When we reflect further who it was that was thus exhibiting in His own Person the working out of this law to the utmost extremity, we become aware that Christians have it indeed 'placarded' before their eyes (Gal :!') in a sense in which no moral law ever Wiis set forth before.
Add that Christ had Himself predicted and that His followers generally believed that after His Ascension He was again visiting His people through His Spirit ; tliat Divine forces were at work in the world, all radiating from Himself — Himself at once crucified and risen ; add this to the previous beliefs of which we have just spoken, — remember that Christians supposed themselves to be actually conscious of these forces impressing and moulding their own hearts and lives, and we may come gradually to understand what St. Paul meant when he spoke of 'dying' or ' being cruci- fied ' with 'Christ' and 'rising again with Him.' It seems to be a similar idea to that which St. John expres.ses when he puts into the mouth of Christ the claim, 'I am the Way.' Hather, per- haps, we should not narrow down this phrase to anything less than the whole content of the Life of (^hrist on e.artb. ' He supplied in Him.self the fixed plan, according to wliich all right human action must be framed : the Spirit working with their spirit supplied the ever-varying shapes in which the one plan had to be embodied' (Hort, Uiih. Li-rt. p. 30).
iii. The Work of Christ as Redemptive. — Here we come on to more settled ground. At a very e<arlv date Christi.an tradition gave to Christ the title" ' Saviour' (Lk 2", Ac o^i 13^3 etc. ; cf. Mt 1-', Lk 10'''), 'Saviour of the world' (Jn 4"; cf. .3"
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
O.jc
12'"). What does this title 'Saviour' include? It doubtless includes every sense iu wliich Clirist n siiied and rescues men from the power and the f;uil[ oi sin. He does tliis, ius we have seen, both by icarliiuf; and by example — by inimitable teachiuf; and by a cunsuminate example. But if we follow the method indicated above (p. Ool), if we take the hints in the Gospels, with the fuller lijiht thrown upon them by the Kpistles, we shall be led to the conclusion that there wa.s something yet more in the Life and Death and Uesurreclion of our Lord Jesus t'hrist than this, that there was something; in these connected acts of His which liad its counterpart in the sacrifices of OT ; and that the deepest meaning and puqiosc^ of sacrifice was fultilled In Iliin. This is a belief which Christians have held from the lir.st days onwards ; and it is a belief which does not and will not lack careful restatement at the present time.
iv. The Work of Christ as Revflatinn. — On a similar footing is the belief that Christ came not only to ijive, but to be a revelation of the inmost mind an<l character of the Father. Such a revela- tion was needed. It is not contained in the 'cosmic process.' \l we had that process alone before us. we could not infer that (iod was a Being absolutely righteous and absolutely loving. The idea that He might be so could not ri.se above a hypothesis. But at this point the Incarnation intervenes. And here again the Synopt. Gospels present us with one central passage (Mt 11-' II) with other scattered hints which are taken up and maile more explicit in the Fourth Gospel, while that again does but give the fuller ground for a belief which was certainly held in the apostolic circle (comp. e.g. the central passage Jn 14'-"' with lO''"'- 3'% 1 Jn 4"- '«, Ko 59 etc.). 'So we get the broad doctrine led up to bv St. Paul and Ep. to the He (2 Co 4<-«. Col l'»", He 1»), and finally f.irmu- lated by St. John, that the Sou was the Logos or Word (which might be paraphtiised ' moulli- pieee,' or 'vehicle of utterance of the mind') of the Father.
V. The Founding of the Church. — Conventional language is too often heard as though the im- mediate object of the Incarnation was the founding of the full hierarchical .system as it existed in the .Midilli' Ages. This language is ba.sed on the com- plete identification of the Church with the ' king- dom of heaven' (.see p. (!20 sup.). On the other hand, there is a school of critics, both in Germany and in Kngland, who deny that ' Jesus ever created, or thought of creating, an organized society.' The main ground for this latter view is the doubt that rests over the two iii.stances — one of them ambiguous — of the use of the word 'Church' which are cotitined to the peculiar element of the First Go.spel (Mt 1()'* 18''), an<l the certainty that llure are some senses in which the ' kingdom ' and the Church cannot be identified. In some (though not in all) of those who adojil this line of reasoning thern is the further tendency to minimize or restrict all that would imply an extended outlook of Jesus over the ages.
It seems to us, liowever, to be going too far to .-lay that the ' kingdom of heaven ' is ' without organization and incapable of being organized.' Tlie two parables of the Tares and the Draw-net dislinclly imply the exi.steiice of a .society ; anil that Ihe divine laws and iuliuemes wliich constitute the Kingdom shoulil express iheuisehes in a society as the vehicle for their realizjition is antecedently probable. Hut when Jesus gathered round Him the Twelve, He w:vs practically forming the nucleus of a society ; ami that society ha.s had a continunus existence ever since, so that it is dilKcult to think that it was not contemplated. Moreover, when we turn to the writings of St. Paul, wu find that even