Newspaper Page Text
ESTABLISHED I*2l.
The Christian Index
•«» a van n»<:***•
AMtto* *i «»i« u*
•ffßh •< '*♦ Hfmmhlmllm la
• V *»• I* *!»<'•
V** rc| • ?*•’ ••
UHl* < * *lt MfMßtil* ,»...«»»». I M
AMlMima *•"
•KeH’*’ • W• •bull • r> »arr U»
Mt* m.r r*Habl* fMirtlw l«» «*r Mr rob
MB .
(MltVI ahi** “4H»» hnt»drwl Wr»r4* fro* of
•Wl« >»*r o*rb •*i»< •ori eoet
*|wc•«>*»»•r'X'•«. (in mm um- aaa**vi•
MtoM to »ttr* <<*r*fttl Hl •mint to<‘l“ r
K’-.”:m:;£
•at bunn-•• II""' ••« »am» •*•**' l*«t<
Wrtto all naan-t. ant a***’
•*re>4l«ilnrilx la "Marl nt arkaht- «!«■•
itould •• ••!! a«tk» «<•• a<l<tr«-M Th<-4a(*
M *a ,H l la4l--alto '*» llm» »•••« auliarHpUon
MMr* • If j»<»u do n<»t • i*n tl root Uiuml. or*
{•fit a Iwforr W«-ronald*!
»eb ••bacribor ortmanrnt until hr order*
bl* r dlrn-o«*il»»u»*d. Wb*n you order II
MMfo d ii|» to dntr
RluirtAUtba by reg I*l*rod letter. mone>
•Tder txoial note I
Fnr th*
David * Kindles* Sunday School
Letton for Auk 2. i«*6 —2 Sam
BY B. G. II ILLY UK
Those who have mui these nr
ticlea regularly u.ay remember
that alxiut the 3d Sunday of hut
December the Sunday school les
son was entitled
“DAVID AND JONATHAN."
In my comments upon that les
sou. I find I anticipated the inci
dent which forms the subject of
the present lesson. I do not wish
to repeat in full what was then
said; but propose to use it only
so far as may seem useful.
There was, in my December
pa|>er. an error which 1 will take
this opportunity to correct
Through my own carelessness I
spoke of Mephibosheth as the
son of Saul. 1 should have called
him the son of Jonathan—the
grandson of Saul.
The present lesson illustrates
the “kindness of David" by the
beautiful story’ of Mephibosheth
—the very story to which I re
ferred six months ago, when
treating of the love which united
David and Jonathan
Ii is a story which docs honor
to human nature. Man is vile,
unjust, cruel and selfish; but
there are,amidst the moral wreck
of his character, flashes of virtue
and goodness leading on, some
times to deeds of mercy and of
brotherly kindness and love,
which -how that the likeness of
his great Creator is not alto
gether effaced from his moral na
ture.
It seems to be a peculiar prop
erty’ of ’.he historical portions of
the Old Testament to put on rec
ord many things which a superfi
cial reader will often pass over
without special attention. But
when the light of the Gcspel is
turned upon them,we find in them
a significance that invests them
at once with interest and impor
tance. Many such examples
could be cited and their signifi
cance easily explained.
A case in point is David’s kind
ness to Mephibosheth. David
was a great king. He had come
to his throne in a most remarka
ble manner.and by great achieve
ments. sufficient to immortalize
his name. And there yet remain
ed other achievements which he
must accomplish in the near fu
ture. One might suppose that
his biographer would find enough
to till his pages in giving us a
full account of the great events
of David’s reign. As a king, a
burden of cares rested upon him.
It was his function to maintain
order in the State, to administer
justice, to provide for the safety
of his people, and of en to lead
his armies against the hostile na
tions that were on every side of
him. and who were ever ready to
invade his country for revenge
and plunder. With such prolific
subjects for history, why should
the writer stop to tell the simple
story of Mephiooshetb?
Os course the obvious answer
to this question that will occur
to the mind of the general reader
is, that the writer intended to
make the story illustrate David's
generosity and magnanimity.
Well, this may have been the
writer s design. He may have
intended to do no more than to
embellish the character of his
hero by relating so striking an
instance of mercy and grace.
