crti^atatx^^. 
 
 
£. ^i.oS-. 
 
 t lint Mfuotogicut J. 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. ^^ 
 
 Presented by(5V,\"~^. V<A-V>o (:Avo> S> Soy^ S 
 
 Dtziision 
 Section • 
 
 V. Z 
 
THE KING 
 
 THE KINGDOM 
 
THE KING 
 
 AND 
 
 THE KIISTGDOM: 
 
 A STUDY OF THE FOUR OOSPFLS. 
 
 ' To the present age is ascribed productiveness and changeableness of opinions, and at the 
 same time indifference to opinions. But that cannot arise from this : no man in all corrupted 
 Europe can be indifferent to truth as such, for it, in the last resort, decides upon his life ; but 
 every one is at last become cold and shy towards the erring teachers and preachers of truth. 
 Take the hardest heart and brain which withers away in any capital city, and only give him the 
 certainty that the spirit which approaches him brings down from eternity the key which opens 
 and shuts the so weighty gates of his life-prison, of death, and of heaven, — and the dried-up 
 worldly man, .so long as he has a care or a wish, must seek for a truth which can reveal to him 
 that spirit.' — Richter's Levana. 
 
 ' Hasten the time when, unfettered by sectarian intolerance, and unawed by the authority of 
 men, the Bible shall make its rightful impression upon all ; the simple and obedient readers 
 thereof calling no man Master, but Christ only.' — Dr. Chalmers. 
 
 ' I speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say.' — 1 Cor. x. 15. 
 
 SECOND SERIES. 
 
 New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS. 
 
 London: WILLIAMS AND NORGATE. 
 
 1893. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 Many thoughtful and honest minds cannot but feel that 
 under the pressure of a S3'stematised theolog}-- the gospel of 
 Christ has lost much of its freshness and power. The yevy 
 reverence paid outwardly to Scripture has tended towards this 
 result. By every generation, throughout eighteen centuries, 
 the divine Truth has been expounded, weighed, measured, 
 attacked, defended. This ceaseless handling could scarcely 
 fail to soil and dim its native brightness. The atmosphere of 
 Christian thought, necessary and life-giving though it be, is 
 always more or less weighted with foreign particles, emanations 
 of the human mind, which have settled into a thick film of 
 dogmatic teaching, blurring in no small degree the truth which 
 lies beneath. There is surely no irreverence in the touch 
 which would brush away these accretions of centuries. 
 
 Probably thej'^ whose profession it is to preach the gospel 
 are of all men least likely, in the ordinary course of theological 
 study, to accept it in its simplicity. This involves no dis- 
 paragement of their learning or sincerity. It arises from the 
 fact that they are bound down to creeds and articles of religion, 
 and that their minds have been nourished and developed by 
 the ideas of spiritual fathers and doctors of the Church. So 
 it comes to pass that their interpretations of Scripture are 
 tinged unconsciously with traditional beliefs. . Their exposi- 
 tions of the New Testament have a definiteness which did not 
 exist in the teaching of Jesus, and almost every parable he 
 spoke has had impressed upon it some settled, orthodox 
 meaning. 
 
 There is indeed much in the present aspect of Christianity 
 to occasion sorrow and perplexity. On the one side are clash- 
 ing creeds and sects, seeming but to rend and disfigure the 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 Truth at which thej' ckitch ; on the other side is a band of 
 honest, I'earless sceptics, acute in the exercise of criticism, and 
 so self-confident that they scruple not to adopt unhesitatingly 
 the conclusions of their own minds, to the utter rejection of 
 whatever appears miraculous in the gospel narratives. Yet 
 surely the compilers, who wrote in apostolic times, were not 
 destitute of common sense and powers of judgment, and they 
 must have had infinitely better means of arriving at the facts 
 than can be claimed by any investigator after the lapse of 
 eighteen centuries. 
 
 Disregarding alike dogmatic interpretations and hostile 
 criticisms, it is no small comfort to turn to the narratives 
 themselves, seeking with patient study their true import. 
 IndejDendent and unprejudiced enquiry is the best preservative 
 against the two extremes of believing too easily or doubting 
 too much. To do full justice to the authors of the Gospels we 
 must take their work as it were fresh from their own hands. 
 If the gospel histories are worth anything, thej'^ will be self- 
 luminous, and by their own light alone should they be inter- 
 preted. If in the main points and circumstances they are held 
 to be not reliable, the}' can scarcely be deemed worthy of 
 serious stud3^ 
 
 In this spu'it the following investigation has been conducted. 
 Everything is sought to be taken as it stands, without abate- 
 ment and without addition, the simple object being to arrive at 
 the facts intended to be conveyed by the evangelists, and to 
 grasp the truths and doctrines taught by Jesus. 
 
 Not scholarshij), as may easily be seen, but only earnestness 
 of thought and sincerity of purpose, can be urged in favour of 
 this work. It is the outcome of many years of painstaking, 
 loving labour, the foundation having previously been laid by a 
 similar methodical and careful review of each of the four 
 gospels separately. Not until that apprenticeship to the sub- 
 ject was ended, did the author venture to undertake the more 
 important task of combining the four narratives, pondering 
 them as before verse by verse, phrase by phrase, and when 
 necessary word by word. No preconceived ideas, his own or 
 
PBEFACE. vii 
 
 of others, were voluntarily allowed to influence the investiga- 
 tion ; no theories or doctrines had to be upheld, no reasonable 
 conclusions needed to be shrunk from or evaded, no fear of 
 adverse judgment or criticism, no dread of blame, no hope of 
 praise or profit have been at work to interfere with the expres- 
 sion of free and honest thought. That fact may serve, it is 
 hoped, to extenuate any apparently undue boldness of utter- 
 ance : if the writer seems, as may often be the case, to under- 
 value the opinions of other men, it is not out of disrespect, but 
 simply because truth is to be prized above everything ; when- 
 ever the conclusions arrived at are strongly stated, it is because 
 they have been as strongly felt. A careful reader will note the 
 gradual growth of opinion from first to last. The true nature 
 of Christ's gospel, of the kingdom of heaven, and of real dis- 
 cipleship to Jesus, must needs dawn more and more, here a 
 little and there a little, on the mhid which sets itself to the 
 stud}" of his divine teaching. 
 
All Scriptural quotations are from the Revised Version, unless otherwise 
 stated. 
 
 Frequent references will be found to the following works : 
 The Holy Bible. Literally and idiomatically translated out of the 
 original languages. By Eobert Young, D.D. A. Fullarton & Co., 
 Edinburgh, Dublin and London. 
 
 The New Testament. With various readings from the most celebrated 
 manuscripts of the original Greek Text. By Constantino Tischendorf. 
 Tauchnitz Edition. Volume 1000. Sampson Low, Son & Marston, 
 London. 
 
 The New Testament. Translated from the critical text of Von Tischen- 
 dorf. By Samuel Davidson, D.D. Henry King & Son, London. 
 {All readings and renderings mentioned as being those of Von Tischen- 
 dorf are from this worl, the renderings, of course, being by Dr. 
 Davidson.) 
 
 The New Testament for English Rkadees. By Henry Alford, D.D. 
 Eivingtons, London. 
 
 The Holy Bible. Translated by Samuel Sharpe. Williams & Norgate, 
 London. 
 
 The Englishman's Greek New Testament, together Avith an inter- 
 linear Translation. S. Bagster & Sons, Limited, London. 
 
 The Englishman's Concordance of the Greek New Testament. 
 S. Bagster & Sons, Limited, London. 
 
THE 
 
 KING AND THE KINGDOM: 
 
 A STUDY OF THE FOUE GOSPELS. 
 PART II. 
 
 The enforced sojourn of Jesus in Galilee was now drawing to its 
 close. The fourth evangelist states plainly the reasons which led to 
 it. ' And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee ; for he would ; 
 not walk in Jud^a, because the Jews sought to kill him.' From the 
 other evangelists we have learnt what happened during this period, 
 Avhich was full of incidents ; and we know that the mind of Jesus 
 was then busy with respect to the establishment and practical 
 working of that ' assembly ' which he designed to found. Alas ! 
 that his ideal plan should never yet have been realised. John's 
 narrative passes over in silence this eventful portion of the career of 
 Jesus, but records the fact that his prolonged absence from Jud^a at 
 length occasioned comment, and that some officious advice was 
 oflPered to him by his relatives. ' Xow the feast of the Jews, the 
 feast of tabernacles, was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto 
 him. Depart hence, and go into Judeea, that thy disciples also may 
 behold the works which thou doest.' He had previously gained a 
 number of adherents in the south : why should he remain in the 
 north so long away from them ? There could be no better oppor- 
 tunity than the coming feast for a display of his miraculous powers. 
 It was time, and the proper course, that any claims he had to make, 
 should be made as publicly as possible. ' For no man doeth anything 
 in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly.' Why should he 
 work in a corner, when he could do so before the eyes of all men 't 
 ' If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world.' This 
 disclosure for a moment of the family life of Jesus is somewhat 
 staitling. He was surrounded by grown-up brothers and sisters, who 
 seem to have been quite unable to comprehend his claims and his 
 powers. It is evident that his mother preserved silence with respect 
 to his birth, leaving the divine purposes to accomplish themselves 
 without explanation or interference on her part. Her husband is 
 never mentioned ; possibly he had passed away from this life. AVe 
 must not attribute the advice now tendered, to sarcasm or unkind- 
 ness. A serious argument seems to have been intended, to which 
 Jesus replied with equal seriousness. The advisers do not seem to 
 have troubled themselves to ascertain whether the reported works of 
 
2 THE KlXa AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 Jesns were actually true. Supposing them to be so, he could not do 
 a wiser thing than submit them to the test of public criticism. His 
 brethren themselves were not only unsympathetic, but unbelieving. 
 
 "i"'>' ' For even his brethren did not believe on him.' There is nothing 
 wonderful in that. None believed in him, who did not care to listen 
 to him, who were not moved by his words, or who had not enough of 
 faith to accept facts vouched by others, or of interest to go and see 
 and judge for themselves. 
 
 To the counsel given him Jesus replied that the fitting time for his 
 departure to Judaea had not arrived. In that respect his brethren, 
 were freer than himself, for at any moment they could go without 
 attracting observation, or dread of consequences. "With him it was 
 far otherwise : he was not only widely known, but, outside the circle 
 of his own disciples, intensely hated on account of his uncom- 
 
 „ '■'. T promising denunciations of evil. 'Jesus therefore said unto them. 
 My time is not yet come ; but your time is always ready. The world 
 cannot hate you ; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its 
 works are evil.' Whenever he went, it would be, he knew, at peril of 
 his life. His brethren must go up without him, for he was not pre- 
 
 „ N pared to go during festival time. 'Go ye up unto the feast: I go 
 not up yet unto this feast.' The Revisers note that ' many ancient 
 copies omit fjef :^ the Sinaitic, which is the most ancient, does so. 
 The author of ' Gospel Difficulties ' remarks as follows : ' In his 
 Commentary on Tatinn's Harmony, Ephrem Syrus has the following : 
 " He said not, I do not ascend io this feast but m this feast (Non 
 dixit, non ascendo ad festum hoc sed in festo hoc)." Taiian there- 
 fore early in the second century apparently knew nothing of the 
 reading of the Received Text of the present day in this passage. It 
 is of course very easy to understand how likely it would be that a 
 copyist might think that " to this feast " was required by the sense 
 of the passage, and how therefore, if Tatian's reading was correct, the 
 spurious reading crept in.' Tischendorf adopts the Sinaitic reading : 
 
 " ' 'I go not up unto this feast.' Jesus repeated as his reason : 'because 
 my time is not yet fulfilled.' The words seem to ind cate a fixed time 
 during which Jesus was debarred from undertaking the journey^ 
 although the period of restraint was near its close. He had confined 
 his ministrations to Galilee owing to some threat against his life. 
 The fact that ' the Jews sought to kill him ' is alluded to as a matter 
 within public knowledge. He may have been under legal penalties : 
 possibly one of them was to the effect that if within a certain time 
 he revisited Jerusalem his life would be forfeit. The expression used 
 by Jesus seems to point to something of that kind. That is but a 
 supposition, and it may be considered more probable that Jesus 
 referred to the fulfilment of an appointed period in his destiuy, as in 
 another passage where the same xevh, sinnpleroo,'' to fill coujpletely,' is 
 
 111 e -ii Yi^Q^ . ' ^u(j it came to pass when the days were well-nigh come " 
 (Gr.,were being fulfilled) that he should be received up, he steadfastly 
 set his face to go to Jerusalem.' Jesus was able to forecast his own 
 
 - 31 destiny. Elijah and Moses had been with him on the mount ' and 
 spake of his decease (or, departure) which he was about to accom- 
 plish at Jeiusalem.' Must not the mind of Jesus have been con- 
 stantly locking towards that final crisis ? Though he might rarely 
 care to talk about it, yet what more uatural than that some reference 
 
TAKT a..] A tiTUDY OF TILE FOUlt GOSl'ELH. 3 
 
 to it should be; made when his plans and course of action were 
 alluded to ? 
 
 Having resisted his brethren's importunity, and aiTangcd for tlieir 
 prior departure, Jesus was free to follow the course dictated by his 
 own judgment. He gave no further hint of his intentions, and 
 cuntinued his residence in Galilee. 'And having said these things ^juin. !< 
 unto them, he abode still in Galilee.' The Revisers have retained 
 the italicised word ' still,' which is dispensed with by Tischendorf 
 and Young. The Revised Version continues as follows : ' Jkit when ., ii» 
 his brethren were gone up unto the feast, then went he also up :' the 
 Revisers retain the expression 'were gone up,' as it stands in the 
 Authorised Version ; but Alford, Young and Tis(;hendorf replace it 
 by ' went up.' This alters the sense. The Authorised and Revised 
 Versions represent the departure of Jesus as deferred until his 
 brethren had left, which accords with Luther's version ; the three 
 other translators represent the departure of Jesus as simultaneous 
 with that of his brethren, if even he did not go with them : ' But 
 when his brethren went up unto the feast, then lie also went up.' It 
 would seem that instead of preceding Jesus they chose to delay their 
 departure. That is on the supposition that the word ' yet ' is to be 
 retained. If, however, it is omitted, it seems necessary to fall back 
 upon Tatian's reading : ' I do not ascend in this feast.' The verb 
 here used, anabaino, will bear that sense also, as in the passages : 
 'No man hatli ascended into heaven,' 'I ascend unto my Father,' sjoim 13 
 and in various other passages. ao.ii.hn i: 
 
 Jesus in his journey sought to avoid publicity, for it is added : 
 ' not publicly, but as it were in secret.' The oldest MS. omits 'as it 7 Jnim 10 
 were,' and Tischendoi'f's version stands : ' not openly, but in secret.' 
 There was no attempt at concealment, only Jesus travelled incognito, 
 as a private traveller, not preaching and healing on his way. But 
 when he reached the borders of Judaea, his incognito was dropped 
 perforce ; crowds resorted to him, and he recommenced his work of 
 liealing and teaching. Matthew and Mark here take up the narra- 
 tive. ' And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he ^^ -^^t- 1- - 
 departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judsea beyond 
 Jordan ; and great multitudes followed him ; and he healed them 
 there.' Mark does not allude to the cures, but notifies the fact that 
 Jesus resumed a course of teaching. ' And he arose from thence, 1*' '^^"'''^ 1 
 and cometh into the borders of Judaea and beyond Jordan : and 
 multitudes come together unto him again ; and, as he w'hs wont, he 
 taught them again.' 
 
 Meantime the celebration of the feast of tabernacles had begun in 
 Jerusalem, and enquiries w^ere being made as to his whereabouts. 
 ' The Jews therefore sought him at the feast, and said. Where is he ?' '"J"''" i' 
 Young renders, ' Where is that one ? ' Alford, ' Where is tl\at man ? ' 
 and observes : ' The Jews are, as usual, the rulers, as distinguished 
 from the multitudes. Their question itself {that man) shews a hostile 
 spirit.' The public mind was excited, and there was much discussion 
 and difference of opinion about Jesus, some ui^holding his character, 
 and others denouncing him as a demagogue. ' And there was much „ 1? 
 murmuring among the multitudes concerning him : some said, He 
 is a good man ; others said, Not so, but he leadeth the muhitniJe 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE KIMr AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 astray.' Xo one ventured to espouse his cause in public, for the 
 vcng-eance of his enemies Avas to be dreaded. ' Howbeit no man 
 spake openly (publicly — Young) of him for fear of the Jews.' 
 Alford says : ' Here ag-aiu the Jews are distinguished from the 
 imdiiUides.' This distinction drawn by Alford will not l)ear investi- 
 gation. ' The Jews ' are constantly referred to throughout John's 
 gospel, but not in the sense of ' the rulers, as distinguislied from the 
 inultitudes.' The allusions to 'the Jews' are very frequent: in 
 chapter 2, three times, ch. 3, twice, ch. 4, twice, ch. fj, four times, 
 ch. G, twice, ch. 7, five times, ch. 8, four times, ch. 9, twice, ch. ](t, 
 four times, ch. 11, eight times, ch. 12, twice, ch, i:-!, once, ch. IH, 
 six times, ch. 1!), ten times, and ch. 20, once. Under ordinary 
 circumstances, an author describing events happening in his own 
 country does not speak of his countrymen as ' the English,' ' the 
 French,' and so on. But throughout Judaea there was a mixed popu- 
 lation, Eomans, Jews, Gahleans, Samaritans. The fact l)rought out 
 clearly in John's gospel is that the persecutions, the accusations, tlie 
 injustice directed against Jesus, which culminated in his death, all 
 proceeded from ' the Jews.' Writing long after the events had 
 happened, at a distance from Palestine, probably for foreigners, there 
 Avas no better or more natural way of showing by whom these things 
 were done, than that adopted in the fourth gospel. The hostility to 
 Jesus Avas not on the part of Eomans, Samaritans or Galileans, but 
 of the Jews. 
 
 For two or three days the ai^pearance of Jesus at the feast of taber- 
 nacles was delayed, but in the midst of the week he entered the temple 
 and taught in public. ' But when it was now the midst of the feast 
 Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.' Tlie ability displayed 
 in his teaching excited astonishment, especially as he had received 
 no training after the orthodox fashion. ' The Jews therefore mar- 
 velled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned ? ' 
 Alford says : ' It appears to haA'e been the first time that he tai/f//if 
 publicly at Jerusalem.' The question as to the source of his kuow- 
 ledge appears to have been in derogation of his authority, for Jesus 
 replied to the criticism by assuring them that he stood forth as a 
 teacher not in his own name but as directly commissioned from 
 another. ' Jesus therefore answered them, and said, My teaching is 
 not mine, but his that sent me.' Those among his listeners Avho were 
 anxious to learn and do the will of God, Avould be in no doubt as to 
 the character of his teaching. ' If any man Avilleth to do his will, he 
 shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or irJtetlicr I speak 
 from myself.' A teacher having his own ends to serve would be 
 careful about his own reputation. ' He that speaketh from himself 
 seeketh his own glory.' But the teacher Avho could throw aside self- 
 interest, caring only to deliver the message entrusted to him, Avithout 
 regard to consequences, gave thereby unmistakable evidence of truth 
 and rectitude. ' But he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, 
 the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.' There Avas need 
 for some bold expounder of the divine Avill ; for although they had 
 the law of Moses, there AA'as a universal disregard of that law. ' Did 
 not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the laAv ? ' 
 What Avas their justification for aiming at his life ? * Why seek ye 
 to kill me ? ' That question seems to have astounded the listening 
 
I'AUT II.] J HTUDY OF TIJK b'OUll Ho^l'ELS. 5 
 
 crowd. They knew ii()tliint>- of any such uttcnipt, not beuiG^ in the 
 counsel of those who had plotted the death of Jesus. His asserti(jn 
 was attrihuted (what enemy amonf:^ the crowd first liroaclied the 
 idea?) to niorliid s(df-deception. 'The multitude answered. Thou 7. 
 iiast a devil ((ir. demon): who seekcth to kill thee ? ' Jesus referred 
 to the miracle of healing performed by him when last at Jerus deni, 
 which had caused the hostility and persecution, as explained pre- 
 viously l)y this (!vangelist : ' Therefore did the Jews persecute .fesus, r, . 
 and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the; 
 sabbath day.' Taking up this charge of sabbath-breaking which 
 had been made against him, Jesus now argued the question. There 
 is some uncertainty here as to the correct rendering. The Autho- 
 rised Version is as follows : ' .lesus answered and said unto them, I 
 haw done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto 
 you circumcision ; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers).' 
 Alford explains : ' The argument seems to be, Moses on this acrouni 
 gave you circumcision, not because it was of Moses, but of the; 
 fathers ; //■., it is no part of the law of Moses properly so called.' 
 That would apply eepially to the Revised Version : ' Jesus answered 7 , 
 and said unto them, I did one work, and ye all marvel. For this 
 cause hath Moses given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses but 
 of the fathers).' But the Revisers have given as an alternative 
 reading : ' I did one work and ye all marvel because of this. Moses 
 hath given you circumcision.' This alters the sense. Tischendorf 
 inserts neither ' for this cause,' nor ' because of this,' following the 
 oldest MS., which omits the word rendered in the Authorised Version 
 • therefore : ' ' I did one work, and ye all marvel. IMoses hath given 
 you circumcision.' The general astonishment at the fact of Jesus 
 having chosen or ventured to heal on the sabbath-day, induced him 
 to argue out the question. They themselves did not scruple to 
 circumcise children on the sabbath. Why? Because they found 
 themselves in the dilemma of either breaking the lav,' which 'ordains 
 circumcision on the eighth day ' (Alford), or of breaking the sabbath 
 to the extent of then performing the ceremony whenever the occasion 
 demanded. Why then should they blame Jesus for having exer- 
 cised a similar freedom of judgment ? His act was, to say the least, 
 as necessary and beneficent as theirs. They did it for the child's 
 sake ; he did it for the man's sake ; theirs was a mere ceremonial 
 obser\ance ; his was an actual, visible, tangiblo, perfect gift of 
 healing : ' and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man. If a man 
 receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may 
 not be broken ; are ye wroth with me, because I made a nian every 
 whit whole on the sabbath ? ' If they presumed to claim the right 
 of judging him with respect to that matter, let them not regard the 
 action from a superficial point of view, but enter into the merits of 
 the question, and decide upon it impartially and righteously. ' Judge 
 not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement.' 
 
 In proportion to the boldness of Jesus was the timidity of his 
 adversaries. They had launched forth their sentence of condemna- 
 tion and death, but now they seemed to shrink from doing anything 
 against him. Their evident vacillation of purpose was the subject 
 of comment and wonder among some of the inhabitants of Jerusidem. 
 Here was Jesus speaking in public, and his enemies keeping an un- 
 
e THE KIJS'G ANB IHE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 T.john L'5, 26 accoinitable silence. 'Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is 
 not this he whom they seek to kill ? And lo, he speaketh openly, 
 and they say nothing unto him.' Was this only as the ominous hush 
 before the outburst of a storm ? Or might it not be possible that 
 the opposing rulers had after all become convinced that Jesus was in 
 
 „ -20 truth the expected Messiah of their nation? 'Can it be that the 
 rulers indeed know that this is the Christ ? ' The popular opinion, 
 having no authoritative guidance from the upper classes, swayed 
 hither and thither, as one view or another of the subject presented 
 itself. Some ai'gued that because they knew the origin of Jesus, he 
 could not be the Messiah, whom tiiey expected to come in some 
 
 „ •2'J sudden and mysterious way. ' Howbeit we know this man whence 
 he is : but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is.' 
 Alford states that Justin Martyr represents Trypho the Jew saying, 
 ' Even if Christ has been born and exists somewhere, he is unknown, 
 and is not even conscious of his own identity, until Elias shall come 
 and anoint him and make him manifest to all.' The discussion of 
 this idea being notorious, Jesus ahuded to it in the course of Ins 
 teachings in the temple. He told the multitude that they were 
 taking up only a halt-truth : it was true that they knew him and 
 his home ; but it was equally true that he had been sent by One 
 having a real existence, of whom, however, they were ignorant. 
 
 „ L's 'Jesus therefore cried in the temple, teaching and saying. Ye both 
 know me, and knoAv whence I am ; and I am not come of myself, 
 but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.' On the word 
 ' true ' Alford observes : ' The nearest English Avord would be 7-eal : 
 but this w^ould not convey the meaning perspicuously to the ordinary 
 mind ; perhaps the A. V. true is better, provided it be explained to 
 mean realli/ existent, not truthful.'' Probably Luther's version con- 
 veys the sense of the original : ' Es ist ein Wahrliaftiger, der mich 
 gesandt hat.' 
 
 Their uncertainty and unbelief could not disturb the knowledge 
 
 „ 23 and assurance of Jesus. ' I know him ; because I am from him, and 
 he sent me.' These words must not be pressed unduly. The evan- 
 I Joiiii gelist wrote of the Baptist : ' There came a man, sent from God, 
 Avhose name was John.' When Jesus used the same expression about 
 himself, it should carry the same meaning. Yet the saying, ' I know 
 him, because I am from him,' may bear on the lips of Jesus a signi- 
 fii-auce higher and deeper than the same words uttered by another. 
 Both the ambassador of a king and the son of a king might be en- 
 titled to say, ' I know him, because I am from him,' but the asser- 
 tion would mean much more in the case of the son than of the 
 ambassador. 
 
 The claim thus made by Jesus to a direct commission from God, 
 was deemed sufficient to justify his apprehension, and his enemies 
 TJohnno took steps with that object. ' They sought therefore to take him.' 
 Yet no result followed : his capture was not effected, and the evan- 
 gelist does not scruple to attribute this immunity to the fact that bis 
 
 „ 30 destiny was foreordained and overruled. ' And no man laid his hand 
 on him, because his hour was not yet come.' So among the people 
 
 :. :5i Jesus gained many adherents. ' But of the multitude many believed 
 on him.' That they became professed disciples, we are not told : the 
 question with them was argumentative, a matter of opinion and 
 
PART II.] A ^7'^7>F OF THE FOUR GOSFELH. 7 
 
 jud,^raent rather than of life aiicl action. 'And they said, When the r 
 Clirisfc shall come, will he do more sif>'iis than those which this man 
 hath done ?' These expressions of popnlar approval were noted hy 
 the Pharisees, and they in conjunction with the chief priests decided 
 to seize Jesus, and sent out ollicers for that purpose. ' Tlie Pharisees 
 hoard the multitude murmuring- these things concerning him ; and 
 the chief priests and the J*harisees sent oHieers to take him.' Having 
 knowledge of this, .Tesus warned the ])cople that his time with them 
 would be short, lie would not si)eak of his death as death, bin. 
 would have them regard it with him as simply his going back to Him 
 from whom he came, whom .Tesus knew, but whom they knew not, 
 ' Jesus therefore said, Yec a little while am 1 Avith you, and I gonnto 
 him that sent me.' A time would come when they would be anxious 
 for his presence, and would search for him without success. 'Ye 
 shall seek me, and shall not find me.' Between him and them there 
 must be an impassable gulf of separation : ' and where I am, ye cannot 
 come.' In connection witli the earthly life of Jesus, we know of 
 nothing to explain these words. His mind was dwelling on his 
 return to his heavenly Father, and his saying must refer to coming- 
 experiences in the life beyond the present. To the Jews it was alto- 
 gether enigmatical : he was about to go somewhere away from them. 
 AVhither ? ' The Jews therefore said among themselves, Whither 
 will this man go that we shall not find him ? ' AVas he about to 
 transfer himself and his teaching to a heathen land and people ? 
 ' Will he go unto the Dispersion among (Gr. of) the Greeks, and 
 teach the Greeks ? ' Did he intend to quit Judsea, and in some 
 foreign country indoctrinate all who would listen to him, both Jews 
 and Gentiles ? Alford says : ' Their interest in this hypothesis, 
 that He was going to the dispersed among the Greeks, is, to convey 
 contempt and mockery.' Of that we can scarcely feel sure, inasmuch 
 as the suggestion was made 'among themselves,' not addressed to 
 Jesus, and the idea was at once dismissed as improbable, so that his 
 saying still remained inexplicable. ' What is this word that he 
 said. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me : and where I am, ye 
 cannot come ? ' 
 
 On the third or fourth day after his arrival at Jerusalem, .Jesus 
 adopted a very decided course of action, challenging attention by 
 the utterance in public of most emphatic declarations respecting him- 
 self and his influence upon others. It was the last and great day of 
 the feast, and .Tesus stood forth before the assembled crowds, pro- 
 claiming in their ears the nature of the gift he was able to promise to 
 his followers. ' Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus 
 stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst; let him come unto me 
 and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out 
 of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' Here is the same figure 
 of speech as was adopted in the discourse with the woman of Hamaria, 
 the same tone of thought, method of persuasion, and promised benefit. 
 Standing forward as the Messiah of liis people, Jesus utters no call to 
 arms, no word about political rights or national i'reedom. His pro- 
 mises are not general, but only to individual and willing hearers, to 
 such as possessed a burning thirst, were conscious of an inward want, 
 and were disposed to come to him for teaching and relief : ' If any 
 man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.' In such an invitation 
 
8 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [part ii. 
 
 there was nothiug revolutionary, no ' leading astray ' of the mnltitiide : 
 the promise is a grand one, but symbolical, and would sound to many 
 far-fetched and visionary. This is no demagogue inciting the multi- 
 tude, but an earnest high-minded Teacher seeking to impart spiritual 
 blessings. And his promise is conditional : ' He that believeth on 
 me.' He claims unreserved confidence, boundless trust ; and to such 
 disciples he guarantees an inward, self-evolved satisfaction of their 
 highest aspirations ; nothing of worldly glory, no gratification of 
 earthly ambition, no shout of victory, no song of triumph : simply 
 the personal realisation of a figurative prophecy : ' as the scripture 
 hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' Alford 
 says : ' We look in vain for such a text in the Old Testament.' But 
 in several places the flowing out of water is alluded to, as : ' And it 
 shall come to pass in that day, that living water shall go out from 
 Jerusalem.' Jesus seems to have chosen a similar expression as best 
 suited to cou-^'ey his idea of a pure and perpetual supply of that for 
 which human nature thirsts. 
 
 The evangelist here inserts the following explanation : ' But this 
 spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to 
 receive : for the Spirit Avas not yet (jivcn ,- because Jesus was not yet 
 glorified.' The Revisers, following the oldest MS., have omitted 
 ' Holy ' before ' Spirit,' but they have retained the italicised word 
 ' given ' after ' yet.' The word ' given ' appears in the text of the 
 Vatican MS. Alford observes : ' The additions " given," " upon 
 them," as some authorities read, and the like, are all put in ))y way 
 of explanation, to avoid a misunderstanding which no intelligent 
 readei- could fall into. Chrysostom writes : " The evangelist says. 
 For the Holy Ghost was not yet, i.e., was not yet given, because 
 Jesus was not yet glorified : meaning by the Glory, the Cross." ^ 
 Tischendorf has : ' But this spake he of the Spirit, which they 
 that believe on him were about to receive ; for the Spirit was not yet, 
 ])ecause Jesus was not yet glorified.' Young is to the same efi"ect : 
 ' i>ut this he said concerning the Spirit, which those believing in 
 him were about to receive ; for as yet the Holy Spirit was not, 
 because Jesus was not yet glorified.' Jesus alluded to a spiritual in- 
 fluence about to be imparted to his disciples ; it had not yet been 
 bestowed, nor could it be until a further point had l)eeu reached in 
 the career of Jesus. We must wait for more light on this sul)jcct, 
 observing only that Chrysostom's idea that the ' glory ' means the. 
 ' cross' cannot be accepted without evidence. Alford remarks : 'If 
 is obvious that the word ' was ' cannot refer to the esseniial exisfeacp 
 of the Holy Spirit. . . The word implied is not exactly "given," but 
 rather " working," or some similar word : was not — had not come in : 
 the dispensation of the Spirit was not yet.' It is easier to understand 
 the words of Jesus than the explanation of the evangelist, although 
 liis interpretation of them must be accepted as authoritative. 
 
 The effect of this declaration of Jesus varied according to the dis- 
 ])Ositions of the hearers. Some of them expressed the conviction 
 that he was the long-expected prophet. '■ ^Some of the multitude 
 therefore, when they heard these words, said, This is of a truth the 
 prophet.' The Eevisers, following the oldest ]\rS., have altered 
 ' many' to ' some ' and ' this saying ' to ' these words.' Alford ex- 
 2)lains : ' From the prophecy of Moses, Deut. xviii. 15, 18, the Jews 
 
I'ART II. J A STUDY OF THE FOl'll GOSI'Fl.S. U 
 
 expected some particular prophet to arise, distinct from the Messiah, 
 whose cominj; was, like that oi" EHas, intimately connected with that 
 of the Messiah Himself.' Others discerned in .lesus sufficient to 
 waiTant the belief that he was actually the Messiah. ' Others said, 7.)"ini *i 
 This is the Christ.' But against the possibility of that, some raised 
 the argument tiiat the Messiah could not be expected to come from a 
 place so far outside of ffudtea as CJalilee. 'But some said, What, doth ,, n 
 the Christ come out of Galilee ? ' On the contrary, the Scriptures had 
 h (retold that he would be a descendant of David, and from ]kth- 
 lehem, David's native village. 'Hath not the scripture said that ■• ••- 
 the Christ cometh of the seed of Da\id, and from Bethlehem, 
 the village where David was ? ' This question shows a total 
 ignorance of the opening history of Jesus as recorded l)y Luke. 
 E\en if the events which happened thirty years ago were not entirely 
 forgotten, there was nothing within public knowledge to identify 
 Jesus in connection with them. In face of Herod's slaughter, the 
 object had been concealment. That had been secured by the flight 
 to Egypt. Even after Herod's death Joseph had feared to revisit 
 Judffia, and, as a matter of course, in Galilee no hint would be given 
 likely to lead to the identification of Jesus. It is quite possible, nay, 
 it is most reasonable to suppose that his Mother's mind must have 
 Iteen haunted by a constant dread lest their secret should be exposed, 
 and the life of Jesus thereby jeopardised. The enemies who were now 
 seeking his life would have been only too glad to know that he was 
 the child whom Herod had sought to slay because he had been wor- 
 shipped by the ]\[agi as the King of the Jews. How wonderful had 
 been the workings of divine Providence ! Notwithstanding the entire 
 silence which had been maintained respecting the high origin and 
 destiny of Jesus, the (juestiou of his Messiahsbip was now coming to 
 the front. It was earnestly debated by the multitude. Doubtless 
 the leisure of the festival time afforded ^a fit opportunity for consider- 
 ing such a matter. Two parties were formed, one in favour of Jesus 
 ami one against him. ' So there arose a division in the multitude •■ '•• 
 because of him.' Some of his opponents w'ere desirous to seize him, 
 although they did not actually venture to do so. ' And some of them .. ^i 
 would have taken him ; Imt no man laid hands ou him.' Although 
 Jesus stood in great danger, the very officers who had been sent to 
 apprehend him held their hands ; they returned without the expected 
 prisoner, to the astonishment of tho Pharisees, and in reply to the 
 enquiry why they had failed to fulfil their mission, the officers could 
 only say that the discourses of Jesus were not like those of any other 
 man : he was no ordinary liaranguer of a mob, nor could they venture 
 upon the profanation of attempting to silence a teacher so unparal- 
 leled. • The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees ; 
 and they said unto them, Why did ye not bring him ? The officers 
 answered, Never man so spake.' So the Pharisees were forced to 
 argue against the scruples of their own emissaries. This they did in 
 a tone of angry, bitter scorn. ' The Pharisees therefore answered .. -tT 
 them, Are ye also led astray ? ' Could they point to a single man of 
 reputation or learning who had become a disciple of Jesus ? ' Hath " -'^ 
 any of the rulers believed on him, or of the Pharisees ? ' Tischendorf 
 renders,* ' any one of the rulers,' and the Revisers have replaced ' have ' 
 
 * The 'renderings' alluded to as of Tischendorf arc those of Dr. Davidson. 
 
 i:>, ■)(". 
 
10 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ir. 
 
 by ' hath.' The verdict of the populace in favour of Jesus was to Le 
 attributed to a judicial blindness due to their ignorance of the law. 
 7Joiin49 'But this multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed.' 
 Alford notes : ' mvJiiiude is here a word of contempt — rahhle.'' One 
 voice amono' the Pharisets, however, was raised on behalf of Jesus. 
 In the Authorised Version we read: ' Nicoderaus saith unto them, 
 (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them.') Tischendorf 
 has simply : 'Nicodemus said unto them, being one of them,' which 
 is the reading of the oldest MS. Alford notes : ' The reading here 
 varies very much : some ancient copies omitting " by night," others 
 inserting it in ditierent positions.' The Eevisers omit ' by night,' 
 but for some unexplained reason insert instead thereof the word 
 
 „ 00 'before.' 'Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before, 
 being one of them).' If the multitude did not know the law, let the 
 Pharisees beware of disregarding it. Did the law justify the passing 
 of judgment upon Jesus, without first hearing his defence and taking 
 
 „ 51 evidence with respect to his actions ? 'Doth our law judge a man, 
 except it first hear from himsi'lfand know what he doeth ? ' Young 
 and Tischendorf render literally 'the man,' not 'a man.' This 
 pertinent and searching question was answered only by a con- 
 
 „ '>i temptuous sarcasm. ' They answered and said unto him, Art thou 
 also of Galilee ? ' Did he expect the light and learning of Jerusalem 
 to be overborne by the uncultured ideas of a Galilean ? Let Nico- 
 demus take up the investigation of that question, and lie would soon 
 become convinced that no Teacher worthy of the name could spring 
 
 „ hi out of such a locality and such surroundings, ' Search and see that 
 out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.' 
 
 This feast of tabernacles was not the first occasion on which the 
 public voice in Jerusalem had made irself heard in favour of Jesus. 
 At a previous passover-festival many disciples had been gained, and 
 an enthusiasm manifested of which Jesus declined to avail himself. 
 The incident is recorded only by the fourth evangelist, and, although 
 it occurs in the earlier portion of the narrative, he gives no indica- 
 tion to what period of the career of Jesus it refers, simply placing 
 together the events of two passovers and giving precedence to the 
 last on account of ' the cleansing of the temple.' The other evan- 
 gelists place that event towards the end of the ministry of Jesus, and 
 as John does not specify the time there is no justification for assum- 
 ing that the cleansing of the temple occurred twice, especially in face 
 of the obvious similarity in the details. Neither does the evangelist 
 specify any time in what follows, but simply states that it was at 
 ■z Joim 2:3 Jerusalem during a passover. ' Now when he was at Jerusalem at 
 the passover, during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding 
 his signs which he did.' The Authorised Version continues : 'but 
 Jesus did not commit himself unto them.' This conveys the idea 
 of a willingness on their part to espouse and promote the cause of 
 Jesus in some fashion of their own choosing, but from which he held 
 aloof. The Revised Version (agreeing with Tischendorf, Young and 
 
 „ 24 Alford) reads : ' But Jesus did not trust himself unto them.' Alford 
 explains that ' in the original, the same verb is used for believed in 
 verse 23, and for trust in this verse.' So the meaning must be that 
 he did not feel that confidence in them which they showed in him. 
 The evangelist explains that he possessed a perfect intuition in judg- 
 ing the characters of men generally, which made him independent of 
 
1-AUT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 11 
 
 l)rivute information : he was able to gauge the disposition of every 
 man he met : ' for that he knew all men, and because he needed lujt 'j.i..iin-ii 
 that any one should bear witness concerning man (or, a man) ; I'oi- 
 he himself knew what was in man (or, the man).' It is most reason- 
 able to suppose that the opinion thus expressed was based upon th(! 
 evangelist's own observation. Jesus frequently exhibited this power : 
 as when he saw Nathanael coming to him and pronounced him an 
 Israelite indeed without guile ; when he surnamed Peter, ' Kock ' ; 
 when he termed liim ' Satan ' ; when he surnamed two disciples ' Sons 
 of thunder'; when he said to Judas, 'That thou doest, do quickly'; 
 when he perceived the craftiness and hardness of lieart of scribes and 
 Pharisees. But Alford argues : ' Nothing less than divine Icnoivledge 
 is here set forth ; the words are even stronger than if the reference 
 had been to the persons here mentioned : as the text now stands, it 
 asserts an entire knowledge of all that is in all men.' If such an 
 assertion be intended, it is simply made by the evangelist, and can 
 be worth no more than the opinion of any other man. How 
 could the writer of this gospel know that Jesus knew all that was 
 in the heart of every man living ? The supposition is monstrous, 
 incredible. 
 
 The visit of iSTicodemus already alluded to Avould seem to have 
 been made at that passover-time when the minds of the multitude 
 were inclined towards Jesus, for the account of the visit immediaLely 
 follows. Nicodemus was not only a Pharisee, but a leading man 
 among the Jews. ' Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named s.^iimi 
 Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.' Under cover of the night he paid 
 a visit to Jesus. ' The same came unto him by night.' Following .. •_• 
 the three oldest MSS. the Revisers have replaced the word ' Jesus ' 
 by ' him.' This alteration makes more apj^arent the connection with 
 the preceding account of the passover. We can only conjecture the 
 reason for choosing the night time. Probably one motive was 
 secrecy ; probably the whole of the day was occupied by Jesus in 
 teaching or otherwise, and the private conference sought by Nico- 
 demus was deemed important enough to require a fixed appointment 
 when there would be ample leisure and no fear of interruption. 
 Nicodemus opened the conversation with courtesy and candour. He 
 addressed Jesus by the recognised title ' Teacher,' and he scrupled 
 not to admit that the conviction of Jesus' divine mission had l>een 
 forced upon the minds of himself and others of his class : 'and said ,. -i 
 to him, liabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God : for 
 no man can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.' 
 Young's rendering in the past tense, ' Rabbi, we have known ' seems 
 to bring out the fact that the matter had been considered and decided. 
 It may be inferred from the use of the word ' we ' that Nicodemus 
 came as a delegate : had this been merely his private opinion, he 
 would not so have expressed it as to compromise others of his class. 
 The Pharisees were constrained to admit the reality of the miracles 
 wrought by Jesus, and that they could only be performed by the 
 favour and power of God ; therefore his teaching must be divinely 
 authorised. Either the conversation turned naturally to questions 
 relating to the kingdom of God, and the record is fragmentary, or 
 Jesus at once dehberately directed his discourse to that subject. He 
 f^tartled Nicodemus by making a very solemn and emphatic assertion. 
 
12 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 ' Jesus answered and said unto him, Yerily, verily, I say unto thee, 
 Except a man be born anew (^or. from above), he cannot see the king- 
 dom of God.' The Revisers have replaced the word ' again ' by 
 'anew,' with the alternative rendering 'from above,' which is adopted 
 by Tischendorf. Young renders : ' If any one be not born from 
 above, he is unable to see the reign of God.' There must be a fresh, 
 super-mundane, heavenly birth, before any man can see the reign of 
 God, discern the mode and manner of the divine rulership. Nico- 
 demus was staggered by this declaration. It was too positive and 
 earnest to be regarded as a mere figure of speech. It was evident to 
 his mind that Jesus was describing some natural fact of human ex- 
 istence, which was as much a reality as being born into the world. 
 But how could anything of that kind happen to a man a second 
 time ? ' Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when 
 he is old ? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and 
 be born ? ' Jesus explained that the birth he alluded to was by the 
 combination of the element of water with spirit. 'Jesus answered. 
 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and 
 the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' The Sinaitic 
 MS. reads, ' he cannot see the kingdom of heaven.' Tischendorf has, 
 ' he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,' and he substitutes 
 ' one ' for the words ' a man.' The English translators by beginning 
 the word 'spirit' with a capital letter, and introducing before it the 
 definite article, incorporate into the text an idea of their own. The 
 true meaning seems to be that the birth alluded to is by a compound- 
 ing of water with spirit. This is confirmed by the words which 
 follow, in which Jesus contrasts the nature of the fi st birth and of 
 the second birth, and distinguishes between the two. ' That which is 
 born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the spirit is 
 spirit.' How can translators be justified in placing a capital to the 
 first word ' Spirit,' and not to the second word ' spirit,' which follows 
 immediately ? The Authorised Version led the way, and the Re- 
 visers, Tischendorf, Young and Alford have followed suit. Luther's 
 version does not give the idea of a person to the word spirit. ' Was 
 vom Fleisch geboren wird, das ist Fleisch ; und was vom Gcist 
 geboren wird, das ist Geist.' The translation of Samuel Sharpe brings 
 the true meaning of the original clearly to our view : ' Unless a man 
 l)e born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 
 What is born of the flesh, is flesh, and what is born of the spirit is 
 spirit.' The earthly life is a fleshly life ; the heavenly life is a 
 spiritual life ; the lower nature is flesh and blood, the higher natur(^ 
 is water and spirit. The apostle Paul was cognizant of this truth. 
 He wrote : ' If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual hodij. 
 ' So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The 
 last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Howbeit that is not first which 
 is spiritual, but that which is natural ; then that which is spiritual. 
 The first man is of (out of — Young) the earth, earthy : the second 
 man is of (out of— Young) heaven. As is the earthy, such are they 
 also that are earthy : and as is the heavenly, such are they also that 
 are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we 
 shall (or, let us) also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I 
 say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of 
 God.' Is not that precisely to the same effect as what Jesus said to 
 
I'AKT II. J A STUDY OF THE t'ol'i: GOSJ'ELS. 13 
 
 Nicodemus ? The fact must not l)e rejected or even -wondered at 
 because it is inscrutable. ' .Marvel not tliat I said unto thee, Ye must .-; 
 be born anew (or, from above).' None can trace the course of wind 
 or spirit, thoui^h our ears catch tlie sound and we are certain oi' tlie 
 unseen reality. Tliose wlio have attained tlie new, spiritual birth, 
 are equally invisible, intangible, untraceable. ' The wind bloweth 
 (or, the Spirit breatheth) where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice 
 thereof, but kuowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so 
 is every one that is born of the Spirit." Alford explains that ' in both 
 languages, that in which Jesus spoke, as well as that in which this 
 speech is reported,' the word is the same, • I'neama being both ivind 
 and spirit.'' Unfortunately our translators have here again taken 
 upon themselves to supply a capital letter to Spirit, thereby introduc- 
 ing a personality which could not otherwise be inferred. Young 
 renders : ' Thou mayest not wonder, that I said to thee, It behoveth 
 you to be born from above ; the Spirit where he willeth doth breathe, 
 and his voice thou hearest, but thou hast not known whence he 
 cometh, and whither he goeth : thus is every one who is born of the 
 Spirit.' This interpretation is adopted by some others, neither ' it ' 
 nor ' he ' being expressed in the original. Alford says : ' Bengel, after 
 Origen and Augustine, takes the word pnewna with which this word 
 opens, and which we have rendered ivi/id, of the Holy Spirit exclu- 
 sively : but this can hardly be. The form of the sentence, as well as 
 its import, is against it. The ^vords (bloirefh, hi'urcst, Icno/rest) are 
 all said of well-known facts.' Tischendorf renders the verse : ' The 
 wind blows where it will, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but 
 knowest not whence it comes and whither it goes : so is every one 
 that has been born of the Spirit.' The ' Englishman's Greek Xew 
 Testament ' gives as the literal translation, ' everyone that has been 
 born of the Spirit.' This last clause of the verse makes it evident 
 that the comparison is not to be taken, as seems generally to have 
 been assumed, as illustrating the mysterious manner in wliich the 
 new spiritual birth is accomplished, but the incomprehensible, invi- 
 sible existence of those who have been born anew. 
 
 Nicodemus was lost in wonder, if not in doubt. Such a mystery 
 was too deep for him to comprehend, or feel at all certain about. 
 ' Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be ? ' 
 Whatever his profession, this reply was conceived in the spnit of a 
 Sadducee. .Jesus reminded him that such uncertainty and want of 
 assurance with respect to the future life were ill suited to his high 
 ]3osition as a Jewish teacher. ' Jesus answered and said unto him. 
 Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things .'' ' 
 It was in vain for Jesus, ' a teacher sent from God,' and others like 
 him, to speak out what they knew and testify to what had come 
 under their own observation, if their declarations were to be met with 
 incredulity. ' Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do 
 know, and bear witness of that we have seen ; and ye receive not our 
 witness.' This seems to refer to a prevalent scepticism of all 
 scriptural and divine teaching. On the words, ' We speak that we 
 do know . . ,' Alford has the note ; ' Why these plurals ? Various 
 interpretations have been given : " Either He speaks concerning 
 Himself and the Father, or concerning Himself alone " (Euthymius) ; 
 " He speaks of Himself and the Spirit (Bengel) : of Himself and the 
 
14 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 Prophets (Beza, Tholuck) ; of Himself aud John the Baptist (Knapp) ; 
 of Teachers like himself (IMeyer) ; of all the born of the Spirit (Laiige, 
 AVcsley) ; of the three Persons in the Holy Trinity (Stier) ; or, the 
 plural is only rhetorical (Liicke, De Wette)." ' Alford adds : ' I had 
 rather take it as a proverbial saying ; q.d., " I am one of those who," 
 &c. Our Lord thereby brings out the unreasonableness of that 
 unbelief which would not receive His witness, but made it an excep- 
 tion to the general proverbial rule,' Most probably Nicodemus 
 would understand the word ' we ' to include Jesus and John the 
 Baptist. The Pharisees had refused to accept the testimony of the 
 latter, and Nicodemus now hesitates to believe a positive statement 
 made by the former. H" the teaching of Jesus on earthly matters 
 was disregarded, as it had been, what expectation could there be of 
 faith in his assurances relating to heavenly matters ? 'HI told you 
 earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you 
 heavenly things ? ' Xo other teacher than himself was familiar with 
 the heavenly world. ' And no man hath ascended into heaven, but 
 he that descended out of heaven, ere/i the Son of man, which is in 
 heaven.' Young's literal rendering agrees exactly with that in the 
 'Englishman's Greek New Testament:' ' And no one hath gone up 
 into the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down — the 
 Son of man who is in the heaven.' Hei'e are four statements : (1) 
 Only one person had gone up into the heavenly world. (2) That 
 one had come down out of the lieavenly world. (3) He was a man, 
 the representative or Messiah of men. ' the Son of man.' (4) And 
 he was in heaven. Let us consider these statements seriatim. (1) 
 ' No man hath ascended into heaven.' Luther uses the present tense : 
 ' Und niemand fahrt gen Himmel, And no one goes to heaven ; ' but 
 other translators agree in using the past tense, ' hath ascended.' So 
 clear was this to Alford tliat he argues : ' He is here speaking by 
 anticipation. He regards therefore throughout the passage, the great 
 facts of redemption as accomplished, and makes announcements which 
 could not be literally acted upon till they had been so accora])lished.' 
 Any mind unwarped by theological dogmas must at once dismiss such 
 attempted explanations. The assertion of Jesus is a very simple one, 
 requiring no rectification or amplification : no man had gone up into 
 heaven except (2) one who had come down out of heaven. We know 
 that one to be Jesus. Luke has told his miraculous birth, John has 
 declared his lofty, ancient, divine origin : he was an inhabitant of 
 heaven born into our world, to sojourn here and pass his human life 
 among us, for the teaching and salvation of mankind, being (3) 'the 
 Son of man,' in all things made hke nuto his brethren. The last 
 statement, (4) ' which is in heaven,' requires consideration. The 
 Revisers note that ' many ancient authorities omit' the words. The 
 tw^o oldest MSS. omit them, notwithstanding which Tischendorf 
 retains them. Alford regards them as asserting ' the being in heaven 
 of the time then present,^ but he explains or qualifies this by saying, 
 ' (heaven about Him, heaven dwelling on earth) ivhile here,^ which 
 transforms the words either into a mere figure of speech or into a 
 contradiction of terms. Alford says also : ' Doubtless thi' meaning- 
 involves, whose place is in heaven.'' That commends itself as a 
 reasonable interpretation, the distinction being between ' the Son of 
 man which is in heaven,' conversant with ' heavenly things,' and 
 
PAKT ir.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 15 
 
 ' the Son of man which is on earth,' conversant only with 'earthly 
 things.' 'No man hath ascended,' obviously means ' no man living- 
 on earth.' The })assage asserts the existence of humanity in heaven ; 
 hut as there is a doubt whether the worJs ' whicli is in heaven ' were 
 actually spoken by Jesns, it would not bo satisfactory to attempt any 
 developmcmt of the doctrine they may be taken to convey. 
 
 The iniiuencc of this Hon of man descended out of heaven was 
 designed to be exerted widely and beneficially upon mankind, and 
 would resemble that of the brazen si>r|)ent made and raised on high 21 Nmn. -.» 
 by Moses at the command of (iod for the healing of the dying 
 Israelites. 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, :!joi,!i it 
 even so must the Son of man be lifted up : that whosoever believeth 
 may in him have eternal life.' The Authorised Version stands as 
 follows : ' that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
 have eternal life.' Tir* Revisers and Tischendorf, on the authority 
 of the two oldest MSS., have omitted the words, ' not perish, but.' 
 The Revisers have also made the words ' believeth in him may have,' 
 a marginal reading, an 1 have altered the sense by putting in the text, 
 ' l)e]ieveth, may in him have eternal life.' This alteration diifers 
 from the rendering of Tischendorf, Luther and Young, that of the 
 last being . ' so it behoveth the Son of man to be lifted up, that 
 every one who belie\'eth in him may not parish, bnt may have life 
 :igc-during.' Taking the proper rendering of the word ' eternal ' to 
 lie ' age-during,' the question presents itself whether that term is not 
 here applicable equally to the serpent-bitten and serpent-healed Israel- 
 ites and to the believers on the uplifted Son of man ? Otherwise the 
 simile is not exact, but defective in an important particular, standing 
 in fact as follows : As the serpent uplifted in the wilderness gave a 
 life wiiich was not eternal, even so the uplifted Son of man will give 
 a life which is eternal. But if we take tiic natural sense of the word 
 'age-during' this inconsistency disappears. The Israelites were 
 dying before completing the full term or age of their earthly 
 existence : the act of healing restored to them their proper ' age- 
 during ' life, which, h wever it might vary according to differences of 
 constitutions and surroundings, would not be prematurely cut short by 
 the serpent-poison. Even so the Son of man is held forth as convey- 
 ing a virtue sufficient to antidote everything which threatens to bring 
 to a premature end the heavenly existence of which be had been 
 speaking. The idea is scriptural. Messiah's life-prolonging influence 
 is not for th IS world, but for the next. ' In Adam all die . . . Even lo i. Cor. 2 
 so in Christ shall all be made alive' . . . ' As we have borne the image „ i 
 of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.' The 
 nature of the promise of ' eternal life ' depends upon the meaning of 
 those two words. There can be no doubt as to the sense of the word 
 'life;' the word translated 'eternal' or 'everlasting' must be 
 brought to assume in our minds its proper import — 'age-during;' 
 then comes the question as to the significance of ' age : ' is it a period 
 absolutely endless ? oris it a period of vast duration ? or is it a period 
 iixed by the constitution of our nature, which the influence of the Son 
 of man will maintain to its utmost limit ? 
 
 God, in his love to mankind, had devoted his only begotten Son 
 to the work of securing that supreme boon to all wlio placed their 
 confidence in him. 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his 3 JuIui ^^^ 
 
16 THE KiyG AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 only begotten Son, that ^vhosoe^•el• bclievetli on him should not perish, 
 but have eternal life.' Tischendorf, on the authorit}' of the two 
 oldest M88., lias replaced ' his ' by ' the/ The introduction of the 
 words 'should not perish ' clearly points to the impending catastrophe 
 of Death. This cannot be the death which all who are born on earth 
 must undergo : no faith in Jesus saves from that. But he is speak- 
 ing of ' heavenly things,' and the corollary to be drawn from his 
 words is this : (1) either the seeds of dissolution implanted in our 
 nature Avill survive in our resurrection-life, and develop in the world 
 to come the same inevitable premature mortality as in this ; or, (2) 
 in the next stage of our existence there will be a liability and inclina- 
 tion towards transgression of some divine law, entailing the same 
 fatal consequences as those which overtook the first Adam and his 
 posteritj", and which will need to be avoided or counteracted by faith 
 in Jesus. The Mosaic account of the fall of man iuA-olves the idea 
 
 ■2 Gen. IT of liis premature death : " In the day that thou eatest thereof thou 
 shalt surely die ; ' growth and development would stop, and dissolu- 
 tion would begin. That is the only rational interpretation, seeing 
 
 i Gen. that Adam did not forthwith expire. The nine hundred and thirty 
 years which Adam lived, and even the nine hundred and sixty nine 
 of Methuselah, completed not the full age to which the perfect man 
 would have attained I tut for his transgression ; and the elements of 
 decay matured rapidly and fatally in his posterity, cutting short the 
 term of human life by centuries, so that Shem the son of Noah lived 
 <)00 years, tiie son of Shem i'AH years, the next descendants respec- 
 tively 433, 4()4, 23'.), 23i), 230, 148 and 205 years, the last named 
 being Terah the father of Abraham, Still the age of man steadily 
 declined, until 80 years was held to be its extreme limit. The mind 
 of the patriarch Jacob Avas profoundly impressed by the rapid and 
 
 47 Geii. 9 constant decline, for in telling his age to Pharaoh he said : ' The 
 days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years : 
 few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have 
 not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in 
 the days of their pilgrimage.' The period of our earthly existence 
 has not been enlarged by the work of Christ : his salvation extends 
 not in that direction ; his repeated promises of ' life age-during ' are 
 for the world to come, for that heavenly life and kingdom which can 
 only be revealed and realised through l^eing * born anew of water and 
 the Spirit.' Dropping the ecclesiastical and symbolical ideas attached 
 to that second birth, regarding it not as restricted to a few but as the 
 universal privilege of mankind, it is a solemn, inevitable, merciful 
 reality, a phase and crisis of our destiny as important, probably far 
 more important than our birth into this world. In the ' heavenly 
 things ' appertaining to that new sphere of existence, the Son of man 
 must still be taken for our Guide and Saviour ; he will preserve his 
 adherents from the sins and evils which threaten that life, as they 
 
 10 i. Cor. 45 have here marred and shortened this, and as our ' second Adam ' he 
 will become to us ' a life-giving spirit.' 
 
 Let none deem this view" of the divine mercy too bold or too wide. 
 The Christ came not for judgment, but for salvation ; not to save 
 
 3 Joim IT particular persons, but the world. ' For God sent not the Son into 
 the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved 
 through him.' The Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., have 
 
lART II.] A sTunv or the four gosi'els. 17 
 
 ulfcored 'his Son' Lo 'tiio Son/ They have also replaced in this and 
 the two next verses the word ' condemn' by ' jnd,u:e,' therein agreeiiiu' 
 with Tischendorf, Voiin^- and Alford. The oltice of the Son is wot to 
 make inqnisition into the errors and sins of mankind, but to delivu- 
 them from their condition of disease and death. Thuse who trnst 
 themselves to him are not arraigned as criminals, or called upon to 
 answer for ]iast misdeeds. ' He that believeth on him is not judged.' . 
 Nor does the advent of the Son involve any such judicial procedure 
 towni'ds those who withhold from him their confidence : the rejection 
 ^f. him by tliem leaves them in their former evil and perilous condi- 
 tion. ' He that believeth not hath been judged already, because he 
 hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of (Jod.' 
 There can be n(j excuse for those who, when light has come into the 
 world, deliberately prefer the darkness. ' And this is the judgement, 
 that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness 
 rather than the light.' Only evil deeds could have sought the cover 
 of the night : ' for their works were evil.' livery wrongdoer hates 
 light and avoids it, because it must disclose his iniquity. ' For every 
 one that doeth (or, practiseth) ill hateth the light, and cometh not to 
 the light, lest his works should be reproved (or, convicted).' But he 
 who truly works, and works truly, comes forward to where the light 
 shines most, that it may be thrown upon his work and show that it 
 has been wrought out honestly as in the sight of God. ' But he that 
 doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made 
 manifest, that (or, because) they have l3een wTought in God.' 
 
 Alford alludes to the fact that ' many Commentators, since the time 
 of Erasmus, who first suggested the notion, have maintained that the 
 discourse of our Lord breaks off at verse IG, and the rest to verse 21 
 consists of the remarks of the Evangelist.' The principal grounds 
 for that idea are (a) that all allusion to Nicodemus is henceforth 
 dropped, (b) That henceforth past tenses are used, (c) On account 
 of the use of onh/ hc<iotton, verses IG, 18, which is peculiar to John. 
 Alford argues vigorously against all this, and concludes ' that the 
 words following, to verse 21, cannot be otherwise regarded than as 
 uttered by our Lord in continuation of his discourse.' With respect 
 to the use of the term ' only begotten ' ' Stier well enquires, AVhencc 
 did John get this word but from the lips of his divine Mastei- ? 
 Would he have ventured on such an expression, except by an 
 authorization from Him ? ' Certainly it is inconceivable that any 
 honest historian could present such a combination of assertions rela- 
 ting to the subject on which Jesus discoursed with Nicodemus, unless 
 Avarranted by express words of Jesus spoken either then or at some 
 other time. 
 
 A more important question is as to the meaning of the solemn and 
 positive declarations of Jesus respecting the new birth. The conclu- 
 sions already arrived at have been based on the natural interpreta- 
 tion of the words employed, without reference to anything apart from 
 them. The discourse has been taken as conveying its own meaning, 
 •as complete in itself, not needing to be supplemented by a reference 
 to something found elscAvhere, and not to be understood figuratively 
 for the mere purpose of its assumed connection with a Church 
 ordinance. But by many persons that mode of dealing with the 
 discourse has been set aside ; they have rushed to the conclusion that 
 
18 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 Jesus spoke symbolically ; that to be born ' a,2;ain ' or ' anew ' or 
 ' from above,' means to be baptized ; that the ' water' is the water 
 of baptism ; that the 'spirit ' is the Holy Spirit, who comes with or 
 through the rite of baptism. But surely if Jesus wished to impress 
 upon Nicodemus the absolute necessity of baptism, he could and 
 10 Mark 10 would havc uscd plainer words, as he did on another occasion : ' He 
 that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' From first to last 
 Nicodemus gathered no such meaning, but was lost in doubt and 
 wonderment at the strangeness, the depth and the breadth, of these 
 statements of Jesus : ' How can a man be born when he is old . . 
 How can these things be ? ' Luther's figurative interpretation, 
 quoted by Alford, we can appreciate and respect : ' My teaching is 
 not of cloiiir/ and leaving undonp, but of a change in the man ; so that 
 it is, not new ivorhs done, but a new man to do them ; not another 
 life only, but another birth.'' From the first there has been a ditter- 
 euce of opinion. Alford quotes Chrysostom : ' Some say, from 
 heaven, some, from the beginning,' and adds that 'he and Euthymius 
 explain it by regeneration : Origen, Cyril, and Theophylact taking 
 the otlier meaning.' Of course the 'new birth ' means 'regeneration,' 
 but not necessarily by baptism. Alford takes upon himself to say : 
 'It is impossible tiiat Nicodemus can have so entirely and stupidly 
 misunderstood our Lord's words, as his question here would seem to 
 imply.' It is much more natural and probable to assume that 
 Nicodemus detected no reference to baptism in the words of Jesus, 
 notwithstanding the fact that ' the idea of a new birth was by no 
 means alien from the Rabbinical views. They described a proselyte 
 when baptized as "like an infant just born," Lightfoot.' If we 
 suppose Jesus to have been anxious to impress upon his hearer the 
 impurtance of baptism, would it not have been wise and right to 
 speak with the utmost plainness, to avoid all possibility of doubt or 
 misapprebension ? Why should we either attribute obscurity to the 
 speaker or perversity to the listener ? li Dean Alford had not 
 started with the foregone conclusion that the ' water and spirit ' 
 must as a matter of course refer to the water administered and the 
 Spirit received in baptism, and if, instead of doing so, he had bent his. 
 mind to an unprejudiced investigation uf the discourse of Jesus, prwbably 
 he would not have accused Nicodemus, nor have penned the follow- 
 ing passage : ''J'hei'e can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of 
 the words, that to be born of water refers to the token or outward 
 sign of baptism, to be born of the Spirit the thing signified, or in- 
 ward grace oi the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these twa 
 2)tain Jacts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the 
 views of expositors have been warped. Such we have in Calvin : 
 who explains the words to mean, '• tlie Spirit who cleanses us, and by 
 diffusing His infiueuce in us inspires the vigour of heavenly life : '* 
 Grotius, "the Spirit, who cleanses like water ;" Cocceius, "the grace 
 of God, washing away our uncleanness and sins ; " Tholuck, who 
 holds that not J^aptism itself, but on^y its idea, that of cleansing is 
 referred to ; and others, who endeavour to resolve water and the 
 vSpirit into a figure, so as to make it mean " the cleansing or purify- 
 ing Spirit." All the better and deeper ex23ositors have recognized 
 the coexistence of the two, water and the Spirit.' ' Doctrinal preju- 
 dices ! ' Alford applied the expression to prejudices against the 
 
r.vuTii.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSRELS. 19 
 
 doctrine of l)aptisiii;il regeneration : his opponents would say it 
 applies equally to ])rejudices in favour of that doctrine. Apart from 
 that question. Alford contends that a real meaning, instead of a bare 
 figurative meaning, should be attached to the statements of Jesus. 
 'I'o that extent we are in agrecincut : under that conviction and in that 
 direction, the Ibregoing independent investigation has been carried out. 
 
 We ha\ e now to return to the feast of tabernacles. After the 
 incidents connected with it, the observation follows : ' And they went "^ J"'-'" ■''■i 
 every man unto his own house.' This may be understood to denote 
 the completion of the festival, dui'iug which 'the people lived for a 
 week in booths, to remind them of their desert wanderings.'* Jesus 
 retired to the mount of Olives, on the outskirts of Jerusalem. ' But s Joim i 
 .lesus went unto the mount of Olives.' Early in the morning he 
 returned to the city, seated himself in the temple, and there began 
 discoursing to the crowd which came to hear him. ' And early in the ,< 2 
 morning ' (literally, at dawn — Young) ' he came again into the 
 temj)le, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down, and 
 taught them.' Although the temple was the recognised place for 
 I'eligious worship, it bore small resemblance to our consecrated 
 cathedrals and churches. The people seem to have wandered at their 
 will within its precincts, and went even to the length of buying and 
 selling, making it a market place for doves, sheep and oxen, which 
 were probably, at least ostensibly, required for sacrifice. After a 
 time, the discourse being either ended or interrupted, the scribes and 
 Pharisees made their appearance, bringing with them a woman who 
 had been detected in her sin. They placed her in the midst of those 
 present, and told Jesus what was the charge against her. ' And the ^' "• ^ 
 scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery ; and 
 having set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master (or, Teacher), 
 this Woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act.' The only 
 question to be decided was as to what ought to be done to her. The 
 Mosaic law doomed tlie otl'ender to death, which was to be brought 
 about, not by a single executioner, but by the combined action of the 
 congregation, each casting a stone or stones at the criminal. Alford 
 explains : ' The command here mentioned is not to be found, unless 
 "putting to death" general!}', is to be interpreted as stoning.' It 
 would seem, however, to have been necessarily and clearly inferred, as 
 Alford admits, from 22 I)eu. 23, 24, and the command was so under- 
 stood. ' Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such.' Alford " ^ 
 renders 'such' as 'such women.' The accusers invited Jesus to 
 express his views as to the proper mode of dealing with the woman. 
 ' What then sayest thou of her ? ' The Revisers, adopting the reading ^ s 
 of Wordsworth, have added ' of her.' The narrator explains that the 
 question was not put in good faith, but with the express object of 
 founding upon the reply of Jesus an accusation against him. ' And ,, « 
 this they said, tempting (or, trying) him, that they might have 
 whereof to accuse him.' We can only conjecture the grounds on 
 which they could have done so. Jesus had already been reproached 
 as 'a friend of publicans and sinners.' If on this occasion hen Mat. 19 
 inclined towards mercy, his leniency would expose him to further 
 
 * " Helps to the Study of the Bible." 
 
 c 2 
 
20 THE KIXU AND THE KINGDOM: | i-akt ii. 
 
 misinterpretation and calumny. He had also been cliar^'ed with 
 breaking the law of Moses by infringino- the sabbath : if in this case 
 he were to advocate the remission of capital punishment, he would 
 be laying himself open to a similar reproach. Yet the fate of this 
 erring woman seemed to be left in his hands ; a word from him 
 justifying the view expressed by these scribes and Pharisees might be 
 equivalent to a sentence of death against her. Moreover, the 
 punishment of death for such an offence was probably opposed to 
 Roman law, and the enemies of Jesus would have been only too ready 
 to denounce him as the instigator of the deed if, having been appealed 
 to on the subject, he made no protest against the proposed death by 
 stoning. Alford quotes Liicke on this point: 'Some kind of civil 
 or political collision the question certainly was calculated to pro^'()ke: 
 but from the brevity of the narration, and our want of more accui'ate 
 knowledge of criminal proceedings at the time, it is impossible to lay 
 down definitely, wherein the collision would have consisted.' .lesus 
 did not feel himself called upon to answer the question put to him. 
 AVisely and discreetly he maintained an entire silence. Criminals 
 should be brought by their accusers to a proper tribunal of justice. 
 AVhy should Jesus be appealed to publicly on a point of law in this 
 particular case ? He practically refused to discuss the matter : they 
 had no right to question him, and he certainly had the right to 
 remain silent. He chose to do so, and by his attitude and gesture 
 plainly intimated his determination. ' But Jesus stooped down, ami 
 with his finger wrote on the ground.' Under the peculiar circum- 
 stances, this method of refusing to be entangled into a discussion, was 
 wise and dignified. Probably a feeling of indignation may have had 
 to do with it. All they cared about was to trump up an accusation 
 against himself, and they were not ashamed to make this poor, guilty. 
 trem])ling creature the occasion of it ! He will baffle their designs : 
 not a word shall they extract from him. Let them go their way, 
 leaving him to his work, or ab least to his meditations. His mind is 
 busy with some other train of thought : better anything than to take 
 or give counsel with such men on such a subject ! It were useless to 
 show the anger which, we know, could flash on occasion from his 
 eye ; it were cruel to look towards the crushed, shame-laden woman : 
 better to fix his gaze on the ground at his feet. Those apparently 
 idle, aimless tracings of his fingers on the floor are signs, not of 
 vacancy, but of a mind at work, full to overflowing with who can 
 say what blended thoughts of scorn, grief, pity. What words, if any, 
 were written l)y the nervous workings of his fingers during that deep 
 absorption, none can tell, though some fiave tried to guess. * One of 
 our MSS. reads : "' He wrote on the ground the sins of each of them," ' 
 (Alford). When would the divine law come to be written as easily 
 on human hearts ? When would it cease to be as light, as fleeting, 
 as well-nigh in^■isible there, as though traced on unyielding stone or 
 on the wind-blown, feet-trodden dust of the earth ? When would 
 the two great laws of love to God and man be recognised as 
 binding and supreme ? Many and deep the problems Jesus nn'ght 
 then be pondering. They scrupled not, however, to interrupt liis 
 reverie, pestering him with repetitions of their question, * AVliat then 
 sayest thou of her ? ' At last he raised himself to meet their super- 
 cilious gaze and give an answer to their mockiug words. It was 
 
i-AKT II.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUJi (U>S/'Fl.S. 21 
 
 their matter, not hi.s ; tliey had raised the (|nesti(iii about their duty ; 
 let them act accordinji; to their light and eonscience. 'But wheusjohi.r 
 they continued askiii,"- liim, he lifted up himself, and said unto them. 
 He that is without sin amont;- you, let him first cast a. stone at her.' 
 if, knowing' well the infirmities, degradation, and sinful ])ropensitics 
 of human nature, they judged it right, wise, expedient, and their 
 <luty, to insist upon the rigorous exaction of the stern penalty decreed 
 by Moses so many centuries ago, let them })roceed to (tariy out the 
 sentence. Let any one of them who knew himself to i^e pure in 
 mind, in heart, in conduct, cast the first stone at her, and then all 
 would be free to follow his example. That was the first and last 
 word of Jesus on the subject. Again he hid his face from everyone, 
 stooped down, and began afresh that mysterious writing on the 
 ground. 'And again he stooj^ed down, and with his finger wrote on ,, s 
 the ground.' Not one of them dared now to lift his hand first against 
 the woman. When the eldest was seen to rise, it was not to cast a 
 stone, but to leave the place. The next in age and honour followed 
 his example. With every departure, the responsibility laid upon 
 those remaining was felt the more ; one by one each man slunk away, 
 until Jesus and the woman alone were left. ' And thej', Avlien they „ ;► 
 heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, erc77- unto 
 rhe last : and Jesus was left alone, and the woman where she was, in 
 the midst.' Then Jesus rose from his stooping posture : had he done 
 so sooner, or had he not stooped at all, probably his adversaries 
 would have met his gaze defiantly, and have braved out the matter to 
 the end. It was far better settled thus. Better, it would seem, than 
 Jesus himself anticipated ; for his first question indicated un- 
 consciousness and surprise. ' And Jesus lifted up himself, and said •• i'> 
 unto her. Woman, where are they ? ' His last look at them had 
 discerned a general determination to convict her. AVas it possible 
 that not one out of all of them had formulated the sentence of con- 
 demnation ? ' Did no man condemn thee ? ' Yes ! it had turned -. n' 
 out even so. 'And she said, No man, Lord (Sir — -Young).' Then -. n 
 she might dismiss all fear : Jesus would be the last man to raise 
 hand or voice against her. ' And Jesus said. Neither do I condemn ., n 
 thee.' She was free to go, uncondemned, but not unwarned. Let 
 her ever henceforth avoid the sin which had placed her life in peril. 
 "Go thy way ; from henceforth sin no more.' .. n 
 
 To this narrative the Eevisers have appended the note : ' ]\[ost of 
 the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53 — viii. 11. Those which 
 contain it vary much from each other.' Afford explains : ' This 
 passage is to be treated very differently from tlie rest of the sacred 
 text. In the Alexandrine, Vatican, Paris, and Sinaitic MSS., the 
 ancient Syriac Versions, and all the early fathers, it is omitted : the 
 Cambridge MS., alone of our most ancient authorities contains it. 
 Augustine states, that certain expunged it from their MSS., because 
 they thought it might encourage sin. But this will not account for 
 the very general omission of it, nor for the fact that Ch. vii. 53 is 
 included in the omitted portion. Eusebius assigns it apparently to 
 the apocryphal " Gospel according to the Hebrews." . . In the MSS. 
 which contain it, the number of variations is very much greater than 
 in any other equal portion of Scripture : so much is this the 
 case, that there are in fact three separate texts, it being hardly possible 
 
'22 THE A'IjVG AND THE KINGDOM: [paiit ii. 
 
 to unite them into one' The passage was rejected by Tischendori", 
 as no part of the original gospel. But he gives it iu two forms, one 
 from the text of D, or the Cambridge M8. ; the other according to 
 the received text, or the Elzcvu' of 1(524. Comparing these, the 
 differences are unimportant. The narrative carries on the face of it 
 the stamp of authenticity. The minute details and touches are such 
 as could have been given only by an eye-witness. As in a picture a 
 great artist is revealed by his manner and style, so in this narrative 
 we discern certain inimitable characteristics of Jesus, his wisdom, his 
 caution, his self-restraint, his deep insight, his mastery in argument, 
 his loving gentleness, his broad compassion. 
 
 The evangelist now introduces a new subject Avith the words, 
 8 John 1-2 ' Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of 
 the world.' Tiie expression ' again therefore ' seems to indicate the 
 recommencement of an address : possibly Jesus had been interrupted, 
 and his congregation dispersed, by tlie entrance of the priests with 
 the woman ; and possibly the rising sun, — the people having 
 assembled at early dawn, — suggested the metaphor. It was very 
 bold, suggestive, self-laudatory, — deliberately chosen on that account, 
 
 " 1- — for Jesus added : ' He that followeth me shall not walk in the dark- 
 ness, but shall have the light of life.' Xo ordinary man could dare 
 to speak such words ; only one who knew himself to be above all 
 others of mankind, in his person, attributes, office, could claim a pre- 
 eminence so exalted, so superhuman. In this and similar assertions 
 made by Jesus with respect to himself^ we find the justification of 
 this evangelist for those astounding statements about the origin, 
 nature and influence of Jesus, which are placed in the forefront of 
 ijohii 4 the narrative. AVhen the writer asserted: 'In him was light, and 
 
 „ r, the light was the life of men. And the light shineth in the darkness ; 
 
 „ !) and the darkness overcame it not . . . The ti'ue light, which 
 lighteth every man, was coming into the world,' — the authority for 
 such statements was the express declaration of Jesus. The evangelist 
 was not giving us his own notions, but the actual claims and assur- 
 ances of Jesus himself. 
 
 In opposition to the solemn asseveration now made by Jesus that 
 he was the light and life of the world, the Pharisees brought two 
 objections: (1) it was an uncorroborated statement; (2) it was 
 sjoiin i:; false. 'The Pharisees therefore said unto him. Thou bearest witness 
 of thyself ; thy witness is not true.' Jesus took up the question. 
 Even though his statement I'ested only upon his own word, it was 
 none the less tfue ; for he knew his origin and his destiny, his abode 
 prior to his entrance into this world, and the place which would 
 
 :, 11 receive him on his departure hence. 'Jesus answered and said unto 
 them. Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true ; for I 
 know whence I came, and whither I go.' On those points they were 
 entirely ignorant, and could exercise only a judgment based upon the 
 
 „ 11, i'> ordinary experiences of humanity. ' But ye know not whence I 
 come, or whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh ' Not so did Jesus 
 judge any man ; but any judgment he might form would be based 
 upon higher knowledge than that of mankind generally, for it would 
 not be merely human, he being aided by the presence and guidance 
 
 ,. 15, 1(3 of Him w'ho had sent him hither. ' I judge no man. Yea and if J 
 
I'ART 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 23 
 
 judfje, my judgment is true ; for I am not alone, but I and the 
 Father that sent me.' In verse JO Tischcndorf, following- the 
 Siiiaitic jMS., reads ' he ' instead of ' the Father.' These sayings of 
 Jesus possess an actuality, reality, which it is well for us to gras]) and 
 hold. Others can give us, witli respect to (Jod and things unseen, 
 only abstract reasonings, abstruse speculations ; Jesus gives us 
 positive statements of facts within his own experience. In sonic 
 other portion of the universe he had a prior existence ; there lie had 
 subnn'tted liiniself to the will of One who had sent him on a mission 
 to mankind ; while here, lie was conscious of the presence and 
 ^guidance of him who had sent him ; when his earthly career should 
 end he knew whither he w^ould depart out of the world. All this is as 
 claav and positive as it is startling and profoundly interesting. There 
 is no incongruity between it and our comparatively small experiences 
 of things material and spiritual. In the mind of Jesus there was no 
 shadow of doubt, hesitation or uncertainty. He was as sure of the 
 personal existence of the Father who had sent him, as of his own. 
 If the unsu})j)orted testimony of Jesus was not enough for these 
 Pharisees, leL them know that there were actually two persons certi- 
 fying, Jesus and his Father. 'Yea and in your law it is written, *^ J"'"' 
 that the witness of two men is true. I am he that beareth witness of 
 myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.' There- 
 upon they challenged him, apparently in derision, to produce his 
 Father. ' They said therefore unto him. Where is thy Father ? ' To 
 this Jesus replied, that they were as unable to recognise himself as his 
 Father : no knowledge of him 'after the flesh' was a true revelation, 
 iind if they had possessed any spiritual perception of himself, they 
 \vould have discerned his Father also. ' Jesus answered, Ye know 
 neither me, nor my Father : if ye knew me, ye would know 
 my Father also.' The essential idea of Fatherhood is likeness of 
 nature, and the failure to know, appreciate, comprehend, the kSou 
 must extend also to their apprehension of the Father. 
 
 These sayings of Jesus were recorded by one who heard them, and 
 who was able to state the exact place of their delivery. ' These 
 Avords spake he in the Treasury, as he taught in the temple.' And 
 still his enemies failed to carry out their design of apprehending 
 him ; not from want of will or opportunity, but owing to some divine 
 overruling of their plans. That seems to be the meaning of the 
 evangelist's statement : ' And no man took him, because his hour was 
 not yet come.' Being still free, Jesus shrank not from speaking. 
 He addressed to the Pharisees some bold, plain, parting words, 
 amounting to repudiation if not denunciation. ' He said therefore 
 again unto them, I go away, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in 
 your sin : whither I go, ye cannot come.' Jesus seems here to fore- 
 tell a time when the present circumstances would be reversed : he 
 would be absent, and they anxious to tind him, yet doomed to perish 
 in their sin, it being impossible for them to gain his presence. The 
 Revisers in this \erse have altered ' my way ' into ' away,' and * sins ' 
 into 'sin,' agreeing with l^Kiug and other modern transhitors. Tis- 
 chcndorf inserts the word ' away ' a second time : ' Whither I go 
 away : ' the verb, hiipat/d, is the same in both places. The saying 
 sounded mysterious : to go whither none of them could follow, 
 might signify going out of the world altogether. AVas he then, 
 
24 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM : [part ii. 
 
 thinking of suicide ? 'The Jews therefore said, "Will he kill him- 
 self, that he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come ? ' The question 
 was not so harsh and offensive as it would ha\e been hadtheyknown, 
 as we know, the ]jrescience of Jesus with respect to his approaching 
 death. In repelling their suggestion, he explained the precise import 
 of his words. His origin was different from theirs: he belonged to 
 another world than this. 'And he said unto them. Ye are from 
 beneath ; I am from above : ye are of this world ; 1 am not of this 
 world.' That fact justified the assertion he had made : this was a 
 world of perishing sinners, and if they believed not that One had 
 come from another w-orld with the offer of life age-during. there 
 could be no escape from death. ' I said therefore unto you, that ye 
 sliall die in your sins : for except ye believe that I am he (or, I am), 
 ye shall die in your sins.' Tischendorf renders : ' ye will die in your 
 sins : ' it was no threat, but a pure statement of the fact that without 
 a deliverer bringing life from above, there can be no hope of salva- 
 tion from death. Alford calls attention to the fact that the italicised 
 word 'he' is not in the original. Tiie remark of Jesus gave rise to a 
 further question. 'They said therefore unto him, Who art thou ? * 
 In the Revised Version the answer of Jesus stands as follows : 
 'Jesus said unto them, Even that which I ha\e also spoken unto you 
 from the beginning (or, Bow /,s- // that I e\en speak to you at all ?) ' 
 An alternative rendering so peculiar indicates considerable doubt as 
 to the meaning. Alford explains : ' Our Lord's reply has been found 
 \ery difficult, from reasons which can hardly be explained to the 
 English reader. The A. V. " even the same that I said unto you 
 from the beginning," cannot well be right. The verb rather means 
 to njjeaJc or discourse, than to sai/ : the connecting particle cannot 
 well be rendered evai ; and the word rendered " from the beginning " 
 far more probably means " essentially," or " in very deed." This 
 being premised, the sentence may be rendered (literally) thus : 
 "Essentially that which J also discourse unto you :" or, "In very 
 deed, that same which I speak unto you." He is the word — His 
 (liscovrscs are tbe rcvelaiion of Himself.'' Tischendorf renders : 
 ' Altogether that which I am telling you ; ' Young : ' Even what 1 
 speak to you at the beginning.' The alternative rendering : 'That I 
 even speak to you at all,' differs from all the above, especially as the 
 Revisers have prefaced it with the three italicised — imaginary — 
 words, ' How is it,'' and have inserted a note of interrogation. That 
 would have been no answer to the question, but sounds like an ex- 
 pression of petulant impatience, which it is not likely would have 
 been uttered by Jesus. Putting that aside, the other renderings 
 agree in one point : in reply to the enquiry Who he was, Jesus told 
 what he was : ' that same which I speak to you : ' ' that which I am 
 also telling you :' ' that I speak to you ; ' ' what I said to you ; ' ' that 
 which I have altogether spoken unto you ; ' and ' altogether that 
 which also I say to you,' the last being the translation given in the 
 ' Englishman's Greek New Testament.' The only doubt is as to 
 whether the word rendered by the Revisers 'from tlie beginning,' by 
 Y'oung and Sharpe, ' at the beginning,' is not better rendered by 
 ' essentially,' or ' in very deed,' or 'altogether.' In either case we 
 need go back no further than the ' beginning ' of this discourse and 
 the saying of Jesus, ' I am the h'ght of the Avorld.' He would have 
 
r.viiT IT.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFELi<. 25 
 
 tlicin know him only nnder the aspect in Avhich he hiul presented 
 himself: not as a Person merely, but as a Power and Influence, dis- 
 ])ersing 'darkness' and imparting ' the light of life.' 
 
 The meaning of what follows is not apparent on the surface. 'Isjoin, v. 
 have many things to speak and to judge concerning you.' The Revisers 
 liavc replaced 'say' by 'speak,' and 'of you' by 'concerning you.' 
 Young renders : 'Many things 1 have to speak, and to judge concern- 
 ing you.' The English idiom leaves us in doubt whether the ' speaking' 
 as well as the ' judging ' is 'concerning you,' or whether two distinct 
 •statements are made : (1) ' I liave many things to speak,' and (2) • I 
 have many things to judge of you.' Luther's translation is clear : ' Fch 
 habe viel von euch zu reden und zu richten.' ' I have much of you to 
 speak and to judge,' which agrees with the order of the wt)rds in the 
 original : ' Many things I have concerning you to say and to 
 judge.' 
 
 ' Howbeit he that sent me is true.' The connection between this ■• -'' 
 and what precedes is not clear. The word alcthes, rendered ' true,' 
 is defined : of persona, true, sincere ; truthful, frank, honest : of 
 lhin(/s, real, actual. Sanmel Sharpe brings out the meaning clearly 
 and boldly : ' Moreover he that sent me is to be trusted,' which 
 answers to Luther's ' wahrhaftig,' ' truthful or reliable.' That makes 
 evident the sense of the following words : 'And the things which I •• -'^ 
 heard from him, these speak 1 unto (Gr. into) the world.' The 
 ' blnglishman's Greek New Testament' renders verbatim: 'And I 
 what I heard from him. these things I say to the world.' The oldest 
 ^LS. reads, ' heard with him.' 
 
 The evangelist states that the listeners did not understand the 
 allusion. ' They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.' •• '-'' 
 The Revisers have replaced ' understood ' by ' percei\ed.' The 
 
 * Englishman's CJ. N. T.' renders : ' They knew not that the Father 
 to them he spoke of.' In verse 2ii the Sinaitic MS. reads, instead of 
 
 * he that sent me,' ' the Father that sent me,' and in this verse : 
 'they perceived not that he spake to them of the Father God.' That 
 reading obviates the following comment of Alford : ' However im- 
 probable this may be, after the plain words, " the Father that sent 
 me," in verse 18, it is stated as a fact.' According to the Sinaitic 
 .MS., they understood that he spoke of his father, but at once asked, 
 
 ' Where is thy father ? ' because they did not realise the fact tluit he '• '" 
 meant the Divine Father. 
 
 Perceiving their obtuseness, Jesus foretold the way in which they 
 would come to know hira, and that his acts and Avords were by the 
 ])Ower and teaching of the Father. ' Jesus therefore said, AVhen ye '• -^^ 
 Jiave lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he (or, 
 1 am) ; and that 1 do nothing (or, and I do nothing) of myself, but 
 as the Father taught me, I speak these things.' Let us try to grasp 
 the meaning of this. The j^lain, natural sense of ' lifted up ' is 
 
 * exalted.' The verb is hiipsoo, the same as in the passage, ' he that i^ '•"'^'- 1» 
 humbleth himself shall be exalted.' That sense is not to be considered 
 
 as interlered with or displaced because the evangelist, on a subse- 
 tjuent occasion, attached an additional interpretation to the word : 
 'And I, if I be lilted up from (or, out of) the earth, will draw alU- ■'"'"' 3- 
 men unto myself. But this he said, signifying by what manner of 
 death he should die.' On the words ' by what manner of death ' 
 Alford has the note : ' The words here can hardly point to more 
 
'2C, THE KING AXD THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 than the external circninsfcaiices of his death . , St. John does no': 
 say that this was all that the liftin.o- up meant, but that it was its 
 first and obvious reference' Nor need we be concerned about the 
 interpretation which the evangeUst or any other man may have seen 
 fit to attach to words of Jesus used on another occasion ; the only 
 question is as to the sense which the words themselves will here 
 Avari-ant. That death by crucifixion involved a lifting up from or 
 out of the earth was a mere collateral fact, which might be indicated 
 by a passing reference, but which cannot be accepted as a reason for 
 attaching the idea of crucifixion to the term 'lifted up' wherever and 
 Avhenever it may occur. Dismissing any doubt or difficulty which 
 might arise on that point, we have siu)ply to ponder the expression 
 as it stands, ' When ye have lifted up the Son of man.' The title 
 ' Son of man ' is applied by Jesus to himself, and to the Messiah ; to 
 himself therefore as the representative of humanity. ' When ye have 
 exalted me as your Messiah, then you will know what I am to you, 
 that what I do is not personal to myself, that what I teach you, J 
 have learned from the heavenly Father : ' that would seem to be the 
 natural and proper sense of this saying of Jesus. 
 
 But though his own people as yet knew and received him not, 
 
 roim^o Jesus had no feeling of loneliness or failure. 'And he that sent me 
 is with me ; he hath not left me alone.' Rejected, opposed, scoffed 
 at by men, Jesus was doing in che world the work which God had 
 
 „ '29 appointed him. ' For I do always the things that are pleasing to him." 
 These words of Jesus were not without efiect, but produced con- 
 
 ^_ 30 viction and faith in the minds of many of those present. 'As he 
 spake these things, many believed on him.' To these new converts 
 Jesus addressed himself specially. He told them that the test of 
 real discipleship consisted in a constant adherence to his teaching. 
 
 ,, 31 ' Jtsus said therefore to those Jews which had believed him, If ye 
 abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples.' Then they would 
 gain a knowledge of the truth, and the truth would give them 
 
 „ s2 freedom. 'And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make 
 you free.' The freedom of which he spoke was spiritual ; but they 
 did not take his words in that sense. They prided themselves on 
 descent from Abraham ; they had never been slaves to any man : 
 
 ,, y:j what, then, did this ofier of freedom signify ? ' They answered unto 
 him, We be Abraham's seed, and have never yet been in bondage to 
 any man : how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free ? ' Jesus solemnly 
 reminded them that there was a moral slavery, and that every sinner 
 
 „ 2'- had made himself the slave of sin. ' Jesus answered them, Yerily, 
 verily, 1 say unto you. Every one that committeth sin is the bond- 
 servant of sin.' The seed of Abraham w-s of two kinds : the son of 
 the bondwoman, and the son of the freewoman ; the former had no 
 permanent inheritance in common witli the latter, who alone could 
 
 „ ;;,', claim the paternal home. 'And the bondservant abideth not in the 
 house for ever : the sori abideth for ever.' Alford says : ' I believe, 
 with Stier and Bengel, the reference to be to Hagar and Ishmael, 
 and Isaac : the dond, and the free. They had spoken of themselves 
 as the seed of Abraham. The Lord shews them that there may be, of 
 that seed, tiro Jcl/ids ,- the son properly so called, and the slave. The 
 latter does not abide in the house for ever : it is not his right nor 
 his position — "Cast out the bondwoman and her son." "But the 
 sow abideth ever."' Young's literal rendering is as follows: 'But 
 
I'ART H.| A I^TUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. i:7 
 
 tlic servant rcmaineth not in the house to the age, the Son remaineth 
 to the !)ge.' Els ton oiona, ' to the age,' although translated ' ever,' 
 signifies no more than tlie full term of life. AVe must not venture to 
 give it, here or elsewhere, a more extended meaning. Although 
 "bondslaves, there was a way to freedom : if the acknowledged son 
 and heir released them from servitude, no one could entangl(! them 
 again in the yoke of bondage. ' If therefore the Son shall make you N.;,,i,n:;o 
 free, ye shall be free indeed.' The fact was undeniable that they were 
 children of Abraham, yet none the less they were seeking the life of 
 Jesus, not for any act of wrong or injustice on his part, but simjjly 
 because his expressed opinions diifered from their own. ' I know ,, :;7 
 that ye are Abraham's seed ; yet ye seek to kill me, because my word 
 liath not free course in you (or, hath no place in you).' Inasmuch 
 as Jesus spoke only from actual observation and knowledge of his 
 Father, they, in opposing him, revealed an antagonistic parentage. 
 
 * 1 speak the things which I have seen with my Father (or, the ., ::s 
 Father) ; and ye also do (or, do ye also therefore) the things which 
 
 ye heard from your (or, the) Fathei-.' By words and acts aloue could 
 true sonship be demonstrated ; be they whose sons they might, their 
 deeds proved them to be aliens from Jesus and his Father. The force 
 and spii'it of this saying touched them not : they only reiterated the 
 old, parrot cry, that they claimed descent from Abraham. ' They ., :ii» 
 answered and ^aid unto him, Our Father is Abraham.' Jesus would 
 admit only one kind and one evidence of sonship, — identity of spirit 
 and of action. 'Jesus saith unto them, If ye were (Gr. are) Abra- ., .■;., 
 ham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.' The Revisers 
 note that some ancient authorities read 'ye do' for 'ye would do.' 
 They were not now manifesting the patriarch's spirit or fulfilling the 
 patriarch's will. ' But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath toid ., w 
 you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham.' Let 
 us learn to cherish this description of Jesus by himself : 'a man that 
 hath told you the truth, whicli I heard from God.' There are many 
 still who are ready to accept and believe in him under that aspect, 
 and they have here the justification of his own words for doing so. 
 Let not those who are altle to take a higher view of Jesus, and who 
 can rise to a loftier flight of faith, condemn or despise those who 
 simply look up to him with reverence as 'a teacher sent from God.' 
 The remembrance of this saying of Jesus, his own portrait of himself 
 held forth for these men's regard, would have sufficed to stifle many 
 an anathema in the act of utterance, and quench many a fire kindled 
 by religious bigotry. Jesus, in this very passage, is protesting against 
 the si)irit of persecution. Abraham had never been guilty of it ; and 
 they who now sought to suppress the truth by killing the speaker, 
 pro\ed themselves of a different stock. ' Ye do the works of your ^, 4i 
 father.' They sought to evade the argument by going behind the 
 obvious meaning, as though Jesus were attempting either to impute 
 the stain of illegality to their natural birth, or to intimate that they 
 were in no sense children of the God and common Father of mankind. 
 
 ♦ 'j'hey said unto him, We were not born of fornication ; we have one ., -ii 
 Father, even God.' Jesus was not seeking to make them out different 
 
 from other men, but he would have them deal with realities instead 
 of words. The fatherhood of God was no meaningless expression, but 
 denoted community of will and spirit. If God were their Father, 
 
28 THE KISG AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 their minds would coincide with His, and they would love instead of 
 
 s,i,iiin4_' hatino- his messenger, 'Jesus said unto them, If God were your 
 Father, ye would love me : for I came forth and am come from God.' 
 Young renders literally: 'If God were your Father, ye would have 
 been loving me, for I came out from God, and am come.' The verb 
 oxcycliomai, rendered in the Authorised Aversion ' proceed forth ' and 
 by the Revisers ' come out,' must not be strained to any theological 
 sense. It was a word in common use, applied to any ordinary de- 
 
 '..' Mat. :;i ])arture from one place to another, as in the passage: 'But they 
 having gone out.' Its import here is clear from the following words : 
 
 s John 4:! ' For neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.' Taking the 
 ^erse in its entirety, no mere man could ever dare to say such tilings 
 of himself. Here again we find the declaration of Jesus harmonising 
 
 1 Joiin 14 with the opening statement of the evangelist : 'And the AVord became 
 flesh, and tabernacled among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as 
 of the only-begotten from the Father).' If Jesus then came as God's 
 messenger, why were those he addressed unable to comprehend his 
 
 s.joiiM 4:; words ? ' Why do ye not understand (or, know) my speech ? ' They 
 claimed to be of the household of God, but could not grasp the sense 
 „ 4:j of the divine language. 'Even because ye cannot hear my word.' 
 Alford explains : ' To understand a, man's speech, — as here used, is 
 literally to tmderstand the idiom or dialect in which a man speaks, his 
 manner of speech ; see Matt. xxvi. 7."), where the same word is used 
 in the original.' Tischendorf and Young do not insert the italicised 
 word ' even,' which may convey a wrong idea. Luther's version gives 
 a clear meaning : ' Warum kennet ihr denn nieine Sprache nicht ? 
 Denn ihr konnet ja inein Wort nicht horen.' ' Why then do ye not 
 know my speech ? For indeed ye cannot hear my word.' The verb 
 tikoud, rendered ' hear,' signifies in this place, and often elsewhere, to 
 
 IS Mat. I.-. ' listen to,' as in the passage : ' If he shall hear thee.' Their inability 
 to comprehend him was as gross as though he spoke an unknown 
 foreign tongue ; and it was evidence of the fact that they were of a 
 
 s j,,iiM 44 i-AY different parentage and mode of life. ' Ye are of your father the 
 devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do.' Instead of 
 ' it is your will to do ' the Authorised Version has ' ye will do,' which 
 Alford condemns as 'wholly inadequate and misleading , . . The 
 original means, your will is to do, you love, or, are inclined to do.' 
 Tischendorf renders, 'ye desire to do'; Young, 'ye wish to do.' 
 Having named the devil, tfesus went on to speak of him as of one 
 ,. 44 whose origin, history and cliaracter Avere well known. ' He was a 
 murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because 
 there is no truth in him.' To the Avord ' stood ' the Revisers have 
 apijended the note : ' Some ancient authorities read standeth.' 
 Apart from that fact, Alford renders the word as 'standeth.' He 
 says : ' The A. V. abode is ungrammatical, the original word being 
 present in sense.' Young renders : ' In the truth he hath not stood.' 
 Tischendorf has. ' and stands not in the truth ' ; but there is nothing 
 to indicate whether his adoption of the word ' stands ' arises from 
 difference of translation or of version. The following sentence also 
 „ 44 is open to uncertainty in translation : ' When he speaketh a lie, he 
 speaketh of his own : for he is a liar, and the father thereof.' This 
 agrees with the Authorised Version, the Revisers having simply 
 altered ' of it ' to ' thereof.' But thev ffive as an alternative ren- 
 
I^\RT II. J A STUnV OF TIIK FOUR (U)SrELS. ±9 
 
 derin<2; : * When otic speakcth a lie, lie spoakctli of his own : for liis 
 father also is a h'ar.' Alford does not touch upon tliis difference of 
 translation ; his note simply broaches the question whether the devil 
 is said to be the father of lies or of liars. Younji; renders : ' When 
 one may speak falsehood, of his own he speaketh, because lie is a 
 liar — his father also.' Tischendorf renders : ' When lie speaks lies, 
 he speaks Ironi his own nature ; for he is a liar, and so is his father.' 
 Samuel Sharpc renders : 'When any one speaketh a lie, he speaketh 
 ufter the manner of his kindred, for his father also is a liar.' We 
 have here the explanation of desus himself as to the sense in which 
 he used the term 'father.' The word conveys two ideas: dsscent 
 and likeness. .lesus dwells chietly on the latter ; indeed, he assumes 
 tliat the former can exist (mly in connection with the latter. 'Adam . inn. :i 
 . . begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.' That is the 
 essential idea of ]iarentage ; however great and numerous the dif- 
 ferences in body and mind between father and child, they are over- 
 borne, put ont of sight, arc as nothing, compared with the manifold 
 and far greater similarities of nature. That like begets its like is 
 the universal law, with man, lirute, bird, tish, trees, plants : any great 
 and sudden divergence from the parental type is a physical impossi- 
 bility. Ascending to the higher platform of spiritual life, Jesus insists 
 ni)on this obvious and irrefragable law. No bodily diversities have 
 then to be taken into account ; there is absolutely nothing to modify 
 the law that like must beget its like. Jesus speaks as having cogni- 
 zance of spiritualities beyond our ken, and he seems to recognise an 
 action of spirit upon sjiirit, and powers of transformation and identi- 
 tication between spii'its, of which our limited earthly experience is 
 ignorant if not wholly unconscious. But we shall not err in taking 
 the lower ground of metaphor and analogy, and tracing out the mean- 
 ing Jesus sought to convey to our minds by the ligurative term 
 ' father.' • When any one speaketh a lie, he speaketh after the 
 manner of his kindred ; for his father also is a liar.' These Jews had 
 claimed kindred with Abraham: 'We be Abraham's seed . . . Our 
 father is Abraham.' In the natural sense that was true : ' I know 
 that ye are Abraham's seed ' ; but in the spiritual sense it was false : 
 they had not the spirit of Abraham, but the spirit which stooped to 
 actions Abraham would have scorned to do. The truth held good : 
 
 • Ye do the works of your father ' : only the spirit which had begotten 
 their murderous desires, was not the spirit by which Abraham Avas 
 animated. Let us not overlook the fact, that in seeking the life of 
 Jesus these men had no personal quarrel against him; they weic 
 resolved to close his career at any price, simply because they could 
 not otherwise close his mouth, and they deemed his teaching heretical 
 aud dangerous. What Jesus and every right-minded, unprejudiced 
 person could only denounce as a crime, they probably regarded as a 
 sacred duty, for the apostles were taught to anticipate the time when 
 
 • whosoever killeth you will think that he offereth service unto God.' ir, joim ■^ 
 < )n that point of the discussion there could be no agreement ; these 
 
 Jews shifted the ground of argument, and urged that at all events 
 •lesus could not deny them the common claim of humanity to be 
 children of one heavenly Father. ' We have one Father — God.' This 
 application of the word 'father' both to Abraham and to God, indi- 
 cates that the term was understood to be used in a sense not strictly 
 
„ 4V. 
 
 30 THE Kiya AI\I) THE KINGEOM: [part ii. 
 
 literal. Jesus took up their challenge, and contended that they had 
 no right to the title of God's children, inasmuch as their spirit was 
 hostile to His will. On the contrary, they were doing the devil's 
 work, they had his spirit, they were his children, he was their father : 
 to say any one of these things was to imply the whole of them. The 
 act manifests the spirit, and the spirit denotes the parentage. Jesus 
 spoke from the first to the same efl'ect. In the sermon on the mount 
 he had said : ' Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute 
 you ; that ye may be sons of yom- Father which is in heaven.' The 
 likeness would constitute the sonship : ' for ho maketh his sun to rise 
 on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.' 
 The evangelist also presents the matter in the same light : ' But as 
 many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children 
 of God'; the submissive, obedient, trustful spirit transforms the 
 ! natural man into the man divine : 'even to them that believe in his 
 name : which were begotten, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, 
 nor of the will of man, but of God.' The new birth, which theolo- 
 gians have shown an inclination to make dependent upon and myste- 
 riously connected with the rite of baptism, Jesus and the evangelist 
 have declared to be contingent upon character. On the other hand, 
 instead of this God-like transformation and uprising, there may be 
 a course of devil-worship and degradation ; the actions of the life 
 are the evidences of the Spirit who rules : ' Ye do the works of your 
 father.' 
 
 These Jews had reached a state of mind altogether alien from the 
 truth. They might believe a lie, but they would not believe the 
 truth. ' But because I say the ti'uth, ye believe me not.' Could any 
 one of them point to any crime in the life of Jesus which made his 
 evidence untrustworthy ? ' Which of you convicteth me of sin ? ' 
 The alteration by the Revisei s of ' coavinceth ' into ' convicteth ' 
 was anticipated by Young, who renders : ' Who of you convicteth 
 me of sin ? ' Tischendorf renders : 'Which of you convicts me for 
 sin ? ' Alford says : ' The question is an appeal to his sinJessness of 
 life as evident to them all, as a pledge for his truthfulness of word.' 
 To what could their rejection of unimpeachable evidence be attri- 
 
 40 buted ? ' If I say the truth, why do ye not beHeve me ? ' It must 
 be admitted that relationship to God involved reception of a divine 
 
 47 message. ' He that is of God heareth the words of God.' And from 
 the fact that they refused to hear, the conclusion must be drawn that 
 
 47 they could claim no relationship to God. ' For this cause ye hear 
 them not. because ye are not of God.' 
 
 In ])roportion to the solemn earnestness of Jesus, was the obtuse- 
 uess and indiflerence of the listeners. They answered him now with 
 a scoffing insinuation. Was he not, in all he was saying, justifying 
 their previous assumption, that he was a heretic from the Jewish 
 faith, and impelled to his teaching by some misleading demon ? 
 
 •4S ' The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we not n-ell that thou 
 art a Samaritan, and hast a devil (Gr. demon) ? ' To this grave 
 
 49 charge Jesus gave a dignified and calm denial. ' Jesus answered, I 
 have not a devil (Gr. demon).' On the contrary, by word and deed 
 lie was doing honour to his Father, in spite of the dishonour they 
 
 4,, were casting'on himself : ' but I honour my Father, and ye dishonour 
 
 .50 me.' Jesus was actuated by no personal ambition, 'But I seek not 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOVli GOSPELS. 31 
 
 mine own c,'lory.' There ■sviis One who desired to see liim honoured, 
 and who took judicial oversight of th(! woids and acts of all. ' 'J'here s jaim oo 
 is one that seeketh and jiidgeth,' rendered by Young-, 'There is one 
 who is seekiufj and judginj^;,' Acceptance of the teaching of Jesus 
 involved momentous consequences. In his accustomed sok'mn and 
 cmpliatic manner he declared that obedience to his instructions 
 wouki ward off death. ' Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man „ f,i 
 keep my word, he shall never see de<itli.' It is important here to 
 take the literal rendering of Dr. Young, 'If any one may keep my 
 word, death he may not see — to the age.' The sense of the original 
 is l)ound up with the word ' age,' and there can be no right concep- 
 tion of the passage apart from that term. Even in the translations 
 there is no escaping from it, the words ' ever, everlasting, eternal,' 
 heing obviously derived from the Latin Ibrm of 'age,' — crvum, ccfas. 
 We are bound to take the words of Jesus in their natuial sense, 
 without either underestimating or overstraining their significance. 
 It cannot be denied that the word 'age ' conveys the idea of liinita- 
 I ion ; it denotes a certain period, however indefinite or prolonged 
 that period may be. On the other hand, it appears from the answer 
 of the Jews in the context (v. a^). that the popular notion of the 
 expression 'age' was that it signified a vast stretch of time, 
 amounting in fact to perpetuity, just as we are now accustomed to 
 interpret the words 'ever' and 'never.' But in construing this 
 solemn promise of Jesus, we must not take up the random, hasty, 
 haphazard interpretation of his words which happens to be the 
 ])opular one. We must seek to grasp accurately the real import of 
 every phrase and word he used. Let us be sure that his form of 
 expression in dealing with so weighty a matter was wisely and 
 deliberately chosen. The statement, 'he shall never (in no wise — • 
 • Englishman's Greek Testament ') see death,' is at once defined, en- 
 larged and restricted by the addition — ' to the age.' AYhat is an 
 age ? The word denotes a fixed period of human existence. 
 
 ' Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, ojoi.-^g 
 
 Like as a shock of coi'u cometli in in its season.' 
 
 ' Behold, thou hast made my days as haudbreadths ; so psa. r. 
 
 And mine age is as nothing before thee.' 
 "When Jesus assures life ' to the age,' immunity from death ' to the 
 age,' he is simply promising that nothing shall cut short the allotted 
 term of existence. This does not amount to a declaration of im- 
 mortality. The apostle Paul realised a far more extended stretch of 
 time than an 'age,' and he gave expression to his idea by using the 
 word in the plural 'ages.' 'That in the ages to come he might 2 E],],. r 
 shew the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in 
 Christ Jesus.' ' Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ 3Epii.-n 
 Jesus unto all the geueratitais of the age of the ages.' ' The 1 ci. -jo 
 mystery which hath been hid from the ages and from the genera- 
 tions.' There is obviously a gradation of time in the words 'genera- 
 tions,' ' age,' 'ages.' Jesus did not see fit to employ tlie plural form. 
 His promise was personal, applicable to each individmil : ' If any 
 one may keep my word, death he may not see — to the age.' Obedience 
 to the precepts of Jesus will ensure the prolongation of human lif^i 
 to its utmost limit. More than that can scarcely lie insisted on 
 from these words of his. And never yet in the world's history has 
 
3-2 THE KING ANI> THE KINGDOM: [faut ii. 
 
 such an experience been granted to a child of Adan'. Human life 
 Avas cut sliort by the first transgression ; tiie centuries of Mcthusehih 
 were but a shortened career, and to what a span lias man's life 
 dwindled down since then ! AVhen our second Adam, the Man irom 
 heaven, works his will within us, the law of the spirit of life will 
 completely rule and eu(H'mously prolong our existence. Is not such 
 a promise enough for us ? It is too much for this world, and we 
 wait its realisation in the world to come. If Jesus had intended to 
 promise absolute immortality, no linguistic difficulty stood in the way 
 of doing so. He could have conveyed that idea as easily as the 
 apostle Paul did subsecpiently. This is a suitable opportunity for 
 
 Rom. r considering the apostle's teaching on this subject. ' To them that by 
 patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and incorruption, 
 eternal life,' rendered by Young : ' To them, indeed, who in patient 
 continuance of a good work, seek glory, and honour, and incorrupti- 
 bility — life age-dui'ing.' The aim is the highest possible, — incor- 
 ruptibility or inmKjrtality, but its antecedent and preparati\e is 
 
 5 i. Cor. 03 ' life age-during.' Again : ' For this corruptible must put on incor- 
 ruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.' This the apostle 
 speaks of as a far-off and final change, which will be granted alike to 
 the dead and the living 'at the last trump :' the dead (that is, the 
 pre-deceased) and the living (that is, survivors in this world) will 
 „ 5-2 simultaneously, instantaneously be transformed. 'We shall all be 
 changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumj) : 
 for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, 
 and we shall be changed.' The figure of ' the last trump ' implies 
 previous preparation, all arrangements made, every individual 
 watching in his place, the innumerable host of the redeemed duly 
 instructed how and when to act, having gone through prior evolu- 
 tions, and waiting but the signal from the Captain of their salvation 
 to attain their ultimate })erfection, 
 
 ii. Tim. 10 Take another passage. 'Our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished 
 death, and brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel,' 
 rendered l)y Young, ' who abolished death, but who enlightened life 
 and immortality through the good news.' Here is an evident dis- 
 tinction between life and immortality : the latter is more than the 
 former, though it be life age-during. Jesus has revealed liotli, but 
 the life age-during must come before the life immortal. 
 
 In the following passage the sense of ' age ' and 'age-during," and 
 the higher significance of ' incorruptibility ' or ' immortality,' come out 
 
 i. Tim. 17 clcarly. ' Now unto the king eternal (Gr. of the ages), incor- 
 ruptible, invisible, the only (jod, be honour and glory for ever and 
 ever (Gr. unto the ages of the ages).' In the following passage also, 
 
 i. Tim. 14— ' immortality ' is held to be a divine prerogative. 'Until the 
 ^^ appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ : which in its (or, his) own times 
 he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of 
 kings (Gr. them that reign as kings) and Lord of lords (Gr. them 
 that rule as lords) ; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light 
 unapproachable, Avhom no man hath seen, nor can see : to whom 
 be honour and power eternal.' The last word is rendered ])y 
 Young ' age-during : ' the ascription of praise to the immortal king, 
 by creatures having their appointed ' age,' is properly described by 
 the term ' aae-durin"-.' 
 
PART II.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPFLS. :y,i 
 
 Another t'onu of cxpressiou has been nsed to convey the idea of 
 imniortaUty : 'after the power of an endless ((Jr. indissoluble) life.' 
 Jesus, however, does not speak of incorruptibility, immortality, 
 endless or indissoluble life, but of ' life a_i>-e-during,' and it behoves 
 us to weigh his words with care, to insist to the utmost upon their 
 proper meaning, but not presume to go beyond it. 
 
 Tiic solemn asseveration of .Jesus was regarded by the opposing 
 Jews as evidence of madness, or worse. 'The Jews said unto him, ,- 
 Now we know that thou hast a devil (Or. demon).' They ])roved it, 
 to their own satisfiiction, thus : The best and greatest men had died, 
 yet here was one who said that he could save from death. Was he, 
 this carpenter's son, a greater man than Abraham and all the 
 prophets of the past ? Was he not arrogating to himself an un- 
 heard-of power and name ? 'Abraham is dead, and the prophets ; 
 and thou sayest. If a man keep my word, he shall never taste of 
 death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead ? 
 and the prophets are dead : Avhom makest thou thyself ? ' We must 
 again take Dr. Young's literal rendering. ' Now have we known that 
 thou hast a demon : Abraham died, and the prophets, and thou 
 sayest, If any one may keep my word, he shall not taste of death to 
 the age ! Art thou greater than our liither Abraham, who died ? the 
 prophets also died ; whom dost thou make thyself ? ' The w'ords of 
 Jesus were ' death he may not see to the age ; ' the Jews ((uote them 
 as * he shall not taste of death to the age.' Alford explains that the 
 expressions were synonymous ; ' To bcliold death as to taste of death, 
 is a Hebrew way of speaking for to die, and must not be pressed t(^ 
 mean, "shall not feel (the bitterness of) death," in a temporal sense, 
 as Stier has done.' Alford observes further : ' The death of the liodtj 
 is not reckoned as death, any more than the life of the hodij is life, in 
 our Lord's discourses ; see ch. xi. 25, 2(!, and notes. Both -words 
 have a deeper meaning.' That is only another way of saying that 
 Jesus' promise of ' life age-during ' is to be interpreted figuratively, 
 and not according to the natural sense of the words. The othei- 
 passage which Alford refers to, spoken w'ith reference to the death 
 and resurrection of Lazarus, assuredly does not bear out the idea of 
 a figurative interpretation. It is evident from the comment of these 
 Jews that the words of Jesus were taken literally, nor are w'c at 
 liberty to assume that Jesus did not intend them to be so under- 
 stood. In straining after ' a deeper meaning ' the words become 
 meaningless. 
 
 In reply to the criticism, ' Whom makest thou thyself ? ' Jesus 
 admitted that any self-exaltation or self-praise would be worthless. 
 ' Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothiug.' His 
 title to power and honour was his Father's gift : ' it is my Father 
 that glorifieth me.' And that they might not repeat their question, 
 ' Where is thy Father ? ' Jesus added : ' of whom ye say, that he is 
 your Grod.' Tischendorf, following the Vatican MS., renders, ' our 
 God.' Alford notes : ' Whom ye are in the habit of calling ipur 
 God — i.e., the God of Israel. A most important identification, from 
 the mouth of our Lord himself, of the Father with the God of Israel 
 in the Old Testament.' The God they professed to worship, they 
 were, in truth, ignorant of. ' And ye have not known him.' The 
 Authorized Version has, ' yet ye.' Alford explains : ' The sense is, 
 
34 THJS KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 of Whom ye say that he is our Grod, and (not yd noi' Init) know him 
 not.' The improved rendering of the Revisers was anticipated here, 
 as generally elsewhere, by Dr. Young. Jesus had the knowledge 
 which they lacked, and it would be a moral impossibility for him to 
 deny what he knew to be true. That being his justification for not 
 yielding to their opinions and strenuously upholding his own, he puts 
 the naked truth plainly and honestly before them. ' But I know 
 him ; and if I should say, I know him not, I shall 1)C like unto you, 
 a liar.' Young uses the past teusc : ' But [ have known him, and if 
 I say that I have not known him, I shall be like you — a liar.' It 
 must not be supposed that in making so positive and serious a charge 
 there was anything approaching to passion in the utterance of Jesus. 
 He must have been wholly incapable, even under the greatest pro- 
 vocation, of ' giving the lie ' in any offensive sense. He spoke more 
 in sorrow than in anger, and we may assume that his tone Avas 
 neither vehement nor sarcastic. There must have been a ring of 
 sadness and compassion in his accusing words. An inconsiderate 
 reader is apt to give to such denunciations an emphasis which accords 
 not with the gentle and loving spirit of Jesus. Try as we will to 
 realise the scene, the occasion, and the surroundings of this or any 
 other particular incident recorded by the evangelists, there must still 
 ever be a risk of misconception and misrendering. Our own ideas 
 and feelings mingle unconsciously with the narrative, and often, in 
 repeating the sayings of Jesus, we express ourselves rather thau him. 
 The true and accurate reading of the gospels, and indeed of Scrip- 
 ture generally, depends far more upon the depth of the reader's 
 insight than upon the clearness of his voice and the elegance of his 
 delivery. It would follow, that the fullest and most appreciative 
 mind would best interpret, by the living voice, the sense of Scripture, 
 were it not for two reasons : (1) that too little care is given to the 
 cultivation and management of the voice ; and (2) that the reverence 
 felt for Scripture deters many from rendering it artistically, as they 
 would any other work of genius. Yet surely the public reading of 
 the Bible not only justifies but claims the highest efforts of our best 
 and mcst attractive faculties ; in proportion to our appreciation of 
 its pathos, simplicity, fulness, graphicness, sublime conceptions, mag- 
 nificent imagery, and ennobling doctrine, should be our care to make 
 the reading worthy of the writing. Why should all the power of 
 expression which resides in the human voice be restricted to the 
 singing ? Why should the choristers do their utmost in the chanting, 
 and the reader perform his task negligently, apparently with cool 
 indifference, as though he were physically if not mentally incapable 
 of throwing heart and soul into the reading ? How often might 
 depths and breadths of meaning be brought out by judicious inflec- 
 tions and pauses, by that natural, irrepressible vibration of the voice 
 which accompanies the expression of whatever is deeply felt and" 
 realised ! That is a vastly different thing from what is known and 
 taught as the grace of elocution. No teaching can give the hidden 
 fire, and no instruction should be imparted or allowed in Scripture 
 reading. All about it must be natural, spontaneous : only let the 
 mind of the reader be upstrung to the proper pitch of earnest and 
 intensely reverential thought, and his reading will become naturally 
 and spontaneously artistic. There must be no copying of others in 
 
PAKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 35 
 
 niauuer or method, no straining for effect, but a licarty desire to 
 apprehend tlie full Ri.<i;niticiince of tlie narrative, the propliecy, the 
 teaching, or tiic i)arable, and to bring out its meaning with force and 
 clearness. Tlie style should vary with the SLil)ject-matter. Many 
 readers adopt one manner and one tone for everything, being always 
 either too impassive or too intensely solemn. Tlie first and foremost 
 aim of a reader should be to feel as well as to understand ; that will 
 enable him to infuse into his delivery, and impart to the listeners, 
 his own emotions and perceptions. Such an effectual I'eading of the 
 Scriptures would convey more pleasure and profit, intellectual and 
 moral, than any sermon ; the well-knowu words which now fall 
 barren on careless ears, would then become 'spirit and life,' and the 
 interest and spirituality thereby generated would diffuse tliemselves 
 over the other portions of the service of prayer and praise. Nothing 
 of that can be hoped for so long as a negligent, unimpassioned style 
 of reading prevails, such as would better 1)efit the perusal of some 
 old and tedious Act of Parliament. 
 
 Jesus repeated his assertion with respect to his knowledge of God, 
 ' But I know him, and keep his word.' Young indicates a difference s join 
 of tense : ' But I have known Him, and His word I keep.' The 
 expression 'keep his word,' would seem to mean, as in verse 52, 'act 
 according to his will.' Then, alluding to their question, ' Art thou 
 greater than our father Abraham, which is dead ? ' Jesus tells them : 
 * Your father Abraham rejoiced to see (or, that he should see) my 
 day ; and he saw it, and was glad.' This is rendered by Tischendorf : 
 ■ Your father Abraham exulted that he might see my day : and he 
 saw and was glad.' Young re^•erses the position of the words 
 ' rejoiced ' and ' was glad : ' ' Abraham, your father, was glad that he 
 might see my day ; and be saw, and rejoiced.' The patriarch had 
 rejoiced in being privileged both to anticipate and to behold the day 
 of Jesus. Alford says : ' What is the meaning of J/// day'.^ Certainly, 
 the day of Christ's appearance in the flesh.' That seems to be the 
 only possible interpretation. It agrees with the opening words of 
 this discourse of Jesus : ' I am the light of the world.' It is 
 corroborated by the revelation of Moses and Elijah upon the mount 
 conferring with Jesus, who now declares that Abraham had maui- 
 fested the same interest in his career. It is all very mysterious to us, 
 ' who are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon sjoi,i 
 earth are a shadow.' Jesus reveals matters which had come to 
 his knowledge in a prior state of existence, in another world than 
 ours : he claims acquaintance with the God of the Jews, and. with tlie 
 father of their nation. And in all this there is nothing intrinsically 
 improbable : a life elsewhere is as credible as this life is certain ; 
 a, life prolonged through centuries, in what respect is that more 
 marvellous than a lif^i prolonged through years ? And that the 
 loftiest Being in the universe should be known by Another claiming 
 fellowship with Him, that our progenitor, translated to a higher 
 sphere, should take an interest more or less active in mundane 
 affairs, is a rational belief when based on revelation, although it could 
 not be evolved from man's inner consciousness. 
 
 The criticising hearers of Jesus gave no credence to his assertion. 
 He stood before them, walked among them, as an ordinary man. Jt 
 was their humour to scoff at his woi'ds, rather than to ponder them. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 THE KIXG AND THE KINGDOM: [part ir. 
 
 s John 57 ' The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, 
 and hast thou seen Abraham ? ' The conce])tion of a prior, heavenly 
 origin and existence did not enter into their minds. Jesus now 
 „ js solemnly, plainly and unmistakably declared the fact. ' Jesus said 
 unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you. Before Abraham was (Gr. 
 Avas born), I am.' The Tauchnitz edition has the following exce]i- 
 tional note : ' Translate, Before Abraham was born, 1 am.' That is 
 the rendering of Tischendorf. Young, however, renders : ' Before 
 Abraham came — I am.' Samuel Sharpe : ' I was before Abraham 
 was born.' Luther : ' Ehe denn Abraham ward, bin ich.' ' Before 
 Abraham was (or, became), am I.' Alford prefers : ' Before Abraham 
 was made, I am.' The verb in the original is (linomai, which is 
 defined : to become, to happen : to be born : to be.' Alford adds the 
 note : ' As Liicke remarks, all unbiassed explanation of these words 
 must recognise in them a declaration of the essential prse-existence 
 of Christ.' That truth was a natural inference from the previous 
 portion of the discourse, and the emphatic asseveration of Jesus 
 places it beyond question. The word of Jesus himself stands in 
 
 iJoiini,-2 confirmation of the evangelist's opening of this gospel: 'In the 
 beginning was the Word, and the WordAvas with (}od, and the Word 
 Avas God. The same was in the beginning with God.' 
 
 The saying of Jesus found no place in the minds of the listeners. 
 Exasperated beyond measure, they Avere on the point of pelting hiiu 
 with stones, and Avould have done so, had he not in some way 
 
 s John 09 concealed himself. ' They took up stones therefore to cast at him : 
 but Jesus hid himself (or, was hidden).' It must not be assumed 
 that this attempt at stoning had a judicial character, or that the 
 death of Jesus Avas the object of the Avould-be stone throwers. It 
 was a sudden, unauthorised outburst of popular frenzy, not in any 
 way resembling the stoning of Stephen, who, after arraignment, was 
 
 7 Acts js ' cast out of the city ' and deliberately put to death in the presence of 
 
 ii Acts -20 ' Avitnesses,' Saul ' standing by, and consenting, and keeping the 
 garments of them that slew him.' The habit of throwing stones at 
 earnest-minded preachers and reformers Avould seem to have been a 
 favourite pastime of the intolerants of those days, who, on one 
 
 14 Acts 111 occasion, persuaded the multitude to stone Paul, and afterwards 
 dragged him out of the city, supposing that he AA^as dead, .lesus now 
 stood in the same danger, and how he escaped is not clear, especially 
 as there is much uncertainty in the various readings. The Autho- 
 
 s John 5!) rised Version stands : 'But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the 
 temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.' The 
 two oldest MSS. stop at the Avord ' temple,' and the Revisers have 
 done the same, adding the footnote : ' Many ancient authorities add 
 and going through the midst of them went his wag, and so jyassed hgS 
 Alford observes : ' There does not appear to l)e any miraculous esca})e 
 intended here, although certainly the assumption of one is natural 
 under the circumstances. Jesus was probably surrounded by His 
 disciples, and might thus hide himself.' That is a fair interpretation 
 of the Avords, ' hid himself, andAvent out of the temple, going through 
 the midst of them, and so passed by.' The only way of hiding in a 
 friendly crowd Avould be by stooping down, those about him making 
 a passage, so that Jesus could reach the edge unrecognised, and Avalk 
 away. Such a mode of retreat would not be dignified, but it was 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 37 
 
 hotter so tliiin that bis incensed enemies should resort to violence, 
 la some way, at all events, Jesus either 'hid himself or 'was 
 hidden,' and so escaped. 
 
 In verse 31 it was stated that Jesus began his discourse to ' those 
 Jews which had believed him.' Yet immediately upon his first 
 observation we find them questioning, doubting, arguing, shnwing 
 resentment at his teaching, and at last (verse 48) attacking his 
 reputation. Jesus was accustomed to be treated, more or less, in that 
 way. This may be taken to indicate the fact that it was no custom 
 of "the Jews to listen in silence to their religious teachers. Probably 
 Jesus liimself committed no innovation when, at the age of twelve 
 years, he was found 'sitting in the midst of the teachers, both' 
 hearing them, and asking them questions.' The liberty he thus 
 claimed for himself, he freely allowed to others. Indeed, he seems to 
 have encouraged the fullest questioning, and often provoked criticism 
 hy his outspoken sentiments, always answering carefully and thoroughly 
 any argument brought against him. The discourses to Nicodemus, 
 to the Samaritan woman at the well, and to his twelve apostles at 
 various times, show this custom under its most favourable aspect. 
 Jesus never resented, but ever welcomed discussion of lu's teaching, 
 although the criticisms were generally hostile. An example of this is 
 to be found in the (Jth chapter of John. The multitude is there 
 represented as repeatedly putting questions, in fact carrying on an 
 argument with Jesus. From the consecutiveness of the narrative it. 
 is evident that certain spokesmen of the multitude must have been 
 selected, the discussion being carried on with a closeness and accuracy 
 of reasoning not otherwise possible. This example is very striking 
 when we bear in mind the social status of the multitude. It was 
 composed of persons to whom a full and satisfying meal was a matter 
 of consequence, a thing to be eagerly desired ; for Jesus told them : 
 ' Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the < 
 loaves, and were filled.' Moreover, the discourse was delivered in 
 a place set apart for religious worship and teaching, ' in the syna- 
 gogue,' which may be taken as fairly representative of our churches 
 and chapels. All this is quite opposed to the mode of religious 
 teaching which now prevails. Children are often taught theology at 
 an early age, and through very rigid formulas, perhaps neces:^arily so, 
 the subjects dealt with being above the competence and compre- 
 hension of the infant mind, so tb.at catechisms must be learned by 
 rote, the tremendous and supernatural character of the dogmas 
 therein enunciated finding no foothold in a child's nature, and being- 
 only realisable, if remembered at all, in the maturity of manhood. 
 Religious instruction is bestowed upon adults in the same authorita- 
 tive, unchallenged manner. We are accustomed to listen in submis- 
 sive silencG to sermons from the pulpit : many preachers seem to 
 have a conviction, not that they are divinely taught, but that they 
 have been divinely appointed to teach. Xo sign of criticism or 
 dissent must be betrayed by the hearers, who are sometimes warned 
 against inattention, as though it were a sin, and forbidden even to 
 discuss the sermon afterwards, as though all comment, unless it 
 happens to be favourable, on the discourse, were a mocking of sacred 
 subjects. What are the results ? We have form without spirit ; 
 
38 THE KlXa AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 doctrines which weak and plastic minds bow down before with 
 reverence, but which hard-lieaded men, accustomed to free, honest, 
 independent thought, treat either with scorn or indifference. The 
 undemonstrative silence of a congregation would be a terrible thing 
 to preachers, had they not become habituated to it. To go on 
 preaching, sentence after sentence, for an hour at a time, and that 
 week after week for years together, and never be able to glean, by 
 word or look, the slightest intimation as to the effect produced on the 
 great majority of the hearers, that, rightly viewed, must be no small 
 trial to a Christian minister. No wonder he sometimes strives to 
 break through that awful monotony, catches at signs of languor and 
 mind-wandering, and rebukes his cougi'egation sharply, finds fault 
 with a smile here, a whisper there, a tendency to nod everywhere, and 
 bewails occasionally the strange and startling tact that his most 
 solemn exhortations and invitations produce apparently no effect on 
 the majority of his flock. All men, clergymen among them, must 
 reap as they have sown. The claim to authoritative teaching, which 
 sets itself above criticism and practically denies the right of reply, is 
 the surest way to estrange the sympathy of those to whom such 
 teaching is addressed. There can be no bond of intellectual union 
 between minister and people, on such conditions. He cannot expect 
 to act the part of a potter, nor will they submit to be moulded as clay 
 in his hands. Be his ideas and pretensions as an ordained minister 
 of the gospel what they may, he stands none the less a mere man 
 among fellow m.en, and should seek to submit his views to the judg- 
 ments, the criticisms, the questionings, which are necessardy gene- 
 rated in the minds of intelligent hearers. They may, indeed, through 
 custom or indifference, be content to lisbeu in silence, but only 
 in one way, by mutual argument and exchange of views, can their 
 minds and hearts become satisfied, and the Truth prevail. As 
 it is, there is a great gulf fixed between ministers and jDCople, none 
 the less formidable and deplorable because it is more real than 
 apparent. The courtesies of social life conceal it partly ; as does also 
 the estrangement springing from opposed ideas. The more frequently 
 such ideas are repeated by the pastor, and listened to in sullen oi- 
 contemptuous silence by the flock, the wider grows the breach 
 between them, albeit there may be nothing to indicate the sad and 
 solemn fact. Some few among the hearers, who may be gifted with 
 an uncommon share of intellectual energy, and who are led to turn it 
 towards the study of the New Testament, may hammer out a theology 
 for themselves, and find at the fountain-head the teaching and com- 
 fort their souls cra\-e : but where can those persons turn, whose souls 
 rebel against the preaching so pertinaciously and positively reiterated, 
 but who either have not enough mental capacity to expose its 
 fallacies, or Avho turn with disgust from theological doctrines so 
 handled and enforced ? They naturally take refuge in the realities of 
 life, its business, its ambitions, in anything and everything except 
 that patient and ^rapt attention which to every religious teacher 
 must be, as it was to Jesus, the ' one thing needful.' Undoubtedly 
 there are exceptions : congregations reverential, submissive, interested, 
 docile, swayed by a minister exercising real powei\ ' By their fruits 
 ye shall know them.' Does the result amount to this : that church 
 services are better attended, prayers more frequent, the Communion 
 
I'ARTii.] A HTbDY OF THE hOUU <U)Si'ELS. :\\) 
 
 table crowded, tlio c])ildrcn catechised ? ( !ood, good, good, a tlioiiHand 
 times good, if you will : religious fervour in any form is better than 
 callousness of heart, and earnestness uf l)elief and hope nuist help 
 forward morality, down even to the vagaries of the Sahation Army. 
 Hut what about the upgrowth of independent thought, the clash of 
 mind witli mind, the play of intellectual life and vigour, the sjiirit of 
 enquiry, which are as essential to the continuance and development 
 of Christianity as to everything else in the gradual progression of 
 humanity ':! These are greater matters, though orthodoxy cares not 
 for them, and ritualism aims at something different. The question is 
 this : Shall adults continue to receive religious teaching, as well as 
 children ? If so, can it be wise and right tluit they should receive Id 
 in the same manner as children, — in absolute, submissi\e silence ? 
 «[esus did not so teach, neither was he so listened to. Well was it 
 for his cause, though ill for him, well was it for the woi'ld to remotest 
 ^iges, that the religious teaching of the Jews was thus fundamentally 
 ■different from that prevailing tlu'oughout Christendom. Had Jesus 
 been doomed to preach to congregations which never dared to criti- 
 cise, to enquire, to express doubt, to speak out their own opinions, to 
 <;avil even, think you that his sermons would have produced the effect 
 they did ? There is r.'ason to su])pose that he gave no latitude to 
 criticism beyond what was common in those days ; we are told, on 
 the contrary, that his tone was more positive than that to which the 
 people had been accustomed : ' And it came to pass, when Jesus v Mat. js, -jn 
 ended these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching : 
 for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.'' 
 And as the apostles preached from synagogue to synagogue, the same 
 measure was meted out to them as bad been to their Master : their 
 ■words found acceptance or rejection according to the impression they 
 were able to produce on the minds of the hearers. There was no 
 such thing in those days as passive listening in compulsory dumbness. 
 Follow the career of the first preachers, as they went from place to 
 place : the synagogues were always centres of intellect, of thought, of 
 •debate, albeit error and blind orthodoxy often gained the ultimate 
 physical victory, as in the case of 8ti;phen : ' Buti there arose certain cAitsu 
 ■of them that were of the synagogue called of the Libertines, and of 
 the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and 
 Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to withstand 
 the wisdom and the S})irit by which he s])ake.' 'They came toirActsi,^ 
 Tliessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews : and Paul, as his 
 custom Avas, went in unto them, and for three sal)bath days reasoned 
 "with them from the scriptures.' Tlie reasoning was not, in those 
 days, all on one side, the pastor arguing from the pulpit, and the 
 sheep forbidden to utter even one responsive bleat. 'They . . came 1 3 Acts 14, 
 to Antioch of Pisidia ; and they went into the synagogue on the 
 sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and 
 the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, 
 Brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.' 
 We have changed all that. But has the change been wise and bene- 
 Jicial ? Is it well for the people ? Is it well for the priest ? 
 
 Opposition to the ministry of Jesus came from various quarters. 
 IVe have seen that when he did begin to gain intluence over men, it 
 
40 TEE KIXG AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 Avas sometimes lost iramcdiatelj, on Lis continuing- to address them. 
 His trial took at one time a domestic turn. His ' friends ' arrived at 
 the conclusion that he was going-, or had gone, out of his mind. His 
 marvellous statements about himself, his influence oxer men as the 
 giver of age-during life, and his pre-existence to Abraham, coupled 
 with the slander about demoniacal possession circulated by his oppo- 
 nents, may have led to that conclusion. It was known that enormous 
 crowds were attracted to him, and that Jesus and those with him 
 were occupied without intermission. The result of a friendly council 
 would seem to have been that some kind of restraint should be exer- 
 
 .iMikjii. J! ciscd over him. 'And the multitude cometh together again, so that 
 they could not so much as eat bread. And when his ft-iends heard 
 it, they went out to lay hold on him : for they said. He is beside himself.' 
 His supernatural jiower of exorcism was turned by his enemies into an 
 
 .. •.'■_' argument which pointed in the same direction. ' And the scribes 
 which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and. By 
 (or, in) the prince of the devils (Gr. demons) casteth he out the 
 de\'ils (Gr, demons).' Matthew gives a detailed account of what led 
 tliem to make the charge. A demoniac who was both blind and 
 dumb was brought to be cured by Jesus. The cure extended to the 
 infirmities of blindness and deafness, to the amazement of all be- 
 
 Mat. •-••-'. •-'.] holders. ' Then was brought unto him one possessed with adcA'il (or, 
 a demoniac), blind and dumb : and he healed him, insomuch that the 
 dumb man spake and saw. And all the multitudes were amazed.' 
 Tjuke appears not to have known about the blindness, for he does not 
 
 Lukf 14 mention it. ' And he was casting out a de\il (Gr. demon) which mis 
 dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil (({r. demon) was gone 
 out, the dumb man spake ; and the multitudes marvelled.' The 
 recovery of speech would naturally be more manifest to the crowd 
 than the recovery of sight. All could mark his pi'evious silence, and 
 hear his utterances after the cure, but those only wlio came near, and 
 had an opportunity of close investigation, w'ould ascertain the fact of 
 his restored vision. The discrepancy in the narratives indicates an 
 independent source of information. 
 
 The wonder of the multitude led them to debate the questioii 
 whether the ability of Jesus to perform so great a miracle, did not 
 prove him to be the expected Jewish Messiah, for Matthew adds : 
 
 iiat.L'-'.js ' And said, Is this the Son of I)a\id ?' When the Pharisees heard 
 that idea expressed, they took upon themselves to counteract it, by 
 asserting that the miracle should be regarded as evidence of a compact 
 
 ., -4 l)etween Jesus and the ruling spirit of all demons. ' But when the 
 Pharisees heard it, they said. This man doth not cast out devils (Gr. 
 demons), but by (or, in) Beelzebub the prince of the devils (Gr, 
 demons).' We have seen that Mark attributed that slanderous 
 assertion to ' the scribes which came down from Jerusalem.' The 
 scribes and Pharisees were constantly associated in opposition tt^ 
 flesus. Luke appears not to \m\e know u who were the authors of the 
 
 I. Ilia 1.-. calumny, for he speaks vaguely, ' But some of them said. By (or, In) 
 Beelzebub the prince of the devils (Gr. demons) casteth he out devils 
 ((i!r. demons).' Luke, howe\cr, records the fact, omitted by Matthew 
 •and Mark, that this suggestion led to another. Jesus was urged to 
 
 „ Hi disprove the accusation by giving some sign out of heaven. 'And 
 others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from (out of — -Young) 
 
I'AKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 41 
 
 liL'u\'cn.' Jesus beiiij? cognizant of what was in their minds, 
 endeavoured to convince them by argument. ' But he, knowing tlieir n i.i.uc 17 
 thoughts, said unto them . . '.' Tliis stands in Matthew: ' And u M„t. 25 
 Iviiowing their thoughts he said unto them . . .' It is to be inferred 
 from the narrati\ e tliat tiic charge of Satanic agency was not launched 
 forth in the hearing of Jesus, but that he was intuitively, whether 
 supernaturally or not wc cannot Aenture to say, aware of it. The 
 demand of a sign out of heaven was sufficient to show what was passing 
 in their minds. From Mark's iiarrative it api)ears that Jesus and his 
 accusers were not standing face to face, but were some distance apart, 
 for we are told, 'And lie V^allcd them unto him, and said unto them ;i .Murk jij 
 in parables . . .' His usual figurative teaching had on this occasion 
 a special application to what had just happened. Every community, 
 large or small, be it a nation, a city, or a family, can only be held 
 together by unity of purpose. National rebellion and social anarchy 
 are synonymous ; tumults among fellow citizens lead to destruction 
 of property and business ; and feuds in a family must disorganize 
 and eventually In-euk up the home. ' Every kingdom divided against u Mat. -.. 
 itself is brought to desolation ; and every city or house divided 
 against itself shall not stand.' Luke does not mention ' every city,' 
 but adds to the first clause of the verse, ' and a house divided against u i.uke 17 
 a house falleth (or, and house falleth upon house).' Mark's record is 
 the same in sense, although differing somewhat in words. In the 
 accounts of our Lord's sayings we constantly meet with such varia- 
 tions, which obviously must have arisen from defects in the memory 
 or notes of the first or subsequent reporters. ' And if a kingdom be 3 Ma.k -n 
 divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. xVnd if a house 
 he divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.' 
 Matthew and'^Lnke apply to the 'kingdom' the expression ' brought 
 to desolation.' Luke alone applies to the ' house ' the word ' falleth.' 
 Mark adopts both for the 'kingdom' and the 'house' the term 
 ' stand.' He also prefaces the illustration wnth the question, ' How .. -^^ 
 can Satan cast out Satan ? ' The drift of the argument is best 
 apprehended by Young's translation of the word ' Satan ' as ' adver- 
 sary : ' ' How is an adversary able to cast out an adversary ? ' Each 
 evangelist continues the account in his own way, the agreement being 
 subst^intial and the verbal discrepancies unimportant. ' And if Satan i-' Mat. -m; 
 casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself : how then shall his 
 kingdom stand?' 'And if Satan also is divided against himself, 11 Lni<r is 
 how shall his kingdom stand ? because ye say that 1 cast out devils 
 (Gr. demons) by (or, in) Beelzebub.' 'And if Satan hath risen up :iMiuk-jc. 
 against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.' 
 It would be the height of absurdity for the Adversary thus to oppose 
 himself, foil his own plans, weaken his own power, annihilate himself. 
 And if the act of exorcism by Jesus involved complicity with Satan, how 
 would these Pharisees account for the exercise of the same power by 
 disciples of their own ? ' And if I by (or, in) Beelzebub cast out i-.^ Mat. -.'7 
 devils (Gr. demons) by (or, in) whom do your sons cast them out ? 
 therefore shall they be your judges.' Luke records this verse in 
 precisely the same words. The Authorised A^ersioii has ' children ' in 
 Matthew and 'sons' in Luke. The Revisers have brought the 
 passages into harmony. Alford explains that the word ' sons ' is 
 equivalent to ' scholars — disciples,' and refers for one instance of such 
 
42 THE KINa AND THE KINGDOM: [p.iRx ii. 
 
 ii. Kings 3 usG of it to the passage, 'And the sons of the prophets that were at 
 Beth-el came forth to Elisha.' Alford says : ' The interpretation of 
 this verse has been much disputed ; viz., as to whether the castiiii;- 
 out by the sousof the Pharisees were ]-eal or pretended exorcisms . . . 
 In Josephus we read that Solomon " left forms of exorcism, by which 
 they cast out demons, so that they never return. And this kind of 
 cure is very common among us to this day." ' It is clear that some 
 kind of exorcism, real or imaginary, was practised by the Jews ; and 
 Jesus argued that the rule of judgment applied to him with reference 
 thereto, must also apply to others. It could not be held that the 
 power allowed and extolled in others, Avas evidence of Satanic agency 
 when displayed by Jesus ; nor would those sons of the Pharisees 
 tamely submit to be branded, by implication, with so terrible a 
 charge : ' therefore shall they be your judges.' On any fair and 
 honest reasoning, the very opposite conclusion must be arrived 
 at : the demon spirit must be held to be cast out by the divine spirit, 
 and the fact admitted, that the divine power and rulershij) was being 
 12 Mat. -28 established among them. ' P)Ut if I by (or, in) the Spirit of (Jod 
 cast out the devils (Gr. demons), then is the kingdoar of God come 
 upon you.' Instead of the word 'Spirit' Luke introduces the word 
 
 1 1 Luke -20 ' finger.' ' But if I by the finger of God cast out devils (Gr. demons), 
 
 then is the kingdom of God come upon you.' The sense is the same ; 
 but did Jesus use both forms of expression ? If not, which of the 
 two.? Who changed 'Spirit' into 'fingei',' or the reverse? To a 
 Jewish mind the difference would be immaterial, the latter being a 
 ])roverbial way of expressing the former ; so that a reporter of the 
 discourse, being equally familiar with both forms, might unconsciously 
 
 s Ex. Ill have adopted the one for the other. ' Then the magicians said unto 
 Pharaoh, This is the finger of God,' that is, the working of God's 
 
 31 Ex. 18 power. ' Tables of stone, written with the finger of God : ' probably 
 a Jew would not take that literally, any more than the words of the 
 
 -s Psii. .■? Psalmist : ' When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, 
 the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained.' The 'finger' of 
 (lod is synonymous with the working, the Spirit, the ordainment 
 of God. 
 
 Mark has not recorded the argument with respect to the sons of 
 the Pharisees, but the additional illusfcratioti which follows is given 
 
 3 Mark 27 by the three evangelists. In Mark it stands : ' But no one can enter 
 into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first 
 bind the strong man ; and then he will spoil his house.' In Matthew 
 
 12 Mat. 2!) the only ditt'erence is in the opening words, which are, ' Or how can 
 
 one enter,' instead of ' But no one can enter.' In Luke the illustra- 
 11 f.uke 21, tion is moi'e elaborated : 'When the strong »««» fully armed guardeth 
 '^ his own court, his goods are in peace : but when a stronger than 
 he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him his 
 whole armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.' Jesus 
 puts forwai-d the parable as accurately representing the nature of the 
 work in which he was engaged. So far from being in collusion with 
 the adversary, he was his most strenuous and powerful opponent. 
 The casting out of demons denoted victory over the prince of demons ; 
 and the imparting of the same power of exorcism to the disciples of 
 Jesus might fitly be compared to the dividing of a conqueror's spoils 
 among his followers. The idea of complicity with evil must be 
 
I'ART 11.] A ,rrUJ)Y OF THE FOUR (JOSl'FLS. 43 
 
 scoutod. The stron.i^-est form of proverl) was not too stvon,c^to denote 
 the aiitn<;-oni.sm which exists between Jesus and evil, and the ntter 
 inipossibdity of any combination, truce, or agreement among tliose 
 engaged in such a warfare, 'He that is not with me is against i:iM;u. :;<i 
 me; "and he that gathereth not with me scatteretli.' Luke gives 
 precisely tlie same words. Mark omits them. 
 
 The scandalousness of the charge which had been brought against 
 Jesus impelled him to utter a very solemn warning. ' Therefore I ■'■^ 
 
 say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : 
 but the blasi)hemy against the Si)irit shall not be forgiven.' Mark's 
 account is fuller, and seems to give the exact words of Jesus. 
 
 * Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons ;niark-.s .jo 
 of men, and their blasphemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme : 
 
 but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never 
 forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin : because they said. He 
 hath an unclean spirit.' These last eight words, giving the reason 
 why Jesus made the observation, agree in effect with Matthew's, 
 
 * Therefore I say unto you : ' obviously there was some such preface 
 to the remark, though Mark does not record it. 
 
 Let us first note the difference between the Authorisedand Revised 
 Yersions of Matthew. ' x\ll manner of sin and blasphemy ' is now 
 rendered ' Every sin and blasphemy,' which agrees with Tischendorf. 
 Young renders, ' All sin and evil speaking.' The alteration is an 
 irapoi-tant one. 'All manner ' simply refers to the kinds of sin and 
 blasphemy which shall be forgiven ; but the words ' every ' and ' all ' 
 keep out of view the kinds, and relate to the entire catalogue, as a 
 whole, of sin and blasphemy. The Revisers note that instead of 
 
 * unto men,' ' some ancient authorities read I'/ifo you men.'' That is 
 the reading of the Yatican M8., but Tischendorf does not adopt it. 
 In the Authorised Yersion verse 31 ends with the words 'unto men,' 
 but the Revisers have not repeated them, in deference to the reading 
 of the two oldest M8S. In verse 31 the Authorised Yersion has 
 
 * CKja'uist the Holy Spirit,' the italics showing that the words ' against ' 
 nnd ' Holy ' were added by the translatoj-s. The Revisers have not 
 italicised the word ' against,' ^vhich is rendered 'of by Young, but 
 they have omitted ' Holy,' with Young and Tischendorf. Tischen- 
 dorf renders ' will be forgiven ' and ' will not be forgiven,' instead of 
 'shall be forgiven' and 'shall not be forgiven.' This may be 
 regarded as more than a mere verbal difference. The word ' shall ' 
 is more restrictive, seeming to indicate rather the power and possi- 
 bility of forgiveness than its certainty and universality ; the word 
 Mviir is absolute, docs not involve but rather excludes the idea of 
 any uncertainty : ' all sin will be forgi^•en,' is simply the assertion of 
 <i fact ; ' all sin shall be forgiven,' raises in the mind a conception of 
 one who says it shall or it shall not. 
 
 l\\ Mark the Revisers have twice inserted the word ' their,' where 
 it does not appear in the Authorised Yersion : 'All their sins shall 
 be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies.' Tischen- 
 dorf renders : ' All things shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, the 
 sins and the blasphemies.' The Revisers have replaced the words 
 
 * is in danger of eternal damnation,' by, ' is guilty of an eternal sin.' 
 Alford gives the same reading. The "Sinaitic MS. reads, ' shall be in 
 
44 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 danger.' The word ' damnation ' (judgment — Young) has been 
 altered to ' sin ' on the authority of the two oldest MSS. Instead of 
 ' is guilty,' Tischendorf renders ' will be guilty.' Young's rendering- 
 is as follows : ' A\\ the sins shall be forgiven to the sous of men, and 
 evil speakings with which they may speak evil ; but whoever may 
 speak evil of the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness — for the age, but 
 is in dauger of age-during judgment.' 
 
 Taking Matthew and Mark together, what is the doctrine here 
 enunciated by Jesus ? ' Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven 
 unto men.' ' All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, 
 and their blasphemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme.' By 
 introducing in Mark the word ' their,' the Revisers have brought out 
 the fact that the allusion is to sins and evil speakings of man against 
 man. In Matthew also only a slight pause is needed : ' shall be 
 forgiven — unto men,' to indicate that the sin and evil speaking- 
 referred to are those ' unto men ' or ' unto you men,' not ' unto the 
 Spirit.' The ' Englishmen's Greek New Testament ' gives the literal 
 translation of Matthew thus : ' Every sin and blasphemy shall be for- 
 given to men ; but the concerning the spirit blasphemy shall not bo 
 forgiven.' Until the Revisers, following the two oldest MSS.. 
 excluded after ' forgiven ' the words ' unto men,' which had stood for 
 centuries as the last two words of this verse, it was not possible to 
 adopt the \\^vi which is probably the correct one. ' CJnto men ' 
 seemed bound to the previous word ' forgiven.' The passages can 
 now be read a,s though they stood : ' All sins and evil speakings unto 
 men shall be forgiven,' 'All their sins unto the sons of men shall be 
 forgiven.' The ' Englishman's Greek New Testament ' renders Mark 
 literally thus : 'All the sins to the sous of men, and blasphemies 
 whatsoever they shall have blasphemed shall be forgiven ; but who- 
 soever shall blaspheme against the Spirit the Holy . . .' 
 
 And how must Ave understand the word ' forgiven ? ' Forgiven by 
 man, or forgiven by God ? That question has no bearing upon 
 the matter, if we can only be persuaded that ' forgiveness ' must be a 
 fact and not a fiction, actual and not merely verbal, a reality in 
 existence and not simply an intellectual conception : to the prisoner, 
 freedom from confinement ; to the debtor, cancelment of the debt ; to 
 the transgressor in any shape, deliverance from the penalty imposed. 
 Nothing short of that can be real forgiveness. To the extent to 
 which man can deliver man from the consequences due to or actually 
 inflicted upon wrong doing, to that extent does the exercise of human 
 forgiveness reach. And the divine forgiveness must surely reach as 
 far and perform as much, unless it be a mere figment of the imagina- 
 tion, a theological idea, a belief in some assumed change in the mind 
 and will of God towards us, of which, however, we can have no 
 evidence apart from some corresponding change in ourselves and our 
 surroundings. When Jesus asserted that all sin and evil speaking 
 among men will be forgiven, must he not have meant, that in the 
 onward progress of humanity a time will come when the sins and 
 slanders of this life will have been sufficiently atoned for, leaving no 
 resentment of past wrongs on the part of the injured, and no per- 
 manent stain upon the moral nature of the injurer, the renovation of 
 society being perfected through the regeneration of each individual, 
 w'ith no punishment, human or divine, to be imposed or dreaded on 
 
PART II.] A STUItY OF THE FUl'R (.'OSI'ELS. 45 
 
 account of past transgressions ? Such a consumniation can be brouglit 
 about only througli the working of 'the Holy Spirit of (iod, in whom i I'^i'ii- •"" 
 we are sealed unto the day of redemption ;' and if a man grieves, 
 maligns, blasphemes, speaks evil of that Spirit whence can regenera- 
 tion "and forgiveness come to him ? That sin, and its penalty, lie 
 not within the range of human jurisdiction. Tliey are bound up 
 with the very existence of the transgressor, defiling and hardening 
 the mind and conscience : he 'hath never forgiveness, but is guilty 
 of an eternal sin,' literally, he ' hath not forgiveness — for the age, but 
 is guilty of an age-duriug sin.' This is the one moral obli(|uity from 
 which there can be no salvation : the transgressor must bear the 
 burden of his infamy to his 'last day ; ' the guilt and condemnation 
 are declared by the Saviour to be ' age-during : ' we may neither take 
 from nor add to that declaration. 
 
 jMatthew has preserved a further saying of Jesus on this subject. 
 ' And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall ij mm. .u 
 he forgiven him.' The evil speaking of mankind against the Messiah 
 is pardonable, equally with that against men in general. ' But who- ■■■^ 
 
 soever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven 
 him, neither in this world (or, age), nor in that which is to come.' 
 Young renders : ' neither in this age, nor in that which is coming.' 
 ' Neither in this age, nor in that to come,' is the rendering of Samuel 
 Sharpe. Luther, however, used the word ' Welt,' ' world,' and it is 
 surprising how tenaciously translators liave clung to the word ' world.' 
 Dr. Samuel Davidson, in his translation from the Latiu critical text 
 of Von Tischendorf, retanis the word ' world : ' yet in Beza's Latin 
 Testament the passage stands, ' neque in hoc seculo, neque in futuro.' 
 Alford admitted the true meaning of the word aidn, but seems to 
 have regarded as a matter of indilierence the fact that it has been 
 rendered in a variety of ways. He says : ' The expressions t/iis world, 
 (equivalent to tJtis jirenrnt world, Tit. ii. 12 : 2 Tim. iv. 10 ; this 
 time, Mark x. 30 ; the course {(uje) of this world, Eph. ii. 2 ; this present 
 evil ivofld. Gal. i. 4), and the irorld to come (see Mark x. 30 ; equiva- 
 lent to thcit ivortd, Luke xx. 35 ; tJie ages to cume, Eph. ii. 7) were 
 I'ommon among the Jews, and generally signified respectively the 
 time before and after the coming of the Messiah.' In every 
 passage here quoted by Alford, the w^ord ' age ' has been adopted 
 by Young. The persistent use of a wrong word is no small matter. 
 The Revisers have not discarded ' world,' but they have given 
 the word ' age ' in the margin. For that much let us be thankful. 
 
