to
understand
elements
in
the
story
which
Christians
have
humbly
accepted
in
faith,
and
to
find
supremely
credible
what
the
ordinary
rationalism
dismisses
as
superstition.
It
is,
however,
only
in
a
very
indirect
way,
if
at
all,
that
Christian
faith
can
derive
support
from
Spiritualism.
It
seems
to
be
proved
that
if
com-munication
is
estabUshed
at
all
with
the
spirit-world,
it
is
merely
with
'the
dregs
and
lees
of
the
unseen
universe'
—
with
spirits
who
either
have
not
the
power
or
else
the
will
to
communicate
anything
of
importance
to
man;
and,
this
being
so,
the
Resurrection
and
appear-ances
of
Christ,
with
their
unique
and
far-reaching
spiritual
result,
come
under
a
totally
different
Divine
economy.
In
the
risen
Christ
we
have
the
one
authentic
gUmpse
of
the
world
which
othervrise
can
do
no
more
than
attest
its
existence
to
those
who
peep
and
mutter
(Waite,
Studies
in
Mysticism,
1906).
(5)
Significance
of
the
Resurrection.—ia)
In
the
Primitive
Church
the
Resurrection
was
regarded
as
at
once
the
authentication
of
Christianity,
and
a
vitally
important
element
of
doctrine.
Its
apologetic
value
was
appraised
equally
highly
in
the
appeal
to
Jews
and
to
Gentiles
(Ac
4'°
17").
The
argument
was
that
God
had
accredited
Jesus'
mission
and
accepted
His
work
in
raising
Him
up
from
the
dead.
In
recent
apologetic,
at
least
of
the
English
school,
there
has
been
a
tendency
to
stake
the
truth
of
Christianity
on
the
evidence
for
the
Resurrection
(Row,
Christian
Evidences,
1887)
;
but
it
is
always
to
be
remembered
that
the
evidence
for
the
miracle
itself
depends
for
its
credibiUty
on
the
anterior
impression
of
the
supernatural
made
by
the
Person
of
Christ.
It
is
not
so
generally
recognized
that
the
Resur-rection
has
the
value
of
a
vindication
of
the
ways
of
God.
Had
the
Ruler
of
the
Universe
given
no
sign
when
the
spotless
and
loving
Christ
was
made
away
with
by
His
murderers,
the
problem
of
evil
would
have
been
well-nigh
overwhelming,
and
faith
in
the
supremacy
of
a
moral
order
would
have
lacked
one
of
its
strongest
supports.
(6)
Doctrinally
the
Resurrection
was
regarded
as
possessing
a
high
significance
for
Christ
Himself.
It
is,
indeed,
an
exaggeration
to
say
that
for
St.
Paul
the
Resurrection
had
the
importance
which
earlier
thought
claimed
for
the
Baptism,
and
later
thought
for
the
Virgin
Birth,
viz.
of
constituting
Jesus
Son
of
God;
but
he
at
least
regarded
it
as
marking
the
transition
from
the
fore-shadowing
to
the
full
reality
of
the
power
and
glory
of
the
Son
of
God
(Ro
1')
.
It
was
also
the
source
of
the
most
characteristic
and
vital
elements
of
his
eschatological
teaching.
In
the
life
of
the
risen
Christ
he
saw
the
prototype
of
the
life
which
awaits
those
that
are
His
in
the
future
state
(Phil
S^')
.
He
also
used
the
resurrection
of
Christ,
though
assuredly
without
any
suggestion
that
it
was
only
a
figure,
as
a
parable
of
the
beginning,
the
manifestations,
and
the
goal
of
the
new
life
(Ro
6*).
16.
The
character
of
Jesus.
—
In
this
section
it
is
not
proposed
to
deal
with
the
doctrine
of
the
Person
of
Christ
(see
Person
of
Christ),
but
only
to
gather
up
the
main
features
of
the
character
of
the
Man
Christ
Jesus
as
it
is
portrayed
in
the
Gospels.
The
point
of
view
is
somewhat
modern,
but
does
not
necessarily
imply
a
naturalistic
or
Unitarian
interpretation
of
Christ
(Keim,
Jesus
of
Nazara,
Eng.
tr.
vol.
ii.;
Peabody,
Jesus
Christ
and
the
Christian
Character,
1906,
ch.
ii.).
The
task
of
describing
the
character
of
Jesus
is
difficult.
Jesus
is
one
of
the
most
real
and
Uf
e-like
figures
in
history,
and
there
is
a
way
of
observing,
feeling,
and
judging
which
is
unmistakably
Christ-Mke;
but
when
we
try
to
describe
Him
we
are
in
danger
of
setting
forth
'
a
mere
personified
system
of
morals
and
psychology,
consist-ing
of
a
catalogue
of
all
possible
virtues
and
capabilities
'
(Hase).
There
is
therefore
something
to
be
said
for
leaving
the
matter
where
it
is
left
by
the
Gospels,
which
simply
reveal
the
character
in
telling
the
story
of
the
life.
The
general
observation
which
is
most
convincing
is
that
in
Jesus
there
were
combinations
of
qualities
which
are
usually
found
in
isolation,
and
regarded
as
mutually
inconsistent.
