The Gift of the Holy Ghost Considered as the Culmination of the Gospel

To understand the meaning of the proposition that the cuhnlnation of the Gospel is to be found in the gift of the Holy Ghost by Jesus Christ, it will be needful to cret at least some oreneral notion of what is known as the Gospel scheme, — scheme, novel as may appear this application of the term, for the Gospel has a distinct though often hidden or unprojected method; that is to say, it is not a mere congeries of assertions and emotions, but a vital system of thinking and service though with next to nothing of framework or technicality. In other words, the Gospel is stateable in distinct and progressive propositions, and consequently it can be treated methodically for expository and argumentative purposes. This is what we mean in applying the word “scheme” to the Gospel, and it is of such scheme that we now propose to get a general notion.

I.

In the first place, the Gospel proceeds upon a fuost distinct and exceptional theory of human nature. If this theory be mistaken or disputed by the student, there will be a succession of difficulties and angry controversies along the whole of that historical and doctrinal line which terminates in the cross of Jesus Christ. No point in that line can have its proper relation and value assigned if this theory be unknown or unaccepted, a fact which shows that the doctrine of human nature as held by the Gospel is fundamental; that is to say, is neither tentative nor potential, but absolute and unchangeable. Herein is one of the permanent difficulties of Christianity, namely, that its students too generally approach it upon the divine rather than upon the human side. Thus, they begin with the cross; they invert the natural and self-explanatory process; and in doing so, the mind becomes unbalanced by the pathos of the spectacle, and Is tempted to suggest that surely something less awful might have sufficiently met any exigency that could have arisen In the growth and discipline of moral life. In this way a prejudice is set up. The inquirer is troubled too much to be able to look calmly at the whole argument; the shadow of the awful cross accompanies him and darkens all subsequent study: he owns himself at a loss to imagine the fundamental theory of a movement which has culminated in so distressing a catastrophe, and thus he comes upon the mystery from a wrong level, and probably may be either revolted by its extravagance or tempted to regard It as a merelv dramatic agony. Instead of beorlnnlnof with the cross, he should have begun with himself; that is, with human nature. Undoubtedly the Gospel theory of human nature is one which involves severe and unmitigated accusation; so severe and unmitigated, indeed, that if we did not already know every step of its progress we should wonder how such a theory could be succeeded, argumentatively, by anything short of perdition. What is that theory? It is expressed with infinite simplicity and terribleness by Jesus Christ in one word; according to the teaching of our Lord, human nature is —” lost!’ At this moment we are not asking whether the Gospel theory is true or untrue; we are merely asking what it is. Let us keep to this one point closely, resisting every temptation to mix up with it something for which we are not yet ready. We must completely understand the impeachment before we accept or reject it.

Christianity teaches that all men have erred and strayed like lost sheep: “all we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way;” it insists that all men are morally alike: “there is none righteous, no not one;” it pronounces mankind to be “dead in trespasses and sins.” Never, even for one moment, is it tempted to relax the severity of its charge, so as to modify what it has to offer in the way of salvation. It acknowledges the accidentally or temporarily beautiful aspects of human life, but, fundamentally, includes it in one condemnation that it may afterwards recover it by a common process. We speak of tlic fall of Adam, and baffle ourselves by