 Jesus added another illustration of the supreme folly of attributing 
 good works to an evil origin. The suggestion was contrary to the 
 course of nature. ' Either make the tree good, and its fruit good ; or ij Mat. :■>:! 
 make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt : for the tree is known by 
 its fruit.' Adopting that simple rule of judgment, the abominable 
 slander uttered against Jesus betrayed the natural depravity of the 
 speakers, Jesus did not scruple now to endorse with his own 
 authority the crushing sarcasm which the Baptist had applied to the 
 Pharisees and Sadducees : ' Ye offspring of vipers.' That title might j .Mat. r 
 well designate them : their bitter hostility, their hissing calumnies, 
 their tortuous insinuations, their crawling subtleties, the poisonous 
 malice of their envenomed tongues, — all these things were as evident 
 
4G THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 as they were inimical and repulsive to good and earnest-ininded 
 teachers. Truth and charity wei'e as strange to their lips as an 
 
 VI Mat. :;4 unknown language. 'Ye oHspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, 
 speak good things ? for out of the abundance of the heart the ruouth 
 speakcth.' The thoughts, good or evil, treasured in the rnind, and the 
 desires cherished in rhe heart, must needs find utterance, and thereby 
 „ 3.j manifest the disposition and character. ' The good man out of his 
 good treasure bringeth forth good thiugs : and tlie evil man out of 
 his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.' The conversation of a 
 man, even his most casual talk, is as important as any other form of 
 .. "i; human action, and will be judged in the same way. ' And I say unto 
 you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give 
 account thereof in the day of judgement.' How must we understand 
 this allusion to ' the day of judgement ?' Not, assuredly, according 
 to the popular conception of it. The words of Jesus must be taken 
 in their simplicity in the light of the context only. In the original 
 there is no article before 'day : ' it is simply 'in day of judgment/ 
 which undoubtedly means 'in time of judgment.' He does not say 
 judgment after death, or final judgment, or divine judgment, or 
 universal judgment. Let us take a somewhat similar saying of Jesus : 
 
 .-. Mat. j:. ' Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art with him in the 
 way ; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge.' That 
 would be a day, time, way of judgment. The idea in both passages 
 is confined to that. "We must not add to it wliat Jesus did not add. 
 He does not assert, (how then can we presume to do so ?) that judg- 
 ment will be held in every case, but simply that when a judgment 
 does take place, every casual remark brought before the ti'ibunal will 
 be investigated, and the responsibility attaching to its utterance 
 brought home to the speaker. Jesus had just declared : ' All evil- 
 speaking shall be forgiven unto men.' He seems now to be alluding 
 to exceptional cases, in wh:ch there is not forgiveness but judgment. 
 It is obvious that he could not at one and the same time have intended 
 it to be understood that all our evil words would be forgiven and 
 that all idle words would be judged. It is equally evident that his 
 object was to inculcate the responsibility attaching to all speech, 
 especially that which takes the form of criticism. The lesson he 
 
 i-'Mat. 37 Avould have men learn was this: 'For by thy words thou shalt be 
 justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.' 
 
 At this point there is some uncertainty about the arrangement of 
 the narrative. Following Luke's order, we should have to pass over 
 five verses of jMatthew. Verse 43 begins with the word ' but,' which 
 indicates a sequence, yet the subject introduced appears, at first sight, 
 to have no connection with what precedes, but to be more nearly 
 related to the matter lately presented, for Jesus gives an explanation 
 of the fact of demoniacal repossession after exorcism. On the other 
 hand, the words in verse 45, ' Even so shall it be also unto this evil 
 generation,' show the bearing of this on the previous discourse, and 
 lead to the conclusion that Matthew's arrangement is correct. He 
 tells us that some of the class of persons Jesus had been condemning, 
 retorted by asking him for a sign in attestation of his authority. 
 , -^ ' Then certain of the scribes aud Pharisees answered him, saying, 
 Master (or, Teacher), we would see a sign from thee.' Jesus replied 
 
PAKT II.] A STUDY OF TEE Foil! aoSPELS. Al 
 
 tluit such a demand was in itself an indication of evil and immor- 
 ality : only when the f2,-nidan(,'e of reason and conscience are set aside, 
 and the sanctities of human nature vicilated, can there arise a craving 
 for Slime other and external illumination to supply tlic want of that 
 natural h'ght which lighteth every man. ' fJut he answered and said 12 Mat. ;i:> 
 unto them, An evil and adulterous g-eneration seeketh after a sign.' 
 Luke does not state who were the questioners, but tells us that these 
 words of .lesus formed the opening of a discourse to a large congrega- 
 tion. 'And when tlie multitudes were gadiering together unto him, i: Liii;e ■.■;. 
 he began to say. This generation is an evil generation : it seeketh 
 after a, sign.' Probably the scribes and Phai'isees had chosen for their 
 \ isit a time shortly previous to that fixed for the sermon to be 
 delivered by Jesus, and he preferred to give liis answer the greatest 
 publicity possible. He told them that the arbitrary desire for a 
 miracle would not be gratified, except after the same fashion as that 
 in which Jonah became a sigu to the Xinevites : 'and there shall no „ l'h, yi> 
 sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah. For even as Jonah 
 became a sign unto tlie Ninevites, so shall also the Sou of man be to 
 this generation.' Matthew gives the words of .Fesus more fully : ' and i-2Mat.3!),4i> 
 rhere shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet : 
 lor as Jonah was three days and thivc nights in the belly of the 
 whale (Gr. sea-monster), so shall the Son of man be three days and 
 three nights in the heart of thu earth.' The expression ' heart of the 
 earth,' is peculiar. Alford constructed the following argument 
 respecting it. ' Jonah himself calls the belly of the sea-monster 
 '' the belly of Hades," =i]ie heart of fhe rartJi, here. And observe, 
 that the type is not of our Lord's body being deposited in the tomb 
 of Joseph of Arimathea, for neither could that be called " the heart of 
 the earth," nor could it be said that "the Son of man "was there 
 during the time ; but of our Lord's personal descent into the place 
 of departed souls.' The argument outruns the subject of discourse. 
 A descent ' into the place of departed souls ' could be no sigu to living- 
 men. Probably the expression ' heart of the earth ' was a colloquial 
 figure of speech, as we now speak of ' the l)osom of the earth.' The 
 meaning attachable to the words of Jesus seems to amount to this : 
 The teacher himself must be the sign, — as Jonah to the Xinevites, so 
 Jesus to his generation. But taking the word 'sign 'as equivalent 
 to ' wonder ' or ' marvel,' the mysterious reappearance of Jonah after 
 an absence from the world of three days would be paralleled in the 
 history of Jesus by a similar supernatural resurrection, after an 
 iuterment in the earth extending over the same period. He tells them 
 here what he told his disciples privately, that after three days he 
 would rise again. 
 
 H' reformation did not follow \\\)0\\ the preaching of Jesus, it could 
 i»e for no lack of a sign, for the example of the Xinevites proved the 
 contrary. ' The men of Xineveh shall stand up in the judgement „ 41 
 with this generation, and shall condemn it : for they repented at the 
 1 treadling of Jonah ; and behold, a greater than (Gr. more than) 
 Jonah is here.' Young renders : ' for they reformed at the proclama- 
 tion of Jonah, and lo, something greater than Jonah here : ' Tischeu- 
 dorf : ' because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and 
 'ochold, more than Jonah is here.' The omission by Dr. Young of 
 the definite article at the beginning of the verse is not unimportant. 
 
48 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 ' The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgement,' may be taken 
 by some persons to refci' to a day of general, simultaneous judgment 
 both of living and dead, but there is seen to be no ground for such 
 an idea when the word ' the ' before ' men ' is struck out. .Jesus is 
 here simply contrasting the pri\ileges and conduct of those who 
 asked him for a sign, with those of men who reformed their lives at 
 Jonah's warning : in that review, or judgment, the Jews would 
 stand condemned by Ninevites. The judgment here spoken of is not 
 that of God over his creatures, or of Messiah over mankind, but the 
 silent, self-evident condemnation of one class of persons by comparison 
 with others, jSTinevites rising up out of ancient history to cast dis- 
 credit on the men of the latest generation. That is the natural, un- 
 strained sense of the assertion made by Jesus, harmonising with the 
 context and developing his argument. It is a hasty and inconsiderate 
 idea, to assume that the juxtaposition of the words ' the judgment ' 
 with the word ' rise ' must needs refer to the resuirectiou of tlie dead 
 at the last judgment. iVgainst an interpretation of the passage so 
 far-fetched and misleading, it is enough to point out that the con- 
 demnation proceeds from the Ninevites, not from the judge. The 
 Revisers have helped forward the proper view of the passage by alter- 
 ing ' rise ' into ' stand up.' 
 
 The drift of the argument is evident from the expression, ' more 
 than Jonah is here.' In blind perverseness the scribes and Pharisees 
 were asking for something they had not and could not have, some 
 special 'sign.' Jesus replies that they had already more than was 
 necessary : Jonah had sufficed for the reformation of the Nine^■ites, 
 and here was more than Jonah. The allusion was indefinite, not 
 restricted to the personality of Jesus : they had ' more ' everyway : 
 advanced knowledge, a purer creed, and, in place of a half-hearted, 
 wavering i)rophet, unAvillingly making proclamation of coming doom, 
 an incomparable, earnest, loving Teacher. Uviiig, preaching, and 
 working miracles among them. 
 
 VI Mut. 4-2 Precisely the same idea is conveyed by the next illustration. ' The 
 queen of the south shall rise up in the judgement with this generation, 
 and shall condemn it : for she came from tfie ends of the earth to 
 hear the wisdom of Solomon ; and behold, a greater than (Gr. more 
 than) Solomon is here.' More, by as much as heaven exceeds earth, 
 and the gospel of the kingdom of God the wisdom of the world. 
 
 Luke corresponds very nearly Avith Matthew, except that he places 
 the reference to the Ninevites after that to tlie queen of the south. 
 
 II i.nk(^ :;i, ' The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgement with the men 
 ''"' of this generation, and shall condemn them : for she came from the 
 ends of the earth to hear the wisdom oi' Solomon ; and behold, a 
 greater than (Gr. more than) Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh 
 shall stand up in the judgement with this generation, and shall con- 
 demn it : for they repented at the preaching of Jonah ; and behold, 
 a greater than (Gr. more than) Jonah is hei-e.' In both narratives the 
 words rendered respectively by the Revisers ' stand up' and 'rise up' 
 represent the Greek verbs anisiemi aud egeird. This free interchange 
 of two words is inconsistent with the idea that they carry a theological 
 sense, in relation to the doctrine of a resurrection. In the original there 
 is no definite article : it is simply, ' Men of Nineveh,' as in Matthew. 
 
 i:; .Mat. 4a Jesus Continued : ' But the unclean spirit, when he (or, it) is gone 
 
i>ART 11.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUll GOSl'FLS. 4'.> 
 
 out of the man, passeth tln'ouj^'h waterless places, seeking- rest, and 
 findetli it not.' Tlie word ' but,' wliicli indicates a connection witli 
 what went before, is omitted in tlie Authorised Version ; it is inserted 
 by Young, Tischendorf and Alford. Here is the case of a man wlio 
 has been under the dominion of spiritual evil, but is freed from it. 
 Jesus speaks here, as often elsewhere, of the evil spirit as a real, living 
 Being. That is a mystery which we cannot fatiiom ; we must not 
 feign to possess knowledge on a subject of which we are profoundly 
 ignorant. We know absolutely nothing about spiritual Beings such 
 as are here alluded to, and we can only follow, huinbly and reverently, 
 the words of our great Teacher on tlie subject, lie i)ictures to us, 
 in his expressive, figurative way, the restlessness and misery of the 
 disembodied spirit — a weary traveller through a desert, with no water 
 to appease thirst, and no place for shelter and repose. The resolution 
 is therefore taken to return to the former dwelling-place. ' Then he i-' mui. u 
 (or, it) saith, I will i-eturn into my house, whence I came out.' 
 Acting upon this determination, the prior abode is found to be, 
 according to Young's literal translation, ' unoccupied, swept, and ., u 
 adorned.' ' And when he (or, it) is come, he (or, it) tindeth it empty, n i.nkc jt- 
 swept, and garnished.' Luke's narration of the parable is from first '-'" 
 
 to last almost word for word identical with Matthew, except that the 
 first word, ' but,' is omitted, and also here the word ' empty.' But 
 for that, we should be inclined to think that the chief point of the 
 warning lay in this fact of the emptiness of the place — that there was 
 nothing to hinder repossession. As it stands, no particular stress 
 attaches to the word ' empty.' The old home now showed all the 
 external signs of decency and refinement ; but there had been no 
 barring of the door against the possibility of re-entry. It stood 
 invitingly open, and the former evil occupant sought the companion- 
 ship of seven kindred spirits, worse in character than himself; all 
 together they took possession of that li\'ing temple which should ever 
 be kept sacred to the service of God and man, and the lordship of 
 evil being now re-established over the man's body and mind, his 
 condition became worse than before, and finally hopeless. ' Then J- i'-'i- ->•"' 
 goeth he (or, it), and taketh with himself (or, itself) seven other 
 spirits more evil than himself (or, itself), and they enter in and dwell 
 there : and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. 
 Matthew records the application given by Jesus himself to this 
 parable. ' Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation.' The .. +'• 
 iidvances they had been able to make towards a better, purer, higher 
 life, would be forfeited and lost. The fair show of social decorum 
 and religious ol)servances would be disorganised, trampled into con- 
 fusion, and ruthlessly destroyed. Past history would repeat itself, 
 with added marks of evil, of misery, of horroi'. 
 
 Luke here relates an incident not recorded by the other evangelists. 
 Among the crowd of listeners was a woman, who was so enraptured 
 by the discourse of Jesus that she gave vent to her feelings by a 
 loudly-uttered cry of admiration. Her tribute of praise was con- 
 ceived in true womanly fashion, amounting in fact to this, Happy 
 the mother of such a son ! ' And it came to pass, as he said these ii lmi<i' 17 
 things, a certain -woman out of the multitude lifted up her voice, and 
 said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts 
 
50 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [parx ii. 
 
 which thou did suck.' Even such an outburst as that Jesus would 
 not suifer to pass unnoticed or unimproved. It is evident that on all 
 occasions he manifested the utmost consideration for any arguments 
 or sentiments expressed by those he was addressing. He left no 
 objector without a fitting reply, and occasionally suffered repeated 
 iuterruptions to the chain of his reasoniugs. He now takes up the 
 woman's sayiug, and deals with it appreciatively and gently. The 
 eulogy was based upon his preaching, and any blessing connected 
 with that must fall primarily, chiefly, if not entirely, upon those who 
 heard from him the word of God in a spirit of obedience. True, 
 their happiness might reflect itself upon his mother, but what was 
 that compared with the direct blessing resulting from his teaching ? 
 11 Luk,' 28 ' But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, 
 and keep it.' It was as though one should exclaim, Happy the 
 mother of so skilful a physician ! and be answered, Yes, but how 
 much happier the multitudes he has been able to cure ! 
 
 Probably the observation of the woman was suggested by the fact 
 that the mother of Jesus was then known to be standing at the edge 
 112 Mat. -10 of the crowd, waiting until his discourse should be finished. This is 
 :) Marie 31 hcrc Stated both by Matthew and Mark, and the incident has already 
 s Luke v.> ]jQQix considered in connection with Luke's narrative, the displace- 
 :; Maik 'ji ment in which probably extends to this portion also. Mark tells us» 
 just before he relates the charge of the scribes of complicity with 
 Beelzebub, that the friends of Jesus went out to lay hold on him, 
 under the idea that he was beside himself. At the close of the reply 
 „ ai of Jesus, Mark reports that his brethren and mother were standing- 
 without, enquiring for him, and Matthew introduces them at the 
 same point in the narrative. The inference is clear : at the very 
 time when the woman, in her outspoken impetuosity, was assuming 
 the mother of Jesus to be the happiest among women, Mary's heart 
 must have been agitated with grief and anxiety. No one could 
 realise her lilessedness so fully as herself. The salutation of the 
 angel Gabriel would even yet be sounding in her ears, as would the 
 1 Luke ij congratulatory words of Elisabeth, ' Blessed art thou among women, 
 and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.' But now, and for how long- 
 before we know not, her sublime joy had been turned to bitter 
 misery. The problem of her life was not an easy one. From the 
 time when Joseph her husband had been minded to put her away 
 privily, she had been destined, owing to her unparalleled experiences 
 and surroundings, to occupy a false position, not morally false, but 
 outwardly so, on account of that strange secret in her history of 
 which her betrothed husband knew nothing and judged wrongly, 
 until he received a special revelation on the subject, and of which 
 the world at large and probably Mary's own family knew absolutely 
 nothing to her dying day. Her miraculous conception of the child 
 Jesus was not a matter which could be entrusted to the four winds" 
 of idle rumour, subject to all the irreverence and scepticism which 
 would have mingled with public discussion and criticism. Such a 
 topic must needs have been far too sacred for the world's gaze and 
 comments. The holy marvel doubtless remained a locked secret in 
 Mary's bosom. 8he kept all these things, and pondered them in her 
 heart, and must have watched her child's development and course of 
 action with feelings of submissive, self-repressive awe and expectation. 
 
I'AKT II.] A STUDY OF THE Foil! GOSPELS. 51 
 
 So if. came to puss, that hev other cliildreu had no perception of the 
 divine ori,2,-in a,nd heavenly work of Jesus ; they judi^cd of him 
 aceordino- to the idea current with tliose who were older than them- 
 selves, men of learuini>- and reputation, scribes and I*harisees, who 
 had come in contact with Iiim, tested him, and condemned hira. 
 I'j\ery glimpse we get of the family life confirms this natural conclu- 
 sion. At one time we find Jesus a(hnitting the fact that he was 'a is mui. r.a 
 prophet without honour in his own house.' and the neighbours per- 
 suaded that he was simply on an equality in all points with his 
 brothers and sisters. At another time we are told that 'even hisvjoim^ 
 brethren did not believe on him,' and challenged him to take more 
 active measures to convince the world, if hereahy believed in himself. 
 NoAV we find his ' friends ' criticising his public teachings and grow- 
 ing notoriety, and expressing their conviction that he was ' beside 
 himself.' In tlieir etforts to 'lay hold on him' they naturally 
 I'ulisted the aid of his relatives, whose errand to Jesus seems to have 
 been in connection with this attempt. His mother was perforce 
 with them. How could she have stood aloof? 81ie was but a weak 
 woman, apparently a widow, for .Joseph her husband is never alluded 
 to. In that position, it would have been a moral impossibility for 
 her to disclose now any of the miraculous events connected with the 
 l)irth of her first-born son. There was no one to confirm her words. 
 Who would lia\e believed them ? Tlie apparent insanity of the 
 mother in making such a statement would have corroborated the idea 
 of insanity in Jesus. How must her heart have been pierced with 
 grief, her soul bowed down by the weight of conflicting emotions ! 
 At such a moment, what an irony must it have seemed to extol her 
 happiness as mother of Jesus ! Doubtless the angel's words held 
 t I'ue : ' Blessed art thou among women ; ' yet she could not now i Luke ss 
 realise their truth, but was undergoing the terrible experience fore- 
 told to her by Simeon, that her son would be ' for a sign which is-iLuUcsr. 
 spoken against ; yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul.' 
 
 Immediately following the allusion to the queen of the south and 
 the men of Nineveh, Luke gives a parable not repoi'ted by the other 
 evangelists. It has an obvious bearing upon what precedes, and 
 teaches that no attesting sign was necessary, nothing more, indeed, 
 than what was already at hand, if only a rational use were made of 
 the ample opportunities for light and knowledge. 'No man, when n Luke 33 
 he hath lighted a lamp, putteth it in a cellar, neither under the 
 bushel.' The Revisers have altered ' secret place ' to ' cellar.' 
 Alford agrees that the word Iniptos is ' more properly a cri/pt, or 
 covered passage.' It would be the act of a fool to place the lamp 
 where its light cannot be seen, taking pains to smother its rays when 
 kindled. As a matter of course, it must occupy a conspicuous 
 position in sight of all comers : 'but on the stand, that they which „ 33 
 enter in may see the light.' Now comes the application of the 
 parable. ' The lamp of thy body is thine eye.' This stands in the ^^ 34 
 Authorised Version, 'The light of the body is the eye.' The 
 Revisers have altered ' light ' to ' lamp,' the word being the same as 
 that rendered ' lamp ' in the previous verse. The three oldest MSS. 
 have ' thine eye,' instead of ' the eye ; ' the Re\isers have adopted 
 that reading, but have gone beyond it, by putting ' thy body ' for 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM: [part ii. 
 
 'the body,' which Tischendorf has not done, but renders: ' Tlic 
 lamp of the body is thine eye.' A man's eyesi«:ht answers the same 
 purpose as a lamp : l)y it he sees ; without it, all is dark. The 
 illumination of the entire man depends upon the point of vision ; if 
 that is unimpaired, he walks confidently, rejoicingly, in an atmo- 
 sphere of light ; but if that is defective, in proportion to the defect 
 he must live in darkness, — absolute darkness if the eyes are wholly 
 11 Luke 04 blind. 'When thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of 
 light ; but when it is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.' xilfoni 
 discards the expressions, ' full of light,' ' full of darkness,' tran;;- 
 lating literally ' light ' and ' dark.' Luther does the same, and 
 Young's rendering is : ' When thine eye may be simple, thy whole 
 body also is lightened : but when it may be evil, thy body also is 
 darkened.' From this Jesus draws (1) a warning, and (2) an eii- 
 
 „ ::5 couragement. This is the warning : ' Look therefore whether the 
 light that is in thee be not darkness.' This som^^what alters the 
 sense of the Authorised Version, which stands : ' Take heed there- 
 fore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.' Young agrees 
 with the Authorised Version. Tischendorf retains ' Take heed.' but 
 instead of ' be not darkness ' he puts ' is not darkness,' which admits 
 the sense which the Revisers have introduced by using the word 
 ' whether.' They represent Jesus as urging self-examination. liCt 
 those who desired a sign, and who could not perceive the truth of his 
 doctrine, ask themselves whether this did not proceed from their own 
 defect of vision. The purest hglit is darkness to the blind, and no 
 amount of external illumination would avail for eyes that would not 
 or could not see. The very opposite condition might, and in some; 
 cases did, exist. There were persons who saw all things clearly, and 
 were conscious of no darkness, however much others might grope and 
 stumble and complain of want of further evidence. This certainty 
 of perception was attributable to the same internal cause : their moral 
 vision was sound and true. Let men only rightly cherish and 
 rationally use the faculties with which ({od has endowed them, and 
 the clear light of truth will shine within them and around them. 
 
 " ^'^ This was the encouragement. ' If therefore thy whole body be fall 
 of light, having no part dark, it shall be wholly full of light, as when 
 the lamp with its bright shining doth give thee light.' As we can 
 place the lamp where we will, so we can use our eyes in the way wo 
 choose, and find accordingly darkness or light. The most obvious 
 truth does not reveal itself, unless contemplated by the judgment ; 
 assurance with respect to the deepest mysteries must sjiring from the 
 exercise of our reasoning faculties. There is such a thing as wilful 
 blindness : men cannot perceive, because they will not look ; or they 
 misjudge, because they look hastily and carelessly. And there is a 
 partial blindness, a defect of vision, which calls for external aids and 
 correctives ; and a total blindness, where there is utter darkness." 
 Jesus by this parable reminded his hearers that the reception or 
 rejection of his teaching depended upon themselves. 
 
 Luke records a further incident which is not found elsewhere. 
 
 Whilst addressing the people, Jesus was invited by a Pharisee to 
 
 „ 37 breakfast with him. ' Now as he spake, a Pharisee asketh him to 
 
 dine (Gr. breakfast) with him.' We may assume ihat the words 'as 
 
i>ART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUll aOSFELS. 53 
 
 1)0 spake ' do uot import that Jesus was internipted for the purpose 
 of conveyiu<i,- tlie iuvitation, as though it came iu the course of n 
 sermon. Jesus did not g-eneniUy dehver set harangues of tliat kind, 
 and it is obvious that there were frequent breaks, wlien the hearers 
 were at liberty to express their feelings and interpose remarks or 
 <|uestions. The word rendered 'dine,' and in the margin ' breakfast,' 
 is explained by Alford to signify the first meal of the day. Jesus 
 accepted the invitation, entered the house, and took his place; at the 
 table. ' And he went in, and sat down to meat,' rendered by Young, u mi, 
 ' and having gone in, he reclined (at meat).' The astonishment of 
 the Pharisee was excited, and in some way expressed, at the fact of 
 Jesus neglecting the ablution which was customary before meals. 
 ' And wheu the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first 
 washed before dinner ((.r. breakfast).' Youug renders, ' that he did 
 not first baptize himself before the dinner.' Doubtless Jesus deemed 
 rlie act superfluous at that comparatively early hour, and what was 
 not requisite for cleanliness he would not perform for the sake of a 
 traditional superstition. He was iu no mood to defer to the judg- 
 ment and feelings of the class of men who had that xevj morning 
 accused him of Satanic agency, and he now deliberately turned round 
 upon his opponents, and exposed iu plain, unmitigated terms a 
 variety of errors and evils in their creed and life. Had Jesiis made 
 no stand, and uttered no reproof^ his enemies might have been en- 
 couraged to persevere in their libellous criticisms. Their object was 
 to weaken his hold and influence over the people, and not for an 
 instant would he suffer that design to prevail by submitting in 
 silence, either in public or private, to their unjust accusations and 
 insinuations. He addressed himself to his host on the question now 
 raised, and scrupled not to contrast the Pharisaic system of punc- 
 tiliousness in external ceremonial trifles, with their utter debasement 
 of character and disregard of moral principle. 'And the Lord said 
 unto him, Now do ye Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of 
 the platter ; but your inward part is full of extortion and wicked- 
 ness.' The word ' extortion ' takes the place of ' ravening ' in the 
 Authorised Version. Young renders it 'rapine;' Tischendorf, 
 ' robbery.' The charge was a grave one, and could never have been 
 made if it had not been notoriously and undeniably true. The 
 Baptist and Jesus denounced with equal uncompromising vehemence 
 the Pharisaic class, and never a word of protest came from the 
 listening crowds ; at least, we read of none, nor of any vindication 
 attempted on behalf of the class thus publicly accused. Was there 
 not consummate folly iu all this hypocrisy ? Was the outside only 
 of man's nature moulded by God, and not the inward, spiritual 
 ([ualities, — that they should so care for the former and fail to 
 cultivate the latter ? ' Ye foolish ones, did not he tliat made the 
 outside make the inside also ? ' By altering ' fools ' to ' foolish ones,' 
 the Revisers make it evident that the term was not used in contempt. 
 Young renders it * unthinking ! ' There was a better way of making 
 food ' clean ' than by the scouring of cup and platter : let them share 
 it with the poor, and they need have no scruples of conscience as to 
 the correct way of eating their own portion. ' Howbeit give for 
 alms those things which are within (or, ye can) ; and behold, all 
 things are clean unto you.' Brotherly kindness ranked higher than 
 
i54 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 ccremouial observances, and the broad, free spirit of liberality wonld 
 replace the narrow punctiliousness of ritualism. The Authorised 
 Version stands, ' But rather give alms of such things as ye have,' 
 which Alford explains to be ' literally, the things inside.' Tischendorf 
 renders, ' But give what is in them as alms ; ' Young, ' But the what 
 ye have give as alms.' 
 
 It was a characteristic of the Pharisees, a reproach and evil to 
 them, thus to prefer the little to the great, to care much aliout 
 religious trifles, and nothing about justice towards men and heart- 
 
 n Luke 42 felt devotion to Grod. ' But woe unto you Pharisees! for ye tithe 
 mint and rue and every lierb, and pass over judgment and the love 
 of God.' The giving of the tenth part of a man's property was 
 regarded by them as a cardinal test of character, the surest way, and 
 by no means a cheap one, of acceptance with the God they professed 
 to worship. Elsewhere Jesus represents a Pharisee as enumerating 
 
 IS Luke 12 this amoug liis other virtues : ' I give tithes of all that I get.' What 
 they thus gave, as they deemed, to (iod, was probably never devoted 
 to the real service of humanity, for they were accused by Jesus of 
 looking with complacent approval on the man who, on the plea of 
 
 i.j Jiai. r., G having given his property to God, withheld it from the support ol' 
 his parents. ' Give for alms those things which ye can,' was the 
 counsel of Jesus to them. The dedication of tithes to so-called 
 divine uses, ranked far lower in his esteem. Then, as in later times, 
 they went to the support of an ecclesiastical system, and its spirit of 
 Pharisaic propagandism was denounced by Jesus as bringing about 
 
 23 Mat. 15 results the very reverse of beneficial : ' Woe unto you, scribes and 
 Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and land to make one 
 proselyte ; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a 
 son of hell than yourselves.' 
 
 The sense of proportion was inverted in these men : in their eyes 
 the little was held great and the great little ; the first was put last, 
 and the last first ; the fundamental obligations of judgment and the 
 love of God were ignored, and the faculties which siiould have been 
 concentrated on the substantial realities of morality, were wrapped 
 up in the skirts and fringes of ritualism and formality. Jesus sought 
 
 11 Luke 42 to make this clear to them, saying, ' liut these ought ye to have done, 
 and not to leave the other undone.' The heart-work and the life- 
 work should be expended on what was most important, and the 
 leisure would suffice for the minor duties, which now had become, if 
 not their all in all, at least their primary concern. 
 
 Another fault of character in them, was the love of precedence. 
 Seated in synagogues, or passing through the public streets, they 
 Avere accustomed to the first place and the most obsequious courtesy. 
 Thus to lose the sense of fellowship and of equality, was an evil, a 
 regrettable deprivation, albeit they felt it not, but rejoiced to be 
 singled out and held aloof from the crowd of their fellow cieatures. 
 „ 43 ' Woe unto you Pharisees ! for ye love the chief seats in the syna- 
 gogues, and the salutations in the market-places.' 
 
 The homage they craved and received was altogether undeserved. 
 The world at large cared not to enquire into their true character. 
 When a social gulf exists between class and class, it is surprising how 
 indilferent and ignorant they are with respect to each other. That is 
 the case now, in spite of a free press and the habit of public criticism. 
 
PART iL.] ,1 tiTUDY OF THE FOUR (UKSFFLS. 55 
 
 Rank and wealth arc worshipped apart from moral charactur. The 
 toiling multitudes have nearer and more pressing concerns than to 
 investigate nicely the habits and principles of their ' betters.' All 
 Jiave their faults, and all keep them out of sight as far as possible. 
 That immunity the JMiarisees enjoyed, in common with others, and 
 it served but to perpetuate their unha])py, woeful condition. ' Woe 
 nnto you ! for ye are as the tombs which appear not. and the men 
 that Avalk over fkem know it not.' The Authorised ^'ersion stands : 
 ' Woe unto you, scribes and Pliarisees, hypocrites ! ' but these last four 
 words are omitted by the Revisers, not being in the two oldest MSS. 
 At this point of the discourse a lawyer who was present inter- 
 posed the remark, that this condemnation of the Pharisees reflected 
 also upon those of In's own profession. 'And one of the lawyers 
 answering saith unto him, Master (or, Teacher), in saying this thou 
 reproachest us also.' Tischendorf renders, ' illtreatest,' Young ' in- 
 sultest.' Alford obser\'es : ' This man appears to have been not a 
 common Pharisee merely, but besides, a lawijer, whose duty it espe- 
 cially was to interpret the law. Perhaps he found himself involved 
 in the censure of verse 42.' That explains why this lawyer applied 
 this reproach to his own class. It was their duty to define the obli- 
 gations of the Mosaic law, and to insist upon the due performance of 
 all its requirements. It \vas they who taught the necessity of tithiiig 
 'mint and rue and e\"cry kind of herb.' Why should they be charged 
 with that as though it were a crime ? Why should it be assumed 
 that they passed over weightier matters ? Jesus replied that the 
 curse, the error, the e\il, the woe, — either term seems applicable, — 
 attaching to their iH'ofession, was that of indifference to human 
 weakness and to the stern necessities and facts of ordinary life. It 
 was easy work for them to spin out interpretations of the Law, multi- 
 plying its obligations and enforcing the duty of obedience in every 
 point ; but when they had piled up that burden, so that it lay liea\y 
 upon the consciences of men, could or did these teachers of the Law 
 give the slightest help towards fulfilling it ? They could teach, but 
 they could not give either the will or the power to practise. They 
 were simply overloading human nature, overtasking human endur- 
 ance, utterly heedless of the evil and misery resulting from their 
 unwise teachings. 'And he said, Woe unto you lawyers also! for ye 
 lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch 
 not the burdens with one of your fingers.' Is there nothing akin to 
 this in these days ? Xo similar unauthorised, injudicious teaching ? 
 Preachers are e\er insisting upon a variety of duties which are per- 
 formed half-heartedly, unwillingly, aye, hypocritically, by some, and 
 deliberately disregarded by others. ' You should pray more, come to 
 church to pray, pray in your closets and families, — Hod loves to be 
 prayed to,' What ? is prayer to be deemed a duty, so that man 
 must pray verbally, apart from the sense of want and desire ? Is our 
 heavenly Father so strange a Being as to be angry with his children 
 if they are not always asking him for the very things he is always, 
 unasked, freely giving them ? Surely some hideous blunder lies at 
 the foundation of such a system of teaching. ' You should watch 
 and pray in Advent, you should keep Lent, with fast and prayer for 
 forty days, you should observe the holy Easter week, and ponder 
 Ohrist upon the cross every Good Friday,' and so on, and so on. 
 
56 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [part ii. 
 
 Alas for the minds Avhich can esteem this as Christianity, and 
 persuade or be persuaded to submit to such a yearly routine, as 
 though it had aught to do with the glorious gospel of our Lord and 
 SaA'iour Jesus Christ ! Erroneous teaching of that kind involves 
 mental and spiritual evil all round. There is a perverted sense of 
 duty, a mistaken idea of acceptableness to God, and of Christian 
 virtue and perfection, in the teacher and his submissive devotees ; 
 and in those who listen to such exhortations, and obey them not, 
 often, probably, an injury to the moral nature, a searing of the con- 
 science, a feeling of wrong doing ^\hich they cannot away with, a 
 haunting sense of alienation from that heavenly Father who must 
 needs become nearer and dearer to every willing soul whenever the 
 true gospel of salvation is rightly and wisely proclaimed. Not one 
 in a thousand of a congregation may be sufficiently strong-minded, 
 clear-headed, endowed, through earnest, independent, long-continued 
 study of the New Testament, with the knowledge and spiritual dis- 
 cernment necessary to enable him to sift the chaff from the wheat, 
 the false from the true, the thoughts of men from the words of Jesus, 
 in the sermons to which it is our lot to listen. On behalf of those 
 commonly denounced as neglectful hearers, it behoves us to raise this 
 firm and emphatic protest. They stand before their spiritual teachers 
 like sullen, obstinate, unhappy children, unwisely taught, unwisely 
 threatened, unwisely dealt with from first to last by well-meaning 
 but misguided and misguiding pedagogues. The children are deemed 
 rebellious because they will not bow to a yoke against which their 
 very nature revolts, nor stoop to lift the burden so carefully bound 
 up by those who are persuaded that this load of man's devising was 
 meant for e^■ery back, and that the duty exists of carrying it by an 
 effort which must be personal and individual. ' Ye lade men with 
 burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the 
 i)urdens with one of your fingers.' Regarded as a simple state- 
 ment of fact, apart from any idea of condemnation or reproach, is not 
 this true ? 
 
 The scribes, devoting themselves to antiquarian and legal re- 
 searches, were out of harmony with the times. They foolishly busied 
 themselves in attempts to perpetuate the memory of events long past, 
 and which it would have been better to veil, if not to forget. They 
 had no sympathy w'ith living prophets and reformers, with John the 
 Baptist and Jesus, but they would fain have the old prophets kejDt in 
 mind. Not content to ' let the dead Past bury its dead,' they had 
 undertaken the task of searching out and renovating the martyrs' 
 tombs. It was another mistake of judgment, another misapplication 
 of the thought and energy which should be consecrated to ' the living 
 n Luk( 47 Present.' ' Woe unto you ! for ye build the tombs of the prophets, 
 and your fathers killed them.' It may be doubted whether the ex- 
 ])ression ' woe unto you ' conveys the sense of the original. Samuel 
 Sharpe discarded it, using in each case the modern form of exclama- 
 tion, 'alas ! ' 'Alas for you, for ye build the tombs of the prophets, 
 and your fathers killed them.' That rendering does away with the 
 idea that Jesus intended to denounce divine vengeance, immediate or 
 remote, on those he was addressing. His reiterated ' woe ' or ' alas ' 
 was a lamentation over their unhappy state of mind and heart. He 
 now points out to them the startling fact, that their connection with 
 
PART II.] A STUJJY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 57 
 
 the past was clciser than they themselves would be disposed to admit. 
 In honouriuu' the martyred saints the_> were condemning themselves,^ 
 for they were animated by the same si)irit and walked in the steps of 
 their forefathers who had slain the prophets. ' So ye are witnesses n i.uu- k 
 and consent unto the works of your fathers : for they killed them, 
 and ye build thrir tombs: The two last words are italicised by the 
 llevisers, not being in the two oldest MSS. Ti^chendorf renders : 
 ' For they indeed' killed them, and ye build.' Imagine the de- 
 scendants of a murderer subscribing to repair and renovate the grave 
 of his victim ! What an anomaly, what a per^-ersion of the moral 
 sense, what unblushing effi-ontery ! the world would say. Surely the 
 memory of such a dec'd should cause the cheek to burn with shame; 
 it was a crime to be spoken of with horror, not thus dragged forth to 
 the hght of day. That it was part of a chapter in ecclesiastical 
 liistory, one of those bloody pages whicli defile the records of theo- 
 logical strife,— that the authors \)f the deed escaped the punishment 
 due to all murderers, this made no difference in the enormity of the 
 guilt or the detestation in which it should be held. The Jews stood 
 alone in tliis respect : the charge of killing heaven-sent prophets 
 could not apply to heathen nations. God in his wisdom had decided 
 to send from time to time to his chosen people teachers and special 
 messengers. ' Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send „ 4-> 
 unto them prophets and apostles.' Their divine commission could 
 not exempt them from its foreseen consequences : some of them were 
 doomed to death and persecution ; but their blood would not remain 
 unavenged. To this people, from the beginning of human history, 
 had the'se prophets been sent, and from this people the innocent blood 
 they had shed would be required : ' and some of them they shall kill - "•'> 
 and persecute : that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed 
 from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation.' 
 AVhat a catalogue of murdered religious teachers from hrst to last ! 
 ' From the blood of Abel nnto the blood of Zachariah, who perished ., &' 
 between the altar and the sanctuary (Gr. house).' It is uncertain who 
 this Zachariah was, but the peculiar atrocity connected with his death 
 is indicated by the circumstance of his having been butchered in the 
 [)riests' court, probably whilst engaged in his priestly duties. All 
 this bloodshed would have to be accounted for : ' yea, I say unto you, '- -'^ 
 it shah be required of this generation.' Human life was still as 
 sacred in the eyes of God as when he first declared : ' Surely your '•' Gen. r, 
 blood, fhi' blood of your lives, will I require.' Divine Pro\idencc still 
 worked to the same end as when, after long yeai's of. immunity, 
 Reuben was constrained to remind his brethren: ' Spake I not unto -f-i Gii'.. •_'■_» 
 you, saying. Do not sin against the child ; and ye would not hear ? 
 "therefore also, behold, his blood is required.' But how could the 
 .Jewish people be held responsible for the death of Abel ? This opens 
 out the wider question. How could that generation have to answer for 
 the cumulative blood-guiltiness of past ages ? By the slow, silent, 
 inevitable, retributive workings of Divine Providence. It is not that 
 one man answers for another man's sin, but that the law of natural 
 descent transmits the habits and dispositions of ancestors to children. 
 It is an indubitable fact that God has organised our existence on 
 that basis, so that evil is thus perpetuated for a lengthened period, 
 and good for a far longer period. The evil qualities have a tendency 
 
58 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 to die out in three or four generations, -whereas tlie inherited eflFects 
 of a virtuous hfe endure to tlie remotest posterity. This is the solemn 
 
 10 Ex. 0, truth enunciated in the declaration : ' For I the Lord thy (Jod am a 
 jealous God, visitinp; the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, 
 upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me ; 
 and showing mercy unto a thousand generations of them that Ionc 
 me and keep my commandments.' The divine teaching by means of 
 inspired prophets, and the divine interferences in the shape of defeats 
 and captivities, Avere designed to bring the Jewish people to a better 
 mind, to counteract the evil effects of the bad blood inherited from 
 their sinning and rebelhous forefathers; but tlie experience of many 
 
 •ActsJi-03 centuries was finally thus summed up by the martyr Stephen: 'Ye 
 stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist 
 the Holy Ghost : as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets 
 did not your fathers persecute ? and they killed tliem which shewed 
 before of the coming of the Righteous One ; of whom ye have now 
 become betrayers and murderers ; ye who received the law as it was 
 ordained by angels, and kept it not.' Jesus threw away his life and 
 labours in efforts to bring them, as a nation, to a better mind. At 
 the end, he could only say to the blind directors of tlie public con- 
 
 aMr.t. 02 science, 'Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers," and Avitli 
 streaming eyes bewail the approaching doom of that fair metropolis 
 of Judaea whose children he would have gathered together and pro- 
 tected, if only they would have deigned to listen and obey. No\v they 
 must be left to the consequences of their long-continued guilt and 
 obstinacy : the conquering hosts of the unsparing Romans would seek 
 by fire and blood to discipline the people to their sway, the nation 
 would resist to the death, Jefusalem must be destroyed, tlie temple, 
 the priesthood, and the whole system of religious worship be abolished, 
 and the surviving Jews scattered to the four winds. On that gene- 
 ration would thus fall the terrible consummation of past transgres- 
 sions, and in one huge catastrophe of bloody massacre all the innocent 
 blood of past ages would ' be required of this generation.' 
 
 Alas ! for these lawyers, for they stood as absolute stumbling- 
 
 1 L^l^^o,vJ blocks in the path of intellectual progress. ' Woe unto you lawyers I 
 for ye took away the key of knowledge.' Xot content with turning 
 their own backs upon mental, moral, spiritual advancement, they had 
 „ .V2 barred the way of access against others. ' Ye entered not in your- 
 selves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.' Is there not ;i 
 warning here sgainst all attempts to stereotype the religious ideas 
 and convictions of one age, so they may be perpetuated to remote 
 generations ? The Reformers of the Church of England three cen- 
 turies ago drew up 39 Articles, and from that day to this they stand 
 unrepealed and unaltered. The object was to ensure imiformity of 
 opinion, that vain, unrealisable dream of theologians. They were 
 ' agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both ]*rovinces, and 
 the whole Clergy, in the Convocation holdeu at London in the year 
 loGi?, for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinions and for the estab- 
 lishing of Consent touching true Religion.' The Declaration of the 
 King impused upon all persons submission to the Articles ' in the 
 plain and full meaning . . in the literal and grammatical sense,' and 
 the ]3eclaration ends thus : ' That if any Public Reader in either of 
 Our Universities, or any Head or Master of a College, or any other 
 
TAHT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. r.!> 
 
 l^erson respectively in either of them, shall affix any new sense to any 
 Article, or shall publicly read, determine, or hold any public Dispu- 
 tation, or suflVr any such to be held cither way, in either the Uni- 
 versities or Colle<i-es respectively ; or if any Divine in the Universities 
 shall preach or })rint anythino- either way, other than is ah-eady 
 established in Convocation with our Royal Assent : he, or they the 
 Offenders, shall be liable to Our displeasure, and the Church's censui'c 
 in our Commission Ecclesiastical, as weh as any other ; and We will 
 see there shall be due Execution upon them.' AVhat is that but an 
 attempt to ' take away the key of kno\vled<i,-e ? ' 
 
 The outspoken condemnation of the Pharisees and lawyers by 
 Jesus provoked them beyond measure. They retaliated to the utmost 
 of their power. Upon his leaving the house they began to oppose 
 liim vigorously. 'And when he Avas come out from thence, the ii i-nio-.-ia 
 scribes and the Pharisees began to ])ress u])oii him vehemently (or. 
 set themselves vehemently against him), and to provoke him to speak 
 of many (or, more) things.' The Authorised Version stands : ' iind 
 as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees 
 began to urge him vehemently.' The Revisers have altered ' As he 
 said these things ' into ' When he was come out from thence,' on the 
 authority of the two oldest MS8. 
 
 Instead of taking to heart tlie solemn condemnation of Jesus, those 
 who were the objects of it now sought to browbeat him by a simul- 
 taneous attack. Young describes the scene in these words : ' The 
 scribes and the Pharisees began fearfully to urge and to provoke him 
 about many things.' The more he could be induced to say, the 
 better for their purpose, for if only they could hnd ground to charge 
 him Avith slander or libel, and bring him within the clutch of the 
 law, they would thereby be able to silence him, and revenge his 
 assault upon their reputation ; ' laying wait for him, to catch ■'^ 
 
 something out of his mouth.' The Authorised Version adds : ' that 
 they might accuse him,' Avhich is now omitted as not being found in 
 the two oldest MSS. 
 
 Luke intimates that during the breakfast and discourse in the 
 Pharisee's h.ouse an enormous crowd had assembled, and that Jesus, 
 before addressing them, dropped a few words of warning to his 
 disciples. ' In the mean time, Avhen the many thousands of (Gr. i- i'»i<^^' ^ 
 myriads of) the multitude were gathered together, insomuch that they 
 trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all 
 (or, First of all), Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is 
 hypocrisy.' Tischendorf renders : ' In the mean time, Avlien the 
 multitude was gathered together in tens of thousands, insomuch that 
 they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples 
 first . .' The expression ' he began to say,' seems to indicate that his 
 discourse was interrupted, probably owing to the crowd outside. The 
 i'evf words he uttered were ' unto his disciples first,' before he went out 
 to face tlie multitude. He bade them avoid that cardinal vice of the 
 Pharisees, that leaven which permeated their character and actions — 
 hypocrisy. But now Luke goes on with a discourse of Jesus of some 
 length, from verse 2 to 12. Those verses have already been con- 
 sidered in connection with the instructions given to the disciples 
 before sending them out to preach, as recorded in the tenth chapter 
 of Matthew. This part of Luke's narrative appears to have been 
 
CO THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 misplaced. A lont? address of that kind was not likely to be delivered 
 to the disciples while the multitudes were elbowing and crushing- 
 each other. It is probable that liuke, having that part of the dis- 
 course without any indication as to its proper place, inserted it where 
 he thought it would come in most appropriately, and the warning 
 against hypocrisy seemed to be a fit introduction to the opening 
 
 iL'Luia-' sentence, 'But there is nothing covered up that shall not be 
 revealed.' This idea is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the 
 connecting word ' but ' is omitted in the oldest MS. 
 
 Among these 1 1 misplaced verses of Luke is one which does not 
 „ w even belong to the same group. Verse 10 is as follows : 'And every 
 one who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be for- 
 given him : but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit 
 
 u'jiNt. 3l' it shall not be forgiven.' This is given by Matthew and Mark in 
 
 :i Mail; 2s-:!0 rounectiou with the charge of casting out demons by Beelzebub, and 
 it should obviously have been inserted by Luke in his account of the 
 same matter, that is, between verses 23 and 24 of chapter 11. It is 
 a reasonable supposition that Luke, having a large mass of material 
 before him in the shape of information and tradition fi-om various 
 sources, and exercising the greatest care in assorting and compiling- 
 it, may sometimes have been in doubt as to the proper position to be 
 occupied by particular portions, and selected for them the place which 
 seemed on the whole most appropriate. Had the narratives of 
 Matthew and Mark been before him, they would have enabled him to 
 fix the above-mentioned verse in its right position. 
 
 Among the crowd gathered before Jesus was one who made him- 
 self conspicuous by requesting a special favour. He was smarting 
 under a sense of injustice : the whole of an inheritance had fallen to 
 his brother, and he begged Jesus to use his influence on his behalf, 
 and urge upon this brother that he ought to consent to an equal 
 
 ]2Lnkii:5 division of the property. ' And one out of the multitude said unto 
 him. Master (or, Teacher), bid my brother divide the inheritance with 
 me.' Jesus showed no sympatliy with the request. He sternly 
 reminded the man that the performance of such a function lay alto- 
 ,- 1-1 gether outside his appointed sphere of duty. ' But he said unto him, 
 Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you ? ' Holding no 
 official position, it was not for him to investigate complaints and 
 apportion justice ; nor could any friend attempt to arbitrate, or argue 
 the merits of the question, having heard one party only. But 
 whether any injustice existed or not, or on whichever side the wrong- 
 lay, this squabbling about property might well form the text for a 
 sermon against covetousness. Here was a warning to shake one's 
 .. I' self free from that vice in every sha])e. 'And he said unto them, 
 Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness.' The word 
 ' all ' has been introduced by the Revisers on the authority of the three 
 ,, ir. oldest MSS. Whatever is superfluous to life is not essential : ' for a 
 man's life cousisteth not in the abundance of the things which he 
 possesseth (Gr. for not in a man's abundance cousisteth his life, for 
 the things which he possesseth).' The literal translation in the 
 ' Englishman's Greek New Testament ' is : ' for not in the abundance 
 to anyone his life is of that which he possesses.' The Greek word 
 rendered ' abundance ' really signifies ' superabundance,' the sub- 
 stantive pcrissnima being so defined, and the verb j-inisseiid, which is 
 here used, meaning : ' to be over and above ; to be more thap 
 
TART II.] -1 STUJ>Y OF THE FOUR GOSFELS. 61 
 
 enough.' Any superfluity is useless ; it can neither nourish nor in 
 any way benefit the person who has it. This very simple, yet 
 almost uuiversally forgotten truth, Jesus illustrated by a parable. He 
 pictured a rich landowner rejoiciug over unusually abundant harvests. 
 The yield was so great, that he was somewhat per[)le.\ed about its 
 storage. ' And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground 
 of a certain rich man brought forth ])lentifully : and he reasoned 
 within himself, saying. What shall 1 do, because I have not iJ f.mU, 
 where to bestow my fruits ? ' He decided to improve and enlarge 
 his homestead, pulling down the old barns and erecting larger 
 ones, where there would be ample room for everything. ' And he 
 said, This will I do : I will pull down my barns, and build ' 
 
 greater ; and there will I bestow all my corn and my goods.' The 
 Authorised Version reads, 'all my fruits and my goods.' The Revisers 
 have followed the Alexandrine MS. in replacing ' fruits ' by ' com.' 
 The Sinaitic MS. omits 'and my goods.' That done, he would dismiss 
 from his mind all anxiety. He need not trouble himself about the 
 future, for henceforth he could take his business and his pleasure 
 easily. He would rest and be thankful, enjoying during the many 
 years to which he looked forward tlie good tilings of life freely and 
 heartily. ' And I will say to my soul (or, life), Soul (or, life), thou •■ ' 
 hast much goods laid up for many years ; take thine ease, eat, drink, 
 be merry.' But in the midst of all this prosperity, self-satisfaction, 
 and bright anticipations, there came to him a sudden summons to face 
 — Death. That was one of the possibilities he had overlooked. All his 
 wealth could not prolong his life, not even for a day. In all haste 
 he must make his last will, and decide who should inherit the pro- 
 perty he could enjoy no longer. ' But God said unto him. Thou 
 foolish one, this night is thy soul (or, life) required of thee (or, they 
 require thy soul) ; and the things which thou hast prepared, whose 
 shall they be ? ' That is the case of every man who amasses wealth 
 for the future, but whose trust is in uncertain riches rather than in 
 God. ' So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich 
 toward God.' Man's only true wealth is confidence in (iod. His daily 
 bread must nourish our lives, and to store up the bread as though it 
 sufficed apart from the Giver, will lead to a sudden shock, a rougli 
 awakening from the dream of covetousness to the realities of life and 
 death. 
 
 Commentators have carried this parable beyond its proper scope. 
 Alford says : ' It was &// God's blessing that he became thus rich, 
 which might have been a real blessing, if he had known how to use 
 it ; ' and he quotes Ambrose : ' Thou hast barns — the bosoms of the 
 poor, the houses of widows, the mouths of infants . . these are the 
 barns which will last for ever.' Jesus did not speak the parable to 
 enforce the duty of almsgiving, but to show that life did not depend 
 upon superabundance, and that whoever acted under the idea that 
 it did, was !a foolish person, and would be forced to recognise his 
 folly at the last. If this rich man had given freely — perhaps he did 
 — he could not thereby lengthen his life, nor could any amount of 
 alms-giving wean him from the fond delusion that he had many 
 years of healthy, happy, enjoyable life in reserve. He is represented 
 as simply forgetting — it is a common and terrible forge tfulness — 
 that ' the life is more than the food, and the body than the raiment.' 
 
G2 THE KIXG AND THE KINGDOM : [i-art ii. 
 
 vi i.ukf -ii The next 10 verses in Luke are prefaced by the words ' And ho 
 said unto his disciples.' This indicates that they formed no ])ortion 
 of the address spoken at this time to the multitude. They have 
 ah'eady been considered in connection with (> Matthew 25 — 34, and 
 they appear to have formed part of the sermon on the Mount, 
 although placed apart by Luke. But what follows is recorded by 
 Luke only, and is evidently part of an address to the disciples, not 
 restricting that term to the apostles. Jesus sought to impart to them 
 „ 3:2 courage and hope. ' Fear not, little flock ; for it is your Father's 
 good pleasure to give you the kingdom.' Although few in number, 
 they were a flock, held together and watched over. Their heavenly 
 Father intended that they should rise to higher privileges and 
 responsibilities. Young's literal rendering is striking : ' for your 
 Father delighted to give you the reign.' Seeking things above, they 
 could well afford, and Jesus counsels them, to disembarrass themselves 
 •• ^•"' of earthly possessions. ' Sell that ye have, and give alms.' Tischen- 
 dorf renders : ' Sell your goods.' The advice is obviously for those 
 who are called upon to give up worldly trading and affairs and devote 
 tiieir lives to the establishment of the new order of things, the reign 
 of the heavens. They would be making a good exchange : providing- 
 a purse for the future which would never wear out, and an inex- 
 r, ^- haustible treasure for their use in a better world. ' Make for your- 
 selves purses which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth 
 :, ■•>■■'' not.' It would be beyond all risk of loss or damage : ' where no 
 thief draweth near, neither moth destroyeth.' There was a need for 
 these precepts, because the work in which they were to engage 
 demanded their entire devotion, and as no worldly emolument could 
 be hoped for, they must be animated by the thought of a heavenly 
 ■• -'-^ recompense. ' For Avhere your treasure is, there will your heart be 
 also.' If they parted with their earthly possessions and ambitions, it 
 was that they might be free, not to beg but to work, and that for a 
 
 10 Luke 7 better final recompense. Jesus recognised the fact that ' the 
 labourer is worthy of his hire,' but he led his apostles to expect no 
 
 '.» i. Cor. 14 more than meat and drink, ordaining that ' they which proclaim the 
 gospel should live of the gospel.' A bare livelihood on earth, in 
 return for much labour and suffering, and a treasure unfailing in 
 heaven, — that was what Jesus offered his disciples. He would have 
 
 ij Lukr ;i.\ them maintain an attitude of watchfulness and expectation. ' Let 
 ■'" your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning ; and be ye your- 
 selves like unto men looking for their lord, when he shall return from 
 the marriage feast ; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may 
 straightway open unto him.' The simile must be looked at as a 
 whole. The girding of the loins seems to signify the shortening and 
 tightening of the loose outer garment, so that the wearer might be 
 ready at any moment to walk swiftly and unimpeded ; the lamps 
 burning may denote the lights required by ser\ants waiting to admit 
 their lord on his return from a marriage feast. Alford observes : 
 ' There is only a hint at the cause of his absence — He is gone to a 
 wedding : the word used may mean almost any feast or entertain- 
 ment.' The servants must keep on the alert, ready at the knock 
 which may come at any time, to meet their lord at the outer gate. If 
 the parable ended here, its import might be thus restricted. But 
 „ 37 Jesus continued it as foUows, ' Blessed are those servants (Gr. bond- 
 
I'Airr II.] -I STUDY OF THE FOUJl (lOSl'KLS. 63 
 
 servants), wlioni the lord ulieu he conieth sluill find. Avatcliiiig- : verily 
 I say unto yon, that he shall g-ird himself, and make them sit down 
 to meat, aiul shall come and serve tliem.' Tliat cannot apply to any 
 ordinary occasion : obvionsly the marriaoe is that of the lord him- 
 self, and the servants are waiting;' and watching- for tlie arrival of the 
 bridegroom, with the bride ar:d others, at his own honse. This is 
 made clear )>y the following description of a Jewish marriage exti'acted 
 from 'Helps to the Study of the Bible/ 'This ceremony was per- 
 Ibrmed in the"np})er room"' of prisale houses. The bethrothed 
 pair stood under a canopy, the bride being- veiled, both wearing 
 (•rowns, which were several times exchanged during the ceremony. 
 The officiating minister was not a priest, nor necessarily a ral)l)i, but 
 an elder, who, standing behind the canopy holding a cup of blessing, 
 invoked a benediction on the assembly. He then ga\'e a cup of wine 
 ^o the l)etrothed, who pledged one another, the bridegroom draining 
 his cup, dashing it to the ground, crushing it with his heel, swearing 
 fidelity until its powdered fragments are re-united. The marriage con- 
 tract was next read, and attested by each person present drinking a cup 
 of wiue. The friends next walk round the canopy, chanting psalms 
 and showering rice upon the couple. The ceremony is concluded by 
 the elder invoking the seven blessings upon them, drinking the bene- 
 dictory cup, and passing it round the assembly. It was for this cup 
 that our Saviour supplied the \vine at Cana. After dark, the bride- 
 groom led the bride to her house attended by the friends of each, 
 while others joined the procession on its way, bearing hymeneal 
 lamps in token of respect. Arrived at the bridegroom's house all 
 were iuAited to a feast, which by the rich was repeated for seven 
 nights, the festivities being prolonged to a late hour.' 
 
 The Revisers have replaced 'wedding' by 'marriage feast.' 
 Alford retained the word 'wedding,' but spoke of it as a ' feast or 
 entertainment.' Young and Tischendorf render ' marriage.' Sharpe 
 ' wedding,' liUther ' Hochzeit,' and Beza's Latin version has ' nuptiis.' 
 The word ijamos is defined as 'wedding, marriage,' but 'in the plural, 
 a marriage-feast ; ' the plural is here used, and is rendered in the 
 * Englishman's Greek New Testament.' ' wedding feasts.' Still it 
 may perhaps be open to (juestion whether the plural form, like our 
 word ' nuptials,' does not signify the actual marriage ceremony. The 
 remark of Alford seems hardly correct : ' The main ihomjld here only 
 is that he is away at a feast, and wiU return. But in the background 
 lies the wedding in all its truth.' In all translations except the 
 I Revised Version, the idea of the wedding is itromincnt ; what is 
 kept in the background is the feast prepared for the bride and bride- 
 groom and their guests. Jesus does not alluded to that, lint to a 
 subsequent feast given to the servants of the house, which might 
 naturally be the case on one of the six festal nights succeeding the 
 marriage. The lord on that occasion would manifest his apprecia- 
 tion of their faithful, efficient, watchful service, by superintending 
 the arrangements for their comfort, and he would not scruple to 
 l)reak through the barriers of class and rank, and condescend to 
 minister personally to their wants. ' Blessed are those servants (Gr. ijLuke 
 bondservants) whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching : 
 \erily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them sit 
 down to meat, and shall come and serve them.' Tischendorf renders : 
 
G4 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 * he will gird himself about, and make them sit down at table, and 
 coming near will minister unto them.' We see now the sense to be 
 attached to the words, ' Let your loins be girded about : ' assume the 
 garb, the office, the service appointed to you in the IMaster's house- 
 hold ; let everything about you be suited to the task you are called 
 to do ; learn to watch patiently, and to perform your life-work with 
 earnestness and alacrity. The lesson Jesus was anxious to impress 
 Avas the duty and necessity of vigilance. ' And if he shall come in 
 the second watch, and if in the third, and find tlieni so, blessed are 
 those servants.'' Tischendorf reads, ' blessed are they.' following 
 the two oldest MSS. Instead of making that alteration the Revisers 
 have indicated it by italicising the word ' servants.' 
 
 By another simile Jesus urged the consideration that our duty and 
 our convenience cannot be made to correspond. It was obvious that 
 if only the owner of a house could foretell the time when a burglary 
 would be attempted, he would prefer to keep watch for that occasion 
 only. As it is, he is always in uncertainty, and must be constantly 
 on guard, knowing that the danger is imminent, and that if ever ho 
 leaves the house he does so at the peril of finding on his return that 
 it has been broken into. 'But know this (Or, I3ut this ye know), 
 that if the master of the house had known in what hour the thief 
 was coming, he would have watched, and not have left his house to 
 be broken through (Gr. digged through).' As the necessity is laid 
 upon the householder of being ever on the spot or on the alert, per- 
 sonally or by deputy, so it is incumbent upon the disciple of Jesus to 
 keep at his post of duty, for he is exposed to similar uncertainty, and 
 knows not — or rather should know — what irrejiarable injury and loss 
 ]nay ensue from any relaxation of that watchfulness, caution, self- 
 restraint, and devotion to duty which are essential to our well-being, 
 bodily and spiritual, temporal and eternal. ' Be ye also ready : for 
 in an hour that ye think not the Sou of man cometh.' It cannot be 
 doubted that by ' the Son of Man ' Jesus designated himself, as 
 Messiah and Head of mankind : The nature and object of his 
 ' coming ' are evident from the context. It would not be for the 
 purpose of executing judgment, either among those of his own house- 
 hold or upon his declared enemies, but in the natural course of events. 
 He represents himself as participating in all the experiences of 
 humanity, and on the most momentous and joyful occasion in his 
 career he must needs rely upon the fidelity and devotion of those 
 who are engaged in his service. If they should fail him, he will 
 suffer shame and disappointment ; if they carry out his wishes and 
 are zealous in his service, he will make them sharers of his joy, will 
 delight to show them honour, and even reciprocate their good offices. 
 The" ' coming ' for which he would have us prepare ourselves is not 
 that of a Deity, with vengeance in one hand and reward in the other, 
 but the ' coming of the Son of man,' in the same nature as our own, 
 with no greater difference between ourselves and him than that 
 which exists between a master of exalted rank and the servants who 
 live in his house and wait upon his bidding. 
 
 One of the apostles was in doubt whether the parable was to be 
 considered applicable to them only, or extended to others also. ' And 
 Peter said. Lord (Sir — Young), speakest thou this parable unto us, 
 or even unto all ? ' The question was natural and necessary, for the 
 
1-AKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR liOSPELH. 65 
 
 servants in a ruler's houseliokl are few indeed compared with tliose 
 ))ers()ns scattered over his estates. The answer of Jesus went straight 
 to the poiiit. AVhoever holds any jiositiun of responsihihty or trust, 
 to him tlie rule laid down in the parable as a matter of course 
 applies. 'And the Lord said, Wlio then is the faithful and wise ij i,iik(i4:i 
 steward (or, the faithful steward, the wise man), whom his lord shall 
 set over his household to give them their portion of food in due 
 season ? " The word sitomflrioii, rendered ' portion of food,' is de- 
 tined as ' a measured allowance of corn,' and is translated in the 
 * Eng-lishman's (ireek New Tesstament ' 'measure of corn.' The 
 o-eneral k'sson conveyed by the parable is demonstrated by alterinj>- 
 the circumstances connected with it. Jesus drops the simile of 
 domestics waiting for their lord's return, and takes the case of a 
 man who by his character or wisdom has earned a superior position, 
 throwing upon him the responsibility of seeing that all committed to 
 his oversight are duly provided and cared for. Alford somewhat 
 narrows the interpretation by saying : ' In its highest sense it applies 
 to his Apostles and ministers, inasmuch as to them most has been 
 given as the steirards — but its application is gradationally downwards 
 through all those who know their Master's will, even to the lowest, 
 whose measure both of responsibility and reward is more limited.' 
 It is true that the apostle Paul wrote : ' Let a man so account of us, 4 i. cor. i 
 as of ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God ; ' 
 and again : 'The bishop (or, overseer) must be blameless as God's i Tit 7 
 steward.' But the apostle Peter applies the term ' stewards ' to the 
 general l)ody of Christians : ' According as each hath received a gift, "• '■ >'«t- 10 
 ministering it among yourselves, as good stewards of the manifold 
 grace of God.' It cannot be argued, therefore, that to the clergy 
 ' most has been given as the stewards : ' and although the apostles, 
 dealing with spiritual gifts, used the word ' steward ' in that con- 
 nection only, Jesus in the parable itself does not. On the contrary, 
 he takes up the ordinary office of a steward in a nobleman's estab- 
 lishment, and there is no hint that any class of teachers or any kind 
 of teaching is designedly referred to. Moreover, the words ' steward ' 
 and ' ser\'ant ' are used apparently as synonymous in the parable, and 
 in the oldest M8., the Sinaitic, the original reading was ' servant,' 
 not 'steward,' the word having been altered by a later hand. Adhering 
 to the terms of the parable, we are bound to apply it to the affairs of 
 ordinary life. The steward's duties are not to be taken as representing 
 those of priests and pedagogues. The most prominent and universal 
 feature in human history is — Labour ; and the apportionment of a 
 due reward to Labour is one of the most serious, and hitherto, alas I 
 most difficult i)roblems of society. We talk glibly about the struggle 
 which ever exists between Capital and Labour. It is time we asked 
 ourselves, in the name of morality and Christianity, Whether any 
 such strife is natural and necessary ? Whether, at least, its conditions 
 ought not to be considerably modified ? Every capitalist is a steward. 
 Every employer is a steward. The superior position itself is evidence 
 of faithfulness and wisdom, either in the man himself or his ancestors. 
 Having regard to the grand truth of human brotherhood, it must be 
 admitted that the status of a large manufacturer, for instance, is 
 that of a faithful and wise steward, who has, under divine Providence, 
 
66 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 been set over a houscliold, to give them their portion of food in due 
 season. Such responsibility clearly attaches to him. How is it 
 ^•enerally fulfilled ? The answer is plamly recorded in the huii'o 
 fortunes of the few and the degraded condition of the masses. 
 Overlooking the teaching of Jesus, we have taken up the science of 
 l)olitical economy in the same spirit and to the same ends as 
 Macchiavelli handled the science of political government. His point 
 of view was the interest of the governors, not of the governed, and 
 the Aery idea of morality, of right and wrong in rnlership, was ex- 
 cluded from his system. In dealing with human beings, any system 
 which leaves out of account the principles of justice, of compassion, 
 of brotherly love, becomes thereby earthly and devilish. The law of 
 supply and demand regulates the tides of commerce, and human 
 labour, being a saleable article, must fluctuate in value with other 
 things. Of course, of course ! that is, if you assume that a brother 
 or a sister is to be considered simply as a chattel, bought and sold, 
 used and worked, with as little regard to his or her bodily, mental, 
 social welfare, as a plough or a steam engine. It rests with the great 
 employers of lal)our, to what extent they will avail themselves of the 
 power they possess to extort the largest amount of work for the 
 smallest amount of pay. It would be difficult, and might be even 
 dangerous, for an individual employer or firm voluntarily to pay 
 more than the recognised market price of labour. One of the 
 penalties attaching to a long-continued course of wrong-doing is the 
 difficulty and risk of departing from it. Tyranny descends from one 
 generation to another, — an inherited curse which it is hard to shake 
 otf. The first step towards amendment is to recognise and confess 
 the evil ; then the thought and energy which formerly were devoted 
 to its maintenance and perpetuation will be free to set about the 
 task of its eradication. It is not in human nature for one class 
 deliberately and systematically to resolve upon oppressing and 
 starving the class below them. The monstrous wrong has grown u]) 
 gradually, like errors in politics, in finance, in theology, one side of 
 the question being brought into undue prominence, and the other 
 side wholly overlooked. The laws of political economy, when applied 
 to human beings, must be blended with human sympathy, or tliey 
 will produce misery instead of happiness, injustic and slavery instead 
 of right and freedom. Where, between masters and servants, there 
 is personal or direct intercourse, the system of * starvation wages ' 
 has not come into operation. The treatment of domestics can 
 scarcely be admitted as a case in point, they being unmarried and 
 having no families to maintain. But take that branch of labour 
 which is not manual but clerical : the stern law of supply and 
 demand does not reduce salaries to the lowest crushing point. A 
 merchant's or manufactui-er's clerk grows up from youth to man-_ 
 hood, and often continues to his life's end, in the same service. As 
 his necessities increase, when he marries, when his children need 
 education, he states his case, and his employer manifests considera- 
 tion and sympathy. The Christian law of brotherhood demands 
 that the same consideration and sympathy should be extended to the 
 very lowest manual labourer. This momentous question has been 
 fully, eloquently, impartially faced and argued by Joseph Cook of 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR (WSPEL,S. «i7 
 
 Boston. The ten lectnrcs* delivered hj Iiini on the subject (]escr\c 
 the careful, earnest study of every Christian, and especially of 
 ('hristian employers. Here are a few ((notations from that work : — 
 " I went through ^Manchester, in Eugland, carefully studyiug the 
 poor. Sometimes I walked by o])en doors, where the lilth inside the 
 threshold was as deep as outside. J saw poultry picking up their 
 living not oftener outside than inside these doors. One evening, on 
 the top of an omnibus, I went out into the suburbs of Manchester, 
 and came upon palaces, immense jn-ivate establishments, with grounds 
 kept in the best English styles. Whose houses are these ? They are 
 the masters' houses ; manufacturers' houses. This is the country 
 seat of Sir So-and-so, who owns such-and-such acres of factories in 
 Manchester, under the soot yonder. Where do his workmen live ? 
 They must live close to their work, under the eaves of the factories ; 
 and I found I had been studying the houses of the operatives em- 
 ployed by these very princes and masters. Skilled operatives' houses 
 in Manchester are often very comfortable, but I am speaking of the 
 condition of the lowest paid labourers. There was before me in 
 Manchester what does not yet exist in Xew England, — an hereditary 
 class of operatives. Little by little men had gone down to the 
 squalid condition in hovels where I saw children fight over a piece of 
 fish dropped from a pedlar's cart. I have stood there myself, and 
 peeled an orange, and the peel was picked up swiftly from the side- 
 walk, and eaten by hungry children. I could fire an arrow in the 
 -street over sixty or eighty children that looked as if they had been 
 unwaslied from birth. Within a cannon-shot stood these palaces of 
 the manufacturers. That contrast is seen all through the Old World : 
 and it results from these great principles, that subdivision of labour 
 increases the skill of the operative, and that the larger the establish- 
 ment the greater the profits. The man who manages the great 
 establishment may become rich, and can take care of himself ; the 
 man who makes the pin-head loses capacity to do anything else. ]f 
 he loses the opportunity to make that pin-head, he knows no other 
 trade, and may suffer terribly before he can learn one, and find 
 another place to work. What else did I see in Manchester ? Xear 
 one of the great factories was a long brick building ; and I saw 
 women pass it, and hand their infants in at the gate. When six 
 o'clock came in the afternoon, I saw these same women coming back, 
 and receiving out of that gate their babes. What sort of house- 
 keeping is that ? . . . Even John Stuart Mill, using England as a. 
 lens, and putting behind that telescope the best eyes of political 
 economy, writes a deliberate chapter (Political Economy, Book V., 
 chapter Vll.) on the Probable Future of the Labouring Classes, and 
 goes so far as to say that he finds the prospects hopeful, only because 
 he expects the entire system of wages to be superseded by that of 
 co-operation. But the system of wages is woven with the whole 
 structure of modern life, and does not show a tendency to vanish out 
 of history like a morning cloud. The accumulation of wealth falls 
 chiefly to employers, and not to operatives. The distance between 
 the two classes is a result of deep causes arising from the two great 
 laws of the manufacturing system. It is out of these laws that thei'c 
 
 * ''Labour." B3- Joseph Cook. H odder and Stoiighton. Price Is. 6t?. 
 
 F 2 
 
08 - .TEE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 inevitably originates wliat has been called in modern times a manu- 
 facturing aristocracy. De Tocqueville, using this phrase, compares 
 the territorial aristocracy of former ages with the manufacturing- 
 aristocracy of to-day, and finds the former superior to the latter, 
 because it was bound by law, or thought itself bound by usage, as 
 the latter is not, to come to the relief of its serving-men, and to 
 succour them in their distresses (Democracy in America, vol. II., 
 Book II., chap. XX. ; also vol. II., Book IV., chap. V.) . . . Advo- 
 cating no socialistic proposition, and defending no communistic 
 dream, I yet believe the day will come when the cost of its pro- 
 duction will determine the pay of labour. The cost of production 
 includes the support of a family. . . . There must be somewhere a 
 lifting of the income of the lowest-paid class of labourers : otherwise 
 we shall have monstrosity after monstrosity. . . . De Tocqueville 
 ventures to affirm that the modern manufacturing aristocracy, which 
 to a large extent has taken the place of the hereditary and territorial, 
 differs from the old feudal aristocracy in that it feels no responsibility 
 for the age of its dependants. Give us the best service of youth : 
 crush out the right of children to a fair education in primary 
 branches ; give us the strength of the girl before her powers have 
 been fully confirmed ; give us the strength of mothers when their 
 lives draw near to dangerous physical crises ; give us the strength of 
 manhood up to the last hour in which it can labour remuneratively : 
 and then let the ruined girl, let the mother in her weakness, let old 
 age in its dependence, shift for themselves. ... I arrive at the con- 
 clusion that justice is not dangerous to capital. ... 1. The cost of 
 producing labour should determine the price of labour. 2. The cost 
 of producing labour includes that of rearing a lamily. 3. The cost 
 of rearing a family depends on the standard of comfort and decency, 
 below which labourers will not go, or ought not to go. . . . Only 
 the golden rule can bring the golden age. ... On my study table 
 there is a collection of treasure or rubbish — I hardly know which to 
 call it — on political economy : ten or twehe feet of volumes repre- 
 senting the best discussions in social science for the last two hundred 
 years. Gather and examine in chronological order any such collec- 
 tion of books, and you will find that down to about 1840 or 1850, 
 they are full of the see-saw theory of wages and profits, and teach a 
 godless science ; a series of propositions utterly without piety, and 
 having in mind no Christian principles. About 1810 and 1850,. 
 after the reform-laws in Great Britain had come into force, you find 
 this series of books changiug position ; and God be praised that 
 to-day political economy does not deserve to be called the dismal 
 science. ... 0. The rate of profit, therefore, depends on a variety 
 of circumstances, of which the rate of wages is only one. 7. 
 Ricardo's doctrine that the rate of profit depends on wages only, is . 
 therefore an inaccurate, because an inexhaustive, statement of the 
 case. 8. When the efficiency of labour is increased by the improve- 
 ment of machinery, or any other cause, profits may be increased, 
 although wages may remain the same. 9. It may happen from the 
 same causes that both the rate of wages and the rate of profit may 
 be increased at the same time. There is no see-saw in the relation 
 between labour and capital, if these propositions are true. . . . There 
 has rarely been taught authoritatively a more mischievous falsehood 
 
I'.^RT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. m 
 
 in political economy tlian the assertion that wages and capital are of 
 necessity an eternal see-saw, ])attin,<>; tlie labourer and tlie em])loycr 
 
 into a state of constant wai- lustiee is no jjcril to capitalists, 
 
 nor fair wages a diminution of fair profits.' 
 
 These extracts suffice to show the vastness and urgency of the 
 subject. AVe ha\e only to open our eyes and see for ourselves the 
 degraded condition of the masses in our cities. Observe the crowd 
 «if the lower class poor in the eastern, southern, or northern streets 
 of London, — their dress, their unhealthy faces, their language, theii- 
 manners. Then think what must be their surroundings, where and 
 Jiow they live, and in what an atmosphere. Think of the hard straits 
 tliey must be put to, their scanty and unwholesome food, their lack 
 of all those decencies and conveniences which are prime necessaries 
 of existence with the classes above them. The fact is undeniable 
 and notorious, that many kinds of labour are terribly underpaid. 
 ^Vhy should that be ? How did such an unchristian system origi- 
 nate ? Hew can it be first mitigated and eventually abolished ? 
 That is the grave problem which presses for solution. Let us no 
 longer be deluded by a lying spirit in the garb of political economy. 
 Let the fact be recognised and faced, that a fair amount of wage is 
 part of the prime cost of an article, as mucli as if it were a part of 
 die raw material. There is, after all, a certain starvation point below 
 which the rate of wages cannot be pressed. Let that point be raised 
 some few degrees. Let the human workman receive the same con- 
 .sideration as the machinery, which ic is found necessary to keep in 
 proper working order, whatever be the expenditure required to do su. 
 I'robably the additional cost will fall upon consumers, not upon the 
 -manufacturer. Be that as it may, let the responsibility of paying 
 ■adequate wages rest henceforth on the right shoulders, — those of the 
 master who employs the workman. If they are Christians, they must 
 both act upon the principle laid down by Christ. The labourer must 
 give honest, hearty work, and the master must oflFer sufficient pay, — 
 sufficient to provide for the workman and his family, so that his 
 children may not be defrauded of their right to education. Educa- 
 tion by the State, either wholly or partly free, with compulsory 
 attendance, is one mode of grappling with the evil which has grown 
 up in our midst ; and the introduction of this system will render 
 ■easier the next step in advance. The spirit of liberality is not 
 ■<|uenched among our wealthy manufacturers, as is evident from the 
 princely sums given for people's parks, for schools, and in other ways. 
 These things, howexer, are but ])alliatives, and the real reform must 
 begin at the other end, — by putting the workmen into a pijsition to 
 hIo what is needful for themselves. In some eifectual way that must 
 be brought about, — probably by the combination of different methods, 
 including among them the principle of co-operation. The ' kingdom 
 of heaven' proclaimed by Jesus is based upon loftier maxims and 
 principles of action than those current in the world. The obligations 
 of the gospel are laid upon all men, and extend to every s])here of 
 human duty. It is an idle pretext, an act of hypocrisy, to call Jesus 
 * Lord, Lord,' and fail to do the things he says. The whole life should 
 be permeated, its every nook and cranny illuminated, swept, garnished 
 by his Spirit. That is what he demands in this parable, which applies 
 to all holding responsible ]iositions. Jesus will judge every one by 
 
70 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 the way in which he performs his proper life-work. ' Who then is 
 the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall set over his house- 
 hold, to give them their portion of food in due season ? ' Is not that 
 precisely the appointed task of every parent and of every master r 
 And with respect to our fulfilment of that task, the Son of man will 
 judge us at the last. The patient, loving, anxious, long-suffering- 
 Mother, will rejoice in his approval when the burden of her life is 
 laid aside. The Father, be his condition high or low, who has 
 laboui-ed and battled in the world for his children's sake, will be 
 welcomed as a good soldier of Jesus Clirist. The Master who has 
 caied for his servants, who has not defrauded or oppressed them, who 
 has l)een as careful 'to give them their portion of food indue season' 
 as tci secure his own gain and increase his own wealth, — his character 
 and course of action will be stamped with our Lord's approval. 
 
 ■'■ ' Blessed is that servant (Gr, bondservant), whom his Lord Avhen he 
 cometli shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will 
 set him over all that he hath.' The spirit of Christian brotherhood 
 is that which will commend us to Christ and advance our interests in 
 his coming kingdom, when the world's maxims and the mistakes of 
 the science falsely so-called of political economy will be replaced by a 
 judgment which is unerring and compassionate. 
 
 This is no new gospel, however much we may have overlooked and 
 jjerveited the truths which Jesus preached. The apostles are at one 
 with him in pressing home this duty. ' Masters, render unto your 
 servants that which is just and equal ; knowing that ye also have a 
 Master in heaven.' Against the oppression of the poor by the rich 
 in the matter of wages, James entered this emphatic protest : ' Be- 
 hold, the hire of your labourers, who mowed your fields, which is of 
 you kept back by fraud, crieth out : and the cries of them that 
 reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Habaoth.' The 
 warning which Jesus uttered against this form of covetousness, this 
 breach of trust, this neglect and perversion of duty, is very solemn.. 
 
 'y^-. ' But if that servant (Gr. bondservant) shall say in his heart, My 
 lord delayeth his coming ; and shall begin to beat the menservants 
 and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken ; tlie 
 lord of that servant (Or. bondservant) shall come in a day when he 
 expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shalt cut 
 him asunder (or, severely scourge him), and appoint his portion with 
 the unfaithful.' Looking round upon our country and our time in 
 sober sadness, would it be easy, Avould it even be possible to assert 
 that the worship of wealth does not pre\'ail over the worship of 
 Christ? Things must have come to a terrible pass to have evoked 
 and justified Mrs. Browning's ' Cry of the Children ' and Thomas. 
 Hood's 'Song of the Shirt.' The employers of labour must be- 
 regarded as primarily and directly responsible for evils such as those.. 
 ■>\hich when dragged to light shock the moral sense of the community.. 
 The greed of riches has been so keen, the race for wealth so eager^ 
 that the claims of humanity, the dictates of conscience, and the 
 teaching of Jesus have been alike forgotten. How strangely, how 
 startlingly, do his words apply : ' If that servant shall say in his 
 heart, My Lord delayeth his coming ! ' The ' day of judgment' has 
 been regarded as a remote event, destined to happen at some period 
 in the dim and distant future : meantime, there was held to be no- 
 
I'AiiT II.] A STTWY OF THE FOUR i^OSPELS!. 71 
 
 divine oversiglifc with vespw-t to tlic course of thi-^ world's trading- ; 
 prices must Vise or fall aecordiii<>- to the stress of competition, and 
 the wages of men, women and children must follow the same cast- 
 iron law of political economy, the necessity for keeping them at the 
 very lowest point being self-evident, on account of tlie largeness of 
 the' item and the fact that other charges were necessarily fixed, such 
 as rent of premises and the cost, repair and maintemmce of machinery : 
 the reduction of workmen's wages was the readiest and most effectual 
 economy practicable. If the master sufl'ered with them, if he had 
 been losing, were it only interest on his capital, at the same time, if 
 the i-eduction had been temporary and exceptional, it inight ha\e 
 been excusable. But there has lieen growing opulence among 
 employers, whilst want, misery and degradation have become chronic 
 among the working class. What is that but oppression, coupled 
 with selfishness and self-indulgence ? 'And shall begin to beat the 
 menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be 
 drunken.' Seeing exfcremest luxury on one side, and extremest 
 poverty on the otlier, this simile can scarcely be deemed too strong. 
 There has been a hideous misconception of Christian duty : somno- 
 lence if not searing of the conscience. Huge fortunes have been 
 amassed under this system, with never a tliought of any loss of 
 Christian status. The so-called ' evangelization of the masses ' may 
 even have been a pet form of charity with some of these wealtliy 
 manufacturers. They have been looking forward to a heavenly life 
 hereafter, have believed in Jesus as their Redeemer, and have been 
 anticipating and preparing for his ' coming.' But not in the way he 
 has appointed them. 'The lord of that servant shall come in a day 
 when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not.' 
 Acceptance with Jesus is not to be found through any Church 
 membership, or form of worship, or sacramental pledge, but in doing 
 the work of this life on the principles and in the spirit he has incul- 
 cated. Were Jesus now to revisit earth, and to look round about 
 upon all things, as when he esjued the abuses in the temple, 
 think you that he would look without shame and indignation on the 
 slums in which the lowest class of labourers live, or with complacency 
 upon the palaces of the masters who have risen to wealth, refinement, 
 rank, notwithstanding the degradation of their operatives ? Would 
 he not quickly execute his threat : ' and shall cut him asunder, and 
 appoint his portion with the unfaithful ? ' Such neglect and oppres- 
 sion of one's poorer brethren must lead to exclusion from the brother- 
 hood of which Jesus is the head. Such a steward will find no 
 permanent place in his Master's household. And because the judg- 
 ment is not executed speedily, because the evil goes on from generation 
 to generation, oppressor and oppressed alike hardening into indiffer- 
 ence, and being even taught to look upon such a system as the natural 
 ordering of divine Providence, are we to suppose that no account is 
 taken of it, and that this parable uttered by Jesus will be the only 
 token of his reprobation ? He himself has intimated by another 
 parable how sudden and complete may be the reversal in the w^orld to 
 come of the relative positions of rich and poor in this. He assures 
 us that deliberate injustice, the sinning in this fashion against light 
 and knowledge, will meet with a heavy punishment. 'And that li Luke 4: 
 ser\ant (Gr, bondservant), which knew his lord's will, and made not 
 
72 THE Kim^ AND THE KINCWOM : [part ii. 
 
 ready, nov did according to his will, shall be beaten with many 
 stripeti' But Jesus assumes that the failure of Christian duty in this 
 matter may not be deliberate or of set intention, but may arise from 
 heedless ignorance ; and in such cases, although the evil is none the 
 less actual and deplorable, and cannot be perpetrated with impunity, 
 yet the punishment with which it is avenged will be of a far lighter 
 character. ' But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, 
 shall be beaten with few stripes.'' Christian morality branches out in 
 all directiims and embraces every duty, personal, domestic and social. 
 It is easy to understand how and why the last named has come to be 
 least regarded and most neglected. The doctrine of repentance was 
 proclaimed from the first. The necessity of personal reformation of 
 character was strongly urged by the apostles, and ever has been in 
 the Christian church. Family relationships have always stood, both 
 by nature and grace, well within the sphere of Christian influence. 
 Parental responsibility has been accepted as self-evident, scarcely 
 needing any enforcement. ' But if any provideth not for his own, 
 and specially his own household, he hatli denied the faith, and is 
 worse than an unbeliever.' But as the circle of duty widens outwards, 
 the feeling of sympathy and obligation naturally becomes less intense : 
 our individual wants and domestic trials must needs be realised more 
 vividly l)y ourselves than those of others. It is open to question, 
 also, whether our spiritual guides have not, in preaching the gospel, 
 somewhat unwisely overshot the mark. They have been so earnest 
 in exhortations to generosity, that they have forgotten to inculcate 
 simi)le justice. The duty of almsgiving has seemed a nobler grace 
 than the mere payment, in the ordinary way, of adequate if not 
 liberal wages. And there have been so many objects of high and 
 spiritual interest to be pleaded for : missions to the heathen, schools 
 for religious education, J^ible societies, tract societies, church building, 
 hospitals, reformatories. Subscriptions to such objects have been 
 supjjosed to constitute the first and foremost duty of the wealthy, 
 whilst the injustice which has oppressed and degraded the poor has 
 been eating like a canker into the social system, and left to extend 
 and perpetuate itself, as though it were some heaven-sent scourge, 
 which society must endure as it may, and palliate if possible, but can 
 never hope to extirpate. We ha\e been taught, moreover, that this 
 world, with all that appertains to it, is of far less consequence than 
 the world to come, where — by some process of divine judgment apart 
 from human effort — it is assumed that the wrongs and inequalities of 
 our present existence will right themselves, poor and rich alike being 
 made happy or miserable for ever, according to their reception oi- 
 I'ejection of the gospel message now, and their faith or unbelief with 
 respect to those doctrines and mysteries which it is the appointed 
 work of Christ's ministers to preach and elucidate. What wonder 
 that under such a system of teaching the common, fundamental, 
 reciprocal duties of man to man have been lost sight of and ignored ? 
 lict us revert to the pure and simple gospel of Jesus, and ponder 
 well his warnings against all unjust stewardship. The recognition of 
 Christianity in its social aspects comes late and last in the world's 
 gradual development. It is the great want and work of the Church, 
 and until that want is felt and that work is faced, the regeneration 
 of society will be as far off as ever. 
 
I'AKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 73 
 
 In Mattliew's ^'osjicl this parable stands in another connection, as 
 f hoiigli dehvered after the jn'opheoy of tlie destruction of Jernsaleni. 
 Alford assumes that it was spoken twice. He says : ' How much 
 more natural tiiat our Lord should have preserved in his parabolic 
 discourses the same leadini;,- ideas, and again and again gathei'cd his 
 |)recepts round them,— than that the Evangelists should have thrown 
 into utter and inconsistent cou fusion, words which would have l)een 
 treasured up so carefully by those that heard them ; to say nothing 
 of the promised help of the Spirit to bring to mind all that he had 
 said to them.' To this it must he replied : (1) We repeatedly find 
 in the gospel narratives similar instances of confusion. (2) This 
 would naturally arise from the difficulty of constantly noting down 
 long discourses at the time they were spoken. That would have 
 l)een an impossible task, except on special occasions, or on the 
 assumption that one of the apostles was an adept in reporting, and 
 was always present, note l)ook in hand. {?)) The assumed need of 
 the Spirit's aid to bring to their minds the things previously spoken, 
 would be in itself an e\'idence that no regular, methodical record had 
 been kept of them. (4) Alford seems to have overlooked the fact 
 that not only this but the preceding parable must, on his view, have 
 i)een delivered twice, and both together on the two occasions, which 
 is somewhat improbable. The (question when they were spoken is 
 not material. As they fit smoothly and accurately in Luke's narra- 
 tive, but rather incongruously in Matthew's, it seems likely that a 
 misjDlacement at the time of compilation, or a displacement subse- 
 <piently, has occurred in the latter. On comparing the following 
 with Luke, it wall be seen how nearly the words agree in both 
 evangelists. 'But know this (or. But this ye know), that if the -'4M 
 master of the house had known in what watch the thief was coming, 
 he would have watched, and W(juld not have suffered his house to be 
 lu'oken through ((ir. digged through). Therefore be ye also ready : 
 Ibr in an hour that ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then 
 is the faithful and wise servant ((Jr. bondservant), whom his lord 
 hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season 't 
 Blessed is that servant (Gr. bondservant) w^hom his lord when he 
 cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that he will set 
 him over all that he hath. But if that evil servant (Gr. bondservant) 
 shall say in his heart, My lord tarrieth ; and shall begin to beat his 
 fellows-servants, and shall eat and drink with the drunken ; the lord 
 of that servant (Gr. bondservant) shall come in a day when he 
 cxpecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut 
 him asunder (or, severely scourge him), and appoint his portion with 
 the hypocrites : there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 
 
 The marginal reading ' se\-erely scourge him,' introduced by the 
 Ilcvisers, does not appear in other translations. The words in the 
 text, ' shall cut him asunder,' are thus explained by Alford : ' The 
 reference is to the punishment of cmtting, or sawing asunder : see 
 Dan. ii. 5 ; iii. 20 : Sus. ver. 59 ; see also Heb. iv. 12 ; xi. 37.' 
 'I' hose passages contain nothmg to confirm the interpretation of 
 Alford. The idea of attributing such a simile to Jesus is repulsive. 
 The verb in the original is dkhotomeo, to cut in two, cut asunder. 
 There is an analogous verb, dicJiostated, to stand apart, disagree. If 
 the servant is represented as 'cut apart,' it was in order that he 
 
74 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 might 'stand apart.' The expression seems plainly and naturally to 
 signify exclusion from the Christian fellowship: the 'cutting asunder' 
 is from the household in which the steward held a responsihle posi- 
 tion. That no form of capital punishment is implied, is obvious 
 from the closing sentence in Matthew, which represents the mental 
 anguish suffered by those who have been thus ' cut asunder.' The 
 word ' hypocrites ' is used by Matthew instead of ' unfaithful : ' un- 
 faithful servants are necessarily hypocrites. 
 
 In Luke's narrative immediately following upon this parable arc 
 verses which have no traceable connection with the context. They 
 agree with verses 34 to 3(; of the loth chapter of Matthew, which 
 were spoken on the sending foi'th of the apostles, and these five 
 verses in Luke have been already considered in relation to that event. 
 The next G verses in this 12th chapter of Luke are recorded as having 
 been spoken 'to the midtitudes,' but without any indication as to the 
 time. Four of them correspond nearly with 10 Mat. 1 — 4 and 
 8 Mark ]()— 13, which have been already dealt with, but the subject 
 touched on may well bear reconsideration. Jesus intimated that the 
 failure of the people to appreciate his mission and forecast its con- 
 sequences, was not owing to any defect in their power of judgment. 
 They were able and accustomed to ol)serN'e for themselves, and to 
 vj LuU(> :.4, arrive at correct conclusions on other matters. ' And he said to the 
 •'■-' multitudes also, When ye sec a cloud rising in the west, straightway 
 ye say, There cometh a shower ; and so it cometh to pass. And 
 when i/c see a south wind blowing, ye say. There will be a scorching- 
 heat (or, hot wind), and it cometh to pass.' The Revisers, following 
 the oldest MS., have altered ' out of the west ' to 'in the west.' The 
 allusion here is not simply to the exercise of judgment, but rather to 
 the insight of future events : how from one thing another thing 
 might with certainty be anticipated. They did not want to be 
 caught in a shower, or expose themselves to any sudden increase of 
 temperature, so they watched the clouds and changing wind, and pro- 
 tected themselves in time. Were they not equally able to prognosti- 
 cate the consequences of their own lives and actions ? Was not the 
 blindness wilful, hypocritical, when they shut their eyes to coming 
 :„; evils, living for the present regardless of the future ? ' Ye hypocrites, 
 ye know how how to interpret (Gr. prove) the face of the earth and 
 the heaven ; but how is it that ye know not how to interpret (Gr. 
 prove) this time ? ' They were al)le, if they would, to deduce the 
 liiture from the present. Why should they delay amendment until 
 
 ., 57 the time of final and irre\ocab]e judgment ? ' And why even of 
 yourselves judge ye not wliat is right ? ' For they were like litigants 
 on their way to the tribunal of justice, and the present moment gave 
 the last chance of voluntary repentance. Let the debtor, the wrong- 
 doer, avail himself of the opportunity, and exert his utmost to escape 
 the stern retribution which threatened him if unyielding and unre- 
 
 ,. 5s pent ant. ' For as thou art going with thine adversary before the 
 magistrate, on the way give diligence to be quit of him.' The omis- 
 sion of the connecting word ' for ' in the Authorised Version marred 
 the sense and force of the passage. This is not an alteration in the 
 reading, but in the translation : Young also inserted the word ' for.' 
 If the offender continued ol)dur;ite, so much the worse for him : the 
 
I'ART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPFLS. 75 
 
 matter would be can-ied to the extremity, the adjudication would be 
 made, the warrant of the judge would issue, and the prisoner would 
 l)e handed over to the jailor. ' Lest he hale thee to the judge, and 
 the judge shall deliver thee up to the exactor, and the exactor cast 
 thee into i)rison.' That is Tischendorf's rendering. Young's is as 
 follows : ' That he may not drag thee before the judge, and the judge 
 may deliver thee to the officer, and the officer may cast thee into 
 prison.' The Authorised Version begins : ' Lest he hale thee to the 
 judge.' The Kevisers have inserted the word ' haply,' which weakens 
 the passage, making the punishment a mere possible contingency 
 iustead of an absolute certainty : 'lest haply he hale thee unto the uli 
 judge, and the judge shall deliver thee to the officer (Gr. exactor), 
 and the officer (Gr. exactor) shall cast thee into prison.' The im- 
 prisonment, however long continued, would not be held equivalent 
 to the cancelment of the debt. 'I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no 
 means come out thence, till thou have paid the \ery last mite.' All 
 unfulfilled obligations will bring their loenalty, and there can be no 
 joy or freedom for any one who has failed in duty and scorned 
 repentance, until through much suffering and effoi't he has retrieved 
 the past. That seems to be the scope of this paral)le. 
 
 In the Authorised Version Luke's narrati\e continues thus : 
 ' There were present at that season some that told him of the 
 (ialileans.' Alford remarks : ' The words af that season may mean at 
 lliai very time, viz. as He finished the foregoing discourse : but it is 
 not neccssanj to interpret thus ; for, Matt. xii. ] ; xiv. 1, the similar 
 expression is certainly indefinite. The opening words do not mean, 
 as A. v., that these persons were in the crowd, and remarlced to the 
 Lord concerning these Galileans, in consequence of what He had said 
 ch. xii. 57 : such a finding of connection is too fine-drawn. It is 
 obvious that no connection is intended between this incident and the 
 foregoing discourse.' Dr. Young renders : ' And there were present 
 • ■ertain at that time, telling him about the Galileans.' This does iiot 
 favour the view of Alford, neither does the course adopted by the 
 Revisers. In the two other passages he alludes to they have left the 
 expression indefinite, ' at that season,' but here they have inserted tlie 
 word ' very.' ' Xow there were some jjresent at that very season i3 1. 
 which told him of the Galileans.' Tischendorf, however, docs not 
 indicate that the persons were present in the crowd, but the contrary. 
 'And there came some at that season telling him of the Galileans.' 
 Still, the insertion by the Revisers of the omitted Avord 'for' in 
 verse 5<S of the last chapter and of the omitted word 'now' or ' and' 
 at the beginning of this verse, denotes a connection which was not 
 previously manifest. Jesus had been dealing ^vith the subject of 
 retributive justice, and to that lie now again refers. The Roman 
 governor had made a stern example in his treatment of certain 
 Galileans. To express the abhorrence and infamy attaching to them, 
 he had caused their blood to mingle with the sacrifices oifered to the 
 avenging deities of the Roman people. That would seem to be the 
 meaning of the statement : ' whose blood Pilate had mingled "r\-ith 
 their sacrifices.' Alford, Tischendorf, Young, and the ' Englishman's 
 Greek New Testament' omit the word ' had ' bcfoi'c 'mingled.' 
 Alford says : 'It must have occurred at some feast in Jerusalem, on 
 
l;i \A\\ir 
 
 7<; THE Kiya and the kingdom: [part II. 
 
 wliicli occasions riots often took place, and in the outer court of the 
 temple. tSuch slaughters were frequent.' That interpretation of the 
 expression seems far too weak. The act was judicial, striking, 
 solemn, or it would not have been attributed to Pilate and spoken of 
 as exce])tional. Men were naturally impi-essed by tlie heinousness of 
 the guilt which had been visited by so ignominious a death. Not so 
 Jesus. 'And he answered and said unto them, Think ye that these 
 (Galileans were sinners above all the (Jalileaus, because they have 
 suffered these things ? ' It is obvious from the words ' suffered these 
 things,' that there had been some form of public execution marked 
 by unusual severity. Jesus, however, did not admit that the 
 criminality of these men was as exceptional as their punishment. 
 That may well have been doubtful, to say the least ; for the enormity 
 of guilt has often been defined by political rather than moral con- 
 siderations, and the men called ' traitors ' by their contemporaries 
 and 'patriot martyrs' by historians, have expiated their 'treason' by 
 executions attended by every possible mark of execration. The time 
 was not far off,^and Jesus kncAv it, — when he himself would be 
 delivered up to this same Pilate, and scourged and crucified as a 
 malefactor. It would be unsafe, it might be uncharitable, to judge 
 the characters of men according to the treatment they received from 
 the rulers of this world. But the lesson which shoukl come home to 
 every man was twofold : the need of personal reformation, and the 
 certainty of final retribution. ' I tell you, Xay : but except ye 
 repent, ye shall all in like manner perish." 
 
 Then Jesus referred to another event. Eighteen persons had lost 
 their lives, not by way of law, but by an accident altogether 
 exceptional. A tower had f;xllen, crushing them to death. Probably 
 no one had a])prehended the possibility of such a catastrophe. Any 
 fatal occurrence which men cannot account for, they always have been 
 disposed to ascribe to ' the visitation of (Jod,' even deeming such a 
 conclusion reverential. The phrase, j^rojierly understood, means only 
 that human science, skill and foresight either cannot explain, or did 
 not suffice to avert the calamity. But in some minds there is a 
 tendency to carry the inference a step further, and to assume that 
 some supernatural power has been exercised in the event, which there- 
 fore comes to be regarded in the light of a visitation of divine judg- 
 ment. Against such an idea Jesus protested. ' Or those eighteen, 
 upon whom the tower in 8iloam fell, and killed them, think ye that 
 they were offenders ((Jr. debtors) above all the men that dwell in 
 •lerusalem ? I tell you. Nay.' (^Comparative degrees of guilt in men 
 are not to be measured by the mode of death which befalls them. 
 The purest patriot may suffer like the vilest criminal, and fatal acci- 
 dents may overtake alike the guilty and the innocent. The emphatic, 
 • I tell you. Nay,' of Jesus stands out against all rash judgments. 
 But from instances of sudden, unexpected death, he would have us 
 draw the same warning. ' But, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise 
 perish.' ' If ye may not reforu),' is Young's rendering, and it is 
 preferable, on account of the theological ideas and definitions which 
 have l)ecome attached to the word ' repent.' 
 
 The expression ' likewise perish ' demands consideration. In the 
 Authorised Version it so stands in both verses, but the I^evisers have 
 altered it in verse 3 to ' in like manner.' Tischendorf has ' in like 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 77 
 
 maimer' in verse o, and 'in the same nuinner' in \ei'so ."). Sanuiel 
 Sliarpe has 'thus perish' in verse o and 'perish in hke manner' in verse T). 
 Y'oanii;- has 'even so 'in verse :> and 'in like manner' in \erse r>. 
 Alford sun'f^'ests ' in Hke manner' for both verses. He sajs : 'The 
 force of this is lost in the A. V. like/vise. It is strictly //^ U/re vuinner.'' 
 That heiuL;- the case, what is the significance of tlie expression ? 
 Here is Alford's comment on verse :> : 'as indeed the Jewish people 
 did perish by the sword of the Roniniis.* And this is his comment 
 on verse 5 : * Here, the similarity will he -in the ruin of your whole 
 city. This docs not render it necessary that these words should have 
 l)een spoken to actual dwellers in -lernsalem : for nearly the whole 
 nation was assembled there at the time of the siege.' To give this 
 national and local restriction to the warning of Jesus is unsatisfactory ; 
 indeed, any such applicntion of his words seems far-fetched and un- 
 reliable. It transforms the teaching into a prophecy, and assumes that 
 the saying could lie interpreted only by the light of a future event. 
 On the contrary, by keei)ing close to the subject, the meaning 
 naturally attaching to the statement of Jesus becomes obvious. He 
 spoke first of a judicial execution by I'ilate. That was no indica- 
 tion of exceptional guilt ; but a similar judicial execution awaited all 
 who remained impenitent. He sjioke next of an unexpected, over- 
 whelming catastrophe. That also gave no reason for assuming 
 unusual criminality on the part of its victims ; but a similar sudden, 
 irresistible destruction would overtake all who failed to reform their 
 lives. The imminence, certainty and universality of Divine judg- 
 ment — that is the lesson here taught by Jesus. It applies not to 
 the Jews only, but to men of all nations throughout all time. 
 
 In connection with this subject Jesus delivered a parable. He 
 I'epresents the owner of a vineyard inspecting a fig tree planted 
 therein. For three years together he has found it unproductive, and 
 at last he issues orders for its removal, ' And he spake this parable ; 13 Luke 0, 
 A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard ; and he came 
 seeking fruit thereon, and found none. And he said unto the vine- 
 dresser. Kchold, these three years I come seeking i'ruit on this fig 
 tree, and find none : cut it dow'n ; why doth it also cumber the 
 ground ? ' Tischendorf renders, ' cut it out : ' the object was not 
 merely to get rid of the trunk and branches, but to iree the soil for 
 .something better. But the vinedresser even yet did not despair. 
 He thought the tree was worth another effort, and that if he bestowed 
 upon it extra care, and manured it well, it might still become pro- 
 ductive. • And he answering saith unto him, Lord (Sir — ^Youug and „ s 
 Alford), let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung 
 it.' That should in any case be the final effort ; the year's respite 
 was the tree's last chance. 'And if it bear fruit thenceforth, /re//; „ ^ 
 i)Ut if not, thou shalt cut it doAvn.' 
 
 We are left to draw our own conclusions from the parable, and 
 t herefore cannot be too careful to keep within its prescribed limits. 
 Its most i^rominent lesson seems to be this : Perseverance to the last 
 in hope and effort, and that equally in the task of self-reform and of 
 altruistic influence. This barren fig tree represents an exceptional 
 case of obduracy and moral worthlessness. No other tree in the 
 \ineyard failed as this did. Yet he who was best able to judge, who 
 watched it constantly, was anxious, in spite of his bitter disappoint- 
 
78 THE KlXa AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 racnt, to save it from destruction. He resolved to make one per- 
 sistent, final effort, admitting at the same time that if that failed all 
 hope must be abandoned, and the axe must be left to do its work. 
 Life and usefidness must go togetlier. The fruit-producing tree is 
 the proper symbol for humanity. AVe are called to something higher 
 than a useless, aimless, selfish existence. Each soul's career is 
 watched over, its worth or worthlessness duly appraised, and its 
 ultimate destiny determined accordingly. In various ways Jesus 
 enforces the grand truth of moral responsibility. The neghgent 
 steward is ' cut asunder ' from the houseliold, that he may no longer 
 disorganize and disgrace it. The barren fig tree is 'cut out,' that it 
 may no longer cumber the ground. 
 
 Alford observes : ' This Parable has perhaps been interpreted 
 with hardly enough reference to its own peculiar context, or to the 
 symbolic language of Scripture in other places. Ordinarily the 
 owner of the vineyard is exjilained to be the Eternal Faiher : the 
 dresser and intercessor, the )%/i of God: the fig tree, theirhole Je/ris/i 
 people: the vineyard, the irorkV Against that interja-etation 
 Alford argues, and then gives his own. He says : ' Noiv who is t/ti.<i 
 intercessor?'' and he arri^-es !it the conclusion, 'Clearly, it seems to 
 me, the Hotij Spirit of God.' Then he assumes that the ' three 
 years ' are an allusion ' to tlte three years of our Lord's ministry,'' and 
 he meets certain objections brought against that assumption. On 
 what a sea of uncer:ainty and error do they set forth, who go beyond 
 the primary and essential idea embodied in the parable ! The lesson 
 wiiich the first hearers would naturally draw from iu, is the lesson for 
 us. All beyond that is a surplusage of guesswork, based upon con- 
 ceptions which grew uj) subsequently in the minds of theologians. 
 In proportion as the parables are construed mystically, after a recog- 
 nized ' orthodox ' fashion, they lose force and freshness, and instead 
 of serving to illustrate the grand central truths on which Jesus would 
 have us fix our thoughts, they become perplexing and unprofitable. 
 
 The following incident, recorded only by Luke, is described with 
 much vividness, and was evidently derived from an eye-witness. 
 It happened in a synagogue, on the sabbath, desus was teaching, 
 and among the listeners was a def jrmed woman. For eighteen years 
 she was known to have suffered from a spinal weakness, being bowed 
 
 i"i down and unable to stand erect. ' And he was teaching in one of the 
 synagogues on the sa])ljath day. And behold, a woman which had a 
 spirit of infirmity eighteen years ; and she was bowed together, and 
 could in no wise lift herself up,' The expression, ' had a spirit of 
 infirmity,' may l)c taken as the idea entertained by the narrator and 
 others. Alford says : ' The A. V. has here mistaken the position of 
 the word which it renders in no ivise. It means altoyether, and 
 belongs to the verb //// lierself He renders it, ' could not lift 
 herself upright.' Tischendoi'f, ' wholly unable to lift herself up.' 
 Young, ' not able to bend back at ah.' The ' Enghshman's Greek 
 New Testament ' rei^laces ' in no wise ' by " wholly.' Her pitiable 
 condition attracted the notice of Jesus, who called her to him. How 
 
 : must she have been astounded at his words ! ' And when Jesus saw 
 her, he called her, and said to her, Woman, thou art loosed from 
 thine infirmity.' Then on her crippled form she felt the touch of 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPFLS. 79 
 
 tliosc liiuids wliicli never touched in \-ain. From liis body to liers 
 there ])asse(l a niysterioiis, iiiviL;()i<itiiig power; as by some subtle 
 magic her muscles shook off their hitherto unconquerable torpor, the 
 vigour of her best days was instantaneously restored, and she was 
 seen standing upright aud heard uttering her thanksgiving to (xod. 
 * And he laid his hands upon her : and immediately she was made is r.i>i<c 
 straight, and glorified (lod.' 
 
 The man whose office threw upon him the duty of maintaining 
 order in the synagogue was so narrow-minded, prejudi(.'ed, bigoted, 
 as to resent this marvellous exhibition of the healing power of Jesus. 
 Without venturing to condemn the act or the actor, he expi-essed his 
 displeasure, vented his petty criticism, by reminding those present of 
 tlie sanctity of the day. His indignation was excited by what 
 appeared to him a desecration (»f the sabbath, and he showed the 
 courage of his convictions by reproving the people. He rose up and 
 delivered his little sermon on the text, ' Remember the sabbath day 
 to keep it holy.' He could argue the question verbally and techni- 
 cally, but how far off was he from the spirit of divine compassion 
 which had made the sabbath for man ! He urged the congregation 
 to beware of encouraging sabbath work in any ibrm ; if people 
 wanted to be healed, the synagogue should be kept open for them 
 throughout the week. 'And the I'uler of the synagogue, being .. i 
 moved with indignation because Jesus had healed on the sabbath, 
 answered and said to the multitude. There are six days in which men 
 ought to work : in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the 
 (lay of the sabbath.' Jesus answered this conscientious, self-satisfied, 
 zealous critic reproachfully, almost scornfully. ' But the Lord .. i 
 answered him, and said, Ye hypociites.' The Revisers have altered 
 the word from the singular to the plural, following the three oldest 
 ]\ISS. This man was one of a class, a fair representative of his sect, 
 •lesus had affixed to the scribes and Pharisees generally the designa- 
 tion 'hypocrites.' It is obvious that the term was not deemed 
 offensive, in the sense of implying open discourtesy. The word 
 hiipolf rites, had a wider application than our translation of it, the 
 signification ' hypocrite ' being subsidiary : ' one who answers : an 
 interpreter or expounder. One who plays a part on the dcuje, a player, 
 actor. A dissembler, pretender, hypocrite.' The indignation mani- 
 fested by this ruler of the synagogue was not feigned, but real, and 
 it impelled him to take the course he did. The lives of such 
 dogmatists were full of incongruities and anomalies ; wedded to an 
 erroneous system of faith and morals, their most solemn convictions 
 involved a kind of double-dealing ; seeking to hold fast by the letter 
 of the divine law, they oj^posed its spirit ; going about to establish 
 their own righteousness, they repudiated and opposed anything and 
 o^■erything which overstepped the limits of their authorised maxims 
 and orthodox conventionalities. In proportion as men become un- 
 natural they must needs develop inconsistency, and nothing tends so 
 much in that direction as Avrong notions in religion. It was so in 
 the days of Jesus : is it less so now ? He detected in these vene- 
 rators of the divine revelation, these devout advocates and exemplars 
 of constant prayer, these strict Sabbatarians, a spirit and hal)it of 
 conduct which was best described by the word actors or hypocrites. 
 In the New Testament the term is never used except by Jesus, and 
 
80 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 whenever he affixed the stigma lie was careful to give the reason for 
 it. Probably unconscious hypocrisy is more common than that 
 which is deliberate and intentional, and its effects may be quite as 
 harmful. With loving, compassionate boldness Jesus dragged forth 
 this lurking vice into open daylight. On this occasion it sufficed to 
 show that this man and his co-religionists were in the habit of doing 
 on the sabbath work of the same kind as that which had just been 
 performed by Jesus. ' Dotli not each one of you on the sabbath 
 loose his ox or his ass from the stall (Gr. manger), and lead him 
 aAvay to watering ? ' Even their rigid creed admitted the necessity 
 for that. And wherein did this action of Jesus differ ? In two 
 points only. The laying on of the hands by Jesus involved far less 
 labour than a journey to the stable, the untying and retying of a 
 halter, the leading out and home of an animal ; and the need of this 
 woman for the relief he was able to give, — how vastly was that in 
 excess of the few hours' thirst of a duml) creature ! Here was a 
 suffering woman, one of Abraham's daughters, who by some malign 
 ])ower had been physically bound in ceaseless discomfort day after 
 day, year after year, during eighteen long years. Ought she not to 
 have been loosed from that bond on the sabbath day ? * And ought 
 not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had 
 l)ound, lo, thi'se eighteen years, to have been loosed from this bond 
 on the day of the sabbath ? ' Who could dare to answer No, to 
 such a question ? His adversaries were dumbfounded by the argu- 
 ment. Not one word could they suggest in self-justification, 
 especially as the crowd were enthusiastically on the side of Jesus, and 
 were manifesting unbounded joy as they discussed the astounding 
 and beneficent marvels wrought by him. ' And as he said these 
 things, all his adversaries were put to shame : and all the multitude 
 rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.' 
 
 Young renders 'Satan' by 'Adversary.' The words of Jesus, 
 ' whom the Adversary had bound,' carry far more weight than those 
 which ex]>ressed the popular notion that the woman ' had a spirit of 
 infirmity.' Jesus had superliuman knowledge, and he certainly attri- 
 buted this physical deformity to the spiritual adversary of mankind. In 
 some way, direct or indirect, it was his doing. If we believe that Jesus 
 exercised his spiritual powers on behalf of mankind, it is equally credible 
 that a hostile spiritual being may exercise his powers to the detriment 
 of mankind. Why or how, we cannot tell. We only know that this 
 mysterious antagonism of good and evil, of malice and beneficence, 
 runs throughout the whole Bible history, from the first page to the 
 last, and that it was admitted and endorsed by Jesus and his apostles. 
 
 The gift of prescience possessed by Jesus probably intensified his 
 mental sufferings. Knowing that he was destined to end his life, 
 under circumstances of ignominy, at Jerusalem, he now prepared to 
 undertake what he knew would be his last journey thither. 'And it 
 came to pass, when the days were well-nigh come (Gr. were being 
 fulfilled) that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to 
 go to Jerusalem.' The expression 'steadfastly set his face,' denotes 
 the moral courage required and exercised. Not only did he resolve 
 to go, but lie attracted the utmost publicity, undertaking organised 
 missionary work on the journey, and sending messengers to announce 
 
PART 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 81 
 
 his comiiiu: to ])laces ou the road: 'and sent messengers before his o Lu1:o 52 
 face.' That would be an absohite necessity, if he desired to find 
 audiences ready to Hsten to his teacliing. In places where the in- 
 habitants were scattered, previous notice would have to be given, the 
 approach of Jesus announced, and tlie times at which he would be 
 prepared to addres.s the )u'o|)le duly arranged beforeiiand. The mes- 
 sengers set about the performance of this task in a village inhabited 
 by Samaritans. 'And they went, and entered into a village of the „ 52 
 Samaritans, to make ready for him.' It was a recognised fact that 
 the Jews had * no dealings with Samaritans,' but the disciples of 4 John 
 Jesus were above any pr^'judice of that kind, and they seem to have 
 assumed that the spirit of exclusiveness was on the side of their own 
 luition only, and that the Samaritans would appreciate as a privilege 
 the proposed visit to them of the great Jewish teacher. Had he not 
 on a former occasion been acknowledged as Messiah by the Samari- 
 tans of Sychar ? But the disciples Avere quickly undeceived : they 
 found that Samaritans could be quite as haughty and bigoted as 
 Jews. As soon as it was ascertained that Jesus was travelling 
 towards Jerusalem, a peremptory refusal was given to his entering 
 their village. 'And they did not receive him, because his face was Luke 53 
 (IS t]iou(jh lie irere going to Jerusalem.' Two of the disciples were 
 greatly incensed at this indignity being put \\\wn their Master, and 
 they were anxious to see his prophetic character vindicated by a sum- 
 mary act of judicial vengeance. His divine authority would ha best 
 sliown by some sign from heaven, and knowing well the supernatural 
 powers which could be wielded by Jesus, they waited but a word of 
 permission from him to in\-oke in his name consuming fire from the 
 sky on the heads of those who had thus scornfully rejected his pre- 
 sence and teaching. 'And when his disciples James and John saw -- •''* 
 this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from 
 heaven, and consume them ? ' The Revisers, following the two oldest 
 MSS., have omitted ' even as Elias did.' The suggestion was indica- 
 live of their reverence and faith, and might well occur to these two 
 v.-ho had lately been permitted the vision of their Master transfigured 
 and glorified on the mountain-top. But such a purpose was far from 
 the mind of Jesus, and the idea was instantly met by a stern rebuke. 
 • But he turned, and rebuked them.' The Revisers, following the „ &5 
 three oldest MSS., have omitted: 'and said, Ye know not what 
 manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to 
 destroy men's lives, but to save them.'' 
 
 Jesus and his disciples directed their steps elsewhere. 'And they „ •''•e 
 went to another village.' On the way thither the following incident 
 ();;curred. A man expressed a wish to become a follower of Jesns, no 
 matter whether he was going to Jerusalem or elsewhere. ' And as „ 57 
 they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, I will follow thee 
 whithersoe\ er thou goest.' He may have been a Samaritan, anxious 
 to prove himself superior to the narrow mindedness which had been 
 shown by his countrymen. The words ' whithersoever thou goest,' 
 seemed to point to a fixed abode somewhere, but Jesus could not offer 
 that to any follower. As he was at this moment, such he was always : 
 a homeless wanderer. ' And Jesus said unto him, The foxes have „ 5s 
 lioles, and the birds of the heaven have nests (Gr. lodging-places) ; 
 but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.' 
 
82 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 The conclusions thus derived from Luke's narrative are somewhat 
 disturbed on comparing it with Matthew. He inserts this incident 
 at a much earKer period of the history. He tells us that the man 
 was a scribe, but the conversation is almost word for word the same. 
 s Mat. 10 20 ' And there came a scribe (Gr. one scribe), and said unto him, jMaster 
 (or, Teacher), 1 will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus 
 saith unto him. The foxes have holes, and the birds of the licaven 
 hare nests (Gr. lodging-places) ; but the Sou of J\fan hath not where to 
 lay his head.' The position this occupies in ^latthew leads to the 
 inference that the ofter was made and the reply of Jesus given when 
 he was on the point of entering a boat to cross the lake of Gcnne- 
 saret ; that, however, is but an inference, whereas Luke says plainly 
 that the incident happened ' as they went in the way.' With respect 
 to Matthew's narrative generally, the Keverend J. J. Halcombe makes 
 the following observations : ' We perceive at once that, whilst it shews 
 a distinct chronological framework, upon which the whole narrative is 
 built up, yet that the idea of chronological order, so far from being 
 the paramount idea or controlling principle of narration, is altogether 
 subordinated to the design of giving special prominence to the Oral 
 Teaching of our Lord .... Thus it happens that throughout the 
 first half of his Gospel, whilst grouping together, and so to speak 
 classifying, discourses spoken on very different occasions, 8. ]\Iatthew 
 as a rule introduces Christ's actions, and even the actions of his 
 enemies, not with reference to the time to which they properly be- 
 longed, but with reference to their suitability to illustrate His Oral 
 Teaching, and so to complete a Portrait, rather than a Biography of 
 the Divine Teacher.' * On the other hand, as it was the express 
 intention of Luke to compile his narrative in due order, we must 
 needs suppose that he endeavoured to do so in this instance, and that 
 his words, 'as they went in the way,' were not inserted without 
 warrant as a mere connecting link. But with respect to the two some- 
 what similar incidents immediately following, Luke does not give 
 any clue as to time or sequence. 
 
 •) Luke S9 Jesus dcsircd a person to become his follower. ' And he said unto 
 anothei", Follow^ me.' The man pleaded for a slight delay on account 
 „ 59 of a domestic bereavement. ' But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go 
 and bury my father.' No : the command was imperious, the necessity 
 for immediate action urgent, the highest duty must stand first and 
 (io foremost. ' But he said unto him. Leave the dead to bury their own 
 dead ; but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God.' Matthew 
 omits the command and the concluding words recorded by Luke, but 
 brings out the fact that the call to ' follow ' Jesus was addressed to one 
 
 .s Mat 21, 22 of liis acknowledged disciples. ' And another of the disciples said unto 
 him. Lord, sutt'er me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said 
 unto him. Follow me ; and leave the dead to bury their own dead.' 
 
 Luke records another saying of Jesus uttered under similar cir-" 
 cumstances. Another volunteer presented himself, who, like the last, 
 
 9 Luke 01 was not quite ready. ' And another also said, I will follow thee. 
 Lord ; but first suffer me to bid farewell to them that are at my 
 house.' The cause of Jesus would brook no such delay : hesitation, 
 indecision, half-heartedness of that kind, must be taken to indicate 
 
 "Gospel Difficnltirs," pp. cxv., cxviu 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFELS. 83 
 
 unfitness for the task. 'But Jesus said unto liim,Xoman]iavinj^-put his 'JUiko 
 hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.' 
 These three replies are strikingly characteristic of the mind and 
 policy of Jesus. The call to follow him involved more than mere 
 discipleship : it necessitated the relinquishment of life's comforts 
 and conveniences ; it interfered vrith the regard due to social customs 
 and etiquette : it demanded the rapture of family ties, and an 
 earnestness of purpose to make everything yield to the saci-ed cause 
 in hand. The '' followers ' of Jesus must feel themselves without an 
 earthly home ; as the only living men among a host of dead ; as 
 labourers tied to one plough and one furrow in the world's harvest- 
 field. Jesus deemed it necessary to put all this in the most emphatic 
 language possiljle. In proportion to the earnestness of his declara- 
 tions should be our care not to misunderstand or misapply them. It 
 would be a perversion of their true import to assume that tliey admit 
 of universal application. Elevate the tone and aims of a Christian 
 community to the highest conceivable degree, still it could never be 
 desirable that all should become ' followers ' of Jesus in this sense : 
 any general adoption of such maxims Avould lead to social confusion 
 and misery. All persons could not simultaneously choose a wandering, 
 homeless life ; they could not all delegate to others the duties of 
 ordinary existence, shaking off from themselves the claims of family 
 relationship and wichholding customary observances of respect ; they 
 could not all go about proclaiming the kingdom of God, and holding 
 fast to that as the one object of life. Obviously such precepts are 
 not for all persons. Are they suitable for all times ? That also may 
 be open to question. We can conceive a condition of society when 
 such' sacrifices of the few will no longer be needed for the spiritual 
 -enfranchisement and elevation of the many. Eightly restricting the 
 application of such a call to those who voluntarily dedicate them- 
 selves entirely to the worship of God and the service of humanity, 
 the Romish Church has sought, with a laudable enthusiasm, to 
 enforce the perpetual observance of these principles of action on all 
 her ministers. Yows of celebacy are imposed on her clergy, and 
 monks and nuns are encouraged to live apart from the world around 
 them. AYe know what that system has led to ; we can trace its 
 •workings ; we can observe its effects. It was a grand experiment, 
 founded on a sublime idea, — the very chivalry of Christianity. But 
 its attendant evils have exceeded its benefits, its corruptions have 
 overborne its purity, its doctrines of self-effacement and unquestioning 
 obedience have sapped the foundations of moral freedom and hindered 
 the growth of religious truth. Before attempting to build up any 
 system on precepts enunciated by Jesus, it behoves us to be quite 
 suvQ that we fully understand them, not only his words but his spirit, 
 and that we do not erroneously extend their application beyond the 
 persons for whom and the circumstances and times for which they 
 ■vvere intended. 
 
 At first Jesus had restricted the number of his followers to twelve. 
 Subsequently he invited others to 'follow' him, and we have seen 
 how carefully he made his selection, and how rigid were the ideas of 
 self-sacrifice and devotion he impressed upon them. After a time, he 
 found himself the recognised leader of no less than eighty-two 
 jDersons, and as he had formerly sent forth the twelve apostles he 
 
84 THE KING AND TEE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 now appointed seventy others to nndertake, under his directions,, a 
 similar mission. As on the previous occasion, he arranged that they 
 should go forth not singly, nor all together, but in pairs : and they 
 were sent as harbingers of himself, to certain towns and localities 
 which he had decided to visit, pi-obably in company with the twelve 
 apostles. 'Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, 
 and sent them two and two l)efore his face into every city and place, 
 Avhither he himself was about to come.' Tischendorf retains the 
 word ' also ' after ' others ; ' the Revisers, following the Vatican JMS., 
 have omitted it. Alford notes : ' The words should not be rendered, 
 as in A.V., other seveniy also, but oiJiers also, soventij in ninnher. 
 The others may refer, either to the Twelve, ch. ix, 1, or perhaps, from 
 the similarity of their mission, to the messengers in ch. ix. 52.' 
 
 This missionary enterprise of Jesus was evidently conceived on a 
 large scale. All that it was possible for him to attempt in the work 
 of evangelisation, he did. But he was painfully impressed by the 
 inadequacy of the means at his disposal. There was a plenteous 
 harvest, but a scarcity of reapers. Jesus began by pointing out that} 
 fact to his followers, urging them to take the same view of the 
 matter as himself, and to offer their own services in the emergency. 
 ' And he said unto them. The harvest is plenteous, but the labourers 
 are few : pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send 
 forth labourers into his harvest.' Dr. Young has gone beyond the 
 Authorised and Revised Versions by inserting capitals : ' Beseech ye 
 then the Lord of the harvest, so that He may put forth labourers 
 into His harvest.' This is but an exemplification of the idea which 
 has been commonly attached to this saying of Jesus. It is assumed, 
 as a matter of course, to be an exhortation to prayer on behalf of 
 that missionary enterprise in particular, and of missionary enterprises 
 generally. That interpretation overlooks the nature of the simile, 
 Avhich is that of a harvest-field : the lord of the harvest is the owner 
 or superintendent, whose business it is to arrange for the ingathering; 
 these labourers are cognisant, like himself, of the need for immediate 
 action, and it is expected of them that they will tender their services 
 for the work Avhich must be done at once. There must be a perfect 
 understanding and readiness on both sides. The ' lord of the harvest ^ 
 is there, waiting to employ; the 'laboin-ers' go to him direct, and 
 ask to be employed. As the labourers represent the disciples, so the 
 lord of the harvest represents Jesus. He had used the same words 
 before sending out the twelve apostles : ' The harvest truly is plen- 
 teous, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the 
 harvest, that he send forth labourers into his harvest.' Then it is 
 added : ' These twelve Jesus sent forth.' In so doing he acted the 
 part of ' the lord of the harvest.' He would send forth only volun- 
 teers, men who were convinced that the right moment for action had 
 come, who were anxious about the work, and hopeful as to its results. 
 The same conclusion is forced upon us by Luke's narrative : for after 
 saying, ' Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth 
 labourers into his haivest,' it is added : ' Go your ways : behold I 
 send you forth.' Jesus is the sender, ' the Lord of the harvest.' And 
 lie would have them conscious of the dangers to which they would 
 be exposed, and of their utter helplessness. ' I send you forth as 
 lambs in the midst of wolves.' No representative of Jesus must 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 85 
 
 engati'e in strife, even in self-defence. There is ndthing to indicate 
 that by 'wolves' .lesns intended any particular reli^'ious opponeiits. 
 Travellers in those days were in danger of attack from robbers, t(j 
 whom possibly the allusion refers. These messengers of Jesus must 
 carry with them nothing to invite attack, or which would be worth 
 defending. ' Carry no purse, no wallet, no shoes.' Divested of all lo ^.,1;^. 4 
 incumbrances, they would be recognised as simple messengers, and as 
 such they would be at liberty also to dispense with those formal 
 ceremonious greetings which were customary l)etweeu travellers : 
 ' and salute no man on the way.' Miss L. M. von Finkelstein, in ^ ^ 
 one of her lectures, has explained this: 'You can observe the very 
 same thing which was in Christ's mind every day of your life in 
 Palestine. The ordinary salutation between strangers meeting on 
 the road takes at least half-an-hour, and is a most ceremonious affair. 
 All travellers greet each other in the same way, with one exception — 
 the messenger who runs from place to place is allowed to pass on, and 
 when people see him run along they merely call out to him, and if he 
 answers that he is a messenger he passes unhindered. Now Christ's 
 disciples were essentially messengers, and they would hare had little 
 time for preaching had they saluted every traveller on the road. It 
 was for that reason that the command was given.' 
 
 "Wherever the disciples took up their abode, Jesus would have them 
 intimate, in a solemn and striking manner, that they came not foi' 
 puri)oses of debate and strife. ' And into whatsoever house je shah „ -5 
 enter, first say (or, enter first, say) Peace m to this house.' If the 
 owner of the dwelling were like-minded, that calmness of soul and 
 temper which they had learnt from intercourse with Jesus would 
 pervade the household. 'And if a son of peace be there, your peace ■., fi 
 iihall rest upon him (or, it).' But if, unhappily, the spirit of con- 
 tention reigned, they must still retain that quiet mind with whicli 
 ithey had entered. ' But if not, it shall turn to you again.' Not for ., n 
 .any expressed differences of opinion, nor for any other reason, might 
 they reject or seem to disparage the hospitality freely tendered. 'And „ 7. 
 in that same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they 
 give.' They would not be eating the bread of idleness, and their 
 efforts for the general welfare might fairly claim a bare subsistence, 
 Avithout any forfeiture of independence : ' for the labourer is worthy „ r 
 of his hire.' No fickleness of purpose, no distaste of their sur- 
 roundings, should induce them to change the abode to which they 
 were at first welcomed. ' Go not from house to house.' ., 7 
 
 When they entered into a city, and were received as forerunners of 
 Jesus, they were to put forth the same powers of healing as they had 
 seen him exercise, taking no remuneration in money, but only such 
 hospitality as miglit be otFered them. ' And into whatsoever city ye „ s 
 enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you : 
 and heal the sick that arc therein.' This simple, quiet declaration is 
 of startling import. In sending out the twelve Jesus had invested 
 them with the same — and greater — powers. Now to seventy disciples 
 at once he attributes, as though it were a matter of course, the 
 miraculous gift of healing. How great must be the mistake of those 
 who would have ns regard the miracles of Jesus as proofs of his 
 divinity I He sought to make them the common heritage of 
 humanity. There dwells in all of us a mysterious power of which 
 
86 - THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 wc are uncouscious, an influence for good which we have never 
 learnt tlie secret how to exert, a phenomenal attribute lying on the 
 border-land between matter and spirit, whereby the latter controls 
 the former. To the most learned physicians disease is still a mystery : 
 that it can be propagated by a touch, and without a touch, we all 
 know ; Jesus disclosed the fact that there exists a similar contagion 
 of healing, and if only we could put ourselves on his level, or be 
 taught, guided, influenced by him as were the twelve and the seventy, 
 
 uJohiiiL' we should realise the literal truth of his assertion, ' Yerily, verily, I 
 say unto you, He that he]ie^•eth on me, the works that I do shall ho 
 do also.' 
 
 Conjointly with the exercise of their powers of healing, the discijjles 
 
 lot.uke!! were to proclaim the nearness of God's kingdom. 'And say unto 
 them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.' These raaiwels 
 of mercy were its manifestations : flashes of light and love from the 
 heavenly realm of divine beueflcence. The nearness was present, 
 actual, a thing realised, not a promise of something about to be 
 revealed. The reign of God has never been so near to men as in 
 those days when Jesus and his apostles went about proclaiming its 
 proximity and demonstrating its laws and powers. 
 
 But the messengers of Jesus must be prepared for rejection as well 
 as acceptance. They must not allow themselves to be repelled with- 
 
 1(1 i.ukc 10, out making a solemn protest. ' But into whatsoever city ye shall 
 11 enter, and they receive you not, go out into the streets thereof and 
 say, Even the dust from your city, that cleaveth to our feet, we do 
 wipe ofi" against you.' The Eevisers have altered ' cleaveth on us ' to 
 ' cleaveth to our feet,' the reading of the three oldest M88. being, 
 ' cleaveth on us on our feet.' This symbolical action was not un- 
 common. Alford explains : ' It was a custom of the Pharisees, when 
 they entered Judtea from a Gentile land, to do this act, as renouncing 
 all communion with Gentiles. Eejection, however disheartening and 
 contemptuous, must in no wise shake the assurance of the disciples 
 „ 11 themselves, and they were to give proof of this by adding, ' Howbeit 
 know this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh.' The proflered 
 boon was none the less real and substantial because men, failing to 
 appreciate it, thrust it from them. The fofly, the Avrong, the guilt of 
 such conduct would be intolerable, more so even than that of Hodom. 
 „ I'j ' I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, 
 than for that city.' The reception of these messengers was equiva- 
 lent to the reception of Jesus ; their rejection, to the rejection of 
 himself : and the rejection of him, to the rejection of God Himself. 
 J,; ' He that heareth you heareth me, and he that rejecteth you re- 
 jecteth me ; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.' 
 „ 13-1:. Between verses 12 and !(] Luke inserts the following. ' Woe unto . 
 thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works 
 (Gr. powers) had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which were done in 
 you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and 
 ashes. Howbeit it shall he more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the 
 judgment, than for you. And tliou, Capernaum, shalt thou be 
 exalted unto heaven ? thou shalt be brought down unto Hades.' In 
 dealing with the mass of material at his command, Luke must 
 occasionally have had to rely on his own judgment with respect to 
 the position to be occupied by certain portions of the narrative. His 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 87 
 
 object was to place all things in order, l)ut the fitting place for 
 various short traditional sayings of Jesus might not be obvious. 
 These he would naturally insert at the most appropriate and con- 
 venient points. If, as seems probable, these verses 1;>, 14 and 15 
 Cduiprisetl one of these scattered notes, the mention of ' Sodom ' in 
 connection with the word ' tolerable ' would be sufficient to induce 
 the compiler to place it where it now stands. That might seem 
 ])referable to cither dropping it in at hap-hazard, without any regard 
 to the context, or introducing it alone, as probably some passages of 
 doubtful standing are introduced, by some such words as 'Jesus 
 said.' These remarks apply, more or less, with equal force to 
 Matthew's gospel. It is a mere tradition that he wrote it ; to what 
 extent it may have been compiled by others, we know not ; and it 
 does not make any claim to chronological accuracy. The Reverend 
 J.J. llalcombe arrives at the following conclusion*: 'A strict adhe- 
 rence to an exact historical order of events being manifestly incon- 
 sistent with the plan on which S. Matthew wrote, all transpositions 
 of his text re(juired in any attempt to shew what that order really 
 was, i)rovided only they are exactly regulated by the order vouched 
 for by other Evangelists, are neither " arbitrary," nor in the slightest 
 degree inconsistent with his absolute accuracy.'* Now in Matthew 
 we find a parallel passage to that just quoted from Luke, but intro- 
 duced at an earlier period. Alford has in this instance held, contrary 
 to his usual practice, that the words were spoken twice by Jesus ; but 
 the Reverend J. J. Halcombe has not scrupled to place them in 
 juxtaposition wath the passage in Luke. In Matthew they are intro- 
 duced with these words : ' Then began he to upbraid the cities n Mat. 20 
 wherein most of his mighty works (Gr. powers) were done, because 
 they repented not.' Tliat is a very unusual form of preface ; whether 
 by ;Matthew himself or by a subsequent compiler, it is simply the 
 writer's way of introducing the subject. If we could be sure that 
 ]\Iatthew not only wrote Init arranged the narrative bearing his 
 name, the words ' then began he ' would denote a sequence, bu°t not 
 otherwise. Alford says : ' This expression betokens a change of 
 subject, but not of locality or time : ' he does not venture to argue 
 that it signifies identity of time, although the 'close connexion of the 
 whole chapter ' leads him to that conclusion. He adds : ' I would 
 rather regard the l/ien hegan lie as the token of the report of an ear- 
 wituess, and as pointing to a pause or change of manner on the part 
 of our Lord.' The word ' upbraid ' seems hardly consistent with the 
 character of Jesus. Tischendorf renders it ' reproach.' Samuel 
 Sharpe's rendering of 'woe' by 'alas,' gives to the utterance a 
 sorrowful and compassionate tone. Young's version is: 'Then 
 began he to reproach the cities in which most of his mighty works 
 were done, because they reformed not.' Matthew's record of these 
 reproaches or regrets of Jesus is as follows : ' Woe unto thee, 
 Ohorazin ! woe unto thee Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works (Gr. 
 powers) had been done in Tyre and Sidon which w^ere done in you, 
 they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Howbeit 
 I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the 
 day of judgement, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou 
 
 "Gospel Difticulties," p. c.\x. 
 
 21-24 
 
88 TEE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [pakt n. 
 
 be exalted unto heaven ? thou shalt go down unto Hades : for if the 
 mighty works (Gr. powers) had been done in Sodom which were done 
 iu thee, it would have remained until this day. Howheit I say unto 
 you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of 8odom in the day 
 of judgement, than for thee.' Comparing this with Luke, there is 
 great similarity. The woe of Chorazin and Bethsaida is word ibr 
 word the same, except that Luke introduces ' sitting ' and ' 1 say 
 unto you.' Eespecting Capernaum it seems doubtful whether the 
 words were 'go down' or ' be brought down,' the authorities difteriug 
 as to the MS. of Matthew. Luke omits all that follows in IMatthew 
 after 'Hades,' but he had just before quoted almost similar words 
 concerning Sodom. Xow comes the important question, What is the 
 real import of the passages ? Alford rushes unhesitatingly to this 
 conclusion : ' That the reference here is to the last great daij of judg- 
 ment is evident, by the whole being spoken of in the future.' That 
 is obviously an abbreviated form of the argument, for it does not 
 follow that because the judgment is future it must therefore be the 
 last great day of judgment. The argument fully stated amounts to 
 this : The judgment applies to Tyre and Sidon as well as to Chorazin 
 and Bethsaida, to Sodom as well as to Capernaum : therefore, the 
 future tense only being used, the judgment of Tyre and Sidon and of 
 ;-:odom must be future. But Sodom was judged and destroyed ages 
 ago : therefore that past judgment is not referred to, but some other, 
 which can only be the last great day of judgment. That this is 
 fairly put, is evident from these words added by Alford : ' Had our 
 Lord been speaking of the outward judgment on the rebellious cities, 
 the future might have been used of them, but could not of Sodom, 
 which was already destroyed.' It may be urged, on the contrary, 
 that the word ' shall ' cannot apply to Sodom, and that therefore the 
 meaning of the sentence is not that which might appear from its 
 literal, hard and fast grammatical construction. It would invoh'c 
 no change of meaning to put it thus : It shall be less tolerable for 
 thee in the day of judgment than for the land of Sodom ; or. It shall 
 be less tolerable for thee than for the land of Sodom in the day of 
 judgment. Any critical reader, apart from foregone conclusions and 
 theological training, would understand that to Ite its meaning. Jesus 
 was simply drawing a contrast between the guilt and doom of Sodom 
 and of existing cities. He was not enunciating any new doctrine of 
 final retribution, involving the resurrection not only of individuals 
 but of cities and citizens in their corporate capacity. That is what 
 the idea of Alford amounts to, and it is absurd on the face of it. 
 Jesus draws a comparison and warning from ancient history, and 
 men thrust into it their own conclusions drawn irom other parts of 
 Scripture ! Are the customary elisions of speech which are common 
 in all languages, and which are recognised intuitively by our judg- 
 ment and common sense, to be disregarded when we deal with the 
 utterances of Jesus ? Every italicised passage is a standing protest 
 against such a system of interpretation. We may surely claim the 
 right of grasping an idea without that circumlocution which strict 
 grammarians might insist on. Take the passage in Luke : ' It shall 
 be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, tlian for that city.' The 
 meaning is on the surface : That city is less to be borne with in that 
 day, than was Sodom. If more tolerable for Sodom, surely less 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSI'FLS, 89 
 
 tolerable for that city ; so the sense is unaltered if we put the sentence 
 tlius : It shall be less tolerable in that day for that city, than for 
 iSodoni. Now all is seen to dejiend on the position <2,'iven to the 
 words, which may be taken in this order : In that day lor that city 
 it shall 1)6 less tolerable than for Sodom. The future tense has no 
 reference to Sodom, the judgment of which, being past, could be 
 thus held up as an example. It is open to question whether the right 
 sense is attached to the word ' tolerable.' Is it the conduct whicli is 
 ' more tolerable ' in the eyes of the judge, or the punishment in- 
 flicted by the judge which is 'more tolerable ' to the criminal ? The 
 former, most probably ; for although the latter is generally assumed, 
 it iu^'olves the introduction of an extraneous idea, that of the state, 
 ■condition, or punishment, so that in Beza's Latin version each of the 
 ,six passages in which the word ' tolerable ' occurs is amplified by the 
 introduction of the word ' conditio : ' ' tolerabilior erit conditio terree 
 .Sodomorum et Gomorrha?orum,' although, strange to say, only in 
 •() Mark 11 is the word ' conditio ' italicised. 
 
 The estimate Jesus was led to form of his countrymen is not a 
 little startling. Driven from Jud[Ba, he laboured ni Galilee ; but he 
 was far from satisfied with the result of his cflbrts, even in the places 
 where they had been most abundant. He had not succeeded in 
 bringing about the moral reformation at which he aimed. He could 
 l^reach to the people, he could work miracles among them, but he 
 could not influence their hearts or transform their lives. They 
 remained impenitent, unreformed ; and he was forced to the conclu- 
 sion that the Gentiles were more open to conviction and amendment 
 than were the Jews. Even the heathen cities of Tyre and Sidon. 
 against Avhich Jewish prophets had been commissioned to launch 
 ibvth divine threatenings, and which ' had been chastised by God's 
 judgment under Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander' (Alford), were, in 
 the opinion of Jesus, less obdurate than Chorazin and Bethsaida. So 
 intense was the conviction of Jesus with respect to the moral obtuse- 
 ness of those among whom he had laboured, that he declared Sodom 
 itself would have been saved by such a revelation as Capernaum had 
 received and despised. And yet, at this very time, C-apernaum was 
 regarding itself with complacency and self-glorification, dreaming of 
 advancement heavenwards when her sins were dragging her down to 
 death. There might be material prosperity, increasing commerce, grow- 
 ing wealth : what could all that profit when spiritual indifference pre- 
 vailed, leading to hatred of the Truth and rejection of the Messiah ? 
 
 No account is gi\'en of the labours of the seventy. After a time 
 which may have been long or short, they returned to Jesus, delighted 
 with the success of their mission, and enthusiastic about the gifts of 
 healing which they had been able to exercise. 'And the seventy lo Luke ir 
 returned with joy, saying. Lord (Sir — Young), even the devils (Gr. 
 demons) are subject unto us in thy name.' To this observation 
 Jesus made a remarkable reply. 'And he said unto them, I beheld „ is 
 Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.' The Authorised Version 
 has : ' as lightning fall from heaven.' In effect the sense is the 
 same, the iustantaneousness of the flash making it impossible to draw 
 a distinction between ' fall ' and ' fallen.' Tischendorf renders 
 ' falling ; ' Young ' having fallen ; ' the ' Englishman's Greek New 
 Testament ; ' ' I beheld Satan as lightning out of the heaven falling.' 
 
llii.Cor. 14 
 1." 
 
 90 THE KING A AW THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 From fallen lightniiio- no danger is to be dreaded ; it has become 
 powerless, extinct. The simile is full of meaning. To the mind of 
 Jesus, the spiritual Adversary of himself and of mankind stood 
 revealed, as real, as threatening, as irresistible, as demonstrable, as is 
 the lightning which springs from its unseen source above, and which 
 falls upon ns, how, whence or why we know not. That there should 
 exist a spiritual Being inimical to mankind, is no more incredible or 
 mysterious than is the fact that hghtning may consume us, or floods 
 drown us, or malaria infect us. The constitution of the physical 
 universe does not exclude these perils to the body, and the constitu- 
 tion of the moral universe may with equal reason be held to involve 
 similar spiritual perils. The eye of Jesus discerned realities invisible 
 to us, and he spoke with equal certainty of the ministrations of 
 heavenly messengers and of attacks from a spiritual adversary. 
 Modern scientists, accustoming themselves to withhold credence from 
 what they cannot see, or feel, or in some way test and demonstrate 
 by analysis, would laugh away all such ideas. Not so Jesus. He 
 believed in them, promulgated them. Spiritual influences inimical 
 to human welfare were as fully within his category of actually- 
 existent dangers, as were serpents and scorpions with their oifensive 
 instincts and poisonous fangs. The former class of agents was as 
 real and malevolent as the latter, and the one might be taken as 
 representative of the other. The dangers from both were equal, and 
 instead of bidding us shut our eyes to either, Jesus assured his 
 disciples that through the power which he had given they could 
 safely encounter and overcome them. ' Behold, I have given you 
 authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the 
 power of the enemy : and nothing shall in any wise hurt you.' 
 
 Let us keep to the similes Avhich Jesus used as illustrations of 
 Satanic agency, — the lightning-flash and the serpent-sting. Thunder- 
 storms are comparatively rare, and injury from a thunderbolt rarer 
 still. Moreover, the wit cf man devised the lightning-rod to attract 
 the flash and guide it harmless to the ground. .Inst so, the incursions 
 of demoniacal agency were always fitful, and Jesus interposed a 
 barrier between us and them, warding off in some simple but efficient 
 Avay, as by some master-stroke of heavenly science, their evil influ- 
 ences. We can rejoice that these are now altogether exceptional. 
 Our immunity may not be so complete as we flatter ourselves, but 
 even Avere it perfect, it would ill-become ns to misconstrue it as an 
 evidence that the danger was always imaginary and the dread of it 
 irrational. Take the other metaphor, — of serpents and scorpions. 
 Between such poisonous reptiles and the human race there has ever 
 been a deadly feud. As civilization has advanced, they have 
 declined, the law of self-preservation impelhng men to hunt out and 
 extirpate them with remorseless energy. Abounding most in tropic 
 heat, some parts of the world have never known these dangerous 
 scourges ; even from places where they most abounded they have- 
 slunk away, and tlie race must needs be finally crushed out. So has 
 it been, and will be, with hostile spiritual influences. The Holy 
 Spirit bestowed by Jesus on his disciples has supplied an antidote to- 
 the deadly venom of man's ghostly enemies, whose attacks may 
 be sometimes insidious and sometimes direct. The apostle Pauli 
 wrote : ' Even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is. 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 91 
 
 no great thir.ii; therefore if hi« ministers also fashion themselves as 
 
 ministers of rio-Jiteousness ; whose end sluiU be according to their 
 
 works.' Reh'gious hypocrites were classed by John the liaptist and 
 
 by Jesus as viperous. 'Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to 3 Mat. 7 
 
 flee from the wrath to come ? ' 'Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, •23 Mat. :i;{ 
 
 how shall ye esca])e the judgement of (Johenna ? ' Over such men, 
 
 and over the spirit which animates them, Jesus promised his followers 
 
 an easy and ]K'rfect triumph. ' liehold, I have given you authority 
 
 to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the 
 
 enemy : and nothing shall in any wise hurt you.' 
 
 Yet not in that triumpli over spiritual foes would Jesus have his 
 disciples exult, but in their own heavenly privileges. ' Howbeit in 10 luu.cjo 
 this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you ; but rejoice 
 that your names are written in heaven.' The word ' rather,' before 
 ' rejoice,' has been omitted by the Revisers. It is not in the three 
 oldest M8S. Y'oung renders : * Your names were written in the 
 heavens,' and Tischendorf, 'your names have been written in 
 heaven.' The idea seems to be the same as is thus expressed else- 
 where : ' Y'e are come ... to the general assembly and church of 12 Hcb. -n 
 the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.' Not strife and victory on 
 earth, even in the noblest cause, is to be the limit of Christian 
 expectation, but that heavenly citizenship from which all evil will be 
 excluded, and in which the powers and prerogatives of redeemed 
 humanity will find their free and fullest scope. 
 
