Jesus Christ our Lord.' The resurrection of Jesus Christ did not make Him to be the Son of God, but 'declared' the fact, determined' or settled the problem as to who or what He was. It is not said that Lazarus was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh,' but 'declared or determined to be the Son of God;' and yet Lazarus was as really raised from the dead as was the Being who raised him.

67. (Rom. i. 24, 25.) 'Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God sent forth (or purposed) to be a Propitiation, through faith, by His blood, to show His righteousness, because of the passing over of sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God.' The reference to Christ as a Propitiation,' is, as far as language is concerned, a heathen one, but baptized into Christian uses by the inspired thought of the apostle. In some sense not explained, Christ is a divinely-provided Propitiation for human transgression, and the benefits of that Propitiation are connected with the sinner by the sinner's faith in Christ. Is this the language which we should feel it right to use in reference to a human being? You may be a Calvinist or an Arminian, a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, it matters not. The thought here is of some one who transcends humanity, even while He comes into saving contact with it.

68. (Rom. iv. 24, 25.) 'Jesus our Lord, raised from the dead, who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification.' There is no such language as this in any part of the Bible, and certainly not in the New Testament, having reference to a purely human being, because no purely human being is adequate to the work of being delivered for us in the one case, and raised up for us in the other.

69. (Rom. v. 6.) 'For while we were yet weak, in due season Christ died for the ungodly.' Read also ver. 8. of this chapter: 'But God commendeth His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.' Read again ver. 11: 'But we also rejoice in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.' It may be that the

references to the 'ungodly,' the 'sinners,' the 'we,' and 'us,' found in these texts, were primarily to the Gentiles, although, of course, I think the Jews would be included. But is it really true that the love of God towards His guilty children finds its special commendation in the death of a man like ourselves? Is it really true that so tremendous and divine a gift as 'reconciliation,' the reconciliation of God to man and of man to God, comes to us through a fellow-creature? I for one cannot believe it.

70. (Rom. vi. 23.) 'For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.' I shall not attempt to settle the points of difference as between those Christians who uphold the doctrine of 'conditional immortality,' and those who reject it. Mr. Edward White and his friends, together with Mr. Baldwin Brown and those who think with him, must settle their differences as best they can. This is, however, abundantly clear, that 'eternal life' is in some eminent sense opposed to 'death,' and the fortunes of the race are now, and hereafter, linked with Christ. But linked with a man, a man only, a man such as you or I, an inspired man, but still a man only? I must refuse to believe it.

71. (Rom. viii., whole chapter.) This chapter, on account of its length, will not admit of being quoted entirely. I have sometimes said that, in a Pauline form, it contains the very essence of the Lord Christ's own Christianity; and that, if every other part of the New Testament were lost, we could obtain a satisfactory idea of the Christianity of Christ from this chapter. But now let me ask my readers to read it, carefully and thoughtfully, to try and realize its implications, and then ask themselves whether St. Paul is speaking of a human being only, or, rather, whether he is not, in fact, speaking of a Divine Being, who has taken hold on man to lift up man to Himself, and through Himself to God? Notice just one verse in the chapter, ver. 32: 'He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things?' Here the writer is arguing from the greater to the lesser. God has given us 'His own Son,' and that gift is a divine pledge that all other needful things will

