I adopt as the basis of the reasoning of this Lecture a fact which each of us can verify for himself, namely, that the Gospels, whether we suppose their narratives to be an account of actual occurrences, or according to the views of critical unbelief, to consist chiefly of a mass of legendary and fictitious matter, contain a portraiture of the divine character of Jesus Christ our Lord. There is the character plainly and palpably before us. It is the grandest character known to history. Not only have all the greatest and best of men bowed before it in humble adoration; but very many eminent unbelievers have confessed its greatness and perfection. Even those who deny its historical reality cannot help allowing that it is the grandest ideal creation of the human mind. Equally certain is it, that whether the character be an ideal or an historical one, it has proved for eighteen centuries the mightiest influence for good which has been exerted on mankind.

The following question therefore urgently demands solution: If a large portion of the Gospels consists of myths and legends, how has the delineation got into their pages?

Another fact, apparent on the surface of the Gospels, has a most important bearing on this question. Of this great character they present us with no formal delineation. Nothing is more common than for ordinary historians to furnish us with formal portraitures of the characters of the persons whose actions they narrate, and to render them the meed of praise or blame. All this is totally wanting in the pages of the Evangelists. Not one of them has attempted to depict the character of his Master. Yet so conspicuously does it stand forth in them that it is obvious to every reader, and produces a more distinct impression than the most elaborate delineation.*

The almost entire absence of praise or blame assigned to the different agents in the scenes which they depict is a most striking feature in the Evangelists. The absence of the expression of any personal feeling on the part of the writers seems almost like coldness.

Of what then does it consist? To this question there can be only one answer. It is the result of the sum total of the narratives and discourses which compose our Gospels. These by being simply placed in juxta-position, by their combined effect, form the portraiture of the divine Christ. I say that this result has been produced by the simple juxtaposition of the materials, because the most cursory perusal of the Gospels must convince every reader that nothing was farther from the intention of their authors than to delineate a character by an artificial arrangement of its parts. Their obvious aim and purpose was to furnish such a selection of the actions and teaching of Jesus Christ as would They have not one word in commendation of the absolute self-sacrifice manifested in their Master's life; nor of His unwearied labours in doing good; nor of His benevolence; His holiness, or His humility; or any one of the striking traits of His character. They must have viewed His death as the most atrocious of murders; yet not one word have they uttered for the purpose of heightening the effect of His cruel sufferings, or even of drawing our attention to His patient endurance. The whole account of the Crucifixion is a remarkably matter-of-fact one, in some respects it is even meagre; and not one word is added for the purpose of giving pathos to the scene. Equally remarkable is their entire absence of any expression of surprise or admiration at any miracle which Our Lord performed, and the want of dramatic colouring in their relation of them. The authors of the Gospels are exclusively occupied with the facts which they narrate; and trusted to them alone to produce the effect which they desired. In one word, all four Evangelists write like men who are utterly unconscious that they are delineating the greatest character in history. It is very remarkable that even with respect to the immediate agents in Our Lord's death there is an absence of denunciation, the hardest term which they employ being that by which they designate Judas as the Traitor, softened in three out of the four into the expression, " he who delivered him up (ó napadidove instead of ¿ πрodórs). This absence of remark is not a peculiarity of any one of the Evangelists, but alike distinguishes the four. When we consider that their attachment to their Master was profound, it constitutes a most surprising trait, and is utterly inconsistent with the idea that any portion of the delineation has been worked up for the purpose of producing effect. Yet it has produced one which has utterly distanced the mightiest creations of genius.

be adequate to teach the great principles of Christianity. Yet out of what I may call a chance combination of their materials the delineation of this great character has emerged, which, to quote once more the words of Mr. Lecky, "has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and than all the exhortations of moralists." The question, Of what does the great character consist? will be best answered in his own words: it consists "in the simple record of three short years of active life," and I may add, composed extremely inartificially.

Another fact requires to be carefully considered. A large portion of the Gospels consists of a miraculous narrative, and of events so closely interwoven with it, that in point of credibility they must stand or fall together. So likewise is it with respect to the discourses in the Synoptic Gospels, which many eminent unbelievers allow to have been the veritable utterances of Jesus. Several of these presuppose the miraculous narrative, and others contain expressions which assume in Him the consciousness of a superhuman greatness, and which it is impossible to believe Him to have uttered, if that consciousness was unreal. Now as the delineation of the character is the result of the mere juxtaposition of the contents of the Gospels, it is clear that the miraculous narratives must form an essential portion of the delineation, and the effect of their removal as unhistorical would be not only that the residuum would lose all cohesion, but the entire destruction of the character.