 The Authorised Version continues as follows : ' In that hour Jesus 
 rejoiced in spirit.' The Revisers have capitalised the last word, and 
 placed ' Holy ' before it, following the reading of the two oldest 
 MSS. Tischendorf also renders : ' In that hour he exulted in the 
 Holy Spirit.' Alford inserts this note : ' Read, with all the most 
 ancient authorities, the liohj spirit * ' he does not venture to use 
 capitals. By doing so, here and elsewhere, the text assumes in the 
 eyes of ordinary readers a meaning beyond the sense contained in the 
 original. The idea of a separate and divine personality inevitably 
 springs up on seeing the words ' Holy Spirit ' so printed, which idea 
 does not necessarily arise when capital letters are not used. Samuel 
 Sharpe renders : ' In that hour Jesus rejoiced in his spirit.' Avoid- 
 ing both of these extremes, let us neither omit ' holy,' — for it is 
 found in the oldest copies extant, — nor capitalise it, nor insert the 
 W'ord 'his.' What is the meaning of the expression, 'Jesus rejoiced 
 in the holy spirit ? ' Apart from preconceived theological dogmas, 
 no thought of any ' spirit ' except that of Jesus himself would enter 
 our minds. We have long since arrived at the conclusion that the 
 term ' holy ' is applied to any thing or any person specially devoted 
 to the service of (jod. In his spirit of self-dedication to the divine 
 will, Jesus now i-ejoiced. That this is the true sense becomes more 
 evident from what follows. Jesus gives thanks to his Father, the 
 supreme Ruler, humbly acquiescing in the unfolding of His purposes. 
 ' In that same hour he rejoiced in (or, by) the Holy Spirit, and said, 10 Lnko:^!, 
 I thank (or, praise) thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that 
 thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and 
 didst reveal them unto babes.' The seventy disciples had returned to 
 Jesus, congratulating themselves and him on the effectual exercise of 
 their miraculous powers, especially that of exorcism. He had dis- 
 
92 THE KING AND TEE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 coursed with them on this matter, had assured them of perfect 
 immunity from spiritual evil, and of victory over it, but had bidden 
 them rejoice rather in the prospect opened out to them of the 
 heavenly lite. Surrounded by his band of earnest disciples, the heart 
 of Jesus overflowed with thankfulness at the success which had bceu 
 granted to his mission. But his disciples were men of humble rank 
 in life ; the ruling class of his countrymen held aloof from him ; 
 scribes and Pharisees ranged themselves in opposition. None more 
 sensible, — more sensitive, indeed, — of this than .Jesus himself. Look- 
 ing round upon his disciples, comparing them with jiersons renowned 
 for learning, 'the wise and understanding,' he was free to admit the 
 fact that his adherents suffered by the comparison : the contrast \\'as 
 as great as that between men grown up and highly educated, and 
 very 'babes.' Jesus was learning to submit to the inevitable. He 
 had sought in vain to gain the ears and hearts of others. It was 
 obviously the divine purpose that he should succeed in this direction 
 only. His work had fallen short of his ideal. He now recognises 
 the solemn fact that this apparent failure was of divine appointment. 
 It was strange that those best qualified to judge should reject his 
 teaching ; but it was far more wonderful that these ' babes ' should 
 attain to the heavenly wisdom. God had chosen the weak things of 
 the world to confound the wise. Convinced that it was so, Jesus 
 bows to the divine will. ' Yea, Father, for (or, that) so it was well- 
 pleasing in thy sight.' This view of the text is confirmed by Alford, 
 Avho inserts the following note on the words ' I thank thee : ' ' Not 
 merely, I praise thee, but in the force of the Greek word I confess to 
 thee, I recognize the justice of thy iloiiigs.'' Young renders, 'I confess 
 to thee. Father, Lord of the hea^'en and of the earth, that Thou didst 
 hide these things from wise men and prudent, and didst reveal them 
 to babes ; yes, Father, for so it was good pleasure before thee.' The 
 ac(juiescence of Jesus was complete, being based upon his conviction 
 that all his experiences throughout life were divinely arranged. That 
 seems to be the import of the words which follow : ' All things have 
 been delivered unto me of my Father.' The ' all things ' here 
 alluded to must signify what had just been spoken of, — the works 
 and teaching of Jesus with all the consequences resulting therefrom. 
 He had been carrying out God's purposes, and if he could gain no 
 greater measure of success, it was simply because in the divine wisdom 
 men were left free to acknowledge or deny him, to accept or reject 
 his salvation. His assurance sprang from the consciousness that he 
 was doing God's work in the world. It ill becomes us to claim, or 
 rather to parody his claim to a similar special divine direction. In 
 one sense, of course, all that befalls ourselves is the Lord's doing : 
 his laAvs cannot be broken, his retributions cannot be escaped. But 
 to attribute the failure of our plans and hopes, springing often from 
 onr greed of wealth, our selfish ambitions, or brought about by errors 
 of judgment or conduct, to providential interposition, — this is rather 
 profanity than piety. Jesus, in all his plans and purposes, was one 
 with the Father, supreme and alone among men in his knowledge of 
 God, and himself, in his true character and nature, unrecognized by 
 men and known to the Father only. ' And no one knowetii who the 
 Son is, save the Father ; and who the Father is save the Son.' But 
 that knowledge of God which men possessed not, it was the office and 
 
PART 11.] .4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 93 
 
 life-work of Jesus to impart, therefore he added : ' and be to whom- 
 soever the Son willeth to reveal /lim.' The Authorised Version 
 stands : 'and /ic to whom the Son will reveal him: ' the alteration of 
 'will' into 'willeth to,' is important. Yonnfj; and I'ischendorf 
 l)ring out the same sense ; the former : 'and to whomsoever the Sou 
 may will to reveal Nhn ,- ' the latter : ' and he to whom the Son may 
 wish to reveal him.' Jesus did not, would not, could not make the 
 same revelation to all alike ; it was not the work of a moment, of a 
 month, of a year, or even of a life : it depended not on the time 
 employed in teaching, nor could any teaching avail unless the disciple 
 himself were recejjtive of the truth. But to earnest disciples, such 
 as those who now stood by him apart from ordinary listeners, Jesus 
 did indeed disclose new truths. To these disciples he now turned 
 aside, and addressed them privately, congratulating them on their 
 opportunities and the ns2 they made of them. 'And turning to the lo Luke 23 
 disciples, he said ]n"ivately. Blessed are the eyes which see the things 
 that ye see.' Tischeudorf has, ' he said apart ; ' Young, ' he said by 
 themselves.' They saw the Father's love and goodwill to mankind 
 manifested througli the miracles of Jesus : disease and infirmity fly- 
 ing at his touch, mental and spiritual disorder banished, body, soul 
 and spirit released from the trammels of evil, and placed once more 
 in the path of true freedom and happiness. And the doctrine also of 
 Jesus was eijnally new to the world : his works and words satisfied 
 aspirations hitherto unfulfilled : ' For I say unto you, that many „ -24 
 jn'ophets and kings desired to see the things which ye see, and saw 
 them not ; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them 
 not.' On the words ' prophets and kings,' Alford has the note : 
 • David united both these, also Solomon.' That seems to miss the 
 full significance of the allusion. Jesus does not limit it to those who 
 combined both offices. His observation is general : ' ijum// prophets 
 and kings.' Prophets, teachers of morality, have longed for a revela- 
 ti(ni of pure and perfect truth, a system of ethics based on the wants 
 of humanity and harmonising to the fullest extent with social 
 requirements. Many kings have sought to promote the physical 
 well-being of their subjects, to eradicate disease, to remove the evils 
 attendant upon ignorance and vice, to abate misery, to angment 
 Jiappiness, to lengthen the span and brighten the monotony 
 of our earthly existence. Jesus alone among mankind was able to 
 demonstrate the feasibility, and inaugurate the era, of the moral and 
 ])hysical regeneration of mankind. 
 
 These remarks to the disciples are recorded by Luke only, but up 
 to that point his account agrees very closely with that Of Matthew, 
 which is as follows: 'At that season Jesus answered and said, I iiMat.-jo--_'; 
 thank (or, ])raise) thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou 
 didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst 
 reveal them unto babes : yea. Father, for (or, that) so it was well 
 ])]easing in thy sight. All things have been delivered unto me of my 
 Father : and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father ; neither doth 
 any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth 
 to reveal him.' ' Knoweth the Son — knoweth who the Son is ; 
 neither doth any know the Father — and who the Father is :' these 
 ai-e the only discrepancies here between ]\Iatthew and Luke, the two 
 narratives being otherwise word for word the same. Evidently both 
 
04 THE KING AND TEE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 evangelists had the same or an equally reliable record : the slight 
 divergence is just such as might naturally occur between two reporters, 
 or be introduced by a compiler. 
 
 Matthew alone records the following sayings of Jesus. They 
 appear to have been spoken to the multitude, forming no part of that 
 private address to the disciples which is given by Luke but not 
 alluded to l)y Matthew. The crowd which surrounded Jesus no 
 doubt comprised all classes, the majority being of the toiling poor. 
 That many of them were persons to whom a meal free of expense was 
 a welcome boon, and the vain hope of living u})on the bounty of 
 Jesus an inducement to follow him, is evident from his telling them 
 on one occasion, * Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because 
 ye ate of the loaves and Avere filled.' Jesus could not but feel com- 
 passion for those engaged in the monotonous round of ceaseless and 
 exhausting toil. He seems to have been struck by the outward signs 
 of overwork apparent in many of those about him, and he had a word 
 of consolation for them. He could encourage them by no socialistic 
 theories, no promise of a more equal distributio?:". of property, no 
 immediate prospect of an ameliorated earthly lot ; he was indeed 
 trying to lay the groundwork for all that, but the reconstitution of 
 society upon principles of Christian brotherhood was a far-off ideal, 
 — alas ! that it should be so still, — and until its realization, patient 
 submission Avas the only attainable alleviation. He had a message 
 for them, not of emancipation from their heavy toil, but of some 
 easing and lightening of the burden. ' Come to me, all ye labouring 
 and burdened ones, and I will give you rest.' The promise is not of 
 entire immunity, but of partial repose from toil. The old English 
 version, standing in the Communion service, is 'I will refresh you,' 
 which corresponds with Luther's, ' Ich will euch erquicken.' How 
 did Jesus propose to effect this ? By supplying them with his own 
 form of yoke, and teaching them his own method of l:)urden-bearing. 
 'Take my yoke upon 3'ou, and learn of me.' He would have them 
 imitate his "own disposition of meekness and humility : ' for I am 
 meek and lowly in heart.' That would ensure them spiritual repose, 
 recruitment of their flagging energies, the sense of rest in the midst 
 of toil : ' and ye shall find rest unto your souls.' He could assure 
 them of this by his own experience. His yoke Avas comfortable to 
 the shoulder, and it reduced the weight of the burden. ' For my 
 yoke is easy, and my burden is light.' Alford defines the word 
 ' easy ' as ' not exacting ; answering to Jcmd, spoken of persons.' Tis- 
 chendorf renders, ' for my yoke is good ; ' Luther, ' denn mein Joch 
 ist sanft — for my yoke is soft.' By the simile of a yoke, AA'hich is 
 necessarily associated Avith the idea of a heavy burden, Jesus intimates 
 that there can be no escape from the labours incident to our lot in 
 life. He is not alluding to any burden Avhich he himself places upon 
 men's shoulders, nor does the yoke represent any restriction by him 
 upon our freedom of action or Avill. Probably there is no passage of 
 Scripture more commonly misread than this ; the simile is constantly 
 taken apart from its proper sense, the context being disregarded and 
 the exhortation of Jesus misconstrued and misapplied. Alford, on 
 the words ' learn of me,' speaks of ' the reception of the divine grace 
 for the pardon of sin, and the breaking of the yoke of the corruption 
 
p.MiT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 95 
 
 of our uatnre.' llou' far off arc such ideas from tliesc sayinj^s of 
 Jesus ! He does not allude to the breakiug* of any yoke, nor to any 
 kind of moral corrujition. Alford says aji^ain : 'Doubtless, outward 
 and bodily misery is not shut out ; but the promise, rest to your 
 ■souls, is only a spiritual promise. Our Lord does not promise to 
 tliose who come to him freedom from toil or burden, l)ut rest in ilie 
 soul, which shall make all yokes easy, and all burdens light.' That 
 accords with tlic simile, except that it is not intimated that 'all 
 yokes' will be easy, liut only the yoke of Jesus, which is his spii'it of 
 meekness and humility. Alford goes altogether outside the advice 
 and assurance so lovingly given by Jesus, when he adds : ' The main 
 invitation however is to those burdened Avith the yoke of sin, and of 
 the Lnv, which was added Itecause of sin. All who feel that burden 
 are invited.' What a perversion and confusion of the thought 
 and metaphor ! The yoke which eases a l)urden is spoken of 
 as a burden ; the ' yoke of sin ' in connection with the divine 
 law, either as though both were burdens, or as though the yoke 
 of sin made the law a burden. Then: 'all who feel that burden 
 are invited : ' Jesus invites men who feel the burden of sin, and 
 teaches them how to find rest to their souls under it ! Is it not evident 
 tb.at such d(»ctrines about sin and the law have no connection with 
 these sayings of Jesus ? The ideas and subjects are incongruous, and 
 the attempt to amalgamate them leads to contradictions and absurdi- 
 ties. The application of the simile is sufficiently wide, without in- 
 troducing matters on which it has no bearing. The labour and loa,d 
 of life represent far more than mere bodily toil. The nature of the 
 burden varies : whatever constitutes a trial, an overtasking of the 
 energies, — anxiety, grief, ill-he;ilth, disappointment, the failure of our 
 projects, the strain and worry of business, injustice from others, un- 
 avoidable poverty, family responsibilities and sorrows, — there are 
 burdens innumerable to be borne, and only this yoke of Jesus which 
 can act as a lever to the lightening of the load and the easing of the 
 weary shoulder. Jesus gave this counsel at a moment when his spirit 
 rejoiced, not that events had turned out as he designed, but because 
 he bowed to the Father's will and submitted to the decree of his 
 supreme wisdom. He had ' learned obedience by the things which 
 he suttered,' and out of the fulness of his own experience he eulogised 
 the repose springing out of meekness and lowliness of heart. Wc 
 need not seek to extend the broad and beautiful lesson here taught 
 by Jesus ; yet, so long as his words are not perverted from their 
 true sense, ^ve are not restricted in their use, and they have never 
 been more touchingly applied than in the first verse of the well- 
 known hymn : 
 
 ' I heard the voice of Jesus saj', 
 
 Come unto nie and rest. 
 
 Lay down, tliou weary one, lay doAvn, 
 
 Thy head U[K>n my breast : 
 
 I came to Jesus as I vas, 
 
 "Weary, and worn, and sad : 
 
 I found in him a restin.t^-place, 
 
 And he has made me glad. 
 
 * I heard the voice of Jesus say, 
 Behold, I tVeely give 
 The living water, tliirsty one, 
 Stoop down, and drink, and live : 
 
06 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 I came to Jesus, and I ilrniik 
 
 Of that life-giving stream ; 
 
 ]\[y tliirst was qnenched, my soul revived. 
 
 And now I live in Him, 
 
 ' I lieard the voice of Jesns say, 
 I am this dark world's Light ; 
 Look unto Me, thy morn shall rise, 
 And all thy day be bright : 
 I looked to Jesus, and I found 
 In him mv Star, my Sun ; 
 And in that Light of life I'll walk 
 Till travelling days are done.' 
 
 Such ideas stand forth among the most perfect expressions of 
 Christian faith, hope and joj. Beh'eving- sonls apply thein according 
 to their individnal moods and experiences. To one here and there, 
 perchance, the singing of the hymn, cxchiding the last two lines, 
 brings tender reminiscences of some dear one who has left this world to 
 find in Jesns the rest, the water of life, and the light of the world to 
 come. It peals forth as the rapturous death-bed song for the dying- 
 Christian, or rather as the resurrection hymn of the newly-departed. 
 But the liberty we claim of thus nsing the sayings and promises of 
 Jesus altogether apart from their primary connection, should make 
 us only the more careful, in our expositions of Scripture, to adhere 
 closely to their proper significance as shown by the context. The 
 misinterpretation and misapplication of this declaration of Jesus can 
 scarcely fail to act and react injuriously, involving not only the loss 
 of the lesson he would have us learn, l)ut also wrong judgments and 
 estrangements of Christian sympathy with respect to our fellow men. 
 Our poorer brethren, living hard lives of unremitting toil, lacking 
 the refinements, the luxuries, alas ! even the decencies of civilisation, 
 herding in unsanitary dwellings, nourished on inferior food, its supply 
 often scanty and always precarious, with no hope of amelioration on 
 this side the grave, — yet admidst all their disadvantages active, 
 energetic, industrious, cheerful, contented, — what splendid examples 
 do they constitute of that meekness and lowliness of heart counselled 
 by Jesus as the best panacea for the labouring classes throughout 
 the world ! What grand specimens of humanity exist among them ! 
 If we rail at their faults, let us at least discern and eulogise their 
 virtues. In this matter they exhibit far more of the spirit of Jesus 
 than we are accustomed to give them credit for. They have well 
 learned their lesson of obedience, alike to the mysterious dispensa- 
 tions of Providence and the arbitrary and oppressive decrees of 
 society. AYhat a miserable, narrow, effete theology is that, Avhich 
 misreads, warps, distorts this simple precept of Jesus, overlays it 
 with dogmas and mystical interpretations, blinds our eyes to living- 
 exemplifications of the spirit he inculcated and commended, and 
 would, if it could, persuade those who through such meekness and 
 lowliness of heart have found rest to their souls, that they are aliens 
 from the Son of man, and can never approach him, or be acceptable 
 in his sight, except through sacraments, priestly teaching and ahsolu- 
 tion, prayers and creeds and church-membership ! 
 
 The following incident is recorded by Luke. One of those Jewish 
 doctors ' whose especial office it v,as to teach the law ' (Alford), took 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFELS. 97 
 
 upon him to put a qiK'stion to Jcsiis. ' And l)eliold, a certain lawyer lOLnkcao 
 stood up and tempted him, saying, IMaster (or, Teaclier), what shall I 
 do to inherit eternal life ? ' 'IMie question may be taken to assume a 
 connection between the mode of life here and its continuance in 
 another world, amounting: in fact to this : How must I live, or what 
 must I do, on earth, in order to secure endless existence hereafter ? 
 However u'cnerally that interpretation may be adopted, as though it 
 were a matter of course, open to no argument or question, the literal 
 rendering of Dr. Young puts us on the track of finding another and 
 and very different sense : ' Teacher, on doing what — shall I inherit 
 agc-during life ? ' Death, considered as the penalty of transgression, 
 what is it but the premature ending of the natural 'age' of man ? 
 The ]n-omise of the law was ' life,' not 'age-during life,' for that was 
 lost to mankind through the tirst transgression : and the law exacted 
 no penalty and conveyed no promise outside the limit of our earthly 
 existence. Therefore the question propounded l)y this Jewish 
 lawyer was natural and momentous, ' On doing what — shall I inherit 
 age-dnring life ? ' As far as can be ascertained from Scripture, the 
 doctrine of age-dnring life was first revealed by Jesus ; it was the 
 ])eculiar feature of his teaching. The lawyer, consciously or un- 
 consciously, was quoting the words and adopting the ideas of Jesus : 
 'and age-during life shall inherit.' 'Who may not receive back lo Mat. ^o 
 manifold more in this time, and in the coming age age-during life ' is lukc so 
 (Young). Jesus had, indeed, proclaimed this age-during life as the 
 gift of God granted to men through him. ' He who is hearing my 5Joim-j4 
 word, and believing Him who sent me, hath life age-during.' 
 ' Verily, verily, I say to you, He who is believing in me, hath life « Jfi'" *" 
 :ige-during.' Possibly the lawyer anticipated that his question would 
 lead to a repetition by Jesus of such declarations, for the words 
 ' stood up and tempted him ' imply an intention of entangling Jesus 
 ill some argument or accusation. But Jesus simply answered the 
 (juestion by putting another. What did this lawyer hold to be the 
 sum and sul)stauce of the law ? ' And he said unto him, What is lo Luke 26 
 written in the law ? how readest thou ? ' The lawyer was ready 
 with his summary of human duties. ' And he answering said, Thou ,, 27 
 shalt love the Lord thy God with (Gr. from) * all thy heart, and 
 with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind ; 
 and thy neighbour as thyself.' Jesus accepted that as a true and 
 fall epitome of the divine law. ' And he said unto him, Thou hast „ 28 
 answered right.' And the connection between life and duty was of 
 the closest kind. 'This do, and thou shalt live.' The perpetuation „ 28 
 of life must needs depend upon observance of God's decrees : therein 
 consists the harmony of our nature with his will and with the sur- 
 roundings, physical and moral, individual and social, amidst which 
 he has placed us. This is the case both in this world and the next. 
 It applies equally to that broken span of life inherited from the first 
 Adam, who ' is of the earth, earthy,' and to that age-during life 15 1. Cor. 47 
 which comes to us through the second Adam, who is ' the Lord from 
 heaven ' (A. V.). There must be an incorporation of our nature 
 with his : ' He who is eating my flesh, and drinking my blood, hatli o joim 54 
 
 * The note ' (Gr. from) ' should refer also to the following thrje instances of the 
 word ' with.' 
 
98 TEE KING AND THE KTNQDOM: [part ii. 
 
 life age-during.' (Young). His spirit of obedieuce is the spirit of 
 life within ns ; his spirit of life within us is the spirit of obedience. 
 There is no self-contradiction in Jesus when at one time he eays, 
 
 14 John 10 ' This do, and thou shalt live,' and at another time, ' Because I live, 
 ye shall live also.' And the life he promises is age-durinji, not end- 
 less. God has given to every living creature an appointed time, or 
 ' age.' All that can be hoped is, that eacli shall reach the utmost 
 limit of existence. An immortality of this earthly life would be a 
 curse, and not a blessing. An immortality of changeless being here- 
 after may be equally undesirable and unattainable. Having gained 
 
 .3 piiii. 10 Christ, we trust to ' know him, and the power of his resurrection.' 
 Our hope should not rest in the ceaseless perpetuation of one change- 
 less mode of existence, but in the assured triumph over death, when- 
 „ 11 ever and wherever it may come, that we ' may attain unto the resur- 
 rection from the dead.' Jesus was made our high priest, after the 
 
 7 Hei). iG order of Melchizedek, ' after the power of an endless (Gr. indissoluble) 
 life.' That did not save him from death upon the cross, but it 
 
 10 John 17 ensured his resurrection: *I lay down my life, that I may take it 
 agaiu.' 
 
 There was nothing in the reply of Jesus Avhich the lawyer could 
 lay hold upon to criticise and question ; but that he might not 
 appear abashed or foiled in his purpose, he broached another topic 
 
 10 Lukc! i;9 of enquiry. ' But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, 
 And who is my neighbour ? ' Alford supposes, ' that to justify 
 himself may mean, to get himself out of the difficulty, viz. : by 
 throwing on Jesus the definition of one's neighhour, which was very 
 narrowly and technically interpreted among the Jews, excludiug 
 Samaritans and Gentiles.' Jesus entered upon no verbal or tech- 
 nical argument, but ihustrated the matter by drawing a picture 
 which exhibited the working of the spirit of exclusiveness and the 
 „ 30 spirit of neighbourliness. ' Jesus made answer and said, A certain 
 man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho ; and he fell among 
 robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving 
 him half dead.' K ever one human being stood in need of assistance 
 from another, that poor traveller did. An opportunity for help soon 
 arose. A priest happened to be going that road. He caught sight 
 of the halt-murdered man, and at once — what ? Simply and deli- 
 „ :u berately avoided him. 'And by chance a certain priest was going 
 down that way : and when he saw him, he passed by on the other 
 side.' Afterwards a Levite came upon the scene, and he, all uncon- 
 02 sciously, imitated the conduct of his spiritual superior : 'And in like 
 manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, 
 passed by on the other side.' A passing glance was enough for both 
 these men. Fortunately they were followed by a man whose brotherly 
 „ C.3 sympathies were not extinct. ' But a certain Samaritan, as he 
 journeyed, came where he was : and when he saw him, he was moved 
 with compassion.' All the help within his poAver he hastened to 
 :;;4 render : ' and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on 
 them oil and wine.' The Revisers agree with Young in adopting the 
 word ' on ' instead of ' in,' but Tischendorf retains ' in.' Either word 
 will suit, now the term ' beat ' is used instead of ' wounded ' : they 
 were surface-wounds, not sword-cuts. The difficulty now was how to 
 remove the patient. His rescuer managed to place him on the saddle 
 
PART II.] .4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 99 
 
 of the animal he himself had been riding, led him to an inn, and 
 there saw that all his wants were provided for. 'And he set him on ioluUos* 
 his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.' 
 After a night's rest the invalid was sufficiently restored to admit of 
 his kind friend pursning his journey. Having bestowed what care 
 and time were requisite, he must needs provide money, and that he 
 did in the most delicate way, not troubhng the sufferer about the 
 matter, but placing what he thought would be sufficient, or perchance 
 it was the ntmost he could spare, in the hands of the innkeeper, whom 
 he begged to see to the stranger's wants, at the same time making 
 himself responsible for any further expenditure which might be found 
 necessary. 'And on the morrow he took out two pence (denaries — „ 35 
 Young) and gave tliem to the host, and said, Take care of him ; and 
 Avhatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay 
 thee.' The Eevisers, following the two oldest MSS., have omitted 
 after ' morrow ' the words ' when he departed.' 
 
 Why did the Samaritan do so much, and those two others abso- 
 lutely nothing ? Were the priest and the Levite totally destitute of 
 the commonest feelings of hnmanity ? The object of Jesus in deli- 
 vering the parable was not to portray Jewish culpability, or to exalt 
 heathen benevolence. The question it dealt with was that of neigh- 
 bourslnp, and Jesus brought the lesson to bear on tliat one point. 
 He assumed that one of the travellers was a neighbour of the 
 wounded man, and he asked the laAvyer to guess which one of them 
 it was. * Which of these three, thinkest tiiou, proved neiglil)Our „ :5t5 
 unto him that fell among the robbers ? ' The Authorised Version 
 has ' was neighbour,' which Tischendorf retains. Young, agreeing 
 ■\vith the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' renders, ' to have 
 been neighbour.' Alford did not alter the text of the Authorised 
 Version, although he quoted this from Wordsworth : ' Observe, that 
 the iras neigldiour, is literally hccame neighbour.' Luther renders : 
 ' Welcher diinkte dich, der unter diesen dreyen der Niichste sey 
 gewesen dem, der unter die ^lorder gefallen war ? ' which may be 
 taken to correspond with Young. The Revisers' word ' proved,' 
 which is rather a gloss than a translation, and which is stronger than 
 Wordsworth's ' became,' may therefore be disregarded. The lawyer 
 expressed his opinion that the one who showed kindness to the 
 wounded man must have been his neighbour. 'And he said. He that „ 37 
 ■shewed mercy on him,' which means that they Avere both Samaritans. 
 That explained everything, according to the teaching and spirit of 
 .Jewish exclusiveness. The priest and Levite were not necessarily 
 ■callous to human suffering, but they were imbued with caste pre- 
 judices. So widespread and deep was the feeling of national aversion, 
 that the Samaritan woman at the well expressed astonishment that 
 Jesus, being a Jew, should hnve condescended to ask a drink of water 
 at her hands. A special vision from heaven was needed to teach 
 even the apostle Peter, after years of intercourse with Jesus, that he 
 ' should not call any man common or unclean.' Those engaged in 10 Acts l^s 
 sacerdotal functions would naturally be most punctilious in avoiding 
 any suspicion of ceremonial uncleanness. To have given any help to 
 the wounded man, would have brought the priest and Levite into 
 ■close personal contact with him. They could not venture to approach 
 .and touch a Samaritan ! Xot until one of his own nation came up, 
 
li) Lulu- 3T 
 
 100 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 could any be found who Avonld regard and help him as a ' neighbour.' 
 The parable vras a protest against the spirit of bigotry and intole- 
 rance, showing how hideous and hateful were self-righteousness and 
 arrogance, how inimical to the best instincts and interests of humanity. 
 There must be uo narrow-mindedness in settling an answer to the 
 question, ' Who is my neighbour ? ' Here was a Jewish lawyer ex- 
 ercising his intellect in verbalisms and quibblings about the im2:)orb 
 and bearing of the simple divine command, ' Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyself.' It had been so expounded as to extinguisli 
 the spirit of brotherhood appertaining to our common nature, and a 
 better and broader interpretation of the law was needed than the one 
 in vogue. There may have been a touch of indignation and im- 
 patience in the words wath which Jesus dismissed this lawyer, with 
 his questioning and questionable subtleties. 'And Jesus said unto 
 him, Go, and do thou likewise.' The light of nature was a sufficient 
 guide to the meaning of the grand law of human brotherhood. There 
 was no need to ask, ' Who is my neighbour ? ' A heart open to com- 
 passion, a soul overflowing Avith love, would answer unhesitatingly 
 and peremptorily, Who is 7wf my neighbour ? The love of man to 
 man must free itself from all cant of creeds, prejudices of caste, and 
 national antipathies. On the common ground of humanity, Jew and 
 Samaritan must not only meet but shake hands as ' neighbours.' 
 
 In the course of journeying with his disciples, Jesus reached a 
 village, the name of which is not here recorded. The mention of it 
 by Luke as ' a certain village ' leads to the inference that the docu- 
 ments in his possession did not enable him to give the exact locality. 
 ' Now as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village.* 
 There he was hospita))ly lodged and entertained in a lady's house-. 
 ' And a certain woman named Martha received him into her house." 
 The expression seems to signify more than a visit of a few hours 
 made in passing. A sister of Martha eagerly availed herself of the 
 opportunity of listening to the discourse of Jesus. ' And she had a 
 sister called Mary, which also sat at the Lord's feet, and heard his 
 word.' The Revisers have followed ' many ancient authorities ' 
 (Alford) in replacing ' Jesus ' by ' Ijord.' The word is ' Lord ' in the 
 oldest MS., and in the Vatican MS. it had been altered to ' Lord ' by 
 a later hand. It would seem that Jesus was allowed to carry on his 
 teaching in the house itself. But the mistress of the house was nob 
 at leisure to attend these gatherings. She was bent on honouring her 
 guest wdth festal entertainments, and devoted herself with much 
 energy and anxiety to the task. ' But Martha was cumbered (Gr: 
 distracted) al)Out much serving.' Herself overburdened, she disap- 
 proved of her sister's negligence. It must needs be supposed that 
 Martha did not scruple to express herself freely on the point to Mary^ 
 before presuming to trouble Jesus with her domestic grievance. But 
 Mary could not tear herself fi-om the Teacher's feet, and her offended 
 sister, overwrought by the pressure of her well-meant, hospitable 
 cares, and sensitive upon the point even to petulance, ventured tO' 
 lay her complaint before Jesus, and actually solicited his interference^ 
 ' And she came up to him (having stood by him — Young), and said. 
 Lord (Sir — Young), dost thou not care that my sister did leave me 
 to serve alone ? bid her therefore that she help me.' Such a crisis,. 
 
PART 11.] ,4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 101 
 
 arisinj^ out of such sweet foibles of character in these two lovin<;- 
 women, was not a little embarrassing. Jesus disposed (^f it with 
 extreme delicacy and courtesy. C^alled upon to express his wish in 
 the matter, he did so with friendly sincerity and candour. He must 
 needs incline to one side or the other, and he did not hesitate to plead 
 fur freedom of judgment and action on behalf of JMary. The conten- 
 tion between the sisters was as to the most fitting- and welcome mode 
 of showing their esteem for hirn. Jesus was not unmindful of all 
 that Martha had done and ^vas doiug for his comfort and entcrtain- 
 meut, aud he had perceived her anxiety and her ettbrts branching 
 out in many directions. ' But the Lord answered aud said unto her, n) i-nkr u 
 Martha, Martha, tiiou art anxious and troubled about many things.' 
 Here again the Revisers have altered ' Jesus ' to ' Lord.' It stands 
 ' Lord ' in the Sinaitic, which is the oldest MS., and in the Vatican 
 ]\LS. the original reading was ' Lord,' the word having been altered 
 by a later hand. So in the Vatican ]\IS. in ^■ersc 31) ' Lord ' had been 
 inserted, and in verse 41 erased. Such modifications are suggestive. 
 On this particular point it must not be assumed tliat antiquity is an 
 evidence of accuracy : a feeling of reverence might naturally seem to 
 justify the copying of the word ' Lord ' from an older MS., but few 
 probably would have ventured to dispense with ' Lord ' and insert 
 
 * Jesus,' except npon overwhelming evidence. 
 
 That Jesus should have twice uttered the name of INIartha, may be 
 taken to indicate either that her impetuosity of speech and spirit 
 needed that emphatic call upon her attention, or that Jesus dwelt 
 upon the word for the purpose of emphasising its meaning, which is 
 
 * stirriug up, bitter, provoking.' In eithei* case the repetition was a 
 kind of gentle reproof. Nor was Jesus able to say that he greatly 
 appreciated everything his hostess, in her kindness and large-hearted- 
 ness, was so busy and earnest about. On the contrary, his wants 
 A\ere few, and he would willingly have them considered all merged 
 
 and suunned up in one. ' But one thing is needful.' The two oldest „ 4:j 
 MSS. read, ' But there is need of few things or of one,' and the 
 Eevisers note that many ancient authorities have, ' But few things 
 are needful, or one.' And that one was the very thing which Mary 
 had chosen to supply him with. ' For Mary hath chosen the good - ^~ 
 part.' The best mark of respect which could be shown to him, the 
 service which above all else he desired and appreciated, was this 
 simple and rapt attention to the truths he taught. To aught else he 
 was comparatively indifferent. How then could he comply with 
 Martha's request, and send away Mary from her seat at his feet to 
 attend to mere household matters ? It was due from him rather to 
 justify her presence, and to forbid her absence : ' which shall not be „ 42 
 taken away from her.' 
 
 This charming episode in the gospel narrative carries its lesson on 
 the face of it. If we must needs make a practical application of it 
 to ourselves or others, let us not go beyond its plain significance and 
 bearing. \^q can show Jesus no greater honour, we can give him no 
 greater pleasure, than that of sitting at his feet to listen aud ponder 
 his teaching. Ten thousand instructors in Christ cannot improve 
 the truths enfolded in his simplest sayings. But we must go him 
 direct, hear him ourselves, exercise our own judgment on his doctrine, 
 and seek to grasp the real import and spirit of his words. Trans- 
 
102 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [paet ii. 
 
 lators, interpreters, commentators, there must needs be : let ns recog- 
 nise the vahie of their labours, and lean upon their learning, but only 
 that we may through tliem ' learn Christ.' To do that effectually, 
 we must shut out from our ears all other voices. He speaks to us as 
 to men capable of judging what he says. We are surrounded by an 
 atmosphere of so-called Christian thought, which was never generated 
 by the breath of Jesus. Discordant sounds impinge upon our ears, 
 and we are directed hither and thither for the right creed and the 
 true faith. There are still teachers who presume to claim apostolical 
 descent and authority, others who deem themselves divinely ap- 
 pointed through laying on of hands, others with lower pretensions 
 based on congregational election, others self-elected, all perchance 
 equally self-confident. What a Babel of tongues, what a diversity 
 of notions, what a contrariety of dogmas, what a trampling of 
 theological feet, Avhat an opening and shutting, none too gently, of 
 theological doors ! It is all well meant, designed and carried out 
 with a view to the Master's honour : but are we sure that he attaches 
 any importance to the modes of serving him which have been devised 
 according to the rules and precepts of men ? We are bidden to meet 
 him in this way and that way, through one sacrament or another 
 sacrament, through prayers, through praises, through preachings, 
 through fastings, through devout meditations, in church-goings, in 
 Bible-readings, in creeds and confessions, in priestly counsel and 
 absolution. If we are competent to exercise ourselves in such doc- 
 trines and rituals, surely we are equally competent to grasp the 
 meaning of the teaching of Jesus by taking his own Avords direct 
 from his own lips. Earnest, honest, independent thought, the exer- 
 cise of a sound, unfettered judgment with respect to the gospel 
 record, — that is the great want of the age, the one thing needed for 
 a better knowledge of Jesus and of his salvation. His teachings 
 have been not only examined under every possible light, Ijut as it 
 were — analysed, their component parts first separated and then 
 worked up anew by preachers and commentators into an amalgam of 
 their own, supposed to be his, and vaunted as the true essence of 
 Christianity. Take, as an example of the confusion and error 
 incident to this disregard of the plain, primary sense, the oft-quoted 
 words, ' but one thing is needful.' Jesus used them with reference 
 to the attention shown to himself and his words by Mary as com- 
 pared Avith Martha's hospitable cares on his behalf. Dean Alford 
 applies it to ourselves, saying : ' The yood jjoriion is the one thing 
 which is needful — see John vi. 53 — the feeding on the hread of life 
 lij faith.'' The idea is reversed, and an extraneous idea inserted 
 from another discourse of Jesus. And we know how generally 
 preachers follow in the wake of Alford when dealing with this text. 
 
 As Jesus was walking with his disciples he caught sight in passing 
 of a man who was blind and had been so from birth, ' And as he 
 passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.' The disciples, sharing 
 the Jewish idea that every infirmity was the punishment of sin 
 (Alford), asked Jesus with whom in this case the transgression 
 rested. ' And his disciples asked him, saying. Rabbi, who did sin, 
 this man or his parents, that he should be born blind ? ' AYe know, 
 as a matter of fact, that the sins of parents are often visited upon 
 
PART II.] A m'UDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 103 
 
 their cliiUlreu ; but whether to this extent, the disciples were in 
 doubt, or whether even the blindness might not be a judg-nient upon 
 the man himself. There are sins of ignorance, unconsciously com- 
 mitted, secret faults as well as presumptuous transgressions. Could 
 the possibility of such involuntary sin extend to an unborn child ? 
 Alford's note is as follows : ' How could Iw himself have sinned before 
 his birth ? Beza and Grotius refer the question to the doctrine of 
 the transmigration of souls, that he may have sinned in a former 
 state of existence ; this howe^•er is disproved by the consideration 
 adduced by Lightfoot, that the Pharisees believed that the good 
 souls onhj passed into other bodies, which would exclude this case. 
 Lightfoot. Liickc and Meyer refer it to the possibility of sin in the 
 vonib ; Tholuck to predestinated sin, punished by anticipation; 
 I)e "Wette to the general doctrine of the pre-cxistence of souls, which 
 prevailed both among the Rabbis and Alexandrians : ste Wisdom 
 viii. 11), 1^0.' How much, or how little, or whether anything at all 
 of such ideas was in the minds of the disciples, we know not. They 
 could have had no settled opinion upon the subject. Their question 
 was a mere guess, and Jesus put it aside as being either false or 
 inapplicable. ' Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his o John '.i 
 parents : but that the works of God should be made manifest in 
 him.' Alford suggests that to get at the sense we must supply here 
 after ' his parents,' that he should he horn blind ; and also after * but/ 
 Jie teas lorn blind. Samuel Sharpe supplies the supposed omission 
 by rendering : 'Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but it 
 was that the works of God should be shown in him.' But where he 
 inserts a semi-colon, and the Revisers a colon, Tischendorf and Young 
 place a comma. Much depends on punctuation and pause. If, 
 instead of assuming a hiatus, we read the sentence without a break, 
 the seuse is modified : ' Neither did this man sin nor his parents but 
 that the works of God should be made manifest in him : ' that is, 
 whether the sin lay with him or them, its only effect would be to 
 render him an object of divine power and compassion. It seems 
 more reasonable to take that as the proper sense of the passage, than 
 to assume, as otherwise we must, that Jesus regarded the man as 
 having been doomed to blindness from birth in order to give oppor- 
 tunity for a miraculous restoration of his sight at last. It w^as 
 enough to know that wherever sin and infirmity were found to exist, 
 there was a call and an occasion for the exercise of the power which 
 had been divinely given. ' We must work the works of him that ,, 4 
 sent me.' Following the two oldest MS8. the Revisers have replaced 
 ' I ' by ' we.' Not only did Jesus humbly describe himself as the 
 messenger of God, bat he associated others with him in that 
 capacity, having imparted to them the same miraculous powers. 
 And e(iually as regarded himself and them, such works must be per- 
 formed whenever the occasion presented itself : ' while it is day : the „ ^ 
 night Cometh, when no man can work.' That Jesus was thinking of 
 the brevity of life's term of labour, and of his approaching departure 
 from the world, is evident from his next remark : 'When I am in „ o 
 the world, I am the light of the world.' The Authorised Version 
 l)egins with the words 'As long as,' which the Revisers have replaced 
 by ' when,' therein agreeing with Tischendorf!, Alford and Young. 
 Samuel Sharpe puts ' while.' The sense of the three forms appears 
 
104 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 to be identical. No ordinary man could have presumed to utter such 
 words. We can but walk by the light which (iod vonchsafes us. 
 ' Light, more light,' is the cry of the wisest. But Jesus declares 
 himself the very sun of the firmament, the daylight of the world. 
 And having made that astounding assertion, he proceeded to deal 
 with the case of physical blindness which had suggested the saying. 
 But not in the way we should have expected ; not by a word, or a 
 touch, as had been his habit in other instances. Once he had 
 restored sight to two blind men who expressed belief in his power, by 
 
 !)Mat. 27 touching their eyes, saying, 'according to j'our faith be it done unto 
 you.' The same method of cure was adopted with the two blind 
 
 20 Mat. 34 bcggars of Jericho, who called upon him as ' son of David.' Jn 
 
 ,s Mark 23-25 another instance Jesus spat on the eyes, put his hands on them, and 
 restored the sight gradually. In this case of blindness from birth, 
 Jesus used other means. He spat on the ground, kneaded the 
 moistened earth into clay, and with that as a plaster smeared the 
 
 II John eyes. ' When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made 
 clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay (or, and with 
 the clay thereof anointed his eyes).' The Revisers have followed the 
 two oldest MSS. by reading ' his eyes ' instead of ' the eyes of the 
 bhnd man.' Having done that much, Jesus called the man's energy 
 and faith into action by bidding him go to a certain pool and there 
 „ 7 wash off the clay: 'and said unto him, Gro, wash in the pool of 
 Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent).' There is no ground for 
 supposing that interpretation to have been mentioned by Jesus. The 
 only doubt is as to whether the remark was thrown in by the evan- 
 gelist or by a copyist. Alford says : ' The reason of this derivation 
 being stated has been much doubted. Some consider the words to 
 have been inserted as an early gloss of some allegorical interpreter. 
 But there is no external authority for this supposition.' The man 
 carried out the directions of Jesus, and thereupon received sight. 
 ,. 7 ' He went away, therefore, and washed, and came seeing.' Alford 
 comments thus on the miracle : ' The value especially of the fasthvj 
 saliva, in cases of disorders of the eyes, was well known to antiquity. 
 In the accounts of the restoring of a blind man to sight attributed 
 to Vespasian, the use of this remedy occurs. The use of clay also 
 for healing the eyes was not unknown. No rule can be laid down 
 which our Lord may seem to have observed, as to using, or dispensing 
 with, the ordinary human means of healing. He himself determined, 
 by considerations which are hidden from us.' We cannot but wonder 
 at the extremely low ground here taken by Alford. What proper 
 analogy or comparison can there be between any common mode of 
 dealing with diseases of the eye, and the astounding marvel of giving 
 sight to one born blind ? However, in the next sentence Alford sets 
 aside his own idea, for he adds : ' Whatever the means used, the 
 healing was not in them, but in Him alone.' That is going to the 
 contrary extreme. We are not justified in assuming that any means 
 adopted by Jesus were superfluous. Is it to be supposed that he 
 would have acted as he did in this case, without any reason or 
 necessity for so doing ? His methods of cure are seen to vary : 
 because we cannot say why or wherefore, are we at liberty to infer 
 that they had nothing to do with the result, that ' the healing- 
 was not in tJiem, but in him alone ? ' On the contrary, we may feel 
 
PAKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFELH. 105 
 
 confident that Jesus did nothinf,^ in vain, and that lie would not have 
 condescended to make a parade of means which were not essential 
 adjuncts to the cure. 
 
 The man's neiyhbonrs, and those who had been accustomed to see 
 him seated to solicit alms, could not but eM(juirc whether this was the 
 same person. ' The nei.i>-hbours therefore, and they which saw him afore- d .Joim ,s 
 time, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that sat and begged ?' 
 The Revisers, following the three oldest M88., have altered the word 
 ■* blind ' to ' a beggar.' The transformation was so great, that con- 
 siderable doubt existed as to the man'a identity. ' Others said, It is „ '•) 
 he : others said, Xo, l)Ut he is like him.' The passage has been 
 istrengthened by inserting the words, ' No, but,' to agree with the two 
 ■oldest MSS. The man's own assurance was forthcoming to convince 
 his questioners. ' He said, I am he.' All this seems very natural, ,, a 
 when we consider the marvellous change which had been wrought in 
 his condition. Imagine what it must have been to him to open his 
 eyes for the first time upon this wonderful world : to see the sky and 
 clouds, the earth, the fields, the grass, the flowers, the glorious setting 
 and rising of the sun, the moon ' Avalking in brightness,' and all the 
 stars of the firmament, the running stream and the outspread lake, 
 the trees and shrubs waving in the wind, the happy birds flying to 
 and fro, the patient cattle, the domestic animals ; to watch the faces, 
 the movements, the bright and varied dresses of his fellow creatures, 
 the smiles upon the children's faces, the play of passion and of 
 character in adults : to gaze upon the houses, the streets, the shops, 
 the bustle and business of mankind : what a changed world it was to 
 him ! What wonder that he himself should be changed, almost 
 beyond recognition ? The fixed, stohd gaze of the sightless eyes was 
 gone ; instead of groping with a stick, he Avalked self-contidently and 
 nimbly ; the glow of happiness and hope was on his countenance ; 
 he was the same, yet not the same, so greatly changed that his own 
 assertion might well be needed to convince those who stood in doubt 
 of his identity. Then followed the natural question as to the means 
 whei-eby he had received sight. ' They said therefore unto him, How „ lo 
 then were thine eyes opened?' He answered that the man Jesus, 
 whose name was so well known, had in a very simpf^, way brought 
 that aliout. * He answered. The man that is called Jesus made clay, „ u 
 and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to Siloam, and wash : 
 so I went away aud washed, and I received sight.' Impelled by a 
 feeling of curiosity, the hearers enquired where Jesus was to be found ; 
 but the man himself did not know. ' And they said unto him, >. 12 
 Where is he ? He saith, I know not.' 
 
 The report of such a miracle could not fail to spread. Not only 
 did it reach the ears of the Pharisees, but the man himself was pro- 
 duced to them in evidence. ' They briug to the Pharisees him that ,. is 
 aforetime was blind,' Another fact came out in connection with it : 
 that the miracle had been wrought on a sabbath. ' Now it was the „ u 
 sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.' 
 We know the intense scrupulousness of the Pharisees with respect to 
 the observance of the sabbath. Jesus had jDreviously been charged 
 with breaking the divine law by infringing the sacred rest of the 
 day. Probably he anticijiated a renewal of that charge, and delibe- 
 rately resolved to set it at defiance, when he prefaced his labour of 
 
106 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 It joim4 love with the words, ' 'V\"e must work the works of Jiim that sent me, 
 w'hile it is day.' The Pharisees questioned the man closely as to the 
 15 manner in which the miracle had been performed. ' Again therefore 
 the Pharisees also asked him how ho received his sifiht. And he 
 said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do 
 see.' That was sufficient, in the minds of some, to coudemn Jesus as 
 a sabbath-breaker, a man therefore who could not ]30ssibly be charg-ed 
 ],; with a divine mission. ' Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This 
 man is not from God, because be keepeth not the sabbath.' But 
 others shrank from acceptino- and thus applying that I'orm of argu- 
 ment : they were disposed rather to reverse it, and instead of saying. 
 This man has broken the sabbath, and is therefore a transgressoi', to 
 say, This man has wrought beneficent miracles, and therefore cannot 
 be a sinner. No agreement was possible between the holders of such 
 
 „ 16 opposite views. ' But others said, How can a man that is a sinner 
 do such signs ? And there was a division among them.' With the 
 view of ascertaining what would be the natural and unbiassed opinion 
 of the character of Jesus, apart from theological preconceptions and 
 
 „ 17 arguments, the man himself was questioned on the point. ' They say 
 therefore unto the blind man again. What sayest thou of him, in that 
 he opened thine eyes ? ' The answer was given unhesitatingly. 
 17 ' And he said, He is a prophet.' Then the idea was broached — alas I 
 for the baseless prejudices and false suspicions generated by partisan- 
 ship — that the whole alfair was pure deception from beginning to 
 end, that the man had not been born blind, and had not received his 
 sight, but was an emissary of Jesus, probably hired to cry him up as 
 a prophet. Ptesolved to sift the matter to the bottom, the parents of 
 the man were summoned, and not until their evidence had been taken 
 did these doubters and traducers relinquish their theory about coUu- 
 
 „ 18, ID sion and deception. ' The Jews therefore did not believe concerning 
 him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they 
 called the parents of him that had received his sight, and asked them, 
 saying. Is this your son, who ye say, was born blind ? how then doth 
 he now see ? ' 
 
 It will be observed that the evangelist attributes this incredulity to 
 'the Jews,' whereas he had previously spoken, in verses 13, 15 and 
 10, of 'the Pharisees.' Why does he make that distinction ? This 
 opens out an important question, which it is advisable to examine 
 thoroughly and dispose of once for all. When we speak or read of 
 the Jews' or the Jewish people, we are accustomed to take it for 
 granted that the term includes all Israelites. That is not always the 
 case. The word ' Jews,' in strictness, denotes the inhabitants of 
 Jewry or Judaea, and in every instance in which this evangelist uses 
 
 1 John v.> the exjiression we find it bears that sense. ' The Jews sent unto him 
 
 from Jerusalem priests and Levites.' Nathanael did not greet Jesus- 
 ., 411 as king of the Jews, but said, ' Thou art the king of Israel.' The 
 
 2 John G mention of ' the Jews' manner of purifying,' may signify that ' in 
 
 Cana of Galilee ' this traditional custom was observed as in Judsea. 
 „ 13 'The passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to 
 
 Jerusalem,' the capital of Judtea. As the feast could only be kept 
 
 IS there, it was natural to call it ' the passover of the Jews.' ' The Jew.> 
 
 ]', 20 answered and said unto him.' ' The Jews therefore said. Forty ancL 
 
 six years was this temple in building.' There is no mention or 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 107 
 
 thon<ilit of Gentiles, but naturally and as a matter of course the 
 dwellers of Jerusalem and the neiglil)ourhood are designated by the 
 enstomary title of ' Jews.' 'A man of the Pharisees, named Nico-sjoimi 
 demus, a ruler of the Jews.' At that time the land of Canaan was 
 divided into four provinces, Galilee and Penea, Ni)rth Peraia, Samaria 
 and .luda^a, under four different Roman governors. The rnlership of 
 Nicodemus, whatever its character, must certainly have been restricted 
 to the iidiabitants of Judiea, that is to ' the Jews.' Jesus when 
 speaking of the whole nation, irrespective of locality, uses the term 
 ' Israel : ' ' Art thou the teacher of Israel ? ' ' There arose therefore „ lo 
 a questioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about puri- ,, ^-'5 
 tying,' — not a Jew as distinguished from a Gentile, but in connection 
 with the mention of ' the land of Judaea,' a Judiean, not one of those 
 from 'beyond Jordan.' 'For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.' „ 2c. 
 This passage is not in the oldest MS., and the Pevisers note that 4 Joim '.< 
 'some ancient authorities omit' it. If inserted by the evangelist we 
 must take it in the same sense as elsewhere. Samaria lay between 
 Judiea, the country of the Jews, and Galilee, which was also inhabited 
 by men of the same nation and religion, although not ' Jews.' It is 
 quite possible that the rancour was chiefly if not entirely between the 
 Samaritans and the Juda?ans or ' Jews ' only. This seems probable, 
 from the fact that Jesus was once refused admittance into ' a village o Luke 52 
 of the Samaritans,' not because he and his disciples were recognised 
 as Israelites, but because it was evident that they were journeying 
 towards Jerusalem : the Samaritans would hold no intercourse with 
 those who were about to associate with their enemies ' the Jews.' 
 'Salvation is from the Jews.' This follows immediately upon the 4 joim .'2 
 mention of Jerusalem, which the Samaritan woman understood to be 
 the only place, according to Jewish ideas, in which God must be 
 worshipped. ' He went forth from thence into Galilee. For Jesus „ 43- 
 himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country. 
 So when he came into (4alilee, the Galileans received him, having 
 seen all the things that he did in Jerusalem at the feast : for they 
 also went unto the feast.' Here the distinction is plain between Jews 
 and Galileans. Jesus was a Jew, having been 'born in Bethlehem of 2 Mat. 1 
 Judaea.' His own countrymen, the Jews, rejected him, but the 
 Galileans received him. .Tews and Galileans were of the same reli- 
 gion, both Israelites. 'There was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus jjoimi 
 went up to Jerusalem.' ' So the Jews said unto him that was cured, „ 10 
 It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.' ' For „ 10 
 this cause did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things 
 on the sabbath,' ' The Jews sought the more to kill him.' It "is „ is 
 now abundantly evident that the constant mention of ' the Jews ' by 
 the evangelist is altogether apart from any thought of heathens or 
 Gentiles. By 'Jews' he means the inhabitants of Jerusalem and 
 of Juda?a generally, as distinguished from Galileans and other Israel- 
 ites, and he shows how ))itter and constant was the opposition of the 
 Jews to Jesus, compelling him sometimes to fly irom the south 
 country of Judrea, and to confine his ministry chiefly to the north 
 country of Galilee. ' Xow the passover, the feast of the Jews, was at c Joim 4 
 hand.' ' The Jews therefore murmured concerning him.' ' The ,. 41 
 Jews therefore strove one with another.' There is nothing in these .. &- 
 passages to modify the previous conclusions. The following passages 
 
108 THE KING AND THE KINiWOM: [part ii. 
 
 7j,)h,i 1-3 corroborate them. 'And after these tliinii's .lesus walked in Galilee : 
 
 for he would not walk in Judsea (Jewry — Authorisei Version), 
 
 because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the feast of the Jews, the 
 
 feast of tabernacles, Avas at hand. His brethren therefore said unt(j 
 
 " 11 him, Depart hence, and go into Judgea.' ' The Jews therefore sought 
 
 >. 13 him at the feast.' ' No man spake openly of him for fear of the 
 
 " 15 Jews.' ' The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this 
 
 man letters, having never learned ? ' The e\'angelist now makes a 
 
 still closer distinction. Inhabitants of Jerusalem were necessarily 
 
 Jews, but all Jews would not be inhabitants of Jerusalem ; so he 
 
 explains, ' Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he 
 
 whom they seek to kill ? ' And now the evangelist, referring for the 
 
 ,, 35 tirst time to heathens, reports : ' The Jews therefore said among 
 
 themselves. Whither will this man go that we shall not find him r ' 
 
 will he go unto the Dis})ersion among (Gr. of) the Greeks, and teach 
 
 the Greeks ? ' He might go to those who were not Jews or Gentiles, 
 
 .s John 22 iQ j^ijg Galileans, but in Galilee they could find him. 'The Jews 
 
 therefore said. Will he kill himself, that he saith, Whither I go, ye 
 
 " 31 cannot come ? ' ' Jesus therefore said to those Jews which had 
 
 " -i^ believed him.' 'The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we 
 
 not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil (Gr. demon) ? ' 
 
 „ 52 'The Jews said unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil (Gr. 
 
 " ^~ demon).' ' The Jews therefore said unto him. Thou art not yet fifty 
 
 iijuiin IS years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? ' ' The Jews therefore did 
 
 not belie\'e concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received 
 
 his sight.' That is the passage which suggested this investigation. 
 
 Possibly all the Pharisees were not Jews ; at all events, the evangehst 
 
 here brings out the fiict that these objectors wei'e Jews, not from 
 
 " 2- Galilee or elsewhere than Judaea. 'They feared the Jews: for the 
 
 Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess him to be 
 
 io.j,)iiii 111 the Clirist, he should be put out of the synagogue.' 'There arose 
 
 „ 23, 24 again a division among the Jews because of these words.' 'Jesus 
 
 Avas walking in the temple, in Solomon's porch. The Jews therefore 
 
 „ 31 came round about him.' ' The Jews took up stones again to stone 
 
 .. 33 him.' ' The Jews answered him. For a good work we stone thee not.' 
 
 It were absurd to suppose that in these passages the Jews are 
 
 11 j.iiiii 7, 8 mentioned in contradistinction to Gentiles. 'He saith to the 
 
 disciples, Let us go into Judfca again. The disciples say unto him, 
 
 Rabbi, the Jews v>-ere but now seeking to stone thee ; and goest thou 
 
 thither again ? ' Nothing could be plainer than that the term ' Jews ' 
 
 is applied and restricted to the dwellers in Judaga, the countrymen 
 
 „ i!> aud co-religionists of Jesus. ' Many of the Jews had come to ]\Iartha 
 
 „ 31 and Mary.' ' The Jews then which were with her in the house.' Of 
 
 course Gentiles could not have been present : no thought of such a 
 
 „ 33 thing was in the writer's mind. 'And the Jews also weeping (Gr. 
 
 » 3ij wailing).' ' The Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved him.' 
 
 „ 45 ' Many therefore of the Jews . . believed on him.' ' Jesus therefore 
 
 >. 54 walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the 
 
 country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim : and there 
 
 he tarried with his disciples : ' of course among men of their own 
 
 „ 55 nation. ' Now the passover of the Jews was at liand : and many 
 
 12 John \i went up to Jerusalem.' ' The common people therefore of the Jews 
 „ 11 learned that he was there.' ' Many of the Jews went away, and 
 
PART 11.] A STi'DY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 109 
 
 believed on Jesus.' 'As I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, yeisjoimss 
 cannot come ; so now I say unto you.' The inference is plain : the 
 discijiles to whom Jesus spoke thus were not Jews, at least not all 
 Jews. * And the otlicers of the Jews seized Jesus.' ' Now ('aiaj)has isjuim 12 
 was he which gave counsel to the Jews.' ' I ever taught in the „ 14 
 synagogues (dr. synagogue), and in the temple, where all the Jews .. -'o 
 come together.' ' The Jews said unto him, It is not lawful for us .. si 
 to put any man to death.' 'Art thou the king of the Jews?' .. 33 
 'Pilate auswered. Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and tlie chief .. 3r> 
 priests delivered thee unto me.' It is obvious from this, that the term 
 ' Jew ' did not extend to Gentiles living in Judtea. ' That I sliould » '■^'^ 
 not be delivered to the Jews.' ' He went out again unto the Jews,' >, ss 
 ' Will ye therefore that I release unto you the king of the Jews ?,' ,. 39 
 'Hail King of the Jews.' 'The Jews answered him.' 'The Jews lujohn 3,12 
 cried out.' ' He said unto the Jews.' 'Jesus of Nazareth, the king ,, u, n' 
 of the Jews.' 'This title therefore read many of the Jews.' 'The „ -20 
 chief priests of the Jews.' 'Write not the king of the Jews, but, „ -21 
 that he said, I am king of the Jews.' ' The Jews therefore, because „ 31 
 it was the preparation." ' Secretly for fear of the Jews.' 'As the .- 3s, -10 
 custom of the Jews is to bury : ' probably it was not customary thus 
 to embalm the dead in Galilee and elsewhere. ' Because of the Jews' >, -12 
 Preparation.' 
 
 So much for John's gospel. Turning now to Matthew we find the 
 following }>assages. ' Wlicre is he that is born King of the Jews ? ' - ^i^it- 2 
 was the question of the Magi, and under that title Jesus at last was 
 crucified ; but the prophecy quoted took a wider view : ' which shall „ r. 
 he shepherd of my people Israel.' 'And came into the land of „ 21, -'2 
 Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over 
 Judtea . . he withdrew into the parts of Galilee.' The distinction 
 l)etween the land of Israel as a whole, and Judtea as a part of Israel, 
 is here unmistakable. ' I have not found so great faith, no, not in sMat. 10 
 Israel.' ' It was never so seen in Israel.' ' Go rather to the lost '■> 'sun. m 
 sheep of the house of Israel.' ' They glorified the (Jod of Israel.' I5 j|j|t; 31 
 'Judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' 'Tell ye the daughter of i'-' -^'i"- 1'^ 
 Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee;' but it was as ' Son of " ',/''!i' 
 David,' who ruled over Israel. ' Art thou the King of the Jews ? ' -" ■*'■'*• ^■- 
 Pilate was merely ' Governor of Judsea,' and therefore could only 3 Luke 1 
 take cognizance of a claim to kingship over ' Jews ; ' but the chief 
 priests, the scribes and elders, mocking said : ' He is King of Israel.' -" ^^^^- ■^- 
 
 Mark, besides these titles affixed to Jesus by Pilate and the elders, 15 Mark 2, 
 supplies only one other passage bearing on the subject. 'For the ^"'^|;^32 
 Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently t Mark 3' 
 (or, up to the elbow) eat not.' This is preceded by the observation, 
 ' And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain ~ Mark 1,2 
 of the scribes, which had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that 
 some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, 
 hands.' Oliviously there was not the same strict observance of ' the 
 tradition of the elders ' among the Israelites generally, as prevailed 
 among ' all the Jews.' 
 
 Luke contains the following passages. ' IMany of the children of ^ ^"'^° ^'^ 
 Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.' 'The Lord God shall " ^-'^" 
 give unto him the throne of his father David ; and he shall reign 
 over the house of Jacob for ever (Gr. unto the ages).' ' He hath >> Hcs. 
 
no THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 holpcu Israel his servant.' 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel.' 
 
 1 Luke GO ' Aiicj liath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his 
 ., so servant David.' ' Till the day of his showing unto Israel.' ' Lookiug 
 
 ■2 Lnko 25 for the consolatiou of Israel.' ' The glory of thy people Israel.' 
 ,, 32, o-i'For the falling and rising up of many in Israel.' 'I have not 
 
 7 Luke 10 found SO great faith, no, not in Israel.' Pilate's title is of course 
 
 23 Luke_3,^ the Same, but the hope of the disciples had embraced not Jews only 
 ''" but all Israelites: 'But we hoped that it was he which should 
 
 2 J Luke 21 redeem Israel.' 
 
 It was the more important to undertake this exhaustive examina- 
 tion of the Gospels, because tlii'oughout the Acts the term ' Jews ' is 
 used in a wider sense. "We there read of ' Jews ' at Jerusalem and 
 Damascus, of Grecian Jews, Jews of Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch, 
 Salamis, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea, 
 Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Achaia, in Greece, Asia, Rome, and 
 
 21 Acts ' throughout the world.' Xor can it be supposed that these are called 
 Jews as being of the tribe of Judah, for in several passages ' Jews 
 
 21 Acts 21 and Greeks ' are spoken of, and in one place ' Jews among the 
 Gentiles,' the title of ' Jews ' being used then in the same broad 
 sense as now. So we find the word ' Jews ' used in two ways : 
 throughout the Gospels generally, and in John's Gospel especially, as 
 denoting the Judreans or Southern Israelites, as distinguished from 
 the Israelites of Galilee and elsewhere ; and throughout the Acts as 
 embracing all Israelites in opposition to Gentiles. Xor is this to be 
 wondered at. The Gospels record the life and labours of Jesus 
 among his own people only, as stated by himself : ' I am not sent 
 but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel : ' therefore when one 
 section of the people is alluded to, it is to distinguish them i'rom 
 the other section, not from men of other nations ; just as in a 
 history of the English people the constant repetition of the word 
 ' English ' might signify the exclusion of Scotch and AVelsh, with- 
 out thought or reference to Continental nations. Unfortunately 
 Mr. Matthew Arnold, taking up the popular and not the evangelist's 
 sense of the term ' Jews,' has thence drawn the conclusion that 
 John's Gospel could not have been written by John, nor by a Jew. 
 Here is his argument.* ' Now, a plain reader will certainly, when 
 his attention is called to the matter, be struck with the extraordinary 
 way in which the writer of the Fourth Gospel, whom we suppose 
 a Jew, speaks of his brother Jews. We do not mean that he speaks 
 of them with blame and detestation ; this we could quite understand. 
 But he speaks as if they and their usages belonged to another 
 race from himself, — to another world. The waterpots of Cana are 
 set " after the manner of the purifijing of the Jeics ; " " there arose a 
 question between some of John's disciples and a Jew about purify- 
 ing ;. " " now the Jews' Passover Avas nigh at hand ; " " there they 
 laid Jesus, because of the Preparation of the Jews^ Xo other 
 Evangelist speaks in this manner. It seems almost impossible to 
 think that a Jew born and bred, — a man like the Apostle John, — 
 could ever have come to speak so. Granted that he was settled at 
 Ephesus when he produced his Gospel, granted that he wrote in 
 Greek, wrote for Greeks ; still he could never, surely, have brought 
 
 * -'God and the Bible. The fourth Gospel from without." 
 
PART II.] .4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. Ill 
 
 himself to speak of the Jews and of Jewisli things in this fasliion ! 
 His lips and his pen would have refused to form such strange ex[)res- 
 sions, in whate\-cr disposition he may have written ; nature and habit 
 would have been too much for him. A Jew talking of i/te Jews'' 
 Passover, and of a dispute of some of John's disciples icilh a Jew 
 about purifi/iiuj? It is like an Englishman writing of the Derby as 
 flie EiKjlish people's JJcrbij, or talking of a dispute between some of 
 J\lr. Cobden's disciples and an Enijlislnnan aboiil free-trade. An 
 Englishman would never speak so.' Mr. ]Matthew Arnold is not 
 quite correct in saying, ' Xo other Evangelist speaks in this manner,' 
 as will be seen on referring to 7 Mark 1 — 3. No other Evangelist 
 needed to speak in that manner, inasmuch as only John souglit to 
 bring out so prominently and methodically the fact, that the whole 
 opposition to Jesus, from first to last, was not national but local, had 
 no existence in Galilee, but sprang from Judtea, and was confined to 
 those who were distinguished by their own countrymen as ' Jews,' 
 
 The examination of the parents confirmed the account previously 
 given. They identified their son, and attested the fact that he 
 was born blind. * His parents answered and said, AVc know that this '•' J"''» -o 
 is our son, and that he was born blind.' Beyond this they could say 
 nothing. ' But how he now seeth, we know not ; or who opened his » -i 
 eyes, we knou' not.' That information could be olitained from the 
 son himself, who was of an age competent to give reliable testimony ; 
 ' Ask him : he is of age ; he shall speak for himself.' From this it >. -i 
 is to be inferred that he Avas of youthful appearance. The boon 
 Jesus had conferred upon him was all the more to be appreciated 
 because he stood only upon the threshold of manhood, and the gift 
 ■of sight would prove a life-long blessing. The parents were the more 
 Teticent because they stood in fear of the consequences which might 
 result from any acknowledgment of the supernatural ])ower of Jesus. 
 It was known that any confession of him as Messiah involved the 
 penalty of excommunication. 'These things said his parents, because „ -i-i,: 
 they feared the Jews : for the Jews had agreed already that if any 
 man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the 
 synagogue. Therefore said his parents. He is of age ; ask him.' 
 The man had already owned to a belief in Jesus as a prophet. Even 
 that conception of him these Jews would not let pass without a pro- 
 test and a warning. So they summoned the man again to their 
 presence, and urged him to attribute his recovery from blindness to 
 Ood alone, and to take it from them that his visible Benefactor was 
 the very reverse of a proph<it, — actually a breaker of the divine law. 
 * So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto >, -m 
 him. Give glory to God : we know that this man is a sinner.' We 
 are left to suppose that the dissentients from that opinion had retired 
 from the council, leaving the bigots to take their own course. As to 
 the character of Jesus the man could not profess to know anything : 
 hut one thing he did know for certain, — that he had been blind and 
 now could see. ' He therefore answered, AYhether he be a sinner, I ,> -^ 
 know not : one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.' 
 They reminded him, in reply, that the bare fact was not enough, but 
 that the method of performing the miracle had to be taken into 
 account. ' They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee ? how ,. -" 
 opened he thine eyes ? ' The man seemed to miss the drift of their 
 
112 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 iusiimation ; the idea that the act involved the sia of sabbath- 
 breaking was not in his mind ; probably he was ignorant of the dis- 
 cussion which had taken place on that question, and only knew that 
 as soon as he had mentioned the fact about the clay they paid no 
 more attention to his words, and would listen to no further details. 
 127 'He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear.' 
 The man seems to have been fairly puzzled, and expressed his 
 astonishment, asking why they wanted him to go over the matter 
 again, having heard him with impatience and comparati\'e inattention 
 before, and suggesting, apparently, that no amount of repetition 
 
 2V would be likely to convert them into disciples of Jesus. ' AVherefore 
 would ye hear it again ? would ye also become his disciples ? ' 
 Alford observes : ' This latter clause is of course ironical.' The tone 
 and tenor of the man's replies and criticisms indicate that absence of 
 conventional respect for the council, the place, the dress and rank of 
 the Pharisees, which would be natural and excusable in one who 
 looked upon such things for the first time. It is an unconscious 
 touch of truthfulness in the narrative. The very idea of the 
 Pharisees becoming disciples of Jesus was dismissed with scorn. Thsy 
 replied disdainfully that the man himself appeared to be a disciple, but 
 
 28 they owned allegiance to none but IMoses. ' And they reviled him, 
 and said, Thou art his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.' 
 About his divine inspiration there could be no question, but Jesus 
 
 20 was an utter stranger to them. ' We know that God hath spoken by 
 Moses : but as for this man, Ave know not whence he is." The Kevisers 
 have softened the Authorised Version by putting ' this man ' instead 
 of ' this fellow,' tlierein agreeing with Alford. Tischendorf and 
 Young render ' this one.' That itself deserved to be called a miracle. 
 
 30 'The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, 
 that ye know not whence he is, and i/et he opened mine eyes.' It was 
 an axiom of their fixith that no sinner could gain the ear of Deity : 
 
 31 for that, it was imperative to adore God and to obey his will. ' We 
 know that God heareth not sinners : but if any man be a worshipper 
 of God, and do his will, him he heareth.' The miracle performed 
 was altogether without precedent, and taken by itself was an irre- 
 fragable testimony that Jesus was divinely taught and authorised. 
 
 32, 33 ' Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the 
 eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could 
 do nothing.' The common-sense, the logic, the religious sentiment 
 of the argument, were beyond refutation. But the man, ignorant, 
 owing to his infirmity, of many social customs and deferences, had yet 
 to learn that the Pharisaic spirit was too proud to brook contradic- 
 tion, and that the power of authority was greater than any force of 
 argument. All at once, the evil spirit within these men broke 
 bounds. They resented as an insult the attempt to convince them, 
 and scrupled not to pronounce his past blindness a brand of infamy. 
 
 31 ' They answered and said unto him. Thou wast altogether born in 
 sins, and dost thou teach us ? ' Alford quotes the following from 
 Trench : ' They forget that the two charges, — one that he had never 
 been born blind, and so was an impostor, — the other, that he bore 
 the mark of God's anger in a blindness that reached back to his 
 birth, — will not agree together.' This comment goes beyond the 
 narrative. The cvangelisj says only that they did not believe he had 
 
I'.vrtT 11. J A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 113 
 
 1)3011 born blind uiifil they called the imrents. ^Vc must not clmrge 
 Miem with deliberate prevarication. The fact of blindness had been 
 |)ro\-ed : they accepted the ]iroof, and then presumed to regard the 
 infirmity as a divine judgment. They seem even to have construed 
 
 is vindication of Jesus as a proof of discipleship deserving the 
 t lircaXened penalty of excommunication, which they ])roceeded to inflict 
 upon him. 'And they cast him out.' Alford explains: 'Probably; 
 the first of the thr.'e stages of Jewish excommunication, — the being 
 shut out from the synagogue and household for thirty days, but 
 without any anathema. The other two, the repetition of the above, 
 aceomoanied by a curse. — and final exclusion, would be too harsh, 
 and perhaps were not in use so early.' The sentence of exclusion 
 passed npon the blind man was infamous and cruel. The report of 
 it reached the ears of Jesus, who sought him out, for the purpose of 
 U-iving him an opportunity of that discipleship with which he had 
 l)een charged, and for which he was now bearing punishment, 
 '.lesus heard that they had cast him oat, and finding him, he said, 
 Dost thoa believe on the Son of God?' The expression of the 
 Ptevisers, 'finding him,' must not be taken to denote an accidental 
 meeting. The Authorised version stands, ' when he had found him;' 
 'i'ischendorf and Alford have, ' he found him ; ' Young has ' having 
 found him,' — all of which denote a set purpose of seeking. The 
 Revisers have inserted the note, ' Many ancient authorities read the 
 Soil of man.'' Tischendorf does so, following the two oldest MSS. 
 It matters little wiiich we take. ' Son of Ood ' or ' Son of man,' for 
 the stress of the question lay upon the man's faith rather than upon 
 the nature of him who was the object of it. On this latter point the 
 man was absolutely ignorant, for he did not even understand who 
 was alluded to. ' He answered and said, And who is he. Lord (Sir — 
 Young), that I may believe on him ? ' The question had no rela- 
 tion to any article of doctrine or creed, but to a living Person on 
 whom the man could rely : ' believe on him ' must needs mean that, 
 and not merely ' believe something about him.' Jesus replied that 
 the person to whom he alluded had been actually seen by the man, 
 this man born blind ! — and heard by him, and was, indeed, the very 
 l)erson now speaking with him. ' Jesus said unto him. Thou hast 
 both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee.' What a revela- 
 tion was that ! "What adoring gratitude must have gleamed in those 
 eyes which had been so long sightless, as they now gazed for the first 
 time on him who had opened them to the light and glory of the 
 world ! And to learn from his own lips that he was the Messiah, 
 and be invited to believe on him, having already realized his divine 
 jiower and beneficence ! AYithout a moment's hesitation came the 
 answer and the homage. ' And he said, Lord, I believe. And he 
 worship})ed him,' rendered by Y'oung : ' And he said, I believe, Sir. 
 and bowed before him.' What a contrast that to the spirit and 
 demeanour of the Pharisees ! Jesus in a very solemn sentence 
 expressed his sense of it. ' And Jesus said. For judgement came J 
 into this world, that they which see not may see ; and that they 
 which see may become blind." He was not only light to some, but 
 darkness to others. Xone could escape his influence, tind those who 
 opposed his work and doctrine must needs have the eyes of their 
 understanding darkened. Some of the Pharisees were present when 
 
314 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 tlie discourse containinsi- these \7orcls was delivered. ' Those of the 
 Pharisees whicli were with him heard these things, and said unto 
 him, Are we also blind ? ' The expression ' these things,' rendered 
 iu the Authorised Version ' these words,' seems to refer to some 
 special remarks made by Jesus on the subject. In reply to their 
 question, he assured them that blindness iu itself was no mark of sin, 
 but that the power of vision, misused and perverted, was an evidence 
 of sin unrepented of and unremoved. ' Jesus said unto them, If ye 
 were blind, ye would have no sin : but now ye say. We see : your 
 sin remaineth.' This was a most emphatic protest against their false 
 ideas and prejudices. Jesus utterly repudiates their expressed 
 opinion that the blind man was necessarily born in sin, and asserts, 
 on the contrary, that guilt attached itself to them Avho could see, 
 but who shut their eyes wilfully against truth and righteousness. 
 
 There is no very obvious connection, to say the least, between what 
 precedes and the following discourses of Jesus. As was usual with 
 him when uttering some solemn and important truth, he gave 
 emphasis to it by beginning with the words, Verily, verily. He 
 pictured a man entering into a fold of sheep, not by the proper 
 entrance, but by climbing over at some other place : the act itself 
 was sufficient proof that he must needs be bent on robbery. ' Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, he that cntereth not by the door into the fold 
 of the sheep, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and 
 a robber.' Evidently Jesus was designedly bringing a heavy charge 
 against somebody. On the other hand, the man who was seen to enter 
 the sheepfold by the door, could be no other than the shepherd. 
 'But he that entereth in by the door is the (or, a) shepherd of the 
 sheep.' The Revisers seem doubtful whether the article should be 
 definite or indefinite. Tischendorf and Young omit it altogether : 
 ' is shepherd of the sheep.' The doorkeeper knows him and admits 
 him, and the sheep recognise his voice. ' To him the porter openeth ; 
 and the sheep hear his voice.' He has a peculiar call, whicli his own 
 sheep are accustomed to listen for and follow. ' And he calleth his 
 own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.' It seems to be assumed 
 that the enclosure contains various flocks, taken care of by different 
 shepherds, all of whom of course would be known to the doorkeeper. 
 First of all, the shepherd has to assemble the sheep which are under 
 his own charge ; then he walks in front, and the flock follows, guided 
 by his voice. ' When he hath put forth all his own, he goeth before 
 them, and the sheep follow him : for they know his voice.' They 
 are safe therefore from being led astray. If a stranger should 
 approach, they instinctively avoid him, and the sound of his unac- 
 customed voice, far from enticing them, wonldbut add to their terror, 
 ' And a stranger will they not follow, l)ut will floe from him : for they 
 know not the voice of strangers.' 
 
 As usual, Jesus offered no explanation of the similitude he had put 
 forward. Doubtless it enfolded important truths, but the hearers 
 were without a clue to them. ' This parable (or, proverb) spake 
 Jesus unto them : but they understood not what things they were 
 which he spake unto them.' Perceiving their lack of comprehension, 
 Jesus illustrated his meaning. He took up three points of the 
 allegory : the door, the thief, the slicph.crd, disregarding as immaterial 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 115 
 
 the fold itself und the porter, but introducing,^ the additional metaphors 
 of a hirelinn^ and a wolf. He explained that the door of the slicep 
 rc]ii'esented himself. 'Jesus therefore said unto them again. Verily, lujoim 
 verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the slieep.' Luther renders 
 — freely — ' I am the door to i'^^) the sheep.' The only access to the 
 sheep, the assembly, the flock, the churcli,— l-iU it what we will — of 
 Jesus, is Jesus himself. Xo man having any legitimate purpose can 
 attempt to a])proaeh them otherwise". AVhoever would assume the 
 otliee of a teacher and guide of men in matters ])ertaining to the 
 gospel, must go to them in the spirit of Jesus, preaching the truth 
 as it is in him. Doctrines, creeds, ho])es, fears, modes of worshi]), 
 schemes of government, not prescribed by him, cannot constitute his 
 gate of entrance. The Authorised Version continues : ' All that ever 
 i-ame before me are thieves and robbers.' The word 'ever ' is omitted 
 in the Revised Version : 'All that came before me are thieves and " ■- 
 robbers.' Young renders, " All, as many as came before me.' Alford 
 says : ' I believe that the right sense of these words. All that ever 
 <:amo hefore mr, has not been apprehended by any of the Commen- 
 tators. First, they can only be honestly understood of time : all who 
 came hefore me (not, without regard to mo, nor passimi hij me as the 
 door, nor instead of me : iiox pressijiif hefore me, ch. v. 7, which would 
 \\?i\Q.\)KiQn come, not came : nor hefore talcing the trouhte io find me, 
 the door : nor any other of the numerous shifts which ha^•e been 
 adopted).' Alford considers the reference to be to the Devil 'and all 
 his followers:' 'His was the first attempt to lead human nature 
 before Christ came.' Tischendorf, following the oldest MS., omits the 
 words ' before me : ' ' All that ever came are thieves and robbers.' 
 .lesus here, as often elsewhere, speaks not of himself as an ordinary 
 man, but as charged with a divine mission, possessing powers of attrac- 
 tion and protection which none elge could claim to exercise. His 
 object was to found a society, a church, an assembly, a flock, upon his 
 v)\vn principles, under his own guidance. All previous attempts to 
 <lominate large masses of mankind had been dictated by selfish 
 motives, by love of pomp and power, by earthly ambitions, and pre- 
 eminence had lieen sought and gained through strife, war, bloodshed, 
 in contempt of ])ersonal liberty and disregard of individual interests. 
 Nations of warriors, slaves, serfs, swayed by kings and conquerors : 
 the people existed for their rulers : they fainted and were as shee]) 
 ■without a shepherd ; no leader had risen up in whom they could con- 
 iidc : 'All that came before me are thieves and robl)ers ; but the 
 «heep did not hear them.' Jesus presents himself to suffering 
 humanity as ' the door,' the entrance to a place of refuge, rest and 
 safety. ' I am the door : by me if any man enter in, he shall be •• ' 
 •saved.' Each sheep of his fold is secure of freedom, under due 
 restraints of time and prudence, every natural impulse and aspira- 
 tion being realised to the utmost : ' And shall go in and out, and 
 •shall find pasture.'' 
 
 There have ever been those who are ready and anxious to disturb 
 tlie peace and assail the liberties of mankind. They use and consume 
 tiie flock for their oavu base purposes ; disdaining to herd with them, 
 tliey seek to live upon them, and in the pursuit of wealth, luxury, 
 supremacy, are careless of the social wrongs they inflict and the 
 misery and destruction which their poHcy entails. Political and 
 
116 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 dynastic ambitions, perpetuated from g-eneration to generation, have 
 deluged the world with blood. The race for Avealth has engendered 
 the grinding competition of commerce, and transformed the logic of 
 political economy into a godless and inhuman system of oppression, 
 reducing the wages of some operatives to starvation point, and 
 leaving the toiling masses to sink into a slough of mental, moral and 
 physical degradation. To the authors of such wrongs and miseries 
 the words of Jesus apply : ' The thief cometh not, but that he may 
 steal, and kill, and destroy.' The frightful persecutions which have 
 sprung from false theology have been occasional, intermittent : but the 
 warlike spirit has been a constant scourge, and the worship of Mammon 
 has deteriorated the life blood of the community. Any exposition of 
 the words of .Jesus which overlooks these evils, fails thereby to grasp 
 his spirit and apply his warning. The mission of Jesus to mankind 
 had the very opposite tendency and object. ' I came that they may 
 have life, and may have it abundantly (or, have abundance).' He 
 brings no new gift to men except the gift of his Spirit. The heavenly 
 Father has supplied, in the constitution of our nature and by the 
 arrangements of the physical universe, all that is needful for his 
 children's welfare. ' Life age-during : ' the promise of Jesus could 
 go no further. The regulation and preservation of our lives — that 
 was the declared purpose of his coming. God's world overflows with 
 blessings to mankind. There is enough for all. and to spare, if only 
 covetousness Ix- abolished, and replaced by the spirit of Christian 
 equity. 
 
 The metaphor is now changed. Jesus is no longer the 'door,' but 
 the ' shepherd.' lie presents himself under a different figure, the 
 new aspect showing his willingness and abihty to meet the needs of 
 humanity. ' I am the good shepherd.' In that capacity he was pre- 
 pared not only to labour and watch, but to sacrifice his life for the 
 safety of the flock. 'The good shepherd layeth down his life for the 
 sheep.' That extreme of unselfish devotion could exist only through 
 a conscious identity of interest. A hired servant would do his duty 
 faithfully up to the point of a due regard for his own safety, but at 
 the approach of danger he would think of himself rather than of the 
 slieep, esteeming his own life as more precious than theirs. ' He that 
 is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, 
 l)eholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth.' He 
 escapes, but the flock suffers, some being devoured and all scattered, 
 ' And the wolf snatcheth them, and scattereth fhon.'' The result 
 might have been foreseen. The hireling cannot have the same 
 instinct of self-sacrifice as the shepherd Avho owns the sheep. ' ffe 
 tieeth because he is a hireling, and careth not for the sheep.' Tischen- 
 dorf, without any loss of clearness, omits the italicised words ' them ' 
 and ' he fleeth,' inserted by the Revisers. ' The sheep ' stands in the 
 Authorised Version after ' scattereth,' but not in the two oldest MSS,; 
 and 'the hireling fleeth' stands before 'because,' but is not 
 in the three oldest MSS., haying been erased from the Vatican MS. 
 by a later hand. 
 
 Jesus reverts to the intimacy subsisting between a devoted, careful 
 shepherd and the flock he guides and guards. ' I am the good shep- 
 herd : and I know mine own, and mine own know me.' The simile 
 does not admit the idea of equal knowledge on both sides. The sheep- 
 
PAKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 117 
 
 know the shepherd by his voice, but his powers of discernment are 
 of a hij^her order. Between Jesus and his own, however, there is a 
 knowledge based upon intellect and -will: 'even as tlie Father lo John i- 
 knoweth me, and 1 know the Father.' Alford notes : ' Beware of 
 rendering tlie former clause of verse 15, as in the Authorised Version, 
 as an independent sentence, A.s tni/ Father kncwetk me, even .so kitoir 
 I the Father: it is merely the sequel to verse 14.' Tischcndorf 
 agrees with the Kevisers. who have adopted Alford's view, which cor- 
 responds also with Luther's version. Jesus knew well that the 
 tragic end of the faithful shejDherd was appointed for himself. ' And .. i'- 
 I lay down my life for the sheep.' Yet in spite of premature death 
 he looked forward to an extension of his influence. ' And othei* ., n; 
 sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must bring (or, 
 lead), and they shall hear my voice.' Alford observes : ' The other 
 aheejj are the Gentiles ; not the dispersion of the Jews, who were 
 already in Clod's fold.'' That interpretation is corroborated by the 
 vision subsequently sent to Peter, by the mission of the apostle Paul lo.vets. 
 to the heathen world, and by tlie reverential enthusiasm with which 
 he and Barnabas announce the fact that God ' had opened a door of u .v.-tsiir 
 faith unto the Gentiles.' It is to be observed that Jesus reverts to 
 the Avords of the original simile, ' them also I must lead, and they 
 shall hear my voice,' but ho does not repeat, 'even as the Father 
 knoweth me, and I know the Father.' His mode of guidance now is 
 indirect ; he is in the heavens ; we hear his voice as of one who 
 towers above us, and Avhose nature and attributes we cannot attain 
 to. His earthly flock is held together rather by the instinct of gre- 
 gariousness than by the guidance of himself and his Spirit; we have a 
 knowledge of his voice, of his call, rather than of his words; some 
 have professed to reveal him through the subtleties of the Athanasian 
 creed ; some have attained to the conceptions of him embodied in 
 the Nicene creed ; for most of us the simple, historical facts of the 
 Apostles' creed suffice : we hear his voice and are to a certain extent 
 led by it, — he himself did not say that we should understand it, — 
 and how little his words and their spirit are comprehended through- 
 out Christendom, let our standing armies, our daily records of crime, 
 our social evils in their multitudinous forms, attest. He has told us 
 earthly things, and wo belicA'e not : how shall we believe when he 
 tells us of heavenly things ? The first and foremost aim of Jesus was 
 to give pasture to his flock, — to satisfy the needs of our common 
 humanity ; and till the Church accomplishes that work, by moulding 
 the framework of Christian society after the pattern of the Sermon on 
 the mount and the other hints which Jesus gave respecting the 
 principles and regulations of his ' assembly,' no realisation will have 
 been attained, or properly attempted, of that kingdom of heaven 
 which he came to establish on earth. It was the purpose of Jesus to 
 unite all of mankind who would accept his supremacy into one com- 
 panionship and fellowship. 'And they shall become one flock (or, lojuiiu n 
 there shall be one flock), one shepherd.' Alford obser\-es : ' The one 
 Jioclc is remarkable — not one fold, as characteristically, but erroneously 
 rendered in the Authorised Version : not one fold, but one flock ,- no 
 one exclusive enclosure of an outward church, but one flock, all know- 
 ing the one Shepherd and known of Him.' 
 
 In the piu'suit of his self-sacrificing plan on behalf of mankind, 
 
lO.IoI 
 
 111 IT 
 
 L'O Ma 
 
 1 7 
 
 t. 10 
 
 IS Lu 
 
 ke 33 
 
 118 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 Jesus fclfc himself to be working out the divine will. ' Therefore cloth 
 the Father love me , because I lay clown my life.' In the same 
 breath he added : ' that I may take it again.' This was the character- 
 istic of Jesus. No instance is recorded of his ever having spoken of 
 his death except in connection with life. ' They shall condemn him 
 to death .... and the third day he shall be raised up.' ' They shall 
 scourge and kill him : and the third day he shall rise again.' His 
 idea of death invoh'ed resurrection and fuller life : ' Verily, verily, 1 
 say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it 
 abideth by itself alone ; but if it die, it beareth much fruit. He that 
 loveth his life loseth it ; and he that hateth his life in this world shall 
 keep it unto life eternal.' ' iVnd I, if I be lifted up from the earth, 
 will draw all men unto myself. But this he said, signifying by what 
 manner of death he should die.' Jesus encountered death of his own 
 free will : his adversaries had not rushed against him, but he against 
 them ; just as the wolf, attacking only the sheep, was resisted by the 
 shepherd, who sacrificed himself for them. ' No one taketh it awa}' 
 from me ; but I lay it down of myself.' The Eevisers note : ' Some 
 ancient authorities read ioolc it airay.'' The Sinaitic and Vaticai 
 MSS. tirst and second in point of age, read, ' No man hath taken it,' 
 although Tischendorf has not followed them. That reading points tc 
 a higher and altogether different sense attaching to this saying of 
 Jesus, for it cannot be said, with absolute, literal truth, that no man 
 took his earthly life. The apostle Peter asserted the contrary : 
 ' Him ... ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.' 
 ' The Clod of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him 
 on a tree.' The form of the expressions, ' No man took it away,' or, 
 ' No man hath taken it away,' Jesus being yet alive, does not denote 
 a future act. The oldest readings harmonise with and are indicative 
 of the true meaning, which must not be set aside because later 
 copyists, failing to discern the reason and bearing of so exceptional 
 and peculiar an expression, altered it from 'hath taken it away' to 
 ' taketh it away.' One result of the alteration has been to set com- 
 mentators upon a search for wrong inferences from this and othei' 
 passages. Alford appears to take a vicAV the very opposite of that ol 
 Peter, and does not scruple to say of the death of Jesus : ' It was Itis 
 oivn ad.'' The arguments upon Avhich that astounding assertion is 
 based are strained and far-fetched : ' The truth of this voluntary 
 rendering up was shewn by his whole sufferings, from the falling of 
 his enemies to the ground in the garden (ch. xviii. G) to the last 
 words, ' / commend (render up) my spirit, Luke xxiii. 4().' Could 
 anything be weaker in the way of argument ? The evangelist records, 
 ' They went backward and fell to the ground.' Alford assumes that 
 they were struck down by the power of Jesus : ergo, no man put him 
 
 •23 Luke 40 to death ! Jesus said : ' Father, into thy hands I commend my 
 spirit : ' and that also is taken to prove that no human power killed 
 him ; in fact, that crucifixion and the draining away of his life 
 blood would never have resulted in death l)ut for the voluntary deter- 
 
 7 .Vets (-.(» mination of Jesus ! The dying cry of Stephen, ' Lord Jesus, receive 
 my spirit,' has never been so perverted, nor would the equivalent last 
 utterance of Jesus have been so, were it not for a foregone and 
 erroneous conclusion. Anything within reach is laid hold of in 
 support of it: 'None of the Evangelists sa.y Re died : — but it is. 
 
 ;; Acts 2:! 
 s Acts ;!(i 
 
PAUT II.] .4 STUDY OF TJIE FOUR GOSFFLS. 119 
 
 yielded vp the spirit, ]\Iatthc\v ; hreathcd I/is tad. Murk, Luke : 
 
 'delivered up Iiis spirit, .lolni.' Wore not all these customary modes of 
 
 expression, applied constantly to the deaths of ordinary men ? The 
 
 lile which Jesus had laid down, and which he would resume, was a 
 
 life prior to that he led on earth, and of that former life he said : ' 1 lo Joi.-.i is 
 
 have power (or, right) to lay it down, and I have power (or ,^ right) 
 
 to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father.' 
 
 In exposing^ himself to the hostility of his foes, in abating no jot of his 
 
 pretensions before their prejudices and criticisms, in carrying on his 
 
 work despite their malice aiid threats, and with the inevitable end of 
 
 scorn, scoffs, scourging, crucifixion plainly revealed and ever before 
 
 his eyes, Jesus went forward, upheld by the consciousness that such 
 
 was the will of (lod concerning him. 
 
 The criticisms of Mr. ]\Iatthew xVrnold on this part of John's 
 gospel are based on the assumption that an obviously wrong arrange- 
 ment of the words of Jesus has been adopted. He says : * ' AV ho can 
 doubt that here, again, we have two separate sets of lo/jia of Jesus ; 
 one set which ha\-e / am the good shepherd for their centre, and 
 another set which have for their centre / am the door ; and that our 
 Evangelist has thrown the two together and confused them ? Beau- 
 tiful as the sayings are even when thus mixed up together, they are 
 liir more beautiful when disentangled. But the Evangelist had a 
 doorkeeper and a door and sheep in his first parable : and he had 
 another parable iu which was a "door of the sheep." Catching 
 again at an apparent connection, he could not resist joining the 
 two parables together, and making one ser\e as the explanation of 
 the other.' That statement is made in a very cool and positive way, 
 but it has no better foundation than the critical acumen of a scholai- 
 dealing Avith a narrative of remote antiquity. Mr. jMatthew Arnold 
 assumes that two similar parables were spoken l)y Jesus, the one not 
 overlapping or repeating the similes of the other, — that the evan- 
 gelist had "them before him in proper form, but was so obtuse that 
 he did not appreciate their simplicity and symmetry, — that, iailing 
 to do so, he was misled by 'an apparent connexion,' and 'could not 
 resist joining the two parables together.' Now, that is done by 
 verse G, which stands as follows : 'This paraljle spake Jesus unto 
 them: but they understood not what things they Avere which he spake 
 unto them. Jesus therefore said unto them again. . .' Did the evan- 
 gelist invent that connexion ? Mr. Arnold seems to say so, for he 
 proceeds as follows : ' To explain the first parable, and to go on all 
 fours with it, the second ought to run as follows : " I am the door of 
 the sheep. All that elimb up some other ivaij are thieves and robbers ; 
 but the sheep do not hear them, T am the door ; by me if any man 
 enter, he is the shepherd of the sheep.'' The words in italics must be 
 substituted for the words now in the text of our (Gospel ; and Jesus 
 must stand, not as the door of sah-ation in general, but as the door 
 l)v which to enter is the sign of the true teacher. There can be no 
 doubt, however, that the words now in the text are right, and that 
 what is wrong is the connexion imposed on them.' That very serious 
 charge against the compiler of the narrative amounts to this : He did 
 not know, and did not much care, what he was about ; he fancied 
 
 * " God ami the Bible. The Fourth Gospel from Within." 
 
120 TBE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 there was ' a connexion which did not exist ' ; he therefore joined 
 * the two parables together,' and made ' one serve as the explanation 
 of the other' ; but when he had done that, the second parable did 
 not 'explain the first,' or 'go on all fours with it' ! Was there ever 
 such a bungler as this meddlesome, not \ery scrupulous e\angelist ? 
 Mr. IMatthew Arnold, after all these centuries, steps forward to put 
 him and us right ; and he does so in this way. ' The seventh and 
 ninth verses are a Joijion quite distinct i'rom wliat precedes and folloAvs, 
 and ought to be entirely separated from it. Their logion is : "I am 
 the door of the sheep. I am the door ; by me if a man enter he 
 shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture." The 
 eighth verse belongs to the first parable, the parable of the shepherd ; 
 not to the parable of the door. It should follow the fifth verse, and 
 be followed by the tenth. Jesus says of the sheep : "A stranger Avill 
 they not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice 
 of strangers. All that hxqx came before me are thieves and robbers ; 
 but the sheep did not hear them. The thief cometh not but to steal 
 and to kill and to destroy ; I am come that they might have life, and 
 that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd.'" ' 
 That is how Mr. Arnold would remedy what he terms ' the artistic 
 failure at the beginning of the tenth chapter.' But there is no 
 evidence, outside Mr. Arnold's own mind, that any such failure is 
 chargeable against the compiler of the narrative. Surely he could 
 have discerned, — a child could have discerned the fact, — that it 
 Avould be simpler to combine all that was said about a door in one 
 parable, and to inake a separate parable about the shepherd. The 
 evangelist, with the original records before him, would not, could not. 
 do that. ]\Ir. Arnold is bolder : he not only does it, but imputes 
 stupidity, ' an artistic failure,' to the evangelist for not having done 
 it, — charges him with imagining and actually 'imposing a connexion 
 which did not exist,' and blandly condescends to argue thence that 
 we must needs have the actual words of Jesus, although in a wrong- 
 sequence, because the evangelist has shewn such an utter incom- 
 petency : be could not even arrange them properly, — how much less 
 could he have invented them ! ' A consummate artist, inventing for 
 Jesus, could not have been satisfied with such a merely seeming 
 and verbal connexion.' Not by such criticisms, erudite and honest 
 though they be, can the gospel nairatives be properly gauged, set 
 aside, or upheld. 
 
 This discourse of Jesus produced opposite feelings in those who 
 listened to it. Many aftectcd to regard hin^ as a kind of inspired 
 lunatic, to whose rhapsodies it was not woith while to pay attention. 
 ,1^ ' There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. 
 -0 And many of them said. He hath a devil (Gr. demon) and is mad ; 
 why hear ye him ? ' The Eevisers, on the authority of the two oldest 
 MSS., have omitted the word ' therefore ' before the word ' again.' 
 This contemptuous criticism was not suffered to pass unchallenged. 
 Words so solemn, so cogent, so touching as those of Jesus, had 
 never been, and could never be uttered by one labouring under 
 any kind of mental aberration. ' Others said. These are not the 
 sayings of one possessed with a devil (Gr. demon).' His words 
 must be taken in conjunction with his works, and it would be 
 impossible to attribute to demoniacal influence the miraculous 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUli GOSFELS. 121 
 
 restoration of sicjht to the blind. 'Can a devil ((Jr. demon) open io.i,.i„i -.-i 
 the eyes of the blind ? ' 
 
 The narrative proceeds as follows: 'And it was the feast of the „ •-!•-.-! 
 dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter ; and Jesus was walking: 
 in the temple in Solomon's porch.' There is here an impression of 
 consecutiveness. The Vatican M8. begins with the w(jr(ls, ' It was 
 then'; and the Revisers note: 'Some ancient authorities read At 
 Uiat time icas the frasi.'' Alford explains : ' This feast had become 
 usual since the time when Judas Maccabseus purified the temple from 
 the profanations of Antiochus. It was held on Chisleu (December) 
 ir>, and seven foHowint;' days : see 1 Mace. iv. 41— ."»!) : 2 Mace. x. 
 1 — 8.' An att(;mpt was made on this occasion to extract from Jesus 
 a positive declaration of his Messiahship. His countrymen sur- 
 rounded him, reproached him with the ambiguousness attaching to 
 his claims and position, and desired a plain answer to the question 
 whether he was the Christ. ' The Jews therefore came round about ,, -n 
 him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense ? 
 H' thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.' The expression in the Autho- 
 rised Version is, ' How long dost thou make us to doubt ? ' Young 
 i-enders literally : ' Till when our soul dost thou hold in suspense ? ' 
 'I'he reply of Jesus was peculiar : ' Jesus answered them, I told you, ,, .>.-, 
 and ye believe not.' To the Samaritan woman Jesus had said : ' I 4 Joim ■!>■> 
 that spake unto thee am hp.' If he had said the same to these Jews, 
 they would not now have been putting their question. There must 
 ha\e been some good reason wliicli withheld Jesus from answering 
 by a simple 'yes' or 'no'; the latter he could not, and the former he 
 would not say. We know that 'the Jews had agreed already that if lUnim s-s 
 any man should confess him to he Christ, he should be put out of the 
 synagogue.' There were many who had believed in him without 
 waiting for any fuller declaration on his part. A word from Jesus 
 might have doomed his disciples to the threatened penalty of excom- 
 munication : all of them would have had to decide at once between 
 recantation and martyrdom. If the Teacher himself claimed, to be 
 Christ, they would either have been forced to own him such, and 
 suffer, or to disown him. That was a dilemma which these un- 
 believing questioners would have rejoiced to bring about. By 'Jews' 
 liere we understand the Judajans, to whom the title jjroperly applied, 
 and who were hostile to .Jesus from first to last, ever seeking to kill 
 Jiim, and compelling him to carry on his labours outside the sphere 
 of their jurisdiction and influence. By returning to Jerusalem and 
 teaching in their midst, he was now defying their animoisity. They 
 were on the watch to entraj) hini, and it behoved him, for the sake 
 of others as well as of himself, to answer warily. The ])opular notion 
 of the Christ was out of harmony with the true vocation of Jesus : 
 men had yet to learn that the Messiah was simply a moral reformer, 
 a spiritual guide, that he was no king or (-onqueror after the recog- 
 nised earthly fashion. Who he was, and what his office was, could 
 be manifested only by his own words and works. It would have been 
 misleading and dangerous to adopt to himself a title sure to be mis- 
 understood. His claim to Messiahship must follow his teaching, not 
 precede it or be extolled apart from it. After his spiritual discourse 
 at the well, and when the Samaritan woman had ex]>ressed her con- 
 viction that Messiah was a Teacher of such truths, Jesus could safely 
 
122 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part it. 
 
 ]"»reseiifc liiraself to her in tliat character. But lie manifested intense 
 
 anxiety not to be proclaimed pnblicly. It was well that Peter should 
 
 ii! Mat. ir. recognise and own the fact, ' Thon art the Christ,' but it must nevcr- 
 
 „ •2^> theless be held back from the world's knowledge : ' Then charged he 
 the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.' 
 This reticence on the part of .Jesus was not understood by John the 
 11 :Mnt. •-', n Baptist, who ' heard in the prison the works of the Christ,' and • sent 
 by his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that cometh. or look 
 we for another ? ' E\tu to them Jesus gave no direct reply, but 
 
 „ -i 'answered and said unto them. Go your way and tell John the things 
 which ye do hear and see,' thereby intimating that his personality 
 and office were to be disclosed only by his course of action, that it 
 was enough to know that he did ' the works of the C^lirist,' without 
 bringing the title itself into notoriety. But for this cautious reserve, 
 it is ])robable that the popular enthusiasm with respect to Jesus would 
 have taken some undesirable form of development, thereby interfer- 
 ing with his plan of teaching, bringing him into collision with the 
 ecclesiastical and civil rulers, and precipitating that catastrojihe which 
 overtook him at the last. On one occasion Jesus perceived that the 
 ,i..ini 1". multitude ' were about to come and take him by force, to make him 
 king '; he knew, moreover, that his adversaries were ever on the watch 
 to formulate an accusation against him : he would have been simply 
 playing into their hands had he allowed them to extort from him an 
 unqualified admission of his Messiahship. His answer to them was 
 10 Join. 2.-. identical with that he had formerly given to the Baptist : ' The works 
 that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.' His works 
 of mercy were sutHcient attestation of his spirit and power. He 
 claimed no title, nor would he suffer one to be put forward, which 
 might servo as a rallying cry for the populace to lay hold of and per- 
 A'ert. He had no quarrel with the ruling powers ; he preaclied no 
 crusade ; the followers he sought were not fighting volunteers, 
 nationalists, resolute partisans, but had been described by him as 
 'sheep ' ; the only title tiiat Jesus chose was that of 'shepherd' : in 
 
 .. ji-i. -'7 that character it was for men to reject him or follow him. ' But ye 
 believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my 
 voice, and I know them, and they follow me.' The Revisers have 
 omitted the concluding words of verse 2G, ' as 1 said unto you,' on 
 the authority of the two oldest J\I8S. All that Jesus offered them 
 was that which they had already — life, but life prolonged to its. 
 
 ,. :i8 utmost limit : ' And I give unto them eternal life ; and they shall 
 never perish.' This is rendered l)y Young : ' And life age-during I 
 give to them, and they shall not perish — to the age.' Jesus does not 
 say that he will immortalise his sheep, but he promises to safeguard 
 
 „ 2s them : ' and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.' The Autho- 
 rised Yersion continues : ' My Father, which gave them to me, is 
 greater than all ; and no man is able to pluck them out of my 
 
 ,. '2i' Father's hand.' The Revised Yersion stands : ' My Father, which 
 hath given fheni unto me, is greater than all ; and no one is able to 
 snatch f/tem (or, aught) out of the Father's hand.' The Revisers 
 have inserted the note : ' Some ancient authorities read, Tltat wlikli 
 my Father hath ijiven vnto me.'' Alford states that to be the reading 
 of 'most of our ancient copies.' The three oldest MSS., however, 
 give no hint of that reading ; yet Tischendorf adopted it, the alteni- 
 
PART 11. J .1 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELii. 123 
 
 tion hchv^ included amoii.i;' tlie 'orruta.' Tlicpassa<i-c as it thus stands 
 
 harmonises with the preceding- idea : ' That which my Father hath 
 
 ii-iven unto me is greater than all ' ; the guidance and safe-keeping of 
 
 the sheep entrusted to me are greater than all besides : the word 
 
 uirizon, greater, judging from the 44 passages in which it occurs, 
 
 does not denote 'stronger,' but niorr important . And the life which 
 
 the Father gives through the Son, and desires to perpetuate, is 
 
 beyond the reiicli of any adverse power : 'and no one is able to snatch 
 
 out of the Father's hand.' Alford explains that the italicised word 
 
 ■them' or 'aught' is 'not in the original.' Then Jesus added : 'T id.idim :j« 
 
 and the Father are one.' Alford explains : ' Notice, One is neuter in 
 
 gender, not masculine : the Father and the Son are not jiersonattii 
 
 one, but cssenthitt//.'' The meaning of the expression is clear from 
 
 its use elsewhere by Jesus. 'Holy Father, keep them in thy name i:j,,i,,, ii 
 
 which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.' 
 
 Again : ' That they may be one, even as we are one ; I in them, and ,, ■_.•_>, j 
 
 thou in me, that they may be perfected into one.' The unity existing 
 
 among Christians is spoken of in the same breath and as being of the 
 
 same character, with that existing between Jesus and his Father. Yet 
 
 so incensed and scandalised were the Jews by this saying of Jesus, 
 
 that they prepared to stone him. ' The Jews took up stones again to lo j,.i,ii 31 
 
 stone him.' Not on the impulse of the moment, as though first one 
 
 had stooped down to lift a stone, and then another had followed his 
 
 example. Tischendorf brings out the deliberateuess of the purpose 
 
 by rendering, ' The Jews again bore stones to stone him.' In the 2(> 
 
 other instances in which the verb l>((st((zo, here rendered 'take up,' 
 
 occurs, it is translated in the A. Y. 'bear' or 'carry.' It was a 
 
 moment of grave peril. Jesus could not fail to perceive their design, 
 
 and he calmly expostulated with them. ' Jesus answered them. Many „ 31.' 
 
 good works have I shewed you i'rom the Father ; for which of those 
 
 works do ye stone me ? ' They replied that it was not for any of his 
 
 works, but for his words : that has ever been the cry of persecutors. 
 
 • The Jews answered him, Foi' a good work we stone thee not, but for „ 33 
 
 bhisphemy.' Young, here and elsewhere, renders the word ' blas- 
 
 pliemy ' by ' evil speaking.' They added : ' and because that thou, „ 3» 
 
 being a man, makest thyself God.' Their idea is still current, and 
 
 prevails : that the term ' God ' is necessarily restricted to the one 
 
 Supremo Being. Jesus repudiated that idea. He reminded them that 
 
 in Scripture the title was used in a much wider sense, and had been 
 
 ajiplied, under revelation from God himself, to certain of mankind. 
 
 ' Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are 
 
 gods ? ' The reference is evidently to one of the Psalms of Asaph : 
 
 'God standeth in the congregation of God ; s 
 
 He judgeth among the gods. 
 
 How long will ye judge unjustly. 
 
 And respect the persons of the wicked ? 
 
 I said. Ye are gods. 
 
 And all of you sons of the Most High. 
 
 Nevertheless ye shall die like men. 
 
 And fall like one of the princes. 
 
 Arise, God, judge the earth.' 
 Alford observes : ' The Psalm is directed against the injustice and 
 tyranny of judges (not the Gentile rulers of the world, nor, the 
 
124 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 mif/eJs) ill Israel. And in the Psalm reference is made by I have 
 said to previous places in Scripture where judges are so called, viz. 
 Exod. xxi. G ; xxii. 'J, is.' The passages here referred to stand in 
 Young's version as follows : ' Then hath his lord brought him nigh 
 nnto God.' ' Unto (Jod cometh the matter of them both ; he whom 
 (lod doth condemn he repayeth double to his neighbour.' ' God thou 
 dost not revile, and the prince among thy people thou dost not curse.' 
 In the Authorised Version these passages stand : ' Then his master 
 shall bring him unto the judges.' ' The cause of both parties shall 
 come befoi'e the judges ; and whom the judges shall condemn, he 
 shall pay double unto his neighbour.' ' I'hou shalt not revile the 
 gods (or, judges), nor curse the ruler of thy people.' Evidently the 
 translators deemed the term ' god ' synonymous with ' judge,' and did 
 not scruple on occasion so to render it. The Revisers have 
 followed Young by inserting ' God ' in the text, and the Authorised 
 Version by putting ' judges ' in the margin. On this obvious and 
 undeniable application of the word ' God ' in the Scriptures, Jesus 
 >, founded an argument. ' If he called them gods, unto whom the 
 '" word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of 
 him, whom the Father sanctified (or, consecrated) and sent into the 
 world. Thou blasphemest ; because I said, I am ihe Son of God ?" 
 Jesus admits that he had claimed tlie title, not of ' God,' but of ' Son 
 of God.' In the true, old, recognised Scriptural sense of the word, 
 there was nothing to forbid the application to himself of the title 
 ' God ' ; he could not disclaim it, but he claimed it only as bestowed 
 and derivative, as one consecrated by the Father and sent into the 
 Avorld, as being Son of God. Jesus was willing that his assumptions 
 should be brought to the test of fact. Did he, or did he not exercise 
 powers which, being su])erhuman, stamped themselves as God-given, 
 divine ? ' If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.' It 
 were enough to make them the sole criterion of judgment. Let his 
 own assertions about himself be set aside, let his teachings and his 
 miracles l)e regarded by themselves : they proved sufficiently their 
 character and origin, ' But if I do them, though ye believe not me, 
 believe the works : that ye may know and understand that tlie 
 Father is in me, and I in the Father.' The Authorised Version has : 
 ' that ye may know and believe ; ' the Revisers have followed the 
 Vatican MS. by putting ' understand ' ibr ' believe.' The last word, 
 'Father,' stands in the Authorised Version ' him,' which has l)een 
 altered on the authority of the two oldest MSS. 
 
 The argument of Jesus could not be refuted, but in spite of it, and 
 of his appeal in connection with it, an attempt was made to appre- 
 hend him. If they could not venture to stone him nncondemned, 
 they Avere anxious at least to put him on his trial for blasphemy. 
 ' They sought again to take him.' The Authorised Version adds : 
 ' But he escaped out of their hand.' Instead of ' escaped,' Alford 
 ]-enders 'passed,' and Young ' went forth.' The latter is adopted by 
 Tischendorf and the Revisers. 'And he went forth out of theii- 
 hand.' The expression ' out of their hand ' indicates the imminence 
 of the peril, if not an actual ' escape.' 
 
 .lesus retired for safety to the other side of the river Jordan, and 
 chose as his abode the place where the Baptist had commenced his 
 ministry. 'And he went away again beyond Jordan into the place 
 
I'AitT II.] A .STUDY OF THE FOUl! aoSPELS. 125 
 
 wlierc John was at first baptizing- ; iuul tliore lie abode.' There 
 hcnirors flocked to him. The memory of tlie Baptist's work was still 
 iVesli, and com])aris()u was naturally made between -Jesus aud his 
 foreruimer. JMiracles were no^y witnessed whieh John never 
 attempted, and all that he had foretold of .lesus was admitted to be 
 fully realised. 'And many came unto him; and they said, John lu^fi'im ji 
 indeed did no sif>;n : but all thini^-s whatsoever John spake of this 
 man were true.' The result was a larije accession, if not of disciples, 
 at least of convinced listeners and beholders. ' And many believed „ 4-' 
 on him there.' 
 
 \\"hile Jesus was eng'a,2,-ed in that safer and more eneouragin<i^ field 
 (»f labour, the brother of the two ladies who had formerly shown him lo Luko ;i,s 
 hospitality was attacked by illness. ' Now a certain man was sick, ■^" 
 
 iiazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha.'' " •^"'"' ^ 
 The evangelist, or a subsequent compiler, has here thrown in an 
 observation which antioijmtes a later incident in the narrative. 
 ' Aud it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, .. - 
 and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.' 
 Tiie sisters sent a special message to Jesus acquainting him with 
 the fiict. The wording of the message indicates that Jesus had 
 formed a dose intimacy and friendship with Lazarus. 'The sisters „ s 
 therefore sent unto him, saying. Lord (Sir —Young), behold, he whom 
 thou lovest is sick.' On receiving the news, Jesus remarked that the 
 illness would not be fatal, but would redound to the glory of God, 
 and of himself as the Son of God. ' J>ut when Jesus heard it, he „ 4 
 said. This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that 
 the Son of (rod may be glorified thereby.' We have already seen lojoimac, 
 that Jesus claimed that title. The evangelist explains that the 
 whole fimiily was very dear to Jesus. ' Xow Jesus loved Martha, and 11 Joim .o 
 her sister, and Lazarus.' Two days passed before he gave any 
 indication of his intention to respond to the call of the sisters. 
 ' When therefore he heard that he was sick, he abode at that time ,• i; 
 two days in the place where he was.' Then he startled his disciples 
 by proposing that they should revisit Judaea. 'Then after this he :. r 
 saith to the disciples, Lee us go into Judsea again.' The suggestion 
 filled them with consternation ; they trembled for his safety, 
 reminded him that his life had been but lately put in peril there. 
 and expressed astonishment at his design. ' The disciples say unto „ s 
 him. Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee : and goest 
 rhou thither again?' The reply of Jesus indicated that there was 
 nothing rash or hazardous in the ste}) he proposed to take. He had 
 due regard to time and opportunity. When the night of persecution 
 had settled down upon him, during which he had felt that there was 
 no work possible for him in Jerusalem except under conditions of 
 danger and anxiety which it would have been unwise to face, he had 
 remained (piiescent. Now it was again day : there Avas light in him 
 and around lum, and he could see his course straight and clear 
 before him. ' Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the „ '.', 10 
 day ? Jf a man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth 
 the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he 
 stumbleth, because the light is not in him.' That assurance of Jesus 
 gave them no clue to the purpose which was in his mind ; but 
 l>reseutly he disclosed to them the fact that his journey was under- 
 
126 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [part ii. 
 
 11 jniin 11 taken on account of their common friend Lazarus. ' Tliese tilings 
 spake be : and after this he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus is 
 fallen asleep ; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.' The 
 saying sounded enigmatical. The discijiles construed the mention of 
 sleep in connection with the idea of repose, as an augury of speedy 
 
 ,, 1^ recovery. 'The disc-i^iles therefore said unto him, Lord (Sir — 
 YoungO, if he is fallen asleep he will recover (Gr. be saved).' Young 
 and Tischendorf adopt the (Jreek expression 'be saved.' The 
 Authorised Version has instead, ' do Avell,' which is altered by the 
 IbCvisers and Alford to ' recover.' If the ({reek form, ' be saved,' 
 had been adhered to here and wherever else it occurs, the word 
 ' salvation ' would probably never have been so restricted and 
 perverted in meaning as it is now in its popular acceptation. 
 
 The disciples had not grasped the meaning of Jesus, nor was it 
 
 ,. 13 possible for them to do so without clear explanation. ' Now Jesus 
 had spoken of his death : but they thought that he spake of taking 
 
 ., i-i rest in sleep,' Jesus now spoke in plainest terms. ' Then Jesus 
 therefore said unto them plaiuly, Lazarus is dead.' Here is, 
 apparently, another instance of supernatural perception cm the part 
 of Jesus. We can venture no positive opinion as to how such 
 knowledge was arrived at, whether by intuition or by direct revelation 
 from superior Beings, through visions, as is recorded to have l)een 
 the case with Zacharias, the mother of Jesus, and tlie shepherds, or 
 through dreams, as in the case of the Magi and of Joseph the 
 husband of Mary. Xot only was Jesus assured of the death of 
 liazarus, but he rejoiced that he himself liad been away duriug the 
 
 >' 1'' illness and at the final crisis. ' And I am glad for your sakes that I 
 was not there.' That circumstance, instead of being regrettable, 
 Avould prove a means of confirming their confidence in Jesus, for he 
 
 0, !■' added : ' to the intent ye may believe.' Notwithstanding the fact 
 that Lazarus was already dead, probably even buried, Jesus proposed 
 
 „ ij that he and his disciples should visit liim ! 'Nevertheless let us go 
 unto him.' To make the journey at that time, with his disciples 
 about him, seemed like courting death ; yet one of them used his 
 influence with the rest to persuade them all to comply with the 
 desire of Jesus : rather than refuse to do so, leaving him to carry 
 out his intention alone, let them he ready to face death out of 
 
 ■" !'■' loyalty to him and in companionshi]") with him. ' Thomas therefore, 
 who is called Didymus (that is, Twiu), said unto his fellow-disciples, 
 Let us also go, that we may die with him,' Alford explains : ' The 
 meaning of Thomas, in the Aramaic, which was the dialect 
 of the country, is the same as that of the Latin Didijmus, viz., 
 a iwin.'' 
 
 On reaching their destination it was ascertained that the burial of 
 
 ■» i'^ Tjazarus had taken i)lace four days previously. ' So when Jesus came, 
 he found that he had been in the tomb four days already.' The 
 wording of this would lead to the inference that .Jesus himself made 
 enquiry as to the time, and must therefore have been ignorant of it 
 exactly. But this does not follow from Young's literal rendering : 
 ' Jesus therefore having come, found him four days already in the 
 tomb.' Not only was .lesus now close to Jerusalem, but his arrival 
 must necessarily soon be known to his enemies, many of the Jews 
 
 >■ IS. i'-^ having come to condole with tlie bereaved sisters. ' Now Bethany 
 
PART 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELtS. 127 
 
 was iii.uli unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off; and many of 
 the Jews had come to ]\Iartlia and Mary, to conscjle them coucei'ning 
 their brother.' The approaeli of Jesus was notified to Martha, who 
 went out to meet him, lea^■i^g• her sister seated in the house. 
 
 * Martha therefore, when she heard that .Jesus was comiug, went and n J.'im -.m) 
 met him : but JMary still sat in the house.' The rendering of 
 Young, 'but Mary kept sitting in the house,' and of Tischendorf, 
 
 * but r\[ary continued sitting in the house,' may be taken to denote 
 a deliberate purpose. Consider the circumstances. Jesus had but 
 lately fled from Jerusalem. The sisters, when their brother was 
 overtaken by illness, could not venture to ask that Jesus should 
 again expose himself to danger by returning : they simply acquainted 
 him with the fact, ' He whom thou lovest is sick.' AVhcji they found 
 that Jesus had dared everything for their sake, their first im))ulse 
 would naturally be to conceal, if possible, his coming : Martha nuist 
 go quietly to meet him, whilst Mary kept at home, giving no indica- 
 tion of the proximity of Jesus. In her greeting of Jesus, Martha's 
 regret at his absence burst forth unchecked. ' ]\Iartha therefbie ■• -i 
 said unto Jesus, Lord (Sir — Young), if thou hadst been here, my 
 brother had not died.' The cruel persecutors of Jesus had indirectly 
 brought about the death of Lazarus. Yet Martlia's faith in the 
 ])0wer of Jesus was still unshaken, although her brother had passed 
 
 away while he was not at hand to save, ' And even now I know :. -'i 
 that, whatsoever thou shaft ask of God, God will give thee.' Jesus 
 replied in one pregnant sentence. 'Jesus saith unto her. Thy .. -^ 
 brother shall rise again.' Martha perceived no specific promise in 
 the assurance, but took it simply as a confirmation of lier faith in an 
 ultimate resurrection. ' Martha said unto him. I know that he shall „ -m 
 rise again in the resurrection at the last day,' rendered by Y^oung 
 with tautological exactness, ' I know that he will rise again, in the 
 rising again at the last day.' Whether consciously or unconsciously 
 Martha here laid hold upon a doctrine and form of expression which 
 had been previously enunciated by Jesus in the words, ' I will raise ojdimoi 
 him up at the last day.' Did she grasp the true import of the 
 saying ? Did she understand ' the last day ' to apply to some far 
 distant day when there would come to pass a simultaneous resurrec- 
 tion of all mankind ? If so, her notions were about on a par with 
 those still generally prevalent, their crudeness, strangeness, incon- 
 ceivableness, covered over and made up for by a verbal positiveness 
 of assertion miscalled ' faith.' It is a very easy thing to take up the 
 words of the Athanasian Creed : ' At whose coming all men shall rise 
 again with their bodies : ' multitudes who have never given five 
 minutes' consecutive thought to the subject have been wont to repeat 
 them glibly, as with a sacred unction, and as though they held a 
 truth clear as the noonday sun, and a ho])e sufficient to live and die 
 by. 'I know,' said Martha, but it is a matter on which none of us 
 have knowledge. The words of our divine Teacher need to be 
 pondered deeply, reverentially, with all humility, and a]iart from the 
 dogmas which have grown up round them. Jesus did not endorse 
 .Martha's unfaltering declaration, but proceeded to put the subject in 
 his ow^n way. Resurrection and life were his iiKLvelling attributes. 
 .'Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life.' And those u 3v\i\-2-> 
 attributes would be possessed by all his followers. ' He that „ -y, 
 
128 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live : and whosoever 
 liveth and believeth on me shall never die.' We cannot be too 
 careful to get at the true sense of tliese words. The Authorised 
 Version has : ' He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet 
 shall he live.' Tischendorf renders: 'though he die, yet will he 
 live.' Young : ' even if he may die, shall live : ' Alford : ' though 
 he have died, yet shall he live ; ' Samuel Hharpe : ' even though he^- 
 die, will live ; ' the 'Eno-lishman's Greek New Testament ' : ' though he 
 die, he shall live.' By using ' will' instead of ' shall,' Tischendorf 
 and Shar])e obviate the idea of a special exercise of power in the case 
 of every believer : Jesus asserts simply what ' will ' happen, — the- 
 divinely-appointed law of resurrection from death. His promise is 
 not completed by this utterance : having before us but one sentence, 
 the two members of which are connected by the word ' and,' we must 
 not divide the saying into two sentences, as though Jesus gave two 
 separate promises. Resurrection and life were his, and would also 
 be the lot of his followers, — the life, that is, which follows upon 
 resurrection, there being obviously no reference to the life which 
 precedes it : 'and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never 
 die.' Tischendorf renders : 'shall never die ; " Alford : 'shall not 
 die for evermore : ' the 'Englishman's Greek New Testament' : ' in no 
 wise shall die for ever : ' Sharpe : ' will not die till the end of the 
 age.' The entire passage in Young's version is as follows : ' He who 
 is believing in me, even if he may die, shall live ; and no one who is 
 living and believing in me shall die unto the age.' To make the 
 sense clear. Young renders /j^.s . . . on me apof/u/nci = '' exevy- 
 one ... in no wise shall die,' by ' no one . . . shall die.' In other 
 respects his translation is strictly literal : eis ton aidna is undoubtedly 
 ' unto the age,' eis signifying, in connection with time, ' until ' or 
 ' up to.' The life is ' age-during,' not endless : its term will be fixed 
 by the constitution of our nature, by the decree of God, and Jesus 
 assures us that, we being under his guidance, it will not be cut 
 short as in the case of the life inherited from Adam. This promise 
 of Jesus may be regarded under two aspects. It seems to be 
 generally assumed that the life here spoken of is an arbitrary gift, to 
 be bestowed or withheld by Jesus according to the possession or non- 
 possession of faith in him. This is to individualise and narrow the 
 promise, instead of to generalise and broaden it : the gift thus 
 becomes in each case a miraculous endowment, an exercise of super- 
 natural power. But why should the declaration of Jesus be taken in 
 that sense ? He does but unfold the divine will and purposes. He 
 steps forth as the leader, the prince, the Messiah of mankind, 
 discloses the fact of human resurrection, and assures to believers in 
 iiim the prolongation to its utmost limit of the life which lies 
 beyond. If we ask — How ? surely it must be by his guiding and 
 protective influence, by regulating the lives of his followers, and 
 bringing them into harmony with the laws of God, of nature and of 
 society. That is the aspect under which Jesus himself has presented 
 , the matter. ' My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
 ' follow me : and ( Young) life age-during I give to them, and they 
 shall not perish — to the age, and no one shall pluck them out of my 
 hand.' A promise going beyond this was once given by Jesus, when 
 he said, ' This is the will of Him who sent me, that everv one who is 
 
PART IT.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 129 
 
 b:,'liol(liri<>- the Son, and bclievinj:^ in him, may liave life n.u,-c-during, 
 
 and I will raise him np in the last day.' Taking' those words in the 
 
 order in which they stand, the resurrection 'in the last day' by 
 
 the power of Jesus, is subsequent to the 'life agc-during : ' a second 
 
 resurrection is here foretold. But in the discourse with Martha, it 
 
 was she, not Jesus, who spoke about Lazarus rising again ' in the 
 
 resurrection at the last day.' Jesus called her mind away from that 
 
 high mystery ; enougli for her to be assured of the lower doctrine of 
 
 an age-during life beyond the grave, and her positive ' I know' must 
 
 take the simpler form of ' I believe : ' ' Belicvesfc thou this ? ' was the n J"i"i '-^o 
 
 enquiry with wliich Jesus closed. The reply of j\Iartha indicated 
 
 rather a confidence in his words than a full comprehension of them. 
 
 ' She saith unto him, Yea, Lord (Sir — Young) : 1 have believed that >• -'' 
 
 t'lou art the Christ, the Son of God, cren he that cometh into the 
 
 world.' Alford quotes Euthymius as follows : ' That He spoke great 
 
 things about PLms'jlf she knew : but in what sense He spoke them, 
 
 she did not know : and therefore when asked one thing, she replies 
 
 another.' 
 
 Martha now hastened to inform her sister of the arrival of Jesus, 
 and of the fact that he had expressed a wish to see lier. But she did 
 this warily, doul)tless out of regard to his safety, knowing that his 
 enemies were round about. ' And when she had said this, she went " ^"^ 
 away, and called j\Iary her sister secretly, saying (or, her sister, saying 
 secretly). The Master (or, Teacher) is here, and calleth thee.' This 
 is quite consistent with the previous notification to Mary of the 
 approach of .fesus. Martha had gone to meet him on the first news 
 of his coming, and now^ not only confirms the report but announces 
 that he is actually at hand. Young renders : ' The Teacher is 
 present, and calleth for thee.' Not an instant did Mary lose in 
 obeying the call. ' And she, when she heard it, arose quickly, and - ^'^ 
 went unto him.' Even then Jesus had not reached the village, 
 having remained outside it in the place whither Martha had hastened 
 to meet him. '(Now Jesus was not yet come into the village, but w^as „ 30 
 still in the place where Martha met him).' Everything indicates the 
 caution and secrecy which naturally sprang out of their anxiety for 
 the safety of Jesus. But the precautions taken did not avail. The 
 hasty departure of Mary was noticed by the Jews, who were acting 
 tlie part of comforters : they guessed that she had gone to the grave, 
 there to indulge in an outburst of grief, and therefore they resolved 
 to follow her. ' The Jews then which were with her in the house, -• ^i 
 and were comforting her, w-hen they saw jMary, that she rose up 
 quickly and w'ent out, followed her, supposing that she was going 
 unto the tomb to weep (Gr. wail) there.' Their notion of comfort 
 in bereavement appears to have been the very opposite of ours. 
 "\Ye are accustomed to repress, assuage, check, reprove even, any 
 violent demonstration of grief ; but the Jewish habit was to weep 
 with them that wept, minstrels being engaged to add their sorrowful 
 melodies to the lamentations of the mourners. 
 
 When ]\Liry reached the presence of Jesus she fell prostrate at his 
 feet, — it may ha\-e been as a mark of re\'erence, or that her faltering 
 strength could no longer uphold her. The only words she could find 
 were those with which Martha had first greeted him, and which must 
 have formed the burden of the two sisters' reflections throughout the 
 
130 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n. 
 
 last fews days. ' Mary therefore, when she came Avhere Jesus was, 
 and saw him, fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord (Sir — 
 Young) if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.' It was 
 a trying scene, and its effect upon Jesus was very marked and 
 peculiar. ' When Jesus therefore saw her weeping (Gr. wailing), 
 and the Jews also weeping (Gr. wailing; which came with her, he 
 groaned in the spirit (or, was moved with indignation in the spirit), 
 and was troubled (Gr. troubled himself), and said, Where have ye 
 laid him?' Alford explains: 'The word rendered by the A. V. 
 (jroancd can bear but one meaning, — the expression of indignatmi 
 and reVulce, not of sorroir. This has been acknowledged by all the 
 expositors who have paid any attention to the usage of the word.' 
 It is clear therefore that the marginal reading introduced by the 
 Revisers must be adopted as correct, ' was moved with indignation in 
 the spirit.' Alford modifies his own assertion of ' indignation ' and 
 ' rebuke ' by saying, ' I think the meaning to be, that Jesus, with the 
 tears of sympathy already rising and overcoming His speech, diccked 
 ihem, so as to he able to s])ca/c the words following . . . Thus Beugel: 
 " Jesus for the present austerely repressed his tears." ' That con- 
 jecture is not satisfactory, and does not seem to meet the case : the 
 mere repression of emotion is not to be confounded with indignation 
 or rebuke. The intense, heartfelt wail of ^lary, and the conventional, 
 perfunctory, hypocritical wail of the fJews were well calculated to 
 arouse opposite feelings in the breast of Jesus. Alford admits : 
 'Meyer's explanation deserves mention : that our Lord was indignant 
 at seeing the Jews, his bitter enemies, mingling their hypocritical 
 tears with the true ones of the bereaved sisters.' That was like 
 Jesus, and worthy of him. Nothing ever stirred his indignation so 
 much as hypocrisy, Avhether conscious or unconscious, or so re- 
 peatedly drew forth the expression of his measureless alJiorrenco. 
 In reply to his question, ' Where have ye laid him ? ' ' They say 
 unto him, Lord (Sir — Young), come and see.' The trouble which 
 had manifested itself in the demeanour of Jesus now reached its 
 climax, and found vent in an outburst of tears. ' Jesus wept.' 
 Even on the way to the grave the Jews could not abstain from 
 ■ criticism of Jesus. ' The Jews therefore said. Behold how he loved 
 him ! But some of them said, Could not this man, which opened 
 the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also should 
 not die ? ' At these uncalled for and unseemly comments, the signs 
 of unspoken, repressed, indignation again showed themselves in 
 Jesus. ' Jesus therefore again groaning in himself (or, being moved 
 Avith indignation in himself) cometh to the tomb.' It was a cave, 
 and against the entrance, which w\as probably horizontal (Alford), a 
 stone had been placed. ' Now it was a cave, and a stone lay against 
 (or, upon) it.' Jesus requested that the stone might be removed. 
 'Jisas saith. Take ye away the stone.' Martha, always impulsive 
 and foremost, ventured to expostulate. Four days having passed, the 
 work of corruption must have set in. ' Martha, the sister of him 
 that was dead, saith unto him, Lord (Sir — Young), by this time he 
 stinketh : for he hath been dead four days.' Tischeudorf and Young 
 do not insert the italicised word ' dead.' The former has : ' he is 
 ibur days gone ; ' the latter, literally, ' it is four days.' Jesus 
 reminded Martha of an assurance he had previously given her. It 
 
I'ART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS, 131 
 
 was for him to act, and for her to have confidence in hira. ' Jesus i^ Jo^'" ^^ 
 
 saith unto her. Said I not unto thee, that, if thou behevedst, tliou 
 
 shoLildest see the glory of God?' Then the re(j[uest of Jesus was 
 
 ooniphed with. ' 80 they took away tlie stone.' Tlie revisers and „ n 
 
 Tischendorf, following the two oldest .MSS., have omitted, ' from the 
 
 place where the deadVas laid.' Iit>w strange and solemn must liave 
 
 been the scene ! What an awe-struck hush of wonder and expectation, 
 
 while Jesus stood before the opened tomb ! Turning his eyes he.iven- 
 
 wards, he lifted up his voice in thanksgiving. ' And Jesus lifted up ,, 41, 4: 
 
 his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me.' 
 
 Alford notes : ' When he prayed, does not appear. Probably in 
 
 Pertca, before the declaration in verse 4.' Having uttered those few 
 
 words to his heavenly Father, Jesus instantly ex})ressed his reason 
 
 for doing so. Neithi>r the j^-ayer nor the heaving were exct'])tioiuil. 
 
 'And T knew that thou hearest me always.' But for the sake of all .. ■*- 
 
 now standing about him, that they might be convinced of his divine 
 
 mission, Jesus had prefaced the miracle he was about to perform l)y 
 
 this reverential acknowledgment of the divine power vouchsafed to 
 
 him : ' but because of the multitude which staudeth around I said it, - ■*- 
 
 that they may believe that thou didst send me.' Then, raising his 
 
 voice, so that it rang out sharp and clear enough to pierce into the 
 
 cave and rouse one simply sleeping there, Jesus commanded Lazarus 
 
 to come forth. ' And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud .. ^3 
 
 voice, Lazarus, come forth.' AVhat a word was that ! And what a 
 
 marvel followed on its utterance ! The body the dead and buried 
 
 nnan was seen to issue from the tomb, not free and unimpeded, but 
 
 the hands and feet still circled with their bandages, and the face with 
 
 the napkin which had been wrapped round it. ' He that was dead - ■*■* 
 
 {Jitcralhj, iiad been dead) came forth, Ijound hand and foot with 
 
 grave-clothes (or, grave-bands) ; and his face was bound aljout with 
 
 a napkin.'' Alford notes : ' The word rendered (jravc-dothes is 
 
 explained to mean a sort of band of rush or tow, used to swathe 
 
 infants, and to bind up the dead. It does not appear whether the 
 
 bands were wound about each limb, as in the Egj'ptian mummies, so 
 
 as merely to impede motion. — or were loosely wrapped round both feet 
 
 and both hands, so as to hinder any free movement altogether. The 
 
 latter seems most probable, and has been supposed by many. Basil 
 
 -speaks of the dounil man coming forth from the sepulchre, as a 
 
 miracle in a miracle : and ancient pictures represent Lazarus gliding 
 
 forth from the tomb, not stepping : which apparently is right. The 
 
 napkin, or handkerchief, appears to have tied up his chin.' As the 
 
 awe-struck lieholders gazed upon the apparition, the voice of Jesus 
 
 was again heard. 'Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let >■ ■*■* 
 
 him go.' 
 
 The evangelist makes not a word of comment on this astounding 
 miracle. Jesus himself alluded to it as 'the glory of God,' and as ,• -lo 
 ' for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.' „ i 
 The evolvemeut and raanifestation of life, the triumph over death, 
 the arrest of decay, the reorganisation of materialism, — we can con- 
 ceive no higher powers of Deity, Life, Eulership : these constitute 
 the very essence of the true idea of God. What does the miracle of 
 the resurrection of Lazarus amount to ? His earthly life had closed. 
 Had he then ceased to be ? In the ordinary course of nature his 
 
132 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ir. 
 
 body could never again become reanimated, but would have turned 
 to earth. No Lazarus would then have walked visibly again among- 
 men, known and recognised of them. Jesus called his death a sleep, 
 but that was foreseeing what would happen, knowing that he would 
 ' awake him out of sleep.' Yet he literally and really died : ' Jesus 
 therefore said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.' Nevertheless 
 there still existed a Lazarus to whom Jesus lifted up his voice aud 
 cried aloud, ' Come forth.' That was a true call : it would not have 
 been uttered without need or reason. How Jesus shrank from 
 useless words was shown the very instant previously, when he 
 explained his thanksgiving to have been spoken for the sake of those 
 standing by. That Lazarus was there, within reach of the voice, we 
 may be sure. How he came to be there, must remain a mystery : as 
 also whether in the same body, or in some other invisible form, or 
 altogether formless. We know nothing about the ' disembodied 
 spirit,' of which men sometimes speak as a matter of course. There 
 were, in fact, two miracles : the bringing back of Lazarus to the 
 living, and the snatching of him from the dead. In order that the 
 earthly life might be renewed, the continuity of the heavenly life 
 was broken. The appointed mode of existence after death was inter- 
 fered with equally, whether we suppose the 'unclothed' soul of 
 Lazarus to have been restored to his former body, or his ' spiritual 
 body ' to have been forsaken, dissolved, or merged, when his lleshly- 
 tabernacle was re-entered and reanimated. 
 
 ' When Lazarus left his clianiel-cave, 
 And home to Mary's house returu'd, 
 Was this demanded — if he }-earn'd 
 To liear her weeping by his grave •' 
 
 ' " Where wert thou, brother, tliose four days? " 
 There lives no record of repl}', 
 AVhich telling what it is to die, 
 Had surely added praise to praise. 
 
 ' From ever}- house the neighbours met, 
 
 The streets were filled with joyful sound, 
 A solemn gladness even crown'd 
 The purple brows of Olivet. 
 
 ' Behold a man raised up b}^ Christ ! 
 The rest remaineth unreveal'd ; 
 He told it not ; or something seal'd 
 The lips of that Evangelist.' * 
 
 'Where wert thou, brother, those four days?' is a question to- 
 i.>uu -. which our existence in this world forbids the answer. ' Except a 
 
 man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
 i. tor. Ml Jom of Clod.' ' Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.'" 
 
 The new life demands a new incarnation. The faith of the apostle 
 ,i. Cor. 1-3 Paul enabled him to grasp and elucidate this mystery. ' For we 
 
 know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle (or, bodily frame)' 
 
 be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made withi 
 
 * Tennyson's "In Memoriam." 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 133 
 
 hands, eternal (an'c-darint;- — Youiiii,'), in the heavens. For verily in 
 this we ,<>'roan, longin<;' to be clothed upon with our habitation wliich 
 is from heaven : if so be that being" clothed we shall not be found 
 naked.' The resurrection of Lazarus had been foreseen by Jesus, 
 and we make no visionary supposition in assuming that invisible 
 agents had anticipated and arranged with res])ect to it, as about the 
 birth of Jesus and his own uprising from the tomb. The idea of 
 Martha that putrefaction must necessarily have set in, may have been 
 contrary to the fact, it being more reasonable to l)elieve that the body 
 was preserved from decay, than that all traces of it were instan- 
 taneously and miraculously obliterated. Nor is it fanciful to bear in 
 mind the fact that the performance of the miracle had been inten- 
 tionally timed by Jesus. He had deliberately delayed his departure ii.jnim.i 
 two days : it was no mere chance that he arrived when three full days 
 had elapsed since the decease. There must have been some reason, 
 hidden from us, why Jesus, whenever he foretold his own resurrec- 
 tion, prognosticated that it would happen ' after three days,' some 
 occult reason why it did take place after that interval. The second 
 birth, like the first birth, must have its appointed sequences and 
 ])eriod ; there must be a graduated development into the heavenly 
 life, as there was into the earthly life ; the incarnation of ' water and 
 sjiirit ' is doubtless as natural a process as the incarnation of ' flesh and 
 blood.' The knowledge of Jesus with respect to these matters was 
 more than human ; the laAvs of life and death were within his cog- 
 nizance ; he knew when and how to seize the right moment for the 
 working of his power; he could call back at once the soul of the 
 damsel ncwly-dej)arted, but in the case of Lazarus he saw fit to delay 
 three days, and he was aware from the first that the same lapse of 
 time would have to occur in the resurrection of himself. These facts 
 arc neither arbitrary nor meaningless, and we do well to ponder the 
 hints afforded us with respect to the extension and perpetuation in 
 supermundane matters of that regularity and spontaneity in the laws 
 of growth and change which prevail throughout the only world with 
 which we are as yet familiar. 
 
 On many of the Jews who beheld the miracle its effect was 
 immediate and unmistakable : they could not l:>ut express their faith 
 in Jesus. ' Many therefore of the Jews, which came to Mary and „ 45 
 beheld that which he did, believed in him.' The Eevisers have 
 followed the Vatican and Alexandrine MS8., by inserting 'that 
 which ' instead of ' the things which,' but Tischendorf retains the 
 latter, which is the reading of the oldest MS., the Sinaitic. 
 
 Reports of the miracle could not fail to be carried to the enemies 
 of Jesus. ' But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told ,, -n; 
 them the things which Jesus had done.' Alford observes : ' Wc; 
 must take care rightly to understand this. In the last verse, it is not 
 maivj of the Jews irhich had come, but many of the Jeics, viz., those 
 irliich had come, " many .... to wit .... tJicse that came.'''' All 
 these believed on Him. Then some of them, viz., of those which had 
 come, and believed, went, &c.' Alford adds : ' The evangelist is very 
 simple, and at the same time very consistent, in his use of jMr//f/es: 
 almost throughout his Gospel, the great subject, the manifestation of 
 the Glory of Christ, is carried onward by ' then,' or ' therefore,' 
 Avhereas ' but ' as generally prefaces the development of the antagonist 
 
134 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 manifestation of hatred and rejection of him.' Without undcr- 
 vahiing the importance of such minute criticisms, Alford seems to 
 carry his deduction too far where he says : ' The hut certainly 
 shews that this was done with a hostile intent.' "We may consider 
 the ' but ' to refer to the result, not to the intent ; this will still agree 
 with Alford's note on verse 27 : ' Sfc. John seldom uses bid as a mere 
 copula, but generally as expressing a contrast,' On receiving an 
 account of the miracle, the Jewish rulers called a council to consider 
 what steps they should take with respect to Jesus and his works. 
 
 11 John 47 ' The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, 
 and said, What do we ? for this man doeth many signs.' The 
 growing influence of Jesus must be counteracted in some way. But 
 why ? What was to be dreaded from it ? This was their argument, 
 „ 4s their ground of action. ' If we leave him thus alone, all men will 
 believe on him : and the Romans will come and take away both our 
 place and our nation.' Luther renders the closing words ' Land und 
 Leute,' ' land and people.' Could any idea be more visionary, more 
 baseless, more utterly contrary to the fact ? The doctrine of Jesus 
 was for the salvation of the people. We know that to its rejection 
 he attributed the woe and destruction which impended over Jeru- 
 
 I'.i Luke 4-2- salcm. 'He saw the city and wept over it, saying. If tbou hadst 
 ■** known in this thy day, even thou, the things which belong unto 
 peace ! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall 
 come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee, 
 and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall 
 dash thee to the ground, and thy children within thee ; and they 
 shall not leave in thee one stone upon another : because thou 
 knewest not the time of thy visitation.' Jesus foresaw the very 
 same evils which were apj^rehended by these Jewish rulers, but he 
 and they attributed them to precisely opposite causes. They dreaded 
 any radical change, any interference with the existing order of 
 things, any Reform which was not inaugurated and directed by 
 themselves. Alford observes : ' The word our (our place and nation) 
 is emphatic, detecting the real cause of their anxiety. Respecting 
 this man's pretensions, they do not pretend to decide : all they know- 
 is that if he is to go on thus, their standing is gone.' One of them, 
 and he the most eminent, disparaged the opinion which had been 
 
 11 joiiu 4it, expressed, which was not founded upon any actual knowledge. ' But 
 ''^ a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said 
 unto them, Ye know nothing at all.' And in speculating on con- 
 tingencies and probabilities, they overlooked the fact that it would be 
 better the Romans should find one popular leader whom they could 
 hold responsible and put to death, than that the whole nation should 
 be visited with the consequences of rebellion. Apart from any 
 subsequent explanation, that might seem to be the import of the 
 „ 6(1 words : ' nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one 
 man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.' 
 The Authorised Version has 'for us,' which is altered by the 
 Revisers and Tischendorf into ' for you,' agreeing with the Vatican 
 MS. The Sinaitic MS. omits both w^ords. But the evangelist, or 
 the com]nler, has inserted an explanation, which places the passage 
 „ 51 outside the rules of ordinary interpretation. ' Now this he said not 
 of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied.' . . . The 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 135 
 
 words ' not of himseltV imply some influence ovor-rnlin,<>- the speaker. 
 Altbril observes : ' Thure certainly was a belief, probal)ly arising origi- 
 nally from the nse of the Urim and Thnmmim, that the High Priest, 
 and'indeed c\-ery priest, had some knowledge of dreams and utterance 
 of prophecy. Philo the Jew says, " A true priest is ipso farh a 
 prophet." 'That this belief existed, may account for the expression 
 here ; Avhich however does not conflrm it in all cases, but asserts the 
 fact that the Spirit in this case made nse of him as High Priest, for 
 this purpose,' The prophecy of Caiaphas is thus described: 'thatu Joim m. 
 Jesus should die for the nation ; and not for the nation only, but ''' 
 
 that he might also gather together into one the children of God that 
 are scattered abroad.' The word 'prophecy' does not necessarily 
 denote the foretelling of iuture events, but may stand for any kind of 
 high s])iritual teaching. It is not stated that Caiaphas delivered his 
 prophecy b^'fore the council : it seems rather to be implied that in 
 his official capacity as high priest he had broached the doctrine that 
 the death of Jesus' wouUrbe for the welfare of the nation, and would 
 lead to the uniflcation of the dispersed Israelites, ' This said he not 
 of himself : ' the deep meaning of his saying was hidden from him, 
 and the evangelist, or the compiler, elucidates it for us. The 
 opinion expressed by Caiaphas appears to have been regarded as _a 
 counsel, if not a justification of the death of Jesus, for the result is 
 summed up thus: '80 from that day forth they took counsel that - -^^ 
 they might put him to death.' 
 
 An expression used in verses 4',) and 51 of this chapter has led Mr. 
 Matthew Arnold to express the following opinion.* 'Twice the 
 fourth (iospel speaks of Caiaphas as "high-priest of that year," as if 
 the Jewish high-priesthood had been at that time a yearly office, 
 Avhich it was not. It is a mistake a foreigner might perfectly well 
 have made, but hardly a Jew. It is like talking of an American 
 President as " President of that year," as if the American Presidency 
 Avere a yearly office. An American could never adopt, one thinks, 
 such a way of speaking.' The conclusion drawn by Mr. Matthew 
 Arnold from this supposed error, is that the Gospel was not written 
 by the Apostle John : ' St, John cannot have written it for the same 
 reason that he cannot have . , . made the high-priesthood of 
 Caiaphas a yearly office,' Let us examine this objection, Alford's 
 note on the passage is as follows : ' In the words that year, there is no 
 intimation conveyed that the High Priesthood was changed every 
 year, which it was not : but we must understand the words as 
 directing attention to that (remarkable) year, without any reference 
 to time past or to come. That year of yreat events had (^aiaphas as 
 its High Priest.' That idea seems weak and forced, so we will reject 
 it. Still it does not follow that the expression ' high priest that 
 year,' which is the reading of the Eevised Version, denotes a yearly 
 change in the office : it may simply indicate that the change had 
 occurred that year, — that Caiaphas had that year entered upon his 
 term of office. But Mr, Arnold obviates that solution by introducing 
 the word ' of : ' ' high-priest of that year.' And we are bound to 
 admit that he is right, on the authority of Tischendorf and Young, 
 both of whom insert the word ' of,' That being admitted, we can 
 
 " God and the Bible. The fourth Gospel from Without," 
 
136 
 
 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: 
 
 [PAPvT II. 
 
 now fairly raise and face the question. Does the writer of tlie Gospel 
 show io;norance upon the point ? Had he less knowledge about it 
 than Mr. Ai-nold has ? Before deciding in favour of the latter, we 
 must refer to other allusions to the subject in John's Gospel. Its 
 author, having previously stated that Caiaphas was ' high-priest of 
 that year,' nevertheless tells us that when Jesus had been seized and 
 bound, the officers of the Jews ' led him to Annas first.' And he 
 explains their reason for doing so : ' for he Avas father-in-law to 
 Caiaphas, which was high priest that year,' rendered again by 
 Tischendorf and Young, 'high priest of that year.' The expression 
 deemed so inapplicable is here for the third time repeated, but so far 
 is the writer from being ignorant, that he shows the most minute 
 knowledge of the subject, actually stating the relationship between 
 the two men. Afterwards he tells us : ' Annas therefore sent him 
 bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.' All this indicates a con- 
 temporaneous familiarity with the facts, which were not a little 
 remarkable. Why should Jesus have been sent to Annas fii'sfc ? 
 What could the father-in-law of the high priest have to do with the 
 matter? By Avhat right did Annas send back the prisoner bound ? 
 The evangelist did not care to explain. He could not anticipate 
 that eighteen centuries later a scholarly critic would rise up, and 
 argue that he did not understand Avhat he was writing about. He 
 told the circumstance simply and naturally, and what he stated has 
 been confirmed and elucidated by another evangelist. Luke mentions, 
 as a well-known historical fact, ' the high-priesthood of Annas and 
 Caiaphas.' Obviously the office at that time was held conjointly, 
 which was quite as much out of the ordinary course as that it should 
 be yearly. What more likely than that the two high priests should 
 have acted alternately, year by year ? That simple and probable 
 conjecture makes everything clear : Luke's narrative agrees with 
 John's, and the deference shown to Annas, and his interference, 
 Caiaphas nevertheless having to adjudicate, as well as the expression 
 ' high priest of that year,' — all these things agree together and 
 corroborate the accuracy and fulness of the writer's knowledge. 
 The assumption of Mr. Matthew Arnold is as hasty as it is 
 positive ; however plausible at first sight, the tenor of the narrative 
 is opposed to it. 
 
 Li consequence of the determined hostility of the chief priests and 
 Pharisees, Jesus again Avithdrew from open intercourse with the 
 inhabitants of Judsea. He retired to a city in the country bordering 
 the wilderness, and there continued with his disciples. ' Jesus 
 therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed 
 thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called 
 Ephraim ; and there he tarried with the disciples.' The Authorised 
 Version has ' his disciples,' which is now altered to ' the disciples,' to 
 accord with the two oldest ILS.S, 
 
 The Sermon on the mount, as recorded in Matthew's narrative, is 
 much fuller than in Luke's account of it ; and among the portions 
 contained in the former, but omitted from the latter, is the Lord's 
 prayer. Luke introduces that subsequently, and he obviously refers 
 to a different occasion, when the prayer was repeated by Jesus in an 
 11 Luke 1, 2 abridged form. ' And it came to pass as he was praying in a certain 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFFLS. 137 
 
 pliice, that when lie ceased, one of liis disciples said unto him, Lord 
 (Sir — Young), teacli us to pray, even as -lolin also taught his 
 disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say . . .' The 
 closing doxology which stands in the Authorised Version of Matthew, 
 is omitted by the Revisers, not being in the two oldest MSS., and it 
 is not in Luke. Let us compare, clause by clause, the forms given 
 by the two evangelists. 
 
 6 Matthew !)— 13. j 11 Luke 2— 4. 
 
 (1) Our Father. j Father. 
 
 (2) AVhich art in heaven. I C)mitted. 
 (o) Hallowed be thy name. i The same. 
 ^4) Thy kingdom come. I The same. 
 (5) Thy will be done as in | ^^^.^^^^^ 
 
 heaven, so on earth. | 
 
 (0) Give us this day our daily , Give us day by day our daily 
 
 bread (Gr. our bread for i bread (Gr. our bread for the 
 
 the coming day). I coming day). 
 
 (7) And forgive us our debts, as I And forgive us our sins ; for we 
 
 we also have forgiveii our ! ourselves also forgive every one 
 debtors. I that is indebted to us. 
 
 (8) And briug us not into temp- | rp^^^ ^^^^^ 
 
 tation. 
 
 (0) But deliver us from the evil i .-. •, , -, 
 ^ -^ / -IN Omitted, 
 
 one (or, evil). j 
 
 Tischendorf agrees with the above Revised Version. To the 
 clauses numbered 1, 2, 5 and i), the Revisers attach in Luke the 
 note, ' Many ancient authorities read,' &c., to correspond with 
 Matthew. Alford considers that these clauses ' could hardly by any 
 possibility have been omilted by any, had tiiey ever formed a part of 
 Luke's text. He adds : ' The shorter form, found in the Vatican . . . 
 and in the recently published Sinaitic ]\LS., was the original one : 
 then the copyists inserted the clauses which were not found here, 
 taking them from St. Matthew. That this, and not the converse 
 process, must have been the one folloAved, is evident to any one who 
 considers the matter. Stier's argument, that our text has not been 
 conformed to ]\Iatthew, because the doxology has never been inserted 
 hero, seems to me to tend in quite another direction : the doxology 
 was inserted there, because tliat icas ihe form in general liturgicul 
 use, and not here, because that ti-as never nsecl litvrgically.'' 
 
 Consider the simplicity and brevity of the form of prayer 
 bequeathed to us by Jesus. At its first delivery he connected with it 
 a warning against all ostentation and ' vain repetitious ' in prayer. 
 He never broached the doctrine, so fondly held and zealously propa- 
 gated by some, that prayer is to be regarded as a .test of character, 
 that God loves him best who prays best, or most, or always : that 
 idea is as irrational as it would be to insist upon our children asking 
 us constantly, repeatedly, as a matter of duty and privilege and of 
 moral obligation, to watch over them and supply their wants. They 
 are sure we shall do that, without the asking ; their petitions are 
 occasional only, and naturally and properly confined to those things 
 of which they feel the want. AVhat is prayer but the effort, either 
 to bring the divine will into harmony with our will, or our will into 
 
138 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 harmony with the divine will ? Whenever they are felfc to coincide, 
 there is no need of prayer. The higher our advancement towards 
 perfection of character, the less our impulse towards prayer on our 
 own account. It becomes transformed into praise, and that not of 
 necessity verbal and formal, but deep-seated, the silent, reverential, 
 adoring gratitude of a soul redeemed, at peace, and hopeful of 
 futurity. The cry is no longer, ' I pray thee to hear me,' 
 but, ' I thank thee that thou hast heard me ; ' and even that 
 utterance is checked by the thought, ' I know that thou hearest me 
 always.' 
 
 When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, he was 
 content to refer them to the brief form he had previously delivered, 
 and even that he further simplified and shortened. Nothing could 
 be more condensed than tliis : ' Father, Hallowed l)e thy name. 
 Thy kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread. And 
 forgive us our sins ; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is 
 indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.' The wants 
 and aspirations of humanity summed up into those six petitions I 
 There is our model. Are we content to cojDy it ? Or do we prefer 
 to amplify it, as though God could be better pleased with a stilted 
 style and flowery language ? 
 
 In the following parable Jesus represents prayer as the natural 
 and nc(;essary outcome of a sudden and unexpected emergency, and 
 great as was the importunity he described, it was wholly unselfish, 
 the intercession being on behalf of another. He supposed the case 
 of a man venturing to trouble his friend, in the depth of night, not 
 in consequence of any grave calamity, but merely for the purpose of 
 u Luke b borrowing a little bread. ' And he said unto them. Which of you 
 shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say to 
 him, Friend, lend me three loaves ; ' the sole justification for the 
 request being that a traveller had unexpectedly arrived, and there 
 
 „ 15 Avas no food in the house : ' for a friend of mine is come from 
 a journey, and I have nothing to set before him.' The applicant 
 was met with expostulation and rebuff. Why should a person be 
 disturbed at so unseemly an hour, and expected to get up and furnish 
 a meal for the friend of his friend ? He positively refused to be 
 troubled with the matter ; it was preposterous to ask him to get out 
 
 „ 7 of bed, and disturb his sleeping family, for such a purpose. 'And 
 he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not : the door is 
 now shut, and my children are with me in bed ; I cannot rise and 
 give thee?' His friendship was not great enough for that. But 
 necessity knows no law : the man outside continued knocking, asking, 
 pestering him ; the clamour could not be stopped, or endured ; the 
 trouble of repeatedly refusing Avas more than the trouble involved in 
 complying : this persistent fellow must needs have what he wants ; 
 it will be better to give him anything, everything, for the sake of 
 
 „ s quiet and repose. ' I say unto you. Though he will not rise 
 and give him because he is his friend, yet because of his impor- 
 tunity he will arise and give him as many (or, whatsoever things) he 
 needeth.' 
 
