g'ves to Hiiu the supreme title God, and records is own earlier accej>tance of the same, iii. In this hannoniims account, by various writers, of the dignity of Christ we notice marks of develop- ment. In the Synoptic' Gospels we find it in ita most rudimentary form ; in the Epistles of St. Paul it is more fully developed ; in the Fourth Gospel the devclotpinent is complete. Even within the writings ot St. Paul, and again within the Fourth
388
CHRISTOLOGY
CHRISTOLOGY
Gospel, we notice development. In 1 Co 8' we leaJ of ' one Lord, throuj;h wliom are all things ' ; and in Col l"* ", written in the mature thought of St. Paul's first imprisonment, we read that the Soa existed before all creatures, and that through His agency even the successive ranks of angels were created, — a thought much in advance of any- thing in his earlier Epistles. Very much in advance of Christ's teaching about Himself before His death, are the exclamation of Thomas, and the assertion of the evangelist that ' the Word was God.'
It is worthy of note that this development proceeds alwaj's on the same lines, that whatever we read about Christ in the Epistles of St. Paul, and indeed in the Fourth Gospel, is either a necessary inference from the teaching of Christ about Himself in the First Gospel, or is needful in order to give to that teaching unity and intelli- gibility. Between the accounts of the dignity of Christ given by the different writers of NT there is no contradiction. They differ only in their degree of definiteness and completeness. Indeed there is much greater difference between Mt 19" and 28" and between Jn 1' and 14® than between the teaching of the First Gospel, taken as a whole, and that of the Fourth.
Possibly, the more fully developed teaching of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the Fourth Gospel about the Son of God may, in its literary form, have been influenced by Gentile modes of thought and expression. Certainly, St. Paul's modes of thought and expression were moulded by his Gentile sur- roundings. But the complete harmony of all NT writers about the Son of God, and the infinite gulf which separates their teaching from all other earlier or contemporary teaching, leave no room for sub- stantial contributions from sources external to Israel. Contemporary Greek or Oriental thought does little or nothing to elucidate the teaching of NT about the Son of God.
iv. The teaching adduced and expounded above involves a new and definite conception of God. For the assertions of Christ in the NT are equivalent to a claim to share with the Father the infinite attributes of deity ; and the contrast between Him who was with God in the beginning and the universe which sprang into being by His agency, suggests irresistioly that, whereas even the bright ones of heaven began to be, He exists, as a person distinct from the Father, from eternity.
Faint indications in the OT of a plurality of persons in the Godhead have been pointed out. But they are dim and uncertain. The definite and complex and yet harmonious conception of God, which underlies the teaching about Christ of the various writers of NT, is altogether different from every conception of God set forth in the entire literature of the world, except so far as later literature has been moulded by Christian teaching. It is a matter of simple historical fact tliat the NT embodies a complete revolution in man's thought about God.
This new and complex metaphysical conception of God has survived to our day, and has been in all ages the deep conviction of an immense majority of the followers of Christ, and esp. of nearly all tliose who have done most to spread His name and influence. We hear much about theological differences between contending Churches and schools of Christian thought, i ar more wonder- ful than these ditlerences is the agreement of the mass of the servants of Christ about the dignity of their Master, and about His relation to God.
Of this agreement, the various Creeds and Confessions of the various Churches are decisive proof. The so-called Nicene Creed is accepted by both Greek and Komac Churches, and even by the
Armenian Church, which rejected the subsequent Definition of Chalcedon. Even this wide agree- ment is not the whole. While rejecting much of the teaching of the Church of Rome, the German and Swiss and Eng. Reformers clung tenaciously to the doctrine of the Son of God embodied in the Nicene Creed. It is to-day the deep conviction of both Anglicans and Nonconformists in England and of the various Churches in America. In other words, the remarkable agreement of the various writers of NT about the dignity of Christ finds a complete counterpart in the wonderful agreement of an immense majority of His followers in all ages and nations.
V. Of these well-attested historical facts, only three explanations are possible.
It may be suggested that Christ was Himself in error. If so, the greatest religious teacher the world ever knew, the author of a religious impulse which has changed and raised human thought and life, was in deep error touching the nature of God and touching His own relation to God ; and His error has been shared by nearly all those who have done most for the reli.irious life of men. If this be so, the Light of the World was, and they to whom He has been the Light of Life are, in deep dark- ness. So absurd a suggestion is not worthy of a moment's consideration.