That scribe did not comprehend
the full significance of the story;
but there was a Spirit guiding his
hand; of which he may have been
unconscious.
The design of that Spirit was
not so much to ennoble David’s
character as to illustrate a great
principle of human nature which
has its source in the bosom of
God himself. For the want of a
better name, I call it the principle
of transferred affection. Call it by
THE ( IIUISTIAN INDEX.
what name you plea**’, there is
Miiuetliing in the human heart
that lead* u* Io love one |M*raun
on account of hi* relation to an
other whom we had prevloualy
loved. Indeed.among men theprin
dpi* often vxtvtida to inantuiato
or material objects. How often
n uiolbvr kwp Mith
II (Ml At** <‘IUV A !<»)’» A •!< Cklm.'*’ OF
a glove that once belonged to her
little darling who in aleoptng in
the grave-yard’ Thia feeling
may impivkk a whole nation It
account* for the interest which
all Americana take in .Mt. Ver
non. They love that old matt
*ioti iwcauav it waa the home of
Washington
The piinciple ia only the more
valuable when it haa living per
•ona for ita object. You have,
perhaps. a brother in a distant
State whom you have not iwvn
for many years, and whom you
tenderly love. Suppose now, a
atrangei call* at your door. You
know nothing, at d perhaps care
nothing, about him. You might
feel dia|»oaed to let him paaawtth
indifference. But presently he
hands you a letter. It is from
your beloved brother. It intro
duces to you the bearer as the in
tiinate friend of your brother.
At once, for your brother's sake,
the stranger shares your kindest
hospitality. This would Im* a ease
of transferred affection*
Such waa the sentiment that
animated the heart of David
When he remembered Jonathan,
his beloved friend, who had been
to him as a brother, his heart
yearned for him. But Jonathan
he could not reach. He there
fore inquired of his servants
whether there yet remained any
one of the house of Saul, that he
might “show him kindness for
Jonathan's sake." And, to his
great joy, he found Mephibos
heth, the son of his lost friend.
I need not enlarge; you know the
story. Here we find in a human
life a real and a striking case of
transferred affection.
I have said that this principle
has its source in the bosom of
God; and, for this reason, it is
for us a principle of transcen
dent value; for it permeates com
pletely the whole scheme of our
salvation. In proof of this, no
tice the Savior's words:
“Whatsoever ye shall ask the
Father in my name he will give
it you. * * * * for the Fath
er himself loveth you. because ye
have loved me, and nave believed
that 1 came out from God.” Joi n
16:23 27.
Here we learn that the Father
loves us because we love Jesus;
and because he loves us, he an
swers our prayers. Ii deed the
meaning of the whole passage
may be condensed into these lew
words:
GOD DOTH SHOW US KINDNESS
“FOR JESUS’ SAKE.”
The story of Mephibosheth had
lain for a thousand years among
the sacred records of Israel,
and nobody had regarded it as
anything more than an interest
ing incident in the life of David.
But as soon as it is illuminated
by the words of Jesus, it rises to
the dignity of a prophetic type
that points to God himself, exer
cising mercy and grace towards
men and showing them kindness
“for Jesus' sake."
Behold what power abides in
these three words, “for Jesus’
sake.” When rightly used they
move the arm of omnipotence.
This, however, is only a general
statement of their power. Let
us consider them in some partic
ular cases.
You come to the throne of
grace with a petition for some
special blessing. You know that
you have no claim, in yourself,
upon the Almighty's bounty. So
you enforce your prayer with
the plea, for Jesus’ sake. Here
is a plea which, if rightly offered,
God himself catnot evade. He
may not answ’er it according to
its terms. But he will answer it
according to his own wisdom and
mercy; and by and by you will
know that he has done it. There
fore, the name of Jesus is your
argument at the throne of grace.
But, brother,this case is some
times reversed. Not that the
Lord ever comes to you as a sup
pliant. But he does come to you
as one having a claim upon you.
