them in a certain order, and call that Christianity, and say that the whole of its ethical system was in the world in a sort of fragmentary way, in a sort of general sense, long before Christ came.

25. But supposing it was, what then? Christianity is still none the less original, and none the less divine, even although there may have been nothing unknown, nothing new in its several parts. People seem to think that originality must always consist of novelty in detail, but it does not. Christianity does not consist of such novelty, yet it is original. What constituted its originality was the peculiar order in which it arranged the ethical materials which the world already possessed, and did not seem to know what to do with; the kind of force which it gave to the different moral qualities; in one word, the Type of Life which it actually created and set before the world, that was new, although that type was made up of fragments to be found in religions and philosophies of the past. I am not speaking now of the personality of Christ, or the miraculous part of the Gospel, but of Christianity as a system. And of that I affirm that it places before us a new model or type of life, which gives a spiritual importance to some passive virtues, such as humility, patience, and gentleness, which the old world had ignored or neglected; while it reduces the once revered aggressive and violent qualities to an inferior rank, and regulates them by a very strict discipline. Christianity proposes further to complete this new type of life, to crown this new ideal by developing the more

spiritual and mystic side of human nature, which had often been recognised and provided for in the mysteries of other religions. Christ teaches us to carry on the development of our religious feelings, of our infinite aspirations under the influences of Purity and Love-twinstars revolving around each other, making one centre of life, out of which springs the development of the world, and the harmonious progress of human society.

26. Then we come to the Person and the Personal Work of Jesus Christ. People want to know who Jesus really was, whether He was man or God, and if God, in what sense God. Then what was the nature of His work for man? Many maintain boldly that His influence depended upon His mysterious conflict with the evil one; that a certain wound, as it were, was inflicted upon the power of evil by the contests and struggles of Christ Jesus whilst on earth; that indeed the conflict between good and evil did not cease when the struggle ceased between the humanity of Jesus Christ and the devil, but that the power of evil was nevertheless lamed for our good by the life and death of Christ; so that now we can overcome evil more easily, and conquer as it were in His strength. I think I may safely say, without fear of contradiction, that some such teaching as this is frequently heard in our pulpits..

First, then, with regard to the Person of Christ. His own account of Himself was, that He was the Son of God, but that His Father was greater than He; that as a son He was not omniscient, nor raised above the need of

G

comfort and help which could alone come from the Father; nor free from temptation, nor free from pain, nor free from death though not held by death; that although thus a man amongst men, He was nevertheless so intimately associated with the Spirit of the Divine Being, as to represent God as only God could be represented to man, i.e. through man. Much more than this

I don't know, and so I cannot dogmatise after the fashion of the Schoolmen, who concocted creeds and articles and tests of belief for after generations. But when I am asked to define what I mean by Christ, I use such expressions as these. There was something in the nature of the great boundless source of being called God which was capable of sympathy with man. That something found outward expression and became God expressed under the essential limitations of humanity in Jesus. That such a revelation was specially necessary to the moral and spiritual development of the human race I believe; that such a revelation of God was actually made to the world I believe. More than this I cannot pledge myself to.

27. Now, with reference to the work of Jesus Christ in the invisible world, I can also pretend to know very little, and therefore you cannot expect me to tell you more than I know myself. I do not know much about what the effect upon the invisible world of Jesus Christ's struggle with evil may have been. I know that when a man struggles with evil in this world, he weakens its power and strengthens his own. Resist the devil and he

will flee from you,' has come true more than once to some of us. I can believe there are arrangements that are unknown to man, whereby the virtue of one man profits another—it is certainly a law in this world. I cannot tell you much about such things, but I will say that the personal work of Jesus Christ upon the powers of evil is limited, as to our practical knowledge of it, to the work which He did whilst on earth, and the force of His example, and the power of His spirit, as it encourages us, and enables us to follow in His footsteps,

28. Then as to the miraculous part of Jesus Christ's life. There are the miracles. What are we to think of

Jesus Christ's miracles? Well, they are simply questions of historical evidence. You know a great many educated men think that the miracles were no miracles at all; that they either never took place at all, or that they did not take place as they are reported to have taken place; in fact, a great many thoughtful persons in their hearts accept the moral teaching of Christ, but reject the miracles. These people probably call themselves Unitarians, or are favoured by some other appropriate nickname by their friends. I confess, my brethren, I once thought that there was a great deal to be said for this view of the question; but I will not disguise from you the fact that as I have grown more mature, and weighed a greater number of facts, I am far from being of opinion that this view about the miracles of Jesus Christ is the correct view, viz., that they never happened at all. Observe a distinction, which is not a

very abstruse one, though it will require some attention. If you mean by a miracle some extraordinary event which happens without any adequate causes, or any causes at all, then I say I do not believe in the possibility of any miracle. But if you mean by a miracle a certain unusual occurrence which takes place without any apparent cause—that is to say, that you cannot point out the cause of it—then I say I think a belief in that kind of miracle is a very rational belief. Then, granting the possibility of miracle in that sense, the only point will be, did such and such an alleged miracle take place, and that of course is simply a question of evidence. The evidence for some of the miracles-the Resurrection, for instance-is as good as the evidence for most other events which we accept as historical. It is difficult to imagine how it could have been much stronger at the same time it is naturally insufficient to convince those who admit that no evidence in the world would convince them of such a fact. The same remark may be made of other miracles. The strongest evidence on certain subjects leaves certain persons where it found them-incredulous. It is, however, just worth while to observe that there has been no age in history when we do not find well-authenticated accounts of alleged miraculous or unaccounted-for events having taken place. The best men of the day were unable to explain the agencies at work. These agencies were therefore naturally called miraculous. Such occurrences were not confined to Christ's time, nor to Christ.

Indeed there was a time when no important event in