of Christ.

Unless these be adequate to the demands of faith as thus described, the teaching will be but a mockery and a delusion.

What, then, of Christ's character and work? What was He, and what did He do? Was He such an one, and did He act in such a way, as to bring within the reach of men recovery, revival, life? For an answer to these questions we must listen to His own testimony concerning Himself, because He alone can interpret Himself aright. And that testimony we shall consider in reference, first, to His personality, and, second, to His mission. We shall ask, What sayest Thou of Thyself? and, What sayest Thou of Thy work?

What, then, of Christ's personality? What did He profess and claim to be? To this question we do not find a full and complete answer in any one of His recorded utterances. In order to reach such an answer we have to bring together statements make at different times. The reason for this is, that Christ did not begin by producing credentials, or making declarations concerning His nature and position. He addressed Himself at once to the work He had been sent to do, proceeding on the assumption that, in and by that work and His manner of doing it, the Jews would recognise Him and receive Him. "He came unto His own" expecting that, because they were "His own," apprised of, and prepared for, His coming, they would know Him and receive Him. was only, therefore, when misunderstood or attacked that He uttered definite testimony concerning His nature and standing. And such being the case, a full view of the testimony offered by Him can be gained only by a consideration of His several deliverances on the subject.

It

Apart, however, from special utterances on the subject, the general tenor alike of His speech and action sheds light on His view of His nature. Consideration of this shows that He regarded Himself in two different aspects-a human and a divine. In connection with this twofold estimate of Himself,

we remember that He spoke of Himself as the "Son of God" and as the "Son of Man." These titles are clearly intended to suggest two sides of His personality. The former implies a definite and unique relation to God, the latter, a definite and unique relation to man; the former speaks of divinity, the latter, of humanity. Some who admit that "Son of Man" implies humanity, deny that "Son of God" implies divinity, at least in the full sense of the term. This is the position of Wendt. He labours hard, displaying not a little skill and ingenuity, in the attempt to prove that the phrase "Son of God," as used by Christ in application to Himself, does not imply a position other than that occupied by, or at least possible to, the children of men. Summing up his discussion on the subject, he says: "Both names have value for the consciousness of Jesus in so far as they involve direct views of the characteristic relations of His person to His nature and work,—the one a view of the relation of His person to God, the other a view of His relation to the human race. If, through His self-designation as Son of God, He gives expression to His lofty consciousness of standing in an inward fellowship of love with God as His Father, so, by designating Himself as 'Son of man,' He expresses His lowly consciousness of at the same time being a weak finite man, like other men, who was not exempt from the specific manifestations and experiences which belong to frail humanity."1 When we read the latter part of this statement, we cannot help observing, that in it two different values are attached to the term "Son." In the one clause, it indicates only "the consciousness of standing in an inward fellowship of love with God as His Father"; in the other, it indicates a community of nature. As "Son of God," Jesus is bound to the Father by a "fellowship of love"; as "Son of Man," He is bound to humanity by the possession of a human nature. In the former case, it is a bond of affection that is suggested, in the latter, it is a bond of nature. In the first instance, the tie is The Teaching of Jesus, vol. ii. p. 149.

But this double It must be taken Sonship must indicate two titles. Now, that He was born, grew in

sentimental, in the latter, it is essential. reference of the term is not permissible. in the same sense in both clauses. the same kind of relation in the Christ was truly human is evident. wisdom and stature, showed all the qualities of humanity. Proof of this is to be found on every page of the sacred record. But if His title "Son of Man" rests on His community of nature with men, His title "Son of God" must rest on His community of nature with God. And that it did is distinctly declared by Him. On one occasion He said, "I and My Father are one." 1 Those who heard this utterance declared it blasphemous. They understood it to mean that Jesus claimed equality with God. Christ's defence in no way contradicts that interpretation. Wendt, indeed, seeks to show that by His reference to those who were called gods, because unto them the word of God came,2 He intends to place Himself in the same class as they, only on a higher level. But that is not the case. He does not say of Himself, what He has said of them, that unto Him "the word of God came,” but He speaks of Himself as " Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world." 4 He contrasts Himself with those referred to not in respect of different degrees, but in respect of different kinds, of privilege and honour. In accordance with this high, unique position, which He claims for Himself, He adds, "the Father is in Me, and I in Him." 5 This statement He repeats later. In reply to Philip's request, "Shew us the Father," He says, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," and asks, in a tone of disappointment, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" 6 These utterances point to a union, the closest and most intimate conceivable, a union that is essential in character. Only on the basis of

1 John x. 30.

3 The Teaching of Jesus, vol. ii. pp. 164, 165. 5 John x. 38.

2 John x. 35.

4 John x. 36.

6 John xiv. 8-10.

such a union could Christ speak of men seeing the Father in Him. Short of this there could only be a revelation of the will of the Father, not a revelation of the Father Himself.

Christ, then, is at once human and divine. He is both the Son of Man and the Son of God. This is what He says of Himself. But a personality so strange and unique demands explanation. It must have come into existence for Extraordinary in nature, it must have an

a special purpose. extraordinary mission.

Hence the answer to the question, What sayest Thou of Thyself? gives rise to the question, What sayest Thou of Thy work? That He had come into the world to do a certain work, Christ declared once and again. What, then, according to His teaching, was that work? In endeavouring to gain an answer to this question, we must remember the varied and progressive character of His teaching. He did not at once set forth the whole truth concerning His mission, nor did He, even to the close of His life, set it forth with equal explicitness to all to whom He spoke. He found it useful to prepare even His followers for the announcement He had to make, and He always suited His communications to the circumstances of His hearers, making known to them only what they were able to bear. We do not, therefore, deal rightly with the subject if we accept all His statements as of equal value. We must determine their worth as explanations of His work by the time at which, and the circumstances in which, they were made. Further, though His work was one, it was many-sided. This being the case, we must be careful to fix our attention on that which is central.

In this connection, we remember that He instituted a rite, the observance of which was to bring Him and His work vividly before the minds of His followers. Now, in instituting a rite of this kind, He would most assuredly make it suggestive of that which was fundamental and essential. It is inconceivable that one who was imposing on His disciples an ordinance, the aim of which was to keep before

It

their minds His character and achievement, and, by doing so, to cherish and intensify their devotion to Him and His cause, should select for commemoration what was secondary or subordinate. He would naturally seek to embody in the institution ordained by Him that which He believed to be the strongest claim He had on the esteem and regard of His fellows. On the monument which He was raising for Himself, He would inscribe His highest effort and attainment. The symbol which He selected would be one that was fitted to recall His personality at its highest and His endeavour at its fullest. In the rite instituted by Jesus, then, we have a sure guide to what, in His view, was central in His work. In order, therefore, that we may discover this, we have only to ask what it was that He enshrined in the ordinance which He bade His followers keep in remembrance of Him. Το this question only one answer is possible. It was His death that He emphasised in the words of institution. was His death that was to be showed forth by eating bread and drinking wine. Here, then, we reach the standpoint from which, according to Jesus Himself, we can estimate aright the work which He came to do, and which at the close of His life He declared He had finished. All that He did must be viewed in relation to the final act, and must take its character and value from that relation. That act must be regarded as the consummation toward which everything else was designed to contribute,--as the purpose of His mission to which all else was subsidiary. And this implies that His death was not accidental, but necessary. That is to say, it was not brought about solely by the circumstances in which He found Himself, but formed part of the work given Him to do, so that without it that work would have been incomplete. Had it been an accident, due to the special surroundings within which that work had to be executed, the rite instituted would not have been limited to it in the way it was. It might have been made commemorative of it, but it would have been made commemorative of it in such a fashion as