The Ctihnination of the Gospel. 193

wondering- what that Fall was, and what it can have to do with the men of to-day. Instead of talking of the fall of Adam, let us think of the self -revelation of Adam; and in place of the word “Adam,” let us take the generic term Man. We know ourselves more thoroughly through our sins than through our supposed excellences. Adam would never have known sin but by the law, and not to know sin is not to know the whole capacity of human nature. Every man must fall for himself that he may have his own measure of self-revelation. We may indeed be shocked or grieved by the fall of others, but not until our own hand has touched the forbidden tree, and the poison has mingled with our own life, can we tell how much is concealed in that greatest of’ all earthly mysteries — the human heart. Every man (according to the Christian theory) has done substantially what Adam did; whatever there may be of difference is merely nominal and accidental. But it is precisely in this region of accidental differences that the supreme difficulty of Christian appeal and persuasion is found. We distribute offences into primary and secondary orders, conveniently and properly enough for social purposes, but involving a profound fallacy when regarded as sufficient and ultimate. “Sins” is itself a misleading word, unless specially limited; it invites comparisons, it calls attention to lights and shades which modify each other, and it so exaggerates one class of enormities as to make another almost respectable. For “sins” say sin, and then degrees and modilicaUons are abolished. So long- as a man hmits the inquiry as between himself and some other man, he is incapable of handling this great controversy; moreover, such a limitation (except for merely social purposes) is itself an offence, for we are not at liberty to separate ourselves from the race, and to set up isolated humanities. All men are branches of a common root, and are to be spoken of in their corporate qualities and powers. Individuality there will of course always be; but even individuality presupposes a common life. By typical instances we are to learn the nature and scope of the entire mass. We must look beyond the mere names of Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, and think of the whole quantity man, which they partially represented, if we would know our own nature, and turn to rioht meanino-s and uses the current of human history. “But / did not fall in Eden!” says the objector. No; but you would have done just as Adam did had you been placed in the same circumstances, and therefore you did (not historically but morally) do the very thing that was done in Eden. There is nothing but meanness. in the sultgestion ihdX yon would have done better than Adam. Consider the case again, and you will see that the only other thing beyond meanness is a charge against God himself Adam represented God’s own idea of manhood; to suppose that Me made you a stronger man than He made Adam, and yet that He risked the destiny of the whole race* upon the weaker man, is undoubtedly to bring a grave charge against the divine administration. But the charge recoils upon the accuser. He ought to be a very pure man who suggests that if he had been at the head of the race mankind would have been in a happier position to-day. He compels attention to himself, and forces from society an inquiry into his quality, disposition, and achievements. And if he be mean, covetous, hard, unsympathetic, selfish, he gives but a poor guarantee that he would have been a better Adam than the first! More than this: if there is so much as one weak point in him, whatever be the stern strength of other sides of his character, through that one weakness he would have perished in the great struggle. And who is there who will declare

himself exempt from every weakness, and claim for his owm character the actual perfection of God? We know precisely how such a claim would be treated by the common-sense of mankind, — it would be ridiculed with laughter rather than with anger, so thoroughly would men understand its monstrousness and insanity. When men are every day touching forbidden trees, breaking holy laws, giving way to evil tempers and desires, and proving to themselves the need of incessant watchfulness lest they stumble irrecoverably; and when It Is being shown by the most tragical and startling Instances that there Is but a step between life and death, honour and dishonour, heaven and hell; It Is, to say the

T96 The Paraclete,

least of it, Irrational and indecent to suppose that the first man was weaker than ourselves. A terrible thing- to have been the first man! Without experience, without history, without an equal, without a footprint on all the road, — this was itself a temptation, or a sorrow which could not put Itself into words.

Do not instances of personal nobleness — heroism and sacrifice in all their varieties and deorees — contravene the theory of human nature on which the gospel proceeds? Surely such instances ought at all events to modify the accusation which Christianity brings against human nature! The gospel distinctly answers that such instances confirm the accusation instead of Impugning or disproving it. In reference to such instances, the gospel would first of all examine the ostensible nobleness in a dry and pure light, and show how far It was merely apparent, how far It was relative, and under what pressure It would utterly break down; and in the next place, the gospel would properly ask why such nobleness is exceptional, or how It comes to be so marked as to draw any attention to itself, and whether this would be so were human nature fundamentally sound and true. Moreover If the argument of numbers be Introduced (a fallacious argument generally, but In this case utterly vicious) the gospel will logically Insist that the proofs of Its ownr theory are, taking the whole world Into account, innumerably more than can be quoted by its opponents. The gospel will continue the argument by denying that any one man (whose judgments must of course be affected by the necessary hmitations of his personality) can know human nature in its totahty; and will follow up the denial by protesting that human natitre is, in its own degree, quite as much a revelation as is the divine personality itself. Day by day the progressive man is more and more fully revealed to himself; men must likewise be revealed to one another; and even after the widest collation of instances there will always remain a further something — distinctly felt, but tod subtle for the treatment of words — which further something is the very essence of what we know as the nature of man. It would appear to be commonly thought that whatever mysteries becloud’ the divine identity, we can undoubtedly see and measure the whole quantity of human life; but that is the very thing which is denied, and certainly is the very thing which is contradicted by the best psychology and metaphysics. Who is there that is not often self-surprised by the course of his own thoughts, volitions, and sympathies? A new self would seem to come every day, or foretokenings of a self other and better than we now realise; so much so that our whole being is yet unmeasured, or we have not yet come into full possession of ourselves! What, then, if it be a mistake to suppose that we can test the whole question of human nature exhaustively, and if the principal fact in our history be the fact of an Ignorance hardly relieved by the illumination of