be ours. But on the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth was only a human being, 'born in honest wedlock,' this language on the part of the apostle would seem to be something more than Eastern, would seem inflated, misleading, purely sentimental. There was nothing, on the humanitarian hypothesis, so very exceptional in the mission of Christ, or in His death, to mark Him out as a sort of security given by God to His creatures that the Divine Being would in all cases do the just and kind thing by them. But if Christ were God's own Son, in a peculiar sense, if the gift of that Son were a special expression of the love of God, and Christ Himself says it was (John iii. 16: 'so loved'), then one can understand the apostle's statement to be reasonable and powerful in its appeal. Take two or three other verses as bearing on our subject. In ver. 3 of this chapter, St. Paul speaks of 'God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as an offering for sin.' If Jesus Christ were only a man, why should St. Paul speak of His being 'in the likeness of sinful flesh,' because on the hypothesis of Christ's humanity that fact would be understood without being stated, while it seems a strange thing to speak of a man as 'an offering for sin.' So, too, in ver. 29, the apostle tells us we are 'fore-ordained to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren.' Is it reasonable to believe that the whole human race is 'fore-ordained to be conformed to the image' of one who, on the humanitarian theory, is a human being only, born under 'the law of sin and death'? Surely St. Paul could never have meant anything so ridiculous. In ver. 34, St. Paul speaks of Jesus Christ as being 'at the right hand of God,' and as 'making intercession for us.' To be 'at the right hand of God' is not quite the position we are justified in assigning to a mere human being; while, as for the intercession, if Christ intercedes for us, who intercedes for Him? Is the work of interceding for the human family assigned to one who is Himself a member of that family, and who must take His chance with the rest of His brethren? In the last verse of this chapter the writer speaks of the 'love of God which is in Christ Jesus

our Lord.' It is there, but it is there because the Lord Jesus is both divine and human. Being divine, or 'of one substance with the Father,' He can reveal the Father; and, being human, He can bring that revelation down to the apprehension of those for whom the revelation is made.

72. (Rom. viii. 9.) 'But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if. any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.' I quote this verse not only on account of its pertinency to my subject, but because it reminds me of a fact, which can be easily verified by my readers, that the Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ, are very frequently used in the New Testament as interchangeable terms; which does not, I grant, prove the personal divinity of Christ, but which may be fairly considered as tending in that direction. It is not reasonable to believe that the writers of these books would have spoken of the spirit of a mere man, a simple human being, in connection with the Spirit of God, especially considering that they were all of them Jews, and quite as jealous, after they had become Christians, as they were before, for the honour of Jehovah.

73. (Rom. xiv. 9.) For to this end (the end named in the preceding verse) Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.' Did St. Paul believe that it was a mere human being who occupied such an unspeakably great position as is here referred to? To what man would even a Unitarian say that he was 'Lord of both the dead and the living?' The position itself is absolutely without parallel, and points to a personality more than human, that is, to a divine one.

74. (Rom. xv. 6.) 'That with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Why speak of the Deity as 'the God and Father' of Christ especially? What significance is there in the description, if Jesus were simply a human being? The writer might as well have named some other man, and with equal pertinency, if Christ were only a man.

I now come to St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, in which there are no theological discussions, and the whole tone of which is of the sweetest kind. Evidently St. Paul and his converts at Philippi were most devotedly attached to each other, while the Philippian converts were patterns of Christian conduct and the Christian spirit.

75. The celebrated 'proof text' in the second chapter, which, in King James's version, reads: "Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God,' is thus rendered in the Revised Version: Who being (or being originally) in the form of God, counted it not a prize (or a thing to be grasped) to be on an equality with God.' I pass this 'proof text,' because it is not necessary to the argument I am here pursuing. But I call attention to the words which follow, in vers. 7 and 8: 'But emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant (or bond-servant), being made in (or becoming in) the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.' Is it an unreasonable question to ask why St. Paul should speak in this round-about way of the humanity of the Lord Jesus, if the Lord were simply a man? If a man, of what did He empty Himself? Why should it be said that He was in the 'likeness of men,' or 'found in fashion as a man'? In what special respect did He 'empty Himself'? The phraseology of the apostle is consistent, as well as vivid, on the assumption of our Lord's personal divinity; but is awkward and needless if Christ were but a man.

76. (Phil. iii. 7-14.) The verses are too many and too long for quotation here, but my readers can refer to them for themselves. Without imputing, directly or indirectly, the smallest insincerity, or wishing to suggest any consciousness of evil bias in those who accept the theory of Christ's simple humanity, I am constrained to say how difficult it is to read these verses, to drink in their spirit, to be possessed by them, and yet cherish a belief that the Being who is referred to in them in such intense and glowing terms was in the writer's estimate human, and human