And he presses that claim upon
you in the name of Jesus, which
means for Jesus’ sake. Yes, he
actually holds back, for the time
being, his sovereign authority
over you, that you may enjoy the
pleasure of bringing your free
will offerings to him, for Jesus’
sake. Paul says “the love of
Christ constraineth us,” and pres
ently adds, as the conclusion of
his reasoning, “they that live
| all Christians] should henceforth
live not unto themselves, but to
him who died for them and rose
again.” Hence we may conclude
that the name of Jesus is the
Christian’s strongest motive pow
er in every good and holy enter
prise.
Finally. This precious name
is the basts —the very rock—on
SUB
I which the hope of the Christian
I rests in the hour of death. It is
| the name that Khali lie his pass
' |M>rt through the gate into the
I holy city.
The Rai'tisu <>i England in the Six
teenth and Seventeenth Centuries
It was during the reign of
Henry the Eighth that thvehurch
of England cam* into existence
a* a religion* organixxtion inde
pendent of the Roman Catholic
church.
It wh* duringthe reignuf Eliza
both, his daughter by the unfor
tunate Anne Boleyn, that an
other schism ua> made, but this
tune not in the Romish hierarchy,
but in the church of England
herself.
In the preceding reign of
“Bloody Mary," an ardent Cath
olic, hundreds of Protestants
tied from England to different
parts of the continent for safety.
Among these refugees were
many who were confessedly the
very flower of the English
clergy.
During their exile, especially
in Geneva, they caught thespirit
of religious freedom; and from a
continued and more untraiuineled
study of the Scriptures, these
exiles saw, as never before, I lie
nature of Christ's church.
Upon Elizabeth's accession to
the throne, with happy hearts
they returned to their English
homes, bringing with them these
advanced ideas. “Halcyon days
were come, winter was past, the
rain was over and gone." A new
star had arisen to lead the Lord's
people and to shed beams of
grace upon the church of the liv
i ig God.
These pilgrims returning to
their long-wished for homes,
were e.ueered by happy visions,
which alas, were too early de
stroyed by the stern realities of
the strife awaiting them.
They saw in a very short time
that Elizabeth, with clear, mas
culine intellect, cold heart, and
iron will, moved but at the bid
ding of one passion, and that the
least religious of all passions,
the love of power. Religion to
her was simply the right hand of
that power. It was plain that
she valued the Reformation, not
so much for the truth it propa
gated, as for the foundation it
offered for her own supremacy.
From thoughts of discontent,
scarcely whispered, to bold words
of condemnation, the wide-Spread
disaffection in the church became
to be known. Nor did the disaf
fected stop at speaking these
words both in private and from
their pulpits; the very entrench
ments of the church were thrown
into consternation by the famous
admonition sent to the Queen’s
Parliament. And those who thus
thought and spoke and wrote
were stigmatized as Puritans.
L?t it be r< membered that this
term has both a wider and more
restricted sense. In its wider
sense the term was applied to
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, In
dependents, Brownists and Bap
tists.
John Bunyan was no less a
Puritan divine than John Owen,
in this wider sense. But in its
more restricted and proper use,
the term was applied to those re
formers who, within the pale of
the church of England, were dis
satisfied with the popish impuri
ties retained by Elizabeth and
her parliament and the ob
servance of which was made
compulsory, under the severest
penalties, by the infamous act of
uniformity, passed in 1559.
Those who within the church
hoped and labored to purge it of
doctrines and ceremonies con
ceived oy themtobeunscriptural,
and who in great numbers suf
fered the loss of all things for
their persistent non-conformity,
were stigmatized as Puritans.
But as far in advance of the
church of England as were these
Puritans, they were yet far be
hind the Anabaptists in respect
to both the nature of Christ’s
church and its relation to the
State. The Puritans were willing
to subscribe to the thirty nine
articles of religion, revised by
Elizabeth, says Underhill. Their
controversy with the church was
rather on account of the dress
which the Act of Uniformity re
quired the clergy to wear, the
sufficiency of the Scriptures as a
rule for ecclesiastical discipline,
and the nature and extent of the
magistrate’s authority over the
church.
Conspicuous among.the Puri
tans as a leader - was Thomas
Cartwright, whose writings made
such an impression as to call for
a reply by Archbishop Whitgift.