 The harshness of colouring in this picture was undoubtedly inten- 
 tional. There is nothing lovely or amiable about either of the men. 
 The one was coldly inditferent, a friend in name, who shrank from 
 
TART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 139 
 
 the trouble entailed by a friendly action ; the other was overbearing 
 in pur|)ose, rough, rude, bent on gaining his wish by sheer foree of 
 will. The veryopposite of all that was to be attached to the true 
 notion of prayer. Jesus here teaches not by similarity but by 
 conti-ast. He knoAvs nothing of unwillingness on the on'i side, or of 
 importunity on the other. He teaches that to ask is to have, to seek 
 is to obtain, to knock is to gain access. 'And I say unto you, Ask, u r.uk,-;* 
 and it shall be given yon ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it 
 shall be opened unto you.' There is no restriction on the divine 
 bounty, no favouritism on the part of God ; he is the universal 
 friend', Avhosc ear is ever open, who is never weary of giving, and 
 whose store is uidimited. JSTone need ask him twice, and tiiough 
 often the eagerness of our desire impels us to beseech him thrice, it 
 is not that his grace is insufficient, but that our faith is weak, or our 
 self-will strong. Jesus repeats his assurance, and applies it without 
 exception. ' For every one that asketh receiveth ; and he that „ id 
 seeketh findeth ; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.' His 
 way of jnitting the matter is opposed to the notion commonly enter- 
 tained of Prayer. The general idea and definition of the word needs 
 to be changed and broadened. It is not a mere asking : that is only 
 one of its aspects ; nor is it merely ' the soul's desire, uttered or 
 unexpressed : ' that is but the foundation on which it rests. It 
 comprises asking, seeking, knocking : it is the human will in action, 
 anxious and energetic in Avhatever direction may have been clearly 
 prescribed by the divine will. Effort is as much a part of prayer as 
 are words and wishes ; let us not mistake the part ibr the whole. 
 There arc moments when our energies are exhausted, when we can no 
 longer be seeking and knocking, and can only say, in sheer weariness 
 and resignation. Father, not my will, but thine be done. Only the 
 murmured wish is then within our power ; but at other times, what 
 we pray for we must seek for, or prayer degenerates into formalism 
 and hypocrisy. Jesus insisted upon that truth in the very point 
 where it might seem most difficult of appHcation. AYe pray for 
 forgiveness : Avhat can we do towards it ? Xay ; even that is not to 
 be divorced from our own free-will and effort. ' For if ye forgive c Mut. 14, i* 
 men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 
 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father 
 forgive your trespasses.' 
 
 Prayer is the cry of a child to its father. That is its true and best 
 illustration. The parental instinct forl)ids indift'erence. Callousness 
 on the part of a father is inconceivable, contrary to nature. ' And 11 luu.' 11, 
 of which of you that is a father shidl his son ask a loaf, and he give ^'^ 
 
 him a stone ? Or a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent ? Or 
 if he shall ask an eg(>:, will he give him a scorpion ? ' The son's 
 request is supposed to be confined to necessary and wholesome food, — 
 a loaf, a fish, an egg. That, and only that, will be supplied : nothing 
 useless, nothing hurtful. However degraded the condition of 
 mankind, the law prevails universally, that the knowledge and 
 experience of the father will be used for the son's welfare. How 
 much more, then, must that be the case with the heavenly Father ? 
 ' If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your „ i» 
 children, how much more shall j/oi/r heavenly Father give the Holy 
 Spirit to them that ask him ? ' Alford notes that the italicised 
 
140 
 
 TRE KING AND THE KINGDOM: 
 
 [fAKT II. 
 
 :a Ps. n 
 
 (i3 Is.v. 10 
 
 11 
 
 1 Mat. IS, 20 
 Jl> M it. 31 
 :; M'u-k :i!i 
 1:! Luke 10 
 
 14 John 21) 
 -J.S Acts '2j 
 :i IIcl). 7 
 U I-I.'b. .S 
 
 :J M it. 11 
 1 .Ahirk S 
 ■.i Luke 10 
 1 John 33 
 1 Ai-ts .■•, 
 V2M;uk 30 
 
 1 Luke Hr, 
 
 „ -tl 
 „ (i" 
 4 Luke 1 
 11 Luke 13 
 
 2 Acts 4 
 4 Acts 31 
 
 <;Acts5 
 7 Acts r,r, 
 '.I Acts 17 
 
 10 Acts 38 
 
 1 1 Acts l(i 
 
 ,. 24 
 
 13 Acts 0, 5: 
 
 14 Rnm. 17 
 
 1 i. Thes. .0 
 
 ., a 
 
 2 Heb. 4 
 
 1 i. Pet. 12 
 .luile 20 
 
 word ' your ' is ' not expressed at all : ' the literal translation is, ' the 
 Father the from heaven,' Young renders : ' the Father who is from 
 heaven;' Tischendorf, ' your Father from heaven.' Samuel Sharp:; 
 renders : ' How much more will the father from heaven give holy 
 spirit to them that ask him.' It cannot be denied that translators, 
 by beginning the two words ' holy ' and ' spirit ' with capital letters, 
 have thereby conveyed to ordinary readers the idea of a Person. 
 Even Dr. Young has followed suit in that respect. But where the 
 words occur in the Old Testament the Revisers have not used 
 capitals. ' Take not thy holy spirit from me.' ' They rebelled and 
 grieved his holy spirit.' ' Where is he that put his holy spirit in the 
 midst of them ? ' In the Authorised Version the passage from the 
 Psalm agrees with the Revised Version ; and in the othei' two verses 
 a capital is used for the word ' Spirit' only ; whereas in the three 
 passages Young has deferred to ' orthodox ' ideas by using capitals 
 for both words. AYhy, unless for the same reason, do the Revisers 
 always introduce capitals when the same words occur in the New- 
 Testament ? To obtain an unprejudiced view of the matter, let us 
 turn to a translation which was uninfluenced by the generally 
 received doctrine of the Trinity. Samuel Sharpe agrees with the 
 Re^-isers as to the three passages in the Old Testament, and, with 
 some exceptions, adheres to the same plan throughout the ISTew 
 Testament. His exceptions arc the foUowinu'. 
 
 3 ' With child of the Holy Spirit.' :•} 'Is of the Holy Spirit.' 
 2 ' Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit.' 5 ' He that 
 shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.' 4 ' Him that blasphemeth 
 against the Holy Spirit.' 4 'The Holy Spirit will teach you.' 
 5 'The Comforter, the Holy Spirit.' 5 ' Well spake the Holy Spirit 
 through Isaiah.' 5 'As the Holy Spirit saith.' 5 ' The Holy Spirit 
 signifying this.' These ten passages are the only ones in which 
 Sharpe introduces capitals. In those numbered 3 the original has 
 pneuma Itagion, ' spirit holy ; ' in those numbered 4, io Ji.agioiipncuma, 
 ' the holy spirit ; ' in those numbered o, io pneuma io lunjion, ' the spirit 
 the holy ; ' number 2, io juieuma, ' the spirit.' 
 
 In the following 2(S passages Sharpe omits the article before 'holy 
 spirit,' because all of them come under number 3 and are without an 
 article in the original. 'In holy spirit and fire.' 'He will baptize 
 you in holy spirit.' ' He will baptize you in holy spirit and fire.' 
 ' He that baptizeth in holy spirit.' ' Ye will lie baptized in holy 
 spirit.' ' David himself in holy spirit, said.' ' Holy spirit will come 
 upon thee.' ' Elisabeth was filled Avith holy spirit.' ' Zacharias was 
 filled with holy spirit.' ' Jesus being full of holy spirit.' ' (live holy 
 spirit to them that ask him.' ' They were all filled with holy spirit'.' 
 ' They were all filled with holy sj)irit.' ' Peter, filled w^ith holy spirit.' 
 'A man full of faith and holy spirit.' 'Being full of holy spirit.' 
 ' And be filled with holy spirit.' ' God anointed him with holy spirit 
 and power.' ' Ye shall be baptized in holy spirit.' ' Full of holy 
 spirit and faith.' ' Being filled with holy sjiirit.' ' Filled with joy 
 and holy spirit.' ' Righteousness and peace, and joy Avith holy spirit.' 
 ' In power, and in holy spirit and in much assurance.' ' AVith joy of 
 holy spirit.' ' Gifts of holy spirit.' ' AVith holy spirit sent from 
 heaven.' ' Praying Avitli holy spirit.' 
 
 In the following two passages Sharpe inserts the indefinite article, 
 
ir. (> 
 
 PART II.] .4 .STUDY OF THE FUUIi GOSPELS. 141 
 
 ulthoiio-h there is no article in the orij^iual. ' No man can say that ^- '• C"' 
 Jesus is the Lord but by a lioly spirit.' ' By a holy spirit.' In both '■- ii- c- 
 passaf^-es the Authorised Version, Younj^- and Tischendorf insert the 
 definite article and capitalise the words. 
 
 In the Authorised Version one passage stands : ' full of the Holy o Acts :$ 
 (ihost and wisdom,' there being no article in the original. The 
 Revisers have altered that to, ''full of the Spirit and of wisdom.' 
 The Sinaitic MS. has, ' full of the spirit of wisdom,' and the transla- 
 tion from Tiscliendorf's critical text is, 'full of the spirit and wisdom.' 
 The Revisers, by capitalising the woi'd ' spirit,' convey the same 
 meaning as ' Holy (ihost ' has in the Authorised Version. 
 
 Here is a similar instance. The lYuthoriscd Version stands, ' which - '• Cm-. i:j 
 the Holy Ghost teachcLh,' although there is no article in the original. 
 The three oldest MSS. omit 'holy.' The Revisers capitalise the 
 word 'spirit.' Sharpe agrees with Tischendorf: 'taught by the 
 spirit.' 
 
 In the following passage the Revisers have capitalised the word 
 'spirit,' contrary^to the Authorised Version, Avhich stands: ' the r, i. joim ^ 
 spirit, and the water, and the blood.' Tischendorf, Young and 
 Sharpe adopt the small .s in spirit. 
 
 In the following ])assage Sharpe agrees with the Revisers in capital- 
 ising the word ' Spirit.' ' The blasphemy against the Spirit shall not 12 Mat. r,i 
 be forgiven.' 
 
 The last ])assage which needs to lie referred to is : 'And the Holy loiiei.. 15 
 (rhost also lieareth witness to us,' which is rendei'ed by Sharpe, 'And 
 the Spirit also witnesseth for ns :' he capitalises the word 'Spirit,' 
 but there is nothing to indicate Avhy he omits the word ' holy.' 
 
 There are .50 other passages in addition to the foregoing, 
 in which the words ' holy spirit ' occur, in all of which Sharpe has 
 discarded capitals. 
 
 It must be admitted that he is not altogether consistent. Pro- 
 liably he could ha^"e given reasons, more or less satisfactory, for the 
 Ki instances in which he has followed the plan adopted throughout 
 by other translators. But the explanation is not forthcoming, and 
 one is certainly required. If, however, we are nnable to see Avhy he 
 iu those exceptional cases capitalises the words, how much less can 
 the justitication be imagined for doing so in every case ! The habit 
 indicates a foregone conclusion, a settled doctrine, just as much as 
 the writing of the word ' God ' with a capital denotes the supremo 
 Being : when that is not signified by the translators they omit the 
 ca])ital, which is done in a mnltitude of passages, notably in the 
 following : ' For though there be that are called gods, whether in s i. Cor. :., & 
 heaven or on earth ; as there are gods many, and hjrds many ; yet 
 to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and wc 
 unto him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, 
 u!:d we through him.' The context must in every instance fix the 
 sense, equally as regards the word ' god ' and the word ' spirit.' No 
 translator, and no sufficiently intelligent reader, can escape the re- 
 sponsibility of exercising his own judgment in the matter. Unfor- 
 tunately our translations and retranslations have been undertaken by 
 theologians deeply committed to Trinitarian doctrines. — men who 
 could not, owing to their previous training, or who would not if they 
 could, owing to their clerical status and surroundings, refrain from 
 
142 TEE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [part ii. 
 
 brinii'ing out, by such an easy method, their own way of understaud- 
 ino- the repeated alhisions in Scripture to the ' spirit ' and the ' holy 
 spirit/ Even Dr. Eobert Young, in the preface to his independent, 
 literal and idiomatic translation, thought it well to say of his altera- 
 tions : ' While they aflPect A'ery considerably the outward form 
 of the translation, it is a matter of thankfulness that they do not 
 touch the truth of a single Scripture doctrine, — 7iot even one.'' That 
 betrays a theological bias, sufficient by itself to explain why he has 
 so submissively followed the Authorised Version in this matter of 
 capitalising. If we are to claim and use the freedom of judgment 
 14 i. r'or. i;o which the apostle Paul urged in the words, 'Brethren, be not 
 children in mind ... in miud be men (Gr, of full age),' it becomes 
 an absolute necessity, either that the translation of these crucial 
 texts should stand uncapitalised, or that we should deal with them 
 as though they were. Thereby we shall show a readiness of mind to 
 receive ti'uth, let it come from or iucline to whichever side it will ; 
 Avhich certainly was not the case with the Revisers, who regarded the 
 presence of the one acknowledged Unitarian among them as a scandal, 
 aud so necessitated his withdrawal from the work to which he had 
 been called in conjunction with themselves. The use of capitals is 
 arbitrary, and may easily grow into an abuse ; aud their disuse entails 
 no risk of misconception. That must be obvious, when we remember 
 tliat in the German Version there is and coukl be nothing answering 
 to the plan resorted to by our translators, every substantive in that 
 language being capitalised. German readers are on this point com- 
 ]K'lled to judge of the sense by the context, which is the only safe 
 rule in studying Scripture. Luther did not capitalise the adjective 
 ' holy ' before ' Spirit,' as oiu* translators have done. The translation 
 of Samuel Sharpe has the merit, with very few exceptions, of being 
 faithful to the original, which is more than can be said of those 
 versions in which the definite article is inserted where it does not 
 appear ia the text. No unprejudiced, unshackled searcher for the 
 truth will be content to regard the doctrine involved, as settled for 
 him by his forefathers, and therefore incontrovertible. It must be 
 faced, and argued out honestly and impartially, in calm defiance of 
 ecclesiastical censures and time-honotu'cd assertions and denuncia- 
 tions. Happily the days are past when theologians could excom- 
 municate, imprison, burn those whose views seemed to them heretical. 
 The foregoing remarks are not made in any spirit of opposition to 
 the prevailing doctrine of the Trinity, nor with any leaning in favour 
 of Unitarianism. Before a step can be taken towards a thorough 
 investigation, it is essential tlms to clear the way, by ascertaining to 
 what extent the dogma may have been affected by the idiosyncrasies 
 of translators. 
 
 3 3 i.nkr i-i "\ye turn now to the 13th chapter of Luke. ' And he went on his 
 way through cities aud villages, teaching, and journeying on unto 
 Jerusalem.' There is no connection traceable between that statement 
 of the evangelist and the portion of the narrative immediately pre- 
 jceding. The author of ' Gospel Difficulties ' * has arrived at the 
 
 * "Gospel Difficulties, or the Displaced Section of S. Luke." 
 By J. J. Halcombe, M.A. 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 143 
 
 conclusion tliat here ' a section of S. Luke's fJospel has been jilaced 
 after a section wliich it oritiinally preceded, and that a new and 
 utterly confusing order of events has been created at three points : 
 (a) where the section was taken from its right place, (b) where it was 
 inserted in the wrong jjlace, (c) where a fictitious connection was 
 established between the reversed sections.' Accordingly he places 
 between verses 21 and 22 of chapter 8, the portion of chapter 11 from 
 verses 1-1 to 54, the whole of chapter 12, and chapter l:-* u]) to verse 
 2 ; and he asserts ' that the above displacement being rectified, the 
 general arrangement of the Gospels is perfectly simple throughout, 
 S. Luke's restored order at once explaining both the exact i)laa of 
 of S. ]\[atthew's Gospel and the rare and very slight departures from 
 a chronological arrangement observable in 8, Mark.' Without enter- 
 ing ui)on the argument relating to jMatthcw and ]\Iark, it is no small 
 gain to have efi'ected by this one simple alteration an obvions con- 
 sistency and consecutiveness throughout the ({ospel according to 
 Luke. That evangelist, having mentioned the course of teaching 
 from place to place undtrtaken by Jesus, proceeds in this and the five 
 following chapters to give examples of his teaching. 
 
 A question was put to Jesus. ' And one said unto him, Lord ^'^ Luke 23 
 (Sir — Young) are they few that be saved ? ' Young renders : ' Are 
 those saved few ? ' Tischendorf : ' Are there few to be saved ? ' The 
 former simply indicates a fact ; the latter denotes a purpose. An 
 examination of the multitude of scriptural passages in which the 
 woi'ds * save ' and ' saved ' occur, makes it evident that the term 
 * saved ' had the same breadth of meaning and application as it now 
 bears in ordinary language. The one sense which cannot be justified, 
 is that restricted theological one which somehow has come to be 
 iittacbed to it, — the idea of deliverance hereafter i'rom the penalty of 
 sin, escape at the day of judgment from endless misery, and admis- 
 sion to the happiness of heaven. The word ' saved ' signifies deliver- 
 ance from evil, actual or threatened, without reference to any specific 
 event or period. 
 
 The reply of Jesus intimated that personal safety must depend 
 upon personal effort, and upon the due use of the right way and 
 fitting opportunity. ' And he said unto them, Strive to enter in by „ -li, 2 
 the narrow door.' An easier, broader entrance is here suggested, 
 which must be avoided with a view to safety ; many will" be lost 
 through choosing either the wrong way or the wrong time. ' For „ 24 
 many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able.' 
 The figure of admission by a nari-ow entrance is now enlarged into a 
 ]Xirable. Jesus represents a householder as rising u}:*, shutting the 
 door, and excluding later comers. 'When once the master of the „ i'5 
 house is risen up, and hath shut to the door . . ,' The llevisers indi- 
 cate by a note a doubt whether the full stop between 'able' and 
 •' when ' should not be replaced by a comma. That arises from the 
 change in verse 24 of ' strait gate ' to * narrow door,' in accordance 
 Avith the two oldest MSS. It seems right to keep the ideas distinct, 
 the • narrow gate ' in 7 Matthew lo denoting a safe^w/A/ra//, and the 
 house in this parable having, as a matter of course, only one recog- 
 nised ' door ' for entrance, quite irrespective of its breadth or narrow- 
 ness. Finding the door closed, the late comers would crowd round 
 andknock, but be denied admission : 'and ye begin to stand without, " -^ 
 
144 
 
 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: 
 
 [PAKT II. 
 
 I'J John 2i; 
 
 ] 3 Luke 27 
 
 and to knock at tlie door, saying, Lord, lord, open to ns ; and he 
 shall answer and say to you, I know you not whence ye are.' The 
 cry ' Lord, lord ' may signify that they came not as guests, but as 
 servants desiring a place in the houseliold, and the answer, 'I know 
 you not whence ye are,' imports that inasmuch as they hud not pre- 
 sented themselves previously, their character and fitness could not be 
 recognised. Then they claim some prior knowledge of the house- 
 holder, but it is casual and distant at the best. ' Then shall ye begin 
 to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in 
 our streets.' But what could it avail that some of them had met him 
 in society, and others had known him by report as their city mis- 
 sionary ? That could only prove how negligent they had been to 
 cultivate his acquaintance, how indifferent and averse to his teach- 
 ings. His social intercourse, his repeated pleadings, had not attracted 
 them to his cause and person. Those worthy of him had followed 
 him : ' Where I am, there shall also my servant be.' Their delay in 
 obeying his call sufficed t(j prove their true character. They were 
 not fit for his work, nor could they be admitted to a place in his 
 household : * and he shall say, I know not Avhence ye are : depart 
 from me, all ye workers of iniquity.' Alford renders : ' ye Avorkmen 
 of iniquity.' These are they who have not been saved — from their 
 sins. Deep will be their grief, and bitter their disappointment, to 
 find themselves excluded on that account from God's kingdom here- 
 after. Jesus drops the parable of the house and householder, and bids 
 them contemplate the future life, when they will hold communion 
 with the dead, the age-during existence of the Jewish patriarchs 
 enabling them to clasp hands with their remote descendants. ' There 
 shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see 
 Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom 
 of God, and yourselves cast forth without.' Jesus surely was not 
 deluding us with visionary hopes, when he so calmly and assuredly spoke 
 about realities such as tliese in the world to come. He only could 
 disclose these things. ' No man hath ascended into heaven, but he 
 that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man.' While in this 
 world he held converse w'ith departed saints. jMoses and Elijah came 
 to him on the mountain-top, the fact being witnessed by three, and 
 very positively and solemnly attested in writing by two of his dis- 
 ciples. However little we ponder and are influenced by these revela- 
 tions, they are absolutely, literally true, having a basis as real and 
 substantial as any established scientific fact relating to the earth or 
 its inhabitants. In proportion as we yield ourselves to the teachings 
 of Jesus on other matters, our minds will become able to grasp and 
 realise his declarations respecting the future life and the heavenly 
 world. His scheme of teaching is l)ased upon his knoAvledge of both 
 worlds, and is designed to make the present life homogeneous with 
 that which is to come. That is the secret of his divine jjhilosophy, 
 and that our faith may reach the highest round of that ladder which 
 he has raised between earth and heaven, we must begin our climbing 
 at the bottom, and ascend patiently and carefully step by step. ' If 
 I told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if 
 I tell you heavenly things?' The w^ords of Jesus applied to the 
 actual hearers : ' when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
 and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast 
 
PART 11.] .4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 145 
 
 out/ ThouL!.']! the .lewisli nation lie intended, that will not exchide 
 iiulividiials, nor were those then living excepted because their poste- 
 rity were included in the warnin«i-. And there will be no exclusion 
 on account of nationality in (lod's kingdom : 'And they shall come 
 from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit 
 down (Gv. rech'ne) in the kingdom of God.' Tischendorf renders : 
 • will sit down at table:' nnder the figure of a so(;ial feast, Jesus 
 foretells the friendly welcome and intimacy which will prevail in the 
 company of the redeemed. The picture he draws is one of universal 
 physical and moral happiness, the wicked banished and the righteous 
 rejoicing. That is his ideal of the ' salvation ' of humanity. And 
 this renovation of society will involve not only the separation of the 
 bad from the good, but in many instances among the redeemed them- 
 selves a reversal of their previous relative positions as i-egards rank, 
 honour and influence. ' And behold, there are last which shall be 
 ■first, and there are first which shall be last.' The law of advance- 
 ment in God's kingdom will be vastly different from that which 
 prevails on earth. That reflection was often in the mind of Jesus, 
 for he repeated more than once his saying with respect to it. Of 
 course the pride and pomp wdiich are now dependent upon wealth 
 will cease, and the glory of the warrior Avill hnd no place in that 
 kingdom which triumphs in righteousness, peace and joy. Science, 
 art, intellect, refinement, moral worth, and the spirit of brotherhood, 
 — these will be held in everlasting honour. Social status will depend 
 on social worth. The spiritual hierarchy, from the pope downwards, 
 archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, deans, vicars, rectors, deacons, who 
 have claimed to be ministers of Christ, successors of the apostles, 
 dispensers of sacramental gifts, or at the very least instructors in the 
 things of Christ and guides to the heavenly Avorld : how far will their 
 l)retensions hold good hereafter ? AVill the round they now prescribe 
 and practise of prayer, praise, penance, and the mystical communion 
 through the eating of bread and drinking of wine duly consecrated, 
 be found indeed to accord with the mind of Christ, and to have 
 helped forward his kingdom ? Or will these men generally find their 
 occupation gone, many of their assumptions to have been nnwar- 
 ranted, many of their dogmas exploded and rejected as erroneous, 
 and the church of Christ a different organisation altogether from 
 Avhat they had been taught and had taught others to believe ? We 
 are all fallible, pi-obably they most so whose teaching is most positive. 
 How astounded must the scribes and Pharisees have been to hear 
 Jesus express the opinion that they were shutting up the kingdom of 
 heaven against men ; that their zeal in compassing heaven and earth 
 to make one proselyte, ended in their making him twofold more the 
 child of hell than themselves ! The rank now assigned to men is 
 quite as much the outcome of class as of character : none can rise in 
 'the Church ' who either fall below a recognised standard of ortho- 
 doxy or rise al)0ve the spirit and doctrine of the age in which they 
 live. ' Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of,' said Jesus to 
 his apostles. "When all things come to be ruled according to his will, 
 and all men to be placed according to his judgment, great and sur- 
 prising will be the reversals in their respective positions : ' There are 
 last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.' 
 
146 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 The incident next related hy the evangelist begins in the Antho- 
 rised Version with the words, ' The same day,' Following the three 
 oldest ]\ISS., the Kevisers have altered this to, ' In that very hour,' 
 and Tischendorf to ' In that same hour.' Certain Pharisees urged 
 Jesus to stop his course of teaching, and to hasten his departure from 
 
 iH Luke 31 the place, on the ground that Herod was seeking his life. ' In that 
 very hour there came certain Pharisees, saying to him, Get thee out, 
 and go hence : for Herod would fain kill thee.' The last four words 
 are clearer than ' will kill thee ' in the Authorised Version. Alford 
 renders, ' is minded to ; ' Tischendorf, ' desires to ; ' Young, ' wisheth 
 to.' Alford observes : ' These Pharisees appear to have been sent by 
 Herod for the purpose of getting rid of Jesus out of his jurisdiction. 
 Considering his character, it is hardly possible that he should really 
 have wished to kill one wJio teas so popular ; he refused to do so when 
 Jesus was in his power afterwards in Jerusalem ; but, as great 
 multitudes were now following him about, and superstitious fears, as 
 we know, agitated Herod, he wished to be quit of him, and took this 
 means of doing so. I think this view is necessary to justify the 
 epithet applied to Herod, which certainly implies fun??//?// 07i his part.'' 
 The reply of Jesus was couched in a tone of dignified reprobation 
 ,. :« and remonstrance, ' And he said unto them, Go and say to that 
 fox . .' \\Q are accustomed to regard the prominent characteristic of 
 a fox to be that of cunning, but it by no means follows that the idea 
 Avas familiar to the Jews. In a country where foxes abounded, the 
 damage done by the animals, and their habit of attacking and 
 destroying things on which the husbandman had expended much 
 care and labour, would natui'ally be the foremost thought in connec- 
 tion with them. 
 
 ■z s..iig of ' Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vineyards ; 
 
 soiifcs V) Yov our vineyards are in l)lossom.' 
 
 Herod had stopped the career of John the Baptist by first im- 
 prisoning and at last beheading him. Therein he had acted the part 
 of a fox, and he now showed an inclination to interfere with Jesus 
 and mar his work in the same way. Jesus met the threat by ex- 
 ]ilaining that he meant to carry on his labour of exorcising and 
 
 13 Luke 3j Jiealiug during three days only. ' Behold, I cast out devils (Gr. 
 demons ) and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third daij 
 I am perfected.* Tischendorf renders, ' the third day I finish ; ' 
 Sharpe, ' the third day I shall have ended.' The verb teJeiod, is the 
 
 ■-' Luke 43 same as in the passage : ' and when they had fulfilled the days.*' 
 And although during those three days Jesus must needs carry out his 
 work, yet he would at the same time be complying with the desire of 
 
 13 Luke 33 Hcrod by journeying onwards. ' Howbeit I must go on my way to- 
 day and to-morrow and the iknj following.' Tischendorf renders : 
 ' I must go about ; ' Young : ' go on ; ' the Authorised Version has : 
 ' I must walk ; ' Alford renders : ' I must journey,' and he explains : 
 * In the original it is the very word in which they had addressed him, 
 Depart (journey) lience.'' All this seems very clear ; but to Alford it 
 seemed quite incomprehensible. He says: 'The interpretation of 
 tins answer is difiicult, for two reasons — (1) that the signification of 
 the to-day, to-morrow, and the third day is doubtful — (2) that the 
 meaning of / am perfected is also doubtful.' He liegins by assuming 
 I hat the words used have some mysterious meaning; he rejects the- 
 
I'ART II.] A STLWY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 147 
 
 natural interpretation of Meyer and Bleek : ' In three days (literal 
 (lays) tiie Lord's workint;- of miracles in Galilee would be ended, 
 which had excited the apprehension of Herod : and that He would 
 leave the territory, not for fear of Herod, bnt becanse he was goinj^- 
 to Jerusalem to die : ' and after vainly searching for some satisfactory 
 mystical sense, lie ends by saying : ' I own that neither of the al)Ove 
 interpretations satisfy me, and still less the various modifications of 
 them which have been proposed. Nor can I suggest one less open to 
 objection.' No wonder: for he started with the conviction ' that 
 prrferted is used in the solemn sense elsewhere attached to the word,' 
 and he refers to eleven passages in which the word occurs. Other 
 translators saw no such reason for doubt and uncertainty here. The 
 sense of the expression must l)e fixed by the context. It is most 
 nm-easonable to suppose that Jesus returned an answer to Herod in 
 the form of an enigma, so difficult of solution that a luminary of the 
 Church in the nineteenth century found himself unable to eluci- 
 date it. 
 
 Jesus being on his way towards Jerusalem, there was no necessity 
 for Herod to urge his moving forward; and that he, a prophet, should 
 be killed anywhere outside of Jerusalem would be indeed a new event 
 ill history. 'For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jeru-isLukns 
 salem.' That city stood foremost in the work of persecution and 
 bloodshed. Luke here inserts the apostrophe beginning, ' Jeru- 
 salem, Jerusalem,' which Alford considers to be ' in too close connexion 
 with the preceding to allow of the supposition that ' it was 'inserted 
 unchronologically, as many suppose.' If, however, Luke had only 
 the saying, with nothing to guide him as to its proper place, he would 
 naturally insert it in connection with the word Jerusalem. It tallies 
 so closely with 23 ]\Iatthew 37 — 39, that it will be best to take the 
 ]>assages together. Here in Luke the apostrophe seems out of place : 
 ' your liouse is lefo unto you,' could only be spoken appropriately to 
 dwellers in Jerusalem ; and 'ye shall not see me,' would be a strange 
 expression to apply to them at a time when Jesus was actually 
 journeying towards Jerusalem. 
 
 The party hostile to Jesus appears to have maintained everywhere 
 and always a watch over his actions. On a sabbath day (it would 
 seem to have been during this journey), he entered the house of a 
 Pharisee who stood in high repute, to partake of liis hospitality. 
 There, as usual, the eyes and ears of critics were on the alert. ' And i-J i'''i«^ i 
 it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of 
 the Pharisees on a sal^bath to eat bread, that they were watching 
 him.' Immediately facing Jesus was a man suffering from dropsy. 
 ' And behold, there was before him a certain man which had the „ -i 
 dropsy.' It is not said that he was one of the guests, nor must it 
 necessarily be assumed that he was inside the Pharisee's house. 
 Young's version points the other way : ' On his going into the house 
 . . . there was a certain dropsical man before him," — placed at the 
 entrance, right in the way of Jesus, obviously with a desire and 
 expectation of a cure. Thereupon Jesus turned to the lawyers and 
 Pharisees surrounding him, and asked their opinion. 'And Jesus „ 3 
 answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful 
 to heal on the sabbath, or not 'i ' The words ' or not ' have been 
 
148 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [i'art ii. 
 
 added by the Ptcvisers, being in the two oldest MSS. Xo answer 
 i Luke 4 was givcn to the question. 'Bat they held their peace.' They 
 could not venture a plain ' yes ' or ' no.' Xo one of them had the 
 courage of his convictions ; probably they halted between two 
 opinions, afraid to break God's law, yet by no means sure about their 
 accustomed rigid interpretation of it. Jesus was not troubled with 
 4 any such doubts or scruples. 'And he took him, and healed him, 
 and let him go.' Tischendorf renders : ' And he took hold of and 
 cured him, and sent him away.' Young : ' And having taken hold 
 of him, he healed him, and sent him away.' Then, to those who had 
 
 „ 5 refrained from answering his former question, he put another. ' And 
 he said unto them. Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen 
 into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day?' 
 The Revisers have altered ' pit ' in the Authorised Version to ' well.' 
 joim 11,12 The word, phrcar, is rendered ' well ' in the passage, ' the well is deep 
 . . . which gave us the well,' and it is defined : ' a well ; or more 
 commonly a water tank, cistern, reservoir.' The idea conveyed is an 
 impending death by water, and an analogy may have been intended 
 to the disease from which the man suffered : he was ' dropsical,' 
 hudrdpikos, which is derived fron liudor, ' water.' Instead of ' ass ' 
 Tischendorf renders ' son,' on the authority of the Vatican and 
 Alexandrine MS., but the older Sinaitic MS. has ' ass.' The Revisers 
 note that ' many ancient authorities read a son.'' Alford observes : 
 ' This reading, which, from the weight of ancient testimony in its 
 favour, evidently was the original, seemed incompatible with the 
 supposed argument from the Jess to the r/reater : sou was therefore 
 altered to 'ass' (as in ch. xiii. 15) or sheep, as one of our ancient 
 MSS, has it.' The argument of .lesus was a crushing one. Who 
 could deny that the instinct of humanity was a suflRcieut guide ? 
 When danger threatened, and help could be given, who would stop 
 to debate nice questions of Sabbatarian ritualism ? Once more, those 
 4 Luke G addressed were dumb. ' And they could not answer again unto these 
 things.' 
 
 If others were watching Jesus, he also was watching them, though 
 in a very different spirit. His observation and criticism were directed 
 
 :, 7 to their benefit, and led him to deliver a shoi't parable. ' And he 
 spake a parable unto those which were bidden, when he marked how 
 they chose out the chief seats.' The Revisers, agreeing with Tischen- 
 dorf, have altered ' rooms ' to ' seats ; ' Alford to ' places.' Young 
 renders : ' And he spake a simile to those called, marking how they 
 were choosing out the first couches.' Tischendorf inserted a special 
 note, that the proper translation is, ' how they were choosing out.' 
 Not to offend needlessly the susceptibilities of his hearers, yet at the 
 same time to make the application of the parable sufficiently olivious 
 Jesus, whilst alluding to a feast, specified one of a different kind : 
 
 :, 7, 8 ' Saying unto them. When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage- 
 feast, sit not down (Gr. rcchne not) in the chief seat.' Young 
 renders : ' When thou raayest be called by any one to marriage 
 feasts, thou mayest not rechne on the first couch.' By using the 
 plural, ' marriage feasts,' the parable was still more generalised, and 
 therefore less liable to give offence. The same remark applies to the 
 rendering, ' thou mayest not recline on the first couch : ' there is a 
 touch of delicate feeling in thus assuming that ordinary courtesy and 
 
i-AKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 14!) 
 
 self-respect dictated this as a matter of course. If, perchance, a 
 licrsou should foro'et, in carin<^- lor himself, Avhat was due to others, 
 lie wnuld run the risk of beins^ unpleasantly reminded of his selfish 
 l)reach of etiquette: 'lest ha])ly a more honourable man than thou i^ i-ui^t 
 bo bidden of him, and he that bade thee and him shall come and say 
 to thee, (Jive this man place : and then tliou shalt bep;in with shame 
 to take the lowest place.' Xothing' beyond a passing discomfort, an 
 admission of error, a feelinii" of mortification, a sense of one's own 
 dignity being lessened by contrast with that of a superior, would 
 ensue. But it would be wiser and pleasanter to anticipate and avoid 
 such a result, and to form the habit of erring, if at all, on the safe 
 side in a point of precedence. .Uather than run the risk of claiming 
 too much, it would be better to keep quite in the background. ' But 
 when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place.' The 
 duty of seating the guests properly devolves upon the host, and he 
 must needs fulfil the responsibilities of his position. If there should 
 have been an unseemly scramble for places, he will quietly and 
 courteously sec to its rectification, and will take care that each guest 
 at his table is treated with tiie respect due to his acknowledged rank 
 and character : ' that when he that hath bidden thee cometh, he may 
 say to thee. Friend, go up higher.' Such an experience would be 
 pleasant and honourable, the reverse in all respects of the other. 
 * Then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all that sit at meat 
 with thee.' The Eevisers have altered ' worship ' to ' glory,' agreeing 
 with Tischendorf and Young. They have also, on the authority of 
 the three oldest MS8., inserted the word ' all.' 
 
 Had Jesus added nothing to the parable by way of exj^lanation, it 
 would liave been scarcely safe and wise for us to enlarge its applica- 
 tion. In this instance, we are specially told that he was rebuking a 
 fault of disposition and conduct which had just come under his 
 observation. Why should we take upon ourselves to extend the 
 parable ? Alford assumes much when he says : ' The whole of this 
 lias, besides its plain reference, a deeper one, linked into it by the 
 important word wedd'tmi, carrying with it all that meaning which it 
 always has when relatiny to tite kingdoiii of Gud. Both senses are 
 olnious.' This means that the Avords, ' When thou art bidden of any 
 man to a marriage feast,' must of necessity signify the invitation to 
 enter the kingdom of heaven, the ' host ' representing either fiod or 
 Jesus. Such a mode of interpretation being adopted, theologians 
 are free to exercise their fancies and air their favourite dogmas to 
 their hearts' content. In this case, however, difficulties arise in 
 attempting to unravel this ' deeper reference.' No sooner does 
 Alford say, ' Both senses are obvious,' than he feels bound to qualify 
 the assertion, adding : ' and only one remark needed.' Here it is : 
 ■ That all that fahe humility, by which men put themselves lowest 
 and dispraise themselves of set /wrpose fo he placed liiiiher, is, by the 
 \-ery nature of our Lord's parable, e.rcluded : for that is not bona fide 
 abasing one's self. The exaltation at the hands of the Host is not to 
 be a purposed end to the guests, but will follow true humility.' The 
 parable standing in its simplicity, and the application which Jesus 
 makes from it, are free from such entanglements, and require no such 
 (cautions against misapprehension. AVhy should it be considered 
 beneath the dignity of so great a Teacher to seize the occasion for 
 
150 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n. 
 
 reproving- the vice of self-esteem and eulogising the opposite virtue, 
 even were that his only object ? Ti'ue, Luke calls the discourse ' a 
 parable,' but it was spoken not of set purpose, as a simile deliberately 
 chosen to illustrate the kingdom of heaven, like many other parables, 
 but casually, on witnessing the behaviour of some of the guests, to 
 whom it conveyed a necessary lesson of good manners and right 
 feeling. Jesus did, however, see fit to deduce from the parable a 
 particular conclusion, and to the application which he himself has 
 made we shall do well to restrict ourselves. The inference he drew 
 
 14 Luke 11 stands out clearly. ' For every one that exalteth himself shall l)e 
 humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.' Youug, 
 by putting the present tense in a different form, indicates a habit of 
 mind and action : ' For every one who is exalting himself shall be 
 humbled, and he who is humbling himself shall be exalted.' The 
 human aspect in the parable is most prominent. The guests are 
 fellow-men, and the placing of each is in accordance with his 
 recognised social status. Nor is * he that bade thee and him ' 
 necessarily to be interpreted as representing God. Jesus avoids 
 giving any mark of distinction or superiority to the host. He is not 
 described as a king, nor is there anything to indicate that he was 
 superior in rank to any of the guests. AVe are simply led to con- 
 template society as it exists, each individual entitled to occupy a 
 certain position, the majority falling naturally into their appropi'iate 
 places, but some over-estimating their own importance, ambitious of 
 distinction, not caring whose may be the place they seize if only it 
 be within their reach and sufficiently conspicuous. That is an out- 
 rage which Society will not long endure. The imposter is detected, 
 and the man of real worth is welcomed. The shame of rejection may 
 be more personal than public, but the chorus of approval when true 
 merit is advanced to the front is loud and universal : ' then shalt 
 thou have glory in the presence of all.' Jesus traces to its som'ce the 
 law of degradation and elevation. The former springs from self- 
 exaltation, the latter from humility. At all times, and on every 
 side, we may see this law at work ; and as human society advances 
 towards the ideal of Christianity, the process of selection will become 
 more refined, accurate and discriminating, the Church will be jiurged 
 from the curse of selfish ambition, and through the docility whicli 
 
 .'. Cii. 26 becomes us as 'sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus,' we shall 
 pass onwards from our humble infancy to the perfection of his glorious 
 manhood. ' For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, 
 and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.' The law is universal : 
 'every one.' 
 
 Jesus addressed to his host a few words of friendly counsel, con- 
 ceived in the highest spirit of charity. Such entertainments as he 
 was accustomed to give were not, as was evident on this occasion, 
 without their drawbacks. A desire for precedence was observable 
 among the guests, with respect to which it might be necessary for 
 the host to interfere. AVhy should he not, for once at least, resolve 
 to change his company ? Instead of inviting a distinguished assembly, 
 let him throw open his doors and extend his hospitality to the poorest 
 and most miserable. As it was, there was a constant round of visit- 
 ing and feasting, every man of high position deeming it a dutyto 
 return the invitation. No benefit Avas conferred, no sentiment of 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 151 
 
 gnititude evoked : tlie liost to-day became tlie guest to-morrow. 
 There was no sco))e in that ceaseless pursuit of mutual pleasure for 
 the blessing which attaches to pure, uuseltish benevolence. Some- 
 thing better ought to be attempted. 'And he said to him also that )4LukciL' 
 had bidden him, When thou makest a diinier or a supper, call not 
 thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbours ; 
 less haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.' 
 But setting aside conventionalities, let him issue invitations to a class 
 with whom he had hitherto contracted no friendships, among whom 
 he had no relatives, and who could boast of nothing in the shape of 
 wealth or social status. Let him welcome the poor, and those of 
 them especially who through accident or infirmity were unable to helj) 
 or raise themseh'cs, as others might, ' But when thou makest a feast, '- 
 
 bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.' Such a social inno- 
 vation, however it might be criticised, would have a happy effect 
 upon himself: 'and thou shalt be blessed (happy — Young).' The h 
 
 very impossibility of any return being made to him would constitute 
 the charm and sweetness of his hospitality: ' because they have not „ u 
 iL'herewHk to recompense thee.' Not here, l)ut in the next life, when 
 the distinctions between mankind will be reduced to the one point of 
 character, two classes only being recognised, the just and the unjust, 
 his neighbourly and compassionate liberality would l)e reciprocated. 
 ^ For thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just.' ., i4 
 Sharpe uses the words ' repayment, repaid,' instead of 'recompense, 
 recompensed ' ; and certainly a repayment in kind seems to be in- 
 tended. We have here a hint or two with respect to the arrange- 
 ment of society in the future life : the poor in this world may become 
 rich in tlie next, and the remembrance of past kindnesses will survive 
 the shock of death and flight of time. Jesus holds out to ' the just ' 
 a pleasant prospect of life in the world to come. Alford's note on 
 the words, ' the resurrection of the just,' is as follows : ' The first 
 resurrection, here distinctly asserted by our Lord ; otherwise the 
 words of the just wonld be vapid and unmeaning. See 1 Cor. xv. i'2 ; 
 1 Thess. iv. 16 ; Rev. xx. 4, 5.' This blending together of Scriptural 
 passages with the view of establishing a doctrine not clearly revealed 
 in any one of them, is a practice which needs cautious watching, and is 
 always open to suspicion, so much depending upon the tone of the com- 
 mentator's mind and on the ease with which a word or form of speech 
 in the original maybe misapprehended and unintentionally perverted. 
 The apostle Paul touched on this matter : ' Having hope towards -.m Acts ir, 
 God, which these also themselves look for (or, accept), that there 
 shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust.' From this it is 
 evident that it was a settled article of belief among the orthodox 
 Jews that there would be a universal resurrection, and in connection 
 therewith a division of mankind into two classes, the just and the 
 unjust. Alford's argument that the mention of the resurrection of the 
 just indicates that there will not only be a distinction into two 
 classes, but a separation in point of time in the resurrection of the 
 two, is scarcely consistent with the idea conveyed by Paul's expres- 
 sion, ' a resurrectiou of the just and of the unjust : ' he speaks not of 
 two resurrections, but of one. Let ns examine the passages alluded 
 to. ' But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits i j i. Cor. -m- 
 of them that are asleep. For since by man came death, by man came ''^ 
 
152 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 also the rcsniTection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in 
 Christ (Gr. the Christ) shall all be made alive. But each in his own 
 order : Christ the firstfruits ; then they are Christ's, at his coming 
 (Gr. presence).' Observe : it is not said that Christ was raised from 
 death, but ' from the dead.' It is important to bear the distinction 
 in mind. The German version shows ' the dead ' as a plural substan- 
 tive, equivalent to ' dead persons ' : ' auferstauden von den Todten,' 
 ' risen up from those who are dead.' Dead persons had been raised 
 before Christ died, as is evident from the appearing of Moses and 
 Elijah, and by the argument of Jesus that the mention of Abraham, 
 
 ■20 Lnko :•.: Isaac and Jacob, living after death, was proof that ' the dead are 
 raised.' Obviously, the sense in which the apostle alludes to Christ 
 as ' the firstfruits of them that are asleep,' is that of the presentation 
 of the firstfruits to God under the Mosaic law. Jesus has gone, first 
 
 7 Acts :,(; and foremost of mankind, to the divine presence, ' the Son of man 
 standing on the right hand of God.' Pursuing that idea, the apostle, 
 having spoken of ' the dead,' not as extinct but as ' them that are 
 asleep,' tells how all in Christ shall be 'made alive,' quickened into 
 
 ■i Col. 3 active vitality ; as elsewhere : 'Your life is hid with Christ in God.' 
 Then he adds : ' But each in his own order (rank — Englishman's 
 Greek New Testament) ' ; not each of the two classes, but each 
 individual. And that this means an order in rank or place, not in 
 time, is evident from what follows : ' Christ the firstfruits,' the fore- 
 most, honoured, accepted representative of humanity : 'then they that 
 are Christ's at his presence.' All this has no bearing on the question 
 
 4i. Thess. of two resurrectious. Take the next passage: 'We that are alive, 
 1^'^^" that ai'e left unto the coming (Gr. presence) of the Lord, shall in no 
 wase precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord himself shall 
 descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, 
 and with the trump of God : and the dead in Christ shall rise first : 
 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together wdth them be 
 caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we 
 ever be with the Lord.' The apostle begins by asserting that the 
 living will have no precedence over the dead. He represents the 
 arrival of a moment of crisis and culmination, Jesus descending 
 fi'om heaven, as the great Captain of our salvation, a shout oi' 
 triumph raised, a word of command uttered by a 'chief messenger^ 
 (Young), and God's trumpet sounded as a signal understood, expected 
 and to be obeyed. The language is highly figurative. ' The dead in 
 Christ shall rise first.' Whence? We know not. Whither? *Te> 
 meet the Lord in the air,' the living also being 'caught away in 
 clouds ' (Young). That is the rising, or uprising, here spoken of. 
 Those ' asleep ' are not described as raised from death at that instant, 
 for in the previous verse it is said that Jesus will bring them with 
 him, so that they in fact will rise first to meet him, taking precedence 
 of the living. The rising ' first ' has no reference to the idea of two 
 resurrections, that of the just j^rior to that of the unjust. 
 
 The last passage to which Dean Alford referred is one of deepest 
 
 L'o iiov. 4-c mystery. ' And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judge- 
 ment was given unto them : and / saw the souls of them that had 
 been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, 
 and such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received 
 not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand ; and they 
 
i'AUT ii.J J .STUDY or Tin: Foi'R ilOSi'ELS. LXJ 
 
 li\e(l ami reiii'ued with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the 
 (lead lived not until the thousand years should he finished. This is 
 t he first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the 
 hrst resurrection: over these the second death hath no power (or, 
 authority) ; but they shall be priests ol' (Jod and of Christ, and shall 
 I'eigu with him a thousand years.' One is soon lost and bewildered 
 in wanderiufi- through the marvellous symbolism and imagery of the 
 Book of the llevelation. Probably this passage is the origin of the idea 
 that the resurrection to life of all mankind will be deferred to some 
 remote period : that all of a certain character will be raised first ; and 
 jiftcr a further period all the rest of mankind ; and as tlie ex])ression 
 • a resurrection of the just and of the unjust ' happens to fit in with 
 tliis conclusion, it has been assumed that the passages may be taken 
 together, as embodying the same doctrine. Nothing of the kind can 
 be inferred safely, to say the least. ' Thrones, and they sat upon 
 rhem " : who are ' they ' ? Again : ' The souls of them that had l)een 
 heheaded . . . and such as worshipped not the beast.' To apply a 
 l»a«sage thus hedged round with restrictions, doubts and uncertainty, 
 to the destiny of the human race in general, is most unwise. Looking 
 to the context, the expression ' the rest of the dead lived not,' appa- 
 rently refers back to the last verse of the preceding chapter : ' the w Rev. 21 
 i-est were killed with the sword of him that sat upon the horse,' that 
 is. ' them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that " -" 
 worshii)ped his image.' The events thus darkly foretold in con- 
 nection with the millennium, can have no bearing on any doctrine 
 touching the ultimate fate of the innumerable generations of 
 mankind. 
 
 The idea broached by Jesus of the possibility of a return being 
 made in the next world for kindness shown in this, was taken up by 
 one of the guests, who ventured to address to him an obser\'ation 
 naturally suggested by the subject. 'And when one of them that ^-n-uice 15 
 sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed 
 is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.' We are so accus- 
 tomed to restrict the term ' blessed ' to the divine blessing, that 
 Y(jnng's constant rendering of the word as ' happy ' is preferabl(;. 
 The happiness alluded to is not that of the future, but of the present : 
 it is not ' happy shall he be,' but literally, " happy he that shall eat,' 
 denoting a condition of mind and being which can afford to overlook 
 the present, be it joyous or grievous, in the assurance of the future. 
 But Jesus at once started a parable which plainly intimated that the 
 generality of men did not so i)rize the heavenly banquet, but were 
 immersed in other and nearer ambitions and enjoyments. ' But he „ K' 
 said unto him, A certain man made a great supper ; and he bade 
 many.' Those invited showed, however, so little inclination to 
 attend, that when the time arrived he sent his servant round to the 
 guests to urge their coming, everything being now in readiness for 
 their reception. 'And he sent forth his servant (Gr. bondservant) „ ^r 
 at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come: for all things 
 are now ready.' Alford omits 'all,* and explains that it is 'omitted 
 by several ancient authorities.' It is not in the oldest ]MS. The 
 lievisers have retained the word, but have italicised it. The message- 
 bearer was dismissed with a series of excuses. One and all of those 
 invited offered an apology, more or less plausible, for his refusal. 
 
154 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 ' And they all ^vitli one consent began to make excuse.' The word 
 ' consent ' not being in the original, the expression must not be taken 
 to mean that a combined refusal had been previously resolved upon : 
 the passage is literally : ' And began with one to excuse themsehes 
 all.' The first explained, courteously, that he was on the point of 
 starting to inspect a field he had just purchased. ' The first said 
 unto him, I have bought a field, and I must needs go and see to it : 
 I pray thee have me excused,' Another was anxious to test the work- 
 ing of a fresh purchase of oxen, and therefore, with the same courteous 
 formality, refused the invitation. 'And another said, I have bought 
 five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them : I pray thee have me 
 excused.' Another gave as a reason, so obvious and insuperable as to 
 dispense with the need of any apology, the fact that he was bound to 
 be present at the festivities attendant upon his wedding. 'And 
 another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.' 
 On receiving the report of these evasive replies, the householder was 
 naturally moved with indignation. His supper Avas prepared, but the 
 guests were wanting. Still, there were many to be found who would 
 appreciate the banquet. So he desired his servant to hasten to the 
 city, and out of its streets and lanes to assemble the poor, and among 
 them those whose bodily infirmities had reduced them to utter help- 
 lessness and destitution. ' Then the master of the house being angry 
 said to his servant (Gr. bondservant), Go out quickly into the streets 
 and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor and maimed and 
 blind and lame.' Having done this, the servant reported that the 
 guests were still small in number compared with the extent of the 
 house and banquet. 'And the servant (Gr. bondservant) said. Lord, 
 what thou didst command is done, and yet there is room.' Then a 
 wider circuit must be made, country roads and byways searched, and 
 pressure must be put upon the wayfarers to accept the invitation, the 
 householder being determined to see his Iwuse filled with guests. 
 iM ' And the lord said unto the servant (Gr. boiKlservant), Go out into 
 the highways and hedges, and compel ihem to come in, that my house 
 may be filled.' To understand the bearing of the next sentence a 
 little consideration is required. ' For I say unto you, that none of 
 those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.' Why should 
 this have been said by the householder ? All expectation of those 
 first invited being present, had been relinquished. After it was 
 known that they would not come, it would be strange indeed for the 
 offended host to say that they .shoidd not come. And why should 
 this be said to the servant, who knew all the circumstances, and could 
 not possibly suppose that those originally selected would make au 
 effort now to claim admission ? But it is by no means clear, and 
 must not be assumed, that the householder addressed these words to 
 his servant. It is not, ' I say unto thee,' but ' I say unto jou.' 
 Alford observes : ' I think with Stier, that our Lord here speaks i/i 
 his oivn Person: nnto you will fit no circumstance in the parable ; for 
 the householder and his servant are alone : the guests are not present. 
 He speaks with his usual For T say unto ijou, to the company prese/it : 
 and half continuing the parable, half expanding it, substitutes Him- 
 self for the master of the feast, leaving it hardly doubtful who those 
 men which were hidden are.' This remark must be taken subject to 
 a slight but important difference of rendering introduced by Tischen- 
 
r.vKT II.] A ^TUDY OF THE FOUU GLhSFFLS. 155 
 
 (lovf ; instead of : ' none of those men which were hidden shall taste 
 of my supper,' he renders : 'none of those men who have heen called 
 will taste of my supper.' There is a s^-reat dillerence between shall 
 jind iri/l, whicii unfortunately is not brouoht out distinctly hy ordi- 
 nary grammatical construction, and this defect of lanu-uage is apt to 
 cause uncertainty and mistake. As translated by Tischendorf the 
 expression has a tone of regret, ' none . . . will taste,' none are willing 
 to taste, 'of my supper'; whereas 'none . . . shall taste' conveys the 
 idea of a threat and forlaiddal. No doubt the former is correct, the 
 latter incorrect. Jesus having finished his jiarable, reduced its appli- 
 cation to this one sentence. Pie was like the householder : his invi- 
 tation to the kingdom of God was not accepted by those whose social 
 position recjuired that they should be foremost, and his efforts were 
 therefore of necessity directed to the gaining of an influence over the 
 lower class, between whom and the rulers and Pharisees the gulf was 
 as wide as that between prosperous men of business and the poorest 
 of the poor. There is nothing to indicate that Jesns ever gained a 
 single professed convert or follower from the higher ranks of society. 
 The common peoi)le heard him gladly, but his enemies could exclaim 
 in triumph, 'Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or of therjoinus 
 Pharisees ? ' How true and sorrowful his saying : ' None of those 
 men who have been called will taste of my supper ! ' 
 
 While Jesus was thus despondent with respect to some, he deemed 
 it necessary to repress the hasty, inconsiderate ardour of others. 
 Large numbers not only heard him, but followed him, rendered by 
 Young, ' were going on with him.' Jesus turned round, faced the 
 crowd, and assured them that this keeping by him, watching him, 
 listening to him, did not and could not amount to discipleship. His 
 idea of a disciple was a man prepared to go to the very extreme of 
 •sacrifice and self renunciation. ' Now there went with him great u Luke 25, 
 multitudes, and he turned, and said unto them, If any man comcth '^'' 
 
 unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and 
 children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can- 
 not be my disciple.' The dedication of one's self to the cause of 
 Jesus would necessitate the snapping of every earthly tie, the 
 abandonment of all other duties and relationships, however close and 
 sacred, and the sacrifice of life itself. Even tliat strong language 
 Avas not enough, for Jesus added : ' Whosoever doth not bear his own u Luke -2: 
 cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.' We know that 
 Jesus anticipated, — for he foretold, — his own death by crucifixion. 
 His mention of across for his followers meant nothing less than that. 
 The sight, in those days of stern Roman justice, must have been a 
 common one, of a malefactor led out to death bearing his own cross. 
 That was the end to which Jesus would have his disciples look for- 
 ward ; and he desired those about him to weigh the matter well, to 
 count the cost fully, before committing themselves to his enterprise. 
 In his usual way, he illustrated the subject by a parable. In entering 
 upon any costly undertaking, it was wise and necessary to forecast 
 the extent of the probable requirements and resources. ' For which „ 2s 
 of you, desiring to build a tower, doth not first sit down and count 
 the cost, whether he have wlicrcwUJi, to complete it.' To leave the 
 work unfinished for want of funds, would be a folly so egregious as 
 to expose the builder to derision. 'Lest haply, when he hath laid ,, .29,30 
 
15G THE KlXa A A- If THE KINGDOM: [PAiii ii. 
 
 a foundation, and is not able to finish, all that behold begin to mock 
 him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.' 
 As though that simile were not strona' enough, Jesus put forward 
 another. He pictured a king compelled to face the stern arbitra- 
 ment of war ; and on very unequal terms, having at his command 
 only one half of the forces likely to be arrayed against him. The 
 certainty of utter ruin in the event of defeat, would impel to the 
 gravest and most careful counsel beforehand : the question would be 
 earnestly pondered whether the deficiency in numbers could be 
 counterbalanced by superiority in valour, skill, or otherwise. If not, 
 an ambassador would be forthwith despatched to arrange terms of 
 
 ;''i,^ peace. ' Or what king, as he goeth to encounter another king in war, 
 " will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten 
 thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand ? 
 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off", he seudeth an 
 ambassage, and asketh conditions of ])eace.' The question of fighting 
 or capitulating might depend, however, not upon the most probable 
 issue, but upon the spirit of the king and his people, if they were 
 prepared to face all risks rather than to submit to a hateful foreign 
 sway. Such were the difliculties to be faced and the problems to be 
 solved by those who contemplated discipleship to Jesus. They were 
 called to an undertaking which would swallow up the whole of their 
 fortune, to a war to be waged at heavy odds, which ga\e no hope of 
 victory, but must be fought out for the sake of Jesus and of conscience. 
 
 3n ' So therefore whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he 
 hath, he cannot be my disciple.' All this, we may be sure, was not 
 said without a serious and definite purpose. The disciples of Jesu& 
 were not mere investigators and adherents of a system of philosophy 
 or rehgion, but followers of himself, destined to go forth as he did on 
 the work of evangelisation. It was of the utmost importance to his 
 cause that it should not be undertaken by the Avavering and half- 
 hearted. He had warned his twelve apostles of the persecution which 
 would surely overtake thein, and he desired that none should join 
 them who were not animated by enthusiasm, ready to suffer the loss- 
 of all things, and even to lay down their lives for the truth's sake.. 
 So far was Jesus from inviting all to become his disciples, that he 
 repelled all who were not cast in the strongest mould, resolute men,, 
 intensely earnest, prepared to spend and be spent in his service. It 
 is important to recognise and emphasise this fact, for many readers 
 and expounders of the gospels are apt to assume that every saying of 
 Jesus is of universal application. It behoves us to study his words, 
 closely, carefully, exercising common sense and discrimination. 
 Those he sought to keep back from a profession of discipleship were 
 none the less able, on that account, to rejoice in the gospel he preached 
 and the truths he taught, to take him as their shepherd, their life- 
 giiide, their Saviour, laying hold of the promise of age-during life 
 through him. Jesus never called all men to relinquish everything 
 and to follow him. Still less does he do so now. High-flown, 
 exhortations to that effect, however much they may seem to accord 
 AVith his commands, are misplaced, misleading, irrational. A^'^e dO' 
 not, we will not, we cannot act upon them. The error of judgment 
 which leads to them cannot be too strongly deprecated, ibr it tend&- 
 to the wounding of weak consciences, and to the perpetuation of the? 
 
PAKT II.] J i>TUJ)Y OF THE iVUli GOHl'EL^. 157 
 
 jiornic'ious idea that obedience to Christ's precepts is beyond onr 
 reach. The great dread of desns was lest men should })r(jfess and 
 attempt too much, hastily and only nomiualiy enrolling' themselves 
 as his disciples, whom he had i)reviousiy designated as ' the salt of - Mat. i;; 
 the earth.' The simile was aptly chosen, the quantity of salt reqnircd 
 being out of all proportion to the enormous mass of food consumed. 
 So, the disciples of Jesus, few in number, destined to exert a wide- 
 spread influence, must be selected with the utmost care, the qualities 
 and character of each individual severely tested beforehand, in view 
 of the important trust committed to him and the severe strain and 
 trial to which he would be exposed. If these disciples wavered in 
 their career, foiled in their duty, there would be "none who could 
 supply their place. Jesus reverted to his former simile. ' Salt tliere- u i.uk.' -.w 
 fore is good : but if even the salt have lost its sa\'Our, wherewii:h 
 shall it be seasoned ? ' If they failed to retain unimpaired their 
 principles, their spirit of self-sacrifice, their unconquerable determina- 
 tion to suffer all things for Christ's sake, they would become utterly 
 •worthless to mankind, fit for no heavenly or earthly use, like salt 
 grown insipid, which could be turned to no advantage in any way. 
 •* It is fit neither for the land nor for the dunghill : men cast it out.' „ -.v, 
 Jesus deemed it so important that this should be fully understood, 
 that he urged every indi\idual present to hear his warning, that tliey 
 might act accordingly. ' He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' =. 3^ 
 
 At this time there Avas a large attendance of the lowest class of 
 the people at the discourses of Jesus. ' Now all the publicans and lo Luke i 
 sinners were drawing near unto him for to hear him,' The Pharisees 
 and the scribes were much scandalised at seeing him encourage 
 intimacy with the despised tax-gatherers and with persons of 
 notoriously evil lives. 'And both the Pharisees and the scribes ., 2 
 murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eaceth witii 
 them.' The Revisers and Tischendorf have introduced the word 
 ' both ' as the best reading. Those whose profession it was to 
 expound the JMosaic law, agreed in opinion with the strait-laced 
 Pharisees as to the unseemliness of the conduct of Jesus. Not 
 satisfied with simply preaching to the people, he consorted with 
 them. The expression, 'receiveth sinners, and eateth with them,' 
 indicates that Jesus received them as guests and sat at the table 
 with them ; and as it was their object to hear him, and his to talk to 
 them, doubtless the meal was made use of, as it had been by him in 
 the Pharisee's house, as an opportunity of addressing them. It was 
 the habit of Jesus to lead the conversation at such social gatherings, 
 and never was religious teaching presented under a more charming- 
 aspect. The sense of friendliness and nearness to the great Teacher, • 
 his affability, his -warm-heartedness, the simple, touching eloquence 
 and self-evident appropriateness of his parables, the rational, pleasure- 
 able excitement of the mind naturally connected with the taking of 
 meat and drink together, — all these were adjuncts to his influence, 
 bridging over the gulf which separated class from class, and liringing 
 home to the souls of the listeners the feeling of a common brother- 
 hood, and an impulse, a hope, a resolution towards self-amendment 
 and self-elevation. The scribes and Pharisees betrayed the pre- 
 judices and exclusiveness of the spirit of class and caste. Jesus 
 
158 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 refused to be bound by their rules of propriety. Their sanctimonious 
 punctiliousness and their love of precedence were obnoxious to him, 
 and he scrupled not, when occasion offered, to expose and reprove 
 them. He now repelled their ill-natured and offensive criticism, and 
 justified his own conduct, by delivering in their hearing- the following 
 
 15 Luke 3, 4 parables. ' And he spake unto them this parable, saying, What man 
 of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth 
 not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that 
 which is lost, until he find it ? ' Each sheep is equally precious in 
 the eyes of the shepherd, and the sense of responsibility impels him 
 to seek the erring one. He scruples not to leave his flock, safe in 
 their gregariousness, for a time ; and his seai'ch takes him to strange, 
 difficult, dangerous places, into which no shepherd would think of 
 leading his flock. And when he has found the lost sheep, he carries 
 „ "> it on his back exultingly. ' And Avhen he hath found it, he layeth it 
 on his shoulders, rejoicing.' The loss of one sheep out of a hundred 
 was not a thing to be borne with equanimity, and its recovery is 
 hailed with satisfaction. It is assumed that the fact of one of the 
 flock being missed was matter of notoriety, of consternation, of con- 
 dolence, so that when the shepherd returns, all his fellows are ready 
 to congratulate him, and he, in the joy of his heart, summons them 
 '■ '* to a feast, to signalise the happy issue. ' And when he cometh 
 home, he calletli together his friends and his neighbours, saying 
 unto them, Rejoice witli me, for I have found my sheep which was 
 lost; 
 
 The primary application of the parable was obvious. Jesus had 
 
 Mat. 36 ijeen going about among those who, to use his own words, ' were 
 distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a shepherd.' Among 
 that class his mission had been most successful, and the festive meal 
 at which his flock and disciples were present, and which gave such 
 umbrage to Pharisees and scribes, might be deemed his calling 
 ' together his friends and his neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice 
 with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.' 
 
 But Jesus gave to the parable a fuller, deeper meaning. His 
 conduct and labours, however much they might be criticised and 
 blamed, were in harmony with the spirit and practice of heavenly 
 Beings. Their interest was engaged and concentrated on the 
 reformation of society, and to them it was a matter of rejoicing when 
 one sinner was restored to the paths of virtue and safety. The evil 
 thereby prevented, the advance thereby gained, were more considered 
 than all previous attainments towards the perfecting of the social 
 state. The well-being of any and every individual is to be desired, 
 not only and entirely out of regard to his own personal happiness, 
 but because he is a living unit in the vast total of humanity. As 
 the spirit of philanthropy widens, there is developed an intense 
 interest in the moral state of the least, the lowest, the worst among 
 
 r. Luke 7 mankind. ' I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven 
 over one sinner that repenteth, morr than over ninety and nine 
 righteous persons, which need no repentance.' 
 „ 8 Jesus gave another illustration of the matter. ' Or what woman 
 
 having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a 
 lamp, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find it ? ' 
 The Revisers note that the Greek word used, dracltma, was a coin 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 150 
 
 worth al)onfc eight pence. The intrinsic- \iiUie of the h)st drachma, 
 as of tlie U)st shcej), was not great ; but stress is kiid up<m the fact 
 that the shepherd had but a hundred sheep and the woman only 
 ten draclimas. The iUustrations are chosen from humble hfe, tlie 
 object being to bring out in each case the vahie in the eyes of tlie 
 owner of that which was lost, without which there would have been 
 no earnest search for it. The woman is represented as extremely 
 anxious and energetic, ligliting the lamp, sweeping the whole house, 
 and carefully examining every nook and crevice, until the missing 
 coin is discovered. Again it is assumed that the fact of the loss, and 
 her trouble over it, had been made known to those about her, and 
 when her search has proved successful she is overjoyed, and calls her 
 women friends together to celebrate the happy finding. ' And when 15 Luket» 
 she hath found it, she calleth together her friends (female friends — ■ 
 Young) and neighbours, saying, Kejoice with me, for I have found 
 the piece which 1 had lost.' 
 
 All this might be taken as apposite to the occasion. Jesus had 
 been searching out among persons and in i)laces which the Pharisees 
 and scril)es scorned to visit. He had called together the waifs and 
 strays of humanity, whom he made his friends and neighbours, and 
 had celebrated the success of his mission by a friendly entertainment. 
 And his supercilious critics look on disdainfully, lifting up their 
 A'oices in pious amazement : ' This man receiveth sinners, and eateth 
 with them ! ' How mean, how low, how destitute of self-respect he 
 is ! Nay : but it was they who failed to realise the importance of the 
 work in which he was engaged. The sweet balm of social inter- 
 course never poured forth its fragrance more worthily than on 
 such an occasion as this, when repentant sinners yielded to truth and 
 righteousness, and sought the company of the Son of man, who had 
 come to seek and to save that Avhich was lost. Beings higher than 
 mankind w^ere watching this w^ork of Jesus, and rejoicing in its 
 results. ' Even so, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of ,. ii> 
 the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.' 
 
 Had this statement been uttered by an ordinary mortal, we might 
 receive it as an inspiration of faith, a sublime flight of poetical 
 imagination. But from the lips of Jesus it is much more than this. 
 The heavenly world, with all its mysteries, lay open to his gaze. No 
 other man could have presumed to teach the prayer ' Thy will be 
 done on earth as it is in heaven.'' Angels ministered to him on 
 earth ; a voice from heaven proclaimed his divine sonship ; Moses 
 and Elijah held converse with him on the mountain-top ; the 
 departed spirit of one dead and buried heard his voice at the tomb, 
 and came forth in the body at his call : he foresaw and foretold his 
 own death and resurrection ; angels sat watching by his grave, and 
 joyously proclaimed its emptiness, — ' He is not here ; for he is risen, 2^ Mat. g 
 e\en as he said : ' and when his mission to mankind had been fully 
 accomplished, his resurrection-body soared above the earth, became 
 enfolded in a cloud, and was seen no more, ' two men ... in white 10 Acts 1 
 apparel ' standing below to predict the return of ' this same Jesus 
 which is taken up from you into heaven.' He it is who tells us that 
 ' there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner 
 that repenteth.' The inhabitants of earth and heaven are linked 
 together by bonds of sympathy and mutual interest, none the less 
 
IGO THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 1 joiin oi real because to us invisible and incomprehensible. ' Hereafter ye shall 
 see heaven open, and the angels of Uod ascending and descending 
 upon the 8on of man.' 
 
 Surely these parables, thus viewed, are full of instruction and 
 interest ; yet theological commentators, not satisfied with their 
 primary, self-evident import, coupled with the momentous truth 
 which Jesus brought out in connection thercAvith, have set them- 
 selves to the task of allegorizing, amplifying, decorating the parables 
 with touches, glosses and fanciful interpretations of their own devis- 
 ing. Here is Alford's attempt in that direction : ' llie lost inece, of 
 inoneij. In the following wonderful parable, we have the next class 
 of sinners set before us, sought for and found by the power and work 
 of the vSpirit in the Church of Christ. It will be seen, as we proceed, 
 how perfectly this interpretation comes out, not as a fancy, but as 
 the vcrij Jcernel and sense of the parable.' What an assumption ! 
 lie takes it for granted that Jesus did not bring out 'the very kernel 
 and sense of the parable,' but that ' the interpretation comes out,' 
 that is, Dean Alford's interpretation. He assumes that each of the 
 things mentioned in the parable is itself a parable or simile : the 
 woman, the house, the coin, the lamp. But that there is room for 
 diiference of opinion as to their significance is evident from his first 
 remark: 'The iroman cannot be iJie CJiiurJi absolutel//, for the 
 Church herself is a lost sheep at first, sought and found by the 
 Shepherd.' Observe the expressions, ' absolutely,' and ' the Church 
 herself,' and the mention of ' a lost sheep ' in elucidating the parable 
 of a lost coin. This haziness of thought and diction is not a good 
 beginning of the exposition. Alford is ' rather ' of opinion that the 
 ' house ' is the Church, and therefore he considers that the ' woman ' 
 must be — but let us take his own words. ' Rather is the //OKse here 
 the Church — as will come out by and by ' (how it comes out by and 
 by is by no means clear), 'and the iromnn the indwdling SpirH 
 working in it.' That is very bold, the woman having ' friends and 
 neighbours,' who of course must be equal to her in rank and famihar 
 in intercourse. Next : ' All men belong to this Creator-Spirit ; all 
 have been stamped /n'fh the image of God.' This is an addition if not 
 an improvement to the parable, which referred to the coin but not to 
 its image and superscription. Not satisfied with that touch of his 
 own, Dean Alford adds another : the dust in the house, which some- 
 how was omitted to be mentioned, represents ' sin and death and 
 corruption.' These are his words : ' But the sinner lies in the dust 
 of sin and death and corruption — "wholly unconscious."' These 
 last two words constitute an additional touch of ornamentation : 
 this lack of vitality in the coin did not come to the front in the 
 parable itself. Alford puts those words in inverted commas, 
 probably because he took the idea from Bengel, whom he had before 
 quoted as follows : ' Bengel, in distinguishing the three, says, " The 
 sheep, the drachma, the prodigal son, — signify respectively, (1) the 
 stupid sinner, (2) the sinner wholly unconscious of the fact and of 
 himself, (B) the sinner conscious and of purpose." ' Ordinary 
 readers, without the guidance of theologians, could have no idea that 
 Jesus intended to describe three different classes of sinners. Alford 
 proceeds : ' Then the Spirit, lighting the candle of the Lord (Prov. xx. 
 27 ; Zeph. i. 12), searching every corner and sweeping every unseen 
 
I'AHT II.] ,4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 161 
 
 phxce, finds out tlie sinner ; restores him to his true vahic as made 
 for ( iod's glory.' Alford's choice of texts to support his argument is 
 ;i very strange one. That from Proverbs runs : ' The spirit of man 
 is the lamp of the Lord ; ' that from Zephaniah : ' And it shall 
 come to pass at that time, that I will search .Jerusalem with candles 
 ( Ifeb. liimps).' In no way do tliese quotations bear out or l)earupon 
 the assertion that the ' woman ' is to be taken as representing tlie 
 ' C'lvator-Spirit.' Jiut now Alford drags in ' tlie ('hurch,' not in the 
 high, Sci-ij)tural i^ense of 'assembly,' but in the low, common, 
 ritualistic sense of an ecclesiastical iiititution : 'This lighting and 
 sweeping are to be understood of tlie office of the Spirit in the 
 Ciiui-ch, in its various ways of seeking the sinner — by the preaching 
 of repentance, by the Word of God, read, &c. Then comes the 
 joy again.' So the lighting of the lamp and the sweeping, are sym- 
 bolical of the duties of the ministerial office ! What might the 
 woman's broom represent ? Why is not that introduced as an additional 
 metaphor, as the ' dust' was ? But now something is hvowjhl bi by 
 way of corroboration, simply on the ground that it is hft out of 
 the paral)le ! * Her (female) friends and her neighbours are invited — 
 but there is no return /tome now — nor in the explanation, ver. 10, is 
 there any i/i lu>aveii.'' Simpl}^ one would naturally think, because 
 the woman, being at home, could not be spoken or thought of as 
 returning home, because the parable did not admit or need the idea. 
 Not so, says Alford, but ' because the Spirit abides in tlie Church. — 
 because tlie angels are present in the Church, see 1 Cor. xi. 10.' That 
 is the passage which contains the puzzling words, 'because of the 
 angels.' Alford continues : 'nor is it shall be (as in ver. 7, at the 
 return of the Redeemer then future), but is — the ministering spirits 
 rejoice over every soul that is brought out of the dust of death into 
 God's treasure-house by the searching of the blessed Spirit.' Here is 
 a new parable, founded upon the original parable by introducing two 
 new metaphors, ' the dust of death ' and ' (Jod's treasure-house.' Not 
 l»y such additions and verbal trivialities as these can we grasp the 
 broad, o]ien lessons designed to be conveyed by the parables. They 
 were spoken not only to but for those who heard them, and who 
 c';uld have no conception of the elaborately wrought out and recon- 
 dite meanings which, in the course of centuries, have overgrown 
 them, marred their charm, force, freshness, and more or less distorted 
 rlie truths they were designed to illustrate. 
 
 It has seemed right and necessary to criticise thus fully and 
 unreservedly this tissue of exfjlanations and arguments, which may 
 serve as a specimen of the style of thought and method prevalent 
 amongst professed theologians. No one doubts the learning, the 
 honesty, tlie reverence, the earnestness, the good intentions of this 
 class of men. But we are all subject to the same laws and limits of 
 development, and none can rise above the level of the doctrine he 
 has been taught from childhood upwards, except by a long training 
 in the direction of unfettered, original, independent thought. It is 
 hard and rare indeed for those who have bound themselves solemnly 
 and unreservedly to the acceptance of authorised creeds and articles 
 of religion, to emancipate themselves from that thraldom. Every- 
 thing is against their doing so. At the best, they can but kick: 
 against the pricks in some things, and the opposition and persecution 
 
162 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 thence ensuing warn them and their fellows against fnrthev encroach- 
 ments in the same direction. The young clergTman begins his career 
 with a stock of inherited theological beliefs, which he no more thinks 
 of questioning and replacing by others, than he would of criticising 
 grammatical rules and framing a new language for himself and the 
 world. He preaches ' the truth ' as he has been taught it, and his 
 mind revolves continuously round the subjects with which he deals, 
 always in the same direction. The longer he preaches, the more does 
 this habit and mode of thought become to him as a second nature. 
 At first he was the obedient, humble recipient of dogmatic teaching ; 
 now he has become himself a teacher and ' defender of the faith.' So 
 long as the clergy are not left wholly free from the first to believe and 
 preach whatever their own minds and consciences dictate, so long will 
 their numbness of individual thought, their dumbness of enlarged 
 ideas, their narrowness of theological views, cling to them and mar 
 their influence. One who had escaped the trammels of ()rthodo>: 
 theology, and whose works are full of a spirit and wisdom rising high 
 above the common standard, J. E. Channing, said truly : ' The con- 
 sistency of great error with great virtue, is one of the lessons of 
 universal history. But error is not made harmless by such associa- 
 tions.' For that reason, it behoves us to be on our guard againsu 
 error, and to oppose it whenever and Avherever it may be found. The 
 responsibility of an author, dealing with the momentous subjects of 
 religion and morality, would be too overwhelming, apart from full and 
 free criticism. However honest and earnest our searchings after 
 truth, we are all liable to error, and sometimes the more erroneous a 
 doctrine, the more emphatic is its expression, and the more tenacious 
 one's hold of it. Thereby an evil influence has often proceeded from 
 the works of good and thoughtful men, who would be the first to re- 
 pudiate their wrong conclusions and fallacious arguments, in the light 
 of a more perfect knowledge and wisdom. Take, as an example, the 
 late Dean Alford, wdiose life was spent in intellectual toil, and who 
 sought in all he wrote to set forth and help forward what he believed 
 to be the true doctrine of Christ. Xot one jot or tittle of his wz'itings 
 can be modified now. May it not be, that in that world where we all 
 hope to find more light and truth, he will welcome as a friend any 
 man, be he who he may, who dealt boldly with whatever seemed 
 wrong in his books, howe\'er remorseless the exposure of their under- 
 lying fallacies ? How unwise, how antagonistic to truth and progress, 
 have been the efibrts made in past times to stereotype the theological 
 ideas of one generation with the object of imposing them on the 
 next ! And how faulty must have been the spirit in the Church 
 Avhich has bowed submissively to such a yoke during many succassive 
 generations ! 
 
 Jesus delivered a third parable, having an obvious bearing on the 
 ]i, subject illustrated by the two preceding ones. 'And he said, A cer- 
 ■^' tain man had two sons : and the yonnger of them said to his father. 
 Father, give me the portion of thy (Clr. the) substance that falleth to 
 me.' The word ' thy ' is introduced in italics by the Revisers, the 
 correct word, ' the,' being banished to the margin. Why should tliey 
 have gone out of their way to insert a wrong word by the side of the 
 right word ? The Authorised Version has neither ' the ' nor ' thy.' 
 
PART 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 163 
 
 Young and Tischcndorf use ' the,' the i-endering of the hitter being, 
 ' Father, give me the portion of the property that falls to me,' Alforcl 
 explains: 'Such a request as this is shewn by Orientalists to have 
 been known in the East, though not among the Jews. The firstborn 
 liad tii'o l/iirds of the property, see Deut. xxi. 17.' Young, ngreeing 
 with the Authorised Version, has italicised the words 'to me,' which 
 the Revisers have omitted to do. 
 
 The father api)ortioned the property as desired. 'And he divided lOLuke ij 
 unto theiu his living.' The Revisers have not italicised 'his,' which 
 was done in the Authorised Version. Young, following the original, 
 uses the definite article in i)lace of ' his.' Afford observes : ' The 
 father, as implied in the parable, reserves to himself the power 
 during his life over the portion of the firstborn, see ver, 31.' 
 
 The intention of the younger son was soon manifested. He realised 
 the property, and emigrated to a distant land. ' And not many days i- 
 
 after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into 
 a far country.' Xot co\'etousness, but extravagant self-indulgence M'as 
 his predominant vice. Removed from home influence and restraint, 
 he ' scattered his property ' (Tis;'hendorf ) recklessly and riotously : 
 • and there he wasted his substance with riotous living.' Ho far did .. i;i 
 he carry his excesses, that absolutely nothing remained to him. 
 Then there came a time of great scarcity and privation throughout 
 the land. ' And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine ., 14 
 in that country.' In pro})ortion to the scarcity of the necessaries of 
 life was the difficult}' of obtaining help or employment. A foreigner, 
 however willing to work, stood but a poor chance when all felt the 
 pressure of the times. The spendthrift found himself reduced to 
 a very low level : 'and he began to be in want.' In this strait he ,, i4 
 was forced to seek a refuge anywhere. He deliberately bound himself 
 to menial service in a foreign household. ' And he went and joined ., 15 
 himself to on*; of the citizens of that country.' A stranger and an 
 outcast, the lowest drudgery was imposed upon him: 'and he sent ,, v, 
 him into his field to feed swine.' What a repulsi'S'e (jccupation that, 
 for a man who had scorned to labour at home, and who, rather than 
 do so alu'oad, had lived in folly and idleness until his last coin was 
 epent. To Jewish ears, the very mention of his present occupation 
 would be abhorrent, swine being classed in tlieir law as unclean 
 animals. 80 ill paid was his labour, that he lived habitually in a 
 state of semi-starvation, and could have begrudged the swine the food 
 wath which he fed them, a full meal being now a luxury beyond his 
 reach. ' x\nd he would fain have been filled with the husks (Gr. the •. "' 
 pods of the carob tree) that the swine did eat.' Whether he stooped 
 to beg, may be in doubt ; but not a hand was stretched out to relieve 
 his wants : 'and no man gave unto him.' His life of enjoyment had ., i« 
 vanished like a dream : homeless, friendless, helpless now, he could 
 but look back upon his past career as a period of insanity, a chaos (A 
 self-delusion, vanity, neglected duties, lost opportunities, a fitful 
 dehrious fever which had run its course, aud left him weak, worn, 
 Aveary, but, thank God, sound in mind at last. He could realise now 
 the value of the home he had forsaken, and think once more of the 
 father he had neglected. The scenes familiar to him from childhood 
 rose up before him, — the laljours of the well-ordered household, all 
 the hired servaoits there rejoicing in plenty. ' But when he came to „ it 
 
 M 2 
 
164 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 himself he said. How many hived servants of my father's have bread 
 enough aud to spare.' And here was he, who might have been 
 1,-. Liikc i7 honoured as a master over them, on tlie verge of starvation : ' and I 
 perish here with hunger,' Reduced now to the last extremity, no 
 longer deaf to self-reproach, he resolves to take the course which had 
 been open to him from the first. His proud and obstinate self-will 
 has melted away in the fiery trial, his faults are patent to himself, 
 nor will he seek to hide them from others, or shrink even from open 
 
 „ Is acknowledgment. ' I will arise and go to my father, and will say 
 unto him. Father, I have sinned against heaven, aud in thy sight,*^ 
 He had fondly deemed himself above the common lot, and despised 
 the humdrum life of daily toil, had lived for to-day, forgetting the 
 morrow, for ])leasure, and not for duty, and now the retributiA'e 
 decree of divine Providence had scourged and avenged his folly. He 
 sees and owns it all, taking shame to himself for the unblushing- 
 effrontery with which he had pursued his mad career : he had been, 
 fighting against heaven, before his father's face I It rises up before 
 him now, reproachful, amazed, sorrowful, as when he first decided 
 upon his proudly independent course. He will own himself unworthy 
 
 ,. r.' of his parentage : ' I am no more worthy to be called thy son.' He 
 will crave only some place of servitude in the paternal home, wherein 
 to atone for the past, as far as may be, by docility and assiduity : 
 
 ,. i:< ' Make me as one of thy hired servants.' A long course of misery 
 had been needed to bring him to this resolution ; but once taken, 
 
 ,. -" there was no delay in executing it. ' Aad he arose, and came to his 
 father.' In how terrible a plight must he have been, as he neared his 
 journey's end ! And with what mingled feelings of hope, doubt, joy, 
 dread, must he have entered upon its last stage ! But while he was 
 still 'a great way off' (Authorised Version), '3'et far distant' (Young), 
 his coming was perceived. Along the road by which, if ever, he 
 must return, the father's eye was gazing, aud as, at last — at last, his 
 son's well remembered form appeared, the father's heart rushed fortli 
 to meet him. But as he drew near enough to be clearly recognized, 
 what a wreck, what a shadow, what a parody of his formei* self ! 
 Emaciated, footsore, travel-stained, a humbled spirit in an abject 
 form, — oh ! he must not be left thus one moment longer. The 
 father ran to meet him, his loving arms once more encircled the neck 
 of his erring child, and with a shower of kisses he welcomed his 
 
 „ -I' return. ' But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was 
 moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed 
 liim (Gr. kissed him much): kissed him tenderly' (Tischendorf).. 
 'J'hen, in that first burst of greeting, on the open road, the prodigal 
 
 '• -' made his humble confession. 'And the son said unto him. Father,. 
 I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight : I am no more 
 vrorthy to be called thy son.' The Revisers note : ' Some ancient 
 authorities add maJic me as one of thy hired servants.'' That is not in 
 the Authorised Yerson, nor is it adopted by Tischendorf, although it 
 stands in the two oldest M88, Either, at a very early date, it was 
 introduced from verse 19, or omitted from this verse. It is just such 
 an error as would be likely to arise in copying, and the balance of 
 probability is on the side of its accidental insertion, it being easy for 
 the eye of the copyist to fix on verse ID. No doubt transcribers were 
 chosen for their superior skill in writing, and it would be too much. 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 1«5 
 
 to assume that every one of the class was intelli<i-ent aud puncti- 
 liously honest. The detection of an error of this kind would depend 
 upon the way in which the original MS. w'as compared with the 
 copy. If the supervisor read out to the copyist, it was in the power 
 of the latter to omit calling attention to what he might consider 
 unimportant discrepancies ; and there would be a temptation in that 
 direction, because the accidental omission or insertion of several 
 words together miglit necessitate the re-writing of a sheet or more of 
 MS. We know how easily printers' errors crec]) in, despite every 
 precaution. The original 'proof is now destroyed, and the printed 
 book alone circailated ; but in those days the original MS. remained 
 extant, as well as tlie copies. These trifling variations among the 
 ancient A-ersions handed down to us are not to be wondered at. They 
 are certainly very numerous. The frequent alterations in the oldest 
 MSS., made ' by a later hand,' indicate that the existence of erroi'S 
 Avas recognised from the first, and the task of rectification under- 
 taken. That task must have been almost, if not quite, as difficult 
 then as it is now. 
 
 Whether or not the son actually made the request he had intended, 
 it was at once felt to be an impossibility that his lather should treat 
 him as a servant. On reaching home, the domestics were bidden 
 instantly to attend to all the wanderer's needs. The best robe was 
 selected for his wear, a jewel sjjarkled on his hand, and the weary 
 feet were fitted with shoes. ' But his father said to his servants i.j mke ■.>•-' 
 (ih'. bondservants). Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on 
 him ; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.' What a 
 transformation ! AVhat a blessed change from squalor and degrada- 
 tion to luxury, refinement, and deferential service ! The father's 
 heart overflowed with joy. He must needs arrange a feast to cele- 
 brate his son's return. The stalled calf was ordered to be killed, and 
 preparations made for a merry banquet. ' And bring the fatted calf, •' ■-•"' 
 and kill it, and let us eat, and mr.ke merry.' No greater cause could 
 there be for grateful rejoicing : his son had risen up suddenly, unex- 
 pectedly, as one from tlie dead, or like a straying child found after 
 long and anxious search. ' For this my son was dead, and is alive •• -^ 
 again ; he was lost and is found.' A joyous feast indeed it was : 
 ^ And they began to be merry.' " -^ 
 
 What could the i^harisees and scribes say now against Jesus ? 
 What reproach was it to him that he had feasted with sinners, even 
 as this father with his returned prodigal ? But Jesus enlarged his 
 parable, picturing therein the evil spirit and temper which these 
 cavillers had displayed. 
 
 The elder son as yet knew nothing of his brother's return, and 
 when he came to hear the news it was with undisguised feelings of 
 envy and ill-will. He was away at the time, about the farm, engagetl 
 in his routine of duty. As he drew near to the house, what was his 
 astonishment to hear sounds of revelry, music playing and dancing 
 going on ! What craze was this which liad come over his old father, 
 — to make a feast, and say nothing about it to him ? ' Now his " -^' 
 elder son was in the field : and as he came and drew nigh to the 
 house, he heard music and dancing.' Unable to divine the mystery, 
 he called one of the servants, and asked what it all meant ? 'And •: ^i- 
 he called to him one of the servants (Gr. bondservants), and inquired 
 
IGG THE KING AND THE KINCWOM: [part ii. 
 
 what these things might be.' Then he learnt the news, over which 
 la Luke I'T natural aifection should have prompted him to rejoice. ' And he 
 said unto him, Thy brother is come ; and thy father hath killed the 
 fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.' The elder 
 thought more about himself at that moment, than about his younger 
 brother. A wave of ill-will and jealousy swept o^'er his soul. His 
 dignity was hurt ; his egotism, pride, self-conceit, perverted his 
 judgment, and quenched alike filial respect and brotherly love. In 
 sullen anger, he refused to give a welcome to his brother, to share in 
 
 „ :.'s the festivities, or even to enter the house. ' But he was angry, and 
 would not go in.' Thus, in the midst of joy, came a sudden, sharp 
 trial to the father's heart. It was a sad presage for the future ; it 
 would be a terrible thing for him and them, if these brothers should 
 not shake hands now, should refuse to bury in oblivion faults and 
 animosities, and so mar the peace of the home for ever. All his 
 
 „ -js influence must be exerted to reconcile these two : ' and his fother 
 came out, and intreated him.' But the hot-headed son began to 
 complain equally of his father and his brother. He was mightily 
 offended at the slight which had been put upon him. He considered 
 that he had been treated with gross injustice. He had lived for many 
 years a laborious and blameless life, but never once had the father 
 ■!>.< proposed a feast for him and friends of his. ' But he answered and 
 said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, and I never 
 transgressed a commandment of thine : and yet thou never gavest me 
 a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.' But the instant 
 this spendthrift and debauchee returns, a sumptuous entertainment is 
 prepared in honour of the event, no prior notice being sent to the 
 
 „ ao elder son, and no heed given to his absence. ' But when this thy 
 son came, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou killedst 
 for him the fatted calf.' The fathei-'s answer was grave, passionless,, 
 argumentative. There was no thought of putting a slight upon the 
 elder son, who had spent his life by his lather's side, and was now 
 heir to all his property. And it was very natural that there should 
 be this outburst of rejoicing on the sudden arri\al of him who had 
 
 „ 31, :j2 been as one dead and lost to them for many years. ' And he said 
 unto him, Son (Gr. childj, thou art ever with me, and all that is mine 
 is thine. But it was meet to make merry and be glad : for this thy 
 brother was dead, and is alive aijaiii; and tras lost, and is found.' 
 
 The parable was sketched with consummate tact and delicacy. 
 None could take offence at it : but how must the career of the 
 i:)rodigal have come home to some of those ' sinners ' whom Jesus had 
 not scrupled to receive and welcome ! And how accurately did the 
 ca]3tiousness and envy of the elder brother portray the spirit by which 
 the Pharisees and scribes were animated ! The first and foremost 
 application of the parable lies in that direction : but as e^-ery parable 
 is susceptible of a variety of interpretations, it is but natural that 
 commentators should differ widely from each other iu their attempts 
 at elucidation. Alford gives his own views, and combats those of 
 others. He says : '■A certain man, — our heavenly Father, the Creator 
 and Possessor' of all : not Christ, who ever represents himself as a 
 /Son. . . Tu'o sons, not, in any direct and primary sense of the 
 Parable, the Jews and the Gentiles,' and so on. All such interpreta- 
 tions are of men's own devising, excrescences to the pure and simple 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPFLS. 167 
 
 tcaehini;- of Jesus, ,u,l()sses, inventions, Avliich can only be profitable 
 when held in check wisely and reverently, and can scarcely iail to be 
 luirtlul wben pressed in the shape of doomatic theolo<i,y. How comes 
 it to be assumed that Jesus intended bis paral)k's to be taken as illus- 
 trations of truths or doctrines which he himself was not teaching at 
 their first delivery ? 
 
 The last three parables were spoken to the Pharisees and scribes ; i-Lukos 
 tbc one wbich follows was delivered to the disciples: 'And he said k; luk-c i 
 also unto the disciples ' . . It is important to note tbis distinction 
 whenever it occurs. The word 'disciple' si^'uifies a person who has 
 deliberately placed himself under the instruction and guidance of his 
 Teacher. Not all who attended the discourses of Jesus were disci]jles, 
 but only such as offered tliemselves to him and were accepted by him. 
 A\'e have seen how Jesus bade men count the cost before they took n i.uke 2: 
 upon themselves his discipline, and what trials he foretold for them. • 
 
 even to the loss of all thing.-;. 'Would it not at the time have been a 
 palpable absurdity to say that, nevertlieless, every one was called to 
 l)e his disciple ; that none who believed in him could refuse the title, 
 with its accompanying obligations ? Is it not equally absurd now to 
 assume that every Christian is, by simple baptism, either infant or 
 adult, enrolled as a disciple? John baptised whole multitudes, but 
 his ' disciples ' were alluded to as a body by themselves. It was the 
 very essence of discipleship that the disciple should be, for a time at 
 least, with his Teacher, should 'come after' him, 'follow' him, learn 
 and accept liis doctrines, and devote himself to his cause. AVe read 
 of no female disciples : the work of evangelisation was not suited for 
 them, nor they for it. Mention is made of only one woman, Tabitha, 
 under tliat designation, — the only instance in which the Oreek word 
 is in the feminine form, matlicfria, — and she had evidently devoted 
 herself entirely to a life apart from worldly interests : 'this woman Arts ?,« 
 was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did : ' her sphere of ,. :» 
 action was the making of garments foi' the poor. In the proper sense 
 of the word, only a living Teacher can have ' disciples,' who, after 
 their Master's death, raise up ' disciples ' of their own, AVe may 
 fondly deem ourselves disciples of Jesus, but in reality we have 
 dwindled down to a very different discipleship, and not one of us in 
 a million dreams of attempting to carry out every commandment 
 which Jesus laid upon his disciples. Nor is it incumbent upon us to 
 do so. He would have all believe in him, but he chose, even while 
 he lived on earth, few to be his disciples. In the four (lospels the 
 word ' disciple,' y;?«///(?/?s, occurs 230 times. In every instance the 
 use of the term indicates a clear, sharp distinction between ' dis- 
 ciples ' and others. One passage only might seem, at first sight, of 
 somewhat doubtful meaning: when the Pharisees said, ' AVe are dis- lUnim 28 
 ciples of Moses ;' but no doubt they claimed the title exclusively, for 
 Jesus said of them, ' The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' -j:^ Mat. 2 
 seat : ' their lives were devoted to the promulgation and enforcement 
 of his law. The true sense of the word comes out in the passage : 
 ' Upon this many of his disciples went back, and avalkkd xo more c, ,i,,i,nGG 
 WITH HIM. Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, AVould ye also go 
 AWAY?' And again the statement that 'Jesus was making and 4 John 1 
 baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized 
 
ICS THE KING AXD THE KINGDOM: [paut ii. 
 
 not, but his disciples).' Jesus ccvtaiuiy did not baptize more persons 
 than John, but ' more disciples,' the disciples he had made already 
 oeing, it Avould seem, employed in administering baptism to those 
 who were anxious to join them. Accordingly we find that Jesus was 
 
 10 r.uke 1 able at one time to appoint ' seventy others,' whom he sent ' two and 
 two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was 
 about to come.' Subsequently to the Gospels the word ' disciple ' 
 occurs in the Xew Testament ;]() times. Let us examine those 
 
 r, Arts 1 passages. ' When the number of the disciples was multiplied .... 
 2 the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them.' It must 
 not be assumed that ' disciples ' here is synonymous with 'believers.' 
 The contrary appears to l)e the fact, for the question was as to whether 
 a certain work should be undertaken by the twelve or by other 
 disciples. Seven of the latter Avere appointed ' over this business,' 
 among whom was Stephen, whose life seems to have been entirely 
 devoted to the work of evangelisaticm, for we are told that he 
 ,. ' wrought great wonders and signs among the people,' and was 
 occupied in disputations, until he was brought to a pubh'c trial on 
 account of his preaching, and suffered for it the penalty of death. 
 ,. 7 ' The number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly : 
 and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.' 
 It is not said that the priests became disciples : they could not, 
 their lives being devoted to the performance of their priestly func- 
 tions. The title applied to those who were ' obedient to the faith,' 
 
 & Acts 14 although not ' disciples,' was ' believers.' * And believers were the 
 more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.' And 
 
 4 i. Tim. 12 Timothy was exhorted : ' Be thou an (yisample to them that believe.' 
 
 iMActsLio Again: 'Thou seest, brother, how many thousands (fir. myriads) 
 ., 2.j there are among the Jews of them which have believed.' 'As touch- 
 ing the Gentiles which have believed.' Those myriads of Jews and 
 Gentiles are not styled disciples : they constituted the churches or 
 assemblies, for whose formation and edification the multitude of 
 
 \:^ Acts 10 disciples was required. ' Why tempt ye God, that ye should put a 
 yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we 
 were able to bear ? ' Peter's argument was against compelling the 
 'disciples ' to teach the (i entiles that they must be circumcised : that 
 doctrine would have been a yoke on the teachers' necks. We read 
 
 Acts jii that Paul ' assayed to join himself to the disciples : and they were 
 all afi-aid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.' Obviously 
 Paul's object was to associate himself with the disciples in their 
 work : none would have been afraid at his simply professing his faith 
 1 in Christ. ' Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against 
 the disciples of the Lord,' that is, against those who were engaged 
 „ :i in the work of promulgating the hated doctrine. ' That if he found 
 any that were of the AVay, whether men or women, he might 
 bring them bound to Jerusalem.' To make sure of getting at the 
 disciples, he desired to bring every professed believer to Jerusalem for 
 examination. In short, all the passages lead to the same conclusion : 
 discipleship to Jesus, or to his doctrine, involves entire dedication to 
 his cause and work. 'Believers' generally should be content with 
 that humbler title ; and we should ever bear in mind that directions 
 given by Jesus specially to his 'disciples' are not to be deemed of 
 universal application. Misapprehension on this point has led to 
 
PAKTii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR (lOi^FELS. 109 
 
 much error. Findiii*^; that some of the cdininunds of Jesus are un- 
 suited for, and, in truth, ini]iossih!e of ,i:^eiicral adoption, and failing- 
 to understand tliat they were addressed to disciples, and not to 
 all believers, many thoughtful, earnest-minded men have looked 
 upon Christianity as a thing too hi<^-h for them ; whilst those who 
 profess to have devoted themselves to the work of Jesus, and who, as 
 jiis 'disciples,' teachers of his truth, devotees to his cause, should 
 liave taken u]) and carried out nil his maxims, have made no attempt 
 to do so, but have swum with the tide of ordinary humanity. The 
 evil takes two directions : the religion of Jesus is deemed by some an 
 ideal system, too lofty and refined for the grasp of (jommon men and 
 Avomcn ; and those who have made jjrofession of disci])leship, claim- 
 ing the rank and title of ministers and ambassadors of Christ, have 
 never even aimed at that ideal Avhich Jesus desired that his disciples 
 should exhibit to the world. We are here treading on difficult 
 ground : so much the more need is there for bold, free, careful, 
 honest thought and speech. Jesus did not call all men, but he did call 
 #;orae, to lead a life conformable to his ideal. Once, to a young man 
 whom he bad looked upon and loved, he said : ' If thou wouldest be lo -^1;"^ :;i 
 perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt 
 have treasure in heaven : and come, follow me.' It is open to 
 <luestion whether the doctrine of the cross is not preached both too 
 high and too low. The sheep and their shepherds cannot stand upon 
 the same level. The ' perfect ' life must be entirely consistent with 
 the precepts of Jesus, in the fulness of their breadth and depth. 
 ■Count Tolstoi has lately raised and grappled with this puzzling 
 question. He carries to its literal and logical extreme Christ's 
 tloctrine of non-resistance. Unfortunately he starts with a wrong 
 assumption, when he says : * 'In the Sermon on the j\Iount, ad- 
 dressed to all men, He (Jesus) says : " And if anybody sue thee at 
 the law for thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Therefore He 
 forbids our going to law.' But the sermon on the mount was not 
 ' addressed to all men,' but to the disciples: ' And seeing the multi- o Mat. •-> 
 tudes, he went up into the mountain : and wdien he had sat down, 
 his disciples came unto him : and he opened his mouth and taught 
 them.' Count Tolstoi continues : 'But jjcrhaps this applies only to 
 the relations between private individuals and public courts of law ; 
 yet Christ does not deny justice itself, and admits in Christian 
 societies the existence of persons chosen for the purpose of adminis- 
 tering justice. I see that this hypothesis is likewise inadmissible. 
 In His prayer Christ enjoins all men, without any exception, to 
 ibrgive, as they hope to be forgiven. We find the same precept 
 repeated many times. Each man must forgive his brother when he 
 prays, <md before bringing his gift. Then how can a man judge and 
 condemn another when, according to the faith he professes, he is 
 f)ound to forgive ? Thus I see that, according to the doctrine of 
 Christ, a judge who condemns his fellow-creature to death is no 
 Christian.' The argument and conclusion are pertinent, only Count 
 Tolstoi has overlooked the fact that the I^ord's prayer was for 
 disciples- Matthew gives it as part of the Sermon on the Mount, 
 
 * ""What I lielieve." Translated from tlie Kussian. Tage 26. Elliot Stock, 
 62, Paternoster liow. 
 
170 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [i'akt ii. 
 
 11 Lukpi and Luke iutroduces it as follows : 'And it came to pass, as he wns 
 praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples 
 said unto him, Lord, teach us to praj, even as John also taught his 
 disciples.' In dealing with this difficult question, it is important 
 not to start with a ftilse assumption. Nevertheless Tolstoi's book 
 
 Pa-er/' supplies much food for thought. He says: 'Each of us gives the 
 doctrine of Christ an interpretation of his own, but it is never the 
 direct and simple one which flows out of his words. We have 
 grounded the conduct of our lives on a principle which He rejects ; 
 and we do not choose to understand His teaching in its simple and 
 direct sense. Those who call themselves " believers " believe that 
 Cihrist-God, the second person of the Trinity, made Himself man 
 in order to set us an example how to live, and they strictly fulfil the 
 most complicated duties, such as preparing for the sacraments, build- 
 ing churches, sending out missionaries, naming pastors for parochial 
 administration, etc. : they ibrget only one trifling circumstance — to 
 „ 40 do as He tells them.' Again: 'Christ says that the law of resist- 
 ance by violence, which you have made the basis of your lives, is 
 unnatural and wrong ; and He gives us instead the law of non- 
 resistance, which, He tells us, can alone deliver us from evil. He 
 says : " You think to eradicate evil by your human laws of violence ; 
 they only increase it. During thousands and thousands of years you 
 have tried to annihilate evil by evil, and you have not annihilated it ; 
 you have but increased it. Follow the teaching I give you by word 
 and deed, and you will prove its practical power." Not only does 
 He speaks thus, but He remains true to His own doctrine not to 
 resist evil in His life and in His death. Believers take all this in 
 with their ears, hear it read in chui"ches, calling it the Word of God. 
 They call Him G od, and then they say, " His doctrine is sublime, 
 but the organization of our lives renders its observance impossible : it 
 would change the whole course of our lives, to which we are sO' 
 used and with which we are so satisfied. Therefore, we believe in 
 His doctrine, only as an ideal which man must strive after — an ideal 
 ^\■hich is to be obtained by prayer, by believing in the sacraments, 
 in redempton, and in the resurrection of the dead." ' 
 
 Everything which Jesus commanded his 'disciples,' they were 
 bound to obey. At the same time, counsels given to them may be- 
 followed, more or less, by others also. Of his disciples Jesus said :■ 
 
 iTjoiniir, 'They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.' 'I 
 
 ,. ii have given them thy word : and the world hated them, because they 
 
 are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.' The selection 
 
 of disciples out of the world did not imply the condemnation of other 
 
 H.T.im ir men, but the contrary : ' For God sent not the Son into the world to 
 judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him.'' 
 And his plan of saving men was through the disciples, to whom he 
 
 r. Mat. in. u said : ' Ye are the salt of the earth ... Ye are the hght of the 
 world.' The disciples of Jesus were as much out of, apart from the 
 world, as afterwards were anchorites of the desert, monks and nuns, 
 as much a class by themselves, only with very difl'erent duties laid 
 upon them than those of making iH'ayers, chanting hymns, readings- 
 of Scripture, and frequent communion, coupled with a woi'ship more 
 or less idolatrous of the sacramental bread and wine. All baptised 
 Christians arc no more ' disciples ' of Jesus, in the proper sense of the- 
 
I'AKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFFLS. 171 
 
 word, tlian they are monks or nuns. The note of Christian oblitja- 
 tion has been pitched too hi<i:h for ordinary men and women. The 
 ideal Jesus set before the world Avas a real and visible one : a l)ody 
 of men living- on earth accordini; to his own heavenly maxims. The 
 Church of En<>-hind has, instead of holding forth that reality, assumed 
 that all, without excejjtion, are called to lead the ideal life. Jesus 
 warned all not to profess discipleship who were not resolutely deter- 
 mined to take up his cross and follow him: but over every baptised 
 infant the minister utters the words : ' We receive this child into the 
 conoTcgation of Christ's flock:' that should have been enough, but 
 he must add : 'and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token 
 that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to fight under his banner, 
 against sin, the Avorld,and the devil ; and to continue Ciu'ist's faithful 
 soldier and servant xinto Itis life's end.' Brave words tliese : but 
 nothing more ! In how many cases must they be, if sober truth be 
 spoken, a solemn farce ! The child, perchance, grows up in the slums, 
 picks up the language of the gutter ; until the last few years it might 
 have been left without the merest rudimentary intellectual teaching ; 
 even at the best, it will lead only an average, common-place life, 
 labouring perforce for the meat which perisheth, caring and knowing 
 nothing about Christ's cross, or any soldiership under his banner. 
 And most of us, except the comparatively few who come within the 
 charmed circle of sacerdotal influence, make but feeble attempts and 
 faint profession of active service in the cause of Jesus. It cannot be 
 right to apply indiscriminately, to every infant, words of momentous 
 import such as would suit the consecration of a Bishop. Precisely 
 the opposite plan was adopted by Jesus. Not only did he restrict the 
 call to discipleship, but he was ever careful not to impose on the 
 nudtitudes any doctrines which might be above their capacities. He 
 spoke constantly to them in similes. 'With many such parables 4 Mark 0:3, 34 
 spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it : and with- 
 out a parable spake he not unto them : but privately to his own dis- 
 ciples he expounded all things.' And when the disciples asked the 
 reason for his reticence towards others, he explained that it was not 
 given to the multitudes to comprehend the mysteries of the kingdom 
 of heaven, their vision, hearing, and understanding being imperfect. 
 'And the disciples came, and said unto him, AVhy speakest thou unto 1:3 yi-.a. 10. 
 them in parables ? And he answered and said unto them, Unto you ''■ '■* 
 
 it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to 
 them it is not given , . Thei-efore speak I to them in parables ; 
 because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do 
 they understand.' Why should we be afraid of a principle thus 
 sanctioned by Jesus ? If discipleship, involving implicit, unreserved 
 obedience, was not laid l)y him upon all who heard hiuj preach the 
 gospel, how much less can such an obligation be insisted on univer- 
 sally now ? AYe profess too much ; and having done so, we minimise 
 and explain away certain plain directions of Jesus, the simple truth 
 being that they are too high for us, that we do not choose to adopt 
 them. It were better to say so boldly : to confess ourselves ' believers ' 
 l)ut not 'disciples.' ' Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever :. :iiai. :;!>. 40 
 smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if 
 any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him 
 have thv cloke also.' Did the apostle Paul hold it obligatory upon 
 
172 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 all believers to assert no right b}' legal means ? No : on the con- 
 trary, he urged that the 'assembly' itself should constitute a legal 
 tribunal, to whose decisions believers should bow, rather than resort 
 
 i.o.r. 1 to adjudication by the ' unrighteous.' ' Dare any of you, having a 
 
 matter against his neighbour, go to law before the unrighteous, and 
 
 ■2 not before the saints ? . . Are ye unworthy to judge the smallest 
 
 „ .j matters ? , . Is it so, that there cannot he found among you one wise 
 man, who shall be able to decide between his brethren, but brother 
 goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers ? ' That sug- 
 gestion of the a])ostle was in conformity with the plan laid down by 
 Jesus for the submission of all trespasses and faults to the judgment 
 of the assembly. But Paul urged at the same time that there was a 
 higher standard lost sight of by them in thus resorting to lawsuits in 
 
 »: 7 any shape. ' Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you (or, a loss 
 to you), that ye have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather 
 take wrong ? why not rather be defrauded ? ' That would be a fol- 
 lowing out of Christ's counsel of perlectiou, thereby making them- 
 selves in that respect his disciples indeed. What shall be said then 
 about war and bloodshed ? Is not the profession of a soldier diame- 
 trically opposed to the teaching of Jesus ? John did not refuse 
 baptism to soldiers on service, but surely they could ne'S'er l)e called 
 his 'disciples,' much less 'disciples' of Jesus. And yet we read of 
 
 A'ls -2 Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian cohort, ' a devout man, and one 
 that feared Cod with all his house, who gave much alms to the 
 peojjle, and prayed to (!od alway.' He was assured by an angel of 
 the approval of Cod, and was baptised into the faith of Jesus: yet 
 without relinquishing his trade of arms, he could never presume to 
 call himself a ' disciple ' of Jesus, being simply a believer in him, 
 saved indeed through him, but not wholly conformed to his life and 
 doctrine, a servant still of the Iloman Emperor, and not of him who 
 
 Milt. ry2 said, ' Put up again thy sword into its place : for all they that take 
 the sword shall perish with the sword.' In modern phraseology, we 
 might say he was a Christian although not a disciple ; but we I'cad 
 
 Arts Hi that ' the Dif^ciPLES were called Christians first in Antioch,' doubtless 
 from their strict adherence to the tenets of Jesus, which marked them 
 out as his followers, their new principles of action and mode of life 
 giving rise to a new title. Count Tolstoi does not use the term 
 ' Christians ' in its primitive sense ; but if it be restricted to * dis- 
 ciples,' his argument is logical, and his conclusions, however startling, 
 beyond dispute. 
 
 The parable which Jesus delivered to his disciples is as follows, — 
 i.nko 1 ' There was a certain rich man, which had a steward ; and the same 
 was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods.' The master 
 called his servant, challenged him to refute the accusation if he could, 
 decided that he was unfit to retain his office, and required him to 
 „ J make up his accounts. 'And he called him, and said unto him. What 
 is this that I hear of thee ? render the account of thy stewardshij) ; 
 for thou canst be no longer steward.' The loss of his office gave 
 occasion for serious reflection : not by way of self-accusation or regret 
 for any past misdoings, but as to the best method of ' feathering his 
 nest ' for the future. If not unfit, he was certainly indisposed for 
 manual labour, and he scorned the idea of asking loans or favours. 
 
VAKT II.] .4 HTUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 173 
 
 'And tlie steward said witliin himself, "What shall I do, seeing that "'i'"'^f''' 
 iny lord taketh away the stewardship from me ? I have not strength 
 to dig ; to beg I am ashamed.' The ' I cannot ' of the Anthorised 
 Yersion is replaced by ' I have not strength to ;' other translators do 
 not go so far: Young and Tischendorf have simply * I am not able,' 
 and Luther, 'graben mag ich nicht,' 'dig I may not.' Being in this 
 dilemma, he set his wits to work, and devised a sclieme which was as 
 clever and far-sighted as it was unprincipled and immoral. ' I am ., 4 
 resoh'ed what to do, that. \\ hen I am put out of the stewardship, 
 they may receive me into their houses.' lie could yet manage, at his 
 master's cost, to ingratiate himself with the tenants or debtors of the 
 estate. He knew human nature well enough to rely upon their 
 covetousness and self-interest, without nnicli risk of being foiled l)y 
 any conscientious scruples on their part. I>y virtue of his office he 
 would naturally have givat power over these men, for it rested with 
 him to drive a hard bargain or the reverse, to press for payment or 
 to do them a good turn. 'J'his latter Avas his cue now. 'And calling » •'» 
 to him each one of his lord's debtors, he said to the first, How much 
 owest thou unto my lord?' Not a pleasant question at any time, 
 and one likely to awaken anxiety if it were known that the steward 
 was about to close his accounts. 'And he said, A hundred measures ,, c 
 (Gr. baths) of oil.' Tischendorf renders, 'pipes of oil,' and Samuel 
 Sharpe inserts, ' (or seven hundred gallons).' It was a large quantity: 
 too much by half, said this generous steward. Here is your account ; 
 sit down at once, and alter it yourself by that amount. 'And he said » '• 
 unto him. Take thy bond ((Jr. writings), and sit down quickly and 
 write fifty.' It was all regular and legal enough to pass muster : the 
 steward was yet in office, authorised to act, master of the situation. 
 If he pronounced the sum excessive, and suggested the amendment 
 <tf the document, it was not for the debtor to say him nay. ' Then .- " 
 said he to another, And how much owest thou?' The word 'and' 
 before ' how ' sufficiently indicates either that all the debtors w'ere 
 assembled together, or at least that no concealment was attempted. 
 I^ach would hope to be treated as his neighbour had been, and thence- 
 forth they would have common cause to shield and justify each other, 
 and maintain, if questioned, the spontaneousuess and validity of the 
 transaction. The second w'as dealt with in the same liberal manner 
 as the first. 'And he said, A hundred measures ((ir. cors) of wheat. ,. ~ 
 He said unto him, Take thy bond (Gr. writings), and write fourscore.' 
 Young renders 'homers,' Tischendorf 'quarters;' Sharpe has, 'a 
 hundred Cors (or seven thousand gallons).' The value in each case 
 was considerable. Yet these were only two instances out of many. 
 Nothing was said to any one of the debtors about a division of the 
 spoil. As one after another fell into the trap laid l)y the wily steward, 
 liis power over each and all of them became so much the more. Each 
 knew himself to be implicated with others in a transaction which 
 would scarcely bear investigation, and which it would be best for all 
 to hush up for ever. He had made himself a friend, a benefactor to 
 every one of them. He could claim henceforth, as it suited him, some 
 I'cturn at their hands. He having freely given them so much capital, 
 might justly set up a claim to so much interest. He had put them 
 on the best terms with himself, and would take care to give them the 
 oj^portunity of reciprocating his good offices. Thenceforth they wculd 
 
174 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 undoubtedly, one and all, be willing- to receive him into their houses ; 
 he need not be a permanent guest anywhere, having free choice of all. 
 The plan, however unprincipled, was cleverly conceived and skil- 
 fully carried out. 80 large a deduction from the revenue of the 
 estate was necessarily detected, but the owner seems to have felt 
 himself helpless either to remedy or resent the loss, and is repre- 
 sented as simply expressing his admiration at the consummate auda- 
 city, ability and foresight of the steward. ' And his lord commended 
 the unrighteous steward (Gr. the steward of unrighteousness) because 
 he had done wisely.' There is no approval of the man's character, 
 which is sufficiently condemned by the title given him, ' the steward 
 of unrighteousness.' Dean Alford took upon himself to render 'the 
 lord ' by ' his lord,' and observed : ' The A. V. ought to have been 
 thus expressed, and not the lord, and there would have been no 
 ambiguity.' The Revisers have made the alteration : but Tischen- 
 dorf. Young and Luther, following the original, render ' the lord.' 
 Sharpe throughout the parable has ' the master,' which removes all 
 doubt. It is well to be clear on the point, although the next sentence 
 shows that Jesus himself endorsed the opinion of the master. 
 
 Commentators, as usual, have assumed the parable to contain 
 hidden meanings not brought out or indicated by Jesus. Accordingly 
 their interpretations are various and contradictory. Alford says : ' In 
 the interpretation, the rich man is i]ie Ahn.i<jhiy Possessor of all 
 iJiings. This is the only lenable view. Meyer, who supposes him to be 
 mammon (defending it by the consideration that dismissal from his 
 service is equivalent to heing received into everlasting habitations, 
 which it is not), is involved in inextricable difficulties further on, 
 Olshausen's view, that he represents the Devil, the p-ince of this world, 
 Avill be found equally untenable. Schleiermacher's, that the Romans 
 are intended, whose stewards the Publicans were, and that the 
 debtors are the Jews, hardly needs refuting : certainly not more 
 refuting than any consistent exposition will of itself furnish.' We 
 arc not here c(unpelled to choose between God and the Devil. Why 
 should expounders of the parables introduce such ideas, which are 
 but arbitrary guesses after all, and which keep out of view those 
 human lessons which Jesus sought to inculcate. This parable is of 
 so peculiar a character that we might well stand in doubt as to the 
 true interpretation, had not Jesus himself undertaken to guide us. 
 He drew seven lessons from the parable. 
 
 1. The wise and thrifty use of opportunities. 
 
 2. The use which his disciples should make of wealth. 
 
 o. The inseparable connection between character and conduct. 
 
 4. And between conduct and destiny. 
 
 5. And between responsibility and freedom. 
 
 (j. The need for singleness of mind and purpose. 
 
 7. The choice between discipleship and money-making. 
 
 (1). Here is the foremost lesson. 'For the sons of this world (or, 
 age) are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.' 
 Those whose aims and hopes are bounded by the present life, display 
 greater prudence in regard to their future welfare than do those who 
 are enlightened by higher principles and are called to a nobler 
 destiny. Instead of simply drifting on towards futurity, bewailing 
 what is past and dreading what is to come, it behoves us to take 
 
PART II.] .4 STUDY OF THE FOUR OOSFFLS. 17o 
 
 nc(!onnt of what is left to us of life and eiierp;y, iiiifcicipating tlie fast 
 approaching day when our present stewardship must be resigned, and 
 a new stage of l)eing entered upon. 
 
 (2). Jesus urged his disciples to anticipate and prepare for that, 
 by rightly using" the wealth of this Avorld. 'And I say unto you, k- i-uUo n 
 .Make to yourselves friends by means of (Or. out of) the mammon of 
 unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into 
 the eternal tabernacles.' Tischendorf renders ' mammon of un- 
 righteousness ' as 'mammon of injustice.' Wealth is so unevenly 
 and unfairly apportioned among niju as to justify the appropriate- 
 ness of this title. The Authorised Version has 'when ye fail,' 
 which is changed by the Revisers and Tischendorf to ' when it shall 
 fail.' The Alexandrine IMS. stood so from the first, and it is the 
 altered reading of the Vatican jM8. Young renders ' eternal ' as 
 ' age-during.' 
 
 This application of the parable is very direct and peculiar. Drop- 
 ping all thought of the want of honest principle on the part of the 
 steward, Jesus held up as an example his friendly and munificent 
 spirit. And inasmuch as all must deal with money, the ' unrighteous 
 mammon ' which has no connection with moral rectitude, he coun- 
 selled his disciples to turn it social uses, cementing thereby the bonds 
 of mutual friendship. And as the views of the steward reached 
 beyond his term of office, so must their views reach beyond the 
 present life. As his emoluments were bound to cease, so must their 
 hold on earthly possessions ; and as his object was to provide for 
 himself a home for the future among friends, so they sliould look 
 forward to a welcome, by those who have been made friends here, 
 into a far more enduring home. The expression ' age-during taber- 
 nacles ' sufficiently indicates the unworldliness of the exhortation. 
 Jesus brings out the fact of a continuity of existence, the friendships 
 formed in this life being perpetuated in the next. His words imply, 
 moreover, a condition of existence analogous to the present, under 
 the same necessities for mutual help and comfort, the lot of each 
 individual there as dependent as it is here on the dispositions and 
 actions of his fellows. Our relative positions may be reversed, but 
 the grand law of retribution will continue to work through human 
 instrumentality. Jesus does not say, Give, and (lod will recompense 
 you ; but, Make to yourselves friends l)y giving, and they will repay 
 you. This parable will not bear close pressing — To attempt that, 
 eads to its distortion in one direction or another. All thought of 
 the rascality of the steward has to be dropped : there is nothing 
 imitable in that. His purely selfish motive must not be ours ; and 
 yet it is true that as we sow in social matters, so we shall reap. 
 Neither can it be imagined that benefactors must survive the friends 
 they have made, and who will of necessity have gone before and be 
 in a position to offer helpful ministrations ; nor is to be assumed 
 that the poor in this workl will be transformed into the rich of the 
 next : nor that those whose motives and lives have been highest on 
 earth will hereafter need the help of those they befriended. Nor 
 must the fact be overlooked that the parable was spoken to 'disciples,' 
 Avhuse choice of following Jesus involved the relinquishment of 
 worldly affairs, hopes, position, — to the ' little flock ' who from the 
 first had been exhorted, ' Sell that ye have, and give alms ; make for 12 Luke 33 
 
176 THE KIAG AND TEE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 yourselves purses which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that 
 "faileth not. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.' 
 To apply such directions to all alike would be absurd : Christian 
 society cannot be founded on the basis of all giving up everything, 
 and Jesus never propounded so monstrous and mischievous a 
 doctrine. If maxims intended for comparatively few are sought to 
 be made of universal application, the only result must be, as it has 
 been, to fritter away the sense of the wise aud necessary counsels 
 given by Jesus to his disciples, and to perpetuate the false notion 
 that none can comply literally and fully with his commands. He 
 never laid upon all men's shoulders the burden of discipleship ; 
 and we wrong his spirit and pervert his words by mistaking the 
 former and explaining away the latter. It behoves every Christian 
 to act up to his profession. If he professes himself a disciple, let 
 him truly and completely carry out every instruction given to dis- 
 ciples; and let the sober, solemn truth bo recognised, that a 'minister' 
 of Christ and a ' disciple ' of Christ are synonymous terms. As it 
 is, in this matter of the giving away of property, we seem to think 
 that the man who gives, not all but most, comes nearest to the ideal 
 of a Christian. Such a conception is mean and paltry. If a man 
 gave up all he had, but not himself to the work of evangelisation, he 
 AYOuld still be no 'disciple.' Aye ! and the thought is worth our 
 pondering, whether any ' disciple ' of Jesus is justified in holding 
 pro]3crty, seeing he must live for heaven, and lay up his only 
 treasure there ? Let us take our stand on lower ground. The 
 cojnmand has not been addressed to us, as it was to the young man 
 who wanted to be ' perfect ' : 'Sell that thou hast, and give to the 
 poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven : and come, follow me.' 
 Still, the spirit of discipleship may be ours, more or less, as we are 
 able to receive it ; and inasmuch as the parable of the unjust steward 
 was obviously designed to elucidate rather principles of action 
 than any particular form of action, we may lay hold, to our comfort 
 and profit, on the truths deducible therefrom. 'Make to yourselves 
 friends . . . that they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles.' 
 The words of Jesus convey a charming picture of the life to come : 
 to rejoin those we have known and loved on earth, to receive from 
 them a hearty welcome, to enter their heavenly homes, to renew, 
 under better auspices, all friendly intimacies, and share in common 
 our far more enduring inheritance, all mutual offices of tender love 
 aud sweet fellowship still existent and interchanged : the hope is 
 more than all we could desire, and the reality beyond our powers of 
 conception. God be thanked for such a revelation I The clay and 
 dross of earth are transmutable, by a heavenly alchemy, into the 
 spirit and life of the world to come ; our earthly homes have their 
 antitypes in heaven. Jesus sets before us the duty, not of promis- 
 cuous almsgiving, but of social charities. Our best and truest friends 
 must be those of our own household and the comparatively few who 
 come within the circle of our personal influence. To do our utmost, 
 wisely and liberally, for all about us, is to uncoil a chain of love 
 Avhich will join earth and heaven, and circle round eternity. 
 
 (3). The third deduction drawn by Jesus from the parable is in 
 the words : ' He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in 
 much : and he that is uurighteo;;s in a very little is unrighteous also 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELH. 177 
 
 in much.' The steward's ue<;-ligencc of oversight wliicli led to the 
 simple 'wasting- ' of his muster's goods, Wiis at once, under the pressure 
 of temptation, replaced by a deliberate scheme of robbery. Puncti- 
 liousness with respect to small duties is a good augury of fidelity in 
 general, and the rule reversed is equally true. p]very trust is a test of 
 character, and the qualities displayed in one condition of existence 
 are sure to act under all circumstances. 
 
 (4). From this consideration Jesus drew the inference: 'If therefore lOLukeu 
 ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will com- 
 mit to your trust the true riches ? ' Alford notes that the italicised 
 word ' riches ' is 'not expressed in the original,' Tischendorf renders : 
 ' who will commit to your trust the true good ? ' Young's rendering 
 is no douljt preferable : ' If, then, in the unrighteous riches ye Avere 
 not faithful — the true who will entrust to.you?' The contrast is 
 between 'true' and ' unrighteous,' both words referring to 'riches.' 
 The words are used in the same way elsewhere : ' The same is true, 7. John is 
 and no unrighteousness is in him.' There is a form of wealth to 
 which no injustice clings, which is attainable only in conjunction 
 with moral rectitude, and the distribution of which is impartial and 
 unselfish. Jesus does not further specify its nature ; but probably 
 we shall not err in interpreting it to mean that miraculous ])0wer 
 over diseases and over hostile spirits which was constantly exhibited 
 by Jesus, and which he imparted, as they were able to receive it, to 
 his disciples, making it an essential preliminary that before going 
 forth to exercise it, they should strip themselves of all money and 
 everything superfluous, and determine to take no recompense beyond 
 food and lodging. Suppose one of those seventy whom Jesus thus 
 sent forth, had filled his purse, and tried to sell his miraculous gifts : 
 where would have been the faith on which alone his power depended ? 
 ' Thy silver perish with thee,' said Peter to Simon the sorcerer, ' be- s Acts 20 
 cause thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money.' 
 Spiritual gifts and worldly wealth lie very far apart : they are, in 
 truth, inimical. So Jesus taught, and on that principle his disciples 
 acted. But the right use of wealth is a test of character. The first 
 followers of Jesus were called upon to give it up, and gave it np 
 altogether, that they might secure to themselves a more enduring 
 treasure. The proper spending of money requires soundness of judg- 
 ment, liberality of mind, unselfishness of motive. The getting and 
 the keeping of it are hard enough, and at that point the efforts of 
 many terminate : the method and habit of disbursing it wisely and 
 freely are harder still. Self-denial may be coupled Avith rapacity, 
 parsimony Avith covetousness, profusion Avith recklessness and self- 
 indulgence. If our minds and hearts lead us astray in dealing Avith 
 the current coin of the world, Avhicli not only symbolises but actually 
 embodies effort, power, influence, hoAV can Ave be fit for higher gifts, 
 for a Avider and more unfettered sphere of action, for the 'true riches' 
 Avhich the Son of man shall give unto us ? 
 
 (5.) Jesus dwelt on this idea, adding : ' And if ye have not been 10 luUc 12 
 faithful in that Avhich is another's, Avho will give you that Avhich is 
 your own ? ' The Eevisers note that ' some ancient authorities read 
 our own.'' That is not the reading of the three oldest MSS. It is 
 incongruous, and may be dismissed as erroneous. The words of Jesus 
 import that our earthly duties constitute a training for a higher stage 
 
178 ■ THE KIXG AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 of existence. The nnfaitlifnlness of the steward deprived him of all 
 opportunity of rising; in the world, and kept him in a state of utter 
 dependence upon others. The due fulfihnent of one trust certifies 
 our fitness for another ; and to fall short of our duty in any assigned 
 responsibility, must prevent our advancement to a position involving 
 unfettered powers of action. The connection here indicated by Jesus 
 between temporal and spiritual gifts deserves to be more deeply pon- 
 dered thau it is. The fact gives significaiice and dignity alike to the 
 lowest and the highest earthly occupations. This world is our school : 
 labour our taskmaster ; our home lies elsewhere, and our life to come 
 is hid Avith Christ in God. The earning of a livelihood, the acquire- 
 ment, employment, and distribution of wealth, call forth the exercise 
 of moral qualities, and serve as stepping-stones to a higher platform 
 of thought and energy. All the concerns of this life, rightly viewed 
 and utilised, tend heavenwards. In proportion to our sense of re- 
 sponsibility, and our earnest devotion to the duties of this life, will 
 be our fitness for heavenly and spiritual things, when the time shall 
 come for us to enter upon them. 
 
 (6). From the steward's breach of trust in preferring the interest 
 of his friends to that of his master, Jesus drew another lesson. ' JSJ'o 
 servant (Gr. household-servant) can serve two masters : for either he 
 will hate the one, and love the other ; or else he will hold to one, and 
 despise the other.' The maxim must not be misread, as though it 
 were impossible to undertake the management of conflicting interests. 
 It is a matter of daily experience that upright men can and do act 
 independently of favour or self-interest. The reference is to a ' house- 
 hold-servant,' the rendering of Young and Tischendorf being 'do- 
 mestic' There must not be two masters in one house ; a servant 
 must not owe a divided allegiance. Not only will the two controlling 
 powers clash, but the servant must needs incline to the one or the 
 other. Professing equal devotion to both, either lie will obey one 
 willingly and the other unwillingly, or deliberately refuse obedience 
 to one of the two. A double rule may be so harmonised as to become 
 practically one mastership ; but Jesus had in mind two opposing 
 powers, putting forth diverse claims impossible to reconcile, so utterly 
 different in character and purpose, that if love be felt for the one, 
 antipathy must exist to the other, and submission to one involve dis- 
 obedience to the other. 
 
 (7). This parable lies within the previous parable, and is applied 
 by Jesus in the same direction : ' Ye cannot serve God and mammon,' 
 The choice lay between discipleship and money-making. Jesus does 
 not hint at anything wrong or degrading in the latter. Young 
 simply renders 'mammon' by the word 'riches.' The entire time, 
 energy, and devotion of a domestic are claimed by his master : the 
 service of God to which Jesus here alludes is of that kind. The man 
 who had professed discipleship was not free for the ordinary business 
 of the world. The disciples, to whom the parable was addressed, must 
 disentangle themselves from their former avocations : they could not 
 attend as before, and as other men, to the concerns of this life ; they 
 professed to have accepted the call of Jesus, and must devote them- 
 selves unreservedly to his cause. To regard this statement of Jesus 
 as applicable to every baptised Christian is to mistake its bearing, to 
 involve our ideas of duty in inextricable confusion, and to encourage 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR CWSPELS. 179 
 
 that mild, uncoiiscions hypocrisy wliicli grows out of lialf truths and 
 wrong notions. The majority of mankind througliout their lives do, 
 perforce or willingly, 'serve riches.' It is incumbent upon most to 
 labour for daily bread, for family requirements, for the education and 
 advancement of children, for the accumulation before our death of 
 property for those we love and must leave behind. It wei'C absurd 
 to argue against this as being contrary to the law of Christ : it is the 
 teaching of nature ; it is the decree of Providence ; it is an instinct 
 of humanity to make the best of this earthly life which (iod has given 
 us. The manufacturer who invests his capital in buildings and 
 machinery, the merchant who ventures on the importation or expor- 
 tation of goods, the agent who undertakes their disposal, the Ijanker 
 wlio provides the requisite coin and credit, the tradesman who dis- 
 tributes according to the requirements of the community : all these 
 are engrossed, six days out of seven, in the w'ork of ' serving riches.' 
 Not for them is there any command to forsake houses, lands, brethren, 
 wife, children, for Christ's sake. Let us face this question honestly, 
 and clear our minds of cant with respect to it. Away with the folly 
 of imagining ourselves 'disciples' and 'followers' of Jesus, when we 
 arc not such in reality, and have no intention of making an effort to 
 become such. The teaching and exhortations of Jesus must be ap- 
 plied with judgment. They deserve an amount of thought and study 
 which they have not received. Ministers of the gospel start with the 
 idea that they know all about the matter : have they not studied 
 ' theology ? ' Yes : and what they have been taught, that they will 
 teach. The errors attaching to gospel truth are propagated the more 
 easily, owing to the fetters which our well-meaning forefathers un- 
 wisely im]X)sed upon freedom of opinion in religious matters. Under 
 pains and penalties, what they fondly and falsely deemed ' the truth, 
 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' has been taken for 
 granted, upheld, proclaimed by their most obedient followers. At the 
 same time, the doctrine of Scriptural inspiration has had the effect of 
 making it an orthodox opinion that every syllable of the Bible comes 
 direct from God, and hence that every command therein is his, and 
 that all his commands are obligatory upon all. Accepting generali- 
 sations such as these, the faculty of discrimination has been well nigh 
 lost for want of exercise ; the maxims of Jesus have l:)cen taken all 
 together, blended into a hotchpot, and then equally apportioned out 
 to the whole body of Christians, share and share alike, or so much to 
 each as each may care to appropriate. A clergyman, a bishop, an 
 archbishop, is no more a ' disciple,' forsooth, than the school child 
 Avho is able to learn the catechism ! And so the solemn call of Jesus 
 to his ' followers ' is taken to have no special application to our 
 spiritual pastors ; they, although claiming to be representatives of 
 Christ, are as free to make a purse for themselves as other men are ! 
 On the other hand, in some mysterious way apart from the ordinary 
 process of reasoning, the commands not to serve riches, not to lay up 
 treasure upon the earth, to forsake all for Christ's sake, to take up his 
 cross and follow him, never to return a blow, never to bring an 
 action at law, are held to be within the pale of ordinary Christian 
 duties, incumbent upon all alike, either capable of fulfilment gene- 
 rally, or not capable of fulfilment at all ! What a farce is this ! 
 How can we ever learn the mind of Christ, whilst such confusion 
 
 X 2 
 
180 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 of thought and prevarication of judgment remain unchecked, unre- 
 proYod, undetected ? 
 
 The remarks of Jesus to his disciples were listened to by the 
 Pharisees. They were a money-loving class, and openly expressed 
 ioLukfi4 their contempt for such teaching. 'And the Pharisees, who were 
 lovers of money, heard all these things ; and they scoffed at him.' 
 Jesus solemnly reproved their unjust levity. Nothing easier than to 
 mock at any earnest teacher, to turn the laugh against him, gaining- 
 1.-. applause themselves whilst bringing him into contempt. ' And he 
 said unto them, Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of 
 men.' But their conduct and their principles were subject to Divine 
 scrutiny, and that which was highly esteemed by men Avas hateful 
 
 „ 15 to Grod. ' But God knoweth your hearts : for that which is exalted 
 among men is an abomination in the sight of God,' Jesus specified 
 two conspicuous instances of repugnance to the will of God : 1. The 
 persistent opposition to the introduction of the gospel. 2. The 
 operation of the law of divorce. 
 
 (1). The time had come for the introduction of a higher system of 
 morality, based on a new religious teaching. John the Baptist had 
 
 „ iG come as the harbinger of that better state of things. ' The law and 
 the propliets were until John : from that time the gospel of the 
 kingdom of God is preached.' In the Authorised Yersion the words 
 ' the gospel of ' are omitted. Tischendorf agrees with the Revised 
 Yersion ; Luther rendered : ' das Reich Gottes durchs Evangelium 
 geprediget ' : Young's version stands : ' since then the reign of God 
 is proclaimed as good news.' The verb in the original, euangelizo, 
 signifies to preach or announce good news. Yet no free acceptance 
 of the proffered boon was aUowed to men : whoever wished to enter 
 
 .. k; the kiugdom of God had to force his way through obstacles : ' and 
 every man entereth violently into it.' The Authorised Yersion has : 
 ' and every man presseth into it ' ; Y'oung adopted that wording, but 
 Tischendorf strengthened the expression as the Revisers have done : 
 ' and every one enters into it with violence ' ; Luther has : ' und 
 jedermann dringet mit Gewalt hinein, 'and every one presses in 
 with force.' The spirit of religious intolerance prevailed, and it was 
 diametrically opposed to the divine purposes designed for the advance- 
 ment of humanity. 
 
 (2). Simultaneously with this active hostility to the gospel, there 
 was a lack of regard to that divine law which is as immutable and 
 17 irrefragable as the universe itself. ' But it is easier for heaven and 
 earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fall' Against the 
 deliberate, constant, recognised infraction of that law in the most 
 sacred relationship of life, Jesus emphatically protested. He asserted 
 that the Mosaic law of divorce was an infraction of the divine law — 
 ' Thou shalt not commit adultery.' The argument was as unwelcome 
 as it was bold and uncompromising. It involved a distinction 
 between one part of the canon of Scripture and another part of it. 
 IS Moses permitted divorce : God did not. ' Every one that putteth 
 away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery : and he 
 that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth 
 adultery.' This declaration of Jesus Avas so startlingly at variance 
 with the recognised law and practice of the Jews, that the Pharisees- 
 
PART II.] A kiTUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFELS. 181 
 
 some time afterwards reverted to the sul)ject, luipini;- eitlicr to 
 entangle liini into an argument demonstrably fiillacions, or to charge 
 him with bringing the law of Moses into disrepute. Their attack on 
 Jesus, and his reply thereto, are recorded by Mark and Matthew. 
 'And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Ts it lawful for id Mark -j 
 a man to put away his wife ? tempting him.' Matthew represents 
 something more to have been added to the question. ' And there m .Mat. .•! 
 came unto him Pharisees, tempting him, and saying. Is it lawful for 
 a man. to put away his wife for every cause ? ' The two oldest JMSS. 
 omit the words 'for a man,' which the Revisers have italicised. 
 They have also omitted from this verse the words ' unto him,' and 
 from the next verse the words 'unto them,' which do not appear 
 in those two JISS. They have also omitted ' the ' before ' Pharisees,' 
 inserting the note: 'Many authorities, some ancient, insert the.'' 
 Tischendorf docs so, following the two oldest MSS. Jesus, in reply, 
 referred his questioners to the account they were accustomed to read 
 of the creation of man. ' And he answered and said, Have ye not „ -i 
 read, that he which made tliem from the beginning made them male 
 and female ' ? The reference is to the first chapter of Genesis : ' male i oen. 27 
 and female created he them.' Then Jesus added : ' and said. For lo irat. r. 
 this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave 
 to his wife ; and the twain shall become one flesh.' Alford observes : 
 ' He quotes as spoJioi ly the Creaior the words in Gen. ii. 2^, whicli 
 were actually said by Adam,' and : ' He cites both from the first and 
 second chapters of Genesis ; and in immediate connexion ; thus 
 shewing them to be consecutive parts of a continuous narrative, 
 which, from their different diction, and apparent repetition, they 
 have sometimes been supposed not to be.' Both these statements of 
 Alford arc open to question. Verses 24 and 25 of the second chapter 
 of Genesis appear to be explanatory, not spoken by Adam. Assum- 
 ing the words in verse 24 to be Adam's, Alford was forced to qualify 
 them thus : ' They must therefore be understood as said in prophecy, 
 by divine inspiration which indeed the terms made use of in them 
 would require, since the relations alluded to by those terms did not 
 yet exist. As Augustine says, " God said by man that which man 
 foretold." ' On the contrary, the fact that Jesus attributed the 
 words to God and not to Adam, should be taken as confirming that 
 interpretation of the passage. The suggestion about ' prophecy ' is 
 really made to get o\qv a difficulty otherwise insuperable. As regards 
 the assumed connection and continuity between the first and second 
 chapters of Genesis, there is a mystery which has yet to be solved. 
 Not only is there a difference in diction, but the repetition is only 
 ' apparent,' as stated ])y Alford. The first chapter starts from a state 
 of chaos, and describes the gradual uprising and ordering of all 
 things, including grass, herbs and fruit trees, flying fowls, beasts of 
 the earth and cattle, ending with the creation of man, male and 
 female simultaneously, after which there was a cessation of creative 
 power during a period, ' a seventh day,' equal in duration to one of 
 the ' days ' preceding. The arbitrary division into chapters is mis- 
 leading, for it is obvious that the narrative is continuous up to and 
 including verse ;3 of the second chapter. Verse 4 is the opening of 
 a separate document, beginning with the words : ' These are the 
 generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, 
 
182 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 in the day ' (not days) ' when the Lord (Jehovah) God made earth 
 and heaven.' Young renders : 'These are the genealogies of the 
 heavens and of the earth in their Ijeing framed, in tlie day of the 
 Lord God's making the earth and the heavens.' Samuel Sharpe 
 commences verse 4 with capitals, ' to mark the beginning of new 
 matter,' as follows : 'This is the birth-book of the heavens and 
 of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God 
 made the earth and the heavens.' There is now neither a chaos nor 
 a habitable world : no plant, no herb, no man to till the ground, — 
 2 Gen. 5. c, uothiug l)ut a misty atmosphere and the damp earth. ' And no plant 
 of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet 
 sprung up : for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the 
 earth, and there was not a man to till the ground : but there went 
 up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.' 
 Then man was formed ' of the dust of the ground,' — nothing said as 
 in the former account about his being 'in the image of God,' — not 
 male and female as before, but a solitary man. Then a portion of 
 the earth was redeemed from barrenness, and j^lanted as a garden for 
 man's dwelling-place. Later on, the woman was created out of the 
 man. It is not possible to combine the first chapter with the second, 
 nor to make the latter a mere supplement to the ibrmer ; neither can 
 they be considered as different accounts of the same creation : the 
 discrepancies between the two, if that view be taken, amount to 
 contradictions. The two chapters record two distinct exercises of 
 creative power, separated by some vast interval of time, God's 
 sabbath ' day ' intervening between them. The argument of Jesus 
 fits in with this idea. He quotes from the first chapter, to show 
 that ' from the beginning ' God created ' male and female,' a living 
 pair. From the second chajiter he quotes the statement about the 
 unity of nature in the man and the woman, so that throughout all 
 time the marriage tie must take precedence of every other relation- 
 is Mat. c ship, being essentially indissoluble: 'So that they are no more 
 twain, but one flesh.' On that, Jesus based his argument. The 
 constitution of human nature, the ordinance of God, decreed the 
 inseparableness of husband and wife. Man's wandering desires must 
 „ (, not be suffered to override the will of the all-wise Creator. ' What 
 therefore (iod hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' 
 10 Mark (■.-(! ]\Iaik's I'eport is somewhat more succinct. ' But from the begin- 
 ning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause 
 shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife ; 
 and the twain shall become one flesh ; so that they are no more twain, 
 but one flesh. Y/hat therefore God hath joined together, let not man 
 put asunder.' The two oldest MSS. omit, 'and shall cleave to his 
 wife.' Let it be observed that the opening words of Luke, ' Have 
 ye not read,' and also the expression ' and said,' are omitted by ]Mark. 
 This discrepancy shows on how uncertain a foundation Alford rested 
 his argument that the words ' and said ' indicated that Jesus quoted 
 'as spoken by the Creator the words which were actually said by 
 Adam.' "We cannot tell whether Mark's or Luke's narrative ap- 
 proaches most nearly to verbal accuracy. There is a further differ- 
 ence between the two narratives. They both start with the question 
 put by the Pharisees, but only Mark represents Jesus as replying 
 10 Mark 3 thereto by tlie following question : * And he answered and said imto 
 
PAux H.] .1 STUDY OF THE FuUR aOSPELS. 183 
 
 them, AVhat did Moses command you ? ' To this tliey rephcd un- 
 hesitating-ly. ' And they said, ]\Ioses sniTered to write a bill of lo Jiiuk 4 
 divorcement, and to put lier away.' Jesus characterised that per- 
 mission as a policy necessitated by obdurate self-will, opposed to the 
 divine will and to the true interests of humanity. ' But Jesus said „ 5 
 unto them. For your hardness of heart he wrote you this command- 
 ment.' Then followed the observations respecting- the original insti- 
 tution of marriage, and the recognition, of its indissolubleness from 
 the first. Jesus had only asked about the command of Moses for tlie 
 purpose of repudiating it. It was therefore very natural to enquire 
 why Closes gave a command more honoured in the breach than in the 
 observance. ' They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to r." Mat. 7 
 give a bill of divorcement, and to put lier away ? ' If, piecing the 
 two narratives together, we suppose the allusion to Moses to have 
 occurred twice, Jesus on the second occasion simply repeated his 
 previous statement, ' He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness „ s 
 of heart suifei'cd you to put away your wives : but from the begin- 
 ning- it hath not been so.' Afford notes the distinction between the 
 word ' command ' used by the Pharisees in verse 7 and the word 
 ' sull'ered ' used by Jesus in verse 8, and says : ' The Pharisees 
 imagine that they have overthrown our Lord's decision by Vi. permis- 
 sion of the law, which they call a command.'' That idea, however 
 natural, is displaced by Mark's account, for he represents Jesus to 
 have used the word ' command,' and the Pharisees the word ' suffered.' 
 The permission was, in fact, a prohibition against unconditional 
 divorce, a command not to divorce without first writing the bill of 
 divorcement. There is no escape from the conclusion that Jesus 
 declared the command or permission of Moses to be contrary to the 
 command and will of God. The assertion of Jesus involves a dis- 
 tinction between the law of Moses and the divine law ; and on look- 
 ing carefully we find that such a distinction is obvious enough. The 
 law of divorce is laid down in the first four verses of the '2ii\\ 
 chapter of Deuteronomy. It is embedded among a large number of 
 directions and ordinances beginning with the 12ih chapter, and pre- 
 faced by the words : ' Ye shall observe to do the statutes and the 11 Ceu. 32 
 judgments which I set before you this day.' The words are the 
 words of ]\Ioses : again and again that fact is brought out promi- 
 nently. ' In the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy 12 oeu. 14 
 tribes, there thou slialt offer thy burnt offerings, and there shalt thou 
 do all that I command thee.' ' What thing soever I command you, ,, ne 
 that shall ye observe to do.' ' Wherefore I command thee, saying, is Deu. r 
 Thou shalt separate three cities for thee.' ' Do according to all that 24 Deu. s 
 the priests the Levites shall teach you : as I commanded them, so 
 shall ye observe to do.' ' The Lord thy God redeemed thee thence : ■> ^'^ 
 therefore I conmiand thee to do this thing.' 'And Moses and the-"i^eu. 1 
 elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the command- 
 ment which I command you this day.' Here the elders are repre- 
 sented as endorsing the law laid down by Moses. He himself claimed 
 a divine authority for it : ' When thou shalt hearken to the voice of 13 Deu. is 
 the Lord thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command 
 thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy 
 God.' ' If thou shalt hearken unto the commandments of the Lord ;>8 Deu. v^ 
 thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them, ^^ 
 
184 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 and shalt not turn aside from any of the words ■which I command you 
 this day.' As a divinely-appointed leg-islator Moses issued his edicts, 
 but throughout tlieir dehvery his own personah'ty stands out clearly 
 and unmistakably. The voice is human ; at the most, all that can be 
 asserted is that the speaker has God's authority, and that there was 
 a blending of the divine with the human. That the latter prepon- 
 derated over the former is sufficiently indicated by the frequent repe- 
 tition of the personal pronoun ' I.' Knowing well the people with 
 whom he had to deal, Moses deemed it wise and right to allow a 
 liberty of divorce, fencing it round with certain formalities and 
 restrictions, so that it might at least be a deliberate, public, and 
 irrevocable act. Alas ! that the state of so-called ' Christendom ' 
 should necessitate the jDerpetuatiou in our own time of the permis- 
 sion granted by Moses to a nation but lately redeemed from slavery, 
 with its accompanying degradation and lack of intellectual and moral 
 culture. How far off are we still from the mind and rule of Christ ! 
 In his eyes the marriage bond was divine, too sacred for man to sever: 
 * What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' 
 He now repeats the law which, according to ]\Iatthew, he laid down 
 
 9Ma\i) in the sermon on the mount: 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, 
 except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery : 
 and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.' 
 Jesus is not speaking of the guilt, but of the nature of the act : how- 
 ever customary or legalised, the fact of promiscuous sexual intercourse 
 was patent and undeniable. The disruption of the old tie and the 
 recognition of the new, are both equally illegal and dishonourable in 
 the eye of God. The perfection of manhood and womanhood is 
 marred, when husband and wife are sundered : divorce is as it were 
 an act of amputation, and a second marriage, under such circum- 
 stances, is like putting on another person's limb, dibtiguriug and 
 monstrous to human nature, the severance and the misplacement 
 being alike unnatural and revolting. 
 
 There is some uncertainty as to the proper rendering of verse I). 
 The Revisers note that ' some ancient authorities ' adopt the reading 
 of 5 Mat. 32, namely 'saving for the cause of instead of 'except 
 for,' and with the addition, ' maketh her an adulteress.' Of the three 
 oldest MSS. only the Vatican has this addition. The Revisers note 
 further that the following words ' are omitted by some ancient autho- 
 rities :' 'and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth 
 adultery.' This sentence appears to have been inserted to correspond 
 with 5 Mat. 32. It is not in the oldest MS., and Tischendorf omits 
 it. Count Leon Tolstoi asserts that there has been a mistranslation. 
 
 Mat. 32 He takes the original Greek words seriatim:* 'parelcfos, besides; 
 loffoi/, the matter ; ponm'as, of lewdness ; poiei, causes ; cnden, her ; 
 moichasf/icii, to commit adultery.' In the lexicon pareJctos is defined : 
 'out of, without, besides;' and imrneia is defined: 'fornication, 
 prostitution.' Tolstoi says if '^;o;7zm, which is, in all translations 
 except the English, rendered as "adultery," in the same way as 
 moichastJiai, is, in reality, quite another word.' To make clear the 
 distinction, he chooses the w'ord ' lewdness,' as equivalent to ' de- 
 bauchery ' or ' fornication,' and as ' exjiressing not an action, but a 
 
 * "What I Believe," p. 62. f "What I Believe," p. 81. 
 
PART II.] .1 HTUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPFLii. 185 
 
 quality or state.' lie docs not scruple to say : 'Every (ireek seliolar 
 will construe the passai;e thus . . . Therefore the text stands word 
 for word thus : He who divorces his wife, besides the sin of lewdness, 
 causes her to commit adultery.' That refers to the oth chapter. 
 Tolstoi adds : ' AVe find exactly the same in the l!)th chapter. No 
 sooner is the incorrect translation of the word porneia amended, as 
 well as that of the preposition cpl, which has been translated "for ;" 
 no sooner is the word "lewdness" placed instead of "adultery," and 
 the preposition " by" instead of " for," than it grows perfectly clear 
 that the words ci me epi porneia can have no reference to the wife. 
 And as the ^vords par c/cios lofjou pornrias can have no other meaning 
 than " besides the sin of lewdness of the husl)and," so the words ei 
 me cpi porneia, which Ave find in the I'Jth chapter, cau have no 
 reference to anything except the lewdness of the husband. It is said, 
 ei me epi porneia, which, being translated literally, is, " if not by 
 lewdness," "' if not out of lewdness." And thus the meaning is clear 
 that Christ in this passage refutes the notions of the Tharisees that 
 a man who put away his wife, not out of lewdness, but in order to 
 live matrimonially with another woman, did not commit adultery; 
 Christ says that the repudiation of a wife, even if it be not done out 
 of lewdness, but in order to be joined in bonds of matrimony to 
 another woman, is adultery.' Much in favour of Tolstoi's argument 
 is the fact, that the word ei, ' if,' is omitted byGriesbach, Lachmann, 
 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and AVordsworth, as not being in 
 accordance with the best readings ; and also the fact that whether 
 i'pi be rendered ' by ' or ' for,' his argument is equally strong. The 
 question is both novel and important, and calls for close investiga- 
 tion, the intense earnestness and honesty of Tolstoi giving weight to 
 his opinion. 
 
