LIBRARY 
 
 Theological Seminary 
 
 PRFNCETON, N. J. 
 
 Case, 
 
 Shelf, 
 
 Sect 
 
 ion I 
 
 ^42.-^. 
 
 Book, 
 

JESUS THE MESSIAH 
 
 x?^ (X^^ X5L^ 
 
 ' If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought ; 
 
 BUT if it be of god, YE CANNOT OVERTHROW IT, LEST HAPLY YE BE FOUND 
 EVEN TO FIGHT AGAINST GOD.' Acts V. 38, 39. 
 
 LONDON: 
 TRtJBNEE AND CO., 60 PATEENOSTER ROW. 
 
 1872. 
 
 \AU rights reserved.'] 
 
PllINTED Iiy TAYLOR AND FRANCIS, 
 RED MON COURT, FLEET STREET. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 The Reformation of the sixteenth century professed to be 
 a change back from the errors of Romanism to the pure 
 doctrines of the Gospel ; and yet it was far from being 
 so. It repudiated the more recent innovations of the 
 Church of Rome, but it retained the glosses and tradi- 
 tional interpretations of the post-Apostolic ages. Its 
 great merit was that it proclaimed and established liberty 
 of conscience, though its founders did not altogether act 
 up to their own principles ; in which respect their example 
 has only too often been followed by their successors. 
 
 The spirit of inquiry awakened by the emancipation of 
 the human mind from the thraldom in which it had so 
 long been held by a bigoted, intolerant, and corrupt 
 priesthood, could not fail to lead, sooner or later, to 
 
doubts as to whether what have been accepted as the 
 doctrines of the Apostles are so in reality, — whether the 
 dogmatic theology of the second, third, and fourth cen- 
 turies is in accordance with the teaching of om* Lord and 
 his immediate disciples ; whilst the searching criticism to 
 ■which the Canonical Scriptures have been subjected, has 
 caused their authority, and even their authenticity, to be 
 questioned. 
 
 The scepticism thence resulting has now become so 
 general, and manifests itseK so openly and unreservedly, 
 that there is every reasonable ground for believing that a 
 second Reformation, more important than that of Luther, 
 is imminent ; and this belief is strengthened by the fact, 
 brought to notice by Dr. Dollinger in his recent lecture 
 on Luther and his Reformation, that there exist so many 
 points of similarity between the events of the last few 
 years and those which immediately preceded that great 
 spiritual Revolution. Added to which, the actual state of 
 religious feeling generally resembles, in no small degree, 
 that which prevailed in the heathen Avorld when John 
 the Baptist came preaching the advent of the Kingdom 
 of Heaven, — as described in the ninth Chapter of the 
 present Work, chiefly after the distinguished Bavarian 
 theologian. 
 
Though, at the present moment, opinions regarding 
 the Creed a new Chiu'ch should adopt may be too much 
 divided to render the establishment of such a Church an 
 easy task ; still, whenever this Reformation of the nine- 
 teenth century shall ensue, one happy consequence of the 
 liberality of sentiment now prevalent will assuredly be, 
 that, instead of perpetuating sectarian animosity, it will be 
 accompanied by increased religious freedom and spiritual 
 union, eventually resulting, under God's blessing and 
 guidance, in an absolute unity of faith. 
 
 Meanwhile, and so long as professors of Christianity 
 shall still feel themselves bound by their convictions or 
 conscientious scruples to dissent, it may be hoped that 
 they will emulate the conduct, as rare in those early times 
 as it has been in later ages, of Bishops Polycarp and 
 Anicetus, the venerable representatives of the Eastern and 
 Western Churches in the beginning of the second cen- 
 tury ; who (as is here related in the seventeenth Chapter) 
 so worthily put in practice the doctrine of the Apostle 
 Paul, that charity, or brotherly love, is far greater than 
 either faith or hope. 
 
 Under the firm conviction that the Regeneration of 
 Christianity, on the basis of the pure and unadulterated 
 
doctrines of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus tlie Messiah, 
 cannot long be delayed, and in anticipation of that 
 momentous change, the present Work, embodying the 
 results of many years' serious study of our Lord's personal 
 history, has been written. 
 
 London, 
 Thanksgu-ing Day, 1872. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 ChapteK I. Page 
 
 The First State of Man 1 
 
 Chapter II. 
 The History of the Jews 15 
 
 Chapter III. 
 The Sources of the History of Jesus 24 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 On Traditions and Legends 43 
 
 Chapter V. 
 The Name and Title of Jesus the Messiah 56 
 
 Chapter VI. 
 The Lineage and Birth-place of Jesus 67 
 
 Chapter VII. 
 The Conception and Birth of Jesus 76 
 
 Chapter VHI. 
 The Infancy and Youth of Jesus 88 
 
 Chapter IX. 
 John the Baptist . . . 105 
 
 Chapter X. 
 The Baptism and Call of Jesus 118 
 
 Chapter XI. 
 The Temptation in the Wilderness 127 
 
VIU 
 
 Chapter XI 1. Page 
 
 The Good Tidings 135 
 
 Chapteb XIII. 
 
 Jesus the Messiah 168 
 
 Chapter. XIV. 
 The Miracles of Jesus 170 
 
 Chapter XV. 
 
 The Miracles in the Fourth Gospel 179 
 
 Chapter XVI. 
 The Kingdom of Heaven 189 
 
 Chapter XVII. 
 The Lord's Supper 218 
 
 Chapter XVIII. 
 The Arrest and Trial of the Messiah 233 
 
 Chapter XIX. 
 The Crucifixion of the Messiah 247 
 
 Chapter XX. 
 The Resurrection of the Messiah 262 
 
 Chapter XXI. 
 The Apostle Paul 291 
 
 Chapter XXII. 
 Conclusion 307 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 
 Page 26, line 23, for or to some God read as to some God ; or, more 
 properly, as if (he were) a God — ' Christo quasi Deo.' 
 
JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 THE FIRST STATE OF MAN. 
 
 In the imaginary conversation which Cicero relates in his ' Trea- 
 tise on the Nature of the Gods,' one of the interlocutors says, 
 ' If you ask me what God is, or what his nature and attributes 
 are, I would imitate Simonides, who, when the tyrant Hiero 
 proposed the same question to him, demanded a day to reflect on 
 it. When, on the following day, the king required his answer, 
 Simonides begged for two days more ; and then, instead of replying, 
 he kept on doubling the number of days, Hiero, in amazement, 
 asked him why he did so. " Because," replied he, " the longer 
 I meditate on the question, the more difficult does it appear 
 to me," ' 
 
 In the discussion which ensued, another speaker exclaims, 
 'How inconsistent it is that, when you view a statue or a 
 picture, you know it to be a work of art ; when you behold the 
 course of a ship afar off, you have no doubt of its being moved 
 by reason and skill ; when you look at a dial or a clypsedra, you 
 understand the hours to be shown by design and not by chance ; 
 and yet that you should believe the universe, which contains all 
 these works of art, and the artificers, and every thing else, to 
 have been made without design or reason ! ' He then gives an 
 illustration from the poet Attius of a shepherd who had never 
 seen a ship, ' and who, when from a mountain he perceived afar 
 
 B 
 / 
 
J. JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 off the ship Argo, surprised and terrified at the novel object, 
 after remaining some time in susjiense as to what it could be, 
 at length concluded it was some marine monster : ' — in which 
 figure, it may be remarked, the poet forestalled the Mexicans, 
 who so regarded the ships of Cortes. And Cicero's speaker then 
 goes on to say, ' And so, though philosophers may be pcr2)lexed 
 by the first sight of the universe, yet, when they have observed its 
 regular and even motions, and how all is regulated by settled 
 rules and immi;table constancy, they ought to understand that 
 not only is there some inhabitant of this celestial and divine 
 mansion, but that he is likewise the ruler and governor, as well 
 as the architect, of so mighty a fabric' 
 
 This argument of the heathen lloman philosopher supplied 
 our English Christian divine Paley with that of his ' Xatural 
 Theology,' in which the supposed accidental discovery of a watch, 
 and the con^•ictiou of the finder that it must be the work of an 
 intelligent maker, lead to the inference of the separate existence 
 of the Almighty Designer and Creator of the universe. 
 
 Nevertheless, the arguments of both writers, however able, are 
 alike defective in one material resjicct. Cicero speaks of this con- 
 clusion as that of ' philosophers ; ' for his shepherd remains im- 
 pressed with the notion that the Argo was a sea-monster. Paley, 
 for his part, assumes the finder of the watch to be an intelligent 
 being, competent to examine it, and to reason on the nature and 
 uses of its various parts, and thence to draw the inference on 
 which his argument is founded. But let the discoverer of the 
 watch be supposed to be either a child or a savage, — a man 
 in the state of nature, as it is so absurdly called, — would 
 either of these treat the machine in the way suggested? 
 Certainly not. The former would instinctively carry it to his 
 mouth, and then probably lot it drop ; or, if old enough, he 
 would listen to its ticking, would pull or knock it about, and 
 woidd end by destroying it ; unless, indeed, when tired of it 
 as a plaything, he should cast it aside, for the sake of the 
 stone, perhaps, which forms the subject of the opening part of 
 Paley's argument. 
 
THE FIRST STATE OF MAX. 3 
 
 On the other hand, the savage man would view the unknown 
 object with wonder, perchance with dread ; by-and-by he would 
 venture to touch it, handle it, and would be amazed at its 
 mysterious noise and at the movement of the hands on the 
 dial-plate. If he dared open it, he would be still more astonished 
 at its internal mechanism. So far, however, from attributing its 
 construction to an intelligent being, he would rather be inclined 
 to look upon the watch itself as animate, — as Attius's shepherd 
 regarded the Argo, and the Mexicans the Spanish ships, — 
 and would reverence it, and most probably worship it as a 
 divinity. After a while the watch would stop. But, instead of 
 attributing this to the true cause, and of comprehending that it 
 lay in his power to set the machine again in motion — to bring 
 it back to life — by winding it up, the savage man would 
 naturally conclude that this animate being had died. And 
 whatever might be the immediate effect of this opinion upon his 
 mind, the result would be that he would examine this now in- 
 animate and no longer dreaded object more closely, like a child 
 would puU it to pieces, and in the end destroy it, or else, not 
 improbably, make of its remains a fetish or object of adoration. 
 
 That this is not merely a speculative opinion is established by 
 a curious occurrence recorded in one of the public journals some 
 time after the foregoing remarks were written. A native of 
 Calcutta ' stole a musical box, ignorant of its use. On reaching 
 the enclosure of Wellesley Square he concealed himself in a 
 bush, and began to pick the lock. But the "lock" he picked 
 was the key-hole of the musical spring, and lo ! sweet sounds 
 from the interior ! He jumped up and flung it into the bush. 
 Meanwhile, the native keej^er of the garden came round, heard 
 music from the bush, and trembled all over at the astounding 
 phenomenon. He ran for an inspector, who finally arrested the 
 box as it was rattling off the last bars of the last air — a rollick- 
 ing comic song ' *. 
 
 To enable the discoverer of the watch to speculate as to its 
 origin, it is first necessary for him to be, if not actually a ' phi- 
 * ' Daily Telegraph,' April 25, 1871. 
 
 b2 
 
JESrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 losopher,' at least an intelligent person, gifted with such reason- 
 ing powers, and possessed of such an amount of knowledge, as 
 may qualify and enable him to judge rightly of the object thus 
 falling in his way, so as not to be led to any conclusion other than 
 the correct one by his ignorance and by the power of his 
 imagination, which appears to be the less amenable to control 
 the less the reasoning faculties are developed. 
 
 Not only to curb the imagination of the child and the savage 
 man, but also to afford to them both such an amount of know- 
 ledge as would enable them to judge rightly respecting the 
 watch, and, in fact, respecting every thing that requires the ex- 
 orcise of reason, it is essential that this faculty should have been 
 sufficiently developed, which it could not be, cither in the one or 
 in the other, were they left to themselves. The child would 
 grow up little, if any thing, better than a savage, as we unhappily 
 see exemplified in our ' street Arabs ; ' whilst the savage would 
 end his days in the same state of brutality and ignorance in 
 which he had begun them. So it must always be, and so it has 
 always been, as we find demonstrated, if, laying aside all as- 
 sumptions and speculations, we look to the evidence of recorded 
 facts. 
 
 The entire written history that we possess of the various 
 nations of the earth, though oftentimes imperfect, and not un- 
 frequently merely legendary or even fabulous, proves that where 
 such nations were not known to have been instructed and civi- 
 lized by some invading and conquering race, they looked up to 
 some great leader or teacher, some legislator and reformer, 
 mostly an immigrant from some other country or a native tra- 
 veller in foreign lands, from whom they derived their culture, 
 their religious faith, their position in the list of nations. In 
 every case where the revival of learning may not be traced to 
 such sources, the impulse has still been given from without. 
 There is not a single authenticated instance of any nation or 
 race having raised itself by its own unaided efforts. 
 
 Even in the case of 'self-taught' individuals, they cannot 
 be regarded as exceptions to the rule. If they have not com- 
 
THE FIRST STATE OF MAN. 5 
 
 menced their improvement under the immediate instruction of 
 some master, they have lived among civilized beings, and have 
 gained access to books, or had before their eyes some models, 
 which they have studied or imitated, till they have acquired the 
 power to manifest the inborn genius enabling them soon to 
 surpass not only their contemporaries but also their teachers or 
 their models. ' Poeta nascitur, non fit,' though a trite, is 
 scarcely a truthful saying, unless it is qualified. The author of 
 ' Contarini Fleming ' shows its true meaning when he portrays 
 ' the melancholy and brooding childhood, the first indications of 
 the predisposition, the gTowing consciousness of power, the 
 reveries, the loneliness, the doubts, the moody misery, the igno- 
 rance of art, the failures, the despair ' of the ' born ' poet ; and 
 then says, by the mouth of the philosopher Winter, ' Remember 
 this, that the painter and the poet, however assisted by their 
 own organization, must alike perfect their style by the same 
 process, I mean by studying the works themselves of great 
 
 painters and great poets Both must alike study 
 
 before they execute. Both must alike consult Nature and invent 
 the beautiful.' 
 
 Nevertheless, the opinion most prevalent at the present day is 
 that civilized man has, of his own natural powers, been able to 
 raise himself from the state of the savage, that the savage has in 
 like manner developed himself from the brute, that this latter 
 has in its turn raised itself from some lower organization, and so 
 on ad infinitum : which is virtually saying that man is his own 
 creator. To show in detail the fallacy of this opinion would not 
 be difficult ; only it would occupy too much time, and would 
 besides be beyond the scope of the present work. But one 
 instance may be noticed, on account of its direct bearing on the 
 subject treated of in the following pages. 
 
 It has been asserted that the present religious movement 
 among the natives of India, of which Baboo Kesheb Chunder Sen 
 is at the head, is not to be regarded as a restoration of ' original 
 religion,' — whatever may be intended by that term other than 
 the belief entertained in common by Jews, Christians, and 
 
6 JESTJS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 Mohammedans in the One Supreme Being, the God of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob, — and that neither did it emanate from the 
 ancient religion of the country or from Christianity ; but that it 
 has commenced afresh from out of the innate resources of the 
 human heart and soul. Yet nothing can be more incorrect than 
 such a representation. Had it not been for the conquest of India 
 by the English, and especially had not Ram Mohun Roy and 
 other intelligent Hindoos held converse "with and been educated 
 among professors of Christianity, and acquired from them a 
 knowledge of the substantial truth of their religious belief and 
 of the absurdities of their own idolatrous superstitions, the 
 Brahmo-Somaj would not have come into existence; for it could 
 never have spontaneously emanated from the native resources of 
 the human hearts and souls of the ignorant worshippers of 
 Brahma, Yishnu, and Siva. The Hindoo reformer may flatter 
 himself that he is original ; but he demonstrated the contrary, 
 when, in his reply to the representations of certain Christian 
 ministers that he should adopt their confession of faith, he said : — 
 ' I honour Christ as my Father's beloved Son, and I honour all 
 other prophets and martyrs ; but I love my God above all. 
 There is no name so sweet, so dear, as that of Father.' 
 
 Were it really true that ideas like these derived themselves 
 from the innate resources of the human heart and soul, we must 
 imagine the process by which Man arrived at this state of high 
 rehgious development to have been something of the following 
 kind. As soon as the light of reason dawned on the mind of the 
 first being ' worthy to be called man,' he would have worshipped 
 a rude fetish, the work of his own hands ; then, from the innate 
 resources of his own heart and soul becoming gradually enlight- 
 ened, he would have rendered himself capable of conceiving an 
 anthropomorphous god, who, however, to match his 'creator's' 
 own still degraded condition, would at first have been a devil ; 
 and this devil would, as man himself improved, by degrees have 
 become converted into an agathodaimon or beneficent divinity ; 
 till eventually, under the full light of human reason, the absur- 
 dity of external divinities, whether bad or good, becoming appa- 
 
THE FIRST STATE OF MAjST. 4 
 
 rent, the Deity would be manifested in the mind of Man himself. 
 And thus, as his primordial ancestor — not the 
 
 ' Simla, quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis,' 
 
 from which he glories in being descended, but his first human 
 progenitor — grovelled before the rude fetish, the work of his 
 own hands, so now Man, in the highest state of intellectual 
 culture, adores the eidolon of his own mind, the image of 
 himself. 
 
 It surely cannot be a sign of superiority that the intellect, 
 because of its inability to raise itself to the comprehension of a 
 spiritual Deity, loses itself in the mazes of metaphysics and 
 materialism. It is not true wisdom, but the foolishness of a 
 diseased or depraved imagination, that causes the mortal and 
 sinful ^170 — I by myself, I, — to be preferred to the Infinite and 
 Eternal I am. ' Know thyself ' was the precept inscribed over 
 the portico of the temple of Apollo at Delphi: the inscription 
 on the true temple of the Almighty on earth — man's heart — 
 should be ' Know thyself and God.' 
 
 "With the conviction, then, that it is impossible for the 
 creature, out of the depths of his moral consciousness, to form 
 any true idea of his Maker, that it is not Man who can thus 
 create God, the believer in Eevelation reads in the most vener- 
 able record of antiquity — to call it by no higher title — that God 
 created man, and made him in His own image, after His own 
 likeness, and behold it was very good ; and accepting the sub- 
 stantial truth of that record, he has no difficulty in understanding 
 it to mean that the first man, instead of having existed in so 
 debased a state as not to recognize his Maker, was created perfect 
 after his kind, as nearly after the likeness of that Maker as the 
 finite can resemble the Infinite, — that is to say, with a mind 
 capable of knowing and appreciating his Creator and the works 
 of creation. 
 
 By this it is not meant to affirm that Man was created with 
 universal knowledge, or, indeed, that human knowledge of any 
 specific kind was directly imparted to him by the Almighty, 
 
8 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 either in the first instance or subsequent!)'. What is intended is, 
 that Man was originally endowed with such mental faculties as 
 enabled him, through their exercise, to acquire knowledge on all 
 matters of which his senses could take cognizance, to avail him- 
 self of that knowledge for his own purposes, and to communicate 
 the same to others. As the new-born babe instinctively seeks 
 the mother's breast and as instinctively draws the milk from it, 
 so newly created and inexperienced Man instinctively set himself 
 to observe, to know, and to utilize the material world. The vast 
 intellects of the first members of the human race enabled them to 
 make most rapid strides in the acquirement of knowledge of every 
 kind, and in its application to the uses, the comforts, the enjoy- 
 ments, and the luxuries of life. There were, indeed, 'giants in 
 the earth in those days,' 
 
 But, however high the intellectual, as likewise the physical, 
 condition of Man may have been when he left the hands of his 
 Creator, he possessed within him, in common with all the works 
 of creation as far as they are known to us, the germs of decay. 
 tSpeaking of the ' religions' of mankind, — and the same argument 
 applies to every thing human, — the Duke of Argyll says : — 
 ' Among the causes which have determined their form and cha- 
 racter in different nations, we must reckon the moral corruption 
 of human nature. I am not speaking of this corruption in a 
 dogmatic and theological sense ; I speak of it as an unquestion- 
 able fact, whatever be the history of its origin. By the corrup- 
 tion of human nature, I mean the undeniable fact that Man has 
 a constant tendency to abuse his powers ; to do what, according 
 to his own standard of right and wrong, he knows he ought not 
 to do ; to be unjust and cruel towards others, and to fall into 
 horrible and degrading superstitions. Human corruption, in this 
 sense, is as much a fact in the natural history of Man as that he 
 is a biped without feathers'*. 
 
 Entirely in the same sense, though with a more special appli- 
 cation, the learned and pious Dr. Dijllinger says : — ' When once 
 a dark cloud stole over Man's original consciousness of the Divi- 
 * ' Primeval Man,' p. 108. 
 
THE FIRST STATE OF MAX. 9 
 
 nity, and, in consequence of his own guilt, an estrangement of 
 the creature from the one living God took place, Man, as under 
 the overpowering sway of sense and sensual lust, proportionally 
 weakened therefore in his moral freedom, was unable any longer 
 to conceive of the Divinity as a pure, spiritual, supernatural, and 
 infinite Being, distinct from the world, and exalted above it. 
 And then it followed inevitably that, with his intellectual hori- 
 zon bounded and confined within the limits of nature, he should 
 seek to satisfy the inborn necessity of an acknowledgment and 
 reverence of the Divinity by the deification of material nature ; 
 for, even in its obscuration, the idea of the Deity, no longer re- 
 cognized, indeed, but still felt and perceived, continued powerful ; 
 and, in conjunction with it, the truth struck home that the Divi- 
 nity manifested itself in nature as ever present and in operation. 
 And now nature unfolded herself to Man's sense as a boundless 
 demesne, wherein was contained an unfathomable plenitude of 
 powers incommensurable and incalculable, and of energies not 
 to be overcome. Everywhere, even where men, past their first 
 impressions of sense, had already penetrated deeper into their 
 own inner life, she encountered them as an inscrutable mystery. 
 At the same time, however, a sympathy for natiu-alism, easily 
 elevated into a passion, developed itself among them, — a feeling 
 in common with it and after it, — which led, again, to a sacrifice 
 of themselves, all the more readily made, to natural powers and 
 natural impulses. And thus Man, deeper and deeper in the 
 spells of his enchantress, and drawn downwards by their weight, 
 had his moral consciousness overcome in proportion, and gave 
 the fuller rein to impulses which were merely physical ' *. 
 
 It is unnecessary to foUow the eloquent divine in his powerful 
 sketch of how the heathen deification of J^ature led to an inex- 
 haustible variety of divinities and forms of worship, ' according 
 to the geographical division of zones and countries, and to the 
 difference of the impressions which the phenomena and powers 
 of nature produced on races more or less susceptible and ex- 
 citable ; and also as the imagination of man, selecting out of the 
 * ' The Gentile and the Jew,' tr. Darnell, i. 64, 65. 
 
 b5 
 
1 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 kingdom of nature that which most strongly impressed itself, 
 fashioned it into a concrete divinity ;' whereby, as time ran on, 
 and as the natural impulse to create divinities acted on the va- 
 rious races of man, ' the Divine assumed in their minds thou- 
 sands of fantastic and fortuitous images and forms.' 
 
 In making these references to the writings of the gifted Bava- 
 I'ian Professor, it is proper to add that much more has been 
 adopted from them in subsequent portions of the present work. 
 This was done, however, long before the occurrence of the stir- 
 ring events in which that eminent theologian occupies so pro- 
 minent a position, and which, if there is an esoteric doctrine 
 contained within his remarkable productions, — as they may see 
 who can read between the lines, — will eventually occasion a far 
 greater revolution within Christendom than did the llcformation 
 of his countryman Luther. 
 
 Some striking illustrations of the views here entertained are 
 furnished by the career of the European settlers in North Ame- 
 rica and their descendants, and, indeed, by that of all colonists in 
 new countries. Though individually they may have acquired 
 but little scientific or practical knowledge before leaving the 
 mother country, they are nevertheless the offspring of a civihzed 
 people ; and, with the example of their ancestors before them, 
 they have set to work to provide for their own wants and then 
 to minister to those of others, through the development of the 
 faculties innate in them as members of the parent society. The 
 growth of such a people, rich in genius and in resources, and 
 possessed of an imagination more vi^'id because of the absence of 
 regular cultivation, taking up every thing in its turn and fre- 
 (juently out of its turn, cannot but be most rapid ; and the result 
 is seen, not only in their scientific and artistic works, but in the 
 invention and manufacture of numerous articles for domestic 
 and social use, similar in general character to those of the Old 
 World, but often widely different in form and in the mode of 
 application, as instanced in the ' notions ' brought to the markets 
 (jf Europe from the United States. The same intellectual powers, 
 finding such unbounded scope for their exercise, are led to the 
 
THE FIKST STATE OF MAN. 11 
 
 conception of the most fantastic novelties, the performance of the 
 most audacious experiments, the expression of the most eccentric 
 opinions, the promulgation of the most extravagant doctrines ; 
 as is evidenced in the religious and socialistic sects — Shakers, 
 Mormons, Spiritualists, Free Lovers, and others, whose names 
 are legion — which, developed from and mixed up with their 
 originals after a marvellous fashion far beyond the experience of 
 any other modern nation, pervade and agitate society. 
 
 These giants of the New World enjoy, in their vast and still, in 
 great part, unoccupied continent, ample space wherein to stretch 
 themselves physically, and free scope for their exuberant mental 
 energy; in which respect they have an incalculable advantage 
 over their more stunted kinsmen in the Old World. The latter, 
 cooped up within narrow and unexpansive limits, living in a 
 tainted atmosphere, both physical and moral, and bound around 
 by traditions and conventionalities, add to the other vices gene- 
 rated among masses of population, the greatest of all the curses 
 of an artificial and (as it is called) highly civilized society, 
 namely cant and hypocrisy. The former, daring, energetic, un- 
 scrupulous, and imrestrained by forms, bear well in mind the 
 words of the Preacher, — " Whatever thy hand findeth to do, 
 do it with thy might;" and in acting up to this precept they 
 care but little for what may be said or thought of the way in 
 which they do so. 
 
 Philo tells us that the sect of Essenes lived principally in vil- 
 lages, and avoided the towns, being sensible that as disease is 
 generated by corruption, so is an indelible stain made upon the 
 soul of man by the contagion of society. And the effects of this 
 contagion are witnessed in the coUapse and fall of great empires 
 and institutions, both in ancient and in modern times. France, 
 though not at all singular in the fulfilment of her destiny, affords 
 the readiest example of how a rich and powerful nation, when 
 raised to the summit of intellectual greatness and of scientific 
 and artistic knowledge, may be subjected to an instantaneous 
 check, the first step towards its fall, when it is not sustained by 
 commensurate moral and religious sentiments and conduct. 
 
12 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 From the time of their first Revolution, the French seem to have 
 been actuated by the persuasion that the outward forms of reli- 
 gion and morality may serve for children and women and igno- 
 rant country boors, but that inward faith and purity are un- 
 worthy of men in the full growth of their intellect and reason. 
 In the pride of that intellect they learned (to use the pointed 
 language of Burke) to hate God wath all their heart, and with all 
 their mind, and with all their soul, and with aU their strength. 
 But hati-ed cannot long endure without the opportunity of mani- 
 festing itself on the object of aversion : it soon degenerates into 
 contempt and indifference ; and the belief in ' one called God ' 
 — ' un nomme Dieu,' to repeat the expression used by the Com- 
 munist Eigault in a pass to a Eomish clergyman desirous of 
 visiting a sick man — has come to be ridiculed as an absurdity, or 
 else pitied or apologized for as the infirmity of a weak mind. 
 
 These remarks have not been occasioned by the calamitous 
 results of the recent conflict between France and Germany : 
 they are the results of the observation of many years, matured 
 by the reflection of what "was said in a Report made to the Em- 
 peror Napoleon by Baron Stoffel, Military Attache to the French 
 Embassy at Berlin, as long ago as August the 2nd, 1869, nearly 
 a twelvemonth before the war broke out, and at a time when the 
 French Empire and its Monarch occupied, and were generally 
 regarded as entitled to hold, the highest rank among 'civilized' 
 nations and their rulers. Yet that well-informed and far-seeing 
 Frenchman did not scruple to expose to his Sovereign the true 
 condition of his countrjaneu as a nation. 
 
 After referring briefly to the healthy moral and social state of 
 Germany, he exclaimed: — 'What a melancholy contrast does 
 France offer in all this ! Having sneered at every thing, she has 
 lost the faculty of respecting any thing. Virtue, family life, pa- 
 triotism, honour, religion, are reijresented to a frivoloiis genera- 
 tion as fitting subjects of ridicule. The theatres have become 
 schools of shamelessness and obscenity. Drop by drop poison is 
 instilled into the very core of an ignorant and enervated society, 
 which has neither the insight nor the energy left to amend its. 
 
THE FIRST STATE OF MAJT. 13 
 
 institutions, nor (which would be the most necessary step to 
 take) become better informed or more moral. One after the 
 other the fine qualities of the nation are dying out. Where is 
 the generosity, the loyalty, the charm of our esjjrit, and our 
 former elevation of soul ? If this goes on, the time will come 
 when this noble race of France will be known only by its faults. 
 And France has no idea that, while she is sinking, more earnest 
 nations are stealing a march upon her, are distancing her on the 
 road to progress, and are preparing for her a secondary position 
 in the world.' And the writer of this most able state-paper 
 concluded by saying, ' There is no denying that the moral ties 
 binding society together are getting more and more loosened in 
 France, and that the torpor in which the people are enveloped, 
 and their blind conceit, prevent their realizing the disorder eat- 
 ing up the social organism.' 
 
 Much has been written and preached about the condition of 
 the civilized world of antiquity and of its capital, Rome, at the 
 time when the light of the Gospel broke upon its darkness, as 
 revealed in the pages of Eoman and Greek writers of the period. 
 But can it possibly have been worse than that of the intellectual 
 capital of Christendom, — the residence of the Eldest Son of the 
 Church, the successor and rival of the Csesars, — as thus faithfully 
 depicted by a confidential adviser of that now fallen potentate ? 
 After what has since occurred, it reads like a minatory predic- 
 tion of one of the Israelitish prophets. And subsequent events 
 have hardly been such as to warrant the hope that it may here- 
 after be said, as it was said of the people of Nineveh after the 
 preaching of Jonah, ' And God saw their works, that they turned 
 from their evil way ; and God repented of the evil that He had 
 said that He would do unto them ; and He did it not'*. 
 
 The formidable lesson just given to the French nation seems 
 to have tnught them little or nothing. Very few among them 
 appear to measure the depth of the evil and detect its causes : 
 all act and seem to think as if nothing had happened since July 
 1870. But this, instead of being the result of that perennial 
 * Jonali iii. 10. 
 
14 JEStTS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 youth and excessive vitality of which France so insanely boasts, 
 is only evidence of the moral and intellectual decrepitude result- 
 ing from hypercivUization. Never was there a more striking ex- 
 emplification of the trite saying, ' Quos Deus vult perdere prius 
 demeutat.' Should they continue madly rushing on as they are 
 doing, their national career must soon come to an end, and the 
 name of France will unhappily be added to the list of nations 
 whose only sad boast now is — ' Fuimus.' 
 
 Ought not this lesson to teach the necessity for a belief in the 
 rule of a God who watches over the actions of His sinful crea- 
 tures, individually and collectively, and to whom they are all 
 accountable ? Metaphysicians, after having sought in vain to 
 reason out the idea of their Creator, wiU find themselves com- 
 pelled to follow the example of the ' philosophers ' of the first 
 French Revolution. These proclaimed that there was no God ; 
 they declared that it was against reason and common sense to 
 believe in such antiquated rubbish. For the future, Eeasou was 
 to be man's sole guide and ruler. And in order to testify their 
 belief in this dogma of the newly established National Church, 
 they solemnly enthroned on the high altar in the cathedral of 
 Notre Dame in Paris, in the place of the * Mother of God,' an 
 opera-dancer, whom they designated the Goddess of Reason, 
 thus unconsciously showing how the one ' Goddess ' is the 
 spiritual daughter and successor of the other. For, as the Revo- 
 lution itself originated in great measure out of the corrupt state 
 of the French clergy, so the reaction against the gross supersti- 
 tions of the ignorant masses led to infidelity. 
 
 But the reign of the new deity was not of long duration. The 
 worship of the Goddess of Reason was done away with within 
 seven months of its inauguration ; and the National Convention, 
 with Robespierre at their head, whilst admitting the ' consolatorj' 
 principle ' of the immortality of the soul, whereby they allowed 
 that their feUow-creatures were amenable to the judgment of 
 some tribunal other than their own bloodthirsty one, legislatively 
 decreed the existence of a Supreme Being ; and in so doing they 
 unwittingly bore testimony to the truths of Revelation ! For 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS. 15 
 
 ' L'Etre Supreme ' is almost a literal translation into French of 
 the name and title by which during countless ages the Almighty 
 has been known to His chosen people — Jehoyah Elohim. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 THE HISTOKY OF THE JEWS. 
 
 The Jews are the only people in the world who possess a con- 
 nected national history commencing with and extending from 
 the creation of mankind. In whatever sense the events recorded 
 in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis are to be con- 
 strued, whether as legendary, allegorical, figurative, or mythical, 
 they give, viewed as a whole, a connected and not unintelligible 
 nor unreasonable account, such as is possessed, by no other people, 
 of Man's origin and relation to his Maker, and of the several 
 stages of the history of the human race generally, as a prelude 
 to the special history of the Hebrew nation, and to that of the 
 advent of the Messiah as recorded in the Scriptures of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 It is not necessary to enter here upon any minute considera- 
 tion of that early history. 'God created man in His own 
 image,' that is to say perfect, as far as humanity can be perfect, 
 inwardly richly endowed, but totally ignorant as regards the 
 outward world. But man's natural corruption, joined to his 
 eagerness to acquire knowledge, led to inordinate curiosity and 
 to his disobedience of his Maker's commands, and he fell. It 
 may be that the narrative of the Fall of Man is not to be ac- 
 cepted in a purely literal sense, that it does not bear the signs 
 of being intended as a literal history ; still it serves to point out 
 the declension, and evidently the rapid declension, of Man from 
 the state of purity and perfection in which he had been created, 
 and to record the fact, that long before the Flood ' the wicked- 
 
1 JESrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 uoss of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of 
 the thoughts of his heart only evil continually.' 
 
 When the flood came for the punishment of men's sins, Noah, 
 a just man and perfect in his generations, was, with his family, 
 alone saved to replenish the earth. It is not intended to follow 
 closely the historical events of which the Scripture itself gives 
 only a general outline. It is sufficient to point out that the 
 descendants of Noah, in the pride of intellect, combined to build 
 the city and tower of Babel ; and in this instance likewise they 
 incuiTed the Divine displeasure. 
 
 The next great event recorded is the removal of Terah and his 
 family from the country of their birth ; and with this commences 
 the particular history of the Hebrew nation. The immediate 
 cause of this removal is not specified. But, arguing from ana- 
 logy, it may be supposed to have been similar to that of the call 
 of Noah, the intention of the Almighty being to save the fugi- 
 tives from the destruction impending over their countrymen, who 
 by their excessive wickedness had rendered themselves amenable 
 to the wrath of God, and also to make their descendents in their 
 turn instruments for the destruction of the sinful people whose 
 countries they were made to occupy. At all events, it was so 
 signal an act of obedience to the Divine will, of duty and ab- 
 negation, esj^ecially on the part of the Patriarch Abraham, who 
 was subsequently called to remove further into the land of 
 Canaan, that it elicited the peculiar and special recompense 
 awarded in the promise made to him. 
 
 After the striking manifestation of the Patriarch's implicit 
 faith in the Almighty by his readiness to offer up his only son 
 Isaac, the child of promise, at Jehovah-jireh, on Mount Moriah, 
 the blessing and promise which had been previously given to 
 him were extended and specifically attached to the descendants 
 of the Patriarch, it being said, ' In thy seed shall all the nations 
 of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice'*. 
 And this specific promise made to Abraham was renewed at 
 Bethel to his grandson Jacob, afterwards called Israel f. 
 * Gen. xxii. 18. t Gen. xxviii. 14. 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS. 17 
 
 It is beyond the scope of the present work to give the history 
 of God's chosen peoi)le, the Children of Israel, through all their 
 defections, their continual forgctfulness of the God of their fore- 
 fathers, and their desertion of His worship for that of the deities 
 of the heathen nations that surrounded them. But the tnith 
 cannot be too strongly borne in mind, that the whole history and 
 fate of the Israelites were influenced and determined by their 
 guilt in forsaking, more and more, the pure faith of their great 
 progenitor in the One and only true God, and by not listening 
 to His revealed commands. 
 
 The countries in which the Patriarch Abraham and his family 
 were directed to settle do certainly not appear to have been 
 those in which they met with the pure worship of the Almighty. 
 But this may have been the means of causing them and their 
 descendants to maintain their own faith, if not in absolute purity, 
 at aU events comparatively so. "With a view, however, to hinder 
 them from mixing with those people, the ceremonial law under 
 Moses was given to them as a hedge. Still this did not prevent 
 their constant backsliding. Dissatisfied with their theocratic 
 government, they desired human sovereigns like other nations. 
 Instead of the simple tabernacle in which their forefathers had 
 worshipped, a sumptuous temple was erected for the worship of 
 the Eternal. 
 
 But the builder of that temple, the intellectually endowed son 
 of David, Solomon, whoso 'wisdom' is proverbial throughout 
 every portion of the habitable world to which his name has 
 reached, became an immoral, irreligious man. He loved many 
 strange women of the nations ' concerning which the Eternal 
 had said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, 
 neither shall they come in unto you ; for surely they will turn 
 away your heart after their gods ' *. And he thus afforded a 
 signal instance of the insufficiency of mere human intelligence 
 and knowledge to check moral and religious declension, — a proof, 
 indeed, that this latter is, alas ! but too often a concomitant of 
 the former. 
 
 * 1 Kino-s xi. 2. 
 
18 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 The Israclitish nation followed the example of their ' wise ' 
 sovereign ; and so they went on from bad to worse. It was 
 only through the constant mercy of the Almighty, in remem- 
 brance of His reiterated promise, that the rebellious descendants 
 of Abraham did not become merged into the heathens by whom 
 they were surrounded, and altogether lost. 
 
 The annihilation of the separate kingdom of the Ten Tribes of 
 Israel, called also that of Joseph or Ephraim, and the captivity 
 of the two remaining Tribes under the rule of the descendants of 
 their king David, of the house of Judah, at length effectually 
 opened the eyes of the Jews to the enormity of their conduct. 
 They returned from Babylon effectually cured of their polythe- 
 istic tendencies ; and for nearly twenty-four centuries since that 
 period they have never again been guilty of the sin of denying 
 the God of their fathers. But, in spite of this, neither their dis- 
 position nor their intellectual faculties — perverted and debased 
 as they had become through the traditions and fables learned in 
 Babylon and the other countries in which they had been dis- 
 persed — were in a fit state to retain the truth pure and undefiled. 
 Their consciousness, through all their trials and adversities, that 
 they were still the chosen people of their God, that He, like an 
 indulgent father, would never cast them entirely off, instead of 
 teaching them obedience and humble submission to His will, 
 only filled their minds with spiritual pride, and blinded them to 
 the proper understanding of the oracles of the Eternal, of which 
 they were the favoured depositaries. As the chosen of God, 
 they rightly felt their faith in Him to be the only true one, and 
 they were likewise persuaded that, sooner or later, that faith 
 was destined to be extended over all the families of mankind. 
 But at the same time they wrongly interpreted the promises of 
 the Eternal, which they imagined to signify that they were to 
 look for the coming of a temporal chief, a descendant of the illus- 
 trious house of David, under whom the kingdom of Israel would 
 be restored in more than its pristine power and splendour, and 
 that this kingdom should swallow up all the other kingdoms of 
 the earth, and should never be overthrown. The lower the for- 
 
THE HISTOKT OF THE JEAVS. 19 
 
 tunes of the nation fell, the higher rose their expectations of the 
 advent of the promised Saviour ; and when at length they were 
 subjugated by the Romans, and their country had virtually be- 
 come a province of the empire, instead of giving way to despair, 
 they then felt more than ever that the moment of deliverance 
 was at hand, and that the king so long and anxiously looked for 
 must appear. Their faith in this temporal restoration of the 
 kingdom of Israel under a descendant of David was unbounded. 
 The valiant Maccabees had shown the heathen world what 
 Jewish heroes were capable of doing ; and daring spirits were 
 not wanting to unfurl the standard of the Lion of the Tribe of 
 Judah, as was instanced in the case of more than one pretender 
 to the throne of David before the appearance of our Lord Jesus, 
 and in the great and final rising of the nation in the beginning 
 of the second century of the Christian era. 
 
 The precise nature and character of the expected Saviour, and 
 the manner in which he was to accomplish his mission, were, 
 however, conceived differently at different times and by different 
 individuals. The great mass of the nation, as has been said, 
 looked for the restoration of the temporal kingdom of Israel under 
 a descendant of David; but, in the face of the overwhelming 
 power of the Roman emperors, the feeling was dying out with 
 many that this could ever be accomplished ; and the conquest of 
 Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple by Titus, the son of 
 the Emperor Vespasian, in a.d. 70, and the subsequent destruc- 
 tion of the city and annihilation of the Jewish nation by Hadrian, 
 fifty years later, consequent on the last great struggle under the 
 pseudo-Messiah, the anti-Christ, Bar Cocaba, at length convinced 
 all but a few enthusiasts, who will always be found hoping 
 against hope, that there could no longer be any reasonable ex- 
 pectation of the restoration of the temporal kingdom of David by 
 human means, and that the Messiah or Anointed King must 
 therefore be endowed with supernatural powers, which he would 
 exercise to aid his people in breaking and throwing off the hated 
 yoke of the foreign occupants of the sacred soil, on whom he and 
 they together would take full vengeance ; and he would then 
 
20 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 establish himself on his throne in Jerusalem, and there receive 
 the homage of the whole Gentile world. A somewhat similar 
 notion prevails even at the present day, though it is gradually 
 being abandoned as altogether fallacious and hopeless. 
 
 There were, however, not a few among the Jews who looked 
 to the Advent of the Messiah for something widely different from 
 the restoration of the temporal kingdom of David, either by na- 
 tural or by supernatural means. The intelligent spirits, the 
 enlightened interpreters of the promises of the Almighty and the 
 predictions of His prophets, the true watchers of the signs of the 
 times, saw plainly that such an idea was as visionary as it is 
 seen to be at the present time ; and they therefore looked — as 
 the enlightened Jews are now beginning to look — for the spi- 
 ritual regeneration of God's chosen people, and thus to the esta- 
 blishment of His kingdom on earth, — a kingdom which should 
 comprise not only the Jews but the Gentiles likewise, and should, 
 in fact, be a true and literal fulfilment of the promise to their 
 forefather Abraham, that in his seed should all the nations of the 
 earth be blessed. 
 
 In the estimation of countless millions of believers, who arc 
 daily and hourly increasing in numbers, the hope and expecta- 
 tion of Israel was realized in the generation before the fall of 
 Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple, and indeed, in anti- 
 cipation of that event, in the person of our Lord, Jesus of Naza- 
 reth, who is usually spoken of as Jesus Christ, and whom 
 Christians of all denominations, and, it must be added, Moham- 
 medans likewise, concur in revering as the predicted Messiah, or 
 Anointed King of Israel, however much they may differ as to his 
 other attributes. 
 
 The most satisfactory evidence of what were the opinions of 
 the Jews themselves respecting the character and attributes of 
 the Messiah must surely be the declarations of his earliest disci- 
 ples, who, being Jews, would not have acknowledged Jesus as 
 such had they not believed him to fulfil the conditions of pro- 
 phecy, and consequently the expectations of themselves and their 
 countrymen. Now several of such declarations are recorded in 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS. 21 
 
 tlie Acts of the Apostles as having been made by Peter and by 
 Stephen*. Foi' these it will be sufficient to refer to the passages 
 where they occur. What will be here dwelt on is the testi- 
 mony of the Jew Saul of Tarsus, better known as the Christian 
 Apostle Paul, who describes himself as an Israelite of the seed 
 of Abraham, of the Tribe of Benjamin ; a Hebrew of the He- 
 brews ; a Jew circumcised on the eighth day ; brought up at 
 Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel the Aged, who was the grand- 
 son of the great Hillel the Orthodox, and himself one of the most 
 famous Rabbis of the Jewish Sanhedrin ; he (Paul) being taught 
 according to the manner of the Law, and further, ' as touching 
 the Law a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee, and as touching 
 the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless 'f: that is to 
 say, an orthodox Jew both in theory and in practice, who, before 
 his conversion to the belief in Jesus as the Messiah, beyond 
 measure persecuted the Congregation — badly translated 'Church' 
 — of God, and wasted it, and profited in the Jews' religion above 
 many his equals in his own nation, being more zealous of the 
 traditions of his fathers ; one, in fact, whose writings prove 
 him to have been a most learned Scribe or Doctor of the Law, 
 and who must, if any one could, have thoroughly understood the 
 nature and character of the Hope of Israel, as taught in the 
 orthodox school of his master, Rabbi G amaliel. 
 
 N'ow it is in these terms that this learned and pious Jewish 
 Scribe is recorded as having expressed himself in the synagogue 
 of his nation at Antioch, at the request of its rulers, after the 
 reading of the Law and the Prophets on the Sabbath-day: — 
 ' Shema' Israel — Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give au- 
 dience. The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and 
 exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of 
 Egypt, and with a high arm brought He them out of it. And 
 about the time of forty years suffered He their manners in the 
 wilderness. And when He had destroyed seven nations in the 
 land of Canaan, He divided their land to them by lot. And 
 
 * Acts ii. 22-36; iii. 12-26; iv. 8-12; vii. 2, 53. 
 
 t See Eom. xi. 1 ; Phil. iii. 5-6 ; Acts xxii. 3 ; xxiii. 6. 
 
22 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 after that He gave unto thera judges about the space of four 
 hundred and fifty 5-ears, until Samuel the prophet. And after- 
 ward they desired a king ; and God gave unto them Saul, the 
 son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, bj the space of 
 forty years. And when He had removed him, He raised up unto 
 them David to be their king ; to whom also He gave testimony, 
 and said, I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after mine 
 own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man's seed 
 hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, 
 Jesus' *. 
 
 Further, in the commencement of his First Epistle to the 
 Romans, the same Paul speaks of ' Jesus the Messiah, our Lord, 
 who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and 
 declared to be the Son of God, with power, according to the 
 spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead ' f. And 
 again in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says : — ' When the ful- 
 ness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, born of a 
 woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under 
 the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And be- 
 cause ye are sous, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into 
 your hearts, crying Abba, Father. "N^Tierefore thou art no more 
 a servant, but a son ; and if a son, then an heir of God, through 
 the Messiah' J. 
 
 Many more texts might be, and, indeed, in the sequel will be, 
 cited ; but those here given sufiice for the present to show the 
 opinion entertained by this learned and pious disciple of Gamaliel 
 of the character and attributes of the expected Messiah, and his 
 belief in their application to Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 Paul was, however, one of those enlightened Jews who looked 
 for the spiritual regeneration of his nation through the coming 
 of the Messiah, and not for the restoration of the temporal king- 
 dom of David, on which so many of the first disciples of Jesus 
 built their hopes. For, as he himself declared to the Corinthians, 
 ' "When the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom, 
 we preach a crucified Messiah, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, 
 # Acts xiii. 16-23. t Rom. i. 3-4. J Gal. iv. 4-7. 
 
THE HISXOET OF THE JEWS. 23 
 
 and unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them which are 
 called, both Jews and Greeks, the Messiah, the power of God and 
 the wisdom of God ' *. That is to say, the Jews expected the 
 Messiah to manifest himself in a manner that should be a con- 
 clusive pi'oof of his really being the Anointed King, the true 
 successor of his ancestor David ; and to these, as the Apostle 
 truly said, a crucified, or suffering, Messiah, like Jesus, was a 
 stumbling-block in the way of their belief, inasmuch as he did 
 not fulfil their expectation, which their learned co-religionist 
 explained to them was an erroneous one. On the other hand, as 
 regards the Gentiles, who could not be expected to know, or to 
 care, much if any thing at all about Jesus merely as the descend- 
 ant and successor of David, the notion of a king without a king- 
 dom, one who was not and never had been a king in their esti- 
 mation, was simply foolishness — an absurdity. But, explains 
 the spiritually instructed disciple of Gamaliel, ' to them which 
 are called' — avrois rois kXtjtois, who are members of his 'EKKXrjaia, 
 Ecclesia or Congregation (' Church') — * both Jews and Gentdes,' 
 Jesus is 'the Messiah, the power of God and the wisdom of 
 God,' he in whom is fulfilled the promise made to his forefather 
 Abraham, ' in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
 blessed.' 
 
 To the early Christians the Kingdom of God on earth under 
 the spiritual rule of the Messiah was a mystery, as, indeed, it has 
 continued to be to most believers down to the present day ; and 
 therefore it is not surprising that many of them should have 
 looked for the speedy return of their Lord on earth to judge the 
 world. It was not, and still is not, borne in mind that, in the 
 the sight of the Eternal, ' a thousand years are but as yesterday 
 when it is past, and as a watch in the night ' t ; or, as in the 
 Second Epistle bearing the name of St. Peter it had to be ex- 
 plained to those who were impatient for the second coming of 
 the Messiah, * Beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that 
 one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand 
 years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His pro- 
 * 1 Cor. i. 22-24. f Ps. xc. 4. 
 
24 JESUS THE MESSIAH, 
 
 mise, as some men count slackness ; but is long-suffering to us- 
 ward, not williug that any should perish, but that all should 
 come to repentance' *. And when we regard the extension of 
 the Messiah's kingdom on earth at the present day, when we 
 witness the countless millions who have been taught to call on 
 the name of Jesus during the two thousand years — with the Lord 
 but two days — which have not yet fully elapsed since the Messiah 
 began his reign ; and when we further reflect on the progress 
 which the preaching of the Gospel is making among the greater 
 multitudes in the further East, who have only now begun to 
 listen to its joyful tidings ; we may faithfully believe that, when 
 the third day or millennium shall dawn, every tongue will learn to 
 acknowledge the sovereignty of the Messiah, and to repeat the 
 words taught us by himself, ' Thy kingdom come, Thy will be 
 done in earth as it is in heaven.' 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SOUECES OF THE HISTOEY OP JESUS. 
 
 To those persons who believe that the Holy Scriptures contain 
 the Word of God, to those, indeed, who accept the historical por- 
 tions of the Bible as veracious records, the New Testament in 
 itself affords sufficient evidence of the existence on earth of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and of the truth of the principal occurrences 
 of his life. 
 
 There are, however, many persons who assert, apparently not 
 without reason, that the Gospel histories were not written at the 
 early dates usually assigned to them, and that consequently they 
 are not valid evidence as to the truth of the events which they 
 narrate ; whilst others contend that the opinion that Jesus was 
 any thing more than an ordinary mortal is the invention of a 
 * 2 Pet. iii. 8-9. 
 
THE SOUECES OF THE HISTORY OF JESTJS. ZO 
 
 subsequent period ; and some go even so far as to doubt, if not 
 absolutely to deny, his personal individuality. 
 
 The most effectual way of meeting such arguments is to adduce 
 evidence which is not open to similar objections. 
 
