the, - - 272 
 Apocalypse, Christology of, 318 
 Apostles, their witness to 
 
 Christ, - - -75 
 Aramaic for ' Son of Man,' 98 
 
 of Matt. xi. 27, - - 163 
 Athanasius, St., on John xi. 
 
 34, - - - - 178 
 Augustine, St., on miracles, 194 
 
 on the Incarnation, - 339 
 
 Baldensperger, on ' Son of 
 
 Man,'- - - - 104 
 on Christ as Judge, - 236 
 on pre-existence, - - 316 
 Baptism, see Christ. 
 Baptism, Holy, its institu- 
 tion, - --- 215 
 its early practice, - - 217 
 its bearing on Christ, - 220 
 Barnabas, Ep. of, on the 
 
 Ascension, - - - 252 
 Barnes, on foundation of 
 
 Christianity, - - 86 
 Barth, on theory of Lietz- 
 
 mann, - - -99 
 on miracles, - - - 211 
 on Luke ii. 41, - - 262 
 on Christology of St. 
 
 John, - - - 320 
 
 Bauer, Bruno, rejects Pauline 
 Epistles, - - 79 
 
 PACK 
 
 Bengel, on Col. ii. 9, - - 327 
 
 Beth, on miracles, - 1 86, 192 
 
 Bigg, on 2 Peter, - - 267 
 
 Bousset, on Josephus, - 14 
 
 criticism of Kalthoff, 70 
 
 on the Dutch critical 
 
 school, - - - 80 
 on Messiahship of Jesus,- no 
 on His Divinity, - - 352 
 his estimate of Christ's 
 
 Person, - - - 355 
 Buddha, - - - - 288 
 Burgon, on text of Rom. 
 
 ix. 5. - - - ' 327 
 Burkitt, on the Fourth 
 
 Gospel, - - - 46 
 on agreement of St. Mark 
 and the Logia, - - 102 
 
 Canney, on miracles, - - 196 
 Centurion, the, at the Cross, 270 
 Charles, on Christ asjudge, 236 
 Chase, Bp., on Matt, xxviii. 
 
 19, ... 220 
 
 on 2 Peter, - - - 267 
 Cheyne, on Is. vii., - - 137 
 on myths, - - - 203 
 Christ, His Ascension, - 249 
 His authority, - 149-153 
 His baptism, - - 73, 119 
 His birth supernatural, - 115 
 Date of His birth, - - 71 
 His perfect humanity, 95, 277 
 foretells His death, - - 240
 
 360 
 
 INDEX 
 
 I'AGK 
 
 Christ, His development, 92, 176 
 an historic Person, - - 62 
 calls the Twelve, - - 74 
 His claims, - - 53, 152 
 His likeness to men, - 92 
 legislates for the Kingdom 
 
 of God, - 54 
 
 His knowledge, - 161-175 
 its limitations, as Man, 
 
 160, 176 
 
 its limitations, as the Son, 180 
 His self-assertion, - - 55 
 His teaching, - - 76, 123 
 character of His teaching, 1 57 
 His self-witness, - - 52 
 entry into Jerusalem, 142, 147 
 estimate of His contem- 
 poraries : 
 
 (a) disciples, - -59 
 (6) others, - - 60 
 His significance not re- 
 alised at first, - - 65 
 borne witness to by 
 
 Christian rites, - - 68 
 contemporary evidence 
 
 of 63, 69 
 
 required to account for 
 
 Christianity, - - 86 
 His visit to the Temple, 1 1 5, 1 7 1 
 influence of O.T. on, - 138 
 the suffering servant 
 
 (Isaiah), - - 132 
 
 the Saviour from sin, - 140 
 before the High Priest, - 143 
 before Pilate, - - - 144 
 ' Son of David,' - - 145 
 His claim to judge, 154, 230 
 His claim of power, - 156 
 His knowledge of men, - 173 
 His miracles, - - - 189 
 institutes the Eucharist, - 212 
 His sinlessness, - - 225 
 an indication of Divinity, 226 
 forgives sin, ... 227 
 His Resurrection : 
 
 believed by His Dis- 
 ciples, - - - 237 
 our argument not based 
 
 on it, - - - 238 
 it was foretold, - - 240 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Christ, His Resurrection : 
 
 the Disciples' view of it, 243 
 defined His Sonship, - 309 
 His unique relation to 
 