This
holds
good,
first,
in
the
region
of
temperament.
It
is
easy
to
show
that
at
least
three
of
the
recognized
temperaments
—
the
sanguine,
the
melancholic,
and
the
choleric,
were
manifested
by
Jesus,
and
that
what
is
good
in
the
phlegmatic
had
its
counterpart
in
His
repose
and
purposefulness.
From
a
similar
point
of
view
it
has
been
said
that
'
there
was
in
Him
the
woman-heart
as
well
as
the
manly
brain
—
all
that
was
most
manly
and
all
that
was
most
womanly
'
(F.
W.
Robertson,
Serm.
ii.
231;
but
contrariwise
Hase:
'His
character
was
thoroughly
masculine,'
§31).
It
has
been
held
by
some
that
He
belonged
to
the
class
of
ecstatic
men,
by
others
that
He
reasoned
and
acted
with
the
serenity
of
the
sage:
the
truth
is
that
repose
was
the
normal
condition
of
His
spirit,
but
that
it
was
inter-mittently
broken
by
prophetic
experiences
of
vision
and
tumult.
On
the
intellectual
side
we
find
the
abstract
power
which
unerringly
seizes
upon
the
vital
principle,
united
with
the
poet's
mind
which
delights
to
clothe
the
idea
with
form
and
colour
and
to
find
for
it
the
most
perfect
artistic
expression.
Another
and
more
im-pressive
contrast
is
presented
in
the
force
and
the
gentle-ness
of
His
character.
From
Him
there
went
out
an
influence
which
either
awed
men
into
docile
submission
or
roused
them
to
a
frenzy
of
opposition,
while
the
same
Jesus
spoke
words
of
tender
solace
to
a
penitent
Magda-lene,
and
called
the
little
children
to
His
side.
He
also
combined
with
wide
outlook
and
subUme
purpose
an
active
interest
in
small
things
and
in
inconsiderable
per-sons.
Recognizing
it
as
His
vocation
to
build
the
King-dom
of
God,
He
did
not
consider
a
day
lost
in
which
He
conversed
with
a
woman
of
Samaria
at
a
wayside
well.
While
these
and
similar
traits
help
to
give
greater
vividness
to
our
conception
of
Jesus,
the
essential
content
of
what
is
called
His
character
lies
in
His
attitude,
on
the
one
hand
to
the
Father,
on
the
other
to
the
problems
of
duty
which
arise
for
a
man
among
men.
(1)
Beginning
with
the
God-ward
side
of
the
character
of
Jesus,
that
which
we
describe
as
piety,
we
find
that
it
combines
familiar
traits
with
others
which
are
novel
and
unique.
To
a
large
extent
it
is
a
fulfilment
of
the
Jewish
ideal
of
piety,
but
it
shows
impressive
omissions
and
deviations
from
the
OT
pattern.
He
fulfils
it
in
that
He
has
a
constant
sense
of
the
presence
of
God,
and
regards
all
events
as
instinct
with
a
Divine
meaning
of
guidance,
of
blessing,
or
of
judgment.
He
lives
in
habitual
prayerfulness,
giving
thanks,
suppUcating,
interceding
for
others.
He
shows
a
sensitive
reverence
for
all
that
is
called
God
—
His
name.
His
word.
His
house,
and
is
fuU
of
prophetic
zeal
for
His
honour.
It
is
His
meat
and
His
drink
to
labour
in
the
tasks
which
are
made
known
to
Him
as
the
will
of
God.
When
that
will
approaches
Him
as
a
call
to
suffer
and
die.
He
trusts
implicitly
in
the
wisdom
and
goodness
of
the
Father,
and
prays
that
His
will
be
done.
There
are,
however,
two
significant
particulars
in
which
the
reUgion
of
Jesus,
if
we
may
so
term
it,
differed
from
the
piety
of
Hebrew
saints,
as
well
as
of
the
saints
of
Christian
times,
(o)
The
penitential
note
is
one
of
the
most
distinctive
features
of
the
OT.
The
depth
of
the
sense
of
sin
may
almost
be
said
to
be
the
measure
of
sanctity,
and
the
same
may
be
said
of
those
whom
the
Christian
Church
has
chiefly
venerated
as
its
religious
heroes.
But
of
penitence
the
experience
of
Jesus
shows
no
trace.
While
teaching
His
disciples
to
pray,
'
Forgive
us
our
debts,'
He
Himself
never
confessed
sin.
Neither
in
Gethsemane
nor
on
the
cross,
when
the
near
approach
of
death
challenged
Him
to
pass
righteous
judgment
on
His
past
Ufe,
was
He
conscious
of
any
lapse
from
fidelity
to
the
Father's
commands.
—
(6)
A
second
note
of
Hebrew
piety
is
a
sense
of
dependence
upon
God,
accompanied
by
the
knowledge
that
to
Him
belongs
the
glory,
and
that
the
human
instrument
counts
for
nothing
in
com-parison.
But
Jesus,
while
confessing
His
dependence
on
the
Father
in
teaching
and
heaUng,
does
not
speak
of
Himself
as
a
mere
agent
who
delivers
a
message
and