 It will be assumed that the raisers of such objections do not 
 contend that all history of every kind is false or fabulous. They 
 have a reasonable faith in the Greek and Roman historians ; and 
 though demurring to the truth of their accounts of the origin and 
 early history of their respective nations, these critics do not 
 hesitate to believe in the events alleged to have occurred at or 
 about the times when the narrators of those events themselves 
 lived. No objection, then, will be raised against such writers as 
 Suetonius, Tacitus, and the younger Pliny, when describing events 
 which notoriously occurred in and about their own times. These 
 three writers (as is well known) flourished in the latter half of 
 the first and the beginning of the second century of the Christian 
 era, and they all record matters relating to the early professors 
 of Christianity and to the founder of that religion, in respect of 
 which they must be accepted as trustworthy witnesses ; inasmuch 
 as they none of them were members of the new faith or favourers 
 of it, whilst they possessed only such general, superficial, and, 
 in part, erroneous notions of the matters to which they allude, as 
 to establish convincingly that their statements were made spon- 
 taneously and without any interested motive or ulterior object. 
 
 The first of these writers, Suetonius, who flourished about 
 forty years after the Crucifixion of Jesus, states that the Emperor 
 Claudius * banished from Rome all the Jews, who were conti- 
 nually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus ' *. 
 
 Next Tacitus, who flourished some thirty years later, narrates 
 how the Emperor Nero, in order to free himself from the obloquy 
 of having ordered the conflagration of Eome, ' falsely charged 
 with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, 
 the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their 
 enormities. Christus, so the founder was named, was put to 
 death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judaea, in 
 * ' Lives of the Ccesars,' Claud, xxv. 
 
 C 
 
26 JESTJS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 the reign of Tiberius ; but the pernicious superstition, repressed 
 for a time, broke out again, not only throughout Judtea, where 
 the mischief originated, but in the city of Rome also, -whither all 
 things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters as to a 
 common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accord- 
 ingly, first those were seized who confessed they were Christians ; 
 next, on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not 
 so much on the charge of burning the city, as of hating the 
 human race ' *. 
 
 The letter of Pliny, Proconsul of Bithynia, to the Emperor 
 Trajan, written a.d. 100, respecting the persecution of the 
 Christians within his province, is so well known that it is not 
 necessary to make from it more than the following extract : — 
 * Some among those who were accused by a witness in person, at 
 first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately afterwards 
 denied it ; the rest owned, indeed, they had been of that number 
 formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few 
 above twenty years ago) renounced their error. They all wor- 
 shipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering im- 
 precations at the same time against the name of Christ. They 
 affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, to be that they 
 met on a certain stated day before it was light, and addressed 
 themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, or to some God, binding 
 themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked 
 design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never 
 to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called 
 upon to deliver it up ; after which it was their custom to sepa- 
 rate, and then to reassemble to eat in common a harmless mcal't. 
 The Roman Governor further bears testimony to the great num- 
 ber of Christians in Bithynia, consisting of persons of all ranks 
 and ages, and of both sexes. * In fact,' says he, * this contagious 
 superstition is not con6ncd to the cities only, but has spread in- 
 fection among the neighbouring villages and country.' 
 
 From these statements the following facts appear to be incon- 
 trovertibly established : — First, that in the reign of the Emperor 
 » 'Annals,' xT. 44. t ' Letters,' x. 97. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS. 27 
 
 Tiberius, extending from A.D, 25 to a.d. 41, — the accepted date is 
 A.D. 30, which by no possibility can be far wrong, — a certain 
 Jew, known as ' Christus' or ' Chrestus,' was executed as a crimi- 
 nal by Pontius Pilate, the Koman Governor of Judaea ; secondly, 
 that in the reign of Claudius, which extended from a.d, 41 to 
 A.D. 54 — taking the mean, it may be said to be about a.d. 48, or 
 less than twenty years after the death of this Jew, ' Christus,' — his 
 co-religionists were banished from Rome because they were con- 
 tinually making disturbances, as was alleged, at his instigation ; 
 thirdly, that less than twenty years later, at the time of the 
 conflagration of Eome, a.d. 64, — consequently six years before 
 the fall of Jerusalem, — the followers of this ' Christus ' were no 
 longer looked on as Jews, but were known in Rome as ' Chris- 
 tians,' and had become of such importance as to be objects of 
 suspicion, if not of dread, to the Emperor Nero, on account of 
 their alleged atrocities, pernicious superstitions, and hatred of 
 the human race ; and lastly, that these ' contagious superstitions' 
 of the Christians spread so rapidly over the whole Roman em- 
 pire, that at the close of the fii-st century they were subjected to 
 a general persecution. 
 
 The testimony on which these facts are established is beyond 
 the reach of cavil or objection. Not one of the three heathen 
 writers speaks of the Jewish ringleader under his proper name 
 Jesus, nor does any one of them appear to have the remotest 
 idea that what they imagine to be the proper name of this 
 'instigator' of the Jews is in truth his peculiar title of the 
 Messiah, or Anointed King of Israel, under its Greek form XpicrTos ! 
 This highly significant fact will be commented on in a subse- 
 quent chapter* : it is here sufficient to direct attention to its 
 great importance. 
 
 Turning, now, to the consideration of the authenticity of the 
 Scriptures of the New Testament, we find that whatever doubts 
 may exist with respect to the composition of the four Gospels 
 and several other of the canonical writings, there is none what- 
 ever as regards four (at least) of the Ej)istles of the Apostle 
 * See Chapter Y. page 61. 
 
 c2 
 
28 JESrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 Paul, namely, those to the Eomaiis, Corinthians (2), and Gala- 
 tians, the genuineness of which, after having been contested inch 
 by inch, is now acknowledged even by the most adverse critics ; 
 and hence it results that from the contents of these four Epistles, 
 coupled with what is said by the three Roman authors named 
 above, we find ourselves possessed of sufficient materials to enable 
 us, without the aid of the Gospel histories, to sketch an outline 
 (rough, it is true, but still perfectly distinct and real) of the es- 
 sential facts of the appearance on earth of our Lord Jesus as the 
 Messiah, — Christus, the Jewish ringleader, — of his crucifixion and 
 resurrection, and of his doctrine and its operation on his earliest 
 followers in their religious faith and moral conduct ; and as this 
 outline corresponds at all material points with the more detailed 
 narratives contained in the historical Gospels, it furnishes conclu- 
 sive proof of the substantial truth of those narratives. 
 
 The absence of all mention of Jesus by contemporaneous 
 Jewish writers has, indeed, been made an argument against the 
 authenticity of his history, and even against the fact of his ex- 
 istence. Such an argument cannot, however, be at all maintained. 
 In the first place, silence in itself proves nothing. ' De non ap- 
 parentibus et de non existentibus eadem est ratio' may be a good 
 legal maxim, but it only means that nothing can be treated as a 
 fact unless and until its existence is based on evidence of some 
 sort, even though that evidence may be but circumstantial or 
 presumptive, and though the alleged fact should afterwards bo 
 disproved. But this is very different from the assumption, 
 which has been so fruitful a source of error, that what is not 
 apparent cannot exist, or could not ever have existed. The world, 
 in its complacent self-sufficiency, is too ready to take for granted 
 the ignorance of past ages, and to suppose the knowledge of the 
 ancients to have been limited to what only we know them to 
 have known, unmindful of the many causes there may have been 
 to prevent the knowledge they really possessed from being handed 
 down to us. 
 
 M. Renan states* that the schismatic School of Alexandrian 
 * ' Vie de Jesus.' 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS. 29 
 
 Jews, tbe members of which devoted themselves to the study of 
 Greek literature, was so completely detached from Jerusalem that 
 no trace of its existence is to be met with in the Talmud or in 
 the Jewish traditions. Still it would be unreasonable to infer 
 from this silence that such a school did not exist. For instance, 
 no one would think of founding upon it an argument against the 
 personal existence of Philo. And, in like manner, it is not to be 
 imagined that an individual who claimed, and by his followers 
 was acknoAvledged, to be the Messiah of prophecy, and who is de- 
 scribed by Roman historians of the first century as a notorious 
 Jewish ringleader named Christus or Chrestus, should not have 
 been of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the chronicles 
 or other writings of the Jewish nation. On the contrary, the 
 suppression by the Jews of all mention of the fact of the existence 
 of Jesus Christ, that is to say Jesus the Messiah, affords the 
 strongest presumptive proof not only of his personal existence, 
 but of his having been known to them in that character ; for it 
 is a maxim of law that the suppression of evidence, like the de- 
 struction or mutilation of any written document, affords pre- 
 sumption that there was an interested motive for preventing the 
 truth from being made manifest ; and the fact that the Crucifixion 
 of the Messiah Jesus was felt by the heads of the nation to be a 
 national sin and disgrace, would have been a sufficient motive for 
 their doing all in their power to suppress the evidence of this 
 fact, and with it that of. the very existence of Jesus himself. 
 Dean Milman, when noticing the remarkable circumstance that 
 the Jewish historian, Flavins Josephus, does not mention a single 
 word of the incident of the Golden Calf made by Aaron at Mount 
 Sinai, as recorded in the thirty-second chapter of Exodus, says, 
 * Josephus, jealous of the national honour, omits the whole 
 scene ' *. And, in like manner, jealousy of the national honour 
 would have prompted the Jewish scribes to omit all mention of 
 Jesus the Messiah, as in fact Josephus himself did. 
 
 It will doubtless be alleged that in the received text of the 
 Jewish historian there are two passages in which the name of 
 
 * ' History of the Jews.' 
 
30 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 Jesus actually occurs ; but these passages are so manifestly the 
 results of a * pious fraud,' most clumsily executed by the early 
 Christian clergy, that they would really not have been deemed 
 worthy of notice here "were it not for M. Kenan's extraordinary 
 advocacy of their authenticity. 
 
 In the one of these passages Jesus is described as a ' wise man, 
 if it be lawful to call him a man ; ' and it is added, ' He was 
 Christ,' Xpiaros ovros i)t'* : in the other, James is spoken of as the 
 brother of ' Jesus, who was called Christ,' 'Ijyo-ou tov Xeyofxefov 
 Xpiarov f. These two passages the French scholar declares to be 
 ' perfectly in the spirit of Josephus ;' and he adds, that ' if that 
 historian made mention of Jesus at all, this is precisely the manner 
 in which he would speak of him.' He admits, however, that a 
 Christian hand has been at work on the former passage, by ad- 
 ding the words ' if it be lawful to call him a man ; ' because 
 without that addition it would have been almost blasphemous ; 
 and that perhaps certain expressions have been modified or omit- 
 ted, as for example the phrase Xpiarus cvros riv, which, in the ori- 
 ginal, must have been Xpiaros ovtos eXeyero. 
 
 To this it may be categorically replied that the passages in 
 question are not at all in the spirit of Josephus, and that not only 
 he, but no Jew of the period, would under any circumstances 
 have spoken of our Lord in such terms. It is essential that this 
 denial should be substantiated in detail. In the first place, then, 
 M. llenan is altogether mistaken in assuming that the words 
 ' if it be lawful to call him a man' were introduced for the 
 reason that without them the passage woid.d have been almost 
 blasphemous. Josephus was a Jew who did not believe Jesus to be 
 the Messiah or Christ ; and, consequently, instead of speaking of 
 him reverentially, he might rather have been expected to call 
 Jesus himself a blasphemer, as the high-priest Caiaphas did J. 
 And even had he been a convert to Christianity, it would not in 
 the time of Josephus have been blasphemous to speak of Jesus as 
 a man, inasmuch as he was so designated by his own disciples 
 on frequent occasions §, and especially by St. Paul, who speaks of 
 
 * ' Antiq.' xviii. 3, 3. t 'Antiq.' xx. 9, 1. \ Matth. xxvi. G5. 
 
 § See Acts ii. 22, xiii. 38, xvii. 31 ; Phil. ii. 8 ; Hebr. viii. 3, x. 12, &c. 
 
THE SOIJECES OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS. 31 
 
 * one man, Jesus the Messiah' *. In the next place, no Jew in the 
 time of Josephus, whether a believer in our Lord or not, would 
 have spoken of Him as Xpiaros, as if this were a proper name. A 
 believer would have said 6 Xpiffros — the Christ or Messiah ; 
 whilst an unbeliever would have spoken contemptuously of one 
 Jesus of ISTazareth, who pretended to be the Messiah, and was in 
 consequence put to death by Pontius Pilate, mucli in the same way 
 as our Lord is spoken of by Josephus's contemporary Tacitus. 
 Further, Josephus could by no possibility have said of Jesus, as 
 he is made to say, that ' he appeared to his disciples alive on the 
 third day, as the divine prophets had foretold this and ten 
 thousand other wonderful things concerning him ;' for this would 
 have been aflSrming both the fact of our Lord's resurrection, and 
 also the writer's belief in his being the Messiah of prophecy. And, 
 above all, the Jewish historian could not possibly have said of the 
 believers in the Messiah, that ' the tribe (fvXoy) of Christians, 
 so named from him, are not extinct to this day.' For Josephus 
 was a learned priest of the tribe of Levi, who lived in the next 
 generation after the Crucifixion of Jesus, and apparently was 
 born before that event ; and therefore it is palpably absurd to 
 imagine that he could have spoken of Jesus and his followers as 
 if they formed a separate ' tribe,' like those of the Children of 
 Israel, and would have said of them that they were ' not extinct 
 to this day,' when in fact the Christian religion had then only 
 just begun to take root. 
 
 It ought not, then, to be doubted for a single moment that the 
 passages in question are interpolations of a comparatively late 
 date, the language in which they are couched having been 
 adopted by their Gentile Christian author, in order to give to 
 them what he ignorantly imagined to be ' la couleur locale.' And 
 as by that time the human nature of our Lord had become almost 
 eclipsed by his divine nature, it is perfectly intelligible that the 
 ' pious ' interpolator, though unscrupulous in the commission of 
 this fraud ' for the good of Holy Church,' should stiU have hesi- 
 tated to speak of Jesus otherwise than as the Son of God ; and so 
 * Eomans v. 15. 
 
32 JESXJS THE JIESSIAH. 
 
 he eased his conscience by adding the words, ' if it be lawful to 
 call him a man.' 
 
 Unhappily it is thus that what are designated ' Evidences of 
 Christianity ' have been concocted since the earliest ages. Were 
 it not that the experience of our Courts of Justice shows that 
 false evidence is oftentimes resorted to from a desire to corrobo- 
 rate facts that arc true in themselves, the fabrication of such 
 evidence would be calculated to raise the strongest presumption 
 against a cause whose advocates had been so weak and so 
 wicked as to resort to this dangerous expedient. 
 
 Rightly considered, the silence of Josephus respecting the ex- 
 istence of Jesus and his execution for having claimed to be the 
 Messiah or Christ, ought to have been welcomed by the mis- 
 guided Christian interpolator and his abettors as the strongest 
 presumptive evidence in support of those facts, which jealousy 
 for the national honour prompted the Jewish historian to suppress, 
 in like manner as he suppressed the fact of the earlier sin of his 
 nation in worshipping the golden calf. 
 
 We have among ourselves a similar instance of the suppression 
 of an historical fact, on account of its having been looked on as a 
 national disgrace, in the treatment to which the Protector Oliver 
 Cromwell has been subjected. Although independent historians 
 could not be prevented from making mention of him both per- 
 sonally and in connexion with the nation which during eleven 
 years he governed not ingloriously (just as the Eoman historians 
 Suetonius and Tacitus bore testimony to the existence of our 
 Lord Jesus), still, ofRcially, that is to say in the annals of the 
 legislature of the realm, the Protector is ignored, Charles the 
 First ceased to reign in the year 1649, and his son Charles the 
 Second, who during the following eleven years was a fugitive and 
 resided abroad, is nevertheless alleged to have immediately suc- 
 ceeded his father on the throne ; the year 1660, in which he re- 
 turned to England, being recorded as the twelfth year of his 
 reign in our statute books, which contain no traces of the Protector 
 Cromwell, or of the laws passed by the British Parliament under 
 his government, except in so far as the same laws were con- 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE niSXORY OF JESUS. oU 
 
 firmed or reenacted after Charles's true accession to the throne, 
 or ' He'storation,' as it is improjDcrly designated. And to this day 
 no memorial of the great Protector is to be seen among those of 
 the sovereigns and statesmen whose effigies ornament our Houses 
 of Parliament. In fact, from the royalist point of view there 
 never was such a person as Oliver Cromwell in connexion with the 
 government of England, just as from the ' orthodox' Jewish point 
 of view there never was such a person as Jesus the Messiah or 
 Christ. 
 
 We now come to the consideration of those documents which 
 are usually regarded as the sources of the history of our Lord's 
 life and teaching, and on which the doctrines of Christianity 
 profess to be based. These are the four Gospels, bearing respec- 
 tively the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the 
 several Epistles of St. Paul and other Apostles, with the Books 
 of the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of St. John, form- 
 ing together the Canon of the New Testament. As all these 
 latter writings, looked on merely in the character of historical 
 documents, relate principally, if not entirely, to the Eesurrection 
 of our Lord and its consequences, they need not be further al- 
 luded to at the present stage of the inquiry. 
 
 As regards the Gospels, the authorship of the first and fourth 
 is commonly attributed to the two Apostles whose names they 
 respectively bear ; the second and third are in like manner sup- 
 posed to be the composition of companions of the apostles Peter 
 and Paul, Luke, the writer of the latter, being also said to be 
 the author of the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 The alleged authorship of these several works has been dis- 
 puted, and seemingly successfully ; though this, in itself, might 
 not essentially affect their authority. The Psalms of David and 
 the Proverbs of Solomon contain internal evidence of not having 
 been whoUy written by the monarchs whose names they bear ; 
 but this does not materially detract from their value. 
 
 A more serious objection is, that the several narratives are not 
 always consistent with one another, and that even in some cases 
 ttey are contradictory. Still this, if considered reasonably and 
 
 c5 
 
34 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 without any preconceived notions, ought not to invalidate the 
 testimony of the writers as veracious and trustworthy recorders 
 of the main facts with respect to which they agree. Indeed, so 
 far from leading to the illogical conclusion that because they do 
 not all coincide in every, even the minutest particular, they are 
 therefore untrustworthy altogether, their differing in such 
 trifling circumstances, whilst agreeing as regards the main facts, 
 is the most convincing proof of the substantial truth of those 
 facts. For their absolute agreement on aU points and in all the 
 details would have been a sure sign of their being copied the one 
 from the other, whereby the testimony of their writers would lose 
 its value as the evidence of independent witnesses, if indeed it 
 did not give rise to the suspicion that that testimony had been 
 fabricated for the purpose of giving currency to falsehoods. 
 
 It is not requisite to enter here into any elaborate criticism of 
 the four Gospels, The first three, which profess to give an his- 
 torical summary of the life and teaching of our Lord, and are 
 therefore styled synoptical, agree substantially on most, if not 
 all, material points. The fourth Gospel is chiefly didactic and 
 doctrinal ; but it is also in part historical, containing several in- 
 cidents that are not touched on or even alluded to in the other 
 gospels ; in addition to which it represents some most important 
 matters very differently. 
 
 Speaking of the synoptical Gospels, the present Archbishop of 
 York (Dr. Thomson) says : ' The results of criticism as to the re- 
 lation of the three Gospels are somewhat humiliating. Up to 
 this day (1863) three views are maintained with equal ardour: 
 (a) that Mark's Gospel is the original Gospel, out of which the 
 other two have been developed ; (6) that it is a compilation from 
 the other two, and therefore written last ; (c) that it was copied 
 from that of Matthew, and forms a link of transition between 
 the other two'*. In other words, it has not been possible to 
 arrive at any satisfactory and conclusive result respecting the 
 data or composition, and consequently the intrinsic value, of those 
 three Gospel histories. 
 
 * Smith's ' Dictionary of the Bible.' 
 
THE SOUECES OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS. 35 
 
 Nevertheless it may be affirmed respecting the three synoptical 
 Gospels that the first is the most valuable, as containing the fullest 
 record of the sayings of our Lord Jesus in a form bearing the im- 
 press of truth ; though it manifestly contains at the same time 
 considerable interpolations and additions, probably made at the 
 time when this Gospel was translated into Greek from the 
 Jewish language, in which it appears to have been originally 
 written. 
 
 The second Gospel might seem to be a compilation from the 
 first, rather than that the first was developed from it. But there 
 is no good reason why it should not be an independent original 
 document, which was subsequently modified. 
 
 The third Gospel, bearing the name of Luke, the ' beloved phy- 
 sician ' of Paul, cannot be the composition of its alleged author ; 
 for it professes to have been written for the information of one 
 TheophUus, to whom it is addressed, respecting ' those things 
 which are most surely believed among us, even as they, who from 
 the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, 
 delivered them unto us ; ' the fact being, as the writer com- 
 mences by saying, that ' many had taken in hand to set forth in 
 order a declaration of these things ; ' and as he could not truly 
 have said this unless there were already in existence several 
 more Gospel histories than merely the two bearing the names of 
 Matthew and Mark, it follows that a later date must be attri- 
 buted to this document than the lifetime of a companion of St. 
 Paul. And the statement that ' many ' such histories were then 
 in existence, and that this additional one was written in order 
 that Theophilus (and, indeed, all lovers of God) ' might know the 
 certainty of those things,' seems to imply that the other narra- 
 tives then extant were not to be depended on, and therefore 
 were intended to be superseded by this authoritative version. 
 In fact, the third Gospel may probably be regarded as the first 
 attempt of the heads of the early Christian '■ Church ' to assert 
 their authority in putting forth a narrative of its founder's life 
 which should be accepted as truthful and orthodox ; all others, 
 if not actually stigmatized as heterodox, being impliedly held up 
 
30 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 as untrustworthy in comparison -with this the only authoritative 
 history. 
 
 Unless the plenary inspiration of the' third Gospel he insisted 
 on, — and this it will hardly be at the present day, — it stands to 
 reason that its writer could not have possessed the means, even 
 with the aid of the ' tradition ' which he avows, of recording, 
 ' ipsissimis verbis,' the conversation between the Angel Gabriel 
 and the Virgin Mary, the beautiful ' Magnificat ' of the latter, 
 the ' Benedictus ' of the aged priest Zachariah, the ' Nunc di- 
 niittis ' of the devout Simeon ; not to speak of the Proclamation 
 of the angel to the shepherds, and the ' Gloria in excelsis ' of the 
 heavenly host. How attractive this legendary history must have 
 been to the early converts is manifest from the hold these lovely 
 poems have taken on the very soul of the Church, and the con- 
 stant employment of them in its offices. But that these poems 
 are authentic literal records of what was actually done and said, 
 cannot be accepted as true, except on the assumption of their 
 plenary inspiration. This third Gospel was, however, written at 
 a time when the Jewish element still preponderated in the infant 
 Christian Congregation ; and accordingly it narrates the early 
 history of the Messiah in a form which, whilst calcidated to 
 attract and at the same time instruct the Gentile converts who 
 had some acquaintance with Judaism, was nevertheless in its 
 main features in accordance with Jewish notions. 
 
 The fourth Gospel professes to be the composition of the Apostle 
 St. John, the disciple whom Jesus loved; and as that Apostle 
 must have been an eye-witness of the events professed to be re- 
 corded in it, and as he stood in the most intimate relation to his 
 Master, and consequently was likely to be the best exponent of 
 his expressions and sentiments, the authority of this Gospel was 
 universally recognized as superior to that of the other three. 
 This claim has, however, been disputed of late years ; and the 
 more closely the subject is investigated, the more reason there 
 is for the opinion that this Gospel is not only not the composition 
 of its reputed author, but that it is of much later date than even 
 the third Gospel. Indeed there are the strongest grounds for 
 
THE SOtmCES OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS. 37 
 
 regarding the fourth Gospel as the production of a period when 
 the Gentile had gained the ascendancy over the Jewish ele- 
 ment in the Christian Church, and opinions were entertained 
 which were no longer those of the Apostles. And thus it is that 
 the personal human history of Jesus ' the Messiah,' so promi- 
 nently put forward in the third Gospel, is discarded in the fourth, 
 and Jesus ' Christ ' is represented in his spiritual character of 
 the Son of God. 
 
 In the present work it is not intended to discuss a question 
 that has been so ably handled by numerous scholars both on the 
 Continent and in England. All that needs to be said here is, 
 that it was only after much doubt and hesitation, and with the 
 greatest pain, as being at the sacrifice of the cherished convic- 
 tions of many years, that the conclusion was arrived at that, in 
 the consideration of the personal history of the Messiah, we are 
 bound to disregard the testimony of the document bearing the 
 title of ' The Gospel according to St. John.' And it must be 
 added that, as will be shown in the progress of the present work, 
 there is reason to treat the testimony of this Gospel as of little 
 worth in other respects likewise. 
 
 Whilst the first and second Gospels are entitled to be regarded 
 as what they profess to be, the third and fourth Gospels may not 
 unaptly be comprised within the two classes of legends which 
 Dr. Arnold has defined as being ' equally remote from historical 
 truth, but in aU other respects most opposite to each other : the 
 one imaginative but honest, playing with facts, and converting 
 them into a wholly different form, but addressing itself also to a 
 different part of the mind ; not professing to impart exact know- 
 ledge, but to quicken and raise the perception of what is beau- 
 tiful and noble; the other, tame and fraudulent, deliberately 
 corrupting truth, in order to minister to national or individual 
 vanity, but substituting in the place of reality the representa- 
 tions of interested or servile falsehood ' *. 
 
 Making certain allowances, the Gospel bearing the name of 
 St. Luke, which gives a poetical form to the life of the Messiah, 
 * ' History of Eome,' i. 393. 
 
38 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 may be regarded as belonging to the former class. To the latter 
 must be referred the fourth Gospel, -svhich was written for the 
 express purpose of exalting the divine nature of Jesus at the ex- 
 pense of his human nature, and with other objects on which it 
 would be premature to dilate at present ; its authorship having, 
 by a 'pious fraud' of the Elders of the Church, been attributed 
 to the Apostle John, in order to stamp it with his authority. 
 
 Whilst legends of various kinds grew up and spread rapidly 
 among the early Christians, many genuine records must, on the 
 other hand, have fallen a prey to the remorseless tooth of time, 
 and many more, it is to be feared, were ruthlessly destroyed. 
 The prefatory statement of the third Canonical Gospel, ' Foras- 
 much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a decla- 
 ration of those things which are most surely believed among us,' 
 demonstrates that at the time when that document was com- 
 posed and promulgated (apparently towards the end of the first 
 century) there were extant numerous similar written histories. 
 And as we now have only the two bearing the names of Matthew 
 and Mark, — for the fourth Gospel is manifestly of later date 
 than the third, as are likewise the writings known as the Apo- 
 cryphal Gospels, — the reasonable inference is that those ' many ' 
 others have been destroyed. For it cannot be doubted that as 
 Boon as schisms arose within the bosom of the Church, — and the 
 disputes between Paul and the other Apostles at Jerusalem de- 
 monstrate how early this was, — the dominant and self-styled 
 orthodox party would, most properly as they conceived, have ex- 
 erted themselves to root out heresy in every form ; and one of 
 the most effectual ways to do this was by suppressing all the 
 writings of other parties that happened not to coincide with 
 their own opinions, whether as regards facts or doctrines, and 
 especially the latter. They had not yet come to the suppression 
 of the writers likewise, though they did not fail to adopt this 
 effectual means of enforcing uniformity as soon as they had it in 
 their power to do so. A religious body possessing or exercising 
 temporal authority can no more tolerate heresy or schism, than 
 the civil power can permit the existence of rebellion or sedition. 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE HISTOEr OF JESUS. 39 
 
 Both will employ every means at their command to enforce sub- 
 mission and uniformity; and the experience of all ages shows 
 that religious persecutions have ever been more uncompromising 
 and mcrcUess than civil ones. 
 
 Itwill notbe out of place here to remarkthat the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles give but a faint idea of the ' odium theologicum ' which raged 
 even in the time of the Apostles themselves. A striking instance 
 of its intensity is recorded by Irenajus, who relates that Polycarp 
 had been heard to repeat how, when on a certain occasion St. 
 John, 'the one of his disciples whom Jesus loved,' and who 
 ought to have been, if any one was, imbued with his Lord's spirit, 
 went to the baths at Ephesus and there happened to meet the 
 ' heretic ' Cerinthus, he started back and exclaimed, ' Let us 
 flee ; for the enemy of truth is here, and the roof may fall on us.' 
 This statement, it must be remembered, is that of one who was a 
 personal discij^le of the Apostle, and therefore is not likely to have 
 misrepresented his master's language or conduct, especially as he 
 himself followed his example. For, as is likewise recorded by 
 Irenasus, when Polycarp was asked by Marcion, ' Dost thou know 
 me ?' he replied, ' Know thee ? yes ; I know thee well ; thou art 
 the first-born of Satan.' ' So careful,' remarks Irenseus appro- 
 vingly, ' were the Apostles and their disciples not to hold the least 
 intercourse with such as adulterated the truth.' 
 
 If such were the sentiments and language of the Apostles of Jesus 
 and their immediate disciples, it is only natural that the same 
 should have served as models for their successors, among whom 
 it appears to have been the invariable practice to regard as- 
 sumed heretics and infidels as being necessarily monsters of de- 
 pravity, whose moral character, therefore, they have not scrupled 
 to blacken, and to whom they have delighted to apply the vilest 
 epithets. * Orthodoxy ' seems, indeed, in all ages to have ap- 
 propriated to itself vituperative language as its own peculiar. 
 ' Devils, Antichrists, maniacs, Jews, polytheists, atheists, dogs, 
 wolves, lions, hares, chameleons, hydras, eels, cuttlefish, goats, 
 beetles, leeches,' are among the choice epithets which the orthodox 
 Athanasius heaped on the devoted heads of his opponent Arius 
 
40 JESTTS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 and his followers. And at the present day right worthy imi- 
 tators of the great champion of orthodoxy are to be found in the 
 adherents of the infallible Pope of Rome. In a recent number of 
 the ' Perseveranza,' the most moderate newspaper in Italy, it is 
 said with truth that ' the organs of the Church party, if not the 
 worst and most venomous of all that appear in Italy, yield the 
 palm to none as far as low malignity is concerned. Not a Chris- 
 tian word issues from the mouth of the dependants of the Vatican, 
 and the very supposition of one would be regarded as an insult. 
 They blaspheme and curse all who do not blaspheme and curse 
 with them, and regard it as a sin to believe in God or in Christ, 
 except as beings who have no end in view but that of ministering 
 to their desires and gratifying their vengeance.' 
 
 Dean Stanley, from whose ' Lectures on the Eastern Church ' 
 the foregoing list of select Athanasian epithets has been copied, 
 says, apologetically, that ' there may be cases where such lan- 
 guage is justifiable.' But who is to be the judge when and where 
 it is proper to be used ? And if in any case it is justifiable on the 
 one side, surely it must be equally so on the other ; unless, indeed, 
 those who are subjected to such abuse prove themselves by their 
 silence to be better Christians than their revilers. 
 
 The system of suppressing heretical writings, adopted in the 
 fi.rst ages of Christianity, like that of vilifying their authors and 
 putting them to death whenever practicable, has unhappily con- 
 tinued to be that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. One of 
 the primary duties of the Holy Inquisition, established in the be- 
 ginning of the thirteenth century, was to prevent the dissemination 
 of error, that is to say, of every thing contrary to the doctrines of 
 the Church. The efficient manner in which this duty was per- 
 formed is matter of history. Its operation has, however, been 
 most visible, though perhaps not altogether so exhaustive, in the 
 persecution to which the works of heterodox writers have been 
 subjected since the invention of printing. Eanke writes : — ' In 
 the year 1543, Caraffa decreed that no book, whether new or old, 
 and whatever its contents, should for the future be printed without 
 permission from the Inquisition. Booksellers were enjoined to 
 
IHE SOURCES OF THE aiSTORt OF JESUS. 41 
 
 send in a catalogue of their stock, and to sell nothing without 
 their assent ; and the officers of customs also received orders 
 to deliver no packages, whether of printed books or manuscript, 
 to their address without first laying them before the Inquisition. 
 
 This gradually gave rise to an index of prohibited books 
 
 Nor were printers and booksellers the only persons subjected to 
 these stringent regulations ; even on private persons it was en- 
 forced, as a duty of conscience, to denounce all forbidden books, 
 and to contribute their utmost towards the destruction of all that 
 should come to their knowledge. These laws were carried into 
 execution with incredible success ' *. Books which had once been 
 in every house were so effectually suppressed that not a single 
 copy of them is now to be found in the most extensive libraries. 
 One book in particular, ' Of the Benefit of the Death of Christ,' 
 is noted as having experienced this fate. ' It was written in 
 Tuscan, was many times reprinted, and was eagerly read in every 
 part of Italy. But the Inquisition detected in it the Lutheran 
 doctrine of justification by faith alone. They proscribed it, and 
 it is now as hopelessly lost as the second decade of Livy ' f. 
 
 Of the unceasing operation of this system down to the present 
 day, the following remarkable instance may be cited. A cor- 
 respondent of ' The Times ' newspaper, writing from Naples on 
 April 24th, 1871, says : — ' In walking through the Villa [Reale, 
 or public gardens,] at the beginning of the week, I was struck 
 with a spectacle which I never witnessed before. The paths, 
 especially near the Eiviera, and the flower-beds, were enamelled 
 with fragments of paper, which a man was sweeping up with a 
 
 long broom Day after day the same scene presented itself in 
 
 spite of incessant brooming, and on examining the fragments 
 more minutely, I found they were printed portions of various 
 parts of the New Testament. A few steps further on, at the end 
 of the Villa, there were two kiosks, at one of which Bibles were 
 sold, and at the other portions of the New Testament were dis- 
 tributed gratuitously. A crowd had assembled around, and each 
 
 * 'History of the Popes' {tr. Foster), i. 161. 
 t Macaulaj's ' Essays.' 
 
42 JESTJ8 THE MESSIAH. 
 
 person was supplied with copies, and often resupplied'*. The 
 irresistible conclusion is, that many of the persons so supplied 
 and often resupplied with copies of the New Testament were 
 agents of the clerical party, who forthwith proceeded to destroy 
 the same, and to scatter the fragments about in the manner 
 described. 
 
 It is, however, far from being intended to attribute such conduct 
 to the Church of Rome alone. The following instance serves to 
 prove that heathens can be quite as intolerant as ' Christians.' 
 In the island of Madagascar the first English missionaries had 
 completed an edition of the entire Bible in the native language, 
 before they were compelled to leave the island by the persecution 
 to which they were subjected in 1835, under Queen Eanavalona 
 the First. Of this edition not more than a dozen copies are now 
 known to be in existence, so diligently were they sought out and 
 destroyed by the Queen's orders f. 
 
 If such has been the fate of printed books of which numerous 
 copies could be so easily made, what must not have been the effect 
 of the like inquisitorial proceedings on the part of the dominant 
 section of the Christian Church in times anterior to the introduc- 
 tion of printing, when single copies were produced only by the 
 laborious process of writing ! How little, then, are we in a 
 position to know the true character of such writings of the ear- 
 liest ages of Christianity as by the orthodox, that is to say the 
 strongest, party were stigmatized as schismatic or heretical, and 
 in consequence condemned and destroyed ! And how much 
 reason is there not to fear that, in frequent instances, it was not 
 error but truth that was thus stifled and suppressed ! How many 
 ' Gospels ' and how many ' Epistles ' of the Apostles and their 
 immediate successors may not be lost ! Who can say, indeed, 
 that we possess all the writings of St. Paul himself, and whether 
 it was with the free wiU of the other Apostles and their imme- 
 diate disciples that we enjoy those that have had the good fortune 
 to escape, especially the First Epistle to the Corinthians ? 
 
 * ' The Times' of May 2nd, 1871. 
 
 t Sibree, ' Madagascar and its People.' 
 
THE SOURCES OF THE HISTORY OF JEST7S. 43 
 
 Under sucli circumstances it is not surprising that more ample 
 materials for a proper biography of our Lord Jesus are not extant. 
 And yet the scanty materials that have been spared to us suf- 
 fice to clear up much that is dark and imperfect in that biography, 
 if only they are treated as they ought to have been, as eventu- 
 ally they must be, and as indeed they are happily beginning to 
 be; that is to say, onpurely historical grounds, like as the materials 
 for the biography of any other historical personage are treated. 
 Until quite recently scholars abstained from dealing with the 
 life of Jesus after this fashion, owing apparently to the dread 
 lest its sanctity should be violated, as if there was any thing more 
 holy than the truth, or as if the truth could be injured by the 
 most searching investigation. In this sense Pere Hyacinthe has 
 well expressed himself in a letter addressed to Pere Gratry, whose 
 recent recantation and submission to the Decree of Papal Infal- 
 libility is one of the most glaring scandals of the Gallican Church. 
 His words are : — ' As for me, what I fear most is not the open 
 and candid scepticism of the adversaries of Revelation, but the 
 unconscious scepticism of those who place false authority and 
 false unity above the truth. The former consolidates the sacred 
 edifice by the very assaults that it directs against it from with- 
 out ; the latter silently undermines it from within by shaking 
 the foundations on which it rests — sincerity of faith, and inte- 
 grity of conscience.' 
 
 CHAPTEE ly. 
 
 ON TEADITIONS AND LEGENDS. 
 
 As in the preceding chapter the third and fourth Canonical Gos- 
 pels have been spoken of as legendary, it is expedient to say a 
 few words, intended for the general reader rather than the 
 scholar, in explanation of the correct meaning of the word 
 
44 JESTTS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 ' legend,' as also of * tradition ; ' both of which terms are often 
 employed loosely and inaccurately. 
 
 A tradition is properly that which has been ' delivered ' orally, 
 or by word of mouth, from one person to another and from one 
 generation to another. It is correctly defined by Dryden in ' The 
 Hind and Panther ' : — • 
 
 ' The good old bishops took a simple way ; 
 Each asked but what he heard his father say, 
 Or how he was instructed in his youth, 
 And by tradition's force upheld the truth.' 
 
 Or, as it is pointedly put in ©'Israeli's ' Genius of Judaism,' ' A 
 Caraite, rejecting traditions, tauntingly interrogated Hillel, the 
 greatest of the Rabbins, on what evidence they rested. The 
 sage, pausing for a moment, desired the sceptic would repeat the 
 first three letters of the alphabet. This done, the advocate for 
 traditions in his turn asked, " How do you know how to pro- 
 nounce those letters in this way and no other ? " "I learned 
 them from my father," replied the Caraite. " And your son shall 
 learn them from you," rejoined Hillel ; " and this is tradition " '*. 
 
 Though the poor Caraite was posed by the sharp-witted doctor 
 of the law, he was nevertheless not in the wrong. Mr. Alex- 
 ander J. EUis and other scholars are demonstrating that the 
 sounds of letters are constantly changing, — that the English lan- 
 guage is not pronounced as it Avas iu the time of Chaucer or even 
 later. And what tradition shall help us in determining authori- 
 tatively whether Tally's agnomen is to be pronounced ' Kikero,' 
 'Khikhero,' 'Shishero,' ' Tshitshero,' 'Tsitsero,' ' Sisero,' or 
 ' Thithero ' ? 
 
 In fact, it may be laid down as a law that, owing to the im- 
 perfection of human nature, nothing whatever can be communi- 
 cated by one person to another, with the absolute certainty of its 
 being received precisely as it was delivered, or without a moral 
 certainty that it wiU be repeated incorrectly to a third person. 
 
 * This story is repeated in somewhat difi'ereut terms by Mr. Deutsch in 
 the ' Quarterly Eeview,' cxxiii. 441. 
 
ON TRADITIONS AND LEGENDS. 45 
 
 And the oftener a statement is thus transmitted from one to 
 another, the greater will be the certainty of its departing more 
 and more from its original form. We need only recall to mind 
 the story of the three black crows ! And we may appeal to the 
 experience of domestic life to show how rarely it is that a servant 
 delivers the most ordinary message without making a mistake of 
 some sort. 
 
 What is here said, however, is properly to be restricted to oral 
 traditions, or sayings delivered from one person to another by 
 word of mouth. The moment a tradition is committed to writing 
 it ceases to be a tradition and becomes a legend, which term is 
 thus sarcastically defined by Home Tooke : — 'Legend, which 
 means " that which ought to be read," is, from the early misap- 
 plication of the term by impostors, now used by us as if it meant 
 " that which ought to be laughed at" '*. 
 
 It is because the tradition has become developed and distorted 
 before it is committed to writing and so fixed as a legend, that 
 the latter term has received its opprobrious definition and come 
 to be regarded as almost equivalent to fable. Still, when once a 
 tradition is committed to writing, however ' legendary ' (in the 
 vulgar sense) it may have previously become, it is now a record, 
 which in itself is immutable ; so that persons living many cen- 
 turies later are just as competent to decide on the merits of a 
 legend as were those who lived at the time when it was reduced 
 to writing, — perhaps more so, on account of their living at a time 
 and under circumstances enabling them to have access to sources 
 of information which the recorder of the legend himself was not 
 acquainted with, Nevertheless, the reduction of a tradition to 
 writing, whereby it becomes fixed as a legend, does not prevent 
 the tradition itself from being repeated orally and so trans- 
 mitted traditionally, receiving some modification at each stage of 
 its transmission, and being, perhaps, from time to time committed 
 to writing under other circumstances, and thus giving rise to 
 other legends of a diff'erent character. 
 
 Nor is this all ; for each of these legends, although in itself 
 * ' Diversions of Purley.' 
 
46 JESrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 fixed and immutable, may be repeated orally, and so become in 
 its turn the origin of a separate tradition, or, it may be more 
 correctly said, of various traditions, inasmuch as no two readers 
 of the legend would repeat it in precisely the same terms to 
 their respective auditors ; and thus it might go on, as it were, 
 * ad infinitum.' 
 
 Though a legend, — using the term in its literal sense as mean- 
 ing any written document, — when once it is recorded, is thereby 
 freed from the influences of oral tradition, and becomes in itself 
 immutable, still, when of ancient date, it is rarely handed down 
 to us absolutely in the form in which it was originally com- 
 mitted to writing. For instance, it will not be pretended by 
 any one that the original manuscripts of the Scriptures, either of 
 the Old or of the 'New Testament, have been preserved. "We 
 possess them only in the form of written copies, which them- 
 selves are doubtless copies of other copies, the originals having 
 been lost long ago. Hence errors, which scarcely any care could 
 prevent, have unavoidably found their way into the copies now 
 extant, not only of the Gospels but of all the other writings of 
 the New Testament. The Jewish Masorites have done their best 
 to preserve the writings of the Old Testament in their integrity ; 
 but, even in this case, their elaborate system of authenticating 
 their written copies was not introduced tiU long after the text 
 had already experienced many departures from its original 
 purity. 
 
 But independently of this source of error, there can be no 
 guarantee against a still more fruitful one, namely, the intro- 
 duction into the text of manuscripts of the marginal notes and 
 glosses of readers and commentators. These have mostly got 
 accidentally incorporated into the text by copyists ; but not un- 
 frequently they have been intentionally interpolated, and so 
 made to appear to be portions of the original text. As an in- 
 stance of the former may be adduced the doxology at the end of 
 the Lord's Prayer in Matthew vi. 13, ' For thine is the kingdom ' 
 &c., which is an adaptation of David's words in 1 Chr. xxix. 11, 
 added to the prayer in its original form, as given in Luke xi. 4, 
 
ox TKADITIONS AND LEGElfDS. 47 
 
 from its having been said after the prayer, in like manner as in 
 Catholic Churches the doxology ' Glory be to the Father ' »S:c. is 
 repeated after each of the Psalms of David. And though this 
 latter has not been introduced into the printed copies of the 
 Psalter, we find it in the Book of Common Prayer of the Esta- 
 blished Church of England added to the ninety-fifth Psalm in the 
 Morning Service, and to other Psalms and portions of Scripture, 
 without any mark to distinguish it from the context. Now 
 nothing would have been more natural than that the ignorant 
 priests in the early ages of Christianity should have insisted on 
 inserting the Doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer in the first 
 Gospel, because they so found it in their missals, or elsewhere. 
 And supposing it possible for the Psalter to be lost, and that it 
 had to be reconstructed from the fragments existing in various 
 quarters, there are at the present day many priests of the same 
 calibre, who might contend that the ' Gloria Patri ' should be 
 inserted as forming a portion of the Psalms of David in their 
 original form. 
 
 Of the interpolations purposely introduced into the Scriptures 
 of the New Testament, the most notorious and best-established 
 one is perhaps that in the fifth chapter of the First Epistle of 
 John, 'For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. 
 And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, the 
 water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one ; ' where the 
 words between brackets have been introduced by the Romish 
 clergy at a comparatively recent date, they being wanting in all 
 Greek manuscripts and early versions in other languages. So, 
 too, in the concluding portion of the first Gospel, the words at- 
 tributed to our Lord Jesus, ' Go ye therefore and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost ' *, though they appear in all the manuscripts 
 extant, must have been added after the passages in Acts ii. 38, 
 X. 48, XIX. 5, &c. were written. For it is not to be imagined 
 that the Apostles would have acted in direct violation of their 
 * Matth. xxviii. 19. 
 
48 JESTJS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 Master's command, and baptized all their converts * into the 
 name of the Lord Jesixs ' alone, had they only just received from 
 him the express injunction to baptize them in the name of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 The treatment which many, perhaps all, of the original manu- 
 scripts of the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament expe- 
 rienced at the hands of the Fathers of the Early Church may 
 be illustrated by that to which the early English ballads were 
 subjected by their compiler and editor, Bishop Percy. That 
 otherwise conscientious man arbitrarily altered the manuscripts 
 which came into his hands in such a manner as to leave the 
 readers of the poems he gave to the world as antiques quite in 
 the dark as to what parts of them were really ancient and what 
 parts were mock -antiques of his own. And these hybrid com- 
 positions were to serve, and in fact have served, as sources of 
 information and as models to our modern poets ! As regards 
 one of the poems, ' Sir Cauline,' the Bishop complacently avows 
 that, as it appeared to fall short of the perfection it seemed to 
 deserve, ' he was tempted to add several stanzas in the first part, 
 and still more in the second, so as to connect and complete the 
 story in the manner which appeared to him most interesting and 
 affecting,' — his object being ' to please both the judicious anti- 
 quary and the reader of taste,' and his endeavour ' to gratify 
 both without offending either.' If such tampering with ori- 
 ginal documents was deemed not only venial, but even justifi- 
 able, by a prelate of the Established Church of England, in order 
 to meet the requirements of a ' polished age,' ^like that in which 
 he Hved, it will certainly not be judging human nature too 
 harshly to suppose that, in the ages immediately following that 
 in which our Lord lived, that prelate's predecessors may in like 
 manner have sought to please both the ' judicious (Jewish) anti- 
 quary ' and the Greek or Roman ' reader of taste,' by altering 
 the Sacred History so as to 'gratify both without offending 
 either.' 
 
 In sjnte of the Apostle Paul's warning, the maxim has always 
 prevailed in the Church — that is to say, among the clergy — that 
 
ON TRADITIONS AND LEGENDS, 49 
 
 pious frauds are allowable, nay commendable, when done ' ad 
 majorem Dei gloriam ' — for the greater glory of God ; and there 
 can be no doubt that this fraudulent system prevailed to a 
 frightful extent among the Fathers of the Christian Church. In 
 saying this, it is not meant to impute any specially evil inten- 
 tions to them in particular. They were generally pious, well- 
 intentioned men ; but they were men like ourselves, and they 
 had a cause to serve, which they felt it to be their bounden 
 duty to advance by every means in their power. Hence there 
 is no reason whatever to regard them as incapable of palming off 
 on their ignorant, superstitious, and credulous flocks just such 
 palpable fictions as have been invented and promulgated down 
 to the present day, and are defended, nay insisted on, by divines 
 of the highest position in the Church, in other respects liberal 
 and enlightened men, who would feel aggrieved if they were 
 thought not to be devout and sincere Christians, but whose piety, 
 it is to be feared, is after all much on a par with that which 
 inspired the prayer of Leicester and his confederates in Sheri- 
 dan's famous play, ' The Critic ' : — 
 
 ' O mighty Mars ! 
 Behold thy votaries submissive beg, 
 That thou wilt deign to grant them all they ask, 
 And sanctify whatever means they use 
 To gain it.' 
 
 It may be objected by simple-minded professors of Christi- 
 anity, that it is not possible for the true religion to have spread 
 itself as it has over the world by means of su.ch a system of 
 fraud and imposture. But this they can only say in ignorance of 
 the laws that regulate the spread of religion, and indeed of all 
 other opinions, the reception of which by the masses of mankind 
 is generally far from being dependent on their truth or false- 
 hood. "Were it otherwise, a plebiscitum of the whole human 
 race would soon settle the question as to which is the true 
 religion. The actual result, when placed in the form of a return 
 of the poU after an election, may surprise those who fancy that 
 the truth must at once prevail as a matter of course. Thai it 
 
 D 
 
60 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 will prevail eventually there can bo no doubt ; but the time of its 
 accomplishment is in the hands of the God of Truth alone. 
 
 In the following return-list, the Eomau Catholics, as being 
 the votaries of the ' Mother of God ' (and it might be added of 
 the various saints likewise) more than of the Son, or even the 
 Father, are entered as giving their votes for ' Mary.' The Or- 
 thodox Greeks shall be classed with them. Protestants are 
 entered as voting for ' Christ,' Jews for ' Jehovah,' Moham- 
 medans for ' Allah.' The Polytheists of Asia are returned as 
 voting for 'Buddha' and 'Brahma' respectively. The votes of 
 other heathens, principally Africans, have to be recorded as 
 blank or informal. The numbers given may not be quite cor- 
 rect, but they are sufficiently so for the purpose required. 
 
 Buddha 350 millions. 
 
 Brahma 250 ,, 
 
 Mary 245 ,, 
 
 Allah IGO 
 
 Christ 90 
 
 Jehovah 5 „ 
 
 Blank and informal votes 200 „ 
 
 1300 „ 
 
 So that Buddha, or Sakya-Muni, has a preponderating majority, 
 his followers comprising more than one quarter of the human 
 race, and exceeding all the Christian sects put together ! If 
 two candidates had to be returned, the colleague of Buddha would 
 be Brahma (the two together polling nearly half the world I), though 
 between the latter and Mary it is almost a tie. It is seen Who is 
 at the bottom of the poll, just as Truth is said to be at the bot- 
 tom of a well ! And the result but too plainly shows that, as re- 
 gards religious faith at all events, ' vox populi ' is not ' vox Dei.' 
 It may be rejoined, that the early professors of Christianity 
 gave the most convincing proof of the truth of their religion by 
 suffering death or the most cruel tortures rather than renounce 
 it. But those who rely on such an argument should bear in mind 
 
ON TRADITIONS AND LEGENDS. 51 
 
 that the testimony of the confessors and martyrs of the first 
 century, at Kome and elsewhere, is of no greater intrinsic value 
 as evidence than that of their followers and imitators in the 
 second and third centuries, or at any later period. Their self- 
 sacrifice demonstrates the sincerity of their belief, but that is all ; 
 it is no sure evidence of the facts on which that belief was 
 founded. On the contrary, how many martyrs have there not 
 been for various difierences of belief, and even for totally difterent 
 reKgions ! The ancient Romans slaughtered the early Chris- 
 tians; and the modern Romans in Italy, Spain, and France 
 have murdered Jews, Mohammedans, Albigenses, Huguenots, 
 and other ' heretics,' — every one, in fact, that was not an ' ortho- 
 dox ' Christian. And here in England, the Eoman Catholics 
 have burned the Protestants, and the Protestants the Eoman 
 Catholics. "Which of these various ' armies of martyrs ' did not 
 die in the firm conviction that they suff'ered for the truth ? And 
 which of the persecuting parties did not believe that they were 
 acting for the greater glory of God ? For the heathens were 
 convinced that they were performing an acceptable service to 
 their deities, quite as fully as the Christians believed they were 
 pleasing the AU-mereiful God by ofi'ering up to Him their human 
 sacrifices ! 
 