 God, - - - 258 
 early consciousness of it, 262 
 His personality, - - 279 
 He is more than man, - 286 
 however highly developed, 297 
 we must think of Him as 
 
 God, - - - - 298 
 His pre-existence, 
 
 302, 306, 315, 322, 336 
 His religion universal, - 314 
 and St. Paul, - - -311 
 His cosmical relations, - 316 
 subordination to the 
 
 Father, - - - 317 
 the Lamb of God, - - 319 
 and the doctrine of the 
 
 Trinity, - - - 320 
 is God, - --- 327 
 His Incarnation, - - 336 
 Clement of Rome, 309,317 
 Comparative study of re- 
 ligions, science of, - 287 
 Conybeare, on Matt, xxviii. 
 
 19, .... 260 
 Criticism, ' advanced ' : 
 its attitude to Christ, - 342 
 some results of, - - 344 
 presuppositions of, - - 346 
 its dealing with the text 
 
 of Scripture, - - 350 
 subjective judgments of, - 352 
 its positive testimony to 
 Christ, - - - 354 
 
 Dalman, on ' Son of Man,' 99, 107 
 on Aramaic of Matt. xi. 27, 1 63 
 on pre-existence, - - 316 
 David, see Christ. 
 Deification of Heroes, etc. , 286 
 Didache, the, - - - 309 
 Dobschiitz, V. , on myths, - 289 
 Docetism, - - - - 88 
 Dogma, - - - - 54 
 Driver, on 'Son of Man,' - 103 
 Du Bose, on the Person of 
 
 Christ, - - - 280
 
 INDEX 
 
 361 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Du Bose, on the Trinity, - 330 
 Dutch school of critics, the, 
 
 80, 87 
 
 Enoch, Ethiopian, on Mes- 
 siah, - - - - 138 
 on pre-existence, - - 316 
 Eschatology, - - -133 
 Eucharist, the, its institution , 212 
 its bearing on Christ's 
 
 person, - - - 214 
 Eusebius, his citation of 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 19, - - 260 
 Expositor, the, - - - 269 
 
 Fairbairn, on manhood of 
 
 Christ, - - - 178 
 on miracles, - - 186, 201 
 on unity of God, - - 300 
 on unity of the Father 
 
 and Son, - - 305, 331 
 on the text of Rom. ix. 5, 327 
 
 Faut, on Monotheism, - 299 
 on St. Paul's influence on 
 
 Christianity, - - 314 
 on St. John's Christology, 321 
 on the Person of Christ, - 323 
 
 Fisher, on miracles, - - 188 
 on Strauss, - - - 203 
 
 Furrer, on St. John's Gospel, 48 
 on its historical value, - 82 
 
 Gardner, on historic origin 
 
 of Christianity, - - 86 
 on miracles, - - 195, 208 
 on the final judgment, - 231 
 Garvie, on Christ's awaken- 
 ing to Sonship, - - 263 
 Goethe, on Christ, - - 357 
 Gore, Bp., - - - 155 
 
 Gospels, the Synoptic : 
 
 analysis of contents, - 22 
 contain contemporary his- 
 tory of Christ, - - 64 
 state facts rather than 
 
 draw conclusions, - 323 
 Grotius, on ' Son of Man,' - 150 
 Griitzmacher, on Buddhism, 289 
 
 Hackmann, on Buddhism,- 288 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Harmer, Bp., - - - 24 
 on the Didache, - - 220 
 on ' Clem. Rom. ii.,' - 332 
 Harnack, on conversion of 
 
 St. Paul, .-- 78 
 on date of Thess. i. , - 78 
 on 'Son of Man,' - 99, 106 
 on agreement of St. Mark 
 
 and the Logia, - - 103 
 on Matt, xi., 27, 355, 163, 167 
 on John i. 18, - - 306 
 on the Book of Acts, - 307 
 on primitive Christian 
 
 testimony, - - - 308 
 on St. Paul's influence on 
 
 Christianity, - - 314 
 on the title ' Son of 
 
 God,' - - - - 330 
 Hausrath, on Josephus, - 14 
 Hawkins, on the Tempta- 
 tion, - - - - 94 
 Headlam, on speeches in 
 
 the Acts, - - - 307 
 Hebrews, Ep. to the, - 307 
 Christology of, - - 317 
 Hebrews, the Gospel accord- 
 ing to the, - - - 74 
 Hibbert Journal, The, - 252 
 Holtzmann, H. , on the 
 
 Fourth Gospel, - - 46 
 on the Prologue of St. 
 