I9<S The Paraclete.

twilight? The gospel distinctly says that human nature is to be revealed to itself, and that the proper revelation of its moral condition is to be found in such words as “corrupt,” “lost,” “dead in trespasses and in sins.” Suppose that this revelation is not believed by mankind? Such disbelief would be a strong- presumptive proof of its truthfulness; for what man is predisposed to believe evil of himself, or to do other than resent every suggestion of impotence or dishonour? And if the gospel have any propositions to make to man, the probable truthfulness of its first unwelcome disclosures is infinitely increased by the fact that it would simply stultify itself by first setting up a U’^edless but most proper and righteous antagonism, and then offering what it supposes to be the greatest of all blessings for the acceptance of mankind. Who would accost a man with unfriendly and even scurrilous epithets in order to conciliate his attention or get a lien upon his confidence? On the other hand, what physician would be credited if he trifled with the gravity of a disease merely to create false hopes, or to get some temporary advantage from his patient? Looking at these considerations, and other reflections from which they are inseparable, the probability would appear to be that the disbelief of mankind would be a strong presumptive proof of the truthfulness of the gospel theory of human nature.

“It would appear, then,” the dissatisfied reader ma)’ say, “that* we must not go to the Gospel for a

The Ciilminatioii of the Gospel. 199

high estimate of humanity; it will try to humble us by the most emphatic assurances that we are ’ lost,” dead,’ and * corrupt,’ but it will never speak of our greatness and value as men.” Precisely the contrary is the case! Instead of makino- these declarations a ground of contempt, the Gospel say§ that notwithstanding these things mart is worth saving I ‘How great, then, must be its estimate of the value of human nature! Given any state (even though only imaginative) which can be described as “lost,” “dead,” and “corrupt,” to find out the appropriate treatment. Who can hesitate to answer that the appropriate treatment is destiuction? Yet the Gospel says — “No: the appropriate treatment in the case of mankind is salvation.” So, in this very Gospel which was supposed to treat human nature with contempt is found an estimate of its worth unparalleled for benevolence and hopefulness. And consistently so, if the scriptural testimony be carefully studied throughout. Nowhere in that voluminous testimony is there one derisive tone, or one signal of divine contempt; everywhere there is poignant grief, yearning of love over the prodigal, a cry as of bereavement and loneliness, the lament of a broken heart. Still, not one word of the accusation is withdrawn or softened. The impeachment is, so to speak, written upon the whole front of the heavens, that the universe may be confounded with astonishment in learning the ingratitude of man, — yet God cries out for His child, and follows up the mystery of sin with the higher mystery of forgiveness. Compare this with the poor flatteries which other theories of human nature have addressed to mankind; the selfish comphments which have been paid to the genius and strength of man; and say whether viewed simply as an intellectual, conception the highest tribute ever paid to human nature was notj)aid by One calling Himself the Son of God, who avowedly came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. Have the flatterers of human nature ever suffered anything on its behalf? Consider what the flattery of human nature is, and at its very core will be found the idolatry of self. No wonder that men who live in an atmosphere of mutual applause resent the violence of a theory whose primary principle is that there is none righteous no not one! The first destructive ambition of m.an was to be as God, and to this day he is falling over the same rock, and madly kicking against the same pricks. He is very sensitive as to his dignity. You wound him when you tell him of his weakness, and yet you cannot so far delude his consciousness as to get him beyond a changeful and troubled joy even when you most effusively assure him of his glory and strength; even then a ghost dilutes his wine, and challenges him to a battle which he knows must end in his own death. The Gospel reads the riddle to him: with loving frankness it reveals his failures, and shows him that all outward blemish is but an imperfect expression of his inward corruption. It does not tell this with harshness or with the slightest refinement of cruelty, but with the explicitness of incorruptible honesty, and with a tenderness;

TJie Ctclmination of the Gospel. 201

which means that presently it will have something better to say. What that something is we shall now endeavour to define: meanwhile, to the charge that Christianity takes a low view of human nature, the Cross of Christ is the answer of God.