 Eeverting to the origin of traditions and legends, it has to be 
 remarked that, notwithstanding the prevalence of what are com- 
 monly called gratuitous falsehoods, it may be questioned whether 
 an error can ever obtain general adoption unless it has some 
 foundation of truth, however slight that foundation may be, and 
 however much the truth may have been tampered with and per- 
 verted. It is a homely proverb that ' there is no smoke with- 
 out fire ;' . and if this is not always true in the sense in which it 
 is usually understood, — namely, that there must necessarily be 
 some foundation for what is not unfrequently the falsest of ac- 
 cusations, — it is true enough, nevertheless, if that foundation be 
 looked for in appearances, or in the motive for making such ac- 
 cusation. 
 
 Truths, when presented to the generality of persons in an ab- 
 
 d2 
 
52 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 stract form, fail to make the same impression on their minds as 
 when placed before them in the concrete. In this instance, as in 
 most others, example is better than precept. The following 
 anecdote is therefore given in illustration of what has just been 
 asserted. 
 
 All who have read Sir Walter Scott's novel ' Kenilworth ' will 
 remember the life-like scene at the Black Bear Inn at Cumnor, 
 kept by Giles Gostling, with which the tale opens. The whole 
 incident, like most of those in that highly interesting but most 
 unhistorical romance, is pure fiction. That there was a village 
 inn of some sort at Cumnor in the time of Scott's heroine, Amy 
 Robsart, is most probable, and that one existed there when 
 * Kenilworth ' was written is certain ; though whether it was 
 the same house, or bore the same sign at both periods, may 
 not now be ascertainable. But that the sign was not the ' Black 
 Bear,' or any thing like it, is an undisputable fact, as may in- 
 deed be inferred from the suggestive note of the author of the 
 novel, in the edition published in 1831, that ' The joUy " Black 
 Bear" has been restored to his predominance over bottle and 
 bowl in the village of Cumnor.' 
 
 How this ' restoration ' was brought aboixt of what had pre- 
 viously no existence, except in the imagination of the no- 
 velist, is deserving of being related, as showing plainly how 
 local ' traditions ' often originate, and also because it is believed 
 that the precise particulars have never been made known to the 
 public *. 
 
 On the first appearance of 'Kenilworth,' in the year 1821, 
 some undergraduates of the University of Oxford, from which 
 city Cumnor is distant about three miles, had a signboard painted 
 with a representation of the ' Bear and liagged Staff",' the 
 badge of the noble family of Neville, which had been wrongfully 
 assumed as his own by the upstart Robert Dudley, Earl of 
 Leicester, the hero of Scott's novel ; and this signboard they 
 took to Cumnor, where they had no great difficulty in inducing 
 
 * The statement in ' Notes and Queries,' 3rd ser. v. 439, does not give 
 all the details. 
 
ON TRADITIONS AND LEGENDS. 53 
 
 the landlord of the village inn to substitute it for the ' Red 
 Lion ' or ' White Hart,' or whatever may have been the sign 
 the house then bore. And, accordingly, the 'Bear and Ragged 
 Staff, by John Busby, late Giles Gostling,' now flourishes at 
 Cumnor ; whither all inquisitive tourists, desirous of becoming 
 acquainted with the scene of the stirring incidents conjured 
 up by the great magician, may go, and, as Mr. J. 0. Halliwell 
 wrote in 'The Times' of June 16th, 1847, 'Mine host of the 
 Black Bear * will tell you of unfortunate Amy, and speak of 
 the evil doings of Tony Foster so " traditionally," that were we 
 not aware the attractive sign had only been hoisted a few years 
 ago, and that the epitaph in the church tells a very different 
 tale to that related by the novelist, we might imagine " Kenil- 
 worth " to have been strictly founded on the traditions of the 
 village.' 
 
 The legendary history of the Abbotsford bantling has of late 
 received a further development. In a work published only five 
 years ago f, it is said, ' The Bear and Ragged Staff is still the 
 sign of an inn at Cumnor, to which an historic interest is 
 attached, owing to its connexion with the dark tragedy of poor 
 Amy Robsart, who, in this very house, fell a victim to that 
 stony-hearted adventurer, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. 
 Sir "Walter Scott has introduced the house in the first chapter of 
 " Kenilworth." The power the Warwick family once enjoyed 
 gave this sign a popularity which has existed to the present day ; 
 though the race of old Nevil, and the kings he made and unmade, 
 have each and all passed away.' And so this sign of the village 
 inn, which did not come into existence till the year 1821, in 
 consequence of Scott's fiction placing it in the time of Queen 
 Elizabeth, is now in sober seriousness thrown back to the age of 
 the Plantagenets ! 
 
 In this we have an instance of the pretended restoration of 
 what in truth never existed. The following is more curious, as 
 
 * The actual sign is not the ' Black Bear,' but the ' Bear and Eagged Staff.' 
 t ' The History of Signboards,' by Jacob Larwood and John Camden 
 Hotten. 
 
54 JKSTJS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 beiug an instance of the actual restoration of a local tradition 
 ■which had been lost during ages. 
 
 In a work recently published*, Dr. Bekc relates how he con- 
 ceives that *as the Jews during their captivity beyond the 
 Euphrates became acquainted with the celebrated city of Haran, 
 in Mesopotamia, they fell into the error of imagining this to be 
 Harran, in Aram Naharaim, where Terah and his family took up 
 their residence on quitting Ur Casdim, and whence Abram was 
 calledf ;' whereas, he says, ' as I pointed out in my " Origines 
 Biblicce " seven and thirty years ago, and as I have since demon- 
 strated by my journey thither, accompanied by my wife, at the 
 end of 1861, the true Harran of the Patriarchs is a village near 
 Damascus, still bearing the same name, and situated between 
 the two rivers of Syria, namely, the Abana and Pharpar of 
 2 Kings, V. 12.' And he goes on to describe how, when at Harran, 
 they discovered a very ancient well, which they 'named " Ke- 
 bekah's well," as being, in their opinion, that at which the 
 daughter of Bethuel was met by Abraham's stewardj, and as 
 having at that time no designation whatever.' Notwithstanding 
 this, Capt. Burton, our Consul at Damascus, reported a short 
 time ago, ' I have known the Harran well to be called " Abra- 
 ham's Well "by many Syrian Moslems, who have visited Harran, 
 and who certainly never heard of Dr. Beke's visit to it in ISGl.' 
 To which this traveller has replied, in his said work, ' Nothing 
 is more certain than that at that time not even the inhabitants 
 of Harran themselves had given any such name to their well, 
 or indeed entertained the remotest idea that their village had 
 the honour of having once been the residence of El Khalil — the 
 Friend of God. They appear, however, to have gladly availed 
 themselves of my suggestion : the " tradition " was immediately 
 set on foot ; and we learn from Capt. Burton's statement that it 
 has spread to the city of Damascus — and this all M'ithin nine 
 years ! ' 
 
 A third instance shall be given, showing how a legend has. 
 
 * ' The Idol in Horeb.' t Gen. xi. 31 ; xii. 1. 
 
 \ Gen. xxiv. 10-20. 
 
ON TRADITIONS AND LEGENDS. 55 
 
 origiuated in an ignorant attempt to account for an emblem, of 
 which the meaning was not understood. 
 
 In the park at Weimar, writes Mr, G. H. Lewes, ' stands a 
 stone monument, interesting as a witness to the growth of a 
 mythos. It is an antique column, four feet high, round which a 
 serpent winds, in the act of devouring the offering-cakes on the 
 top. The inscription says, " Genio Loci." But the Weimar 
 plebs, disregarding antique symbols, and imperfectly acquainted 
 with Virgil, has a legend to tell ; a legend sprung,'no one knows 
 whence, rapid and mysterious as the growth of fungi, like most 
 legends, to satisfy the imperious craving for explanations ; a 
 legend which certifies how, formerly, a huge serpent dwelt in 
 this spot, the terror of Weimar, until a cunning baker bethought 
 him of placing poisoned cakes within the monster's reach ; and 
 when the greedy ignorance of the serpent had relieved Weimar 
 of the monster, a grateful people erected this monument to an 
 energetic and inventive baker. Et voila ; comme on ecrit 
 I'histoire '*. 
 
 In these three several instances the origin of the ' tradition ' is 
 positively within man's memory : in that of ' Abraham's Well ' at 
 Harran it actually dates back from only ten years from the pre- 
 sent time ! By bearing in mind such clearly authenticated facts, 
 an idea may be formed of the very brief period of time required for 
 the origination and growth of local ' traditions,' which ' the oldest 
 inhabitant ' will soon be ready to vouch for as being of indefinite 
 antiquity, and which then serve as the foundation for legendary 
 histories. And thus it will be seen in how very short a time the 
 maxim of the Romish Church, that ' quod semper, quod ubi- 
 que, quod ab omnibus, creditum est ' must necessarily be true, 
 may be made applicable in such eases as those of the Holy House 
 at Nazareth — with its duplicate at Loreto — where the An"-el 
 Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary ; the Holy Grotto at Beth- 
 lehem, where Jesus was born ; ' Mount ' Calvary at Jerusalem, 
 where he was crucified ; the Holy Sepulchre there, where he was 
 buried ; with aU the other ' holy ' sites that have been imposed 
 * ' Life of Goethe.' 
 
56 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 by a crafty and greedy priesthood on the ignorance and credulily 
 of the superstitious laity. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 THE NAME AND TITLE OF JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 AccoEDrNG to an opinion very prevalent at the present day, there 
 was nothing supernatural in the life and mission of ' Jesus, the 
 prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.' He was simply a young man 
 of promise, popular among those that knew him, and ' appear- 
 ing' to enjoy the Divine favour, the founder of a new school, 
 the teacher of a system of ethics, which was not based on any 
 religious belief, but was able to subsist and to spread itself 
 without any such foundation, — a moral system far transcending 
 those of all the schools of antiquity, with which however, some- 
 what inconsistently, it is regarded as being identical in its 
 fundamental princij^lcs, and to which indeed it is supposed to 
 be indebted in no small degree for those very principles. It was 
 in this capacity alone that Jesus is imagined to have originated 
 the society of persons of all nations known by the name of 
 Christians, who are called on to practice the system of morals 
 thus taught by him, and thereby to realize on earth the kingdom 
 of heaven, which he and his disciples preached, without how- 
 ever its having any thing to do with a heaven apart from the 
 earth. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to say that notions such as these are 
 totally inadequate to satisfy the wants of believers in Eevelation, 
 who have been taught to look upon our Lord Jesus as the Mes- 
 siah, or Christ, of the promised seed of Abraham, in whom all 
 nations of the earth should be blessed, and upon the Christian 
 Dispensation as the fulfilment of the Law, the accomplishment 
 
HIS NAME AND TITLE. 57 
 
 of prophecy, and an essential element of God's general scheme 
 for the regeneration and salvation of mankind. 
 
 Even if such notions of the character of Jesus be regarded 
 from a lower point of view, they will be seen to be diametrically 
 opposed to the whole tenoiir of the history of the Jewish people, 
 of which that of Jesus himself forms only a part, and from which, 
 it is against every principle of true criticism to attempt to detach 
 it, by isolating it and treating it as if it were the history of any 
 ordinary man. To think of discussing the history of Jesus 
 Christ, that is to say, Jesus, the Christ or Messiah, the Anointed 
 King of Israel, — for such is the literal meaning of his designa- 
 tion, — without having special regard to the relation in which he 
 stood to those to whom in the first instance his mission was 
 addressed, and without alluding to the peculiar character in which 
 he appeared on earth, would be to imitate the playhouse manager, 
 who announced the performance of Shakespeare's tragedy of 
 Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, with the part of Hamlet left out by 
 particular desire. 
 
 Pious readers must not be shocked at this seeming levity when 
 treating of a sacred subject. Why should not a homely simile 
 be used when it is apposite and strikes home ? Our Lord him- 
 self was in the habit of making use of the homeliest similes. Did 
 he not compare the kingdom of heaven unto leaven, which a 
 woman took and hid in three measures of meal tiU the whole 
 was leavened ? * Could any thing be more homely, and at the 
 same time more impressive, on account of its very homeliness ? 
 The Imitation of Christ is inculcated by preachers in the pulpit, 
 and in the writings of divines, especially in the celebrated work 
 bearing the name of Thomas a Kempis. Why should we not 
 imitate oux Lord in his method of teaching by concrete examples 
 and by simple figures of speech intelligible to the masses, rather 
 than by abstract precepts and abstruse doctrines, that make 
 little if any impression on the minds of humble hearers, and are 
 often not altogether intelligible even to the educated. 
 
 In the present investigation of the history of our Lord Jesus, 
 * Matthew xiii. 33; Luke xiii. 21. 
 
 d5 
 
68 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 it is especially intended to regard him in the character in which 
 he represented himself to the world, namely, that of the Messiah 
 or Christ of propliecy. Any other method could not but he par- 
 tial and one-sided ; and, as preliminary to that history, it is 
 essential to inquire into the meaning of the distinctive appellation 
 ' Jesus Christ,' by which our Lord is generally known. 
 
 Now it is perfectly weU understood, though it is not usually 
 borne in mind, that this appellation, ' Jesus Christ,' is not itself a 
 proper name. It is ' Jesus,' alone that is our Lord's name, 
 this being the Latin form, derived through the Greek, of the 
 Hebrew i?1ty, a man's name common among the Israelites. It 
 was borne by Joshua; the son of Nun, Moses's lieutenant and suc- 
 cessor, and at a later period by Jeshua, the high-priest, who was 
 associated with Zerubbabel in the building of the second temple. 
 The signification of this name, which in each case is rendered 
 'Lrjaovs, both in the Septuagint Greek version and by the Jewish 
 historian Joscphus, and is likewise the form in which our Lord's 
 name appears in the New Testament, is ' a Saviour.' 
 
 On the other hand, the designation ' Christ ' is a translation, 
 also through the Greek, of the Hebrew word n'tyo, from the verb 
 nt^D, ' to anoint;' mn^ n^t^D, 'the Anointed of Jehovah,' being 
 the designation of the Kings of Israel and Judah *, of whom 
 Jesus was the successor, from their consecration with the sacred 
 anointing oil of the tabernacle, prepared after the manner 
 commanded to Moses in the thirtieth chapter of the book of 
 Exodus. This title is familiar to us under the form of * Mes- 
 siah, its literal translation into Greek being Xpierms, from the 
 verb xP"^' ' ^^ anoint.' In the Septuagint Greek version, the 
 title of the Messiah is rendered 6 Xpiaros Kvpiox', ' the Lord's 
 Anointed,' under which designation the great Deliverer of Israel, 
 predicted by the prophets and expected by his people, was gene- 
 rally known. 
 
 From the Greek Xpifrros the Latins obtained their ' Christus,' 
 and we our ' Christ,' which, it is thus seen, is not a proper name 
 at all, but a descriptive epithet applied to Jesus ; the name 
 * 1 Sam. X. 1 ; xvi. 1, G, 13. 
 
HIS NAME AND TITLE. 59 
 
 ' Jesus Christ,' by which our Lord is generally known, or more 
 correctly ' Jesus the Christ,' being simply our English rendering 
 of the Greek translation of the Jewish * Joshua or Joshua— or 
 more properly leshua or lesua — the Messiah,' that is to say, 
 * Jesus the Anointed ' king of prophecy. 
 
 It might seem scarcely necessary to explain that the denomi- 
 nation ' Christians,' appHed to and adopted by the believers in 
 our Lord Jesus, is simply expressive of their being his followers, 
 and that it signifies ' ex vi termini ' their belief in him as the pro- 
 mised Messiah or Christ. Nevertheless, this exi)lanation is re- 
 quisite; for, strange as it may appear, this simple and patent 
 meaning of the word has been open to question; and, more 
 strangely still, it has been totally misunderstood and misinter- 
 preted, not merely in the earliest ages of the Church, but even 
 down to the present day. 
 
 But before exposing the abuse of the term, it must be shown 
 how and when it came into use. 
 
 In the eleventh chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, after re- 
 lating how Paul (then called Saul) and Barnabas went to Antioch, 
 and there during a whole year assembled themselves with the 
 ' Church,' and taught much people, it is said that ' the disciples 
 were called Christians first at Antioch ' *. Whether they called 
 themselves so or were called so by others, is not stated ; but there 
 ought not to be any doubt on the subject, although the question 
 has been decided in different senses. 
 
 Though the appellation, as used by Christians, is unquestion- 
 ably in itself an implied confession of faith, it is not likely that it 
 was spontaneously assumed by the first believers in Christ them- 
 selves. On the contrary, there is evidence that the epithets they 
 ordinarily employed, when speaking of themselves or one an- 
 other, were ' brethren,' ' disciples,' ' believers,' ' saints,' the ' elect,' 
 or ' called.' The name of ' Christians ' must consequently have 
 been in the first instance given to them by others, though it may 
 afterwards have been readily adopted by themselves, "VVe witness 
 a similar process in the case of all newly formed sects, except 
 * Acts xi. 26. 
 
60 JESrS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 where the name attached to them by others is a nickname, op- 
 probrious, derisive, or contemptuous. For instance, the ' Friends ' 
 of the present day are commonly known as ' Quakers ' ; but 
 naturally they do not themselves employ this designation unless 
 when compelled to do so in the Cinl Courts. But it is different 
 in the case of the ' Methodists,' who, in the early part of the 
 eighteenth century, were a little company of devout young men, 
 members of the University of Oxford, Avho lived by rule or method, 
 and were in consequence called ' Methodists ' by their more 
 worldly-minded companions, not ill-naturedly perhaps, but with 
 a certain tinge of pity or contempt on account of their eccentricity. 
 StiU, as there was nothing really offensive in this nickname, — for 
 such it really was, — it was readily accepted as a distinctive and even 
 honorary designation by the Methodists themselves, among whom 
 the two Wesleys and Whitefield became the leaders ; and to this 
 day it is proudly retained by their successors, the majority of 
 them, who belong to the separate ' Church ' established by John 
 Wesley, distinguishing themselves yet further by the (to them 
 honorary) designation of ' Wesleyan Methodists.' 
 
 As regards the primitive Christians, it remains to be seen by 
 whom this name was attached to them. Now it is certain that it 
 could not have originated with the Jews, that is to say the bulk 
 of the nation, who did not participate in the belief of the Mes- 
 sianites, and consequently would never have employed a term 
 which might be understood to be an acknowledgment on their 
 part of Jesus as the Messiah. Besides which, the word Xpiart- 
 nroL being Greek, would not have been employed by the country- 
 men of Jesus, who spoke the Jewish langTiage of the period. And 
 in fact history tells us that the followers of Jesus were called by 
 the Jews Nazarenes or Galileans, — contemptuously perhaps, but 
 not necessarily so, inasmuch as our Lord was truly a native of 
 Nazareth in Galilee. And to this day the former of these desig- 
 nations, under the form of ' Nasarani,' continues to be used by the 
 Mohammedans, and by the Jews likewise, if indeed they do not 
 indulge in some more opprobrious epithet, when speaking of 
 Christians. 
 
HIS NAME AND TITLE. 61 
 
 As to the notion that the distinctive appellation of the disciples 
 of Jesus was formally changed from ' Nazarenes ' and ' Galileans ' 
 to ' Christians ' by Evodius, Bishop of Antioch, at a synod held 
 there for that purpose, it may be dismissed as an absurd idle 
 fable. The believers in our Lord never applied to themselves 
 either of those terms, and therefore never had occasion to change 
 them. 
 
 Seeing, then, that the name did not originate with the Christians 
 themselves, nor with the Jews, it can only have had its origin 
 among the Gentiles or heathen Greeks. Yet it does not follow, as 
 is generally supposed, that it was employed by them offensively 
 or derisively. On the contrary, they used it, in the simplest and 
 most natural manner, to designate the followers of Jesus ; only 
 the fact of their having called those followers 'Christians,' — 
 meaning ' Messianitcs,' — instead of ' Jesuians' or ' Jesuites,' after 
 his name, reveals another fact pregnant with significance. 
 
 It was at Antioch, as we read in the Acts *, that the disciples 
 of Jesus were first called Christians, apparently in the beginning 
 of the reign of the Emperor Claudius. By Suetonius it is also 
 recorded that at about the same time this Emperor ' banished 
 from Eome all the Jews, who were continually making disturb- 
 ances at the instigation of one Chrestus 'f. These two statements 
 establish the fact that the first Jewish disciples of our Lord were, 
 as is most natural, in the habit of sj)eaking of him, not under his 
 proper name, Jesus, but as the Messiah or ' Christ ' — the Lord's 
 Anointed : in fact Paul did not preach Jesus, but XpirrTor earav- 
 pwfievor, ' a crucified Messiah' J. But the statement of the Roman 
 historian proves something more, namely, that the disturbances 
 among the Jews residing in Rome, which are alleged to have taken 
 place ' at the instigation of one Chrestus,' were in fact, like those 
 at Iconium §, at Thessalonica i|, atCorinth %, and elsewhere, caused 
 by disputes among them as to whether the person put to death 
 by Pilate was or was not the Messiah or ' Christus ' of prophecy ; 
 and that the Emperor Claudius, unlike his deputy Gallio, who 
 
 * Acts xi. 26-28. f See above, Chapter III. page 25. J 1 Cor. i. 23. 
 § Acts xiv. 4-6. U Acts xvii. 5-8. ^ Acts xviii. 12-17. 
 
G2 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 * cared for none of these things,' summarily put an end to these 
 disturbances by banishing from Home all the Jews, both those 
 who believed and those who did not believe that Jesus was the 
 anointed King of Israel. 
 
 Hence we may draw the most important conclusion that it 
 was not as a young man of promise named Jesus, but as the 
 Messiah or Christ of prophecy, that our Lord was known from the 
 outset among his countrymen, and, through them, to the Gentile 
 Greeks and Romans. And as the latter had no conception of the 
 meaning of this designation, as is proved by its being written 
 ' Chrestus ' bySuetonius, they naturally supposed this our Lord's 
 peculiar and distinctive title to be his proper name. And thus it 
 was that, as a matter of course, they made use of the term Xpicr- 
 TiayoL or Xprjtrriai'oi to designate the followers or partisans of the 
 leader known to them as Christus or Chrestus, just as they spoke 
 of the partisans of Coesar, Pompcy, Herod, as Ctesarians, Pom- 
 peians, Herodians, and as at the present day we speak of Moham- 
 medans, Lutherans, Swendenborgians, Wesleyans, not at all in an 
 offensive, but simjily in a distinctive literal sense. And as the desig- 
 nation was not offensive, it was adopted by the Greek and Roman 
 believers in the Messiah as readily as the title of Methodists has 
 been assumed by the followers of the Wesleys and Whitcflcld. 
 
 As, however, the faith in the Messiah extended itself among 
 the Gentiles, the appellation of Christians adopted by them soon 
 lost its primary signification. "What could they be expected to 
 know about ' Christus ' as meaning the Messiah? They had been 
 expressly exempted from circumcision and the observance of the 
 ceremonial law of Moses *, and they cannot be supposed to have 
 known much, if any thing, of the language, the history, or the pecu- 
 liar manners and customs of the Jews. They would have seen and 
 understood matters and interpreted them much in the same way 
 as the same had presented themselves to their minds previously 
 to their conversion ; and consequently it is not at all surprising 
 that they should have fallen into grievous errors. What con- 
 ceivable idea could such converted heathens have had of the 
 * Acts XV. 10-29. 
 
niS NAME AND TITLE. 63 
 
 Christ — or ' Christ,' as they soon learned to call him — in his 
 character of the restorer of the kingdom of his ancestor David, 
 either temporally or spiritually ? and indeed what would they 
 have cared for him in that character ? If, as St. Paul truly says, 
 the idea of a crucified Messiah was to the Jews a stumbling-block, 
 that to the Gentiles of a king who expressly declared his kingdom 
 to be not of this world, and who, therefore, according to their 
 notions, was no king at all, must indeed have been ' foolishness' 
 — the height of absurdity. A remark made by Dr. Norman Mac- 
 leod respecting the pagan Hindoos at the present day applies 
 ' totidem verbis' to the Gentile Greeks and Homaus of the Apostolic 
 age, and indeed to heathen converts everywhere an^d in all ages. 
 His words are, ' Investigations as to the alleged facts of historical 
 Christianity do not interest a Bengalee, if indeed he is capable of 
 making them ' *. And as it is natural to all men at all times to 
 seek within their own native language for the direct literal signi- 
 fication of an expression derived from a foreign one, of which they 
 do not understand the true etymology, the name Xpianavoi was 
 corrupted, as Tertullian and Lactantius state it was, to Xpr)(TTL- 
 auoi, ' Chrestiani,' from the adjective -^^prifTros, of which the 
 meaning is ' good,' ' honest,' ' upright ' ; and this meaning being 
 perfectly applicable to the character of ' Christ,' as they under- 
 stood it, they ignorantly imagined it to be the right one, and 
 ' Chrestus ' to be the correct form of our Lord's name, so entirely 
 had they lost all knowledge of the Christ, or Messiah ! The 
 heathen historian Suetonius had fallen into the same error long 
 before them ; but in his case the mistake was venial. 
 
 At the present day the name ' Christian ' is by many defined to 
 be, not a believer in the Lord Jesus in his character of the Mes- 
 siah or Christ, but ' a follower of the example of Christ,' the 
 founder of a new school of morals, whose maxims are not 
 only to be adopted and enforced, but whose personal example 
 ought to be imitated. No one would think of denying that our 
 Lord set an example in his life and doctrine, which it is the 
 bounden duty of every one who professes to be and calls himself a 
 
 * ' Peeps at the Far East.' 
 
C4 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 Christian to attempt to imitate and follow ; but to pretend and 
 to teach that this appellation means merely a follower of Christ's 
 example, — which is what Paul meant when he said ' The Messiah 
 liveth in me'*, — without insisting first and foremost, as Paul 
 did, on the belief in Jesus as the Messiah or Christ of prophecy, 
 is to unsettle the foundations of the Christian Dispensation, with 
 the intention (it is to be feared) of doing away with its special 
 character and merits altogether, and setting it uj) as a mere 
 human system of ethics hke those of Socrates, E^jictctus, and 
 other sages of Heathendom. 
 
 This discussion of the subject of our Lord's name and title and 
 of that of his followers would be incomplete were it not accom- 
 panied by a special consideration of the remarkable passage in 
 the twenty-sixth chapter of the Acts, where King Herod Agrippa 
 is made to say to St. Paul ' almost thou persuadest me to be a 
 Christian.' 
 
 In the first place, it has to be remarked that though the believers 
 in Jesus may have been called Christians in the Greek city of 
 Antioch in the time of Paul and Barnabas, it is not at aU likely 
 that at that early period they had received that aj)pellation in 
 Judaea, even among the believers themselves, and certainly not 
 from the unbelieving Jews. Consequently the words put by the 
 writer of the Acts into the mouth of the Jewish King cannot well 
 have been used by him precisely as they stand. By this it is 
 not intended to impugn the substantial truth of the narrative 
 of the interview between Agrippa and Paul, which bears the 
 impress of reality ; but merely to question the correctness of the 
 terms in which the incidents of that interview are recorded by the 
 Gentile writer of the Acts of the Apostles. The whole narrative 
 is deserving of analysis. King Herod Agrippa and his wife 
 Berenice having come to visit the Roman Governor, Porcius 
 Festus, at Ca^sarea, where Paul was a prisoner, Pestus made the 
 king ac(juinted with the charge brought against the Apostle by 
 the Jews, which he confessed his own iuabihty to judge ; in- 
 asmuch as the Jews did not accuse the prisoner of such things as 
 * Clal. ii. 20. 
 
HIS NAME AND TITLE. 65 
 
 he, Festus, had supposed, — that is to say, some ' matter of wrong 
 or wicked lewdness ' within his competency as the military and 
 civil governor of Judaea, — but ' had certain questions against him 
 of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, 
 whom Paul affirmed to he alive ' *. Now, though Pestus might 
 have spoken to the Jews themselves as freely as Gallio had 
 spoken to their co-religionists a short time previously f, it is 
 not to be imagined that in addressing their king, puppet as he 
 was, he would have spoken of ' their own superstition,' or even 
 perhaps that he would have spoken of ' the Jews ' to one of 
 themselves. 
 
 Further, when Paul was brought before the Jewish prince, he 
 is stated to have said, ' I think myself happy, King Agrippa, 
 because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching 
 all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews.' But he 
 could hardly have made use of such an expression, because both 
 himself and his hearer were of the same faith ; so that he would 
 have employed some such term as ' our people,' ' our co- 
 religionists,' ' the priests ;' or, if he had been a rash man, 
 which Paul with all his zeal was not, he might have spoken of 
 ' unbelievers,' ' oppressors,' but certainly not of ' Jews.' 
 
 The Apostle then explained how he had, in the first instance, 
 opposed and persecuted the believers in Jesus ; how he had been 
 caused to see the error of his ways by the miraculous vision 
 at Damascus ; and how, ' Having therefore obtained help of 
 God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and 
 great, saying none other things than those which the prophets 
 and Moses did say should come, that the Messiah should sufier, 
 and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, 
 and should show light unto the people [^. e. the Jews] and to the 
 Gentiles ' %• ^^^ ^s ^^ thus spoke for himself, Festus said 
 with a loud voice, ' Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning 
 doth make thee mad.' To the heathen Roman governor Paul's 
 words must indeed have been incomprehensible, may well have 
 savoured of madness. But to this Paul replied, 'I am not 
 * Acts XXV. 19. t Acts xviii. 14, 15. | Acts xxvi. 22, 23. 
 
66 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 raad, most noble Fcstus, but speak forth the words of truth and 
 soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom 
 also I speak freely ; for I am persuaded that none of these things 
 are hidden from him ; for this thing was not done in a corner.' 
 And then, turning to the Jewish prince, he made this passionate 
 appeal to him : — ' King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets ? 
 I know that thou believest;' — his meaning being, 'If thou be- 
 lievest the prophets, as I know thou dost, thou must necessarily 
 believe that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by them.' To this 
 Agrippa replied, ' Almost ' — or ' shortly,' or ' easily,' the literal 
 signification of the expression cv oXiyw being of no consequence 
 whatever, — ' thou persuadest (or wilt persuade) me that Jesus 
 is the Messiah,' or ' that the Messiah is really come ;' which ex- 
 pression a subsequent Gentile Christian narrator might well re- 
 present concretely by the words ' to be a Christian,' though as- 
 suredly no such words could possibly have issued from the lips 
 of one Jew speaking to another at that eai'ly period. 
 
 It has been conjectured by some scholars that Agrippa's reply 
 is to be understood as having been made ironically or dispa- 
 ragingly; but the whole interview, as recorded, was evidently 
 a serious one, and the result shows that the Jewish king was 
 favourably disposed towards Paul, even though he may not have 
 been convinced by him. 
 
 In conclusion, it must be repeated that ' Christ ' is not the proper 
 name of our Lord, but his peculiar distinctive title ; and that the 
 use of the word, either alone or in conjunction with ' Jesus,' 
 without the addition of the definite article, so as to read ' Christ,' 
 or ' Jesus Christ,' however sanctioned by the practice of ages, is 
 as incorrect as is that of the expression ' John Baptist ' in the 
 authorized version of Matthew, xiv. 8, and leads to very great 
 misapprehension. And, further, that to suppose the designation 
 ' Christian ' to mean merely ' a follower of Christ's example,' is 
 much the same as if it were said that ' Royalist ' means a fol- 
 lower of Queen Victoria's example, or ' Imperialist ' an imitator 
 of the ex-Emperor Napoleon . It cannot be too firmly held in 
 remembrance that a Christian — literally a Messianite — is one 
 
niS LINEAGE AND BIRTH-PLACE. 67 
 
 who believes that our Lord Jesus was, is, and is to be the Mes- 
 siah, Christ, or Anointed King of prophecy, the promised seed of 
 Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. 
 Those who do not entertain this belief may call themselves 
 Jesuites or Jesuians, but they have no right to the designation 
 of Christians. 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 
 THE LINEAGE AND BIETH-PLACE OF JESUS. 
 
 "Whatever differences of opinion may have existed among the 
 early Christians respecting the spiritual character of the Messiah. 
 and his kingdom, the whole tenour of the Gospel history demon- 
 strates that Jesus of Nazareth was looked upon by them as the 
 son of David after the flesh, and accordingly the avowed object 
 of the two genealogies in the first and third Gospels is to set forth 
 his lineal descent from that monarch. 
 
 Those genealogies are, on the face of them, open to grave ob- 
 jections, and they have in consequence been deemed unworthy of 
 credit by many scholars of unquestionable ability. An ingenious 
 attempt has been made by the present Bishop of Bath and "Wells 
 (Lord Alfred Hervey) * to reconcile the two, by contending that 
 the one in the first Gospel gives the royal descent of Jesus, 
 through the several heirs to the throne of David, and that the 
 other, in the third Gospel, traces his natural descent from father 
 to son. Thus, on the death of King Jehoiachin childless, Sala- 
 thiel, the son of Neri, the Ehesa (Prince), who was the father of 
 Zerubbabel, became the legitimate heir to the throne ; whilst, in 
 like manner, Joseph, the son and natural heir of Heli, was the 
 legitimate successor to the throne on the death of his uncle Jacob 
 without issue. 
 
 * ' Genealogies of our Lord.' 
 
68 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 It might be objected that, according to the strict wording of 
 the two pedigrees, — that in Matthew's gospel being that * Jacob 
 begat Joseph,' and that in Luke's being that ' Joseph was the 
 (legal heir or presumptive) son of Heli,' — the conclusion ought 
 rather to be that the former gives the natural, and the latter the 
 regal descent of Jesus. Still nothing really depends on this, if 
 the fact only be that Jesus was, or even in general estimation 
 was deemed to be, of the royal house of David. 
 
 These pedigrees may therefore be laid aside, in order to con- 
 trovert the assertion made on general grounds by many critics, 
 and especially by M. Eenan, that Jesus had no right whatever to 
 be considered the son of David, and that the attributing of this 
 designation to him was an ' innocent fraud,' — in which the French 
 critic courteously concedes that Jesus himself may, ' perhaps,' 
 have had no hand *, — for that the family of David had long been 
 extinct ; otherwise the representatives of that family would not 
 have failed to take part in the great disputes of that period, as 
 did the Sadokians (Sadducecs), the Boethusians, the Asmoneans, 
 and others. 
 
 Now this is a purely gratuitous assumption. It may be quite 
 true that at the time of the Messiah's advent the family of David 
 had altogether lost its royal rank, and sunk into political and 
 even social insignificance. Yet it does not follow that the family 
 had become extinct. And as long as anj' scions of it continued 
 in existence, there is really no good reason for supposing them to 
 have lost the knowledge of their illustrious descent. 
 
 It is an historical fact that, at the time of the return of the 
 Jews from Babylon, under the leadership of Zerubbabel, prince 
 of the tribe of Judah, and Jeshua, high priest of the tribe of Levi, 
 the genealogies of numerous families of those two tribes, and 
 also of that of Benjamin, had been carefully preserved. From 
 that time till the birth of Jesus was a period of only five hundred 
 years, within which comparatively short interval it is hardly con- 
 ceivable that the genealogy of the first family of the nation, that 
 of David, should have become lost, especially as we know other 
 * ' Vie de Jesus' (^'Jth edit.), Paris, 18G3, p. 139. 
 
HIS LINEAGE AND BIRTH-PLACE. 69 
 
 families of much lower degree to have preserved their pedigrees. 
 Saul of Tarsus, for example, asserted, as if it were an indisputable 
 fact, that he was of the tribe of Benjamin ; and the historian 
 Josephus claimed to be not only a priest of the lineage of Aaron, 
 but to be descended on the female side from the Asmonean 
 Maccabees. Further, it was never disputed that the Levites and 
 priests, who served in the temple till the time of its destruction 
 by Titus, were truly what they represented themselves to be, 
 members of the tribe of Levi and descendants of Aaron : indeed, 
 even at the present day, the families of Levi and Cohen lay claim 
 to the same descent. 
 
 As regards the descendants of David in particular, the national 
 belief in the restoration of the kingdom of Israel under a prince 
 of his house, would in itself have been a sufficient inducement to 
 the several members of the royal family, however much reduced 
 in circumstances, to preserve the evidences of their descent with 
 scrupulous and even religious care, — a task, moreover, of no diffi- 
 culty among a people like the Jews, with whom the family pedi- 
 gree has always been a matter of special importance. And, in 
 fact, the famous Rabbi Hillel and his grandson Eabbi Gamaliel, 
 who formed schools but not political parties, were both recog- 
 nized as being of the house of David ; and if their claim be 
 admitted, certainly that of their contemporary Jesus must be 
 equally so. 
 
 Besides this, subsequent history declares that the family of 
 David continued in existence long after the time of our Lord 
 lesus. Eusebius relates*, on the authority of the historian 
 Hegesippus or Joseph, a Jewish Christian, who lived towards the 
 end of the second century, that there were still living members 
 of the family of Jesus, being the grandchildren of Judah (Jude), 
 the brother of Jesus after the flesh, that is to say a son of Joseph 
 and Mary. He states that, after the fall of Jerusalem, Vespasian 
 commanded that all the family of David should be sought, in 
 order that no one of the royal stock might be left among the 
 Jews ; and, further, that in the reign of that Emperor's son, 
 
 * ' Eocl. Hist.' 
 
70 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 Domitian, two of the grandsons of Judah, the brother of Jesus, 
 having been denounced as such, were brought before that Sove- 
 reign and questioned, when they confessed that they were truly 
 descendants of King David. 33ut on further examination, it 
 appeared that they were of very humble condition, living on the 
 produce of a small piece of land, which they cultivated with their 
 own hands. And when asked respecting the Messiah and his 
 kingdom, its nature, and when and where it was to be, they re- 
 plied that it was not a temporal or earthly, but a heavenly and 
 spiritual one, and that it would happen at the end of the world, 
 when, coming in glory, he would judge the quick and the dead, 
 and would render to every man according to his deeds. Upon 
 this, Domitian, regarding them as silly visionaries beneath his 
 notice, dismissed them and ordered the persecution to cease. 
 
 If the authenticity of this anecdote be doubted on account of 
 the very questionable authority of the Christian historian bj' 
 whom it is related, the fact is nevertheless indisputable that 
 during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian, the descent from King 
 David of the pseudo-Messiah, Bar Cocaba, was attested by the 
 famous EabbiAkib a, the Moses of his age, and believed by hundi'eds 
 of thousands of his countrymen ; which fact is incompatible with 
 the idea that in the time of Jesus the family of David had already 
 become extinct, and was known to be so. And even as late as 
 the twelfth century, Benjamin of Tudela met with Jews living in 
 and about Baghdad, under a chief styled the Prince of the Cap- 
 tivity, who was acknowledged to be the lineal descendant of 
 David, King of Israel, and whom even the Mohammedans recog- 
 nized in that character, calling him ' Our Lord the son of David.' 
 
 Looking in other directions, Ave see among the Moham- 
 medans themselves at the present day numerous persons who 
 claim to be the lineal descendants of their prophet, through his 
 only child Fatima, the wife of Ali, though twelve centuries have 
 elapsed since his death. Not one of these persons could pretend 
 to establish his descent in a strictly legal form ; not many of them 
 would think of showing every link of the chain connecting them 
 with their illustrious progenitor; and even in those few cases 
 
HIS LINEAGE ANB BIRTH-PLACE. 71 
 
 where documentary evidence may be said to exist, such evidence 
 would in reality prove nothing more than tradition and general 
 repute. And yet no one among their co-religionists so much as 
 dreams of questioning the pretensions of these numerous de- 
 scendants of the prophet. They possess unquestioned the ex- 
 clusive right to wear a green turban ; and as they form the only 
 hereditary nobility among the Moslems, they are addressed by 
 the honorary title of ' Seid,' meaning ' Master,' or ' Lord,' — in 
 like manner as 'Don' is applied in Spain, and ' Herr von' in 
 Germany, to those of gentle birth, — even when in the lowest 
 social condition, and performing menial duties in the houses of 
 persons who may not be of Kke noble extraction. 
 
 And lastly, how many persons are there not in England and 
 other comitries who trace their descent from the Norman Con- 
 quest and the first Crusade, now eight centuries ago, or even 
 from a more remote date ? 
 
 In addition to these general considerations, we have in the 
 particular case of our Lord the express declaration of the Apostle 
 Paul, an educated and well-informed Jew, that ' Jesus, the Mes- 
 siah, our Lord, was made of the seed of David after the flesh' *. 
 This testimony, it must be borne in mind, is not open to the 
 objection that has been raised against similar statements con- 
 tained in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, on account of 
 the respective dates of those documents being alleged to be later 
 than the occurrences recorded in them ; for it is the explicit 
 declaration of one who was a contemporary of our Lord, and 
 who, having been a violent opponent of the new faith, could 
 hardly have failed to sift the evidence for and against the 
 claim to the Messiahship of one whom he had in the first 
 instance regarded as an impostor ; so that it is not to be ima- 
 gined that he could have fallen into error on this material point. 
 And as the Apostle's testimony is not to overturn a received 
 opinion, or to support what might be looked on as unreasonable, 
 but is simply corroborative of a fact which in itself is perfectly 
 credible and in accordance with the received history, such testi- 
 
 * Eom. i. 3. 
 
72 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 mony appears to be absolutely unimpeachable. It is not neces- 
 sary that Paixl should have been personally acquainted with Jesus. 
 The question for decision is, was Jesus in his own and Paul's 
 lifetime commonly reputed to be a descendant of David ? And 
 the evidence of a contemporary occupying the position of Paul is 
 conclusive, it being borne in mind that the question is not one of 
 actual descent but simply of repute. If it were tested in our 
 courts of justice at the present day, Paul would be put into the 
 witness-box, not to establish Jesus's pedigree step by step, but 
 to testify to the fact that he was generally reputed to be ' made 
 of the seed of David after the flesh,' and that he, Paul, verily 
 believed such to be the fact; and no cross-questioning could 
 shake such evidence as this. 
 
 The conclusion may therefore be safely drawn that Jesus of 
 Nazareth was truly of the stock and lineage of the royal house, 
 and that in this respect he fully answered the expectation of the 
 Jews that the Messiah should be the son of David. 
 
 The question of the birth-place of our Lord Jesus is not so 
 easy of solution. Were it not for what is related in the open- 
 ing chapters of the first and third Gospels, the reasonable in- 
 ference would be that Jesus of Nazareth, in Galilee of the Gen- 
 tiles, though of the lineage of David, the son of Jesse the Beth- 
 lehemite, of the tribe of Judah, was born at the place after which 
 he was named. If dependence could at all be placed on the 
 historical portions of the fourth Gospel, there are passages in it 
 which might certainly be adduced in support of such an infer- 
 ence. In the first chapter, Pbilip is made to say to Nathanacl, 
 ' We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and the Pro- 
 phets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph' * ; to 
 which Nathanael replied, ' Can there any good thing come out 
 of Nazareth ? ' And in the seventh chapter the same sentiment 
 is more strongly expressed by some of the people of Jerusalem : 
 ' Shall the Messiah come out of Galilee ? Hath not the Scripture 
 said that the Messiah cometh of the seed of David, and out 
 of the town of Bethlehem, where David was ? ' f But no certain 
 * John i. 45. t John vii. 41, 42. 
 
HIS LINEAGE AND BIRTH-PLACE. 73 
 
 reliance can be placed on those expressions in the fourth Gospel 
 on account of the anti-Jewish feelings of its writer, who mani- 
 festly cared as little for the human descent of Jesus and his 
 birth-place, as he did for the accomplishment of the prophecies 
 in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, either in the person of 
 the Messiah himself or in that of John the Baptist ; for he 
 represents the latter as explicitly denying that he was the 
 prophet Elijah *, whom the Jews expected to appear before the 
 Lord's coming, though in so doing he contradicts the declarations 
 of Jesus himself, as recorded in the first two historical Gospels f- 
 And what is even more remarkable is, that the writer of this 
 Gospel represents the people of Jerusalem, who of all others 
 most anxiously expected the Messiah in the person of a de- 
 scendant of their king David, as asserting directly the contrary : 
 ' We know this man whence he is ; but when the Messiah 
 cometh, no one knoweth whence he is ' + ; to which Jesus himself 
 is made virtually to assent by replying, ' Ye both know me and 
 whence I am : and I am not come of myself, but he that sent 
 me is true, whom ye know not ' §. 
 
 Further, it is deserving of serious notice, that though Na- 
 thanael, upon his seeing Jesus shortly after the conversation with 
 Philip already cited, is made to exclaim, ' Rabbi, thou art the 
 Son of God ; thou art the King of Israel ' || ; yet throughout the 
 whole Gospel Jesus is not once mentioned as having been 
 addressed as the Son of David either by his disciples or by any of 
 the people, who, according to the three other Gospels, freely 
 attributed to him that title. 
 
 In fact, there is not in the fourth Gospel so much as an allu- 
 sion to our Lord's claim to be of the seed of David, except in the 
 one single text already cited, where that claim is positively ques- 
 tioned because he was not out of the town of Bethlehem where 
 David was ! Further, it is a remarkable fact that in this Gospel 
 alone the Inscription on the Cross describes the ' King of the 
 Jews ' of the other Gospels as ' Jesus of Nazareth.' 
 
 * John i. 21. t Matth. xi. 14; Mark ix. 13. | John vii. 27. 
 
 § John vii. 28. || John i. 49. 
 
 E 
 
74 JKSTTS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 Disclaiming, however, all dependence on these statements in 
 the fourth Gospel having reference to the birth-place of our Lord, 
 it has to be remarked that from the first Gospel it might be 
 inferred, though it is not expressly stated, that Joseph and Mary 
 were domiciled at Bethlehem until the birth of Jesus ; when, in 
 consequence of the warning of the ' wise men from the East,' they 
 fled into Egypt, whence after a time they returned into their 
 native country, and then went to reside at Nazareth in Galilee, 
 where they took up their permanent abode. 
 
 The second Gospel is silent on this head, beginning with the 
 mission of John the Baptist, as, in fact, the first Gospel would 
 commence likewise were its first two chapters omitted. 
 
 The third Gospel opens with a most beautiful description of 
 the miraculous conception and birth not only of Jesus but also of 
 his relative John the Baptist, which, in spite of its legendary 
 character, may not unreasonably be accepted as having a ground- 
 work of reality. Joseph and Mary arc therein described as being 
 resident at Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, as it is universally 
 admitted they were afterwards. Only they are alleged to have 
 gone to Bethlehem, in consequence of a certain taxation by 
 Cyrenius or Quirinius, the Eoman Governor of Juda3a. 
 
 The fourth Gospel, like the second, says nothing respecting the 
 birth of our Lord ; but this is only in accordance with the spirit 
 of that document, which does^.ot con... . itself with the personal 
 history of the man Jesus so much as with him under his divine 
 aspect. But, as already stated, tnis Gospel is decidedly in 
 favour of the notion that Jesus was not only bred but born at 
 Nazareth. 
 
 Without in the least intending to rely on the Apocryphal 
 Gospels as authorities possessing any real value, it may not be 
 irrelevant to notice that in that of the Nativity, though Joseph is 
 described as resident at Bethlehem, Mary is said to have been 
 living apart from him in Galilee at the time of the Annunciation 
 and miraculous Conception ; and that nine months afterwards, 
 Joseph, who had been away from her all the time, returned and 
 took her with him to his home at Bethlehem. Li others Mary 
 
HIS LINEAGE AND BIRXn-PLACE. 75 
 
 and Joseph are both made to have resided at Jerusalem, where 
 their miraculous espousals took place, and likewise the Annun- 
 ciation. But this was evidently occasioned by the peculiar 
 sanctity which Mary had by that time acquired, from her having 
 come to be looked on as the ' Mother of God,' whence it was 
 deemed only suitable that she should be withdrawn from Nazareth 
 and placed in immediate connexion with the Temple. By this 
 means, too, Mary, in her advanced state of pregnancy, was spared 
 the long journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem. 
 
 In all these deflexions from the truth we may perceive the 
 origin and growth of the legend that Jesus was born at Beth- 
 lehem, so natural is it to man to make what he imagines or 
 wishes to be true appear to be so. The prophecy of Micah 
 (v. 2) having been understood to foretell that the Messiah, who 
 was to be ruler in Israel, should come out of Bethlehem Ephratah 
 within the limits of the tribe of Judah, it was only natural to 
 suppose he must have been born at that place. When once this 
 idea was entertained, all the rest followed as a matter of course, 
 down to the very caves or holes in the rock, which are identified 
 with the ' inn ' where the Holy Family stopped and the ' stable ' 
 in which the Saviour was born. The legend of the Bear and 
 Ragged Staff inn at Cumnor, rel^t^d in a former chapter *, is a 
 striking example of how easily an^ how speedily this might be 
 effected. And it is unu^^ the influence of a feeling akin to that 
 which induces humble tcurists to visit the quondam hostelry of 
 Giles Gostling with Scott's novel in their hands, that more enthu- 
 siastic and enterprising travellers are led to ' do ' the Holy Land, 
 and visit these apocryphal sites with the help of Murray's ' Hand- 
 Book of Syria and Palestine.' 
 
 On an impartial consideration of the whole subject, the reason- 
 able conclusion appears to be that our Lord Jesus, though of the 
 lineage of David the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, of the tribe 
 of Judah, was born at the place after which he was named ; and 
 as Nazareth is in Galilee, that is to say within the kingdom of 
 Israel, Joseph, or Ephraim, as contradistinguished from that of 
 * Chapter IV. page 52. 
 
 e2 
 
76 JESTTS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 Judah, he may be held to have complied with the condition which 
 by many is deemed to be implied in the prophecy of Isaiah, 
 ' Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex 
 Ephraim f * ' Messiah ben David ' and ' Messiah ben Joseph ' 
 being thus seen to be one and the same person. 
 
 CHAPTER YII. 
 
 THE CONCEPTION AND BIETH OF JESUS. 
 
 Were it not for the legends representing Bethlehem as having 
 been the bii'th-place of Jesus of Nazareth, his personal history 
 would unquestionably be rendered far more consistent and intel- 
 ligible, by regarding the provincial town after which he was 
 named as having been the residence of his parents, not only be- 
 fore and after his birth, as is generally admitted, but at the time 
 of his birth likewise. As regards the doctrine of the Incarnation 
 of our Lord, the place at which he was actually born is, however, 
 quite immaterial. His life on earth, like that of every human 
 being, commenced at the moment of conception in his mother's 
 womb, and not at that of his birth ; which latter is, so to say, an 
 incident of that life, occurring in the regular course of nature, and 
 consequent on the full development of the embryo after the or- 
 dinary term of gestation. There is no room for question on this 
 point. The Roman Law, on which that of most civiHzed coun- 
 tries is based, says explicitly : ' Qui in utero sunt in toto pcene 
 jure civili intelleguntur in rerum natura esse't, especially ' quo- 
 tiens de commodis ipsius partus quaeritur'J. And the Jewish 
 Law goes even further than that of Rome ; for while this latter 
 regards the unborn child as existing for its own benefit, the 
 former deems it capable of doing wrong, such as unreasonably 
 kicking its mother and so giving her a cause of complaint to the 
 * Isa. xi. 13. + ' Digest.' Lib. i. Tit. v. c. 26 (edit. Mommsen). 
 