These controversialists were
agreed on two principles:
1. That the church should be a
national church, and not a mere
congregation of believers.
2. That a divine obligation lay
upon the magistrate to maintain
vi et armis, that is by force and
arms, the true religion, that is
Christianity.
Their points of difference in
brief were these: The church-
ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY. JULY 30, 18SMI.
men maintained, “That it was
from the nocessiths of the time
alone that the Apotloliechurches
received their I'Hculiar form,
which therefore was temporary
and not to be nccepied as the
permanent model, and that it be
longs to the goveinnient of each
country to set tle th lorgunizati in,
rites and observan es of that di
vision of the < hurvli lying
I within its territory , and enforce
them on all its subjects."
The Puritan maintained that
the New Testament model was
designed to be perinauen*. and
that the Genevan Pretbyterial
Government was according to
that model.
Had he stopjied berv the differ
ence between Puritan and Ana
baptist would not have been so
great, but as he did not, that dis
ference is wide, radical and irre
concilable. To give stability to
his system the Puritan enunci
ated the following important sen
timent: “The civil magistrate,
the nurse and foster father of
the church, shall do well to pro
vide some sharp punishment for
those who continue this censure
and discipline of the church.”
That is, that which is drawn
from the holy Scriptures.
Nor did the Puritan think his
ground sufficiently secure with
out an appeal to patristical au
thority, but in doing this ht gave
the Churchman decidedly the ad
vantage, which he was not slow
to perceive and to make the most
of.
While the Churchman appealed
to the force of the Slate to exe
cute the laws of the church of
his own making, tne Puritan ap
pealed to the State to enforce
the laws of tbe church that he
conceived the Lord and his
Spirit-guided apostles to have
made. The Churchman taught
that the church has power to in
stitute laws, rites and cere
monies; and that it is the duty as
well as the prerogative of the
State to enforce obedience to
them. The Puritan taught that
all rites, laws and ceremonies
should be drawn from the book
of God; and that it was the pre
rogative of the State to see that
these were obeyed. The Church
man charged upon this system
that it was a return to the papal
doctrine of the church’s inde
pendence of the rftate ; while at
the same time it Made the civil
power to it. Nor
could tht Puritan successfully
meet his antagonist here.
While the Puritans stoutly pro
tested against many measures of
Elizabeth as unscriptural and
oppressive,and pleaded for more
freedom in their church relations,
they never took the higher
ground held by the Brownists,
to say nothing of the still higher
ground which characterized the
Anabaptists. The Puritans were
the avowed enemies of religious
toleration; the Anabaptists were
the outspoken friends and advo
cates of religious liberty.
According to the testimony of
Richard Hooker, the Anabaptists
held that “a Christian man’s
liberty is lost and the soul which
Christ hath redeemed unto him
self injuriously drawn into ser
vitude under the yoke of human
power, if any law besides the gos
pel of Christ in obedience
whereunto the spirit of God, and
not the constraint of men, is to
lead us. According to that say
ing of the blessed Apostle, ‘Such
as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God, ’ and not such
as live in thraldom to men. Their
judgment is, therefore, that the
church of Christ should admit of
no lawmakers but the evangel
ists, no courts but presbyteries,
no punishment but ecclesiastical
censure.”
Be it remembered that this is
the testimony of an eminent di
vine of the church of England,
whom Dr. Schaff pronounces “its
most distinguished writer on ec
clesiastical polity.” Nor was he
the friend or advocate of Ana
baptists, but rather their enemy
and persecutor. I call attention
to this fact especially that no
one may think that the Anabap
tists said we have “no courts but
Presbyteries.” The testimony is
abundant that they had “no
courts” but the churches.
Passing by the Independents
who were in advance of the Puri
tans in the correctness of their
views on Christian doctrine and
church polity, I come to notice
briefly those who came nearest
to the Anabaptists in both these
respects. These people were
designated by the name
BROWNISTS.
They take their name from
Robert Brown, a nonconformist
preacher of England in the six
teenth century.
So obnoxious did he become to
the dignitaries of the church that
he was cited to appear before
Archbishop Whitgift in 1571.
