are the two parts of a revelation, the absence of either of which neutralizes and undoes it." This passage is misleading, because while it contains statements very closely resembling the facts of the Gospel, Dr. Mozley applies them to a condition of things wholly different from those exhibited in the life of Christ as there depicted. I fully admit that if a mere man, who differed in nothing from ordinary good men, made such statements, they would be utterly incredible, and the fair inference would be that he had become suddenly insane. But the Gospels do not tell us that it was an ordinary man like ourselves who made these assertions; but one whose entire character and actions were as much a manifestation of superhuman goodness and holiness as His miracles were of superhuman power. To assume that Our Lord before He performed his first miracle at Cana, did not differ from an ordinary man, is to beg the whole question. In fact it is simply impossible that He did not, if His own affirmations and those of the writers of the New Testament, that he who had seen Him had seen the Father; and that the fulness of Godhead dwelt in His incarnate person, are true. The question is not what we should think of such assertions, if made by a man of ordinary goodness; but what we should think of them, if made by one who during the whole of his past life had been the highest manifestation of the moral perfections of God. St. Luke tells us that even at the age of twelve years Jesus astonished the Jewish doctors by His understanding and answers. Surely during the eighteen years which elapsed between this event and His public ministry, when His manhood had become fully developed, the divine rays must have shone in Him with greater brilliancy. According to Professor Mozley's position, these assertions, if they had been made by Our Lord before He had performed His first miracle at Cana, might have been justly deemed the results of insanity (we know that the Jews did subsequently affirm that He was mad); but they would have been rendered credible by its performance. Surely such a position is untenable. The error has originated in the incorrect assumption that Our Lord did not differ from an ordinary man until He manifested that difference by the performance of miracles. But the Professor continues, "Would not a perfectly sinless character be a proof of a revelation? Undoubtedly that would be as great a miracle as any that could be conceived; but where is the proof of perfect sinlessness? No outward life and conduct, however just, benevolent, and irreproachable, could prove this, because goodness depends on the inward motive, and the perfection of the inward motive is not proved by the outward act." ... "We accept Our Lord's perfect goodness then on the same evidence upon which we admit the rest of His supernatural character; but not as proved by the outward goodness of His life, by His character, sublime as it was, as it presented itself to the eye." This affirmation is a very unfortunate one, because it directly traverses one made by Our Lord Himself as reported in the Fourth Gospel," which of you convinceth me of sin; and if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?" Surely Our Lord here affirms that the inability of any one to convince Him of sin was an adequate proof that His moral character was perfect. He demands to be believed in virtue of His inherent truthfulness; and on the strength of it He proceeds to make the affirmation of His pre-existence, "Before Abraham was, I am." He certainly here distinctly lays down that His absolute sinlessness was a sufficient ground for His affirmation being entitled to the fullest credence. But, says the Professor, how could this sinlessness be known? It is impossible that we could know that any man was sinless unless we could penetrate to his motives, and this we cannot do. Surely this is hypercritical. A being whose entire outward life was a manifestation of absolute moral purity, must have been equally pure in his inward character. "The tree," says Our Lord, " is known by its fruits." A being whose actual life is moral perfection, while his inward life is corrupt, must possess a superhuman power of hypocrisy. My answer, therefore, to the question, "How could the perfection of Jesus be proved?" is, By His perfect life. It was a question, not of theory, but of fact. I fully admit "that we accept Our Lord's perfect goodness on the same evidence on which we admit the rest of His supernatural character," i.e. by its manifestations. But here let it be observed, the proof of the manifestations of His superhuman power derived from His miracles is dependent on a complicated chain of historical proof; that of His divine working in the history of the past and the facts of the present is patent to the ordinary student of history. It may be urged that large numbers of the Jews would not have any evidence that His character was morally stainless; and consequently to such persons it would be no sufficient guarantee of the truth of His assertions. This I fully admit. The same observation is equally true with respect to those who did not witness His miracles; and we