 X Ibid. c. 7. 
 
HIS CONCEPTION AND BIETH. 77 
 
 Judge ! When Rabbi Jehiidah the Holy was asked at what time 
 evil affections begin to prevail, whether at the first forming of the 
 foetus in the womb or at the time of the child's coming forth, 
 he replied ' from the first forming' * , Since, then, whatever difier- 
 ence of opinion may exist as to the paternity of Jesus and as to 
 the_^ manner in which he was begotten, there is not, and never 
 was, any reasonable doubt whatever as to the fact that he was 
 conceived in the womb of his mother Mary at Nazareth, and not 
 at Bethlehem, it follows that the Messiah's human existence on 
 earth commenced at Nazareth, whether this place be, or be not, 
 regarded as that of his actual birth. 
 
 This indisputable fact is the foundation of the dogma of the 
 Christian Church respecting the Incarnation of Jesus Christ ; and 
 accordingly the union of the Divine Nature with the human in 
 the womb of the Virgin Mary is celebrated yearly on the 25th of 
 March, at the feast of the Annunciation, or Lady Day, which is 
 placed nine calendar months, the usual period of gestation, before 
 the feast of the Nativity, or Christmas Day, on the 25th of De- 
 cember, when the Birth of ' Chiist ' is held to have taken place. 
 And, quite consistently with this, the commencement of the Chris- 
 tian era was originally and correctly fixed at the Incarnation, 
 and not at the Nativity, of 'Christ;' and until the introduction 
 of the New Style the civil year commenced on March 25th, the 
 date of the Incarnation, and not on January 1st. 
 
 According to the belief of the universal Christian Church as 
 expressed in the Nicene Creed, the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, is 
 ' The only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all 
 worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, be- 
 gotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by 
 whom aU things were made ; who for us men and for our salva- 
 tion came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy 
 Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man ;' — that is to say, 
 in the words of the second of the ' Articles of Religion ' of the 
 Established Church of England, he ' took man's nature in the 
 
 * 'Talmud': Sanhed. fol. 91. 2, and Beresh. rabb. fol. 38. 1 ; as cited by 
 Lightfoot, ii. 570. 
 
78 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance ; ' and as it is ex- 
 pressed in the 'To Deum ' recited in all Catholic churches, 'When 
 thou tookest upon thee to deliver man, thou didst not abhor the 
 Virgin's womb,' within ^\■hich the union of the Divine with the 
 human nature must accordingly have been effected at the moment 
 of conception. 
 
 The article of faith thus dogmatically defined is mainly based 
 on the allegations in the introductory chapters of the first and 
 third Gospels, unless it be that those allegations were developed 
 out of the dogma. But the expressions ' Son of God ' and * be- 
 gotten of the Father ' occur in various other portions of the Scrip- 
 tures of the New Testament, where they are clearly free from 
 that dogmatical bias ; and the question to be considered is, in what 
 sense these expressions were intended by the persons who made 
 use of them. 
 
 Now nothing can be more plainly demonstrable than that in 
 the ages when those Scriptures were composed, — it is not requi- 
 site to be particular as to the precise dates, — the two terms above 
 mentioned, and other similar ones, had widely different meanings 
 in the estimation of the Jews of Palestine and of their Graeco- 
 Eoman conquerors respectively. By the former, as indeed by the 
 natives of Syria and Palestine generally at the present day, the 
 word 'son,' like 'father,' 'brother,' 'child,' is used in various 
 other and much wider senses than that of mere carnal relation- 
 ship. It is unnecessary to refer to the several applications of 
 such words and the use of the specific term ' the son (or sons) of 
 God,' as occurring in the Old Testament, which are to be found 
 in the Lexicons and Concordances, and will readily present them- 
 selves to the recollection of Biblical students. It will be suflicient 
 to cite some of the passages in the New Testament where this 
 specific expression occurs. 
 
 Our Lord himself says, in his Sermon on the Mount, ' Blessed 
 
 are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of 
 
 God'*; and again, when he taught the people in the Temple, 
 
 * Neither can they die any more ; for they arc equal unto the 
 
 * Matth. V. 9. 
 
HIS CONCEPTION AND BIRTH. 79 
 
 angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the 
 resurrection'*. And the Apostle Paul says, in his Ejjistle to the 
 Romans, ' As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the 
 sons of God;' and also, ' the Spirit itself beareth witness with 
 our spirit that we are the children of God ; and if children, 
 then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with the Messiah' t. 
 Consequently the exjiressions ' sons ' and ' children.' of God, 
 used by our Lord and his great Apostle, are far from meaning 
 persons standing in the relation of sons to their father according to 
 the flesh, in the literal acceptation of those terms among the Grceco- 
 Romans of those times, and even among us at the present day. 
 
 It is the same with the word ' begotten,' which was used by 
 the writers of the New Testament not merely carnally but 
 spiritually. Paul says, ' For in the Messiah Jesus I have begotten 
 you through the Gospel; wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of 
 me;' adding, ' Por this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, 
 who is my beloved son ' J, which Ave well know Timotheus was 
 not, after the flesh. And, again, ' Onesimus, whom I have begotten 
 in my bonds'§. Still more figurative is his expression, ' My little 
 children, of whom I travail in birth again until the Messiah be 
 formed in you'll. And Peter says, 'Blessed be the God and 
 Father of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, who according to His 
 abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by 
 the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah from the dead'^. 
 
 It may be objected that the passage in the second Psalm, 
 ' Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,' is cited by the 
 Apostle Paul in the synagogue at Antioch** as having reference 
 to the begetting of Jesus by God as a father. But it must be 
 remarked, in the first place, that the Apostle had said just before, 
 when speaking of David, ' Of this man's seed hath God, according 
 to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.' And, in the 
 next place, Paul is speaking not of the birth of the Messiah, but 
 
 * Luke XX. 36. 
 
 t Rom. viii. 14, 16, 17. See further, yer. 19, 21, and chap. ix. 8, 26 ; Gal. iii. 
 26 ; Phil. ii. 15. \ 1 Cor. iv. 15-17. § Philem. 10. 
 
 II Gal. iv. 19. t 1 Pet. i. 3. ** Acts xiii. 33. 
 
80 JESUS TITE MESSIAH : 
 
 of his resurrection, his words being-— and thej' are most de- 
 serving of consideration — ' We declare unto you glad tidings, how 
 that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath 
 fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised 
 up Jesus again ; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou 
 art my 8on, this day have I begotten thee'* ; that is to say, * this 
 day' on which He 'raised up Jesus again.' And in strict accord- 
 ance with this is the same Apostle's announcement to the Romans 
 ' of the Gospel of God, concerning his Son Jesus the Messiah our 
 Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, 
 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the 
 Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead' t; which 
 might indeed be understood to mean that the Sonship of Jesus was 
 * declared ' in the first instance ' by the resurrection from the 
 dead,' and not previously or otherwise. To affirm dogmatically 
 in the Nicene Creed that the Son was ' begotten by the Father 
 before all worlds,' and then to contend that Paul spoke of that 
 event as having occurred ' this day,' is assuredly not only a con- 
 tradiction in terms, but must be regarded by all ' orthodox ' 
 Christians as sometliiug worse than the heresy which that decla- 
 ration in the Creed was intended to refute and condemn. 
 
 When, on the other hand, we look to the meaning attached to 
 the expression ' son of God ' by the Gentile Greeks and Romans, 
 we find that they had very clear and definite ideas on the subject. 
 With them a * son of God ' meant the son of Zeus or Jupiter, or 
 of some other one of their male deities, actually begotten on some 
 mortal woman by sexual intercourse, the God sometimes mani- 
 festing himself in the form of a man, as Jujnter assumed that of 
 Amphitryon when he begat Hercules on Alcmena ; sometimes in 
 that of an animal, as of a bull with lo, the mother of EpajAus, 
 or of a swan with Leda, the wife of Tyndarus, who thus became 
 the mother of the Dioscuri, or ' Sons of God,' Castor and Pollux ; 
 and even in the shape of a shower of gold, as withDanae. When, 
 as in the instance of Semele, the mortal woman was so rash as 
 to require the God to visit her in his divine majesty, her mortal 
 * Acts xiii. 32, 33. t Eom. i. 3, 4. 
 
HIS CONCEPTION AND BIRTH. 81 
 
 nature could not withstand the presence of the Deity; so that 
 Bacchus, the child begotten by the God on the woman, had to be 
 kept in his father's thigh until the period of gestation was com- 
 _ pleted. 
 
 It is needless to multiply examples. But one cited by Dr. 
 Dollinger must be specially noted, namely, that of the philosopher 
 Plato, who was supposed to be the son of the God Apollo ; and 
 it was said that Aristo, the husband of his mother Perichthione, 
 was warned in a dream not to approach her tiU she had brought 
 forth the son she had conceived to that God, in like manner as 
 Joseph, Mary's husband, was warned in a dream that ' that which 
 was conceived in her was of the Holy Ghost,' and he ' knew her 
 not till she had brought forth her first-born son'*, Jesus. 
 
 "When therefore the Gentile converts to Christianity met with 
 the expressions ' Son of God ' and ' begotten,' they naturally un- 
 derstood them according to their own preconceived ideas, and not 
 according to those of the Jews by whom those expressions had 
 been used. And such being the case, it may unhesitatingly be 
 asserted that, apart from the introductory chapter of the first 
 Gospel, and the legendary histories of the third and fourth Gos- 
 pels, there is not only no evidence that the man Jesus was be- 
 gotten by the Eternal God on Mary, Joseph's wife, but that what- 
 ever evidence exists bearing on our Lord's conception and birth 
 is dii'ectly to the contrary. 
 
 Had Jesus's conception been of the miraculous nature de- 
 scribed, the fact would not — nay, could not — have remained 
 hidden from the Jews generally. Besides, it is expressly declared 
 that his birth was announced by a star to the wise men from the 
 East, in a dream to King Herod, by the Holy Spirit to Elisa- 
 beth the mother of John, by an angel to the shepherds of Beth- 
 lehem, and by a multitude of the heavenly host to all the world. 
 Under such circumstances the miraculous conception and birth 
 of Jesus must have been notorious facts from the very commence- 
 ment ; and at his presentation in the Temple, and in the official 
 register of births, the same ought to have been duly declared and 
 
 * Matth. i. 20, 25. 
 
 E 5 
 
82 JESUS TnE MESSIAH : 
 
 entered. Nevertheless, from the statement in the third Gospel*, 
 it would seem that Joseph represented Jesus as his legitimate 
 son ! According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, this the 
 first ' pious fraud ' of Christianity was not only permitted, but 
 expressly authorized, by Jesus himself; for, in the words of St. 
 Ambrose, ' maluit enim Dominus aliquos de sua generatione quam 
 de matris pudore dubitare.' Under this view Mary would also be 
 absolved from the falsehood of speaking, as she did to Jesus, of her 
 husband Joseph as ' thy father' f. Let this be as it may, nothing 
 can be more positive than that, in the eyes of the public, Jesus 
 passed for the legitimate son of Joseph, the builder, by his wife 
 Mary. 
 
 On the other hand, the idea that Jesus was the Son of God, 
 miraculously begotten on Mary, is so abhorrent to the Jewish 
 mind, that had such a pretension been made by him, it would have 
 afforded a much more cogent reason for an accusation of blas- 
 phemy against him, than that of his putting himself forward as 
 the Messiah, 'the Son of God;' which claim, however imfounded 
 it may have been deemed by the Jews, conveyed to their minds 
 nothing blasphemous in itself. And, in fact, it is in the fourth 
 Gospel alone, which was not written by a Jew, that Jesus is 
 accused before Pilate of this specific crime of blasphemy, in having 
 ' made himself the Son of God' J ; though this proves nothing ex- 
 cept the later composition of that Gospel, when the Gentile notion 
 of the meaning of that expression had come to prevail. 
 
 That Jesus should on frequent occasions have been called the 
 Son of God in connexion with his marvellous acts, is to be under- 
 stood as meaning nothing more than that he must certainly be 
 the Messiah, who by the Jews was so designated; imlcss, indeed, 
 the expression had no greater significance than the exclamation 
 ' Mashallah ! ' — ' See what God has wiUod ! ' — common in the 
 mouth of the !Mohammedans when an^^ thing is done so wonderful 
 as to be looked on as miraculous or impossible except through 
 the special intervention of the Almighty ; in like manner as 
 pious persons among ourselves see the ' hand of God,' and the 
 * Luke ii. 22-33. t Luke ii. 48. I John xix. 7. 
 
niS CONCEPTION AND BIETH. 83 
 
 ' fiuger of God,' in. occurrences which they regard as special dis- 
 pensations of Providence. 
 
 The precise relation of the Messiah to Jehovah Elohim is a 
 mystery insoluble in the present state of human knowledge. The 
 Creed of St. Athanasius, as it is called, contains the declaration 
 that ' as the reasonable soul and iiesh is one man, so God and 
 man is one Christ,' or Messiah. The truth of this proposition 
 we may not be in a position to deny ; but even if we were to 
 assent to it in the fullest and most unrestricted sense, we should 
 not be a step nearer to the solution of the mystery. 
 
 "We are told, indeed, that ' at four great Councils against four 
 great heresies, the Church promulgated her four great formula) on 
 the existence of her Lord — ftX?j9ws, reXews, aoiaiperios, acruy^vrwir, 
 — truly, perfectly, indivisibly, distinctly — truly God, perfectly 
 man, indivisibly God and man, distinctly God and man ' *. But this 
 proves simply nothing, unless it be at the same time maintained 
 that the Established Church of England is heretical when it de- 
 clares, in its twenty-first Article respecting Councils, 'Forasmuch 
 as they be assemblies of men, whereof all be not governed with the 
 spirit and word of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, 
 even in things pertaining unto God.' 
 
 To many learned, pious, and sincere Christians, quite as capable 
 of interpreting the Scriptures as any of the Ecclesiastics assembled 
 at those four or any other Councils, the words used by them, as 
 cited above, are nothing more nor less than blasphemous. With- 
 out going so far as the first Regius Professor of Divinity at 
 Oxford, by whom the Nicene Fathers who settled the Symbol of 
 Faith that still rules Christendom were declared to be ' a set of 
 demoniacs driven by evil furies or malignant passions,' it may be 
 well to show how their successors acted at the Council of Chal- 
 cedon, the fourth of the seven General Councils, and in numbers 
 and in dignity far the most distinguished of them all, when the 
 Nicene Creed was authoritatively modified. The following ex- 
 traordinary scene is taken from the Report of the Council itself, 
 as quoted by Dean Stanley in "his ' Lectures on the Eastern 
 * Farrar, ' The Witness of History to Christ.' 
 
84 JESrS TUE MESSIAH : 
 
 Church.' The moment is that of the Imperial officers ordering 
 that Theodoret, the excellent Bishop of Kars, well known as the 
 commentator and ecclesiastical historian, should enter the as- 
 sembly : — ' And when the most reverend Bishop Theodoret en- 
 tered, the most reverend the Bishops of Egypt, lUyria, and 
 Palestine shouted out — " Mercy upon us ! the faith is destroyed. 
 The canons of the Church excommunicate him. Turn him out ! 
 turn out the teacher of Nestorius ! " On the other hand, the most 
 reverend the Bishops of the East, of Thrace, of Pontus, and of 
 Asia, shouted out — " "We were compelled [at the former Council] 
 to subscribe our names to blank papers ; we were scourged into 
 submission. [A nice ' orthodox' way of settling Articles of Reli- 
 gion !] Turn out the Manichaeans ; turn out the enemies of 
 Flavian ; turn out the adversaries of the faith !" Dioscurus, the 
 most reverend Bishop of Alexandria, said — " "Why is Cyril to be 
 turned out? It is he whom Theodoret has condemned." The 
 most reverend the Bishops of the East shouted out — " Turn out 
 the murderer Dioscurus ! who knows not the deeds of Dioscurus?" 
 .... The most reverend the Bishops of Egypt, Illyria, and 
 Palestine shouted out — " Long life to the Empress !" The most 
 reverend the Bishops of the East shouted out — " Turn out the 
 murderers ! " The most reverend the Bishops of Egypt shouted 
 out — " The Empress turned out Nestorius ; long life to the 
 Catholic Empress ! The Orthodox Synod refuses to admit Theo- 
 doret." ' Theodoret being, however, admitted by the Imperial 
 officers, and, taking his place, ' the most reverend Bishops of the 
 East shouted out — " He is worthy, worthy !" The most reverend 
 the Bishops of Egypt shouted out — " Don't call him bishop ; he 
 is no bishop. Turn out the fighter against God ; turn out the 
 Jew ! " The most reverend the Bishops of the East shouted out — 
 " The Orthodox for the Synod. Turn out the rebels ; turn out 
 the murderers ! " The most reverend the Bishops of Egypt — 
 " Turn out the enemy of God. Turn out the defamer of Christ. 
 Long life to the Empress ; long life to the Emperor ; long life to 
 the Catholic Emperor ! Theodoret excommunicated Cyril. If 
 we receive Theodoret, wc excommunicate Cyril." ' At this 
 
HIS CONCEPTION AND BIKTH. 85 
 
 point — and it was high time — the Imperial Commissioners who 
 were present put a stop to the clamour, as being unworthy of a 
 meeting of Christian Bishops. 
 
 And these are the most reverend fathers of the Church who 
 are imagined to have been competent to pronou.nce authorita- 
 tively on the nature of our Lord Jesus ! At the present day 
 would such as they be held to be qualified to instruct the veriest 
 tyro in the rudiments of the Christian religion? Persons who 
 follow such teachers as these might learn a lesson from the 
 heathen Cicero, who, in his ' Tusculan Disputations,' after blaming 
 those to whom the immortality of the soul was incredible, because 
 they could not understand and comprehend what the soul is 
 without the body, as if they really understood what it is within 
 the body, adds : ' For my own part, when I reflect on the nature 
 of the soul, it appears to me to be a much more difficult and 
 obscure matter to understand what the soul is whilst in the 
 body, and as it were in a strange dwelling, than when it has 
 quitted it.' Let General Councils and Synods, and dogmatists 
 generally, say what they will, it must be left to Science to 
 unfold such mysteries, if ever they are to be made known other- 
 wise than by the express and unequivocal revelatioii of the 
 Almighty. 
 
 We are nevertheless quite competent to apprehend and trace 
 the origin and growth of the legendary history of the conception 
 and birth of Jesus. The Gentile construction of the expression 
 ' the begotten Son of God ' rendered it impossible to their minds 
 for Jesus, the son of Mary, to have been conceived through carnal 
 intercourse with her husband Joseph, it being inconsistent with 
 the express words of Scripture as understood by them : on the 
 other hand, the spiritual nature of the Jewish worship of Jehovah 
 would not tolerate the idea that the conception of Jesus occurred 
 in the same way as that of Hercules, Castor and Pollux, Romulus 
 and Remus, or any other of the demigods and heroes of pagan 
 Greece and Rome. The most difficult problem of reconciling the 
 two — of pleasing * the judicious antiquary,' the Jew, and ' the 
 reader of taste,' the Gentile, after the fashion of Bishop Percy 
 
86 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 with the early English ballads* — was solved in the manner de- 
 tailed in the beautiful epic which forms the first two chapters of 
 the Gospel bearing the name of St. Luke. 
 
 The precise time when the history assumed this legendary form 
 may not be easy to determine, though it was unquestionably at 
 an early date. But Avhencvcr this may have been, the legend 
 was not long in receiving a development. In the third Gospel 
 the archangel Gabriel aniiounced to Maiy the miraculous con- 
 ception of Jesus. According to the Apocryphal Gospel of ' The 
 Birth of Mary,' the Virgin herself was miraculously born, it 
 having been revealed by an angel to her father Joachim that, in 
 accordance with his ' vow,' she should be ' devoted to the Lord 
 from her infancy, and be filled with the Holy Spirit from her 
 mother's womb.' This was, however, far fi-om being suificient. 
 To render Joseph's wife fitted to be the ' Mother of God,' as she 
 was called at a very early period, — the Mother of ' Jehovah Jesus/ 
 as her Son is styled by many Protestants, — it became essential 
 that she should be absolutely pure in her life and actions, that 
 she should be a perpetual virgin, not only before and after, but 
 even during the birth of her Son — ' Virgo ante partum, in partu, 
 post partum.' Her 'Assumption' followed as a matter of course. 
 
 As a further development, it was necessary that Mary should 
 have been altogether free from the original taint of sin inherent 
 in the mortal descendants of Adam ; and hence arose the notion 
 that she must have been conceived in her mother's womb without 
 sin. Accordingly the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed 
 Virgin has long been a doctrine of the Catholic Church, though 
 it is only within the last few years that it has been declared by 
 the present Pope to be an infallible dogma. The Mother of God 
 has thus advanced one great step towards her own deification. 
 And this development has already begotten another. The Mother 
 of ' Christ ' is called the Co-lledemptress, and is associated with 
 her Son in the work of redemption ! The prophecy of Genesis 
 iii. 15 is declared to point to Mary as the one predicted Enemy 
 of Satan, God's first promise of a Redeemer having been made, 
 * See above, Chapter IV. p. 48. 
 
niS CONCEPTION AND BIRTH. 87 
 
 not directly and categorically, but imbedded in this His promise 
 of a Co-lledemptress ; so that it is said, Christ and all good 
 Christians agree in this, that he and they are alike born of God 
 and Mary. Thus the tortoise has been found for the elephant 
 to stand on ; but where is a footing for the tortoise ? It will 
 soon be found ; for of course the development cannot stop where 
 it is. In like manner as the recently declared Infallibility of the 
 Pope will ' infallibly ' lead to the further dogma of his spiritual 
 immortality, on a par with that of the sacred bull Apis of anti- 
 quity and that of the Dalai Lama of the present day, — for, as the 
 Preacher truly says, ' there is no new thing under the sun,' — so 
 the necessity which led to the monstrous notion of the imma- 
 culate conception of Mary in the womb of her mother Anne, must 
 by a logical sequence result in the immaculate concejition of 
 Anne herself, and in that of Anne's husband Joachim too, and 
 so on, ' ad infinitum ;' unless, indeed, the Gordian knot is cut by the 
 infallible successor of St. Peter, to whom it will be an easy task 
 to incorporate Mary, the Co-Redemptress, into the Blessed Trinity, 
 — or Quaternity, as it will then become, — and to make her a 
 Deity co-eternal and co-ordinate with God the Father, by whom 
 the Son was begotten on Her before aU worlds. This would of 
 course necessitate a second alteration of the Mcene Creed. The 
 ' Filioque ' would have to be supplemented by ' Matreque,' with 
 the dogmatical declaration of the Procession of the Holy Spirit 
 from the Father, the Mother, and the Son ! The Faith of Pome, 
 in this amended form, would at all events be more consistent than 
 it is at its present stage of partial development, which leaves the 
 Goddess Mother in a state of suspense as a separate Deity. 
 
 It may not be uninteresting to compare with the dogmatic 
 belief of the Christian Church that of the Mohammedans. Ac- 
 cording to the Koran the angel Gabriel was sent to Mary in the 
 form of a man, and ' He said, " I am only the messenger of thy 
 Lord, that I may bestow on thee a holy son."' She said, " How 
 shall I have a sou, when man hath not touched me ? and I am 
 not unchaste ! " He said, "So shall it be. Thy Lord hath said : 
 Easy is this with me ; and he will make him a sign to mankind, 
 
oo JESTT8 THE MESSIAH : 
 
 and a mercy from mc. For it is'a thing decreed." And she con- 
 ceived him, and retired with him to a far-off jilace. And the 
 throes came upon her by the trunk of a palm. . . . Then came 
 she with the babe to her people, bearing him. They said, " 
 !Mary ! now hast thou done a strange thing ! sister of Aaron* ! 
 Thy father was not a man of wickedness, nor i;nchaste thy mo- 
 ther." And she made a sign (to them, pointing) towards the 
 babe. They said, " How shall we speak with him who is in the 
 cradle, an infant?" It said, '*' Ycrily I am the servant of God; 
 He hath given me the Book, and He hath made me a prophet. 
 And He hath made me blessed Avherever I may be, and hath 
 enjoined me prayer and almsgiving as long as I shall live, and to 
 be duteous to her that bare me ; and He hath not made me 
 proud, depraved." This is Jesus, the son of Mary ; this is a 
 statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It be- 
 seemeth not God to beget a son. Glory be to Him ! When He 
 decreeth a thing. He only saith to it, "Be," and it is'f. 
 
 CHAPTER YIII. 
 
 THE INFANCY AND YOUTH OF JESUS. 
 
 Ii' there be any spot on the face of the whole earth deserving of 
 veneration above all others in connexion with the history of the 
 Christian Dispensation, it is Nazareth. For, whatever differences 
 of opinion may exist respecting the lineage of our Lord Jesus, 
 his nature, and his birth- j)lace, it must be admitted by all that 
 his mother Mary and her husband Joseph were domiciled at 
 Nazareth, that there Jesus was begotten on Mary and conceived 
 by her, and that there consequently commenced his human 
 existence. At Nazareth was the house in which Maiy dwelt, 
 
 * By some strange confusion of ideas, Mary is identified with Miriam, the 
 daughter of Araran. t ' The Eoran,' tr. Eodwell. 
 
HIS INFANCY AND YOUTH. 
 
 89 
 
 with which, however, no sensible person would think of iden- 
 tifying the ' Holy House ' shown at the present day at Nazareth 
 as the blessed Virgin's residence, with the ' Holy Grotto ' adjoin- 
 ing it, in which it is pretended she was when the Annunciation 
 was made to her by the angel Gabriel, and where we still see it 
 written ' Hie Verbum Caro factum est ; ' especially as the Romish 
 tradition is that when the miscreant Saracens acquired pos- 
 session of the Holy Land, the ' Santa Casa ' was transported 
 through the air by angels, first into Dalmatia and then to Loreto, 
 where it may now be visited by pious pilgrims, with quite as 
 much benefit to their souls as if they undertook the longer pil- 
 grimage to Nazareth itself. 
 
 But, leaving these fictions, it may be affirmed with truth that 
 at Nazareth Jesus lived in his mother's womb during the greater 
 part, if not the whole, of the period of gestation ; and at Naza- 
 reth also, in the estimation of many, and as is most probable, he 
 first saw the light. But whether born at Nazareth or at Beth- 
 lehem, it was at the former place that he passed his infancy, his 
 youth, and his early manhood; in fact, all his life until his 
 baptism by John and his unction by the Holy Spirit, whereby 
 he was called into a wider field of action for the exercise of his 
 divine mission upon earth. 
 
 Nazareth, at the present day, is one of the principal towns of 
 the Turkish Pashalik of Akka or Acre, and contains about 3000 
 or 4000 inhabitants. It may be presumed to have contained as 
 many in the time of Jesus. 
 
 In this provincial town of Galilee our Lord is generally — it 
 might almost be said universally — believed to have belonged to 
 the lowest ranks of society ; his father Joseph being alleged to 
 have been a common handicraftsman, a working carpenter, who 
 maintained himself and his wife and family by the produce of 
 his daily labour, and Jesus himself ^having been brought up to 
 the same calling and practised it during the greater portion of 
 his life. Such is the tradition of the ' Church,' received im- 
 plicitly by all the orthodox, and insisted on quite as much, if not 
 more so, bv f^^ the heterodox. 
 
90 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 The lowly condition of Jesus and his family has been a 
 favourite and constant theme with divines of all denominations, 
 as holding out to the world a model for imitation. As a child 
 of the people, he is affectingly described as having from his 
 earliest youth shared the hardships and sorrows, and likewise 
 participated iu the humble enjoyments, of those of his own rank 
 in life. In his father's lowly dwelling he is said to have learned 
 by times to bow to the dispensations of Providence, and in his 
 straitened circumstances to practise the virtue of self-abnegation. 
 In a lot of life such as his was, the temptations to vanity, dis- 
 sipation, and pleasure, inevitable in richer and more exalted 
 conditions, could scarcely reach him ; and when he entered upon 
 his mission as a teacher, accompanied by a few followers of the 
 same humble condition of life as his own, and clothed in the 
 same mean attire, the wants and privations of the lower classes 
 of the people presented themselves all the more vividly both to 
 his eye and to his heart ; whilst he could the more readily and 
 fully sympathize with the poor and needy, from having in his 
 youth borne their hardships and experienced their wants and 
 privations. 
 
 Similar sentiments respecting the social position of our Lord 
 are entertained by the most opposed in matters of rehgion. The 
 words of the Hindoo reformer Chunder Sen are, ' poor and illi- 
 terate, brought up in Nazareth — a viUage notorious for corrup- 
 tion, — under demoralizing influences, his associates the lowest 
 fishermen, from whom he could receive not a single ray of en- 
 lightenment, he rose superior to all outward circumstances by 
 the force of his innate greatness, and grew in wisdom, faith, and 
 piety by meditation and prayer, and with the inspiration of the 
 Divine Spirit working within him.' 
 
 But the lowest conception of the inferior condition of Jesus is 
 probably that of Sir Richard Norton, in his critical remarks on 
 the marked respect which the lloman centurion is related to 
 have shown to Jesus, — ' an artisan, who had only recently, as- 
 sumed the office of a preacher ' *. Premising, correctly enough, 
 * ' The Jesus of History,' p. 234. 
 
HIS INFANCY AND YOUTH. 91 
 
 that the Jews were looked clown on by the Roman legionaries in 
 much the same manner as the Hindoos are by the British troops 
 " quartered among them in India, the author contends that ' the 
 improbability of the account may therefore be judged, by sup- 
 posing the parties to be an Indian fakir and the colonel of an 
 English regiment of cavalry.' The comparison is, however, as 
 ill-chosen as it is erroneous. For this imagined superiority of 
 the foreign officer over the native preacher will vanish when the 
 latter, instead of being lowered to the condition of an ignorant, 
 filthy, lazy mendicant, is compared, as it will be shown he 
 ought rather to be, to the well-born and educated apostle of the 
 Brahmo-Somaj, who is revered by his followers in so high a 
 degree that he is said to receive divine honours from them. 
 Under this view of our Lord's social condition, it is only reason- 
 able to infer that Jesus received from the Roman centurion in 
 Judaea the same respect that Chunder Sen would receive from an 
 English colonel in India, especially if this officer were asking of 
 the Hindoo reformer a particular favour, as the Roman centurion 
 was asking of the high-caste Jewish preacher *. 
 
 These erroneous notions respecting our Lord's calling and rank 
 in life originate in a total misconception. If the texts of Scripture 
 which have given rise to them be properly interpreted and consi- 
 dered, it may be inferred that the worldly position and early life of 
 Jesus were of quite a different character. He was not a child of 
 the people, but a person in easy, if not affluent circumstances, who 
 devoted his fortune, together with his life, to the benefit of his fel- 
 low- creatures, and who, instead of carping at the rich for not reliev- 
 ing the poor, of whom he was one, and preaching a socialistic and 
 communistic crusade against them, set them in his own person 
 the bright example which he kindly and affectionately urged 
 them to follow. 
 
 The error has arisen from the word re/crwv, in Matth. xiii. 55, 
 
 and Mark vi. 3, having been improperly translated ' carpenter,' 
 
 instead of ' builder,' which is its true meaning. The word in 
 
 question is derived from the verb tlktw, ' to bring into the world,' 
 
 * See above, Chapter VI. page 72. 
 
92 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 * to produce,' whence its primary signification is a ' producer,' 
 ' author,' ' founder.' Hence it came to signify a ' maker,' ' con- 
 structor,' ' builder,' ' artificer ' in general, the expression t€ktov€s 
 6.vlp€s being used in this sense by Homer in the passage : — 
 
 ' Hector to Paris' mansion bent his way ; 
 
 A noble structure, which himself had built 
 
 Aided by all the best artificers 
 
 Who in the fertile realms of Troy were known.' * 
 
 And inasmuch as houses were mostly built of wood, the term may 
 well have become specifically applied to a builder or worker in 
 that material. But, even then, this did not mean a common 
 working-carpenter and joiner. The corresponding expression in 
 the Hebrew language is U^in, of which the meaning is ' a worker 
 in metal, stone, or wood;' the cognate root tD")n signifying 'to 
 cut ' or ' engrave,' to ' work,' especially in metal — not in wood. 
 And this seems to have been the primary application of the 
 word ; for Tubal Cain is described as the first skilled artificer in 
 brass and iron f. 
 
 The two Gospel texts in which the word t€ktwv occurs ought 
 therefore to he read, ' Is not this the builder's son ? ' X and ' Is 
 not this the builder ? ' §. That there ought not to be any doubt on 
 the subject, is shown by the use of the same word by the Apostle 
 Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he calls him- 
 self ' a wise a'px'reKrwr,' || — which is properly translated a 
 ' master-builder ' — that is to say, an ' architect.' 
 
 Consequently, Joseph was a ' tekton ' or builder, as was likewise 
 his son and successor, Jesus. And as in both Gospels the definite 
 article is used when so describing them, — 6 tektuv, — we are war- 
 ranted in the conclusion that each of them was the builder, icar' 
 Hoxn" ; that is to say, the principal builder, if not the only one 
 of his calling in Nazareth, and perhaps in the whole district. 
 
 Some of our Lord's parables and similes, which would have no 
 special bearing when spoken by a common working-carpenter, ac- 
 
 * ' The Iliad' (Lord Derby's translation), vi. 365-8. 
 t Gen. iv. 22. J Matth. xiii. 65. § Mark vi. 3. 1| 1 Cor. iii. 10. 
 
HIS INFANCY AND YOUTH. 93 
 
 quire a peculiar force in the mouth of a builder or architect. For 
 instauce, ' Which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not 
 down first and counteth the cost, whether he have wherewith to 
 finish it ; lest, haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not 
 able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, 
 This man began to build and was not able to finish'*. So, too, 
 'Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I 
 will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a 
 rock : and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the 
 winds blew, and beat upon that house, and (yet) it fell not ; for 
 it was founded on a rock'f ; with the contrary fate of the foolish 
 man, who built his house upon the sand. 
 
 It was likewise in his character of ' the builder ' that Jesus 
 uttered his memorable address to Peter, on which the Church of 
 Rome pretends to establish its supremacy, but which, when pro- 
 perly construed, as it will be in a subsequent chapter J, proves 
 the entire fallacy of that pretension. 
 
 In like manner, the comparison made by Jesus, the builder, of 
 his own body to the Temple of God at Jerusalem, which he was 
 able to destroy and build again in three days §, acquires special 
 and most important significance. 
 
 It will be interesting to show how this notion of Jesus's being 
 the son of a common working-carpenter originated. 
 
 In the Canonical Gospels, as has been seen, the term tcktuji' 
 or ' builder ' was applied both to Joseph and to Jesus. In the 
 Apocryphal Gosjjel attributed to St. James, and supposed to be of 
 the second century, Joseph is accordingly represented as a builder 
 of houses. After he had taken Mary home with him from Jeru- 
 salem, he is stated to have said to her : ' Behold I have received 
 thee from the temple of the Lord, and now I leave thee in my house 
 and go to build my buildings,' — airepxoi^ai yap oUolofi^aai ras 
 oiKo^oj^us jjiov. And afterwards it is said : — ' And the sixth month 
 came, and behold Joseph came from his house-building (citto rwr 
 oiKo^ofxibJv avTov), and entering his house he found her pregnant.' 
 
 * Luke xiv. 28-30. t Matth. vii. 24, 25. + See Chap. XII. 
 
 § Matth. xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40; Mark xv. 29. 
 
94 JESUS THE MESS! vn: 
 
 But in the Apocryphal Gospel of St. Thomas, Joseph is describerl 
 as a ' faher ' who made ploughs and yokes. And it is related 
 how a couch having been ordered of him by a rich man, he was 
 helped in his work by Jesus ; and one of the pieces of wood used 
 being shorter than the other, Jesus took hold of one end and 
 Joseph of the other, and so they stretched it till it became of the 
 proper length. This fiction is amplified in the Apocryphal Gos- 
 pel of Matthew, where at the same time Joseph is reduced to the 
 condition of a labourer who made nothing but ox-yokes, ploughs, 
 and implements of husbandry, and wooden bedsteads. And in 
 the Apocryphal Gospel of the Infancy it is related how, whenever 
 Joseph was sent for, to work in making gates or mUk-pails, or 
 sieves or boxes, the lad Jesus accompanied him; and as often as 
 Joseph, who appears to have been but a clumsy workman, made any 
 article too long or too short, too wide or too narrow, Jesus would 
 stretch his hand out towards it, and presently it became as Joseph 
 desired to have, yet had not the ability to make it. 
 
 It is thus seen how in proportion as the divine nature of Jesus 
 was exalted and his miraculous power increased, Joseph's social 
 position diminished, and with it the human character of Jesus 
 was lowered. In the third and fourth centuries the ' builder ' of the 
 Gospels had to all intents and purposes become a common working- 
 carpenter. Justin represents Jesus as having been a maker of 
 ploughs and ox-yokes, and other agricultural implements, whence 
 he derives an allegorical allusion to industry and righteousness. 
 And Eusebius seriously relates that, when the Emperor Julian 
 ' the Apostate ' was prej^aring to enter upon his war against the 
 Persians, he boasted that after its termination he would treat the 
 Christians with so much severity, that even the- Carpenter's Son 
 would not be able to help them. Upon which, Didymus, a pious 
 Christian priest residing at Alexandria, in Egypt, rejoined tliat 
 the Carpenter's Son was then making a coifin for Julian. This 
 he is alleged to have said under the influence of the Holy Spirit ; 
 and accordingly, on Julian's accidental death shortly afterwards, 
 the event was miracidously made known to Didymus, and by him 
 communicated to Athanasius. The authority of such names as 
 
HIS INFANCT AND YOUTH. 95 
 
 those of Athanasius and Eusebius will, however, hardly be ac- 
 cepted by every one as a sufficient voucher for the truth of this 
 story. 
 
 The notion that Joseph was a common working-carpenter is 
 now fully adopted by the Catholic Church, he and the boy Jesus 
 being represented in numerous paintings as Avorking together at 
 their handicraft ; and St. Joseph is worshipped as the patron 
 saint of carpenters. In addition to which, as the divine nature 
 of Mary is at the present day being elevated by making her the 
 associate of her Son in the redemption of the world, the infallible 
 Head of the Church of Rome logically widens the separation 
 between the man Joseph and them, by attributing to him especial 
 honour as the /osier-father of Jesus during his infancy ! 
 
 In the same way that Jesus is dogmatically declared to be the 
 Son of the Eternal God, begotten on the Yirgin Mary, so the 
 latter is declared to have had no other children. Intelligent 
 Protestants must be content to expose themselves to the ban of 
 the Catholic Church, by believing that Joseph and Mary had 
 several other children besides Jesus. On this head the historical 
 Gospels are explicit. That of Matthew has ; ' Is not this the 
 builder's son ? Is not his mother called Mary ? and his brethren 
 James (Jacob), and Joseph, and Simon and Judah? And his 
 sisters, are they not all with us ? ' * That of Mark has : '|Is not this 
 the builder, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph, and 
 of Judah and Simon ? And are not his sisters here with us ? ' f 
 And in the introduction to the former Gospel, after Joseph is said 
 to have been informed in a dream of Mary's miraculous preg- 
 nancy, and consequently did not put her away as he had intended 
 to do, it is added that he ' knew her not till she had brought forth 
 her first-born son ' J ; from which the natural inference is, in 
 spite of the dogmatists, that Joseph did know his wife after the 
 birth of Jesus, and, as is shown by the Gospel history, had a 
 large family by her. In fact, were it not for the preconceived 
 notion of the perpetual virginity of the ' Mother of God,' it would 
 be, as is remarked by the late Dean Alford, really incredible that 
 * Matth. xiii. 55, 56. t Mark tI. 3. t Matth. i. 25. 
 
96 JESrS IHE MESSIAH : 
 
 the plain words of the history should have been so completely 
 distorted from their ' prima-facie ' meaning, which is not only 
 literal, but perfectly intelligible and consistent. 
 
 The record of Jesus's infancy in the Canonical Gospels is very 
 scanty. Eight days after liis birth he was circumcised and named, 
 and admitted a member of the Jewish congregation as the legiti- 
 mate son of the builder Joseph and his wife Mary, this ' pious ' 
 fraud being alleged to have been sanctioned by Jesus himself, out 
 of regard for his mother's honour *! On the fortieth day after his 
 birth, at his mother's purification, he is said to have been taken 
 to the Temple at Jerusalem to be redeemed, in accordance with 
 the law that every male that openeth the womb shall be holj' 
 unto the Lord f ; when likewise, of course, she falsely represented 
 him to be the legitimate son of her husband Joseph. 
 
 From that time nothing is recorded of the life of Jesus until 
 he was, at the age of twelve, again taken to the Temple, unless 
 the account of the flight into Egypt be accej)ted as authentic. 
 There is, however, no little difficulty in reconciling it with the 
 express statement in the third Gospel, immediately following the 
 narrative of the occurrences in the Temple at the time of his 
 mother's purification, that, ' when they had performed all the 
 things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, 
 to their own city, Nazareth 'J. 
 
 In the absence of all trustworthy evidence to the contrary, we 
 may assume that the childhood of Jesus was similar to that of 
 other boys. From the mystical sayings in the fourth Gospel, and 
 from the imaginative pictorial representations of the Divine 
 Infant Jesus and his Blessed Virgin Mother, we have acquired 
 the idea of every thing being so entirely exceptional in the life of 
 Jesus, that though we do read that Mary ' brought forth her first- 
 born son and wrapped him in swaddling-clothes and laid him in 
 a manger,' still the incidents of the event are tinged with a reli- 
 gious colour that renders it difficult to think of him as an infant 
 ' mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.' And yet the most 
 orthodox Christian who recognizes Jesus as ' perfect God ' is at 
 » See above, Chapter VII. p. 82. f Exod. xiii. 2. \ Luke ii. 39. 
 
HIS INFANCY AND YOUTH. 97 
 
 the same time bound to regard him also as ' perfect man,' pos- 
 sessing the same feelings, appetites, and passions as his feUow- 
 men. Like them he ate, drank, slept, performed the offices of 
 nature, walked, and talked. As an infant, he had not only to 
 be suckled by his mother, but dressed and undressed, fed, washed, 
 fondled when he was good, and scolded, nay whipped, when he 
 was naughty. And if we could believe the Apocryphal Gospels, 
 which would hardly seem to have been written without some 
 foundation in truth, he must have been a very naughty boy 
 indeed ; for, among other anecdotes related of him, we read how, 
 when the son of Annas (Hannan), the scribe, broke down a dam 
 which Jesus had made for diverting the course of a stream, Jesus 
 said to him ' without root shall thy shoot be, and thy fruit shall 
 dry up like the branch of a tree that is broken by the wind and 
 is no more ; ' and immediately the boy withered. And how, on 
 another occasion, when Jesus was walking with his father Joseph, 
 a boy ran against him and struck him on the shoulder, on which 
 Jesus said to him ' thou shalt not go on thy way ;' and immedi- 
 ately the boy fell down and died. And again, when the inha- 
 bitants of I^azareth complained to Joseph of Jesus's bad conduct, 
 they were all struck blind*. 
 
 It has been contended that the malevolent character of the 
 miracles ascribed by the Apocryphal Gospels to Jesus in his 
 childhood is only a proof that their writers were ignorant of the 
 true spirit of Christianity. But the question may be asked, what 
 is that ' true ' spirit ? Are we bound by it to represent persons 
 and things as they were not in reality ? Our Lord himself would 
 have said — 
 
 ' Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.' 
 
 And, after all, are the miracles related in the Apocryphal 
 Gospels more opposed to what is conceived to be the true 
 spirit of Christianity than those recorded in the Canonical Gos- 
 pels of the cursing of the fig-tree f, and the sending of the 
 
 * See ' Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament,' 
 by W. Wright ; ' The Apocryphal Gospels,' by B. Harris Cowper. 
 
 t Matth. xxi. 19, 20; Mark xi. 13, U 
 
 F 
 
Vb JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 unclean spirits into a herd of swine, the property of innocent 
 strangers?* 
 
 In order that we may be imbued with the true spirit of 
 Christianity, we must first endeavour to form a true idea of its 
 founder ; and this we shall never be able to do as long as we con- 
 tinue to regard him merely as he is usually depicted in the j)aint- 
 ings conceived after the ideal representations of the fourth Gospel, 
 — a sort of mystic, preter-humau, um'eal being, conspicuously 
 differing in character, and even in outward appearance, from 
 those with whom he associated and was in daily intercourse. 
 And, as if it were to increase the error of the vulgar notions 
 respecting our Lord Jesus, the great painters, in their love of the 
 beautiful, have fui'ther sacrificed the supreme sentiment of truth 
 by portraying the events of his life in all its relations, not as 
 they were in fact, but as they presented themselves to their 
 artistic, but otherwise most ill-informed minds. Hence they have 
 impressed on the imaginations of their admii-ers a series of ideas 
 in connexion with the sacred history which are most injurious to 
 its proper study, and which will have to be eradicated before 
 the life and character of our Lord can be fully understood and 
 jjroperly appreciated. Modern painters are happily beginning to 
 see this ; and accordingly they represent the incidents recorded 
 in the Scriptures, not as if they belonged to their own countries 
 and their own times, but as they may be conceived to have 
 actually occurred in the times and places, and under the circum- 
 stances, described by their narrators. 
 
 The spirit of Christianity has further been most injuriously in- 
 fluenced by the notion that Jesus, the son of a working- carjjenter, 
 was himself a working-carpenter and an unlettered man. But 
 a totally difi'erent element is introduced into our estimate of his 
 character and conduct, Avhen we regard him as the eldest son and 
 successor of the well-known builder, Joseph of Nazareth, a man 
 well to do in the world, perhaps even wealthy, and at all events in 
 a position to bestow on his chUdren a liberal education. This view 
 of our Lord's position will, in particular, render more intelligible 
 the incident in his early life which has now to be noticed. 
 * Matth. viii. 30-34 ; Mark v. 12-17 ; Luke viii. 32-37. 
 
HIS INFANCY AND TOtTTH. 99 
 
 The second chapter of Luke's Gospel relates that Jesus's 
 ' parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the pass- 
 over.' Now, as Nazareth was distant from Jerusalem seventy 
 miles or more, it is not likely that every Jewish family in that 
 town, or in other parts of Galilee, would or could have gone up to 
 the feast every year, especially in those troublous times ; though 
 well-to-do people, like Joseph the builder, might have afforded 
 to do so, travelling, as was doubtless necessary, with ' their kins- 
 folk and acquaintance,' in a strong and well-armed party. And 
 Jesus being a well-educated boy, who had already manifested 
 special talent, and taken well to his learning, and thus had 
 ' waxed strong in spirit ' and become ' filled with wisdom,' and 
 ' the grace of God was upon him,' it would have been quite 
 natural that he should, at the age of twelve, have been allowed to 
 accompany his parents and their friends to the sacred festival. 
 
 "When they had fulfilled the days after the custom of the feast, 
 as Joseph and Mary returned homewards, the boy Jesus tarried 
 behind in Jerusalem unknown to his parents, who, supposing 
 him to have been in the company, went a day's journey, and 
 then sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance, but 
 found him not. That is to say, they missed him when they 
 had arrived at the end of the first day's journey, which, like all 
 first day's journeys in that part of the world, was only a short 
 one. Not finding the child, they returned to Jerusalem in search 
 of him. ' And it came to pass that after three days [that is to 
 say, on the third day inclusive] they found him in the Temple, 
 sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking 
 them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his 
 understanding and answers ' *. 
 
 It is supposed by some that Jesus, having then attained the 
 age of twelve years, and become a ' child of the law ' or catechu- 
 men, remained behind to be examined by those doctors in the 
 Temple — not teaching, but hearing. But in the history it is 
 expressly stated that the boy was not only hearing, but ' asking 
 them questions.' And a child who was being examined would 
 * Luke ii. 46, 47. 
 
 f2 
 
100 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 have stood before his examiners, instead of ' sitting in the midst 
 of the doctors,' as it is exjiressly stated Jesus did. 
 
 The narrative continues that when his parents found him in 
 the Temple, they were amazed ; and his mother said unto him, 
 ' Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us ? Behold thy father and 
 I have sought thee sorrowing.' AVhat Joseph said at the boy's 
 escapade is not recorded, but most probably his words had in 
 them more of anger than of sorrow. To his mother's affectionate 
 reproof the child replied, ' How is it that ye sought me ? Wist 
 ye not that I must be about my Father's business ? ' * Now, to 
 these words a mysterious meaning has been attached, for which 
 there is really no occasion. Many a highly enthusiastic child 
 among ourselves has made a similar rej)ly, when called on to 
 neglect the service of his heavenly Father for that of his parents 
 in the flesh. It is added that ' they understood not the saying 
 which he spake unto them.' And often at the present day have 
 parents in like manner not understood the sayings of precocious 
 children of genius, who, even at the age of twelve, have felt 
 within them a spirit calling them to do their Father's business, 
 whether in I'eligion, in science, or in art, and who have in conse- 
 quence escaped from the care of their natural guardians, and have 
 even left their homes altogether. StiU, in spite of the aspira- 
 tions that already filled his bosom and foreshadowed his future 
 career, the youthful Jesus did not contumaciously resist the 
 bidding of his parents, but went down with them and came to 
 Nazareth, and was there subject to them. But his mother kept 
 all these sayings in her heart, as so many loving and proud 
 mothers have done, who, like Mary, have foreseen the future 
 greatness of their darling children. And so ' Jesus increased in 
 wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.' 
 
 In the Canonical Gospels the personal history of Jesus, from 
 
 the age of twelve until he began to be about thirty years old, 
 
 is a perfect blank. But we are bound to assume that he was 
 
 brought up to his father's business of a builder, and practised 
 
 * Luke ii. 48, 49. 
 
HIS INFANCY AND YOUTH. 101 
 
 it for some time, so that he, like Joseph, came to be known as 
 ' the bnilder ' *. 
 
 As regards Joseph himself, no further mention is made of him 
 after. the journey to Jerusalem, whence it is generally concluded 
 that he died soon afterwards. Indeed in the Apocryphal Gospel 
 bearing his name he is said to have died soon after the return of 
 the Holy Pamil)^ from Egypt ; only this is in direct contradiction 
 to the third Canonical Gospel, from which it is manifest that 
 Joseph survived, at the very least, till Jesus was twelve years old ; 
 and, under any circumstances, he must have lived with his wife 
 Mary long enough to have had by her the other children men- 
 tioned in the history, and likewise (it may be presumed) long 
 enough to have taught his business to his eldest son Jesus, who, 
 after his death, became his successor as ' the builder ' or architect. 
 
