walk in darkness." The belief here spoken of, is the belief in him as a guide; not that he shone by a light which originated in him, but by one which shone through him from God. As the rewards which seem to come from embracing him as a guide, were not to come from him personally, as the Jews generally expected, so he says the punishments which were to follow the rejection of him, were not to be personal from him, but were to flow from the very fact that they disobeyed the word of God, which is the law of the universe, and which if any one breaks he must surely suffer. "And if any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not.” I am not to be the temporal king, which you Jews expect, "for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." "He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words." And here, by the way, is another confirmation of the view which we are giving. Rejecting Christ is here defined; and defined to be, not refusing to believe that he is God, or any thing else, personally, but to be refusing to believe his words, that they are true and came from God. "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day. For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which hath sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak; and I know that his commandment is life everlasting." What can be plainer than all this to show, that to believe in Jesus Christ during his ministry, and to obtain eternal life by believing, had nothing to do with his nature? To believe in him, was to believe in God

who sent him, or that God did send him.

The pur"I am

pose for which he was sent, was to teach. come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not walk in darkness.” To believe on him was to believe on him as a teacher; and the advantage to be derived from believing on him was to have a guide, or a light, so as not to walk in darkness. To refuse to believe on him as a teacher, is to refuse the only kind of faith that is necessary to repose in him. "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world but to save the world." To reject him as a teacher is to reject him altogether. "He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." He himself is nothing. His doctrine is everything. His doctrines are certain of fulfilment, because he has received them from God. "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak." Obedience to God in itself necessarily secures eternal happiness. "And I know that his commandment is life everlasting."

I shall now quote a passage to show upon what point Christ considered his miracles in general to bear. He offered them as reasons why men should believe on him; but should believe him to be what? According to the Trinitarian hypothesis, to be God. not believe that he is God, we are infidels. says the Saviour himself? "But I have greater witness than that of John:

If we do

But what

for the works which the

Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. "And ye have not his word abiding in you, for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not." Now if Christ's miracles proved him to be this or that by nature, was he not bound to tell his disciples so? If it was vital to their faith in him to believe him to be God, or a Person of the Trinity, would he have said that it was only necessary for them to believe him only to be the sent of God?

What I have already said will serve to explain another formula of faith in the New Testament. To believe that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God, is often insisted on in the writings of the Apostles as vital to salvation. John says of his Gospel, in a sentence near its close, that he wrote it to give an account of a selection of Christ's miracles, which proved him to be the Messiah. "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name." When Christ asked the disciples whom they took him to be, Peter answers, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is said by Matthew. Luke says that his declaration was, "Thou art the Christ of God." Mark simply, "Thou art the Christ." The different evangelists, in expressing the same sense, have given us different words, thereby showing us that they are all synonymous. These were expressions which were in use before he came, and had no refer

66

ence to his nature whatever. To satisfy ourselves of this, it is only necessary to observe the conversation of certain Jews at the commencement of his ministry. It shows that the title, "Son of God," was not inconsistent with Jesus being the son of Joseph, and likewise what it was to believe in Christ at that early day. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him; We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said unto him, Come and see. And Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile. Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me ? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and said unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel. Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shall see greater things than these." The point of this quotation is to show that Jesus recognizes the faith which Nathanael owns in him. as the true faith. He had found him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, in Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Entertaining that opinion of his origin, he calls him the "Son of God," and king of Israel,”—that is, the Messiah. These phrases then can have no reference to his nature whatever, and must be wholly official.

66

The great point insisted on in the New Testament,

the great argument for faith in Christ, is his resurrection. Paul rests the whole cause of Christianity on this single fact. "Moreover, brethren," says he, "I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory that which I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain, yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God, that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." What did the Apostle consider the resurrection to prove with respect to Christ? That he was God? That could not be, because he says that the Apostles testified of God that he raised up Christ. Christ cannot be God, and be raised from the dead by God. But what connexion has the resurrection of Christ with the natural immortality of man, or the purpose of God of raising man to another life? In order to ascertain this, it is only necessary to suppose that he had taught nothing, that he had assumed no character as the sent of God. In that case, it would have stood out as a single, isolated fact, with no other bearing than this,-that man is capable of immortality; but as others are not raised in the same way, it would have made him the exception instead of the rule, and, of course, as he was selected and all