The leading Brownists were
Henry Barrow, John Greenwood,
John Perry, Francis Johnson
and Henry Ainsworth. From
the writings of these men, we
learn the religious sentiments of
the Brownists.
As to the nature of the church
they taught that “the truly
planted and rightly established
church of-Christ is a company of
faithful people, separated from
I the unbelievers and heathens of
the land, gathered in the n’aine
| of Christ, whom they truly wor
I ship, and readily obey—joined
together as members of one body
ordered and governed by such
officers and laws as Christ in his
last will and testament hath
thereunto ordained."
Again, “Tocompel religion, to
plant churches by power and to
force a submission to ecclesiasti
cal government by laws and pen
allies, belongeth not to them,"
that is to magistrates, “neither
yet to the church."
These principles are sound,
far in advance of those held by
the Puritans; and what a pity
that they should be vitiated by
others completely subversive of
them.
With a strange inconsistency
the Brownists held that the civil
magistrate had a right to inter
fere in behalf of a Scriptural re
ligion: that it is not the preroga
tive of the prince to compel any
“to receive the church govern
ment; but after they have re
ceived it, if they then fall away
and seek not the Lord, they
might be put to death.”
Francis Johnson in “An answer
to Master Jacob,” declared:
“That it is not in the power of
princes, or any man whatsoever,
to pei suade the conscience and
makemembers of the church, but
this must be left to God alone,
who only can do it. Princes
may and ought, within their do
minions, to abolish all false wor
ship, and all false ministers
whatsoever; and to establish the
true worship and ministry ap
pointed by God in his word; com
manding and compelling his sub
jects to come unto and practice
no other but this.” Cited by J.
Chaplin in Baptist Quarterly He
view April, 1873.
Thus it is seen that more cor
rect views of the nature of the
church of Christ were slowly
winning their way through the
contentions of religious teachers
who were struggling for the as
cendency.
The Churchman made his own
church and rites and ceremonies,
and called to his aid.in maintain
lug thhm,the strong arm of secu
lar power.
The Puritan found his church
in the New Testament with its
rites, laws and ceremonies, and
invoked the power of the State
to compel men to accept them.
The Brownists likewise found
his church, with its laws, rites,
and ceremonies, in the book of
God, but denied to the State the
right or power to compel men to
receive them. “God only cando
this. But the State ought to
prohibit the existence of that
church, and the observance of
those rites and ceremonies which
are manifestly false.” “Do not
c ompel men to profess the true
religion, but forbid their adopt
ing the false. But when they
have once professed the true, they
must be kept from apostasy, if
by the power of the prince.”
Growth this is, but oh! how
slow. While these sects were
busy promulgating their distinc
tive doctrines, tbe light of a purer
doctrine shone in England, albeit
not in stately edifices, but in the
gloom of the forest glade. For
in their faith and practice, then
as now, they stood alone, and
nearest to the Sacred Oracles.
We thank God for them, and to
then - faith and practice the next
article will be devoted.
A. B. Vaughan, Jr.
Family Spirit.—At a tim e
when every true American la
ments the decadence of parental
authority and the growth of that
false idea of equality which con
sists only of a refusal of all
signs of reverence to others,
Balzac’s note of warning to
France may be of use and inter
est. He says: “Accoiding to
the new order of affairs, the
parent is no longer responsible
for the deeds of the son, and the
crimes of the father leave no
stain on his family. In harmony
with tbe various emancipatiois
which have so thoroughly en
feebled parental authority, this
system has led to the triumph of
that individualism which is de
vouring modern society. He
who looks thoughtfully into the
future foresees the destruction of
the family spirit, caused by the
substitution of free-will and
equality for parental authority.”
The family must always be the
basis of all society, in losing
the solidarity of the family, so
ciety has lost that fundamental
force discovered by Montaigne
and by him named “honor,” it
has isolated all so as to be better
able to dominate; it has enfeebled
all by means of separation. It
remains to be seen whether gen
eral interests can replace those
of the family.— The Interior.
Release.
“Go honiH content, the evening fid Is,
Diiy’n tired sinews ure unbent;
Xu more I hu thrush or linnet t ails.