 Whilst thus following his father's profession, it may be reason- 
 ably presumed that his destiny was ever present to the young 
 man's mind, and that he was preparing himself for the time when 
 he should be called on to declare himself openly. Even if we 
 divest our Lord of every thing possessing the slightest tinge of 
 what is styled superuaturalism, — which, in the scientific and so- 
 called intellectual world, is held in such abhorrence, — he might 
 stiU have resembled hundreds, nay thousands, of aspiring youths, 
 who feel within them the divine afflatus, and look on themselves as 
 destined to perform important parts in the history of mankind. 
 And there never was, perhaps, one of these favoured mortals 
 who have actually raised themselves — or, as in a more humble 
 spirit they might say, have been raised — to do great things, that 
 has not had such a presentiment of his destiny. 
 
 But the particular case of our Lord Jesus is excepted alto- 
 gether from the ordinary course of human events. He was, as 
 he well knew, of the royal lineage of David, and, in common 
 with the rest of his countrymen, he had been taught that the 
 Messiah of prophecy, the expected Saviour and Deliverer of their 
 nation, was to be a descendant of that monarch. He felt too, as so 
 many of them felt, that the time was close at hand when that 
 * Mark vi. 3. 
 
102 JEStrs THE MESSIAH : 
 
 Eedeemer of Israel was to manifest himself; for, if he did not 
 do so speedily, his people would lose their national existence, 
 and consequently the Messiah could no longer help them as a 
 nation. In fact, it was manifest to him that the spiritually 
 anointed King of Israel must be revealed to his people before 
 the final destruction of the Temple, the temporal annihilation of 
 the nation, and the dispersion of its members over all quarters 
 of the globe, never more to be politically reunited. 
 
 We shall not, then, be judging the character and conduct of 
 our Lord incorrectly or unworthily if we regard him as anxiously 
 watching the course of public events, and, although probably 
 not yet taking any active part in them, holding himself never- 
 theless in readiness to step forward whenever, in the pleasure 
 of , the All-wise and Omniscient God of his fathers, he should be 
 called on to do so. 
 
 Under such circumstances it would be perfectly natural that, 
 as we witness so many examples at the present day, his habits 
 of meditation and study should have taken him away from his 
 business, and that, at the same time, his kindly disposition 
 should have induced him to turn his attention to the cares, the 
 temporal misfortunes, and the difficulties of so many of his dis- 
 tressed countrymen, and to do his utmost to alleviate them, with- 
 out this interfering, however, with the higher thoughts that were 
 brooding in his mind. The familiar instances of John Howard, 
 Elizabeth Fry, George Peabody, and Angela Burdett-Coutts, out 
 of so many other imitators of their Blessed Lord's example, may 
 serve to give us a sufficiently correct idea of what may have been 
 his general character and conduct in early life and before his 
 Call. That of William Wilberforce will perhaps enable us to 
 appreciate the disastrous consequences, from a worldly point of 
 view, of an excess of philanthropy and beneficence, causing the 
 possessor of wealth to allow his own temporal affairs to go to 
 ruin in his anxiety to relieve the wants and benefit the condi- 
 tion of others. 
 
 What WUberforce did, and at what cost, can never be effaced 
 from the world's history. The abolition of slavery, which he 
 
HIS INFANCY AND YOUTH. 103 
 
 spent his life and fortune in achieving, and which was virtually 
 accomplished by the British nation only a couple of days before 
 his death, is, in its direct operation on the fate of millions of his 
 fellow men, and in its influence on the entire human race, equi- 
 valent to the foundation of a new religion. And yet, had it not 
 been for the filial piety of those nearest and dearest to him, he 
 might, during the last years of his life, have had to apply to him- 
 self the words of him whose example he kept incessantly before 
 his eyes : ' The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have 
 nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head'*. 
 
 There can be no doubt that Jesus made use of these words 
 with reference to his own destitute condition. But it does not at all 
 follow that such had always been his position in life. On the 
 contrary, he had become thus reduced in circumstances owing to 
 his caring more for others than for himself; and his words, 
 when thus understood, are far more apposite and impressive in 
 the mouth of a rich man who had become poor, than of one who 
 had always been indigent. They also give a very different mean- 
 ing to the words of the Apostle Paul, in his Second Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, from that they have hitherto received ; which 
 words, under the view now taken of Jesus's position in life and 
 character, also acquire a miich deeper import. 
 
 Paul, when calKng on the Corinthians to contribute largely 
 to ' the poor saints' at Jerusalem, instances first the Macedo- 
 nians, whose ' deep poverty had abounded with the riches of 
 their liberality,' and then refers to the Lord himself, who (says 
 he) ' though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor ' f- 
 And if these words are read literally, as meaning that Jesus had 
 become poor through his excessive philanthropy and liberality, 
 the appeal made by the Apostle to his example will have far 
 more force than if they were understood to have been spoken 
 figuratively ; and at the same time a light will be thrown on 
 our Lord's life and conduct, serving to clear away many 
 difficulties and apparent inconsistencies found to exist in the 
 
 * Matth. viii. 20. t 2 Cor. viii. 9. 
 
104 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 Gospel history, as interpreted on the assumption of his having 
 been nothing more than a poor labouring mechanic. 
 
 In like manner, the story related in the first Gospel of the 
 young man who came asking Jesus what he should do to have 
 eternal life, receives a totally difi'erent construction. He was 
 told to keep the Commaudments ; to which he replied that he had 
 done so from his youth upwards. On this ' Jesus said unto him, 
 If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to 
 the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come 
 and follow me'*. This exhortation, usually regarded as an 
 abstract lesson, which, from the mouth of a poor man, might 
 almost seem to be dictated by interested motives, has now to 
 be read as a practical direction, altogether beyond the suspi- 
 cion of any such motives, to follow the teacher's own personal 
 example. 
 
 The attempt, too, of Jesus's family to lay hands on him under 
 the pretence of his being out of his mindf may well have arisen 
 from interested motives, their object being to prevent him from 
 squandering away his property on what they not unnaturally 
 regarded as visionary schemes. At the present day we witness 
 frequent instances of such interference in the case of persons 
 well off in the world; though, should a poor mechanic, like 
 George Fox or John Bunyan, feel himself called on to neglect his 
 business, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel, or even of pro- 
 mulgating doctrines of a very different character, few of his 
 kinsmen would trouble themselves to check him or prevent him 
 from going whithersoever he might list, — perhaps they would 
 think the further off the better, — provided only he did not 
 leave a wife and family burthensome to them or chargeable on 
 the parish. 
 
 The main cause of all this error has been the desire to exalt the 
 divine nature of our Lord Jesus at the expense of his humanity. 
 The poor carpenter's son, born in a stable, uneducated, the 
 companion of outcasts, without a place wherein to rest his head, 
 is made not only the object of veneration, but also an example 
 * Matth. xix. 21. t Mark iii. 21. 
 
HIS INFANCY AND TOIJTH. 105 
 
 to be followed, both by devout and simple-minded persons, who 
 imagine they can best serve him by renouncing the pleasures as 
 well as the cares and temptations of this sinful world, and also — 
 which is far worse — by the dangerous class of Socialists and 
 Communists, who profess to find a sanction for their wild 
 schemes in the life and doctrines of Jesus, as so erroneously 
 represented to them. 
 
 What is here stated may serve to place in a totally different 
 light our Lord's character and conduct during his early man- 
 hood, previously to his baptism by John, and the consequent 
 commencement of his own mission ; at the same time that it 
 helps to fill up the blank of nearly twenty years which has 
 hitherto existed in his personal history. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 At the time of the appearance upon earth of our Lord Jesus, the 
 Jews were divided into two main religious parties, distinguished 
 by the names of Pharisees and Sadducees. They cannot pro- 
 perly be called sects ; for they professed the same faith, worship- 
 ped together in the Temple at Jerusalem, and were thus mem- 
 bers of the same congregation or church. 
 
 Though the name Pharisee may be derived from a word sig- 
 nifying ' separation' or ' exclusion,' it does not necessarily mean 
 more than Methodist did, when it was first applied to those mem- 
 bers of the Established Church of England, who, without think- 
 ing of secession from it, lived according to method ; or than the 
 name of Eitualist does at the present day — the Eitualists being, in 
 fact, the Pharisees of the Anglican Chiu'ch. The Pharisees, like 
 the Chasidim, — the 'pious' or 'God-fearers' of the time of the 
 Maccabees, — if they are not the same, were the more religiously 
 
 f5 
 
106 JEST7S THE MESSIAH. 
 
 disposed, and also the more important section of the congre- 
 gation, who gave the most decided expression to the national 
 belief, and strove to establish it by a definite system of teaching 
 and interpreting the Law. With this object they had intro- 
 duced amplifications and sometimes limitations of the Law itself, 
 and had extended its prescriptions to actions and things, which 
 in themselves were innocent, but which now seemed objection- 
 able or dangerous ; and this was oftentimes done by an artificial 
 and arbitrary interpretation and application. To the ' hedges' 
 thus set round the Law, the same binding force was attributed 
 as to the written letter of the Law itself, if even they were 
 not held to be more stringent. And as it was not easy to stop 
 in such a course when once it had been entered on, a system 
 of legal — which with the Jews was religious — casuistry arose, 
 whereby small matters of no real moment were insisted on with 
 painful scrupulousness, and raised to the same level and im- 
 portance as the first duties of life. 
 
 The Sadducees, who are said to have derived their name from 
 Sadoc, a disciple of the celebrated teacher of the Law, Antigonos 
 of Socho, in about the third century before Christ, were diame- 
 trically opposed to the Pharisees. They did not, however, form 
 a separate sect on that account. They were, like their oppo- 
 nents, merely a party, or school, within the pale of the national 
 Church, being principally of the higher classes of society, persons 
 of birth, wealth, and rank, who had received a more Liberal 
 education than the majority of their countrymen ; and as they 
 were not deterred by any religious scruples from mixing with 
 persons out of the pale of the Church, they not unnaturally be- 
 came acquainted with the philosophy of the Greeks, and derived 
 many opinions from it. Hence they were philosophers, ratio- 
 nalists, freethinkers, denying the existence of a spiritual world, 
 rejecting the traditions and glosses of the Pharisees ; and though 
 feeling themselves bound by the Law, they looked upon it as a 
 manual for the regulation of their moral conduct, rather than as 
 a system of revealed religion. As we witness among ourselves 
 at the present day, this philosophical scepticism prevailed among 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST. 107 
 
 the higher and more intellectual classes, far more than among 
 the middle and lower ranks of the community, who were under 
 the influence of their spiritual teachers. 
 
 Within these two classes, but principally belonging to the 
 former, were the Scribes or Lawyers, and the Priests. 
 
 The Scribes, or Sopherim, were those Jews, mostly Levites, 
 who had received an education founded on the study of the 
 Scriptures, so as to qualify them to read and expound the Law, 
 the language of which had become dead and unintelligible to 
 the mass of the people, as at the present day Latin is to the 
 Italians. These Scribes or Lawyers took on themselves to ex- 
 plain the written Law by means of the traditions and dogmas with 
 which it had become laden, as is seen to be generally the case 
 with the clergy of all countries. They were, in fact, the teachers 
 whose precepts the Pharisees, or EituaHsts, put into practice ; and 
 hence it may be understood how Jesus always classed the two 
 together. Though there may not be any existing proof that the 
 Scribes of the time of Jesus had any part in the actual reduction 
 into writing of the Mishna, or oral interpretation of the written 
 Law, it is not unreasonable to suppose they had. At all events, 
 their oral traditions and glosses must have formed the basis of it ; 
 and how numerous and minute these had already become, is suf- 
 ficiently proved by the reproaches and animadversions of Jesus 
 himself. 
 
 The Priests, as a body, were of the High Church or Ritualistic 
 party. But, in the time of Jesus, the family of the high-priest 
 were Sadducees, probably on account of their connexion with the 
 Gentile Roman authorities, on whom they were entirely depen- 
 dent, and whose creatures their position compelled them to be. 
 
 Equally within the Jewish congregation, of which they did 
 not form even a separate body, were the Nazarites, who were 
 individuals specially ' set apart' and consecrated to God. Some 
 were made so for life by their parents, even before their birth, 
 as Samson and Samuel had been ; others were ascetics, as Elijah ; 
 John the Baptist seems to have been both, he having been dedi- 
 cated to asceticism for life*. 
 
 * Liike i. 15. 
 
108 JESrS THE ATESSIAH. 
 
 The Zealots were likewise no sect, but, on the contrary, strict 
 advocates of the Mosaic ritual. They were the followers of 
 Judah of Gamala, a pious and zealous Jew, who, after the exam- 
 ple of the Maccabean heroes, had raised the standard of revolt a 
 few years before the birth of Jesus, in the vain hope of freeing his 
 nation from the hated yoke of Eome, and had been conquered 
 and put to death. There stiU existed, however, numerous adhe- 
 rents of Judah's family, or, it may rather be said, of persons 
 animated by Like hopes of the liberation of their beloved country, 
 and ready to cooperate in any enterprise undertaken to realize 
 such hope. Menahem, the youngest son of Judah, became the 
 leader of the revolt in the time of Titus, which was attended 
 with such calamitous results. 
 
 Independently of the two great religious parties into which 
 the Jewish congregation is thus seen to have been divided, was the 
 sect of the Essenes, respecting whom our information is not so de- 
 finite. The Essenes conformed to the Jewish belief and law on most 
 material points. They were strict monotheists and zealous dis- 
 ciples of Moses, whose name they revered next to that of the 
 Almighty, punishing with death any disrespect towards it. They 
 practised circumcision, and kept the Sabbath more closely than 
 the strictest Pharisees, whom they rivalled and even surpassed 
 in many of their ceremonial observances. They also carried their 
 notions of physical purity and impurity to an excess,- whereby 
 they were compelled to perform frequent ablutions of the whole 
 body. Besides this, they were strict ascetics, refraining from 
 animal food, and even rejecting animal sacrifices ; whereby they 
 excluded themselves from worship in the Temple, and thus cut 
 themselves off from religious communion with the Jewish nation. 
 Through this alone they became schismatics, and formed a sepa- 
 rate sect. But, in addition to this, they held mauy opinions, 
 and adopted many practices, which could only have been derived 
 from Gentile or heathen sources, and which marked more 
 strongly their separation from the Jewish congregation. 
 
 The Essenes lived principally in villages and avoided the towns, 
 for the reason already stated*, in which respect they resembled 
 * See above, Chapter I. page 11. 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST. 109 
 
 the Rechabites, who, without being Jews, were in intimate rela- 
 tions with them*. It may even be that the Essenes were iden- 
 tical with these remarkable people. After the fall of Jerusalem, 
 when the daily sacrifice in the Temple came to an end, the di- 
 stinction between the Essenes and the Jews became less marked, 
 so that the two had then little difficulty in coalescing. 
 
 On account of the asceticism and frequent bathings of the 
 Essenes, it has been supposed that John the Baptist was one of 
 them. But this cannot have been the case. The Baptist had 
 followers among the Scribes and Pharisees, and was held in the 
 greatest veneration by the bigoted Jews of the lowest classes, as 
 is proved by the question which Jesus put to the Pharisees and 
 their answer to itf. 
 
 StUllesscould Christianity have been the offspring of Essenianism, 
 as has by some been inconsiderately imagined. Their extreme 
 notions respecting physical impurity were not limited to the mere 
 washing of the hands before sitting down to meals, but required 
 the ablution of the whole body. Yet Jesus did not observe even 
 the former ceremony, whereby he subjected himself to the re- 
 proof of the Pharisees, who themselves, with all their rigour, 
 were not so strict as the Essenes. Many other differences be- 
 tween the two may easily be pointed out. Jesus and his dis- 
 ciples took part in the services of the Temple : the Essenes did 
 not. He ate meat and drank wine : they did neither. He 
 anointed himself, or allowed himself to be anointed : they re- 
 garded unguents as impure. He commanded that to Cajsar 
 should be rendered the things which were Ca3sar's : the Essenes 
 were Communists, and repudiated all civil authorities. In fact, 
 the two were as far opposed in their practices and opinions as 
 are the poles asunder. 
 
 Such, then, was the state of religious parties in Judtea and the 
 neighbouring regions in the reign of Augustus Caesar, when John 
 the Baptist came preaching in the desert of Judsea, in the vaUey 
 of the Jordan, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, 
 and saying, ' Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' J. 
 
 * See Jerem. xxxv. t Mark xi. 30-33. | Matth. iii. 2 ; Mark i. 4. 
 
110 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 The mission of this mysterious individual is introduced into the 
 Scripture history as abruptly as is that of his prototype Elijah, 
 whose return to earth was (and is) expected by the Jews as the 
 precursor of the Messiah, and who, on the declarations of our 
 Lord himself*, is believed by Christians to have been represented 
 by John. As a Nazarite bound by a vow, he was the prototype 
 of the Christian ascetics of later ages, having his raiment of 
 camel's hair, with a leathern girdle about his loins, and his food 
 being the only nourishment afforded by the desert, namely, locusts 
 and wild honey, with water for his drink. 
 
 In the introduction to the third Gospel f, John is stated to 
 have been the only child of the aged priest Zachariah, of the 
 course of Abijah, being the eighth among the descendants of 
 Eleazar and Ithamar, sons of Aaron, appointed by King David 
 and Zadok the prophet for the service of the Temple J ; whilst 
 Zachariah's wife Elisabeth, who was also of the daughters of 
 Aaron, is stated to have been a cousin of Mary, the wife of 
 Joseph. Thus John and Jesus were related through their 
 mothers, Jesus being of the tribe of Judah on the father's side, 
 and of that of Levi on the side of his mother. 
 
 The simple fact of this consanguinity, quite apart from its 
 dogmatical development, would clear up much that might other- 
 wise present itself as inconsistent or irreconcilable in the history 
 of the subsequent intercourse between John and Jesus. Indeed 
 it is most probable that, although John may have been un- 
 conscious of what was revealed to his more illustrious kinsman 
 alone, he had still seen enough, of Jesus during their youth to 
 make him comprehend that he was no ordinary mortal. Even 
 were it otherwise, any attempt to eradicate the idea of the inti- 
 mate connexion between the two in early Ufe, long prior to their 
 public career, would seem to be a hopeless task. The immortal 
 works of Raffaele and other masters have linked the two so 
 firmly together, that it would scarcely be possible to sever them 
 in the popular mind. 
 
 As regards the mission of John, the fundamental and essential 
 
 » Matth. xi. 14 ; Mark ix. 13. t Luke i. 5, 36. % 1 Chr. xxiv. 10. 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST. Ill 
 
 rite, from which the Bajitist derived his distinctive appellation, 
 was baptism, or the total immersion of the body in water. Ab- 
 lutions were already common among the Jews, as among all the 
 religions of the East, and the Essenians had given to them a special 
 extension. Baptism had also become an ordinary ceremony on 
 the introduction of proselytes into the Jewish congregation, a 
 sort of initiatory rite ; but nev^er before the time of John had 
 the immersion of the whole body in water received that form, or 
 acquired the same importance, as a rite consequent on the con- 
 fession and repentance of sins, and as a sign of their remission, 
 and of the reception of the penitent into the flock of believers in 
 the imminent advent of the Kingdom of Heaven under the pro- 
 mised Messiah. 
 
 It has been conjectured that the disciples of John formed a 
 society, bound together by some pledge, and holding secret meet- 
 ings. But, when the open nature of his preaching and the great 
 number of his neophytes are considered, it will be manifest that 
 this could not have been the case. Besides this, there are no 
 traces of any such union. It is true that the Baptist's disciples 
 were a recognized body, numerous and influential in Judaea, 
 and also spread into Asia Minor and perhaps into Egypt, where 
 they existed after the death both of himself and of Jesus *. And 
 this latter fact might even lead, though not necessarily, to the 
 impression that, after the Baptist's imprisonment and death, 
 he had some successor or representative, who administered 
 the rite of baptism in his stead. But the fact of this later 
 existence of John's disciples, apart from those of Jesus, seems to 
 have arisen from no other cause than that the former, living in 
 distant countries, were not aware that the expected Messiah had 
 actually appeared. For we see that as soon as they were made 
 acquainted with the fact by the disciples of Jesus, they readily 
 accepted the announcement ; and being the accepted disciples of 
 John, they were qualified to enter at once into the general con- 
 gregation of believers, which they did accordingly. 
 
 John's mission was not confined to his countrymen alone. On 
 * See Acts xviii. 24, xix. 1-7. 
 
1 12 JESrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 the coutrar)', he made numerous proselytes among the Gentiles ; 
 and when the Jews were disposed to insist on their own exclusive 
 claim to be members of the Kingdom of Heaven, he answered, 
 ' Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our 
 father ; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise 
 up children unto Abraham' * ; showing by these words that the 
 promise, ' In thy seed shaU aU the families of the earth be 
 blessed,' was not at all intended to be fulfilled in the restricted 
 sense in which it was generally understood by the Jews. 
 
 In thus making proselytes among the heathens, John only fol- 
 lowed the example of the Scribes and Pharisees themselves, who 
 were so zealous in making converts to the law of Moses as to lay 
 themselves open to our Lord's withering denunciation : * Woe unto 
 you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and 
 land to make one proselyte ; and when he is made ye make him 
 twofold more the child of hell than yourselves ' f. 
 
 So solemn a protest against proselytism to the faith in the one 
 true God may at first sight seem inconsistent with the teaching of 
 our Lord himself. But it is perfectly intelligible when the condition 
 of the heathen world at that time is taken into consideration. 
 
 The Eomans, like the Greeks, from whom they had received 
 the greater part of their mythology, had long fallen from the 
 primitive knowledge and spiritual worship of the only true God, 
 the Creator of all mankind, and had become grossly polytheistic 
 and idolatrous. Not content with the ancient deities of their 
 own Pantheon, they were incessantly adding to their number, 
 whether by the personification of abstract ideas, by the indivi- 
 dualizing of the various characters or attributes of a deity, by re- 
 garding a single object of worship in several places as being a 
 separate individual in each locality, just as we see instances in 
 the numerous Madonnas of the existing Romish Church, by the 
 adoption of the deities of the various nations conquered by them, 
 or by the apotheosis or deification of human heroes or sovereigns. 
 By these various means the Pantheon of the Roman Empire had, 
 at the time of the commencement of the Christian era, become 
 
 * Matth. iii. 9. + Matth. xxiii. 15. 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST. 113 
 
 enlarged to such an extent that the divinities worshipped were 
 indeed legion. 
 
 Yet in spite of the polytheistic character of the religion of 
 Greece and Eome, it retained vestiges of its monotheistic origin. 
 Zeus or Jupiter was still the only deity really deserving of the 
 name of God. His residence was in the heavens ; he was the 
 sovereign of Olympus, the dwelling of the Gods, and at the same 
 time the supreme ruler and judge of the human race ; and to him 
 alone was preeminently and peculiarly attached the idea of a 
 divine Providence. Though the other divinities had each their 
 special and peculiar attributes and functions, the influence of 
 Zeus or Jupiter extended into the sphere of their several opera- 
 tions, and often superseded them, through the appropriation to 
 himself of what might have seemed their exclusive rights. 
 
 The most learned and pious among the Greeks and Eomans not- 
 only recognized the existence of this ' Deus Optimus Maximus,' 
 but they were likewise conscious, even though they saw through 
 a glass darkly, and might not even venture or care to avow it, 
 that it was mainly from the personification of the various powers 
 and attributes of this single Deity that the multiplicity of divinities 
 had been evolved. Further, though the true relation of mankind 
 to this one Supreme Being may not have been perceived, still the 
 profouuder thinkers saw but too plainly the vanity of all meta- 
 physical and philosophical speculations, and longed for the light 
 of a visible example of human virtue, by which they might direct 
 and regulate their moral conscience ; whilst at the same time they 
 had aspirations after some well-defined, intelligible, and consistent 
 doctrine, which should extricate them from the labyrinth of 
 opinions, conjectures, and doubts, respecting the real scope of 
 man's existence upon earth and his state of being after death. 
 
 Under such circumstances it is only natural that the simple 
 monotheistic religion of the Jews should have strongly operated 
 on the minds of all such heathen polytheists as thought deeply 
 and earnestly. Their aspirations after the one omniscient and 
 omnipotent God, which the heathen conscience, worn out as it 
 was by the multitude and pretentions of its deities, could nowhere 
 
114 JEStrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 else satisfy, are sufficient to explain how the God of the Old 
 Testament drew to Himself such numbers of proselytes from pa- 
 ganism, not only in Rome, but "wherever a Jewish synagogue 
 happened to be founded. It was precisely because He alone was 
 not one among many, but endured none other beside Himself, and 
 because no myths were attached to His name, that the imagina- 
 tion of many a Gentile, wearied with the fruitless search after a 
 higher and less anthropomorphic deity than any he had been 
 taught to reverence, was won over. Added to this, a worship at 
 a distance from its temple, and devoid of image or sacrifice, poor 
 and cold in its ceremonies, could not but strike the imagination, 
 from its marked contrast with heathen worship ; whUst the ob- 
 servance of the sabbath, regular prayer, and the abstinence from 
 certain meats, laid on the pious Gentile an easy yoke, which he 
 was by no means unwilling to bear. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to seek for examples in the well-known 
 case of the Roman centurion at Capernaum, whose servant the 
 Elders of the Jews besought Jesus to heal, because (said they) 
 ' that he was worthy for whom he should do this, for he loveth our 
 nation, and he hath built us a synagogue ' *; or to that more re- 
 markable instance of the other centurion of the Italian band at 
 Csesarea, Cornelius, ' a devout man, and one that feared God 
 with all his house, which gave alms to the people and prayed to 
 God alway ' t, who was the first fruits of the Gentiles, receiving 
 the Holy Spirit preparatory to his baptism by Peter into the name 
 of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 A yet more remarkable instance of the spirit so rife in the 
 heathen world about the time of our Lord's appearance upon 
 earth is afforded by the altar, with the inscription ' To the un- 
 known God,' which the Apostle Paul saw on his way to the Are- 
 opagus at Athens, and which afforded him an opportunity, 
 whereof he availed himself with his usual ability, of explaining 
 the doctrine of the Reformed Jewish Church to the philosophers 
 of the Epicureans and Stoics, who had imagined him to be the 
 setter-forth of the strange Gods, Jesus and Anastasis J. 
 * Luke vii. 4, 5. t Acts x. 1,2. 
 
 I Acts xyii. 18-31 {'Avaaracris — the Kesurrcction). 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST. 115 
 
 Another still more remarkable instance, though of a some- 
 what later date, is that of the sacrifice which, as is related by 
 Tacitus*, Vespasian, before he acquired the Imperial dignity, 
 oflfered on Mount Cannel to the Deity, known by no name but 
 that of the mountain itself, without any material representation 
 or temple, and to whom, according to ancient usage, the only wor- 
 ship was by sacrifice on an altar in the open air. This nameless 
 deity can have been no other than the Almighty, and the place 
 where this ' Unknown God ' was worshipped by the pagan Roman 
 general can only have been that which at the present day is 
 called El Makhrakah, ' the place of burning ' ; it being still rever- 
 enced as the site of that most prominent occurrence in the career 
 of the prophet Elijah, namely, the sacrifice by means of fire from 
 heaven, and the slaughter of the prophets of Baal, in the time of 
 Ahab, Eing 'of Israel f. 
 
 There can be no doubt that at that period there prevailed 
 throughout the whole of the heathen world the expectation of 
 some extraordinary event. Plutarch, in his Life of Sylla, relates, 
 among other wonders, how ' in a clear and clean sky there was 
 heard the sound of a trumpet, with such a loud and dismal blast, 
 as struck terror and amazement into the hearts of the people. 
 The Etruscan sages affirmed that this prodigy betokened the mu- 
 tation of the age and a general revolution in the world. For, 
 according to them, there are in all eight ages, diff'eriug one from 
 another in the lives and the character of men, and to each of these 
 God has allotted a certain measure of time, determined by the 
 circuit of the great year. And when one age is run out, at the 
 approach of another there appears some wonderful sign from 
 earth or heaven, such as makes it manifest at once, to those who 
 have made it their business to study such things, that there has 
 succeeded in the world a new race of men, difi'ering in customs 
 and institutious of Ufe, and more or less regarded by the gods 
 than the preceding ' J. 
 
 In addition to this the oracles of the Cumaean Sibyl are, by the 
 unanimous tradition of the Christian Church, alleged to have 
 
 * ' Annals,' ii. 78. t 1 Kings xviii. 30-40. 
 
 t 'Plutarch,' tr, Clough, iii. 151. 
 
116 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 expressly predicted this great revolution, which was regarded as 
 being accomplished by the advent of the Messiah, their testi- 
 mony being appealed to in the ancient hymn ' Dies Ira5 ' — 
 
 ' Teste David cum Sibylla.' 
 
 And although it may not be possible at the present day to 
 decide what were the actual words of these oracles in their 
 original form, in consequence of the fraudulent manipulations 
 to which they were subjected in early Christian and even pre- 
 Christian times, the indisputable fact remains that, some forty 
 years before the birth of Jesus, the poet Yirgil, in his fourth 
 Eclogue, expressly appealed to the Sibylline prediction of the 
 expected birth of a child, who was to be the moral regenerator 
 of the world, and under whose rule a blessed and golden age of 
 innocence and happiness would be restored. By the courtly flattery 
 of the Eoman poet this prophecy may have been applied to a son 
 of his patron, the Consul Caius Asinius Pollio, to whom the Eclogue 
 in question was inscribed, or it may be to the child of Octavianus 
 Caesar, or of his sister Octavia. On this point commentators are 
 not agreed ; but the existence of the prophecy, and the general 
 presentiment of its approaching fulfilment, are established by the 
 very fact of Virgil's reference to and application of them. 
 
 To persons in such a state of mind as that of the Gentiles, the 
 preaching of the Kingdom of Heaven by John the Baptist was 
 most salutary, as introducing them to the spiritual worship of the 
 Almighty ; whereas only the contrary could result from their 
 initiation into the debased and superstitious rites and practices 
 of the Pharisees, which consisted in mere outward observances, — 
 in making clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, whilst 
 they themselves continued full of extortion and excess ; in 
 making pretence of long prayers, whilst devouring widows' houses 
 and appropriating to themselves the property of weak-minded 
 devotees ; in the casuistry that enabled votaries to break their 
 oaths and neglect their duties, — to pay tithe of mint, and anise, 
 and cummin, and omit the weightier matters of the law, judg- 
 ment, mercy, and faith ; in fine, in the shutting up of the King- 
 dom of Heaven against men, so that they went not in themselves. 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST. 117 
 
 nor suflfered those that were entering to go in*. For, as the 
 great Apostle of the Gentiles taught, in the true spirit of his 
 Master, ' not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the 
 doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which 
 have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, 
 these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, who show 
 the works of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also 
 bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or 
 else excusing one another ' f. 
 
 There was an additional reason why the Baptist's preaching 
 was more acceptable to the Gentiles that to the Jews. He did 
 not require any special confession of faith, nor any strict cere- 
 monial practices ; his whole doctrine and ritual, beyond the belief 
 in the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven, consisting in the confes- 
 sion of sins, and the acceptance of baptism at his hands as a token 
 of repentance. And perhaps a further incentive was his mysterious 
 announcement : ' I indeed baptize you with water unto repen- 
 tance ; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose 
 shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the 
 Holy Spirit and with fire ; whose fan is in his hand, and he will 
 throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the gamer, 
 but he will burn i;p the chafi" with imquenchable fire ' J. 
 
 The preaching of John the Baptist created an extraordinary 
 sensation. Not without reason was he believed to be he who had 
 been spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, as ' The voice of him that 
 crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Eternal, make 
 straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall 
 be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and 
 the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain. 
 And the glory of the Eternal shall be revealed, and all flesh shall 
 see it together : for the mouth of the Eternal hath spoken it '§, 
 — that he was in fact the herald of the Kingdom of Heaven, which 
 was about to be estabUshed. And the natural consequence of 
 this was, that there went out to him the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
 
 * Matth. xxiii. t Eora. ii. 13-15. 
 
 t Matth. iii. 11, 12. § Isa. xl. 3-5. 
 
118 JESirS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan ; and they 
 "were baptized by him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 
 
 How long the Baptist continued the exercise of his mission is 
 not recorded ; but from the fruits of it, which were apparent long 
 after his death, it is reasonable to conclude that he must have 
 preached the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven during several 
 years, at least, before the time when he was superseded by him 
 whose messenger he had declared himself to be. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE BAPTISM AND CALL OF JESUS. 
 
 Aftek John the Baptist had continued his preaching during some 
 considerable period, at length the time arrived when, among the 
 multitudes who went down to Jordan to be baptized by him, 
 confessing their sins, came Jesus from Nazareth to be baptized 
 likewise. 
 
 There is no reason for donbting that the immediate object of 
 Jesus in so doing was the same as that of others, namely the con- 
 fession of his sins, and the obtaining of their remission by re- 
 pentance and baptism. As a matter of course, the objection has 
 to be met that our Lord was by nature free from sin, and there- 
 fore had no need of confession, repentance, and absolution. In- 
 deed the fifteenth Article of Religion of the Established Church 
 of England declares that ' Christ in the truth of our nature was 
 made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he 
 was clearly void, both in his flesh and in his spirit.' But this 
 dogma of the Church is based on the statements in the fourth 
 Gospel, the authority of which must be denied. The sins of our 
 Lord Jesus may have been venial ; but to affirm that he was ab- 
 solutely free from sin is equivalent to the denial of his humanity. 
 A ' perfect man ' without sin is an absurdity. 
 
HIS BAPTISM AND CALL. 119 
 
 Besides, the Scriptures afford sufficient evidence that our Lord 
 was not free from the weakness, which is only another name for 
 the sinfulness, of human nature. The Temptation in the Wilder- 
 ness, when rightly understood*, must be acknowledged to be a 
 proof of Jesus's human weakness ; and the Agony at Gethse- 
 mane, recorded with but immaterial variations in the three his- 
 torical Gospels t, shows distinctly that, at the last moment, he was 
 almost tempted to withdraw from his self-imposed task, though 
 the same had then become his imperative duty. Were the case 
 that of any one at the present day, who, even only in thought, 
 and that but momentarily, should set up his ' will ' against what 
 he knew and acknowledged to be the will of God, — who, whilst 
 warning others against yielding to temptation, should in his own 
 person demonstrate that the spirit indeed was willing but the flesh 
 was weak, — who, with ' his soul exceeding sorrowful even unto 
 death,' should pray to God to ' take away this cup ' from him, — 
 would not such a one feel that he had been led into temptation — 
 had sinned ? And were he a Romanist, would he not confess his 
 sinful weakness to his father-confessor, and be made to do pe- 
 nance for it ? The writer of the fourth Gospel was too shrewd a 
 casuist not to perceive this ; and accordingly he has not only 
 omitted the ' Temptation in the Wilderness,' but also suppressed 
 the ' Agony,' substituting for it the statement that Jesus ' lifted 
 up his eyes to heaven, and said. Father, the hour is come ; glorify 
 thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee ' J. 
 
 Consistently with the whole character of that, for all true 
 Christians, most ' humiliating ' document, the Baptism of Jesus 
 by John, like the Temptation and the Agony, is omitted in the 
 fourth Gospel. Such incidents would be inconsistent vdth the 
 picture drawn in that document of the Messiah, ' the Son of God,' 
 'not as the Jewish apostles and disciples understood this expres- 
 sion, but as the Gentile converts imagined it. 
 
 The baptism of Jesus is, however, recorded in all the other 
 
 * See on this subject the following Chapter, p. 127 et seq. 
 t Matth. xxvi. 36-42 ; Mark xiv. 32-39 ; Luke xxii. 41-44. 
 X John xyii. 1. 
 
120 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 Gospels, and must unquestionably be received as an historical 
 fact, notwithstanding that the several narratives differ in some 
 important particulars. 
 
 In the first Gospel it is said that when Jesus came to John to 
 be baptized, the latter ' forbade him, saying, I have need to be 
 baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ? 13ut Jesus answering 
 said unto him, Suffer it to be so now ; for thus it becometh us to 
 fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him' *. In the second 
 Gospel these details are omitted f. In the third Gospel the whole 
 incident is described yet more biiefly J. As will have to be shown, 
 the usual progress of development and transmutation was already 
 going on. 
 
 As John and Jesus were related by blood, and the former had 
 already become acquainted with the superior character of his 
 kinsman, and with his previous philanthropic course of life, the 
 conversation recorded in the first Gospel as having taken place 
 between them on the occasion of their meeting on the banks of 
 the Jordan, is perfectly intelligible and consistent. But though 
 the Baptist may have known his illustrous relative to be a scion 
 of the royal stock of David, it is not at all required by the Scrip- 
 ture history that we should suppose him to have actually recog- 
 nized Jesus as the Messiah. Indeed the contrary opinion is more 
 reasonable. Jesus had not yet declared himself; he may even 
 have not yet absolutely decided on uiidcrtaldnghis mission. All 
 that is certain is that John was conscious of being in the presence 
 of him who was to succeed him, just as the prophet Elijah recog- 
 nized Elisha, the son of Shaphat, as his successor ; though upon 
 Jesus would descend more than a double portion of the Spirit 
 that had fallen upon John. And it is not to be doubted that 
 the Baptist's bearing witness to him was the signal to Jesus that 
 at length his hour was come. His baptism was in fact the turning- 
 point in his mortal career, and the inauguration of his divine 
 mission. 
 
 As has already been stated, the baptism of Jesus by John, 
 though recorded in the three historical Gospels, is omitted in the 
 * Matth. iii. 14, 15. t Mark i. 9. t I^^ke iii. 21. 
 
HIS BAPTISM AND CALL, 121 
 
 fourth, the reason being that such an act would imply inferiority 
 on the part of him of whom it had just been said, ' In the begin- 
 ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
 was God '*. In connexion with such a Being the idea of baptism 
 for the remission of sins was necessarily precluded ; and therefore 
 what is said instead is, ' The next day John seeth Jesus coming 
 unto him, and saith. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away 
 the sin of the world ' f. 
 
 The text just cited will give occasion to some further remarks 
 in the sequel J. But in the first instance it is necessary to notice 
 the remarkable event which followed on Jesus's coming to John 
 the Baptist, and which is specially mentioned in all four Gospels, 
 only that the particulars given in the last two difier materially 
 from those narrated in the first and second. 
 
 In Matthew's Gospel it is said that ' Jesus, when he was bap- 
 tized, went up straightway out of the water ; and, lo, the heavens 
 were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending 
 like a dove, and lighting upon him ; and, lo, a voice from heaven 
 saying. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
 Then was Jesus led up by the spirit into the wilderness to be 
 tempted by the devil '§. 
 
 The corresponding passage in the second Gospel is, ' And 
 straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens 
 opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him ; and 
 there came a voice fi'om heaven, saying. Thou art my beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased. And immediately the Spirit 
 diiveth him into the wilderness ' || . 
 
 It will be perceived that these two passages are almost iden- 
 tical. And if the event recorded be considered apart from the 
 legendary form subsequently imparted to it, the two writers may 
 readily be understood as describing, in the figurative language of 
 our Lord's countiymen, nothing more than a spiritual influence 
 to which he was then subjected, and which then fii'st clearly re- 
 vealed to him his true character and mission, and constrained 
 
 * John i. 1. t Ibid. 29. | See page 124. 
 
 § Matth. iii. 16, 17; iv. 1. |1 Mark i. 10-12. 
 
 Or 
 
122 
 
 TESVS THE MESSIAH 
 
 him to retire (' drove him ') into the desert, to reflect on the im- 
 portant duty he was thus called on to perform. 
 
 The precise nature of this spiritual communication shall not he 
 inquired into here ; it is sufficient to say that it was spiritual, 
 and that whether it was accompanied by any outward manifesta- 
 tion or not is immaterial. 
 
 The expression ' This is my beloved Son ' docs not of necessity 
 mean any more than the same words in the mouth of the prophet 
 Nathan respecting Solomon, at the time when king David had 
 expressed his desire to build the first Temple : ' He shall build 
 me a house, and I will stablish his throne for ever. I will be his 
 father, and he shall be my son' *. As the Almighty then declared 
 to David, through the prophet Nathan, that He would be a father 
 to his son Solomon, and that Solomon should be His son, so now 
 He declared by the Holy Spirit to David's far greater son Jesus, 
 that he was His beloved Son, in whom He was well pleased. 
 
 So, too, the statement that the Spirit of God descended like a 
 dove, does not mean that a bird of that description actually de- 
 scended from heaven in a physical and visible form, and lighted 
 upon Jesus. Here, also, the expression is figurative, and in- 
 tended simply to convey the idea of the instantaneousness of the 
 inspiration. 
 
 The dove or pigeon is a bird of rapid and unwearied flight, to 
 which allusion is made by the Psalmist, when he says, 'Oh that 
 I had wings like a dove ! for then would I fly away and be at 
 rest't- In like manner this bird is frequently referred to by 
 profane writers of antiquity on account of its rapid flight. Sopho- 
 cles, in his ' ffidipus at Colonus,' puts into the mouth of the chorus 
 
 the words — 
 
 ' Might I, like the soaring dove, 
 Eoam the aerial fields above, 
 Her, who borne on tempest wings 
 Forth with rustling pinion springs, — 
 Sweet it were, from clouds on high, 
 Battle's changeful tide to spy ' J. 
 
 * 1 Chr. xvii. 12, 13. f Ps. Iv. 6. | Anstice's ' Selections.' 
 
HIS BAPTISM AND CALL. 123 
 
 And Virgil, in a well-known passage, writes — 
 
 ' Qualis spelunca subito commota columba, 
 
 mox aere lapsa quieto 
 
 Eaclit iter liquiclum, celeres neque commoyet alas ' *. 
 
 Among the heathens this hircl was absolutely sacred, it being 
 especially dedicated to the goddess Yenus. Herodotus relates 
 a story of two black pigeons that flew from Thebes in Egypt, 
 the one to Dodona in Greece, where it proclaimed in human 
 voice that it was fitting an oracle should be erected there to 
 Zeus, and the other to the Libyan Oasis, where it in like manner 
 caused to be founded the oracle of the same God, under his Grseco- 
 Egyptian name of Jupiter Ammon. 
 
 From its having been the bearer of the olive-branch to Noah 
 after the flood, the dove seems also to have acquired a sacred 
 character among the Jews. The Talmud contains a legend of 
 how the renegade Elisha ben Abuyah, when passing the ruins 
 of the Temple on the day of Atonement, heard a voice within, 
 murmuring like a dove, and saying ' All men shall be forgiven 
 this day, save Elisha ben Abuyah, who, knowing me, has be- 
 trayed me ' f. 
 
 Such being the estimation in which the dove was generally 
 held, it ought not to cause surprise that, in Luke"s account of 
 this vision of Jesus, the first sensuous Gentile development should 
 have taken place. With this writer it is not sufiicient that Jesus 
 should have seen in the spirit — in his ' mind's eye ' — the hea- 
 vens opened unto him, and the Spirit of God descending like a 
 dove and alighting upon him ; but it is expressly stated as a fact 
 that ' the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove 
 upon him ' %. 
 
 This may not, however, have been an intentional misrepre- 
 sentation on the part of the author of the third Gospel ; though, 
 even if it was so, he speaks only of the appearance of this material 
 dove to Jesus himself, and makes no mention of John as having 
 witnessed this physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 * ^neid. v. 213-217. t E. Deutsch in ' Quarterly Eeview.' 
 
 X Luke iii. 22. 
 
 g2 
 
124 
 
 JESTTS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 But the same explanation cannot be given to the words of the 
 fourth Gospel. There the unqualified assertion is, that ' The 
 next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold 
 the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This 
 is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred 
 before me ; for he was before me. And I knew him not ; but 
 that he should be made manifest to Israel : therefore am I come 
 baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the 
 Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon 
 him. And I knew him not ; but He that sent me to baptize 
 with water, the same said unto me. Upon whom thou shalt see 
 the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he that 
 baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I saw and bare record, 
 that this is the Son of God'*, 
 
 This is unhappily a specimen of the ' development ' of the 
 truth — which means the perversion of a simple historical fact — 
 worthy of the latest ages of the Catholic Church. And it serves 
 to show that the hierophants of the Eastern Church of New Rome 
 were guilty, if possible, of even grosser imposition on their igno- 
 rant and credulous flocks than those of her AVestern sister ; or, 
 it must rather be said that the Fathers of the Universal Church, 
 in an age earlier than we well like to contemplate, set both these 
 Churcbes the wretched example, which each of them has been but 
 too ready to follow. 
 
 It is really revolting to trace the further development of this 
 legend of the ' real presence ' of the Holy Spirit in the bodily 
 shape of a dove. 
 
 In the several Apociyphal Gospels it is narrated, with many 
 details, how Joseph was chosen by the Holy Spirit as the betrothed 
 of the Virgin Mary, in all of which the dove plays a prominent 
 part. In the ' Protevangelium,' or the Gospel according to St- 
 James, Joseph and the other candidates were directed to lay their 
 rods upon the altar in the Temple, and when Joseph brought his 
 rod, a dove proceeded out of it and perched upon his head. In 
 the Gospel attributed to Matthew, the Spirit of the Lord, in the 
 * Jolin i. 29-34. 
 
HJS BAPTISM AND CALL. 125 
 
 form of a dove, ' came down from heaven and perched upon the 
 top of Joseph's rod ; ' and in another version the dove, whiter than 
 snow and most beautiful, went forth from the end of Joseph's 
 rod, and after fluttering a long while among the pinnacles of the 
 Temple, at length flew up to heaven. 
 
 From Christian fables of this debased form it is almost a re- 
 lief to turn to the more matter-of-fact legends of Mohammedan- 
 ism, in which the dove is made to play a part. One of these is 
 that at the time of the Hegira, or Flight from Mecca to Medina, 
 the Prophet was so hotly pursued that he was forced to hide 
 himself in a cave, when instantly two wild doves built their nest 
 and laid their eggs at the entrance ; whereby the pursuers were 
 convinced that no one could possibly have entered the cave for 
 many days, and so they passed on without examining it. For 
 this the doves were blessed, and have ever since been sacred 
 within the Holy Territory. Another story is that the Arabian 
 prophet had a white dove, which used to fly round his head, settle 
 on his shoulder, and seem to whisper in his ear, whence he pro- 
 fessed to derive divine inspiration, as if it were an incarnation of 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Reverting to Christianity, we meet with a Eomish legend — 
 and there are doubtless many similar ones — that, in the tenth 
 century, during the pontificate of Gregory the Fifth, there was a 
 pious cook, on whose head the Holy Spirit miraculously descended 
 in the form of a dove, and thus pointed him out to be chosen as 
 Bishop, and eventually to be canonized ; this fable being faith- 
 full}'' depicted in a painting now existing in the Church of St. 
 Peter at Louvain. 
 
 There is nothing more monstrous in heathen mythology — not 
 even the story of Jupiter's visiting Leda in the form of a swan, 
 which possesses a classic elegance — than this grossly sensuous 
 fiction of the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which has 
 been imposed upon Christendom on the alleged authority of the 
 beloved disciple of our Lord, and which merits the severest re- 
 probation of all spiritually minded Christians. Instead of which, 
 we see in Greek and Roman paintings the Holy Spirit irrever- 
 
126 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 eutly aud idolatrously represented in the form of a dove, even in 
 pictures of the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary of the miraculous 
 conception of Jesus — as if the 'real presence' of the Holy Sjiirit in 
 a bodily shape ■were needed to give it efficacy ; and from such 
 paintings it has been introduced not only into Romish churches, 
 but, inconsiderately and inconsistently, into Protestant places of 
 worship. And what is inconceivably worse than even this, Pro- 
 testant hymns are addressed to the Sacred Dove ! 
 
 In the ' Christian Year,' of which the 128th edition was printed 
 in 1869, — and there must be many more since, — we read — 
 
 ' But when He came the second time, 
 
 He came in power and love ; 
 Softer than gale at morning prime 
 Hovered His holy Dove.' 
 
 And in the volume of ' Psalms and Hymns for Public Worship,' 
 published under the du'cction of the Tract Committee of the So- 
 ciety for Promoting Christian Knowledge, the Third Person of 
 the Trinity is thus invoked — 
 
 ' Come, gracious Spirit, heavenly Dove, 
 With light and comfort from above.' 
 
 And in another hymn it is said — 
 
 ' We love the sacred font, 
 
 For there the Holy Dove 
 To pour is ever wont 
 
 His blessing from above.' 
 
 Many more examples might unhappily be adduced, but these 
 cited are sufficient to show how Christian knowledge is being 
 * j)romoted ' in England towards the close of the intellectual and 
 enHghtened nineteenth century. If Christians would but give to 
 this most important subject a moment's serious reflection, they 
 could not but feel with shame that this Peristerolatry is incalcu- 
 lably more debased and more debasing than Mariolatry, or any of 
 the endless other forms of Idolatry of the Romish Church. 
 
IHE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDEENESS. 127 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 THE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDEENESS. 
 
 At this distance of time from our Lord's appearance on earth, 
 after so much learned study of the records of his life and teach- 
 ing, and when the belief in him as the Messiah or Christ has 
 spread over the greater portion of the habitable globe, it may well 
 seem extraordinary that there should exist any question as to the 
 character of his mission, and esjjecially as to his own conception 
 of it ; or, it may more properly be said, the wonder is that now, 
 in the nineteenth century of the Christian era, such a question 
 should be discussed more earnestly and widely, perhaps more 
 ably, and certainly more unreservedly, than ever it was before. 
 Yet nothing could have been stronger or more sincere than was 
 the faith of our Lord's disciples in the first ages of Christianity ; 
 and had it not been for the ' pious ' frauds of the heads of the 
 ' Church ' founded by them, which have so miserably distorted 
 the truth, there would not have been so much, or indeed any, 
 room for the doubts that unhappily exist at the present day. 
 
 Of all the occurrences in our Lord's career upon earth, there is 
 none perhaps that has given more occasion to discussion than the 
 Temptation in the Wilderness : and not vsathout reason ; because 
 the proper understanding of this occurrence affords a key to the 
 true meaning of his subsequent course of life. 
 
 The circumstances of this most important incident are recorded 
 in the first three Gospels, though in the second of them the details 
 of the Temptation itself, contained in the first and third Gospels, 
 are inexplicably omitted altogether. Nevertheless, the second 
 Gospel records the material fact that after the descent of the 
 Holy Spirit upon Jesus, ' immediately the Spirit diiveth him into 
 the wilderness' *, thereby showing the continuous unbroken opera- 
 tion of the Spirit, The same might, indeed, be inferred from the 
 more detailed narrative in the first Gospel ; but unfortunately a 
 * Mark i, 12. 
 
128 JEStIS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 break in that narrative is most unnecessarily made by the arbi- 
 trary division into chapters *. And in the third Gospel this break 
 is more strongly marked by the iincallcd-for interpolation of the 
 pedigree of Jesus between the Call and the Temptation f, and 
 by the statement that Jesus, being full of the Holy Spirit, re- 
 turned to Judaea and was led by the Spirit into the "Wilderness X ', 
 as if the two occurrences were separate and independent. 
 
 The only proper way to regard this history, is to assume — as 
 we are warranted in doing by the record of the first and second 
 Gospels — that the Call and the Temptation were but parts of 
 one continuous operation of the Holy Spii-it ; that no sooner was 
 Jesus inspired with the knowledge, the conviction, that he was 
 the Messiah of prophecy, — the idea of which may previously 
 have existed in his mind, but had never before been seriously 
 entertained by him, — he felt at once that his hour was come, and 
 immediately hurried away — was driven by the Spirit — into the 
 wilderness or desert valley of the Jordan, there to meditate in 
 solitude and prayer on the work to which he now knew himself 
 to be dedicated, and to decide in what manner he was to make 
 manifest to the world the momentous fact that he was ' the Son 
 of God.' 
 