 Jesus declared that to be wrong in the sight of (lod which was 
 justified and legalised among men. So rigid did his doctrine appear 
 to the disciples, that they exclaimed that it would be inexpedient for 
 a man to marry under such conditions. ' The disciples say unto him, lo jiat. lo 
 If the case of*^ the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to 
 marry.' That conclusion Jesus repudiated. The leading of a single 
 life must be exceptional, and for those only having a peculiarity of 
 constitution or temperament. ' And he said unto them, All men „ ii 
 cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.' ' This 
 saying ' appears to refer to the opinion just expressed by the discijDles, 
 not to what Jesus had previously said. A similar instance occurred 
 when Jesus replied to the Canaanitish woman, ' For this saying go r Jiaru -'it 
 thy way.' Jesus went on to explain that an unmarried life was 
 abnormal : some were born without the luitural instinct towards mar- 
 riage ; some were compelled by position or circumstances to renounce 
 it ; some, devoting themselves to a higher and heavenly destiny, 
 dehberately avoided it. ' For there are eunuchs which were so born m Mat. 12 
 from their mother's womb ; and there are eunuchs which were made 
 eunuchs by men ; and there are eunuchs which made themselves 
 eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.' Such a maxim, advocating 
 a solitary life, was not for general adoption, but for those who were 
 exceptionally disposed towards it. ' He that is able to receive it, let „ 12 
 him receive it.' 
 
 The teaching of Jesus respecting divorce was so startling to the 
 
186 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 disciples, that in the privacy of their common home they again 
 10 Mark 10 questiouecl him on the subject. ' And in the house the disciples asked 
 him again of this matter.' Jesus reiterated his former dictum : he 
 „ 11, 1:2 had nothing to retract, nothing to modify. ' And he saitli unto them. 
 Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth 
 adultery against her : and if she herself shall put away lier husband, 
 and marry another, she committeth adulteiy.' Be it observed that 
 there is here nothing which can be construed into an exception. 
 Mark's narrative gives no hint of any such saving clause. This is in 
 favour of Tolstoi's argument that there has been a mistranslation and 
 misconception ; the account handed down to -Mark, and by him to 
 us, would surely have alhided to an exception, if Jesus had been 
 understood to have made one. 
 
 The following parable, recorded by Luke, is placed immediately 
 after that of the unjust steward, and continues the train of thought 
 with respect to the right employment of wealth, and the possible 
 contrasts in men's relati\'e positions here and hereafter. Jesus pic- 
 10 Luke i!i tures a man at the very summit of prosperity and luxury. ' Xow 
 there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine 
 linen, faring sumptuously every day (or, living in mirth and splendour 
 every day).' In contrast; to this man, Jesus describes a man in direst 
 poverty, reduced to the utmost extremity of want and misery. He 
 names him Lazarus, ' God is my help,' as indicating that he had no 
 hope of human succour. His pkice w'as at the outer porch of that 
 
 „ 20 abode of magnificence and revelry. 'And a certain beggar named 
 Lazarus was laid at his gate.' He was altogether in a deplorable 
 condition, his body being covered with sores, and hunger impelling 
 him to long for the broken victuals which came from the well-spread 
 
 .. -1 table of the rich man : ' full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the 
 criimhs that fell from the rich man's table.' The Revisers have 
 italicised the Avord 'crumbs,' and Tischendorf, following the two 
 oldest MS8., omits it, rendering ' what fell.' The only companions 
 of the poor man were the dogs, probably attracted to the gate by the 
 same motive as himself, and these dumb creatures showed their 
 
 ., 21 sympathy by licking his sores, as though they were their own. ' Yea, 
 even the dogs came and licked his sores.' Tischendorf renders, 
 ' usually licked,' and Young's literal rendering conveys the same idea : 
 'yea, even the dogs, coining, were licking his sores.' So much only 
 of the history of these two men in this world. Jesus now shows them 
 to us transported to another. The poor man died first, as well he 
 
 „ 22 might from semi-starvation and disease. ' And it came to pass that 
 the beggar died.' The Eevisers have retained the word ' beggar,' 
 which is discarded from the parable by Young and Tischendoi'f, who 
 adopt instead the term 'poor man.' Luther also has ' Armer,' ' poor 
 man.' The primary sense of the word, jAdchos, is ' one who crouches 
 or cringes,' from pidsso, to crouch or cower. It will be well for us 
 to drop the idea of his being a recognised ' beggar,' and to take the 
 parable as that of the ' rich man ' and ' the poor man.' Thus viewed, it 
 has a fiir wider application than otherwise. The next sentence stands in 
 the Authorised Version : ' and was carried by the angels into Abraham's 
 
 " 22 bosom,' but is altered by the Revisers to : ' and that he was carried 
 away by the angels into Abraham's bosom,' Young's literal rendering 
 
PART II.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOUFELH. 187 
 
 being: 'And that he -svas carried away by the messengers into the 
 bosom of Abraham.' We have here, to say tlie least, the view which 
 Jesus entertained of those ' angels ' or ' messengers' of whom we read : 
 'Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the i n,-i,. ii 
 sake of them that shall inherit salvation ? ' On the expression 
 * Abraham's bosom,' Alford observes : ' This, as a form of speech 
 among the Jews, was not even by themselves understood in its strict 
 literal sense ; and though the purposes of ilie parable require this, 
 ver. 23, no one would think of pressing it into a truth, but all would 
 see in it the graphic filling up uf a state which in itself is strictly 
 actual.' The expression seems to have been a proverbial one, indi- 
 cating nearness and dearness, and the Jewish custom of reclining at 
 meals'was in itself sufficient to make this meaning obvious. ' There 13 joim ■:.; 
 was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of Ins disciples, whom 
 Jesus loved.' The fourth evangelist used the expression as one recog- 
 nised and conveying a definite meaning : ' The only begotten Son, 1 j.ju,, is 
 which is in the bosom of the Father.' Tlie figure of speech had been 
 familiar from the time of Moses, who used it : ' Havfc 1 conceived all 11 Xun:. i-. 
 this people ? have I brought them forth, that thou shonldest say unto 
 me, Carry them m thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the suck- 
 ing child, unto the laud which thou swarest nnto their fathers ? ' 
 The translation of Lazarus to Abraham's bosom may be taken to 
 denote his entrance upon a career under the patronage and guardian- 
 ship of the venerated father of the Israelitish nation. The teaching 
 of Jesus is throughout intensely human. He does not represent the 
 departed spirit as summoned before a divine tribunal, but he reveals 
 another world with relationships between men analogous to and 
 founded upon those of the present life. The departed may be nearer 
 to us even on earth than we are accustomed to suppose. Who would 
 have imagined, when Jesus took his three disciples to the mountain- 
 top, that it was for the purpose of meeting and conferring with ]\Ioses 
 and Elijah ? How profoundly interesting is the prospect of futurity 
 opened out to us by these hints and glimpses of the spiritual world ! 
 
 After a time the rich man's life came also to its close. ' And the 10 luUo -i-i 
 rich man also died, and was buried.' Through the grave and gate 
 of death he passed on to far other experiences than those of this 
 world. Jesus represents hnn in a condition of grievous suliering. 
 'And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments.' The „ '-^'^ 
 Revisers have done good service towards removing popular miscon- 
 ceptions by altering 'hell' to 'Hades.' Here is Alford's comment. 
 'Hades, in Hebrew Sheol, is the abode of all discmhodied spiriis till 
 the resurrection, not, the place of torment, — much less 'hell,' as 
 understood commonly, in the A. V. Lazarus was also in Hade's, 
 but separate from Dives ; one on the blissful, the other on the bale- 
 ful side. It is the r/a Irs of Hades, ihe imprisonment of death, which 
 shall not prevail against the Church (Matt. xvi. 18) ; the Lord holds 
 the keij of Hades. (Rev. i. 18). Himself went into the same Hades, 
 of which Paradise is a part,' In fiice of the parable itself, the con- 
 ception of Dives and Lazarus as ' disembodied spirits ' is a strange 
 cue ; the words ' till the resurrection,' and the reference to another 
 ' place of torment,' are thrown in glibly, as part and parcel of an 
 accepted creed, but such ideas are not the teaching of Jesus, and a 
 careful investigation is needed to detect and expose the misconcep- 
 
188 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 tions of Scriptural passag'es on which such erroneous doctrines are 
 based. In the next hfe the relative positions of tlie two men were 
 reversed. Their lots still lay wide apart ; but Lazarus was in comfort 
 and liononr, and the man of pomp and luxury was reduced to a state 
 of anguish. We must not, however, exaggerate the import of the 
 expression, ' being in torments.' The Greek word is Imsanos, from 
 hasanizo, and both noun and verb were employed to denote afflictions 
 and labours of an ordinary kind, as in the following passages. 
 4 Mat. -n ' Holden with divers diseases and torments (basaiiois).' ' Seeing 
 <;Miuk4,s them distressed ibasanizomenos) in rowing.' 'Vexed (ehasanizeii) 
 ■2 ii. Pet. 8 his righteous soul.' Enough, that heavy toil or discomfort of some 
 kind were now the portion of the man once rich in this world, and 
 1(3 Luke :23 that abovc him, in the distance, was a region of bliss: 'and seeth 
 Abraham afar off", and Lazarus in his bosom.' He could no more 
 hope to enter that bright abode than Lazarus, when they both lived 
 on this earth, could have gained admission to his palace of feasting. 
 But he prayed that some assuagement of his misery might be \ouch- 
 safed, and that Lazarus might be sent to moisten, were it but with 
 ■J4 a drop of water, his fevered tongue. ' And he cried and said, Father 
 Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the 
 tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue ; for I am in anguish 
 in this flame.' Young renders : ' I am sorrowing in this flame,' 
 the ' Englishman's Greek Xew Testament,' ' I am suffering ; ' the 
 Authorised Version lias : ' I am tormented.' The Greek verb is 
 odu/iaomai, which was in common use to signify any great mental 
 --' Luke 48 distress. It occurs in the passages : ' Thy father and I sought thee 
 •JO Acts 38 sorrowing {odii.ndmenoi).'' ' iiovrowing (ochowmr/wi) most of all for 
 the word which he had spoken.' In the answer of the patriarch 
 there was a tone of compassionate sadness. He began by reminding 
 this, his unhappy descendant, of the mutability of human destiny, 
 how enjoyment led on to suffering, and suffering was a discipline 
 ir, Luke ^r, preparatory to joy. ' But Abraham said. Son (Gr. Child), remember 
 that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in 
 like manner evil things : but now here he is comforted, and thou art 
 in anguish.' Tischendorf and the Revisers have introduced the word 
 ' here,' on the authority of the three oldest ]MSS. Young renders ' in 
 anguish ' by ' sorrowing : ' it is the same word, odunasai. Small as 
 was the boon now craved, there stood a physical impossibility in the 
 ,, 20 way of its accomplishment. 'And besides all this (Or, in all these 
 things) between us and you there is a great gulf fixed.' Y^oung 
 renders, ' And besides all these things.' The line of demarcation 
 between class and class is more insuperable in hades than it is on 
 „ ■->(•. earth : ' that they which would pass from hence to you may not 
 be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us.' The 
 rendering of the Authorised Version is : 'so that they which would 
 pass from hence to you cannot ; neither can they pass to us, that 
 ■would come from thence.' The Revised translation is stronger, as 
 indicating not simply the existence of such an obstacle, but the fact 
 it was designedly set up to prevent closer intercourse. Tischendorf s 
 rendering conveys the same idea : ' that they who desire to pass 
 hence to you may not be able, nor those cross over to us thence.' 
 Young does not render ' may not be able,' but the form he adopts 
 implies an insuperable law : ' so that they who are wishing to go 
 
I' ART II. J A m'UDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 189 
 
 over fi'om heuce to yoii are unable, nor do they from hence to ns pass 
 through.' Forced now to reeo<;-iiise the fact that any immediate 
 alleviation of his own sufferings was hopeless, the suppliant turned 
 his thoughts to those who had been near and dear to him on earth, 
 and out of his dread lest they should come also to the same terrible 
 experience of sufi'ering, he ventured to ask that Lazarus might be 
 sent to them. ' And he said, I pray thee, therefore, father, that thou i' 
 wouldest send him to my father's house ; for I have five brethren.' 
 The expression ' my father's house ' obviously does not signify ' my 
 father's abode,' but is equivalent to ' my family,' the word ' house' 
 being similarly joined to the word father's, in that sense, in about 
 50 passages of Scripture. It ^yas a request that Lazarus might 
 go to the varions members of the family, and reveal to them the 
 penalties attaching hereafter to lives misled on earth : ' that he may 
 testify nnto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 
 The word rendered torment is hasanou. Young renders, ' thoroughly 
 testify ; ' the Englishman's G. N. T., ' earnestly testify.' The idea 
 did not commend itself to the judgment of the patriarch. The law 
 and the prophets were enough for the teaching of mankind. ' But 
 Abraham saitli. They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear 
 them.' Not so, it was argned : but a messenger direct from the 
 world beyond the grave Avould startle them into a reformation of life. 
 'And he said, Nay, father Abraham : but if one go to them from the 
 dead, they Avill repent. Young, as usual, renders ' repent ' by 
 'reform.' However plausible the suggestion, it was based on an 
 error of judgment, Abraham held a contrary opinion. ' And he 
 said unto him. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will 
 they be persuaded if one rise from the dead.' 
 
 To this marvellous parable not a word was added by way of com- 
 ment or explanation : we are left to interpret and apply it as we will. 
 If it had been uttered by any one except Jesus himself, it would have 
 been worth no more to us than one of ^Esop's fables. The value of 
 any moral teaching contained in it would have been more than counter- 
 balanced by our uncertainty as to the truthfulness and reality of the 
 groundwork on which the narrati\'e rests. If its revelations of a 
 future life were purely imaginary, they would be not only unreliable, 
 but misleading. Only our confidence in Jesus can induce us to 
 attach importance to his teaching on matters beyond the reach of 
 ordinary human knowledge. We know of his miraculous birth, his 
 superhuman Avords and works, his converse with Moses and Elijah 
 when he was transfigured on the mount, his resurrection from the 
 dead, and his ascension into heaven : and our belief in all these 
 things impels us to receive Avith reverence this parable of the rich 
 man and Lazarus. Every parable delivered by Jesus on earthly 
 matters withiu our cognizance, is true to nature, and consistent with 
 actual experience ; and Ave may be confident that he is equally accu- 
 rate and reliable when revealing to us the laws and conditions of 
 'heavenly things.' The folloAving deductions are inseparable from the 
 parable, and are therefore stamped Avith the authority of Jesus. 
 
 1. The life of each individual on earth is but the prelude to life in 
 another world. 
 
 2. Angelic ministrations are needed and granted in the Avorld to 
 come. 
 
190 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 3. Human destinies differ there, as here, class beino- separate from 
 class ; and acute suffering- may be experienced by one iudi^'idual, and 
 perfect enjoyment by another. 
 
 4. In the future life there will be a clear recollection of the former 
 life, and the grouping of society there is on the earthly pattern, so 
 that neighbours will recognise each other, and there \fill be a con- 
 sciousness and acknowledgment of previous social and family rela- 
 tionships. 
 
 5. The introduction of Abraham into the parable involves the 
 doctrine of a perpetuity of existence : not necessarily an unchange- 
 able, inextinguishable existence, for there may be other deaths and 
 other resurrections analogous to the first death and the first resur- 
 rection. The 'age-during life,' of which Jesus so often spoke, 
 embodies the idea of an appointed term : the revivification which 
 comes after the close of the present life, may it not be granted also 
 at the culmination and crisis of the next stage of being, life and 
 death alternating, life ever triumphing over death, the tendency 
 deathward declining, and the tendency lifeward augmenting, until, 
 
 iM>. iG like our Lord Jesus, we are made 'after the power of an endless (Gr. 
 indissoluble) life ? ' That is the conception of human destiny which 
 seems best to elucidate, combine and harmonise the promises of our 
 Redeemer and all other revelations of Scripture. 
 
 G. The next state of being is revealed to us subject to laws, phy- 
 sical and moral, as immutable as those which encompass us on earth. 
 The line of demarcation between class and class is represented as rigid 
 in the extreme. Divine Providence has fixed certain boundaries wdiich 
 none, though urged by the most charitable motives, may seek to over- 
 pass. The more perfect the condition of society, the more imperative 
 does it become to remove the evil from the proximity of the good. 
 The two principles of good and evil must, if brought into contact, 
 involve ceaseless strife ; the ethics of Christianity require for their 
 free, unchecked development a complete immunity fi'om the hostile 
 jjowers of unrighteousness. That is the condition of humanity here- 
 after, as sketched out by Jesus. Puuishment by way of penalty and 
 retribution is not hinted at, but conduct and destiny are revealed 
 linked together as cause and effect. And there is a recognised con- 
 tinuity of being, — no hiatus between the concerns of this life and the 
 next, — but the one leading up naturally and inevitably to the other : 
 that was the ground of anxiety with respect to the five brethren still 
 living upon earth. 
 
 7. The closing words of the parable, ' if one rise from the dead,' 
 indicate what is meant in other passages by a similar form of expres- 
 sion : not, that is, the resurrection from death to life, but the revisit- 
 ing of tlie living by the dead. 
 
 In this parable it is clear, beyond the possibility of doubt or gain- 
 saying, that Jesus taught the doctrine of an individual, personal resur- 
 rection of — not from — the dead. In face of this, and of the plain 
 teaching of Paul and other apostles, it is a marvel and mystery how 
 that earnest searcher after truth, Count Leon Tolstoi, could have been 
 led to form and express the following opinion: 'And strange as it 
 may seem to say so of Christ, who Himself rose from the dead, and 
 who promised to raise all men, He never by a single word, confirmed 
 the belief in individual resurrection, in individual immortality beyond 
 
PART 11.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 191 
 
 tlic o-ravc, but He even attached to tlie raising- up of the dead in tlie 
 kingdom of the ]\[essiah, as taught by tlie Pharisees, a meaning wiiich 
 excluded the idea of individual resurrection.' * Again : ' Christ could 
 never have supposed so strange an idea among His followers. He 
 supposes all men to understand that individual life must inevitably 
 perish ; and he reveals a life which cannot perish.' Again : ' The 
 ■whole purport of Christ's doctrine is to teach His disciples that indi- 
 vidual life being but a delusion they should renounce it, and transfer 
 their individual lives into the lives of all humanity, into the life of the 
 son of man.' Tolstoi has been misled by his own imagination. Let 
 it suffice to say that his misconceptions are based upon a misappre- 
 hension of the meaning of the words he quotes, namely, ' AVith (Jod 
 all are living,' from which he hastily draws the conclusion, as though 
 it were the only conceivable one : ' And therefore, if there be a living 
 God, the man who is one with God lives too.' The mind of Tolstoi 
 is, as it vv'ere, microscopic : his earnest gaze on some particular pas- 
 sages may reveal depths of truth and reality which, fur want of such 
 a power of concentration, have been passed over by others ; but when 
 his focus of vision is disarranged, a truth becomes distorted, and an 
 error magnified. Take, as an example of his self-deceptive reasoning, 
 the following explanation on another subject : ' It was necessary to 
 feed several thousand men. One of the disciples said to Christ that 
 a boy there had a few fishes. The disciples had also a few loaves. 
 Christ knew that some of those who had come from a distance had 
 brought food with them and others had not. That many had brought 
 provisions with them is evident from there being twelve basketfuls 
 gathered of what remained, as we read in all the four Gospels. (If 
 nobody had had anything except the boy, there would not have been 
 twelve baskets in the field.) Had Christ not done what he did, that 
 is, the "miracle" of feeding thousands with five loaves, what now 
 takes place in the world would have taken place then. Those who 
 had provisions with them would have eaten all they had, would have 
 overeaten themselves rather than that anything should have been left. 
 Misers would perhaps have taken the remainder home. Those who 
 had nothing would have remained hungry, looking on with wicked 
 envy at those who ate, and some would very likely have stolen from 
 those who had provisions. Quarrelling and fighting would have 
 ensued, and some would have gone home satisfied, the others hungry 
 and cross ; exactly what takes place in our present lives would have 
 happened then. But Christ knew what he meant to do ; He told 
 them all to sit in a circle, and enjoined his disciples to Qffer a part of 
 what they had to those next them, and to tell others to do the same. 
 The result was, that when all those who had brought provisions with 
 them followed the example set them by the disciples, and offered a 
 share of their provisions to others, there was enough for all. All 
 were satisfied, and so much rem.ained that twelve baskets were 
 filled.' 
 
 It is a beantiful conception of Tolstoi's, and admirably worked out. 
 At first one is inclined to rub one's eyes, and wonder why so simple 
 an explanation of the ' miracle ' has never presented itself before. But 
 how came it to pass that not one of the four evangelists presented it 
 
 * "What I Believe," pp. 135, 147, li6. 
 
192 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 ill that light ? Auy one of them, by introducing a sentence or 
 simply turning a phrase, could have made the matter as clear to us as 
 Tolstoi has done. Not a liint of his interpretation is conveyed by 
 the narratives ; not a word about the multitude having food left of 
 their own ; no such expression as he uses, ' tell others to do the 
 same ; ' nothing to lead to the conclusion that ' those who had 
 brought provisions with them followed the example set them by the 
 Ii Mark 44 disciplcs.' Ou the contrary, Mark ends with the words, ' And they 
 G joiui 13 that ate the loaves were five thousand men,' and John says that ' they 
 filled twelve baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves.' 
 ,, 20 When Jesus alludes to the miracle, it is in the same strain : ' Ye seek 
 me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and 
 were filled.' In the similar miracle, when four thousand were fed 
 with seven loaves and a few fishes, there is nothing mentioned con- 
 sistent with the idea of Tolstoi, nothing about the people bringing 
 out their own stores of food, but on the contrary, Matthew and Mark 
 ij Milt. 3l> agree as to the exact words of Jesus: 'I have compassion on the 
 s Mark i multitude, because they continue with me now three days and have 
 nothing to eat.' And when Jesus referred to both miracles, the 
 number of loaves he specifies as divided among the multitude is five 
 10 yud. ;i, 10 and seven. ' Do ye not yet perceive, neither remember the five loaves 
 of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up ? Neither 
 the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how mauy baskets ye took 
 up ? ' Count Tolstoi seems incapable of extending his range of vision 
 outside his own argument : he is blind to the facts which tell against 
 it. In the same way, in framing his theory about the resurrection, 
 he overlooks the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the revelation 
 of ]\Ioses and Elijah ou the mount, and the sublime reasoning of Paul 
 in the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. The 
 errors of Christianity have ever arisen from the mistakes of its 
 friends, and it behoves us to be on our guard against them, thankful 
 for any fresh light, yet watchful against mistakes of judgment, 
 seeking to sift the true from the false, and following no man blindly. 
 Holding fast to the doctrine of a resurrection of the dead, it must 
 prove rather a curse than a blessing if it leads to a neglect of the 
 obligations resting upon Christians in the present life. This is 
 wisely and forcibly insisted on by Mr. J. A. Froude. He says : * ' The 
 Egyptians, in the midst of their corruptions, had inherited the doctrine 
 from their fathers which is considered the foundation of all religion. 
 They believed in a life beyond the grave — in the judgment bar of 
 Osiris, at which they were to stand on leaving their bodies, and in a 
 future of happiness or misery as they had lived well or ill u])on earth. 
 It was not a speculation of philosophers — it was the popular creed ; 
 and it was held with exactly the same kind of belief with which it has 
 been held by the Western nations since their conversion to Chris- 
 tianity. But what was the practical effect of their belief ? There is 
 no doctrine, however true, which works mechanically on the soul like 
 a charm. The expectation of a future state may be a motive for the 
 noblest exertion, or it may be an excuse for acquiescence in evil, and 
 serve to conceal and perpetuate the most enormous iniquities. The 
 magnate of Thebes or Memphis, with his huge estates, his town and 
 
 * " On Progress." 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 193 
 
 countrv palaces, his retinue of eunuchs, and his slaves whom he 
 counted by thousands, was able to say to himself, if he thought at all, 
 *• True enough, there are inequalities of fortune, but it is only for a 
 time after all ; they have immortal souls, poor devils ! and their 
 wretched existence here is but a drop of Avater in the ocean of 
 their being. They ha\-e as good a chance of Paradise as I have — 
 perha]w better. Osiris will set all right hereafter ; and for the present 
 rich and poor are an ordinance of Providence, and there is no occa- 
 sion to disturb established institutions. For myself, I have drawn a 
 prize in the lottery, and I hope I am grateful. I subscribe hand- 
 somely to the temiile services. I am myself punctual in my religious 
 duties. The priests, who are wiser than I am, pray for me, and they 
 tell me I may set my mind at rest." Under this theory of things the 
 Israelites had been ground to powder. They broke away. They too 
 Avere to become a nation. A revelation of the true (lod was bestowed 
 on them, from which, as from a fountain, a deeper knowledge of the 
 Divine nature was to flow out over the earth ; and the central thought 
 of it was the realization of the Divine government — not in a vague 
 hereafter, but in the living present. The unpractical prospective 
 justice which had become an excuse for tyranny, was superseded by 
 an immediate justice in time. They were to reap the harvest of their 
 deeds, not in heaven, but on earth. There was no life in the grave 
 whither they were going. The future state was withdrawn from their 
 sight till the mischief which it had wrought was forgotten. It was 
 not denied, but it was veiled in a cloud. It was left to private 
 opinion to hope or to fear ; but it was no longer held out either as an 
 excitement to piety, or a terror to evil doers. The God of Israel was 
 a living God, and His power was displayed visibly and immediately 
 in rewarding the good and punishing the wicked while they remained 
 in the flesh. It would be unbecoming to press the parallel, but 
 phenomena are showing themselves which indicate that an analogous 
 suspension of belief provoked by the same causes may possibly be 
 awaiting ourselves. The relations between man and man are now 
 supposed to be governed by natural laws which enact themselves 
 independent of considerations of justice. Political economy is erected 
 into a science, and the shock to our moral nature is relieved by the 
 reflection that it refers only to earth, and that justice may take eff"ect 
 hereaftei'. Science, however, is an inexorable master. The evidence 
 for a hereafter depends on considerations which science declines to 
 entertain. To piety and conscientiousness it appears inherently pro- 
 bal:)le ; but to the calm, unprejudiced student of realities, piety and 
 conscientiousness are insuflUcient witnesses to matters of fact. The 
 religious passions have made too many mistakes to be accepted as of 
 conclusive authority. Scientific habits of thought, which are more 
 and more controlling us, demand external proofs which are difficult 
 to find. It may be that we require once more to have the living 
 certainties of the Divine government brought home to us more pal- 
 pably ; that a doctrine which has been the consolation of the heavy- 
 laden for eighteen hundred years may have generated once more a 
 prnctical infidelity, and that by natural and intelligent agencies, in 
 the furtherance of the everlasting purposes of our Father in heaven. 
 the belief in a life beyond the grave may again be about to be with- 
 drawn.' 
 
194 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [part ii. 
 
 This voice of warning is not lifted np without a cause. They are 
 not fit for the hope of a life to come, who make no effort to realise 
 the Christ-like life on earth. 
 
 Immediately followino- the paral>le of the rich man and Lazarus is 
 IT Luke 1 placed a discourse of Jesus to his disciples. 'And he said unto his 
 disciples, It is impossible but that occasions of stumbling should 
 come.' This corresponds with Young's word ' stumbling-blocks,' in 
 place of ' offences ' in the Authorised Version. The term ' stum- 
 bling-block ' conveys the idea of something laid in the way of social 
 progress, something which is detrimental to the general welfare, a 
 cause of danger to many and of injury to some. The condition of 
 society excludes the hope of immunity from such evils : they ' come ' 
 inevitably, generated out of the imperfections of humanity. If they 
 who fall and suffer by them are to be pitied, much more miser- 
 able and condemnable are the men by whom they are originated and 
 „ 1 perpetuated. Jesus added : ' but woe unto him, through whom they 
 come.' Sharpe renders : ' but alas for him,' which throws a tone of 
 compassion into the threat. A premature and ignominious death 
 would be preferable to a life prolonged to exercise an obstructive 
 „ J influence. ' It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about 
 his neck, and he v/ere thrown into the sea, rather than that he should 
 cause one of these little ones to stumble.' The original is stronger 
 than the translation. Shaipe renders, ' an upper millstone ' ; Young 
 ' a mighty millstone ' ; the ' Englishman's Greek ISTew Testament,' ' a 
 millstone' turned by an ass,' The expression, ' these little ones ' 
 must refer to the disciples, to whom the discourse was addressed. 
 Jesus was accustomed to allude to them under that designation. 
 10 Mat. 42 'Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup 
 isM;it. c of cold water only, in the name of a disciple . . .' 'One of these 
 little ones which believe on me.' Jesus was ever mindful of the 
 fact that those who followed his teaching and example were shorn of 
 the powers of resistance and self-defence. So much the worse for 
 them, from the point of view of this world. So much the worse 
 for their oppressors, Avheu the rulership of Jesus is established. 
 Meantime, he counsels his disciples to be vigilant over themselves, 
 17 Luke 3 allowiug uo siu in their midst to pass without rebuke. ' Take heer! 
 to yourselves : if thy brother sin, rebuke him.' iVot punishment, 
 threats or litigation, but argument, expostidation, rebuke must be 
 resorted to. Should that prove effectual, the matter must end with 
 amendment on the one side and forgiveness on the other. The 
 3 offence must be condoned, not avenged : ' and if he repent, forgive 
 him.' Young here, as elsewhere, renders ' repent ' as ' reform ' ; but 
 the definition of the verb metcmoed is : ' to perceive afterwards or too 
 late. 2 to change one's mind or opinion. 3 to repent,' and the 
 noun mrfcmoia, rendered by Young ' reformation,' is defined : ' after- 
 thought : change of mind on reflection, repentance.' Of course 
 change of thought or purpose must take a practical form ; but the 
 will is the mainspring of conduct, and as soon as mind and heart 
 begin to move aright, rebuke should cease. 'No matter how often 
 the offence might be renewed : human nature is most weak when 
 most erring, and the spirit of forgiveness must not be less persistent 
 „ 4 than the evil which calls for its exercise. ' And if he sin against 
 
I'AHT II.] A STL'I>Y OF THE FOUll GOSFELS. 195 
 
 tlicc seven times in the day, and seven times turn as^ain to thee, 
 saying, I repent ; thou shalt fori>'ive liim.' Following the two 
 oldest MS8. the Revisers do not repeat 'in a day' before 'turn.' 
 The precejit ainis at the maintenance of a spirit of watchfulness and 
 of healthy criticism. The Avord ' brother ' indicates that the Christian 
 community is referred to, not the outside world. Between the 
 followers of Jesus no wrong must be suffered, and no tame submission 
 to wrong doing is inculcated. Brother should rebuke brotlier, and a 
 discipline of virtue and rectitude be encouraged and upheld : not, 
 liowever, by punishment meted out under the idea of retributive 
 justice, the penalty being proportioned to the offence ; but by the 
 development of a proper spirit and right judgment : immediately 
 the offender is conscious of his fiiult and desirous to amend it, no 
 further rebuke is required. Keformation can only proceed from 
 within, through a change in the mind of the offender himself, and 
 the instant that becomes evident, the end of reproof is gained, and no 
 further pressure should be applied. It must not l)c assumed that the 
 habit of repeated forgiveness is inculcated mei'oly with reference to 
 the perfecting of the character of the offended person, that he may 
 become more Christ-like. Jesus had at heart the welfare of all, and 
 if he advises the acceptance of an express desire and intention of 
 amendment, it is because that is the most efficacious method of 
 dealing with wrong-doers, the course best calculated to promote not 
 only the peace but the perfection of the Christian community. The 
 counsels of Jesus with respect to Church government have not been 
 recognised or adopted : that ' force is no remedy ' is a maxim of the 
 highest wisdom, constituting tlie very essence of Christian judicature ; 
 the object is not to punish criminals, but to reform them. Jesus 
 gave his followers power to remit sins, but not to avenge them. His 
 strongest weapon is 'rebuke'; if the sinner 'turn again,' nothing is ji^tarj- 
 more could be desired ; if not, Jesus has elsewhere laid down a 
 course of procedure which has been strangely, sadly overlooked, a 
 scheme of Church discipline which has yet to be urged, tested, estab- 
 lished, before it can be asserted that Christianity has been even 
 tried, much less found wanting. The existence, for example, of 
 wars between so called Christian nations, is of itself a proof that 
 there is no such thing as national Christianity: all fightings are 
 contrary to the spirit of its Founder, whose ' kingdom is not of this 
 world,' and who laid down as a maxim of belief and ])ractice that ' all -(J Mat. 02 
 they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.' 
 
 The Evangelist proceeds : 'And the apostles said unto the Lord, i" Luke 5 
 Increase our faith.' The introduction of the Avords ' the Lord,' 
 instead of 'him/ seems to indicate that this aa as not a continuation 
 of the preceding subject : there is certainly no apparent connection 
 between forgiveness and faith. To the request of the disciples Jesus 
 gave a very remarkable ansAA'er. He seems not to admit the idea of 
 any need for the increase of faith, declaring, on the contrary, that 
 the minutest imaginable quantity Avas sufficient to Avork the greatest 
 conceivable miracle. ' And the Lord said, If ye have faith as a „ o 
 grain of mustard seed, ye would say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou 
 rooted up, and be thou planted in the sea ; and it Avould have obeyed 
 you.' A very strong hyperbole, this ! But is it anything more than 
 
 2 
 
196 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 an exaggerated figure of speech ? Having regard to tlie Speaker, it 
 ]uay carry a meaning which it could not bear had it fallen from the 
 lips of an ordinary man. It raises the question of the power of mind 
 over matter. There are subtle influences at work in nature, acting 
 invisibly and even independently of volition, which are as certain 
 and mighty in operation as they are inscrutable and astounding. 
 Magnetic attraction is a mystery and marvel. Who can explain why 
 the compass points invariably to the north ? "What is the occult 
 property in the loadstone, which causes a piece of iron to fly to it 
 through space, and then adhere so firmly ? There dwells in the 
 magnet an inexplicable force ; give it a name : call it attraction : 
 the mystery remains as great as ever. Is it, then, a thing incredible, 
 that there should emanate from the human mind a power analogous to 
 that which we know can exist in a piece of metal ? Give that power 
 a name : call it faith : you do not thereby elucidate the marvel : 
 you simply define the existence of an inherent quality and force in 
 mind, that is, in a certain combination of spirit Avith matter. Jesus 
 asserts the possibility of what we, in our blind ignorance, would 
 declare to be impossible. This question reaches to the very basis of 
 our belief in Deity. Either the order of the universe was self- 
 generated, or it has been arranged by a supreme Spirit working 
 upon unconscious matter. That was the belief of the Psalmist : 
 
 33 Psa. 6 ' By the word of the Lord were the heavens made ; 
 
 And all the host of them h\ the breath of his mouth, 
 ,, !> For he spake, and it was done ; 
 
 He commanded, and it stood fast.' 
 Jesus bade his disciples recognise the rudiments of a similar God- 
 like power in themselves. What is faith but assurance, — confidence, 
 — the conviction that what we will to do is ensured by the act of 
 willing ? I will to move my finger, and it is done : I had the faith 
 that I could move it, and the result corresponded to the conviction. 
 I have no faith, not one grain of faith, that I can uproot a tree : but 
 if I had that faith, the act would lie within the compass of my power. 
 The infant unfolds day by day new attributes, the claild develops new 
 capacities, the adult puts forth new energies ; and as with the indivi- 
 dual, so with the race. Out of the gloom of barbarism the nations 
 have gradually emerged into the light of commerce and civilisation, 
 through them to rise to a yet higher culture and purer morality. 
 Each age has its own degree of faith, corresponding to the scale of 
 advancement to which it has attained : to desire an increase of faith, 
 is to seek that Avhich lies beyond our present grasp ; to grant it, 
 would be to disturb the order of nature and providence.. Faith must 
 needs be the spontaneous outcome of the human soul : it is the 
 certainty of conviction, the consciousness of power, the limit of our 
 own abihty to will and do ; nothing is impossible to it ; it is a 
 quality, not a quantity ; to crave for more, is as though we were to 
 ask that the brightest light should be altogether dazzling, for two 
 suns instead of one, that we may scorch ourselves and die. No : we 
 must be content to bide our time, to circle in our little round of 
 duty, passing through our appointed probation of servitude, and 
 gradually rising to a higher range of faith and action. What the 
 disciples Avanted was not more faith, but more obedience. Jesus at 
 
 i7LukcV, s once turned their thoughts in that direction. ' But who is there of 
 
TART II.] .4 ,STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 197 
 
 you, having a servant (Gr. bond-servant) plowing or keeping slieep, 
 that will say unto him, when he is come in from the tield, Come 
 straightway^ and sit down to meat ; and will not rather say unto 
 him,' JVIake ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve 
 me, till I ha\-e eaten and drunken ; and afterward thou shalt eat and 
 drink ? ' Rules of rank and gradation must be recognised and 
 adhered to ; the master must needs take precedence of the servant. 
 The lesson conveyed by the parable amounts to this : be content to 
 work in your allotted sphere of duty ; do not expect things which 
 are above you, and tod high for you : seek no increase of faith in 
 the hope of display of power and a sudden elevation ; that which is 
 necessary and desirable for your Master is equally so for you, and 
 will in due time be granted you. Be content to do his bidding and 
 wait his time. Your position and prospects are your sutticient and 
 only recompense. Aim not at anything beyond, for you can claim 
 nothing and receive nothing more. 'Doth he thank the servant iv LnUe 9 
 (Gr. bond-servant) because he did the things which were com- 
 manded ? ' The Revisers and Tischendorf omit the words, ' I trow 
 not.' Alford notes that they are ' omitted by several ancient author- 
 ities,' but no indication is given of their absence from any of the 
 three oldest MSS. In such a spirit let the disciples simply endeavour 
 to perform their duty. Enough for them, instead of asking for 
 higher gifts of faith, to obey every command laid upon them, dis- 
 ujissing the idea of any works of supererogation, and indulging no 
 ambition outside their proper sphere of action. ' Even so ye also, „ i» 
 when ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, 
 We are unprofitable servants (Gr. bond-servants) ; we have done 
 that which it was our duty to do.' The word ' unprofitable ' needs 
 cousideratifai. Alford says : ' In the case of me/i this is different ; 
 a good servant is profitahh, not useless.'' But to represent such 
 servants as unprofitable to their Master is contrary to the parable, 
 for they were either ploughing or keeping slieep, and afterwards 
 waiting at table ; and in another parable Jesus describes a heavy 
 punishment to be due to an unprofitable servant. Alford quotes 
 Bengel, who gets over the difficulty in this way : ' Wretched is he 
 whom the Lord calls an unprofitable servant : happy he who calls 
 himself so.' But as the word ' unprofitable ' does not apply to the 
 servants in respect of their master, it must in respect of themselves : 
 their labour was profitable to him, being justly due to him ; it 
 brought no profit to them, they being bound to render him service. 
 That the application of the word may be twofold is shown in the 
 passage : ' That they may do this with joy, and not with grief : for 3 iieb. iv 
 this were unprofitable for you.' It might have stood ' for them ' : 
 had the writer omitted the last two words, we should have had to 
 judge for ourselves whether he meant 'for you' or 'for them,' or 
 'for you and them.' In the case before us, the context sufficiently 
 indicates that the application of the word ' unprofitable ' is not to 
 the master but to the servants : it was for them to do their duty, 
 without expectation of profit in the shape of thanks or special 
 emoluments. 
 
 In recording the miracles of Jesus, Luke is careful to supply such 
 particulars of time and place as were within his knowledge. The 
 
198 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 following incident ooeuiTed in a journey towards Jeruealem, some- 
 where near the boundary-line between Galilee and Samaria. ' And 
 it came to pass, as they were (or, as he was) on the way to Jerusalem, 
 that he was passing through the midst of (or, between) Samaria and 
 Galilee.' No record was handed down of the exact spot : the ' certain 
 village ' alluded to was probably too little known to have been 
 generally recognised by name. At the entrance to the village Jesus 
 was met by ten lepers. ' And as he entered into a certain village, 
 there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off.' This 
 isolation from others was obligatory on account of their disease. 
 The expression ' there met him ' coupled with ' which stood afar off,' 
 may be taken to indicate that the meeting was intentional on their 
 part : the fame of Jesus had long been spread abroad, and wherever 
 he went with his disciples the news of his coming would l)e likely to 
 precede him. The lepers with one accord besought the compassion 
 of the great Teacher : ' and they lifted up their voices, saying, Jesus, 
 Master, have mercy on us.' Probably Jesus was surrounded by a 
 crowd eager to see and hear him, outside which the ten lepers were 
 constrained to keep at some considerable distance, endeavouring to 
 attract his attention by crying aloud. This is implied by the words : 
 ' And when he saw them, he said unto them.' It is not said that he 
 called back to them : probably one of the disciples conveyed to them 
 his message, which was as follows: 'Go and shew yourselves unto 
 the priests.' They were justified in regaixling that as a favourable 
 answer : the only object of undergoing inspection by the priest was 
 that he might pronounce the leprosy either diminished or cured. 
 They went as Jesus bade them. 'And it came to pass, as they went, 
 they were cleansed.' One of them, when he became conscious of the 
 marvellous change which had come over him, returned to Jesus, pro- 
 claiming loudly as he went his thankfulness to ({od. ' And one of 
 them, wlien he saw that he was healed, turned back, with a loud 
 voice glorifying God.' The uplifting of the voice was no needless 
 demonstration : none would approach a leper, and to shout out, 'God 
 be thanked for my cure ! ' was natural, and, under the circumstances, 
 not unbecoming. On reaching the presence of Jesus, he i'ell pro- 
 strate, pouring forth his thanks. ' And he fell upon his face at his 
 feet, giving him thanks.' The nationality of the man was discern- 
 ible : ' and he was a Samaritan.' But why, Jesus asked, had one 
 only out of ten returned ? ' And Jesus answering said. Were not the 
 ten cleansed ? but where are the nine ? ' The feeling of gratitude 
 was strongest in this alien Irom the commonwealth of Israel. ' "Were 
 there (or. There were) none found that returned to give glory to God, 
 save this stranger (or, alien).' This may be accounted for on the 
 supposition that the rest were Jews, who might consider it enough to 
 comply with the observance laid down by Moses on the cleansing of 
 leprosy. The spirit of Jesus appears in his observation : he valued 
 much, if not most, the immediate recognition of a benefit ; and the 
 acknowledgment to a benefactor was, in his eyes, consistent with, if 
 not equivalent to, a thanksgiving to God. Moreover, he would not 
 have the man leaA-e him under the idea that only to God alone, or to 
 Jesus in conjunction with God, the cure was to be attributed. The 
 man's faith had been a means in the working of the miracle. ' And 
 he said unto him, Arise, and go thy way : tJiy faith hath made thee 
 
I'ART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR (lOSFFLS. I'M 
 
 whole (or, saved thee).' Youni;- aud Tischendorf render 'saved thee ; ' 
 the ' Eughshmau's ( Jreek New Testament,' ' cured thee.' 'I'he expres- 
 sion, however transhited, is obviously restricted to the lieaUng of the 
 leprosy. Unfortunately, tiie training and traditions of theologians 
 embolden them to discover meanings which are not disclosed or 
 suggested by the narrative. Dean Alford's comment is as follows : 
 ' Bafh made thee whole — in a higher sense than the mere cleansing of 
 his leprosy — theirs was merely the beholding of the brazen serpent 
 with the outward eyes, — but his, with the eye of inward faith ; and 
 this faith saved him ;■ — not only healed his body, but his soul.' 
 What a lamentable overstepping of the narrative is that ! How can 
 the simple but momeutous truths which Jesus sought to teach be 
 realised, when his words are thus stretched beyond their natural and 
 proper meaning ? 
 
 Jesus was once questioned by the Pharisees as to the time when 
 God's kingdom, which we know had been proclaimed since the days 
 of John the Baptist, would come. Jesus replied that no outward 
 signs marked its advent. ' Aud being asked by the Pharisees, when i; 
 the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said. The 
 kingdom of God cometh not Avith observation.' There were no 
 external symbols of that rulership ; it was not a thing to be localised 
 and gazed at. ' Neither shall they say, Lo, here ! or, There ! for lo, 
 the kingdom of God is within you (or, in the midst of you).' The 
 Revisers have retained the word ' within,' but the sense of the 
 marginal reading is expressly given by Tischendorf 's note : 'translate 
 is among you' Alford says : ' The misunderstanding which rendered 
 these words within ijou, meaning this in a spiritual sense, in your 
 hearts, should have been prevented by reflecting that they are 
 addressed to the Pharisees, in whose hearts it certainly was not.' 
 Young renders ' within,' not necessarily intending it in a spiritual 
 Hense. Yet his translation ot ' kingdom of God ' by ' reign of God,' 
 includes that sense : God's ' reign ' can only be ' among ' men in 
 proportion to their obedience to his will. 
 
 What follows was spoken to the disciples, not to the Pharisees, and 
 must not be assumed to be a continuation of the same subject, 
 ' And he said unto the disciples. The days will come, when ye shall 
 desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see 
 it.' The earthly career of Jesus must draw on to its close ; and 
 when his daily round of teaching and healing should be ended, there 
 would spring up in the hearts of his disciples , a longing for his 
 presence and instruction. Then rumours of his return to earth would 
 be promulgated, some saying he w^ould be found in one place, some 
 in another. AH such visionary expectations must be set aside. 
 'And they shall say to you, Lo, there ! Lo, here ! go not away, nor 
 follow after them.'' Tischendorf renders : ' Go not away and pursue 
 not.' Such reports would not be worth their heeding and investiga- 
 ting. When the day of his manifestation should come, there would 
 be no need to seek him in a particular spot : the whole world would 
 know of his coming, which would be as open and unmistakable as 
 the lightning which flashes at opposite points of the horizon. ' For 
 as the lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under the 
 heaven, shineth nnto the other part under the heaven ; so shall the 
 
200 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 Son of man be in his day.' The Eevisers note that ' Some ancient 
 authorities omit in h is day.'' Of the three oldest MSS. the Vatican only 
 omits those words ; Tischendorf retains them. But before the day 
 of his manifestation, Jesus must pass through much suffering and be 
 
 17 Luke -25 rejected by his contemporaries. ' But first must he suffer many 
 things and be rejected of this generation.' Foreseeing all that, he 
 looked far beyond, even to a time when he would be the supreme 
 arbiter of the world's destiny. Jesus had previously foretold as much, 
 
 33 Mat. 41 when expounding his parable of the tares of the held. ' So shall it 
 be in the consummation of the age. The Son of man shall send 
 forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things 
 that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity.' Meantime all the 
 affairs of the world are left to go on after their accustomed fashion, 
 
 17 (.iikf 2(1- the long-deferred crisis coming suddenly at its appointed time. ' And 
 as it came to pass in the days of Xoah, even so shall it be also in the 
 days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they 
 were given in marriage, until the day that JSToah entered into the ark, 
 and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it 
 came to pass in the days of Lot ; they ate, they drank, they bought, 
 they sold, they planted, they builded ; but in the day that Lot went 
 out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and 
 destroyed them all.' The rendering of Tischendorf, Young, and the 
 ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' ' they were eating, they were 
 drinking,' &c., is preferable. These two illustrations point to some 
 catastrophe, a universal judgment, a special and irresistible inter- 
 „ so ference with the course of nature : ' after the same manner shall it 
 be in the day that the Sou of man is revealed.' So sudden will be 
 the emergency that not an instant must be lost by those who would 
 „ 31,3-2 escape destruction. ' In that day, he which shall be on the housetop, 
 and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away : 
 and let him that is in the field likewise not return back. Remember 
 Lot's Avife.' iVs this represents imminent danger to hfe, the signifi- 
 cance of the following verse is not obvious, and seems at first sight 
 ,, 3:; contradictory. ' Whosoever shall seek to gain his life (or, soul) shall 
 lose it : but whosoever shall lose Jns life (or, soul) shall preserve it 
 (Gr. save it alive).' Alford translates the verse thus : 'Whosoever 
 shall have sought his life shall lose it : and whosoever shall have lost 
 it shall quicken it ; ' and he adds the note : ' ivliosoever shall have 
 sought, i.e. during his preceding life, shall lose it then : whosoerer shall 
 have lost it, by self-sacrifice during this life, shall quicken it then ' ; 
 and he quotes AVordsworth as follows : ' The verb in the original is an 
 expressive word, derived from animal parturition, bringing forth to 
 air and life what was before concealed in the womb.' Tischendorf's 
 rendering is : ' Whosoever shall seek to possess his life, will lose it ; 
 and whosoever shall lose it will preserve it ' ; Youug : ' Whoever 
 may seek to save his life, shall lose it ; and whoever may lose his life, 
 shall preserve it.' ISTothing can ward off death, and nothing can 
 hinder life after death. The axiom was one which Jesus impressed 
 on his disciples at various times, and which he sought to make them 
 realise as their rule of life and action. And the coming of the Son 
 of man will be in connection with the final change and crisis of our 
 present existence, and will involve a process of selection and separa- 
 tion altogether irrespective of worldly conditions and surroundings. 
 
PAKT II. 1 .4 16TUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFFLS. 201 
 
 ' I say unto you, In that nio;ht there shall be two men in one hed, the n LuUp ^4^, 
 one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. There shall be two ^^ 
 
 women grinding together ; the one shall be taken, and the other 
 shall be" left.' The Revisers, following the three oldest ]\ISS., have 
 omitted the following verse : ' There shall be two men in the __ 3,; 
 field ; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.' Alford 
 suggests that ' it was probably inserted here from Matt. xxiv. 40.' 
 
 There has been nothing in the world's history answering to this 
 description of the coming of the Son of man. It represents not only 
 a general, overwiielming catastrophe, but simultaneously or antece- 
 dently the deliverance of certain persons. Jesus dwells especially on 
 this last circumstance, telling us that the discrimination of character 
 will be so close and unerring that men and Avomen living, resting, 
 working together will be separated from each other, some taken from 
 the evil to come and others left to meet their doom. It is the stor}' 
 of Dives and Lazarus in another form, the same truth, but without a 
 metaphor, as is revealed in the parables of the tares of the field and 
 the drag-net, both of which had reference to 'the consummation of 13 Mat. 40, 
 the age.' The disciples asked Jesus where this stupendous manifesta- ■*^' '*'*' *'' 
 tion of the Son of man was destined to take ]Dlace. ' And they ir Liii<e 37 
 answering say unto him, AVhere, Lord (Sir — Young) ?' The reply of 
 Jesus was metaphorical: 'And he said unto them, Where the body „ 37 
 'is, thither will the eagles (or, vultures) also be gathered together.' 
 Divine judgment will be executed, not with reference to particular 
 localities, l)ut as it may be necessitated by the course of events : as 
 the vultures swoop to their prey, attracted thither by the miasma of 
 the carcase, so the advent of the Son of man, and the work of separa- 
 tion assigned to his messengers, will come to pass where and when 
 the state of society may demand such an interference. 
 
 Of the parable of the unjust judge which immediately follows, 
 Alford says : ' This parable, though not perhaps spoken in immediate 
 unbroken sequence after the last discourse, evidently arose out of it.' 
 The opening words imply, at least, that it was spoken to the same 
 persons : ' And he spake a parable unto them,' that is, to ' the dis- is Luke i 
 ciples ' (see verse 22 of the last chapter) : ' to the end that they ought ^ ^ ■> 
 always to pray, and not to faint, saying, There was in a city a judge, 
 which feared not (lod, and regarded not man.' Young renders lite- 
 rally : 'A certain judge was in a certain city, God not fearing, and 
 man not regarding.' A man without conscience and without prin- 
 ciple, setting at naught all laws, divine and human. To his judgment 
 seat there came a lonely, persecuted woman. ' And there was a v/idow „ .3 
 in that city, and she came oft unto him, saying. Avenge me (or, do 
 me justice) of mine adversary.' That, for some time, he refused to 
 do ; but, later on, he altered his mind, and resolved to do her justice. 
 Not willingly, however, nor from any sense of rectitude, but simply 
 to save himself the annoyance caused by her repeated applications. 
 'And he would not for a while : but afterward he said within him- „ 4,,'-. 
 self. Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow 
 troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest she wear me out (Gr. bruise me) 
 by her continual coming.' Persistent entreaty was a sufficient lever 
 wherewith to overcome his conscienceless immol)ility. ()n that point 
 of the parable Jesus seized, emphasising the lesson it conveyed. 'And ,, c 
 
202 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 the Lord said, Hear Avhat the unrighteous judge (Gr. the judge of 
 unrighteousness) saith.' If he was moved by the widow's importunity 
 to vindicate her cause, how much more will God exercise his judicial 
 power in favour of those whom he has chosen out of the world, and 
 Avliose cry, under the wrongs and persecutions of the world, sounds 
 
 IS Luke 7 unceasingly in his ears ? ' And shall not God avenge his elect, which 
 cry to him day and night, and he is longsuffering over them ? ' The 
 Authorised Version has : ' though he bear long with them,' but the 
 wording of the Revisers agrees with Tischendorf and Alford. The 
 latter explains : ' He is long-suffering to those w^ho oppose them ; ' 
 but surely the Avord ' them ' must refer back to the elect. So Peter 
 
 3 ii. Pet. 9 applied the term : ' long-suffering to you-ward.' The word ' though,' 
 in the Authorised Version, is not in the original. The long-suffering 
 or patience of God to the cry of his chosen^ is put in contrast with 
 the impatience of the unjust judge to the complaint of the widow ; 
 the divine long-suffering is in the direction of a Avilling, continuous 
 attention, which was the quality lackiug in the unjust judge, who 
 would not suffer the woman's importunity. The reverse of that 
 
 18 Luke s holds good witli respect to God and his elect : ' I say unto you, that 
 he will avenge them speedily.' From this it follows that the drift of 
 the parable, that ' they ought always to pray and not to faint,' is not 
 to be understood as referring to the reiteration of prayer, for there can 
 be no need of that to One who answers ' speedily.' The expression, 
 ' which cry to him day and night,' denotes the incessant wrong-doing 
 which is committed in the world, so that an unbroken chorus of sup- 
 plication is ever rising to God in appeal against man's injustice. 
 Generation after generation, by day and night, that goes on : yet 
 
 z ii. Pet. ' the Lord is not slack concerning his promise ; ' the warning of Jesus 
 
 j Mat. 25 never ceases to ajaply : ' Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles 
 thou art with him ni the way ; lest haply the adversary deliver thcc 
 to the judge.' That will be the lot of every oppressor. Our earthly 
 life soon ends, and how speedily after death come judgment and the 
 rectification, even to reversal, of this world's inequalities, let the 
 parable of the rich man and Lazarus, — whose name signifies ' God is 
 my help,' — testify. All this, howevei-, is a matter of faith, unbacked 
 by any evidence : the ' I say unto you ' of Jesus is the only basis for 
 our hope to rest upon. And as time goes on, century after century 
 passing without any visible divine interference, the anticipation of a 
 
 3ii. Pet. 4 judgment to come grows fainter, so that even ' in the last days ' the 
 question will be asked, ' Where is the promise of his coming ? for, 
 from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they 
 were from the beginning of the creation.' Foreseeing this, Jesus 
 
 IS Luke s added : ' Howbeit, when the Son of man eometh, shall he find faith 
 (or, the faith) on the earth ? ' Young. Tischendorf, and Alford 
 render ' the faith,' the latter considering it to 1 te * faith in reference to 
 the object of t/ie 2Jarat)Ie.' 
 
 Although the Revisers have not dropped from verses 3, 5, 7, aud 8 
 the word ' avenge,' they have given as its equivalent, ' do me justice 
 of.' Alford suggests, ' deliver me from ; ' A'oung has ' do me justice ' 
 . . ' do her justice ' . . ' execute the justice ' ; Luther uses in each 
 instance the word ' retten,' ' save.' The alteration is important, 
 because in modern language the words ' avenge ' and ' vengeance ' 
 have come to signify more than impartial 'justice,' and convey the 
 
PAKT II. J ,1 STUDY OF THE iOUli CWSFMLS. 203 
 
 idea either of actual Tiiulictiveness or of piinishnient inflicted with 
 c'xtremest rio:our. It is clear that in this parable the term ' aven,t>-e ' 
 applies rather to the benefit conferred on the oppressed tlian to any 
 penalty inflicted upon the oppressor ; and throughout the Scriptures 
 by the words 'avenge, avenger, vengeance,' should be understood 
 simply the execution of ' justice.' In that, its true sense, the doctrine 
 of diviue ' vengeance ' is a grand, ennobling, consolatory truth. Thus 
 viewed, ])assages in the I'salms aud elsewhere, which otherwise must 
 be regarded as revolting or iuexplicable, assume soleumity and 
 pathos. Vengeance or avengement must uever be dissociated from or 
 go beyond the idea of justice ; retaliation is not synonymous with 
 vindicti\-eness. On ' the avenger of blood ' in Israel devolved the 
 duty of slayiug every murderer, without trial, without delay ; he was 
 the exponent of the divine law, ' AYhoso sheddeth man's blood, by i» O''". i; 
 man shall his blood be shed.' Flight to one of the cities of refuge 
 was the only way of avoiding immediate destruction, aud of claiming 
 the right of trial ; and even if the charge were reduced to man- 
 slaughter, the manslayer was not safe from the avenger outside the 
 city of refuge. Only the avenger was justified in executing vengeance, -J Xum. 
 and he was commissioned to act unhesitatingly, unvaryingly, like a 
 passionless law of nature, as surely, as s^^■ift^y, as remorselessly, on 
 meeting a murderer, as a flame of fire consumes the stubble within 
 its reach. Consider the effect which such an office, always existing 
 among the Israelites, must have had on the popular conception : the 
 idea of ' vengeance ' was connected with the exercise of a strictly 
 judicial function, an unsparing severity against bloodguiltiness, estab- 
 lished for the jirotection of the community. ' Vengeance ' was declared 
 to be an attribute of the (lod of Israel, and is spoken of in connection 
 with his prerogative of supreme judgment. ' Vengeance is mine, and 3:; i)<mi. so 
 recompence.' 
 
 ' Lord, thou God to whom vengeance belongeth, m Ps. i-s 
 
 Thou God to whom vengeance belongeth, shine forth. 
 Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth : 
 Kender to the proud ///cir desert. 
 Lord, how long shall the wicked, 
 How long shall the wicked triumph ? ' 
 
 Not cruelty, but mercy, and a sublime love of justice, were in the 
 soul of David when he sang : 
 ' The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance : asPsa. lu, n 
 
 He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. 
 
 So that men shall say, A^erily there is a reward for the righteous : 
 
 Verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.' 
 
 In the mind of Paul also vengeance and judgment seem to have 
 been synonymous, for he asks : ' Is God unrighteous who taketh ven- s Rom. 5, r. 
 geance ? ' and answers : ' (}od forbid : for then how shall God judge 
 the world ? ' 
 
 Luke next records another parable, which was not addressed to the 
 disciples, but to certain persons who showed a spirit of self-laudation, 
 and at the same time held others in contempt. ' Aud he spake also is lhi<c '.i 
 this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were 
 righteous, and set all others (Gr. the rest) at nought.' Possibly some 
 unrecorded incident revealed that trait of character and called forth 
 
204 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part it. 
 
 this reproof from Jesus. Young's rendering points that way : ' And 
 he spake also to certain who Avere trusting iu themselves that they 
 were righteous, and despising the rest, this simile.' Tischendorf, 
 however, renders : ' certain who trust in themselves that they are 
 righteous, and set at nought the rest.' Alford also adopts that 
 rendering. Jesus describes two men, one at the top, the other at the 
 IS Luke 10 bottom of the social scale, both going to pray in the temple. ' Two 
 men went up into the temple to pray ; the one a Pharisee, and the 
 other a publican.' The Authorised and Revised Versions continue : 
 
 ,, u ' The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself.' The words 
 'with himself are omitted by Tischendorf, and by Young who 
 renders : ' The Pharisee having stationed himself, thus prayed : ' the 
 recognized formality of posture was punctiliously observed. And his 
 prayer turns out to be a thanksgiving — on behalf of himself, all about 
 
 „ 11 himself, his integrity, his morality. ' Clod, I thank thee, that I am 
 not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers.' Ah ! how 
 thankful he ought to be, not only on account of his freedom from 
 such gross immoralities, but for his honourable position in society : 
 how different his lot from that of this tax-gatherer, whose calling was 
 
 „ n deemed, if not infamous, certainly nob respectable ; so he adds : ' or 
 even as this publican.' What a privilege to have a strict sense of 
 religious duty, involving constant, voluntary self-denial in food and 
 
 „ 12 money ! ' I fast twice in the week ; I give tithes of all that I get,' 
 The Eevisers have altered ' possess ' to ' get ; ' Tischendorf and 
 Alford render the word 'acquire;' the 'Englishman's Greek New 
 Testament ' ' gain.' He gave a tenth part of his income. The heart 
 of the Pharisee stands revealed to us : nothing he said can be 
 assumed to be hypocritical or untrue. He is represented as simply 
 trusting in himself that he was righteous, and looking down upon the 
 publican. The tax-gatherer was humble in demeanour, and would 
 not even lift his eyes heaven wai'ds, a custom which we know that 
 
 „ 13 Jesus himself observed in prayer. ' But the publican, standing afar 
 off, would nob lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven.' That his 
 soul was filled with compunction was evident from his gesture, his 
 intensity of self-reproach impelling him to smite his breast, as he 
 
 „ i:^ confessed his sinfulness and craved forgiveness : ' but smote his breast, 
 saying, God, be merciful (or, be propitiated) to me a (or, the) sinner.' 
 What a contrast between these two men, the one esteeming himself 
 as best among the best, the other as worst among the worst ; the one 
 full of thankful self-congratulation, airing his virtuousness of heart 
 and life in the sight of heaven, the other a self-accused criminal, 
 anxious only to deprecate the wrath of God due to his misdeeds ! As 
 they left the house of prayer for their respective homes, which of the 
 
 „ i-t two was the more acceptable in the sight of God ? Jesus tells us : I say 
 unto you. This man went down to his house justilied rather than the 
 
 ,, 14 other.' And this by the working of an intlexil)]e law : ' For every 
 
 one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, but he that humbleth 
 
 himself shall be exalted.' That is the point of the parable ; the one 
 
 lesson which Jesus bids us draw from it. He impressed this truth on 
 
 •2". Mat. 11, his disciples on two other occasions also. ' But he that is greatest 
 
 ^' among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself 
 
 shall be humbled ; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be 
 
 41 Luke 10, exalted,' Again : ' Then shalt thou have glory iu the presence of all 
 
 XI 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 205 
 
 that sit at meat with thee. For every one that exaltcth liiniself shall 
 be humbled ; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.' 
 The three instances iu which Jesus enforced this arg-umcnt applied 
 to matters of social conduct and demeanour : he would have us 
 take it as a rule of life, with respect to claims of j)recedence in 
 society and in the church. The apostle Paul laid hold upon this 
 truth, and acted iu accordance with it : ' For we are not bold to lo u. cr. i-. 
 number or compare ourselves with certain of them that commend 
 themselves ; but they themselves, measurino- themselves by them- 
 selves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are without under- 
 standing.' Accepting this as sound philosophy and a doctrine of 
 Christian ethics, surely that educational system must be unwise and 
 wrong, which is based upon emulation, the standard of a boy's pro- 
 gress being his position in a class, claims to distinction arising out of 
 a comparison of the scholars with each other, so that they are taught 
 to be 'measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing them- 
 selves with themselves.' ' Every one when he is perfected shall be '> L.-.ko 40 
 as his teacher.' AVhatever is thoroughly learnt by all ceases to be a 
 subject of competitive examination : comparison in degrees of attain- 
 ment is but the badge of imperfection ; the custom of prize-giving 
 and of ' honours ' in our educational system is an evidence either of 
 the fact that the effort to teach thoroughly has not been successful 
 with the majority, or that the scholars generally have been exercised 
 beyond their mental powers. Distinctions granted to the few are, in 
 truth, reproaches chargeable against the teacher for his failure with 
 the many. A wiser method should be adopted. Instead of the 
 artificial system of prize-giving, and the detestable custom of sending 
 periodical ' reports,' with the names and ' marks ' of respective 
 scholars, which too much resembles an attempt to shift the responsi- 
 bility from the schoolmaster upon the parents, who desire that their 
 children may be taught, not simply classified as more or less un- 
 successful scholars, why should not certificates of competency be 
 issued ? That could easily be arranged for all subjects : certificates, 
 for instance, of having become perfect in the first four rules of 
 arithmetic, iu practice, in simple and compound proportion, in 
 decimals ; certificates of thorough attainment in specific o-rades of 
 geometry, of languages, grammatically, by translation, and collo- 
 quially, of geography, of writing and drawing in their several stages, 
 and so on. Such certificates would be reliable evidences of progress, 
 and would obviate the objectionable system of ' crammin<>- ' for 
 examinations. Such a plan has been adopted with satisftictory results 
 by Mr. Isaac Pitman. He issues certificates for phonography : that 
 a speed of so many words per minute has been attained. Every 
 student should perform his work for the work's sake, apart from the 
 stimulus and strain of competition. Why should he be induced to 
 compare himself with his fellows, and measure his own attainments 
 by those of others ? So far as the spirit of emulation is instinctive 
 and spontaneous, it will find its natural outcome in games of strength 
 and skill, which are undertaken for the play's sake, just as studies 
 should be for the work's sake. There is no need to encourage in the 
 young a yearning for distinction and pre-eminence. Jesus detected 
 too much of such a spirit in his days, and he counsels us to hold 
 aloof from it, to act upon the contrary princii)le, to accept as a truth 
 
20G • THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 and life-maxim his assurance : ' Every one that exaltetli himself shall 
 be humbled, but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.' 
 
 Luke's narrative novs^ again falls in with Matthew and Mark. The 
 10 Mat. 13 three evangelists record the bringing of infants to Jesus. ' Then 
 were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his 
 hands on tliem, and pray.' Luke says nothing about praying, but 
 i!s Luke 15 uses a word which denotes the earliest age. ' And they brought unto 
 10 Mark 13 him also their babes, that he should touch them.' Mark : 'And they 
 brought unto him little children, that he should touch them.' 
 Matthew and Mark state : ' and the disciples rebuked them.' Luke 
 says : ' But when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.' The 
 Eevisers have substituted in Mark ' them ' for ' those that brought 
 them,'' on the authority of the two oldest MS8. The rebuke could 
 scarcely fail to be reflected upon such of the children as were old 
 enough to understand the prohibition. Possibly it seemed to the 
 disciples derogatory to the character and office of their Teacher that 
 he should be importuned in this way : that his touch, Avhich had so 
 constantly worked miracles of healing should be sought when no 
 infirmity re(|uired it, perchance even with a superstitious notion. But 
 ^^ the interference of the disciples was hotly resented by Jesus. 'But 
 when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation.' Luke represents 
 him as summoning the disciples to give them his opinion of the 
 Ls Luke 10 matter. ' But Jesus called them unto him, saying, Suffer the little 
 children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of such is the 
 10 Mark 14 kingdoiii of God.' Mark : ' and said unto them, SuflFer the little 
 children to come unto me ; forbid them not : for of such is the 
 v.> Mat. 14 kingdom of God.' Matthew : ' But Jesus said, Suffer the little 
 children, and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven.' In Matthew and Luke the Authorised Version 
 omits the word ' the ' before ' little children,' thereby making the 
 words apply generally ; but Tischendorf, Young and Alford agree 
 with the Revisers. Tischendorf in the three places uses the expression : 
 ' Leave the little children to come nnto me : ' the force is on the word 
 ' come ; ' the children, invited by the gesture of Jesus, were to be left 
 free to follow their natural impulse, no man forbidding them. The 
 saying of Jesus must not be stretched beyond the occasion, as though 
 it applied in any way, except by analogy, to the question of infant 
 baptism. The calling together of the disciples indicated a purpose of 
 stating an important truth, and the lesson conveyed by Jesus was in 
 the opposite direction : not that children were to be admitted to tlie 
 rite of baptism, not that they needed to be brought into the kingdom 
 of heaven, but that their characteristic innocency and helplessness 
 were the pattern of the heavenly disposition : ' for of such is the king- 
 dom of heaven.' Listead of depreciating children, Jesus would have 
 his disciples imitate them. God's kingdom was not for the indepen- 
 dent and self-confident ; men must receive it in a childlike spirit, 
 put away the sense of self-confidence and self-esteem, unlearn their 
 previous teaching, begin life afresh, starting with new maxims, new 
 10 Mark 15 uims, uew hopcs : ' Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive 
 IS Luke IT the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.' 
 Young renders, ' the reign of God : ' what is that but implicit sub- 
 mission to the divine will ? Jesus was the guide to that new state of 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 207 
 
 beiiiii-, the teaclier of tlie licavonly doctrine, tlie ali)habet of which 
 
 (ujiild only l)e acquired by cliildlike docih'ty. Once within the kin<>'- 
 
 dom, heavenly lessons would he learned, si)iritual jiowers unfolded, 
 
 .1 nobler career of duty o|)ened out, the hi<;her life inaugurated. But 
 
 only throuo'h humility, passive, unquestionini^-, reverential submission 
 
 to "the heaven-sent doctrine, could entrance be <,'ained. Jesus had 
 
 previously taught that truth, enforcin<>- it by callin^t^'to himself a httle 
 
 child, and assuring his disciples, ' Except ye turn, and become as is Mat. 2, 3 
 
 little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.' 
 
 Xo wonder his indignation was roused, when he found them rebuking 
 
 and driving away children from his presence. He scrupled not to 
 
 comply witli the wish of those who brought them, embracing the 
 
 little ones, blessing them, laying his hands on each. ' And he took 10 Mark ic. 
 
 them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.' 
 
 Matthew explains that it was a parting benediction, the last act of 
 
 Jesus in the place where he had been teaching. ' And he laid his li' Mat. 15 
 
 hands on them, and departed thence.' 
 
 The compilers of the ' Ministration of Public Baptism of Infants 
 to be used in the Church,' availed themselves of this incident with 
 consummate judgment and tact. After reading the account given 
 by Mark, the Minister comments as follows: ' Beloved, ye hear in 
 tins Gospel the words of our Saviour Christ, that he commanded the 
 children to be brought unto him ; how he blamed those that would 
 have kept them from him ; how he exhorteth all men to follow their 
 innocency. Ye perceive hoAv by his outward gesture and deed he 
 declared his good-will toward them ; for he embraced them in his 
 arms, he laid his hands upon them, and blessed them. Doubt ye not, 
 therefore, but earnestly believe, that he will likewise favourably 
 receive this present Infant ; that he will embrace him with the arms 
 of his mercy ; that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, 
 and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom. Wherefore we 
 being thus persuaded of the good-will of our heavenly Father towards 
 this Infant, declared by his Son Jesus Christ : and nothing doubting 
 but that he favourably alloweth this charitable work of curs in 
 bringing this Infant to his holy Baptism : let us faithfully and 
 devoutly give thanks unto him.' That, in truth, is the only founda- 
 tion on which the theory and practice of infant baptism can be 
 upheld : and it is a weak foundation at the best. For the good-will 
 of Jesus was shown towards children as children, simply in their 
 natural condition, apart from any doctrine of regeneration : whereas 
 the Minister deals with children from an opposite point of view, 
 saying : ' Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and 
 that our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of 
 (!od, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the 
 holy Ghost : I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this 
 Child that thing which by nature he cannot have.' How different is 
 this, in tone and spirit, from the words of Jesus, ' of such is the 
 kingdom of God.' Infant baptism is held to be much more than a • 
 mere emblematic and figurative rite, as the prayers by which it is 
 accompanied plainly indicate. Something supernatural is besought 
 from God, and is declared to have been bestowed by him : for the 
 priest says, ' AVe yield tliee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that 
 
208 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy lioly Spirit.' 
 That supernatural gift is assumed to be granted at the font, the 
 prayers used putting God foremost and the Priest somewhat in the 
 background. But in nrgent cases of private baptism, only ' so many 
 of the Collects appointed to be said before in the Form of Public 
 Baptism, as the time and present exigence will suffer,' are to be used ; 
 and as soon as the water is poured upon the child, and the words 
 uttered, ' I baptize thee In the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy G-host,' God is thanked as before : ' We yield thee 
 hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to 
 regenerate this Infant with thy holy Spirit.' The change is believed 
 to have been wrought through the magic of those few priestly words ! 
 And in order that the people may rely unhesitatingly on the efficacy 
 of the rite, both in this world and the next, this note is added : ' It 
 is certain by God's "Word, that Children which are baptized, dying 
 before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.' Our Lord 
 Jesus never claimed for his touch and blessing any such power as 
 that. Infant baptism, with the doctrines thereto attached, is no part 
 of his gospel, but an invention of theologians. They have not only 
 sought to justify the practice by referring to his kindly and eulogistic 
 words spoken with respect to children, but in another Church 
 ceremony devised by them they have imitated his laying on of hands. 
 Having claimed the mystic power of regenerating infants through 
 water and the holy Spirit, allowing sponsors to promise and vow 
 repentance and faith, in the name and on behalf of the unconscious 
 child, they thought it advisable, and from their point of view it might 
 well be deemed absolutely necessary,. that some twelve years or more 
 afterwards these children should ' themselves with their own mouth 
 and consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm what their 
 Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in Baptism.' That, 
 by itself, would have constituted a very simple, touching ceremony : 
 but that also was elaborated in accordance with assumptions of 
 priestly influence and power. ' The Order of Confirmation, or laying 
 on of hands upon those that are baptized and come to years of 
 discretion,' does not jDut forward any claim to the effect that grace 
 and virtue flow from the touch of the Bishop's hands. On the 
 contrary, that action is left altogether vague and undefined : it may 
 be taken to mean little or much, anything, nothing, or everything, 
 according to the ideas and teaching which may have been impressed 
 upon the candidates for Confirmation. But it is a most natural 
 question. Why should the laying on of hands have been instituted, 
 and why should it have been restricted to one holding highest office 
 in the Church ? and it is an equally natural inference, that when the 
 Bishop lays ' his hands upon the heads of every one severally,' some 
 benefit is claimed, or intended, or believed, or hoped, to be conveyed 
 thereby. If not, why is the laying on of hands by the apostles thus 
 imitated, and in connection with solemn prayers for the outpouring 
 of ' the holy Ghost ? ' The only guidance vouchsafed on this point is 
 that the Bishop, in the Collect, says, 'upon whom (after the example 
 of thy holy Apostles) we have now laid our hands, to certify them 
 (by this sign) of thy favour and gracious goodness towards them.' 
 The individual Bishop assumes the recognised style of royalty, 
 speaking of himself as ' we,' ' we have now laid our hands.' When 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 209 
 
 the apostles laid on their hands, some visible, oral, or other manifes- 
 tation of the Holy Spirit's presence followed : the Bishop claims only 
 that he u-ives a ' sio-n,' not even of some inward and spiritual crace, 
 bnt simjily of (lod's ' favour and 2;racions ij^oodness.' If that is all, 
 why this pnnctilionsness of ceremony and gesture ? "We do not need 
 the touch of a Bishop's hand to assure us of the well-known truth 
 that our heavenly Father is loving unto every man. Infant Baptism, 
 the Catechism, and the Order of Confirmation constitute an artificial 
 system of Church membership, and cry aloud for honest criticism 
 and revision. The intention was good : to christianise every child 
 from birth, to lay down a recognised form of religious teaching, and 
 in due time to im]iress upon every young person the solemn obliga- 
 tions of Christianity. No provision was made, how^evcr, for any 
 changes which might become necessary by the advancement of reli- 
 gious thought and the modification of existing creeds : the compilers 
 of the Prayer Book assumed the absolute perfection and incontrover- 
 tibility of every doctrine they laid down, and demanded an unques- 
 tioning submission to the forms and ceremonies they prescribed. 
 How little influence such clerical teaching has had upon adults 
 generally is evidenced by the constant failure of multitudes to attend, 
 except at rare intervals of their own choosing, the Lord's supper. In 
 vain do the clergy invite, implore, insist upon spiritual benefits to be 
 derived from frequent participation, and danger to the soul from 
 neglect of the ordinance : the majority of the congregation habituahy 
 turn their backs upon it, and treat the exhortations of the ^Minister 
 with silent contempt, albeit in every other point of divine worship 
 and Christian living they may be as devout and blameless as the 
 comparatively few regular communicants. Does not that prove the 
 existence of a widespread unbelief with respect to the sacramental 
 dogmas insisted on by the clergy ? Men and women are not afraid to 
 disregard their teaching and injunctions, and face the threatened 
 penalties. But their children they are still careful to bring to 
 l)aptisra, and would not withhold them from confirmation. This 
 state of things might go on for an indefinite period, Avere it not that 
 the number of those who think for themselves on religious matters, 
 or are led by other teachers, is ever on the increase. Some there are, 
 none can say how many or how few, who deem the clergy generally 
 unsafe and unwise guides, and who are anxious to keep their children's 
 minds free from clerical dogmatic teacliing ; who dare not take the 
 responsibility of imposing upon their children a catechism, to be 
 learnt by rote, which is altogether out of harmony with their own 
 convictions and feelings ; and who could not conscientiously urge 
 them to submit themselves to examination by a clergyman to be 
 prepared after his fashion as candidates for confirmation. The next 
 step in advance must needs be that the catechism and rite of confir- 
 mation will fall more and more into desuetude, and unless that should 
 lead to an utter disregard of the Lord's supper, — which God forbid, 
 though one sees not how, under present circumstances, it can perma- 
 nently hold its ground, — there must be a deliberate setting aside of 
 the rule originally laid dowm : ' And there shall none be admitted to 
 the holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready 
 and desirous to be confirmed.' The clergy themselves must needs be 
 leavened with the spirit of the age in which they live. As a body 
 
210 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ir. 
 
 they have already ceased from making any vigorous protest ; some of 
 them are sure to iml)ibe or to sympathise with the new opinions 
 embraced by the intelhgent among the laity. There are old penalties 
 and antiquated laAvs still upon the statute-book, which no man now 
 would think of enforcing : the same gradual process of neglect and 
 oblivion will render obsolete the Catechism and the Confirmation cere- 
 mony, and then, to save Baptism and Holy Communion from a 
 similar fate, they will have to be freed from the superstition, errors 
 and false assumptions Avith which they are interwoven, and remodelled 
 in a form to harmonise with the light of reason and the simplicity 
 which led men to welcome them when first instituted. Meantime, 
 imtil that or some other devoutly to be Avished for consummation is 
 arrived at, the breach between clergy and laity must widen, the 
 influence of the former continue to decline, and some of the best 
 minds and purest hearts among the latter be content to bear, silently 
 or with an occasional protest, the false charge of indifference, irre- 
 verence, atheism, or whatever other brand denoting a fundamental 
 difference of opinion may be imposed upon them. Not the clergy of 
 the present day, but their predecessors, who fondly persuaded them- 
 selves tliat they held the truth, the Avhole truth, and nothing but the 
 truth in theology, and vainly hoped to stereotype their own ideas 
 upon the members of the Church of England for all time, are re- 
 sponsible for this entanglement. There are two things the heaven- 
 sent doctrine will not bear : the pressure of the human hand, 
 moulding it into a particular form ; and the admixture of human 
 inventions. 
 
 In the account of the following incident the discrepancies between 
 the ancient MSS. indicate that commentators in early times had set. 
 themselves to the task of revising and altering the original documents. 
 
 I'.i Mat. 10 111 the Revised Version Matthew begins as follows : 'And behold, one- 
 came to him and said. Master (or, Teacher), Avhat good thing shall I 
 do, that I may have eternal life ? ' The Eevisers note that ' some 
 ancient authorities read Good Master.'' It so stands in the Authorised 
 Version, but the two oldest MSS. omit 'good.' The Authorised 
 Version continues : ' And he said unto him, Why callest thou ine 
 „ 17 good ? ' The Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., render : 'And 
 he said unto him, ' Why asketh thou me concerning that which is 
 good ? ' This refers, not to any appellation bestowed on Jesus, but. 
 to the question, ' What good thing shall I do ? ' The Authorised 
 Version, agreeing with ' some ancient authorities,' adds : ' lliere is 
 „ 17 none good but one, that is God.' The Revised Version stands : ' One 
 there is who is good.' Tichendorf's Tauchnitz Edition gives the 
 reading of the two oldest MSS. thus : ' Why askest thou me con- 
 cerning what is good ? He Avho is good is One.' But Dr. Samuel 
 Davidson's translation of Tischendorf's critical text is as follows : 
 ' Why askest thou me concerning the good ? One is the good.' 
 There seems to be uncertainty about the translation as well as about 
 the reading. Mark describes how the man ran to Jesus and knelt 
 before him ; and the question put diflfers somewhat, and the answer 
 
 10 Mark 17- entirely. ' And as he was going forth into the way (or, on his way), 
 there ran one to bim, and kneeled to him, and asked him. Good 
 Master (or, Teacher), what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ?■ 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 211 
 
 And Jesns said unto him, Why callest thou mc good ? none is good 
 save one, «Y'« (}od.' Luke adds that the man Avas a ruler. 'And a is Luke is. 
 certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master (or. Teacher), Avhat ^^ 
 
 shall I do to inherit eternal life ? And Jesus said unto him, Why 
 callest thou me good ? none is good, save one, even God,' The 
 reading of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. proves that the passage 
 in i\Iatthew had been altered to harmonise with jMark and Luke. 
 Alford says : 'This passage furnishes one of the most instructive and 
 palpable cases of the smoothing down of apparent discrepancies by 
 correcting the Gospels out of one another and thus reducing them to 
 conformity.' Let us consider first the words as they stand in ]\rark 
 and Luke. The point of the reply turns upon the word 'good' in 
 the question. ' Good J\Iaster . . . Why callest thou me good?' It 
 seems to have been assumed, as though it were a matter of course, 
 that Jesus thereby reproved the questioner for applying to him the 
 term ' good,' and afterwards proceeded to answer the question. But 
 that is a mere guess, without a foundation, and it is more reasonable 
 to take the words as forming part of the answer to the question. 
 ' Why ? ' is properly equivalent to ' wherefore ? ' 'on what account ? ' 
 'for what reason?' The questioner is bidden to ask himself that 
 question. What induced him to come to Jesus, and to consider hiiu 
 a ' good Teacher ? ' AVas it not because of his work, his life, his 
 teaching ? He was engaged in God's work : his life was devoted to 
 God's cause, the establishment of ' the kingdom of God ; ' he taught 
 men to obey the will of God. God was the sole fountain of good ; 
 ' none is good save one — God ; ' that must be the doctrine of every 
 good teacher. Therefore the question, ' What shall I do ? ' admitted 
 only of one answer : ' Thouknowest God's commandments: ' do them. 
 This harmonises perfectly with the original reading of Matthew's 
 gospel as now accepted by the Eevisers. He also makes the point of 
 the answer turn upon the word 'good' in the question : but in quite 
 a different way. He omits mention of the title ' good ' which was 
 applied to Jesus as a Teacher, and he brings out the fact that the 
 questioner asked, ' What good thing shall I do ? ' There is no incon- 
 sistency between the evangelists so far. Then "Matthew omits the 
 sentence which the others record ' Why callest thou me good ? ' and 
 he introduces a sentence which they omit : ' Why askest thou me 
 concerning that which is good ? ' Still there is no inconsistency, and 
 if only we do not presume to introduce without warrant the extraneous 
 idea that Jesus wished to convey a reproof and to repudiate any claim 
 to a customary title of respect, the evangelists are in harmony as to 
 the sense : ' Why callest thou me good ? ' and ' Why askest thou me 
 concerning that which is good ? ' are sentences which might naturally 
 b3 spoken in conjunction, the 'good Teacher' being applied to 'con- 
 cerning that which is good.' Any ambiguity attaching to the words, 
 * AVhy callest thou me good ? ' is removed, and the true sense of that 
 expression showm, by the additional sentence, ' Why askest thou me 
 concerning that which is good ? ' Instead of assuming a discrepancy 
 between the evangelists, read the accounts together, and all difficulty 
 of interpretation disappears. The attempt to reconcile them by 
 partially suppressing and transforming the original account of 
 Matthew, proceeded from error of judgment and want of insight 
 The question, ' Why askest thou me concerning that which is good ? > 
 
 p 2 
 
212 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM : [part ii. 
 
 would surely not be assumed to indicate reproof, as thouirh the man 
 deserved blame for making such an enquiry of Jesus : there is no 
 more reason for such a supposition with respect to the words, ' Why 
 callesfc thou me good ? ' The drift of the two questions is in the same 
 direction : whoever regarded Jesus as a good teacher concerning 
 that which is good, must be prepared to jjelieve that God was the 
 only good, for the life and life-work of Jesus began, continued, and 
 ended in G-od, 
 
 Here as elsewhere Young renders ' eternal life ' by ' age-during 
 life : ' a most important distinction : for ' age-during ' life denotes 
 the natural continuance of being, whereas ' eternal life ' seems to be 
 regarded as a new, exceptional, or special gift, even when it is not 
 explained away into something difl'erent, as equivalent to eternal 
 happiness. There can be but one way of reaching the utmost span of 
 life, either now in this world or hereafter in another. God's laws 
 must be observed, not only in view of their constituti(nial, individual 
 influence on mind and body, but of their indirect effects, socially as 
 well as personally. The life of each depends upon his neighbour's 
 observance of the law, ' Thou shalt not kill,' and the law of heredity, 
 working retributively in silence, lays upon children the sins, 
 wilful or ignorant, of parents, sapping the health and shortening the 
 lives of the entire community. Jesus could only give one answer to 
 19 Mat. 17 the enquiry. ' But if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the com- 
 mandments.' Here again Mark and Luke are more condensed than 
 Matthew, their record of the words being simply, ' Thou knowest the 
 commandments.' Matthew tells us that another question was here 
 „ IS pat. ' He saith unto him, "Which ? ' Jesus in reply quoted the 
 ,. IS commandments relating to the duties of man to man. ' And Jesus 
 said, Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt 
 not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honour thy father and 
 thy mother : and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' Mark 
 10 Mark 10 omits the closing summary, and introduces, ' Do not defraud.' ' Thou 
 knowest the commandments, Do not kill. Do not commit adultery, 
 Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. Do not defraud, Honour thy 
 father and thy mother.' Luke reverses the order of the first two. 
 IS Luke 20 ' Thou kuowest the commandments. Do not commit adultery, Do not 
 kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and 
 mother.' The answer of Jesus amounts to this : that an ' inheritance ' 
 of age-during life is only attainable through the due observance of 
 every social duty, But as a matter of course the greater includes the 
 less : personal virtue and self-control are indispensable to every man; 
 nature itself teaches that intemperance must destroy health, and cut 
 short life, and that proper care must be taken to preserve the body 
 from dangers, from undue heat and cold, and from accidents. These 
 things are necessarily foremost in our own minds, but Jesus does not 
 even mention them. The question proposed was purely personal, — 
 selfish : ' What shall I do that I may inherit age-during life ? ' That 
 is a boon which can never come through individual self-seeking ; 
 never to any except through fulfilment of the duties due from each to 
 all. Apart from that consummation of social life, and until it shall 
 be reached, there can be no age-during life for any. That good gift of 
 > God will never be ours until, through the teaching and grace of Jesus, 
 the Church, that is the assembly of believers, the community of 
 
PART II.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 213 
 
 Christians, shall have learnt to live by his precept, ' Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself.' 
 
 Prol)uhly the enquirer was disappointed at the reply. Instead of 
 the ' good thing ' he had desired to learn about, Jesus had simply 
 thrown him back ui)on old, well known duties. 'And he said. All these is LuUp 21 
 things ha^■e I observed from my youth up.' Mark notes that he still 
 addressed Jesus as * Teacher.' 'And he said unto him, Master (or, 10 Mark 20 
 Teacher), all these things have I observed from my youth.' JMatthew, 
 as before, is a little fuller, telling us that the man was young, and 
 that he ]iropoundcd another question. ' The young man saith unto 10 Mat. 20 
 him, All these things have I observed : what lack I yet ' ? The 
 answer to that was very plain and startling. ' And when Jesus is Luke 22 
 heard it, he said unto him. One thing thou lackest yet : sell all that 
 thou hast, and distribute unto the poor.' The expression, ' when 
 Jesus heard it,' seems to denote that he was struck by the observa- 
 tion. ]\Iark adds that he gazed upon the speaker, and at once 
 manifested an affection towards him. 'And Jesus looking upon him 10 Mark 21 
 loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest : go, sell 
 whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor.' Matthew again adds a 
 sentence : ' Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell m Mat. 21 
 that thou hast, and give to the poor.' That was indeed a counsel of 
 perfection, a demand wholly unexpected. Yet it would be but 
 another step in the same direction : he who claims to have fulfilled 
 all duties, up to the point of loving his neighl)onr as himself, and 
 then asks what more he can do, must needs be called upon to prove 
 that he loves his neighbour better than himself. That involved 
 discipleship to Jesus, self-sacrifice for the world's sake being the 
 very essence of his call. He wanted men as followers who would 
 forsake all things for his cause, who accepted his axiom that where 
 the treasure is there is the heart also, and who would be content to 
 have no tic to earth, laying up treasure in heaven. That hope he 
 held out to the young man, inviting him to share the same lot as him- 
 self : ' and thou shalt have treasure in heaven : and come, follow me.' 10 Mark 21 
 The Authorised Version of Mark has after ' come ' the Avords ' take is Luke 22 
 up the cross,' which the Revisers have omitted on the authority of the i^ ^if^t. 21 
 two oldest M8S. It was a magnificient opportunity, this invitation 
 to place himself by the side of the good Teacher, and to help forward 
 his plans for the establishment of God's kingdom. But the young- 
 man was unable to rise to the occasion. His demeanour changed at 
 once ; a great sorrow took possession of him, for he could not bring 
 himself to accept the call, involving as it did the loss of property and 
 position, and he must needs turn his back upon Jesus, wliose advice 
 he had sought with such enthusiasm. 'But his countenance fell at 10 Mark 23 
 the saying, and he went away sorrowful : for he was one that had 
 grcF.t possessions.' ' But when the young man heard the saying, he 10 Mat. 22 
 went away sorrowful : for he was one that had great possessions.' 
 ' But when he heard these things, he became exceeding sorrowful ; is Lir.:o 23 
 for he was very rich.' Must not Jesus himself have felt sorrowful at 
 this failure of his effort to gain a disciple ? He could not abate his 
 terms, but he knew well how hard it, was to comply with them. ' And „ 21 
 Jesus seeing him said. How hardly shall they that have riche.? enter 
 into the kingdom of God ! ' The observation was addressed to the 
 disciples. ' And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, 19 Mat. 23 
 
214 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.' 
 Mark notes that he surveyed his disciples, as though realising the 
 
 10 Mark 23 fact that they \Yere all of another class than this young ruler. ' And 
 Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly 
 shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God ! ' It is 
 „ 24 added : 'And the disciples were amazed at his words.' That he 
 should make the forsaking of all things a condition of disci pleship, 
 was no new doctrine to their ears ; for he had previously laid down 
 
 14 Luke 33 the rulc, ' Whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he 
 hath, he cannot be my disciple.' But this saying about the incom- 
 patibility of wealth and godliness seemed to extend the rule beyond 
 
 10 Mark 24 profcssed disciplcship, Jesus however, repeated the assertion. ' But 
 Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is 
 it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God ! ' 
 The words, ' for them that trust in riches,' seem to tone down some- 
 what the previous remark ; but they are not found in the two oldest 
 MSS., aud the Eevisers have noted that ' some ancient authorities 
 omit' them. Jesus reiterated the truth in a strikingly emphatic 
 
 19 Mat. 24 form. ' And again I say unto you. It is easier for a camel to go 
 through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom 
 
 10 Mark 25 of God.' The words stand precisely the same in Mark, and in Luke 
 
 18 Luke 25 the oiily difference is 'enter in through' instead of 'go through.' 
 The hyperbole denotes an absolute impossibility. We must not 
 venture to explain away or diminish the force of a declaration which 
 Jesus saw fit to make so solemnly. It looks as if some early com- 
 mentator had sought to do that, by inserting in Mark the words 'for 
 them that trust in riches,' Nothing can quality the simile, which 
 enforces the moral impossibility under the figure of a physical 
 impossibihty. ' The kingdom of God,' rendered by Young, ' the 
 reign of God,' obviously denotes a state of life in which everything 
 
 10 Luke 10 is ruled after the divine will. 'The law and the prophets /r«-c until 
 John : from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached.' 
 Men were invited to enter into a higher sphere of spirilual activity, 
 to throw aside all worldly maxims, to inaugurate the life of heaven 
 on earth, taking the precepts of Jesus for their rule of duty. There 
 is no favouritism in God's kingdom ; there must be no selfishness 
 among God's children. Between Christian brethren there must be 
 no sharp contrasts of wealth and poverty, no superfluity of riches 
 restricted to a few, whilst many suffer abject poverty. That is 
 Christ's ideal of a Christian community ; that is God's ideal of his 
 kingdom : not all that is meant by ' the reign of God,' but an im- 
 portant part thereof, so that it was impossible for a rich man to enter 
 in. If words have meaning, Jesus meant that. If we say : under the 
 present state of society that cannot be, — that is simply asserting that 
 God's kingdom cannot be. In truth, it is a vision which has never 
 yet been realised on earth. One fact alone is enough to prove that 
 much : the existence of armies and navies, the perpetuation through- 
 out nineteen centuries after the coming of Christ of the spirit and 
 habit of war, with the multiplied and inevitable horrors attendant 
 upon destruction and carnage. There is no approach to the reign of 
 God whilst the kingdoms of the world are ruled after such a fashion. 
 The inequalities of social life, the highest class revelling in 
 splendid luxury, the lowest class, generation after generation, born to 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 215 
 
 want and misery : are not these contrasts equally contrary to the 
 spirit and teaching:? of Jesus ? He declared that before a rich man 
 could take the lirst step into the kingdom of God, he must part with 
 his wealth. All the first disciples, undertakinG; as they did to devote 
 themselves to the establishment of the kingdom of God were urged 
 to renounce all they had for the cause of Jesus. Only by coming 
 withiri the circle of disciplesliij) could men enter the kingdom of God. 
 The two terms, a ' disciple' aud a 'member of the kingdom of God,' 
 are synonymous. The rich ruler's refusal of the call, ' Come, 
 follow me,' is instantly spoken of by Jesus as a refusal to ' enter into 
 the kingdom of God,' the one being identical with the other. And 
 as but few became disciples, not many beiug invited by Jesus, and all 
 men being dissuaded by him unless they first counted the cost, so there 
 "were but few who entered the kingdom of God, Jesus declaring it to 
 be a very hard thing to do so, especially for the rich. But no con- 
 demnation was involved on the multitudes who were not disciples, 
 and who did not enter into the kingdom of God. That kingdom was 
 not even preached until the coming of the Baptist, and then only the 
 strong-minded could take it as by force. 'The law and the prophets i6Lukeit> 
 ■icrre until John : from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is 
 preached, and every man entereth violently into it.' I'or weaker men 
 there was room enough to live in peace and safety outside, taking ' the 
 law and the prophets' for their rule of conduct. Their loss was a 
 loss of privilege, not of the life, not of the soul. To be outside God's 
 kingdom involved no threat of divine judgment : exclusion and 
 regret were the penalties pressed home to the minds of the Jews by 
 Jesus : ' There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth, w^hen ye 13 Luke 2s 
 shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the 
 kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without.' Xot individual 
 salvation, but the regeneration of society, was the sum and scope of 
 the ' gospel of the kingdom ' which Jesus preached ; the word ' king- 
 dom ' sufficiently denotes that the coming reformation was to be not 
 simply individual and personal but socialistic and communal, termed 
 by Jude ' our common salvation.' So far off are we from such a jude 3 
 realization of God's kingdom, that the work of its establishment has 
 to be begun afresh. Not until those who claim to be Ministers, 
 representatives, disciples, followers, — no matter what title be chosen, 
 — of Jesus, adopt his maxims and requirements absolutely without an 
 exception, renouncing all things for his sake, thereby giving to the 
 world the strange spectacle of a body of believers prepared not to 
 resist evil, not to claim legal rights, not to fight under any circum- 
 stances, not to accumulate property, but to live entirely for the king- 
 dom of heaven, — not until Ave are taught by such living examples the 
 true doctrine of Jesus, will his spirit begin again to permeate society. 
 Count Leon Tolstoi has boldly thought out tliat truth ; we must not 
 let it go, neither must we assume such a rule of life to be binding 
 upon all men. Discipleship to Jesus must be voluntary and excep- 
 tional still, as it was at first. The idea that all are called to disciple- 
 ship is an absurdity. Ministers of the Church of England sign any 
 and every child ' with the sign of the cross, in token that hereafter 
 he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and 
 manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world, and the 
 devil ; and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his 
 
216 THE KIKG AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii, 
 
 life's end.' Words, Avords, nothing but words ! The ideal is pitched 
 3 piiii. u too high : such a ' high calling of God in Christ Jesus ' was never 
 meant to be universal, still less to be imposed upon unconscious 
 infants. It is as utterly out of place and wide of truth, as it would 
 be to devote every babe to a soldier's life and duties, knowing well 
 that in nearly every case a different profession would be followed. 
 Fictions such as these, passed on as an inheritance from age to age, 
 have dimmed our spiritual eyesight ; and until they are put aside, and 
 the plain truth, which is always and alone God's truth, faced, our 
 ■2 i. Cor. 12 perceptive faculties will not be equal to the comprehension of ' the 
 tilings that are freely given us by God.' Before Christ's precepts 
 can be acted upon, men must rise to the level of them. In the pre- 
 sent state of society any general adoption of them would be impossible, 
 and, if suddenly attempted, injurious. That many rich men should 
 sell their jDOSsessions and give to the poor, would be quite as much to 
 the loss and detriment of the poor as of the rich. Almsgiving tests 
 the character of those who receive as well as of those who give ; 
 indiscriminate charity quenches energy and self-reliance, and tends 
 to pauperise, that is, to render perpetually poor those who rely upon it. 
 The trustees of the Peabody fund could find no better way of bene- 
 fiting the poor of London than that of building better dwellings, at 
 moderate rentals, for the working class. Hospitals, infirmaries, refuges, 
 reformatories, workhouses, — we must needs have them still, but the less 
 the better : for they are evidences either of under-payment for labour 
 or of improvidence among labourers. The masters who are careful to 
 pay their workmen fairly, do more for the poor and promote more the 
 kingdom of God, than those who accumulate huge fortunes, keeping 
 down wages under cast-iron laws of supply and demand as decreed by 
 
 * Political Economy,' and who then disgorge a portion of the ill-gotten 
 superfluity to help workmen in ways wherein, if the profits on labour 
 were fairly divided, they should be able and would be willing to help 
 themselves. Preachers boast of what Christianity has done in the shape 
 of charitable institutions : but all that paraphernalia of charity is 
 really an evidence that the ' kingdom of God ' has not yet come, that 
 the spirit and scheme of Christianity have not yet been realised. 
 
 The disciples heard the declaration of Jesus with the utmost 
 amazement. If it was impossible for a rich man to enter God's king- 
 dom, who would be found ready to accept salvation at such a cost ? 
 This rich ruler might be taken as an example of others in like circum- 
 
 I'.i Mat. 25 stances. ' And when the disciples heard it, they Avere astonished 
 exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved ? ' The Authorised 
 Version of Mark represents them as enquiring this ' among them- 
 selves,' but the Revisers, following the two oldest MSS,, take the 
 
 10 Mark 2G qucstiou to havc been addressed to Jesus. 'And they were astonished 
 exceedingly, saying unto him, Then Avho can be saved ? ' Luke 
 
 IS Luke 20 is briefer and vaguer. 'And they that heard it said. Then who can 
 be saved ? ' Obviously the word ' who ' signifies, ' who among such 
 persons,' only the wealthy being alluded to. The sense of the word 
 
 * saved ' must be fixed by the context : saved out of the world, and 
 admitted into the kingdom of God. There is no fixed meaning- 
 attachable to the word ' saved,' albeit theologians are in the habit of 
 defining it in one particular way. The apostle Peter speaks of 
 
 * salvation ' as a term of such wide and doubtful meaning that those 
 
PART II.] -'( HTUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 217 
 
 who used it hud been uncert;iin as to its iini)ort : ' Keceivint-; the end i i. im.o-ii 
 of your faith, crni the salvation of //our souls. Ooucernini^- which 
 salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied 
 of the grace that should come unto you : searching what time or what 
 manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point 
 unto.' Salvation relates to a time or manner of time, that is, the 
 cstabh'shment of the kingdom of God. 
 
 Luke gives the reply of Jesus thus : ' But he said, The things is Luke 27 
 which are impossible with men are possible with God.' Matthew is 
 more definite : 'and looking upon them said to them, With men this lOMat. l'c 
 is impossible ; but with (Jod all things are possible.' Mark : ' Jesus lOMaiu -jr 
 looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with 
 God : for all things are possible with God.' The habitual manner of 
 Jesus must have been as impressive as his words. Occasionally it 
 was so striking that special mention was made of it. Here his earnest 
 gaze, ' Jesus looking upon them,' is noted. AVords which we often 
 read, or hear read, coldly and carelessly, fell from the lips of Jesus 
 with solemn emphasis, change of voice, of attitude, of countenance, 
 adding force and dignity to what he said. Did Jesus assert that 
 what he had just pronounced impossible was not absolutely so, but 
 only humanly impossible, and that God, although a man clung to his 
 riches, could nevertheless enable him to enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven ? That Avould simply have been to contradict and explain 
 away the statement he had just before deliberately corroborated by a 
 strong hyperbole. The import of the passage depends upon the 
 sense given to the expressions ' with men , , with God,' By taking 
 them as equivalent to, ' to men , . to God,' we introduce a contra- 
 diction. But ' to ' and ' with ' are not synonymous. Luther renders 
 the word ' bey : ' ' bey den Menscheu . . , bey Gott,' which conveys 
 the idea of association with men . , with God. The Greek Avord is 
 jjara, which is rendered in the Authorised Version 24 different ways, 
 but never as ' to.' When it governs the dative, as it does in these 
 three passages, it is frequently rendered ' with,' in the sense of 
 Luther's ' bey,' as in the following examples. ' There were ivitlt us -ii Mat. 2r. 
 seven brethren.' 'To be guest with a man that is a sinner.' 'That n'Li'keT 
 he would tarry tvith them.' Following human maxims, customs, ^ '^"''" ^^* 
 counsels, it is impossible ; but with God, led by him, it is not 
 impossible to enter his kingdom in this way of his appointment, 
 leaving earthly wealth outside. That truth flashed upon the mind of 
 Peter. He and his fellow apostles had indeed entered in that way 
 the kingdom of God. ' Peter began to say unto him, ,Lo, we have 10 Mark 23 
 left all, and have followed thee.' Luke varies the words : ' And Peter is Luke 2s 
 said, Lo, we have left our own (or, our own homes), and followed 
 thee.' The oldest MS. adds, in Mark, the additional words, ' What 
 shall we have therefore ? ' They may have been inserted from 
 Matthew, which stands as follows : ' Then answered Peter and said lo Mat. 27 
 unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee, what then shall we 
 have ? ' Earthly wealth being excluded, what kind of riches were to 
 be gained in God's kingdom ? Jesus prefaced his reply with his 
 accustomed solemn, ' Verily.' He would have them believe that 
 the words he was about to utter were spoken with deliberation and 
 certainty, ' And Jesus said unto them. Verily I say unto you, that „ 2s 
 ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man. 
 
218 
 
 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: 
 
 [part n. 
 
 shall siu on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve 
 thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' The words, ' ye which 
 have followed me,' must be taken in their fullest, deepest sense, not 
 as denoting a simple profession and badge of discipleship, but an 
 actual, lifelong imitation of the career of Jesus, the forsaking of all 
 things, the taking up of his cross, t'ne hating of their own lives for 
 his name's sake. Thereby they w^ould become fitted for pre-eminence 
 hereafter, taking part with Jesus in the judicial responsibilities of the 
 kingdom of God which he came to proclaim and found. A state of 
 society has to be attained so intrinsically different from that now 
 exisuing as to amount to a ' regeneration ; ' Young renders the word 
 ' renovation,' Then the ' Son of man,' Jesas as the head and repre- 
 sentative of redeemed humanity, will ' sit on the throne of his glory.' 
 Xo more scorning of his truth and person, no false charges of 
 blasphemy and sedition, no plotting, betrayal, or crucifixion, but an 
 acknowledged supremacy, a reverential homage, with all that apper- 
 tains to regal power and majesty. Jesus not only foretold his suffer- 
 ings and death on earth, but looked beyond all that to the glory 
 which should be given him. His cause woukl surely triumph ; the 
 kingdom of God would be established, and then the twelve apostles 
 he had chosen, having been its pioneers, would have earned a high 
 position, ranking next to Jesus, and holding office under him. ^Vhen 
 redeemed humanity has come beneath the sway of Jesus, the changed 
 conditions of existence will still admit of conflicting interests, which 
 ■will have to be settled, not on the old lines of physical strife and 
 murder legalised by the name of war, but by the judgment of those 
 whom Jesus shall appoint, who have submitted themselves unre- 
 servedly to his guidance, and may therefore be trusted as fit exponents 
 of his mind and will. The mention of ' the twelve tribes of Israel ' 
 was lull of meaning. At that time the nationality of Israel, as 
 regarded ten of the tribes, was a thing of the past. The land wa? 
 ruled by strangers, and tiiere was no king over Israel or Judah. The 
 
 1 James 1 epistlc of Jamcs is addressed ' to the twelve tribes wliich are of the 
 Dispersion.' Yet Jesus asserted that the twelve tribes of Israel would 
 come under the rule of himself and his apostles. The problem of 
 Israel's restoration is dealt with by Paul, and he arrived at this 
 
 i\ Roui. liiN conclusion : * And so all Israel shall be saved ; even as it is written, 
 There shall come out of Zion the Dehverer : 
 He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob : 
 And this is my covenant unto them, 
 When I shall take away their sins.' 
 That is a spiritual deliverance, from ungodliness and sins. The 
 
 9 Rom. (j apostle argued : ' For they are not all Israel which are of Israel : ' he 
 
 insists upon the proper sense of the word ' Israel,' which is, ' contender 
 
 „ 7 or soldier of God.' He proceeds : ' Neither, because they are 
 
 Abraham's seed, are they all children : but. In Isaac shall thy seed be 
 
 4 Gal. 28 called.' Elsewhere he says: 'Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are 
 children of promise : ' that is. Gentiles with Jews, redeemed by 
 Jesus, constitute the Israel of God. ' The twelve tribes of Israel ' 
 is an expression which, in the mouth of Jesus, of James, and of Paul, 
 has a breadth of meaning beyond that which they would have given 
 
 s John 39 it who cried, ' Our Father is Abraham,' to whom Jesus answered, 
 ' If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.' 
 
PART II.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUE GOSPELS. 219 
 
 Not only to the apostles, but to all who followcrl in their steps, 
 Jesus held out an assurance of recompense. ' And e^•ery one tliat lo Mat. 2s) 
 hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or I'atlier, or mother, or children, 
 or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall 
 inherit eternal life.' The Authorised Version has after ' mother,' ' or 
 wile,' which is the reading of the Vatican MS, The Sinaitic MS. 
 originally had ' houses ' where it stands above, but the word there 
 had been erased and inserted by a later hand after ' lands,' so as to 
 stand last instead of first. Instead of ' hundredfold ' the Vatican MS, 
 has 'manifold.' Luke now stands as follows: 'And he said unto is Luke -jit, 
 them. Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, ^" 
 
 or wife, or brethren, or parents, or ehddren, for the kingdom of 
 God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in 
 the world (or, age) to come eternal life.' Here the Revisers have 
 altered the order of the words, making them agree with the Sinaitic 
 MS, The word aion, rendered ' world (or, age),' is the root of the 
 word aidnios. To be consistent, it should be rendered, not ' eternal,' 
 but ' age-during,' as it is by Young. Mark's record is fuller : ' Jesus lo Mark -i'^ 
 said. Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or 
 brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my 
 sake, and for the gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold now 
 in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and 
 children, and lands, with persecutions ; and in the world (or, age) to 
 come, eternal hie,' Here the Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., 
 have omitted ' or wife,' which is in the Authorised Version, and they 
 have reversed the order of ' mother, father,' according to the Vatican 
 MS, The original reading of the Sinaitic MS, omitted the thirteen 
 words from ' houses ' to ' persecutions,' and also ' for my sake and ' 
 before ' for the gospel's sake,' These frequent erasures and insertions 
 by a later hand in the old MSS, indicate great care in revising and 
 collating. The evangelists themselves often differ, as here, in the 
 form of the expressions attributed to Jesus, JMark has, ' for my sake, 
 and for the gospel's sake ; ' Luke, ' for the kingdom of God's sake ; ' 
 .MatthcAV, ' for my name's sake,' We have to choose between two 
 probable explanations : either the exact w'ords of Jesus were not 
 caught or remembered by all alike, those who reported them caring 
 more to convey the obvious sense than the precise form of expression ; 
 or Jesus may have used different terms, all having a similar meaniug : 
 ' for my sake, for the kingdom of God's sake, for my name's sake, 
 for the gospel's sake.' Possibly Jesus was in the habit of reiterating 
 those portions of a discourse which he wished specially to emphasise, 
 and in doing so varied his words ; he may even have combined 
 different modes of expression, either to show that each of them bore 
 the same meaning, as those above quoted, or to amplify the sense and 
 deepen the impression, as by first saying ' manifold ' and then ' a 
 hundredfold.' Young renders Luke as follows : ' who may not receive 
 back manifold more ni this time, and in the coming age age-during 
 life.' These words of Jesus import that his promise of 'age-during 
 life ' is reserved for ' the coming age : ' it does not take effect ' in this 
 time.' Here is a corroboration of the conclusions previously deduced 
 from the words of Jesus. Wherein the 'manifold more in this time' 
 consists, w^e are not told. Jesus simply assures us that devotion to his 
 ■cause is more to our advantage, immediately as well as remotely, than 
 
220 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n. 
 
 all else \vhich gives to life its comfort and its charm. The apostle 
 Paul emphatically and rejoicingly testified to that effect. Mark 
 throws in two words omitted by the other evangelists : ' with persecu- 
 tions.' Paul had his full share of them, and triumphed in spite of 
 
 3 ii. Tim. 10- them. To Timothy he wrote : ' But thou didst follow my teaching, 
 " conduct, purpose, faith,longsulfering, love, patience, persecutions, suf- 
 ferings ; what things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra ; what 
 persecutions T endured : aud out of them all the Lord delivered me. 
 Yea, and all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecu- 
 tion.' He does not say that believers in Jesus will necessarily suffer 
 persecution : the expression, ' all that would live godly in Christ Jesus ' 
 denotes the entire dedication of the life to the cause of Jesus. The 
 persecution arose in consequence, not of holding, but of preaching a 
 
 5 Gal. 11 particular doctrine. 'If I still preach circumcision, why am I still 
 persecuted ? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done 
 away.' To avoid persecution, it was only necessary to cease preach- 
 
 u Acts 22 ii^g, or to preach differently. ' Through many tribulations we must 
 enter into the kingdom of Clod : ' those words were addressed, not to 
 believers generally, but to ' the disciples,' and the expression ' enter 
 into the kingdom of God ' is identical with that used by Jesus when 
 he called the rich ruler to follow him, first giving up his property. 
 To ' enter into the kingdom of God,' to ' follow ' Jesus, to ' leave all ' 
 for 'the kingdom of God's sake, for the gospel's sake, for Christ's 
 name's sake: ' these seem to have been but different forms of ex- 
 pression, all denoting the entire dedication of the life to the cause 
 of Jesus. In following out that career, there would not only be 
 differences between one and another, but often an absolute reversal 
 
 V.I Mat. 30 of men's relative positions. ' But many shall be last ihat are 
 first ; and first ihat are last.' The Authorised Version stands : ' But 
 many that are first shall be last ; and the last sliaU he first.' The 
 
 Kt Mark 31 Ecviscrs havc adopted the reading of the oldest MS. Mark has : ' But 
 many ihat are first shall be last ; and the last first.' It is not, many 
 that are esteemed first, or placed first, or claim to be first : the 
 meaning goes deeper, and relates to the actual character and conduct. 
 The course of duty involves self-development ; not only can there be 
 no equality between one and another, but there can be no fixed status 
 for any individual. The saying holds good if the italicised words are 
 omitted. The hteral rendering of Matthew, and of Mark also according 
 to the reading of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Wordsworth, is : ' Many 
 shall be first last, and last first.' The progress is onward and upward 
 with all and each ; all may run well, but some better, and the best 
 will of necessity stand foremost. Every man also musL wait for his 
 call and opportunity : our tasks are varied, and there are appointed 
 times for doing them. This Jesus illustrated by a parable. He com- 
 pared the life of activity in his cause, which he had been speaking of 
 as an entrance into the kingdom of God or of heaven, to the hiring of 
 
 rio Mat. 1 labourers for vineyard work. ' For the kingdom of heaven is like 
 unto a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning 
 to hire labourers into his vineyard.' The amount of wages was 
 „ 2 agreed, and the work entered upon. 'And when he had agreed with 
 the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.' 
 Some time after he again went out, found other labourers unemployed, 
 and engaged them, not fixing the wages, but telling them that he 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF TEE FOUR GOSPELS. 221 
 
 M'ould pay tliem fairly. ' And he went out ;\l)out the third hour, and -'OMat. 3, 4 
 saw others standing- in the marketplace idle : and to them he said, Go 
 ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. 
 And they went their way.' Three hours later, and also six hours 
 later, he did the sauie. ' Again ho went out about the sixth and the ,, ■> 
 ninth hour, and did likewise.' Once more, two hours later, when 
 there remained only one hour for labour, he went to the 'marketplace. 
 'And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing; „ i; 
 and he saith unto them. Why stand ye here all the day idle ? ' The 
 two oldest MSS. omit the word 'idle,' but it is retained by Tischendorf 
 as well as by the Revisers. The labourers replied that no employmeut 
 lias been offered to them, wdiereupon they also were sent into the 
 vineyard. ' They say unto him. Because no man hath hired us. He „ 7 
 saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard.' The Authorised 
 Version adds : ' and whatsoever is right, iliat shall ye receive.' This 
 is not in the two oldest ^MSS., and is omitted by the Revisers. At 
 the close of the day the projirietor of the vineyard bade his 'overseer,' 
 so Tischendorf renders the word, summon the labourers and pay 
 them, Ijegiuniug with those last engaged. 'And when the even was ,, s 
 come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the 
 labourers, and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the 
 first.' A full day's pay was given to those who had done only one 
 hour's work. ' And when they came that were hired about the .. '•' 
 eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.' Seeing how 
 liberally these had been dealt with, the men who had laboured from 
 early morning flattered themselves with the hope that they also would 
 1)6 overpaid. 'And when the first came, they supposed that they •, i" 
 would receive more.' JSTot so : nothing beyond the agreed amount 
 was paid to them. ' And they likewise received every man a penny.' .., w 
 Disapjiointed and discontented, they complained that they were not 
 treated fairly. Why should those who had done an hour's work iu the 
 cool of the evening, be put on an equality with those who had done a 
 hard day's work uuder a scorching sun? 'And when they received „ nj^J 
 it, they murmured against the householdei-, saying, These last have 
 spent hut one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which 
 have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat (or, hot 
 wind).' To one of these murmurers the employer gave an answer : 
 no injustice had been done to those who complained ; an agreement 
 had been made and it had been adhered to. The contract having 
 been completed on both sides, the labourer had simply to take up his 
 money and depart. ' But he answered and said to one of them, „ i-, u 
 Friend, I do thee no wrong : didst not thou agree with me for a 
 penny ? Take up that which is thine, and go thy way.' The pro- 
 prietor of the viueyard had no intention of raising the standard 
 price of labour. He had simply decided to put those last engaged on 
 an equality with the first. The difference between the amount earned 
 and the payment made, was so much out of the employer's pocket, a 
 free gift Avhich he chose to make, and which no one had the right to 
 gainsay. ' It is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is >, i5 
 it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? ' Did not the 
 complaint proceed from envy, rather than from a sentiment of justice? 
 ' Or is thine eye evil, because I am good ? ' Jesus would have the „ 15 
 parable pondered as illustrating the saying with which he prefaced it. 
 
222 TRE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 ■20 Mat. 16 for he added: 'So the last shall be first, and the first last.' The 
 Authorised Version continues : 'for many be called, but few chosen. 
 That sentence is not in the two oldest MSS., and it is omitted 
 by Tischendorf as well as by the Revisers. Alford notes that it is 
 ' omitted in several of the oldest authorities.' The insertion cannot be 
 attributed to a copyist's error, for the two sentences are not found in 
 conjunction elsewhere. Possibly some early commentator thought he 
 discerned in the allusion to a free gift, the principle expressed by 
 Jesus in the words ' many be called, but few chosen,' and inserted 
 that sentence as explanatory of 'so the last shall be first, and the first 
 last.' How frequently do preachers and commentators, without 
 venturing upon an actual addition or misplacement, read different 
 passages of Scripture into each other, as though they stood side by 
 side, instead of being widely separated, and thereby lose the special 
 application of each, and misinterpret both ! 
 
 ' So the last shall be first, and the first last.' That is the only clue 
 which Jesus gave towards the interpretation of the parable. We 
 shall best arrive at its proper application by keeping close to the 
 text and context. It was delivered as an illustration of what must 
 occur in ' the reign of the heavens,' which expression, as is obvious 
 from what precedes, denotes the condition of society when brought 
 under the sway of Jesus. Only his disciples and followers can enter 
 ' the reign of the heavens.' To them, and with reference to them, he 
 spoke the parable, which followed immediately upon the answer which 
 he had given to the question put by Peter, ' Lo, we have left all, and 
 followed thee ; what then shall we have ? ' Jesus made no distinction 
 between one apostle and another, but placed all upon an equality : 
 the twelve should sit upon twelve thrones, judging twelve tribes. 
 And all who devoted themselves to the same cause would share the 
 same lot, would be recompensed to the same extent, ' manifold more ' 
 or ' a hundredfold,' and would attain to the same perfection of 
 existence, ' in the age to come age-during life.' This raising of all 
 to one level involves of necessity the readjustment of men's relative 
 positions. The status of society generally can be improved only 
 tiirough a process of equalisation ; in other words, ' Many first shall 
 be last, and the last first.' The parable was spoken to illustrace that 
 truth. There is absolutely nothing to favour the idea that the first 
 became last through their own fault or conduct, or the last first on 
 account of any superiority of character. On the contrary, the first 
 laboured throughout the day, and Jesus was careful to state that the 
 last had been idle only because no man had hired them. The central 
 point of the parable is the 'penny,' which represents the amount 
 required for the proper maintenance and comfort of a labourer. 
 That, neither m-ore nor less, was given to all. A similar process of 
 adjustment goes on in 'the reign of God.' Every man is called to 
 exercise his functions to the uttermost ; and at the close of the gospel 
 dispensation, as its final result, than which was the object of its 
 establishment, all within the kingdom of God and of Christ will stand 
 on an equal footing, the perfect life being secured to each and all 
 alike. Socialism and not individualism, the general welfare and not 
 IDcrsonal ambition, a higher standard ibr all and no sharp contrast 
 between wealth and poverty : that is the lesson deducible from the 
 parable, the very spiiit and essence of Christ's gospel. We must be 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 223 
 
 content to accept the kingdom of God in that shape, or not at all. 
 'He hath put down princes from fheir thrones, and hath exalted ^ ^"'^c ^^2 
 them of low degree.' ' The last shall be first, and the first last.' 
 That, in truth, is the triumph-shout of Christianity. 
 
 ' Every valley shall be filled, 3 Luke 5, o 
 
 And every mountain and hill shall bo brought low ; 
 
 And the crooked shall become straight, 
 
 And the rough ways smooth ; 
 
 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.' 
 The salvation of hunumity, not of individuals, is ' the salvation of 
 God.' In face of this great work of the regeneration of society, how 
 moiirnfal is the question, ' Why stand ye here all the day idle?' 
 And how pathetic is the answer : * Because no man hath hired us ' ! 
 Many stand waiting in the marketplace, ready and anxious to do 
 their share in Christ's work, but hearnig no special call, and knowing 
 of no vineyard in which to labour. From doctrinal religion, as by 
 law established, and as preached by those who deem themselves 
 Christ's ministers, they turn away. "What a blessing would it be, to 
 themselves and others, to find some opening into the kingdom of 
 God, some sphere of duty lying parallel with that of the apostles and 
 first disciples, whose sublime act of self-devotion and renunciation 
 not one of us in ten thousand professing Christians feels himself 
 called to imitate. Still, in lowlier ways, the great cause may be 
 helped forward ; and when truer, clearer perceptions of the nature 
 and character of Christian work begin to dawn upon men's minds, 
 they will be found willing to sow seed in gospel furrows, albeit they 
 may not profess to put their hands to the gospel plough. "What a 
 work for Christ and for the poor, has that noble-hearted writer of 
 fiction, AY alter Besant, been able through his novels to accomplish ! 
 What a strange, unexpected, marvellous development and sign of the 
 times is the ' Salvation army,' raised out of the workiug classes ! 
 What a hopeful augury fur the future I Give to the leaders of these 
 men, and to the men tiiemselves, a purer and more rational theology, 
 a more accurate perception of the real nature of Christ's teaching, 
 and of that kingdom of God into which they seek to enter, and what 
 a stride will then be made in the right direction ! Christianity has 
 ever been a motive-power. Only free it from the mass of errors and 
 superstitions which have encrusted, disfigured, hampered it, and it 
 will yet change, rule and save the world. 
 
 When last in Jerusalem the life of Jesus had been threatened, and 
 knowing that the chief-priests and Pharisees were bent on putting 
 him to death, he had retired from Judaea, staying at Ephraim, near ii Joimw 
 the wilderness, with his disciples. Now, for some time past, he has 
 been again 'on the way to Jerusalem.' As they drew nearer to the i" Lukeii 
 metropolis, Jesus showed no sign of halting, but kept in advance of 
 his disciples, as though anxious to avoid delay and indifferent to the 
 risk he ran. The disciples were astonished at this, and although they 
 followed, it was with fear and trembling. ' And they were in the way lo Mark 32 
 going up to Jerusalem ; and Jesns was going before them : and they 
 were amazed ; and they that followed were afraid (or, but some as 
 they followed were afraid).' Then he repeated to the apostles that 
 prophecy of his coming sufleriugs, death and resurrection, which 
 
224 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [paet ii. 
 
 10 Mark 33 t^Yice befoi'e he had delivered to them, ' And he took again the 
 twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen unto 
 him.' Luke uses a similar expression, denoting that the information 
 
 18 Luke 31 was restricted to the apostles. 'And he took unto him the twelve, 
 and said unto them . . .' Matthew ex])lains that he arranged for 
 the twelve only to accompany him, and in the course of his journey 
 
 ■JDMat. 17-19 with theiii he told them what it would result in to himself. ' And as 
 Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, 
 and in the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; 
 and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and 
 scribes ; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him 
 unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify : and the 
 third day he shall be raised up.' Mark adds ' shall spit upon him ; ' 
 instead of 'crucify' he has 'kill ; ' instead of 'the third day,' 'after 
 three days ; ' and instead of ' raised up,' ' rise again : ' the last-named 
 
 10 Mark ?,?,, difference arises from an alteration in the reading of Matthew. ' Be- 
 "^^ hold, we go up to Jerusalem : and the Son of man shall be delivered 
 unto the chief priests and the scribes ; and they shall condemn him 
 to death, and shall deliver him unto the (rentiles : and they shall 
 mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall 
 kill him ; and after three days he shall rise again.' Luke inserts an 
 allusion to the prophecies, and he adds the words ' shamefully en- 
 
 is Luke si- treated.' ' Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that 
 are written by (or, through) the prophets shall be accomplished unto 
 the Son of man. For he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles, and 
 shall be mocked, and shamefully entreated, and spit upon : and they 
 shall scoui'ge and kill him : and the third day he shall rise again.' 
 This was but a repetition and amplification of what Jesus had pre- 
 viously told his disciples generally, not to the twelve only, for it is 
 
 s Mark 82 stated, 'And he spake the saying openly.' Some time afterwards 
 Jesus had again touched upon the same topic. Although it is now 
 mentioned for the third time, it is with a repetition of the statement 
 
 18 Luke 34 that the declaration of .lesus was incomprehensible: 'And they 
 understood none of these things ; and this saying was hid from them, 
 and they perceived not the things that were said.' On the second 
 occasion a similar observation was made both by J\Lark and Luke : 
 
 «i j\ravk 32 the former : ' But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to 
 
 '.) Luke 45 ask him ; ' the latter : ' But they understood not this saying, and it 
 was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it : and they 
 were afraid to ask him about that saying.' Had this referred to the 
 
 '.) Mark 31 sayiug ill Mark : ' after three days he shall rise again,' it might well 
 be that the prodigy of a bodily resurrection could not be anticipated ; 
 but Luke had not quoted those words, and the saying on which he 
 
 y Luke 44 commented is simply, ' The Son of man shall be delivered up into the 
 hands of men.' That saying the disciples did understand sufficiently 
 
 17 Mat. 23 to be iiiadc thereby, as Matthew tells us, ' exceeding sorry.' And 
 on the first occasion also the meaning of what Jesus said was so 
 
 10 Mat, 22 evident that ' Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be 
 it far from thee, Lord : this shall never be unto thee.' Jesus could 
 not have used clearer language ; so anxious was he to make the 
 matter plain, that he told it thrice ; so unmistakable was the sense 
 of his words, that one of the apostles tried to silence him, and all of 
 them were grieved. The varied expressions in Luke seem to indicate 
 
PAKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR CWSPELS. 225 
 
 a difficulty as to the choice of words wherehy to convey tlie sense 
 accurately. Luke was but a compiler : either he liad before him 
 three recorded observations, or one record combining: the three sentences 
 which he has handed down to us. No matter which : in either case 
 the reiteration indicates that no one of the three sentences is by itself 
 sufficiently elucidatory. First we have, ' They understood none of 
 these thino-3 ; ' this is modified or explained by, ' this saying was hid 
 from them ; ' that does not convey the sense with perfect accuracy, 
 so a third explanation is added : ' they perceived not the things that 
 were said.' On the previous occasion also Luke's narrative shows 
 the same hesitation as to the choice of words proper to explain the 
 meaning, ' But they nndcrstood not this saying — it was concealed 
 from them — that they should not perceive it.' They did not under- 
 stand the saying, not because it was not plain, but because it was 
 concealed from them, not through any supernatural influence, for 
 nothing of the kind is hinted at, but through a lack of perception on 
 their part. The failure to comprehend arose within themselves, was 
 owing to something in their own minds, some preconceived notion to 
 which they clung, which this declaration shocked and threatened, 
 which they dreaded might be extinguished if the matter were further 
 inquired into, so that they were afraid to ask him for fuller informa- 
 tion. The disciples regarded Jesus as the Christ, that is, the Messiah. 
 He had justified that belief in him, at the same time charging them. 
 ' that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.' In that i,, Mat. 20 
 capacity they expected, as a matter of course, ' that it was he which L>4Luke2i 
 should redeem Israel.' If, instead of doing so, he shouki be put to 
 death by his enemies, their hope was vain, their faith in himself mis- 
 placed. They dared not face the thought ; they could not reconcile the 
 prophecy of Jesus with his claim to the Messiahship ; his words were 
 enigmatical ; there must be some mystery connected with them which 
 they could not solve ; such a saying was to them utterly incompre- 
 hensible, in its literal sense incredible ; it might be a figure of speech, 
 a parable, or be susceptible of medication in some unexplained way : 
 anything rather than admit the possibility of his leaving the world 
 without having restored the kingdom to Israel, or wrought any visible 1 Actso 
 redemption of his people. 
 
 We are told that Jesus ' learned obedience by the things which he 5 Heb. s 
 suffered : ' that statement is made in connection with the mention of 
 his death. On that point he had received supernatural instruction, 
 Moses and Elijah having spoken with him ' of his decease which he :> Luke 31 
 was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.' Jesus never courted death, 
 but shrunk from it instincti\'ely. If in his three years' ministry he 
 did so much, what might he not have accomplished had he been per- 
 mitted to labour in the world for another thirty or forty years, up to 
 the age of seventy ! His enemies were bent on preventing that, and 
 it was not the will of his Father to interfere by a miracle to save him 
 from a premature death. All that Jesus could do, be did. He raised 
 up a band of disciples, to whom he communicated, as far as they 
 were able to receive it, his scheme for the establishment of the 
 kingdom of God. He chose them ' out of the world,' and left them 17 joim g 
 ' in the world,' to follow out his precepts. Had his life been pro- 
 longed, he woald have been persecuted to the end of it, even as his 
 apostles were after him. That probably was the thought in the mind 
 
 Q 
 
226 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 1 i. Col. 24 of Paul, when he said, ' I rejoice in my snffci'in,o-s for your sake, and 
 fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Chi'ist in 
 my flesh.' jesns himself was the first martyr in his cause ; he caiTied 
 out to the bitter end his doctrine of patient, non-resisting sufferance ; 
 no exception was made in his favour ; he left an example that others 
 might follow ; his ' followers,' in the true sense of the term, must 
 live, as he did, a life on earth based on maxims of the heavenly world, 
 and be content, as he was, to take the consequences. All that, as 
 yet, was very far from the minds of the disciples. The ideas pre- 
 valent with respect to his coming ' kingdom,' led them to entertain 
 hopes of honour and aggrandisement. At the very time Jesus was 
 foretelling his inevitable doom of suffering and death, some about 
 him were coveting for themselves the highest and most dignified 
 positions in his kingdom. Two of his disciples, accompanied by 
 their mother, approached him, with the utmost respect, bowing to 
 
 20Mai.no him, and begging of him a certain boon. 'Then came to him the 
 mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons, worshipping Jiim 
 (bowing— Young), and asking a certain thing of him.' The woman 
 obviously was foremost in the matter, and Jesus, before saying yea 
 „ 21 or nay, naturally requested her to state what she "wanted. ' And ho 
 said unto her. What wouldest thou ?' The blessing she craved was not 
 for herself, but for her children. They had perfect faith in him, and 
 in the triumph of his cause, and forestalling in imagination the time 
 Avlien he would sit on his glorious throne, they were ambitious of the 
 „ 21 honour of being seated next to him. ' She saith unto him, Command 
 tliat these my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on 
 thy left hand, in thy kingdom.' The three must have consulted 
 together, before venturing to make the suggestion. The request was 
 based upon their faith in Jesus, their reverence for his character, 
 their attachment to his person. From the first he had shown his 
 
 ?, Marie 17 appreciation of the two brothers, for ' them he surnamed Boanerges, 
 which is. Sons of thunder.' Simon also he had surnamed Peter — 
 Rock ; and to these three Jesus had given, and continued up to the 
 
 !)Mark2 last, spccial Opportunities of being with him: he chose them to 
 
 14 Mark S3 witucss liis trausfiguratiou, and to accompany him in the garden of 
 Gethsemane ; they are mentioned as taking the lead in expressing 
 
 13 Mark 3 their opiuious, and the three, with Andrew, once questioned Jesus 
 privately on the mount of Olives. These facts, as well as their 
 surnames, indicate that they possessed in a conspicuous degree 
 firmness and energy, and received from Jesus peculiar marks of con- 
 fidence. James and John entertained so high an opinion of their 
 
 9Lnker>4 Master's dignity, that on one occasion they wished to call down fire 
 from heaven to consume those who treated him with disrespect. 
 Having cast in their lot with him ever since the day when, at his 
 call, they unhesitatingly left their fishing boat in sole charge of their 
 father and followed Jesus, they may have considered that they were 
 fairly entitled to secure for themselves whatever future advantages 
 might be attainable. AVould they not be so much the more devoted 
 to him now, if they could be assured of reaching the highest possible 
 position under him hereafter ? Their father had been left to carry on 
 their former business without the assistance of his sous ; their mother 
 now^ was urgent on their behalf, fondly deeming them superior to 
 others, and firing them with ambitious hopes. Matthew describes 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 227 
 
 hev as foremost in making the api^lication ; bnfc the tlirce were at 
 one on the point. Mark says nothing about the mother, but repre- 
 sents the t\Y0 disciples as making the request themselves. ' And lo Mark 35- 
 there come near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedce, ^^ 
 
 saying unto him, Master (or. Teacher), we would that thou shouldcst 
 do for us whatsoc\er we shall ask of thee. And he said unto them, 
 "What would ye that I should do for you ? And they said unto him. 
 Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on 
 f//// left hand, in thy glory.' Both evangelists agree that an eifort 
 was made to extract a promise from Jesus without first disclosing 
 the nature of the request : Matthew says, ' asking a certain thing of 
 him ' : J\Iark : ' do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.' They 
 should have known Jesus too well for that ; he, at least, knew well 
 what was due to himself and them, and refused to promise blindly. 
 And when they had made known their wish he assured them that 
 they did not understand what it amounted to and involved. 'But -'o Mat. 22 
 Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask.' It was not a 
 mei-e question of granting them a favour, and of their accepting it, 
 but of their power of endurance in his cause. Were they able to 
 undergo the same sutferings as himself ? ' Are ye able to drink the „ -22 
 cup that 1 am about to dririk ? ' The alteration by the Revisers of 
 ' I shall drink of,' into ' I am about to drink,' agrees with the render- 
 ing of Tischendorf and Young. The Authorised Version contiimes : 
 ' and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? ' 
 which is now omitted, not being in the two oldest IMSS. Those words 
 were probably inserted from Mark, which stands as follows: ' But ]0M;irk:;s 
 Jesus said unto them, Y"e know not what ye ask. Are ye able to 
 drink the cup that 1 drink ? or to be baptized with the baptism that 
 I am baptized with ? ' The drinking from a cup and su])mission to 
 baptism are voluntary actions : the reference was unmistakably to 
 the bitter and overwhelming sorrows which Jesus was about to ex- 
 perience, as he had been explaining to his disciples. Yes : these two 
 were even prepared to face shame, suffering and death. ' They say 20 Mat. 22, 23 
 unto him, \Ye are able.' And he knew they were destined for that. 
 * He saith unto them. My cup indeed ye shall drink.' Here again 
 the Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., have omitted the words, 
 ' and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.' That 
 is in Mark : ' And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus 10 Mark 29 
 said unto them. The cup that T drink ye shall drink ; and with the 
 baptism that I am baptized withal shall yei be baptized ! ' Beyond 
 that, Jesus could give them no assurance. Positions of nearness to 
 himself were not matters of favour and arbitrary bestownient : he had 
 no power to promise and grant them ; they must be earned, not 
 forestalled ; they were reserved for those who best could fill them. 
 ' But to sit on my right hand or on mj/ left hand is not mine to give : „ 40 
 hut it is for them for v/hom it hath been prepared.' Matthew adds 
 the words, ' of my Father.' ' But to sit on my right hand, and on 20 Mat. 23 
 on// left hand, is not mine to give, but it is for them for whom it hath 
 been prepared of my Father.' The insertion of the italicised words, 
 ' it is for them,' may be deemed unnecessary. The Authorised 
 Tersion has in italics, ' it shall be given to them.' Luther makes no 
 such addition to the text, nor does Dr. Young, who renders : ' is not 
 mine to give, but to those for whom it hath been prepared by my 
 
228 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 Father.' The effect of the addition is to prevent the reading of the 
 word ' but ' as equivalent to ' except,' which Alford, with Chrysostom 
 and others, admits not to be contrary to the sense of the original. 
 Alford says : ' If however we understand after Init " it shall be given 
 hij Me,''' the two interpretations come to the same : ' that is, if two 
 more words are inserted without authority, tlieu the previous un- 
 authorised insertion will not obviate the probable sense of the original 
 apart from any addition whatever. 
 
 When the other apostles heard of the application which had been 
 
 privately made by James and John, they seem to have regarded it as 
 
 an underhand and selfish action, ar.d they manifested indignation 
 
 L'o Mat. '24 against the two brothers. ' And when the ten heard it, they were 
 
 10 Mark 41 movcd with indignation concerning the two brethren.' 'And when 
 
 the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning 
 James and John.' They certainly had not raised themselves in the 
 estimation of Jesus, who had told them, ' Ye know not what ye ask,' 
 
 ;» Liii;e 55 as oiicc before he had occasion to rebuke them, saying, ' Ye know not 
 ^'^■^■^ what manner of spirit ye are of.' Xow they had also drawn down 
 upon themselves the deserved reproaches of their fellow labourers. 
 Jesus took the opportunity of assuring the twelve that the mode, 
 method and surroundings of earthly rulership could have no counter- 
 parts in his kingdom. Power, pre-eminence, lordship, authority, — 
 these constituted the very essence of human government, and a great 
 
 ■J..) Mat. '25 man w-as held to be synonymous with an arhitrarij ruler. ' But Jesus 
 called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the rulers of the 
 Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority 
 over them.' According to Mark's wording, Jesus spoke of that as 
 
 1(1 Mark 42 Only a show, a mockery of true rulership : ' And Jesus called them ta 
 him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to 
 rule over the Gentiles lord it over them ; and their great ones 
 exercise authority over them.' Alford notes : ' They which are 
 accounted to rule, — who have the title of rulers : literally, they which 
 seem to rule, or, think that they rule.' By introducing the word 
 ' Gentiles ' the translators lead English readers to assume that the 
 reference is to heathen nations only. That is not so. The Greek 
 word efhnos is rendered in four ways : ' Gentile, heathen, nation^ 
 people.' The lexicon defines it : 'a company, body of men. 2 a race, 
 tribe. 3 a nation, people ; plural, the Gentiles, i.e., all except Jews and 
 Christians.' The last and subsidiary signification is the term 
 generally used in the Authorised Version, but Dr. Young adopts the 
 term ' nation, nations.' That it is equally applicable to the Jews is. 
 
 7 LuUu r, clera from various passages, as : 'he loveth our nation (ef/mos) ; that 
 
 11 .kiln. Jesus should die for the nation (ethnous) ; and not for the nation 
 
 ^^' ^^ {efhnous) only.' Luther renders the passage under consideration : 
 
 ' die weltlichen Flirsten herrschen,' ' the worldly princes rule.' No 
 
 •20 Mat. 2(; such domination must exist among the discijiles of Jesus : ' Not so- 
 
 10 Mark 43 shall it bc amoug you.' Mark has it : ' But it is not so among you.' 
 
 Freedom of thought and action was the privilege of each, and their 
 
 notion of superiority must be the reverse of that prevalent in the 
 
 world. Voluntary service must be their badge of distinction, the^ 
 
 20 Mat. 26, 27 spirit of humility and self-sacrifice their token of nobihty. 'But 
 
 whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister (or,. 
 
 servant) ; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your- 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. ' 229 
 
 servant (Gr. bondservant).' Mark agrees exactly, except that instead 
 
 of 'your servant ' be has 'servant (Gr. bondservant) of alL' Great- lo Mmu i.?, 
 
 uess with them nnist be synonymous with usefahiess, and pre-eminence "*^ 
 
 consist in an entire devotion to the general welfare. That was the 
 
 lot of Jesus himself, his sole ambition: 'even as the Son of man^oMat. 2.s 
 
 came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life 
 
 a ransom for many.' Here J\Iark is in exact agreement, except as to 
 
 the first two words, ' even as,' which are now replaced by ' for verily.' lo Mark 4.-. 
 
 In the Authorised Version they stand ' for even ' which agrees with 
 
 Young and Tischendorf. Alford suggests rendering ' even ' by ' also,' 
 
 which corresponds with Luther's ' auch.' There is nothing to indicate 
 
 why the Revisers introduce the word ' verily.' Alford has the 
 
 following note : 'A ransom for many, h a plain declaration of the 
 
 sacrificial and vicarious nature of the death of our Lord. The 
 
 principal usages (in the Greek Scriptures) of the word rendered 
 
 ransom are the following ; (1) a payment as equivalent for a life 
 
 destroyed ; (2) the price of redemption of a slave ; (3) a propitiation 
 
 for.' Jesus was not then directing the minds of the apostles to the 
 
 doctrine of ' the sacrifical and vicarious nature' of his death, and to 
 
 imagine that, is to take away the force of the words ' even us ' or 
 
 * for even ' or ' for also,' which indicate a possible correspondence 
 between his own life and death and the life and death of each one of 
 them. Taking the words apart from any particular dogma, thus 
 much, at least, is clear from them : that Jesus believed that the 
 sacrifice of his life would result in the ransom of many of mankind. 
 It is not said, as a ransom for many other lives : we should not be 
 justified in adding those last two words ; and if we assume that to be 
 the sense, the question arises : Did the death of Jesus prevent the 
 death of many others ? On the contrary, had he not told his disciples 
 that they would have to give up their lives for his name's sake ? The 
 death of Jesus was the price he paid in carrying out his scheme for 
 the ransom or redemption of mankind, that is, for the establishment 
 of the kingdom of (lod among men. Is it not equally true that 
 some of his apostles and first followers gave up their lives in the same 
 cause ? And is it not equally reasonable to say that they, as well as 
 he, gave their lives a ransom for many ? That is but equivalent to 
 the well-known saying that ' the blood of the martyrs was the seed of 
 the Church.' Only one of two senses is to be attached to the words 
 of Jesus : either that in which they must have been understood at the 
 time, or that in which he obviously intended that they should be 
 understood. Here there is nothing to Avarrant the idea that the 
 disciples could have interpreted the saying as Alford does ; nothing 
 to justify the inference that Jesus taught that his own death was 
 
 * sacrificial and vicarious ' in any other way than the death of his 
 followers might be so termed. Let it be understood that no question 
 is here raised as to the truth of the doctrine alluded to by Alford, 
 but simply a protest against importing it into this passage. The 
 words of Jesus must be held too sacred and inviolable to admit of any 
 other ideas than his own being mixed up with them. What he 
 designed to teach at the time of uttering them, that only can we admit 
 to be their true, full and proper meaning. 
 
 Still pursuing his journey towards Jerusalem, Jesus drew near to 
 
230 THE KIXG AND THE KINGDOM: [part ir. 
 
 IS Luke 35 Jericho. By the roadside a blind mau was seated. ' And it came to 
 pass, as he drew nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the 
 way side begging.' Is it not strauge that after eighteen centuries of 
 Christian teaching, the same pitiable spectacle of men and women 
 incapacitated from work by blindness, and begging in the streets, 
 should still be seen ? Surely it is time that some plan should be 
 devised for maintainirg, at the cost of the community, those who are 
 so totally unable to engage in the battle of life. It would not be 
 difficult to provide shelter, food and raiment for all the helpless, friend- 
 less blind and cripples who now are left to depend upon casual alms- 
 giving, the bauds of many willing to help being held back through 
 fear of the deceptions practised by professional and sham beggars. 
 We build prisons, and keep our criminals at a heavy cost, and lunatic 
 asylums for those who are dangerous to us in other ways. Surely we 
 ought to go further than that. The blind, the lame and the mute 
 should not be suifered to beg ; refuges should be provided at the 
 public charge, with proper supervision, and arrangements for the 
 profitable employment, according to their various capabilities, of those 
 who are shut out by blindness, lameness or dumbness from th^' 
 ordinary a^'ocations of life. We cannot cure these unfortunates, as 
 Jesus did ; for that reason it is our duty to succour them. But as 
 long as such works of charity are left to private individuals, so long- 
 will they be performed inadequately, sufficient funds not being forth- 
 coming for the work. What is admitted to be everyone's business is 
 undertaken by no one in particular, and amid the multitude of 
 claims for help the most pressing are sometimes the least urged. 
 The want of our age is precisely the want of the age in which Jesus 
 lived, and which he sought to supply by proclaiming and inaugurating 
 ' the kingdon of God,' that is, a kingdom of Christians. Not yet can 
 r. [L V. 15, it be said: 'The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of 
 our Lord, and of his Christ.' They are not ibunded on the basis of 
 his teaching, but make their boast in principles and modes of action 
 the very reverse of his. The preponderance of national force is 
 determined by war, and commercial rivalry rests on the maxims of a 
 science of political economy as hard and merciless as the warrior's 
 sword. The need of the world is the same as ever, the times cry out 
 ■2 Tit. 14 for ' a peculiar people, zealous of good works.' That was the ideal of 
 (A. \.) ^ Christian community in the eyes of the apostle Peter : ' But ye are 
 "''^'(A.V)^' chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar 
 people ; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called 
 you out of darkness into his marvellous light.' The Church, 
 that is, the assembly of believers in Jesus, should present the aspect 
 of a select family, bearing the stamp of royalty and saintliness, a 
 nation within a nation, a people distinct from the surrounding world, 
 a body animated by the indwelling spirit of Jesus, moved by one 
 sacred impulse, and living as an organic whole the life of Jesus among 
 mankind. In the formation of such a society, the nucleus must needs 
 consist of disciples round whom believers can gather ; such disciples 
 must take all the precepts of Jesus, not a choice or modification of 
 them, as their rule of life and action : thereby only can they become 
 the heart, the central moving impulse of the whole body. Is not the 
 existing system of Christianity defective in that, its initial point ? 
 We have no separate class of disciples living, not apart from the 
 
PART II.] A ,^TUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 231 
 
 ^vorld but ill tlic midst of the Avorkl, in contempt of all worldly 
 ambitions, maxims, ])olicies, and in unfoiyned, entire subjection to 
 the teachino-, mind and will of Jesus. The men recoji,-nised as 
 ministers of Christ are not of that stamp, nor do they prof ess or really 
 strive to be so. Ask any one of them whether he does not consider 
 that every member of his flock is as much bound as himself to obey 
 every precept and counsel of Jesus, and he will unhesitatingly answer, 
 Yes. The shepherds have placed themselves and the sheep on the 
 same level of duty. Christianity was not founded upon that principle : 
 Jesus chose but few disciples, taught them to make special sacritices, 
 to expect special trials. They went forth in his name and spirit, and 
 gathered round them multitudes of believers, both men and women, 
 who certainly were not called to discii)leship : ' Arc all apostles ? are 12 1. Coi-. 'in 
 all ])rophets ? are all teachers ? ' If those who have claimed to be 
 successors of the apostles had been so in reality, discipleship to Jesus 
 would have assumed a very different phase in the eyes of all men, and 
 the universal Church would have been taught by the i)attern of a 
 heavenly life as designed by Jesus. Under the existing system of 
 Chm'ch doctrine and discipline, his kingdom comes not. ^Ve have 
 agreed to expect salvation in the next world, not on earth, and to 
 regard it as an individual concern rather than a social question. 
 When the jailer at Philippi asked, trembling for fear, ' What must I lo Acts 31 
 do to be saved ? ' Paul and Silas answered, ' Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.' This need of a 
 ' common salvation ' was learnt by Dives in the next life, and led Jude 3 
 him to desire it for his ' father's house.' Ecligion ceases to beaioLukeer 
 merely personal matter, when we come to realise it as the establish- 
 ment of ' the kingdom of God.' Not through prayers, praises, creeds, 
 sacraments, can we be saved, but only through social progress, for 
 ' we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members 12 uo-.n. 5 
 one of another.' The Christian community needs to be defined, 
 restricted, that it may assume a bodily shape and perform the 
 functions of a living organism. At present it is formless, a vague 
 monstrosity, supposed to be here, there, everywhere, each individual 
 in the nation having an equal claim to membership. Thence it 
 comes to pass that the national career is held to be identical with the 
 career of Christianity, the earthly is blended with the heavenly, the 
 State with the Church, the precepts of Jesus with the maxims of the 
 world, the spirit of war and aggrandisement with the gospel of peace 
 and self-sacrifice. This worthless and deceptive amalgam of the 
 human with the divine is not Christianity, and is altogether out of 
 harmony with the scheme of its Founder. Let us go back to that. 
 If those who profess to be our heavenly guides become truly ' apostolic,' 
 disciples of Jesus as separate from the world and as hostile to its 
 spirit as were the twelve who first proclaimed the gospel of peace, 
 what a transformation of society may be brought about by their 
 example and their teaching ! The ideal of an apostolic hfe is not too 
 high for Ministers generally. The Church of Rome has gone beyond 
 it, requiring every ]3riest to be a celibate. Jesus never made that an 
 indispensable condition of discipleship, but the relinquishment of 
 property and the laying up instead of treasure in the heavens, he did. 
 Possibly it was the vow of poverty which led to the enforced 
 relinquishment of marriage : for it might be deemed better not to 
 
232 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 marry than to leave wife and children without adequate means of 
 support. At least it must be assmned that the decree of celibacy 
 must have originated in some high and good motive. But it was 
 none the less an error of judgment, a mistaken attempt (how many 
 such have there been !) to improve on the method of Jesus. He 
 desired that his followers should rely upon the sense of justice and 
 obligation in those to whom they ministered. He taught them that 
 
 10 Luke 7 ' the labourer is worthy of his hire,' and he appealed to them as to 
 whether their experience had not justified the spirit of reliance he 
 
 2-2 Luke 35 had iuculcatcd : ' When I seat you forth without purse, and wallet, 
 and shoes, lacked ye anything ? and they said. Nothing.' The 
 
 2ii. Tim. 6 apostlc Paul laid down the maxim : ' Tlie husliandman that laboureth 
 
 9 i. Cor. 14 must be the first to partake of the fruits ;' and he declared : ' Even so 
 did the Lord ordain that they which proclaim the gospel should live 
 of the gospel.' That did not prevent him from insisting that a 
 
 3i. Tim. 2 bishop luust be, not only 'without reproach,' but also 'the husband 
 of one wife ; ' and that those to be appointed ' elders ' should be 
 
 1 Tit. 6 family men : ' If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, 
 having children that believe.' It may be a question open to dis- 
 cussion, whether the Church of Christ will always require a body of 
 'apostles,' 'disciples,' 'bishops,' 'elders,' 'overseers,' or by what- 
 ever other name those who take the foremost places are designated ; 
 Itut so long as they exist, and claim to be ministers of Christ, 
 descendants of the apostles, they are tied down to these rules of life, 
 and lire no true shepherds of the sheep whilst they infringe them. 
 There is nothing in the New Testament to justiiy the holding of 
 wealth by the professed ' disciples ' of Jesus. It might be well for 
 archl)ishops and bishops to take the huge incomes they inherit, if 
 only they would spend the whole of them in the cause to which they 
 have professedly devoted themseh'es, and let the world know and 
 see that they are doing so. It might be well to retain the services 
 of men of learning, as preachers or otherwise, endowing them liberally 
 without requiring them to give up all for Christ's sake, if only they 
 would abate their pretensions of apostolical descent, and take their 
 place among laymen. In the rank and file of the ministry there 
 arc comparatively few overpaid, and the majority are sadly 
 underpaid. It would be no sacrifice to them, were they to profess 
 openly their adherence to the apostolic system ot living 'from hand 
 to mouth.' That they do perforce, every day of theii' lives. What is 
 wanting is, that all who claim office as leaders of men to Jesus 
 should from the first, deliberately, in the sight of all men, renounce 
 Avorldly possessions and ambitious, and throw themselves upon the 
 
 10 Luke 7 charity of those to whom they minister, 'eating and drinking such 
 things as they give.' A strange counsel that I Undoubtedly : yet 
 not more strange now than when Jesus first gave it. It 
 was his plan, deliberately formed and earnestly insisted upon by 
 him, and carried out to the letter by those whom he sent forth. True, 
 „ s he empowered them to 'heal the sick,' but that was in conjunction 
 with and subsidiary to their preaching, ' the kingdom of God is 
 come nigh unto you.' To men animated by such a spirit aud 
 living such a life, an influence would attach which otherwise is lacking. 
 It would be now, as then, a question either of receiving them or re- 
 jecting them ; and over those receiving them they would exercise a 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 233 
 
 power of direction, of cfuidance, of leadership, which would suffice 
 to bind together churches, that is, assembh'es of lielicvers, not 
 nominally as at present, but in reality. Infant baptism, whit-h is too 
 much a myth, a superstition, a fetish, would either be abolished, or 
 regarded as a simide emblematic ceremony, the distinction between 
 the churcli and the world becoming as evident as the ilillerence 
 between their respective leaders, far too wide to be bridged over by a 
 sacrameutal form which makes all Christians in name, but cannot 
 make them Christians in deed. "When the pastors stand out separate 
 from the world, the sheep who rally round them will be distinguish- 
 able from others, and a true church will be constituted, instead of a 
 professed one. The organisation will assume definiteness, comjiact- 
 11 ess, homogeneity, as naturally and easily as did that new and strange 
 outcome of our times — the Salvation Army. Is not the marvellous 
 success attaching to that movement an evidence of what can be 
 accomplished when men work on the lines of self-sacrifice and 
 brotherhood which Avere laid down by Jesus ? He trusted not his 
 cause to priests, Levites, pharisees or religious doctors ; one only of 
 the pharisaic rulers, Joseph of Arimathea, became his ' disciple,' and 
 he ' secretly, for fear of the Jews.' Must that experience be reiieated lo Joim 3s 
 after eighteen centuries .' Be that as it may, not until the leaders in 
 Christianity stand aloof from and above the world, bearing in their 
 hands the standard notof doctrinal theology, apostolical succession and 
 sacramental theories, but of an earthly life woven to the exact jiattern 
 of the precepts given l)y Jesus to his disciples, will ' the kingdom of 
 heaven ' be established upon earth ; and when that comes to pass, the 
 Church — the Christian community — will become a recognised brother- 
 hood, seen and known of all men, ' a peculiar people, zealous of good 
 works.' Then it will be understood that for the propagation of the 
 gospel men are needed, and money avails nothing, the first require- 
 ment of every ambassador of Christ being that he should relimpiish 
 property, and throw himself unreservedly on the liberality of those 
 among whom he labours. The apostle Paul, who was the first 
 missionary to the heathen, acted on that principle, and even went 
 beyond it. Ha^-ing ' suffered the loss of all things ' for Christ's sake, 3 puii. s 
 he speaks of himself as moneyless. We find him labouring at 
 Corinth together with Aquila and Priscilla : ' because he was of the is Acts?, 
 same trade, he abode with them, and they wrought : for by their 
 trade they were tentmakers.' Writing of himself and, it would seem, 
 of Sosthenes and Apollos, to the Corinthians, he says: 'Even unto4i. cor. n 
 this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and 
 are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace ; and we toil, work- 
 ing with our own hands.' Further on, in the same epistle, he laid 
 down the law of Jesus: 'Even so did the Lord ordain that they 9 i. cor. u 
 which proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel,' adding : ' But I „ 1.-, 
 have used none of these things: and I write not these things that it 
 may be so done in my case : for I'f were good for me rather to die than 
 that any man should make my glorying void . . . AVhat then is my 
 reward ? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel 
 without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel.' 
 From the Philippians only did he receive any payment, and that was 
 in the shape of a purely voluntary gift : ' And ye yourselves also ■* Pi»ii- ij. 1 
 know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I 
 
234 THE KING AND TEE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 departed from Macedonia, no chnrch bad fellowship wifcli me in tlie 
 matter of giving and receiving, but ye only ; for even in Thessalonica 
 
 4 Phil. IS ye sent once and again unto my need . . . But I have all things 
 and abound : I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the 
 things fJiat came from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice 
 acceptal)le, well-pleasing to God.' For some reason, Paul refused to 
 receive help from the Corinthians. In his second epistle to them he 
 
 11 ii. Cor. 7-9 v/rotc : ' Or did I commit a sin in debasing myself that ye might be 
 exalted, because I preached to you the gospel of God for nought ? I 
 robbed other churches, taking wages of them, that I might minister 
 unto you ; and when I was present with you and was in want, I was 
 not a burden on any man ; for the brethren, when they came from 
 Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want ; and in everything I 
 kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep 
 myself.'' Paul gives his reason for that departure on his part from 
 12 the rule laid down by Jesus : ' But what I do, that 1 will do, 
 that I may cut off occasion from them which desire an oc- 
 casion ; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.' 
 He was determined to make the impecuniosity of preachers of the 
 gospel generally, a test of their sincerity. He admits that it was not 
 quite fair on his part to relieve the Corinthians at the cost of other 
 churches, and that in so doing he was not carrying out the ordinance of 
 
 12 ii. Cor. 13 Jesus, and might be charged with injustice. 'For what is there 
 wherein ye were made inferior to the rest of the churches, except it 
 be that 1 myself was not a burden to you ? forgive me this wrong.' 
 What Paul did, others could do. And if the voluntary impoverish- 
 ment of Christ's ambassadors is possible and obligatory when they 
 go forth as missionaries to foreign countries, how much easier would 
 it be to adopt the same course of action among their own country- 
 men ! The scheme of Jesus was based on human effort and human 
 sympathy, and no advance in Christianity has ever been made, or will 
 be made, apart from them. They are the only reliable bond of union 
 between the clergy and the laity, and between individuals con- 
 stituting the Christian community. The crying want of the Church 
 is unity of interest and purpose among all its members. Some great 
 and fundamental change is required, some plan of reorganisation, 
 which will give form, character, definiteness to the Church. The method 
 insisted upon by Jesus, and acted upon by his first disciples, would 
 be as effectual now as it proved then. The Master's servants will 
 fight best with the weapon which he placed in their hands. Unless 
 they wield it, and trust in it, they cannot conquer in his cause. The 
 spirit of unworldliness and heavenly-mindedness, carried to its extreme 
 in the shape of voluntary poverty and self-sacrifice, is demanded of 
 those who claim to be our spiritual guides : demanded not by the 
 fiock, but by the chief shepherd of the flock — Jesus himself. That- 
 trutli seems to have been lost sight of. Tiie clergy do not regard it as 
 
 3 Phil. 14 their special duty and privilege, a condition attached to their 'high 
 calling of God in Christ Jesus.' Poverty they are content to accept, 
 if need be, as an accident of their lives, but not as a ruling principle of 
 their conduct. The laity, immersed in worldly affairs as the prime 
 necessity of their existence, must needs feel that such precepts are not 
 for them. For Avhom then ? For all in general, and no one in par- 
 ticular ? For each individual Christian, as far as he may choose to 
 
PART II.] A tiTUDY OF THE FOUR GOi^l'FLS. 235 
 
 apply them and act U])OU them, and no further ? That is what our 
 want of perception and looseness of thought have led to. These 
 solemn and reiterated exhortations of Jesus to his disciples have come 
 to be held nugatory, ineffective, visionary, well nigh obsolete, alto- 
 gether impracticable ; they are regarded as counsels of a perfection 
 which is unattainable, undesirable in this life, principles of action too 
 high ibr ordinary mortals, and not specially binding upon any class. 
 AVhy then did Jesus utter them ? Was he a mere dreamer of dreams, 
 an enthusiast counselling the impossible ? Not so, surely ! These 
 rules of life were laid down in all sober seriousness, and only a careful 
 and discriminating study of the gospels and epistles is needed to make 
 evident their application. They are the heritage of professed disciples, 
 men Avilling to throw away their fortunes and hazard their lives for 
 the name of the Lord Jesus. With such men for leaders, and not 
 without them, the Church of Christ Avill grow and prosper. They 
 will possess a power of organisation, control, direction, which can. 
 be enforced by uo statutes and maintained by no formal creeds ; the 
 wealth of the — then— visible Church Avill flow forth at their bidding, 
 and will supply every need. Not more willingness to give, but more 
 system and unanimity in giving, is required ; and not by almsgiving- 
 alone can the inequalities of society be redressed, but by the ceaseless 
 overflowing of that stream of sympathy with which the spirit of Jesus 
 mustneeds flood his true Church, making the welfare of each the concern 
 of all, and uplifting, by just and fair dealing, the degraded masses 
 now forming the lower stratum of society to the dignity of Christian 
 brotherhood. The lesser works of charity are bound up Avith that 
 greater one, in comparison with Avhich it will be a small thing to 
 obviate for ever the sad spectacle of blind men sitting by the Avayside 
 begging. 
 