 Luke, - - - 92 
 
 on ' Son of Man,' - - 101 
 
 on Matt. xi. 27, - - 169 
 
 on Mark x. 18, - - 224 
 
 Holtzmann, O., on the 
 
 Baptism of Christ, - 120 
 
 on Matt. xvi. 16, - - 269 
 
 Hort, on John i. 18, - - 306 
 
 Huxley, on miracles, - - 190 
 
 Ignatius, St., his version of 
 words of the Risen 
 Christ, - - 248 
 
 Illingworth, on miracles, - 196 
 on the Resurrection, - 242 
 on development of the 
 
 Christian Faith, - - 320 
 on the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, - - - 333
 
 362 
 
 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Illingworth, on subjective 
 
 methods of criticism, - 353 
 
 on negative criticism, - 358 
 
 Inge, on Col. i. 15, - - 316 
 Irenaeus, St., on the date 
 
 of St. Mark, - 24 
 
 on Matt. xi. 27, - - 163 
 
 cites Matt, xxviii. 19, - 260 
 
 Jahrbiicher fur prot. Theo- 
 
 logie, - - - -87 
 Jerome, St., quotes Gospel 
 
 of the Hebrews, - - 74 
 
 on ' Son of Man,' - -96 
 John the Baptist, St., his 
 
 witness to Christ, - 273 
 
 named by Josephus, - 12 
 John, St., Gospel of: 
 
 our method of using it, - 44 
 
 tributes to its authenti- 
 city, - - - 45 
 
 its witness to the historic 
 Christ, - - - 8 1 
 
 its witness to His human 
 nature, - - - 84 
 
 required to explain Syn- 
 optics, - - - 83 
 
 B. Weiss on its historic 
 value, - - - 85 
 
 explanation of incidents 
 in c. i., - - - 125 
 
 allusions to Sonship of 
 Christ, - - - 273 
 
 discussion of their value,- 274 
 
 its conception of Christ 
 accords with that of the 
 Synoptics, - - - 306 
 Joseph, St., an authority of 
 
 St. Matt., - - - 116 
 Josephus, names Christ, - 12 
 
 his attitude to Christianity, 13 
 JUlicher, on St. Mark, - 25 
 
 on Redemption, - - 142 
 
 on St. Paul and Christ, - 313 
 Justin Martyr, on the ' Me- 
 moirs of Peter,' - - 24 
 
 on transition from oral 
 tradition to writing, - 20 
 
 on the Eucharist, - - 213 
 
 cites Matt, xxviii. 19, - 260 
 
 PAGE 
 Kaftan, J., on St. Paul and 
 
 Christ, - - - 314 
 Kalthoff, his theory of the 
 
 origin of Christianity, - 66 
 Katnphausen, on Dan. ix.,- 137 
 Kant, .... 350 
 Kingsley, C. , on manhood 
 
 of Christ, - - - 283 
 Kirn, on ' Messiah,' - - 112 
 on Matt, xxviii. 19, - 220 
 on the doctrine of the 
 
 Trinity, - - 331 
 
 Knowledge, Christ's, see 
 
 Christ. 
 Knowling, on the historic 
 
 Christ, - 87 
 
 Kuhl, on Matt. xi. 27, - 165 
 
 on pre-existence, - - 322 
 
 Lemme, on Christ's treat- 
 ment of the Sabbath, - 1 50 
 Lepin, on ' Son of Man,' - 101 
 on the Christology of the 
 
 Book of Acts, - - 311 
 on Rom. viii. 3, - 316 
 
 Lietzmann, on ' Son of 
 
 Man,' - - - 97 
 Lightfoot, Bp., on Phil. ii. 
 
