It was not fitting that such a one should live. 20. But there is no intermediate standingground between his condemnation as One who had called God to witness to a lifelong fraud intended to mislead the whole world of posterity—no standing-ground between this, the posialistic theories in their direct application to particular portions of the Gospel narrative, it may be well to recall M. Renan's treatment of the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11). M. Renan admits indeed that "it is probable then that this marvel was not one of those miracles that are entirely legendary; . . . in other words, that there did happen at Bethany something which was looked upon as a resurrection" (“Vie de Jésus,” pp. 359, 360, 6th edit.). But to explain this admitted "something," M. Renan is obliged to suggest that “the conscience of Jesus, by the fault of men and not by his own, had lost something of its original clearness." And the explanation is: "Perhaps the ardent desire of supporting the divine character of Christ's mission led these impassioned friends of his ‘beyond all bounds.' Perhaps Lazarus, still

pale from his illness, had had himself surrounded with bandages as a dead man and shut up in his family tomb! Jesus [deliberately conniving at this blasphemous fraud!] desired to see once again him whom he loved, and the stone being removed, Lazarus came forth," etc. On this, it has well been said, M. Renan "asks us to believe that One who will never be surpassed' . . . lent himself to a wretched trickery, and that the weak and foolish creatures who took part in it went forth to win an unbelieving world to faith and righteousness and love."-Cazenove, "Christian Remembrancer," No. 123, p. 234. This crucial instance of the failure of the legendary hypothesis is also insisted upon by P. Schaff, "Christ and Christianity," p. 30. And see the “Discussion' between Mrs. Wilkie and the Secularist, by Mr. A. B. Moss, on "Was Jesus an Impostor?" (Watts & Co., 84 Fleet Street, 1885), pp. 17, 36, 65.

tion of the Jews who reviled him on his cross in the agonies of death as a deceiver, and the position of men who, convinced by the logic of facts which cannot be explained away, know and are sure that "heaven and earth shall pass away," but that Christ's "words shall not pass away," and who, in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, avow their profound conviction, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief;" for thou, and thou alone, art verily and indeed the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

III.

CHRIST CLAIMS TO FULFIL THE LAW
OF MOSES AS THE PREDICTED MES-

SIAH; AND IS CONDEMNED BY THE
LAW AS A LAW-BREAKER.

66 THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS: I AM NOT COME TO

DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL."-MATTHEW 5; 17.

"WE HAVE A LAW, AND BY OUR LAW HE OUGHT TO DIE."-JOHN 19:7.

"Jesus Christ was undoubtedly the very last sort of Messiah whom the Jews expected."-MATTHEW Arnold.

"The great value of historical criticism is that it makes the Old Testament more real to us. Christianity can never separate itself from its historical basis on the religion of Israel; the revelation of God in Christ cannot be divorced from the earlier revelation on which our Lord built."-PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH.

"Would you deny that Jesus Christ has verified the Messianic idea in his person; that he was a Jew of the tribe of Judah, of the house of David, and the founder of the Catholic Church upon the double ruin of the synagogue and idolatry?"-LACORDAIRE.

"Christianity would be unintelligible without Judaism."— MAX MULLER.

Either. . . . Jesus Christ . . . is God, or . . . mankind is a victim to a fatal illusion. . . . If Jesus Christ were not God, Mahometanism would be a masterpiece of piety in comparison with Christianity; for the votaries of Mahomet did not worship him as God."-ABBÉ FREPPEL.

CHRIST'S CLAIM OF MESSIAHSHIP IN WITNESS TO THE GREAT DILEMMA.

1. WE are now confronted by another factor in the premises of the great dilemma.

But before examining it, let us consider the bearing of the facts we have already discussed.

We have seen, then, first of all, that the Founder of Christianity is a Person who advances the extraordinary claim of entire moral innocence. With a self-assertion which nothing but extravagant delusion or blind conceit could condone in any human teacher, he claims to be entirely devoid of the minutest taint of moral guilt.

Not only by direct avowal, but still more by the whole tenor of his life, he asserts his absolute sinlessness.

2. This claim, we saw, was one which a mere man has never yet ventured seriously to urge. And yet this Person never flinched from the full responsibility of a claim so unpardonable if not warranted in fact.

This, the first fact, is absolutely undeniable. The documents in which it stands recorded are now admitted by even hostile critics to be gen