*riif twilight fades,go home content.”
*-Hit her. the Held is lint hiilf-turned,
Ami yet the spring is well-nigh spent.”
• My son the hour of rest is earned.
The day’* work done, go home content.’*
• Knther. the tleid is rough and bare,
its sullen surface scarcely rent;
I’ll plough but one more furrow here.”
‘•Not now. my son. go home content.”
“Father the wheat will never root,
The huh Ihd sunk t he hills anent:
M\ weary labor will not boot;
With work half-done, how be content?”
"My < hlld the sun h . «oen thee toil
With sturdy b( kanti nrown arms bent:
Tho’other han« s should t 111 this soil,
Thy work well done, go home content.”
“Lord I have worked my little day
<lnthe long task that Thou hast sent;
The < veiling falls; my homeward way
I g»> t<> Thee; I am content ’”
—selected.
The Significance of the Man Jesus
Christ.
I. in him there came, as lie
himself said, new life into the
world to abide in it and trans
form it. His influence did not
die with his departure. It be
gan. As Rousseau says: “After
the death of Jesus Christ twelve
poor fishermen and artisans un
dertake to instruct and convert
the world. The success was prod
igious; all the Christians ran to
inartyrdorti. all the people ran
to baptism.' The history of these
first times was a continual pro
digy.” Those who had been with
him or who believed they had
seen him in heaven went every
where proclaiming him (Acts
viii. 4; Rom. x. 16-18; Col. i. 23).
The most powerful man among
them declared that it was his
great ambition to tell of Christ
to whatever nations there might
still ♦e which had not heard of
him (Rom. xv. 20,21). And the
inlluenceot Jesus did not cease
with these early years when the
first outburst of enthusiasm had
lost its impulse. The attempts
of men to account for this influ
ence and locate it in careful sys
tems of doctrine, changed from
generation to generation. The
forms in which it manifested it
self from age to age differed, but
the liying Christ has changed
only in the enlarging human con
ception of his meaning. He him
self is the same yesterday, to
day, and forever. Njthing has
conquered him. “The gospel
possesses,” said Napoleon, “a
secret virtue, a mysterious effica
cy, & warmth which penetrates
and soothes the heart. . . .
The gospel i ■ not a hook: ft is a
living being with a vigor, with a
power, which conquers every
thing that opposes.”
Almost all that is great and
good Jesus introduced into our
life, or it gained such impulse
from him that he is practically
its creator for us. “The im
mense fund of altruistic feeling”
which he introduced, Mr Kidd !
believes to be the sole secret and
sanction of our civilization and
progress (Social Evolution, chap,
viii ). In any event, it is he
who is teaching men humility.
In the words of the church of
England collect for the Sunday
before Easter, “he took upon
him our flesh, and suffered death
upon the cross, that all mankind
might follow - the example of his
great humility.” He has taught
men love. Love brought him
and was revealed in him (John
iii. 16). “The brief record of
those three short years,” says
Lecky, “has done more to soften
and regenerate mankind than all
the disquisitions of philosophers,
and than all the exhortations of
moralists.” His last command
was a command to love with such
love as he had himself shown for
men (John xiii. 34, 35). He who
stooped from heaven, to the hu
miliations of the cross opened in
the heart of redeemed man a
fountain of love and compassion. ”
He has taught men purity and
philanthropy as fruits of love. In
the Roman empire his influence
checked licentiousness and cruel
sports. Telemachus in his name
brought the gladiatorial butch
eries to an end. So high was the
standard of life taught by his
disciples that the very mention
of moral lapse was discouraged
(Eph. v. 3). His influence
brought in a new legislation in
favor of the prisoner, the outcast
woman, the mutilated, and the
poor (Brace, Gesta Christi, p
107). “For the first time the
stern and noble features of Ro
man law took on an unwonted
expression of gentle humanity
and sweet compassion, under
the power of him who was the
brother of the unfortunate and
the sinful.” He began the eman
cipation of the slave. His fol
lowers became known as “the
brothers of the slave.” He had
said nothing about the wrong of
human slavery, but from every
word and act of his sprang the
influences which for centuries
battled with the supposed rights
of man to property in man.