 5, 6, - - - - 315 
 on Col. i. 15, - - - 316 
 on Col. ii. 9, - - - 327 
 on date of ' Clem. Rom. 
 
 ii.,' - - - - 332 
 Logia, the, a primitive 
 
 Gospel source, - - 36 
 attributed to St. Matthew, 37 
 probably contemporary 
 
 with Christ, - - 63 
 Loisy, on 'Messiah,'- - no 
 on the Resurrection of 
 
 Christ, - - - 237 
 on the title, ' Son of 
 
 God,'- - - - 254 
 on Matt. xi. 27, - - 301 
 Loman, rejects the Pauline 
 
 Epistles, - - 79 
 
 his theory of Christ, - 87 
 
 Loofs, on the risen Christ, - 248 
 
 Lord's Day, the, in Pliny, - 1 1 
 
 in Justin Martyr, - - 20
 
 INDEX 
 
 363 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Luke, St., Gospel of: 
 
 matter peculiar to, - - 41 
 
 our debt to, - - - 42 
 
 authenticity of cc. i. ii., - 92 
 
 Manen, Van, criticises Lo- 
 
 man, - - - - 87 
 Manhood of Christ, its im- 
 portance for us, - - 281 
 a Gospel of Hope, - - 282 
 much lost sight of in early 
 
 times, - - - 283 
 part only of His Being, - 284 
 Mark, St., 'Interpreter of 
 
 Peter,' - - - 24 
 his Gospel not wholly 
 
 Petrine, - - - 25 
 it forms groundwork of 
 
 First and Third Gospels, 35 
 is wanting in biographical 
 
 interest, - - -65 
 its historical character, - 72 
 Mary, B. V., an authority 
 
 of St. Luke, - - 116 
 Mason, on Christ's know- 
 ledge,- - - - 183 
 Matthew, St., material 
 
 peculiar to his Gospel, 41 
 Mensinga, rejects mythical 
 
 theories of Christ, - 88 
 Messiah, the title accepted 
 
 by Jesus, - - - 109 
 His reluctance to assert 
 
 it, - - - 113 
 
 when He became con- 
 scious of being, - - 114 
 its meaning to Him, - 128 
 a change in His point of 
 
 view, - - - - 130 
 in the O.T., - - - 136 
 in Apocalyptic literature, 137 
 Meyer, A., on Messiah, - 112 
 on Matt, xxviii. 19, - 220 
 on the Book of Acts, - 307 
 on the Christology of the 
 
 primitive Church, - 310 
 on St. Paul and Christ, - 311 
 Mill, J. S., Gospel portrait 
 
 of Christ is historical, - 67 
 on uniqueness of Christ, - 357 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Miracles, the change of atti- 
 tude to, - - - 185 
 first-hand evidence of, - 187 
 their possibility, - - 190 
 have they occurred? - 191 
 common confusion of 
 
 thought regarding them, 1 92 
 do not 'suspend law,' - 195 
 bound up with the Gospel 
 
 records, - - 196, 210 
 their purpose adequate, - 199 
 Christ's restraint in their 
 
 use, - --- 201 
 occur in Gospels natur- 
 ally, - 204 
 compared with mythical 
 
 stories, - - - 205 
 of the Gospels not sug- 
 gested by the O.T., -207 
 are signs to believers, - 209 
 Mithraism, - - - 289 
 Moberly, on the Person of 
 
 Christ, - - - 280 
 Monothelitism, - - - 280 
 Mliller, K. , on miracles, - 209 
 Mythical parallels to Chris- 
 tianity, - - - 288 
 tend to confirm it, - - 291 
 
 Nathanael, the confession of, 273 
 Nature, - - - - 192 
 
 Origen, on Matt, xxviii. 19, 260 
 
 Papias, on St. Mark's 
 
 Gospel, - - - 24 
 on the Logia,- - - 36 
 Parables, their application, 135 
 Paul, St., first literary wit- 
 ness to Christ, - - 78 
 his Gospel, - - - 17 
 his witness to Christ, 77> 79 
 his conversion, - - 78 
 its date, - - - - 333 
 deification of Christ im- 
 puted to him, - - 311 
 his influence on Chris- 
 tianity, - - - 313 
 confers with the primitive 
 Apostles, - - - 324
 
 364 
 
 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Paul, St., and the doctrine 
 
 of the Trinity, - - 331 
 Paulsen, on miracles,- - 190 
 Peter, St., confession at 
 
 Caesarea, - - - 113 
 forms a central point in 
 
 Christ's life, - - 123 
 St. Matthew's account of 
 
 it, 268 
 
 Christology of his speeches 
 
 in the Acts, - - 306 
 
 Pfleiderer, on St. Mark, - 23 
 
 criticises Kalthoff, - - 89 
 
 on St. Mark x. 1 8, - - 224 
 
 on the title, ' Son of 
 
 God,'- - - - 257 
 on Mithraism, - - 289 
 on influence of St. Paul,- 314 
 on Matt. xvi. 18, - - 351 
 on the power of Christ, - 357 
 Philo, knows of, but ignores, 
 
