history we possess of Jesus is untrue, and He was, therefore, no
historical but a mere ideal person,--or if He was a real person, as
represented in the gospel, yet not divine,--we cannot defend His
character without losing our own. For we have seen how He certainly
represented Himself as one with God,--as one who alone knew God and
truly revealed Him,--as one who demanded the same honour and love from
man as were due to God,--who required men to be willing to part with
their dearest friends, even life itself, rather than with Him,--who
asserted His right to assign to mankind their eternal destinies
according to the relationship in which each man stood to Him,--who,
when standing before an earthly judge, crowned with thorns, insulted
by the rabble, with every sign of weakness, and as if literally
forsaken by God and man, did not abate one jot or tittle of His
claims, but asserted them in all their magnitude, announcing His
return to the world in glory as its mighty Judge; and much more to the
same effect. Now, can any man, we ask, of common honesty defend such
a character as this from the charge of wilful imposition and daring
blasphemy, unless what He asserted was true? With reference to all the
good words or deeds which His professed friends may claim for Him,
yet so long as He falsely claims to be divine, we are constrained to
reject Him, as the Jews did, and to say with them, "For a good work we
stone thee not, but _because thou, being a man, makest thyself God!_"
It is not possible, therefore, to fall back on Christ's character, if
we reject Christ's divinity; for His character was manifest untruth,
and His claims an unprincipled deception!

4. Can we preserve _the character of the apostles?_ That, too, has
hitherto been considered worthy of our respect and regard. Never did
men leave such a record of moral teaching, and such an impress of a
holy life behind them, a life so pure, wise, loving, so suited,