 Upon the ears of this blind man there fell the sound of the passing 
 croAvd, leading him to enquire the cause of such an unusual gathering. 
 'And hearing a multitude going by, he inquired AA'hat this meant ? ' is Luke sc 
 On learning that the Avell-known Teacher Avas about to pass, he 
 instantly cried out, addressing him byname, as the expected Messiah, 
 and beseeching his compassion. ' And they told him, that Jesus of „ st, cf 
 Nazareth passed by. And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David, 
 have mercy on me.' Those foremost in the procession reproved the 
 clamouring man, hoping to silence him. ' And they that went before „ 3i> 
 rebuked him, that he should hold his peace.' This effort of theirs 
 may be taken as an indication that Jesus shoAved an aversion to all 
 needless commotion, and that those about him were aAA'are of the im- 
 portance of making his progress from place to place as quiet and 
 undemonstrative as possible. Wherever there is a croAvd, not much is 
 AA-anted to create disturbance. Jesus Avas now performing a journey 
 Avhich involved considerable hazard to himself and his disciples, so 
 much so, that at its commencement ' they that folloAved Avere afraid.' ^'^ ^'''^'"'- "- 
 The nearer they drew to Jerusalem, the greater became the peril. 
 Openly to hail him in the way as ' the Son of David,' Avas to play into 
 the hands of his enemies, whose emissaries might even noAV be 
 among them, watching for anything on Avhich to found an accusation 
 against him. But the effort to subdue the enthusiastic outcry of the 
 blind man was futile : ' But he cried out the more a great deal, Thou ^^ ^uk? so 
 Son of David, have mercy on me.' It reached the ears of Jesus, Avho 
 
236 TUE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 at once halted, and desired that the man should be conducted to him. 
 
 IS Lnke 40 ' And Jcsus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him.' 
 Then the kindly voice of this to him invisible benefactor entered 
 „ 41 the blind man's ears : ' and when he was come near, he asked him, 
 What wilt thou that I should do unto thee ?' The man's brief 
 answer proved that he doubted not the power of Jesus, marvellous as 
 „ 41 was the boon he craved. ' And he said, Lord (Sir — Young), that I 
 may receive my sight.' Nothing was needed now but the mighty 
 „ 4-2 word of Jesus. 'And Jesus said unto him. Receive thy sight.' 
 „ 4-2 But he added, as he was wont to do : ' thy faith hath made thee 
 whole (or, saved thee),' and we must not venture to overlook or 
 explain away those words. They signify that the faith of the man 
 Avas quite as necessary, to say the least, to the performance of the 
 miracle, as was the volition of Jesus : indeed, he attributes the cure 
 entirely to the faith. All the instances of healing by Jesus, or by 
 those to whom he communicated a similar gift, were obviously per- 
 formed under certain conditions ; they were not scattered broadcast ; 
 special application had always to be made, either by the afflicted 
 person or by some one on his behalf ; as a general rule, but not 
 Avithout exception, physical contact occurred, and was essential, 
 between the healer and the healed. Jesus touched, or he Avas touched, 
 and sometimes much more than a touch appears to have been needed, 
 as Avhen he anointed the eyes of the blind man Avith clay mixed with his 
 saliva, and Avhen he placed his fingers in the ears of the deaf, the 
 sufferer AA'as brought somehow into relation Avith his benefactor: a few 
 Avords exchanged between them, or even a look, might suffice ; and 
 Jesus occasionally impressed upon those he healed the fact that their 
 own faith had much, if not everything, to do Avith the working of the 
 miracle. The same law acted subsequently, and was so Avidely recog- 
 
 5 Acts la nised that ' they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid 
 them on beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least his 
 
 inActsu, 12 shadow might overshadow some of them.' "We are told that 'God 
 wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul : insomuch that unto 
 the sick Avere carried aAvay from his body handkerchiefs or aprons, 
 and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits Avent out.' 
 Not without a reason did Peter, before curing the cripple, fasten his 
 
 3 Acts 4 eyes upon him, Avith John, and say, ' Look on us ; ' and when Paul 
 
 14 Acts 9, 10 healed a similar case of lameness, we read of his ' fastening his eyes 
 
 upon him, and seeing that he had faith to be made Avhole, said AA'ith a 
 loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet.' Such facts indicate the 
 existence of some occult law of our being, some blending of the 
 spiritual Avith the bodily powers, some kind of animal magnetism, subtle 
 electric force, or Avhatever else it may be — Ave know not — which can 
 be brought into action under certain circumstances, conditions, 
 limitations, but Avhich being altogether unusual and as yet undefined 
 by science, Ave term miraculous. 
 
 The cure of the blind man Avas instantaneous and complete. No 
 longer compelled to remain helplessly inactive, to be led like a child, 
 or grope his sIoav, uncertain way in doubt, dread and darkness, he Avas 
 able to enter the surging croAvd and take his place in the procession 
 Avhicli he had heard, indeed, but had never hoped to see and join. 
 
 15 Luke 43 ' And immediately he recei\'ed his sight, and followed him.' With 
 
 joy and thankfulness, yet not in silence : still his voice uprose, no 
 
PART II.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 237 
 
 lone:er ill ])itifiil entreaty, l)ut in devout tluuiksj^iving' : ' glorifyinij; is i.uko 43 
 God.' The cntliiisiastic admiration of the crowd rose to the same 
 level : as they marched forward a chant of praise was sounded out, a 
 triumpli-shuut of adorin"; o-ratitude for tliis manifestation of (Jod-h'ke 
 power and mercy. ' And all the people, when they saw it, i^ave praise .. 4:; 
 unto God.' Here was Jesus of Nazareth in their midst, who had thus 
 repeatedly transformed into an actual reality of lii'e the titiurative 
 lang-uane of the prophet : ' Then the eyes of the blind shall l)e opened, 3.3 isa. o, 
 and the cars of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame 
 man leap as an hart, and the toni>ue of the dumb shall sin,i>-.' If any 
 one of the multitude remembered such a passage, and uttered it aloud, 
 it may well have been passed from mouth to mouth, and shouted out 
 in solemn cliorus. 
 
 Luke distinctly states that this miracle was performed as Jesus 
 ^vas ap])i'oachino- Jericho : ' as he drew nigh unto Jericho.' Either is i-uUc s-^ 
 the same or a similar miracle is described by ifark as happening on 
 the departure of Jesus from Jericho : ' And they come to Jericho. 10 ihuu 40 
 And as he went out from Jericho, with his disciples and a great 
 multitude, the son of Tim[eus, Bartima^us, a blind beggar, was sitting' 
 by the way side.' This account was evidently obtained at first hand, 
 from one who had full knowledge of the circumstances, and who knew 
 the place and its inhabitants. Except as regards the locality, the two 
 accounts agree perfectly. Mark stands as follows: 'And when he ,. 47-c;: 
 heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, lis began to cry out and say, 
 JesMS, thou son of David, have mercy on me. And many rebuked 
 him, that he should hold his peace : but he cried out the more a great 
 deal. Thou son of David, have mercy on me. And Jesus stood still, 
 and said, Call ye him. And they call the blind man, saying unto 
 him, Be of good cheer : rise, he calleth thee. And he, casting away 
 his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus. And Jesus answered him, 
 and said, AVhat wilt thou that I should do unto thee ? And the 
 blind man said unto bin:, Eabboni, that I may receive my sight. And 
 Jesus said unto him. Go thy way ; thy faith hath made thee whole (or, 
 saved thee). And straightway he received his sight, andlbllowed him 
 in the way.' Here are several graphic touches, which must have been 
 thrown in by an eye-witness. Instead of saying that Jesns ' com- 
 manded him to be brought unto him,' the actual words of Jesus are 
 given, ' Call ye hiir..' The encouragement thereupon ofl'ered by the 
 bystanders is noted : ' Be of good cheer : rise, he calleth thee ; ' and 
 the impulsive eagerness and alacrity of the blind man : ' And he, 
 casting away his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus.' The 
 somewhat unusual term ' Rabboni,' which he used, is given. Alford 
 observes : ' Eabboni, i.e., Master, or ]\Iy Master, see John xx. 1(5. It 
 was said to be a more respectful form than Rahhi merely.' These 
 variations may be taken to denote greater accuracy of detail, rather 
 than any inconsistency between the two narratives. We should un- 
 hesitatingly assume that to be the case, if it were not for the 
 discrepancy of time and place, which seems to involve the existence of 
 an error either in Mark or Luke. To an unbiased mind there is 
 nothing shocking in the idea that either of these honest compilers 
 should unintentio7jally misplace a fact. There may have been many 
 occasions w'hen either Mark or Luke may have had to exercise an 
 independent judgment in grouping the materials placed in their 
 
238 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [part ii. 
 
 hands. Imagine the diary of a traveller to consist of scattered notes : 
 if edited long after his death by aiiotlier hand, what more likely than 
 that an occasional mistake should occur in the sequence of the 
 incidents detailed, or even arise from defect of memory on the part 
 of the original recorder ? To suppose that supernatural assistance 
 was giveu for the preparation of their respective histories to Mark and 
 Luke, although they themselves never claimed to have received it, is 
 nothing more than a wild freak of the imagination, however much it 
 may be disguised under the solemn term of Inspiration, and worked 
 into certain passages of Scripture supposed to justify the doctrine. 
 But in this instance it is quite possible that both these evangelists are 
 correct, and are relating two different miracles. Matthew records the 
 departure of Jesus from Jericho : ' And as they went out from Jericho, 
 a great multitude followed him.' That is a statement by itself. Then 
 it is added, without reference to time or place: ' And behold, two 
 blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus was 
 passing by, cried out, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of 
 David.' It would be too much to infer that the word ' and ' before 
 ' behold ' of necessity means that this happened as they went out 
 from Jericho. Matthew continues : ' And the multitude rebuked 
 them, that they should hold their peace : but they cried out the more, 
 saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David. And 
 Jesus stood still, and called them, and said. What will ye 
 that I should do unto you? They say unto him, Lord, that our 
 eyes may be opened. And Jesus, being moved with compassion, 
 touched their eyes : and straightway they received their sight, and 
 followed him.' Matthew does not say that these two blind men were 
 sitting together and were healed together. Blindness was so common, 
 and every wayside so suitable for begging, that it may well have 
 happened that Jesus passed one blind man on entering and another 
 on leaving Jericho. The conditions being precisely similar, the 
 results would be equally so. Men unable to see would naturally raise 
 their voices. If one had sight restored on the entrance to Jericho, 
 there would be ample time, before Jesus left the place, for the news 
 to be carried to the blind man at the other end of the town. What 
 more natural than that he should adopt the same form of address and 
 method of attracting the attention of Jesus, which had been successful 
 previously ? Those who wanted such outcries stopped before, would 
 be as anxious on that point now : if Jesus were to be constantly 
 hailed as ' Son of David,' Jerusalem might be in an uproar before he 
 reached it, and his enemies find good ground for apprehending him. 
 That Jesus should stand still, call the man, question him, and cure 
 him, would come as naturally to pass now as on tlie first occasion. 
 Nothing more probable than that two such miracles should happen, 
 and the one be almost a counterpart of the other. The similarity 
 between them would naturally prevent a reporter fi-om giving details ' 
 of both : he would either choose one of them, or combine the salient 
 features of the two. Luke found and preserved the account of the 
 first ; Mark was able to record the second ; Mattliew related the 
 chief points of the two. On that view, the differences between Mark 
 and Luke are noteworthy : the latter describes the man as ' brought ' 
 to Jesus, adding ' and when he was come near,' as though the 
 approach was slow ; the former represents the crowd as anticipating 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 239 
 
 tlie miracle : ' Be of ,<>-ood cliccr : rise, he calletli thee ; ' aud the man 
 us extremely active and hopeful, so sure of a cure now, that he caies 
 nothino- about Icaviiii;- his robe behind, jumps up on the instant, and 
 makes his way, unaided, boldly and alone, in the direction of the 
 voice of Jesus : ' And he casting away his <i-arment, sprani>; uj), and 
 came to Jesus.' That is in favour of the idea that the news of the 
 first miracle had travelled, and led to the performance of the second. 
 The words of Jesus, 'Call ye him,' are not quite synonymous with 
 the expression, 'commanded him to be brought,' and would seem 
 rather to ha\'e been spoken of another man ; and whereas the one 
 addressed Jesus as Kurios, ' Lord ' the other is represented as using 
 the word Rahhoni, ' Master.' Such differences may be owing to 
 greater facility and accuracy of obser\-ation and a more reliable 
 memory, possessed by one of the reporters ; or they may be, as seems 
 on the whole most probable, equally true to fact, and descrijjtive of 
 two difli'erent miracles. Dean Alford did not admit that. His note 
 is as follows : ' He must be indeed a slave to the letter, who would 
 stumble at such discrepancies, and not rather see in them the corro- 
 borating coincidence of testimonies to the fact itself. Yet some 
 strangely suppose our Lord to have healed one blind mem (as in Luke) 
 on entering Jericho, and (mother (Bartima^us, as in ]\Iark) on leuvin(j 
 if, and 8t. Matthew to have " with his characteristic brevity in 
 relating miracles," combined both these in one. But then, what 
 becomes of St. Matthew's assertion, "fts thei/ departed from Jericho 'f' 
 Can we possibly imagine, that the Evangelist, having botJi facts before 
 him, could combine them and preface them with what he mud laioio 
 to be inaccurate V Of course not: no one would 'make such an 
 assumption. It is Alford himself who assumes, without warrant, that 
 ]\Latthew must be understood to mean that the facts recorded 
 happened after leaving Jericho, which he certainly does not say. 
 Something would have to be added to the narrative to make that 
 clear : if it ran, 'And, behold, two blind men who icere then sitting 
 l)y the way side,' Alford's argument would hold good ; but without 
 some such additional words, it does not, and he is not justified in 
 insisting that the sentence must be read as though they had been 
 inserted. Alford was not careful to search for any possible way of 
 reconciling the three evangelists ; he saw how others were constantly 
 at work toning down and explaining away, in a very injudicious 
 fashion, every discrepancy met with in the sacred narrati\-es, and 
 against such a task he resolutely set his face, and uttered a strong 
 protest. "Without troubling himself to investigate the prol (abilities 
 of the case, he jumped to the conclusion that of course Matthew was 
 ^vrong in stating that there were two blind men, and he made this 
 startling assertion : ' The supposition that they were two miracles 
 is perfectly monstrous ; and would at once destroy the credit of 
 St. Matthew as a truthful narrator,' He adds : ' It is just thus that 
 the Harmonists utterly destroy the credibility of the Scripture 
 narrative. Accumulate upon this the absurd improbability involved 
 in two men, under the same circumstances, addressing our Lord in 
 the same words at so very short an inter\-al, — and we may be thanldul 
 that Biblical criticism is at length being emancipated from "forcing 
 narratives into accordance." ' In a ' Harmony of the Gospels ' con- 
 tained in ' Helps to the study of the Bible,' issued from the Oxford 
 
240 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [paPvT ii. 
 
 University Pj-ess, the accounts of ]\Iatthewand Mark are given under 
 the head ' Healing blind Bartinifeus,' Luke's account being entirely 
 ignored. That seems to be an instance of Avhat Alford called ' forcing- 
 narratives into accordance.' Those Avho are free from the trammels 
 of the Inspiration theory have, on the one hand, no temptation to do 
 that, and on the other hand, are not afraid to consider the various 
 ways in which apparent discrepancies lying on the surface of the 
 narratives may admit of reconcilement. 
 
 Matthew alone records the fact that Jesus touched the eyes of the 
 blind men ; from which it may be inferred that the habit of healing by 
 the touch was then so well known, that the recorders did not always 
 specially mention it. 
 
 The three evangelists agree in stating that the blind men 'followed ' 
 Jesus. That expression means much, although it may or may not 
 14 Lnkc 2.V havc bceu intended here to denote a i3rofession of discipleship. "We 
 ^^ know that Jesus on one occasion turned and faced the crowd, and 
 pointed out to them what the true following of him involved. Every 
 one cured by his power and joining the procession, thereby offered a 
 kind of homage to him, just as in our own day those who walk with 
 the Salvation Army are assumed to ally themselves Avith the cause. 
 
 Jesus halted, for some hours at least, in Jericho. Luke relates an 
 incident which took place there. One of the inhabitants, a wealthy 
 iM Luke 1-3 tax-gatherer, was anxious to catch sight of Jesus. ' And he entered 
 and was passing through Jericho. And behold, a man called byname 
 Zacchfeus ; and he was a chief publican, and he was rich. And he 
 sought to see Jesus who he was.' It might have been the natural 
 curiosity to see what manner of man the great Teacher was ; but 
 the expression is peculiar : ' who he was,' rendered literally by Young 
 * who he is,' seems to signify that he had some expectation of being 
 able to identify Jesus; it is possible, for instance, that Zacchjeus 
 might have met years before and remembered, the young carpenter of 
 Galilee, in whom there were discernible mysterious presages of future 
 greatness, or they might have met on some occasion when Jesus was 
 travelling incognito, ' and would have no man know it,' and Zacchteus 
 have been so struck with his demeanour and conversation as to 
 Avonder, afterwards, whether he had not been privileged to associate 
 with the great Teacher whose fame Avas in all men's mouths. But 
 Jesus Avas shut out from sight by the crowd, and the diminutiA'e 
 stature of Zacchteus made it hopeless for him to get a view of him 
 in the same Avay as others. Knowing the course Avhich Jesus would 
 necessarily take, he ran on in advance, and climljed a tree, from Avhich 
 
 3, 4 position he Avould be able to look down on everything : ' and could 
 not for the crowd, because he was little of stature. And he ran on 
 before, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him : for he was 
 to pass that Avay.' It was by no means a dignified position, but ifc • 
 answered the purpose. We are not told Avhether Zacchteus recognised 
 Jesus as one he had met before, but Jesus certainly identified him, 
 and addressed him lamiliarly by name. More than that, he bade him 
 come down instantly, and Avelcome him to his house, Avhere Jesus in- 
 
 5 tended to stay, as though they Avere old friends. ' And Avhen Jesus 
 came to the place, he looked up, and said unto him, Zacchseus, make 
 haste, and come down ; for to-day I must abide at thy house.' All 
 
TART 11.] .1 ,S':/7 7>1' OF THE FOUR iKASFFLS. 241 
 
 that reads very naturally, and the evaii^'clist leaves us to draw our own 
 iuferenees. He does nut add a word which mii;ht lead us to supj^os*} that 
 the knowledue exhibited by Jesus was sujiernatural, and it is not for 
 us to assert that which Luke rclrained from 6ayini>-. Aiter' looked 
 up' the Authorised Version has, ' and saw him,' which is omitted by 
 the Revisers and Tischendorf, not beinti' in the two oldest MSS. 
 That the quick eye of .Jesus should lis>'htu})on the man whose position 
 was so (•ons])icuous, is not to be wondered at. Alford observes : 
 ' The prohahiUli/ is, that our Lord's supernatural knowledge of man 
 (see John i. 48-50) is intended to be understood as the means of his 
 knowing Zacclucus : but the narrative does not absolutely exclude 
 the supposition of a jiersonal knowledge of Zacchteus on the part of 
 some around him.' No : nor on the part of Jesus, whose mode of address 
 decidedly indicated a prior mutual acquaintance. Zacchteus was of 
 the class with whom Jesus had been in the habit of consorting ; the 
 expression ' who he is,' indicates that Zacchreus was bent upon ascer- 
 taining whether he might not be able to recognise him, and there is no 
 reason why Jesus should have feigned a recognition and assumed a 
 tone of friendly familiarity with an utter stranger. Let the narrative 
 be taken in its entirety, and interpreted naturally and rationally. 
 That the evangelist gives no hint of anything supernatural or extra- 
 ordinary, is by itself good evidence that he did not intend us to view 
 the account in that light. Zacchgeus is not represented as being 
 astounded or awed when thus familiarly addressed by Jesus. On the 
 contrary, the following words read like the description of a renewal of 
 intimacy between persons who have been long separated, and who 
 rejoice to meet again. 'And he made haste, and came down, and oLukeG 
 received him joyfully.' That Jesus should have thus deliberately chosen 
 to associate with one whose hated calling was of itself enough to 
 bring his character into disrepute, excited much comment and ill- 
 natured criticism. 'And when they saw it, they all murmured, " <" 
 saying. He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner.' 
 Zacchaeus stood forward, and repelled the taunt. So far from de- 
 serving it, he had given half of his property away to the poor, and if 
 any wrongful exaction had been made by him in his business of tax- 
 collector, he was anxious to offer the amplest compensation. ' And •> § 
 Zacchffius stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord (Sir — Young), 
 the half of my goods I give to the poor ; and if I have wrongfully 
 exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold.' Jesus accorded to him 
 the fullest credence and sympathy. Whatever the past career of 
 Zacchseus might have been, and whatever others might think and 
 say of him now, Jesus recognised in this declaration an honest heart 
 and purpose, an augury and evidence of moral rectitude. That was 
 the true salvation of personal, family and social life, the genuine 
 sign of a descent from Abraham. 'And Jesus said unto him. To-day .. « 
 is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of 
 Abraham.' The contempt poured upon the class to which Zacchajus 
 belonged, was the attracting power which drew Jesus to his side. 
 ' For the son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.' „ lo 
 
 This justification of Zacchseus was spoken in presence of his 
 accusers, who, it seems, were believers in Jesus, for he seized the 
 opportunity to address to them a warning on another subject on 
 which also they held erroneous views. They were indulging an 
 
242 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 expectation that the approaching visit of Jesiis to Jerusalem would 
 result in some open manifestation of God's kingdom. The parable 
 now delivered disclosed the faulty basis and inherent evils of a 
 19 Luke 11 kingdom founded on an earthly pattern. 'And as they heard these 
 things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to 
 Jerusalem, and lecause they supposed that the kingdom of God was 
 immediately to appear.' Jesus sketched a vivid picture of an earthly 
 potentate, of kindgoms taken, held, ruled, after the fashion of this 
 world, of social anarchy, of the high-handedness, selfishness, and 
 favouritism of governors, no man able to call anything his own, and 
 every aspiration after political freedom and representative government 
 
 „ vi ruthlessly suppressed and quenched in blood. ' He said therefore, A 
 certain nobleman Avent into a far country, to receive for himself a 
 kingdom, and to return.' Young renders : 'A certain man of birth 
 proceeded into a distant region to take to himself a kingdom, and to 
 return.' Whether to ' receive for himself,' as a family heritage, or 'to 
 take to himself,' by force of arms, matters little : he was an aristocrat, 
 born to hold sway over men, and claiming to exercise dominion even 
 in a far distant land. It was his intention, after taking possession of 
 the colony, to leave its administration to others, he himself returning 
 to rule over his native country. Before departing he summoned ten 
 of his slaves, and entrusted them with ten rninfe, bidding them trade 
 
 „ 13 with the money on his behalf during his absence. ' And he called ten 
 servants (Gr. bondservants) of his, and gave them ten pounds, and 
 said unto them, Trade ye herewith till I come.' Alford explains : ' The 
 sums given are here all the same, and all very small. The (Attic) 
 mina is -^j^ of a talent, and equal to about £'?> of our money.' The 
 transaction does not disclose a spark of liberality, or the least 
 discernment of character : the same miserable pittance is placed in 
 the hands of each, and an intimation is given that the trust will end 
 on their lord's return. He is represented as a man held in universal 
 detestation : his slaves were not free to express an opinion, but his 
 subjects hated him, and the popular indignation against him rose to 
 such a height that after his departure a deputation from the citizens 
 was sent after him to announce their determination to submit no 
 
 „ 11 longer to his rule. ' But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage 
 after him, saying. We will not that this man reign over us.' But it 
 proved easier to frame a declaration of independence in his absence, 
 than to free themselves from his tyranny and escape his vengeance. 
 The picture was not over-coloured. Alford observes : ' The ground- 
 work of this part of the parable seems to have been derived from the 
 history of Archelaus, son of Herod the Great. The kings of the 
 Herodian family made journeys to Rome, to receive their " kingdom." 
 On Archelaus's doing so, the Jews sent after him a protest, which 
 how'ever was not listened to by Augustus. The situation was 
 appropriate ; for at Jericho was the royal palace which Archelaus 
 had built with great magnificence.' If that piece of contemporaneous 
 history be fitted into the parable, the circumstances are not improved. 
 In either case, we have a system of arbitrary and irresponsible govern- 
 ment, the wishes, interests and aspirations of the people being held as 
 of no account by their rulers. The monarch, having accomphshed 
 the object of his journey, on his return summoned his slaves to account 
 to him for the mouey he had advanced and the profit resulting from 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 243 
 
 its employment. ' And it came to pass, when lie was come back lo r.ukc ir, 
 again, having- received the kingdom, that lie commanded those 
 servants (Gr/bondservants) unto whom he had given the money, to 
 be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by 
 trading.' Alford notes that the closing words should be read and 
 rendered, ' what business they had carried on.' Young's translation 
 is, ' that he might know what each had done in business : ' the result 
 in each case would prove their aptitude for atfiairs, and to what extent 
 they could be trusted to look after their master's interests. The first 
 had succeeded in increasing the small fund tenfold. ' And the first •• "' 
 came before him, saying, Lord (Sir— Young), thy pound hath made 
 ten pounds more.' That showed energy, shrewdness, fidelity ; the 
 man could be relied upon to make the most of opportunities, to add 
 wealth to the royal coffers. ' And he said unto him. Well done, thou - "' 
 good servant (Gr. bondservant).' His capacities in that direction 
 marked him out for far larger responsibilities: 'because thou wast ,. i^ 
 found faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.' 
 That indeed was a huge trust : the successful money-maker is at a 
 stroke transformed into a governor of men. What connection 
 between the two offices there might be, it were difficult to say. The 
 driver of hard bargains is scarcely the man whom a wise ruler would 
 prefer to entrust with the lives, liberties, physical and moral welfare 
 of vast multitudes. ' He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in -23 ii. sam. s 
 the fear of God.' Those were ' the last words ' of David. No such 
 requirement is made of this governor of ten cities. The smaUness of 
 the amount he had to deal with is a striking feature of the parable, 
 and that point is emphasised by the king's admission that it was ' a 
 very little.' No matter how trifling the concerns in which royal 
 favourites minister to their master's selfishness : that has too often 
 been the surest road to promotion, the welfare of the people being 
 sacrificed and their destinies committed to men whose only claim to 
 consideration was the title and the influence conferred upon them 
 by an arbitrary monarch. As mankind progress, these things slowly 
 mend. But in the days of Jesus that system was in full force ; and 
 knowing that the people were looking to him to inaugurate a new 
 kingdom, he brought vividly before them in this parable the inherent 
 evils of those then existing in the world. The second of the ten 
 slaves had increased his capital only half as much as the first, but the 
 ability to make five hundred per cent, pointed him out as a fit man 
 to rule over five cities. ' And the second came, saying, Thy pound, i'-i i^"i<'' i>;. 
 Lord (Sir — Young), hath made five pounds. And he said unto him 
 also. Be thou also over five cities.' These two instances indicate 
 sufficiently the rule of promotion in king's courts. The aggrandise- 
 ment of the monarch was the primary concern ; devotion to his 
 interests the only road to elevation ; high principles of action and 
 earnest labour on behalf of the people committed to their charge, — 
 these things were well-nigh out of sight and out of mind among 
 kings and nobles. One of the ten slaves, however, did not choose to 
 swim with the stream ; despotic rule was an abomination to his mind, 
 and he had determined not to spend his life in labours the fruits of 
 which would go to his master, not to himself. ' And another (Gr. the • -'';; 
 other) came, saying, Lord (Sir — Young), behold, here is thy pound, 
 which I kept laid up in a napkin : for I feared tliee, because thou art 
 
244 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ir. 
 
 an austere man : thou takest up that thou layedsfc not down, and 
 reapest that thou didst not sow.' That might be true : but he was a 
 bondservant, bound to labour for his lord, and blamable if he did not. 
 He ought either to have dealt faithfully with the trust, or have 
 handed it over to others, the one thing needful being that the royal 
 ; wealth should constantly go on accumulating. ' He saith unto him, 
 ' Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant (Gr. 
 bondservant). Thou knewest that I am an austere man, taking up 
 that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow; then wherefore 
 gavest thou not my money into the bank, and I at my coming should 
 have required (or, I should have gone and required) it with interest ?' 
 Responsibilities and advancement were not for such as he. Let the 
 money be taken from him, and handed over to him who could make 
 the best use of it, ' And he said unto them that stood by, Take 
 away from him the pound, and give it unto him that hath the ten 
 pounds.' Against that the instinctive sense of justice rose in protest. 
 'And they said unto him. Lord (Sir — Young), he hath ten pounds.' 
 Alford observes that this ' is parenthetical, spoken by the sfauders-b// in 
 the parable, in surprise at such a decision.' This additional touch of 
 nature Avas not thrown into the parable without a motive. It is of 
 the same tone and colour as the surrounding incidents, the object 
 being apparently to represent this pattern of earthly rulership in an 
 unfavourable light. From first to last it presents a scene of disorder, 
 of enforced subjection, of imperiousness on the one side and a 
 tendency to rebellion on the other. The citizens muttered discontent, 
 and wouki have shaken off, if they could, the hated yoke of sovereignty. 
 One of the slaves of the household delilierately neglected to labour for 
 his lord's advantage, would not even take the trouble to place out his 
 money where it would bear interest, and when called to account, 
 boldly denounced his master's character and conduct to his face. 
 And now, when the command is given to transfer the pound to the 
 man who least needed it, having al)-eady more to deal with than any 
 of the others, dissatisfaction is excited in the minds of his fellows, and 
 an attempt at expostulation made. No one, outside the circle of a 
 few reigning favourites, is contented in that kingdom ; the autocrat 
 rules by fear, not by love ; his will and his interest are the only things 
 to be considered ; the people's wishes are treated with contempt ; no 
 man's time or energy can be claimed for himself ; and the system is 
 upheld by favouritism, those most subservient to the royal will and 
 pleasure being elevated to positions in which they can aid and imitate 
 their lord's despotic rule : ' Have thou authority over ten cities . . . 
 Be thou also over five cities.' Success to the successful, was the 
 inexorable rule : for them all the honours, emoluments and opportuni- 
 ties of distinction, which the despot might choose to apportion out as 
 the reward of obsequious fidelity. But woe to the unprofitable, 
 servant : whoever failed to increase the royal revenue, was adjudged 
 iucomijetent, and unworthy to hold office. ' I say unto you, that unto 
 every one that hath shall be given ; but from him that hath not, even 
 that which he hath sliall be taken away from him.' The vigour and 
 rigour thus exercised by the monarch within his court, were as nothing- 
 compared with the sternness shown towards those outside who had 
 presumed to seek deliverance from his rule. No hint is given that 
 they had taken up arms against the government ; it was enough that 
 
rAiiT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 245 
 
 tliey liad formulated the resolntion, ' We will not that this man reign 
 over us.' That constituted them, in his eyes, rebels of the deepest 
 dye ; such citizens he regarded not as subjects, but as enemies, with 
 whom he would hold no parley, to whom he would show no mercy, lo Luke 27 
 * Howbeit these mine enemies, which would not that I. should reign 
 over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' It was a terrible 
 picture of arbitrary rale, its basis, its working, its results, which Jesus 
 placed before the minds of his hearers. That was the kind of 'king- 
 dom' with which mankind had become familiar. Could they desire 
 that the world's history should continue to be written alter such a 
 fashion? Whenever 'the kingdom of God' should 'appear,' it 
 would sui'cly be something altogether different from this. Wc; are 
 not told that Jesus added a single word of comment or explanation : 
 he left the parable to speak ibr itself ; it is not prefaced, as many are, 
 with the words, ' the kingdom of heaven is like unto . . . ,' nor had 
 he been discoursing preA'iously on the subject. It was because those 
 about him were expecting (jod's kingdom, that he sketched out this 
 one after the world's model. Touch after touch added to the sombre- 
 uess and unloveliness of its characteristics and surroundings, and the 
 closing catastrophe was an awful scene of revengeful slaughter. The 
 kingdom of a despot, or the kingdom of the devil, it may be : any- 
 thing rather than a picture of ' the kingdom of God ! ' Yet that is 
 the light in which men have come to view it. Here is Dean Alford's 
 interpretation : ' The nobleman, son of a king, literally one high horn, 
 is the Lord Jesus ; the kingdom is that over his own citizens, the 
 Jews. They sent a message after Him ; their cry went up to 
 heaven, in the persecutions of His servants, &c. ; we will not liave this 
 man to rchjn over us.'' The ideas are as frightful as they are fanciful. 
 Once on that wrong track of thought, there is no stopping : on the 
 words, ' These mine enemies, which would not that I should reign 
 over them, bring hither, and slay them before me,' Alford's comment 
 is, ' This command brings out both comings of the Lord, — at the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, and at the end of the world.' Away, once 
 and for ever, with the monstrous, horrible notion of theologians, that the 
 destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was, in any sense, the 
 ' coming ' of the Lord Jesus ! He foresaw it, indeed, and foretold it, 
 pitying the helpless sufferers, and bidding his disciples, ' pray ye that 24 Mat. -jj 
 your flight be not in the winter.' It was one of those episodes in 
 human history brought upon mankind by themselves, the natural and 
 nevitable outcome of that system of rulership on which the kingdoms 
 of the world were founded, the selfish wielding of irresponsible power, 
 the rebellious spirit thereby generated, the arbitrament of the sword, 
 the triumph of might over right. The kingdom and the coming of 
 Jesus are the very opposite of that : ' the Son of man came not to 9 Luko :«; 
 destroy men's lives, but to save them.^ 
 
 Whilst Jesus was travelling towards Jerusalem many others also 
 were proceeding thither from various points to keep the annual 
 festival of the passover. ' Now the passover of the Jews was at hand: ii Joim 55 
 and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the pass- 
 over, to purify themselves.' They were anxious to see Jesus, and 
 were not without hope of finding him in Jerusalem, although it was 
 notorious that he could only go there at peril of his life. Would 
 
246 
 
 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: 
 
 [part II. 
 
 ujoiiiiao he venture to come up to the feast? ' They sought therefore for 
 Jesus, and spake one with another, as they stood in the temple, What 
 think ye ? That he wiU not come to the feast ? ' After his last visit 
 he had found it necessary to withdraw with his disciples to a retired 
 „ 54 spot, ' a country near to the wilderness,' and a decree of the Jewish 
 rulers was still in force, making it incumbent upon any one who 
 ;, •'-" knew his whereabouts to disclose it. ' Now the chief priests and the 
 Pharisees had given commandment, that, if any man knew where he 
 was, he should shew it, that they might take him.' Jesus was now 
 on the point of putting himself again within reach of their power, 
 although he knew full well that they would exercise it to his destruc- 
 tion. Six days before the passover he appeared in Bethany, sm'e of a 
 
 i-ij(.hni welcome from the family of Lazarus. 'Jesus therefore six days 
 before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom 
 Jesus raised from the dead.' Following the two oldest MSS., the 
 Revisers have omitted the words, ' which had been dead.' Very 
 hearty was the greeting he received. An entertainment was prepared 
 to celebrate his arrival, Martha busying herself with serving, and 
 „ - Lazarus being one of the guests. ' So they made him a supper there : 
 and Martha served ; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at meat 
 with him.' This was not, as might have been inferred, in Martha's 
 
 5!6 Mat. liouse, for Matthew's account begins : ' Now, when Jesus was in 
 
 14 Maiiv 3 Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper ; ' and Mark's : ' And while 
 he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat.' 
 
 20 Mat. 7 There the following incident occurred. ' There came unto him a 
 Avoman, having an alabaster cruse (or, a flask) of exceeding precious 
 ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat.' In 
 the Authorised Version the word is 'box,' not 'cruse.' Young and 
 Tischendorf retain the word ' box.' Mark describes the kind of oint- 
 
 14 Mark 3 mcut : ' there came a woman having an alabaster cruse of ointment 
 of spikenard very costly ; a7id she brake the cruse, and poured it over 
 his head.' The Revisers' note is : ' Gr. jn'sfic tiard, pistic being 
 perhaps a local name. Others take it to mean genm'ne ; others liquid.^ 
 Young renders it ' myrrh ' in Matthew, and ' spikenard ' in Mark. 
 Luther renders Matthew : ' ein Glas mit kostlichem Wasser,' ' a 
 glass with costly water,' and Mark, ' ein Glas mit ungefalschtem und 
 kostlichem Nardenwasser,' ' a glass A\ith unadulterated and costly 
 nardwater.' John does not allude to the vessel Avliich contained it, 
 but states its weight, and identihes the woman as Mary, the sister of 
 
 lyjoiiiKi Lazarus. ' Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of spikenard, 
 very precious, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet 
 with her hair.' The act has been previously alluded to by Jolni as 
 
 11 John •-■ that of Mary : ' And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord 
 with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose l^rother 
 Lazarus was sick.' John does not mention the pouring of the oint- 
 ment over the head, and the two other records do not allude to the 
 anointing of the feet, nor to the use of Mary's hair in drying them. 
 It may be that the account of John is that of an eye-witness, and the 
 other accounts made up from hearsay evidence, which did not give the 
 woman's name, or state more than the current report that the ointment 
 was poured upon the head. Although very costly, it was applied pro- 
 fusely, lavishly, even ' wastefully ' in the opinion of certain critical 
 observers. There is in John's narrative an additional touch, which 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUU GOSPELS. 247 
 
 indicates that it was derived from one who was i^resent at the enter- 
 tainment : ' and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.' i-' Joims 
 Some of those present were scandalized at beholding such extra^■a- 
 gance : they estimated the cost of the ointment, and thought how 
 large an amount of comfort the expenditure of so much money might 
 have brought to the poor. ' But there were some that had iudigna- m Mark 4, 5 
 tion among themselves, ■sa//itiu, To what purpose hath this waste of 
 the ointment been made ? For this ointment might have been sold 
 for above three hundred pence, and given to the poor.' As the 
 denary was the common day's wage of a labourer, the three hundred 
 denaries would be equivalent to about £50 in our time. Matthew 
 informs us that this question was raised by the disciples of Jesus. 
 'But when the disciiilcs saw it, they had indignation, saying, To2GMat. s, 9 
 what purpose is this A\aste ? For this ointment might have been sold 
 for much, and given to the poor.' John was able to state with whom 
 the idea, which was thus taken up by the disciples, originated. ' But ijjoinu.s 
 Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, which should betray him, saith. 
 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given 
 to the poor ? ' The evangelist does not scruple to assert that the 
 suggestion was simple hypocrisy on the part of Judas, that he cared 
 nothing about the poor, but watched for an opportunity of purloining 
 money from the poorbox, which was entrusted to his keeping. How 
 well does that suit the character of the man who sold his Master ! 
 'Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor, but because he „ a 
 was a thief, and having the liag (or, box) took away (or, carried) what 
 was put therein.' The criticism of the disciples Avas directed against 
 Mary : ' And they murmured against her.' Jesus, becoming conscious 14 Mark 5 
 of all this, expostulated with his disciples on the woman's behalf. 
 ' But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman ? ' 20 Mat. 10 
 "But Jesus, said. Let her alone; why trouble ye her?' Jesus m Mark 
 was as poor as anybody, and he regarded the action as a good deed 
 rendered to himself : ' She hath wrought a good work upon me.' „ 
 ' For she hath wrought a good work upon me.' The poor would be o^Mat. 10 
 always present among them, but not Jesus. ' For ye have the poor ^_ i^ 
 always with you ; but me ye have not always.' Mark is fuller : ' For u Mark t 
 ye have the poor always Avith you, and Avhensoever ye will ye can do 
 them good : but me ye have not always.' Death was very near to 
 him, and this office of womanly love might be regarded as performed 
 in anticipation of his burial. ' She hath done what she could : she „ s 
 hath anointed my body aforehand for the burying.' The form of the 
 expression is given somewhat differently by Matthew : ' For in that 20 Mat. 12 
 she poured (Gr. cast) this ointment upon ruy body, she did it to pre- 
 pare me for burial.' John is to the same effect, but he reverses the 
 sayings : ' Jesus therefore said. Suffer her to Jceep it (or, Let her 12 joim 7, s 
 alone : it was that she might keep it) against the day of my burying. 
 For the poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always.' 
 It Avas hard for Mary to be blamed and shamed for her good action. 
 That must not be. It Avas a deed Avorthy to be recorded, and it 
 should be held in Avorld-wide remembrance. ' Verily I say unto you, 20 Mat. is 
 Wheresoever this gospel (or, these good tidings) shall be preached in 
 the Avhole world, that also which this Avonian hath done shall be 
 spoken of for a memorial of her.' Mark records that saying Avord 
 
248 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 for word, simply putting ' and ' before ' Acrily,' according to tlie two 
 oldest MSS., which have been followed by the Revisers in this point ; 
 on the same authority they have here altered ' this gospel ' to ' the 
 gospel,' as Tischendorf has done. Alford has the following note : 
 ' We cannot but be struck with the majesty of this prophetic 
 announcement : introduced with the peculiar and weighty rcrili/ I 
 say unto you, conveying, by implication, the whole mystery of the 
 yospel which should go forth from His Death as its source,- — looking 
 forward to the end of time, when it shall have been preached in the 
 whole world, — and specifying the fact that this deed should be recorded 
 wherever it is preached. "We may notice (1) that the announcement 
 is a distinct prophetic recognition by our Lord of the existence of 
 vritten records, in which the deed should be related ; for in no other 
 conceivable way could the universality of mention be bi'ought about : 
 (2) that we have here (if indeed we needed it) a convincing argument 
 against that view of our three first Gospels Avhich supposes them to 
 have been compiled from an original document, for if there had been 
 such a document, it must have contained this narrative, and no one 
 using such a Gospel could have lailed to insert this narrative, 
 accompanied by such a promise, in his own work, — which 8t. Luke 
 has not done : (3) that the same consideration is equally decisive 
 against St. Luke having used, or even seen, our present Gospels of 
 Matthew and Mark.' Sections (2) and (3) constitute a very strong 
 argument, which may be commended to the consideration of those 
 who might be disposed to accept the contrary idea, which has been 
 put forward by the Rev. J. J. Halcombe in ' Gospel Difficulties,' 
 (page Ixxxiv), as follows : ' S. Luke's object was to remove an 
 uncertainty, or suspicion of untruthfulness, which had affected 
 certain Gospels (Logoi) which, he states, had been handed over to the 
 Church by those whose authority for writing them consisted in their 
 having been either " eye-witnesses or ministers of the word ; " this 
 uncertainty, or suspicion, having been engendered by certain uu- 
 successful attempts which many had previously made to rearrange, or 
 harmonize, these Gospels. That these Logoi were in fact the Gospels 
 of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. John, we gather (1) from the use 
 which S. Luke makes of the word Logos in his Preface to the Acts, 
 where he styles his own Gospel a Logos, (2) from his definition of the 
 writers, and (3) from the l\ict that from the very commencement to 
 the end of his Gospel, he traverses the same ground, and deals with 
 the same incidents, as those Evangelists ; and that, not only in the 
 same general order, but in such a manner as to elucidate on every 
 occasion . . . ' and so on. This chain of reasoning hangs on a very 
 fragile thread. //' Theophilus had the Gospels of Matthew, Mark 
 and John, the word Logoi might represent them : but that is a mere 
 assumption, advanced without a shred of evidence, and improbable on 
 the face of it. 
 
 Section (1) of Alford's argument is overstrained, and open to question. 
 He takes the expression, ' Wheresoever these good tidings shall be 
 preached in the whole world,' as proof positive that the good tidings 
 were to take the shape of uriiteii records. That no more follows 
 from this passage than from another passage : 'Go ye into all the 
 Avorld, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.' Who would 
 
PART II.] .4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 249 
 
 understaud that to signify that the apostles would issue written 
 records, and that 'in no other conceivable Avay could the universality 
 of mention be brought about ? ' The application of the word ' gospel ' 
 to written or printed documents was the outcome of later times. The 
 words ' this gospel,' uttered by Jesus, could only refer to something 
 which was at that moment in the mind and mouth of the Hpeaker, 
 aud e(pudly present to the minds of his hearers. In Young's literal 
 \ersion the word is always rendered ' good news ' or ' good tidings : ' 
 whenever aud wherever it occurs it is necessarily in connection with 
 u particular idea, the re\elation of a fact or truth, in the same way as 
 
 • news ' is understood and grasped in reference to any topic of the 
 day. The sense of the word * gospel ' was invariably fixed by the 
 (•ontext, the ' good news ' being presented now in one shape and now 
 
 in another. Take a few passages, lusing Young's version. ' The good i .Mark i 
 news of Jesus Christ : ' obviously, about Jesus Christ. ' Believe in „ v> 
 the good news : ' that is, that 'the reign of God hath come near.' 
 
 • Whoever may lose his life for my sake and for the good news : ' in s Mark zr, 
 ])romulgating what Jesus preached. ' To all the nations it behoveth i3.M,„k lo 
 lirst to proclaim the good news : ' which they had been assisting 
 Jesus, and would continue, to proclaim. 'As he is teaching the^oLnkoi 
 people in the temple, and proclaiming the good news : ' the teaching 
 
 being the aspect under which the good news was presented. ' God lo Acts 7 
 among us made choice, through my mouth, for the Gentiles to hear 
 the word of the good news : ' which is to the same effect. ' The good jo nikc 24 
 news of the grace of God.' 'The good news of God . . concerning 1 r.hm. 1 
 His Sou.' 'The good news of Christ.' 'According to my good ,, i),ia 
 news : ' Paul's doctrine of a judgment of the secrets of men ' through 2 Rom. i(> 
 Jesus Christ.' ' They were not all obedient to the good tidings : ' 10 Rom. kj 
 that is, ' good tidings of peace, good tidings of the good things.' 
 
 • As regards, indeed, the good tidings, Uteij are enemies on your u Rom. 2 
 account : ' the good tidings referring to the coming of a deli\'erer out 
 
 of Zion, 'who should turn away ungodliness from Jacob.' ' The 1,3 Rom. :.; 
 good news of God.' It is not necessary to go tlirough the other 
 passages in which the term ' gospel ' or ' good news ' occurs : these 
 are sufficient to show, at least, that written records of the sayings 
 and doings of Jesus do not properly come under that designation. 
 Luke gi\es two titles to his so-called ' Gospel : ' ' a narrative,' and 
 ' a treatise concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.' 
 The naming of each of the four histories ' the gospel,' and the failure 
 to give the literal translation, 'good news,' have led to some con- 
 fusion of thought, approaching sometimes to misapprehension. Let 
 anyone disposed to doubt this take the pains to read in Dr. Young's 
 literal version the passages, about 70, in which the expression 'good 
 news ' occurs. A clearer insight will thereby be gained of the 
 nature and definiteness of the apostolic teaching : the proclamation 
 of ' good news,' as such, raises naturally and instantaneously in the 
 mind the conception both of a Sender and of an authorized Messenger, 
 Avhich the word ' gospel ' does not, unless a special mental effort is 
 made by the reader. 
 
 Reverting to the words of Jesus, it will be observed that they 
 appear in Matthew as ' this gospel ' or ' these good tidings.' ' This ' 
 or ' these ' must refer to something spoken at the time. He may have 
 
12 JkIhl '.I 
 
 250 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [p^rt ii. 
 
 been discoursing at the meal, as was his custom, of 'the good news 
 of the reign of God ; ' or the reference may have been to the context, 
 ' to prepare me for burial.' That climax of his career was ' good news ' 
 for the world, however distressing at the time to himself and his 
 disciples. Alford seems to assume that connection, for he speaks of 
 ' the gospel which should go forth from his Death as its source.' 
 
 John does not record the prediction of Jesus concerning Mary's 
 action, but he mentions a fact omitted by the other evangelists. The 
 presence of Jesus at Bethany had been noised abroad, and many of 
 the populace were attracted thither by the expectation of seeing not 
 only Jesus but Lazarus also, whom he was known to have raised from 
 the tomb to life. ' The common j)eople therefore of the Jews learned 
 that he was there : and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that 
 they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.' The 
 Eevisers have altered ' much people ' to ' the common people,' Tischeu- 
 dorf renders, ' the great multitude ; ' ' Young, ' a great multitude ; ' 
 Luther, ' viel Yolks,' ' much people.' The expression chosen by the 
 Eevisers is not a happy one. 
 
 The clerical party were so incensed against Jesus, that they deter- 
 mined to let nothing stand in the way of their attempt to counteract 
 his influence. Lazarus was now obnoxious to them, and they decided 
 that it would be necessary for their purpose to ]mt him to death as 
 „ 10 well as Jesus. ' But the chief priests took counsel that they might 
 put Lazarus also to death.' He had become so conspicuous, and was 
 saying or doing so much in favour of Jesus, that many converts were 
 being made, who turned their backs upon the chief priests and 
 „ n professed their faith in Jesus : ' because that by reason of him many 
 of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.' Alford observes as 
 follows : ' Eemember here, as elsewhere in John, the Jews are not 
 the people, but the rulers, and persons of repute : the representatives 
 of the Jewish oppositmi to Jesus.' How can that be, when it is said 
 that 'the great multitude of the Jews' went to see Jesus and Lazarus, 
 and that many of them believed ? The term ' Jews ' appears to 
 denote the men of Jewry, inhabitants of Judsea, whose only oppor- 
 tunity of seeing and hearing Jesus was when he came into their 
 neighbourhood. The evangelist gives, without comment, a bare 
 statement of the fact, but it is, by itself, a frightful example of 
 clerical bigotry and persecution. What detestable, sanguinary 
 principles of action have cloaked themselves under the garb of 
 Eeligion, and made the professed ministers of God the bitterest 
 opponents of human progress, and the enemies of mankind ! 
 
 Luke seems to intimate that the parable of the nobleman who was 
 hated by his citizens, feared by his servants, and who exterminated his 
 enemies, was the last discourse delivered by Jesus on his journey : for 
 
 111 Luke 2S it is Said : ' And when he had thus spoken, he went on before, going 
 up to Jerusalem.' We have seen that he reached Bethany six days 
 before the passover, and was received into the house of Simon the 
 leper. On approaching the place, Jesus had given to two of his 
 disciples directions of a very remarkable kind. He told them to go 
 into the neighbouring village, where they would find an ass tethered 
 
 ai Mat. 1. 2 and a colt by her side. ' And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, 
 and came unto Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then Jesus sent 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUli GOSFl^JLS. 251 
 
 two disciples, sayinji- iiiito them, Go into the villao-e that is over 
 agaiust you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with 
 her.' Mark adds the'fact that the colt was unbroken : 'And when n M:iiki.2 
 they drew uigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the 
 mount of Olives, he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them. 
 Go your way into the \illage that is over against you : and straight- 
 way as ye enter into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever 
 yet sat."' Luke uses ^•ery nearly the same words : ' And it came to lo Luke 20, 
 pass, when he drew nigh 'unto liethphage and Bethany, at the mount "^" 
 
 tlnit is called ihc mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, saying, 
 Go your way into the vilhige over against you; in the which as ye 
 enter, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat.' Such 
 similarities of diction between three historians are indications that 
 they borrowed from a common narrative, the merely verbal differences 
 arising from the amplification of the original, which would probably 
 be in the form of condensed notes. In this instance, there may have 
 been two, and could have been no more than two independent sources 
 of information. Matthew states the instruction given by Jesus in 
 these words : ' Loose litem, and bring them unto me.' Young renders 21 Mat. ;> 
 literally : ' Having loosed, bring to me.' Only Matthew alludes to 
 the ass being with" the colt. j\Iark and Luke, having spoken of the 
 colt only, use the same expression : ' Loose him and bring him.' 
 Thus to appropriate another person's property would seem extra- 
 ordinary, and required some warrant. Jesus admitted as nmcli, and 
 instructed his disciples how to meet the difficulty. ' And if any one „ :■. 
 say aught unto you, ye shall say, the Lord hath need of them ; and 
 straightway he will send them.' Here the word ' them ' is no inser- 
 tion. Combining the evangelists, it would seem that the colt only 
 was required, but the she-ass was sent with him, it being unadvisable 
 to separate the mother from her foal. Mark and Luke still allude to 
 the latter only. ' And if any one say unto you, Why do ye 10 Luke 31 
 this ? say ye. The Lord hath need of him ; and straightway he will 
 send (Gr. sendeth) him back (or, again) hither.' The word 'back' 
 (or, again) has been introduced from the two oldest M8. Luke says 
 merely, ' And if any one ask you, Why do ye loose him ? thus shall ,, si 
 ye say, The Lord hath need of him.' The omission by Luke of the 
 assurance given by Jesus may be accounted for by supposing it to 
 have been absent from the manuscript from which Luke compiled 
 this portion of the history. The greater the demand for these early 
 records, the greater also would be the difficidty of meeting it with 
 promptitude, the copying of manuscripts being a slow process. 
 Thence it might well hap])en that the deficiency was supplied by the 
 best means available, and that abstracts of the facts might be 
 compiled from memory, or attempts made to follow in writing the 
 reading of some original document. This would sufficiently account 
 for variations and omissions which do not amount to discrepancies. 
 
 Matthew, as was his custom, traced in the event a fulfilment of 
 prophecy. 'Xow this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled 1 Mat. 4,5 
 which was spoken by (or, through) the prophet, saying, 
 
 Tell ye the daughter of Zion, 
 
 Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, 
 
 Meek, and riding upon an ass. 
 
 And upon a colt the foal of an ass.' 
 
252 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [part ii. 
 
 '.I Zee. 
 
 The original passage stands as follows: 'Rejoice greatly, daughter 
 of Zion ; shout, daughter of Jerusalem : Ijehold, thy king cometh 
 unto thee ; he is just, and having salvation, lowly, and riding upon 
 an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.' Alford observes : ' That 
 this riding and entry were intentional on the part of our Lord, is 
 clear : and also that He did not thereby mean to give any coun- 
 tenance to the temporal ideas of His Messiahship, but solemnly to fulfil 
 the Scriptures respecting Him, and to prepare the way for His 
 .sulferings, by a public avowal of His mission,' Jesus seized upon 
 this Scriptural picture as illustrating the nature of the kingdom he 
 desired to found. The homage paid to him must be natural and 
 spontaneous : justice, salvation, meekness, constituted the basis of 
 liis jwwer and influence ; he resolved to make himself conspicuous 
 in this particular way to his enthusiastic followers, and, knowing that 
 his death was very near, to bequeath to the world this pattern of 
 what a king's triumphal entry ought to be. It is not to be supposed 
 that Jesus would have been any less the Messiah of mankind, if he 
 had not thus literally accomplished the terms of this prophecy ; the 
 incident by itself proved nothing, convinced nobody ; a false Christ 
 might have assumed the same position ; it was no evidence in his 
 favour at the time, for we are expressly told that his disciples had no 
 recollection of such a prophecy ; but the character, the doctrine, the 
 aims of Jesus were entirely in harmony with it, and he would let the 
 world know what kind of sovereignty he claimed, and see, once for 
 all, a true pattern of regal dignity. 
 
 The two disciples found it easy to accomplish the task which Jesus 
 had laid upon them. Everything happened as he had foretold, and 
 when they delivered his message the animal was at once given over 
 
 10 Luke z-i- for his use. ' x\nd they that were sent went away, and found even as 
 
 ^"^ he had said unto them. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners 
 thereof said unto them. Why loose ye the colt ? And they said, the 
 Lord hath need of him. And they brought him to Jesus.' Mark is 
 
 1 1 Mark 4-7 somcwhat uiorc precise. ' And they went away, and found a colt tied at 
 
 the door without in the open street, and they loose him. And certain 
 of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt ? 
 And they said unto them even as Jesus had said : and they let them 
 go. And they bring the colt unto Jesus.' In the Authorised Version 
 the locality is described as ' in a place where two ways met,' which is 
 rendered by Tischendorf ' on the crossway,' and l)y Young ' by the two 
 ways.' The Revisers have altered it to ' in the open street.' Alford 
 explains : ' The word rendered a place where two ways met, only means, 
 a road leadinij round a place, and probably imports simply the street. 
 Wordsworth interprets it, tlie back way, which led round the house. 
 But there does not appear to be any reason for supposing the word 
 round to refer to the house, rather than to the whole block, or neigh-, 
 bourhood, of houses, round about which the street led. Dean Trench 
 Avould render it a way round, a crooked lane.'' Matthew's account is 
 ii Mat. G far more concise. ' And the disciples went, and did even as Jesus 
 appointed them, and brought the ass, and the colt.' 
 
 As the message of Jesus induced the owners to lend their property 
 for his use, it is natural to consider in what sense they must have 
 understood the words, ' The Lord hath need of him.' Alford's note 
 on Matthew is as follows : ' The Lord, here, tlw Lord, Jehovah .- most 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. L^53 
 
 probably a general intimation to the owners, that they were wanted 
 for thr serrire of (iod. I cannot see how this interpretation errs 
 against decorum, as Stier asserts. The meanest animals might be 
 wanted for the service of the Lord Jehovah. And after all, what 
 difference is there as to decorum, if we understand with him the Lord 
 to signify the King Messiah, ? ' That there has been a general 
 tendency towards straining the sense of the Avord ' Lord ' is evident 
 from the re[)eated instances in which Dr. Young, alone among trans- 
 lators, renders it by the word ' Sir.' There are passages, of which this 
 is one, in which " Sir" cannot be nsed ; but it by no means follows 
 that the term is therefore to be taken in such cases as a]iplying to the 
 Deity. Probably the term in the original was equi\alent to the 
 German word ' Herr,' and used in the same manner, either in speaking 
 to or of a person recognised as a superior, a Master or Teacher. That 
 is the import which Jesus himself attached to the word : ' Ye call me is Joim i: 
 Master (or. Teacher), and, Lord : and ye say well ; for so I am.' And 
 again: 'A servant ((ir, bondservant) is not greater than his lord.' -, n 
 That form of expression was in general use between man and man ; it 
 was also used, in the same sense of snpremacy, when speaking of God. 
 The context in writing, and the circumstances in speaking, are a suffi- 
 cient guide as to the intended significance, limitation, or extension, of 
 the title. In the case before us, there could be small room, or none 
 at all, for nncertainty. Jesns had come into the neighbourhood 
 accompanied by a crowd of followers ; his disciples were recognisable 
 as such, and when two of them went together, loosed the colt, and 
 explained that they did it in obedience to the directions of the lord or 
 master, either the owners must have at once understood the reference 
 to be to Jesus, or the disciples would make it clear that it was he who 
 had sent them and who required the animal. If, on the contrary, it 
 be supposed that Jesus was kept out of sight in the transaction, and 
 that two strangers simply stated that they were taking the ass because 
 Jehovah, the God of Israel, had need of him, there is much force in 
 the oljjection of Stier, that the request would have appeared indecorous, 
 and would not have been instantly and unhesitatingly complied with. 
 This argument is all the stronger, when it is remembered that there 
 Avas no idea in the mind of any one that the fulfilment of a prtiphecy 
 was in question. 
 
 The disciples simply carried out the instructions of Jesus, and every- 
 thing happened just as he had led them to expect. AYas this a display 
 of supernatural prescience on the part of Jesus ? That may be inferred 
 from the uarrati\'e ; but the evangelists themselves have not touched 
 upon the question. We can easily believe that one who displayed such 
 miraculous powers, and applied them in such various ways, might 
 possess such a gift of foresight, and might even exercise a controlling- 
 influence on others by his own force of will. Or it may be that in- 
 visible Beings, heavenly messengers, were superintending and directing 
 his career, revealing to him, as they had done to Mary and to Joseph, 
 the things which were about to happen. In this instance, however, 
 Ave are not tied down to that conclusion. The message, ' the Lord 
 hath need of him,' may, perchance, haA'e referred to some preAious 
 conference between Jesus and the OAvners. It is not to be supposed 
 that he Avas never Avas out of sight and hearing of his disciples, that 
 he never con\ersed Avith anyone except in their presence, that he Avas 
 
254 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part it. 
 
 not free to take an independent conrse and arrange a plan for himself, 
 Tiie wording- of Mark's narrative, as altered by the Eevisers on the 
 authority of the two oldest MSS., seems to indicate that the colt had 
 lately been to the place where Jesus was. The Authorised Version 
 has ' straightway he will send him hither ; ' the word ' back {or, 
 again) ' is now placed before 'hither.' The three evangelists agree 
 that Jesus told his disciples they would discover the colt immediately 
 upon entering the village : ' straightway ye shall find,' ' straightway as 
 ye enter into it,' ' in the which as ye enter.' Therefore the colt had 
 but lately passed Jesus on its way to the village. Moreover, Jesus 
 was no stranger in Bethany ; he had visited the place before ; he may 
 have known the abode of the owners, and where they took the colt on 
 its customary round, and he seems to have relied upon their know- 
 ledge of himself as a sufficient inducement to comply unhesitatingly 
 with his expressed desire : ' straightway he will send them.' Where- 
 ever Jesus went he healed many, and thereby, as well as through his 
 teachings, must have gained many friends, all glad to serve him in 
 anything within their power. The apparent mystery is capable of 
 solution in a perfectly natural manner ; the evangelists have not 
 hinted at anything supernatural, and it would ill become us to assert 
 the existence of a marvel with respect to which they maintained entire 
 silence. 
 
 The colt being without a saddle, one was extemporised out of the 
 u Mark r garments of the disciples, and then Jesus mounted : ' and cast on him 
 ii)Luke:35 their garments ; and he sat upon him.' 'And they threw their gar- 
 ments upon the colt, and set J esus thereon.' Matthew adheres to the 
 i-i Mat. 7 plural : ' and put on them their garments ; and he sat thereon.' 
 Then ensued a scene of enthusiastic exultation. The example set by 
 the disciples was imitated by the multitude, who stripped off their 
 ,, s robes and laid them on the ground over which he was to pass. 'And 
 the most part of the multitude spread their garments in the way.' 
 n Mark s ' And many spread their garments upon the way.' ' And as he went, 
 19 Luke 3(5 they spread their garments in the way.' Others supplemented this 
 21 Mat. s with a carpet of leafy boughs, cut off from the trees. ' And others 
 cut branches from the trees, and spread them in the way.' Young 
 11 Mark s renders literally, ' were cutting.' ' And others branches (Gr, layers of 
 leaves), which they had cut from the fields.' The Revisers, following 
 the two oldest M8S., have omitted from Mark the words ' and strawed 
 them in the way,' which were probably inserted at an early date from 
 Matthew. Alford notes that they are 'omitted in many ancient 
 authorities,' and explains : ' the word signifies not merely branches, 
 but branches cut /or the 2mr})ose of being littered to iccdlc, on : and this 
 implies the strawing in the wag, which has been unskilfully suppUed.' 
 The expression used by the Revisers in Mark, ' which they had cut 
 from the fields,' agrees with Tischendorf's, 'having cut them out of 
 the fields,' and with Alford's statement that tliey had been ' cut for 
 the purpose.' This is corroborated by the fourth evangelist, who 
 stated, before mentioning the riding upon the ass, that the multitude 
 iijuhuii had taken branches of palm trees and gone out to meet Jesus. 'On 
 the morrow a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they 
 heard that Jesus was commg to Jerusalem, took the branches of the 
 palm trees, and Avent forth to meet him.' To the words, ' a great 
 multitude,' the Revisers have affixed the note : 'Some ancient autho- 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 255 
 
 rities read f/ts common pcopU.'' Not the tlirce oldest MSS., liowever : 
 that form of speech looks like the o-loss of some commentator. The 
 coming of this multitude with palms in their hands was not without 
 a meaninty. Tliey were bent on honourinu' Jesus as the Messiah, the 
 expected king of Israel, and with loud shouts they hailed him under 
 that title : ' and cried out, Hosanna : Blessed is he that cometh in the v. 
 name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.' When the ass arrived, 
 and Jesus had been placed thereon, the prophetic picture was com- 
 plete. Here was just such a king as Zechariah had foretold, entering 
 Jerusalem in just such a way as he described, no troops, no courtiers 
 by his side, no insignia of royalty upon his person, nothing in his 
 favour except the two things w'hich alone give real dignity to a king, 
 — his character, and the willing homage of his people. ' And Jesus, 
 having found a young ass, sat thereon, as it is written. Fear not, 
 daughter of Zion : behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.' 
 The evangelist summarises the sense of the passage without adhering 
 to the actual words. ' Fear not ' is not in the original, but the context 
 clearly conveyed the idea of protection and safety. The evangelist 
 explains that there was no thought at the time in the minds of any of 
 the disciples, of the prophecy which they unconsciously fulfilled. 
 * These things understood not his disciples at the first : but when Jesus 
 Avas glorified then remembered they that these things were written of 
 him, and that they had done these things unto him.' The gathering 
 of so great and enthusiastic a multitude on this occasion was due to 
 two causes : (1) they ' had come to the feast,' and therefore would be 
 under the influence of religious ideas, and at leisure to seek out and 
 honour the great Teacher whose probable coming to Jerusalem had 
 been eagerly anticipated ; (2) many among them had been present 
 when Jesus had called Lazarus out of the grave, and the account given 
 by these eye-witnesses of that miracle excited the popular imagination 
 in favour of Jesus, and resulted in this form of public ovation. 'The 
 multitude therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of 
 the tomb, and raised him from the dead, bare witness. For this cause 
 also the multitude went and met him, for that they heard that he had 
 done this sign.' There is no inconsistency between the narratives ; 
 indeed, they throw light upon each other : John says nothing about 
 the sending forth of the two disciples in search of the ass, but states 
 simply that one was found by Jesus, which implies that some means 
 were taken by him to obtain it. Matthew, Mark and Luke say noth- 
 ing about the coming of the multitude with palms and singing, which 
 explains the otherwise unaccountable outburst of enthusiasm, w'hich 
 the mere fact of seeing Jesus riding was not calculated to evoke. The 
 bearing of the palms harmonises with the statement of Luke, that 
 layers of leaves had been cut from the fields ; and the strewing of 
 them upon the road would naturally lead others to cut branches from 
 the trees with the same object, as described by MatthcAV. In the same 
 way, the stripping off of their garments by the disciples to improvise 
 a saddle, was imitated by the most part of ' the multitude,' the laying 
 down and constant replacing of the garments supplying the gaps 
 between the carpet of greenery. From first to last it was a scene of 
 tumultuous gladness. The multitude divided into tw-o bands, one 
 preceding and the other following, Jesus being in the midst. After a 
 time, when they were nearing Jerusalem and had reached the down- 
 
256 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ir. 
 
 ward slope of the mount of Olives, the song with which he had 
 been hailed at starting was taken up and added to by his 
 
 m Luke 37, dlsciples. ' And as he Avas now drawing nigh, even at the descent 
 ^^ of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began 
 to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty 
 works (Gr. powers) which they had seen ; saying, Blessed is the King 
 that cometh in the name of the Lord : peace in heaven, and glory in 
 the highest.' That was well suited to the mouths of professed dis- 
 ciples, and was, as Luke intimates, rather an acknowledgment of the 
 work which Jesus had done than a claim for his future supremacy : 
 the words 'peace in heaven and glory in the highest ' sufficiently 
 indicated that no earthly kingship was in the minds of these his 
 followers when they greeted him as ' the King that cometh in the 
 name of tlie Lord.' The expression ' King of Israel ' is dropped by 
 the disciples, and also the word ' Hosanna,' which might be open to 
 misconstruction by the enemies of Jesus. Alford explains : ' Hosanna 
 ■ — from Psalm cxviii. 25 = save now.' The Psalm runs : 'Save now, 
 we beseech thee, Lord.' The crowd composed of visitors to the 
 feast had started that cry, and however discreet some of his disciples 
 may have been, knowing how he had once charged them to tell no man 
 that he was the Christ, the multitude were enamoured with that idea, 
 
 21 Milt. (' and took it up enthusiastically, ' And the multitudes that went before 
 him, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David : 
 Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord ; Hosanna in tlio 
 
 n Mark !i, 10 highest.' ' And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, 
 Hosanna ; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord : 
 Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the Icing dom of our father 
 David : Hosanna in the highest.' It could not be helped : the con- 
 ception of a temporal sovereign, and of a kingdom, not ' of God,' not 
 ' of heaven,' but ' of David,' was ever uppermost in men's minds. 
 
 Not all among the multitude participated in these demonstrations. 
 There was a sprinkling of Pharisees, who had come to watch and criticise. 
 There was much that a hostile and fastidious observer might object 
 to. Not every man in those days, any more than now, would strip 
 off his coat in the open air, without caring about conventional 
 etiquette. The social status of the class composing the crowd might 
 be judged thereby. It was all very well for fishermen and others 
 whose daily toil made such an action habitual, to be thus enthusiastic 
 and demonstrative, but well-bred, cultured onlookers, who were care- 
 ful to make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their 
 garments, were little likely to use their robes for such a purpose or in 
 such a fashion. The fact repeatedly stares us in the face, and here 
 is another evidence of it, that the bulk of the disciples and welcomers 
 of Jesus consisted of what would now be designated by the super- 
 cilious term, ' the lower orders,' or more correctly ' the working- 
 classes.' The men and women who, chiefly, came under the influence 
 of Jesus resembled those composing the ' Salvation Army,' who of 
 late years have been sought out and gained by ' General ' Booth and 
 his coadjutors. The very chiefest of the apostles, Peter and John, 
 in the full tide of their spiritual gifts and successful preaching, were 
 
 4A-jtsi3 classed by the priestly rulers of the Jews as 'unlearned and ignorant 
 men.' There Avere Pharisees who looked scornfully and disapprov- 
 ingly on this scene of which Jesus was so conspicuously the central 
 
I'ARTii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 257 
 
 figure, and as the cavalcade swept onwards they expostulated with 
 him on the nnseeniliness of such proceedings, and urged liim to check 
 his disciples in their singing. ' And some of the Pharisees irom the i'.>L"ke3o 
 multitude said unto him, INIaster (or. Teacher), rebuke thy disciples.' 
 Their chant of praise, as recorded by Luke, had nothing in it about 
 'the king of Israel,' or 'the kingdom of David.' Whatever the 
 multitudes might shout, the disciples, trained and taught by Jesus, 
 were not likely tu give expression to such ideas. The chosen apostles 
 were careful, perhaps were diivcted by him, to lead the thoughts and 
 voices of the multitude into a higher, holier channel. Mo rejoice and 
 praise (!od with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they 
 had seen ; ' and their salutation of Jesus as ' the King that coraeth 
 in the name of the Lord,' coupled with the refrain 'peace in heaven, 
 and glory in the highest,' conveyed no thought of an earthly throne 
 and kingdom. Jesus replied that the eulogy well beseemed his life- 
 work and his teaching, and if the good works he had showed them 
 from the Father were forbidden to be mentioned by the tongues of 
 his disciples, the very stones might be expected to proclaim them. 
 • And he answered and said, I tell you that, if these shall hold their .> ^o 
 peace, the stones will cry out.' By selecting so strong an hyperbole 
 Jesus, in the most emphatic way possible, justified hi;; disciples and 
 condemned the Pharisees. Not long ago they had banished him 
 from Judfea, and they were now surprised and angered to find him 
 setting at naught their decree, and actually about to enter Jerusalem 
 amid the enthusiastic acclamations of the populace. 'The Pharisees i2.j.iiiuio 
 therefore said among themselves. Behold (or, Ye behold) how ye 
 prevail nothing : lo, the world is gone after him.' But there was no 
 triumph, only sorrow, in the heart of Jesus. He knew well what 
 would be the fatal result to himself of this his last visit, and he fore- 
 saw also the certain ruin of Jerusalem in days not far distant. 
 As he approached the city his soul grew sad, and when he saw it 
 stretched out before him, his emotions of grief and pity found vent 
 in tears. In short, sobbing sentences, he bewailed the coming evils, 
 all of which might have been prevented if only the citizens had 
 known what was the true basis of peace and prosperity. 'And when lo Luke: 41, 
 he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If thou (or, ''"" 
 
 that thou) hadst known in this day, even thou, the things, which 
 belong unto peace ! but now they are hid from thine eyes.' The 
 national policy and the temper of the people would culminate in 
 rebellion, a trial of strength and endurance bet^veen them and their 
 enemies, bringing on the city the horrors of a weary siege, cruel, 
 relentless carnage, and resulting finally in utter defeat and devasta- 
 tion. ' For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies will " ^s, u 
 cast up a bank (Gr. palisade) about thee, and compass thee round, 
 and keep thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, 
 and thy children within thee ; and they shall not leave in thee 
 one stone upon another.' In all human history, national as well 
 as individual, the Present is ever the father of the Future. ' If thou 
 hadst known in this day,' said Jesus ; (that is the reading of the two 
 oldest MSS., omitting the word ' thy ' before day) : his teaching was 
 meant to be the salvation of the people, but being thwarted and 
 repudiated the opportunity was lost, and another chapter must be 
 added to the bloodstained page of history, another attempt to conquer 
 
258 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 19 Luke 44 forcG Lv fovcc, another triumph of might over right : ' Because thou 
 knewest not the time of thy visitation.' This was not the only occa- 
 sion when Jesus gave expression to these thoughts, in conjunction 
 with a lamentation over Jerusalem, The records of the Past were 
 ominous in the extreme. 'It cannot be,' he once said, ' that a 
 prophet perish out of Jerusalem.' And then he uttered an apostrophe, 
 very similar to the foregoing, conceived in the same spirit and con- 
 is Luke 34, veying the same ideas. '0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the 
 ^^ prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her ! how often would 
 I liave gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her 
 own brood under her wings, and ye would not ! Behold, your house 
 is left unto you desolate : and I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, 
 until ye shall say. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the 
 Lord.' Taking the passages together, they elucidate each other. In 
 the first place, however, a few technical points have to be considered. 
 The Revisers have altered ' sent unto thee ' to ' sent unto her ' whicli 
 is the rendering of Young and Tischendorf. The italicised word 
 'gathereth' is omitted by Young, not being in the original. The 
 Eevisers have omitted to italicise ' her ' before wings ; Young and 
 Tischendorf render 'the wings.' The Revisers have italicised the 
 word ' desolate,' which is not in the three oldest MSS. and is omitted 
 by Young, Tischendorf and Alford. The Authorised Version has 
 ' until f/ie time come when ye shall say,' which is rendered by Young, 
 ' till it come when ye may say,' altered by the Revisers in accordance 
 with the two oldest MSS. to ' till ye shall say.' It is probable, as is 
 supposed by many, that these verses have been inserted unchrono- 
 logically by Luke. If he were in doubt where they ought properly to 
 be placed, it would be natural for him to bring them in, iis he has 
 done, immediately after the mention of Jerusalem. In Matthew 
 they occupy a ditterent position, being introduced immediately after 
 '23 Mat. 37- ^he Condemnation of the Pharisees, ' Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which 
 killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her ! how 
 often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen 
 gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye w'ould not ! Behold, 
 your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you. Ye shall 
 not see me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in 
 the name of the Lord.' The chief point of difference is the intro- 
 duction in Matthew of the word ' henceforth.' There is some doubt 
 as to the word ' desolate,' which the Revisers note is ' omitted by 
 some ancient authorities.' It does not appear in the Vatican MS. 
 
 The import of the expression, ' Because thou knewest not the time 
 of thy visitation,' now becomes clear. Jesus had often sought to 
 draw^ Jerusalem to himself, but his efforts had failed. The simile he 
 chose was striking and peculiar : ' How often did I desire to gather 
 thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under the 
 wing, and ye desired not ' (Tischendorf). The dread of a coming 
 danger was in his mind, and he knew that only the protection he 
 offered could save them from it. Yet his mode of defence was not 
 after the fashion of the world : he urged no resistance, he uttered no 
 rallying cry, he wielded no w^eapon of defence, but simply tried to 
 attract men to himself, induce them to lay aside every thought of 
 violence, and keep their souls in charity and peace. If his kingdom 
 had been of this world, then would his servants have fought ; but 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 259 
 
 liis only effort and aim was to save others by sacrificin;^ himself : 
 
 *■ If therefore ye seek me, let these go their way : that the word might isjoims, o 
 
 be fulHlled which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given me, I 
 
 lost not one.' The spirit and teaching of Jesus forbade any resort to 
 
 violence and bloodshed, and led all who came to him to seek the 
 
 rectification of wrong and evil by other means, to overcome the 
 
 world by peace, and antidote its tribulations by the hope and foretaste 
 
 of the kingdom of (lod and heaven. ' Peace I lea\'e with you ; my ]4.)..im -.'r 
 
 peace I give unto you : not as the world giveth, gi\e 1 unto you. 
 
 Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful.' That 
 
 was his panacea for the trials of the time then present. True, his 
 
 wisdom then, as now, seemed folly to the world ; only his disciples 
 
 could receive and comprehend his saying: 'These things have Iiojoimss 
 
 spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye 
 
 have tribulation : but be of good cheer ; I have overcome the world.' 
 
 Few indeed were they who embraced that doctrine, and thence Ids 
 
 lamentation over Jerusalem : ' that thou hadst known in this day, 
 
 even tliou, tlie things which belong unto peace.' The old, old 
 
 warlike spirit must needs revive, the cry of patriotism uprise, instead 
 
 of that nobler aspiration after a heavenly inheritance to which .lesus 
 
 called his followers, swords must clash, and blood must flow, and 
 
 brute force triumph as of yore. The tears of Jesus were shed over 
 
 his own lost cause in Jerusalem. It was appointed to him that he 
 
 should die for the people, and if he could only have drawn them 
 
 to himself, the nation would have been saved, and the ultimate 
 
 triumph of Christianity antedated by many, none can say how many, 
 
 centuries. To the high priest alone was given a prophetic insight of 
 
 this truth : ' A certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that h JmIhi 4ii- 
 
 _year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor do ye take account '" 
 
 that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, 
 
 imd that the whole nation perish not. Xow this he said not of 
 
 himself : but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus 
 
 .should die for the nation ; and not for the nation only, but that he 
 
 might also gather together into one the children of God that are 
 
 scattered abroad.' Not until the whole body of Christians are thus 
 
 gathered together into one united heavenly-minded phalanx, taking 
 
 all the precepts of Jesus for their creed and heritage, and suffering no 
 
 admixture of earthly elements with his pure, unwoiidly doctrine, can 
 
 Christianity assume the form Avhich its founder sought to give it, and 
 
 .bless mankind with the salvation which he offered them. 
 
 The omission of the word ' desolate ' from the three oldest MS8. in 
 Luke, and from the Vatican and other ancient authorities in Matthew, 
 may be taken to indicate either that the word was first introduced by 
 Commentators to suit their view of the sense intended, or at the 
 least, that no stress is to be laid upon the word in interpreting 
 the passage. The expression, ' Behold, your house is left unto you,' 
 •conveys the idea of the withdrawal of any attempt at guidance or 
 interference on the part of Jesus. It was their own house, ' your 
 house,' and it must now be ' left unto ' them, to manage and rule as 
 they thought fit. This seems to be admitted by Alford, although he 
 at the same time thought there was an allusion to the temple. He 
 says : ' No more GocVs but your house — said primarily of the 
 temple, — then of Jerusalem, — and then of the whole land in which ye 
 
 8 2 
 
260 THi: KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii- 
 
 dwell ! ' The efforts of Jesus to guide and save them having been 
 repulsed, the people must be left to their own devices. This 
 interpretation of the passage harmonises Avith what precedes, and also 
 with the words which follow : ' Ye shall not see me henceforth, till 
 ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord/ 
 Jesus could attempt no more ; he must leave them to themselves, and 
 wait until they were prepared to welcome him as the divinely- 
 commissioned Saviour. We see that the words of the carol sung by 
 the disciples on the occasion of his triumphal approach to Jerusalem 
 not only met his approval but were adopted by Jesus himself. 
 
 When the procession of discii)les and others entered the city, 
 the inhabitants naturally manifested considei'able excitement and 
 
 L'l ji.it. 10 curiosity. 'And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was 
 stirred, saying, Who is this ? ' The visits of Jesus to the metropolis 
 being only occasional, he was not so Avell known there as in Galilee. 
 ,, 11 * And the multitudes said, This is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth 
 of Galilee.' The distance between the two places being considerably 
 over 50 miles, the career of Jesus did not come within the cognizance 
 of dwellers at Jerusalem. His visits were at festival times, when 
 there was a large influx of strangers ; probably most of those who 
 sought him out at Jerusalem and attended his preaching there, had 
 become acquainted with him in Galilee or elsewhere. 
 
 Jesus at once proceeded to the temple, and manifested much 
 interest in what he saw^ going on about him. The night was 
 approaching, he had freed himself from the presence of the clamorous 
 multitude, keeping with him only the twelve apostles, and with them 
 he retired to Bethany, which was about a mile and a half from 
 
 11 Mark 11 Jerusalem. 'And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple ; ancJ 
 when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now 
 eventide, he w'ent out unto Bethany wdth the twelve.' The next 
 morning they returned to Jerusalem, and Jesus, ever more anxious 
 about his work than about his food, began to suffer from hunger. 
 vi ' And on the morrow, when they were come out from Bethany, he 
 
 2i Mat. IS hungered.' Matthew adds that it was in the morning. ' Now in the 
 morning as he returned to the city, he hungered.' The expression 
 ' as he returned,' may be taken to indicate that he had started 
 without breakfasting, and felt exhausted on the journey. On the- 
 u, road he saw a solitary fig tree, and made his way towards it. ' And 
 seeing a (or, a single) fig tree by the way side, he came to it.'' 
 Mark explains that it was at some distance, and was seen to be in 
 leaf, so that it was possible, though by no means certain, that fruit 
 
 11 j!uiki3 also might be found on it. 'And seeing a fig tree afar off having 
 leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon.' The word 
 ' haply ' implies that it was a mere chance, and the slender hope was 
 
 iijiat. 10 doomed to disappointment ; ' and found nothing thereon, but leaves- 
 only.' Mark explains that the season was not sufficiently advanced 
 to justify the expectation of fruit being found as a matter of course r. 
 
 11 Mark 13 ' and whcii he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was 
 not the season of figs.' Having ascertained the fact, Jesus uttered 
 some very remarkable words, not to his companions, but to the tree 
 
 •21 Mat. 19 itself ' And he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee 
 
 ji 3iaik 14 henceforward for ever.' Mark is to the same effect : ' And he- 
 answered and said unto it. No man eat fruit from thee henceforward 
 
PART II. J A STUDY OF 'THE FOUR GOSPFLS. 261 
 
 for ever. And his disciples heard it.' It \Yas a strai],2:e tliiug to say. 
 Wliy did Jesus say it ? Was it a mere expression drojipcd in haste, 
 anger, disai)pointinent, vindicfcivencss ? That would be contrary 
 to all we know of Jesus. No question appears to have been asked, 
 no comment made. They went on their way, sjient the day in 
 Jerusalem, returned to Bethany, and the next inornino- passed the 
 spot again. Then the incident was recalled to their minds. There 
 stood the tree : but what had happened to it ? Its foliage was 
 fading, and a close examination showed that it had withered from, 
 the root upwards. ' And as they passed by in the morning, they saw ii Mark-i<i 
 the fig tree withered away from the roots.' Matthew condenses the 
 account, saying nothing about the intervening day, but simply, 
 ' And immediately the fig tree withered away.' The word ' imme- 21 Mat. m 
 diateiy ' stands in the Authorised Version as ' presently ; ' Young 
 renders: ' And fortJiwith the fig tree withered.' The disciples were 
 astounded at so inexplicable a i:)henomenon. The Authorised Version 
 ])nts their words in the form of an exclamation of surprise. ' And 
 when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the 
 fig tree withered away ! ' Tischendorf agrees with that, but Young 
 renders it as a question : 'And the disciples having seen, wondered, 
 saying, How did the fig-tree forthwith wither ? ' and the Revisers „ 21) 
 have done the same. 'And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, 
 saying, How did the fig tree immediately wither away ? ' One of the 
 disciples called the attention of Jesus to the circumstance. ' And u Mark 21 
 Peter calling to remembrance saith nnto him, Rabbi, behold, the 
 lig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.' The Revisers have 
 altered 'Master' to 'Rabbi,' therein agreeing with Tischendorf, 
 Young and Alford. The term was equivalent to 'Teacher,' and was 
 by itself a mark of distinction, and on that account coveted by the 
 Pharisees, for Jesus once described them as loving ' to be called of 2:; Mat. 7, s 
 men Rabbi,' and added, ' But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your 
 teacher, and all ye are brethren.' The companionship between 
 Jesus and his disciples, however intimate, was not, could not be of an 
 ordinary kind. They had always a becoming sense of his superiority, 
 and the esteem and honour in which they held him appear frequently 
 in their mode of addressing him. 
 
 In the opinion of the disciples the utterance of Jesus was a male- 
 diction : Peter did not scruple to say, ' the fig tree which thou 
 oursedst.' The miracle can be regarded in no other light. For this 
 once, the power of Jesus was put forth to blight and destroy, instead 
 of to bless and heal. Such an act could benefit no one : to kill a 
 £ruit-producing tree because it did not bear prematurely, offends our 
 notions of wisdom and benevolence. That Jesus did this thing, can 
 make no difference in the judgment we pass upon it. In some 
 mysterious way, he had thwarted the operation of the laws of nature 
 with respect to this tree, so that it ceased to draw nourishment out 
 of the earth and the elements, and was transformed into a barren, 
 useless stock. Once he had spoken a parable about a fig-tree, repre- 
 senting it to have been fruitless for three years together, and yet 
 when the owner decided to cut it down, the experienced vinedresser 
 pleaded for a fourth year's trial, to see the effect of increased care 
 and culture. That parable harmonised with the mind and teaching 
 of Jesus ; but now his own deed runs counter to it ; he goes out of 
 
262 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 his way, to seek for figs out of season, and failing to find them, he 
 anathematises the tree and withers its root. Again the question 
 presses : Why did he do this ? Doubtless he had a motive. He 
 himself gave the clue thereto, and explained the significance of his 
 11 Mark 22 action. 'And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.* 
 That is the key note of the explanation. To blast the fig tree by a 
 word, was the very i-everse of faith in God : it was an interference 
 with the divinely-arranged system of the universe, a transgression 
 against the beneficent ]a\YS of nature, an exercise of human influence 
 in opposition to the will of God, by whose providence the fruit tree 
 bears fruit after its kind and in its proper season. The tongue and 
 will of man are potent, aye ! omnipotent, in the direction of such 
 „ 23 evils. Jesus asserted that fact : ' Yerily I say unto you, Whosoever 
 shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the 
 sea ; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he 
 saith Cometh to pass ; he shall have it.' The Sinaitic MS. begins : ' If 
 you have faith in God, verily I say unto you . . ,' but that reading, 
 although indicated by Tischendorf was not adopted by him. In the 
 Authorised Version the verse ends with the words, ' he shall have 
 whatsoever he saith,' which is uow altered to, ' he shall have it,' in 
 accordance with the two oldest MSS. Matthew's fuller record of the 
 Avords of Jesus places the uprooting of the mountain and the withering- 
 si Mat. 21 of the fig tree in the same category. ' And Jesus answered and said 
 unto them. Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, 
 ye shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if ye shall 
 say unto this mountain. Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it 
 shall be done.' The Authorised Version stands : ' ye shall not only 
 do this whkh is done to the fig tree ; ' omitting the italicised words 
 ' which is done,' the sentence would stand, ' ye shall not only do this 
 to the fig tree.' This brings out the character of the action itself, as 
 does also Young's literal rendering : ' not only this of the fig tree 
 shall ye do.' The acts are of the same kind : both abnormal, needless, 
 destructive, interfering with the settled order of the universe, 
 bringing no advantage to mankind, but the reverse, introducing 
 confusion into the harmony of nature, the human will, selfish, 
 passionate, reckless, setting itself against physical arrangements and 
 sequences ordained from of old by the will of God. Jesus was 
 hungry, sought fruit, found none, and instantly cursed the tree 
 appointed to bear it. There was none to say him nay : he had the 
 power, a faith in his own word sufficient for the purpose, and he 
 spoke the word and exercised the poAver. What he had done, others 
 also could do : there is no limit to the oi^eration of man's will up to 
 the point in which he has confidence in himself. True, no man save 
 Jesus knew the secret of working that mighty spiritual influence; 
 but in the direction of beneficence he had imparted it to some extent . 
 to his disciples, and when they on one occasion had failed in their 
 attempt to imitate him, he had attributed their want of success to a 
 lack of faith, Avhich faith he now declares to be an influence more 
 subtile than the process of vegetable life, and mightier than the force 
 of gravitation. Jesus is asserting the existence of a common attri- 
 bute of humanity : ' Whosoever shall say . . shall not doubt in his 
 heart . . shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass . . ye shall 
 not only do what is done . . but even if ye shall say . . it shall be 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 263 
 
 done.' It is all personal to man, a pure act of volition on his part : 
 intact and in a word — man's faith in himself. What Jesus ur^-ed 
 them to aim at and cultivate was ])recisely the reverse of that. 
 Instead of sayino-, Have faith in yourselves, he says : ' Have faith in 
 God,' which "Youuo- renders ' Ilave God's faith,' in opposition to 
 man's faith, a faith'submissive to the divine will and satisfied to rest 
 upon the divine working. This unwonted, strange act of Jesus 
 carried and proclaimed its own moral ; it was as though he said to 
 them. You see what mischief I am able to do. You will be able to 
 do the same. I would have you fully conscious of that power, and 
 draw from it a lesson, not of self-conhdence and self-will, but of sub- 
 missiveness and prayer. Let your faith work in that direction only. 
 If you can do mischief, God can do all things ; be persuaded that he 
 doeth all things well, and strong in that faith, l)e passive, and make 
 your requests known unto him. 'Therefore I say unto you, All n Mark 24 
 things whatsoe\er ye pray and ask for, believe that ye ha^•e received 
 them, and ye shall have them.' The Authorised Version has : 
 ' Whatsoever things ye desire, when ye pray,' which stands in the 
 two oldest MS8. thus : ' What things soever ye ])ray and desire.' 
 The Revised Version, 'whatsoever ye pray and ask for,' does not 
 quite correspond with that, nor does Dr. Davidson's rendering of 
 Tischendorf as, 'whatsoever ye pray for and ask.' In all three 
 versions a formal petition is implied, whereas the words ' what things 
 soever ye pray and desire,' may include both actual prayer and desire 
 unspoken. The Authorised Version has, ' believe that ye receive,' 
 now altered to ' believe that ye have received,' which Alford states is 
 the reading of ' most ancient authorities ; ' it is adopted by Tischen- 
 dorf, although not noted by him as the reading of either of the three 
 oldest M8S. The sense appears to be this : Let your faith have refer- 
 ence to God. Whatever you ask, let it always be something which 
 has already been vouchsafed by God, and which cannot therefore be 
 contrary to his will ; let it never be anything which lies outside the 
 scope of his gifts, or is opposed to his providential arrangements, as 
 to blight a tree or overturn a mountain. Matthew's account is con- 
 densed. He simply records the saying thus : ' And all things, what- 21 Mat. -yi 
 soever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.' 80 much 
 of the discourses of Jesus as those who first reported them were able 
 to record, has been handed down to us. In this instance Matthew's 
 narrative is imperfect. Even when the snyings of Jesus are noted, 
 however correctly and fully, it does not follow that the evangelists 
 always grasped their meaning. To elucidate that, to get, as it were, 
 behind the mind of Jesus, it is necessary to compare the records and 
 exercise a careful and independent judgment. ^lark has here 
 brought out in the discourse of Jesus, a connecting link, ' Therefore 
 I say unto you,' which Matthew seems to have missed. Jesus brings 
 into close connection two things which we are a])t to view apart : 
 the power of man, and the power of prayer. He argues : because 
 yon are able of yourselves to exercise unbounded supremacy over 
 nature, therefore be sure that whatever you confidently ask or wish, 
 you will receive : therefore ask and wish nothing which you ought 
 not. Jesus willed the destruction of the fig tree : he brought to 
 bear upon it, we know not how, some mysterious power, we know not 
 what, and his desire was accomplished. If a man wills to overturn 
 
264 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 a monntaiu, it is because he kno'ws that the act lies within the 
 compass of his power ; if not, his professed will would be an impos- 
 ture upon himself. Addressing: his disciples generally, not in- 
 dividually, Jesus added that if they desired anything, they must 
 believe that it was a thing granted them to have, and their wish 
 would l>e fulfilled. The answer to prayer, ' uttered or unexpressed,' 
 is through human instrumentality. We pray for daily bread. There 
 is no need for the formal utterance of the petition, except that it is 
 well for us to look up to God, and when we do so to recognise the 
 fact that the supply of our necessities is in harmony with and 
 dependent upon his will. The life of every creature is in itself a 
 prayer for the nourishment needed for its preservation. 
 
 i!j4 r.sa. 27 'These wait all upon thee. 
 
 That thou mayest give them their meat in due season.' 
 But the skies do not rain down upon man unground corn or flour or 
 wheat : he must sow, reap, grind, and prepare the food; not each indivi- 
 dual for himself, but some for all ; the community as a whole thus bring- 
 ing to pass the universal prayer, ' Give us this day our daily bread.' It 
 is so Avith everything we need, pray for and desire : all things 
 vouchsafed to mankind must come to us through men, in connection 
 with that power of self-help and mastery over the material world with 
 w^hich it has pleased God to endow us. ' Thei-efore I say unto you, 
 All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye have 
 received them, and ye shall have them.' That is the law of God's 
 giving and of man's asking and receiving. 
 
 And the law of forgiveness runs parallel therewith. Jesus touched 
 
 11 Mark 25 upou that also. 'And Avhensoever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye 
 have aught against any one ; that your Father also Avhich is in 
 
 ■2 Maik 0, 7 hcaveu may forgive you youi- trespasses.' The Jewish doctors held 
 that none but God could forgive sins, and that it was rank blasphemy 
 for men to profess to do so. Jesus taught, on the contrary, that the 
 forgiveness of sins was the privilege of humanity, and that the pre- 
 rogative of divine forgiveness would not, could not, be exercised 
 independently thereof. Not only did he class them together, but he 
 
 Mat. 14, ij declared plainly that they must act in conjunction. 'For if ye 
 forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive 
 you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your 
 Father forgive your trespasses.' The disciples of Jesus are bound to 
 
 11 Luke 4 pi'fiy in these terms : ' Forgive us our sins ; for Ave oursehes also 
 forgive every one that is indebted to us.' Every law of God is for 
 man's benefit, and cA'ery infraction of his law a sin against humanity. 
 So long as man continues to call man to account for Avrongs com- 
 mitted, forgiveness is an impossibility. To suppose that God forgives 
 when man does not, or that man can forgive when God does not, is to 
 take away reality from forgiveness, making it not a fact, but a form 
 of words, a mere sentiment or emotion of the mind. Jesus did not 
 take that surface vieAv of the question. His teaching Avent deeper far, 
 down to the very root of the matter. He saAV, and tried to make his 
 disciples see, that God's forgiveness Avas contingent upon man's, the 
 latter being the antecedent and earnest, if not the form and embodi- 
 ment of the former. This doctrine is too important to be passed 
 Avithout a thorough inA'estigation of the Scriptural meaning of the 
 word forcfiveness." According to Cruden's Concordance the Avords 
 
PART 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFELS. 205 
 
 * forgive, forgiven, forgiveth, forgiveness, forgivenesses,' occur in the 
 Old Testament 44 times. Three of those i)assages relate to human 
 forgiveness, and 41 to divine forgiveness, and in every instance the 
 actual remission of a punishment is connected with the word. Only 
 with respect to two passages could there be a moment's hesitation in 
 arriving at that conclusion: the first relates to the forgiveness of aaoxum. 
 woman's vow, and the context there (verse 15), declares that the 
 husband 'shall bear her iniquity ; ' the second is : 'Thou, Lord, art so Ps. 5 
 good and ready to forgive,' and there the context alludes to a prayer 
 for help in a day of trouble. Some of the passages in Leviticus and 
 Numbers relate to offerings, ending with the words, ' they sliall be 
 forgiven . . he shall be forgiven : ' to such instances the statement 
 applies, that under the law ' every transgression and disobedience 2 Heb. -i 
 received a just recompense of reward.' In the Gospels forgiveness is 
 alluded to ;>2 times. The passages may be classified as follows : 
 
 (a) By the Son of man, 12 times ; (b) divine, conditional on 
 human, 8 times ; (c) of a brother, 'A times ; (d) of a sinful woman, 
 twice ; (e) of all sins except blasphemy agaiust the Holy Spirit, 5 
 times ; (f) Father, forgive them, once; (g) it should be forgiven them, 4 Mark i 
 once. There is nothing in these passages inconsistent with the previous 
 conclusion that forgiveness signifies the remission of a punishment, an 
 actual deliverance from a condition brought about by wrong conduct. 
 
 In the Acts and Epistles forgiveness is alluded to 10 times. The 
 passages may be classified as follows : (a) Of offences, sins, trespasses, 
 and avoidance of punishment, 12 limes ; (b) mutual, 3 times ; (c) 
 'Forgive me this wrong,' once. There is still nothing to alter the 
 previous conchision. The idea of absolution or forgiveness ajiart from 
 an actual, evident remission of punishment, has no foundation in 
 Scripture. If the penalty due to an offence is exacted by man, it 
 cannot truly be declared forgiven by God : 'Forgive . . ihat your 
 Fatlier also which is in heaven may forgive : ' that was the doctrine 
 of Jesus, the aspect of divine in conjunction with human forgiveness 
 which he repeatedly and earnestly impressed upon his disciples. Lee 
 us honestly and boldly face the truth in this matter. Take the case 
 of a thief or a murderer, the one condemned to penal servitude, the 
 other to death. Unless the sentence be revoked it would be absurd 
 to say that either of the criminals was forgiven : they are left to bear 
 the punishment of their iniquity, and death to the manslayer was 
 ordained by God himself. The accusers, the witnesses, the jury, the 
 judge, the jailer, ihe executioner, all combine to punish the trans- 
 gression, not to forgive it. Suppose Jesus were to revisij.the world, 
 and were to say. Forgive those men. That could have but one 
 meaning : remit the penalty. Yet that would be precisely what he 
 had said before. That earnest seeker after truth. Count Leon 
 Tolstoi, has grappled with this difficult question among others. His 
 reasonings, fearless, unsophisticated, luminous, are well worth our 
 pondering. He says :* ' I was drawn away from the Church by 
 various singularities in its dogmas ; by its approval of persecution, 
 capital punishment, war : and also by its intolerance of all other forms 
 of worship than its own ; but my faith in the teaching of the Church 
 was shaken still more by its indifference to what seemed to me the 
 
 * " Wliat I Believe," pp. 6—25. 
 
266 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 very basis of the teaching of Christ, and by its evident partiality for 
 what I could not consider an essential part of that doctrine ... I 
 turned away from the Church. For the precepts which were given 
 me by the Church concerning belief in dogmas, observance of the 
 sacraments, fast-days, prayers, I did not care ; and precepts really 
 founded on the teachings of Christ were wanting . . . What perplexed 
 me most of all was, that all the evil things that men do, such as con- 
 demning private individuals, whole nations, or other rehgions ; and 
 the inevitable results of these condemnations — executions and wars — 
 were justified by the Church. I saw that the doctrine of Christ, 
 which teaches us humility, tolerance, forgiveness, self-denial, and 
 love, was extolled by the Church, but that at the same time she 
 sanctioned what was incompatible with such teachings ... It was 
 only after losing all faith in the explanations of learned theology and 
 criticism, and after laying them all aside, in obedience to the words of 
 Christ (Mark x. 15), that I began to understand what had till then 
 seemed incomprehensible to me. It was not by deep thought only, or 
 by skilfully comparing or commenting on the texts of the Gospel, 
 that I came to understand the doctrine. On the contrary, all grew 
 clear to me for the very reason that I had ceased to rest on mere 
 interpretations. The text that gave me the key to the truth was the 
 thirty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew : " Ye have 
 heard that it hath been said. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for 
 a tooth. But I say tmto you, that ye resist not evil.'" The 
 simple meaning of these words suddenly flashed full upon 
 me ; 1 accepted the fact that Christ meant exactly what He 
 said; and then, though I had found nothing new, all that had 
 hitherto obscured the truth cleared away, and the truth itself arose 
 before me in all its solemn importance . . . Now I understood that 
 the whole force of the teaching lay in the words, " resist not evil," and 
 that all the context was but an application of that great precept. I 
 saw" that Christ does not require us to turn the other cheek, and to 
 give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer ; but He teaches us 
 not to resist evil, and warns us that so doing may involve personal 
 suffering . . . Christ meant to say, "Whatever men may do to you, 
 bear, suffer, submit ; but never resist evil." What could be clearer, 
 more intelligible, and more indubitable than this ? As soon as I 
 understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had 
 appeared confused to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible ; . 
 Avhat had seemed contradictory now became consistent, and what I 
 had deemed superfluous became indispensable. All united in one 
 whole, one part fitting into and supporting the other, like the pieces 
 of a broken statue put together again in their proper places. 'J'liis 
 doctrine of " non-resistance " is commended again and again in the 
 Gospels. In the " Sermon on the Mount " Christ represents his 
 followers — i.e., those who fohow this law of non-resistance — as liable 
 to be persecuted, stoned, and reduced to beggary. Elsewhere He tells 
 us that the disciple Avho does not take up His cross, who is not willing 
 to renounce all, cannot be His follower, and He thus describes the man 
 who is ready to bear the consequences that may result from the 
 practice of the doctrine of non-resistance. Christ says to His dis- 
 ciples : " Be poor, be ready to bear persecution, suffering, and even 
 death, without resisting evil." He prepared for suffering and death 
 
PART II.] A .STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 207 
 
 Himself without resistinu' evil ; reproved Peter avIio 2,Tieved over ITiin 
 because He proposed thus to yield ; and he died, forbidding others to 
 resist evil, remaining true to His own doctrine in His own example. 
 All His first discijiles obeyed the same law of non-resistance of evil ; 
 and passed their lives in disability and persecution. We may bring- 
 forward as an objection, the difficulty of always obeying such a law ; 
 we may even say, as multitudes do, that it is a foolish doctrine, that 
 Christ was a dreamer, an idealist, who gave precepts which it is 
 impossible to follow. But, whatever our objections may be, we can- 
 not deny that Christ expresses His meaning most clearly and dis- 
 tinctly ; and His meaning is, that man must not resist ovil ; he who 
 fully accepts His teaching cannot resist evil ... If a man were to 
 set all the faculties of his mind to the anindling of a given law, wdiat 
 more forcible argument could he use for its suppression than that it 
 was an impracticable law, and that the legislator's own opinion of it 
 was, that it could not be kept without superiuitural aid ? And yet 
 this was exactly what I had thought about the commandment "not to 
 resist evil." I tried to remember when and how the strange idea had 
 first come into my mind, that the doctrine of Christ was divine in 
 authority, but impossible in practice. On reviewing my past life, I 
 discovered that this idea had never been transmitted to me in all its 
 nakedness, for then it would have repelled me ; but that I had imper- 
 ceptibly imbibed it from my earliest childhood, and that the associa- 
 tions of my life had confirmed the strange error. I was taught from 
 my childhood that Christ is God, and that His teaching is divine and 
 authoritative ; while, on the other hand, I was also told to respect 
 those institutions which, by means of violence, secured my safety from 
 evil ; I was taught to honour those institutions as being sacred. I 
 was taught to resist evil ; aud it was instilled into me that it was 
 humiliating and dishonourable to submit to evil, and to suffer from 
 it ; and that it was praiseworthy to resist evil. I was taught to con- 
 demn and to execute. I was taught to make war, i.e., to resist evil 
 by murder. The army, a member of which I was, was called a 
 " Christ-loving " army, and its mission was consecrated by the Church. 
 I was taught to resist an offender by violence ; to avenge a private 
 insult, or one against my native laud, by violence. All this was never 
 regarded as wrong, but, on the contrary, I was told that it was per- 
 fectly right, and in nowise contrary to Christ's doctrine. All 
 sun'ounding interests, such as the peace aud safety of myself and 
 family, and of my property, were based on the law^ that was rejected 
 by Christ — on the law of " a tooth for a tooth." Ecclesiastical 
 teachers told me that the doctrine of Christ was divine, but that its 
 observance was impossible on account of the weakness of human 
 nature ; and that the grace of God alone could enable us to keep this 
 law. Secular teachers told me, and the whole order of life proved, 
 that the teaching of Christ was impracticable and ideal, and that we 
 must, in fact, live contrary to His doctrine. Such a notion of the 
 practical impossibility of fohowing the divine doctrine was imbibed 
 by me gradually and almost imperceptibly. I was so accustomed to 
 it, it coincided so well with all my animal feehngs, that I had never 
 observed the contradiction in which I lived. I did not see that it was 
 impossible to admit the Godhead of Christ — the basis of whose 
 teaching is non-resistance of evil — aud, at the same time, to 
 
268 THE KING ANT) THE KINGBOIT: [part ii. 
 
 work cons,ciously and calmly for the institntions of property, courts of 
 law, kiTigdoms, the army, and so on. It could not be consistent for 
 us to regulate our lives contrary to the doctrine of Christ, and then 
 pray to the same Christ that we might be enabled to keep His com- 
 mandments — to " forgive," and not to "resist evil." . . . 1\\ icordl 
 acknowledged the teaching of Christ as sacred ; but I did not carry 
 out that teaching in deed, for I admitted, and respected, the un- 
 christian iustitutions which surrounded me ... To affirm that the 
 Christian doctrine refers only to personal salvation, and has no bear- 
 ing upon state affairs, is a great error. To say so, is but to assert an 
 audacious, groundless, most evident untruth, which a moment's serious 
 reflection suffices to destroy. Well, say I to myself, I will not resist 
 evil ; as a private man, I will let myself be smitten ; but what am I 
 to do if an enemy invade my native land, or other nations oppress it ? 
 I am called upon to take part in a struggle against evil — to go and 
 kill. The question immediately arises : "Which will be serving God, 
 and which will be serving " toga " (vain things) ? To go, or not to 
 go ? Suppose I am a peasant ; I am chosen as the senior member of 
 ray village, as judge, as juryman. I am bound to take an oath, to 
 judge, to punish. Fellow-creature, what am I to do ? I have again 
 to choose between the law of God and the law of man. Or let us say, 
 I am a monk, and live in a monastery ; the neighbouring peasants 
 have taken possession of the hay we had mown for our own use. I 
 am sent to take part in a struggle against evil — to prosecute these 
 men. I have again to choose betw^een the laws of God and the laws 
 of man, None of us can evade the demand for such a decision. To 
 say nothing of the class of society which I belong to — military men, 
 judges, administrators, whose whole lives are passed in resisting evil 
 — there is not a single private individual, be he ever so insignificant, 
 who has not to choose between serving God by fulfilling His com- 
 mandments, or serving the " toga " in the Government institutions of 
 his country. Our private lives are interwoven with the organization 
 of the State, and the latter requires unchristian duties of us, contrary 
 to the commandment of Christ. At the present time, the military 
 service, which is obligatory on all, and the participation of each, as 
 jurymen, in the courts of law, place the dilemma with striking clear- 
 ness before all. Each man is called upon to take up an instrument of 
 murder — a gun, a sword — even if he do not kill a fellow creature ; 
 he loads the gun and sharpens the sword, i.e., he is ready to commit 
 murder. Each citizen is called upon to enter the courts of law, to 
 take part in judging and punishing his fellow creature ; i.e., each 
 must renounce the doctrine of Christ which teaches us not to resist 
 evil. . . Christ says : " Resist not evil." The sole object of courts 
 of law is — to resist evil. Christ enjoins us to return good for evil. 
 Courts of law return evil for evil. Christ says : "Make no distinction 
 between the just and the unjust." Courts of law do nothing else, 
 Christ says : " Forgive all ; forgive not once, not seven times, forgive 
 without end. Love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you." 
 Courts of law do not forgive, but they punish ; they do not do good, 
 but evil, to those whom they call the enemies of society." 
 
 The world and the Church, if they will but hearken, are in- 
 debted to Count Leon Tolstoi for his uncompromising logic. 
 However startling and unconventional this disclosure of the naked 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF TILE FOUll (U)SPELS. 209 
 
 trutli. it is well for us to recognise' the true form of Christianity, 
 undraped by the garments woven by human hands after the fashion 
 of the world. Like Luther, Tolstoi is bold enough to think and act 
 for himself, and his voice and example are a trumpet call to the 
 sluml)eriMg churches. Christ's doctrine is clear and incontrovertible. 
 The maxims of worldly prudence by which it has been obscured, and 
 the (pialiticationsand exceptions devised by men, must needs be swept 
 away. Tiiat being done, the only (piestion is as to the limitations 
 laid down by Christ himself. Did he impose his teachings 
 upon all men, and call upon all to follow them ? Assuredly he did 
 not. That fact has been lost sight of by Tolstoi. What Jesus 
 s])akc, he spake to his disciples, and he repelled from discipleship all 
 Avho were not prepared to adopt his teaching, with all the suffering, 
 self-denial, and self-sacrifice it entailed. Jesus drew a broad line of 
 demarcation between his disciples and mankind in general. ' They irjcim n; 
 are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.' They were 
 separated from other men, called to live an unworldly life. There 
 are precepts of universal obligation, but this is not one of them. God 
 ' commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:' not ir Arts af 
 that they should all become disciples. 'God our Saviour; who 21. Tim. 4 
 A\illeth that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of 
 the truth : ' we must not presume to add : and profess themselves 
 disciples of Jesus. The preaching of Jesus to men in general is thus 
 summarised : ' Repent ye, and believe the gospel ; ' and his disciples 1 Mmk 1.-. 
 ' went out, and preached that men should repent.' Not a word did Mark 1-2 
 Jesus say to the multitudes to this effect : 'Ye are the salt of the 
 earth ... Ye are the light of the world : ' such teaching, although 
 in public, is addressed to his disciples, to whom he could say also : 
 ' Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and ^ Mat. 11 
 say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.' Jt excited 
 the astonishment of the disciples that Jesus always taught the multi- 
 tudes in parabolic form : ' Without a parable spake he nothing unto 13 Jiat. 34 
 them.' And he explained that they were neither disposed nor able to 
 receive from him any deeper teaching : ' Unto you it is given to know s Luke 10 
 the mysteries of the kingdom of God : but to the rest in parables ; 
 that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not under- 
 stand.' There is no foundation for the idea that Jesus expected or 
 desired that all men should follow the precepts given to his disciples. 
 On one occasion Peter asked him: ' 8peakest thou this parable i^L"ke 41 
 unto us, or even unto all .' ' That question alone is sufficient proof 
 that the disciples did not regard every doctrine of Jesus as of 
 universal application. Such an assumption, however general, is as 
 absurd as it Avould be to imagine the mysteries and duties of Free- 
 masonry to be incumbent upon those who have nev^er joined that 
 fraternity. Jesus enlisted his disciples for no light enterprise. He 
 had come to establish the rule of heaven upon earth, the kingdom of 
 God among mankind. That involved the annulment of ancient and 
 divinely-authorised laws, and the substitution of higher principles of 
 action. It was a new departure ; a fresh step onward in the progress 
 of humanity. It was decreed, moreover, that Jesus himself must be 
 the first martyr in his own cause ; and it is a sublime fact, of vast 
 significance, that a conference was held between himself, Moses and 
 Elijah, on the mountain-top, wherein was discussed the subject of 
 
270 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 Luke 31 ' his decease which he was about to accomphsh at Jerusalem.' The 
 first Jewish lawgiver approved and directed the course adopted by 
 Jesus, sauctiouing and welcoming his method of enlarging and alter- 
 ing the former code, Moses himself revisiting the earth, acknowledg- 
 
 r. Mat. 3s, 30 ing Jesus, and thereby tacitly endorsing his command : ' Ye have 
 heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth : 
 but I say unto you, Eesist not him that is evil.' That was but one 
 of many precepts, all equally startling, connected therewith. The 
 disciples were iorbidden to take an oath, to go to law, to resent an 
 outrage, to accumulate property, to perform the functions of a judge. 
 Tolstoi writes : ' Now I understand what Christ meant when he said, 
 " Ye have heard that it hath been said. An eye for an eye, and a tooth 
 for a tooth. And I say unto j'ou, that ye resist not evil." Christ 
 means, "You have been taught to consider it right and rational to pro- 
 tect yourselves against evil by violence, to pluck out an eye for an eye, 
 to institute courts of law for the punishment of criminals, to have a 
 ])olice, an army, to defend you against the attacks of an enemy ; but 
 I say to you, do no violence to any man, take no part in violence, 
 never do evil to any man, not even to those Avhom ye call your 
 enemies." I now understood that, in this doctrine of noa-resistance, 
 Christ not only tells us what the natural result of following this 
 doctrine will be, but by placing the same doctrine in opposition 
 to the Mosaic law, the Roman law, and the various codes of 
 the present time, He clearly shows that it ought to be the basis 
 of our social existence, and should deliver us from the evil we 
 have brought on ourselves. He says : " You think to amend 
 evil by your laws, but they only aggravate it. There is one way by 
 which you can put a stop to evil ; it is by indiscriminately returning 
 good for evil. You have tried the other law for thousands of years ; 
 now try Mine, which is the very reverse." ' In the early days of 
 Christianity the disciples of Jesus acted up to his precepts. Justin 
 Martyr (a.d. 140) says : ' We who were once slayers of one another, 
 do not now fight against our enemies.' Irenfeus, bishop of Lyons 
 (A.D. 107) states that the followers of Jesus had disused their weapons 
 of war, and no longer knew how to fight. TertuUian, later (a.d. 200), 
 alludes to Christians who were engaged in military pursuits ; but on 
 another occasion informs us that many soldiers quitted those pursuits 
 in consequence of their conversion to Christianity, and repeatedly 
 expresses his opinion that any participation in Avar is unlawful for 
 believers in Jesus, not only because of the idolatrous practices of the 
 Roman armies, but because Christ has forbidden the use of the sword 
 and the revenge of injuries. Origen (a.d. 230) in his work against 
 Oelsus says : ' We have become for the sake of Jesus the children of 
 jDcace. By our prayers we fight for our king abundantly, but take 
 no part in his wars, even though he urge us,' Is it wonderful that 
 the law which regulates God's kingdom in heaven, should seem out of 
 place and chimerical when introduced into man's kingdom, or rather 
 the devil's kingdom, upon earth ? The aim of Jesus was to introduce 
 into human society that heavenly-mindedness by which alone it can 
 be purified, regenerated, transformed. The new leaven must be put 
 into the old lump, there to grow and spread until the whole should 
 become leavened. It must needs be that the Founder of the new 
 religion, and his first followers, should be martyrs in the cause ; and 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 271 
 
 that others should rise up afterwards, and carry on the work in the 
 same way and spirit. That is the true ministry of Christ, the true 
 preacliing of the cross. The need of the world cries out ibr the 
 constant presence and example of a hody of men prepared to live 
 entirely in accordance with the rule of life laid down by Jesus, and to 
 suffer ii'ladly all the consequences. That ideal has been lost sit^'lit of, 
 and instead thereof we have a Clergy claiming the right of adminis- 
 tering sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, men who 
 expound the Scriptures to us, or for us, christen us, indoctrinate us, 
 marry us, visit us in sickness, bury us. Did Christ ever say one word 
 about such a sphere of duty for liis followers ? That is not his work, 
 his method, his scheme of action. One Tolstoi is w^orth an army of 
 such evangelisers. Not that our clerical brethren are to l)e reproached 
 for the position they occupy. They have not made it for themselves ; 
 they have simply inherited it ; clergy and laity alike, we are all what 
 our forefathers have made us. The so-called Christian community is 
 full of unchristian notions ; about salvation, war, law, the rights and 
 duties of property. Society has never yet been organised upon the 
 Christian basis. That is a consummation which can only be arrived 
 at gradually ; and the departure from the foundation which was laid 
 by Jesus and his apostles has thrown it back many centuries. Only 
 by reverting to his plan can the gospel have free course, run, and be 
 glorified. The first step towards success is to discern what is lacking. 
 '.I'here are multitudes willing to devote themselves to the cause of 
 Jesus, and to do all that he commands, if only his requirements and 
 the Avorld's necessities be rightly apprehended. Mistakes of judgment 
 and of principle in this matter are fatal to the progress of Christianity. 
 The doctrine of Jesus must be disentangled from the parasitic growth 
 of human maxims by which it has been covered and stifled. Let the 
 professed followers of Jesus be called by what name they may : 
 ministers of Christ, disciples, deacons, priests, pastors, bishops ; only 
 let it be understood that they are bound to frame their lives in exact 
 accordance with the pattern of Christ's life and the spirit and letter 
 of his teachings. Such men Avill be the salt of the earth, the light of 
 the world, seen and known of all men, like a city set upon a hill which 
 cannot be hid. With such leaders in light and love, the church will 
 be constituted according to Christ's ideal. The profession of 
 discipleship must be purely optional, as Jesus intended it to be, and 
 all ordained thereto must take up the cross, relinquish wealth, scorn 
 ambition, seek the honour which comes from God only, have their 
 treasure in heaven, their hearts being there also, decline to take any 
 oath by way of allegiance or otherwise, refrain from judicial pro- 
 ceedings, refuse to fight in any cause, either labour for a bare 
 subsistence and distribute the overplus, or be content to give their 
 time and labour to the church in exchange for food, raiment and 
 shelter. Such men, and such men only, will be able to take up the 
 apostle's words : ' Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may 4 i. Joim i: 
 have boldness in the day of judgement ; because as he is, even so are 
 ■we in this world.' They would be living sermons, epistles of Christ, 
 seen and known of all men, ' written not with ink, but with the Spirit 3 ii. Cor. 3 
 of the living God.' What is wanted is a change, not of men, but of 
 aim and system : that instead of simply hearing, year after year and 
 generation after generation, the same doctrines inculcated, we should 
 
272 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ju 
 
 have ever before our eyes patterns and examples of men who, with like 
 passions to ourselves, live the life ordained for them by Christ, each 
 1 Col. 24 of them ready to say, if need be, with the apostle Paul: 'Now I 
 rejoice in my suflferings for your sake, and fill up on ray part that 
 which is lackincf of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, 
 which is the church.' In the strife for freedom and for truth, they 
 must needs sometimes suffer who stand foremost ; but the bitterness 
 of the world's persecution is past, and an imyjlicit adherence to the 
 doctrine of non-resistance now, might not entail the frightful penalties 
 endured by martyrs in darker ages. Be it remembered too, that the 
 chief persecutors in l)ygone times were men who called and deemed 
 themselves Christians, but who, in that matter at least, were as far 
 off from the teaching and spirit of Christ as heaven is from earth, or 
 from hell. If the true doctrine of Jesus had not been wholly 
 obliterated from the miuds of those who claimed to be descendants 
 from him and his apostles, it would have been impossible for them ta 
 lift a hand against any man, far less against those they sought to 
 influence and convert. AVhen the church of Christ begins to adopt 
 his policy, then Christianity will begin to flourish and bear its proper 
 fruit of righteousness and peace. If the gospel of Jesus does not 
 triumph, after all these centuries of preaching, — and who can dare to 
 say it does ? — it must be because some fundamental human error 
 mars and hinders the heaven-sent gift. When that is recognised, the 
 question of amendment will become practical, and not much will be 
 wanted to ensure success. The commandments of Jesus involve self- 
 denial, but they are not grievous. The pecuniary emoluments of most 
 clergymen are so small already, that it would be no sacrifice to them 
 were they formally to renounce, in Christ's name, all hope and desire 
 of property. The great difficulty and trial in connection with that, 
 was the necessity it laid upon men of abstaining from marriage, lest 
 at their death those they loved should be left without provision. But 
 the beneficent system of life assurance would now obviate that, so 
 ameliorating the stern necessity of renouncing for Christ's sake wife 
 and children as well as money and lands. Of course, under the 
 system laid down by Jesus, pluralities and the huge incomes of our 
 Bishops must be abolished : they are of the world, worldly, and befit 
 not those who profess to be followers of a heavenly Master. But 
 there is room in the Church for all, for men of wealth, culture, 
 leisure, who could still devote themselves to preaching and other 
 clerical offices, only taking second rank instead of first, renouncing 
 the vain, pretentious claim of apostolical succession, in favour of those 
 Avho in deed and in truth pro^'c themselves imitators of Jesus and the 
 apostles by life-long poverty and self-sacrifice, deliberately, voluntarily 
 faced for the kingdom of heaven's sake. They alone can claim the 
 title of soldiers of the Cross, and infinitely preferable would be their 
 lot in this life, whatever persecutions and sufferings they might be 
 called to endure, than is that of troops in a fighting army. Tolstoi 
 draws the following graphic contrast between the soldiers of Christ 
 and of the world : * ' Leaving their parents, their wives and children, 
 they go in their buffoon attire, blindly submissive to some superior 
 "whom they hardly know ; cold, hungry, worn out by a march above 
 
 * "What I Believe," p. 182. 
 
PART II.] A SirDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 273 
 
 their streng-tli, they follow him like a herd of oxen to the slaug-hter. 
 But they are not oxen, they arc men ! They cannot help knowing 
 that they are driven to slaughter, with the nnsolvable question, Why 
 must I go ? and with despair in their hearts they go on, many dying 
 off through cold, hunger, and infectious diseases, till those that are 
 left are phiccd under bullets and cannon-balls, and ordered to kill men 
 whom they know nothing about. They kill and are at last killed 
 themselves, and not one of those who kills his fellow-creature knows 
 why he does so . . . And no sooner docs anyone call than others go 
 to the same dreadful suffering and to death. And nobody finds it 
 hard. Xeither do they themselves think it hard, nor do their fathers 
 and mothers tiiink so ; the latter even advise their children to go. 
 Xot only do they think it necessary and unavoidable, but even 
 perfectly right and moral. We might think the fulfilling of Christ's 
 doctrine difficult if it were really an easy and pleasant thing to live 
 according to the teaching of the world. But it is much more difficult, 
 dangerous and painful to do so than it is to live up to the doctrine of 
 Christ. It is said that formerly there were martyrs for Christianity, 
 l;)ut these were exceptional cases ; we reckon about tliree hundred and 
 eighty thousand voluntary and involuntary martyrs for Christianity in 
 the course of 1800 years. JSTow count those that have died for the 
 teaching of the world, and for each martyr for Christianity you will 
 find a tliousand martyrs for the world's sake, wliose sufferings were a 
 hnudredfold more dreadful. Thirty millions have been killed in war 
 during the present century alone. Those were all martyrs for the 
 world's sake. Had they but rejected the teaching of the world, even 
 without following the doctrine of Christ, they would have escaped 
 suffering and death . . . We need not be martyrs for Christ's sake ; 
 that is noi what He requires of us. But he teaches us to cease 
 martyrizing our own selves for the sake of the false teaching of the 
 world. The doctrine of Christ has a deep metaphysical purport ; it 
 has a purport general to all humanity ; the doctrine of Christ has the 
 simplest, clearest, most practical purport for each of us. We may 
 express this idea in a few words. Christ teaches men not to act 
 foohshly. It this lies the simplest sense of Christ's doctrine, and it is 
 one each has it in his power to understand.' There is a mine of 
 philosophy in that simple sentence of Tolstoi : ' Christ teaches men not 
 to act foolishly ; ' and also in the following : ' In order to secure an 
 uncertain life, for an uncertain future, we resolutely ruin our real 
 lives in the actual present.' The salvation designed by Christ is the 
 salvation of mankind in this life. Losing sight of that truth, our 
 spiritual guides teach us to acquiesce in its postponement to the next. 
 Not aiming at Christ's pattern-life themselves, they have left the 
 world to its own course, and instead of overcoming it have been 
 overcome by it. 
 
 In the Authorised Version the following Averse is added : ' But if n Mark -26 
 ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive 
 your trespasses.' This is not in the two oldest MSS., and the Revisers 
 have banished it to the margin. 
 
 The expression, ' Xo man eat fruit from thee henceforward for „ u 
 ever ' is rendered by Dr. Young literally, ' Xo more from thee — for 
 the age — may any eat fi'uit.' Obviously the ' age ' or natural 
 duration of the tree is alluded to. In the same way, when Jesus 
 
274 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 promises men life ' to the age,' or ' age-during life,' the meaning is 
 restricted to the full term of man's natural existence. 
 
 On returning to Jerusalem after spending a night in Bethany, 
 Jesus entered the temple. He found it already occupied. It was 
 transformed for the time being into a market place. Traffic and 
 money changing were going on, and sellers of doves were comfortably 
 seated. Not for such purposes had the temple been built, and to see 
 its sacredness thus set at naught excited the indignation of Jesus. 
 Unhesitatingly and alone he undertook the task of preventing such 
 
 ■21 Mat. 1-2 acts of desecration. ' And Jesus entered into the temple of God, 
 and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and over- 
 threw the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that 
 sold the doves.' The words ' of (}od ' after ' temple ' are not in the 
 two oldest MSS., and the Revisers note that they are omitted in 
 
 u)LTike4.j 'many ancient authorities.' Luke's account is very concise : 'And 
 he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold.' 
 The words ' and them that bought ' are omitted by the Revisers, not 
 being in the two oldest MSS. Mark's account shows that Jesus not 
 only ejected the trespassers but held possession, not even allowing 
 
 n Maik 15, those bearing vessels to pass through the building. 'And they 
 
 ^'' come to Jerusalem : and he entered into the temple, and began to 
 
 cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and 
 
 overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them 
 
 that sold the doves ; and he would not suffer that any man should 
 
 10 Luki- 40 carry a vessel through the temple.' Luke continues : ' saying unto 
 them. It is written. And my house shall be a house of prayer : but 
 ye have made it a den of robbers.' The conciseness of the narrative 
 might lead to the conclusion that these words were addressed to the 
 traffickers, but Mark explains that they formed part of a subsequent 
 
 n Mark IV discoursc : ' And he taught, and said unto them, Is it not written, 
 My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations ? but 
 
 •21 Mat 13 ye have made it a den of robbers.' Matthew is as follows : ' And he 
 saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of 
 prayer : but ye make it a den of robbers.' Following the two oldest 
 MSS., the Revisers have altered 'ye have made' to 'ye make,' 
 rendered by Alford and Tischendorf ' ye are making.' The passage 
 
 5c. isa.r in Isaiah stands : ' Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for 
 all peoples.' The second portion appears to be a quotation based 
 
 7 jnr. 11 upon the words of Jeremiah : ' Is this house which is called by my 
 name, become a den of robbers in your eyes ? ' Having expelled the 
 godless, grasping traders, Jesus is expostulating with the people foi- 
 permitting such a scandalous misuse of the temple. The abuse was 
 of long standing, and needed to be put down with a strong hand. 
 The work of Jesus in the place was indeed sacred : he not only 
 taught, but put forth his marvellous powers of healing. Blind men 
 and cripples found their wa,y to the temple, and received the blessing 
 
 ■21 Mai 14 of restored sight and vigour. ' And the blind and the lame came to 
 him in the temple : and he healed them.' 
 
 Very near the beginning of John's gospel stands the following 
 
 ■2 John 13-10 record : ' And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went 
 up to Jerusalem. And he found in the temple those that sold oxen 
 and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting • and he 
 
PART 11.] A HTUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 276 
 
 iriarle a scourge of cords, and cast all out of tlie temple, both the 
 sliecp and the oxen ; and he poured out the changers' money, and over- 
 threw their tables ; and to them that sold the doves lie said, Take 
 tliese things hence ; make not my Father's house a house of 
 merchandise.' This is so similar to the foregoing accounts that, 
 apart from any apparent reason to the contrary, we shonld assume 
 the incident to be one and the same. That idea is repudiated by 
 Alford. He says : ' It is impossible to suppose that St. Matthew or 
 St. John, or any one but moderately acquainted with the events 
 which he undertook to relate, should have made such a gross error in 
 chronology as must be laid to the charge of one or other of them, if 
 these two occurrences wei-e the same.' That argument would be 
 valid enough on two assumptions : (1) that it was always the inten- 
 tion of the evangelists to write chronologically ; (2) that the manu- 
 script was bound together like a modern book, and so bound before 
 it left the hands of its author. There is no evidence, no iDrobability 
 that such was the case. The original records of what Jesus did and 
 said were most likely made at the time, as opportunity offered. This 
 applies especially to John's gospel, which contains long discourses 
 of Jesus, the recording of which was not attempted by any other 
 e\angelist. If the leaves were numbered at all, the numbering would 
 most likely not be consecutive from first to last : each portion might 
 be paged separately. In that case, the order of the events would 
 <lepend upon the binder rather than the ^\Titer. The Rev. J. J. 
 Halcombe claims to have made the important disco^"ery that an 
 entire section of Luke's narrative has been displaced from time 
 immemorial, and that the portion from the 14th verse of the 12th 
 chapter to the 21st verse of the 13th chapter should be inserted 
 between verses 21 and 22 of the 8th chapter. The close agreement 
 lietween John's account and that of the three other evangelists may 
 be taken to indicate that it has been misplaced in the fourth gospel. 
 Both this latter portion of the 2nd chapter and the whole of the 
 3rd chapter of John, relating the conversation with Nicodemus, 
 probably belonged to a later period. It is not easily conceivable 
 that Jesus would have commenced his career with such an action, or 
 that he should have been visited by a ruler of the Pharisees so soon 
 after his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, with the acknowledg- 
 ment : ' Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God : 3 
 for no man can do these signs that thou doest, except God be 
 with him.' 
 
 Whether Jesus twice in his life, or once only, took upon, himself to 
 purge the temple, is not a question of much importance. Only John 
 makes mention of the oxen and sheep, and of the scourge of cords, 
 which would be necessary in order to drive them out. Alford 
 observes : ' That our Lord used the scourge on the beasts only, not 
 on the sellers of them, is almost necessarily contained in the form of 
 the sentence here : which, according to the grammar of the original, 
 shonld be rendered, " He drove all out of the temple, both the sheep 
 and the oxen." ' The Revisers have adopted that rendering, instead 
 of the Authorised Version, ' he drove them all out of the temple, and 
 the shee]i, and the oxen.' We may feel sure that Jesus never h'fted 
 his hand against any man. Luke says only, he 'began to cast out 
 them that sold,' which seems to involve physical force, if not herculean 
 
 T 2 
 
276 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 strength. But tlie other evangelists explain the method by which he 
 accomplished the object : when the sheep and oxen were driven 
 away, the owners must of course follow ; when the bowls of coin 
 were overturned together with the tables, the money-changers would 
 be glad to collect their money and escape from the presence of Jesus ; 
 and the dove-sellers were got rid of, with the doves, by throwing 
 down their seats and stands, coupled with the expostulation, ' Take 
 these things hence.' John attributes their departure to the expostula- 
 tion only. When the cattle-dealers and bankers had gone, it would 
 have been useless for others to remain. No market could be held, no 
 bargaining go on, in face of such disturbance. 
 
 The disciples of Jesus must have regarded with astonishment a 
 scene so strange and unexpected. Discussing the matter among 
 themselves, they called to mind a passage in the Psalms, — which 
 were probably as familiar to them as they are to members of the 
 Church of England, — a passage which seemed to foretell just such an 
 ■j.ii.iniiT outburst of zeal in connection with the temple. 'His disciples 
 remembered that it was written. The zeal of thine house shall eat 
 me up.' In the Authorised Version it is, ' hath eaten me up.' 
 Tischendorf notes that in the thi-ee oldest MSS. the words are 
 ' eateth me up,' and in his version the quotation stands, ' Zeal for 
 "■•:' I''*- '•' thine house consumes me.' In the Psalm the passage reads : ' For 
 the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.' 
 
 It was l)ut natural that after so high-handed a proceeding on the 
 ■2 3„hu IS part of Jesus, he should be called upon to justify his conduct. ' The 
 Jews therefore answered and said unto him. What sign shewest thou 
 unto us, seeing that thou doest these things ? ' The word ' there- 
 fore ' may be taken to involve a connection not only with the act 
 itself, but with the interpretation ^vhich his disciples were putting 
 upon it. Probably theii' opinion agreed with that which Alford 
 expresses as follows : ' This cleansing of the temple was in the direct 
 course of His manifestation as the Messiah.' Jesus took up the 
 challenge. He was prepared to give them such a sign, one which 
 lay beyond the utmost conceivable range of merely human power. 
 
 ,. I'.i 'Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple (or, 
 sanctuary), and in three days I will raise it up.' It was a deep 
 saying, if not a hard one. The temple was for the worship and glory 
 of God. They who desecrated it might carry their irreverence to the 
 length of actually destroying it. In that event, which Jesus seems 
 to speak of as a foregone conclusion, he would be able to repair the 
 mischief done by them : not Avith difficulty, labour, or any long- 
 delay, but within a fixed term of three days. To them the assertion 
 
 „ 20 was an enigma, an inexplicable hyperbole. 'The Jews therefore 
 said, Forty and six years was this temple (or, sanctuary) in building, 
 and wilt thou raise it up in three days ? ' But to us, as to the . 
 disciples Avhen they had become witnesses of the resurrection of 
 
 „ --'1 Jesus, his meaning is clear. 'But he spake of the temple (or, 
 sanctuary) of his body.' When the true sense of the expression 
 'raise it up in three days,' dawned upon the disciples, they called to 
 
 „ 22 mind this occasion when he used it. ' When therefore he was raised 
 from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this.' It is 
 
 „ •-'-' added : ' and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus 
 had said.' Tischendorf renders, ' the word which Jesus spake,' and 
 
i-ART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 277 
 
 Youiii'', ' tlie word which Jesus said/ This is difl'ercut from 'had 
 said,' which seems to refer to soraetliinj;- spoken loiii;- before. 
 Tischendorf omits ' they ' before * behcved,' tliereby making one 
 sentence only. It can scarcely be contended that the disciples 
 'believed the word which Jesus said,' if they waited until the event 
 liad proved its truth. Those who take tliat view are in a difficulty 
 also with respect to the phrase ' believed the scripture.' What 
 scripture ? All'ord says : ' At first sight it appears difficult to fix on 
 any passage in which it is directly announced : but ' — here peeps 
 forth the conventionally-trained intellect of the theologian — ' but 
 with the deeper understanding of the Scriptures which the Holy 
 Spirit gave the Apostles and still gives the Christian Church, such 
 prophecies as that in Psalm xvi. are recognized as belonging to Him 
 in whom alone they are properly fulfilled.' It is simpler to take the 
 meaning thus : When Jesus was raised from the dead they remem- 
 liered his saying and discussed its appropriateness ; and at the time, 
 althougii unable to grasp its import, they regarded him as the 
 Messiah to whom the scripture they themselves had selected applied, 
 and they were confident that the sign he promised would surely be given. 
 
 When alluding to his body as ' this temple,' Jesus uttered no mere 
 figure of speech. The apostle Paul seized upon the idea, insisted 
 upon it as a reality, and applied it to believers generally. ' KnoAV ye n i. c> 
 not that ye are a temple (or, sanctuary) of God, and that the Spirit 
 of God dwelleth in you ? If any man destroyeth the temple (or, 
 sanctuary) of God, him shall God destroy ; for the temple (or, 
 sanctuary) of God is holy, which temple ye are.' We read that Jesus 
 was ' full of the Holy Spirit.' AVhere the Spirit of God dwells, there 4 luu^ 
 truly is His temple. Paul did not claim that title individually, 
 but for the entire body of believers : ' ye are a temple,' not ' ye are 
 temples ; ' ' the Spirit of God dwelleth in you,' collectively, not ' in 
 each of you.' ' To each one is given,' not the Spirit in his fulness, ]:;i. 
 but a certain meiisure and 'manifestation of the Spirit to profit 
 withal ; ' so that ' in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,' 
 which body constitutes 'the temple of God.' The apostle's teaching- 
 is very clear on this point. He speaks of ' the church, which is his 1 ei.ii. 
 body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all;' aud again: 'for 1 <oi. 
 his body's sake, which is the church.' And the apostle Peter, 
 addressing ' the elect ' says : ' ye also, as living stones, are built up a -i \. v^ 
 spiritual house.' There is a world of meaning in that phrase of Jude, 
 ' our common salvation.' In proportion as our conception of salva- .lude s 
 tion becomes individualized and personal, it falls short of the ideal of 
 Christ and his apostles. 'None of us liveth to himself, and none i^ i!"i 
 dietli to himself.' 
 
 When Jesus alluded to his resurrection, it was in connection with 
 an interval of ' three days.' Surely there must exist some reason for 
 this, some law of development and reorganisation, which requires for 
 its working that particular period of time. That is the case with 
 every process of nature in respect of living organisms. Re\ivifica- 
 tion, be it of a human soul or body, or of both combined, if it be 
 universal, as we must needs believe, is not an exceptional, super- 
 natural act of divine omnipotence, but comes as much within the 
 ordinary dispensation of Providence as our birth and death. We 
 cannot attempt to pierce the mystery which surrounds the grave and 
 
278 THJi KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 the afterlife ; but the repeated mention of ' three days ' by Jesus, 
 and the fact that the interval between his death and his uprising- 
 coincided with what he had led his disciples to expect, may be taken 
 to indicate rather a fixed relationship of cause and effect than an 
 arbitrary decree apart therefrom. 
 
 Here, in verses 18 and ^20, as so often in John's gosi^el, mention is 
 
 made of ' the Jews : ' ' the Jews therefore answered . . . the Jews 
 
 therefore said,' obviously denoting- the inhabitants of Jerusalem or of 
 
 'Jewry' generally. 'His disciples' (verse 17) took one side, 'the 
 
 Jews ' the other. It was a recognised fact that the disciples of 
 
 Jesus were chiefly Galilaeans, as distinguished from Jews. The dis- 
 
 2CjMat. (I'.i tinction was sharp and clear. Jesus was known as 'Jesus the 
 
 14 Mark Tu Galilgean,' and Peter was recognized as such : ' thou art a Galilgean.' 
 
 And on the day of Pentecost it was observed, as a self-evident fact, 
 
 ■2 Acts 7 ' Behold, art not all these which speak Galilaeans ? ' 
 
 Matthew describes the cures wrought by Jesus in the temple as 
 ' wonderful,' and relates that the children within the building- 
 occupied themselves in chanting the words which had been uttered 
 by the multitude the day before : ' Hosanua to the son of David.' 
 We know how cpiickly a popular melody can be caught up by children, 
 and it is not suriDrising that the words of the triumph-song should 
 still have been re-echoed in this way. The chief priests and scribes 
 watched the miracles, but with critical and jealous eyes, and they cast 
 upon Jesus the responsibility for these childish outcries, which they 
 
 21 Mat. 15,10 seem to have considered a profanation. ' But when the chief priests 
 and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children 
 that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the son of 
 David, they were moved with indignation, and said unto him, 
 Hearest them what these are saying- ? ' However erroneous the 
 criticism, it was an honest one : 'they were moved with indignation.' 
 The strength of men's convictions and feelings is no evidence of 
 Goundness of judgment in matters either political or religious ; and 
 very often those who are most positive and outspoken in their 
 opinions and condemnations are utterly in the wrong. Regarded 
 from different points of view, that which is oflensive to one man may 
 appear harmless and justifiable to another. Jesus was not dis- 
 posed to reprove or to silence the children. They were far from 
 understanding the deep import of the words they sang, but had not 
 David declared that even the mouths of infants might be taught to 
 
 •ji Mat. k; praise God most perfectly ? ' And Jesus said unto them, Yea : did 
 ye never rend, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast 
 
 8 ps. -2 perfected praise ? ' The original passage stands : ' Out of the mouth 
 of babes and sucklings hast thou established strength.' Strength in 
 utterance : that is, perfection of expression, which may be in the 
 direction either of truth or praise, or both. The same combination 
 
 r, Heb. r of ideas is found in the passage : ' having offered up prayers and 
 supplications with strong crying.' Nothing Jesus said or did was 
 approved of by his enemies. Priests and scribes could not tamely 
 brook his teaching of the people that the temple had become trans- 
 formed into a robbers' den. That he should take upon himself to 
 declare that trading in the temple to be a sacrilege, which they had 
 suffered to exist as a necessary custom, Avas galling to their pride. 
 
I'ART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOStELS. 279 
 
 Either their influence over the people would he lessened, or his voice 
 must be silenced. They were bent up(jn proceeding- to extremities. 
 ' And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they n Maiu is 
 might destroy him.' The clerical party were the authors of the 
 scheme, but Luke states that they were abetted by the leading 
 citizens. 'And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chiei' i'.iLuke47 
 priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to 
 destroy him.' All they could possibly fear from him was a loss of 
 prestige to themselves, the triumph of his arguments and teaching 
 over theirs. But vanity and self-esteem are potent factors, especially 
 in conjunction with self-interest, and the astounding popularity of 
 Jesus was a suflficient explanation of their policy. ' For they feared n Mark is 
 him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.' That, 
 which was the cliief motive of their action, rendered it very difficult 
 of accomplishment. ' And they could not find what they might do, v.) LuUe -is 
 for the people all hung upon him, listening.' The Authorised 
 Version stands, ' Were very attentive to hear him.' Alford notes : 
 ' litemUy, hung on him in hearing him.' Young has : ' were hanging 
 on him, hearing him.' Tischeudorf also agrees with the Revisers. 
 To what an extent might not the history of the world have been 
 changed, if Jesus had been suffered to go on unimpeded ; if these 
 priests and scribes had been otherwise disposed, or had possessed less 
 power of doing evil ; if the life of Jesus had been prolonged, and his 
 personal ministry continued in the world, say thirty or forty years 
 longer ! The doctrine of human free will is a stern reality, a cardinal 
 law of our being, as immutable in Clod's government of the moral 
 world, as is the law of gravitation in the physical universe. God has 
 never been known to annihilate either the one or the other. Man's 
 history is of his own making. ' It was necessary that the word of 13 Acts 40, 
 (Jod should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, ' 
 
 and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the 
 Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us.' That is the inter- 
 pretation given by Paul and Barnal)as to the divine plan of salvation 
 of which Jesus is the appointed author and finisher. In how many 
 things, since the apostles' time, have men, intentionally and unin- 
 tentionally, through passion, blindness, error, ignorance, put away from 
 them the doctrine of Jesus and the salvation he designs for mankind ! 
 
 Unmoved by the opposition he encountered, and undeterred by the 
 danger he ran, Jesus continued to teach daily in the temple, but never 
 passing a night in the city. ' And every evening (Gr. whenever even- n Mark 10 
 ing came) he went forth out of the city.' Probably that was done for 
 safety, quite as much as for convenience. 
 
 The fourth evangelise, also, alludes to the growing popularity of 
 Jesus at Jerusalem during the feast in which the cleansing of the 
 temple occurred. ' Now when he was in Jerusalem at the pass- -^ Joim 23 
 over, during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs 
 which he did.' Jesus showed no disposition to rely on the popular 
 favour. ' But Jesus did not trust himself unto them." The Autho- „ -n 
 rised Version stands, ' But Jesus did not commit himself unto them.' 
 The word ' commit ' is changed to trust by Alford, Tischeudorf and 
 Young, as well as by the Revisers. Alford explains : ' In the original, 
 the same word is used for helievod in verse 23, and for trust in this 
 verse.' That is a very important observation : whenever belief or 
 
■2 John 24 
 
 280 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM : [pabt ii. 
 
 faith is mentioned in Scripture, it is well for us to consider whether 
 its proper equivalent iu English is not trust or confidence. The 
 Greek verb here ispisfeifd, which is generally translated as ' believe,' 
 and its derivitive pisfis as 'faith.' A right apprehension of the true 
 sense of both words will go far towards removing various erroneous 
 doctrines which have arisen out of their misapplication. The confi- 
 dence which the multitude were ready to place in Jesus, as their 
 leader, he was not able to place in them as his followers. The evange- 
 list adds that Jesus possessed a full, intuitive knowledge of men's 
 characters : 'for that he knew all men.' This marvellous perceptive 
 faculty placed him above the necessity of seeking the testimony of 
 those whose judgment of others was based on intimacy and long obser- 
 
 „ 25 vution : ' and because he needed not that any one should bear witness 
 concerning man (or, a man).' His superior and unerrino- insight 
 rendered him indepeudtnil, of the ordinary sources of information : 
 
 „ -'5 ' for he himself knew what was in man (or, the man).' Alford renders 
 ' of himself he knew,' but the word ' of ' is not introduced by other 
 translators, and the rendering in the ' Englishman's Greek New 
 Testament ' is simply, ' for he knew.' Alford certainly goes too far 
 in saying : ' Nothing less than dirine Icnotckdye is here set forth . . . 
 As the text now stands, it asserts an entire knowledge of all that is 
 in all men.' Assuredly that is not the drift and intention of the 
 evangelist. His assertion can only have value on the assumption that 
 it is based upon his own observation, or upon some plain declaration 
 of Jesus. The latter we have not ; and John is only referring to 
 persons with whom Jesus came into contact, nor does he say, as 
 Alford presumed to say, that Jesus knew all that Avas in all of them. 
 