 Christ, - - - n 
 Pliny, the younger, the first 
 profane writer to men- 
 tion Christ,- - - 10 
 on Christians, - - 1 1 
 Plummer, on Matt. xi. 27,- 56 
 on the Ascension, - - 250 
 Preuschen, 'Antilegomena,' 96 
 
 Ramsay, on Luke i. ii., - 92 
 on the age of the Logia, - 63 
 Renan, on Philo and Christ, 12 
 onjosephus, - - - 13 
 on the Fourth Gospel, - 44 
 on miracles, - - - 200 
 on events of the First 
 
 Easter Day, - - 354 
 Robinson, Dean, on St. 
 
 Mark, - 33 
 
 on evidence of Christian 
 
 rites to Christ, - - 69 
 Rordam, on Matt, xxviii. 
 
 19, .... 218 
 Rose, Le Pere, on the 
 
 Temptation, - - 122 
 Rovers, on Josephus, - - 13 
 
 Sabbath, the, Christ's atti- 
 tude to, - - - 149 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Salmon, on Christ's know- 
 ledge, - - - 182 
 on Luke xxii. 19, 20, - 213 
 on age of the Logia, - 65 
 Sanday, St. John an eye- 
 witness of Christ, - 23 
 on v. Soden and the 
 
 Fourth Gospel, - - 48 
 on agreement of Synoptic 
 
 and Fourth Gospels, - 126 
 on Luke xxii. 19, 20, - 212 
 on Matt, xxviii. 19, - 219 
 on the Transfiguration, - 266 
 on Luke i., ii., - - 273 
 on John i. 18, - - 306 
 on St. Paul and Christ, - 313 
 on Rom. viii. 3, - - 316 
 on the Trinity, - - 331 
 Schmidt, N., criticised, - 143 
 on Matt. xi. 27, - - 165 
 on the influence of Christ, 354 
 Schmiedel, P. W., on 
 
 'Messiah,'- - - ill 
 on Matt. xi. 27, - - 163 
 on the Resurrection, - 237 
 on the Ascension, - - 252 
 on Mark xiii. 32, - - 259 
 on the Transfiguration, - 266 
 on the Christology of 
 
 Peter in Acts, - - 308 
 Scholten, on Josephus, - 13 
 Schweitzer, A., on v. Soden's 
 
 method, - - - 28 
 on Bruno Bauer, - - 1 12 
 on the ' Messiah,' - - 135 
 on Miracles, - - 187, 197 
 on the Transfiguration, - 266 
 Seeberg, R., on personality 
 
 of Christ, - - - 280 
 on the Trinity, "331 
 
 Sermon on the Mount, 
 
 the, .... 54 
 Sibylline Oracles, the, on 
 
 Messiah, - 138 
 
 Sin, attitude of Christ to, - 225 
 Soden, V., analysis of St. 
 
 Mark, - 26 
 
 estimate of material com- 
 mon to First and Third 
 Gospels, - - - 42
 
 INDEX 
 
 365 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Soden, V., on St. Paul's 
 
 witness to Christ, - 81 
 on uniqueness of Christ, - 355 
 Solomon, Psalms of, on 
 
 Messiah, - - - 138 
 on Son of David, - - 145 
 Son of God, the title applied 
 
 to Christ, - - - 254 
 Christ recognised by the 
 
 Father as, - - - 263 
 Son of Man, Apocalypse 
 
 alludes to title, - - 96 
 Lietzmann's theory, - 97 
 chosen as title by Christ, 105 
 Spirit, the Holy, in bap- 
 tismal formula, - - 260 
 Spirits, evil, their testimony 
 
 to Christ, - - - 270 
 Stanton, on popular Messi- 
 anic ideas, - - - 132 
 Steck, rejects Pauline epistles, 79 
 Strauss, on the Messiah, 
 
 112, 124 
 
 on Miracles, - - - 187 
 on the Personality of 
 
 Christ, - - - 357 
 Suetonius, names Christ, - 10 
 Swete, on narratives of the 
 
 Resurrection, - - 242 
 on the Ascension, - - 252 
 on Luke i. ii., - - 273 
 on Christology of the 
 