“Through the vista qf history,”
said Chrysostom, “we see slav
ery and its pagan theory of two
races fall before the holy word
of Jesus, ‘All men are the chil
dren of God.’” “We owe the
VOL,. 76--NO. 31
church,” declared Mazzini, “the
idea of the unity of the human
family, and of the equality and
emancipation of souls.”
“My historical studies,” said
Mr. E. A. Freeman, “have made
me more and more sure that this
thing which we call Christianity
cannot be human.” And what is
Christianity but the influence of
Jesus?
2. The life which Jesus
brought he himself was. His
influence in the world has been
only his self realization. All
that he has wrought was in him
self. He was all that he has
done. In him all holy ideals
meet; from him all holy activi
ties flow. All that we have dis
covered Jesus to be in these or
other studies it is God’s purpose
to do in the world, to make that
humanity whose Son and goal
Jesus was. “The end to which
all things are working is the pro
duction of the spiritual man.
Who and what the spiritual man
is we may not all agree; but I be
lieve him to be the man in whom
God has personally reproduced
himself, and who is therefore
God’s Son; and I believe Jesus
Christ to be the revelation of the
true meaning and the realization
of the true destination of every
man; and that in him, as the per
sonal incarnation and reproduc
tion of the personal God in our
personal selves, we and the
whole creation shall come into
our divine inheritance” (Du Bose,
The Soteriology of the New Testa
ment, p. 471).
The most diverse types of
mind have recognized in Jesus
this perfect ideal.
Niebuhr says, “The feeblest
intellect must see the strange
ness of supposing that the holiest
of men was a deceiver, his disci
ples either deluded or liars, and
that deceivers should have
preached a holy religion of which
self-denial is the chief duty.”
Strauss calls him the highest
object we can possibly imagine
with respect to religion, the be
ing without whose presence in
the mind perfect piety is impos
sible. Never at any time will it
be possible to rise above him, or
to imagine any one who should
ever be equal with him.”
De Wette says, “The man who
comes without preconceived
opinions to the life of Jesus, and
who yields himself up to the im
pression which it awakes, will
feel no manner of doubt that he
is the most exalted character and
the purest soul that history pre
sents to us. He walked over the
earth like some nobler being who
scarce touched it with his feet.”
Renan cried, “Between thee
and God there is no longer any
distinction. The most beautiful
incarnation of God —God in
man!” And in his last book this
was his final word about-Jesus:
“One fundamental thesis to
which I cling more firmly than
ever is that not only did Jesus
exist, but that he was great and
beautiful, a thousandfold more
real than insipid earthly great
ness, than insipid earthly beau
ty-”
John Stuart Mill said, “There
is no better rule than so to live
that Christ would approve your
life.”
Johann von Muller, a skepti
cal historian, accidentally taking
up the New Testament, and find
ing Christ the explanation of
history, wrote, “In all my study
of ancient times I have always
felt the want of something, and
it was not until I knew our Lord
that all was clear to me; with him
there is nothing that I am not
able to solve.”
As Browning says:
“I say the acknowledgment of God in
Christ,'
Accepted by the reason, solves for
thee
All questions in the earth and out of it.”
Congreve, “the high priest of
the English Comtists,” said,
“The more truly you serve
Christ, the more thoroughly you
mould yourselves into his image,
the more keen will be your sym
pathy and admiration.”
Goethe called him “the divine
man, the saint, the type and
model of all men.”
Shelling admits, “None before
him after such a manner has re
vealed to man the infinite.”
Richter exclaims, “Being the
holiest among the mighty, and
the mightiest among the holy,
he has lifted with his pierced
hands empires off their hinges,
has turned the stream of centu
ries out of its channel, and still
governs the ages.”
Hennel says, “While no human
character in the history of the
world can be brought to mind
which, in proportion as it could be
closely examined, did not present
some defects disqualifying it for
being the emblem of moral per
fection, we can rest with least
check or sense of moral incon
gruity on the imperfectly known
character of Jesus of Nazareth.’’
—The Man Christ Jesus.—Speer.