 During one of the daily preachings in the temple, the declared 
 enemies of Jesus came to him in a body, and demanded of him under 
 
 ■20 Luke 1, 2 what authority he acted, and from whom it emanated. ' And it came 
 to pass, on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the 
 temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chief 
 priests and the scribes with the elders ; and they spake, saying unto 
 him, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things ? or who is 
 he that gave thee this authority "i ' In Matthew's account the con- 
 text makes it evident that this took place on the second morning of 
 the preaching in the temple, after the discourse about the withered 
 
 21 Mat. 23 fig tree. * And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests 
 and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and 
 said, By what authority doest thou these things ? and who gave 
 thee this authority ? ' In ]VIark also this follows immediately upon 
 
 n Mark 27, the incident of the fig tree. ' And they come again'to Jerusalem : and 
 "'" as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, 
 and the scribes, and the elders ; and they said unto him, Ey what 
 authority doest thou these things ? or who gave thee this authority 
 to do these things ? ' It may be assumed that ' these things " referred 
 to his driving out the buyers and sellers from the temple three days 
 before. It would have been useless to have done that, and then sulier 
 the same traffic to recommence. The daily visits of Jesus to the 
 temple, lasting from early morning to evening, enabled him to guard 
 against and prevent any re]3etition of the scandal. Possibly the space 
 formerly used as a market was now occupied by Jesus and the con- 
 
PART II.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUR (U)SPEL^. 281 
 
 liTCg-atioii of his Jiearers. As this altered state of things went on clay 
 after day, the buyers and sellers would naturally complain to the 
 authorities, jjrobably protest against interference with what they 
 deemed a ri^ht of use and custom. It was not an easy question to 
 deal with : it would be equally difficult to justify and insist upon the 
 holding of the market as fornierly, or to declare the presence of Jesus 
 and his work of teaching and healing in the temple to be either illegal 
 or improper. It l)ehove(l all ])arties to act warily, especially in view 
 of the temper of the multitude which daily thronged to hear Jesus. 
 That conjoint action was taken by priests, scribes and elders, indicates 
 that there must Innc been previous discussion of the question, and 
 arrangement as to the method to bo adopted. The first step was to 
 l)ring Jesus within the scope of their judicial powers. Alford explains 
 that the three classes, chief priests, elders and scribes, ' make up the 
 members of the Sanhedrim. It was an official mcsmijo, sent with a 
 view^ to make our Saviour declare Himself to be a prophet sent from 
 God — in which case the Sanhedrim had power to take cognizance of 
 his proceedings, as of a professed Teacher. Thus the Sanhedrim 
 sent a deputation to John on his appearing as a Teacher, John i. 
 11). The question was the result of a combination to destroy Jesus, 
 Luke xix. 47, 48.' Whether that be the correct explanation or not, 
 Jesus saw fit to refrain from giving any direct answer to their ques- 
 tion, but met it by putting another to them. 'And he answered -'o Luke .-5 
 and said unto them, I will also ask you a question (Gr. word) ; and 
 tell me. ' If they would answer him, he was ready to answer them. 
 ' xVnd Jesus answered and said unto them, I will ask you one -n Mat. n 
 ^piestion (Gr. word), which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by 
 what authority I do these things.' ' And Jesus said unto them, I will n >iaii< -^'-^ 
 ask you one question (Gr. word), and answer me, and I will tell you 
 by what authority I do these things.' The question was simple and 
 direct. 'The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men ?' i^oLuk.^ 
 They, as guides of the people, must have formed an opinion on that 
 important matter, having sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to i J'*" i'' 
 investigate and report on it. 'The baptism of John, v\'a8 it from n Mark so 
 heaven, or from men ? answer me.' ' The baptism of John, whence was ^i ^rat. 25 
 it? from heaven or from men?' If they knew, why should they 
 liesitate to say ? Why should they need to confer so mysteriously 
 together ? Did they difier iu opinion ? Alas I they were not discuss- 
 ing as to what would be the right answer, but only the effect of giving 
 a reply at aU. AVith them, })olicy stood foremost, and truth in the 
 background. The three evangelists coincide very closely, as though 
 all quoted from the same record. Information as to this private con- 
 ference and the motives which animated those who took part in it, 
 must ha\e been obtained later, and from one of them, probably some 
 convert to the faith of Jesus. 'And they reasoned with themselves, „ i-j, •.>. 
 saying, If we shall say, From heaven, he will say unto us. Why then 
 did ye not believe him ? But if we shall say, From men ; we fear the 
 multitude ; for all hold John as a prophet.' ' And they reasoned with u Mark m, 
 themselves, saying. If we shall say from heaven ; he will say, Why then ^" 
 
 did ye not believe him ? But should we say from men (or. But shall 
 we say, From men ? ) — they feared the people : for all verily held 
 John to be a prophet (or, for all held John to be a prophet indeed).' 
 ■* And they reasoned with themselves, staying. If we shall say, From I'o Luke 5, 1 
 
282 THE KING AND TEE KINGDOM: [part ii 
 
 heaven ; he will say, AYhy did ye uofc believe him ? But if we shall 
 
 say, From men ; all the people will stone us : for they be persuaded 
 
 that John was a prophet.' They saw no way of extricating themselves 
 
 from that dilemma. If they answered at all, they would either be 
 
 constrained to admit that their opposition to Jesus was contrary to 
 
 the will of heaven, or they would have to f<tce the popular resentment, 
 
 probably to sufler from it. They resolved not to commit themselves 
 
 ■i\ Mill, -ii either way. ' And they answered Jesus, and said, We know not.' 
 
 11 Mark :j:j ' And they answered Jesus and say, We know not.' ' And they 
 
 lio Luke r answered, that they knew not whence it was.' It was not that they 
 
 did not know, but that they would not say. Alford expresses the 
 
 opinion that these Jewish rulers had never believed in John as a 
 
 heaven-sent prophet. He says : ' These " blind leaders of the blind " 
 
 had so tar made an insincere concession to the people's persuasion, as 
 
 to allow John to pass for a prophet ; but they shrank from the reproof 
 
 which was sure to follow their acknowledging it now.' Having 
 
 admitted themselves incapable of deciding as to the authority of the 
 
 Baptist, it was obviously out of place for them to call in question that 
 
 ■n Mat. JT of Jesus, and useless for him to bring his claims before them. ' He 
 
 also said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these 
 
 iiMaiks:! things.' 'And Jesus saith unto them, Neither tell I you by what 
 
 Lukes authority I do these things.' 'And Jesus said unto them. Neither 
 
 tell I you by what authority I do these things.' 
 
 This account furnishes an interesting example of the ' Common 
 Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels.' Taking Mark, verses 28 to 33, the 
 Avords common to all three, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are as follows : 
 ' Said — By what authority doest thou these things ? who gave thee 
 this authority ? — And — said — them, I will ask of you — question — me. 
 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men ? — Reasoned 
 — themselves, saying. If we shall say from heaven ; he will say, Why 
 — did ye not believe him — Should we say from men — all — John — a 
 prophet. And — answered — know — And — unto them, Neither tell 
 I you by what authority I do these things.' Now, if ]\Iatthew, or 
 another of the apostles, noted down at the time what took place, this 
 is just the kind of memorandum one would expect to find. Care is 
 taken to put down in full the question, the reply of Jesus, the reason- 
 ings of the questioners, and the closing observation of Jesus. In 
 addition thereto, a word or two is thrown in here and there, serving 
 sufficiently to guide the memory in subsequently enlarging the 
 narrative. It is all very natural, and the only conceivable way by 
 which anyone except a verbatim shorthand reporter could have 
 recorded the incident in a reliable and satisfactory manner. The 
 authors of the ' Common Tradition ' assume that the three evangelists 
 borrowed from one original document ; but that raises a difficulty with 
 respect to jMatthew's gospel. Dean Alford states that its author ' has. 
 been universally believed to be the Apostle IMatthew ; ' and that ' the 
 testimony of the early Church is unanimous, that ]\Iatthcw ^xvotcf^rsf 
 among tlie Evangelists.' In that case, he can hardly be supposed to 
 have borrowed from the same original tradition as Mark and Luke. 
 Is it not more probable that the condensed original tradition, the 
 rough, apostolic note-book which is the basis of the first three gospels, 
 was that of Matthew himself ? Mark aud Luke would naturally use 
 that, as the oldest and most reliable record, comparing and supple- 
 
TAKT II.] .4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 283 
 
 menting: it with any independent traditions handed do\Yn to them. 
 The enhirj>cment of Mattliew's original men)oirs, even hy his own 
 hand, would depend for its correctness to some extent on memory. 
 
 To the baffled questioners Jesas spoke a short parable. He began 
 with the words, ' But what think ye ? ' However reticent they might ui Mat. 
 be about the baptism of John, on this subject they could have no 
 difficulty in forming an opinion. 'A man had two sons. And he 
 came to the first, and said, Son (Or. Child), go work to day in the 
 vineyard.' Young and Tischendorf render literally ' son ' as ' child ' 
 and 'two sons 'as 'two children.' The request of the father was 
 met by a point blank refusal. ' And he answered and said, 1 will „ 
 not.' Subsequently he changed his mind, and did Avhat he had 
 been bidden : ' but afterward he repented himself, and Avent.' The 
 father made the same demand upon the other son. ' And he came 
 to the second, and said likewise.' The reply is given both in the 
 Authorised and Revised Versions as follows : ' And he answered and „ 
 said, I go, sir : and went not.' Young also inserts an itahcised 
 word, tv'ill instead of ffo : 'I will, sir.' Tischendorf renders, ' Yea, 
 sir,' and Luther, ' Herr, ja. Sir, yes.' These are obviously given as 
 supposed equi\alents of the original, not as direct renderings. 
 Alford puts the italicised word ' g-o ' between brackets, adding the 
 note, 'not exjn-essed in the original.' The form of expression does 
 not seem to have been colloquial, and if not, Jesus must have 
 intentionally omitted to place any word between 'I' and 'Sir.' 
 If a note of exclamation were added, the two words would signify a 
 contemptuous refusal, as though the father had asked what was 
 unreasonable ; a note of interrogation would give to the words a tone 
 of expostulation. The sense of ' I — Sir ' depends entirely on the 
 emphasis of the \-oice and the manner of the speaker. It may be 
 made to express either astonishment, doubt, hesitation, assent or 
 dissent, combined with perfect courtesy or tacit reproof. But 
 without introducing any idea of that kind, letting the two words 
 stand by themselves, as they were left by Matthew, the meaning is 
 altogether vague, which Jesus probably intended it to be, as fitly 
 representing their mental attitude with respect to the Baptist. The 
 ' Sir ' was sufficient to show respect, the ' I ' to indicate a conscious- 
 ness of duty : what intention was hidden under a form of reply 
 so uncertain and equivocal remained to be seen, and was forthwith 
 proved by the event : ' and went not.' 
 
 The parable, short and simple, was finished by the time they may 
 have thought only the opening scene was reached, and sharp anil 
 clear rang out the question of Jesus : 'Whether of the twain did the 
 will of his father ? ' There could be no doubt on that point. 
 ' They say. The first.' Then Jesus took the unusual course of himself 
 explaining and applying the jjarable. ' Jesus saith unto them. Verily 
 I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the 
 kingdom of God beibre you.' Those who had been openly, notoriously 
 unjust and sinful were entering Clod's kingdom, whilst those who had 
 made great professions of reverence and obedience were holding 
 themselves aloof. The Baptist had come, an uncompromising teacher 
 of moral rectitude, and what had been the result ? The despised 
 tax-gathei-ers and erring women had believed and honoured him as 
 a heaven-sent Teacher ; and these priests and scribes, whose solemn 
 
284 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 deputation and enquiries amounted to nothing more than a pre- 
 tentious, hypocritical, formal ' I — ^Sir,' had seen the minds, hearts 
 and lives of the populace touched, moved, changed, by the Baptist's 
 call to reformation, yet themselves stood aloof from the inspired 
 movement, and could not even yet say that they believed the Baptist 
 to be what he had professed himself, the forerunner of One mightier 
 :! Mat. \i than himself, who should baptize them ' with holy spirit and with 
 :>i Mat. 3-2 fu'c.' ' For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and 
 ye believed him not ; but the publicans and the harLjts believed 
 him : and ye, when ye saw it, did not even repent yourselves after- 
 Avard, that ye might believe him.' This attitude of passive in- 
 ditference was equivalent to rejection, and was so regarded generally, 
 7Luko*.>, 30 for we are elsewhere told : ' And all t]\e people when they heard, and 
 the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of 
 John. But the Pharisees and the law_yers rejected for themselves 
 the counsel of God, being not baptized of him.' 
 
 The expression *go into the kingdom of God,' calls for con- 
 sideration. The act is represented as purely A'oluntary. Men are 
 not carried into God's kingdom by supernatural power, but enter into 
 it of their own free will. If the ' kingdom of God' and the ' kingdom 
 of heaven' be not strictly synonymous, so as to be used inter- 
 changeably, there is a close connection between them. The Lord's 
 prayer indicates that the latter is bound up with the former, and 
 must come as its perfect realization : ' Thy kingdom come. Thy 
 Avill be done in earth as it is in heaven.' Preachers have been wont 
 to talk much more about going 'to God' and going 'to heaven,' 
 than about entering the 'kingdom of God' and the 'kingdom of 
 heaven ; ' and that desired consummation, be it what it may, has been 
 deemed altogether impossible of attainment on earth, and therefore 
 relegated to another life in another world. So the gospel of Jesus 
 has come to be represented as a scheme aiming at the sahation of 
 individuals in heaven, aj^art from that of mankind in general both in 
 earth and heaven. Dr. Young's literal renderings, ' reign of God,' 
 ' reign of the heavens,' help to a better understanding of the matter. 
 Individuals, one after another, may place themselves under the ' reign 
 of God ' by submitting to the commands which Jesus laid upon his 
 disciples and followers ; but the ' reign of the heavens ' seems to 
 refer to a state of existence in which all alike are living under the 
 divine rulership. 
 
 The parable of the two sons was followed by another. Jesus said : 
 
 -_>! Mat. 33 ' Hear another parable.' Mark and Luke, not having recorded the 
 
 VI -Mark 1 prcvious parable, make no allusion to it. Mark says : ' And he began 
 
 to speak unto them in parables.' Luke notes that he addressed him- 
 
 •ioi.uke'i self to the people generally : 'And he began to speak unto the 
 
 „ 'J people this parable.' Luke states simply : ' A man planted a vine- 
 
 7 •> Mark 2 yard.' Mark : 'A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about 
 
 it, and digged a pit for the wine-press, and built a tower.' Young 
 
 renders, ' digged an under-wine-vat,' which stands in the Authorised 
 
 Yersion ' digged a place for the winefat.' Instead of the italicised 
 
 words ' a place lor,' the Revisers have inserted ' a pit for,' which 
 
 they have not italicised. Matthew describes the man as a house- 
 
 ■i\ Mat. 33 holder. ' There was a man that was a householder, which planted a 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR (iOHFELS. 285 
 
 Ainevard, and set a hedue about it, and di<;\o'ed a winepress in it, and 
 Iniilt a tower,' The word here rendei'ed 'winepress' is lenon ; in 
 Mark it is hitpolenion . The phmter of the vineyard being a 'iiouse- 
 hokler,' not a cultivator, leased it to others: 'and let it out to .^i ji,,^ 30 
 husbandmen.' The three evangelists use that expression. According 
 to the Authorised Version they also agree in stating, 'and went into 
 a far country.' Alford notes : ' the original has only lofl ihc cowitnj ,- ' 
 Young and Tischendoif render, ' and Avent abroad ; ' the Revisers, 
 ' and went into another country.' Luke adds the words : ' for a long 
 time.' JMark continues : ' And at the season he sent to the husband- i- -^la'^ - 
 men a servant ((ir. bondservant), that he might receive from the 
 husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard.' Luke: 'And at the •■ii»i-"i<f i'» 
 season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant (Gr. bondservant), 
 that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard.' IMatthew 
 represents the despatch of ' servants,' not of ' a servant,' and this 
 discrepancy between the evangelists continues throughout the parable. 
 It can scarcely be considered a contradiction : probably, naturally, 
 the chief servant would have assistants, but the negotiations would 
 be between the tenants and himself, and against him, as well as those 
 with him, their animosity would be directed. Matthew intimates 
 that the mission was in ample time, before the actual commencement 
 of the season. ' And when the season of the fruits drew near, he ii Mut. ?a 
 sent his servants (Gr. bondservants) to the husbandmen, to receive 
 his fruits (or, the fruits of it).' Instead of meeting the just demands 
 of their landlord, the occupiers assaulted his representatives, and 
 sent them away without payment. ' xlnd they took him, and beat i.; Mark :$ 
 him, and sent him away empty.' ' But the husbandmen beat him, -jo Luke lu 
 and sent him away empty.' Matthew states that several servants 
 were mentioned, and that they suffered in various ways. ' And the -ii Mat. 3.5 
 husbandmen took his servants (Gr. bondservants), and beat one, and 
 killed another, and stoned another,' A larger number were then 
 sent, but they met with no better treatment, ' Again, he sent other „ 30 
 servants (Gr. bondservants) more than the first : and they did unto 
 them in like manner.' Luke describes one servant only sent at a 
 time. 'And he sent yet another servant (Gr. bond.servant) ; and -'oli kiii. 
 him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and send him away ^' 
 
 empty. And he sent yet a third : and him also they wounded, and 
 cast him forth.' Mark also records the sending of a single servant 
 on two other occasions, but he then adds that many others also were 
 sent. ' And again he sent unto them another servant (Gr. bond- vi Mark i, ■ 
 servant) ; and him they wounded in the head, and handled shame- 
 fully. And he sent another ; and him they killed : and many others ; 
 beating some, and killing some.' These last words, ' and many 
 others : beating some, and killing some,' enable us to harmonise the 
 evangelists. Luke states that one servant was sent alone on three 
 scA-eral occasions ; Mark agrees with that, adding the fact that the 
 same thing happened subsequently and repeatedly. Matthew passes 
 over ill silence the sending of particular envoys, and contents himself 
 with grouping all the messages and messengers together. 
 
 In verse 4 of Mark the Revisers have omitted the words ' and at 
 him they cast stones,' and the word ' again ' before ' he sent,' in 
 \'erse 5, on the authority of the two oldest MSS, 
 
 Luke represents the proprietor of the vineyard deliberating with 
 
286 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 himself as to what further steps it was in his power to take, and 
 resolving to send his son, whom he dearly loved, hoping that respect 
 
 •_'0TAik<"i3 would be paid to him, 'And the lord of the yineyard said, What 
 shall I do ? I will send my beloved son : it may be they will 
 reverence him.' The Authorised Version adds, ' when they see him,' 
 Avhich is omitted, not being in the two oldest MSS. Mark stands : 
 
 1:2 MMik r, ' He had yet one, a beloved son : he sent him last unto them, saying, 
 They will reverence my son.' ' He had yet,' takes the place of 
 ' having yet therefore,' and the word ' also ' before *last' is omitted, 
 in accordance with the two oldest IMSS. Here also Matthew is 
 M;it. :;? somewhat briefer. ' But afterward he sent unto them his sou, 
 sayiug, They will reverence my son.' The word ' afterward ' here 
 and in Young and Tischendorf takes the place of ' last of all ' in the 
 Authorised Version. Far from showing reverence to the son, the 
 husbandmen conferred together, discussing the advantage they might 
 gain by putting him to death and holding the vineyard as their own. 
 „ .-is ' But tlie husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, 
 This is the heir : come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance.' In 
 their wicked folly they thought that his death might be as good to 
 
 •20 Luke 14 them as a legal title to the estate. ' But when the husbandmen saw 
 him, they reasoned one Avith another, saying. This is the heir : let us 
 kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.' Mark represents them 
 
 T-' Miuk 7 as having no doubt about that. ' But those husbandmen said among 
 themselves. This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and the in- 
 s heritance shall be ours.' Mark continues : ' And they took him, and 
 killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard.' This seems to 
 mean that the murder was committed inside the vineyard, and the 
 dead body afterwards thrown outside. But the words are reversed in 
 
 •ji Mnt. ;?!) the other evangelists. ' And they took him, and cast him forth out 
 
 •JO i.uko 15 of the vineyard, and killed him.' ' And they cast him forth out of 
 the vineyard, and killed him.' Surely the bloody tragedy could not 
 end there. The long-suffering and deeply-injured householder must 
 needs take some further steps, unless he tamely submitted to the 
 
 1-' M;uk !• robbery and left the murderers unpunished. ' What therefore will the 
 lord of the vineyard do ? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, 
 
 •JO Luke 15, and will give the vineyard unto others.' Luke also : 'What there- 
 
 ^'■' fore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them ? He will come and 
 
 destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.' 
 
 Both question and answer might be spoken l)y Jesus : but Matthew 
 
 represents him as pausing, and the reply to have been given by the 
 
 •ji Mat. to, -11 hearers. ' AVhen therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what 
 will he do unto those husbandmen ? They say unto him, He will 
 miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard 
 unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their 
 seasons.' The question is not quite the same, the coming of the 
 proprietor being included in it. We may imagine the reply to have 
 been first, ' he will come,' and this to be a further question, ' When 
 he shall come, what will he do ? ' The object of Jesus seems to ha,ve 
 been to elicit the full and free opinions of the listeners, and Matthew 
 records them, perhaps combines them. The inftimy attaching to the 
 robbers and murderers is emphasised. Alford observes : ' In the 
 original the adverb rendered miscrahJij is that belonging to the 
 adjective rendered wiclced. This could hardly be given in a version 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 287 
 
 in English ; it may be represenied by some such expression as, He 
 ii'ill deslroi/ ihem trreiclipdJij, wretches as ihoij arc.'' The Revisers and 
 Tischcndorf have brou<;'ht out this peculiarity by altering-, ' He will 
 miserably destroy those wicked men ' to ' he will miserably destroy 
 those miserable men.' Young renders : 'Evil men — he will miseral)ly 
 destroy tliem.' Having regard to Alford's explanation it is obvious 
 that a literal translation would be: 'Evil men — evilly he will 
 destroy them,' and so Luther renders it : ' Er wird die Bcisewichter 
 libel umbringen.' It was the rendering of evil for evil, the principle 
 on which men's ideas of justice, human and divine, had been founded, 
 but which principle Jesus disavowed, teaching his disciples to 'render '- H'""- n 
 to no man evil for evil.' The vineyard being now freed from wrong- 
 ful holders would be transferred to others. 'And will give the i-' Murk d 
 vineyard unto others.' Luke uses the same words. Matthew is 
 fuller and more exact. ' And will let out the vineyard unto other -n Mat. 41 
 husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.' 
 An observation was here interposed which is recorded only by Luke. 
 ' And when they heard it, they said, God forbid (Gr. Be it not so).' 20 i.uk.i u\ 
 Alford says it is literally, ' Let it not be,' and Young so renders it. 
 The exclamation must obviously be taken as a criticism upon the 
 parable in its entirety, not as a deprecation of the vengeance inflicted 
 upon the murderers, or as applying only to tlie closing words, 'ond 
 will give the vineyard unto others.' The hearers themselves bad 
 suggested the ending of the parable, which disclosed such a picture 
 of injustice, cruelty, folly, and reckless wickedness, that they might 
 well deem it too highly coloured, and expostulate against its being- 
 taken as representative of anything in the national history. ' Li- 
 credible ! Impossible ! God forbid ! Let it not be ! ' Were they 
 right ? Was Jesus wrong ? Had he drawn a fiction, or liad he 
 described a fact ? He was terribly in earnest. He fixed his eye-^ 
 upon them, and bade them explain, if they could, from their 
 optimistic point of view, a certain passage in the Scriptures. ' But ., 1^ 
 lie looked upon them, and said, What then is this that is written, 
 
 The stone which the builders rejected, 
 
 The same was made the head of the corner ? ' 
 Did not that indicate an antagonism between the design of God and 
 the ideas of those who claimed to be the appointed leaders in carrying 
 out that design ? The parable represented only too truly the in- 
 justice and inhumanity which have ever been disgraceful features in 
 the development of religious intolerance and persecution. But 
 putting all that aside, dismissing the simile which dealt with human 
 nature thus perverted and briitalised, and taking up the figures of a 
 stone and a building instead of a householder and husbandmen, the 
 same lesson was conveyed. There must come to pass an utter 
 reversal of human plans and purposes, the strength and beauty of 
 the heavenly edifice being made to depend upon that corner-stone 
 which the builders ignominiously rejected. Still keeping to the 
 metaphor of a stoue, Jesus added : ' Every one that ftilleth on that ■., '• 
 stone shall be broken to pieces ; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it 
 will scatter him as dust.' The Authorised Version stands: 'Who- 
 soever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken ; but on whomsoever 
 it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.' Tlie Avord ' broken ' by 
 itself might be taken to signify bruised, more or less injured, but the 
 
288 THE KING AND THE KINCWOM: [part ii. 
 
 Revisers have made it equivalent to ' dashed to pieces.' Tiscliendorf 
 has : ' Every one that fell upon that stone Avill be broken ; but on 
 whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.' Young- 
 renders : ' Every one who hath fallen on that stone shall be broken, 
 and on whom it may fall, it will crush him to pieces.' The promi- 
 nent idea, brought out by Jesus with all the force of which language 
 is capable, is the utter futility of human efforts and intentions wheu 
 opposed to the divine will. Matthew and Mark represent an addi- 
 tional verse of the Psalm to have been quoted, leading our thoughts 
 12 Mark 10, in the same direction. ' Have ye not read even this Scripture ; 
 " The stone which the builders rejected, 
 
 The same was made the head of the corner : 
 
 This was from the Lord, 
 
 And it was marvellous in our eyes ? ' 
 
 21 Mat. A-2 Matthew prefaces the quotation with the words : ' Jesus said unto 
 
 them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures . . .' The original passage 
 stands as follows : 
 1 hs I's. -j-j, -23 'The stone which the builders rejected 
 
 Is become the head of the corner. 
 
 This is the Lord's doing ; 
 
 It is marvellous in our eyes.' 
 Matthew alone records the following additional words of Jesus : 
 '21 Mat. 43 ' Therefore I say unto you. The kingdom of God shall be taken away 
 from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
 ,, -i-t thereof.' After which comes the verse : ' And he that falleth 
 on this stone shall be broken to pieces : but on whomsoever it 
 shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.' The Revisers note that ' some 
 ancient authorities omit ' this last verse. Lachmann and Tischendorf 
 omit it. It is enough that we have it standing unquestioned in 
 Luke. From the parable of the vineyard Jesus drew an inference : 
 that the kingdom of God should be taken from the unbelieving Jews, 
 and given to others. From the simile of the stone he drew another 
 inference : that opposition to the divine will must be hurtful or fatal 
 to the opposers. These two lessons may be merged into one : the 
 necessity of submitting to the will and purposes of God. Jesus Avas 
 not careful what parable he took up to enforce that truth : the stone 
 and the builders would do just as well as the vineyard and the 
 husbandmen. To deduce from either parable any conclusion as to 
 the mode and method of the divine judgments, is to overlook the 
 spirit and misread the letter of the teaching of Jesus. None can be 
 so foolish as to suppose that the final doom of the builders is to be 
 mutilated or crushed to death in any literal sense. As little are we 
 justified in rigorously interpreting the words 'he will miserably 
 destroy those miserable men,' even were they the words of Jesus, 
 which they are not. In another parable the catastrophe is thus. 
 
 22 Mat. 7 described : ' But the king was wroth ; and he sent his armies, and 
 
 destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.' Dean Alford 
 scrupled not to add as an explanatory note : ' the Roman armies.' 
 Here also he introduces the same idea, saying : ' We may observe 
 that our Lord here makes wJmi the Lord therefore of the vineyard 
 cometh coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem, which is incon- 
 testably the overthrow of the wicked husbandmen. This passage 
 forms therefore an important key to our Lord's proijhecies, and a 
 
I'AKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FUUll GOHI'KLK. 
 
 28!) 
 
 decisive justification for those who, like myself, iifmly hold that Utr 
 coming of the Lord is in many places to be identified, primarily, with 
 that overthrow.' That is certainly a deduction from the parable 
 which Jesus did not bring before his hearers. ' The kingdom of God 
 shall be taken away fi-om you : ' did the Romans take away the 
 kingdom of God from the Jews ? ' And shall be given to a nation 
 bringing i'orth the fruits thereof.' What had the destruction of 
 Jerusalem to do with that ? To call that frightful e\ent the coming 
 (if the Lord Jesus, is to misconceive utterly the nature of his king- 
 dom, and the drifc of his teachings. 
 
 Tiie chief priests and the Pharisees could not fail to perceive that 
 the wicked husbandmen and the foolish builders were designed to 
 represent themselves. 'And when the chief priests and the Pharisees 
 heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.' They 
 decided to arrest him without any further delay. ' And the scribes 
 and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him in that very hour.' 
 But their dread of the populace caused them to defer their purpose. 
 ' And when they sought to lay hold on him, they feared the multi- 
 tudes, because they took him for a prophet.' Luke gives the same 
 explanation. 'And they feared the people: for they perceived that 
 he spake this j)arable against them.' Mark adds that they withdrew 
 from the presence of Jesus. 'And they sought to lay hold on him ; 
 and they feared the multitude ; for they perceived that he spake the 
 parable against them : and they left him, and went away.' 
 
 It is interesting to consider the skeleton of the above narrative as 
 it is disclosed by the authors of ' The Common Tradition.' In the 
 fourth column are the words common to the three evangelists, and in 
 the first, second and third columns the expansions of Matthew, Mark 
 and Luke respectively. 
 
 •21 Mat. 4,3 
 
 20 Lnko V.I 
 
 21 Mat. 4C; 
 •20 Luke in 
 1^2 Mark 12 
 
 Expansion of Matthe-w. 
 
 Expansion of Mark. 
 
 Expansion of Luke. 
 
 Common to tlie 
 Tliree Evangelists. 
 
 Hour anothei- 
 
 1 
 And he began to speak 
 
 And he began to speak 
 
 parable 1 
 
 
 unto tlicm in 
 
 unto the people this 
 
 
 There was 
 
 
 1 
 a man 2 
 
 thatwasahouscholder, 
 
 
 planted a 3 
 
 whicii 
 
 
 vineyard 
 
 and set a hedge about 
 
 and set a hedge about 
 
 and let it out 4 
 
 it, and digged a 
 
 it, and digged a pit 
 
 to hu.sband- 
 
 winepress in it, and 
 
 for the winepress in 
 
 
 men, and 
 
 built a tower 
 
 it, and built a tower 
 
 
 went into 
 
 another 
 
 country 
 
 and when the 
 
 and at the 
 
 and at the 
 
 season 5 
 
 of the fruits drew 
 
 
 
 he sent 6 
 
 near 
 
 
 
 
 liis 
 
 u servant 
 
 a servant 
 
 servants to 7 
 the hus- 
 bandmen 
 
 to receive his 
 
 that he might receive 
 
 that they should give 
 
 fruits 8 
 
 
 from the husband- j 
 
 him of 
 
 
 
 men of i 
 
 
 
 and the husbandmen 
 
 of the \-inevard. And i 
 
 of the vineyard ; but 
 
 beat 9 
 
 took his servants, they took him, and 
 
 the husbandmen 
 
 
 and 
 
 1 
 
 
 
290 
 
 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: 
 
 [part II. 
 
 Expansion of Matthew. 
 
 one, and killed an- 
 other, and stoned 
 another Again he 
 sent others 
 
 more than the first 
 
 they did unto them in 
 like manner. But 
 afterwards he sent 
 unto them his son, 
 savins' 
 
 him, and sent him 
 away emjity. And 
 again he sent unto 
 them another 
 
 him they wounded 
 in the head, and 
 handled shamefully. 
 And he sent another 
 and him they killed: 
 and many others, 
 heating some, and 
 killing some. He 
 had yet one, a be- 
 loved son : he sent 
 him last unto them, 
 saying 
 
 Exiiansioii of Luke. 
 
 him, and sent him 
 away empty. Again 
 he sent other 
 
 him also they beat, 
 and handled him 
 shamefully, and 
 sent him away 
 emptj'. And lie 
 sent yet a third : 
 and him also they 
 wounded, and cast 
 him forth. And the 
 lord of the vineyard 
 said, "What shall I 
 do ? I will send my 
 beloved son ; it mav 
 be 
 
 when 
 
 when they saw the said among them- ' saw him, they rea- 
 
 son, said among 
 themselves 
 
 and take his 
 took him, and 
 
 and 
 
 him. "When therefore 
 
 shall come 
 
 unto those 
 The say unto him 
 he will miserably 
 those miserable men 
 let out 
 
 selves 
 
 and 
 
 "took him, and 
 
 and 
 
 therefore 
 
 the 
 
 he will come and 
 
 give 
 
 soned one with an- 
 other, saying 
 
 that 
 
 may be ours 
 
 and 
 therefore 
 
 these 
 
 he will come and 
 
 husbandmen, which j have ye not read even , And when they heard 
 shall render him ] this 1 it, they said, God 
 
 the fruits in their 
 seasons. Jesus saith 
 imto them, Did ye 
 never read in 
 
 forbid. But he 
 looked upon them, 
 and said. What then 
 is this that is written 
 
 Common to the 
 Three Evangelists. 
 
 sei'vants 
 
 and 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 they will re- 12 
 verence my 
 son. But 
 
 the husband- 
 men 
 
 this is the lo 
 heir 
 
 let us kill 14 
 him 
 
 inheritance lo 
 
 and they Ifi 
 
 cast him 1 7 
 forth out of 
 the vine- 
 yard 
 
 killed 18 
 
 the lord of the 19 
 vineyard 
 
 what will he 20 
 do 
 
 husbandmen 21 
 
 he will 22 
 
 destroy 23 
 
 and will 24 
 
 the vineyard 25 
 unto other 
 
 the scriptures 26' 
 
 The stone 
 which the 
 builders re- 
 jected the 
 same was 
 made the 
 head of the 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPFLS. 
 
 2!)1 
 
 Expansion of Matthew. 
 
 This was from the 
 Lord, and it is mar- 
 vellous in our eyes. 
 Therefore say I unto 
 you, The kingdom 
 of God shall be 
 taken away from 
 you, and sliall be 
 given to a | nation 
 bringing forth the 
 fruits tliereof. And 
 lie that falleth on 
 this stone shall be 
 broken to pieces : 
 but on whomsoever 
 it shall fall, it will 
 scatter him as dust. 
 
 Expansion of Mark. 
 
 Expansion of Luke. 
 
 I Common to tlic 
 iThree Evangelists 
 
 This was from the Every one that falleth 
 
 Lord, and it is mar 
 vellous in our eyes 
 
 on that stone shall 
 be broken to pieces ; 
 but on whomsoever 
 it shall fall, it will 
 scatter him as dust. 
 
 And when the chief 
 priests and the 
 Piiarisecs heard his 
 
 
 
 
 parables they 
 perceived " 
 that 
 
 28 
 
 he spake of 
 
 
 he spake against 
 
 he spake against 
 
 
 them 
 and 
 
 
 29 
 30 
 
 when they 
 
 
 they 
 
 the scribes and 
 chief priests 
 
 the 
 
 sought 
 
 
 31 
 
 to lay hold on 
 
 
 to lay hold on 
 
 to lay hands on 
 
 
 him 
 feared 
 
 they 
 
 32 
 
 the multitudes, 
 cause they took 
 for a prophet. 
 
 be- 
 him 
 
 the multitude 
 
 the people 
 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 The fourth column, which is common to the three evangelists, 
 <:'omi3rises the leading words of the discourse, as if they had been 
 noted down hastily whilst it was delivered, for the purpose of aiding 
 the memory in recording it subsequently. The suggestion is inerely 
 tentative, but assuming the original rough draft to have been 
 Matthew's, the first column shows how he dealt with it, his recollec- 
 tion enabling him to fill up the slight sketch in that way. 
 
 The differences between the evangelists may be analysed as 
 follows : 
 
 (a) Wordings in Mark and Luke differing from those in Matthew, 
 
 but so similar in Mark and Luke as to indicate that they 
 copied from a document common to both : 1, 10, 12. 
 
 (b) Phrases in Matthew only, indicating that he gives the actual 
 words of Jesus : 1, 3, 11, 20, 2o, 24. 
 
 '(c) Verbal differences, insertions or omissions, apparently due to 
 the compilers : 1 Matthew and Luke ; -t Matthew and Luke ; 
 5. G, Matthew and Luke ; 8, 0, Matthew and Luke { 13, 14, 
 Luke ; 17, Luke ; 25, Matthew and Luke ; 29, 31, 32, 
 Luke ; 33. 
 
 ■(d) Verbal differences, additions, or omissions, indicating varia- 
 tions in the original records : 16 Luke ; 23, 26 Mark and 
 Luke ; 28 Mark and Luke. 
 
 ■(e) Plural in Matthew, but singular in Mark or Luke, or in both, 
 or vice versa : servants, servant 7, 8, 9 j also multitudes, 
 multitude, 33. 
 
 V 2 
 
292 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii 
 
 The theory that Matthew's was the original record is only put 
 forth suggestively. These comparisons tend, however, to confirm it. 
 The above method of investigation is full of interest, and, in compe- 
 tent hands, would be fruitful of reliable conclusions. The doctrine 
 of ' inspiration ' has stood terribly in the way of any such inde- 
 pendent study of the gospels. One hour's patient labour in this 
 direction would suffice to dissipate erroneous ideas cherished by 
 inspirationists ; and a methodical and painstaking comparison of the 
 evangelistic narratives on this basis, which is that adopted by the 
 authors of ' The Common Tradition,' would be worth more than a 
 multitude of ' Harmonies,' and do as much good as the doctrine of 
 ' inspiration ' has done harm. 
 
 Mat. 1 Jesus continued to address the people in parabolic form. ' And 
 
 Jesus answered and spake again in parables unto them, saying . . ' 
 His opening words indicate that he intended to illustrate something 
 relating to that ' reign of the heavens,' the establishment of which 
 was the object of his life. Tlie ruler of a certain kingdom is repre- 
 
 „ -1 sented as decreeing festivities on account of his son's marriage. ' The 
 kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, w^iich made a 
 marriage feast for his son.' Such an event lies outside the routine of 
 daily life, and is an occasion for special rejoicing. Invitations to the 
 banquet ■were issued, and in due time the cliosen guests were sum- 
 
 » ■^ moned to attend. ' And sent forth his servants (Gr. bondservants) 
 to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast.' Strange to say, 
 they cared nothing about the banquet, and showed not the least 
 
 ,. :« respect to the king or the king's son. 'And they would not come.* 
 Other servants were then despatched to repeat and enforce the former 
 
 ,. 4 message. ' Again he sent forth other servants (Gr. bondservants), 
 saying. Tell them that are bidden. Behold, I have made ready my 
 dinner : my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready : 
 come to the marriage feast.' In ^■ain did they explain, invite, 
 expostulate. Nobody paid the least attention to the message. The 
 expected guests went ofFin various directions, and occupied themselves 
 in difl'erent ways : they would go anywhere rather than to the king's 
 
 „ •'"> palace, and do anything rather than sit down at his banquet. ' But 
 they made light of it, and went their Avays, one to his ow'n farm, 
 another to his merchandise.' Instead of 'they made light of it,' 
 Young renders, ' they having disregarded it,'' Tischendorf, ' they 
 neglected,' and 'The Englishman's Greek New Testament,' 'they being 
 negligent of (it).' They w'ere simply indifferent, wrapped up in 
 thoughts of other things, preferring to follow their daily round of 
 labour rather than break the monotony of the life to which they were 
 accustomed, even for the sake of realising the brightness, the rejoicing, 
 the refinement of a king's court. It does not appear that they had 
 professed to accept the invitation, or ever for a moment intended to. 
 avail themselves of it. From first to last they held aloof, feeling no 
 concern in the royal plans and purposes, and esteeming it no honour 
 and no privilege to share therein. Some Avent beyond mere cool 
 contempt and disrespect, and laid violent hands upon the king's 
 „ r. servants, maltreated them, even murdered them. ' And the rest laid 
 hold on his servants (Gr. bondservants), and entreated them shame- 
 fully, and killed them.' It is altogether a strange story. Who coula 
 have expected that the good intentions of the king, his courteous 
 
TART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 2d:i 
 
 invitation, his costly preparations, his patient entreaties, would be 
 met in snch a sjjirit of utter indiffenince and hostihty, and lead to so 
 lamentable a result ? The ,<)-ood\vill of the monarch beinp; thus 
 scorned, wasi'cplaeed by indio-nation ajiainst the murderers. Justice 
 demanded that his ser\ants should be a\'enged, and stern retribution 
 was forthwith exacted. ' But the kinii- was wroth ; and he sent his : 
 armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.' The 
 Authorised Version has, after ' but,' ' when the king heard f/ipreof; ' 
 these words arc omitted by the Revisers, not being in the two oldest 
 MSS. In verses 2, :> and 4 Young- uses the plural, ' marriage- feasts.' 
 
 In interpreting the parable the following points are to be noted : 
 (1) The invitation was not universal. Certain persons were bidden 
 to the wedding feast, and they only were called upon to attend. (2) 
 Attendance involved the relinquishment for the time being of worldly 
 aflPairs. (o) The bulk of the invited guests preferred their own busi- 
 ness to the king's pleasure, and continued to conduct their affairs as 
 though they had never been iuN'ited. (4) The rest of the invited 
 guests were not simply indifferent to the invitation, but hostile to it, 
 and took upon them to persecute the king's messengers. (5) Only 
 these last, the murderers, are represented as being punished. 
 
 The parable is started as an illustration of ' the kingdom of heaven.' 
 <-)nly disciples of Jesus, true followers prepared to forsake all things 
 for his cause, could enter therein. He could not soften his hard 
 terms of admission, and when these were recognised many, — how many 
 who can tell ? — who heard his call and were ready enough to answer, 
 * Lord, Lord,' were not prepared to do the things he said. They 
 kept on according to the course of this world, not less diligent 
 in earthly business than before, or in any wise blameable therein. A 
 call from above had come, which they had disregarded : it was their 
 loss, the gospel's loss. The parable goes no further than that as 
 regards these men. But there were others, who were not merely 
 impassive to the call, but antagonistic to it, and to those by whom it 
 was proclaimed. AYhat moved them to this ? Nothing but the 
 invitation itself and the persistence with which it was urged. They 
 were men so bent on having things go on in the old course, so 
 determined to resent any new point of departure in thought and 
 practice, that they scrupled not to treat as enemies and criminals 
 those who called them and others to higher aims and nobler duties. 
 The chief priests and Pharisees, who w'ere even then taking counsel 
 against Jesus to put him to death, stand in this category ; so do they 
 who afterwards persecuted and sought to kill his apostles ; so do all 
 who in bygone times have dragged to prison and the stake those who 
 proclaimed religious opinions at variance with their own ; so do they 
 who now denounce pains and penalties for nonconformity, and in 
 their poor, puny fashion rake up again the dying embers of religious 
 intolerance and persecution. They are all of the same spirit, which 
 leads up to murder as its extreme, and has various intermediate 
 degrees of * shameful handling.' Murder is murder, however much 
 men may seek to justify it as a necessity in some cause which they 
 deem sacred. 'Whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth i 
 service unto Grod.' How often has that prophecy of Jesus come 
 true ! Taught by him, we may boldly apply to this matter the 
 apostle's words : ' We know that the judgement of God is according : 
 
294 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii 
 
 to truth against them that practise such things.' Let us not restrict 
 to one particular event that just judgment of God which Jesus 
 indicated by the words : ' But the king was wroth : and he sent his 
 armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.' It is 
 here that Alford inserted his explanatory note : ' The Roman 
 armies.' That narrows the application of the parable down to one 
 specific incident in Jewish national history. True, armies did come, 
 and Jerusalem was besieged and burnt, and so far there is a resem- 
 blance between that catastrophe and the climax of the parable. But 
 that did not happen until nearly 40 years after the words were 
 spoken, by which time many of the persecutors had died naturally. 
 The theory of Alford is not without its difficulties. It assumes the 
 king in the parable to be God ; and as he sent forth his armies, it 
 follows that the Eomans were God's soldiers. That were hard to 
 belieye, if not incredible. Certainly they were not soldiers of Jesus, 
 for the weapons of his warfare were not carnal but spiritual, and he 
 foresaAV and sought to avert the destruction of Jerusalem, and wept 
 at the non-success of his efforts. There is a strange inconsistency in 
 supposing, as Alford does, that the destruction of Jerusalem was the 
 coming of Jesus. Moreover, the Romans spared none, so that the 
 adoption of Alford's view leads to the conclusion that the neglecters 
 of the invitation suffered together with the murderers, which is 
 contrary to the parable. Jesus therein did not profess to foretell the 
 nation's future, but to illustrate ' the kingdom of heaven,' and the 
 application of the parable is general and universal, not individual 
 and local. Destruction is the doom of persecutors who go to the 
 length of murder, and not a trace will be left on earth of all their 
 plans and labours. The armies of the Lord of hosts are invisible to 
 mortal eyes ; it is enough for us to know that their work of retribution 
 is sure, irresistible, inevitable. Not once or twice, not here or there, 
 but always and everywhere, the saying is fulfilled: 'He sent his. 
 armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.' The 
 apostle Paul represented the judgment of God under the same figure 
 :^ i. Cor. \2.,_ of burning and destruction : ' Each man's work, of what sort it is, 
 the fire shall prove it. . . . If any man destroyeth the temple of 
 God, him shall God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which 
 temple ye are.' Human life is sacred, and woe to them who destroy 
 it in their hatred of the truth of God enshrined therein. It is a 
 remarkable fact that all the denunciations of Jesus were directed 
 against hatred of truth and light. He did not attack the common 
 vices of mankind, the grossness of immorality and wrong-doing in its 
 multitudinous forms. His chief concern was about the promulgation 
 of truth and the overthrow of error. With publicans and sinners he 
 dealt lightly ; not so with opposing scribes, priests and Pharisees. 
 * Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites I ' The same tone" 
 and direction of thought are observable in the parables. Jesus 
 presented repentant sinners under the figures of the lost sheep 
 recovered, the lost coin found, the prodigal returned and welcomed. 
 Not blame, aversion, condemnation, but pity, hope, repentance, for- 
 giveness and rejoicing, were prominent in his treatment of the frail 
 and sinful. But the parables directed against the chief priests and 
 Pharisees were reprobatory and threatening. ' He will come and 
 destroy those husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.' 
 
I'.VKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 295 
 
 ' He sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned 
 their city.' Doubtless there were c:ood reasons in the mind of Jesus 
 for this difference of treatment. Sins o1' the body bring their own 
 punishment, and stamp witli degradation those wlio commit them. 
 Society has taken upon itself the castigation of wickedness in a 
 variety of forms. But against spiritual pride and rancour, opposition 
 to light and truth, and the self-complacency which exalts itself and 
 despises others, there is no appeal to any human tribunal. These 
 are vices of the upper class, of those who have the making of laws 
 and the wielding of judicial powers. desus came perforce into 
 conflict with these men : they could not crush his spirit, but they 
 took his life, and afterwards sought to crush his followers. The 
 ai>ostle Paul describes the nature of this strife : ' Our wrestling is not c Epi 
 against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the 
 l)0wers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual 
 hosts of wickedness in the heavenly lAaces.' Young renders this : 
 • We lune not the wrestling against blood and flesh, but against the 
 principalities, against the powers' (authorities — Eng. G. N. T.), 
 ' against the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, against the 
 spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places.' Luther's version 
 carries the same meaning : ' Denn wir haben nicht mit Fleisch und 
 Bhit zu kiimpfen, sondern mit Fiirsten und Gewaitigen, nemlich 
 mit den Herren der Welt, die in der Finsterniss dieser Welt 
 herrschen, mit den biisen Geistern unter dem Himmel.' ' For we 
 have not to fight with flesh and blood, but with the princes and 
 mighty ones, namely with the lords of the world, who rule in the 
 darkness of this world, with the evil spirits under heaven.' Take 
 Count Leon Tolstoi's view of the Christian doctrine and warfare, 
 and this passage will no longer be so inapplicable, so incomprehensible, 
 or so vapid and well-nigh meaningless as it has hitherto seemed. 
 The apostle's exhortation has a definite application, and if men fail 
 to find it, it is because they mistake the nature and reality of the 
 (■hristian warfare, and ha\e wandered into a realm of unpractical 
 imagination. 
 
 The parable does not end with the destruction of the murderers, 
 but branches ont in another direction. 'Then saith he to hiso^j, 
 servants (Gr. bondservants), The wedding is ready, but they that 
 were bidden were not worthy.' Young and Tischendorf render 
 ' wedding ' as ' marriage feast : ' the word in the original is the same 
 as before. Unwillingness, as well as opposition, is represented as 
 indicating unworthiness. The king now commands his servants to 
 seek for guests, no matter of what class or from what quarter. ' Go 
 ye therefore unto the partings of the highways, and as many as ye 
 shall find, bid to the marriage feast.' The Revisers have altered 
 ' highways ' to ' partings of "the highways,' which is rendered by 
 Y'oung and Tischendorf ' cross-ways,' and by the ' Englishman's 
 ( Ireek New Testament ' ' thoroughfares of the highways.' The utmost 
 publicity would thus be given to the invitation. This resulted, as 
 was to be expected, in the collection of a very motley assemblage. No 
 restrictions were imposed, all classes and characters being welcomed. 
 ' And those servants (Gr. bondservants) went out into the highways, 
 and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good.' 
 The Authorised Version continues : 'and the wedding was furnished 
 
296 TEE KING AXI) THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 ■2-2 Mat. 10 with guests,' which the Revisers have rendered, ' and the wedding 
 was hlled with guests,' Tischeudorf, foHowing another reading, 
 renders, ' and the bride-chamber was filled with guests ; ' Young : 
 ' and the marriage-feast apartment Avas filled with guests.' Luther 
 also here drops the word ' Hochzeit,' ' wedding,' and chooses another 
 word : ' und die Tische wurden alle voll,' ' and the tables were all 
 filled.' From first to last the parable puts a limitation upon the 
 number of the guests. Originally a certain selection was made : ' call 
 them that were bidden to the marriage feast.' Now the room is 
 represented as being filled up. This feature of the parable has its 
 significance, and must not be disregarded. Alford assumes those 
 first invited to be ' the Jewish people,' and he talks of ' the opening 
 of the Feast to the Gentiles.' But the very structure of the parable 
 forbids the idea of universality. To suppose a whole nation invited 
 to assemble in a bridal-feast apartment is an absurdity. Such a mode 
 of interpretation is wholly inconsistent with the aspect under which 
 Jesus here presents ' the kingdom of heaven.' Only through disciple- 
 ship to him is the kingdom of heaven attainable, and we know that 
 he intentionally limited the number of disciples, and warned all men 
 not to profess themselves as such, unless they had first counted the 
 cost and resolved to hate all things else, even their own lives, for the 
 gospel's sake. That every man should become a disciple was no 
 more to be expected or desired, than that every house should become 
 a church of chapel. ' Ye are the light of the world : ' if all could 
 claim that ihuminating influence, there would be no world outside for 
 them to enlighten. ' A city set on a hill cannot be hid : ' city- 
 crowned hills are exceptional : dwellers in the plains below must look 
 and climb upwards to them. A sprinkle of leaven put in three 
 bushels of meal, till the whole should become lea\"ened ; a tiny grain 
 of mustard seed, which must be sown and grow up gradually into a 
 tree ; an assembly of wedding guests, favoured individuals, for each 
 one of wliom admitted, a thousand of their countrymen must have 
 been, as a matter of course, excluded : such were the similes whereby 
 Jesus represented the kingdom of heaven. At first the world received 
 it but in embryo ; poor and puny has been its development during 
 eighteen centuries. Yet Christianity was no abortion : it was fairly 
 born into the world in the first century. Where is it, what is it now ? 
 As an accepted creed, as a system of doctrine, it is everywhere, and 
 professes itself everything. But as ' the kingdom of heaven ' among 
 mankind, it has no existence. There is no ' reign of the heavens' 
 yet in this world, nor can it ever be established except through the 
 method devised by Jesus. Not by an assumption on the part of the 
 clergy that they have been commissioned and empowered to admit 
 every infant into the kingdom of heaven by a supernatural act of 
 grace in the sacrament of baptism, and then preaching the duty of 
 everyone to live up to that high privilege and profession, can the 
 kingdom of heaven be set up in our midst. That is a plan of human 
 invention, an error, a fiction, a rotten foundation upholding a sham 
 Christianity. The scheme of .Jesus is the very reverse of that. To the 
 world at large his call is, from its very nature, impracticable. Never- 
 theless he would have men follow it ; not all — that cannot l)e — 
 but those v.-ho deliberately resolve to become his disciples and to seek 
 first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. That profession 
 
i-AUT ]i.] .1 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFFLS. 2!)7 
 
 entails a life of self-denial, the abne^^ation of this world, the sufterin«,^s 
 incident to a career of protest against its errors and evils, coupled 
 with an uuc(|iii vocal acce])tance of that doctrine of non-resistance 
 which is the j;lory of the cross and the scorn of the world. Only such 
 men can teach how to li\e and how to die after the example of Jesus 
 and his apostles. If we had sucli soldiers of the cross ainon<>- us, not 
 standing aloof as ecclesiastical superiors, but simply bent on living in 
 the midst of us the heavenly life, their example would surely be con- 
 tagious. It would then be deemed a nobler thing to fight Christ's 
 battle than tt) enter an army and be drilled to slaughter fellow^ 
 creatures. Let us honestly state and face this truth : no disciple of 
 Jesus may destroy a human life, or have recourse to ^■iolence. Who- 
 ever does that, is not his fohower, however much he may deceive him- 
 self into that belief. Let every soldier take lower ground : he is of 
 the world— opposed to the cause of Christ — by the nature of his 
 (■ailing. The rule extends in other directions also. No rich man is 
 ii follower of Jesus : the holding of superfluous wealth is contrary to 
 his requirement. ■ Follower, disciple. Christian : ' the title itself 
 matters not : the question is not about a name but about a reality. 
 Let us be clear on the point. No condemnation is involved in noii- 
 discipleship ; but much harm results from laying claim to discipleship 
 iipart from obedience to Jesus and entire dedication to his cause. If 
 the lump is mistaken for the leaven, called by its name, no sharp dis- 
 tinction being discernible between the two, the whole mass must con- 
 tinue unleavened. Either the gospel must fail of its purpose, or dis- 
 <_!iples must be found who will devote themselves to the cause, just as 
 .surely as the marriage feast w^ould have been a failure if no guests 
 had attended. Yet those most fitted for the work fail to recognise 
 its claim upon them, so that it becomes necessary to hunt up recruits 
 in all quarters. Jesus does not represent the mixture of classes at the 
 marriage feast as a thing desirable in itself, but the occasion was of 
 such urgency that no selection was possible ; they 'gathered together 
 iill as many as they found, both bad and good :' that touch was in- 
 troduced into the parable deliberately and of set purpose. The apostle 
 Paul recognised its truth and application. ' For behold your calling, i i. Cor. ^n 
 brethren, how that not many wise alter the flesh, not many mighty, 
 not many noble ; but (lod cliose the foolish things of the world, 
 that he migliD put to shame them that are wise ; and God chose 
 the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things 
 that are strong : and the base things of the world, and the things that 
 fire despised, did God choose, ijea and the things that are not, that he 
 he miglit bring to nought the things that are.' The closing words 
 show the drift of the argument : the disciples were chosen ' to bring- 
 to naught the things that are,' that is, to annul the system of social 
 life prevailing in the world, a system grounded upon selfishness and 
 violence, and to replace it by the gospel of Christ Jesus, his ' wisdom „ oi» 
 from God, and righteousness and santification, and redemption.' 
 Obviously, whoever undertakes such a work must rise to its level, 
 however low and degraded his previous career. The way in which 
 Jesus continues the parable brings out that fact. He describes the 
 king as making an inspection of the guests, detecting one who was 
 not clothed, as the others must have been, in the garment indispens- 
 able at such festivities, and calling him to account for the impro- 
 
298 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii- 
 
 >Mat.ii,i2 priefcy. ' But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw 
 there a man which had not on a wedding-garment : and he saith unto 
 him, Friend, liow earnest thou in hither not having a wedding- 
 garment ? ' The words ' to see ' in the Authorised Version are re- 
 placed by the more emphatic words ' to behold.' Tischendorf renders, 
 ' to look at the guests.' Young's version is as follows : ' And the 
 king having come in to view the guests, saw there a man not clothed 
 Avith clothing of the marriage-feast, and saith to him. Comrade, 
 liow camest thou in hither, not having the clothing of the marriage- 
 feast ? ' By adding this to the parable Jesus obviated any idea that 
 the kingdom of heaven required no change in those who accepted the 
 invitation to enter it. Alford notes that the word ' Friend ' is ' more 
 properly Comrade or Companion.' Those who associate themselves 
 with Jesus and his cause must conform their lives to his pattern. If 
 not, sooner or later, in this age oi- the next, the enquiry will come 
 home to them, ' Comrade, how camest thou in hither, not having the 
 clothing of the marriage-feast ? ' The fashion of this world will not 
 be recognised as suitable for the kingdom of heaven. It was no 
 light offence which this man had committed. Of his own free will 
 he had accepted the invitation, and he had no excuse to offer for 
 neglecting the duty incumbent upon every guest to put on suitable 
 •_' Mat. vi apparel. ' And he was speechless.' It was necessary that he should be 
 .. 13 forthwith excluded. ' Then the king said to the servants (Gr. bond- 
 servants), Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer 
 darkness,' The words ' and take him away ' after ' foot,' are omitted 
 by the Revisers, not being in the two oldest MSS. The command, 
 ' Bind him hand and foot,' suggests that the man would as a matter of 
 course attempt to maintain his position by violence. Refusal to wear the 
 prescribed raiment is indicative of an intention to follow the customs 
 of the outer world. The practical rejection of Christ's doctrine of 
 non-resistance is the fault most prominent and disastrous among those 
 who assume a place in his kingdom without submitting to the 
 guidance of his mind and will. Herein consists the gravest scandal 
 upon our profession of Christianity. The warlike spirit has never 
 been obliterated from the instincts of mankind. The strange, 
 devilish notion still prevails, that AYar is a necessity of human exist- 
 ence upon earth. It is deemed paramount among the resources of 
 civilization, and the professed ministers and representatives of Christ 
 raise no protest in common against it, and not only suffer the curse 
 to continue rampant and unreproved, but actually consecrate its 
 banners and pray, by royal command, for its successful issue and the 
 blessing of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ upon those 
 engaged in it. What a shameful parody of Christianity is this I 
 It comes from our overlooking and forsaking one of the first principles 
 of the gospel of Christ. All strife and bloodshedding are prohibited 
 to the disciples of Jesus, and they who practise or approve such 
 things have no part or lot in his kingdom, but must be cast out 
 ' into the outer darkness,' The import of that phrase is clear, and 
 must not be exaggerated. It simply denotes exclusion from the 
 bright and festive joy inside : the man was thrust outside into the 
 darkness of the night, as being unworthy and unfitted for the comyjany 
 within. That is the extent of the condemnation pronounced against 
 those who are not in the kingdom of heaven, of which the marriage- 
 
I'AitT II.] .1 STUDV OF THE FOUR GO>SFFLS. 29<> 
 
 feast is typical. Yet this is no liti'lit penalty, no triflinj;- loss. It 
 iiieans the perpetuation of this world's miseries and crimes, the cease- 
 less round of wrong and suffering insepai-able from a social system 
 based upon selfishness and violence. The guilt of this man consisted 
 in the fact that he introduced the habits and maxims of the world 
 into the kingdom of hea\en. Alas ! that fatal mistake, that deadly 
 sin, has grown into a widespread, crying evil, so that the professed 
 C'hurch of Christ has the form of godliness without the power there- 
 of. There is no salvation for mankind under such a system. 
 'There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.' ITow true, -j Mut. irs 
 how applicable, that saying "of Jesus to the existing condition of 
 humanity I 
 
 Jesus closed the parable with the words : ' For many are called, but „ u 
 few chosen.' That was a truth which pressed hea\ily upon his 
 mind and heart. He represented all those first invited into the king- 
 dom of heaN-en, as either neglecting or resenting the invitation. And 
 when, after scouring the country, enough were found to start the 
 gospel enterprise, the work of exclusion had to be undertaken. Jesus 
 realised full well the difficulty of establishing the kingdom of heaven 
 among mankind. Those to whom the duty of assisting naturally 
 and of right belonged, held aloof from the enterprise. Men of lighr, 
 and leading preferred to devote themselves to the old, established 
 routine, and not a few of them vehemently opposed the new scheme 
 of life and doctrine. In spite of that, ' by men of strange tongues 14 i. Cor. ji 
 and by the lips of strangers' the gospel invitation was proclaimed, 
 and the Church of Christ was founded. Then came another evil, 
 foreseen by Jesus and figured in this parable : the blending of the 
 world's teaching with his pure gospel. That evil grew monstrously 
 and still prevails. Men boast of the spread of the gospel ; but if 
 the Church has overrun the world, the world has oveiTun the Church. 
 The spirit of Christendom is not the spirit of Christ ; the life of 
 professed Christians is not the life of the kingdom of heaven. The 
 freedom, the brightness, the joy and rejoicing of the gospel marriage 
 feast are not our portion upon the earth. AVe are yet in the ' outer 
 darkness;' and the state of society in general accords only too well 
 with the sorrowful ejaculation, ' there is the weeping and gnashing 
 of teeth.' The utmost possible peace, goodwill and happiness, — 
 these are the characteristics of a marriage feast and of the kingdom 
 of heaven. That conception of it may seem to most men too simple, 
 too good to be true : but what higher, nobler, other object can the 
 heavenly Father have than the prosperity of his children ? The 
 carol with which the angels welcomed the Saviour conveys the same 
 idea : ' On earth peace, good pleasure among men.' This ameliora- j luUc 14 
 tion of the common lot of mankind on earth has been well nigh lost 
 sight of as constituting the salvation of Jesus. The apostle Peter 
 says that the ' precious blood ' of Christ redeemed the elect ' from 1 1. p.t. is 
 your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers.' Salva- 
 tion, as preached and taught generally, is a very different kind of 
 thing, — a system of intellectnal beliefs, a scheme of justification, a 
 method devised for the appeasement of divine justice without the 
 sacrifice of transgressors. Saturated with such ideas, men interpret 
 and work out the parables in such a way as to harmonise with their 
 own notions. Here is Dean Alford's note on the wedding-garment. 
 
300 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ir. 
 
 ' The guest was bound to provide himself with tliis proper habit, out 
 of respect to the feast and its Author : how tliis was to be provided, 
 does not here appear, but does elsewhere. The garment is flie impuiecl 
 and inherent righteousness of the Lord Jesus, put on sipnltolicaUy in 
 Baptism (ClaL iii. 27), and really by a true and Hviug faith (ib. ver. 
 26), without which none can appear before God in His kingdom of 
 glory; Heb. xii. 14: Phil. iii. 7, 8: Eph. iv. 24: Col. iii. 10: 
 Eom. xiii. 14 : which truth could not be put forward here, but at its 
 subsequent manifestation threw its great light over this and other 
 such similitudes and expressions.' Aiford assumes that Jesus did not 
 bring out this ' truth ' in the parable, because he could not. Why ? 
 And it is taken for granted that scattered passages in the Pauline 
 epistles are to be applied to tlie elucidation of a parable to which the 
 apostle never referred. Again, why ? And how could each man's 
 particular wedding-garment represent the one robe of the king's son, 
 whose robe is not even mentioned ? And what connection is there 
 between allusion to a garment and ' the imputed and inherent right- 
 eousness of the Lord Jesus ' ? 8uch an interpretation makes the robe 
 the figure of a figure, not of a reality. That is a fallacy which per- 
 vades the whole doctrine of 'imputed righteousness.' Righteous- 
 ness, — however much men may persuade themselves to the contrary, — 
 is not, cannot be imputed to those who do not possess it. If Christ's 
 righteousness is imputed to a man, it is because that man ' doeth 
 Si. John 7 rightcousuess,' and ' is righteous, even as he is righteous.' The word 
 ' impute ' is the pivot on vrhich the popular doctrine of salvation 
 rests and turns. Let us examine the passages in which the word 
 occurs. 
 7 Lev. IS (a) ' And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace oflerings 
 
 be eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither 
 shall it be imputed unto him that oflTereth it.' Young renders 
 ' neither shall it be imputed ' by ' it is not reckoned.' 
 17 Lev. 3,4 (b) ' What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth 
 an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without 
 the camp, and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent 
 of meeting, to offer it as an oblation unto the Lord before 
 the tabernacle of the Lord : blood shall be imputed unto that 
 man ; he hath shed blood.' Young renders, ' blood is reckoned 
 to that man.' 
 ■li i. Sam. 1.5 (c) ' Let uot the king impute anything unto his servant, nor to all 
 the house of my father : for thy servant knoweth nothing of 
 all this, less or more.' Instead of ' impute anything,' Young 
 renders, ' lay anything.' 
 i:iii. saiM.io (d) 'Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou 
 
 remember that which they servant did jjerversely.' 
 :):; Ps. 1, 2 (e) ' Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is 
 covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth 
 not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.' 
 (f) ' Imputin/f this his power unto his god.' The Revisers render : 
 (A. V.) ^ Eren he whose might is his god.' Young renders : 'Ascribeth 
 
 this his power to his god.' 
 In the New Testament there are two Greek verbs rendered in the 
 Authorised Version ' impute : ' eltogeo, ' to reckon in ; to impute ; ' 
 and togizomai, ' to count, reckon, calculate, compute ; to take into 
 
 I Hall. II 
 
PART II.] .4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFFLS. 301 
 
 iiccoinit, consider ; to calculate, reason.' The root of both words is 
 /oftos, which is defined as ' the word by which the inward thouiiht is 
 expressed ; the inward tliou,i>-ht or reason itself.' The verb eUofj/'o 
 occurs only twice : 5 Rom, lo (k) and Phile. LS : ' put that to mine 
 account.' The verb locjizomai is rendered in the Authorised Version 
 as 'impute' 8 times, and in other passages as 'account, account of, 
 conclude, count, despise, esteem, lay, number, reason, reckon, suppose, 
 think, think on,' as for example: 'They heasoxed with themselves.' nMarkru 
 'He was RECKONED Avitli transgrcssors.' 'I thou(!HT as a child.' ^^^''^'^-^ 
 ' Lest any man should accgunt of me above that which he seeth me.' ^;, |i \]l\._ ,., 
 ' May it not be lai]* to their account.' 4 ii. Tim. k; 
 
 These examples, as well as the definitions and derivation of the 
 word, sufficiently indicate that it denotes a conclusion founded upon 
 facts, and is the very opposite of a merely supposititious, non-existent 
 ideal. In Webster's Dictionary 'impute' is thus defined: '1. to 
 charge ; to attribute ; to set to the account of. 2. to attribute ; to 
 ascribe. ;>. to reckon to one icliat does not Itelovy io him. — Milton.' 
 The last sense is that which has been introduced and generally held 
 by theologians, as though to ' impute ' involved a pretence or make- 
 believe. That idea does not properly appertain to the word, and it 
 does not appear in Xuttall's Dictionary, where the definition is 
 simply: ' to ascribe ; to reckon to ; to reckon.' The Revised Version 
 obviates tlie danger of misapprehension by banishing the word 
 'impute' and supplying its place by 'reckon', in all the passages 
 except one in which it occurs in the Authorised Version. They are as 
 follows : — 
 
 (g) ' Even as David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto i K"iii. g-.s 
 whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works, saying, 
 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, 
 And Avhose sins are covered. 
 
 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin.' 
 (h) ' That righteousness might be reckoned unto them.' „ n 
 
 (i) ' It was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now it was not „ -j-j-i 
 written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him ; but 
 for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned.' 
 (k) ' Sin is not imputed when there is no law.' o Hom. n 
 
 (1) ' Not reckoning unto them their trespasses.' i> n- c<>v. i;« 
 
 (m) 'Abraham believed (lod, and is was reckoned unto him f or ■: James ■2:} 
 
 righteousness.' 
 These are all the passages in which the word ' impute ' occurs. Let 
 us summarise them. 
 
 (a) An offering not imputed as an offering. 
 
 (b) Slaughter of an animal not off'ered as an oblation, imputed as 
 
 bloodshedding. 
 
 (c) A fault not to be imputed, because not committed. 
 
 (d) A fault not to be imputed, because repented of. 
 
 (e) and (1; A fault not imputed, because forgiven. 
 
 (f) Power imputed to a deity. 
 
 (g), (h) and (i) Righteousness imputed without works, after 
 
 forgiveness. 
 (k) Sin not imputed when there is no law. 
 (m) Faith imputed as righteousness. 
 No difficulty can arise except in connection with the passages (g). 
 
Riiiii. 12 
 
 302 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 (h), (i), (k) and (m). Take first (k) : 'Sin is not imputed wlie to 
 there is no law.' Here is the apostle's argument. 8in entered into 
 the world through the first man, Adam, and death through sin. Sin 
 and death are inseparable from man's nature : ' Death passed unto all 
 men, for that all sinned.' That was so before the law. Death was 
 not a consequence of breaking the law given in the time of Moses : 
 for in the absence of law there could be no transgression against it : 
 „ 13 ' For until the law sin was in the world : but sin is not imputed 
 when there is no law.' Yet in the period between Adam and Mose.s 
 death prevailed ; not because of the law, which then had not been 
 given, nor because men repeated the first transgression of Adam, for 
 „ 14 that they did not : ' Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until 
 Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of 
 Adam's transgression.' The cause of death lies deeper down than 
 any law, — in man's depraved nature and life. So the apostle teaches 
 
 3 Gal. 10 that sin is independent of the law, which after a time Avas ' added 
 because of transgressions,' to reveal, denounce and prohibit them, 
 
 T Rom. 13 ' that through the commandment sin migiit become exceeding sin- 
 
 3 i. John 4 ful.' Another apostle defines sin as ' the transgression of the law.' 
 •^ That is true : but Paul argues that it is something more, a faulty 
 condition of man's nature, tending inevitably to death, apart from 
 the law which condemns it. The apostle John intimates as much by 
 introducing the word ' also,' in the passage immediately preceding : 
 * Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law.' The state- 
 ment that ' sin is not imputed when there is no law,' implies the con- 
 verse, that sin is imputed Avhen there is a law. Obviously the word 
 ' imputed ' here denotes, not the assumption of a state of being which 
 does not actually exist, but the fact of its actual existence. Is it 
 probable, or even possible, that the same word 'imputed' is not 
 meant to carry the same meaning, when applied to the opposite con- 
 dition of ' righteousness ? ' To ascertain this, let us examine the 
 passages (g), (h), (i) and (m), which relate to 'righteousness.' 
 (g) ' Even as David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto 
 whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works, sayinfj. Blessed 
 are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 
 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord will not reckon sin.' The 
 
 *i Koiii. \i law reckons sin, and declares its penalty : ' For as many as have 
 sinned without law shall also perish witliout law : and as many as 
 have sinned under law shall be judged by law.' The apostle places 
 the Gentiles in the first class, and the Jews in the second class. To 
 the latter the words of David apply, ' Blessed is the man to whom 
 the Lord will not impute sin : ' this signifies the withdrawal of the 
 penalty against sin regarded as ' the transgression of the law ; ' in 
 other words, ' Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and 
 whose sins are covered.' But forgiveness is a reality, not — as is too • 
 generally assumed — a kind of legal fiction, a simple change of dis- 
 position towards the sinner, a revocation of the curse of the law. If 
 in that sense only iniquities were forgiven and sins covered, those 
 ' under law ' would simply revert to the position of those ' without 
 law,' and would still ' perish.' The non-imputation of sin cannot 
 
 6 Hoin. 23 alter its deadly cffects : 'for the wages of siu is death.' Therefore 
 when the apostle quotes the Psalmist's words, he regards them as a 
 description of ' the blessedness of the man unto whom God imj)utetli 
 
I'AUT II.] A STUJJY OF THE FOUR GOSFELS. 003 
 
 righteousness without works.' T<j be clear as to the iiieanini>- of this 
 we must have regard to the context. The ap;)Stle had asserted : ' Ky ;5 K'hh. 20 
 the works of the hiw shall no flesh be justified in his sight,' or, 
 according to the marginal reading, ' out of works of law shall no flesh 
 be accounted righteous in his siglit.' Young renders : 'By works of 
 law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him.' If righteous- 
 ness is attained, it cannot be through a law which has been dis- 
 obeyed : ' For through the law comelk the knowledge of sin.' The ., m 
 a]i(jstle proceeds : ' But now apart from the law a righteousness of ., ji 
 <iod hath been manifested; . . . even the righteousness of (Jod 
 through faith in Jesus Christ ; ' and he reaches this conclusion : 'We •, -'s 
 reckon therefore that a man is justified l)y faith apart from th(^ works 
 of tlie law.' Then he instances Abraham as justified not by works, — 
 obedience to the law, — but by faith : ' Abraham believed (lod, and it 4 liom. :! 
 Avas reckoned unto him for righteousness ; ' and then quotes David 
 as pronouncing blessing ' upon the man unto whom (lod reckoneth 
 righteousness apart from works.' ' (lod reckons,' ' imputes,' 'counts,' 
 'declares,' ' attributes,' — the words carry one and the same sense, — 
 both ' sin ' and ' righteousness ' to men, the former through his law 
 against sin, the latter ' apart from the law.' Sin has been manifested 
 through the law ; but now righteousness through faith in Jesus 
 Christ. Elsewhere the apostle proclaims the same doctrine: ' For - Tit. 3-7 
 we also were aforetime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers 
 lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one 
 another. But when the kindness of (Jod our Saviour, and his love 
 toward men, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we 
 did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, tlirough the 
 washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy (Ihost, which he 
 poured out upon us richly, through Jesus C^hrist our Saviour ; that, 
 being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the 
 hope of eternal life.' Is it not obvious, indisputable, tliat the 
 righteousness imputed through faith is as actual, real, visible, 
 tangible, personal, as was the sin imjDuted through the law ? Paul 
 recognized in human nature two opposite conditions, 'sin,' and 
 ' grace,' the one, condemned by the law, working misery and death, 
 the other, arising out of faith in Jesus, tending to peace and life. 
 'Where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, 5 h. .111.20, 
 as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteous- 
 ness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Introduce 
 into any part of the impassioned arguments of Paul the idea of a 
 merely substituted moral rectitude, the imaginative fiction about 
 putting on the robe of ' the imputed and inherent righteousness of 
 the Lord Jesus,' and you ^\ill thereby mar, distort, destroy, the force 
 of the apostle's reasonings, and contradict scores of passages in which 
 he asserts and glorifies the saving power of faith and grace. 
 
 Take now the passage (h) : ' That righteousness might be reckoned 
 unto them.' The word ' also,' after 'them,' has been omitted by the 
 Revisers, not being in the three oldest MSS. The drifc of the argu- 
 ment is clear. Abraham, whilst yet uncircumcised, was reckoned 
 righteous by his faith in God; therefore he may be regarded as father 
 of the uncircumcised Gentiles who have that same righteousness 
 based on faith. That a real, active life of righteousness was in the 
 apostle's miiid, is evident from the context, when lie says : ' who also 1 num. vi 
 
304 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had 
 in uncircnmcision.' 
 
 4R(Mn. ■2-2-21 Thc passage (i) is as follows: 'It was reckoned unto him for 
 righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was 
 reckoned unto him ; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be 
 reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the 
 ,. jii, 21 dead.' The faith of Abraham was perfect: 'Looking unto the 
 promise of God, he wa^'ered not through unbelief, but waxed strong 
 through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that, 
 what he had promised, he was able also to perforna.' The expression, 
 ' waxed strong through faith,' indicates the effect of the faith upon 
 Abraham, — on which account — ' wherefore also — it was reckoned to 
 him for righteousness.' As with him, so with us : our fliith must 
 produce its result, and will therefore be reckoned for righteousness. 
 Young, instead of ' shall be reckoned,' renders literally, ' is about to 
 be reckoned.' The faith of Abraham may be regarded in two ways : 
 either as an instantaneous mental conviction, or as a continuous 
 disposition of the mind. Those who assert most strongly and posi- 
 tively the apostle's doctrine of justification by faith, according to 
 their own version of it, generally adopt the former view, which 
 certainly was not that of Paul. For the scripture he quotes, 
 
 I.-, ucii. c. ' Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteous- 
 ness,' relates to the first giving of the promise. Years elapsed beibre 
 
 4HI.1U.1S-21 it was fulfilled. Yet Abraham ' in hope believed against hope . . . 
 and without being weakened in faith he considered his own body 
 now as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the 
 deadness of Sarah's womb : yea, looking unto the promise of God, he 
 wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving 
 glory to God, and being fully assured that, what he had promised, ho 
 was able also to perform.' The Ee\'isers have omitted the word 
 ' not ' before ' his own body,' on the authority of the three oldest 
 MS8., and have replaced ' neither yet ' by ' and,' before ' the dead- 
 ness,' which agrees with Y'oung, the former being a mistranslation. 
 The apostle Paul shows the patriarch's faith in active exercise from 
 first to last. The apostle James goes farther in the same direction. 
 In the last passage to be considered (m), he says : 'And the scripture 
 was fulfilled which saith. And Abraham believed God, and it was 
 reckoned unto him for righteousne^is.' He quotes that passage in 
 connection with the offering up of Isirac, which was many years later 
 
 ■2 jaiiifs 17 still ; and his object was to prove that ' faith, if it have not works, 
 
 „ -'0 is dead in itself.' He argues : ' But wilt thou know, vain man, 
 
 " -'1 that faith apart from works is barren ? Was not Abraham our father 
 
 justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar ? 
 
 „ ■22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was 
 
 faith made perfect ; and the scripture was fulfilled . . .' Paul and . 
 
 James are at one in their definition of faith, and they only who 
 
 misunderstand the former imagine him to be in opposition to thc 
 
 latter. The marvellous breadth and fulness of Paul's intellect render 
 
 his style difficult in some parts of comprehension, and careful study 
 
 is required in order to grasp his meaning and avoid misconceptions. 
 
 The apostle Peter recognised the value of Paul's epistles, but was also 
 
 conscious of certain misconstructions put upon them from the first, 
 
 :!ii. i\t. 15, and uttered a caution with respect to them. He wrote : ' Even as 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FUUIi GOSPELS. 305 
 
 our beloved brother Paul also, accordiuo- to the wisdom i^iven to him, 
 wrote unto you ; as also in all /u's epistles, speakini^ in them of these 
 things; wherein are some thin<j;s hard to bo understood, which tlie 
 ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as t/w;/ do also the other scriptures, 
 unto their own destruction.' This warning is as much needed now 
 as ever. Poctrines most startling and obnoxious have been deduced 
 from the Pauline epistles. Theologians of past generations have 
 founded sects and systems out of them, and some of their followers 
 in the present day quote certain texts as conclusive arguments, 
 knowing and caring little about the contexts, and never troubling to 
 investigate for themselves the original meaning of passages 'hard to 
 be understood' even by the best trained and most earnest minds, and 
 the true sense of which is wholly obscured and lost to prejudiced or 
 ignorant and self-confident readers. 
 
 When the enemies of Jesus left him and went their way, full of 
 indignation at the obvious application of his parables to themselves, 
 it was for the purpose of consulting as to the best means of silencing 
 liis voice for ever. They feared to arrest him themselves, and deemed 
 ib safer to bring him, if possible, under some criminal charge, within 
 the clutches of the law. If they could ensnare him into some expres- 
 sion of an opinion which might be construed as treasonable, they 
 could thereby ruin him Avith safety to themselves. ' Then went the -'2 Mat. 15 
 Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk.' 
 Luke discloses the plot in all its fulness. 'And they watched him, 20 Luke -.'o 
 and sent forth spies, which feigned themselves to be righteous, that 
 they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the 
 rule and to the authority of the governor.' These emissaries were 
 not common informers. Such men would have been ill-fitted for so 
 delicate a mission. Men of high position in the religious and 
 political world were not ashamed to become the acting agents in this 
 detestable scheme. iMark records that fact. * And they send unto 12 Murk 13 
 him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might 
 catch him in talk.' Alford explains : ' The Herodians were more a 
 political than a religious sect, the defendants and supporters of the 
 dynasty of Herod, for the most part Sadducees in religious sentiment. 
 These, though directly opposed to the Pharisees, were yet united 
 with them in their persecution of our Lord, see Matt. xxii. IG : 
 Mark iii. G.' The teaching of Jesus was as hateful to the secularists 
 as to the religionists. From the first, the world at large was opposed 
 to his gospel: 'For of a truth in this city' (said the disciples) 4 .vsts 27 
 ' against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both 
 Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of 
 Israel, were gathered together.' The doctrine of non-resistance to 
 evil was enough, by itself, to rouse the opposition of military rulers. 
 Their power is founded upon physical strength and justice — or 
 injustice — by violence, war, bloodshed, — from all of which Jesus 
 lield back his followers. The following passage, from Count Leon 
 Tolstoi's ' What I believe,' is well worth our consideration : ' Not one 
 of the Apostles, not one of Christ's disciples, could have supposed it 
 necessary to forbid a Christian's committing murder, wdiich is mis- 
 called war. See what Origen says in his answer to Celsus, chapter 63 : 
 *' Celsus exhorts you to help the sovereign with all your strength, to 
 
306 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii, 
 
 take part in his duties, to take up arms for him, to serve under his 
 banner, if necessary to lead out his army to battle. Moreover, we 
 may say, in answer to those who, beino^ io-norant of our faith, require 
 the murder of men of us, that even their high-priests do not soil their 
 hands in order that their God may accept their sacrifice. No more 
 do we." And concluding by the explanation that Christians do more 
 good by their peaceful lives than soldiers do, Origen says : " Thus we 
 iight better than any for the safety of our sovereign. We do not, it 
 is true, serve iinder his baimers, and we should not, even were he tO' 
 force us to do so." It was thus that the first Christians regarded 
 war and thus their teacher spoke when addressing the great men of 
 the world at the time when hundreds and thousands of martyrs were 
 perishing for the Christian faith.' Here is a sufficient explanation of 
 the hostility of rulers to the Christian faith. Whenever the head of 
 the state authorises the persecution of a section of his subjects, it 
 must be for some grave state reason, for the upholding of his supre- 
 macy against private opinions deemed antagonistic to national policy 
 and welfare. The heathens had what we have and, alas ! boast of 
 having, — a state -religion, a system of faith and divine worship recog- 
 nised as orthodox, an ecclesiastical oiganisation working harmoniously 
 with the imperial policy, the State and the Church mutually sup- 
 porting and strengthening each other. True, the persecutions under 
 the Roman emperors took the form of upholding the recognised mode 
 of divine worship. That came naturally about, because the divinities, 
 they honoured included such as IMars and Venus, whose cult was 
 suited to a people which gloried in war and revelled in immorality. 
 10 i. Cor. 20 Paul asserted ' that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacri- 
 s John a fice to devils, and not to God.' Jesus declared that the devil ' was: 
 a murderer from the beginning,' and told those who sought his life,. 
 ' Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is 
 your will to do.' The apostle James thus criticised the warlike spirit r 
 4 James 1, 2 ' Whence come wars and whence come fightings among you ? come they 
 not hence, even of your pleasures that war in your members ? Ye lust, 
 and have not: ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain : ye fight and war.^' 
 3 i. John s We are assured : ' To this end was the Son of God manifested, that 
 he might destroy the works of the devil.' The apostle James 
 3 James 15 dcscribes a wisdom ' that cometli not down from above, but is earthly,, 
 sensual (or natural, or animal), devilish.' That is the wisdom of the 
 
 „ u> world, based on ' jealousy and faction,' and leading to ' confusion, 
 
 » 17 and every vile deed. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, 
 then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good' 
 fruits, without variance (uncoutentious — Young), without hypocrisy.. 
 
 „ IS And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for (or, by) them that 
 
 make peace.' The apostle Paul speaks in precisely the same terms : 
 
 2i. Cor. 6 'We speak wisdom among the perfect: yet a wisdom not of this 
 
 world (or, age), nor of the rulers of this world (or, age), which are 
 
 7 coming to nought : but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, evem 
 
 the wisdom that hath been hidden, Avhich God foreordained before- 
 
 „ 8 the worlds unto our glory : which none of the rulers of this world 
 (or, age) kuoweth : for had they known it, they would not have- 
 crucified the Lord of glory.' The method of Jesus is opposed to the 
 5 method of the world, and our faith does ' not stand in the wisdom of 
 
 ", 2 men, but in the power of God,' in ' Jesus Christ, and him crucified : " 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFELS. 307 
 
 all strivings ag-ainsfc evil relinquished, to make way for unlimited 
 gentleness and patient, unresisting sufterance. That is the wisdom 
 proclaimed 'among the perfect (or, full grown),' the strong ' meat ' 3 i. dr. i 
 of the spiritual disciples of Christ, as contrasted with the ' milk ' on „ 2 
 which 'babes in Christ' must needs be fed, being 'yet carnal ; ' — „ a 
 ' for whereas,' says the apostle, ' there is among you jealousy and 
 strife, are ye not carnal, and walk after the manner of men ? ' This 
 conformity to the world in spirit and practice, robs the gospel of 
 Christ of its most distinguishing characteristics, and accounts for the 
 harmony prevailing between tlie Church and the world. Tolstoi 
 continues : ' But in our times the question Avhether a Christian ought 
 to take part in war never seems to occur to any. Youths brought up 
 according to the Church law, go every autumn, at fixed periods, to 
 the conscription halls, and, with the assistance of their spiritual 
 pastors, there renounce the law of Christ.' Such facts give rise to 
 very solemn reflections, and force upon us the conclusion that the 
 spirit of the age is essentially anti-christian. It jjrevails, not in 
 Eussia only, but throughout Europe. Both in the last century and 
 in the present it made France a desolating scourge, and threw her 
 back, baffled, humiliated, defeated, to nurse again into activity, as 
 soon as may be possible, the demon-spirit of revenge. Germany is a 
 permanent camp of soldiery. The Continent seethes with the 
 elements of disturbance, rebellion, anarchy. England rushes deli- 
 berately, light-heartedly, now and again, into wars supposed to l)c 
 necessary for self-preservation or prestige. The lust for powei", 
 dominion, and military supremacy, is a national insanity, a delirium- 
 tremens, resulting from an inherited habit and curse of blood-drink- 
 ing. And all this goes on, generation after generation, side by side 
 with a profession of Christianity ! Not without reason did the apostle 
 James connect the wisdom of the world, and its strifes, with 
 ' hypocrisy.' "Where are the ' disciples ' of Jesus ? Are they simply 
 dumb, or are they non-existent ? Assuredly they are not engaged in 
 the work of bringing ' to nought the things that are.' Let any one 1 i. Cor. -25 
 of them, the very humblest, rise up in personal, practical protest, and 
 he will be treated, as were the first disciples, as a fool, a fanatic, a 
 rebel against social order. Tolstoi gives an instance : 'A short time 
 ago a peasant refused to enter the military service, grounding his 
 refusal on the words of the Gospel. The clergy all tried to persuade 
 the man that his view of the matter was erroneous ; and as the 
 peasant still beheved in Christ's words, and not in theirs, he was cast 
 into prison, and kept there till he denied Christ. And this takes 
 place although avc, Christians, received 1800 years ago a perfectly 
 clear and definite commandment from our God, which said, "Never 
 consider men of another nation as thine enemies ; look upon all men 
 as brethren, and behave towards all men as thou dost towards thy 
 fellow-countrymen ; therefore shalt thou not kill those whom thou 
 cailest thine enemies ; love all and do good to all." ' The following- 
 fact, which is stated by the translator of Tolstoi's book, ' What I 
 believe,' is equally suggestive : ' The work has unfortunately been 
 forbidden in Russia, but the manuscripts pass from hand to hand, 
 doing their silent work of regeneration in the hearts of those who 
 long for the coming of the kingdom of God on earth.' The existing 
 state of society has been brought about, and is maintained, by that 
 
 X 2 
 
308 THE KING AND TEE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 same combination of religionists and secularists which schemed the 
 death of Jesus and the overthrow of his teaching. 
 
 22 Mat. iG, _ IMatthew's account is as follows. ' And they send to him their 
 
 ^" disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Master (or, Teacher), we know 
 
 that thou art true, and teachest the way of Grod in truth, and carest 
 
 not for auy one : for thou regardcst not the person of men. Tell us 
 
 therefore. What thinkest thou ? Ts it lawful to give tribute unto 
 
 i2M.nki4, Cffisar, or not?' Mark stands as follows: 'And when they were 
 
 ^^ come they say unto him, Master (or, Teacher), we know that thou 
 
 art true, and carest not for any one : for thou regardest not the ]3er- 
 
 son of men, but of a truth teachest the way of G-od : Is it lawful to 
 
 give tribute unto Caesar, or not ? Shall we give, or shall we not 
 
 20Lnk3 2i. givc ? ' Lukc's accouut is souicwhat condensed. 'And they asked 
 -- him, saying. Master (or, Teacher), we know that thou sayest and 
 teachest rightly, and acceptest not the person of cmij, but of a truth 
 teachest the way of God : Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto 
 Cresar, or not ? ' What a sudden change of tone ! What an un- 
 expected spirit of deference ! What a flattering encomium of the 
 Teacher they had hitherto hated and despised ! What a subtle 
 question, and how difficult to answer ! Jesus saw through it and 
 them, denounced their hypocrisy, and replied warily and wisely. 
 Let them produce the coin which was payable as tribute. They did 
 so. Whose was the likeness stamped npon it, and to whom did the 
 
 22 Mat. IS- superscription refer ? ' But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and 
 
 "° said. Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites ? Shew me the tribute money. 
 
 And they brought unto him a penny (denary — Young). And he 
 
 saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription ? They 
 
 12 Mark 1.3, say unto him, Ctesar's.' Mark: 'But he, knowing their hypocrisy, 
 
 ^'' said unto them, Why tempt ye me ? bring me a penuy, that I 
 
 may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, 
 
 Whose is this image and superscription ? And they say unto 
 
 20 Luke 23, him, Cassar's.' Luke is briefer: 'But he perceived their crafti- 
 "■^ ness, and said unto them. Shew me a penny. Whose image and 
 superscription hath it ? And they said, Cassar's.' Obviously the 
 coin had once been Caasar's property, issued from his mint, and bore 
 his name as subject to his controh As it was received from or 
 through him, how could it be unlawful to restore it to him ? The 
 teaching of Jesus about 'the way of God' had no connection with 
 Cesar's property. Their claims must not be mingled, but kept 
 distinct. Duty to God could not be paid in Caesar's coin, and no 
 question could properly arise as to whether it belonged to the Eoman 
 
 22 Mat. 21 emperor or to God. 'Then saith he unto them, Render therefore 
 unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that 
 
 12 Mark IT are God's.' Mark : ' And Jesus said unto them. Render unto Ceesar 
 
 the things that are Cresar's, and unto God the things that are God's.! 
 
 20 Luke 25 Luke : 'And he said unto them. Then render unto Cresar the things 
 
 that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.' Jesus 
 
 decided that tribute was lawfully payable ; and the apostle Paul has 
 
 13 Rnm. ci, 7 exprcsscd the same opinion : ' For this cause ye pay tribute also ; for 
 
 they are ministers of God's service, attending continually upon this 
 very thing. Render to all their dues : tribute to whom tribute is due ; 
 custom to whom custom ; fear to whom fear, honour to whom 
 honour.' With equal clearness Jesus asserted that there were other 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 309 
 
 tliing-s which belonged to God, and which must be rendered to him, 
 not to Ciesar. Need we ask, What things ? * Thou slialt love the 12 Muk 30 
 Lord thy (}od from all thy heart, and from all thy soul, and iVom all 
 thy mind, and from all thy strength.' Man himself, all his bodily 
 and intellectual powers, must be yielded np to God. The command, 
 ' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' clashes not therewith, but 
 is its necessary outcome : ' He tluit loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled 13 uom. s 
 the law.' That is the extent of human duty : ' Owe no man anything, 
 save to love one another.' The question presented to Jesus was one 
 of allegiance, not of neighbourly obligation, and his answer implied 
 that some things no worldly monarch may claim. With the due 
 payment of tribute, custom, fear, honour, the requirements of sub- 
 jection and loyalty to an earthly ruler end, and Christian liberty lays 
 hold upon the counsel of a free spirit, ' Owe no man anything, save 
 to love one anotlier.' ' Render unto God the things which are God's: ' 
 only that high rule of conscience makes discipleship to Jesus possible. 
 When charged with disobedience to the commands of the ruling- 
 powers, religionists and secularists being again nnited in opposition 
 to the doctrine of Jesus, 'Peter and the apostles answered and said, uActs-jD 
 We must obey God rather than men.' There is a sharp distinction 
 between the things of God and the things of Caesar. The laws laid 
 down by Jesus for the guidance of his disciples accord not with those 
 on which hununi society has been constituted. They who were 
 willing to present themselves 'a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable toi-2Roin. 1 
 God,' were exhorted to be altogether dilFerent from the world around : 
 ' Be not fashioned according to this world (or, age) : but be ye trans- » 2 
 formed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the 
 good and acceptable and perfect will of God.' Among the duties 
 arising out of this transformation and renewal of the mind, the 
 apostle includes these: 'Render to no man evil for evil ... Be at » i">i^ 
 peace with all men . . . Aveuge not yourselves . . . Overcome evil „ 10,21 
 with good.' That is not the spirit of the world, neither are such 
 maxims consistent with the oflTice and duties of the world's rulers. 
 Yet the apostle regarded the existing authorities as worthy of respect, 
 and counselled subjection. Let us take Tiseheudorf's rendering, 
 which harmonises with Young's : 'Let every soul l)e subject to the 13 Rum. 1 
 authorities that are over him. For there is no authority but from 
 God : and those which are, have been ordained by God.' All govern- 
 ment is of divine origin, for without it, society would fall into fatal 
 anarchy: ' So that he who sets himself against the autliority, resists the .. 2 
 ordinance of God : and they that resist will receive to themselves 
 judgement.' That is equally true, whether such resistance be justifiable 
 or unjustifiable, tacit and passive or overt and active. Jesus told 
 Pilate, 'Thou wouldest have no authority against me, except it were 19 John ii 
 given thee from above : therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath 
 greater sin.' The harmless Jesus ought never to have been dragged 
 before the judgment-seat of Pilate. That was the act of the 
 religionists of those days, and how often has it been repeated since ! 
 So common a thing was it from the first for Christians to be treated 
 as their Master was, that the apostle Peter wrote as follows : ' Beloved, 4 i. Pet. 12 
 think it not strange concerning the fiery trial among you, which 
 cometh upon you to prove you, as though a strange thing happened 
 unto you : but inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's suflerings. 
 
SIO THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 4 i. Pet. 15 rejoice . . . For let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or 
 „ 1(1 an evil-doer, or as a meddler in other men's matters : but if a man 
 suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God 
 „ 17 in this name. For the time is come for judgement to begin at the 
 house of God : and if // begin first at us, wliat shall le the end of 
 them that obey not the gospel of God ?' There was no certainty of 
 escape from arraignment before judicial tribunals ; all that could be 
 
 3 i. Pet. 17 said was, ' Is is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suflFer 
 
 for well-doing than for evil-doing.' The experience was so general, that 
 it seemed like a dispensation of Providence, and a somewhat puzzling 
 
 4 i. Cor. 9 one, even to the mind of Paul, who wrote, ' For, I think God hath 
 
 set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death : for we 
 are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.' 
 Yet in truth, here was no new thing : alway.s throughout human 
 history the rectification of abuses has involved suffering, and the path 
 of progress has had to be cut with difficulty, risk and loss through 
 obstacles. That has been done by the banding of men together in a 
 common cause, by taking up arms, resorting to violence, by strife, 
 v^ar, bloodshed. The method of Jesus is altogether different : there 
 is the same concentration of energy, unity of purpose, spirit of oppo- 
 sition to existing evils ; but there is self-sacrifice without self-defence, 
 arguments enforced without arms, freedom claimed and exercised, but 
 
 12 II. -b. 4 not fought for, resistance to the utmost, if need be 'unto blood, 
 striving against sin,' but always passive, never a sword in the hand, 
 but often a cross on the shoulders, borne cheerfully even to the 
 extremity of suffering and death. Only by regarding 'the things 
 Avhich are Caesar's ' as separate and distinct from ' the things which 
 are God's,' can the work of reformation go on, and the spirit of 
 martyrdom prevail. Neither the judges who condemn, nor those who 
 are condemned, being accused, with more or less truth, of seeking to 
 
 17 Acts 6 turn ' the world upside down,' are to be blamed. The former are the 
 representatives and exponents of the national mind and will, the 
 latter, of the mind and will of Ghrist. That these are not in 
 harmony, but contrary the one to the other, is a loss and grief to the 
 whole community, all the heavier because not recognised and felt 
 generally. Inherited opinions and habits of life must needs clash 
 against new ideas, the earthly and the heavenly refuse to combine, 
 and a struggle for mastery ensues. That is the penalty of past errors 
 and evils, which the disciples of Jesus Avere called to endure. Paul 
 
 11 ii. Cor. 23 suffered in that way more than did the other apostles : ' in prisons 
 more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths oft.' Yet he 
 never railed against constituted authorities, but regarded them as 
 
 13 Rom. G 'ministers of God's service.' The world must needs take its own 
 course, and Christians theirs. Police, judges, jailers, there must_ 
 be, perchance even soldiers, though it is time that standing and 
 invading armies should be abolished as inconsistent with modern 
 enlightenment and civilization : but all these things appertain 
 to Cffisar, not to Christ, and with them his true followers can 
 have no concern. Neither Caesar nor Ctesar's representatives are 
 to be condemned : they are declared to be ministers of God, 
 » 4 avengers 'for wrath to him that doeth evil;' but they are not 
 ministers of Christ, in the sense in which the apostles were, 
 
 4 i. Cor. 1 of whom Paul said, ' Let a man so account of us, as of ministers 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 311 
 
 of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.' Their offices, 
 their function, tlicir rule of life and action, are altogether different. 
 Jesus chose his disciples out of the world, to be separate from 
 the world, to the same extent and in the same way as he was. 
 To call any man Avho wields a sword, returns a blow, sentences or 
 executes criminals, goes to law, or accumulates property on earth, 
 i\ disciple of Jesus, is to mistake the spirit of his calling and confer 
 the title wrongly. Let us be content to take lower gi-ound. It is 
 enough that we are believers in Jesus, saved by faith in him : it is 
 too much to arrogate to ourselves a position and status claimable 
 only by such as devote themselves wholly to his cause. The first 
 step towards clearness of view, accuracy of thought, and sound judg- 
 ment on this important question, is to keep distinct in our minds the 
 things of CcBsar and the things of Christ. The tendency of our 
 spiritual guides has been in the opposite direction. Dean Alford's 
 comment on this saying of Jesus is as follows: 'These weighty 
 words, so much misunderstood, bind together, instead of separating, 
 <he political and religious duties of the followers of Christ.' Christ 
 tissumed no political duties : how then can his ' followers ' do so ? 
 
 The reply of Jesus astonislied his questioners. * And they marvelled ^-^ ii'vrk it 
 greatly at him.' There was nothing in his words which they could 
 condemn or dispute. Instead of being able to frame an accusation 
 or argument against him, they Avere reduced to an ignominious 
 silence. ' And they were not able to take hold of the saying before -o Luke 26 
 the people : and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.' 
 They quitted his presence, foiled in their purpose and admiring his 
 sagacity. ' And when they heard it, they marvelled, and left him, '22 Mat. 22 
 and went their way.' 
 
 Jesus was next questioned by the Sadducees with respect to their 
 fundamental article of disbelief. ' And there come unto him Saddu- 12 Mark is 
 cees, which say that there is no resurrection.' Matthew states that 
 it was on the same day. " On that day there came to him Sadducees, 22 Mat. 23 
 •which say (dr. saying) that there is no resurrection.' Alford and 
 Tischendorf adopt the reading 'saying,' which indicates that the 
 Sadducees began a discussion about their peculiar doctrine. Luke's 
 .account implies that 'certain ' of the sect had been selected for that 
 purpose. ' And there came to him certain of the Sadducees, they 20 Luke 27 
 Avhich say that there is no resurrection.' The Authorised Version 
 stands : ' which deny that there is any resurrection,' but the Revisers 
 have followed the reading of the two oldest MSS. There is a sub- 
 stantial agreement between the evangelists as to the question pro- 
 pounded. Matthew : ' And they asked him, saying, jMaster (or, 22 Mat. 2-1 
 Teacher;, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother 
 shall marry his wife (Gr. shall perform the duty of a husband's 
 brother to his wife), and raise up seed unto his brother.' Mark: 
 * And they asked him, saying. Master (or, Teacher), Moses wrote 12 Mark lo 
 unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and 
 leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up 
 seed unto his brother.' Luke : ' And they asked him, saying, blaster -20 Luke 28 
 (or, Teacher), Moses wrote unto us, that if a man's brotlier die, 
 having a wife, and lie be childless, his brother should take the wife, 
 and raise up seed unto his brother.' A case was stated, which may 
 
312 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 22 Mat. 25- have been real or imaginary, rising out of this custom. ' Now there 
 
 -'' were with us seven Isrethren : and the first married and deceased, 
 
 and having no seed leit his wife unto his brother ; in like manner 
 
 tlie second also, and the third, unto the seventh (Gr. seven). And 
 
 12 Mark 20- aftcr them all the woman died.' Mark : 'There were seven brethren : 
 " and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed ; and the second took 
 her, and died, leaving no seed behind him ; and the third likewise : 
 and the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died.' The 
 Eevisers, following the two oldest MSS., have omitted the words 
 ' had her, and ' after ' seven.' In the Alexandrine MS. the additional 
 word 'likewise' is introduced. In the constant copying and rc- 
 copying of the manuscripts there seems to have been a temptation 
 and tendency to improve occasionally upon the original. Luke : 
 
 20 L-.ike 20- ' Tlicrc wcre therefore seven brethren : and the first took a wife, and 
 ' ^^ died childless ; and the second ; and the third took her ; and like- 
 wise the seven also left no children, and died. Afterward the woman 
 also died.' That having been the state cf things in this life, in what 
 relation would the woman stand to these seven in the next ? She 
 had belonged to each : Avhich one of them will be entitled to claim 
 
 22 Mat. 2s her ? ' In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the 
 
 12 Mark 23 scvcu ? for they all had her.' Mark : ' In the resurrection whose 
 wife shall she be of them ? for the seven had her to wife.' liuke : 
 
 20 Luke 33 ' In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be ? for 
 the seven had her to wife.' The question was not an argnment, but 
 the answer might serve as a basis on which to raise one. Yec man's 
 ignorance of the conditions of a future state of existence is no more 
 a reason for denying it, than is the ignorance of an unborn child a 
 disproof of all that appertains to the world into which it is destined 
 to enter. Light and knowledge come with life, and human relation- 
 ships in this world are morlified by man's free will to suit with the 
 necessities of his being. ' For this cause shall a man leave his father 
 and mother, and shall cleave to his Avife.' But death severs every 
 
 7 Rom. 2 bond : ' For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the 
 husband while he liveth ; but if the husband die, she is discharged 
 from the law of the husband.' If these Sadducees meant to argue 
 that the connections existing in this life must perforce continue 
 in the next, that confusion and discord must thence ensue, and that 
 there was no conceivable outlet from their supposed dilemma, they 
 must have been shallow rcasoners indeed. A bond of union first 
 voluntarily entered into, and then by an overruling fate compulsorily 
 and legally broken, — how can it be assumed to be binding and 
 infrangible subsequently ? Jesus told them that they were in error, 
 their mistake proceeding from ignorance of the divine will and power. 
 
 22 Mat. 20 ' But Jcsus auswcrcd and said unto them. Ye do err, not knowing 
 the scriptures, nor the power of God.' Mark represents this as a " 
 question, Jesus setting them to the task of self-scrutiny and enquiry. 
 
 12 Mark 24 ' Jcsus Said uuto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye 
 know not the scriptures, nor the power of God ? " Resurrection 
 from death was not a marriage ceremony, but the entrance into an 
 
 22 Mat. 30 angclical and heavenly state of being. ' For in the resurrection they 
 neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but arc as angels in 
 heaven.' It is not said, ' after the resurrection,' nor ' in the resurrec- 
 tion-life,' but simply ' in the resurrection,' that is, in the act and fact 
 
PAKT II.] .4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSFELS. 313 
 
 of resurrection, ■which has iiothiii<;' to do uith marriage, but is a 
 
 transforaiation to a more exalted (M)iiditiou of being. Mark is to the 
 
 same eil'ect. 'For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither i-^ Mark 2rv 
 
 marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in lieaven.' It is 
 
 not, ' when they shall have risen,' but ' when they shall rise,' literally 
 
 according to the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' ' when from 
 
 among dead they rise ; ' it is not, ' they will neither marry, nor be given 
 
 in marriage,' but, ' they neither marry, nor are given in marriage : ' 
 
 equivalent to : ' the rising i'rom the dead is not marrying and giving 
 
 in marriage, but the assumption of a heavenly life.' The argument 
 
 resembles that of Paul, when he said : ' For the kingdom of God is i4 Rom. ir 
 
 not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the 
 
 Holy Ghost.' Young renders 'angels' as 'messengers.' The idea 
 
 of heavenly 'angels' or 'messengers' was familiar to the Jews: 
 
 ' And of the angels he saith. Who maketh his angels winds (or, i neii. - 
 
 spirits), and his ministers a flame of fire.' The words of Jesus would 
 
 naturally be taken in that sense, not as referring to any non-existence 
 
 of marriage between angels ; for what did the hearers know, what do 
 
 we know, as to that ? Such an interpretation of the saying makes it 
 
 pointless, not an argument for conviction, but a statement beyond 
 
 luiman apprehension. Is it not rather to be viewed as a waiver of 
 
 the question the Sadducees had sought to discuss ? The doctrine of 
 
 the resurrection lies wholly apart therefrom, and has to be considered 
 
 by itself, as little connected with marrying and giving in marriage, as 
 
 with buying and selling, building and planting, or any other of the 
 
 concerns of this life. 
 
 Luke's account of the words of Jesus is much fuller, and is evidently 
 taken from a different record. ' And Jesus said unto them, The sons 20 Luke 34- 
 of this world (or, age) marry, and are given in marriage : l)ut they ^^' 
 
 that are accounted worthy to attain to that world (or, age), and the 
 resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage : 
 for neither can they die any more : for they are equal unto the angels ; 
 and are sous of God, being sons of the resurrection.' This passage 
 may be regarded from the same point of view. The institution "of 
 marriage is suited to man's necessities in this world : the attainment 
 of a higher condition of existence and the resurrection from the 
 dead, is not marrying or giving in marriage, for it is a state of 
 immunity from death, of equality with angels, of divine sonship. 
 Jesus puts aside the earthly, carnal question of the Sadducees, and 
 dwells on the ideas properly arising in connectiou with the hope of a 
 resurrection. There is another passage in which a reply of Jesus has 
 to be applied and restricted in the same way. The disciples asked 
 him, ' Kabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be ^ John 2 
 born blind ? Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his » » 
 parents.' Of course Jesus was not asserting that no sin had ever 
 been committed by them, but simply that there was no sin to be 
 thought of in connection with the blindness. Just so here : Jesus is 
 asked, ' In the resurrection whose wife of them shall she be ? ' and he 
 replies in effect. Neither wife of this man nor of that man : they 
 neither marry nor are given in marriage ; all thought of that must 
 be dismissed in connection with the resurrection. Jesus turned the 
 minds of the disciples into the proper channel by adding, 'but that 
 the works of God should be made manifest in him,' and then went on 
 
314 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 it Joim 5 to the truth, ' When I am in the world, I am the light of the world.' 
 So here : having dismissed the idea about marriage, he explains, ' for 
 neither can they die any more : for they are equal unto the angels ; 
 and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.' To adopt a 
 
 joHeb. 9 scriptural phrase : 'He taketh away the first, that he may establish 
 the second.' This interpretation is corroborated by the way in which 
 the words of Jesus are understood and dealt with by Matthew and 
 Mark. They are condensed into a single sentence : ' They neither 
 marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven, '^-whicli 
 corresponds in structure with : ' Neither did this man sin, nor his 
 parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.' 
 On the words : ' For neither can they die any more,' Alford makes 
 this explanatory comment : i.e., they will have ' no need of a succession 
 and renewal, which is the main purpose of marriage.' That is as 
 though we should argue that if Adam and Eve had not forfeited 
 immortality they would have remained childless, having ' no need of a 
 succession and renewal.' Not the simple perpetuation, but the increase 
 
 1 Gen. 28 of the spccies, has been the divine purpose from the beginning : ' Be 
 fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.' To reach the mind 
 of Jesus, his meaning must not be thus guessed at, but pondered with 
 earnest care. It is not enough to skim the narrative, and take for 
 granted the inference which seems to lie upon the surface. Does the 
 divine law, ' Be fruitful and multiply,' apply to this world only ? Let 
 those who infer as much from the saying of Jesus, ' they neither 
 marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven,' at 
 least take the j^ains to reconsider his words, and be quite sure about 
 the doctrine before they promulgate it. 
 
 The words of Jesus as reported by Luke, ' they that are accounted 
 worthy to attain to that world (or, age), and the resurrection from 
 the dead,' are not consistent with the idea of a general resurrection 
 and reunion of mankind. We arc bound to irive the same significance 
 to the expression ' accounted worthy,' in Luke, as attaches to it 
 
 .'j Acts 41 elsewhere ; and it must certainly be regarded as restrictive. ' Re- 
 joicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the 
 Name.' ' To the end that ye may be accounted worthy of the 
 kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer.' The attainment of ' that 
 world (or, age) ' in conjunction with ' the resurrection from the dead,' 
 is not represented as a certainty for all men, but as a privilege depen- 
 dent upon character. Such a conception of the resurrection was 
 contrary to the popular notion, in accordance with which the 
 Sadducees had argued. They assumed that there would be no 
 exceptions, no selection, that the seven brethren and the woman, as a 
 matter of course, would find themselves together hereafter under 
 similar conditions to those existing in this world. Not so. The sons 
 of this age do not all become sons of that age through the resurrection, 
 which involves no resumption of former earthly ties, no marrying or 
 giving in marriage. The Sadducees took the lowest and most carnal 
 view of the resurrection ; Jesus takes the highest and most spiritual, 
 
 10 i. Cor. 44 as did the apostle Paul, Avhen he wrote, ' It is sown a natural body ; 
 it is raised a spiritual body.' They might with equal unreason have 
 asked : In the resurrection whose servant shall he be, who bound 
 himself to many masters, and Avas successively freed by each ? Or, 
 In the resurrection, who, out of a succession of Head Masters, will be 
 
PART 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 315 
 
 Head Master, tlie rijihts, duties, dignities and emoluments of the office 
 l)cii),o: held for life, and then beconiin,<>- vested in another ? It might 
 Avell be answered, In the lesnrrection they neither assnme servitude 
 nor inastership ; in the resurrection they neither become teachers nor 
 pupils : the meaning obviously being, not that there will be no 
 servitude and no mastership, no teachers and no pujjils in the 
 resurrection-life, but that (juestions with resjjcct to those matters can 
 have no bearing on tlie primary question, Is there a resurrection ? 
 And then, having sho^vn what the resurrection is not, in those respects, 
 all that the resurrection really involves might be dweh on in the 
 l)recise way and words of Jesus when replying to the question which 
 was actually propounded to him. He reveals an 'age,' a condition 
 of existence, to be attained by those Avorthy of it, to whom the 
 resurrection will be much more than the living over again of the 
 former earthly life ; they will become immortalised, etherialised, 
 deiiied : 'for neither can they die any more : for they are equal unto 
 the angels ; and are sons of (Jod, l)cing sons of the resurrection.' The 
 gift of immortality is promised, not to all, but to those worthy to 
 attain to that 'age,' in which Jesus will bestow it upon those Avho 
 behold him and believe in him: ' x\nd this is the will of Him who o juiuuo 
 «ent me, that every one who is beholding the Son, and believing in 
 liim, may have life age-during, and I will raise him up in the last day.' 
 On the words ' beholding the Son,' take this apostolic comment : ' But a ii. Cor. is 
 we all, with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror (or, beholding as in a 
 mirror) the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image 
 from glory to glory.' 
 
 Having disposed of the question of the Sadducees, Jesus proceeded 
 to give a scriptural proof of the doctrine they disputed. 'But as 22 Mat. 31. 
 touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which ^^ 
 
 was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the Ood of Abraham, and 
 the God of Isaac,"^ and the God of Jacob?' Mark is fuller. ' But 12 Mark 20 
 jis touching the dead, that they are rai.sed ; have ye not read in the 
 book of Moses, in i he place coticcmhui the Bush, how God spake unto 
 him, saying, I am the (Jod of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and 
 the (Jod of Jacob.?' Luke is as follows : 'But that the dead are20Luk«:;7 
 raised, even Moses sliewed, in tJte place conccrnimi the Bush, when he 
 calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the (iod of Isaac, and the 
 Ood of Jacob.' The italicised words, ' the place concerning,' in 
 Mark and Luke, are rendered ' the history concerning,' by Alfoi'd, 
 who observes : ' The words may in the original mean either " in the 
 i-Jiapier concerning the history of God appearing in the Bush," or 
 *' tvlien he iva.s at the Bush." The former is the more probable.' From 
 that passage Jesus drew this inference : ' God is not the God of the 22 Mat. z-i 
 dead, but of the living.' The two oldest MSS. begin, ' He is not the 
 Ood.' Tischendorf renders literally : ' He is not God of dead, but 
 of living.' Mark: 'He is not the (lod of the dead, but of thei2Mai'<27 
 living : ye do greatly err.' Luke : ' Now he is not the (Jod of the 20Luk«3s 
 dead, but of the living : for all live unto him.' Young translates the 
 three passages thus : ' God is not a (xod of dead men, but of living.' 
 ' He is not the God of dead men, but of living men.' ' He is not a 
 God of dead men, but of living.' The argument is clear and con- 
 clusive, resting upon two foundations : (1) the essential relationship 
 of God to man ; (2) the declared continuance of that relationship 
 
5Ps. : 
 
 2 
 
 10 Ps. 
 
 li5 
 
 75 Ps. 
 
 7 
 
 CS Ps. 
 
 5 
 
 3 Jer. 
 
 4 
 
 04 Isa 
 
 . J 
 
 816 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 centuries aftei- the terininatiou of the earthly lives of the patriarchs. 
 Jesus takes the title ' God ' in its natural and proper sense, as 
 denoting- rulership, oversight, protection. He asserts that, obviously 
 and necessarily, ' He is not the God of dead men, but God of living 
 men.' It is possible for men to imagine and worship false gods, as 
 
 4G:ii. s the apostle says : 'Not knowing God, ye were in liondage to them 
 which by nature are no gods.' The term ' god' is synonymous with 
 king, lord, judge : ' Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King and 
 my God.' ' The Lord is King for ever and ever.' ' God is the judge : 
 He putteth down one and lifteth up another.' Any word will suit 
 which denotes power, responsibility and loving care : ' A father of 
 the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habita- 
 tion.' ' AVilt thou not fi'om this time cry unto me, My father, thou 
 art the guide (or, companion) of my youth ? ' ' For thy Maker is 
 thine husband: the Lord of hosts is his name.' The title ' God ' 
 conveys the idea of absolute supremacy over living beings : ' all live 
 unto him ; ' it cannot be applied in connection with those who have 
 
 3 o:ii. 17 passed out of existence. Some fom- hundred years after the death of 
 Abraham, God said to Moses, ' I am the God of Abraham, and the 
 God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' That by itself was proof 
 positive that those patriarchs were then alive. And inasmuch as 
 they had died, they must ns certainly have been' raised,' resuscitated. 
 Death and the resurrection are two parts, the one visible, the other 
 invisible, of the same phenomenon. AVe can see the ending of the 
 old and earthly life ; we cannot see the beginning of the new and 
 heavenly life. The course of the one is open to us, the course of the 
 other is hidden from us. The latter is not, on that account, un- 
 natural or incredible : are we not as sure of the existence of the wind 
 which is invisible, as we are of the earth which is visible ? God has 
 revealed the one to mortal eyes, but not the other ; true, we have 
 evidences of the wind, through the senses of hearing and feeling, 
 which we have not of departed yet still existent personalities : that is 
 the only diiference ; the absence of physical certainty does not mili- 
 tate against a belief founded upon other testimony vouchsafed to us. 
 The word 'resurrection,' which is rendered by Young 'rising 
 again,' obviously does not touch upon the question of corporeity or 
 incorporeity : for the argument of Jesus is, that the mention of the 
 patriarchs as living after they had died, is evidence of their ' resurrec- 
 tion ' or ' rising again,' apart from any mention of a bodily form. 
 The Sadducees assumed its existence hereafter, with all its parts and 
 passions. Modern teachers have gone to the contrary extreme. 
 Strange ideas have prevailed on this subject : as that the soul 
 continues to exist, and will remain, in an unbodied condition, until a 
 day of ' general resurrection,' when it will be reincorporated, some 
 even have asserted with the identical particles of matter which were 
 buried in the grave ! That monstrous conception is fading away, as 
 it needs must, before the light of Science and a more rational inter- 
 pretation of the Scriptures. The words of the Athanasian Creed 
 have a doubtful or double meaning : ' At whose coming, all men 
 shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for -their 
 own works,' may be understood to signify a simultaneous uprising 
 from tombs. That wrong notion involves another : either the inter- 
 mediate ' sleep of the soul,' or its continuance until the day of judg- 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 317 
 
 mcnt ill ii state of cliscmbodiment. Both ideas arc purely imaginary, 
 not scriptural revelations, but mere logical inferences, the accuracy 
 or inaccuracy of which depends on the truth or error of the i)reinises 
 on which they rest. Theologians dispute about them among them- 
 selves, as when Alford says, ' Sticr remarks that this is a weighty 
 testimony against the so-called "sleep of the soul" in the inter- 
 mediate kate.' The conception of a human soul or life without a 
 body may be stated in words, as a supposition, but has no foundation 
 in any fact within our cognizance, no analogy with anytliing in the 
 world in which we live and move and have our being. Paul assumed 
 that a doubt of the resurrection of the dead involved, as a matter of 
 course, the question, ' AVith what manner of body do they come ? ' i'' >■ <-'ir. :;.3 
 The resurrection of a man without any of the attributes of manhood, 
 of a woman witliout any of the distinctions of Avomanhood, of the 
 soul or mind without any reassumption of a material organism akin 
 to the brain through which the iuteUigence works and the nervous 
 system which conveys sensations : what kind of 'rising again ' would 
 that be ? How conceive it, ho]ie for it, long for it ? It is as though 
 you were to destroy a drum, and assert that the instrument still exists 
 in the shapeless air which it once held, and which is now mingled 
 with the surrounding atmosphere. They ' are as angels in heaven.' 
 Angels are distinct personalities, possessing forms which have been 
 rendered visible to mortal eyes, and organs of speech and touch which 
 have enables them to hold intercourse with mankind. 
 
 There are two forms of expression : Mark : ' touching the dead, 
 that they are raised ; ' Luke : ' but that the dead are raised.' That 
 is one form ; the other is, in Mark : ' when they shall rise fi'om the 
 dead ; ' in Luke : ' the resurrection from the dead.' It is the latter 
 which is alluded to as a privilege, bestowed upon those who are 
 accounted worthy to attain to it and to ' that age.' The ' resurrec- 
 tion OF the dead ' is equivalent to the statement that ' the dead are 
 raised,' that is, they are raised from death. The ' resurrection from 
 the dead ' carries a different meaning. The resurrection of the dead 
 FROM DEATH, amouuts simply to the fact that there is a ' rising 
 again.' The resurrection of the dead from the dead, denotes a 
 pre-eminence granted to certain of the dead above others of the dead. 
 This distinction is more easily caught through a language which 
 gives the plural form to 'the dead,' as the French 'les morts' and 
 the German ' die Todten.' In common language, when we speak of 
 ' the dead ' we mean those who have passed away from the earthly 
 life, as though they no longer existed. But the instant we begin to 
 speak in faith of the doctrine of a resurrection, they are no longer 
 regarded as non-existent, and by ' the dead' is meant those who have 
 entered upon the resurrection-life. Thus mankind are divided into 
 two classes. ' the living ' and ' the dead,' both equally alive, the 
 former here, the latter elsewhere. A resurrection from the Uring is a 
 thing unheard of, except in the cases of Enoch and Elijah, but we 
 are taught to expect a resurrection ' from the dead,' which is alluded 
 to as a similar translation to a higher existence, as when Paul 
 exclaimed, ' if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from 3 piiii. n 
 the dead.' Jesus Christ is styled ' the firstborn from the dead : ' in 1 Coi. is 
 what sense ? Not, certainly, that he was the first who had been 
 raised from death, for we have his own assurance that the three 
 
318 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 patriarchs had been so raised, and we are told that Moses and Elijah 
 15 i. Cor. 20 conversed with him on the mount. Xeither is Jesus called ' the first- 
 fruits of them that are asleep,' in the sense of being the first raised 
 from death : for that he was not, as is proved by his own argument. 
 In Jewish language, a ' firstborn ' son was the one exalted by his 
 father above his brethren : Isaac was deemed the ' firstborn,' the 
 ' only son,' although born after Ishmael, The 'firstfruits ' were the 
 first-gathered portion of the liarvest, reudered up as an offering to 
 22 Ex. 29 God : 'Thou shalt not delay to offer of the abundance of thy fruits, 
 and of thy liquors. The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto 
 me.' Under both figures, Jesus stands forth as the representative of 
 1 Col. 18 humanity. He ' is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead ; ' 
 i5i. Cor. 23 ' Christ the firstfruits ; then they that are Christ's, at his coming 
 John 40 (Gr. presence).' In his presence, 'beholding the Son, and believing 
 on him,' the perfect ' will of God ' in ' sending him ' will be accom- 
 plished, in 'the resurrection from the dead' of those 'that aro 
 Christ's,' 'in the last day.' The doctrine of the resurrection, so easy 
 either to deny or to profess, so hard to understand, demands a more 
 careful and discriminating study than is generally bestowed upon it. 
 
 We are told that the teaching of Jesus excited general astonish- 
 
 2-2 Mat. 33 ment. ' And when the multitudes heard it, they were astonished ab 
 his teaching.' He had put the doctrine of the resurrection on a 
 higher level of thought and certainty. The scribes also were struck 
 
 20Luke3!> by thc uovclty and cogency of his argument. ' And certain of the 
 scribes answering said, Master (or, Teacher), thou hast well said." 
 His questioners felt that it would be useless to continue the discus- 
 sion of a subject on which he had displayed such consummate kiiow- 
 ,, 40 ledge. ' For they durst not any more ask him any question.' 
 
 The news of this intellectual encounter, and of its result, was 
 carried to the Pharisees. Their opinions on the resurrection were 
 
 23 Acts 6-s diametrically opposed to those of the Sadducees. When Paul ' cried 
 out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees : 
 touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in ques- 
 tion,' there ' arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees : 
 and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is 
 no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit : but the Pharisees confess 
 both.' It would naturally be felt by the Pharisees that for the 
 Sadducees to discuss with the Teacher, who was equally obnoxious 
 to both parties, their peculiar and false tenet, was to invite defeat 
 and exalt the reputation of Jesus, which they were so anxious to de- 
 press. Therefore the Pharisees assembled themselves, doubtless still 
 
 22 Mat. r4, anxious to ' ensnare him in his talk.' ' But the Pharisees, when they 
 ^^ heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves 
 together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting 
 him.' Mark does not allude to the Pharisees, but states the fact that 
 this new questioner had been present at the previous discussion, and 
 had heard the convincing answer which had been given by Jesus to 
 
 i2M.aik28 the Sadducees. 'And one of the scribes came, and heard them 
 questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well, 
 asked him . . .' Had we Mark's account only, we should take it for 
 granted that the scribe had no bad motive in putting a further ques- 
 tion. Had we Matthew's account only, we should naturally assume 
 
PART n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 319 
 
 the contrary. Alford appears to suppose that one of the evangelists 
 gives a wronji^ colour to the matter, and that we nuist choose which 
 of their opposite views to take. He says : ' In the more detailed 
 account of Mark, this ((uestion does not appear as that of one 
 malic to i/sl/j temptin<y our Lord : and his seems to me the view to bo 
 taken, — as there could not be any evil consequences to our Lord, 
 whichever way he had answered the question.' And again: 'I 
 should be disposed to take St. Mark's as the strictly accurate account, 
 seeing that there is nothing in the question which indicates enmity, 
 and our Lord's answer (ver. 34) plainly precludes it. The man, from 
 hearing them disputing, came up, and formed one of the band who 
 gathered together for the purpose of tempting Him. St. Mark's 
 report ... is that of some one who had taken accurate note of the 
 circumstances and character of the man : St. Matthew's is more 
 general . . .' There is no reason for setting aside either evangelist. 
 Lot us combine their accounts. It is plain from Mark that the scribe 
 had listened to the former argument, and recognised the sagacity of 
 Jesus. Probably his question was spontaneous, arising out of a 
 desire to test the ability of Jesus further, and to elicit his opinion on 
 a point much debated. That is to adopt the idea of Alford, that the 
 question was not put maliciously, although Matthew describes it as 
 * tempting him.' The Greek verb here used, peirazu, is occasionally 
 rendered as ' prove ' and ' try : ' ' This he said to prove him.' ' Try o joim o 
 your own selves.' When the Pharisees who hnd not been present, 13 li. coi-. 5- 
 l>:it who, on receiving an account of what had passed, ' gathered 
 th-mselves together,' as described by Matthew, this scribe, one of 
 their own sect, without opportunity for previous consultation with 
 them, put his question to .Jesus. He anticipated them : and when he 
 had been answered, convinced, almost converted, j\Iark tells us that ,, 
 
 any further questions they might have formulated were put aside : 
 ' and no man after that durst ask him any question.' That observa- 1-2 Mark 34 
 tion indicates that there had been an evident intention of doing so, 
 which was followed by an equally evident abandonment of the design. 
 Thus viewed in conjunction, the narratives harmonise : Matthew 
 discloses the purpose of the Pharisees, and Mark how it was thwarted. 
 The test question of the scribe was innocent and harmless, for he had 
 cosne under the influence of Jesus ; and his fellow Pharisees could no 
 more escape that influence than he had done. They had resoh-ed to 
 question, cavil and condemn, but were constrained to relinquish their 
 purpose, and stood dumfounded in the presence of Jesus. 
 
 The question was this : ' Master (or, Teacher), which is the great 22 Mat. scr 
 commandment in the law?' Tischendorf renders: 'which com- 
 mandment is great in the law ? ' Mark gives it thus : ' What com- 12 Mark •_>» 
 mandmeut is the first of all ? ' In Matthew the reply of Jesus stands 
 as follows : ' And he said unto him. Thou shalt love the Lord thy -i-i Mat. sr 
 God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 
 Tliis is the great and first commandment.' The words ' great and 
 first ' possibly indicate that both were used by the questioner, 
 although Matthew records only the former and Mark only the latter. 
 In Mark the reply is fuller : 'Jesus answered, The first' is. Hear, 1-2 Mark 20. 
 Israel : the Lord our God, the Lord is one (or, The Lord is our God ; ^^ 
 
 the Lord is one) : and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with (Gr. 
 from) all thy heart, and with (Gr. from) all thy soul, and with (Gr. 
 
320 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ir. 
 
 from) all thy mind, and with (Gr. from) all thy strength.' The 
 (rreek rendered ' with ' or ' from,' is en in Matthew and ex in Mark. 
 Young and Tischendorf render the former as ' with ; ' Young, the 
 latter as ' out of ' and Tischendorf as ' from.' In the Authorised 
 Version, after the word ' first ' are the words ' of all the command- 
 ments : ' these are now omitted, on the authority of the two oldest 
 IMSS. Alford explains : ' St. Mark cites the passage entire : ' that 
 
 «; Deu. 4, is not quite accurate. The passage stands as follows : ' Hear, 
 Israel : the Lord our (rod is one Lord : and thou shalt love the Lord 
 thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
 might.' In Mark, the words 'and with all thy mind' are added. 
 
 10 Luke 27 The Same addition is made on another occasion, the extra words 
 being there placed last, and quoted by a lawyer. That first command 
 was comprehensive in the extreme, and Jesus pointed out that there 
 
 ■2-2 Mat. 39 Avas auothcr of the same character. ' And a second like toito it is 
 this (or, And a second is like unto it), Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
 
 rj Mark 31 ^8 thyself.' Mark: 'The second is this, Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyself.' There was nothing original or novel in this 
 
 10 Luke 27 reply of Jesus : those two commands Avere likewise placed in con- 
 junction by a lawyer, as containing a summary of human duties. 
 Jesus heartily concurred in that view : Avhen put forth by another, 
 „ 28 he said, ' Thou hast answered right,' and now he adopts it as his 
 
 22 Mat. 40 owu, adding, ' On these two commandments hangeth the whole law, 
 and the prophets.' Instead of that, Mark reports the following 
 
 12 Mark 31 words : ' There is no other commandment greater than these.' lb 
 may bo safely assumed that both observations were made by Jesus. 
 That we have two independent accounts, is evident from the fact 
 that w^hile ]\Iatthew ends at this point Mark proceeds. Jesus and 
 „ 32, 33 his questioner were at one on the matter. ' And the scribe said unto 
 him. Of a truth, Master (or. Teacher), thou hast well said that he is 
 one ; and there is none other but he : and to love him with all the 
 heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and 
 to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt 
 offerings and sacrifices.' The Authorised Version has : ' for there is 
 one God,' which is now altered to, ' that he is one,' on the authority 
 of the three oldest ]\ISS., but Tischendorf renders, ' that there is one,' 
 the literal translation being ' that one is.' After ' understanding ' 
 the Authorised Version has, ' and with all thy soul,' which is now 
 omitted in accordance with the two oldest MSS. The Revisers have 
 inserted ' much ' before ' more,' wdiich is a reading adopted by 
 Tischendorf and Tregellcs. The word ' with,' ex, is rendered by 
 Young ' out of ' and by Tischendorf ' from.' Instead of ' all whole 
 burnt offerings and sacrifices,' Young and Tischendorf render, 
 literally, ' all the whole burnt offerings and the sacrifices,' which 
 gives a definitencss wanting in the Authorised and Revised Versions, 
 and brings out a contrast between the ceremonial and the moral i-e- 
 quirements of the law. That was a splendid generalization, bold and 
 wise, made by this scribe, and it afforded Jesus a favourable insight 
 of his character. A mind of that stamp was well fitted to embrace 
 the whole doctrine of Jesus, and the man stood upon the threshold 
 
 ii; Mark 34 of God's kingdom. ' And when Jesus saw" that he answered dis- 
 creetly, he said unto him. Thou art not far from the kingdom of 
 of God.' 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 321 
 
 According- to Matthew, the reply of Jesus alluded to tlie heart, 
 soul and mind ; according to Mark, to the heart, soul, mind aud 
 strength: the word 'mind' not being found in the original com- 
 mand. The scribe spoke of the heart, understanding, and strength. 
 These divergences are suggestive. Obviously not the bare words of 
 the original, but the sense of them, was most cared for. In the 
 course of centuries some words become changed in meaning ; with 
 the progress of thought shades of difl'erence become noticeable which 
 at first were overlooked ; and sometimes two words may be required 
 to convey the full import covered jH'imarily by one word. This may 
 have been the case with the word 'soul.' Originally the heart and 
 soul may have been understood to comprehend all the moral and 
 intellectual faculties, but gradually ' soul ' became applied if not 
 restricted to ' life,' the latter word standing as its equivalent in the 
 New Testament. If such was the case, Jewish doctors did well to 
 introduce the word ' mind,' thereby bringing out the full and proper 
 sense of the commandment. Jesus himself followed that practice. 
 In the same spirit the scribe preferred to use the word ' understand- 
 ing,' instead of ' soul ' and ' mind,' that term being inclusive of the 
 two words. The object aimed at in such emendations was the com- 
 plete and accurate rendering of the original passage. There is the 
 same need in our own day for verbal additions and amendments, 
 especially having regard to the translations from Hebrew and Greek 
 into modern languages. Even with respect to our creeds the necessity 
 is felt and acknowledged. The words ' hell,' ' quick ' and ' catholic ' 
 carry other meanings than those current in ordinary speech. The 
 terms ' substance,' ' incomprehensible,' ' begotten,' also need to be 
 discriminated aud explained. The same care is required in the inter- 
 pretation of certain Scriptural expressions. Whoever would expound 
 them rightly must be at the pains of retranslating or modifying 
 them. The sense of the word ' church ' is lost or perverted unless it 
 be rendered ' assembly.' ' Eternal ' and ' everlasting ' are best repre- 
 sented by ' age-during.' ' Hell ' involves a distinction between 
 ' hades ' and ' Gehenna.' ' Soul ' is often interchangeable with 
 ' life ; ' and the Hebrew expression ' only begotten Son ' carries a 
 meaning not generally borne in mind. Dr. Robert Young has done 
 good service in this direction by his literal and idiomatic translation 
 of the Bible. It would obviate error and promote the truth, if others 
 would follow his example. The theory about verbal inspiration has 
 stood in the way. Men have been afraid to touch a Bible-word, and 
 the mistakes and imperfections of translators have been held as 
 sacred as the book itself. How diiferent this servile spirit from that 
 of the Jews, who grasped the fact that the command to love God 
 embraced man's whole nature, and who therefore did not scruple to 
 insert the word ' mind,' or, having done so, to use the word ' under- 
 standing ' as its equivalent. Accuracy of thought is not secured, 
 but rather endangered, by a rigid adherence to set forms of speech. 
 The recorders of our Lord's sayings seem to have been more careful 
 to convey his meaning than his precise words, so that often we find 
 them using different modes of expression, leaving us in doubt which 
 of them, or whether both, actually fell from the lips of Jesus. There 
 is an instance of this now before us. Matthew uses the word eyi 
 where Mark uses the word ex. The Eevisers merely point out this 
 
323 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 difference by a marginal note in Mark, indicatino; that the proper 
 translation is ' from,' not ' with,' but Young and Tischendorf retain 
 throughout the passage in Mark ' from ' or ' out of.' One of the 
 objects aimed at by Dr. Young in his version, was to avoid such 
 different renderings of tlie same original word, and he gives in his 
 ' General Preface to the New Translation ' some striking examples of 
 
 * the lax renderings of king James' Revisers.' For instance : the 
 Hebrew word nathan, ' to give,' is rendered by 84 English words and 
 idioms ; asah, ' to do,' by 7-4, and so on. The best translation is 
 that which adheres most closely to the original and varies as little as 
 possible the rendering of a particular word. 
 
 That the love of God enjoined by the commandment is much more 
 than a mere sentiment, is evident from the expression ' from all thy 
 heart, and from all thy soul, and from all thy mind, and from all thy 
 strength.' We are too much accustomed to regard love to God as 
 simply a mental, spiritual emotion, a feeling of devout veneration and 
 affection. That is to mistake the foundation for the building, the 
 seed for its fi-uit, the bare ground for the crop which grows upon it. 
 Love is the active operation of every attribute and power we possess ; 
 it is the putting forth of all our moral, mental and physical energies 
 towards and on behalf of the Being we adore. Be it observed also 
 that the command is not merely, ' Thou shalt love Jehovah,' but 
 
 * Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,' bringing out that relationship 
 between him and us, he our ruler, we his subjects. It is equivalent 
 to, 'Thou shalt love thy sovereign Lord and King.' Loyal and 
 submissive, having regard in all things to his supremacy, our faculties 
 bent to his will, and our activities enlisted in his service : that is the 
 love we owe to God. The name by which we know him cannot be 
 dissociated from rulership, and our allegiance must wait upon his 
 bidding. Again : the word ' thy ' here denotes, not individualism 
 but nationality, as is evident from the preface, ' Hear, Israel, the 
 Lord our God, the Lord is one : and thou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God.' The intelligence and fortitude of the entire nation were 
 demanded for the service and praise of that God who had chosen 
 
 14 Den. 2 Israel ' to be a peculiar people unto himself, out of all peoples that 
 are upon the face of the earth.' This divine command was addressed 
 to the community, not to each man individually, promulgated to the 
 people generally, yet not on that account less incumbent on all and 
 each. The idea of duty restricted to individual obedience or dis- 
 obedience, resulting in mere personal salvation or condemnation, is 
 too narrow, too selfish, too egotistical. The apostle Paul insisted 
 
 14 Bom. 7, s upon that truth, asserting that ' none of us liveth to himself, and none 
 dietli to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, or 
 whether we die, we die unto the Lord ; whether we live therefore, or 
 die, we are the Lord's.' Is not that precisely the same obligation as 
 was set forth in the words, ' Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the 
 Lord is one : and thou shalt love the Lord thy God.' Devotion to 
 God is not a mere personal concern, and the love he demands of us 
 
 jude 3 has no scope for action apart from the grand cause of ' our common 
 
 2 Eph. 12 salvation.' Only as a member of ' the commonwealth of Israel ' was 
 a Jew bound or able to manifest his love to the Lord God of Israel ; 
 and only as we belong to the true ' Israel,' — the word denoting 
 ' soldier or contender of God,' — can the heart, soul, mind and strength 
 
PART 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 323 
 
 of any one of us show forth love to our Lord God. The Scriptures 
 define love as active and willing service : ' This is the love of (iod, oi. joim:} 
 that we keep his commandments : and his commandments are not 
 grievous.' The love of God is more than morality, just as the love of 
 our neighbour is more than common justice. Love stands on a 
 higher platform of obligation than simple obedience and rectitude. It 
 opens out a fuller, ampler life, a wider sphere of activity. It is one 
 thing to say, ' All these things have I kept from my youth up ; ' it is 
 quite another and loftier thing to say, 'The love of (Jod hath been 5 Rom. r. 
 shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit which was given 
 unto us.' The former carries us no further than the desponding 
 question, ' What lack I yet ? ' The latter leads up to the joyous 
 exclamation, ' The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus s ii. Coi. u, 
 judge, that one died for all, therefore all died ; and he died for all, ' ' 
 
 that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto 
 him who for their sakes died and rose again.' The utterance of love 
 is not for every lip, the ambition and hope of love are not for every 
 mind and heart. Love to God is the perfection of manhood, engaged 
 in the service of humanity. It is ' the first commandment of all,' not 
 meaning thereby the foremost in point of time, for we attain to it last 
 of all, but first in rank and perfection, — ' the great and first com- 
 mandment.' It is easy to adopt the cant of religious phraseology, to 
 talk and sing about our love to God, to persuade ourselves that it 
 resides in our emotional faculties, and floats heavenwards in ecstasies 
 of prayer and praise : it is something far more real and substantial ; 
 it involvestheabnegatiouof self and the world, and devotion to Christ 
 and the kingdom of heaven ; and only in proportion as we have the 
 Spirit of Christ can we possess the love of God. Who among us caa 
 lay claim to it ? Not all, certaiuly ; not many, probably. They are 
 few who rise to the height of the ' great and first commandment ; ' 
 but there are none of us who cannot, if we will, place our hands upon 
 the second like unto it, ' Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself.' 
 Only through the lower can we hope to reach the higher, ' for he that •* >• J"i'i> J' 
 loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he 
 hath not seen ; ' and when, climbing upwards on the love of man to 
 the love of God, we have attained to the summit of Christian perfect- 
 ness, it will be to realise the grand truth that the love of God is the love 
 of Jesus, and the love of Jesus is the love of man, for ' this command- „ ji 
 ment have we fi'om him, that he who loveth God love his brother also.' 
 
 The Pharisees who had assembled round Jesus showing no further 
 inclination to question him, he took the opportunity of putting a 
 question to them. ' Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, n Mat. 41, ^ 
 Jesus asked them a question, saying. What think ye of the Christ ? 
 whose son is he ? ' There was no hesitation or doubt about their 
 reply. ' They say unto him, The son of David.' Jesus had been „ vi 
 often greeted by that title, which can-ied with it more than the idea 
 of mere descent, according to the popular notion. The Jews cherished 
 the hope of a temporal I^Iessiah, and were ready enough to hail Jesus 
 as such, and to cry out, ' Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the 11 Mark 10 
 kingdom of our father David,' The expression ' our father,' not 
 * his father,' indicates that the terms ' father ' and ' son ' were taken 
 generally in a broader sense than with us. We use the words 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 * fathers,' ' forefathers ' in the same way, but the singular form, 
 'father' or 'forefather' is restricted by us to natural kinship. 
 Those who welcomed Jesus as ' son of David ' must have done so 
 without any evidence of his pedigree ; tliey did not wait or care to 
 trace up his genealogy, before offering him their homage under that 
 title. 
 
 Taking up the answer of the Pharisees, Jesus enquired how they 
 would reconcile their conception of the Messiah's sonship to David, 
 with that lordship of the Christ to which David had acknowledged 
 •22 Mat. 43- himsclf to bc subjected. ' He saith unto them, How then doth 
 ■^^ David in the Spirit call him. Lord, saying. 
 The Lord said unto my Lord, 
 Sit thou on my right hand, 
 Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet ? 
 If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son ? ' 
 
 The ' Psalm of David ' begins in the Kevised Vei'sion as follows : 
 110 Ps. 1 ' The Lord saith unto my lord, Sit thou at my right hand. 
 
 Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.' 
 A careful reader may observe that the second ' lord ' is without a 
 capital letter, therein differing from the Authorised Version ; but a 
 quick and critical eyesight is needed to take note of the fact that the 
 tirst ' Lord ' is in somewhat different type, all the letters being small 
 capitals. A person hearing the verse read could not possibly imagine 
 these differences existed ; and those who are painstaking enough to 
 detect them on perusal are left without a clue to their significance. 
 If one happens to have read the Revisers' lengthy ' Preface,' and to 
 remember the various explanations therein given, he will understand 
 the reason and meaning of this capitalisation of the word ' Lord.' 
 The Revisers explain : ' It has been thought advisable in regard to 
 the word " Jehovah " to follow the usage of the Authorised Version, 
 and not to insert it uniformly in place of " Lord " or " God," which 
 when printed in small capitals represent the words substituted by 
 Jewish custom for the ineffable Name according to the vowel points 
 by which it is distinguished. It will be found therefore that in this 
 respect the Authorised Version has been departed from only in a few 
 passages, in which the introduction of a proper name seemed to be 
 required.' That opens our eyes to the fact, doubtless new to most of 
 us, that the same small capitalisation of the words ' Lord ' and ' God ' 
 has ahvays existed in the Authorised Version. If any ordinary 
 reader ever observed it, he would find nothing whatever to indicate a 
 connection with the word ' Jehovah,' for the Dedication to King 
 James in the Authorised Version, beginning : ' Great and manifold 
 ■were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the 
 Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when 
 first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us,-' 
 — that Preface enters into no particulars as to the mode and method 
 of the translation. Now if we turn to the Prayer Book Version of 
 the Psalms, which is a still older translation, we find no capitalisa- 
 tion of the word ' Lord : ' that was a step, halt-hearted and ineffec- 
 tive, taken by King James' translators, not towards absolute accuracy, 
 but towards an indication that a perfect and proper rendering had 
 not been attempted either by their predecessors or themselves. And 
 now, 270 years later, the Revisers frankly tell us that they delibe- 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 325 
 
 lately decided to go no further in the direction of a true and literal 
 rendering. ' It lias been tiiouglit advisable ' not to render the word 
 
 * Jehovah ' as Jehovah, but instead thereof to put another word in 
 small capitals ; and for this no better reason is assigned than that 
 others did so before them ! In this passage Dr. Young's version, 
 stands : 
 
 ' Jehovah * affirmeth to my Lord : 
 
 Sit at my right hand, 
 
 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.' 
 But on this point even Dr. Young has been inconsistent, picking and 
 choosing for himself, sometimes inserting Jehovah, but generally 
 replacing that word, after the fashion of the Authorised Version, by 
 *Lord,' only in larger capitals, without a hint in his preface of what 
 they signify. Considerations of expediency are out of place in the 
 work of translating the Scriptures. We do not want to know what 
 any theologian, or body of theologians, may consider ' advisable ' in 
 the way of adhering to former errors or imperfections of rendei'ing, 
 but to have placed before us the nearest possible apjwoach to a literal 
 translation. That no difficulty stands in the way of a scholar who is 
 entirely free from the trammels of conventionality, with respect to 
 the rendering of the word 'Jehovah,' is proved by Samuel Sharpe's 
 translation of the Scriptures from Van der Hooght's edition of the 
 Hebrew Bible printed in Amsterdam in 1705. The Preface states : 
 
 * The aim of the Translator has been to shew in the Text, by greater 
 exactness, those pecidiarities which others have been content to point 
 out in Notes and Commentaries.' Accordingly, in Samuel Sharpe's 
 Version there is no capitalisation of the words ' God ' and ' Lord,' but 
 a constant use of the name 'Jehovah.' Take this 110th Psalm as an 
 example. Verse 1. 'Jehovah said to my Lord; 2. Jehovah will 
 send the sceptre of thy power out of Zion ; 4. Jehovah hath sworn ; ' 
 but in verse 5 it is ' the Lord,' not ' Jehovah,' removing an obscurity 
 needlessly introduced to the puzzlement of simple English readers. 
 Turning page after page of Sharpe's translation, the word ' Jehovah ' 
 meets the eye, so that one can only wonder why it has been so syste- 
 matically kept out by others. The exclusion begins with verse 4 of 
 the 2nd chapter of G-enesis, which Sharpe renders : ' This is the 
 birth-book of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, 
 in the day that Jehovah God made the earth and the heavens.' Up 
 to the end of the 4th chapter the terms 'Jehovah God' and 'Jehovah' 
 are used, whereas in the 1st chapter the word ' God ' is used through- 
 out. In the 5th chapter 'God' again recurs, but in the 29th verse 
 
 * Jehovah ' is the word used. These distinctions in the original are 
 by no means unimportant, and whoever would get at the true sense 
 of these ancient records must resort to versions which bring out their 
 variations clearly, rather than trust to a Version, however much 
 
 * Eevised,' which persistently fails to do so. To print always a 
 wrong word, but in different type, is not equivalent to giving the 
 correct word. From the observation of the Revisers it appears that 
 
 * A careful and esteemed critic, on reading the author's ]\IS., has called 
 attention to the fact that the 'word " Jehovah " itself is the result of combining 
 the true consonants with false vowels, and therefore " a mongrel or fantaatic 
 word" — "a mere makeshift." Gesenius's Heb. Gram. tr. by Dr. B. Davies 
 (Asher & Co.), pp. 52, 230, 356 : cf. Spottiswoode's Variorum Bible, on Ex. iii. 
 and \'i.' 
 
d26' THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part it. 
 
 Jehovah ' stands in place of the ineffable Name,' a 'proper name ' 
 belonging to the Deity. Has the word a definable meaning ? and if 
 so, does it signify ' Lord ' or ' God ? ' Nuttall's Dictionary gives the 
 following definition : ' Jehovah. God as related to the Jew (literally, 
 the self-existent and eternal, from Heb. hat/ah, to be).' The follow- 
 
 3 Ex. 14, 15 ing passage in the Revised Version accords with this : 'And God said 
 unto Moses, I am that I am (Or, I am, because I am, Or, I am who 
 am, Or, I will be that I will be) : and he said, Thus shalt thou say 
 unto the children of Israel, I am (Or, I will be, Heb, Ehyeli) hath 
 sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt 
 thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord (Heb. Jehovah, from 
 the same root as Ehyeh), the God of your fathers, the God of 
 Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto 
 you.' There is therefore a relationship between 'I am' and 'Jehovah' 
 and the root of the latter word has reference to existence. ' The name 
 Jehovah is formed from the Hebrew word which signifies to he, in its 
 various inflections of am or is, was and will le.' It would seem, 
 therefore, that if ' Jehovah ' is translated it must be by some such 
 equivalent as ' existing,' ' living,' or ' eternal.' To render it by 
 ' Lord ' or ' God ' appears to be improper, and sometimes tautological. 
 The expression ' Lord God ' is tantamount to ' God God,' whereas 
 ' Jehovah God ' or ' living God ' is correct in form and sense. This 
 
 6 Ex. -2, 3 is borne out by the following passage : ' And God spake unto Moses, 
 and said unto him, I am Jehovah : and I appeared unto Abraham, 
 unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty (Heb. El Shaddai), but 
 by (or, as to) my name Jehovah I was not known (or, made known) 
 to them.' It is therefore obvious that ' God ' and ' Jehovah ' are not 
 synonymous terms, and as ' God ' and ' Lord ' are synonymous, 
 neither of them can properly be used in place of ' Jehovah.' Sharpe's 
 rendering brings this out clearly : ' And God spake to Moses, and 
 said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, 
 and to Jacob, as El (or, God) Almighty, but by my name Jehovah 
 was I not known to them.' There are passages which, as rendered 
 by Sharpe, indicate a connection in Jewish minds between the word 
 
 5 Deu. 2C ' Jehovah ' and the word ' living.' ' If we hear the voice of Jehovah 
 our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, 
 that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst 
 
 17 i. Sain. 30, of the fire, as we have, and hath lived?' Again: 'Thy servant 
 ^" slew both the lion and the bear. And this uncircumcised Philistine 
 shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the army of the living 
 God. David said moreover, Jehovah, who delivered me out of the 
 paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me 
 out of the hand of this Phihstine. And Saul said to David, Go, and 
 may Jehovah be with thee.' Many of the Psalms assume a different 
 complexion when the word ' Jehovah ' is introduced as the proper 
 name of the Deity, and is not confused with the word ' God ' or 
 'Lord.' Take as an example Sharpe's version of the following 
 Psalm. 
 
 ' I waited patiently for Jehovah. 
 
 And put into my mouth a new song of praise to our God. 
 Many will see it, and fear, and Avill trust in Jehovah. 
 Blessed is the man that maketh Jehovah his trust. 
 Many works hast thou done, Jehovah, my God. 
 I delight to do thy will, my God. 
 
 40 Ps. 1 
 „ 3 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 327 
 
 Lo, I hiive not closed my lips, Jehovah, thou knowest. 40 r.s. 9 
 
 Withhold not, Jehovah, thy tender mercies from me. „ n 
 
 Be pleased, Jehovah, to deliver rae ; „ 13 
 
 Jehovah, make haste to help me. 
 