 It would be of little avail to discuss here the nature of the 
 commimication from the world of spirits described more or less 
 minutely in the three Gospels ; because, in order to do so, it would 
 be necessary to assume certain premises, which could not fail to 
 be dissented from by many, and this, too, for widely different 
 reasons, so that the discussion would only lead to widely differ- 
 ing, but no practical, results. There is, however, a common ground 
 on which all may stand, who do not dispute the fact of the occur- 
 rence altogether ; and this is, that under any circumstances the 
 history represents the strong conflict that then took place in the 
 mind of Jesus, however the same may have been produced, and 
 whatever the form in which it may have been outwardly mani- 
 fested. Therefore, it is this mental conflict alone — tliis Tempta- 
 
 * Matth. iii. IG, 17; iv. 1 et seqq. t Luke iii. 23-38. J Luke iv. 1. 
 
THE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS. 129 
 
 tion — that will be here considered. And from the narrative it 
 appears to have assumed three distinct forms or phases. 
 
 The first form of temptation was, that if our Lord Jesus was. 
 really the Messiah, the Son of God, he should command that the 
 stones of the desert be made bread *. This was the first and most 
 natural thought that, in his then reduced circumstances, an evil 
 spirit would excite in his mind. His pecuniary resources were not 
 such as would seem to justify so bold a step as that of under- 
 taking his mission at all. He was in want of the very means of 
 subsistence. Like the prodigal son in his own parable t, he had 
 wasted his substance, though not in the same manuer. How, then, 
 could he set about such an undertaking ? His experience as a 
 builder had taught him, as he afterwards taught his disciples, that 
 one ' intending to build a tower sitteth down first and counteth 
 the cost, whether he have wherewith to finish it; lest, haply, after 
 he hath laid the foundation and is not able to finish it, all that 
 behold it begin to mock him, saying, this man began to build and 
 was not able to finish ' J. But, on the other hand, he well knew 
 that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that 
 proceedeth out of the mouth of God. It is for man to submit to 
 the supreme will of the AUwise Disposer of events, and to trust 
 implicitly in Him. His heavenly Father had decreed that he 
 should undertake the office, and He would supply him with the 
 means of performing its duties. Jesus, therefore, resisted this 
 form of temptation, and decided on acting precisely as he shortly 
 afterwards directed his disciples to do : — ' Take no thought for 
 your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink ; nor yet for 
 your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, 
 and the body than raiment ? . . . . But seek ye first the King- 
 dom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be 
 added unto you' §. Or more specifically, ' Provide neither gold, 
 nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, 
 neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves ; for the workman 
 is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall 
 
 * Matth. iv. 3. t Luke xv. 1\ ei seqq, 
 
 X Luke xiv. 28-30. § Matth. vi. 25-33. 
 
 g5 
 
130 
 
 JEStrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till ye go 
 thence ' *. The whole Gospel history demonstrates how entirely 
 the teaching of Jesus conformed to his own practice. And 
 the more the details of the Scripture narrative are investigated 
 and considered, the more apparent it will be that a far better 
 acquaintance with the personal history of our Lord, and the mo- 
 tives for his conduct, is to be derived from his numerous recorded 
 sayings, than it is possible to obtain from the scanty record of his 
 actions themselves. 
 
 The second form of temptation that presented itself to the mind of 
 Jesus was, that he ought, as the Messiah, to manifest himself and es- 
 tablish his Kingdom in a supernatural manner. Such was at that 
 time the expectation of many of his countrymen, as it is at the pre- 
 sent day the belief of those who still look for the appearance of the 
 Messiah among them upon earth. It was in this spirit that the 
 Scribes and Pharisees repeatedly tempted our Lord by demanding 
 of him a proof of his being really the Messiah — that he should 
 show them a sign from heaven f ; to which his answer was, that 
 there should be no sign given but the sign of the prophet Jonah, 
 thereby alluding to his own resurrection from the dead after three 
 days ; though this allusion, like his declaration — so appropriate to 
 the ' builder ' — that he would destroy the Temple and build it 
 up again in three days, his ojiponents could not or would not 
 understand, any more than his disciples themselves appear to 
 luive understood it. 
 
 To this second form of temptation the answer was, ' Thou 
 shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.' Jesus was called to be the 
 Messiah in accordance with the promise to his forefathers and with 
 the prophecies in Holy Writ ; and the Kingdom of Heaven was 
 to be established in men's hearts by the precepts and example of 
 the Messiah, and by the influence of the Holy Spirit. As our 
 Lord said at a later period, ' K they hear not Moses and the pro- 
 phets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the 
 dead 'J, — a saying which is as appropriate at the present day as 
 it was when uttered. 
 * Matth. X. 9-11. t Matth. xii. 38, xvi. 1 ; Luke xi. 29. \ Luke xvi. 31. 
 
THE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS. 131 
 
 The third form of temptation was, that the Messiah should 
 emulate the valiant Maccabsean heroes, and openly declare him- 
 self to be the Prince of a temporal kingdom, the successor of his 
 father Da\T.d, King of Israel. But were he to do this, the King- 
 dom of God would have to be set aside, or at all events made 
 subordinate to that of the Prince of this world. We read how 
 the very thought that Jesus was about to enter into his kingdom 
 influenced the minds of his disciples, and instantly eugendered 
 bad feelings among them. The mother of Zebedee's children 
 lost no time in asking that her two sons might sit, the one on the 
 Messiah's right hand and the other on his left in his kingdom * ; 
 whereat the other disciples were, not unnaturally, moved with in- 
 dignation. And we know, alas ! that when all hopes of the re- 
 storation of the temporal kingdom of David were seen to be lost, 
 Judas betrayed, and Peter denied his Master, whilst all the other 
 disciples forsook him and fled ! So true is it that a temporal 
 Kingdom of the Messiah is incompatible with his spiritual one, — 
 that we cannot serve both God and Mammon. But this, perhaps 
 the most tempting suggestion of all, was soon rejected. In the 
 same terms in which he addressed Simon Peter at a subsequent 
 period, our Lord exclaimed, ' Get thee behind me, Satan : for it 
 is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only 
 shalt thou serve.' 
 
 The final result of this Temptation, as it presented itself in its 
 various forms to the mind of Jesus, was, that the Kingdom of the 
 Messiah could not be established either by supernatural means or 
 by material force ; that it must in fact be merged in the King- 
 dom of God, whose will alone was to be done on earth as it is in 
 heaven. And Jesus being now freed from all further assaults of 
 the evil spirit, good spirits sent by God came and ministered to 
 him, imparting to his troubled mind the support and comfort he 
 stood so much in need of, after the severe trial to which he had 
 been subjected f. 
 
 In the third Gospel the second and third forms of temptation, as 
 given in the first Gospel, are transposed, though without materially 
 * Matth. XX. 20, 21. t Matth. iv. 11. 
 
132 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 affecting the narrative. In the fourtli Gospel, as has already 
 been stated, this incident of our Lord's Temptation, which, if 
 rightly considered, affords the key to the real character and ob- 
 ject of his mission, is passed over in silence. It was not the 
 object or intention of the writer of that document to place the 
 hope of Israel in the true light. 
 
 The line of conduct which Jesus had to pursue after he had 
 decided on its general character, though simple in conception, 
 was nevertheless extremely difficult of realization. He well 
 knew that before the then existing generation should pass away 
 the material Temple of the Almighty at Jerusalem would be 
 destroyed never to be rebuilt, and the worshippers in that Tem- 
 ple, the would-be citizens of the expected renovated Elingdom 
 of Israel, would be struck down, never more to exist as a nation, 
 but, on the contrary, to be scattered over the face of the earth, 
 and to become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword among 
 all nations whither the Lord should lead them *. And, as was 
 so plainly shown by his repeated saying, ' My kingdom is not 
 of the world,' he knew that the Kingdom of the Messiah on 
 earth could exist only spiritually ; for it was to be merged in the 
 Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 But he also knew that his countrymen, the Jews, with their 
 crude ideas respecting the Messiah's Kingdom, could not be 
 brought to understand all this. They would persist in regard- 
 ing that kingdom as something to be manifested to their senses, 
 even though the more enlightened among them might not ex- 
 pect it to be of a temporal character according to their original 
 idea of it. Of all things the last that they could have anticipated 
 was the way in which the national hope has been realized. The 
 spiritual Kingdom of God and of His Messiah on earth has gone 
 on, and still goes on, increasing like the grain of mustard-seed of 
 the parable, ' which a man took and sowed in his field, which 
 indeed is the least of all seeds ; but when it is grown, it is the 
 greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of 
 the air come and lodge in the branches thereof f. 
 
 * Deut. xxviii. 37. t Mattb. xiii. 31, 32. 
 
THE TEMPTATION IN THE "WILDERNESS. 133 
 
 To have attempted to promulgate these truths in their naked 
 form would not only have been useless, but would have defeated 
 our Lord's object ; for no one would have listened to what would 
 have seemed an utter absurdity. In the first instance, therefore, 
 he could only preach the Kingdom of Heaven as John had preached 
 it before him ; and although he knew that, sooner or later, this 
 must inevitably lead to his recognition bj'^his disciples in his true 
 character, and that eventually he would be compelled to avow 
 himself openly, still his only practical course of action was to 
 postpone, until the latest moment, and by every means in his power, 
 the manifestation of his true character ; and when at last that 
 manifestation should be inevitable, he must then take care that 
 it did not lead to a collision with the temporal power. He plainly 
 foresaw that he would have to give his life a ransom for many * ; 
 but when that sacrifice had to be made, it was essential that he 
 should not sufi'er in the character of an unsuccessful rebel against 
 imperial Eome, as the would-be restorer of the temporal king- 
 dom of David, but in that of the Messiah, the Son of God, and 
 the Prince of the heavenly kingdom on earth. 
 
 It has been asserted that a crucified or suffering Messiah or 
 Anointed king — XpLffros laravpujixeius — is a contradiction in terms; 
 but this is not true : it is its opposition to preconceived ideas that 
 alone has caused it to be so imagined by those who could not be 
 brought to relinquish those ideas, even when their erroneousness 
 had been demonstrated. Nevertheless it is quite true that be- 
 fore Jesus could represent himself in that character, the last tie 
 which bound him to the popular traditional belief had to be irre- 
 vocably broken by his ignominious death on the Cross. 
 
 It has also been contended that our Lord's offer of the King- 
 dom of Heaven, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, was 
 inconsistent with the office he is alleged to have assumed, as show- 
 ing that Jesus himself had not made up his mind in the first in- 
 stance, — was not himself conscious of the true nature of his mis- 
 sion, — had not then assumed the character of the Messiah. But 
 this a great mistake. The course adopted by our Lord was the 
 * Mark x. 45. 
 
134 JESrS THE MESSIAH, 
 
 same as is naturally pursued by every one. The propounders of 
 novel doctrines, •svhether true or false, generally present thera 
 first to those nearest to them ; and when they have done so, they, 
 ^vith rare exceptions, do not meet with the favour they had cal- 
 culated on. The treatment our Lord received from his fellow- 
 townsmen at Nazareth caused him to say, ' A prophet is not 
 without honour, save in his own country and in his own house ' *. 
 It Avas the same at Antioch in Pisidia, where Paul and Barnabas 
 preached the Gospel to the Jews in vain, whereas the Gentiles 
 received it favourably ; so that the former, when they saw the 
 multitudes, were filled with envy, and spake against those things 
 which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 
 ' Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said. It was necessary 
 that the word of God should fii-st have been spoken to you ; but 
 seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of 
 everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles ' f. 
 
 It may perhaps be objected further that, by acting as he did, 
 Jesus was guilty of deceit, duplicity, falsehood. But in truth he 
 merely acted with that prudence and discretion which every 
 leader of an enterprise, every ruler or head of an establishment, 
 is bound to exercise. No general announces publicly before- 
 hand the plan of his campaign : he may not even, in the first 
 instance, communicate it to the officers of his stafi" most in his 
 confidence. He does not teU them any falsehoods, he does not 
 mislead them by misrepresentations or insinuations of what is 
 untrue : he simply keeps his plans secret within his own bosom, 
 until the moment shall arrive when he may deem it expedient 
 to reveal them — first to his intimates, then to those more re- 
 mote from him, and lastly to all the world. It is recorded that 
 Jesus expressly commanded his disciples to tell no man that he 
 was the Messiah J ; that they were not to speak of the vision on 
 the mount till the Son of Man be risen again from the dead § ; 
 that he expounded parables to them, the meaning of which he 
 kept secret from tlie generality of his hearers j| ; in all wliich 
 
 * Matth. xiii. 57. t Acts xiii. 46. J Matth. xvi. L'O ; Mark viii. 30. 
 § Mattb. xvii. 9; Mark ix 9. |i Matth. xiii. 10; Luke viii. 10. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS. 135 
 
 instances, as in so many others, he simply put into practice his 
 own precept to his disciples, ' Be ye therefore wise as serpents, 
 and harmless as doves ' *. 
 
 CHAPTEE XII. 
 THE GOOD TIDINGS. 
 
 The object of the mission of John was accomplished by the bap- 
 tism of the Messiah, of whose advent he was the messenger. 
 Soon afterwards the Baptist was arrested by King Herod An- 
 tipas. The multitudes that had flocked down to the banks of 
 the Jordan, to hear his preaching and to prepare themselves for 
 the approaching Kingdom of Heaven, could not have been a 
 matter of indifference to the civil and military authorities of the 
 country. The Eomans themselves had reason to know that the 
 frequent revolts among the Jews all partook more or less of a 
 religious character. Still, as a rule, they were tolerant of merely 
 religious movements among the nations subjugated by them ; 
 and as they could not detect in John's preaching and practice 
 any thing absolutely dangerous and likely to lead to practical 
 results, they did not deem it requisite to put a check on him. 
 As to any interference with themselves on the part of the na- 
 tional god, they could afford to disregard that. Pilate would 
 doubtless have said in the name of Tiberius Csesar, as Rabshakeh 
 had said in that of Sennacherib, ' Who are they among all the 
 gods of these lands that have delivered their land out of my 
 hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?'t 
 And he might have contentedly awaited the recurrence of a 
 miracle, such as that which had delivered King Hezekiah and 
 his people from the hosts of the Assyrians. 
 
 But with Herod the case was different. Being better ac- 
 * Matth. X. 16. t Isa. xxxvi. 20. 
 
136 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 quainted with the nature of the expectation of his countrymen, 
 he may have entertained a superstitious dread of such an occur- 
 I'ence, even though not believing in its realization ; and, therefore, 
 for reasons that did not present themselves to the mind of Pilate, 
 he would have regarded John's preaching as symptomatic of re- 
 volt. In fact, this is alleged by the historian Josephus to have 
 been Herod's motive for imprisoning the Baptist, and eventu- 
 ally putting him to death. The Scripture narrative gives a 
 more special reason for Herod's conduct, namely, John's reproof 
 of his incestuous intercourse with Herodias, his brother Philip's 
 wife, and his other misdeeds*. The two motives are not in- 
 compatible, though the latter, as is most natural, may have 
 been the immediate cause of action on the part of the Jewish 
 monarch. 
 
 Be this as it may, it does not a'ppear that Jesus made any 
 pubHc manifestation[of his own mission till after the Baptist's mini- 
 stration had been summarily put an end to by his imprisonment 
 by Herod. But when he heard of John's imprisonment, he ' re- 
 turned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee' f, and there began 
 * preaching the Good Tidings of the Kingdom of God, and saying, 
 The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand : repent 
 ye, and believe the good tidings' :J:. 
 
 It is not intended to dwell here on the various circumstances 
 of the brief but eventful public life of our Lord Jesus, as re- 
 corded in the Scriptures of the New Testament. The main facts 
 of his personal history, set forth in the three synoptical Gospels, 
 are known to all inquiring Christians, and to many Jews like- 
 wise, especially since the appearance of the numerous works that 
 during the last few years have issued from the press in eluci- 
 dation of that history. But though it is unnecessary to discuss 
 the occurrences of our Lord's life generally, there are a few 
 salient points in it that require to be specially noticed. 
 
 In the first place it must be remarked that though Jesus 
 preached the Good Tidings of the Kingdom of God as John had 
 done before him, he was in no wise his successor and represen- 
 * Matth. xiv. 3, 4 ; Luke iii. 10. t Luke iv. 14. | Mark i. 14, 15. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS. 137 
 
 tative, as Elisha had been of Elijah. He was not an ascetic like 
 John ; he did not baptize for the remission of sins as John had 
 done ; and the fact that the disciples of John came, and John 
 himself sent, to inquire about him, is a convincing proof that 
 there was nothing between the two in common, except the King- 
 dom of Heaven, which they both preached. 
 
 As regards the specific character of our Lord's preaching, not the 
 slightest hint is given of his having said any thing that should 
 lead the people, or even his own disciples, in the first instance, to 
 entertain any novel opinions respecting the Messiah. His origin, 
 nature, and attributes remained according to the existing Jewish 
 notions on these subjects ; and the expectation of the disciples of 
 Jesus were the same as those of their countrymen generally ; and 
 these previous notions the disciples, as Jews, continued to entertain 
 during their Master's lifetime, and likewise after his death, except- 
 ing so far only as the same were modified by events which, however 
 much opposed to their preconceived ideas, they could not gainsay. 
 History shows how signally they were disappointed, first by the 
 crucifixion of the Messiah, and afterwards by the destruction of the 
 Holy City, Jerusalem, and how grievously they felt the non-reali- 
 zation of their expectations. But it stands to reason that they 
 would not have been so disappointed had they known the truth ; 
 and therefore we may understand and make allowance for the 
 erroneous views entertained by the primitive Christians respecting 
 the second coming of the Messiah, the New Jerusalem, the Millen- 
 nium, and various other subjects. They were men like ourselves ; 
 and we have witnessed how, even with the ' lights ' of the nine- 
 teenth century, the birth of Shiloh, the imminent approach of the 
 Millennium, the immediate personal appearance of our Lord, and 
 other fancies, are as fervently and devoutly believed by professors 
 of Christianity at the present day, as they were by the members 
 of the early Church, on whose authority and after whose example 
 they have been accepted, — not to speak of the host of monstrous 
 modern opinions and practices, for which most Christians cannot 
 perceive any warrant in the Scriptures or in the early history 
 of Christianity. 
 
138 JESrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 Instead of commencing his preaching in the place where he 
 had been brought up, if not born, Jesus went and dwelt in the 
 neighbouring town of Capernaum, on the coast of the Sea of Gen- 
 nesareth, now called the Bahr Huleh, or Lake of Tiberias. The 
 precise position of Capernaum is not known, there being a ques- 
 tion of its identity with the two places named Khan Minj-eh and 
 Tel Hum, the preponderance of evidence seeming, however, to be 
 in favour of the latter. 
 
 At Capernaum Jesus soon gathered about him a few disciples ; 
 and from thence he ' went about all Galilee, teaching in their syna- 
 gogues and preaching the Good Tidings of the Kingdom, and heal- 
 ing all manner of sickness and all manner of diseases among the 
 people. And his fame went throughout all Syria ; and they 
 brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers 
 diseases and torments, and those that were possessed with devils, 
 and those that were lunatic, and those that had the palsy ; and 
 he healed them : and there followed him great multitudes of 
 people from Galilee, and Decapolis, and Jerusalem, and Judaea, 
 and beyond Jordan'*. 'And there Avent out a fame of him 
 through all the region round about ; and he taught in their 
 synagogues, being glorified of all 'f. 
 
 It was not without reason that the peojDle were astonished at 
 our Lord's doctrine ; ' for he taught them as one having authority, 
 and not as the Scribes' J : that is to say, he spoke as from him- 
 self and on his own responsibility, well knowing that what he said 
 was true, and therefore did not need to be presented to his hearers 
 in the words or on the authority of some Rabbi of reputation, as 
 was the custom with Jewish teachers. Regardless of their Master's 
 example. Christian divines have preferred to follow that of the 
 Jewish Rabbis ; seeming to imagine that they can make white 
 to become black, and black white, by heaping up piles of ' autho- 
 rities,' — writers who, during ages, have repeated the same errors 
 one after the other, till by dint of repetition they have brought 
 themselves to imagine they are speaking the truth. Our Lord 
 taught the direct contrary : he spurned and despised all such 
 
 * Matth. iv. 23-25. t Luke iv. 14, 15. J Matth. vii. 29. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS. 139 
 
 ' blind leaders of the blind ' ; and like every opposer of the re- 
 ceived ' authorities ' in all countries and of all creeds, he drew 
 down upon himself the animosity of the Jewish clergy, with their 
 adherents the Scribes and Pharisees, that is to say, the whole 
 clerical party of the nation. 
 
 But in the same proportion as the Jewish reformer was hated 
 by the priests and their party, he was admired and followed by 
 the common people, with whom the great charm of his preach- 
 ing, and a main cause of its going so directly home to their hearts, 
 was the fact that he taught in parables or fables and in emphatic 
 intelligible precepts, rather than by the enunciation of abstract 
 doctrines, and least of all by any theological or metaphysical sub- 
 tleties, with which the clergy mystify and delude their hearers. 
 
 In a former chapter* it has been shown that Jesus was not of 
 low extraction, the illiterate son of a working-carpenter, but a 
 young man of good social position and education. This subject 
 wiU now be further considered with reference to the bearing that 
 his condition of life had on the maimer in which he carried out 
 his mission. 
 
 Had our Lord been a person of low degree, like George Fox, 
 John Bunyan, or any of the numerous other pious and well- 
 intentioned uneducated itinerant preachers of our own times, he 
 might in the first instance have expected to meet with nothing 
 but contumely, and probably ill treatment. Instead of this, we 
 find him preaching in the synagogues, invited into the houses and 
 to the tables of wealthy Pharisees and receivers of customs, and 
 even treated with respect by his very opponents of the clerical 
 party, who, however much they may have hated him, are repre- 
 sented as behaving towards him with the respect due to a person 
 holding a superior rank in society f. So too, the terms in Avhich 
 he was addressed by the Eoman centurion:}: prove him to have 
 been a man of distinction. 
 
 The manner, also, in which the first disciples of Jesus responded 
 
 * Chapter VIII. page 91 et seqq. 
 
 t See Matth. xxvi. 6; Mark ii. 15 ; Luke vii. 36, xi. 37, xiv. 1, xix. 5, &c. 
 
 t Luke vii. 6-8. 
 
140 JE8TJ8 THE MESSIAH. 
 
 to his call, is quite irreconcilable with the supposition of his having 
 been a mere working mechanic. Walking by the Sea of Galilee, 
 he saw two brothers, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew, who were 
 fishermen, casting a net into the sea. On his simply saying to 
 them ' follow me, and I will make you fishers of men,' they 
 straightway left their nets and followed him. Going on a little 
 further he saw two other brothers, James and John, who were 
 with their father Zebedee mending their nets. He called to them 
 likewise, and they immediately left the ship and their father with 
 the hired servants, and followed him*. Then he saw Levi or 
 Matthew, the publican or tax-gatherer, sitting at the receipt of 
 custom ; and on his simply saying to him ' follow me,' that official 
 also arose and followed himf. Now Matthew was notoriously a 
 man well-to-do in the world, he being a representative of the 
 wealthy ' Publicani,' or receivers-general of the revenue, under 
 the Roman Empire ; and the other four, or at all events the two 
 sons of Zebedee, must have been any thing but the ' poor ' fisher- 
 men they are usually represented as having been ; for the latter 
 (at least) had their 'hired servants.' But let the rank of all 
 these persons have been what it may, they are not likely to have 
 been induced to follow at the first call a person of inferior posi- 
 tion in life, who, however zealous and able as a preacher, had 
 not yet shown any public signs of his divine mission. For it 
 must always be borne in mind that at that early period our Lord 
 had not in any manner manifested himself as the Messiah, from 
 the establishment of whose Kingdom his adherents might expect 
 to derive benefit ; so that this inducement was wanting. But 
 the well-kuowD character of Jesus the builder, as a philanthropic 
 and religious enthusiast, going about preaching the Kingdom 
 of Heaven and seeking the spiritual welfare of his countrymen, 
 even though he might then no longer possess the means of 
 alleviating their temporal wants and necessities, may well have 
 induced enthusiastic men of respectability like himself to attach 
 themselves to him. 
 
 We shall doubtless be not far from the truth if we compare 
 » Matth. iv. 21, 22; Mark i. 19, 20. t Matth. ix. 9. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS. 141 
 
 Jesus with preachers like John and Charles "Wesley and George 
 Whitefield, well-educated men occupying a respectable position 
 in life. The comparison may likewise serve in other respects ; 
 for like those pious ' Methodists,' and especially like the one 
 last named, our Lord must have possessed an eloquence which 
 is but faintly reflected in the reports we possess of his discourses, 
 and of which, indeed, no proper idea could be conveyed in writing, 
 except by describing the effect it produced on his hearers. It is 
 weU known how completely this was the case with Whitefield's 
 preaching, which is of too recent a date and too well authenti- 
 cated to be open to any question, as may be that of his Master, 
 of whom he was the humble and imperfect imitator. "We hear 
 of crowds of hearers, thousands and tens of thousands, who, hour 
 after hour, at all times of the day and night, and in all weathers, 
 used to listen enraptured to the fervent words that issued from 
 his lips, regardless of hunger and thirst, and seeking only to be 
 filled with the bread of life, which he was never weary of distri- 
 buting among them. His preaching-tours through all parts of 
 the country assumed the character of triumphal processions. It 
 has been said that probably no other preacher ever impressed his 
 hearers with such an overpowering conviction of his disinterested 
 love as "Whitefield did ; but in saying this the example is forgotten 
 of the Master whose doctrines he taught, and whose example he 
 so earnestly strove to imitate, — like that Master unceasingly 
 labouring among the ignorant and the depraved for no earthly 
 gain or selfish end, and like him meeting with the opposition of 
 the established clergy, who, had they been actuated by the true 
 spirit of the religion of which they were the appointed teachers, 
 ought only to have been stimulated to follow his example. 
 
 Indeed the life of him who has with reason been styled the 
 Chrysostom of England, more closely represents that of the 
 founder of Christianity than the conduct of such men as Francis 
 of Assisi, so wrongly set up as the noblest and most ' Christ- 
 like ' among the multifarious ' Saints ' of the Eomish Church. 
 That fanatic is said to have imitated so servilely the mistaken 
 ideal of his Lord as to copy hiin even in his ' stigmata,' the marks 
 
142 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 of the wounds he received when, on the Cross ; and the supposed 
 transcendental virtue of this ' Saint ' consisted in self-denial and 
 mortification of the body, carried to such an excess as to lead hira 
 to insist on intellectual not less than material poverty as abso- 
 lutely essential to the real follower of ' Christ.' * The true brother 
 of the order,' wrote this pious but most misguided ascetic, ' must 
 lay aside not only worldly prudence, hut even all knowledge of 
 letters ; so that, thus stripped of aU things, he may come to see 
 what is the power of the Lord.' 
 
 How entirely differently the life of Jesus was spent is shown 
 in his own remark : ' John came neither eating nor drinking, and 
 they say, He hath a devil. The Son of Man came eating and 
 drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a wine- 
 bibber, a friend of tax-gatherers and violators of the law'*: 
 for such were they who are called ' sinners ' in the Gospels ; not 
 because they were necessarily persons of dissolute conduct, — 
 though some may have been so, — but because they were offenders 
 against the Levitical law, or more probably against the absurd 
 traditional glosses with which that law had been hedged, and 
 who were therefore regarded as ' sinners ' by the priests and by 
 their followers the Scribes and Pharisees. 
 
 These sinners doubtless sat as easy under this imputation as 
 many ' sinners ' among Christians do at the present day. A few 
 years ago, a Church of England missionary coming home from 
 India in a steamer carrying some sixty or seventy British pas- 
 sengers of respectability, sanctimoniously asserted that among 
 them all he had found only two ' Christians,' the rest being un- 
 regenerate ' sinners.' But, according to our Lord's teaching, this 
 Pharisaical missionary had more the heart of a sinner than the 
 Indian ' publicans,' or revenue-officers, and others, who were his 
 fellow-passengers on board ship. 
 
 In pursuance of his determination not to make himself pre- 
 maturely known as the Messiah, Jesus preached only the King- 
 dom of Heaven, and inculcated the repentance of sins, and those 
 lessons of pure religion and morality with which the pages of 
 * Matth. xi. 18, 19. 
 
THE GOOD TIDIKGS. 143 
 
 the first three Gospels are replete. But an accidental occurrence 
 on a visit which he made to Nazareth, his native place, after he 
 had been residing some time at Capernaum, was near upon frus- 
 trating his well-ordained plan. 
 
 As his custom was, he attended divine service in the synagogue ; 
 and being an educated member of the congregation he stood up 
 to read, in accordance with the ordinary practice of the syna- 
 gogue. To perform his task the reader must of necessity possess 
 a knowledge of the Hebrew language, the ' lisau-hakkadosh ' or 
 ' sacred tongue,' sufficient at least to enable him to recite the 
 lesson fluently and intelligibly, which presupposes a certain 
 amount of education ; and this in the case of Jesus comes in cor- 
 roboration of the opinion that his social position was far above 
 that of the humble mechanic. The intimate acquaintance with 
 the Scriptures displayed by him in his intercourse with the 
 Scribes and Lawyers, both Pharisees and Sadducees, is also thus 
 naturally and reasonably accounted for. 
 
 The portion of Scripture read by Jesus on this occasion was 
 the sixy-first chapter of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. It was 
 not selected by himself; but, according to usage, the Eoll was 
 brought from the ' tabot ' or ' Ark,' and the place of the proper 
 lesson having been found, the Roll was delivered into the hands 
 of Jesus, who read as follows : — ' The Spiiit of the Lord God is 
 upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good 
 tidings unto the meek ; He hath sent me to bind up the broken- 
 hearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and the opening 
 of the prison to the bound : to proclaim the acceptable year of 
 the Lord ' *. 
 
 Though this much only is cited (in somewhat difi"erent lan- 
 guage) in Luke's Gospel f as having been read, it may be pre- 
 sumed that Jesus did not leave off here, but finished the whole 
 chapter, which is but a short one. This portion of Scripture is 
 generally understood as having express reference to the Messiah, 
 and it has therefore been contended that by reading it Jesus 
 
 * Isaiah Ixi. 1, 2. t Luke iv. 18, 19. 
 
144 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 revealed himself in that character. It might have been so had 
 he himself selected the lesson ; but this was not the case. That 
 he should have. been called ou to read this particular chapter of 
 Isaiah was only a remarkable coincidence, whether it be regarded 
 as the result of a special Providence, or merely as a matter of 
 accident or chance, as it is called. 
 
 When he had finished reading the lesson, Jesus closed the book 
 and gave it again unto the minister, and sat down. And the eyes 
 of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him *. 
 After this it may be presumed, though it is not mentioned in the 
 Gospel, that, like as Paul was called on in the synagogue at 
 Antioch f, it was said unto Jesus, ' If thou hast any word of 
 exhortation for the people, say on ; ' and that thereupon he 
 stood up, and, beckoning with his hand, said ' Shema' Israel — 
 ye men of Israel, give audience,' and commenced his discourse. 
 With respect to this the Gospel narrative states, ' And he began 
 to say unto them. This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your 
 ears ; ' on which his hearers are said to have wondered at the 
 gracious words that proceeded out of the mouth of their young 
 townsman, whom they so well knew as ' the builder ' and as 
 ' Joseph's son ' :J:. But when he went on and compared himself to 
 the prophets Elijah and Elisha, they became filled with wrath at 
 his boldness, and attempted to kill him. However, he managed 
 to extricate himself from their hands, and passing through the 
 midst of them, he went his way and returned to Capernaum, 
 where he resumed his preaching in the synagogue, and whence 
 he extended his sphere of action, with the aid of the twelve dis- 
 ciples whom he had gradually induced to join him. 
 
 In the first chapter of the fourth Gospel, after the circumstan- 
 tial relation of how John the Baptist bore record of his having 
 been an eye-witness of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus 
 in the fomn of a dove §, it is added that on the next day John 
 was standing with two of his disciples (one of them was Andrew, 
 Simon Peter's brother), and that, looking upon Jesus as he walked, 
 
 * Luke iv. 20. t Acts xiii. 15. | Luke iv. 21, 22. 
 
 § See above, Chapter X. page 124. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS. 145 
 
 the Baptist said,/ Behold the Lamb of God ! And the two disciples 
 heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, 
 and saw them following, and saith unto them. What seek ye ? 
 They said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted. 
 Master), where dwellest thou ? He saith unto them. Come and 
 see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him 
 that day ; for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two 
 which heard John speak and followed him, was Andrew, Simon 
 Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and 
 saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being 
 interpreted, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. And 
 when Jesus beheld him, he said. Thou art Simon the son of Jonah ; 
 thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, A stone.' 
 — 6 epiJ}]r€V€rai Tierpos *. 
 
 Now, although this is a matter of secondary importance, it is 
 most improbable that it was at this early period that Jesus gave to 
 his unstable disciple the surname of 'Kepha' or Cephas (Kijfas), 
 by which Jewish name, or rather by the derived Greek name 
 Ilerpoi or Petrus, he is best known. And this name is incor- 
 rectly asserted to be, ' by interpretation, A stone'; for the signi- 
 fication of nQ''5, which is the corrupted Jewish form of the 
 Hebrew fp, is Trerpa — 'a Eock'; or, if the final N be the 
 definite article, then ' the Rock ' ! No doubt the proper name 
 Ue-pos, ' Petrus' was formed from werpa, just as the name 'A0a- 
 raaios ' Athanasius ' is formed from iidayacna 'immortality,' and 
 'AyuaTaffLos 'Anastasiiis' from aruaracns 'the resurrection'; but 
 no one acquainted with the Greek language would pretend that 
 the names Athanasius and Anastasius themselves were by inter- 
 pretation 'immortality' and 'the resurrection' respectively. The 
 assertion, then, that ' Cephas is, by interjjretation, A stone,' is 
 alone sufficient to show that the fourth Gospel was not written 
 by a Jew, and consequently not by the Apostle whose name it so 
 falsely bears. 
 
 But, apart from this, the whole passage that has just been 
 quoted from the first chapter of the fourth Gospel, is so entirely 
 * John i. 36-42. 
 
 H 
 
146 
 
 JEStrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 opposed to the statements in the other three Gospels that it must 
 be rejected. It is impossible to 'harmonize' them, unless by 
 the help of that blind faith in ' authorities ' -which will, at one 
 and the same time, believe in two directly contrary assertions re- 
 specting one and the same thing. The lover of truth for its own 
 sake has therefore no alternative but to declare unreservedly that 
 the assertion in the fourth Gospel, that Jesus was revealed to his dis- 
 ciples from the very outset, cannot be — is not — true. The Baptist 
 did not make Jesus known to Andrew as ' the Lamb of God ; ' 
 neither did Andrew make Jesus known to Simon Peter as the 
 Messiah. From the statements in the three historical Gospels it 
 is indisputable that it was not till a later date that Simon Peter 
 first gave utterance to the comdction of himself and his com- 
 panions, that their Master was * the Messiah, the Son of the 
 living God'*. The 'Lamb of God' was the notion of a much 
 later period. 
 
 It may further be affirmed that, down to the time of the occur- 
 rence in the synagogue at Nazareth which has just been nar- 
 rated t, the thought that Jesus was the Messiah had not suggested 
 itself to anyone. Neither was it in that character that our Lord 
 enlisted his disciples into his service. They were attracted to 
 him by his well-merited reputation, by his eloquence, and not 
 improbably by the prospect of the temporal advantages likely to 
 accrue to them as the assistants of so good and so popular a 
 preacher — in the hope, perhaps, of being able to tread in his foot- 
 steps. ' Follow me,' said he to the two fishermen, Simon Peter 
 and Andrew his brother, ' and I will make you fishers of men ' J. 
 And as concerns John the Baptist, it was not till long after- 
 wards, whilst Jesus was still only regarded as a preacher of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven like John himself, that some of the disciples 
 of the^latter, who could not reconcile with their master's teach- 
 ing the manner in which Jesus and his disciples lived, (which 
 the sanctimonious regarded as profane and sinful,) came to him 
 and asked, ' "Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy dis- 
 ciples fast not?' To this his answer was, 'Can the children of 
 * Matth. xvi. 16. t See above, page 143. J Matth. iv. 19. 
 
THE GOOD TIDIJfGS. 147 
 
 the bridech amber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them ? 
 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from 
 them, and then shall they fast' *. 
 
 Here was a foreshadowing of the truth, but still no revelation 
 of it. When this answer of Jesus was repeated to John, as 
 doubtless it was, it must have given him serious cause for reflec- 
 tion. At the baptism of Jesus, he had felt himself to be in the 
 presence of one who was much his superior, one on whom more 
 than a twofold portion of the Holy Spirit had descended. Even 
 at that time the suspicion may have arisen in his mind as to his 
 penitent's real character; and this suspicion may have almost 
 ripened into conviction, when the answer made by Jesus to his 
 disciples was repeated to him. But that this conviction was not 
 absolute, is manifest from the message he himself sent to Jesus 
 from his prison, shortly before he was put to death by Herod. 
 Having heard of the works of Jesus, (in the Gospel it is inconsi- 
 derately put ' the works of Christ,' which plaiuly shows the 
 late date of the writing,) he sent two of his disciples to ask him, 
 ' Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another ? ' f, 
 which message could not possibly have been sent had John ■ 
 already recognized Jesus as the Messiah. The answer returned 
 by our Lord, like all his sayings at the commencement of his 
 mission, was ambiguous. It might be understood to imply the 
 fact, but it did not express it. This was only another instance 
 of the wisdom of the serpent joined to the harmlessness of the 
 dove. 
 
 Nevertheless, from the totally different character of his mission 
 from that of the Baptist, and from the almost unequivocal as- 
 sertion now made by Jesus respecting John, ' If ye will receive 
 it, this is Elijah, who was to come ' ;]:, the conviction of his 
 hearers could hardly fail to be that he himself was the Messiah, 
 whom that prophet was expected to precede ; and hence it was 
 manifest that the moment was close at hand when he must posi- 
 tively reveal himself in his true character. Indeed, in spite of 
 his desire not to make himself yet known, he was beginning to 
 
 * Matth. ix. 14, 15. t Matth. xi. 3. | Matth. xi. 14. 
 
 h2 
 
148 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 be recognized ; for vrc read that ' devils also came out of many, 
 crying out and saying, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of God. 
 And ho rebuking them siilFercd tliem not to speak, for they knew 
 that he was the Messiah ' *, — which statement, even though it 
 must to a certain extent be regarded as legendary, has evidently 
 a foundation in fact ; inasmuch as wc read also in the second 
 Gospel that he ' suiFered not the devils to speak, because they 
 knew him,' or, as it is otherwise rendered, ' to say that they 
 knew him ' f. And we know further, that the disciples them- 
 selves had began to suspect him, saying to him, ' Of a truth thou 
 art the Son of God ' J, that is to say, the Messiah. 
 
 This state of things could not be allowed by Jesus to continue, 
 because there was the greatest danger of its leading to his being 
 some day jniblicly acclaimed by the people as the Messiah, — the 
 Anointed King of prophecy, — the long-looked-for Deliverer of 
 Israel ; and any such pojmlar demonstration, even though un- 
 accompanied by any overt act of rebellion, could hardly have 
 failed to bring him into collision with the Eoman authorities. 
 And as this was precisely what it was our Lord's object to avoid, 
 his only resource was to put an effectual check upon the exu- 
 berant zeal of his followers by avowing himself to be the Messiah, 
 but at the same time letting them know most distinctly, even at 
 the risk of losing some of them, how greatly they were mistaken 
 in imagining him to be likely ever to possess, or even to lay claim 
 to, the temporal throne of his ancestor David. 
 
 The manner in which the revelation was brought about is thus 
 recorded in the first Gospel. Some time after the Baptist's death, 
 when Jesus was with his disciples at or near the city of Ca?sarea 
 Philippi, not far from the sources of the Jordan, he put to them this 
 direct question ; 'Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?' 
 And they said, ' Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some 
 Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.' To this 
 Jesus replied, 'But whom say ye that I am?' In reply to 
 which question Simon Peter made his memorable asseveration, 
 ' Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus 
 
 * Luke iv. 41. t Mark i. 34. J Matth. xiv. 33. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS. 149 
 
 answered and said, ' Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah ; for 
 flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father 
 which is in heaven ' *. 
 
 This declaration of our Lord is supposed to have been intended 
 to convey a special blessing to the Apostle for his penetration in 
 making this most important discovery ; whereas the fact is that 
 the words in question are nothing more than an emphatic and 
 hyperbolical mode of expression, such as a native of Palestine 
 might use at the present day, having no more special application, 
 and being no more intended to convey an absolute blessing, than 
 the words addressed by Jesus to the same Apostle in almost the 
 same breath — ' Get thee behind me, Satan ; thou art an offence 
 unto me ' f — -were intended to convey a curse. 
 
 Let a similar occurrence be supposed to happen at the present 
 day among the Mohammedan inhabitants of the same country. 
 One of them having a secret, which the other guesses, would, as a 
 matter of course, exclaim ' Mashallah ! ' — ' What has God willed ! ' 
 in revealing to you my secret ; or perhaps ' Alhamdulillah,' — 
 * To God be the praise,' for having enabled you to know it. 
 The thought of attributing any credit personally to the guesser 
 of the secret would not enter into the mind of the speaker J. 
 In what, then, does this differ from Jesus's exclamation, which, 
 however it may present itself to the minds of Europeans, espe- 
 cially in the Greek translation, from which the spirit of the 
 original expressions has evaporated, was, at the most, a com- 
 pliment to Simon Peter on his discernment? Though this, after 
 all, was not very remarkable ; for, as has just been seen, the 
 ' devils ' had anticipated him ! 
 
 But in truth, it was not because of his cleverness that Jesus 
 expressed his approval of Simon's conduct, but rather on account 
 of his readiness in having, through his promptitude and excess 
 of zeal, brought the matter at once to a point, and so saved all 
 need of further explanation. For this our Lord had reason enough 
 to express his thanks to his disciple. But here, again, it is not 
 
 * Matth. xvi. 13-17. t Matth. xvi. 23. 
 
 \ See, to the like eflPect, a statement in Lane's ' Modern Egyptians,' i. 322. 
 
150 JTSrrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 the practice of the natives of Judaea, and that part of the world 
 generally, to express personal gratitude. "\Miere we say, ' I 
 thank you ' for a favour or benefit received, the Arabian or 
 Syrian, whether Mohammedan or Christian, exclaims, ' Kattir 
 kheirak' — 'May He (the Almighty) increase your welfare;' 
 and having thus thrown the burden of gratitude upon God, the 
 speaker troubles himself personally no further about it. 
 
 But the supposed blcssiug of Simon Peter does not end with the 
 words already cited ; for, immediately following them, and as if 
 forming a continuation of such blessing, is the further declara- 
 tion of our Lord, on which the Church of Rome so unwarrantably 
 pretends to establish its supremacy over all Christendom. The 
 words, as given in the Authorized English Version are : — 'And I 
 say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
 will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
 bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall 
 be loosed in heaven'*. 
 
 As the first portion of this passage involves some important 
 grammatical questions affecting its entire meaning, it is neces- 
 sary to give the words of the original Greek, which are as fol- 
 lows : — Ku'yw 2e aoi Xeyw on av el Werpos, nai ini ravrt] ti] irerpq. 
 olKo?o^r]rT(i) fiov Ttjv ei:t:\T](Tiai'. 
 
 Jfow, in discussing these words, it has in the first place to be 
 remarked, that the conjunction koi de, with which the sentence 
 commences, is most incorrectly translated ' and also.' For this 
 conjunction is clearly not simply copulative, but is also adversa- 
 tive ; and its well-known meaning is ' and yet,' ' but also,' 
 ' nevertheless,' — not ' and also.' This error is not confined to the 
 English version alone, but prevails in the Vulgate, where the 
 copulative conjunction ' et' is used, and likewise in all modern 
 versions, which, without exception, have the equivalents of 
 either ' and ' or ' a^id also.' 
 
 The cause of this palpable error, which any lexicon will suf- 
 fi.ce to show, is that our Lord's apostrophe in the preceding verse 
 * Matth. xvi. 18, 19. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS. 151 
 
 having been understood to convey a substantive blessing, the 
 following verse Avas read as if continuing and completing the 
 same blessing, and hence it was considered necessary that it 
 should be connected with what precedes it by means of the 
 copulative and not the adversative conjunction ; because this 
 latter would have been as inconsistent with the context as so 
 understood, as it will be found to be consistent with the same in 
 the sense now attributed to it. 
 
 But there is a still greater error, which exists not only in all 
 the versions, but, strangely enough, in the Greek text itself, 
 which, whether the whole Gospel was or was not originally 
 written in that language, must, as regards at least this particular 
 passage, be a translation from the vulgar Jewish language, — 
 
 * Syro-Chaldaic ' as it is unmeaningly called by some scholars*, — 
 which was spoken in Judaea in the time of Jesus, and which our 
 Lord himself spoke, as is evident by his address to the daughter 
 of Jairus, ' Talitha kumi ' f, and by his last words on the Cross, 
 ' Eloi ! Eloi ! lama sabakhthani ? ' J. 
 
 The author of the first Gospel in its existing form, who must 
 necessarily have translated our Lord's words into Greek out of 
 the Jewish language in which they were spoken, evidently did 
 not appreciate the antithesis between the two parts of the 
 sentence, — ' Thou art Kepha (the Rock),' and ' on this Keph 
 (Rock) ; ' which antithesis requires the intervening conjunction 
 1, of the language in which Jesus spoke, to be translated ^e, 
 meaning ' and yet ' or ' but,' instead of kul, which signifies 
 simply ' and.' 
 
 The frequent use of the Hebrew conjunction 1 in an adversa- 
 tive sense is known to grammarians, though it may not be so 
 well understood by the generality of Biblical scholars. It may 
 
 * Down to the time of Gesenius, and even later, the so-called ' Chaldee ' 
 language was supposed to be the eastern, and ' Syriac ' the western repre- 
 Bcntative of the ancient Hebrew. Eecently the two designations have 
 clandestinely ('unter der Hand') changed places! See Dr. A. Merx, in the 
 
 * Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft,' Bd. xxii. (1868), 
 8. 271. Therefore 'Chaldee' is merely the corrupted native 'Hebrew' of 
 Judaea. t Mark v. 41. J Mark xv. 34. 
 
152 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 here be illustrated by means of the following familiar examples : 
 — The first command to Adam was, ' Of every tree of the gar- 
 den thou mayest freely eat, and (yet) of the tree of the know- 
 ledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it ' *. In this pas- 
 sage the simple conjunction 1 of the Hebrew text would mean 
 KOI ; yet the Septuagint version properly translates it adversa- 
 tively le, meaning ' but,' as in fact we see it in our English 
 and other versions. So too, in the fourth Commandment of the 
 Decalogue, ' Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, and 
 (yet) the seventh day is the Sabbath ' f, the Hebrew text has 
 the same adversative 1, which is correctly rendered in the Greek 
 gf, and in the English ' but.' 
 
 The Greek translators were not, however, always so happy ; 
 for they frequently translated the "i by Kai, where the sense is 
 clearly adversative. For example, in the prophecy of Balaam, 
 from which the pseudo-Messiah Ear Cocaba — ' the Son of the 
 Star ' — assumed his name, it is said, ' I shall see him, and (yet) 
 not now : I shall behold him, and (yet) not nigh ' % \ where, in 
 both cases, the Hebrew text has 1, but the Greek version has 
 wrongly Kai. Again, at the commencement of Solomon's Song 
 occurs the passage, ' I am black, and (yet) comely' §, which the 
 Greek in like manner renders with the simple copulative kca. It 
 is remarkable that in both these cases the Latin Yulgate corrects 
 this error of the Greek Septuagint, by putting ' sed ' instead of 
 'et;' and the English and other versions follow this example. 
 Had the Latin Vulgate translated the kui in the passage of the first 
 Gospel now under consideration by ' sed,' as it has translated it 
 in those of Numbers and Canticles, it would have given the cor- 
 rect meaning of our Lord's words ; but it would at the same time 
 have seriously affected the claim of the Church of Rome in right 
 of St. Peter. 
 
 It is, however, quite certain that the "i in our Lord's address 
 to Simon Peter ought properly to have been translated Ze, ' and 
 yet,' or 'but,' instead of Kai, 'and ; ' so that the words of Jesus 
 may be freely paraphrased as follows : — ' Thou art Eock by name, 
 * Gen. ii. 16, 17. t Exod. xx. 9, 10. % Numb. xxiv. 17. § Cant. i. 5. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS. 163' 
 
 though not by nature ; for thou shalt forsake me and deny me. 
 But I am the true E,ock, and it is on this rock, namely, myself, 
 that I will build my Church.' It is of this same llock — i/ ^e nerpa 
 riv 6 Xpiaros — that Paul speaks in his first Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians * ; and on it he declares that he also, as a wise architect, 
 has laid the foundation for others to build thereon, — ' for other 
 foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus 
 the Messiah ' f. So, too, the Ephesians, in the same Apostle's 
 Epistle to them, are declared to be ' built upon the foimda- 
 tion of the apostles and prophets, Jesus the Messiah himself 
 being the chief corner stone ' J. And even in the first Epistle 
 attributed to St. Peter himself, it is said, ' Wherefore also it is 
 contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner 
 stone, elect, precious, and he that believeth on him shall not 
 be confounded ' §, — applying to the Messiah the words of Isaiah 
 xxviii. 16. 
 
 The discussion of this most important passage in the first 
 Gospel has thus far proceeded on the assumption that our Lord 
 did actually make use of the words attributed to him, but that 
 their meaning has been misunderstood, and they have conse- 
 quently been mistranslated. The like assumption will not, how- 
 ever, hold good with respect to the gift of ' the Keys of the King- 
 dom of Heaven,' with the supernatural and exclusive powers 
 accompanying the same. For, in the first place, this exclusive 
 gift to Peter is incompatible with our Lord's declaration to the 
 disciples generally, ' "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be 
 bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be 
 loosed in heaven ' || ; and in the next place, both the gift to Peter 
 alone, and that to the disciples collectively, are incompatible with 
 the declaration of the ' Alpha and Omega,' seen by the writer of 
 the Apocalypse in his vision, namely, ' I am he that liveth and 
 was dead ; and behold 1 am alive for evermore. Amen ; and have 
 the keys of hell and of death ' ^ ; and ' the Lord's ' further de- 
 scription of himself as ' he that is holy, he that is true, he that 
 
 * 1 Cor. X. 4. t 1 Cor. iii. 11. J Epb. ii. 20. 
 
 § 1 Pet. ii. 6. II Matth. xviii. 18. ^ Revel, i. 18. 
 
 h5 
 
154 JE8XT8 THE MESSIAH. 
 
 hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, 
 and shutteth and no man openeth'*. 
 
 The authenticity and authority of the Book of the Revelation 
 was unquestioned in the earliest ages of Christianity, and there- 
 fore these expressions in it preclude the idea that, at the time 
 when they were made use of, ' the Keys of the Kingdom of 
 Heaven ' had been entrusted by their true owner to anyone else. 
 This would indeed lead to the conclusion that . not only the pas- 
 sage containing the gift of the Keys to Peter, but also that in 
 which the gift is made to the disciples generally, are interpola- 
 tions ; but, without dwelling on this latter, it is sufficient to sug- 
 gest that the pretended gift to Peter was made for the purpose 
 of amplifying the mistaken idea that he was the Hock on which 
 the Church of the Messiah was to be built. 
 