 Apocalypse, - - 318 
 on the Trinity, - -331 
 
 Tacitus, refers to Christ, - 9 
 Temptation, the, possibly 
 
 in Logia, - - 38, 94 
 reported by Christ Him- 
 self, ... 93 
 its meaning, - 121 
 Tertullian, on baptism, - 216 
 cites Matt, xxviii. 19, - 260 
 on natural Christianity, - 293 
 on John x. 30, - - 305 
 Theol. Literaturzeitung, 111,306 
 Theol. Tidjschrift, - - 88 
 Thomas Aquinas, St., on 
 
 Christ's knowledge, - 176 
 Transfiguration, the, - - 265 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Traub, on Miracles, - 189, 201 
 Trinity, the doctrine of 
 
 the, - - - 330, 334 
 Tubingen school, methods 
 
 of the, - - - 206 
 Turner, on length of Christ's 
 
 ministry, - 244 
 
 Ullmann, on authenticity of 
 
 Pauline epistles, - - 79 
 Uniqueness of Christ, - 355 
 Unity of Christ with the 
 
 Father, - - 172, 309 
 its character, - - 328, 331 
 Unity of doctrine in the 
 primitive church, - - 326 
 
 Volkmar, theory on ' Son 
 
 of Man,' - - - 97 
 
 Weidel, on Mark x. 18, - 225 
 Weiss, B., on the Temptation, 94 
 on Miracles, - - 196 
 
 on the Ascension, - - 253 
 on Messianic expectations, 207 
 on the narrative of the 
 
 Transfiguration, - - 268 
 Weiss, J., on Messiah, - 133 
 criticised by Bousset, - 134 
 on early chapters of 
 
 Acts, - ... 308 
 on the title 'Lord,' in 
 
 Acts, - --- 310 
 Wellhausen, on St. Mark's 
 
 Gospel, - 35 
 
 on ' Son of Man,' - - 98 
 on Jewish patriotism, - 1 06 
 on the Messiah, - - 1 1 1 
 ignores Matt, and Luke, 
 
 i., ii., - - - 117 
 
 on Pilate's sentence, - 144 
 
 on Mark xii. 6, - - 261 
 
 on Matt. xvi. 1 6, - - 268 
 
 on Matt. xvi. 1 8, - - 351 
 
 Wendt, on the Messiah, - 121 
 
 on Matt. xi. 27, - - 164 
 
 Wernle, on the Fourth 
 
 Gospel, - - - 46 
 compares Synoptics with 
 
 the Fourth Gospel, - 49
 
 366 
 
 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Wernle, on the Messiah, - III 
 on the influence of con- 
 verted pagans, - 333 
 Westcott, Bp., on John xi. 
 
 34, - - - - 178 
 on John x. 30, - - 305 
 on Hebr. i. 1-5, - - 317 
 Westcott and Hort, on John 
 
 i. 18, - - - - 306 
 on Rom. ix. 5, - - 327 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Wrede, on St. Paul's doc- 
 trine of Christ, - - 313 
 
 Zahn, on St. Mark, - - 25 
 on primitive oral teaching, 19 
 on accuracy of the Fourth 
 
 Gospel, - - - 49 
 
 on Matt. xi. 27, - - 165 
 
 Zenos, on Myths, - - 294 
 
 Zoroastrianism, - - - 288 
 
 GLASGOW : PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD.
 
 Macmillan & Co.'s New Works 
 
 ON 
 
 Church History and Theology 
 
 LOLLARDY AND THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND. 
 
 An Historical Survey. By JAMES GAIRDNER, C. B. , Hon. LL. D. Edin. , 
 Author of ' The English Church in the Sixteenth Century from the 
 Accession of Henry VIII. to the Death of Mary.' 2 vols. 8vo. 
 i is. net. 
 
 EARLY CHURCH HISTORY (TO A.D. 313). By HENRY 
 MELVILL GWATKIN, M.A., Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History 
 in the University of Cambridge, Author of ' Selections from Early 
 Writers Illustrative of Church History to the Time of Constantine.' 
 2 vols. 8vo. 
 
 THE FULNESS OF CHRIST. Three Sermons preached 
 before the University of Oxford, and other Papers. By EDWARD 
 STUART TALBOT, D.D. and LL.D. (Cantab.), Bishop of Southwark 
 and Honorary Student of Christ Church. Crown 8vo. 
 