know, as matter of fact, that even many who did, ascribed them to demoniacal agency. But it was far more difficult to ascribe His manifestations of divine goodness to such an influence than His miracles, when viewed separately from their moral environment. Both His moral perfection and His miracles could only be evidential as far as He afforded evidence of their reality. But the character of the evidence has become widely different in the present day from what it was in Our Lord's. Then the miracles could be witnessed; now they cannot. Then their reality could be tested; now it cannot : now they can only be accepted on the testimony of those who witnessed them. Then the only alternative, if they were accepted as true, was between their being wrought by the finger of God or by Satanic agency. This latter alternative would weigh little weigh little now; but we embarrassed by the length of the chain of are men. the historic proof, and by other difficulties peculiar to modern times, which considerably overbalance this advantage. Those who came into direct contact with Jesus were able to behold the divine radiance of His character. This we cannot do; but we have eighteen centuries of experience of the superhuman working of this character in history, and of the laws which regulate the evolution of ordinary This furnishes us with materials for judging whether a superhuman power manifested itself in Jesus Christ of which His contemporaries were destitute. We have also the character depicted before our eyes in the pages of the Evangelists. The only question is, whether it is possible that this character can be an ideal one; and of this our means of judging are ample. If any one will set himself thus carefully to balance our losses and our gains, I think that the conclusion at which he will arrive must be that the evidences of the divine mission of Jesus Christ which we now possess are of equal, if not of greater weight, than those which were enjoyed by those who lived in the apostolic age. It is true that we witness no physical miracles now; but we witness mightier moral ones. The moral miracles we can behold and verify; these being established, render our proof of the physical ones comparatively easy, which, when dissevered from that of the moral ones, becomes a balance of intricate probabilities. The history of John the Baptist fully confirms the positions laid down in the Lecture, that miracles are not the one indispensable proof of a divine mission. The divine mission of John is directly affirmed by Our Lord. "Among those that are born of women," He says, "there has not arisen a great prophet than John the Baptist." These words, if taken strictly, affirm that he was a greater prophet even than Moses. Yet not only do the Synoptics record no miracle as having been performed by him, but the Fourth Gospel expressly affirms that he wrought none, while at the same time it attributes to him several dogmatical assertions respecting the superhuman greatness of Our Lord. If it be urged that a miracle was wrought on the occasion of the descent of the divine Spirit on Our Lord at His Baptism, I reply, though the special mark to John by which the presence of the Messiah was indicated, and to him in the highest sense evidential, yet it was not so to others. As far as the people are concerned, the evidence of the Fourth Gospel is incontestable, "John did no miracle, but all things which John spake of this man were true.” : If it be urged that while miracles may not be necessary to prove a divine mission, yet they are necessary to prove the truth of a revelation, and that John had no revelation to communicate, I reply that it is equally true that neither Elijah nor Elisha introduced a new revelation, yet the Old Testament ascribed to them a number of miracles. Nor is the affirmation that he had no revelation to communicate strictly accurate for he was far more a communicator of one than any of the former prophets, in that he pointed out the Messiah as actually come; and authoritatively affirmed that Jesus was He. It is true that the Synoptics describe him rather as a preacher of repentance; but St. John's Gospel not only affirms that he gave distinct testimony to Jesus as the actual Messiah, but that he made several remarkable statements as to the divine character of His person, one of them being an affirmation referred to by Dr. Mozley, as requiring to be substantiated by miracle, that " He was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world ;" and if we accept the conclusion of the third chapter as an utterance of the Baptist, and not a meditation of its author, he must have announced yet profounder truths respecting His Divine character. Although utterances of this kind are not directly mentioned by the Synoptics, yet they make it certain that John must have given a very clear and well known testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, for they inform us that after Our Lord had performed the high Messianic act of cleansing the temple, and the Sanhedrim demanded His authority for doing so, He replied by asking their opinion as to the divine mission of John the Baptist; and that after |