 It remains to be shown how the omission of this interpolated 
 verse renders the narrative of the whole occurrence intelligible 
 and consistent, not only with itself, biit likewise with the state- 
 ments in the other two historical Gospels. 
 
 Peter, having, in the name of himself and his companions, 
 declared his Master to be the Messiah, the latter, in the idiom of 
 his native tongue, commends and thanks him for so doing, and then 
 continues — ' Nevertheless I say unto thee that thou art the Rock 
 by name ; and (yet) it is upon this rock (pointing to himself) 
 that I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
 vail against it ; ' for I ' hold the keys of hell and death.' This is 
 all our Lord said to Peter individually ; and then, addressing him- 
 self to the disciples generally, he commanded them not to make 
 known to the people what he still desired should be concealed 
 from them. 
 
 The entire passage shall now be repeated in its amended form, 
 in order that it may be seen how connected and consistent it is 
 rendered by the omission of the interpolated verse : — ' Neverthe- 
 less I say unto thee that thou art the Rock (by name) ; but (it is) 
 upon this Rock (myself) that I will build my Church, and the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Then charged he his 
 * Revel, iii. 7. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS. 
 
 155 
 
 disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the 
 Messiah.' 
 
 It is highly significant, as evidence of the interpolation con- 
 tended for, that in the second and third Gospels Jesus's laudatory 
 and declaratory address to Peter is omitted. All that we find 
 there is, that in the former Peter declares Jesus to be ' the 
 Messiah'*, and in the latter ' the Messiah of God 'f— the Lord's 
 Anointed ; and that thereupon Jesus, without addressing Peter 
 at all, forbade his disciples to make it publicly known. And it is 
 still more significant that, whilst in the third Gospel Peter's sub- 
 sequent rebuke of Jesus and the latter's animadversion of him 
 are omitted, they are both inserted in the second Gospel J, which 
 Papias, who wrote about the beginning of the second century, 
 says he was informed by the presbyter John was written by 
 Mark, ' who, being Peter's interpreter, wrote with great accu- 
 racy whatever that Apostle remembered '§, and who, if duty 
 required him to record what was so much to his employer's dis- 
 credit, would surely not have left untold what was so decidedly 
 to his honour and glory. 
 
 It has already been remarked how our Lord, in speaking of his 
 Church being built on a rock, again readily availed himself of a 
 builder's simile ; but of course it is to be understood that it is not a 
 material church or edifice that was so spoken of, but the 'EKKXrjaia 
 — the assembly or congregation of the elect or called ; like as ' the 
 household of God ' is declared by Paul to be ' built upon the 
 foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus the Messiah him- 
 self being the chief corner stone ' ||. 
 
 In the fourth Gospel, as might be expected, the whole inci- 
 dent takes an entirely different form. As John the Baptist is 
 therein said to have from the commencement proclaimed Jesus to 
 be ' the Lamb of God,' and Andrew to have announced him as the 
 Messiah to his brother Simon Peter ^, there was no necessity, or 
 indeed opportunity, for the latter to make any express declaration 
 to that effect. But after some mystical sayings on the part of 
 
 * Mark viii. 29. t Luke ix. 20. | Mark viii. .32, 33. 
 
 § Euseb. 'Eccl. Hist.' iii. 39. || Eph. ii. 20. ^ John i. 29, 41. 
 
loG JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 Jesus with reference to his own cli^^ne nature, it is stated that 
 ' From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no 
 more with him. Then said Jesus imto the twelve, "W'ill yc also 
 go away ? Then Simon Peter [who is represented merely as the 
 spokesman of the little party] answered him, Lord, to whom shall 
 we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and 
 are sure that thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God'*. 
 It is needless to dwell on the unreal character of this statement 
 and its inconsistency with those in the other Gospels. 
 
 From a review of the whole subject it results that the three 
 historical Gospels, taken together, record an historical fact, which, 
 by a ' pious fraud,' has been ' developed,' — Peter's part in what 
 occurred having been gradually varied by the omission of our 
 Lord's reproof of him, and the insertion in its stead of a laudatory 
 address ; and this latter having been mistranslated and misunder- 
 stood, an opportunity was thereby afforded for the interpolation 
 of the passage in which ' the Keys ' are given to him who by 
 that time had come to be regarded as being really that ' Rock,' 
 which he was only by name. 
 
 That our Lord himself gave to Simon bar Jonah the surname 
 of ' Kepha ' — ' the Pock ' — seems not to be open to question, 
 inasmuch as it is recorded in the second and third Gospels like- 
 wise t ; but that he did not apply that name to him as indicative 
 of his personal character, must be equally certain. I^otwith- 
 standing his fervent and exuberant zeal, the marked defect of 
 Simon Peter's character was inconstancy and want of firmness, 
 as is not only evinced in the Gospel history, but likewise in his 
 vacillating conduct with respect to the Gentile converts, for which 
 the more steadfast Paul ' withstood him to the face, because he 
 was to be blamed ' J. His Master then, who so well knew Simon's 
 weakness, and even reproached him for it, would surely never 
 have likened him to a rock, unless it were on the principle of 
 ' Incus a non lucendo.' It is therefore more likely that the sur- 
 name was given for some other reason, which we have not been 
 made acquainted with, and are not now able to divine. 
 
 * John vi. GG-G9. f See Mark iii. 10; Luke vi. 14. J Gal. ii. 11. 
 
THE GOOD TIDINGS, 157 
 
 The possession by Simon Peter of such a significant surname,- 
 coupled with the unquestionable fact that he was the first of the 
 twelve disciples who joined Jesus, and that throughout the entire 
 history he seems to have asserted his priority, and to have acted 
 as spokesman and chief of the little party, — though only as 
 ' primus inter pares,' — may have given rise to the legend of his 
 being ' the Rock,' through an attempt to explain this singular 
 cognomen ; just as the monument erected to the ' Genius loci ' in 
 the park at Weimar, has given rise to the legend of the baker 
 who killed the serpent with poisoned cakes, related in a former 
 Chapter*. 
 
 In conclusion, it must be remarked that the Church of Rome is 
 not entitled to the doubtful merit of having originated this legend 
 respecting its patron Saint ; for the same dates from a period 
 when the Western Church was too weak to have possessed the 
 power to introduce into the first Gospel a clause according to 
 St. Peter such preeminence and exclusive authority. Besides, it 
 exists in all Greek manuscripts. The interpolation must there- 
 fore be attributed to one of the Eastern Churches, during that 
 mysterious period of which we possess no certain memorials, but 
 which, on account of the otherwise inexplicable darkness that 
 envelopes it, must have been one when events of an exceptionable 
 character occurred, which would not bear the light, and which it 
 was incumbent on the leaders of the ' Church' then struggling into 
 existence — it may even have been essential to that existence — to 
 bury in total oblivion. That the Romish clergy should afterwards 
 have gladly availed themselves of this pious fraud, and further 
 developed the legend by making Simon ' the Rock ' to have been 
 the first Bishop of a city in which he never set foot, is no more 
 than might be expected from the members of an establishment 
 whose existence has always been mainly dependent on systematic 
 fraud and imposture. 
 
 * Chapter IV. page 55. 
 
158 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 From the notificatioa in the first Gospel of a specific moment 
 when Simon Peter, as the mouth-piece of the twelve disciples, de- 
 clared their belief that their Master was the Messiah, it is 
 manifest that Jesus had not previously made himself known to 
 them in that character, although they maj- long have had their 
 suspicions on the subject. But when once they had come to re- 
 cognize him in his true character, it became necessary that he 
 should at the same time endeavour to eff'ace from their minds the 
 erroneous impressions that would naturally have resulted from 
 that recognition, owing to the mistaken notions entertained by 
 them, in common with the rest of their countrymen, respecting 
 the Messiah and his Kingdom. This he did by explaining to 
 them, most distinctly and equivocally, that he was not come in 
 the character of a conqueror and restorer of the temporal kingdom 
 of his ancestor David, but as * a man of sorrows and acquainted 
 with grief *, about to suff'er an ignominious death on the cross. 
 Accordingly we read that ' From that time forth began Jesus to 
 show unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and 
 suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, 
 and be killed, and be raised again the third day ' f. How un- 
 willingly the disciples received this intelligence may readily be 
 understood. They were Jews, and, like the generality of their 
 countrymen, they could not realize any idea of the Messiah but as 
 a prince who was to restore the kingdom of Israel. That he 
 should accomplish this by supernatural means would not have 
 been surprising to them : they even looked for something of the 
 sort. But a spiritual kingdom — the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, 
 — which was to be inaugurated by the violent death of its 
 anointed sovereign, was something quite beyond their comprc- 
 
 * Isaiah liii. 3. t Matth. xvi. 21 ; Mark viii. 31. 
 
JESTJS THE MESSIAH. 159 
 
 hension ; and so indeed it continued to be to them and to the gene- 
 rality of believers even after our Lord's death and resurrection. 
 
 Personally the twelve disciples had a more immediate cause for 
 disappointment. They had not unreasonably looked forward to 
 the advantages they would derive from their Master's exaltation ; 
 and now he told them that he himself expected nothing but to be 
 put to death ! His holding out to them that he was to be raised 
 again from the dead on the third day, was but a poor satisfaction 
 to them for the loss of their material expectations. How this 
 announcement operated on the other disciples is not recorded ; but 
 Simon Peter — the Prince of the Apostles, by name ' the Rock,' 
 but in his nature ' unstable as water,' like Reuben, the first-born 
 of the sons of Israel — he took his Master to task, and began to re- 
 buke him, saying, ' Be it far from thee. Lord; this shall not be unto 
 thee ' ! * He would not allow his Master to be anything but the 
 occupier of the temporal throne of his ancestor David. But Jesus 
 rebuked him almost in the very words he had made use of when 
 tempted in the wilderness f : ' Get thee behind me, Satan : thou 
 art an offence unto me ; for thou savourest not the things that be 
 of God, but those that be of man ' J. 
 
 Notwithstanding this outburst of dissatisfaction on the part of 
 Simon Peter, he still continued to follow his Master, as did like- 
 wise the rest of the twelve disciples, and so doubtless did many 
 others. Still it may be looked on as certain that, when the true 
 character of the Messiah's Kingdom came to be known, many 
 tui'ned away from him as a visionary, and quitted him in disgust. 
 Say what he would, happen w^hat might, they had expected and 
 calculated on his reigning in the body on earth. The trans- 
 figuration on the mountain, when he showed himself to the 
 Apostles Peter, James, and John, in company with Moses and 
 Elijah, may have been intended as an initiation into the mysteries 
 of the true Kingdom, which at the time left but few traces on 
 their minds, so difficult was it to obliterate their preconceived 
 notions on the subject. Their worldly-mindeduess is shown by 
 
 * Matth. xyi. 22 ; Mark viii. 32. t See above, Chapter XI. page 131. 
 I Matth. xvi. 23 ; Mark viii. 33. 
 
160 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 the qiiestion put to our Lord almost immediately afterwards : — 
 ' At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, AMio is 
 the greatest iu the Kingdom of Heaven?'* — which drew forth 
 one of his most impressive lessons. He called a little child unto 
 him, and sat him in the midst of them, and said, ' Verily I say 
 unto you, except ye he converted, and become as little children, 
 ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Whosoever 
 therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is 
 greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven ' f. 
 
 Little, however, did this avail. Their selfishness was still 
 more plainly evinced at a later period by Simon Peter's question, 
 just after his Master had been giving them a lesson on the worth- 
 lessness, in a spiritual sense, of worldly riches. Then answered 
 Peter and said unto him, ' Behold, we have forsaken all and fol- 
 lowed thee ! What shall we have therefore?' +, which question, 
 whilst manifesting how little he was deserving of the appellation 
 of ' the Rock,' received an answer hardly satisfying to the spirit 
 that had prompted it. Yet more, when Jesus had endeavoured 
 to explain to them that they must not expect to be repaid in this 
 world for aU their sacrifices, nor to be rewarded according to 
 their merits in their own estimation, — that the last should be 
 first and the first last, — the mother of Zebedee's children came 
 asking, to the great indignation of the other ten discii^les, that 
 her two sons might sit, the one on his right hand and the other 
 on his left, when he should come to his Kingdom §. If they were 
 not to be his ministers and governors on earth, they might at all 
 events look for seats of honour in heaven ! 
 
 The most lamentable proof of the worldly and selfish spirit un- 
 fortunately but too prevalent among our Lord's discijiles is 
 aff^orded by the conduct of the traitor Judas Iscariot. There is 
 no ground for questioning his sincerity in the first instance. In 
 attaching himself to Jesus he had been actuated by feelings similar 
 to those of the other disciples, — conviction of the goodness of 
 the cause, coupled with the expectation that his espousal of it 
 
 * Matth. xviii. 1. t Mattli. sviii. 3, 4. 
 
 I Matth. xix. 27. § Matth. xx. 20, 21. 
 
JESUS THE MESSIAH. 161 
 
 would lead to some personal advantage, either material or moral : 
 feelings which, more or less profound, more or less pure, more 
 or less sincere, actuate all mankind, according to the character 
 of the individual and the circumstances under which he may 
 happen to be placed. His returning the thirty pieces of silver 
 received from the high priest and elders must be looked on as 
 a proof that he did not act from merely mercenary considera- 
 tions ; and there is no valid reason for supposing him to have 
 been a thief, as the writer of the fourth Gospel maliciously or 
 ignorantly calls him *. Actuated by the same hopes of personal 
 advantage that Peter, James, and John had manifested and been 
 reproved for, Judas was evidently of a more determined character 
 than them all. He could not have been a man bad at heart, or 
 he would hardly have been selected by our Lord as one of his 
 intimate associates ; and if, previously to his fatal act of treachery, 
 nothing good is said of him, there is, on the other hand, no re- 
 cord of anything bad against him, as there is in the case of the 
 three Apostles just named. 
 
 If the conduct of Judas be contrasted with that of Peter, 
 the difference is more in degree than in kind ; only there was 
 far more lip-service with Peter. After volunteering the declara- 
 tion, ' Though all shall be offended because of thee, yet will I 
 never be offended,' and then repelling his Master's sorrowful 
 intimation of his approaching fault by the solemn asseveration? 
 ' Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee,' he 
 fell fast asleep in spite of Jesus's repeated earnest desire that he 
 should watch ; and when he woke, it was only to give the lie to 
 his solemn pledge, by first forsaking his Lord and fleeing, and 
 then returning to deny him in the vilest manner, first with an 
 oath, and then with cursing and swearing f ! 
 
 After all this, Peter went out and wept bitterly, and Hved 
 on to evince his weakness of character by his tergiversations, for 
 which Paul, like his Master, had to withstand him to the face. 
 Judas, a far more energetic and determined man, who perhaps 
 under more favourable circumstances might have proved himself 
 * John xii. 6. t Matth. xxvi. 33-74. 
 
162 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 a better man than Simon Peter, was led in a moment of despera- 
 tion to betray his Master ; but he, too, repented when, alas ! it 
 was too late, and testified his repentance in the same energetic 
 and determined manner. He cast down the blood-money he had 
 received, and departed, and went and hanged himself*. In the 
 parable of the lost sheep, onr Lord's words are, ' I say unto 
 you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that 
 repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which 
 need no repentance ' t. Is the miserable Judas alone to be 
 denied the benefit of this gracious assurance ? 
 
 When Jesus revealed himself to his disciples, he had cautioned 
 them not to make his true character publicly known. In the cures 
 operated by him by what were looked on as supernatural means, 
 — and it would be hazardous to decide how much in his nature 
 and in his actions were really different from other men, — he in 
 like manner expressly commanded them that what he had done 
 was to be kept secret, lest the people should openly acknowledge 
 him to be the Messiah. Still, in spite of all this, the belief that 
 he was truly the long-expected Deliverer of Israel could not fail 
 to gain possession of the public mind. ' Is not this the Son of 
 David ? ' X exclaimed some persons. In like manner, then, as it 
 had preshadowed itself to his mind long before in the wilderness §, 
 so now he distinctly saw that the only means of avoiding a popu- 
 lar uproar and commotion, which might easily be construed by 
 the Roman authorities into an overt act of sedition or rebellion, 
 was to begin a religious conflict with the heads of the Jewish 
 Church. His altercations with the Scribes and Pharisees had 
 already become more frequent and more embittered. At the 
 outset his opponents had been satisfied with depreciating him 
 in public estimation by imputing his marvellous acts to necro- 
 mancy, saying ' He casteth out devils through Beelzebub, the 
 prince of the devils ' || . By-and-by, notwithstanding their incre- 
 dulity, the Jewish clergy could not help entertaining the idea 
 
 * Matth. xxvii. 5. t Luke xv. 7. 
 
 t Matth. xii. 2'.). § See above, Chapter XI. page 133. 
 
 II Matth. ix. 34, xii. 24 ; Mark iii. 22 ; Luke xi. 15. 
 
JESUS THE MESSIAH. 163 
 
 that Jesiis mig-ht possibly be what the common people generally 
 Avere beginning to believe him to be ; and they therefore sought 
 of him a sign, — a sign from heaven, — whereby they might be able 
 to judge of the validity of his pretensions. But he returned them 
 only an ambiguous answer, in his allusion to the prophet Jonah, 
 the true sense of which they were unable to understand*. 
 
 This state of affairs had not long continued when the national 
 feast of the Passover drew nigh, and Jesus plainly saw that this 
 would be the opportune moment to bring about his self-sacrifice 
 in the way fitted for the accomplishment of his mission on earth, — 
 that is to say, by making the Temple of the Almighty at Jerusalem 
 the arena of a mortal combat between him and his enemies ; 
 the result of which would be, that he would lay down his life in 
 the character of the suffering Messiah, in battle with the spiritual 
 heads of the Jewish nation ; not in that of a pretender to the 
 temporal throne of his ancestor David, and as such a rebel against 
 the Imperial Majesty of Rome. Accordingly he made j)repara- 
 tions for his journey to the capital ; and departing from Galilee, 
 he came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan, taking the road 
 down the valley of that river as far as opposite Jericho, instead 
 of passing through Samaria and the hill-country. 
 
 Whilst on this journey there occurred another proof of how 
 little the disciples even then understood their Master. We read 
 that Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples apart 
 in the way, and said unto them, ' Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, 
 and the Son of Man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests 
 and unto the Scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and 
 shall deliver him to the Gentiles, to mock, and to scourge, and to 
 crucify him ; and the third day he shall rise again.' And what 
 was their answer ? A dispute among them for the chief places 
 in their Master's Kingdom after his deathf ! More than this is 
 not recorded ; but more is not wanted to place their conduct and 
 the motives for that conduct in the true light. 
 
 On this journey Jesus was accompanied not only by his disci- 
 ples, but by a mixed multitude of Jews going up to Jerusalem 
 
 * Matth. xii. 39-41. f See Mattb. xx. 17-24. 
 
164 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 likewise to keep the Passover. This visit to the capital was the 
 first and only one made by our Lord, The statement in the fourth 
 Gospel that Jesus visited Jerusalem more than once cannot be 
 accepted as authentic. It would have been utterly impossible 
 for him to have acted as he is recorded in all four Gospels to have 
 done in cleansing the Temple*, without inducing the catastrophe 
 which actually did occur, as soon as he took on himself to act in 
 so offensive a manner. It was not merely a declaration of war, 
 but it was the commencement of actual hostilities, for which the 
 authorities of the Temple could not but instantly retaliate, as he 
 meant to force them to do, and as we see they did. 
 
 Every step now taken by our Lord only brought him nearer to 
 the wished-for goal. His Messiahship began to be generally 
 recognized. The blind men by the way-side cried to him ' Have 
 mercy on us, Lord, thou Son of David 'f, and his entrance into 
 the city from Bethphage, seated on an ass, was perfectly tri- 
 umphant. ' A very great multitude spread their garments in 
 the way ; others cut down branches from the trees, and strewed 
 them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that 
 followed, cried, saying, ' Save us, Son of David ! Blessed is he 
 that cometh in the name of the Lord ; Save us, in the highest ' J, 
 which words are an adaptation of the 25th and 26th verses of the 
 118th Psalm : — ' Save now, I beseech thee, Lord : Lord, I 
 beseech thee, send now prosperity. Blessed is he that cometh 
 in the name of the Lord. We have blessed you out of the house 
 of the Lord : ' — these verses being familiar to the Jewish people, 
 as forming part of the Great Hallel or Thanksgiving, which con- 
 sists of that Psalm and the five preceding ones. 
 
 No wonder was it then that when our Lord was come into 
 Jerusalem all the city was moved, saying, ' Who is this ? And 
 the multitude said. This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of 
 Galilee ' § : — a question and answer which alone ought to be 
 accepted as a proof that this must have been Jesus's first visit to 
 Jerusalem since his childhood, and that he was still unknown in 
 
 » Matth. xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-17; Luke xix. 45, 4G; John ii. 1.3-16. 
 t Matth. XX. 31. I Matth. xxi. 8, 9. § Matth. xxi. 10, 11. 
 
JESUS THE MESSIAH. 165 
 
 that city until he was thus openly greeted as the Messiah, the 
 Son of David, 
 
 Our Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem is recorded in 
 sKghtly different terms in the three historical Gospels, and must 
 be recognized as a fact. In the fourth Gospel it is omitted, be- 
 cause it brings Jesus too forward in his character of the Messiah, 
 — as the Son of David, rather than as the Son of God, — which 
 it was not in the spirit of that most mischievous dociunent to 
 acknowledge. 
 
 Immediately on his arrival in Jerusalem, ' Jesus went into the 
 Temj)le of God, and cast out all those that sold and bought in 
 the Temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, 
 and the seats of those that sold doves, and said unto them, It 
 is written. My house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye 
 have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and the lame 
 came to him in the Temple, and he healed them. And when the 
 chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, 
 and children crying in the Temple and saying, Save us, Son 
 of David, they were sore displeased, and said unto him, Hearest 
 thou what these say? And Jesus said unto them, Yea, have ye 
 never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast 
 perfected praise ? ' * 
 
 M. Eenan, in his entirely mistaken view of our Lord's 
 character and course of action, looks upon his conduct in this 
 respect as having been the result of over-excitement ; whereas 
 it was, on the contrary, the consequence of the utmost coolness 
 and deliberation. Jesus's object in acting as he did was to bring 
 himself at once into collision with the religious authorities of 
 Jerusalem, and not with the Roman governor, who might easily 
 have been brought to regard his triumphal entry into the city 
 and the cries of the multitude as seditious acts, requiring to be 
 instantly put down with a high hand. It was with the like 
 object that Jesus did not remain in Jerusalem during the night, 
 but ' left them and went out of the city into Bethany, and 
 he lodged there ' f, — his greatest care throughout being not to 
 * Matth. xxi. 12-16. t Matth. xxi. 17. 
 
166 JEaUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 commit, or to countenance, any act that might cause him to be 
 arrested as a rebel or seditious ringleader. 
 
 On the following moriiiug, Jesus returned into the city ; and in 
 order tliat he might not collect a crowd and excite a tumult in 
 the streets, and so give offence to the Roman authorities, he 
 went straight to his own chosen arena. ' 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 autho- 
 rity dost thou these things ? and who gave thee this authority ? ' 
 To this he returned no direct answer, but said, ' I will also ask you 
 one thing, which if ye teU me, I in like manner will tell you by 
 what authority I do these things. The baptism of John whence 
 was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned wdth 
 themselves, saying. If we shall say from heaven, he will say 
 unto us, Why did ye not then believe him ? But if we shall 
 say, Of men, we fear the people ; for all hold John as a prophet ' *. 
 The only way to avoid this dilemma was to reply, as Jesus in- 
 tended they should reply, ' We cannot tell.' On which he was 
 justified, even in their own eyes, in answering them as he did, 
 ' Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.' And 
 then he gave utterance to several biting parables, which, when the 
 chief priests and Pharisees heard, they perceived that he spake 
 of them. But though they would willingly have laid hands on 
 him, they durst not do so, because they feared the multitude, 
 who took him for a prophet t. 
 
 From what is here stated two tilings are evident. The first 
 is that, while John the Baptist's ministry was of long standing, 
 that of Jesus himself was quite of recent date ; and secondly, 
 this questioning by the chief priests and elders proves that they 
 were surprised at the daring novelty of his conduct, and had 
 not at all made up their minds how they ought to proceed 
 against him ; though Jesus, by his parable of the householder, 
 whose son the husbandmen kUled J, plainly pointed out the 
 course they would eventually pursue. 
 
 This course they were not long in adopting. ' Then went the 
 
 * Matth. xxi. 23-2G. t Matlh. xxi. 45, 46. J Matth. xxi. 33-41. 
 
JESTJS THE MESSIAH. 167 
 
 Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his 
 talk'*, — on matters not of doctrine, but of state, in the hope 
 of getting him to speak seditiously against the Eoman authorities. 
 ' And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, 
 saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the 
 way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man : for thou 
 regardest not the person of man. Tell us, therefore, what 
 thinkest thou ? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not ? 
 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said. Why tempt ye 
 me, ye hypocrites ? ' He saw plainly that the object of their 
 question was to elicit an answer such as might enable them to 
 denounce him to the Eoman authorities as the utterer of sedi- 
 tious sentiments. But they were signally foiled in their attempt. 
 He quietly desired them to bring him a denarius, a Eoman coin 
 in circulation in Judtea, and as such used by the Jews themselves 
 to pay their tribute with, and doubtless for other purposes. And 
 when it was brought, he asked them, ' Whose is this image and 
 superscription ? ' They could only answer ' Caesar's.' Then gave 
 he to them that memorable reply, which sums up and clearly 
 defines the duty of every member of society : — ' Eender therefore 
 unto Caesar the things which are Ccesar's, and unto God the 
 things that are God's.' No wonder was it that when they heard 
 this they marvelled, and left him, and went their way f. 
 
 The Pharisees being foiled in their attempt to lead Jesus to 
 say unawares something that might have been repeated to Pilate 
 as seditious, the Sadducees next beset him, putting questions 
 to him with reference to the resurrection from the dead, which, 
 after his own fashion, he successfully turned rather than an- 
 swered, thereby only astonishing the multitude yet more J. 
 And then the Pharisees, hearing how he had put the Sadducees 
 to silence, returned to the attack; and one of them, a lawj^er or 
 scribe, asked Jesus what was the great commandment in the 
 Law, which our Lord answered in the same orthodox manner as 
 he had answered the pious scribe on a former occasion §. 
 
 * Matth. xxii. 15. t Matth. xxii. 16-22, 
 
 t Matth. xxii. 23-33. § Mark xii. 29-31. 
 
168 JEStrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 At leugth, as if tired with their importunity, Jesus, in his 
 turn, became the questioner, and asked them, seemingly abruptly, 
 ' What think ye of the Messiah ? whose son is he ? ' To this 
 there was only one answer to be given by them, namely, ' David's.' 
 Upon which he immediately followed it up with a second ques- 
 tion, which they could not answer: 'How then doth David in 
 spirit call him Lord, saying, the Lord [Jehovah] said unto my Lord 
 [AdonaiJ, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies 
 thy footstool ? ' And then, to mystify them yet more, he added, 
 ' If David then call him Lord, how is he his son ? ' The Evan- 
 gelist truly records that to this no man was able to answer him 
 a word, and that neither from that day forth durst any man 
 ask him any more questions *. 
 
 This question of Jesus has by some been understood to imply 
 that, in his own opinion, the Messiah was not the Son of David. 
 It does nothing of the sort. In itself, it cannot be made to 
 signify more than that the Psalmist recognized the superiority of 
 the Messiah in his spiritual Kingdom, above David, his ancestor, 
 as a temporal sovereign. But it was not the object of Jesus to 
 suggest this explanation. With the wisdom of the serpent and 
 the harmlessness of the dove, as witnessed on the former occa- 
 sion when he posed them with his question i-especting John the 
 Baptist, his object was to silence them and send them away, 
 wondering what he possibly could mean by asking such a ques- 
 tion, — perhaps excogitating some sapient reply, to be given on 
 the authority of some learned Rabbi as wise as themselves ! For 
 had they attempted to question him further, he had his answer 
 ready : — ' First explain to me why David called the Messiah 
 Lord, and then you shall be at liberty to question me.' 
 
 This questioning and cross-questioning, this playing with 
 words, had however to be brought to an end. The supreme mo- 
 ment was now at hand. After many important conversations with 
 the disciples, Jesus intimated to them that after two days would 
 be the Passover, when he was to be betrayed and crucified f. On 
 the other hand, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders 
 * Matth. xxii. 42-45. t Matth. xxvi. 2. 
 
JESUS THE MESSIAH. 169 
 
 of the people assembled together in the palace of Caiaphas, the 
 high priest ; and as they had failed in their attempt to make 
 JesTis criminate himself, they consulted how they should cause 
 his death by subtilty *, that is to say, as is shown in the sequel, 
 by suborning false witnesses f. They were, however, of opinion 
 that they should do nothing dui'ing the feast of unleavened 
 bread, which lasted from the 14th to the 21st of Nisan, that 
 is to say, during a whole week, — not on ' the feast day ' only, as 
 it is erroneously translated in the English Authorized Version J, 
 — lest there should be an uproar among the people. But here 
 the intervention of a traitor from the intimate circle of the dis- 
 ciples of Jesus caused them to alter their plan. Judas Iscariot, 
 one of the twelve, ' went unto the chief priests and said. What 
 will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you ? And they 
 covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And from that 
 time he sought opportunity to betray him '§. 
 
 Combining this statement with the account of what subse- 
 quently occurred, it is evident that Judas's intention was not only 
 that the arrest of Jesus should take place immediately, but also 
 that he himself would be prepared to bear witness against his 
 Master, by adducing some proof of his culpable intentions that 
 would render him amenable to the civil and military authorities. 
 And what he proposed was, that the arrest should take place 
 directly after the Paschal supper, when .Jesus was going out of 
 the city to sleep according to his custom, and when there would 
 not be many persons stirring. 
 
 To this act of treachery, as has already been explained, Judas 
 was not led by merely mercenary motives ||. He saw bnt too 
 plainly that the cause in which he had interested himself was 
 irrevocably lost ; and the revulsion of feeling consequent on his 
 disappointment, aided not improbably by the momentary desire 
 to profit by what he did, led to his unprincipled conduct. This 
 is not said in extenuation, but only in explanation of Judas's 
 conduct. How can we hope to understand the Scripture history, 
 
 * Matth. xxvi. 4. f Matth. sxvi. 59. t Matth. xxvi. 5. 
 
 § Matth. xxvi. 14-16. || See above, Chapter XIII. page 161. 
 
 I 
 
170 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 unless, after making allowance for difference of country and 
 differences of manners and customs, we look on the motives of 
 men's conduct as having been then the same as they are now, 
 and as they ever will be so long as the world continues as it is ? 
 If we look on saints as being always saints, and on sinners as 
 always sinners, we shall form a very false estimate of man's real 
 nature, and of his actions and the motives for them. 
 
 CHAPTER XIY. 
 THE MIEACLES OF JESUS. 
 
 After centm'ies of almost universal implicit faith in the truth, 
 in the most literal sense, of the events recorded in the four 
 Canonical Gospels, which were believed to have been written 
 under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, a tendency has 
 manifested itself among theologians and biblical students during 
 the present centuiy to deny the inspiration of the Scriptures 
 themselves, to question the supernatural character of the events 
 recorded in them, and to endeavour to explain the same ac- 
 cording to various systems of interpretation, all resulting, how- 
 ever, in the opinion that, as regards the laws of nature, as 
 generally understood, such events formed no exception. In the 
 case of our Lord Jesus in particular* the opinion has become very 
 prevalent, and is apparently widely gaining favour, that he was 
 a mere man, in no respect differing from other mortals, either in 
 his birth, in his life, or in his death. 
 
 Such opinions, however erroneous they may be, ought not to 
 be regarded as adverse by believers in Revelation ; because by 
 showing the futility of the objections that were once made to the 
 fact of the personal individuality of our Lord Jesus, they supply 
 additional arguments in favour of the historical truth of the 
 Scripture History, and thus afford a vantage ground from which 
 
HIS MIRACLES. 171 
 
 such believers may safely and surely make the next great step 
 towards the correct understanding of the Christian Dispensation. 
 They are thereby placed in a position to say, that if our Lord's 
 existence on earth be a fact, — if, after the severest and most ad- 
 verse investigation, the main incidents of his life and the founda- 
 tion of Christianity are proved to be true, — it is neither consistent 
 nor logical to refuse credence to those portions of the history 
 vehich appear to be of a supernatural character, for no other 
 reason than that they are exceptional. It may be admitted that 
 it would be equally illogical, though it might be consistent, to 
 claim for all the details of that history the same amount of credi- 
 bility as for the main facts themselves ; but at all events these 
 details ought not to be summarily rejected, even though some of 
 them be what is vulgarly called ' miraculous.' 
 
 It is much to be regretted that such expressions as ' mira- 
 culous ' and ' supernatural,' though convenient perhaps in com- 
 mon parlance, should be employed by scholars and divines. In 
 the Universe everything is miraculous, as being beyond human 
 comprehension : nothing is supernatural, or contrary to the laws 
 of nature. For the only Supernatiiral is God, the Creator and 
 Euler of the Universe ; and His will is the supreme Law of 
 nature. It is He alone who can say — 
 
 ' Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro rati one voluntas ! ' 
 
 Man, with his limited intellect and faculties, is unable to com- 
 prehend fully the operations of that Will as manifested in the 
 order of nature generally, and in the facts of history specially. 
 But, whilst humbly and earnestly striving to pay implicit obedi- 
 ence to that Will as so manifested, he is not required to do so 
 blindly or foolishly. On the contrary, it is his bouuden duty to 
 exercise, with the utmost care and diligence, the faculties with 
 which he is endowed by his Creator, in order that he may be sure 
 he does not deceive himself or others with respect to things 
 which appear to him to be direct manifestations of the Divine 
 AVill, but which may in truth be only the vain imaginations of 
 mortal and fallible men like himself. How many errors and 
 
 i2 
 
172 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 fallacies have been, and are still being, detected in the various 
 departments of science, that is to say in the interpretation of the 
 "Will of God as manifested in His material laws. Take, for ex- 
 ample, the most striking and most familiar phenomenon of 
 nature, the rising of the sun, as in popular language it has been 
 called throughout countless ages, and is still called even by 
 astronomers ; without, however, necessarily involving the belief 
 that the sun actually rises in the east and sets in the west, till it 
 was ignorantly and dogmatically declared to do so by the Church 
 of Rome, and it thenceforth became heretical to believe in the 
 truth ! 
 
 With such an example before us, we are not merely justified 
 in believing, but have reason to feel assured, that errors and 
 fallacies have in like manner existed and still do exist in our 
 faith, whether religious or otherwise, that is to say, in our in- 
 terpretation of the Will of God as manifested in history. It is 
 therefore the imperative duty of the true jDhilosopher, the lover 
 of Divine Wisdom, both in science and in religion, to continue 
 his researches perseveringly and unflinchijigly, with the humble 
 conviction of how little he really knows, and how much he has 
 yet to learn, but at the same time with the proud certainty that 
 whatever he may earnestly and conscientiously be able to accom- 
 plish, will, with God's blessing, be so much gained to the cause of 
 truth. It is for the sciolist and dogmatist, the scientific and 
 religious quack — whether consciously deceiving others or un- 
 consciously deceiving himself, God knows, — to pretend to iufal- 
 libmty. 
 
 Of all that has been written on the subject of''^he miraculous 
 and supernatural, the far greater portion has been in vain, in 
 consequence of the want of a previous definition of these terms, 
 which has caused them to be continually understood and used in 
 widely different senses. A miracle is not- that which is super- 
 natural in the sense of being contrary to nature absolutely ; 
 for this would be simply impossible. It is only what is rela- 
 tively so, as being something beyond the comprehension of the 
 observer, and out of the established order of nature, as far as his 
 
HIS MIRACLES. 173 
 
 limited knowledge or experience of the laws of nature extends ; 
 and the more limited that knowledge or experience is, so in the 
 same proportion will miracles exist. He who knows no better 
 holds ' omne ignotum pro mirifico.' The practical operation of 
 this is, that the ignorant and credulous man is disposed, and far too 
 often is encouraged by those whose duty it is to teach him better, 
 to impute to some mj^sterious and inexplicable cause whatever is 
 not appreciable by his reason ; and thus he soon comes to believe 
 in all sorts of impostiu'es, and at length lives in an atmosphere of 
 ' miracles.' 
 
 The kindling of the Holy Fire in the Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre at Jerusalem, the ' hoeus-j)ocus ' of Transubstantia- 
 tiou, the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius at Naples, the 
 ' winking ' Madonnas, and the host of ' miracles ' in full opera- 
 tion at the present day in various parts of Christendom are 
 lamentable proofs of the weakness and gullibility of the masses 
 of mankind, and of the power which the crafty pastors exercise 
 over their foohsh and confiding flocks, whom they hold in this 
 state of crass ignorance in order that they may fleece them the 
 more easily and more closely. 
 
 But if such is the case with the credulous man, he that is 
 incredulous errs almost, if not quite, as much in the opposite 
 direction. From his own sceptical turn of mind in the first in- 
 stance, and afterwards from witnessing the mischievous conse- 
 quences of blind faith on the part of others, he is induced to 
 generalize as incorrectly as those others do ; and thus he declares 
 to be false and impossible what to him is supernatural, that is to 
 say, what is beyond the bounds of the laws of nature, as the same 
 are more fully, but still imperfectly, known to and understood by 
 him. For it is a contradiction in terms, a simple absurdity, to say 
 that anything occurring in nature is siijy er-natural. If it is an 
 actual fact, it may be wonderful, marvellous, miraculous, inexpli- 
 cable, incomprehensible, — it may even be singular, that is to say 
 not recurrent, — but it cannot by any means be said to be impos- 
 sible, inasmuch as it is a fact. 
 
 Neither ought a ' singular ' occurrence properly to be called 
 
174 JESTJS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 incredible, simply because the amount of evidence adduced docs 
 not bring couvictiou to our mind. How often docs it liappen that 
 what was deemed incredible and even un-natural yesterday, be- 
 cause it was then contrary to our preconceived notions and alto- 
 gether inexplicable, — what was then imagined and even declared 
 to have hecn proved to be impossible, — turns out to-day to be ob- 
 vious, unquestionable, the most natural thing in the world, in con- 
 sequence of some explanation of which it is found to be capable ! 
 
 To say, then, that a thing cannot be, because we have no know- 
 ledge or experience of it, and do not understand it, is simply ab- 
 surd. Professor Huxley, when speaking of the ' Law' of Gravi- 
 tation, thus tersely places the question : — ' It is very convenient to 
 indicate that all the conditions of belief have been fulfilled in this 
 case, by calling the statement that unsupported stones will fall to 
 the ground " a law of nature." But when, as commonly happens, 
 we change "will " into " must," we introduce an idea of necessity, 
 which assuredly does not lie in the assumed facts, and has no war- 
 ranty, that I can discover, elsewhere. Fact I hnoiv, and Law 
 I know ; but what is this necessitij but an empty shadow of my 
 owTi mind's throwing ? ' * 
 
 A philosopher of a different turn of mind cannot bring himself 
 to say, ' Fact I know.' M. llenan asserts that ' in the name of 
 a constant experience he banishes mii'acles from history 'f; by 
 which he means everything that is not according to his own pre- 
 conceived notions of the laws of nature. He supposes the case 
 of a person claiming to possess the power of restoring a dead body 
 to life. To test this, he requires a committee composed of physi- 
 ologists, physicians, chemists, and historical critics. This com- 
 mittee should select a corpse, should assure themselves that it is 
 really a dead body, should appoint a suitable place for the opera- 
 tion to be performed, should take all necessary precautions, so as 
 to leave no room for doubt. If, under such circumstances, the 
 dead body were brought back to life, it would not, even then, be 
 a credible fact : there would only result ' a probability almost 
 equivalent to a certainty ! ' 
 
 * ' Lay Sermons,' p. 158. t ' Vie de Jesus,' p. li. 
 
HIS MIRACLES. 175 
 
 Now, really, can anything be more illogical than this ? "Were it 
 becoming to employ such a term with reference to so distinguished 
 a scholar, it might be called perfectly childish. A stranger 
 restores to life, imder some most extraordinary, unprecedented, 
 marvellous circumstances, a person drowned, for example, in the 
 Serpentine river, when that person had been given over as dead 
 by all the medical attendants. M. Renan would of course deny 
 that this stranger had done so, and would call on him to operate 
 on some other drowned person under different circumstances ; and 
 if he failed, it would be a proof that he could not have restored 
 the former person to life, and that those who asserted he had done 
 so were either impostors or credulous persons — knaves or fools ! 
 
 If, however, it be insisted on that a person cannot be restored 
 to life under exceptional, and it may be totally inexplicable, 
 circumstances, surely it is only logical and consistent to contend 
 in like manner that a person cannot be brought into life under 
 abnormal circumstances. A prodigy like the Siamese twins not 
 only could not, but can not possibly exist ; still less the Christine - 
 Milly monstrosity, the two-headed nightingale, possessing a sort of 
 Erckmann-Chatriau dual-individuality. To this it will of course 
 be answered that such instances are mere ' lusus naturge ' ; which 
 means, if it means anything, that it is permissible to Dame Nature 
 to play such freaks in violation of her own laws, but that the 
 God of nature, ' the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,' 
 is interdicted from making what appear to be exceptions to His 
 own laws vsdth respect to bringing His own creatures into exist- 
 ence or restoring them to life, though such apparent exceptions 
 are the natural and inevitable results of other more general or 
 more special laws, with which we are at present unacquainted. 
 
 The historian Herodotus records how the Phoenicians, or 
 Tyrians, who had circumnavigated Africa, ' related what to me 
 (says he) does not seem credible, though it may to others, that as 
 they sailed round Libya they had the sun on their right hand' * — 
 ".hat is to say, to the north of them at noon-day. Of course the 
 Halicarnassian traveller himself was too wise to place any faith in 
 * Melp. 42. 
 
176 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 such a fable ; but he philosophically left those to believe it who 
 were foolish enough to do so. In like manner Galileo declared 
 that the earth revolves round the sun : the clergy of Eome, who 
 had the power to enforce their doctrines, made him cat his words 
 and confess the immobility of the earth. 
 
 Endless examples might be adduced of the incredulity of those 
 who dogmatize as to what must and what must not be, and who 
 thereby demonstrate their own excessive credulity and ignorance 
 in believing themselves alone to be self-sufficient and infallible ! 
 "WTiat would become of society if such a piinciple were introduced 
 into our courts of justice, and the jury were to deliver their ver- 
 dict, not according to the evidence, but because a fact distinctly 
 proved b)^ the testimony of respectable and trustworthy eyewit- 
 nesses, was not explicable according to their own preconceived 
 notions, — was not even according to the ' laws of society,' that is 
 to say the order of things in well-regulated society? This does, 
 indeed, sometimes occur in the case of lady-shoplifters, who are 
 acquitted, in defiance of proof positive, because it is ' impossible ' 
 for persons of their rank in life to have been guilty of such a 
 crime ! 
 
 After all, who shall put a limit to the knowledge that man may 
 acquire of the secret powers and operations of the God of Nature ? 
 Things which a few years ago would by the world generally, and 
 by men of science especially, have been declared to be ' old wives' 
 fables,' poetical fictions, vain imaginations, have now become so 
 much matters of fact, that they scarcely call forth a remark on 
 their still miraculous character. 
 
 Our great English magician, that profound philosopher, that 
 intuitive discoverer and expounder of the secrets of nature, makes 
 one of his attendant spirits say — 
 
 ' I '11 put a girdle round about the earth 
 In forty minutes ' *. 
 
 Had any man of science dared to speak in these terms even so 
 
 lately as eighteen hundred years after the Eesurrection of the 
 
 Messiah from the dead was declared to be a fact by the great 
 
 * ' Midsummer Night's Dream.' 
 
HIS MIEACLES. 177 
 
 disciple of Gamaliel, he would have been answered, in the words 
 of Festus to Paul, ' much learning doth make thee mad.' But at 
 the present day will this vaunt of the tricksy Puck appear any 
 longer a poetical fiction ? On the contrary, we may expect that 
 when, as may be looked for every day, an electric cable shall have 
 been laid down between North America and China, and the entire 
 circuit of the globe completed, the telegrapher will have it in his 
 power to flash a message almost instantaneously round the world 
 to the point of starting, so as to realize another of Shakespeare's 
 creations, when he makes his dainty Ariel say — 
 
 ' I drink the air before me, and return 
 
 Or e'er your pulse twice beat ' *. 
 
 "With this example before us, we should do well to bear in mind 
 the practical rule to which the comprehensive genius of Shake- 
 speare gives utterance by the mouth of Hamlet. "When Horatio, 
 on the appearance of the ghost, exclaims — 
 
 ' Oh day and night, but tills is wondrous strange ! ' 
 the prince replies — 
 
 ' And therefore as a stranger give it welcome ; ' 
 — this being an exquisite allusion to the text of Scripture, ' Be 
 not forgetful to entertain strangers ; for thereby some have enter- 
 tained angels unawares' f. And then the great master makes 
 his hero say — 
 
 ' There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, 
 Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' 
 
 As regards the miracles of which the performance is attributed 
 to our Lord Jesus in the three historical Gospels, — those in the 
 fourth Gospel have to be discussed separately, — the belief in them 
 ought to depend not on their assumed compliance or non-compli- 
 ance with some law of nature, known or unknown, but on the 
 credibility of the witnesses who testify to them. Now the evi- 
 dence of the writers of the three Gospels appears to be conclusive 
 as to the fact that Jesus did really perform, or at all events was 
 by common repute deemed to have performed, many most mar- 
 vellous acts, which appear much more astonishing to us at the 
 * 'The Tempest.' t Hebr, liii. 2. 
 
 i5 
 
1 / O JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 present day than they appeared to those persons who were the eye- 
 witnesses of them. So far, indeed, were the Scribes and Pharisees 
 from seeing anything extraordinary or marvellous in the acts 
 themselves, that they attributed them to the power of Beelzebub, 
 or Satan *. And, according to the Scripture history, not only did 
 Jesus perform what are now considered to be miraculous acts, be- 
 yond the power of man to perform, but his Apostles did the like, 
 and so did other persons in his name who were not Apostles, and 
 some even who were in opposition to him, the fact of their having 
 done so being affirmed by the very writers who testify to the 
 powers and acts of Jesus himself f. 
 
 Consequently no objection can be raised to such alleged mira- 
 culous acts on account of their singularity ; though, at the same 
 time, it must be conceded that no conclusive argument in favour 
 of the di\ine character of our Lord or of his mission can be founded 
 on powers and acts which so many others are said to have 
 possessed in common with him. But this is of little conse- 
 quence. Our Lord himself did not at all ground his mission 
 on his miraculous powers ; on the contrary, when the Pharisees, 
 and also the Sadducees, came, and, tempting him, desired him that 
 he should show them a sign from heaven, he replied that no sign 
 should be given but the sign of the prophet Jonah J. To those 
 who would not read and understand the signs of the times, signs 
 from heaven would be of no avail. As Jesus said on another 
 occasion, ' If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will 
 they be persuaded though one rose from the dead' §, Indeed, so 
 little value does our Lord himself appear to have attached to such 
 acts, that after he had healed one who was deaf and had an 
 impediment in his speech, ' he charged them that they should tell 
 no man' 1|. What need, then, have we to attribute more value to 
 miraculous acts than our Lord himself did ? The truth of his 
 mission is based on a totally dijfferent foundation. 
 
 * Matth. ix. 34, xii. 24 ; Mark iii. 22 ; Luke xi. 15. 
 t See Matth. xii. 27 ; Mark ix. 38 ; Luke ix. 49 ; Acts viii. 9, xiii. 6, xix. 
 13-16, &c. 
 
 \- Matth. xvi. 1-4 ; Mark viii. 11, 12. § Luke xvi. 31. y Mark vii. 36. 
 
THE MIRACLES IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 179 
 
 CHAPTEIi Xy. 
 
 THE MIEACLES IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 
 
 AccoRBiNG to the established law of evidence, the miracles attri- 
 buted to our Lord Jesus in the fourth Gospel alone, of which the 
 other three Gospels exhibit no traces whatever, are ' prima facie ' 
 open to objection. At the very best they are exceptional, and 
 therefore they require more proof than the unsupported assertion 
 of the author of that document, whoever he may be. Further, 
 the general equivocal character of that document renders all 
 statements of facts contained in it open to grave suspicion, if not 
 to warrant their rejection when unsupported by independent evi- 
 dence. The objection to these statements on account of their 
 ' supernatural ' character would in itself be of no great weight, 
 if only the testimony in favour of them were unimpeachable; 
 but, under the circumstances, it necessarily helps to weigh down 
 the scale against the authenticity of the alleged acts themselves. 
 
 The first of the ' miracles ' of Jesus mentioned in the fourth 
 Gospel, and nowhere else, is the turning of water into wine at 
 the Marriage in Cana of Galilee *. 
 
 Now, if the narrative of this occurrence were met with any- 
 where but where it is, it would at once be classed with the 
 puerile legends of the Romish, and yet more — though that is 
 scarcely possible — of the Greek Church. It is an isolated in- 
 cident, having not the slightest connexion with anything that 
 precedes or follows it. Unlike the healing of the sick or the 
 supplying of bread to the multitude in the wilderness, it was 
 perfectly needless : in character it is quite different from all the 
 beneficent acts of Jesus ; it is inconsistent with his express refusal 
 to give any sign of the authenticity of his mission ; and it had no 
 motive or object except the inconsistent and contradictory one 
 alleged by the writer, that it ' manifested his glory, and his dis- 
 ciples believed on him,' just as the liquefaction of the blood of St. 
 Januarius at Naples is supposed to tend to the greater glory of 
 * John ii. 1-11. 
 
180 JEStJS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 God, and to stimulate the belief of the ignorant and superstitious 
 crowds that crcdiilously witness it. 
 
 The following facts of contemporaneous profane history may 
 perhaps furnish a clue to this pretended miraculous changing of 
 water into wine at Cana. In the time of Pausanias, that is to 
 say towards the latter end of the second century, soon after the time 
 when the fourth Gospel may be suiiposed to have been written, 
 the inhabitants of Elis celebrated in the foUowiug manner the 
 visit which the god Dionysus, or Bacchus, was said to have made 
 to their city. Three empty kettles were sealed by the priests, 
 and placed in a vault, in the presence of citizens and strangers ; 
 and on the following day, on their being publicly opened, they 
 were found to be filled with wine by the god's own hand, the 
 prodigy or miracle being confirmed on oath by all present*. In 
 the Island of Andros likewise, according to the same writer, wine 
 flowed from the temple of the god Bacchus on his yearly festival ; 
 though PHny only says f that on that day the water of the 
 fountain there possessed the flavour of wine. 
 
