had neither temples, learning, eloquence, social standing, nor any one human element of success. Against them were all elements of human power-superstition, learning, social influence, religion, civil power, and military might. Men were pitiless in the use of them all. Ten great persecutions in the first three hundred years sought to wipe the earth clean of even the memory of the Crucified. His followers "had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted; they were slain with the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, and ill treated." By hundreds they were thrown to the wild beasts in the arena. They were wrapped in tarry sheets and set on fire to light the gardens of Nero's lust. They were driven from the face of the earth into catacombs and dens and caves. And yet this Gospel spread. Tacitus says that there was not a village far up the Alps where there was not a little company that gathered together before sunrise to sing hymns of praise to Christ as their King and promise each other to be faithful for another day. They knew not if they would ever meet again. Why did it spread? Why go on conquering and to conquer? How I could it subdue the earth? What is this that all the remorseless powers of earth cannot conquer? There can be but one answer. It was the power of God in epochal manifestation. There is a promise of God in Joel of which the Pentecost was but a partial fulfillment; when men learn the laws of the realm of power for mind and heart as well as engineers know the realm of steam, and give themselves as perfectly to the utilization of that power, the Spirit will be poured out on all flesh, and the knowledge of God will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.

Henry M. Warren
Нат

ART. III.-THE PLACE OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPEL.

EVER since Professor Harnack published his book which appeared in this country under the title What is Christianity? there has been raging in Germany a fierce controversy on the subject of this article. There is evidence that the controversy will be taken up in this country also. For this reason, and because the subject is so vital, a fresh examination of the theme appears to be demanded. The first thing to do, naturally, is to limit, at least in some general way, the scope of the word "Gospel." And in so doing it is necessary to point out that Gospel and Christianity are not synonymous terms, and that they are not equivalent in their implications. The Gospel is central in Christianity, and the Gospel and its presuppositions and concomitants constitute Christianity. Among the chief presuppositions of the Gospel are the existence and personality of God, human responsibility, and, therefore, the guilt or ill desert of sin, and by consequence the ruin in time and eternity wrought by sin in human character and destiny. Among the chief concomitants of the Gospel are the obligations to personal holiness in spirit and conduct, and to devotion to the cause of propagandism committed by Christ to his disciples. It will thus be seen that the presuppositions pertain largely to human conditions and destiny, and the concomitants to human duty. But the Gospel-the good news-certainly does not pertain to these dark conditions, nor to the dark destiny to which they point. Nor, on the other hand, is the Gospel a message of duty, however noble and great. Rather is it a message of human possibility-possibility of release from what we now experience and of entrance upon new experiences and a new career commensurate with the grandeur of man's essential nature. This is what constitutes the Gospel gladness, that it promises release not merely from undesirable earthly conditions and surroundings-these are hardly a presupposition of the Gospel at all-but from the

deepest evil which can stand in the way of human development, the evil of sin; and that it promises one the attainment of all the highest and profoundest and noblest aspirations of his soul. How, now, is Christ related to this Gospel?

In the first place, he is the bringer of the message. However we may account for it, men have not only recognized their worth more adequately since Christ than before, but they have been encouraged by his teachings to hope for the realization of that which is noblest in character as those who have not heard of him do not hope. Apart from him men are relatively well satisfied with their moral and spiritual condition. Wherever the knowledge of him has gone men have become discontented with present moral attainments and have come to strongly desire better things. It may be truthfully said that that one question of Christ, "What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" whichever way it be translated, annihilated the old order of things. Men had been brought face to face with an estimate of values that must forever render men of sin and men of the world uneasy. It seems like a very simple. question; but it is so put as at once to reveal the worth of the soul, and to appeal to all the deepest moral feelings of mankind. Once those deeps are stirred they can never be stilled until the world loses its grip upon us and we are free to work out our higher career. But equally elemental in its power was that saying of Jesus "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." For the filial relation here referred to is not that of adoptive children so strongly emphasized by Paul, but it consists in the moral likeness to God. And while the other saying reveals to men how utterly foolish and unworthy of the human soul the ordinary slavish love of the world is, and so arouses the spirit of discontent, this one serves to awaken the spirit of desire and to keep it alive until the highest conceivable perfection can be attained. Likeness to God is an intangible thing, but the belief that it is within our reach affords the most blissful and impelling expectation known to the human race.

Christ was also related to the Gospel as its effective agent. There are two comprehensive facts which make this evident. The first is that Christ removed the barrier between themselves and the realization of their ideal which men saw in God. That barrier was the supposed attitude of God toward men. Because the human conscience does its work in all ages and among all peoples it does not take long for men to lose their self-respect. But when to this is added the belief that the almighty and all-knowing God is holy and cannot look upon sin, men either seek to justify themselves before him—this is the way of the Pharisee or else they fear to make any approach toward communion with him— this is the way of the neglecter of religion. Thus that indispensable doctrine, the holiness of God, becomes a barrier to man's approach to him. The holiness of God must be maintained. The way out is not that of denying or minifying it. And yet in the minds of all men God's holiness, however crudely or however correctly conceived, is likely, because of the uniform and severe condemnations of conscience, to attract a disproportionate amount of attention. So that any effectual reconciliation with God seems excluded by the necessary doctrine of the holiness of God, and by the activity of conscience, which we cannot allow to abdicate. To the well-instructed Christian it is, of course, clear that this emphasis upon the holiness of God results in a onesided conception of the divine character. But we owe it to Christ alone that we entertain a more correct and adequate opinion of the relative importance of the divine attributes; for it was his doctrine of the Fatherhood of God which, while it left a place for the holiness of God and the undisturbed authority of conscience, yet removed the barrier to man's approach to the Deity. Much as has been made of this doctrine of the divine Fatherhood it appears not even yet to be fully appreciated. This is due, perhaps, to the fact that it is so often misunderstood. Like so many other doctrines pertaining to the Deity it is an anthropomorphism. This fact is overlooked by many, and as a result they have most im

879 proper conceptions of the great truth it expresses. Men who are in mortal terror lest our thought of God should include certain human imperfections adopt this doctrine because it seems to fit in with their kindlier feelings, but too often they neglect to analyze it to see just what elements of human Fatherhood may be worthily ascribed to the Deity. In a general way they regard it as significant of the providence of God, and especially of the love that God bears to his creatures, as opposed to the exercise of that strict justice which the thought of God as a ruler or judge conveys. Thus they set the love of God in antagonism to the justice of God, which is as baneful a mistake as that of the older theology which reverses the order and sets the justice of God in antagonism to his love. From the standpoint of Christ there is no antagonism. He never allows us to so conceive the love of God as to blind us to his justice, nor when thinking of the justice of God, to forget his love.

It seems strange that anyone should so grossly misunderstand the great and epoch-making revelation of God as Father. The perfect earthly father never ceases to love even his wayward children. He brought them into the world, and in so doing he took all the risks as to their conduct. Should they bring disgrace upon him, should they prove themselves unworthy to be called his sons, he still must love them. He cannot be justified in disavowing or steeling his heart against them. In proportion as he is capable of divesting himself of his parental love is he an imperfect parent, and we must not anthropomorphize God in the sense of supposing that he ever ceases to love us, however far we go astray. But, on the other hand, the perfect earthly father cannot deal with the wayward son as though he were dutiful and noble. To do this would be not only a gross injustice, but it would be so subversive of all good morals within the home, and even in society at large, that it would prove a father weak, and recreant to one of his highest duties. Particularly is this the case while the children are still dependent upon the father for guidance in the way of life as