II.

It will be seen that the Gospel has (taking the objector’s word) by its very exb-avagance brought a heavy responsibility upon itself by proposing to deal remedially with a nature which it has with persistent austerity described as “dead,” “corrupt,” “lost,” “born in sin and shapen in iniquity;” it should have spared its epithets if it had any misgiving of its strength, for by this free, and almost riotous, use of condemnatory words it has determined its own tests and there can be no escape from their judgment. What can be more incautious (not to say unjust) than to exaggerate a disease, and then boastfully to propose remedies which are monstrously inadequate? And what can be more cruel than to dilate upon the horrors of an affliction for which it is known that cure is impossible? If from this moment — now that it has been allowed to state the case in its own way — the gospel forget one item of its impeachment, or prove itself (as weakness always does) more energetic in condemnation than in the provision of adequate help; it will not only provoke the most indignant reprisals but be justly chargeable with the most atrocious cruelty. We are, therefore, if in earnest in this argument, intensely excited to know the precise remedy which the gospel has to propose, and we have been prepared, by its own condemnatory tone* to receive the proposition with aggravated and resentful jealousy: nor do we apologise for this, for men oueht not to allow themselves to be first damned with the most odious epithets, and then to be trifled with by speculative suggestions or empirical nostrums. As the gospel has come to the point on the one side, so it must at once come to the point on the other. The question which urges itself after hearing the indictment is — Does God Himself believe itf Or, has He magnified the disease that He may glorify Himself by an easy and inexpensive arrangement on His own part? We shall get the answer in the proposed remedy. What is it? This: “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not pjrish, but have everlasting life.” Now (even from an imaginative point of view) it may be fairly claimed that how awful soever the impeachment this answer transcends it in solemnity and pathos. At this moment we are not affirming either this or that theory to be either true or false, we are simply getting hold of a case as it is outlined in history, and our submission on strictly literary grounds, is that the impeachment of human nature was so terrible that it seemed to defy everything like an answer or a mitioration, and that this answer, found in the love of God and e>:pressed in the mediation of Jesus Christ, fills up and overflows the measure of the

The Ciibnination of the Gospel. 203

occasion, and is the sublimest sentence in the hterature of mankind.

A very curious question, however, arises out of the construction of this answer. Is there not an abrupt and most unsatisfactory turn in the language? We are told in the first place that God loved the world, and in the second place we are told the exact degree of His love; but, strange to say, that degree is not measured by God Himself but by the gift of His Son! We do not read that God so loved the world that He gave Himself, but He so loved the world that He gave some one else! A great gift, no doubt (the greatest indeed to any giver), but still secondary, and bringing with it many difficulties which would appear to be insuperable. It will be seen that a case of this kind, involving humiliation so deep and other consequences so disastrous and intolerable, could not be met by any degree of mere consent on the part of the Son. Consider what is involved in any arrangement by consent of parties: however full the degree of the consent, it is evident that the Son, if an inferior Person, could only regard the salvation of the world as an idea which had been suggested to Him by the Supreme Mind, and which had, either by force of argument or force of sovereignty, laid such hold upon His understanding and affections that He yielded to it, and for the time being became the very slave of this great thought. Now such arrangement, regarded from a human point of view, must be seen to be painfully insecure. An idea of this kind, so vast in its scope and so costly in its execution, cannot, in the very nature of the case, be realised derivatively and secondarily Such realisation may be attempted, indeed, but the attempt must end either in blasphemy or madness. If Jesus Christ could have had an idea suggested to Him then He was less than omniscient; if He was less than omniscient He was less than God; and if He was less than God He was exposed to all those counter considerations whkh modify and re-arrange finite judgments, and which, therefore, might impair His resolution to be the instrument of the world’s salvation. But what if He was so inspired and ruled by the Almighty as to render His faithfulness invincible? Then He was no longer a voluntary agent. A man may be overborne by inspiration as well as by meaner forces; and to whatever extent he is under the dominion of influences which he can neither understand nor control, he loses sympathy with those who do not share his elevation, and in fact, cuts himself off from their approach and their petitions. The term inspiration is, of course, variously understood and applied, and therefore it may be worth while to point out the exact sense in which it is used in this argument. In a sense far from inconsiderable every man is divinely inspired; some men (as the highest thinkers, whether philosophers or poets) are specially inspired; a yet smaller number of men (as Isaiah and Ezekiel) have been the subjects of an inspiration more peculiar and distinctive still. Our contention is that in not one of these senses was Jesus Christ inspiied, but rather that He ‘Himself was the actual Inspirey of these very men! To say that He was inspired is to put Him into a secondary position; because if inspired He was of course inferior to the Beine from whom He derived His inspiration. Say rather that Jesus Christ was self-inspired; that His whole ministry was self-originated and self-directed; and though He is thus argumentatively set infinitely above the race which He redeemed, He is yet left in full possession of that power, which happily is inseparable from God, by which He can with infinitely pathetic condescension stoop to the meanest of His creatures. In saying that such a Being is unapproachable we do not, even theoretically, destroy His ability to do on His side what without His aid is

