teaching has realized the conception on which it is based, and freed it from its imperfections. The great men of the former dispensation were filled with the deepest aspirations for a light which would illumine many of the dark problems in the midst of which they struggled; above all, which would throw a cheerful ray on man's destiny beyond the grave. The light which they vainly struggled after has been imparted by one of their countrymen who, to all external appearance was only a Jewish peasant. My text affirms that Jesus is He of whom Moses in the Law, and the prophets did write. If He has fulfilled them; i.e., if He is the ideal to which they pointed, He must certainly be the Christ.

Let me now briefly sum up the prophetic argument, and exhibit its conjoint force. The Old Testament, many centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ, announced the setting up of a future kingdom of God, and the advent of a Messiah, who was to be its king. Such a kingdom of God has certainly been set up by Jesus Christ, in which He reigns as king. It affirms that a prophet should appear in the future like unto Moses. A multitude of prophets have appeared; but the only one who bears this resemblance is Jesus Christ. It has described a person of exalted holiness, and possessing a superhuman character, as suffering for others. The full conception of such a character is fully realized in Him, and in Him alone. It announces a Messiah who was to be a royal priest. Jesus Christ has assumed this office, and nullified every other sacrifice but His own. The Jewish dispensation consisted of a mass of rites, ceremonies, symbols, and shadowy representations. Jesus Christ and His Church are the embodiment of all the reality which they contain; and have rendered them for the future as worthless and unmeaning as it would be to hold up a candle to the noon-day sun. Its great kings and prophets earnestly longed for better things to come. Those aspirations have received their satisfaction in the person, actions, and teaching of the divine man. The teaching of the Old Testament, while

founded on eternal truths, bears evident marks of imperfection. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of the ideal, after which the Law and the prophets were dimly groping. The argument is spread over a large amount of space, and consists of a multitude of minor details; but such are its salient points. View them not separately, but as they converge in a common centre, in the one great Catholic Man, Jesus Christ our Lord. Is it possible that this vast concurrence of circumstances in a single person can have been the result of a number of fortunate guesses? But if it has been the result of foresight, that foresight must have been superhuman. The only plausible objection to this conclusion is, that the character of Jesus has been elaborated out of the Messianic ideas of the Old Testament, and various apocryphal writings, and falsely attributed to Our Lord. On this point I shall offer a few remarks in a Supplement.

SUPPLEMENT I.

It has been often confidently asserted that the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel differs widely in conception from the Jesus of the Synoptics. If this be so, it may be urged as an objection against the argument of this Lecture, although even if this difference were an actual fact, it would lose none of its validity as founded on the unquestionable unity of the character delineated in the Synoptics. Still, however, as I am firmly persuaded that the objection is groundless, it will be desirable to offer a few general observations in proof of the identity of the character delineated in the fourth with that of the first three Gospels.

In what then does the alleged difference consist? The answer must be, that the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel is delineated as possessing far higher and diviner attributes than the Jesus of the Synoptics. This is founded on the

fact that the discourses recorded in this Gospel represent Our Lord as ascribing to Himself a number of divine attributes which are wanting in the Synoptics.

The fact is unquestionable, that the discourses of this Gospel represent Our Lord as making a large number of dogmatical assertions respecting Himself, which are not found in the other three; but that this constitutes any real break in the unity of the delineation, I deny; in other words, I affirm that the four portraitures are simply four delineations of the same character contemplated from a different point of view. The difference is precisely this: The Jesus of St. John directly affirms His divine character; the Jesus of the Synoptics is so delineated, that the assumption that He must possess a superhuman character is the only adequate explanation of the delineation. The Jesus of St. John is in fact the explanation of the Jesus of the Synoptics. In proof of this I observe:

1. The Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke contain a deliberate affirmation on the part of Our Lord, which forms the connecting link between the Jesus of the Synoptics and the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel. I quote from St. Matthew:

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father, and none knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls, for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

This passage proves what has often been denied, that the Synoptical traditions represented Jesus as making dogmatical affirmations respecting Himself. Further, that the

assertions which He is represented as making in this passage are fully on a par with anything which can be found in the Fourth Gospel.

The first portion of this utterance, affirming the hiding of the fundamental elements of Our Lord's teaching from the wise and prudent, and their revelation to babes, embodies the essence of several of the thoughts contained in the great discourse which was delivered in the synagogue at Capernaum, in which He asserts the necessity of a divine influence for the appreciation of His teaching (John vi. 36-37; 41-44; 65), and also underlies the principles involved in several of his controversies with the Jews, as they are reported in this Gospel.

The second, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight," affirms the perfect coincidence of His own with the Father's will. Declarations of a precisely similar import are scattered widely over the discourses of the Fourth Gospel, of which John iv. 34; v. 19, 30; vi. 38; viii. 29, may be cited as examples.

The third affirms that all things are committed unto Him by the Father. The Fourth Gospel reiterates again and again, that this power, which is inherent in the Father, is manifested through the Son.

The fourth affirms in direct terms that a perfect knowledge of the Son is possessed by the Father alone-" None knoweth the Son but the Father "-and that the Son in like manner possesses an equally exclusive knowledge of the Father" Neither knoweth any one the Father, save the Son." The reader of the Fourth Gospel cannot fail to observe that these assertions cover a large portion of Our Lord's dogmatical affirmations respecting Himself, which are really little more than amplifications of them.

The fifth assertion is, that He is the exclusive revealer of the Father. This is reiterated again and again in the Fourth Gospel.

The whole concludes with the invitation to the weary and heavy laden to come to Him, with the promise of finding

rest, and that the burden which He would lay upon them would be light. Portions of Our Lord's last discourse, in which He promised His disciples peace, and proclaimed that His service must be a service of love (John xiv. 27-31; xv. 9-17; xvi. 33), are the perfect analogue of this affirmation.

It follows therefore that a large portion of the utterances in the Fourth Gospel, against which so much exception has been taken, as though they constituted a delineation of Jesus fundamentally differing from that of the Synoptics, are little more than expansions of the thoughts contained in this single passage. Yet as it is deliberately ascribed to Him by the Synoptics, their authors must have thought it in harmony with the traditions which they followed. From this we may safely infer that it could not have been the only one with which they were acquainted.

2. The form of the Synoptical delineation implies the existence of utterances of this description. In fact the Johannine portraiture is its direct counterpart and vindication.

The first proof of this which I adduce is that the Synoptic delineation of Our Lord's teaching invariably represents Him as resting the truth of His affirmations on no other authority than that of His own consciousness. He never speaks as though his knowledge came to Him from without; but all His assertions rest on His own ultimate authority. His utterances are in fact equivalent to oracles; but they rest on the simple basis of "I say unto you." Of this the mode in which He deals in the Sermon on the Mount with the Old Testament Scriptures (which as a Jew He must have viewed as of divine authority), explaining, enlarging, and occasionally annulling some of its precepts as defective, by no other authority but His own, may be cited as a crucial example. Without the smallest hesitation or faltering, the Jesus of the Synoptic narrative sets himself down in the seat of the chief legislator of the kingdom of God; nor can we trace in it one single indication of a misgiving on His