 May Jehovah be magnified. „ 10 
 
 But 1 am poor and needy, yet the Lord thinketh on me. 17 
 
 Tarry not, my Cxod.' 
 The translation of .Jehovah by ' Lord ' is not confined to the 
 English version. Luther habitually rendered it in the same way. 
 For instance : in the 2nd chapter of Genesis Sharpe repeatedly intro- 
 duces 'Jehovah God,' which is rendered by 'Gott der Herr, God the 
 Lord,' and ' Jehovah ' by itself is represented by ' Herr, Lord.' But 
 then Luther is consistent, and avoids altogether the word ' .Jehovah,' 
 even in the crucial passage which has been considered, which he 
 renders as follows : ' IJnd Gott redete mit Mose, und sjirach zu ihm : cex. 2,3 
 Ich bin der Herr. Und bin erschieuen Abraham, Isaak und Jacob, 
 dass ich ihr allmilchtiger Gott sein Avollte ; aber mein Name, Herr, 
 ist ihnen nicht geoflfenbaret worden : ' ' And God spoke with Moses, 
 and said to him, I am the liOrd. And have appeared to Abraham, 
 Isaac and Jacob, that I would be their almighty God ; but my name, 
 Lord, was not revealed to them.' Obviously Luther made no attempt 
 either to disclose the name ' Jehovah,' or to coin a word in place of 
 it, but arbitrarily adopted as its representative, not as its equivalent, 
 the word ' Herr,' which conveys the same meaning as ' Lord ' in 
 English. This imperfection in their own translation was recognised 
 by Iving James' Revisers, who called attention to it, and indicated 
 that there was something beyond the common meaning to be attached 
 to the word ' Lord ' wherever they caused it to be printed in small 
 capitals. That is no sufficient guide to the sense of the original, and 
 the constant use of a wrong word, however distinguished in type, can 
 only mislead ordinary readers. The marginal notes now thrown in 
 are important, and a careful student of the Scriptures must needs 
 feel grateful for them ; but it is much to be regretted that Dr. 
 Robert Young and our Revisers did not go further in the way of 
 correction, and that the bent of their minds led them to acquiesce iu 
 the mistake of former translators, and to perpetuate the banishment 
 of the name ' Jehovah,' wherever possible, from the English Bible. 
 The ' Appendix ' placed at the end of the Revised Version of the 
 Old Testament shows that the American Old Testament Revision 
 Company protested against the omission of the word ' Jehovah.' 
 Their note to that effect stands foremost, and is as follows : ' Substi- 
 tute the Divine name " Jehovah " wherever it occurs in the Hebrew 
 text, for " the Lord " and " God " and omit the marg. to " the 
 Lord " at Gen. ii. 4, and " Heb. Jehovah''' from the marg, at Ex. iii. 15, 
 also substitute " Jehovah " for " the Lord " or *' Jah " wherever the 
 latter occurs in the Hebrew text, and retain or insert " Heb. Jah " in 
 the marg. ; where " Jehovah " immediately follows, viz., in Is. xii. 2, 
 xxvi. 4, read " Jehovah even Jehovah " and omit " Jehovah " from 
 the marg.' 
 
 The Pharisees were baffled by the question of .Jesus, being unable to 
 attempt any solution of the difficulty he had raised. Their dis- 
 comfiture had a wholesome effect, and deterred all others thenceforth 
 from interrupting his course of teaching by pestering him with hard 
 
328 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 22 Mat. 46 questions, * And no one was able to answer him a word, neither 
 durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.' 
 Having failed to elicit an explanation from the Pharisees, Jesus 
 12 Mark 35- referred the same enquiry to his hearers generally. ' And Jesus 
 37 answered and said, as he taught in the temple. How say the scribes 
 that Christ is the son of David ? David himself said in the Holy 
 Spirit, 
 
 The Lord said unto my Lord, 
 Sit thou on my right hand, 
 
 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. 
 David himself calleth him Lord ; and whence is he his son ? ' Luke's 
 20Lxike4i- account, also, implies that the question was put to the people. ' And 
 ''■* he said unto them, How say they that the Christ is David's son ? 
 For David himself saith in the book of Psalms, 
 ' The Lord said unto my Lord, 
 Sit thou on my right hand. 
 
 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.' 
 David therefore calleth him Lord, and how is he his son ? ' In the 
 Authorised Version the quotation in Matthew stands, ' Till I make 
 thine enemies thy footstool,' w^hich is altered by the Revisers to ' Till 
 I put thine enemies underneath thy feet,' on the authority of the 
 two oldest MSS. In Mark, the Vatican only out of the three oldest 
 MSS. has a similar reading ; the Revisers have not adopted it, but 
 have inserted the note : ' Some ancient authorities read underneath 
 thy feet.'' In Mark and Luke the Revisers have altered ' footstool ' 
 to ' footstool of thy feet.' That is a difference of translation, not of 
 readings, and Sharpe renders it in the same way as the Revisers, 
 although Young and Tischendorf do not. The tautology of the 
 expression sufficiently accounts for its not having been rendered 
 literally. Luther agrees with the Revisers, but the German word for 
 footstool being ' Schemel,' there is no tautophony between it and 
 *Fusse,' 'feet/ 
 
 By beginning the words ' Spirit ' and ' Holy Spirit ' with capitals, 
 the translators have introduced the idea of a divine personality : at 
 least, that is the sense which ordinary readers would give to words so 
 distinguished. The Authorised Version renders Matthew, literally, 
 ' in spirit,' uncapitalised, now altered by the Revisers to ' in the 
 Spirit,' capitalised. Tischendorf agrees with the Authorised Version ; 
 Sharpe also ; and the latter, in Mark, instead of ' in the Holy Spirit,' 
 capitalised, has ' in holy spirit,' uncapitalised, a reading which was 
 adopted by Griesbach and Wordsworth. The introduction of capitals 
 is obviously uncalled for, not warranted by the original, and 
 scarcely fair towards English readers, who are accustomed to attach 
 a certain significance to the use of them. 
 
 What would be the proper answer to the question which was left 
 unanswered ? Jesus did not deny, could not have intended to throw 
 a doubt upon the fact, that Christ was actually descended from 
 David. The apostle Paul announced that as an undoubted truth : 
 ' Concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to 
 1 Rom. 3 the flesh ; ' but he instantly went on to the higher truth : ' who was 
 „ 4 declared (Gr. determined) to be the Son of God with (or, in) power, 
 according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead ; 
 even Jesus Christ our Lord.' It was that loftier relationship to which 
 Jesus called attention, and the existence of which was clearly indicated 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 329 
 
 when David himself owned personal allegiance to tlie Christ. There 
 
 was obviously an aspect under which David contemplated the Messiah, 
 
 which was incompatible with the ordinary ideas of mere natural 
 
 descent and relationship. "Writing under a spiritual influence, David 
 
 reversed the recognised order of precedence, and si)oke of Christ not 
 
 as his son but as his lord. The word ' son ' was equivalent to 
 
 * descendant,' one born in some distant age, and whose orbit of life 
 
 and influence could at no point cross tliat of a long-departed ancestor ; 
 
 but the title ' lord ' denotes a ' ruler,' one to whom David would look 
 
 up for guidance, and to whose laws he would yield obedience. The 
 
 promised son would be no mere follower of the father ; there would 
 
 be no repetition of the earthly career of David, no re-establishment 
 
 of his kingdom founded upon force and cemented with blood. The 
 
 spirit of prophecy had foretold a new order of things, under a new 
 
 Lord, who would sit at Jehovah's right hand, ' from henceforth lo Heb. 13 
 
 expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet.' That 
 
 attitude of non-interference and simple expectation accords with the 
 
 Psalm, with the apostle's interpretation of it, and with the whole 
 
 teaching and plan of Jesus. 
 
 ' Jehovah will send the sceptre of thy power out of Ziou ; 
 Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.' 
 To rule in the midst of enemies is surely a new development, and 
 well describes the gospel scheme. Equally significant of the Christian 
 warflire is the following verse : 
 
 ' Thy people will be of willing heart in thy day of battle, 
 
 On the mountain of holiness 
 
 From the womb of the morning was the dew of thy youth.' 
 How well does that describe the voluntary discipleship demanded by 
 Jesus, the earnest strife his people wage above and aloof from the 
 world, so distinct from and high above its level, and the new and 
 pure doctrine of Jesus, evolved out of the earth like dew by his up- 
 rising as a sun of righteousness. Then comes the verse : 
 ' Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent, 
 Thou art a priest for ever of the order of Melchizedek,' 
 which the same apostle applies to the high priesthood of Jesus. The 5 Heb. 5, 
 Psalm throughout is Messianic in forecast and in spirit. The similes 
 at the close are in the tone and language of the warlike David, but 
 they must all be interpreted to accord with Avliat precedes. The 
 divine spirit of prophecy has breathed through human instruments, 
 and the notes, although they make heavenly music, give evidence of 
 the imperfection of the medium through which they are conveyed. 
 This Psalm of David touches upon that ' salvation of souls ' to which 
 the apostle Peter alluded, and to it his words are applicable : ' Con- li. Pet.. 10- 
 cerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, ^- 
 
 who prophesied of the grace that sJioukl come unto you : search- 
 ing w'hat time or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which 
 was in them did point out, when it testified beforehand the 
 sufferings of (Gr. unto) Christ, and the glories that should follow 
 them. To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto 
 you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced 
 unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by (Gr. in) 
 the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.' To call the attention of 
 the Pharisees and of the people generally to the prophecy of David, 
 was the best way of leading them to a conception of the spiritual 
 
330 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 character of the reign of Christ. Their inability to solve the question 
 was by itself a proof that there were heights and depths relating to 
 the office and kingdom of the Christ, to which they had not attained, 
 and which were not included in the popular expectation of a temporal 
 Messiah. Alford observes : ' From the universally recognized title 
 of the Messiah as the Son of David, which by His question He elicits 
 from them, He takes occasion to shew them, who understood this 
 title in a mere worldly political sense, the difficulty arising from 
 David's own reverence for this his son : the solution lying in the in- 
 carnate Godhead of the Christ, of which they were ignorant.' That 
 last sentence narrows down the explanation to one particular theo- 
 logical dogma, about which nothing was known. If that were the 
 only possible solution, what would have been the use of putting the 
 question ? A knowledge of the miraculous incarnation of Jesus was 
 not indispensable to the acknowledgment of him as Son of God. The 
 import of the title rests not on that foundation only. When Jesus 
 14 Mat. 33 had calmed the tempest, ' they that were in the boat worshipped him, 
 ■27 Mat, 54 saying, Of a truth tiiou art the Son of God.' And we read that ' the 
 centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they 
 saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly, 
 saying, Truly this was the Son of God (or, a son of God).' The 
 expression had a definite meaning altogether independent of the 
 mystery of the incarnation, which is not once alluded to in the 
 preaching of the apostles or in the epistles. Paul based the claim of 
 Jesus to the title, not on his birth but ou his resurrection : ' who was 
 determined the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of 
 holiness, by the resurrection of the dead,' rendered by Young : ' who 
 is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of 
 holiness, by the rising again from the dead.' 
 
 On the words, ' David in the Spirit,' in Matthew, and, ' David 
 himself saith in the Holy Spirit,' in Mark, Alford makes the following 
 note : ' This is a weighty declaration by our Lord of the inspiration of 
 the prophetic Scriptures.' The remark is as natural as it is important. 
 In proportion to our hostility to the theory of inspiration, when 
 placed upon a wrong basis and carried to an extreme unwarranted 
 by the Scriptures themselves and which is repugnant to common 
 sense, must be our anxiety to admit the doctrine to the full extent to 
 which it is justified by the divine revelation and does not offend our 
 judgment or make unauthorised demands upon our credulity. We 
 have here the belief of Jesus himself upon the matter, and it accords 
 1 ii. Pet. 21 entirely with the statement of the apostle Peter, that ' men spake 
 from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.' The whole Bible, from 
 the first verse of Genesis to the last of Revelation, is a declaration of 
 divine power and influence exercised on behalf of mankind. That 
 conviction uprose early in human history, and continued in full force- 
 during thousands of years. That is a fact which cannot be denied, 
 the historical and prophetic books of the Old and I^ew Testaments 
 being in themselves a consecutive chain of evidence. We have not to 
 deal with the primary beliefs of ignorant, uncivilized savages. The 
 patriarch Abraham was not of that class, and the divine revelations 
 and promises made to him either were realities, true in substance and 
 fact, or fables invented by human genius. The same remark applies 
 to the historical books which relate the deliverance of the Israelites 
 from Egypt, the giving of the law, the institution of an elaborate 
 
PART 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 331 
 
 ritualism, the settlement in Canaan, the comraenceraeut of the 
 monarchical system, the continuous stream of prophecy throughout 
 the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all tlie prophets up to Malachi. It 
 is easy enoug-h for a solitary thinker to set aside the beliefs, and the 
 outcome thereof, which have accumulated during past centuries, to 
 treat them all as idle tales, to transfer the puerilities and unre- 
 liabilities attaching to the creeds of other nations to the history of 
 the Jewish people, classing them all together, and waving them an-ay 
 as myths of olden times, unworthy of credence by a scholar of these 
 enlightened days. The fashion sets that way. The solemn account 
 of tlie raising of Lazarus is deemed, forsooth, a freak of the imagina- 
 tion, and the resurrection of Jesus is assumed to have no foundation 
 in fact. All theories are possible and plausible to the minds which 
 form them, and all alike must be established or crumble into nothing- 
 ness at the touch of reality and truth. The Jews and their prophets, 
 Jesus and his apostles, and the first and subsequent believers in 
 Christianity, were neither fools nor children, but equal in capacity 
 and power of judgment to the most enlightened scholars of the pre- 
 sent day. The matters which the men of old believed in and placed 
 on record were within the scope of their personal observation, and if 
 they had not been true it is impossible to suppose such men would 
 have accepted them, held fast to them at peril of suffering and death, 
 and have devoted their lives to the promulgation of the gospel. We 
 have to choose between two contrary propositions : (1) That God, 
 the Jehovah of the Jews, has granted a revelation to mankind ; (2) 
 that no such revelation has been made. As a mere subject of 
 scientific enquiry, the one is as credible and reasonable as the other. 
 In support of the second we have the deductions, inferences, conclu- 
 sions, of men who have investigated, more or less fully and carefully, 
 the records of past times, and who express their opinion to the efiect 
 that the Scriptures of the Jews are worth no more than the sacred 
 books of other nations, if so much ; that the very idea of a miracle 
 is offensive to a well-trained mind (the miracles of science always 
 excepted), that it is a thing incredible that God should raise the dead, 
 and that the whole human race, Jews and Gentiles alike, have been 
 left from the first, whatever they may think to the contrary, without 
 one law for guidance from above, or one spark of inspiration from a 
 Supreme Intelligence. On the other hand, in favour of the first pro- 
 position, we have a mass of evidence handed down from earliest ages, 
 carried on through successive generations, forming a consecutive narra- 
 tive, one thread of purpose and design running through the whole. The 
 mental calibre of the psalmists and prophets is not surpassed by that 
 of their modern critics, and the mind of Jesus of Nazareth, as revealed 
 to us through the gospels, apart from other evidence and claims, 
 towers high above the intellects of those who would have us 
 appraise him as a mere dreamer of dreams, an enthusiast who over- 
 rated himself and deluded his followers. The words of Jesus and 
 the writings of the apostles survive them, amply demonstrating their 
 powers of intelligence and soundness of judgment. It is enough for 
 us that Jesus endorsed the belief current among his countrymen on 
 the subject of inspiration. The extent to which that doctrine may 
 be carried is still an open question. The apostle Peter was of opinion 
 that the prophets themselves were not able to grasp the nature of 
 
332 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n. 
 
 that salvation to which the Messianic Spirit within them testified, 
 although they were led to foretell a condition of mingled suffering 
 and glory which should be realised in some distant future. The 
 prophetic insight was not in all to the same extent, and it would seem 
 that the visions of futurity necessarily took the form, character and 
 words natural to the minds to which they were presented. It is 
 quite conceivable that clearer and brighter views might be obtained 
 at one time than at another, by the same individual, and that different 
 men, speaking by the same Spirit, should realise in varying degrees 
 the coming destinies of mankind, and describe them after the fashion 
 of the ideas most prominent and habitual in their own minds. Take, 
 for instance, the psalm to which Jesus referred. The first four verses 
 accord Avith all we know of Messiah's spirit and kingdom, but then 
 David proceeds to paint a picture in his own colours descriptive of 
 the justice and triumph of the Christ. 
 110 Ps. 5, 6 ' The Lord at thy right hand 
 
 Shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. 
 He shall judge among the nations, 
 He shall fill the places with dead bodies ; 
 He shall strike through the head in many countries.' 
 Taken as jDure figures of speech, but in no other way, all this 
 denotes the ultimate supremacy of the Messiah. The literal sense is 
 utterly abhorrent to the aims and character of Jesus. In another 
 Psalm, not of David, we have a clue to the true meaning of these 
 ' desolations ' which God will bring upon the earth. 
 46 Ps. s-io ' Come, behold the works of the Lord, 
 
 What desolations he hath made in the earth. 
 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth ; 
 He breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder ; 
 He burneth the chariots in the fire. 
 Be still, and know that I am God : 
 I will be exalted among the nations, 
 I will be exalted in the earth.' 
 Take another Psalm, evidently prophetic. 
 72 Ps. 5-9 ' They shall fear thee while the sun endureth, 
 
 And so long as the moon, throughout all generations. 
 He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass : 
 As showers that water the earth. 
 In his days shall the righteous flourish ; 
 And abundance of peace, till the moon be no more. 
 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, 
 And from the River unto the ends of the earth. 
 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him ; 
 And his enemies shall lick the dust.' 
 That last line is out of harmony with the rest, unless we take it in ' 
 a figurative sense. The same remark applies to the closing words of 
 verse 4, which stands as follows : 
 
 'He shall judge the poor of the people, 
 He shall save the children of the needy, 
 And shall break in pieces the oppressor.' 
 14 i. Cor. 32 Paul explained that ' the spirits of the prophets are subject to the 
 prophets ; ' and when Peter expressed his conviction that the Spirit of 
 1 i. Pet. 10- Christ was in those who foretold gospel days, he claimed for them no 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 333 
 
 greater gift than that which every Christian must possess, for ' if any s Rom. 9 
 man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.' There is no more 
 justification for the assertion that the Spirit of God in the Old and 
 New Testament writers conferred infolhhihty upon them, than there 
 would be for claiming the same infallibility for all Christians now. 
 * To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.' 1-2 i. cor. 7 
 The test of true inspiration is profitabhiess : ' Every scripture inspired 3 ii. Tim. m 
 of God is also profitable.' Tischendorf, Sharpe aud Luther render 
 that passage in the same way, so that it really carries a meaning 
 contrary to that deduced from the Authorised Version, which stands 
 as follows : 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, aud is 
 profitable.' To assume that there is nothing in tlie Bible purely 
 human ; that every sentence has been framed under divine guidance; 
 that mistakes and misapprehensions were eliminated from the minds 
 of the writers, when they wrote or dictated these records, however 
 little that may have been the case with them at other moments : that 
 is a proposition too monstrous and absurd to be upheld in all its 
 nakedness. Yet the theory of Inspiration, long held and insisted on, 
 amounts to neither more nor less than that. Let us distinguish 
 between infallibility and spirituality, and between spirituality and 
 omniscience. The saying of Jesus that David in the Holy Spirit 
 called Christ Lord, testifies only to the spiritual insight of David. 
 To that extent, at least, God had ' sent forth the Spirit of his Son,' 4 Gai. 6 
 into the heart of David, as he does now into our hearts : for ' no man 12 i. Cor. 3 
 can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit.' Consider how 
 unhesitatingly the apostle Paul asserted, not only the existence of a 
 spiritual influence in believers, but its universality among them, and 
 its varieties of operation. ' Now there are diversities of gifts, but the „ 4-] 
 same Spirit, And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same 
 Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who 
 worketh all things in all. But to each one is given the manifestation 
 of the Spirit to profit Avithal. For to one is given through the Spirit 
 the word of wisdom ; and to another the word of knowledge, accord- 
 ing to the same Spirit : to another faith, in the same Spirit ; and 
 to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit ; aud to another 
 workings of miracles (or, powers) ; and to another prophecy ; and 
 to another disceruings of spirits : to another divers kinds of tongues ; 
 and to another the interpretation of tongues : but all these worketh 
 the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as 
 he will.' The doctrine of inspiration cannot be rightly grasped 
 by those who restrict it to the writers of the Old and New 
 Testaments. That is the fundamental error to be guarded against. 
 Inspiration has been held to signify, not spirituality, but infallible 
 accuracy, not the natural, spontaneous outcome of that energy and 
 intelligence which the Spirit of God has vouchsafed ' to each one 
 severally, even as he will,' but a kind of rehgious ventriloquism, as 
 though the lips of prophets were moved by a supernatural influence 
 to utter words not of their own choosing. Except in the case of 
 Balaam, what justification do the Scriptures afford for such an idea ? 
 The recognition by Jesus of the fact that David and other prophets 
 spake ' in the Holy Spirit ' must not be assumed to favour whatever 
 views of inspiration happen to be current among theologians. His 
 admission of the doctrine must not be confounded with their definition 
 
334 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 of it Dean Alford, in the Introduction to his ' New Testament for 
 EngHsh Readers ' has defined his belief in inspiration : ' I regard the 
 Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments to have been given 
 by inspiration of Almighty God, and in this respect to differ from all 
 other books in the world. I rest this my belief on the consent of 
 Christ's Holy Catholic Church, and on evidence furnished by these 
 books themselves.' That phrase, ' the consent of Christ's Holy 
 Catholic Church,' is sonorous and solemn, but pub into plainer words 
 it amounts to this : That the belief in inspiration is based upon the 
 opinions of Christians m general, and that no one in particular is 
 responsible for it. AYe are to accept it, because others accepted it 
 before us. It is held to follow that, inasmuch as the four gospels 
 have been consented to by the Church, their compilers are to be 
 assumed to have been inspired, — Mark and Luke, who were not 
 apostles, equally with Matthew and John who were. The successive 
 steps of the argument are not disclosed, and consequently no attempt 
 is made to examine and substantiate them. The 'consent of Christ's 
 Holy Catholic Church' covers everything, and so, without enquiry 
 and without scruple, Alford reaches the following conclusion : ' The 
 two, three, or four, Gospel records of the same event are each of them 
 separately true : written by men divinely guided into truth, and 
 relating facts which happened, and as they happened.' This is 
 another turning-point in the argument, it being taken for granted 
 that inspiration and historical accuracy are either identical, or that the 
 former includes the latter, and that inasmuch as the New Testa- 
 ment writers were inspired, they must been supernaturally guided in 
 the task of compilation, and were enabled unerringly to sift the false 
 •< from the true. So we are led on and on, from one assumption to 
 another, only to find at last that the doctrine of inspiration, which is 
 founded upon ' the consent of Christ's Holy Catholic Church,' is not 
 consented to in the same sense by those who hold it, so that Alford 
 has to argue against the theory of verMl inspiration, and to fall back 
 upon phnarij inspiration, saying, ' If I understand plenary inspiration 
 rightly, I hold it to the utmost.' He arrives finally, however, at this 
 conclusion : ' We must take our views of inspiration, not, as is too 
 often done, from d priori considerations, but entirely from the evidence 
 furnished by the Scriptures themselves ; ' with which, it may be added, 
 the consent of the ' Church ' has nothing to do. 
 
 Every attempt to bring the teaching of Jesus into contempt had 
 failed ignominiously, and his discourses were now attended by 
 
 12 Mark 37 crowds of eager listeners. ' And the common people (or, the great 
 multitude) heard him gladly.' Alford notes that the expression 
 ' common people ' in the Authorised Version is ' literally ike great 
 multitiicie.'' Young, Tischendorf and Luther so render it, and Sharpe 
 and the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' ' the great crowd.' 
 Jesus was addressing his disciples, but what he said to them was 
 heard by others, and he did not scruple thus publicly to utter a 
 w^arning against the scribes, their love of ostentation, their rapacity 
 
 CO Luke 45- and hypocrisy. 'And in the hearing of all the people he said unto 
 
 *^ his disciples," Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long 
 
 robes, and love salutations in the market-places, and chief seats in 
 
 the synagogues, and chief places at feasts ; which devour widows' 
 
PART II.] A SSTUJJY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 335 
 
 houses, and for a pretence, make long prayers : these shall receive 
 greater condemnation.' Mark is to the same effect: 'And in his 12 M.-uk 38- 
 teaching he said. Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long ■*° 
 
 robes, and to have salutations in the market-places, and chief seats in 
 the synagogues, and chief places at feasts : they which devour 
 widows' houses, and for a pretence make (or, even while for a 
 pretence they make) long prayers ; these shall receive greater con- 
 demnation.' The Kevisers have altered ' damnation ' to ' condemna- 
 tion.' Young renders, ' more notable judgment,' and Tischendorf, 
 ' more abundant judgment.' In these few masterly W'ords and 
 touches Jesus thus summarised the lives and characters of this class 
 of men : their love of dress and deference and precedence, always 
 and everywhere, their grasping avarice, veneered over with sancti- 
 monious observances. There was a world of cant in those days, as in 
 ours, crying out for exposure, and meriting the contempt of every 
 honest mind. Vices of that kind deserve, and will receive, a greater 
 measure of reprobation than open transgressions : ' Some men's sins ■' '• Tim. lm 
 are evident, going before unto judgement : and some men also they 
 follow after.' A poison disguised as fragrance and permeating the 
 atmosphere, works more mischief than the oj^en contamination of a 
 dungheap. Jesus directed the full force of his eloquence, and that 
 not once or twice only, against the miasma of hypocrisy. This 
 condemnation of the scribes, related by Mark and Luke, was pre- 
 liminary to a long and vehement discourse recorded by Matthew. 
 Jesus began by bidding his hearers recognise the judicial position 
 occupied by the scribes and Pharisees, whose counsels might be 
 followed safely and in all good conscience. Their teaching by way 
 of precept was right, but the example of their lives was pernicious. 
 ' Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying. The 23 Mat. 1-3 
 scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat : all things therefore 
 whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe : but do not ye after 
 their works ; for they say, and do not.' Tischendorf renders : ' sat 
 on Moses' seat ' ; and Young literally : ' On the seat of Moses sat 
 down the scribes and the Pharisees.' Alford notes : ' The verb 
 rendered sit must not be pressed too strongly, as conveying blame, — 
 have seated themselves ; it is merely stated here as a matter of fact.'' 
 Their teaching was rigid and burdensome in the extreme, but their 
 own lives w'ere light and frivolous. ' Yea, they bind heavy burdens " ^ 
 and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders ; but 
 they themselves wall not move them with their finger.' The Revisers 
 note that ' many ancient authorities omit and grievous to he home.'' 
 It is omitted by Tischendorf and Alford. The reading of the oldest 
 ]\IS. is, ' great heavy burdens, and lay.' The Authorised Version 
 has, ' with one of their fingers,' but Young and Tischendorf agree 
 with the Revisers in rendering, ' with their finger.' Their airy, 
 fantastic finger-touch, which was all they cared to give, could not 
 lay hold upon and grapple with the stern and solemn responsibilities 
 they preached about. Their chosen sphere of action was in duties 
 and customs which could be exhibited externally, making themselves 
 conspicuous in the eyes of men. ' But all their works they do for to .. '>-'i 
 be seen of men : for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge 
 the borders of their garments, and love the chief place at feasts, and 
 the chief seats in the synagogues, and the salutations in the market- 
 
336 THE KIXG AND THE KINGDOM: [part ir 
 
 places, and to be called of men, Rabbi.' The two oldest MSS. omit 
 ' of their o^arments,' which seems to be the reason why the Revisers 
 italicised those words. The Authorised Version repeats the word 
 * Rabbi,' now omitted on the same authority. 'Uppermost rooms at 
 feast ' is now literally translated, ' chief places (conches — Young) at 
 feasts.' Alford explains : ' Pliylacteries, in the Hebrew, Tephillhi, 
 were strips of parchment with certain passages of Scripture, viz., 
 Exod. xiii. 11—16 and 1—10: Deut, xi. 13—21 ; vi. 4—9, written 
 on them, and worn on the forehead between the eyes, on the left 
 side next the heart, and on the left arm.' On the title ' Rabbi,' 
 •23 Mat. 8 Jesus obscrvcd : ' But be not ye called Rabbi : for one is your 
 teacher, and all ye are brethren.' The words ' even Christ,' after 
 ' teacher,' are now omitted, not being in the two oldest MSS. The 
 word rendered ' Master ' iu the Authorised Version and ' director ' by 
 Young, is now replaced by' teacher,' according to a different reading. 
 „ 9-12 Jesus continued : ' And call no man your father on the earth : for 
 one is your Father, which is in heaven (Gr. the heavenly). Neither 
 be ye called masters, for one is your master, even the Christ. But 
 he that is greatest (Gr. greater) among you shall be your servant (or, 
 minister). And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled ; 
 and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.' Tischeudorf 
 renders ' masters, master,' as ' leaders, leader,' and Young as 
 'directors, director.' Alford explains that 'call no man your father 
 on the earth ' is, ' literally, name not any Father of you on earth ' : 
 the command is to the disciples collectively, not designed to touch 
 upon personal and family relationships. Jesus strenuously insisted 
 upon equality among his disciples. The collective title which best 
 beseems them is ' brethren.' Freedom, absolute and entire, is their 
 heritage. Much of the evil existing in the world has risen up and 
 been perpetuated through the spirit of autocracy. Lordship on the 
 one side, and servility on the other, have made the multitude 
 obedient slaves to one absolute, imperious will, and have enabled 
 monarchs and their coadjutors to deluge the world with blood, so 
 that dynastic and national feuds, with all the accompanying horrors 
 of war, have come to be regarded as the natural, justifiable, inevitable 
 condition of humanity on earth. The aim of Jesus, the sum and 
 substance of his gospel, was to introduce 'peace on earth' ; and his 
 repeated counsels to his disciples to eradicate from their minds the 
 very idea of domination and direction by a recognised superior, to 
 acknowledge no fealty except to one heavenly Father, and to own no 
 Lord, no teacher, no leader, except Christ himself, — this was the 
 best, the essential method of bringing to pass his gracious purposes 
 . of blessing to mankind. Let us not fall into the error of assuming 
 that such exhortations have only a theological aspect and bearing, 
 and relate simply to liberty of conscience and judgment in matters of 
 faith and modes' of divine worship. The precepts of Jesus touch the 
 whole life and character. He bound his disciples to transfer their 
 allegiance from others to himself. Absolute subjection to his rules 
 of conduct constitutes the only reason and justification of this 
 immunity from worldly claims and customs. The counsels of Jesus 
 are for disciples of Jesus ; what he speaks, he speaks to those who 
 receive the law at his mouth and fashion their lives to his pattern. 
 Emulations, distinctions, precedences, titles of honour, — these are 
 
PAKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 337 
 
 badges of tlic world's system, and are contrary to tlie method and 
 spirit of Jesus. To carry out his intentions, it was, and is, absohitely 
 necessary tliat a Christian brotlierhood should exist, owning no lord 
 but the Christ, rejecting the world's maxims, holding aloof from all 
 strife of law or arms, accumulating no surplus property, estranged 
 from courtly rank, and allowing among its own members no titles of 
 supoi-iority or supremacy. The adoption of any lower standard of 
 discipleship than this, is evidence of departure from the high ideal oi' 
 the gospel, and of the blending of the church with the world. Alas ! 
 the very conception of such an organisation is now almost lost 
 to mankind. ISTo distinction is drawn, or even suggested, between 
 simple 'believers' and professed 'disciples' of Jesus. The only 
 difference now is between the clergy and the laity, and that not a 
 difference between discipleship and nou-discipleship, but of profession 
 and of dress, all else that is lawful to a layman being equally lawful 
 to a clergyman. There are two conceivable ways of bringing 
 mankind under the rule of Christ, of establishing the kingdom of 
 heaven upon earth. The fii'st is, to iutroduce all into the church of 
 (*hrist on easy terms, as a matter of course and of inherent right, 
 adopting infant baptism, and then endeavouring, by means of 
 (Christian teaching, to persuade all men to live up to the precepts of 
 Jesus, first toning them down somewhat, as though they were 
 couched in figurative language which needs to be interpreted and 
 modified to square with the established customs and recognised tone 
 of society. That has been the system pursued through many 
 centuries : the result being that dense masses of the population, in 
 so-called Christian countries, are sunk in worse than heathen degra- 
 dation, the worship of mammon prevails, and the warlike spirit 
 among nations is as rampant as in the time of the Caesars. The plan 
 of Jesus is the very opposite of tliat which has been so long adopted 
 and perseveringly adhered to. It consists in the enlistment and 
 organisation of a band of ' disciples,' volunteers in the cause of 
 Christ, who have pledged themselves not merely to aim at but 
 actually to live the heavenly life on earth, having their hearts and 
 their treasure in the heavens, taking all the counsels of Jesus, 
 without exception or equivocation, as their rule of life, w^hen reviled, 
 reviling not again, but committing themselves to him who judgeth 
 righteously, animated by the spirit of Jesus, devoting themselves as 
 the apostles did, and able to take up the apostle's words : ' We are -i i- Cor. o-is 
 made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and to men. AVe 
 are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ ; we are weak, 
 but ye are strong ; ye have glory, but we have dishonour. Even 
 unto this present hour, we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, 
 and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place ; and we toil, 
 working with our own hands : being reviled, we bless ; being perse- 
 cuted, we endure ; being defamed, we intreat : we are made as the 
 refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things, even until now.' 
 Such a l)ody of disciples would teach by example, far more than by 
 precept, and assemblies of believers watched over, taught and guided 
 by such men, would imbibe the true spirit of Christianity, so alien 
 from and antagonistic to that of the world, the flesh and the devil, 
 thereby solving at a stroke all problems and oppositions of law and 
 liberty, freedom and servitude, capital and labour, socialism and 
 
338 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 individualism, free trade and protection, peace and war, which now 
 distract the minds and sever the interests of mankind. Christianity, 
 rightly viewed, means emancipation from the false and narrow 
 teachings, maxims and customs of the world : it aims at neither 
 more nor less than the regeneration, purification and perfection, — 
 physical, mental, moral, — of the whole human race. It is not a 
 system of dogmas, a scheme of salvation oflFered for individual 
 acceptance or rejection, but the establishment of a heavenly kingdom 
 ;uider the sway of Jesus. 
 
 ^- 1'-^- " ' In his days shall the righteous flourish : 
 
 And abundance of peace, till the moon be no more.' 
 
 There have always been men and women desirous of devoting 
 themselves, their property and lives, unreservedly to Christ ; but they 
 have been encouraged to forsake the world, to enter monasteries and 
 nunneries. Such a withdrawal from society, from the ordinary 
 walks and avocations of life, is incompatible with discipleship to Jesus, 
 and thwarts its very aim and object. To take vows of poverty, of 
 celibacy, of obedience to ecclesiastical superiors, is contrary to the 
 spirit of gospel freedom, and runs counter to the will of Jesus, who 
 must be the only Rabbi, lord and master to his disciples. They must 
 be left free to follow the leading of his Spirit. Nonconformity to the 
 world and conformity to Jesus is the essence of discipleship. Any 
 institution framed after the pattern of the world, which adopts badges 
 of distinction, titles of pre-eminence, judicial powers, and claims the 
 right of defining and restricting Avhat is to be believed and preached, 
 cannot be in unison with the mind of Jesus. He said : ' Be not ye 
 called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren . . . 
 Neither be ye called masters : for one is your master — the Christ.' 
 There must ])e an absolute reversal of the system prevailing in the 
 world Vt'ithout : ' He that is greater among you shall be your servant. 
 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled ; and whosoever 
 shall humble himself shall be exalted.' How can the disciples of 
 Jesus claim freedom from the world's teaching and behests, if they set up 
 and bow down to a similar domination among themselves ? Christianity 
 could no more secure immunity from that gradual yet sure process of 
 deterioration which attacks the loftiest ideals and aspirations of 
 humanity, than could Judaism and the Mosaic dispensation. The 
 scribes and Pharisees were the leaders and teachers of religious 
 thought and practice, yet so far had they declined from the spirit of 
 the divine law and of the prophets, that they scrupled not to seek the 
 death of Jesus, and compelled hirn to aim at the weakening of their 
 influence by exposing and denouncing the abominations of their 
 principles and characters. They were the opponents of religious pro- 
 gress, hostile to Messiah's ]Hu-poses, and doing all they could to . 
 yp, M;<t. 13 hinder the establishment of his kingdom. ' But woe unto you, scribes 
 and Pharisees, hypocrites I because ye shut the kingdom of heaven 
 against (Gr. before) men : for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer 
 yc them that are entering in to enter.' The verse which stands next 
 in the Authorised Version is now omitted. It is not in the two 
 oldest MSS. Alford says : ' It is Avancing in almost all the oldest 
 authorities. It appears to have been inserted here by the copyists 
 from Mark xii. 40, or from Luke xx. 47.' The note inserted by the 
 
I'AUT II.] .-l STUDY OF THE VOUU (WSl'ELS. 339 
 
 licvisers indicates that the position of the verse varies in the copies in 
 which it stands. 
 
 It was no lack of energy which held tliesc men aloof from the 
 cause of Jesns. They had * a zeal for God, but not according to i<' H'"h. l- 
 knowledge.' They could be enthusiastic in the work of gaining 
 converts to their own system of faith and practice. ' Woe unto you, :33 Mat. i.-, 
 scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and land to 
 make one proselyte.' Alas ! for those who thus submitted to their 
 influence : ' And when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a „ i:, 
 sou of hell (dr. Gehenna) than yourselves.' Of the word ' hell' the 
 following explanation is given in ' Helps to the Study of the Bible.' 
 ' Hell is from a root meaning " to hide," so that the original sense is 
 " the hidden or unseen place " (8keat). It serves as the translation 
 of two words, viz. 1 JSheol (Heb.) or Hades (Gr.), the abode of 
 departed spirits, as in the Apostles' Greed. 2 (lelienna (Heb.) the 
 Valley of Hinnom, the dark gorge on the west side of Jerusalem, 
 where was the furnace (Tophet) in which idolators offered human 
 sacrifices, and " made their children to pass through the fire to 
 Moloch ; " and in which persons, convicted of aggravated wilful 
 murder, were burnt to deatli ; hence it was synonymous with a place 
 of torment — " hell-fire " (Mat. v. 22).' That last statement, and the 
 inference drawn from it, must not be accepted apart from proof. 
 Where is the evidence that burning criminals to death was a Jewish 
 custom ? It could not have been in the days of Jesus, for the Jews 
 said to Pilate, 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.' is-ioimai 
 Mention is omitted to be made of the fact, stated by others, that the 
 (Jehenna fire was kept burning for the destruction of offal and garbage. 
 Possibly the f/mrf bodies of certain criminals may have been cast there 
 to take their chance of putrefaction or cremation, for such a custom 
 seems to be alluded to in the closing verse of Isaiah : ' And they shall ^'"^ isa. -a 
 go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed 
 against me : for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be 
 (juenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.' The idea 
 of Gehenna in the minds of the hearers of Jesus, must have been 
 connected with worthlessness, infamy, and corruption, the casting 
 away and destruction of that which was vile and contaminating. It 
 would be a frightful perversion of the meaning of Jesus to take his 
 words, \ve make him twofold more a son of Gehenna than yourselves,' 
 as signifying that the scribes and Pharisees and their proselytes 
 deserved to be and would be burnt to death. A still more hideous, 
 revolting and absurd sense has been put upon them: that of being 
 east alive into fire, ever burning, yet never consumed. 
 
 The scribes and Pharisees played fast and loose with conscience, 
 and had a systematised method of freeing men even from solemn 
 obligations voluntarily entered into. Certain forms of words had 
 been devised with that object, and on a former occasion Jesus showed 
 that the effect of one of them was to abrogate a divine command : 
 ' Ye say. If a man shall say to his father or his mother. That where- 7M;uk ii-is 
 with thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, 
 (iiven io God; ye no longer suft'er him to do aught for his father or his 
 mother ; making void the word of (Jod by your tradition : and many 
 such like things ye do,' Jesus now gives some further instances. 
 ' AVoe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear 23 Mat. ig 
 
 z 2 
 
340 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 by the temple (or, sanctuary), it is nothing ; but whosoever shall 
 swear by the gold of the temple (or, sanctuary), he is a debtor (or, 
 bound htj his oaiJi).'' Such casuistry was detestable ; and it assumed 
 the temple to be inferior to the metal which adorned it, which is as 
 though one should argue that the dress is more than the wearer. 
 
 23 Mat. 17 ' Ye fools and blind : for whether is greater, the gold or the temple 
 (or, sanctuary) that hath sanctified the gold ? ' In the same way, 
 they annulled an oath by the altar, and ratified an oath by the gift 
 placed thereon : a fanciful and false distinction, making man's gift 
 „ IS, of more account than (lod's altar. ' And whosoever shall swear by 
 ^'^ the altar, it is nothing ; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is 
 upon it, he is a debtor (or, bound ly his oafh). Ye blind : for 
 whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift ? ' 
 In truth, however, i'. was no question about less or greater, and an 
 honest mind would brush aside such fine-spun theories, devised only 
 as loopholes of escaj^e for a guilty conscience. The greater includes 
 „ -lo-i-i the less, and the less involves the greater. ' He therefore that 
 sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 
 And he that sweareth by the temple (or, sanctuary), sweareth by it, 
 and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that sweareth by the 
 heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth 
 thereon.' 
 
 It was the habit of these men's minds to regard the less more than 
 „ ^3 the greater. ' Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for 
 ye tithe mint, and anise (or, dill) and cummin, and have left^ undone 
 the weightier matters of the law, judgement, and mercy, and faith : 
 but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other 
 undone.' Young renders : ' These it behoved you to do, and those 
 not to neglect.' Tischendorf: 'These ought ye to have done, and 
 not leave those,' which agrees Avith Luther's, 'Diess sollte man thun, 
 und jenes nicht lassen.' 
 
 In the Authorised Version the next verse stands : ' Ye blind 
 guides, Avhich strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel,' rendered by 
 „ :24 the Eevisers : ' Ye blind guides, which strain out the gnat, and 
 swallow the camel,' and by Young: 'Blind guides! who are straining 
 out the gnat, but the camel are swallowing.' As the straining out 
 refers to drinking, so the swallowing would naturally be understood 
 
 n Lov. 4 to refer to eating, the Jews being forbidden to eat camel. The use 
 of the indefinite instead of the definite article in the Authorised 
 Version has caused the passage to be regarded as a strong hyperbole, 
 but there is no sufficient reason for assuming an interpretation so far- 
 fetched and exaggerated. The idea of trangression in eating and 
 
 123 Mat. 25 drinking being thus laid hold of, it is carried on as follows : 'Woe 
 unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye cleanse the out- 
 side of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion 
 and excess.' Tischendorf renders, ' robbery and incontinence ; ' 
 Young : ' rapine and incontinence ; ' Sharpe : ' rapine and injustice,' 
 the last word being a different reading, adopted by Griesbach and 
 Wordsworth, 'unrighteousness.' The meaning obviously is, 'full of 
 that which proceeds from extortion and excess : ' the livelihood of 
 these men consisted not in the fruits of honest labour. It was a 
 grave charge to make against a class, but Jesus accused them 
 unhesitatingly and openly, asserting now that they devoured widows' 
 
I'ART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOHPELi<. 341 
 
 houses on religious pretexts, and once before : ' Now do ye Pharisees u Luke a;* 
 rleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter; but your inward 
 part is full of extortion and wickedness.' Not all their punctilously 
 observed traditions about 'washings of cups, and pots, and brasen : Mark 4 
 vessels,' could purge away the taint of food acquired and eaten in 
 fraud and dishonour. Only an honest meal could be clean eating. 
 ' Thou blind IMuu-isee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the -n Mat. -.'li 
 platter, that the outside thereof may l)ecome clean also.' 
 
 Outward appearance was everything to them : they themselves 
 were like polished tombs, conspicuously fair outside and all foul and 
 corrupt within. ' Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! „ -j; 
 for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beauti- 
 ful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all unclean- 
 ncss.' Jesus did not shrink from applying the simile, which was not 
 one whit too repulsive to describe their character. 'Even so ye also ,t -js 
 outwardly appear righteous unto men, but inwardly ye are full of 
 hypocrisy and ini(|uity.' Well might they take delight in buildiug 
 sepulchres and adorning tombs. That was one of their forms of 
 ostentatious piety, to hold in reverence the names of martyred 
 prophets, and disclaim participation in the guilt of their murderers. 
 • Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye l)uild the „ ■-if', so 
 sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous, 
 and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not 
 have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' There 
 was just one truth in that : the acknowledgment that they were sons 
 of persecutors and prophet-slayers. And it was equally true that 
 they were engaged now in the same course ; and Jesus, whose life 
 they sought, challenges them to complete their fathers' deadly work. 
 He would not yield to them, and there was no outlet from the strife 
 between them, except the catastrophe from which neither he nor they 
 would shrink — his death. ' Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that „ ^1,32 
 ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up then the 
 measure of your fathers.' It was their very nature and training to 
 be inimical to the welfare of the community, treacherous, venomous, 
 and they must be left to work on towards and until their doom of 
 retribution. ' Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape „ .•?:! 
 the judgement of hell (Gr. Gehenna) ? ' Three years had passed since 
 the Baptist applied to this class of men the same simile, ' offspring of 3 Mat. v 
 vipers.' They were still unchanged ; in the opinion of John and 
 Jesus they were, as a class, beyond hope of change. When such 
 religious teachers thus speak in the ears of all men, it must be 
 because the accused have l)een already tried and found guilty at the 
 bar of public opinion. The spirit of Pharisaism had infused itself 
 into the fountain-head of religious doctrine, poisoning the stream at 
 its source. No reform could be carried out except in opposition to 
 their influence and teaching ; it was a question of life or death on 
 both sides : either the gospel must remain unpreached, the kingdom 
 of heaven shut up against men, or its opponents must be exposed, 
 impeached, defied and overcome. The career of Jesus was but the 
 beginning of the strife, which would be continued in his name by 
 men hostile to and ahead of the spirit of the times, as the prophets 
 were, teachers of a wi.sdom higher than the world, scribes of a new 
 class, apart from those who now stood up side by side with the 
 
342 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 •-':? jimi. :u Pharisees. ' Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise 
 men, and scribes.' Like their Master they would be appointed to 
 death, even as malefactors, to infamous punishment before the con- 
 gregations they sought to influence, being hunted from place t(» 
 „ 34 place, and finding nowhere rest or peace. ' Some of them shall ye 
 kill and crucify ; and some of them shall ye scourge in your syna- 
 gogues, and persecute from city to city.' The method of propagating 
 the gospel on the one hand, and of opposing it on the other, ditlered 
 not from that whereby advancing light and truth had been dissemi- 
 nated and resisted from the earliest times. The first martyr under 
 
 7 Acts 51, 52 the new dispensation proclaimed that fact: 'Ye stiffnecked and 
 uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost : 
 as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not yonr 
 fathers persecute ? and they killed them which shewed before of the 
 coming of the Righteous One ; of whom ye have now become 
 betrayers and murderers.' These outrages upon humanity were all 
 done in the name of religion, by those who had constituted them- 
 selves, and deemed themselves, sjiiritual guides and rulers of their 
 countrymen. Civil magistrates take the lives of murderers and 
 hardened criminals ; conquerors slaughter all alike who stand in the 
 way of their ambition ; only theologians singled out for their attack 
 the upright, the farseeing, those guiltless of aught save the love of 
 truth and the spirit of enquiry and reform. The shedding of 
 ' righteous blood ' has been the speciality of religionists in all ages : 
 the persecutors for conscience' sake can alone be held responsible for 
 
 ! 3 Mat. 35 it ; therefore Jesus added : ' That upon you may come all the 
 righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the 
 righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye 
 slew between the sanctuary (shrine — Tischendorf) and the altar.' 
 The quarrel of Cain against Abel was a theological one, arising out 
 of their different modes of worshipping Jehovah. It is not known 
 who Zachariah son of Barachiah was : probably the victim last 
 murdered in Jerusalem on account of his religious opinions and 
 teaching. 
 
 But although a certain class was primarily and chiefly responsible 
 for the perpetuation of the spirit and the carrying out of the system 
 of persecution, the responsibility was not confined to them, and its 
 consequences would fall upon the nation generally. The force of 
 . public opinion, that is, of the majority of their fellow citizens, must 
 either have been in their favour, or utterly callous to their wrong 
 
 M Mark 5:; doiugs. The high priest, the chief priests, the elders and the 
 ,, ii4 scribes, first laid their hands upon Jesus, ' and they all condemned 
 
 15 Murk 1 him to be worthy of ((xr. liable to) death,' and ' delivered him up to 
 1 1 Pilate.' We are told also that ' the chief priests stirred up the 
 multitude, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.' The ' 
 
 5Actsi>8 high priest and his council said to the apostles, 'ye . . intend U\ 
 bring this man's blood upon us.' Yet Peter charged the people 
 
 .•J Acts J4 generally with participation in the crime : ' But ye denied the Holy 
 and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto 
 you, and killed the Prince of life.' The guides and their followers 
 17 were equally blind : ' And now, brethren, I wot that in ignorance ye 
 did it, as did also your rulers.' Bigotry, ignorance, prejudice, 
 indifference, — they all have a share in national crimes, serving to 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. .•34:*, 
 
 explain their origin, but they do not extenuate them, neither can the 
 natural evil consequences of sucli wi'ong doing be averted, or confined 
 to their authors and abettors. Jesus added : ' Verily I say unto you, i: 
 All these things sliall come upon this generation.' Hosca had 
 prophesied : ' My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge : i 
 because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that 
 thou shalt be no priest to me : seeing tliou hast forgotten the law of 
 thy (rod, I also will forget thy children.' Things were now fast 
 coining to that inevitable crisis. The moral tone of the nation was 
 weakened and perverted under the influence of a false system of 
 religious teaching. In vain had .Jesus sought to stem the flowing 
 current of corruption. His efforts had failed of success. In Galilee 
 and elsewhere he wtis held in honour, but in the metropolis of .ludrea 
 the influence of the Pharisaic and clerical party was too strong for 
 him, and the very centre of national life and policy remained under 
 their guidance and control, its inhabitants generally either indifferent 
 or hostile to his teaching. ' Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth s- 
 the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her ! how often 
 would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth 
 her chickens under her wings, and ye would not ! ' Luke recorded 
 this apostrophe, but introduced it in another coimection, and 
 apparently out of place. ' Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the i 
 prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her ! how often would 
 I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen fjaOicreth her 
 own brood undsr her wings, and ye w-ould not ! ' The simile is 
 peculiar, — cast in a different mould of thought than that which bears 
 the world's stamp. Jesus desired to become the Saviour of his 
 countrymen. How ? Not by inciting them to arms, infusing martial 
 courage, bidding them stand upon their defence, and, if need be, 
 resist their foes. He had a plan and purpose of his own, and would 
 have them rest their confidence entirely upon himself. Had they 
 done so, listened to his call, received his doctrine, heard his voice 
 and followed him, as sheep their shepherd to the fold, or as a 
 helpless brood nestles under the mother's wing, the war-storm would 
 have passed over, leaving them unharmed. Jesus was no disturber 
 of the world's peace, and would have brought the peace of heaven to 
 his followers. The all-conquering Romans might have scorned his 
 gospel, scoffed at the proclamation of a heavenly kingdom, but they 
 would not have cared to oppose the Christian doctrine, or to 
 exterminate its adherents. That was the work of the bigoted Jews, 
 from whom the heathens had not yet learnt the art of religious 
 persecution. The gospel of Jesus would have replaced patriotism by 
 a nobler spirit, have quenched the animosities of creed and race, and 
 made Jerusalem the source of glory and joy to the whole earth, 
 instead of a heap of ruins. Jesus continued : ' Behold, your house : 
 is left unto you desolate.' The Revisers note : ' Some ancient 
 authorities omit desolafe.' It is not in the Vatican MS. In Luke 
 the Revisers have italicised the word, which is omitted from the 
 three oldest ]\ISS. There was nothing to be expected for the country 
 but utter ruin and devastation. Jesus could not stand forth as the 
 Messiah of the people except in his proper character, nor save them 
 otherwise than in his own way. False Christs might rise, holding 
 out delusive hopes, but Jesus must retire from the scene, until 
 
n ].ukc ] 
 
 34-1 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 they were able to recognise the nature of his mission and hail him as 
 the divinely-appointed Saviour. ' For I say unto you, Ye shall not 
 sec me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the 
 name of the Lord.' 
 
 There is a great similarity between this denunciation of the scribes 
 and Pharisees in Matthew and that recorded in the 11th chapter of 
 Luke, but the two discourses appear to have been delivered on 
 different occasions. That in Luke was addressed to a Pharisee and 
 a lawyer (verses 38 and 45), others of their class being probably 
 present ; that in Matthew was spoken ' to the multitudes and to his 
 disciples' (verse 1). Jesus had denounced the character and conduct 
 of these men to their faces, before he launched out this attack upon 
 them in public. 
 
 Samuel Sharpe has thrown a note of sorrowful pathos into the 
 denunciations of Jesus, by rendering ' Woe unto you,' as ' Alas for 
 you ! ' That certainly accords with all we know of the mind and 
 heart of Jesus. The repeated utterances, ' Woe unto you,' are not to 
 1)6 taken as indicating any personal animosity or desire of inflicting 
 retributive punishment, 
 
 Jesus had seated himself opposite the place where the gifts of the 
 people were deposited. ' And he sat down over against the treasury.' 
 Alford explains : ' This is usually understood of fhirteen chests, which 
 stood in the court of the women, into which were thrown contribu- 
 tions for the temple, or the tribute (of Matt. xvii. 2-4). But it is 
 hardly likely that fhci/ would have been called the treasury, and we 
 hear of a building by this name in Josephus.' From the position 
 Jesus occupied, he watched the gi\ers throw in their offerings. 
 Many wealthy people came, and gave liberally : ' and beheld how 
 the multitude cast money (Gr. brass) into the treasury : and many 
 that were rich cast in much.' Luke's account indicates that rich 
 persons chiefly were the givers. ' And he looked up, and saw the 
 rich men that Avere casting their gifts into the treasury (Or, And saw 
 them that were casting their gifts into the treasury, and they were 
 rich).' But among them there came one poor widow woman, who 
 put in two coins of the smallest value. ' And there came a (Gr. one) 
 poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing.' 
 Sharpe renders literally : ' two Lepta, that is, a quodrantes.' Alford 
 explains that a mite was the smallest Jewish coin, and its value 
 about yly- of a denarius. As the denarius represented the day wage 
 of a vineyard labourer, which may be roughly taken as equivalent to 
 five shillings, the two mites were equivalent to a gift of one penny of 
 our money. From Mark's account it appears that only 'brass,' 
 rendered by Young and Sharpe ' copper,' was deposited. Whatever 
 the reason for that custom, it at all events made the giving of much 
 needlessly conspicuous, and the giving of a trifle painfully prominent 
 by comparison. This would naturally deter the poor in general from 
 giving at all. The Authorised Version has in Mark, ' a certain poor 
 widow,' which is rendered by Tischendorf as well as by the Eevisers 
 marginally, ' one poor widow.' Luke says : ' And he saw a certain 
 poor widow casting in thither two mites.' From the expressions 
 ' one ' and 'a certain,' it is obvious that not many of that class came 
 to drop in with the fingers coin which others could throw in by 
 
PAKT II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR (UtSFELS. 345 
 
 liandfuls. The quiok eye of Jesus observed both the giver and her 
 gift, and his mind was so impressed thereby that he at once 
 summoned his disciples to approach, that he might impart tlie lesson 
 he would have them draw from the circumstance. ' And he called vi M:uk 43 
 unto him his disciples,' rendered by Young literally, ' And having 
 called up his discii)les.' Being gathered round him, they found that 
 he wished simply to explain to them that this one woman had given 
 more than all the rest. ' And said unto them, Verily I say unto you, ., •«•$ 
 This poor widow cast in more than all they wdiich are casting into 
 the treasury.' Luke is to the same effect : ' And he said, Of a truth -'i i.uke:; 
 I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than they all.' It is 
 not ' more than any one of them : ' so that the meaning may be, 
 ' more than all of them together.' In either sense, that was an 
 extraordinary assertion. Jesus proceeded to justify it by explaining 
 his meaning. ' For they all did cast in of their superfluity ; but she 12 Mark 14 
 of her want did cast in all she had, even all her living.' Luke : ' For -'i Luko 4 
 all these did of their superfluity cast in unto the gifts : but she of 
 her want did cast in all the living that she had.' The words 
 ' of God ' after ' gifts,' are now omitted, not being in the two oldest 
 MSS. How did Jesus know that this was ' all her living ' 'i Wc 
 need not assume the exercise of any supernatural prescience on his 
 part. Alford gives no hint of any sucli suggestion by commentators. 
 An open, empty purse in the woman's hand may have spoken volumes 
 to the discerning eye of Jesus. In what sense are we to understand 
 the statement that the woman gave ' more than they all ' ? Literally, 
 as a bare matter of fact, that was not the case. Jesus was comparing 
 the means of the givers, the poverty of the woman with the super- 
 fluity of the others. Her gift, so viewed, was out of all proportion 
 to theirs. Alford's comment on the word ' more ' is : ' more, in GocVs 
 reckoning ; more for her oivn stewardship of the goods enti'usted to 
 her care.' That is introducing two ideas which are not in the saying 
 of Jesus. He made no allusion to Divine oversight and approval, 
 or to responsibility towards God, with respect to giving. The 
 woman had supplied a splendid example of liberality ; Jesus drew 
 the attention of the disciples to the generosity of the deed, but not a 
 word did he add in commendation of it, or of exhortation to do like- 
 wise. He fixed their minds simply and entirely upon the fact, that 
 the small donation of the woman was ' more ' in his eyes than the 
 much larger gifts of others. It is not likely that Jesus desired that 
 people should impoverish themselves to supply funds for religious 
 purposes, knowing as he did that the money would be applied under 
 the direction of chief priests, Pharisees, scribes and leading men of 
 the city, who were banded together in active opposition to himself 
 and the preaching of the kingdom of God. If the money was set 
 apart for the repair and decoration of the temple, how could he urge 
 to liberality, knowing well that not one stone should be left upon 
 another, which should not be thrown down ? If the money went to 
 the poor, why should the poorest of the poor contribute, thus 
 bringing about the very destitution sought to be relieved ? Is it 
 reasonable to suppose that Jesus meant that the rich ought to strip 
 themselves of all their wealth, leaAing themselves penniless like this 
 poor widow ? Or that because they did not, and she gave her all, 
 they were condemned, and she approved, in the sight of God and 
 
346 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 Jesus ? Nothing of tlie kind. Such ideas are not deducible from the 
 words of Jesus. We shall fall into error, one way or another, if we 
 attempt to press them beyond the point at which he aimed. Let us 
 abide by the facts : he saw many rich, giving- much, and one poor 
 widow who gave her all, — a penny ; and he said that her gift was 
 ' more ' than all the others put together. He brings into prominence, 
 and sets a high value upon a small donation. There had been a 
 grave fault, in his eyes, about this collection : it had been confined 
 to rich men and large gifts, and the poor, with their trifles, had been 
 conspicuous, to his mind, by their absence. He hailed the coming of 
 this ' one poor widow ' as a happy augury of that brotherhood of aim 
 and effort which it was the purpose of his life to establish among 
 mankind. With loving eyes he watched her in the act of giving, 
 
 .s ii. Cor. -1 and was charmed to witness ' her deep poverty abounding unto the 
 riches of her liberality.' He rejoiced, as Paul did subsequently over 
 .. '■' the Macedonians when he said : ' For according to their power . . . yea, 
 and beyond their power, thei/ gave, of their own accord.' Some may 
 think that Jesus called up his disciples merely for the purpose of 
 pointing out the woman and eulogising her generous impulse. It is 
 more probable that he had an intention of teaching something ; and 
 if we are to draw a lesson for ourselves from his words, they are most 
 naturally to be taken as pointing to : (1) The duty of combined 
 eflfbrt, and (2) The value of small donations. 
 
 All great enterprises require for their performance, unity of pur- 
 pose in many minds, and the hearty co-operation of a multitude of 
 willing hearts and hands. The solitary thinker, with whom a great 
 idea originates, doubtless does more for the world's advancement 
 than the army of busy workers by whom it is subsequently carried 
 out. But if the one is the soul of a grand work, the others constitute 
 its body, and as the body without the soul is dead, so the soul with- 
 out the body is powerless. Any j)lans for the common welfare call 
 for the aid of the entire community. That is a general truth ; and 
 the more clearly it is apprehended and acted upon, the more will 
 social progress be accelerated. Tliat has come to be recognised, late 
 indeed in human history, as an article in the creed of advanced 
 politicians. Democracy means, not merely self-government, but safe 
 government : Avithout the aid, the check, the combined judgment of 
 the masses, class rulership degenerates into selfishness and tyranny. 
 The gospel of Christ is a jilan for ameliorating the condition of man- 
 kind, not in one particular direction only, that of theology, but in all 
 directions. The church of Christ is simply an assembly of his 
 followers and believers. He came to break down the barriers between 
 Jew and Gentile, nation and nation, class and class, and to unite the 
 
 ;:i:.ii.-2s entire human family in one organic whole. 'There can be neither 
 Jevv' nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no 
 male and female : for ye are all one man'wx Christ Jesus.' That was 
 the idea and purpose in the mind of Jesus, as interpreted and realised 
 by the apostle Paul, who regarded the entire Christian brotherhood 
 as an instrument, specially designed by God, for the carrying out of 
 
 •1 Kiiii. 1(1 good works. He wrote : ' Fen- we are his workmanship, created in 
 C'hrist Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should 
 walk in them.' These ' good works ' have been too much restricted 
 to one or two particular channels : the relief of poverty and sickness. 
 
PART II.] A 8TUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 347 
 
 and the propagation of the oosjk'I in its tlieological conception as a 
 scheme of individual salvation. The combined efforts of^ the Christian 
 community should embrace a wider field of action. The depressed, 
 degraded condition of the masses, is a scandal to our profession of 
 Christianity. (Jeneration after generation passes, with but small 
 signs of improvement in that respect : the giving of money for the 
 relief of destitution has been a salve to the consciences of the rich, 
 but has only still further jiauperised the poor, and will never lift them 
 out of the mire. The labouring class, as a whole, has not received, 
 and still does not receive, a fair share of the profits arising out of 
 labour. To the recognition of this truth, and the solution of the 
 problems connected with it, the thoughts and aims of Christians 
 should be directed, rather than to the system of hand-to-mouth 
 alleviation which can only serve to perpetuate the evil. Alas ! this 
 work, in which Christians' should have been foremost, has been left 
 to philosophers, socialists secularists. These men are sufficiently 
 emancipated from traditional errors of faith and practice to discern 
 the truth of things about them, and have not shrunk from proclaim- 
 ing existing wrougs and evils, from investigating their proximate 
 causes, and "seeking some method for their remedy. Shall they and 
 their followers be left to find a solution for themselves ? If so, it will 
 probably be, ultimately, by force that society will be revolutionised. 
 Let Christian philanthropists join hands with these men, who have 
 often more of the spirit of Jesus than they have who denounce and 
 defame them. The church of Christ should lay its hand to this 
 plough, and not look back, until it has furrowed out a scheme of co- 
 operation which will ensure to every honest, steady working man and 
 woman sufficient for the decent upbringing of a family without 
 recourse to alms in any shape. As workers rise, idlers must sink ; 
 as the labouring class claims and receives its fair recompense of 
 reward, the making of huge fortunes will become difficult, if not 
 impossible. Those who possess them have scarcely reason to be con- 
 gratulated, at least in the judgment of the apostle James, who wrote : 
 * Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming .3 james 1-3 
 upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth- 
 eaten. Your gold and siher are rusted ; and their rust shall be for 
 a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh as fire.' Let us not, 
 however, misunderstand or misapply those strong words. They were 
 obviously dictated by a deep sense of wrong and injustice. If they 
 were a bare denunciation of rich men simply as being rich, as well 
 might James have denounced the increase of the fields and flocks, 
 and the fruits hanging upon the trees. The apostle brings grave 
 charges. He accuses the rich of letting their wealth lie idle. 'Your 
 riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten.' It is the 
 ' rust ' of their treasures which testifies against the owners. And he 
 reproaches them further for fraudulently keeping back the wages of 
 their harvestmen, whilst living delicately on the earth and taking 
 their pleasure, and for condemning and killing the righteous. With 
 our full tides of commerce, the rich are not tempted to let their 
 wealth lie idle : it is used to their profit and that of the community, 
 either by themselves or those to whom they loan it. But the greed 
 of profit-making has brought about a sad condition of affairs. Any 
 shed which will hold machinery is deemed good enough for the work- 
 
348 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 men who tend it. ITnlovely and unsanitary surroundings, from the 
 cradle to the grave, are the lot of millions of our brother toilers. 
 From the noise and grime of the workshop, they go to so-called 
 ' homes,' squalid, filthy, unhealthy in the extreme. Wages are cut 
 down to the lowest level of existence, rents are raised to the highest 
 point, and the poor themselves have come to deem it cause for self- 
 congratulation if only they can earn enough to keep body and soul 
 together, utihsing the early labours of their children, whom they had 
 till lately no opportunity of educating. To remedy this state of 
 things. Christians should join heart to heart and hand to hand. 
 There are signs of improvement ; but the dawn of hope for the 
 opi)ressed, aye ! the defrauded labourers, is as yet faint and flickering, 
 and may die out altogether, or take many generations before it 
 gathers light and strength enough to enable the community at large 
 to recognise the causes of the evil and apply an effectual remedy. 
 That remedy must come, sooner or later, either througli Christianity 
 or Socialism. The gospel of Jesus is all-sufficient, if only we under- 
 stand and use it rightly. If every Christian employer will face his 
 responsibility and do his part, adjuring ' the dismal science ' of 
 political economy, falsely so-called, and worshipping Christ as God, 
 instead of Mammon, then society Avill indeed mount the hill of pro- 
 gress, and begin to breathe the free air of that heavenly kingdom 
 which Jesus came to establish on the earth. If that is our ideal, we 
 shall learn to look upon almsgiving, not as a meritorious offering to 
 God and a benefit to mankind, but as a wretched palliative of the 
 woi'ld's sores and wrongs, needful and acceptable only as a temporary 
 expedient to supply the lack of that common justice which man owes 
 to man. 
 
 As regards the propagation of the gospel, enormous sums are year 
 after year collected and spent with that object. Home and foreign 
 missions are pleaded for with earnest eloquence, and are set on foot 
 and supported by a multitude of donations. To cast a doubt upon 
 the value of this work, will seem to many little shoit of profanation, 
 even blasphemy. But, at the utmost, what the preaching of the 
 gospel has done for England and for Europe generally, it may be ex- 
 pected, in the course of time, to do for other parts of the world. Is 
 the tone of so-called Christian society among ourselves, Christ-like or 
 the reverse ? According to our judgment on that question, will be 
 our view of the value or worthlessness of missionary enterprises. If 
 Christianity was intended by its Founder to be the establishment of 
 the kingdom of heaven upon earth, then we have it not amongst us, 
 nor can it come until war and mammon-worship shall have become 
 things of the past. At present they are rampant in the nations which 
 profess and believe themselves to be more or less christianised ; and 
 as these evils are promoted and perpetuated by those who hold front 
 rank in society, and who are the highest exponents of our creed and 
 practice, they may be taken, apart from the prevailing flood of 
 immorality and injustice, as indexing our true, or flxlse, position as 
 followers of Jesus of Nazareth. If, however, the salvation of Christ 
 is deemed a personal and individual rather than social matter, there 
 is an easy way of escape from the terrible conclusion which otherwise 
 cannot be gainsaid. And not only is that assumption made, pro- 
 claimed, insisted upon, but it is further urged that Christ offers us 
 
PART II.] J STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 349 
 
 some mysterious kind of sonl-salvation, to take eifect hereafter, to 
 save us in the world to come from the consequences of our earthly mis- 
 doings, atid there, not here, to transform his people into his own like- 
 ness. Faith in Jesus as a Saviour is considered all sufficient, even 
 thouo^h it be an instantaneous mental process, to make safe and happy 
 everlastingly those who have it ; and it is an unquestionable, undoubted 
 fact that clergyman will and do preach that doctrine to vilest 
 crimiuals, and do not shrink from holding out that hope, as the hope 
 of the gospel, to the most hardened murderer, even when the rope is 
 already round his neck. It is all with the best intentions, the 
 highest motives, the most perfect conviction that God's word justifies 
 the statements made. But the men who thus interpret it are, to say 
 the least, fallible, and we all know, or have the means of knowing, 
 that this is but one phase of the erroneous system of doctrinal 
 teaching which has assumed to itself the name of Christianity. What 
 good fruit can be expected from the promulgation of such a creed ? 
 AVhat benefit could have accrued in bygone times from any missionary 
 enterprise started under the auspices of Torquemada and the Holy 
 Inquisition? The only gospel given us to preach is the 'gospel of ■*^''''^- -^ 
 the kingdom;' and until that fundamental truth is recognised, it 
 will avail little to go about preaching a personal salvation, the chief 
 benefit of which will be realised hereafter, in the hour of death and 
 in a day of judgment. Our missions to the heathen world cannot 
 l)ear the test of impartial investigation, and the time is come for 
 applying it. Canon Isaac Taylor has written an article in the 
 Fortnightl!/ Reinew of October, 1888, entitled, 'The great missionary 
 failure.' What results can be shown for the men and money employed 
 in the work ? Here are some of the curiosities of the Mission 
 Budget which Canon Taylor has collected. ' Last year in Ceylon 
 424 agents of the Church Missionary Society spent £11,003 15s. Id. 
 in making 11)0 adult converts out of a population of nearly three 
 millions, but the relapses were more numerous than the converts, as 
 there was a decrease of 14o in the native Christian adherents. In 
 China 247 agents of the same society spent £14,875 3s. in making 
 1(37 converts out of a population of 382,(100,000, In Northeiii 
 India (Bengal, Bombay, and the North West Provinces), 715 agents 
 made 173 converts at a cost of £34,186 2s. hd.' And many of the 
 so-called ' converts ' would be dear at any price. Canon Taylor says : 
 * In the missions to Egypt, Persia, Palestine, and Arabia, Avhere there 
 are no heathen, the Church Missionary Society employs 119 agents, 
 and has spent £23,545 4s. Id. in the last two years. The net results 
 are nil. In Egypt, last year, there were two " inquirers," one a 
 negro and the other an Egyptian, but the inquiries did not lead to 
 any further results. In Araljia a sick robber who was doctored by a 
 missionary promised to abstain from robbing for ten days. In 
 Palestine, the one Moslem convert of last year, a weak-minded 
 orphan girl who required constant guidance, and for whom the 
 prayers of all English Christians were invoked, has gone over to 
 Rome, and is now immured in a nunnery. In the oldest of our 
 West African possessions all the unrepentant Magdalens of the chief 
 city are professing Christians, and the most notorious one in the 
 place boasts that she " never missed going to Church on a Communion 
 ijunday." Three years ago, in a nominally Christian village, a 
 
350 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii. 
 
 quarrel broke out, and not a few were killed. The victors cooked 
 and ate the bodies of the slain. As a punishment, the native pastoi- 
 announced that they were " suspended from Church privile,o-es." 
 Cannibalism is punished by temporary exclusion from the Holy Com- 
 munion ! ' As an instance of 'squabbles among the missionaries,' 
 Canon Taylor relates the following : ' Mr. Squires, the local secretary 
 of the Church Missionary Society in the Bombay Presidency, states 
 that " one of the greatest hindrances to missionary effort is the 
 existence of so many Christians who do not belong to any of the 
 Protestant societies. Strange to say, the existence of so many 
 Christians is a great hindrance to the spread of Christianity! 
 Mr. Squires, with his 97 assistants, baptized last year 36 adults and 
 92 children, at a cost of £9441 7s. \d., and the converts made by 
 his society, after GG years of labour, do not amount to 2000 ; while 
 the devoted Eoman priests are converting, educating, and consoling- 
 thousands upon thousands, at a nominal cost, which comes, not from 
 any wealthy society, but mainly from the converts themselves. No 
 wonder Mr. Squires is jealous of his successful rivals.' 
 
 Not much money is wanted, or can avail, for the conversion of the 
 world. How much had the twelve apostles between them ? Abso- 
 lutely nothing : for Jesus insisted upon his disciples going forth 
 with no money in their purses. The alDove hint about the Eomanists 
 indicates that the same policy would answer now. Christian men are 
 the primary requisite, and they must be of the right stamp. It is 
 not necessary to go back to Buddha or Saint Paul for types of the 
 ideal missionary. There are, as Canon Taylor points out, plenty of 
 modern instances. The ' Oxford Brethren ' at Calcutta are one. 
 The Salvation Army is another : ' Mr. Tucker, their leader, has given 
 proof of his sincerity by surrendering a lucrative post in the Indian 
 Civil Service. He heads a barefooted regiment of two hundred 
 soldiers, who go for life, who give up everything they have, Avho 
 receive no payment, but are content with a bare subsistence. They 
 abstain from the flesh of animals, the slaughter of which is an 
 abomination to the Hindu ; they touch no alcohol ; their food is a 
 handful of rice and curry, which they beg from day to day from those 
 to whom they minister. Like the natives they oil their bodies with 
 colza oil, they go barefoot, with turbans to protect them from the 
 sun, and their dress is a few yards of calico, costing about bs. The 
 whole maintenance of each missionary does not exceed 2s. a week, or 
 £0 a year. Like the successful Moravian missionaries in South 
 Africa or the West Indies their object is to become natives, to live 
 among the natives exactly as the natives live, simply exhibiting a 
 nobler life and higher aims. They never argue, or discuss doctrines, 
 or go into the " evidences " of Christianity. They exhibit the ascetic 
 life which appeals so strongly to the Hindu. They say, " See what 
 our religion does for us, how happy it makes us, and how it enables 
 us to despise poverty and conquer the troubles of the world, how it 
 makes us contented and cheerful and free from sin "... As one of 
 the greatest missionaries has said, The best preachers are not our 
 words, but our lives ; and our deaths, if need be, are better preachers 
 still. We must hold up the spectacle of devoted Jives to enable the 
 people to understand the first elements of the Christian faith. 
 General Gordon, in one of his last letters, has told us the same hard 
 
PART 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUL' (U)SFELS. 351 
 
 truth. Writino" from Khartoum, he says, in his treiicliant style : 
 " There is not the least doubt that there is an immense vir<2;in field 
 for an aposile in these countries amon<^' the black tribes. But where 
 will you find an apostle ? A man must ,t>'ive np everythiui,^, under- 
 stand, — evpryUiing, evcrylhituj l No half or three-quarter measures 
 will do. He must be dead to the world, have no ties of any sort, 
 and long for death when it may please Uod to take him. There are 
 few, very few, such. And yet what a field ! " ' 
 
 That a Canon of the Church of England should thus boldly recog- 
 nise and expose the shortcomings and deceptiveness of her missionary 
 system, is a happy augury for the future. The ceaseless cry for 
 money, money, as the prime requisite for the extension of Chris- 
 tianity, is a degradation of the true ideal of the kingdom of Cod. If 
 that is to be established, at home or abroad, the enei'gies of believers 
 must be directed into other and healthier channels. Many a good 
 cause languishes for lack of the funds which are now expended in 
 various enterprises assumed to be sacred, but which represent chiefly 
 the theological conceptions or misconceptions of their founders and 
 supporters. Societies were established by our forefathers — take the 
 Tieligious Tract Society as a conspicuous example — for the purpose of 
 disseminating their views of the plan of salvation, and of persuading 
 the readers of their leaflets and books to accept their doctrines, that 
 they might ' believe and be saved.' All the errors and crudities 
 existent in the belief of a bygone generation have thus been, figura- 
 ti\ely and literally, stereotyped, and handed down in their original 
 form to the present day. It was a fundamental and inviolable rule 
 of the Religious Tract Society to issue no book or tract which did not 
 disclose the ' plan of salvation,' the mode and means of a sinner's 
 justification in the sight of God, as interpreted by the founders and 
 agents of the Society, The widening and ripening of Christian 
 thought and judgment cannot avail to modify a system of theological 
 ideas so pertinaciously insisted upon and widely disseminated. Much 
 of the so-called ' religious ' literature which has been gratuitously 
 showered upon the masses appears to minds unwarped by dogmatic 
 teaching, in some things foolish and in others revolting. It is thrust 
 into the hands of those who may be intellectually incapable of think- 
 ing and judging for themselves : some swallow it, as they would a 
 medicine vouched as beneficial, some ojjenly reject it as a nauseous 
 compound, the majority take no heed of it. But it is insisted upon 
 as containing, raultum in parvo, the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and 
 nothing but the Gospel. There has been a deluge of tracts which 
 are narrow-minded, damnatory, repulsive, which condemn innocent 
 enjoyment as sinful ' worldliness,' describe ' faith ' as though it were 
 a magic process instantaneously ' saving ' the vilest, paint ' hell ' in 
 frightful colours, proclaim abominable doctrines of ' endless torment,' 
 and yield no higher notion of * salvation" than that of being ' reli- 
 gious ' on earth and ' happy for ever ' in heaven. The only limit to 
 the printing and dissemination of these dogmas is the amount of 
 money subscribed for the purpose ; as long as people continue to give, 
 so long will such Societies go on publishing and distributing. It is 
 time that better and more beneficent uses should be found for 
 Christian generosity. The giving of money involves responsibility 
 to the donors as well as to the distributors. Support should be with- 
 
352 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pakt ii. 
 
 held from the religious literature which is put, with the best inten- 
 tions, but often with sad want of judgment and grave perversions of 
 ' the gospel,' into the hands of the young and ignorant. 
 
 The claims upon Christian liberality are many, and the calls made 
 upon it are innumerable. How to bestow alms without producing 
 ultimate mischief as well as doing apparent present good, is a diffi- 
 cult problem. Probably Hospitals stand foremost, and deserve the 
 largest amount of support. But it should rather be in maintaining 
 those in existence than in building new ones. The upper and middle 
 classes rarely resort to them, and when the working class rises to its 
 proper level of remuneration and self-dependence, the need for 
 gratuitous relief in sickness and accident will have passed away. 
 That condition of things has been brought about with respect to 
 education : the Board Schools have rendered Voluntary Schools, 
 supported by priv^ate subscriptions, superfluous. Other Institutions 
 need assistance, not permanently, but as being ' good by reason of 
 the present distress.' Reformatories, Refuges and Charity Organisa- 
 tions come under this category. Efforts on behalf of children deserve 
 every encouragement, such as Dr. Barnardo's, and Infant and Orphan 
 Asylums, though as society advances towards perfection they will 
 cease to be required. Institutions for the Blind, Deaf and Dumb, 
 Cripples and Idiots, demand sympathy and support. Yet there is no 
 reason why our combined eftbrts for good should always take the 
 form of charity. Probably the utmost amount of benefit to the 
 labouring poor would be secured by a judicious investment of capital 
 in Model Dwellings, the funds being provided by a multitude of 
 small shareholders as w^ell as by those more wealthy. The East End 
 People's Palace in London marks a new departure : in such a work. 
 Christians, Socialists, Democrats, Aristocrats, can join hands and 
 efforts, and the gradual raising of the masses by that and other means 
 will do more towards the realisation of 'the kingdom of heaven,' 
 than all the preaching and mission-work in the world. 
 
 (2) The full benefit of combined effort cannot, however, be attained 
 until some plan is devised for gathering in, methodically and con- 
 tinuously, the smallest contributions. Large donations are impera- 
 tively required ; those that are rich must continue to give much, but 
 the trifles of the multitude, if carefully collected, would probably 
 amount to much more. This branch of charity is as yet an untilled 
 field which w'ould amply repay the labour of cultivation. The sub- 
 scription lists of our most important institutions show sums of two 
 guineas, one guinea, half a guinea, fewer of five shillings, and fewer 
 still made up of yet smaller items, which are generally summarised 
 into one comparatively insignificant total. In the ' Globe ' news- 
 paper of 8 October, 1888, there appeared a short article headed, 
 ' Charitable Appeals. Many a mickle maks a muckle.' The following 
 extracts bear on this subject. ' One of the latest developments of 
 charity has been towards supplying poor town children with country 
 holidays. In the pages of daily and weekly papers, and also in the 
 magazines, there have been numerous appeals for funds for this 
 object. The chief branch of this Country Holiday charity, which 
 has its offices in Buckingham Street, Strand, and of which the 
 Princess of Wales is patroness, has already boarded out over lo,00(» 
 children for a fortnight, at a charge of ten shillings a child. The 
 
PART II.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 353 
 
 Fresh Air Mission has boarded out lOUO children ; tlie Rev. A. 
 Sfcyleman Hei-ring has boarded out 400 ; Miss Edifch Woodworth's 
 Buttercup and Daisy Fund provided a holiday for 300 ; and the 
 Ragged School Union and numerous other societies or private indi- 
 viduals have worked in the same direction. Nor docs this movement 
 flourish in London only ; there is a committee in (ilasgow which has 
 sent over oOOO children into the country, and Edinburgh has a 
 holiday-house under the shadow of the purple Pentlands, which is 
 entirely given np to poor children throughout the summer . . . 
 Now, who supply the funds for all these holidays ? Who are the 
 people who answer the numerous appeals which are to be scon in 
 every paper duriug the summer montlis ? Doubtless these questions 
 must have occurred, to many who have hesitated to send their mite, 
 or not thought it worth while to get a postal order for half-a-crowu, 
 though they have recognised the merits of the charity which adver- 
 tised. Take the first (iO letters received in the course of a fortnight 
 in answer to an ajipeal which appeared in a magazine.' A cheque for 
 £10, another for £4, live postal orders for £1, and 10 shilliugs by 
 nine people. ' But it was the small sums which swelled the fund 
 . . . There were numerous live shilling, half-crown, and shilling 
 orders, which, added to the cheques, yielded a total of over £50 . . . 
 It certainly is a point worth remarking, that it is the small sums 
 which mount up and send thousands of children away to breezy 
 commons for healthy holidays. Only £11) out of the first £50 
 received for the charity in question came in sums over 10s., the 
 other £31 came in small orders, more especially in half-crowns. 
 There are plenty of people who would never miss half-a-crown, 
 would indeed give it gladly were it not for the trouble of procuring 
 an order and addressing an envelope. It is not meanness, nor want 
 of sympathy, which keeps many of us from doing what we could ; ifc 
 is simply laziness, and an erroneous impression that it is not worth 
 while to be at the trouble of sending small gifts.' 
 
 The facts here disclosed are very interesting and important. They 
 illustrate the advantage of combined effort, and point to the necessity 
 of concentration. The 'Country Holiday Charity,' for instance, 
 might do all the advertising and collection, simply distributing the 
 subscriptions among the half-dozen other organisation ^^■hich carry 
 out the same work. What an immense amount of useless expense 
 would thereby be saved ! Under the present system, our charities 
 compete with one another, like rival tradesmen. For the sake of 
 economy, there should be a system of combination, so that one small 
 staff" might take the place of a multitude of paid officials, one 
 collector — if any collector should be found necessary — suffice for 
 several charities, and one advertisement appeal simultaneously for 
 all. But more important than this, and serving to lead up to this, 
 would be the establishment of a few General Subscription Funds, one 
 for each class of donations, ten shillings, five shillings, half a crown, 
 one shilhng, and one penny. These funds, having no specific objects, 
 would not interfere with any charitable institution : they would 
 simply advertise for and receive donations, to be apportioned, at the 
 discretion of the committee, among existing charities. Each of the 
 five classes, 10s., 5s., 2s. Gd., Is., and Id., might be superintended by 
 a committee of twelve subscribers, and on the 1st of January or the 
 
354 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM. [part ii. 
 
 1st of July in each year, whether Sunday or weekday, at a fixed liour, 
 and always at the same place, so that no expense of notification would 
 be requisite, the subscribers might be invited to attend and elect 
 another committee, comprising at least six new members. That 
 would be a suflicient safeguard against partiality in the distribution 
 of the funds, which might otherwise occur. Any persons willing to 
 serve on the Committee, which would act gratuitously, should send in 
 their names and addresses in the week preceeding the meeting of 
 subscribers. Some such plan as that would open out new ground for 
 charitable effort, and would doul)tless result in a plenteous harvest, 
 sown, reaped and gathered in Avithout any needless expenditure of 
 time or money. It is a matter of j^rimary importance to avoid waste 
 ill our methods of giving, and also to evoke the personal interest of 
 the givers. There are indications that the ' Half-crown Fund ' would 
 be at first the most popular and productive, but the ' Shilling Fund ' 
 and ' Penny Fund ' would afford the poorest an opportunity of 
 giving, and of controlling their own special Fund, in the same way 
 as others. Possibly, aye I probably, the result would show that the 
 poor had given more than all. 
 
( i ) 
 
 INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FKOM 
 THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Ihe large Roman figures denote the Chapters. The first column shows the Verse, 
 the second column the Series or Part, and the third column the Page. 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 
 1 i. 46 
 
 2 46 
 
 '6 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 
 II. 
 
 i. 21 
 
 21 
 22 
 22 
 22 
 22 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 24 
 24 
 24 
 24 
 24 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 
 III. 
 
 1 i. 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 30 
 31 
 31 
 31 
 32 
 
 34 
 114 
 
 37 
 38 
 38 
 38 
 39 
 
 IV. 
 
 1 
 
 i. 49 
 
 2 
 
 49 
 
 3 
 
 49 
 
 4 
 
 50 
 
 5 
 
 50 
 
 6 
 
 50 
 
 7 
 
 50 
 
 8 
 
 51 
 
 9 
 
 51 
 
 10 
 
 52 
 
 11 
 
 53 
 
 12 
 
 58 
 
 13 
 
 58 
 
 14 
 
 59 
 
 15 
 
 59 
 
 16 
 
 59 
 
 17 
 
 84 
 
 18 
 
 
 19 
 
 69 
 
 20 
 
 69 
 
 21 
 
 69 
 
 22 
 
 69 
 
 23 
 
 113 
 
 24 
 
 113 
 
 25 
 
 113 
 
 8 
 9 
 
 32 10 
 
 33 I 11 
 33 I 12 
 33 I 13 
 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 I 42 
 43 
 I 44 
 ! 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 
 115 
 116 
 116 
 116 
 117 
 117 
 119 
 119 
 119 
 121 
 122 
 122 
 122 
 122 
 122 
 122 
 123 
 123 
 123 
 125 
 125 
 125 
 125 
 126 
 126 
 126 
 126 
 126 
 127 
 127 
 128 
 128 
 128 
 128 
 128 
 128 
 128 
 129 
 129 
 129 
 130 
 130 
 130 
 130 
 131 
 
 VI. 
 
 i. 131 
 132 
 132 
 132 
 132 
 134 
 134 
 134 
 134 
 134 
 135 
 
 136 
 136 
 136 
 137 
 137 
 137 
 137 
 138 
 138 
 138 
 139 
 139 
 139 
 139 
 139 
 140 
 140 
 140 
 142 
 
 VII. 
 
 1 i. 143 
 
 2 143 
 
 V. 
 
 1 1. 115 
 
 2 115 
 
 3 115 
 
 VI. 
 
 1 i. 131 
 
 2 131 
 
 3 131 
 
 145 
 145 
 145 
 145 
 146 
 146 
 146 
 146 
 146 
 146 
 147 
 147 
 147 
 148 
 
 17 
 
 ;^ii. 
 
 i. 148 
 
 1 
 
 IX. 
 
 i. 99 
 
 11 
 
 X. 
 
 i. 214 
 
 IS 
 
 148 
 
 2 
 
 99 
 
 12 
 
 214 
 
 19 
 
 148 
 
 3 
 
 100 
 
 13 
 
 214 
 
 20 
 
 148 
 
 4 
 
 
 14 
 
 214 
 
 21 
 
 149 
 
 5 
 
 
 15 
 
 216 
 
 22 
 
 149 
 
 6 
 
 
 16 
 
 216 
 
 23 
 
 149 
 
 7 
 
 
 17 
 
 216 
 
 24 
 
 149 
 
 8 
 
 103 
 
 18 
 
 216 
 
 25 
 
 149 
 
 9 
 
 103 
 
 19 
 
 216 
 
 26 
 
 150 
 
 10 
 
 
 20 
 
 216 
 
 27 
 
 150 
 
 11 
 
 104 
 
 21 
 
 218 
 
 28 
 
 150 
 
 12 
 
 104 
 
 22 
 
 218 
 
 29 
 
 150 
 
 13 
 
 104 
 
 23 
 
 218 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 104 
 
 24 
 
 218 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 25 
 
 219 
 
 VTTT 
 
 16 
 
 105 
 
 26 
 
 219 
 
 V 
 
 
 17 
 
 106 
 
 27 
 
 219 
 
 \ 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 i. 96 
 
 96 
 
 18 
 
 201 
 
 28 
 
 219 
 
 19 
 
 201 
 
 29 
 
 220 
 
 20 
 
 201 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 202 
 
 31 
 
 220 
 
 151 
 151 
 151 
 151 
 
 22 
 
 203 
 
 32 
 
 220 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 
 23 
 24 
 
 204 
 
 33 
 
 34 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 25 
 26 
 
 205 
 206 
 
 35 
 36 
 
 222 
 
 
 27 
 
 207 
 
 37 
 
 222 
 
 153 
 153 
 153 
 
 65 
 199 
 
 65 
 
 28 
 
 207 
 
 38 
 
 222 
 
 29 
 
 207 
 
 39 
 
 222 
 
 30 
 
 207 
 
 40 
 
 223 
 
 31 
 
 207 
 
 41 
 
 223 
 
 32 
 33 
 
 208 
 208 
 
 42 
 
 224 
 
 17 
 
 66 
 
 34 
 
 208 
 
 
 
 18 
 19 
 
 192 
 ii. 82 
 
 35 
 36 
 
 212 
 212 
 
 
 XI. 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 82 
 82 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 212 
 212 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 i. 227 
 157 
 
 22 
 
 82 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 23 
 
 i. 192 
 
 
 X. 
 
 4 
 
 
 24 
 
 192 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 25 
 
 192 
 
 1 
 
 i. 213 
 
 6 
 
 
 26 
 
 193 
 
 2 
 
 
 7 
 
 158 
 
 27 
 
 194 
 
 3 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 28 
 
 197 
 
 4 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 29 
 
 197 
 
 5 
 
 213 
 
 10 
 
 
 30 
 
 197 
 
 6 
 
 213 
 
 11 
 
 160 
 
 31 
 
 197 
 
 7 
 
 213 
 
 12 
 
 160 
 
 32 
 
 198 
 
 8 
 
 214 
 
 13 
 
 160 
 
 33 
 
 198 
 
 9 
 
 
 14 
 
 160 
 
 34 
 
 198 
 
 10 
 
 214 
 
 15 
 
 160 
 
ii INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS. 
 
 XI. 
 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 
 19 i. 161 
 
 20 ii. 87 
 
 21 87 
 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 
 XIII. 
 
 1 i. 166 
 
 2 166 
 
 XII. 
 
 1 i. 107 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 
 107 
 
 108 
 108 
 109 
 
 110 
 110 
 110 
 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 
 22 ii. 40 
 
 23 40 
 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 
 40 
 41 
 41 
 41 
 42 
 42 
 43 
 43 
 45 
 45 
 46 
 46 
 46 
 46 
 46 
 47 
 47 
 47 
 48 
 48 
 49 
 49 
 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 51 
 52 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 56 
 57 
 58 
 
 46 i. 191 
 
 47 191 
 
 48 191 
 
 49 191 
 
 50 191 
 
 XIV. 
 
 10 i. 226 
 
 11 226 
 
 XVI. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 XX. 
 
 166 
 
 167 
 
 167 
 
 167 
 
 168 
 
 168 
 
 168 
 
 169 
 
 169 
 
 169 
 
 170 
 
 170 
 
 170 
 
 171 
 
 171 
 
 171 
 
 173 
 
 175 
 
 175 
 
 175 
 
 175 
 
 177 
 
 177 
 
 177 
 
 177 
 
 177 
 
 177 
 
 177 
 
 178 
 
 178 
 
 179 
 
 180 
 
 180 
 
 180 
 
 181 
 
 181 
 
 181 
 
 183 
 
 184 
 
 184 
 
 185 
 
 185 
 
 186 
 
 186 
 
 187 
 
 188 
 
 188 
 
 188 
 
 190 
 
 190 
 
 191 
 
 209 
 
 209 
 
 209 
 
 211 
 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 
 227 
 227 
 229 
 230 
 
 230 
 
 231 
 232 
 231 
 235 
 236 
 236 
 237 
 237 
 237 
 238 
 238 
 238 
 238 
 239 
 239 
 240 
 241 
 241 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 
 299 9 
 299 10 
 299 I 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 
 299 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 302 
 
 302 
 
 255 
 
 256 
 
 256 
 
 256 
 
 256 
 
 257 I 26 
 
 258 
 
 2.58 
 
 259 
 
 259 
 
 259 
 
 260 
 
 260 
 
 261 
 
 261 
 
 261 
 
 313 
 315 
 315 
 316 
 316 
 316 
 316 
 317 
 317 
 327 
 327 
 327 
 327 
 328 
 328 
 328 
 328 
 329 
 329 
 329 
 329 
 329 
 329 
 329 
 329 
 329 
 330 
 
 XV. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 1 i. 227 
 
 2 227 
 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 
 1 i. 
 
 280 
 
 2 
 
 280 
 
 3 
 
 281 
 
 4 
 
 285 
 
 5 
 
 285 
 
 6 
 
 285 
 
 7 
 
 
 8 
 
 285 
 
 9 
 
 
 10 
 
 286 
 
 11 
 
 286 
 
 12 
 
 287 
 
 13 
 
 287 
 
 14 
 
 287 
 
 15 
 
 287 
 
 16 
 
 288 
 
 17 
 
 288 
 
 18 
 
 289 
 
 19 
 
 289 
 
 20 
 
 289 
 
 21 
 
 289 
 
 22 
 
 289 
 
 23 
 
 289 
 
 24 
 
 290 
 
 25 
 
 290 
 
 26 
 
 
 27 
 
 291 
 
 28 
 
 291 
 
 29 
 
 291 
 
 30 
 
 293 
 
 31 
 
 293 
 
 32 
 
 295 
 
 33 
 
 296 
 
 34 
 
 296 
 
 35 
 
 296 
 
 36 
 
 296 
 
 37 
 
 297 
 
 38 
 
 298 
 
 39 
 
 298 
 
 XVII. 
 
 1 i. 262 
 
 2 262 
 3 
 4 
 
 XIX. 
 
 262 
 263 
 263 
 264 
 264 
 264 
 267 
 268 
 268 
 268 
 268 
 270 
 270 
 271 
 271 
 274 
 274 
 274 
 275 
 278 
 278 
 304 
 304 
 305 
 306 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 1 i. 308 
 
 2 308 
 
 308 
 309 
 309 
 312 
 312 
 313 
 
 1 ii, 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 
 3 
 3 
 181 
 181 
 181 
 182 
 183 
 183 
 184 
 185 
 185 
 185 
 206 
 206 
 207 
 210 
 210 
 212 
 
 213 
 213 
 213 
 213 
 214 
 216 
 217 
 217 
 217 
 219 
 220 
 
 / 11 
 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 222 
 
 224 
 
 224 
 
 224 
 
 226 
 
 226 
 
 227 
 
 227 
 
 228 
 
 228 
 
 228 
 
 228 1 
 
 229 
 
 238 
 
 238 
 
 238 
 
 238 
 
 238 
 
 238 
 
 XXI. 
 
 40 ii. 286 
 
 41 286 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 
 288 
 288 
 288 
 289 
 289 
 
 XXII. 
 
 1 ii. 292 
 
 XXI. 
 
 XX. 
 
 1 ii. 220 
 
 220 
 22] 
 221 
 221 
 221 
 
 1 ii 
 
 250 
 
 2 
 
 250 
 
 3 
 
 251 
 
 4 
 
 251 
 
 5 
 
 251 
 
 6 
 
 252 
 
 7 
 
 254 
 
 8 
 
 254 
 
 9 
 
 256 
 
 10 
 
 2G0 
 
 11 
 
 260 
 
 12 
 
 274 
 
 13 
 
 274 
 
 14 
 
 274 
 
 15 
 
 278 
 
 16 
 
 278 
 
 17 
 
 
 18 
 
 260 
 
 19 
 
 260 
 
 20 
 
 261 
 
 21 
 
 262 
 
 22 
 
 263 
 
 23 
 
 280 
 
 24 
 
 281 
 
 25 
 
 281 
 
 26 
 
 281 
 
 27 
 
 282 
 
 28 
 
 283 
 
 29 
 
 283 
 
 30 
 
 283 
 
 31 
 
 283 
 
 32 
 
 284 
 
 33 
 
 284 
 
 34 
 
 285 
 
 35 
 
 285 
 
 36 
 
 285 
 
 37 
 
 286 
 
 38 
 
 286 
 
 39 
 
 286 
 
 2 
 
 292 
 
 3 
 
 292 
 
 4 
 
 292 
 
 5 
 
 292 
 
 6 
 
 292 
 
 7 
 
 293 
 
 8 
 
 295 
 
 9 
 
 295 
 
 10 
 
 295 
 
 11 
 
 298 
 
 12 
 
 298 
 
 13 
 
 298 
 
 14 
 
 299 
 
 15 
 
 305 
 
 16 
 
 308 
 
 17 
 
 308 
 
 18 
 
 308 
 
 19 
 
 308 
 
 20 
 
 308 
 
 21 
 
 308 
 
 22 
 
 311 
 
 23 
 
 311 
 
 24 
 
 311 
 
 25 
 
 312 
 
 26 
 
 312 
 
 27 
 
 312 
 
 28 
 
 312 
 
 29 
 
 312 
 
 30 
 
 312 
 
 31 
 
 315 
 
 32 
 
 315 
 
 33 
 
 318 
 
 34 
 
 318 
 
 35 
 
 318 
 
 36 
 
 319 
 
 37 
 
 319 
 
 38 
 
 
 39 
 
 320 
 
 40 
 
 320 
 
 41 
 
 323 
 
 42 
 
 323 
 
 43 
 
 324 
 
 44 
 
 324 
 
 45 
 
 324 
 
 46 
 
 327 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 1 ii. 335 
 
 2 335 
 
 335 
 335 
 335 
 335 
 
 336 
 336 
 336 
 
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS, iii 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 ii. 338 
 
 14 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 
 339 
 339 
 340 
 340 
 340 
 340 
 340 
 340 
 340 
 340 
 340 
 341 
 341 
 341 
 341 
 341 
 341 
 341 
 341 
 342 
 342 
 343 
 258 
 258 
 258 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 1 iii. 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 12 iii. 
 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 51 
 
 1 iii, 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 1 iii. 65 
 
 2 65 
 
 3 65 
 
 4 65 
 
 5 65 
 
 6 ii. 246 
 246 
 247 
 247 
 
 40 , 45 iii. 60 
 
 40 ] 46 61 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 41 
 
 41 
 
 41 
 
 41 
 
 41 
 
 42 
 
 42 
 
 42 
 
 42 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 45 
 
 46 
 
 48 
 
 48 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 40 iii. 183 
 
 41 183 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 
 14 iii. 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 
 247 
 
 247 
 
 247 
 
 247 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 81 
 
 82 
 
 84 
 
 87 
 
 87 
 
 87 
 
 206 
 
 48 29 
 48 ' 30 
 
 48 31 
 
 49 32 
 49 I 33 
 49 34 
 49 35 
 55 I 36 
 55 37 
 55 ' 38 
 60 39 
 
 90 
 90 
 92 
 177 
 
 177 
 178 
 178 
 179 
 179 
 179 
 
 180 
 180 
 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 51 
 52 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 56 
 57 
 58 
 59 
 60 
 61 
 62 
 63 
 64 
 65 
 66 
 67 
 68 
 69 
 70 
 71 
 72 
 73 
 74 
 75 
 
 183 
 183 
 183 
 185 
 186 
 186 
 186 
 187 
 187 
 190 
 191 
 191 
 192 
 192 
 192 
 197 
 197 
 197 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 199 
 200 
 200 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 202 
 202 
 203 
 203 
 203 
 204 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 5 iii. 206 
 
 6 206 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 1 iii. 205 
 
 2 205 
 
 3 206 
 
 4 206 
 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 
 207 
 
 207 
 
 210 
 
 210 
 
 215 
 
 217 
 
 217 
 
 218 
 
 220 
 
 220 
 
 220 
 
 220 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 221 
 
 222 
 
 222 
 
 223 
 
 223 
 
 223 
 
 223 
 
 223 
 
 223 
 
 227 
 
 227 
 
 229 
 
 229 
 
 230 
 
 232 
 
 232 
 
 234 
 
 235 
 
 235 
 
 235 
 
 236 
 
 235 
 
 236 
 
 240 
 
 241 
 
 242 
 
 243 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 49 iii. 243 
 
 50 244 
 51 
 52 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 56 
 57 
 58 
 59 
 60 
 61 
 62 
 63 
 64 
 65 
 66 
 
 245 
 246 
 246 
 247 
 250 
 250 
 254 
 254 
 255 
 256 
 256 
 256 
 256 
 257 
 257 
 258 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 1 iii. 258 
 
 2 266 
 266 
 266 
 273 
 273 
 273 
 273 
 274 
 274 
 276 
 277 
 277 
 277 
 277 
 303 
 310 
 311 
 311 
 317 
 
 MARK. 
 
 1 i. 43 
 
 2 31 
 3 
 
 4 
 6 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 
 30 
 32 
 31 
 34 
 
 38 
 39 
 39 
 49 
 49 
 58 
 60 
 112 
 112 
 112 
 112 
 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 
 II. 
 
 i. 99 
 99 
 99 
 99 
 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 101 
 101 
 101 
 103 
 
 II. 
 
 13 i. 103 
 
 14 112 
 
 103 
 104 
 
 104 
 104 
 105 
 
 107 
 107 
 108 
 108 
 109 
 109 
 
 III. 
 
 III. 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 4 i. 
 
 110 
 
 5 
 
 110 
 
 6 
 
 111 
 
 7 
 
 113 
 
 8 
 
 113 
 
 9 
 
 113 
 
 10 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 14 
 
 112 
 
 15 
 
 112 
 
 16 
 
 
 17 
 
 112 
 
 18 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 20 ii 
 
 40 
 
 21 
 
 40 
 
 22 
 
 m 
 
 ii. 
 
 40 
 
 23 
 
 
 41 
 
 24 
 
 
 41 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 41 
 
 27 
 
 
 42 
 
 28 
 
 
 43 
 
 29 
 
 
 43 
 
 30 
 
 
 43 
 
 31 
 
 i. 
 
 191 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 
 191 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 IV. 
 
 1 
 
 i. 
 
 166 
 
 2 
 
 
 167 
 
 3 
 
 
 167 
 
 rv. 
 
 4 i. 167 
 
 5 
 
 168 
 
 6 
 
 168 
 
 7 
 
 168 
 
 8 
 
 168 
 
 9 
 
 168 
 
 10 
 
 169 
 
 11 
 
 169 
 
 12 
 
 170 
 
 13 
 
 171 
 
 14 
 
 173 
 
 15 
 
 174 
 
 16 
 
 175 
 
 17 
 
 176 
 
 18 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 21 
 
 189 
 
 22 
 
 189 
 
 23 
 
 190 
 
iv INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS. 
 
 IV. 
 
 24 i. 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 33 
 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 40 
 
 41 
 
 190 
 190 
 
 180 
 180 
 178 
 178 
 178 
 184 
 184 
 191 
 191 
 192 
 192 
 193 
 195 
 194 
 
 1 i. 195 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 
 196 
 196 
 196 
 196 
 196 
 196 
 196 
 197 
 197 
 197 
 197 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 199 
 199 
 199 
 199 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 202 
 202 
 202 
 202 
 202 
 202 
 203 
 204 
 204 
 204 
 204 
 204 
 204 
 205 
 205 
 205 
 
 VI. 
 
 1 i. 208 
 
 2 208 
 
 3 209 
 
 4 211 
 
 VI. 
 
 5 i. 211 
 
 6 212 
 
 7 213 
 
 8 214 
 214 
 215 
 215 
 225 
 225 
 227 
 227 
 227 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 226 
 227 
 228 
 228 
 228 
 230 
 230 
 230 
 230 
 230 
 231 
 231 
 232 
 
 232 
 231 
 235 
 236 
 237 
 237 
 237 
 237 
 239 
 239 
 240 
 240 
 240 
 240 
 
 VII. 
 
 17 i. 288 
 
 18 288 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 
 288 
 288 
 289 
 289 
 289 
 289 
 290 
 290 
 290 
 291 
 291 
 291 
 291 
 293 
 293 
 294 
 294 
 294 
 294 
 
 VIII. 
 
 1 i. 295 
 
 2 295 
 
 VII. 
 
 1 i. 279 
 
 2 279 
 
 280 
 280 
 280 
 280 
 280 
 280 
 281 
 281 
 281 
 
 286 
 286 
 
 295 
 296 
 296 
 296 
 296 
 296 
 298 
 298 
 298 
 299 
 300 
 300 
 300 
 300 
 301 
 301 
 301 
 301 
 302 
 302 
 303 
 303 
 303 
 303 
 255 
 256 
 256 
 258 
 259 
 259 
 259 
 260 
 260 
 
 261 
 
 IX. 
 
 1 ii 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 263 i 25 
 
 264 : 26 
 267 
 
 267 
 268 
 268 
 268 
 270 
 270 
 270 
 270 
 271 
 271 
 272 
 272 
 272 
 
 272 ; 41 
 
 272 I 42 
 
 273 ! 43 
 
 274 : 44 
 274 ' 45 
 274 46 
 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 51 
 52 
 
 •Zto 
 278 
 278 
 278 
 304 
 308 
 308 
 308 
 309 
 310 
 311 
 311 
 311 
 311 
 313 
 
 313 
 
 X. 
 
 ii. 214 
 
 216 
 217 
 217 
 219 
 219 
 220 
 223 
 224 
 924 
 227 
 227 
 227 
 227 
 227 
 227 
 228 
 228 
 228 
 229 
 229 
 237 
 237 
 237 
 237 
 237 
 237 
 237 
 
 / 
 8 
 
 s|i? 
 
 314 {., 
 314 13 
 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 
 IX. 
 
 1 i. 261 
 
 2 262 
 
 3 262 
 
 4 262 
 
 5 263 
 
 6 263 
 
 3 
 181 
 
 183 -^ 
 183 
 182 
 182 
 
 182 -; 
 182 ! 20 
 186 ' ^2 
 
 186 : 28 
 206 29 
 206 I '^0 
 
 206 1 : 1 
 
 207 , :^2 
 
 210 '^'^ 
 210 
 212 
 213 
 
 213 1 
 2 
 
 213 3 
 
 214 4 
 
 XI. 
 
 ii. 251 
 
 251 
 
 252 
 252 
 252 
 252 
 254 
 256 
 256 
 260 
 260 
 260 
 260 
 274 
 274 
 274 
 279 
 279 
 261 
 261 
 262 
 262 
 263 
 264 
 273 
 280 
 280 
 281 
 281 
 281 
 281 
 282 
 
 XII. 
 
 6 ii. 285 
 
 6 286 
 
 7 286 
 
 8 286 
 286 
 288 
 288 
 289 
 305 
 308 
 308 
 308 
 308 
 311 
 311 
 312 
 312 
 312 
 312 
 312 
 313 
 315 
 315 
 318 
 319 
 319 
 320 
 320 
 320 
 320 
 328 
 328 
 328 
 335 
 335 
 335 
 344 
 344 
 345 
 345 
 
 XIII. 
 
 1 iii. 
 
 2 
 
 XII. 
 
 ii. 284 
 
 284 
 285 
 285 
 
 XIII. 
 
 29 
 
 30 iii. 30 
 
 31 34 
 
 34 
 37 
 37 
 37 
 37 
 38 
 
 XIV. 
 
 1 ii: 
 
 . 65 
 
 2 
 
 65 
 
 3 ii. 
 
 246 
 
 4 
 
 247 
 
 5 
 
 247 
 
 6 
 
 247 
 
 7 
 
 247 
 
 8 
 
 247 
 
 9 
 
 
 10 iii. 66 
 
 11 
 
 66 
 
 12 
 
 81 
 
 13 
 
 81 
 
 14 
 
 82 
 
 15 
 
 84 
 
 16 
 
 84 
 
 17 
 
 84 
 
 18 
 
 87 
 
 19 
 
 87 
 
 20 
 
 87 
 
 21 
 
 87 
 
 22 
 
 89 
 
 23 
 
 91 
 
 24 
 
 91 
 
 25 
 
 92 
 
 26 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 28 
 
 178 
 
 29 
 
 179 
 
 30 
 
 179 
 
 31 
 
 179 
 
 32 
 
 180 
 
 33 
 
 180 
 
 34 
 
 180 
 
 35 
 
 180 
 
 36 
 
 181 
 
 37 
 
 183 
 
 38 
 
 183 
 
 39 
 
 183 
 
 40 
 
 183 
 
 41 
 
 185 
 
 42 
 
 186 
 
 43 
 
 186 
 
 44 
 
 187 
 
 45 
 
 187 
 
 46 
 
 190 
 
 47 
 
 190 
 
 48 
 
 192 
 
 49 
 
 192 
 
 50 
 
 193 
 
 51 
 
 193 
 
 52 
 
 193 
 
 53 
 
 197 
 
 54 
 
 197 
 
 55 
 
 197 
 
 56 
 
 198 
 
 57 
 
 198 
 
 58 
 
 198 
 
 59 
 
 198 
 
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 60 iii. 198 
 
 61 198 
 
 62 
 63 
 64 
 65 
 66 
 67 
 68 
 69 
 70 
 71 
 
 199 
 200 
 200 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 202 
 202 
 203 
 203 
 
 XIV. 
 
 72 iii. 203 
 
 XV. 
 
 1 iu. 20o 
 
 215 
 217 
 217 
 218 
 220 
 220 
 220 
 220 
 
 XV. 
 
 10 iii. 220 
 
 11 221 
 221 
 222 
 222 
 223 
 223 
 223 
 223 
 223 
 227 
 227 
 
 XV. 
 
 22 iii. 228 
 
 23 228 
 
 XV. 
 
 34 iii. 241 
 
 3.5 242 
 
 230 
 230 
 232 
 234 
 235 
 235 
 235 
 235 
 235 
 240 
 
 243 
 244 
 245 
 247 
 250 
 250 
 253 
 253 
 255 
 255 
 
 46 iii 
 
 r. 
 
 255 
 
 47 
 
 256 
 
 XVI. 
 
 liii 
 
 258 
 
 2 
 
 259 
 
 3 
 
 265 
 
 4 
 
 265 
 
 5 
 
 272 
 
 6 
 
 273 
 
 7 
 
 273 
 
 8 
 
 273 
 
 XVI. 
 
 9 iii 
 
 .271 
 
 10 
 
 274 
 
 11 
 
 274 
 
 12 
 
 277 
 
 13 
 
 288 
 
 14 
 
 297 
 
 15 
 
 318 
 
 16 
 
 318 
 
 17 
 
 326 
 
 18 
 
 327 
 
 19 
 
 333 
 
 20 
 
 333 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 60 
 61 
 52 
 
 3 
 
 53 
 
 3 
 
 54 
 
 3 
 
 55 
 
 4 
 
 56 
 
 4 
 
 57 
 
 4 
 
 68 
 
 4 
 
 59 
 
 4 
 
 60 
 
 4 
 
 61 
 
 4 
 
 62 
 
 4 
 
 63 
 
 4 
 
 64 
 
 4 
 
 65 
 
 4 
 
 66 
 
 5 
 
 67 
 
 5 
 
 68 
 
 5 
 
 69 
 
 5 
 
 70 
 
 5 
 
 71 
 
 6 
 
 72 
 
 6 
 
 73 
 
 6 
 
 74 
 
 6 
 
 75 
 
 6 
 
 76 
 
 6 
 
 77 
 
 6 
 
 78 
 
 6 
 
 79 
 
 6 
 
 80 
 
 II. 
 
 9 12 
 9 13 
 
 10 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 10 
 
 18 
 
 10 
 
 19 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 II. 
 
 21 i. 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 33 
 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 40 
 
 41 
 
 42 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 45 
 
 46 
 
 47 
 
 48 
 
 49 
 
 50 
 
 51 
 
 52 
 
 III. 
 
 18 17 
 18 : 18 
 
 18 1 19 
 
 19 20 
 
 19 
 
 21 
 
 19 
 
 22 
 
 19 
 
 23 
 
 19 
 
 24 
 
 19 
 
 25 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 19 
 
 27 
 
 IV. 
 
 39 32 
 
 19 28 
 
 19 1 29 
 
 20 ! 30 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 49 
 49 
 49 
 49 
 51 
 61 
 51 
 52 
 50 
 60 
 50 
 60 
 53 
 58 
 60 
 60 
 60 
 60 
 
 60 23 
 
 61 124 
 61 I 25 
 61 126 
 61 [27 
 61 28 
 61 29 
 61 30 
 
 98 
 99 
 99 
 99 
 99 
 
 100 
 
 103 
 103 
 103 
 103 
 103 
 104 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 33 i. 104 
 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 105 
 
 106 
 
 VI. 
 
 40 i. 145 
 
 41 145 
 
 145 
 
 148 
 148 
 149 
 149 
 149 
 149 
 
 VI. 
 
 1 i. 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 
 109 
 109 
 109 
 110 
 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 112 
 112 
 112 
 113 
 114 
 114 
 118 
 118 
 119 
 
 118 
 118 
 120 
 130 
 130 
 
 129 
 130 
 130 
 131 
 131 
 130 
 131 
 143 
 144 
 144 
 
 VII. 
 
 1 i. 151 
 
 2 151 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 6 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 
 161 
 151 
 151 
 151 
 152 
 152 
 153 
 153 
 154 
 154 
 154 
 154 
 154 
 154 
 164 
 157 
 157 
 157 
 158 
 158 
 158 
 158 
 159 
 159 
 159 
 159 
 159 
 161 
 161 
 161 
 161 
 161 
 161 
 162 
 162 
 162 
 
vi INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS. 
 
 VII. 
 
 39 i. 162 
 
 40 162 
 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 
 162 
 162 
 163 
 163 
 163 
 163 
 163 
 165 
 165 
 165 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 S 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 51 
 52 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 
 53 
 
 IX. 
 
 1 i. 213 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 VIII. 
 
 1 i. 165 
 166 
 166 
 166 
 167 
 168 
 168 
 168 
 169 
 169 
 172 
 
 175 
 176 
 176 
 189 
 190 
 191 
 
 191 
 191 
 192 
 192 
 194 
 196 
 196 
 196 
 196 
 197 
 197 
 197 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 199 
 199 
 199 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 202 
 202 
 202 
 202 
 
 204 
 204 
 
 204 
 205 
 205 
 205 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 
 51 ii. 
 52 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 56 
 57 
 58 
 59 
 60 
 61 
 62 
 
 214 
 215 
 215 
 225 
 227 
 227 
 227 
 227 
 230 
 230 
 230 
 231 
 231 
 232 
 232 
 256 
 256 
 256 
 258 
 259 
 260 
 
 261 
 
 261 
 
 262 
 
 262 
 
 262 
 
 262 
 
 263 
 
 263 
 
 263 
 
 263 
 
 264 
 
 270 
 
 270 
 
 271 
 
 271 
 
 271 
 
 274 
 
 278 
 
 278 
 
 278 
 
 307 
 
 308 
 
 309 
 
 310 
 
 311 
 
 80 
 
 81 
 
 81 
 
 81 
 
 81 
 
 81 
 
 81 
 
 81 
 
 82 
 
 82 
 
 82 
 
 83 
 
 7 ii. 85 
 
 8 85 
 
 86 
 
 89 
 89 
 90 
 91 
 91 
 91 
 93 
 93 
 97 
 97 
 97 
 97 
 98 
 98 
 98 
 98 
 98 
 98 
 99 
 99 
 99 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 101 
 101 
 
 XI. 
 
 33 ii. 51 
 
 34 51 
 52 
 52 
 52 
 53 
 53 
 53 
 53 
 54 
 54 
 55 
 55 
 55 
 56 
 67 
 57 
 57 
 57 
 58 
 59 
 59 
 
 X. 
 
 1 ii. 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 
 XI. 
 
 1 ii. 136 
 
 2 136 
 
 3 137 
 
 4 137 
 
 5 138 
 
 6 138 
 
 7 138 
 
 8 138 
 139 
 139 
 139 
 139 
 139 
 
 40 
 40 
 40 
 41 
 41 
 
 XII. 
 
 47 ii. 71 
 
 48 72 
 
 49 i. 221 
 
 50 221 
 
 51 222 
 
 52 222 
 
 53 222 
 
 54 ii. 74 
 
 55 74 
 
 XIV. 
 
 16 ii. 153 
 
 17 153 
 
 XII. 
 
 1 ii. 59 
 
 2 i. 219 
 
 3 219 
 
 4 219 
 
 5 219 
 
 6 220 
 
 7 220 
 
 8 221 
 
 9 221 
 10 ii. 60 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 24 i. 139 
 
 25 
 
 26 139 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 29 140 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 32 ii. 62 
 
 33 62 
 
 XIII. 
 
 1 ii. 75 
 
 2 76 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 
 18 i. 179 
 
 19 179 
 
 154 
 154 
 154 
 154 
 154 
 154 
 154 
 155 
 155 
 155 
 155 
 155 
 156 
 156 
 156 
 156 
 157 
 157 
 
 XV. 
 
 1 ii. 157 
 
 2 157 
 
 179 
 179 
 
 22 ii. 142 
 
 23 142 
 
 142 
 142 
 144 
 144 
 144 
 145 
 145 
 146 
 146 
 146 
 258 
 258 
 
 XIV. 
 
 1 ii. 147 
 
 2 147 
 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 
 ! 8 
 I 9 
 : 10 
 1 11 
 ! 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 
 158 
 158 
 158 
 158 
 158 
 158 
 159 
 159 
 162 
 162 
 163 
 163 
 163 
 163 
 163 
 164 
 164 
 164 
 164 
 165 
 165 
 165 
 165 
 165 
 166 
 166 
 166 
 166 
 166 
 106 
 
 XVI. 
 
 12 ii. 
 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 
 L77 
 178 
 180 
 180 
 180 
 ISO 
 180 
 186 
 186 
 186 
 186 
 187 
 
 189 
 189 
 
 189 
 
 XVII. 
 
 1 ii. 194 
 
 2 194 
 
 147 
 148 
 148 
 148 
 148 
 148 
 149 
 149 
 150 
 151 
 151 
 151 
 153 
 
 XVI. 
 
 1 ii. 167 
 
 2 172 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 
 173 
 173 
 173 
 173 
 173 
 174 
 175 
 176 
 177 
 
 194 
 194 
 195 
 195 
 196 
 196 
 197 
 197 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 198 
 199 
 199 
 199 
 199 
 199 
 200 
 200 
 200 
 200 
 200 
 200 
 200 
 200 
 200 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 1 ii. 201 
 
 2 201 
 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 201 
 
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS, vii 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 XX. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 7 ii. 
 
 202 
 
 i:: ii. 
 
 242 
 
 14 ii. 
 
 28(i 
 
 10 iii. 
 
 8 
 
 27 iii 
 
 120 
 
 4 iii 
 
 218 ! 
 
 liii 
 
 259 
 
 8 
 
 202 
 
 14 
 
 242 , 
 
 15 
 
 286 
 
 17 
 
 8 
 
 28 
 
 126 
 
 5 
 
 218 
 
 2 
 
 266 
 
 9 
 
 203 
 
 15 
 
 243 ' 
 
 16 
 
 286 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 
 29 
 
 126 
 
 6 
 
 218 1 
 
 3 
 
 273 
 
 10 
 
 204 
 
 16 
 
 243 
 
 17 
 
 287 
 
 19 
 
 8 
 
 30 
 
 126 
 
 7 
 
 218 i 
 
 4 
 
 273 
 
 11 
 
 204 
 
 17 
 
 243 
 
 18 
 
 287 1 
 
 20 
 
 14 
 
 31 
 
 127; 
 
 8 
 
 218 i 
 
 5 
 
 273 
 
 12 
 
 204 1 
 
 IS 
 
 243 
 
 19 
 
 289 ' 
 
 21 
 
 15 
 
 32 
 
 128 
 
 9 
 
 219 1 
 
 6 
 
 273 
 
 13 
 
 20 i i 
 
 19 
 
 243 
 
 20 
 
 305 
 
 22 
 
 16 
 
 33 
 
 128 
 
 10 
 
 219 
 
 7 
 
 273 
 
 14 
 
 204 
 
 20 
 
 243 
 
 21 
 
 308 
 
 23 
 
 16 
 
 34 
 
 128 
 
 11 
 
 219 
 
 8 
 
 273 
 
 15 
 
 206 
 
 21 
 
 243 
 
 22 
 
 308 
 
 24 
 
 16 
 
 35 
 
 130 
 
 12 
 
 219 
 
 9 
 
 273 
 
 16 
 
 206 
 
 22 
 
 244 
 
 23 
 
 308 
 
 25 
 
 28 
 
 36 
 
 130 
 
 13 
 
 219 
 
 10 
 
 274 
 
 17 
 
 206 
 
 23 
 
 244 
 
 24 
 
 308 
 
 26 
 
 28 
 
 37 
 
 132 
 
 14 
 
 219 
 
 11 
 
 275 
 
 18 
 
 211 
 
 24 
 
 244 
 
 25 
 
 308 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 38 
 
 133 
 
 15 
 
 219 
 
 12 
 
 275 
 
 19 
 
 211 
 
 25 
 
 244 
 
 26 
 
 311 
 
 28 
 
 30 
 
 39 
 
 179 
 
 10 
 
 219 
 
 13 
 
 277 
 
 20 
 
 212 
 
 26 
 
 244 
 
 27 
 
 311 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 40 
 
 179 
 
 17 
 
 
 14 
 
 277 
 
 21 
 
 213 
 
 27 
 
 245 
 
 28 
 
 311 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 41 
 
 180 
 
 18 
 
 222 
 
 15 
 
 277 
 
 22 
 
 213 
 
 28 
 
 250 
 
 29 
 
 312 
 
 31 
 
 30 
 
 42 
 
 180 
 
 19 
 
 222 
 
 16 
 
 277 
 
 23 
 
 213 
 
 29 
 
 251 
 
 30 
 
 312 
 
 32 
 
 
 43 
 
 184 
 
 20 
 
 222 
 
 17 
 
 278 
 
 24 
 
 213 
 
 30 
 
 251 
 
 31 
 
 312 
 
 33 
 
 34 
 
 44 
 
 184 
 
 21 
 
 222 
 
 IS 
 
 278 
 
 25 
 
 214 
 
 31 
 
 251 
 
 32 
 
 312 
 
 34 
 
 36 
 
 45 
 
 185 
 
 22 
 
 222 
 
 19 
 
 278 
 
 26 
 
 216 
 
 32 
 
 252 
 
 33 
 
 312 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 46 
 
 185 
 
 23 
 
 222 
 
 20 
 
 278 
 
 27 
 
 217 
 
 33 
 
 252 
 
 34 
 
 313 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 47 
 
 186 
 
 24 
 
 223 
 
 21 
 
 278 
 
 28 
 
 217 
 
 34 
 
 252 
 
 35 
 
 313 
 
 37 
 
 65 
 
 48 
 
 187 
 
 25 
 
 223 
 
 22 
 
 278 
 
 29 
 
 219 
 
 35 
 
 252 
 
 36 
 
 313 
 
 38 
 
 65 
 
 49 
 
 190 
 
 26 
 
 227 
 
 23 
 
 278 
 
 30 
 
 
 36 
 
 254 
 
 37 
 
 315 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 190 
 
 27 
 
 228 
 
 24 
 
 279 
 
 31 
 
 224 
 
 37 
 
 256 
 
 38 
 
 315 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 192 
 
 28 
 
 228 
 
 25 
 
 279 
 
 32 
 
 224 
 
 38 
 
 256 
 
 39 
 
 318 
 
 xxn 
 
 52 
 
 192 
 
 29 
 
 228 
 
 26 
 
 279 
 
 33 
 
 224 
 
 39 
 
 257 
 
 40 
 
 318 
 
 
 
 53 
 
 192 
 
 30 
 
 228 
 
 27 
 
 279 
 
 34 
 
 224 
 
 40 
 
 257 
 
 41 
 
 328 
 
 1 iii 
 
 65 
 
 54 
 
 193 
 
 31 
 
 228 
 
 28 
 
 282 
 
 35 
 
 230 
 
 41 
 
 257 
 
 42 
 
 328 
 
 2 
 
 66 
 
 55 
 
 197 
 
 32 
 
 228 
 
 29 
 
 282 
 
 36 
 
 235 
 
 42 
 
 257 
 
 43 
 
 328 
 
 3 
 
 66 
 
 56 
 
 202 
 
 33 
 
 229 
 
 30 
 
 282 
 
 37 
 
 235 
 
 43 
 
 257 
 
 44 
 
 328 
 
 4 
 
 66 
 
 57 
 
 202 
 
 34 
 
 230 
 
 31 
 
 284 
 
 38 
 
 235 
 
 44 
 
 257 
 
 45 
 
 334 
 
 5 
 
 66 
 
 58 
 
 203 
 
 35 
 
 235 
 
 32 
 
 288 
 
 39 
 
 235 
 
 45 
 
 274 
 
 46 
 
 334 
 
 6 
 
 66 
 
 59 
 
 203 
 
 36 
 
 236 
 
 33 
 
 288 
 
 40 
 
 236 
 
 46 
 
 274 
 
 47 
 
 334 
 
 7 
 
 81 
 
 60 
 
 203 
 
 37 
 
 236 
 
 34 
 
 288 
 
 41 
 
 236 
 
 47 
 
 279 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 81 
 
 61 
 
 204 
 
 38 
 
 232 
 
 35 
 
 288 
 
 42 
 
 236 
 
 48 
 
 279 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 81 
 
 62 
 
 
 39 
 
 236 
 
 36 
 
 289 
 
 43 
 
 236 
 
 
 
 xyT 
 
 10 
 
 81 
 
 63 
 
 201 
 
 40 
 
 236 
 
 37 
 
 289 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 Ii 
 
 82 
 
 64 
 
 201 
 
 41 
 
 236 
 
 38 
 
 289 
 
 
 
 XV 
 
 1 ii 
 
 . 344 
 
 12 
 
 84 
 
 65 
 
 201 
 
 42 
 
 236 
 
 39 
 
 289 
 
 XI"V 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 2 
 
 344 
 
 13 
 
 84 
 
 66 
 
 197 
 
 43 
 
 239 
 
 40 
 
 289 
 
 
 * 
 
 1 ii 
 
 . 280 
 
 3 
 
 345 
 
 14 
 
 84 
 
 67 
 
 199 
 
 44 
 
 241 
 
 41 
 
 290 
 
 1 ii 
 
 . 240 
 
 •) 
 
 280 
 
 4 
 
 345 
 
 15 
 
 84 
 
 68 
 
 199 
 
 45 
 
 245 
 
 42 
 
 
 2 
 
 240 
 
 3 
 
 281 
 
 5 iii. 1 
 
 16 
 
 84 
 
 69 
 
 199 
 
 46 
 
 244 
 
 43 
 
 
 3 
 
 240 
 
 ; 4 
 
 281 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 ;i7 
 
 85 
 
 70 
 
 199 
 
 47 
 
 248 
 
 44 
 
 301 
 
 4 
 
 240 
 
 5 
 
 281 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 118 
 
 85 
 
 71 
 
 200 
 
 48 
 
 249 
 
 45 
 
 301 
 
 5 
 
 240 
 
 6 
 
 281 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 1 19 
 
 89 
 
 
 
 49 
 
 249 
 
 46 
 
 301 
 
 6 
 
 241 
 
 7 
 
 282 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 1 20 
 
 91 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 254 
 
 47 
 
 301 
 
 7 
 
 241 
 
 ! .« 
 
 282 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 21 
 
 124 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 254 
 
 48 
 
 302 
 
 8 
 
 241 
 
 » 
 
 284 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 22 
 
 124 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 52 
 
 254 
 
 49 
 
 302 
 
 9 
 
 241 
 
 10 
 
 285 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 23 
 
 124 
 
 
 
 53 
 
 255 
 
 50 
 
 303 
 
 10 
 
 241 
 
 ! U 
 
 285 
 
 13 
 
 7 
 
 24 
 
 126 
 
 1 iii 205 
 
 54 
 
 256 
 
 51 
 
 303 
 
 11 
 
 242 
 
 12 
 
 285 
 
 14 
 
 12 
 
 25 
 
 126 
 
 2 
 
 215 
 
 55 
 
 256 
 
 52 
 
 303 
 
 12 
 
 242 
 
 13 
 
 286 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 26 
 
 126 
 
 1 3 
 
 215 
 
 56 
 
 256 
 
 53 
 
 303 
 
 JOHK 
 
 1 i 
 
 . 1 
 
 13 i 
 
 . 41 
 
 25 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 41 
 
 26 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 42 
 
 27 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 42 
 
 28 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 17 
 
 42 
 
 29 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 43 
 
 30 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 19 
 
 34 
 
 31 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 34 
 
 32 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 21 
 
 34 
 
 33 
 
 10 
 
 40 
 
 •'•> 
 
 34 
 
 34 
 
 11 
 
 40 
 
 23 
 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 12 
 
 40 
 
 24 
 
 34 
 
 36 
 
 37 i. 
 
 43 
 
 38 
 
 43 
 
 39 
 
 43 
 
 40 
 
 44 
 
 41 
 
 44 
 
 42 
 
 44 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 45 
 
 44 
 
 46 
 
 45 
 
 47 
 
 45 
 
 48 
 
 45 
 
 I. 
 
 49 i. 
 
 45 
 
 50 
 
 46 
 
 51 
 
 46 
 
 II. 
 
 
 1 i. 
 
 55 
 
 2 
 
 55 
 
 3 
 
 55 
 
 4 
 
 55 
 
 II. 
 
 II. 
 
 5 i. 
 
 55 
 
 17 ii 
 
 276 
 
 6 
 
 56 
 
 18 
 
 276 
 
 7 
 
 56 
 
 19 
 
 276 
 
 8 
 
 56 
 
 20 
 
 276 
 
 9 
 
 56 
 
 21 
 
 276 
 
 10 
 
 56 
 
 22 
 
 276 
 
 11 
 
 57 
 
 23 
 
 279 
 
 12 
 
 58 
 
 24 
 
 279 
 
 13 ii. 
 
 274 
 
 25 
 
 280 
 
 14 
 
 274 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 274 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 274 
 
 
 
viii INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS. 
 
 III. 
 
 1 ii. 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 
 22 i. 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 
 IV. 
 
 11 
 11 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 14 
 14 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 67 
 
 67 
 
 67 
 
 69 
 
 70 
 
 70 i 
 
 70 
 
 70 
 
 70 
 
 70 
 
 71 
 
 71 
 
 71 
 
 71 
 
 72 
 
 IV. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 . 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 
 72 
 72 
 73 
 73 
 73 
 73 
 73 
 73 
 73 
 74 
 74 
 74 
 74 
 74 
 74 
 74 
 74 
 74 
 75 
 75 
 75 
 75 
 75 
 76 
 76 
 76 
 76 
 76 
 77 
 77 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 
 V. 
 
 45 i. 95 
 
 46 95 
 
 47 96 
 
 VI. 
 
 1 i. 228 
 
 2 229 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 51 
 52 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 56 
 57 
 58 
 59 
 60 
 61 
 62 
 63 
 64 
 
 229 
 229 
 229 
 229 
 229 
 231 
 231 
 231 
 232 
 232 
 232 
 236 
 236 
 236 
 236 
 236 
 237 
 237 
 238 
 241 
 242 
 242 
 243 
 243 
 243 
 243 
 243 
 244 
 244 
 244 
 244 
 245 
 245 
 245 
 245 
 245 
 247 
 247 
 248 
 248 
 248 
 249 
 249 
 249 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 2.50 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 251 
 251 
 251 
 251 
 251 
 253 
 254 
 2.54 
 254 
 254 
 254 
 
 VI. 
 
 65 i. 254 
 
 66 254 
 
 67 255 
 08 255 
 
 69 255 
 
 70 255 
 71 
 
 VII. 
 
 1 ii. 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 51 
 52 
 53 
 
 VIII. 
 
 9 
 9 
 
 V 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 19 
 
 19 
 19 
 19 
 21 
 21 
 21 
 21 
 21 
 22 
 22 
 22 
 22 
 22 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 24 
 24 
 24 
 24 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 26 
 26 
 26 
 26 
 26 
 26 
 26 
 27 
 27 
 27 
 27 
 27 
 27 
 28 
 28 
 28 
 30 
 30 
 30 
 30 
 30 
 30 
 31 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 36 
 36 
 
 IX. 
 
 12 ii. 105 
 
 13 105 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 
 : 6 
 
 VIII. i 7 
 8 
 
 1 ii. 19 9 
 
 2 19 10 
 
 3 19 11 
 
 IX. 
 
 ii. 102 
 102 
 103 
 103 
 103 
 104 
 104 
 105 
 105 
 105 
 105 
 
 105 
 106 
 106 
 106 
 106 
 106 
 HI 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 111 
 112 
 112 
 112 
 112 
 112 
 112 
 112 
 112 
 113 
 113 
 113 
 113 
 113 
 114 
 114 
 
 1 ii. 114 
 
 2 114 
 
 114 
 114 
 114 
 114 
 115 
 115 
 115 
 116 
 116 
 116 
 116 
 116 
 117 
 117 
 118 
 118 
 120 
 120 
 120 
 121 
 121 
 121 
 121 
 122 
 122 
 122 
 122 
 123 
 123 
 123 
 123 
 123 
 124 
 124 
 124 
 
 38 ii. 124 
 
 39 124 
 
 40 124 
 
 41 125 
 
 42 125 
 
 XI. 
 
 1 ii. 125 
 
 2 125 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 51 
 52 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 56 
 57 
 
 XII. 
 
 1 ii. 246 
 
 2 246 
 
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOiU'ELki. ix 
 
 XII. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 XX. 
 
 3 ii 
 
 246 
 
 [ 3iii. 117 
 
 15 iii. 138 
 
 3 iii. 155 
 
 19 
 
 iii. 176 
 
 1 iii. 224 
 
 8 iii. 267 
 
 4 
 
 247 
 
 4 
 
 117 
 
 16 
 
 139 
 
 4 
 
 156 
 
 |20 
 
 176 2 
 
 224 
 
 9 
 
 268 
 
 5 
 
 247 
 
 5 
 
 117 
 
 17 
 
 140 
 
 1 5 
 
 157 
 
 21 
 
 176 3 
 
 224 
 
 10 
 
 268 
 
 6 
 
 247 
 
 1 6 
 
 118 
 
 18 
 
 141 
 
 6 
 
 157 
 
 j22 
 
 176 
 
 4 
 
 224 
 
 11 
 
 268 
 
 7 
 
 247 
 
 7 
 
 118 
 
 19 
 
 142 
 
 ( 
 
 157 
 
 23 
 
 177 
 
 5 
 
 224 
 
 12 
 
 268 
 
 8 
 
 247 
 
 ! « 
 
 118 
 
 20 
 
 142 
 
 8 
 
 157 
 
 24 
 
 177 
 
 6 
 
 224 
 
 13 
 
 268 
 
 9 
 
 250 
 
 9 
 
 lis 
 
 21 
 
 142 
 
 1 9 
 
 158 
 
 ; 25 
 
 177 
 
 7 
 
 224 
 
 14 
 
 268 
 
 10 
 
 250 
 
 10 
 
 118 
 
 22 
 
 142 
 
 ;io 
 
 158 
 
 [26 
 
 177 
 
 8 
 
 224 
 
 15 
 
 269 
 
 11 
 
 250 
 
 11 
 
 119 
 
 23 
 
 142 
 
 111 
 
 158 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 224 16 
 
 269 
 
 12 
 
 254 
 
 12 
 
 119 
 
 24 
 
 142 
 
 12 
 
 100 
 
 j 
 
 10 
 
 225 17 
 
 269 
 
 13 
 
 255 
 
 13 
 
 119 
 
 i 25 
 
 142 
 
 13 
 
 161 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 225 
 
 18 
 
 274 
 
 14 
 
 255 
 
 14 
 
 119 
 
 26 
 
 143 
 
 14 
 
 161 
 
 ' XVIII. 
 
 12 
 
 225 
 
 19 
 
 290 
 
 1.5 
 
 255 
 
 15 
 
 119 
 
 i 27 
 
 144 
 
 15 
 
 161 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 226 
 
 20 
 
 290 
 
 16 
 
 255 
 
 16 
 
 119 
 
 ' 28 
 
 144 
 
 16 
 
 162 
 
 1 
 
 iii. 179 
 
 14 
 
 226 
 
 21 
 
 291 
 
 17 
 
 255 
 
 17 
 
 120 
 
 29 
 
 145 
 
 17 
 
 162 
 
 2 
 
 179 
 
 15 
 
 227 
 
 22 
 
 291 
 
 18 
 
 255 
 
 18 
 
 122 
 
 30 
 
 145 
 
 18 
 
 162 
 
 3 
 
 186 
 
 16 
 
 227 
 
 23 
 
 291 
 
 19 
 
 257 
 
 19 
 
 123 
 
 31 
 
 146 
 
 19 
 
 162 
 
 4 
 
 187 
 
 17 
 
 227 
 
 24 
 
 295 
 
 20iii 
 
 . 67 
 
 20 
 
 124 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 162 
 
 5 
 
 187 
 
 18 
 
 229 
 
 25 
 
 295 
 
 21 
 
 67 
 
 21 
 
 124 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 163 
 
 6 
 
 188 
 
 19 
 
 232 
 
 26 
 
 295 
 
 22 
 
 67 
 
 22 
 
 124 
 
 xv 
 
 22 
 
 163 
 
 7 
 
 190 
 
 20 
 
 233 
 
 27 
 
 296 
 
 23 
 
 67 
 
 23 
 
 124 
 
 A. 
 
 
 23 
 
 163 
 
 8 
 
 190 
 
 21 
 
 233 
 
 28 
 
 296 
 
 24 
 
 67 
 
 24 
 
 124 
 
 liii 
 
 .148 
 
 24 
 
 163 
 
 9 
 
 190 
 
 92 
 
 234 
 
 29 
 
 296 
 
 25 
 
 68 
 
 25 
 
 124 
 
 2 
 
 148 
 
 25 
 
 164 
 
 10 
 
 191 
 
 23 
 
 230 
 
 30 
 
 298 
 
 26 
 
 68 
 
 26 
 
 125 
 
 3 
 
 148 26 
 
 165 
 
 11 
 
 191 
 
 24 
 
 230 
 
 31 
 
 298 
 
 27 
 
 69 
 
 27 
 
 125 
 
 4 
 
 148 27 
 
 165 
 
 12 
 
 193 
 
 25 
 
 240 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 70 
 
 28 
 
 125 
 
 5 
 
 148 28 
 
 166 
 
 13 
 
 194 
 
 26 
 
 240 
 
 
 
 29 
 
 70 
 
 29 
 
 125 
 
 6 
 
 148 29 
 
 169 
 
 14 
 
 194 
 
 27 
 
 240 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 71 
 
 30 
 
 125 
 
 7 
 
 149 
 
 30 
 
 169 
 
 15 
 
 194 
 
 28 
 
 242 
 
 XXT. 
 
 31 
 
 72 
 
 31 
 
 125 
 
 8 
 
 149 
 
 31 
 
 169 
 
 16 
 
 194 
 
 29 
 
 243 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 73 
 
 32 
 
 126 
 
 9 
 
 149 
 
 32 
 
 169 
 
 17 
 
 194 
 
 30 
 
 244 
 
 1 iii. 304 
 
 33 
 
 73 
 
 33 
 
 128 
 
 10 
 
 149 
 
 33 
 
 170 
 
 18 
 
 195 
 
 31 
 
 250 
 
 2 
 
 304 
 
 34 
 
 73 
 
 34 
 
 128 
 
 11 
 
 150 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 195 
 
 32 
 
 250 
 
 3 
 
 304 
 
 35 
 
 74 
 
 35 
 
 129 
 
 12 
 
 150 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 195 
 
 33 
 
 250 
 
 4 
 
 304 
 
 36 
 
 75 
 
 36 
 
 129 
 
 13 
 
 151 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 195 
 
 34 
 
 250 
 
 5 
 
 304 
 
 37 
 
 75 
 
 37 
 
 129 
 
 14 
 
 151 
 
 XVII. 
 
 99 
 
 195 
 
 35 
 
 251 
 
 6 
 
 304 
 
 38 
 
 75 
 
 38 
 
 129 
 
 15 
 
 151 
 
 
 
 23. 
 
 196 
 
 36 
 
 253 
 
 7 
 
 304 
 
 39 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 151 
 
 liii 
 
 .170 
 
 24 
 
 196 
 
 37 
 
 253 
 
 8 
 
 305 
 
 -iO 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 151 
 
 2 
 
 171 
 
 25 
 
 202 
 
 38 
 
 254 
 
 9 
 
 305 
 
 41 
 
 76 
 
 XT'W 
 
 18 
 
 152 
 
 3 
 
 172 
 
 26 
 
 203 
 
 39 
 
 255 
 
 10 
 
 305 
 
 42 
 
 76 
 
 j^i. 
 
 
 19 
 
 1.53 
 
 4 
 
 173 
 
 27 
 
 203 
 
 40 
 
 2.55 11 
 
 305 
 
 43 
 
 77 
 
 liii 
 
 133 
 
 20 
 
 1.53 
 
 5 
 
 173 
 
 28 
 
 205 
 
 41 
 
 2-56 12 
 
 305 
 
 44 
 
 77 2 
 
 133 
 
 21 
 
 153 
 
 6 
 
 173 
 
 29 
 
 215 
 
 42 
 
 256 
 
 13 
 
 305 
 
 4.5 
 
 77 3 
 
 134 
 
 22 
 
 153 1 
 
 7 
 
 173 
 
 30 
 
 215 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 305 
 
 46 
 
 77 4 
 
 134 
 
 23 
 
 153 
 
 8 
 
 174 
 
 31 
 
 215 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 305 
 
 47 
 
 77 
 
 5 
 
 135 
 
 24 
 
 153 
 
 y 
 
 174 
 
 32 
 
 215 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 307 
 
 48 
 
 78 
 
 6 
 
 135 
 
 25 
 
 154 
 
 10 
 
 174 
 
 33 
 
 216 
 
 XX. 
 
 17 
 
 307 
 
 49 
 
 78 7 ■ 
 
 135 
 
 26 
 
 1.54 
 
 11 
 
 175 
 
 34 
 
 216 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 307 
 
 .30 
 
 78 8 
 
 135 
 
 27 
 
 154 
 
 12 
 
 175 
 
 35 
 
 216 
 
 liii 
 
 2.59 1 
 
 19 
 
 308 
 
 
 9 
 
 135 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 175 
 
 36 
 
 216 
 
 2 
 
 266 
 
 20 
 
 308 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 136 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 175 
 
 37 
 
 216; 
 
 3 
 
 267 
 
 21 
 
 308 
 
 YTTT 
 
 11 
 
 136 
 
 "VVT 
 
 15 
 
 175 
 
 38 
 
 217 j 
 
 4 
 
 267 ' 
 
 22 
 
 308 
 
 A,!.!. 
 
 
 12 
 
 136 
 
 A. V 
 
 *■• 
 
 16 
 
 176 
 
 39 
 
 220 ' 
 
 5 
 
 267 
 
 23 
 
 308 
 
 liii. 
 
 117 13 
 
 137 
 
 liii. 
 
 155 1 
 
 17 
 
 176 
 
 40 
 
 222 
 
 6 
 
 267 
 
 24 
 
 309 
 
 •) 
 
 117 
 
 14 
 
 138 
 
 2 
 
 155' 
 
 18 
 
 176 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 267 
 
 25 
 
 310 
 
( X ) 
 
 INDEX TO VAKIOUS SUBJECTS. 
 
 Age-diiring, I. 89, 251, 313 : TI. lo, 
 
 31, 122, 128. 212, 273; III. 172 
 Almsgiving, II. 344—354 
 Angels, I. 8, 183, 264, 315 : II. 313 ; 
 
 III. 50—55 
 Apostles, I. 112, 216 
 Arnold, Matthew, II. 110, 119, 135 
 Articles of Keligion, II. 58 
 Athanasiiin Creed, I. 153, 221 ; III. 
 
 167 
 Baptism, 1.32, 273, 322; II. 18, 207; 
 
 III. 313—315 
 Blasphemy, II. 43 ; III. 249 
 Church, I. 187, 257, 316—327; II. 
 
 230 
 Coming, III. 32, 33, 36, 47 
 Common Tradition, I. 106, 114, 167, 
 
 172, 241, 277, 301 ; II. 282, 289 
 Confirmation, II. 208 
 Demons, I. 63, 182,200. 273; II. 49. 
 
 90 
 Discdplcs, I. 121, 129, 260: II. 62, 83, 
 117, 156, 167—172, 176, 179, 215, 231, 
 271, 296, 307; II. 311, 336—338 ; III. 
 6, 7, 49, 56—64, 68, 121, 150, 300, 
 312, 317, 321—326 
 Emulation, II. 205 
 Faith, I. 203, 207,211, 274; II. 195 
 Fasting, I. 105 
 
 Forgiveness, I. 100—102, 134, 135, 
 163, 328—330; II. 44, 264; III. 
 292—294 
 Gehenna, I. 220, 313 ; II. 339 
 Glory, III. 280 
 God, I. 75, 155, 156 ; II. 316 
 Hell. See Gehenna. 
 Holy, I. 8, 40 ; II. 91 
 Holy Spirit, II. 8, 12, 91, 140, 328, 
 
 330; in. 13, 141, 143, 291 
 In my name, I. 310, 327 ; III. 4, 163, 
 
 313 
 Inspiration, I., 3, 12, 53, 56, 78, 232, 
 237, 281, 308; II. 240, 321, 330—334 
 
 Jehovali, II. 324—327 
 
 Jews, II. 3, 106—111, 250, 278 
 
 Last day, I. 247,251; II. 127 
 
 Lord's Prayer, III. 78 
 
 Lord's Supper, I. 225, 252 ; III. 84— 
 
 116 
 Miracles, I. 56—58, 193—195, 233, 239, 
 
 274, 297, 306 ; II. 236, 261 ; III. 
 
 298, 326 
 Mother of Jesus, I. 17, 209; II. 1, 50 
 Only-begotten, I. 42 ; II. 17 
 Parables, II. 160—162 ; III. 42 
 Political Economy, II. 65 — 72 
 Politics, III. 257" 
 Prayer, I. 133 ; II. 55, 137—139, 263 
 
 III. 17—25 
 Preaching, II. 37, 56, 101, 348—352 
 Prophecies, I. 26, 66 
 Kepentanrc, III. 302 
 Eesurrection, I. 91 ; II. 127, 133, 151, 
 
 191, 277, 312—318 ; III. 8—10, 247 
 Revisers, I. 35 
 
 Righteousness, II. 300—305 ; III. 159 
 Sabbath, III. 261—265 
 Salvation, I. 174; II. 145, 223; III. 
 
 II, 58, 182, 254, 295, 319—326 
 Salvation Army, II. 256; III. 315 
 Scripture-reading, II. 34 
 
 Son of God, L 40, 246, 255; IL 330; 
 
 III. 249 
 
 Son of man, I. 101, 109, 120, 161, 21S, 
 
 255 ; II. 64 
 Spirit, III. 140 
 Spiritual body, III. 285 
 Temptation, I. 49 
 Tongues, III. 327—332 
 Trinity, III. 167 
 Vengeance, II. 202 
 War, II. 272, 298, 305 
 Word, I. 1, 42 
 World, III. 3 
 Yoke. II. 94—96 
 
INDEX TO MIRACLES. 
 
 
 PACK 
 
 
 PAOB 
 
 Healing of demoniac 
 
 l.lj-.i 
 
 Healing of ten lepers 
 
 II. 198 
 
 ,, Simon's motlier-iii- 
 
 
 „ two blind men . . 
 
 230 
 
 law . . . 
 
 65 
 
 „ Malchus' ear . 
 
 III. 192 
 
 ,, nobleman's son 
 
 82 
 
 Casting out of dumb and deaf 
 
 
 ,, infirm man 
 
 84 
 
 spii-it . 
 
 1.273 
 
 ,, leper 
 
 ,. palsied man 
 
 96 
 
 ,, ,, demons into 
 
 
 99 
 
 swine . 
 
 198 
 
 ,, withered liaiid 
 
 109 
 
 Raising of widow's sou 
 
 154 
 
 „ centurion's servant 
 
 1.51 
 
 „ Lazarus . 
 
 II. 125 
 
 ,, demoniac 
 
 196 
 
 Turning water into wine . . 
 
 I. 55 
 
 Jairus" daiigliter 
 
 201 
 
 1 )raught of fishes . 
 
 68 
 
 ,, a woman 
 
 201 
 
 J, 
 
 III. 304 
 
 .. two blind men 
 
 206 
 
 Multiplication of luuves and 
 
 
 ,. a Gentile woman '> 
 
 
 fishes 
 
 I. 229 
 
 daughter . . 
 
 289 
 
 * 
 
 295 
 
 ,, (leaf, stuttering ma 11 
 
 29;^ 
 
 The fish and the stater . 
 
 306 
 
 „ blind man . . . 
 
 ;3o;j 
 
 Stilling of the storm . . . 
 
 193 
 
 deformed woman . 
 
 I [. 78 
 
 Walking on the sea 
 
 237 
 
 man born blind 
 
 102 
 
 Cursing of the tig-tree . . 
 
 II. 260 
 
 man witli dropsx . 
 
 147 
 
 
 
( Xli ) 
 
 INDEX TO PARABLES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Marriage and fasting . . I. lO-l 
 
 Old and new cloth . . 105 
 
 Wine and bottles . . . 106 
 
 Old and new wine . . 106 
 
 City on a hill .... 122 
 
 BUnd guides of the blind . . 144 
 
 Good and bad trees ... 148 
 
 ,, „ treasure . . 148 
 
 Wise and foolish builders . 149 
 
 Two debtors .... 162 
 
 The sower and the seed . . 167 
 
 Good and bad seed ... 177 
 
 Mustard seed . . ■ ■ 178 
 
 Leaven 1"9 
 
 Growing seed .... 180 
 
 Hidden treasure . . . . 185 
 
 Merchant seeking pearls . 186 
 
 Drag-net 187 
 
 Lamp under a bushel . . 122, 189 
 
 Householder and his treasures 190 
 
 Shepherdless sheep. . . 212 
 
 H arvest and labourers . . 212 
 
 Children and Jogs ... 290 
 
 Leaven of i'harisees and Ikrud .'500 
 
 Lost sheep .... ;516 
 
 Two debtors . . • 328 
 
 Divided kingdom, city or house II. 41 
 
 The lighted lamp . . . 51 
 
 The rich fool .... 61 
 
 Servants watching . . 62 
 
 Unwatchful householder . 64 
 
 The faithful steward ... 6o 
 
 The unfaithful servant . 70 
 
 Cloud and wind .... 74 
 
 The slaughtered Galihi'uns . 75 
 
 The tower in Siloam ... 76 
 
 The barren tig tree ... 77 
 
 The dead 82 
 
 The ploughman ... 83 
 
 Harvest labourers ... 8i 
 
 The wounded traveller . 
 Door, shepherd, sheep, thieves. 
 
 and robbers. 
 Shepherd and hireling 
 The friends and the traveller 
 The narrow door 
 Seekers of chief seats . 
 The great supper 
 Tlie builder of a tower 
 The king going to war . 
 Savourless salt . 
 
 The lost sheep . 
 
 ,, ,, coin 
 The father and his sons . 
 The rich man and his steward 
 
 „ ,, Lazarus 
 
 The servant and his master 
 The unjust judge . 
 Tlie Pharisee and the publican 
 The camel and the needle's c^'e 
 The householder and the 
 
 labourers 
 Tlie cup and the baptism 
 The nobleman and his king 
 
 dom .... 
 The withered tig-tree 
 The two sons . 
 The vineyard and the lius 
 
 baudmeu. 
 The roj-al marriage 
 Gnat and camel . 
 The budding trees . 
 The watchman . 
 The ten virgins 
 The talents 
 
 The sheep and the goats . 
 Viue, husbandman and 
 
 branches 
 Tile green tree and the dry 
 
 PAGE 
 
 IL 98 
 
 114 
 
 116 
 
 138 
 
 143 
 
 148 
 
 53 
 
 155 
 
 156 
 
 I. 121 
 
 IL 57 
 
 IL 158 
 
 158 
 
 162 
 
 172 
 
 186 
 
 197 
 
 I'Ol 
 
 :-05 
 
 214 
 
 220 
 227 
 
 242 
 260 
 283 
 
 284 
 
 292 
 
 340 
 
 III. 30 
 
 37 
 
 40 
 
 42 
 
 48 
 
 148 
 228 
 
 BR.iDBrUY AONEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS, WHITEFRI.VRS 
 
BS2555.K54V.2 
 
 The King and the kingdom : a study of 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00049 6861 
 
 mm 
 
 5,uHi s^),'f^\'ifi 
 ) M IJ 11, V