impossible on ours. He can come to us; He does come to us every moment; thus the thing which may be even unthinkable in theology is one of the continual and necessary facts of daily human experience. When we say that the sun is unapproachable, we do not mean that his light cannot come down to the meanest of human habitations.

Is there, then, a serious decrepancy between the first part of this marvellous answer and the second? If we take Jesus Christ’s estimate of Himself we shall see the answer in another light. Speaking of Himself He said, “I and my Father are one; “if only one in sympathy and purpose He was in reality saying nothing, for this is a commonplace which applies to many human covenants and enterprises; any holy angel could have said the same thing, and ‘ven some devoted men might use the very words. If, however, we regard the words as expressing not only sympathy but equahty, we come at once to a new and satisfactory reading of the answer now under discussion; thus: God so loved the world that He gave Himself in human form, Emmanuel, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life. How far, then, is this reading supported by other scriptures? Is there any evidence to show that Jesus Christ claimed originality and voluntariness for His own interposition? If He derived the idea from God, and held it (with whatever tenacity) as a suggestion only. He would be careful to give God the glory in terms so distinct as to render any reference to Himself that was not guarded ‘with jealous rigour, an act of profanity and blasphemy. What, then, do we find to be the tenor of apostolic teaching as to Christ’s part in the proposed scheme for the salvation of the world? A few citations will show this clearly: —” The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ who gave Himsi:lf for us” (Tit. ii. 13, 14). “Our Lord Jesus Christ who gave Himself for our sins” (Gal. i. 4). “The Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me “(Gal. ii. 20).” Christ Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for all” (i Tim. ii. 6). There is no qualifying clause, hs for example, “at God’s suggesti6n,” or “in deference to a higher will;” the terms are simple, unencumbered, and absolute; and therefore the following paraphrase of the answer would seem to be wholly justified —” God so loved the

The Ctduiination of the Gospel. 207

world that He eave Himself embodied in the form of Jesus Christ, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life; “and herein is it true that” he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;” and, “it is not I that do the works,” but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works.” A mystery, indeed, on every side, not to be dispelled wholly by any explanation, yet so to be expounded as to prove, without one broken link in the evidence, that when God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son, He so loved the world as to give Himself.

But Jesus Christ was a man? Undoubtedly: to forget His manhood is to forget half the gospel, and to overlook one of the reasons which orioinated the scheme of savino- the world. It is in the highest degree remarkable that when God proposed to come to earth to save the children of men, He did not attempt to improve the plan upon which man was originally made, but on the contrary He reproduced it so completely that Jesus Christ was actually known as the second Adam. This should be remembered as a proof that the first Adam fully represented manhood as it existed in the divine conception, and was not set forth as the type which was to be matured by the progress of ages. Jesus Christ was “made In all points like as we are;” as much as to say, that God could not have added another element or feature to His orleinal idea of- manhood, without havinor completely changed it and really made something other than man; and therefore when He purposed to constitute a new head of the race, He actually made it on the first plan. But whereas the first man was made only in the image and likeness of God, the second man was God Himself, the Lord from heaven. Jesus Christ adopted a remarkable method in the treatment of His own humanity; He challenged men to destroy it, and He would raise it up again in three days; He said that it was His Father who did the works, at the very moment that He was in the act of doing them Himself; He said that He came from God and went to God. So the alphabetic letter says — “I am but a form, a medium; I do not give wisdom, the Spirit which I represent gives life and understanding: the wise man uses me, and so does the fool, yet how different the spirit of the one from the spirit of the other! When the eyes of your understanding are enlightened you will see me as I really am, and then, having seen me, you have seen my spirit and meaning also.” The treatment of His personal humanity which Jesus Christ adopted was more needful and important than may at first sight appear. Why did He so carefully separate it from godhead? Why did He show His exhaustion. His hunger, and weakness to the men who were round about Him, and openly say that He had not where to lay His head? Because it is in human nature to worship itself, and to look no farther than the range of its own power and wisdom. From the very beginning this has been its temptation — “Ye shall be as gods.” On this ground, therefore, it became Him who was the second Adam, and the head of a new race, to define the proper limits of human nature, to separate the formal from the essential, and to be for ever ppinting men away from the physical and the visible to Him who is a Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

