But could such a one have been a blasphemer? Was it morally possible
that He could have uttered what He did about Himself, unless it was
true? To establish His high claims, it might be sufficient to appeal
to His miracles, and assert that no such works of power and love could
have been done but by one who verily had God with him; as He himself
said,--"Believe me for the very works' sake. If I do not the works of
my Father, believe me not." Or I might appeal to the witness God gave
to His Son at His baptism, on the Mount of Transfiguration, and, above
all, when He raised Him from the dead, and thereby declared "Him to be
the Son of God with power." But, putting aside all this evidence, I
ask you to contemplate _the moral character of Jesus_, and say, Is
it not as impossible that such a person could have spoken untruly or
blasphemously regarding God, as that God himself can be aught else
than true and holy? Do not let us evade this awful question of
Christ's character--He was an impostor unless he was Divine! Either
Christ never uttered those things regarding Himself which are here
recorded, and so the history which we have assumed as true is false
in fact; or, having uttered them, He spoke falsehood, and was a
blasphemer, or spoke the truth, and was Divine. To deny the Divinity
of His Person is to deny the truth of His character.

If any man replies that those sayings of Christ _may_ be interpreted
differently, then I ask, What impression did Christ _intend_ to give?
If He was a mere creature, how could He have used language to which it
was _possible_ to give such an interpretation as would imply Divinity?
Only imagine any other man on earth daring so to speak that his
language could, with difficulty be interpreted as not necessarily
implying his assumption of Divine attributes! But Jesus certainly did
so speak, and did give this impression to friend and foe; and He