 THE PERSON OF OUR LORD AND RECENT 
 THOUGHT. By the Rev. CHARLES FREDERICK NOLLOTH, M.A., 
 of Oriel College, Oxford, formerly Rector of All Saints, Lewes. 
 Crown 8vo. 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY BIBLE. Complete 
 in one volume. By various writers. Edited by the Rev. JOHN R. 
 DUMMELOW, M.A., Queen's College, Cambridge. 8vo. 
 
 THE VENTURE OF RATIONAL FAITH. By MARGARET 
 BENSON. Extra Crown 8vo. 
 
 THE RELIGION OF THE COMMON MAN. By Sir 
 HENRY J. WRIXON, K.C.M.G., K.C. Crown 8vo. 
 
 THE OTHER-WORLD. By the Rev. W. GARRETT HORDER. 
 Crown 8vo. 
 
 LONDON: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
 
 Works by Bishop Westcott 
 
 WORDS OF FAITH AND HOPE. Crown 8vo. 4 s. 6d. 
 
 LESSONS FROM WORK. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT DURING THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. Crown 
 
 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH : A Popular Account of the Collection and Re- 
 ception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches. Pott 8vo. 45. 6d. 
 GENERAL VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 8vo. 
 
 i2S. 6d. 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. Crown 8vo. 
 
 IQS. 6d. 
 THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTION. Thoughts on its Relation to Reason 
 
 and History. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 THE REVELATION OK THE RISEN LORD. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 THE HISTORIC FAITH. Short Lectures on the Apostles' Creed. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Also 8vo, sewed, 6d. 
 THE REVELATION OF THE FATHER. Short Lectures ou the Titles of the 
 
 Lord in the Gospel of St. John. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATGR, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for Ordinations. Crown 8vc. 
 
 is. 6d. 
 SAINT PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. The Greek Text, with Notes 
 
 and Addenda. Svo. IDS. 6d. 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, with Notes and Essays. 
 
 THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Greek Text, with Notes and Essays. 8vo- 
 
 i2s. 6d. 
 
 THE INCARNATION AND COMMON LIFE. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 CHRISTIAN ASPECTS OF LIFE. Crown Svo. 7 s. 6d. 
 THE GOSPEL OF LIFE: Thoughts Introductory to the Study of Christian Doctrine. 
 
 Crown Svo. 6s. Also 8vo, sewed, 6d. 
 ESSAYS THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN THE WEST. 
 
 (ilobe Svo. 45. net. [Eversley Series. 
 
 ON SOME POINTS IN THE RELIGIOUS OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITIES. 
 
 Crown Svo. 45. 6d. 
 
 SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE ORDINAL. Globe Svo. is. 6d. 
 THOUGHTS ON REVELATION AND LIFE. Being Selections from the Writings 
 
 of Bishop WESTCOTT. Arranged and Edited by Rev. STEPHEN PHILLIPS. Crown 
 
 THE OBLIGATIONS OF EMPIRE. A Sermon. Crown Svo. Sewed. 3d. net. 
 
 CHRISTIAN SOCIAL UNION ADDRESSES. Crown Svo. is. net. 
 
 COMMON PRAYERS FOR FAMILY USE. Crown Svo. is. net. 
 
 ADDRESS TO MINERS, JULY, 1901. Crown Svo. Sewed, 6d. 
 
 VILLAGE SERMONS. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 PETERBOROUGH SERMONS. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 LIFE AND LETTERS OF THE RIGHT REV. BISHOP WESTCOTT. By his 
 
 Son, the Rev. ARTHUK WESTCOTT. Two Vols. Extra Crown Svo. 175. net. 
 
 Also i Vol. Abridged Edition. Extra Crown Svo. 8s. 6d. net. 
 
 By Bishop Westcott and Dr. F. J. A. Hort. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK. Svo. IDS. net. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK. Vol. I., Text. Vol 
 II., Introduction and Appendix. Crown Svo. ios. 6d. each. Pott Svo Edition, 
 45. 6d. ; Roan, 55. 6d. ; Morocco, 6s. 6d. ; India Paper Edition, Limp Calf, 75. 6d. net. 
 
 LONDON: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Series 9482
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 001 004 647 2