Jesus Christ was so careful to assert His proper humanity, that he called Himself by no less singular a name than “the Son of man,” a name which is not only most distinctive, but one which by its very delicacy admits of easy perversion and impoverishment. Its meaning would be destroyed were it a son of man, or the son of a man. The fact is, the name so precisely expresses what it was intended to convey, that it cannot be re-arranged or varied in any degree without sustaining injury and dishonour. If we want God’s idea of man we must go back to the creation of Adam, (God created Adam [man] in His own image, in the image of God created He him), and then the name “Son of man” will be equal to son of Adam, and the meaning of the name will probably be that Jesus Christ was, merely as regarded His bodily manifestation, what the son of Adam would have been had the estate of innocence been retained. That is to say, he was God’s ideal of humanity realised in all points; as human as any other man yet withoiU sin really and properly human, touched with a feeling of our Infirmities,

r and in all points temptable though invulnerable. A beautiful condescension this, on the part of God; coming- all the way to us, and actually laying hold of our very nature. And a marvellous answer to the difficulty of sin! An answer after this fashion — “Sin has brought human nature into captivity and death, and so far has to all appearance successfully challenged my divine dominion; I first set up humanity in my own image and likeness, and sin has defaced the work of my hands. But the day shall be surely turned upon the enemy, through this self-game humanity shall come redemption and immortality, and the serpent shall be crushed by the seed of the woman, — the Son of man shall be the Saviour of .man, and hr.man nature shall thus be protected from the charge of weakness and failure.” So it can only be a false theology which puts into a secondary place the proper human nature of Jesus Christ. We separate ourselves from His most helpful influences by magnifying His divinity at the expense of His humanity; and by our very eagerness to worship His godhead we exclude that subtle and tender sympathy by which He seeks to get His first hold of our confidence and love. We are, too, tempted to narrow tli term Godhead, and to set up unitarianism on another than the common basis; that is, we are so vigorous in our assertion of the proper Deity of Jesus Christ, that we overlook both the Father and the Spirit. Probably the principal reason why the humanity of Jesus Christ if. not acknowledged with sufficient distinctness and honoured with appropriate homage is, that the very term “human nature” has lost its true meaning; it is not thought of as God’s own highest idea of earthly existence — a translation of Himself into form — but as something almost self-created, corrupt, contemptible, and worthless. This is not God’s view, nor is it a view which is held with God’s approbation. At best it is but the accidental condition of human nature, — a rousfh and trasrical episode, revoltingly and mournfully true within certain limits, — not the divine idea which is yet to be reclaimed and vindicated, and covered with (dory ineffable and everlasting. When we see human nature as God meant it to be, pure, strong, loving, wise, clothed with its original dominion, and moving up the immeasurable altitude to which it is called in the purpose of God, we shall see how lofty is the title Son of man, and that to be a man, is to stand at the rioht hand of God.

III.