But another fact connected with the miraculous narrative has a most important bearing on the argument. The character delineated in it bears the same moral impress as that which is delineated in those parts which are not miraculous. Both are embodiments of precisely the same ideal conception, and constitute an harmonious whole as far as its ideal conception is concerned; it is impossible to imagine the miraculous portions to be a coinage of one mint, and the non-miraculous of another. Both are stamped with the

same impress, and bear the clearest indications of having issued from the same die.*

* Mr. Mill, in the last of his posthumous essays, lays down the following position, "It is no use to say that Christ, as exhibited in the Gospels, is not historical; and that we know not how much of what is admirable has been superadded by the tradition of his followers. The tradition of his followers suffices to have inserted any number of miracles, and may have inserted all the miracles he is reported to have wrought. But who among his disciples or among their proselytes, 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, certainly not St. Paul, and still less the early Christian writers, in whom nothing is more evident, than that the good which was in them was all derived, as they all professed that it was, from a higher source." This is certainly a most remarkable testimony, coming from so profound a reasoner, with such antecedents as those of Mr. Mill, to the great truth which I am labouring to establish, that it is impossible that the followers of Jesus, or their disciples, can have invented the great character depicted in the Gospels. While, however, he justly pronounces this idea utterly untenable, he expresses the opinion that all the miraculous narratives recorded in them may be their invention. It is clear therefore that he cannot have observed the fact pointed out in the text, that these narratives bear the same moral impress as the other portions of the character; or to say the strict truth, that some of its finest traits form portions of the miraculous narratives, or are found in those discourses in which the superhuman aspects of Christ's character are depicted. A striking instance of this is found in the parabolic representation of the last judgment recorded in the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew. Here the Son of Man is delineated as possessing the highest superhuman attributes, yet with one exception it is the most exquisite delineation of the character of Our Lord to be found in any single passage in the Gospels, combining as it does the perfection of dignity with condescension. As I have said, to take away all those portions of the delineation which involve the presence of the superhuman, will not produce a human Jesus, but merely destroy the divine one; and therefore on the principle of Mr. Mill, it is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus can have invented the miraculous narratives of the Gospels. Some of them may have been within their powers to invent, but taken as a series, their moral environment is, to use Mr. Mill's language, absolutely "above them." Of this, the contrast presented by the miraculous narratives in the apocryphal Gospels affords a most decisive proof.

I also assume that it is a fact palpable to every reader, that the great character delineated in the Gospels is an essential unity. All the parts of which it is composed fit into one another with a perfect harmony. It should be especially observed that this is equally true of the miraculous actions attributed to Our Lord, and of the other aspects of His character. Jesus is delineated with precisely the same moral aspect as a worker of miracles, as He is in His discourses. The delineation is made up of a vast number of parts, or, in other words, of all the facts recorded in the Gospels; yet it forms not a mere congeries of materials, but a perfect unity. This is so evident as to require no further proof; and the importance of its bearing on the argument, whether the Gospels are narratives of facts, or a confused mass of legendary matter, is unmistakable.*

The existence of the portraiture being a fact, it follows that no theory of the origin of the Gospels, or of the nature of their contents, can be valid which is inconsistent with its reality. The theory that the Gospels are in all their main outlines historical gives a philosophical account of the existence and unity of the character. The creation is fully

*Objections have been made to the unity of the character on some minor points of detail, but even if they were true, it would not affect the question of the unity of all its grand features, or the harmony with which each part fits into the others. This is a fact which ought never to be lost sight of in considering this question. It has even been affirmed that the character of Jesus underwent a deterioration during the latter portion of His ministry, owing to the opposition which He encountered from His opponents, and His own disappointed expectations. Even if the allegation were true, it would not affect the question of the essential unity of the character; but the alleged deterioration is contrary to the facts, for although during the latter days of His ministry Our Lord's opponents are rebuked with the greatest sternness, yet at no period are the milder traits of His character more exquisitely brought out. Serious objections have been also taken to the severity of Our Lord's denunciations of the Pharisees, as inconsistent with the perfection of His character. The force of the objection entirely depends on the combination of qualities