Upon these two points our conception of the gospel scheme is tolerably clear; at all events we know that as a matter of fact it presents a distinct and exceptional theory of human nature — a theory so obviously sui generis as to be substantially original, and originality on siicJi a subject is equivalent to a revelation — and proposes to meet the human CO .dilion which it describes in terms so graphi:

and humiliating- by a method which, if true, /s, on the face of it, transcendently subhme, — the incarnation, the sacrifice, the resurrection and priestly mediation of God the Son. But, how to bring this method to bear? Not only how to bring it to bear as one great act, for the time being eclipsing everything else and smiting the universe with a terrible surprise, but how to give it nearness and influence in all lands and in all ages even until time shall be no more? Just now we were excited to know how such a condition of human nature as had been described could possibly be met by obviously adequate remedies, and we have at this point precisely the same excitement arising out of the inquiry. How can this work of Jesus Christ overflow the limitations of time and space, and extend its advantages to all generations and all the habitable places of the earth? It is clear that the continued bodily presence of Jesus Christ could not have met the case, and that beside falling short of it, would have created difficulties not only insuperable but most mischievous. Who would have believed in His proper humanity if He had lived five centuries and five more, and then added a thousand years, and promised to live as a man for ten thousand more? By the mere lapse of time He would have destroyed all confidence in His claim to be regarded as “made in all points like as we are,” and would in His professed humanity, have become an infinitely greater mystery than in His claim of equahty with God. How

The C2ilniination of the Gospel. 213

then, according to the gospel theory, whether true or untrue, did He propose to secure duration and universahty for His work? This is the brihiant and astounding answer — He ascended iip far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. All things, all time, all space, all hearts, all kingdoms and masteries. “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” The inquirer will be able to say whether the sublimity of the second answer equals the sublimity of the first, or whether the gospel scheme outwits itself by the creation of difficulties which it can only meet by impotent expedients. Has that scheme created an ideal Christ which it cannot universalise By the inspiration of the Holy Ghost there is a human ministry of the Gospel in the world. Men are specially called to that ministry by the Holy Spirit; they are qualified by appropriate gifts; their living word is accompanied and confirmed by the power of God; their hearts are quickened by an enthusiasm which can find no sufficient expression but in the proclamation of the truth as it is in Jesus. The Holy Ghost creates a church, — companies of men who live in the Spirit, walk in the Spirit, pray in the Spirit, and bring forth the fruits of the Spirit; men who are the temples of the Holy Ghost, and whose union is a continual testimony to the power of Jesus Christ. That they are despised and rejected of men is true, but true only in so far as the fact connects them with the history of the Lord, whose name they bear. Unquestionably the church is at a discount in the world: to belong to it other than nominally, is to provoke opposition and sneerinor; to be earnest in the cause of the Cross, is to invite the charge of fanaticism or the insinuation of hypocrisy. Still, the church lives, and its ministry is resuscitated from age to age. A continual resurrection thus supervenes, and the morning freshness reappears in spite of all the centuries and their impairing power. By the action of the self-same Spirit, the Atonement is saved from all the disadvantage of merely historic distance, so that, to the spiritually earnest man, the Cross of Jesus Christ is as near to-day, as if the crucifixion had just transpired. Herein, truly, is a marvellous thing, that men are now preaching Christ crucified. What do they know about the crucifixion? Yet they preach it as if they had but just left Golgotha after seeing the blood of Jesus; and no story so deeply moves the human heart, or so mightily stirs the energies of mankind, as the story which takes us back nineteen centuries, and translates itself out of a strange tongue.

Now, mark the effect of this Spiritual ministry upon the doctrine of Human Nature and the doctrine of Incarnation and Sacrifice just stated. We have been told that human nature is “lost,” “dead,” and “corrupt,” and by the very fact that it is so, it is clear that its condition can be effectually reached only by Spij’itual influence, — that is by influence that is superior to the nature on which it acts, and that is quicke?ting or Hfe-giving,- — “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” “The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life.” “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are life.” Surely, such provisions] wonderfully fulfil the conditions on which the gospel theory proceeds; the theory is rescued from the fate of mere intellectual abstractions, and applied in the direction of revitalised and sanctified human nature, and so is shown to be founded upon reality and adapted to experience. Still, there is the inquiry. Can this quickening power be brought to bear upon human nature without the interposition of material instruments? And to this inquiry the scriptural answer is distinctly in the negative. Human nature could not, in its lost condition, be communicated with directly by absolutely spiritual agents. Its ears were waxed heavy that they could not hear, and its eyes were made dim and sightless by unrestrained transgression. Then must the Almighty thunder if He would be heard, and spare not His lightnings if He would be seen even in roughest outline: the “still small voice” would be wasted music. There must first come that which is natural, afterward that which is spiritual, — first the earthquake, the fire, the sound inof storm beatincr on the mountains and sendinQf the horror of darkness and a noise of trouble through the valleys; and then must come the Sweet peace of a spiritual ministry — a harmony too exquisite for the ear of the flesh, but ravishing- the soul with refinements of music indistinguishable from the praise of heaven. We have more than once in the course of this essay claimed that this is precisely what has been done in that administration of human affairs which culminated in the gift of the Holy Ghost; and this brief review enables us to reaffirm that the gospel theory is, even in the most subtle and delicate points, consistent from beginning to end with itself, and is therefore presumptively true. It can only be with a feeling of grateful surprise that we observe how graciously it has been provided that this entire scale of revelation, so to speak, should be available, in all gradations, to mankind as much to-day as at any period of the history of Christianity. To preach the high doctrine of the Holy Ghost to the heathenism which surrounds the piety of the most enlightened countries would be simply to speak an unknown tongue, and, indeed, to speak the language of heartless irony. So also with lands which are visited by the Christian evangelist. He may begin his ministry with the words, “God is a Spirit,” but he will soon find that he will have to take his heathen hearers through almost literally the course which runs through the Old Testament and the New, and terminates in the gift of the Holy Ghost. To the heathen must be spoken the commandments, and revealed the exacting “law,” which more than an — thing else can teach man the poverty of his moral resources. The alphabet and the picture-book will be found indispensable by the missionary. Then will come the narrative of Jesus Christ’s outward life — miracle, parable, and startling wordthen the praetorium and the cross — then the Holy Ghost. There is no escape from this line: it is, as we have

endeavoured to show, the line of intellectual growth and of social development, as distinctly and unchangeable as it is the line of spiritual training and progress. On the other hand, to be preaching the “first principles” to congregations who have been listening to Christian exposition for a lifetime is to the discredit either of the preacher or the hearer. Perhaps, however, there is some excuse for the preacher, seeing that he is conventionally compelled to address all classes in a common speech, instead of being permitted to address each class in its own language, and according to the degree of its spiritual enlightenment. Christian teaching regarded in its proper distribution would furnish a magnificent picture if we could command the whole in one clear view. Far away in the distance are heathen nations taking their first lessons (in large and highly illuminated letters) under the direction of the Christian missionary; nearer still are little children to whom the divine word is beinof spoken in its utmost simplicity with all the aiJ of parable and story; still nearer are groups of partially enlightened inquirers who see men as trees walking; interspersed amongst many other classes are persons who can be approached only through their sensibilities and emotions, and who can constitutionally never have any strong hold of truth apart from its most pathetic objective expression; but at the centre of all, there should be a class of inquirers specifically different from all the rest, — a class whose studies are far beyond miracle, picture, ritual, and the limited “letter,” intermeddling with “the deep things of God,” and breathing the air of a higher world. But how is any preacher to address all those classes when they come together in common assembly, except in generalities which will hardly satisfy any one of them? To speak with edification to the last would simply be to speak an unknown tongue to all the others, and to speak with edification to the first would be to offer “milk” to strong- men, or to fret philosophers with recollections of the alphabet and primer. Out of the working and conflict of classes so varied, and apparently so little related (yet between which there is a constant inter-transition) come charges of heterodoxy, rationalism, mysticism, and transcendentalism! What wonder? Surely the child who is in dissyllables must think the mathematician a heretic and the metaphysician a madman for spending his nights and days in quest of the “cosmic reason.” And probably the tyro to whom the multiplication table is a mystery would licar of algebra with shuddering and horror. A wise word is that, here as elsewhere, “Judge not that ye be not judged, for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” It is a long way from the -letter which killeth to the Spirit which

The Ctdmination of the Gospel. 2 1 9

giveth life, and the progress from the one to the other must always be a mystery,^ — a mystery to the advancing man himself, and a mystery to those who take an interest in his growth. Yet what great reliefs accompany the mystery! The fruit of the Spirit is not unintelligibleness, self-inclusion, scorn of backward learners, and latent disdain of human nature generally; the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. The better the scholar, the deeper his humility. If any man say, “I walk in the Holy Ghost,” his claim can easily be tested by the inquiry. What are li’S> fruits? “By their fruits ye shall know theni.”