 Now it is not to be imagined that the Gentile Christian priests 
 of the first and second centuries would aUow their unconverted 
 brethren to have the monopoly of this miraculous supply of 
 wine. If Bacchus could fiU ' three empty kettles ' with wine, it 
 woiild of course have been an easy matter for Jesus to change 
 into the same generous fluid the contents of ' six waterpots of 
 stone, (set there) after the manner of the Jews, containing two 
 or three firkins apiece ! ' 
 
 Unhappily the example of these ' pious ' forgers has been fol- 
 lowed by their successors in all ages, as the history of the 
 Komish Church too plainly shows ; and it has been unconsciously 
 copied in our days by the Franciscan friar who, when preaching 
 on the Molo at Naples, and finding himself deserted by his fickle 
 auditors for a rival ' Punch ' at the other end of the pier, drew 
 the crucifix from the bosom of his frock, and holding it up at 
 arm's length, exclaimed at the pitch of his voice, ' Ecco il vero 
 PulcincUa ! ' 
 
 * ' Grsec. Descr.' vi. 2G. t ' Hist. Nat.' ii. 106. 
 
THE MIRACLES IN THE FOTJETH GOSPEL. 181 
 
 A far more stupendous mii'acle than that at the marriage iu 
 Cana, is the raising of Lazarus from the dead, narrated most 
 circumstantially in the eleventh chapter of the fourth Gospel. 
 
 As has already been explained, it is not on account of the 
 miraculous character of this alleged occurrence that any objec- 
 tion will be raised against it. Let the fact be proved on unex- 
 ceptionable or even reasonable testimony, and we are bound to 
 believe it, Hke any other historical fact ; only, on account of its 
 exceptional character, it is essential that the testimony in sup- 
 port of it should be unimpeachable. But in this case, in addition 
 to the objections raised to the pretended changing of water into 
 wine at Cana, there are two other objections much stronger, and 
 the latter of them apparently insurmountable. 
 
 The first of these objections is that this raising of Lazarus from 
 the dead — not merely restoring him to life shortly after he had 
 expired, but the absolute raising of him from death after he had 
 lain ' in the grave four days already,' — is said to have caused 
 so great a sensation that ' the chief priests and the Pharisees 
 gathered a council, and said. What do we ? for this man doeth 
 many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe 
 on him ; and the Romans shall come and take away both our 
 place and nation. And one of them, Caiaphas, being the high 
 priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 
 nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die 
 for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this 
 spake he not of himself ; but being high priest that year, he prophe- 
 sied that Jesus should die for that nation ; and not for that nation 
 only, but that also he should gather together in one the children 
 of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth 
 they took counsel together for to put him to death'*. And yet 
 this most remarkable, this altogether exceptional, event in our 
 Lord's life, that which is said to have occasioned the greatest sen- 
 sation and to have led to his Crucifixion, is not in the slightest 
 degree aUuded to in any one of the historical Gospels, is not in 
 any manner connected with any of the other occurrences therein 
 * John xi. 47-53. 
 
182 JESrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 related, and may indeed be said to be irreconcilable with the his- 
 torical series of events ! 
 
 The second and still greater objection is this. If the resur- 
 rection of Lazarus from the dead were a fact, then it preceded 
 that of our Lord himself ; and if so, then is the preaching of St. 
 Paul in vain, and our faith also is vain. For what does the 
 Apostle say? What do we not hear preached in our churches, 
 and recited when we follow to the grave the remains of those we 
 love ? — ' Now is the Messiah risen from the dead, and become 
 the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, 
 by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam 
 all die, even so in the Messiah shall all be made alive. But every 
 man in his own order : the Messiah the firstfruits ; afterward 
 they that are the Messiah's at his coming ' *. If, then, the resur- 
 rection of Lazarus from the dead were a fact, it would be he, and 
 not Jesus, that was the ' firstfruits of them that slept ' ! 
 
 The vsriter of the fourth Gospel, in his desire to prove what 
 was generally, but (as will be shown in the sequel t) far from 
 universally beheved, fabricated his story with a double object, 
 first of proving the resurrection of the body from the dead by this 
 palpable fact of its actual occurrence in the person of Lazarus, 
 and secondly, of demonstrating the power of Jesus, as ' the Son of 
 God,' to perform a miracle equal in importance to that which was 
 shortly afterwards to be perfoi'med on his own body by the power 
 of the Almighty Himself. Only, as is usual in such cases, the 
 writer has overshot his mark and proved too much ; because by 
 making Lazarus, and not the Messiah, to be the first fruits of the 
 Resurrection, he does away altogether with the peculiar character 
 and merit of the Christian Dispensation. It seems impossible to 
 overcome this objection to the authenticity of the story of the 
 raising of Lazarus from the dead. 
 
 It is deserving of most serious consideration that, just as Jesus 
 at Cana is made to have changed the contents of ' six ' water- 
 pots into wine, whilst Bacchus at Elis filled only ' three ' empty 
 kettles, so here at Bethany our Lord is said to have raised 
 * 1 Cor. XV. 20-23. t See Chapter XX. 
 
THE MIRACLES IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 183 
 
 Lazarus from the dead after lie had lain in the grave ' fonr days,' 
 whereas his own resurrection by the power of the Almighty was 
 on the third day, after he had remained in the sepulchre only 
 two days ! Hardly can this coincidence, sho-\ving the supreme 
 power of ' the Son of God,' have been accidental. 
 
 There was, however, a more special motive for this fiction of 
 the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the discussion of which must 
 be postponed till the subject of the Resurrection of the Messiah 
 himself comes to be considered, which it will be in a subsequent 
 Chapter*. 
 
 The minds of pious believers will naturally receive a severe 
 shock from such a charge as this being brought against the 
 favourite writer of the Christian Church. They will doubtless 
 exclaim that such fabrications are not only incredible but im- 
 possible, without considering that, in saying this, they are merely 
 using the very argument of the objectors to miracles, which they 
 themselves with good reason condemn : — ' We never knew such 
 a thing to occur, and therefore we will not believe it possible 
 that it ever could or ever did occur.' It may be sufficient to ask 
 those who so argue, "Which of the two is more incredible, that 
 a dead man should have been resuscitated, or that a living man 
 should have told a falsehood ? 
 
 It shall be shown that such actions are not only of common 
 occurrence, but are matters of notoriety in the very country which 
 gave birth to the ' Gospel according to St. John.' But first shall 
 be adduced the testimony of a contemporary of eminence as to the 
 general character of the natives of that country. 
 
 Cicero, in his Defence of Lucius Valerius Flaccus, thus addresses 
 his Asiatic Greek accusers : — ' Wherefore I beseech you, ye 
 Asiatic witnesses, that when you wish to recollect with accuracy 
 what amount of authority you bring into a court of justice, you 
 would yourselves describe Asia, and remember not what foreigners 
 are accustomed to say of you, but what you yourselves affirm of 
 your own races. For, as I think, the Asia that you talk of con- 
 sists of Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, and Lydia. Is it then a proverb 
 * See Chapter XX. 
 
184 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 of ours [meaning the Romans] or of yours, that a Phrygian is 
 usually made better by beating ? What more ? Is not this a 
 common saying of you all with respect to the ■whole of Caria, if 
 you wish to make any experiment accompanied with danger, that 
 you had better try it on a Carian? Moreover, what saying is 
 there in Greek conversation more ordinary and well known than, 
 when any one is spoken of contemptiiously, to say that he is the 
 very lowest of the Mysians ? For why should I speak of Lydia ? 
 What Greek ever wrote a comedy in which the principal slave 
 was not a Lydian? What injury, then, is done to you, if we 
 decide that we are to adhere to the judgment which you have 
 formed of yourselves ? In truth, I think that I have said 
 enough and more than enough of the whole race of witnesses 
 from Asia'*. 
 
 These are the people among whom the'pure faith in the Messiah 
 was planted and soon took deep root. Is it then surprising 
 that, as that faith unavoidably became corrupted by its contact 
 with heathenism, a people such as these should have been ready 
 with any falsehoods or frauds, however gross, to support the view 
 that they themselves took of the Christian Dispensation, and 
 should have endeavoured, as it were, to stamp out every vestige 
 of the pure faith ? Is it not rather a wonder that any vestige 
 whatever of that pure faith should have sustained the ordeal to 
 which it was subjected during the first ages of the Christian 
 Church, and that. Pagan and Polytheistic as this Church became, 
 it should still have retained the knowledge of the truth that there 
 is ' One God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man 
 Jesus the Messiah' f? 
 
 It is so essential that the point here contended for should be 
 brought home to the minds of non-reasoners by concrete examples, 
 rather than by abstract arguments, that the following anecdote 
 shall be given, in a condensed form, from Dr. Finlay's ' History 
 of Greece under the Othmans and Venetians.' In the Greek 
 ' History of the Patriarchs ' it is recorded as a fact that in the 
 year 1537, in the time of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, 
 * 'The Works of Cicero,' tr. Yonge, i. 453. t 1 Tim. ii. 6. 
 
THE MIRACLES TS THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 185 
 
 Sultan Suleiman the Lawgiver, better known to Europeans as the 
 Magnificent, was reminded that it was his duty as the KhaKf of 
 Islam to destroy all places of worship possessed by infidels in 
 every town taken by storm ; and as Constantinople had been so 
 conquered by Mohammed the Second, Sultan Suleiman issued a 
 decree, ordering all the Greek churches in the capital to be con- 
 verted into mosques or else closed. On hearing this dreadful 
 news, the Patriarch went to the Grand Vizier, Tfdfi Pasha, and 
 induced him, by means of a large present, to concert with him a 
 scheme for evading the Sultan's decree. The connivance of the 
 other members of the divan was also secured by bribery. Thus 
 fortified, the Patriarch appeared before the Council, and boldly 
 asserted that the decree did not apply to Constantinople, because 
 this city was not taken by storm, but was surrendered by the 
 Emperor Constantino Palseologus under a capitulation with the 
 conqueror. At this the members of the divan manifested the 
 greatest surprise ; and on account of the importance of the 
 matter it was referred to a full meeting of the Council. On the 
 day appointed crowds of the inhabitants of the city, of all re- 
 ligious, assembled to witness the proceedings, and learn the 
 result. After considerable delay, the Patriarch was admitted 
 into the Council-chamber, where he was informed by the Grand 
 Yizier in a formal address, the very words of which are recorded, 
 that the Christian priests were to leave their churches and deliver 
 up the keys of them. On this the Patriarch, as the Head of the 
 Orthodox Church and Christ's Yicar upon Earth, solemnly re- 
 peated his previous statement, and affirmed that he was prepared 
 to prove its truth by the evidence of two Moslems, as required 
 by the Mohammedan law. Accordingly he produced two Turks, 
 natives of Adrianople, each upwards of one hundred years old, 
 whose venerable appearance is minutely described in this vera- 
 cious record, the ' History of the Patriarchs,' and who affirmed, 
 on their faith as Moslems, that they were present at the siege 
 and conquest of Constantinople, eighty-four years previously, at 
 which time they were eighteen years old ; and they related the 
 particulars of the capture of the city, in a form slightly different 
 
186 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 from that of Gibbon and other historians, but giving minute de- 
 tails of the capitulation and of the charter of free pardon granted 
 by the Sultan to the Greek Emperor and the people of Con- 
 etantinoplo, the precise terms of which charter they recited, 
 with many more circumstantial details. On such evidence as 
 this the Divan could only draw up a report, stating the facts ; 
 whereupon Sultan Suleiman ordered that the Christians of Con- 
 stantinople should retain quiet possession of their churches for 
 evermore. 
 
 The reader wiU naturally be desirous of learning how much is 
 true and how much is false of this minutely circumstantial nar- 
 rative ; and as to all appearances it must have come from an eye- 
 witness, he will naturally conclude that, however much exagger- 
 ated and perhaps distorted, it is based on a solid substratum of 
 fact. He will readily imagine the two aged Turks from Adria- 
 nople to have been suborned perjurers, primed for the occasion 
 by the crafty Patriarch and the not less astute TQlfi Pasha, with 
 the connivance of the other venal members of the Divan, so as to 
 deceive the Sultan and the Ulemas, which latter must, however, 
 under the most favourable view of the case, have been very igno- 
 rant and stupid persons to be so easily deceived. "What then 
 will be the reader's amazement when he learns that the whole 
 story is untrue from beginning to end, — that it is a perfect myth, 
 nothing of the kind ha\ing ever occurred ! The names of Sultan 
 Suleiman and Patriarch Jeremiah are those of historical per- 
 sonages, and that is all. There was no such person as Tfdfi 
 Pasha, Grand Vizier in A.D. 1537, or at any other period. But 
 Lufti Pasha, the learned historian of the Ottoman Empire, was 
 Grand Vizier between the years 1539 and 1541 ; and it is mani- 
 fest that the Christian Ecclesiastical historian, in his excessive 
 ignorance, misspelled that official's name, and, with national self- 
 conceit proportioned to his ignorance, pictured the able Grand 
 Vizier as a corrupt tool in the Patriarch's hands, and the intel- 
 ligent Turkish sovereign as a barbarian easily to be imposed on 
 by Greek finesse ; whilst the Ulemas and the whole court are 
 made by him to have been totally unconscious of the circum- 
 
THE MIRACLES IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 
 
 187 
 
 stances under which Constantinople had fallen less than a cen- 
 tury previously. 
 
 The only tittle of fact on which this fable may be made to hang 
 is a threat of Sultan Suleiman, which however was not acted on, 
 that he would destroy all the Christian churches in his dominions, 
 by way of reprisals for the ravages committed by the Spanish 
 garrison of Coron in the year 1533. But the most singular and 
 most instructive part of the tale is, the candid simplicity with 
 which the falsehood and frauds attributed to the Patriarch are 
 held up by the Greek historian to the admiration of pious Chris- 
 tians, as if nothing that was done ' for the good of Holy Church ' 
 could possibly be otherwise than praiseworthy. The heathen- 
 Christian writer of the fourth Gospel doubtless imagined he was 
 performing an equally meritorious act in composing such a mass 
 of fiction. 
 
 A still more striking example than that of the modern Greek 
 historian shall be given from Dean Stanley's ' Lectures on the 
 Eastern Church,' where he relates the manner in which the final 
 subscription of all the Bishops, members of the Council of Nicsea 
 in A.D. 325, to the Creed and twenty Canons then decreed, is 
 said to have been obtained. 
 
 Two of the 318 Bishops, Chrysanthus and Mysonius, who had 
 entirely concurred in the views of the Council, died before the 
 close of its session, and were buried in the cemetery of Nicaea. 
 When the day for the final subscription arrived, the other mem- 
 bers of the Council took the volume, in which the Creed and Canons 
 were written, to the grave of the two deceased Bishops, and ad- 
 dressing them as Moslems still address their dead saints, solemnly 
 conjured them, that if then, in the brightness of the Divine Pre- 
 sence, they still approved, they should come and sign with their 
 brethren the decrees of the Faith. They then sealed the volume, 
 which they all had already signed, leaving blank spaces for the 
 required signatures, and laid it on the tomb, watching in prayer 
 all night ; and in the morning, on breaking the seal, they found 
 the following declaration signed by the two dead men : — ' We, 
 Chrysanthus and Mysonius, fully concurring with the first Holy 
 
188 JESTJS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 and oecumenical Sj'nod, although removed from earth, have signed 
 the volume Avith our own hands.' 
 
 It is not easy to determine whose testimony is the more entitled 
 to credence — the two dead Bishops who came from the Divine 
 Presence to affix their signatures to the Nicene Creed and Canons, 
 or the pretended ' disciple whom Jesus loved,' who, in the face of 
 the concurrent declaration of the three other Evangelists that, at 
 the Crucihxion of their Lord, everyhody stood afar off, solemnly 
 affirms that he stood at the foot of the Cross, heard the last words 
 of Jesus, and received from him the charge of his mother, of whom, 
 however, not another M'ord is heard till the announcement of her 
 ' Assumption ' as the ' Mother of God ' ! And this is he who 
 dares to say that ' he that saw bare record, and his record is 
 true ; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe ' *. 
 And the whole of Christendom has taken him at his word, and 
 has believed ! 
 
 Before quitting this deplorable part of the subject, it may be 
 well to show the further development of the story of the mira- 
 culous signature — miraculous in the vulgarest sense — of the 
 Creed and Canons of the Council of Nicaea. The same writer 
 last cited relates that, according to a legend of the Alexandrian 
 Church, when the Bishops assembled in the Council took their 
 places on their thrones, they were 318 in number, but as often as 
 they rose from their seats to be called over, it appeared that they 
 were 319 ; so that they never could make the number come 
 right, and whenever they approached the last of the series, he 
 immediately changed into the likeness of his next neighbour. 
 
 Dean Stanley remarks that this truly Oriental legend expresses 
 in a daring figure what was undoubtedlj'' the belief of the next 
 generation of the Church, that the Holy Spirit had been present 
 La the Council to guide their deUberations aright. Only there was 
 nothing at all uncommon in this ' daring.' Such marvellous 
 stories, like that told by the real moving spirit of the CouncU, 
 Eusebius of Caisarea, that he with his own hand translated and 
 copied the correspondence between Jesus Christ and King Abgar 
 * John six. 35. 
 
THE MIEA.CLES IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 189 
 
 of Edessa, as preserved in the Imperial archives, only show but 
 too plainly how the ignorance and credulity of the Greek con- 
 verts to Christianity enabled the clergy to palm off on them the 
 most palpable fictions ; and, what is far worse, alas ! it demon- 
 strates even more plainly how ready the clergy were to trump up 
 any story, or practice any deception, for the greater glory of 
 God, as they would pretend in their exoteric teaching, but in 
 reality ' for the good of Holy Church,' which means the greater 
 glory and profit of the establishment to which they belonged, as well 
 as their own individual glorification and emolument in connexion 
 therewith. It is much to be feared that the maxim of the priest- 
 hood of aU ages, of all countries, and of all faiths, is — ' Populus 
 vult decipi: decipiatur.' 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 THE KINaDOM OF HEAVEN. 
 
 It is an opinion entertained both by those who possess an excess 
 and those who have a deficiency of faith, that the God of the 
 Old Testament is not the same as the God of the 'New Testa- 
 ment. The fonner was a "wrathful, jealous God, a blood-thirsty, 
 insatiate tyrant, punishing strictly, and more than strictly, the 
 offences of his sinful creatures ; whereas He of the New Testa- 
 ment is a God of mercy and forgiveness, of goodness and of 
 love. 
 
 Under this view Christianity, though originating in the midst 
 of Judaism, and being the complement of it, would be not 
 merely a new Dispensation but a new Eeligion. The error is 
 fundamental. The One and Only true God is and always must 
 be the same : His attributes, like Himself, must be unchange- 
 able. And so they are found to be, if the Scriptures be but pro- 
 perly considered. 
 
190 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 In the second commandment of the Decalogue, the Almighty, 
 after declaring, * I, the Eternal, thy God, am a jealous God, 
 visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 
 thii'd and foiirth generation of them that hate me,' adds, ' And 
 yet* showing mercy unto thousands [i. e. of generations] of 
 them that love me and keep my commandments ' f. And when 
 afterwards he proclaims His sacred name of Jehovah — the ' Shem 
 hammephorash ' — His words are, ' The Eternal, the Eternal God 
 (is) merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in good- 
 ness and in truth ; keeping mercy for thousands (of generations), 
 forgi\ing iniquity and transgression and sin ; and yet J that 
 will by no means clear (the guilty), visiting the iniquity of the 
 fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto 
 the third and fourth (generation) ' §. 
 
 It is because of the unchangeable nature of the Eternal — ' I 
 am that I am ' |j — who never can be other than what He is and 
 always has been, that the rebellious Israelitish nation were not 
 abandoned on account of the repeated acts of iniquity, trans- 
 gression, and sin of which they have been guilty. Over and over 
 again did they provoke Him to destroy them ; but, because the 
 Eternal changeth not, they have not been utterly annihilated. 
 Eemembering His Promise to their forefathers Abraham and 
 Jacob, confirmed by the Law delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai, 
 He continues to show mercy unto thousands of generations of them 
 that loved Him and kept His commandments ; and, in the 
 words of the last of the prophets of the Old Covenant, whilst 
 saying, ' I will come near to you to judgment, and I will be a 
 swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, 
 and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the 
 hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that 
 
 * The original Hebrew has here the adversative ), which, as the two parts 
 of the sentence are antithetical, ought to translated Se, ' and yet ' or ' but,' 
 instead of sai, ' and,' as it stands in all the translations. This subject has 
 already been discussed in Chapter XII. pages 151, 152. 
 
 t Exod. XX. 5, 6. I Here too the 1 is adversative. 
 
 § Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7. ll Exod. iii. 14. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 191 
 
 turn aside the stranger,' He graciously adds, ' And yet * fear 
 not Me, saith the Eternal (God) of Hosts. For I am the Eter- 
 nal, I change not ; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not con- 
 sumed ' f. 
 
 The Jews, instead of having, after the example of all other 
 conquered races and shattered and dispersed nationalities, be- 
 come absorbed into the dominant populations among whom 
 they have so long dwelt, have remained to this day a distinct 
 people in the midst of the various nations in all parts of the 
 globe ; thus standing forth as witnesses before the rest of man- 
 kind to the immutability of the Most High, and as pledges that, 
 under His aU-wise and all-merciful Providence, they are 
 destined yet to serve as instruments in His hands for the 
 accomplishment of His own inscrutable purposes. 
 
 The God, Whose pure and infinite nature it is impossible for 
 mortal and sinful man to comprehend, is the God by Whom the 
 Promise was made to Abraham, by Whom the Law was delivered 
 to Moses, and of Whose Kingdom on Earth Jesus, the Son of 
 David, is the Messiah or Anointed King. To all reasoning minds 
 it ought to be inconceivable that this Messiah would teach any 
 religious belief, or system of morality, other than what had been 
 revealed to Abraham and to Moses, And, in fact, our Lord 
 emphatically declared, ' Think not that I am come to destroy the 
 Law or the Prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 
 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or 
 one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled 'J. 
 And when, towards the close of his mortal career, he was asked 
 by a Jewish scribe at Jerusalem which was the first commandment 
 of all, he answered, ' The first of all the commandments is, Hear, 
 Israel ! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone; and thou shalt' 
 love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy 
 soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is 
 the first commandment. And the second is this: Thou shalt 
 
 * Here again is the adversative ), respecting which see the note in the 
 preceding page. 
 
 t Mai. iii. 5, G. X Matth. v. 17, 18. 
 
192 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other command- 
 ment greater than these ' *. 
 
 "WTiere is there at the present day a Jew who would not 
 repeat the words with which the Jewish scribe answered Jesus 
 more than eighteen centuries ago ? — ' WcU, Rabbi, thou hast 
 said the truth. For there is one God, and there is none other 
 but He. And to love Him with all the heart, and with all the 
 understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, 
 and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt 
 offerings and sacrifices' f- And the Jews of the present day, collec- 
 tivel}' and individually, should ponder well what followed this de- 
 claration of their pious, learned, and liberal-minded co-religionist : 
 — ' And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto 
 him. Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God ' J. 
 
 On the other hand, where is there a pious and enlightened 
 Christian, conscientiously putting into practice those doctrines 
 which he is now being told to regard as nothing more than a new 
 system of pure morality, originated by ' Jesus the projihet of 
 Nazareth of Galilee ' from that indiscriminate benevolence which 
 was the innate principle of his own nature, and constructed by 
 him out of the depth of his own moral consciousness without 
 need of Divine assistance, — where is there a Christian, whose 
 moral conduct, whether in his domestic or in his social relations, 
 will be superior to that of an equally pious and enlightened Jew, 
 whose sole guides are the Law and the Prophets, and who rejects 
 the Gospel, not for the want of correspondence between it and 
 the Scriptures of the Old Testament, — for when properly under- 
 stood their doctrines are identical, — but because of the vail that 
 is upon the heart of himself and his people ; though when they 
 shall turn unto the Lord the vail shall be taken away § ? 
 
 As regards the literal construction of the passage in the second 
 Gospel which led to the foregoing remarks, it has to be specially 
 observed that the words attributed to Jesus in the Authorized 
 English "Version are, ' Hear, Israel ; the Lord our God is one 
 
 * Mark xii. 29-31. t Ibid. 32, 33. 
 
 I Ibid. 34. § 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16. 
 
THE KINGDOM 01' HEAVEN. 193 
 
 Lord ! ' * But it is certain that these were not the precise 
 words uttered by our Lord. As a Jew speaking to one of his 
 own nation and creed, he would have repeated the national con- 
 fession of faith used down to the present day, — ' Shema' Israel ! 
 Adonai Elohenu, Adonai ekhad;' such being the words of the 
 Hebrew text of Deuteronomy vi. 4, with the substitution only 
 of ' Adonai ' — ' the Lord ' — for the sacred tetragrammaton,- — mn'', 
 ' Jehovah.' And the correct translation of this text is, as it is 
 given above, ' The Lord is our God, the Lord alone,' and not 
 as we find it in all modern versions, which simply follow the 
 faulty translation of the Septuagint Greek, Kvpios 6 Qeos I'jfxojy, 
 Kvpius eis eart. 
 
 The incorrectness of this translation will be patent, if only the 
 name ' Jehovah ' be used in the English version instead of its 
 substitute ' The Lord,' when the passage will read, ' Jehovah our 
 God is one Jehovah ; ' as if it were possible for the idea to enter 
 into the mind of man that there are two 'Jehovahs.' In fact, the 
 evident intention of this confession of faith is not to assert the 
 unity of the Deity in the sense of singleness either of nature or 
 of person, but to affirm His singularity, soleness, exclusiveness as 
 the One only true God, in accordance with the first Command- 
 ment, ' Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me ; ' and this idea 
 must be expressed in other languages not by ' one,' — though this 
 is not denied to be the primary meaning of the Hebrew in«, — 
 but by ' alone.' Consequently the correct rendering of the text 
 is, as it is given above, ' Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone,' 
 or, replacing the Shem hammephoresh by ' Adonai, ' ' The Lord is 
 our God, the Lord alone.' That this is the sense in which the 
 affirmation was made by Jesus and understood by his questioner, 
 the Jewish scribe, is evident from the response of the latter : 
 ' Well, Rabbi, thou hast said the truth ; for there is but one 
 God, and there is none but He ; ' that is to say, ' He alone is 
 God.' 
 
 It can hardly be imagined that the Greek Jews of Alexandria 
 
 * Mark xii. 29. 
 
] 94 JESTTS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 were so unacquainted with the genius of the Hebrew language 
 as to commit this error unintentionally. The direct contrary 
 might, indeed, be contended, from their correct rendering of the 
 
 text of Isaiah li. 2, ' Look unto Abraham your father 
 
 for I called him alone ' (vn«1|7 in«~''5). And hence it may be rea- 
 sonably conjectured that the translators had a motive for what 
 they did, this motive being the desire not to profane the sacred 
 confession of faith of their nation by representing it correctly in 
 any Gentile tongue. It was under a like feeling of reverence 
 that the Jewish historian, Josephus, refrained from repeating in 
 Greek the precise words of the Decalogue *, and that at the pre- 
 sent day the learned Julius Fiirst, in his exhaustive ' Concor- 
 dance of the Hebrew Language,' has left the sacred name mn^ 
 unexplained ! 
 
 It is apparently from a similar feeling that in the Latin Yul- 
 gate and in all modern versions of the jS^ew Testament, the sign 
 or name of the ship which carried St. Paul from Melita to Pu- 
 teoli, on his way from the capital of the Jewish to that of the 
 Gentile world, has been wrongly translated. In the Greek ori- 
 ginal that sign or name is the AwaKovpoi, or ' Sons of God ' ; for 
 which significant and almost ominous title that of ' Castor and 
 Pollux' — in the Yulgate ' cui erat signum Castorum ' — has been 
 substituted in all the versions, Luther's German translation alone 
 excepted, which has ' die Zwillinge,' that is, * Gemini,' or ' the 
 Twins,' a rendering which, however, is just as insufficient as the 
 other. 
 
 In the ' Speaker's Commentary,' or newly published edition of 
 the Bible, it is said, in a note on the words of the Hebrew text, 
 ' Their expression is in the original singularly terse and forcible, 
 " Jehovah our Elohim, Jehovah One." Their very brevity opens 
 them to various constructions, e. g. " The Lord is our God, the 
 Lord alone " ; " The Lord our God, namely the Lord, is One " ; 
 " The Lord, the Lord only, is our God." The rendering of the 
 Authorized Version is on all groimds the best.' The incor- 
 rectness of this opinion shall be established by a crucial test. 
 * ' Antiq. iii. 5. 4. 
 
THE KIN^GDOM OF HEAVETf. 195 
 
 Let it be supposed that some loyal British Jews desired to declare 
 in a similar form in the Hebrew language that Queen Victoria 
 is the only sovereign of this country. They would have to say 
 ' Victoria our Sovereign, Victoria one ' ; which, according to 
 the -writer of the ' Commentary/ might be construed either 
 ' Victoria is our Sovereign, Victoria alone ' ; ' Victoria our 
 Sovereign, namely Victoria, is one ' ; ' Victoria, Victoria only, is 
 our Sovereign.' But it would surely not be added that the ren- 
 dering, on the model of the Authorized Version, ' Victoria our 
 Sovereign is one Victoria,' is on all grounds the best ! 
 
 Among the modern Jews the authorized rendering of this text 
 of Scripture is ' The Eternal our God, the Eternal is One,' which 
 is objectionable, though not in the same degree as that of the 
 Septuagint and the English Authorized Version. There ought to 
 be no question that the copula ' is ' should be inserted in the 
 former instead of the latter portion of the sentence, ' The Eternal 
 (is) our God, the Eternal One ' ; that is to say ' the Eternal 
 alone,' the word in« being rendered here as it is in Isaiah li. 2. 
 
 An apposite example of the employment in the Latin language 
 of ' unus ' in the sense of ' alone,' as it is here contended the 
 Hebrew inw, ' one,' should be translated, has recently presented 
 itself. In the summer of last year (1871) a medallion was placed 
 immediately over the bronze statue of St. Peter, — formerly Jupiter 
 Capitolinus, — that, in the Church of the Vatican at Rome, 
 
 ' Like a tall bully lifts its head and lies,' 
 
 the dedication of which is — 
 
 ' Pio IX. Pontifiei Max. 
 
 Qui Petri annos 
 
 In Pontificatu Romano 
 
 Unus aequavit.' 
 
 That is to say, who ' alone ' equalled what never existed ! 
 
 It may seem presumptuous thus to propose to correct the 
 national rendering of this important text, which has received the 
 sanction of ages ; inasmuch as the doing so implies a better ac- 
 quaintance with the grammatical construction of the Hebrew 
 
 k2 
 
196 JESTTS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 language than that possessed by Jewish scholars generally. But 
 when we consider the narrow-mindedness and exclusiveness 
 of the Jews during so many centuries, their obstinate rejection 
 of all communion with Gentiles and wdth Gentile learning, 
 and their fixed determination to be bound by the ' traditions ' of 
 their elders, — which in truth means never, and under no cii'cum- 
 stances, to correct the errors of former ages, — their ignorance 
 even of their own language ceases to be surprising. 
 
 How intense the national hatred was of everything ' profane ' 
 is exemplified by the statement in the Targum {Treat. ' Megillah '), 
 that when Ptolemy Philadelphus caused the Septuagint Greek 
 version of the Pentateuch to be undertaken, ' it was a day as 
 fatal to Israel as that on which the golden calf was made.' And 
 from the same register of Jewish ignorance and Jewish wisdom, 
 Mr. E. Deutsch has extracted a ' weird story ' of EKsha ben 
 Abuyah, the Faust of the Talmud, who, while sitting in the Aca- 
 demy at the feet of his teachers to study the law, kept the ' pro- 
 fane books ' — of ' Homeros ' to wit — hidden in his garment, and 
 from whose mouth ' Greek songs ' never ceased to flow. ' How 
 he, notwithstanding his early scepticism, rapidly rises to emi- 
 nence in that same law, finally falls away, and becomes a traitor 
 and au outcast, and his very name a thing of unutterable horror ; 
 how, one day — it was the great day of Atonement — he passes 
 the ruins of the temple, and hears a voice within murmuring 
 like a dove, — " all men shall be forgiven this day save Elisha 
 ben Abuyah, who, knowing me, has betrayed me"'*. 
 
 Is it, then, surprising that the result should be a mental torpor 
 and impotence such as is thus graphically described by Dr. 
 Arnold in a letter to Archbishop Whately ? — * I had occasion 
 in the winter to observe this in a Jew, of whom I took a few 
 lessons in Hebrew, and who was learned in the writings of the 
 Rabbis, but totally ignorant of all the literature of the West, 
 ancient and modern. He was consequently just like a child, — 
 his mind being ontii-ely without the habit of criticism or analysis, 
 whether as applied to words or to things ; wholly ignorant, for 
 * ' Quarterly Keview ' (1867), cxxiii. 428. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 197 
 
 instance, of the analysis of language, whether grammatical or 
 logical ; or of the analysis of a narrative of facts, according to the 
 rules of probability, external or internal. I never so felt the debt 
 which the human race owes to Pythagoras, or whoever it was that 
 was the first founder of Greek philosophy ' *. Happily for the 
 Jews of the present day, this reproach is being rolled away from 
 them. They are no longer in dread of Gentile literature and 
 learning, and they are reaping the reward of their toleration and 
 liberality. 
 
 Eeturning from this digression, it has to be remarked that, 
 from what took place between our Lord Jesus and his pious and 
 learned countryman, it is certain that the Messiah came not to 
 do away Avith the Law, but to proclaim its inviolability and per- 
 manence ; only, as the Law, which had been given because of 
 transgressions, had become stifled and hidden by the rites and 
 ceremonies that in the course of ages had been incorporated with 
 it, Jesus came to do away with these, and at the same time to 
 spiritualize the letter of the Law itself. But in this he did 
 nothing more than what his ancestor David and all the prophets 
 had done before him. And even the Scribe in the Gospel well 
 knew the difference between the spirit and the letter ; for he de- 
 clared that ' to love God with all the heart, and with all the 
 understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, 
 and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole 
 burnt offerings and sacrifices ; ' and if more than these, which 
 formed the chief service of the Temple, then more than all the 
 rest of the ceremonial Law put together. 
 
 The practical performance of man's duty to God and to his 
 neighbour is the entire religious and moral system taught by 
 the Messiah, and inculcated by his own example. Of it the first 
 portion is man's duty towards his God, whom he is to love with 
 all his heart and with all his might, and with all his soul, and 
 with all his strength ; and this, apart from its practical manifes- 
 tation in the performance of his duty to his neighbour,^ — in doing 
 his diity in that state of life to which it has pleased God to call 
 * Stanley's ' Life of Arnold,' i. 418. 
 
198 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 him, — he can ouly perform by keeping himself in constant spiri- 
 tual communion with his Creator and Preserver, through the 
 medium of prayer and praise. 
 
 Praise and thanksgiving are the natural means of giving vent 
 to the intense feeling of gratitude which Man ought to entertain 
 towards his God, for all His goodness, mercy, and loving-kindness, 
 in the blessings so bountifully bestowed on him. By some per- 
 sons, this thanksgiving is said to be unmeaning and valueless. 
 But we readily thank our feUow-men for favours done to us. Is 
 God, then, the only benefactor whom we should treat differently? 
 Our instinct teaches us the contrary, as has been so happily de- 
 monstrated in our National Thanksgiving of 1872. 
 
 The nation to which 'Jesus belonged was, and still is, essen- 
 tially a prayerful people. Though constantly backsliding like 
 their model king, David, they were still the people, like as he 
 was the man, ' after God's own heart;' and their Psalter, which 
 the Christian Church has received and adopted as a most precious 
 heritage from the Old Covenant, may be said to contain the only 
 true prayers as well as thanksgivings, with the exception of that 
 comprehensive and universal form, generally known as * the 
 Lord's Prayer,' Avhich Jesus himself dictated to his disciples. 
 And even this prayer, though given by our Lord, was not any- 
 thing absolutely new, but appears to have been adopted by him 
 from expressions already existing in the Jewish liturgy, and 
 spiritualized and sanctioned by him as a summary of all that 
 Man has absolute need to say when holding intercourse with his 
 Maker. The formula of address to the Almighty recommended 
 in the Talmud for the hours of distress or peril is, ' Thy wiU 
 be done in heaven ; grant peace to those that fear Thee on earth. 
 And whatsoever pleaseth Thee, do. Hallowed be Thou, Lord, 
 who hearest prayer.' And the commencement of the usual 
 Jewish blessing or ' grace ' recited on most occasions is, ' Hal- 
 lowed be Thou, Lord our God, King of the universe,' which, 
 it will be seen, is very similar to the commencement of the Lord's 
 Prayer ; the only remarkable change being — and it applies to all 
 the sayings of the Messiah — that he sjieaks of the Almighty 
 neither by his revealed name ' Jehovah,' nor by his substituted 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN". 199 
 
 title ' the Lord ' (' Aclonai '), — which, latter, having been adopted 
 in the Septuagint and other versions, has led to such deplorable 
 misunderstandings, — but gives to Him the more gracious and 
 endearing appellation of ' Our Father.'" 
 
 Prayer occupies even a higher place in the Christian liturgy 
 than it did in that of the Old Testament worship ; but this has 
 arisen from the abolition of the sacrifices and service of the 
 Temple, which the Messiah came to do away with in spirit, in 
 anticipation of the time when they should be put an end to alto- 
 gether. Under the Christian Dispensation the only ' sacrifices 
 of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart ' *, like 
 his who wrote, ' I am weary with my groaning : aU the night 
 make I my bed to swim ; I water my couch with my tears ' f. 
 
 In the words (slightly modified) of one of the shining lights of 
 Christendom, the illustrious Dr. Dollinger, it may be said that 
 we are bidden to pray without ceasing, under all circumstances, 
 without growing weary. ' Prayer is for spiritual, what breath is 
 to bodily life. The constant endeavour and desire of man's 
 heart for eternal righteousness, the fixing of intellect and will ou 
 God, the raising of the spirit out of the narrow boundaries of 
 the present world into fellowship with that Being to Whom all 
 evil is an abomination. Whose law of holiness is immutable, and 
 Who wills only our perfection, — that is the prayer without 
 ceasing which the Messiah and the Apostles commended and 
 practiced. For believers prayer means, — listening above all for 
 God's voice within them, remembering His words and shaping 
 their thoughts accordingly, questioning and looking at themselves 
 in the light streaming from Him, and letting it shine into all the 
 dark corners of their hearts ; and, while gazing on their own 
 sins and imperfections, entreating pardon and strength to purify 
 themselves continually more and more. AU that philosophy in 
 its noblest form promised to the Greeks, — repose of mind, regula- 
 tion of the affections, stiUing of the excited passions, moral purifi- 
 cation, — Christians gain from prayer. Their practice is the true 
 school of philosophy, when they cry to God, pray, give thanks 
 * Ps. li. 17. t Ps. vi. 6. 
 
200 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 with child-like self-surrender, confidence, and perseverance, re- 
 newing constantly this interrupted commnnion with Him, resting 
 from earthly cares and toils, and feeding their faith and love on 
 the meditation of the sublimest truths ' *. 
 
 Most conscious is the believer of the efficacy of sincere, earnest, 
 repeated, constant prayer — not the mere moving of the lips, not 
 the recital of lengthened litanies, creeds, or confessions of faith, 
 composed by ignorant and presumptuous men, nor even the mere 
 verbal repetition of the Lord's Prayer ('Paternoster'), or other 
 formula, as if some magical power were inherent in the words 
 themselves ; but the utterance of the feelings of the heart, — like 
 the cry of the contrite tax-gatherer ('publican') in the parable, 
 ' Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner ! ' — the inward struggling of 
 the spirit, in the hope, the endeavour, the determination that it 
 shall be listened to, so finely exemplified in the two parables of 
 the importunate neighbour f and the unjust judge J. No one 
 will think of denying the efficacy, in many cases, of the persistent 
 supplication made by a needy and sorrowful man to his fellow 
 man. Are we, then, to believe the Creator to be less merciful, 
 more obdurate, than His creatures? The eloquent Bishop of 
 Orleans, Msgr. Dupanloup, has said that ' Prayer equals, and 
 even sometimes surpasses, the power of God : it triumphs over 
 His will. His power, and even His justice ; ' and though this 
 paradox affords a striking instance of how concrete illustrations 
 of abstract principles may sometimes be liable to misconception, 
 if construed too literally, and especially if pushed to an extreme, 
 still even in this hyperbole there exists a depth of truth. 
 
 But while the believer in this spiritual communion with his 
 Maker and Preserver feels and knows what prayer really is, the 
 heathen of olden times, who had it not in his heart, was ignorant 
 of its real nature. He cried and made offerings to his gods for 
 help and earthly blessings, but he did not pray ; and the philo- 
 sopher who deemed that all things are subject to the fixed laws 
 of an eternal and inflexible course of Nature, could expect no 
 
 * ' The First Age of Cliristianity and the Church,' ii. 181. 
 t Luke xi. 5-8. I Luke xviii. 1-5. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 201 
 
 answer to petitions addressed to powerless deities, who them- 
 selves were under the same constraint of Nature. Does the ma- 
 terialistic philosopher of the present day possess a surer or more 
 consolatory hope than he of former ages ? 
 
 From the spiritual nature of the relation between Man and his 
 Maker, the love of God, in itself, must necessarily be internal ; 
 that is to say, whatevei' may be the outward forms it assumes as 
 regards the individual man, it is still only personal, and may, in 
 a certain sense, be said to be selfish. The formalist, or ascetic, 
 though he may profess the contrary, is essentially worldly-minded. 
 Fastings, mortifications of the body and even of the spirit, are 
 far from being signs of humiliation, and too often are nothing 
 more than the tokens of spiritual pride. The Pharisee in the 
 Temple could say, 'God, I thank thee that T am not as other 
 men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax- 
 gatherer. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I 
 possess ! ' * 
 
 Our Lord has declared, on the contrary, that * Not everyone that 
 saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of 
 Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in 
 heaven ' f. And that will is most plainly manifested in His 
 command contained in the nineteenth chapter of the third book 
 of the Pentateuch: — 'Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment : 
 thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the 
 person of the mighty ; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy 
 neighbour. Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer 
 among thy people ; neither shalt thou stand against the blood of 
 thy neighbour : I, the Eternal (say it). Thou shalt not hate thy 
 brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy 
 neighbour, and (yet) not suffer sin on account of him. Thou 
 shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of 
 thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself : I, the 
 Eternal (say it) ' J. 
 
 It was the conclusion of this portion of the Law that our Lord, 
 in his conversation with the Scribe at Jerusalem, repeated as 
 
 * Luke xviii. 11, 12. t Matth. vii. 21. J Levit. xix. 15-18. 
 
 k5 
 
202 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 being the second of the great commandments, ' Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself,' — the love of God being the first, — 
 adding, ' There is none other commandment greater than these'*. 
 What, then, are -we to say of the statement in the fourth Gospel, 
 that our Lord Jesus, when addressing his disciples for the last time 
 before his death, gave them ' A new Commandment ' f ? And what 
 are we to say of the pretended ' new ' Commandment itself ? This 
 subject is deserving of serious consideration, especially as this 'new ' 
 Commandment has been recently held up by an eloquent divine % 
 as an addition to the Decalogue, — an ' eleventh Commandment ' ! 
 The statement in that document is that Jesus, who had expressed 
 himself so entirely in the spirit, and indeed in the very words, of 
 the Law to his learned co-religionist, the Scribe at Jerusalem, as 
 to elicit from him the complimentary declaration, ' Well, Rabbi, 
 thou hast said the truth,' — this same Jesus should nevertheless 
 have addressed his disciples in these terms : — ' A new Command- 
 ment I give unto you, That ye love one another ; as I have loved 
 you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know 
 that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another ' §. 
 
 Now as these words are alleged to have been uttered imme- 
 diately after Jesus had spoken disparagingly of ' the Jews,' as if 
 they were a different people, — though he and all his disciples were 
 Jews themselves, — it is evident that the ' love ' of this ' new Com- 
 mandment ' was not intended to be extended to the ' neighbour ' 
 of the Law and the true Gospel, but was to be limited to his dis- 
 ciples themselves, or at most to those who followed them : they 
 were to ' love one another ' and ' by this all [other] men were to 
 know that they were his disciples ' ! 
 
 How totally this ' new Commandment ' of the i^seudo- Jesus of 
 the fourth Gospel is at variance with the real teaching of the true 
 Messiah of the historical Gospels, is shown by his exposition of 
 the spiritual meaning of the ' second great Commandment : ' ' Ye 
 have heard that it hath been said. Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
 and hate thy enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, 
 
 * See above, pages 191, l'J2. t John xiii. 34. 
 
 \ Dean Stanley. § Jolin xiii. 34, 35. 
 
THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEN. 
 
 203 
 
 bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and 
 pray for them which despitefuUy use you and persecute you ; 
 that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven. 
 For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and 
 sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them 
 which love you, what reward have ye ? Do not even the tax- 
 gatherers the same ? And if ye salute your brethren only, 
 what do ye more than others ? Do not even the tax-gatherers 
 so ? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in 
 heaven is perfect ' *. 
 
 In a certain sense this exposition might really be called a 
 ' new ' Commandment ; but our Lord did not intend it as such, 
 his object being to show that all men, good or bad, friends or 
 enemies, ' Jews ' or Gentiles, were to be included in the original 
 command to ' love one's neighbour as one's self ; precisely as he 
 explained the term ' neighbour ' in the parable of the man who 
 fell among thieves t, by means of which he compelled ' a certain 
 lawyer ' who ' stood up and tempted him,' to confess that the 
 Samaritan, — one of a people held in hatred aud detestation by the 
 Jews,. — who ' showed mercy ' on the poor wounded Jew, was that 
 Jew's ' neighbour,' rather than the priest and Levite of his own 
 people, who ' had passed by on the other side.' 
 
 It was in the spirit of his Master that another most learned lawyer, 
 who had been brought up at the feet of the grandson of the orthodox 
 Eabbi Hillel, in like manner expounded the command to ' love 
 one's neighbour as one's self,' given by the Father of Mercies, whose 
 unbounded love for His creatures requires them to imitate Him 
 as far as their feeble powers permit them to do so ; — ' Though I 
 speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not 
 ayaTTTi (love),' — not the passion, but the affection, brotherly love, 
 goodwill, kindness, which is usually translated ' charity,' though, 
 from the special application this term has received, it has come 
 to convey the limited, and therefore incorrect, meaning of alms- 
 giving, or outward acts of beneficence, instead of the inward 
 feeling of disinterested benevolence, which such ' charitable ' acts 
 * Matth. V. 43-48. t Luke x. 30-37. 
 
204 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 are far from testifying at all times, — if then, says the Apostle, I 
 ' have not love, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling 
 cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand 
 all mysteries and all knowledge ; and though I have all faith, 
 50 that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am 
 nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, 
 and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, 
 it profiteth me nothing. Love suflfereth long and is kind, love 
 envieth not ; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth 
 not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily 
 provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but re- 
 joiceth in the truth ; beareth all things, believelh all things, 
 hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth. . . . 
 And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three ; but the greatest 
 of these is love ' *. 
 
 Under the operation of our Lord's interpretation of the old 
 Commandment of the Law that we should love our neighbour as 
 ourselves, as thus further illustrated by his great Apostle, — so 
 different from the pretended ' new,' or ' eleventh' Commandment 
 of the fourth Gospel, — all men, without any exception, are to be 
 regarded and treated as brethren, as the sons of our heavenly 
 Father. But this equality before God and man had been done 
 away with by the formalists and traditionists, the Scribes and 
 Pharisees, who sat in Moses's seat, and who, hard as were the 
 ordinances of the Law itself to a stiff-necked generation like the 
 Israelites, had rendered them infinitely more heavyby their glosses 
 and additions. Though they were all descendants of Israel, and 
 had been taught to look on one another as members of one family, 
 they had virtually become separated into classes or castes, of 
 whom the higher would not condescend to eat with those below 
 them, to sit together with them in the synagogue, or even to 
 worship God together in the Temple ; who ' loved the uppermost 
 places at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greet- 
 ings in the markets, and to be called of men. Rabbi, Rabbi ' f. 
 When Jesus, a man of good social position and well educated, 
 * 1 Cor. xiii. 1-13. t Matth. xxiii. 6, 7. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 205 
 
 sat down to dinner with unwashed hands in the company of tax- 
 gatherers and other violators of the ceremonial law, — ' sinners ' in 
 the estimation of the ritualists, and persons altogether beneath 
 him according to the conventional notions of society, — he was re- 
 proved by these ' hypocrites,' whose sentiments were on a par 
 with those of the haughty Duchess of Buckingham, who, when 
 invited by the pious Countess of Huntingdon to attend one of 
 Whitefield's sermons, — to take part in the worship of the Almighty 
 among the congregation of ' sinners ' of whom he was the honoured 
 minister, — replied, * I thank your Ladyship for the information 
 concerning Methodist preachers : their doctrines are most repul- 
 sive, and strongly tinctured with impertinence and disrespect 
 towards their superiors, in perpetually endeavouring to level all 
 ranks and to do away with all distinctions. It is monstrous to be 
 told that you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches who 
 crawl on the earth. This is highly offensive and insulting, and 
 I cannot but wonder that your Ladyship should relish any senti- 
 ments so much at variance with high rank and good breeding.' 
 
 As a contrast to these words of this ' Christian ' Pharisee may 
 be cited those of him whom that proud and insolent woman pro- 
 fessed to serve, and in whose presence she condescended to con- 
 fess that she was a ' miserable sinner,' provided only that she 
 was in companj^ with other similar ' sinners ' of ' high rank and 
 good breeding : ' — ' Two men went up into the Temple to pray, 
 the one a Pharisee and the other a tax-gatherer (' publican '). 
 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank 
 thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adul- 
 terers, or even as this tax-gatherer. I fast twice in the week, I 
 give tithes of all that I possess. And the tax-gatherer, stand- 
 ing afar oif, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, 
 but smote upon his breast, saying, God, be merciful to me a 
 sinner'*. And the lesson taught by our Lord from this para- 
 ble was, ' I teU you this man went down to his house justified 
 rather than the other : for every one that exalteth himself shall 
 be abased ; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.' 
 * Luke xviii. 10-13. 
 
200 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 The lesson of humility, and of perfect equality of all before 
 God and man, thus taught by the Messiah, is repeated in various 
 forms throughout the Gospel histories. Can it be wondered at 
 that such doctrines should have gone home to the hearts of the 
 poor and needy, to the afflicted in mind, body, or estate ? Never 
 before had they seen it on this fashion. This doctrine of uni- 
 versal brotherhood, that God is no respecter of persons, that all 
 men of all nations are absolutely equal before Him, and conse- 
 quently before their fellow-men — that ' there is neither Greek 
 nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcisiou, Barbarian, Scythian, 
 bond nor free ; but the Messiah is all and in all ' *, — had a fasci- 
 nation for those who heard it ; and when preached by Jesus him- 
 self, — wbom (as is shown in a former Chapter f) we may believe 
 to have spoken as Isaiah, John the Baj^tist, Chrysostom, Luther, 
 Bossuet, AVhitefield, and aU the most eloquent preachers never 
 spoke, — the effect must have been miraculous — irresistible. They 
 not only felt that they were freed from the bonds of sin, but like- 
 wise from human thraldom, which, though it might retain the body 
 in slavery, — as with those whom Paul commanded to be obedient 
 to their masters in the flesh J, — did not, could not, enslave the 
 soul. Henceforth there was to be no distinction of rank among 
 the believers in the Messiah : they were all ' brethren,' ' saints,' 
 ' disciples,' the ' elect,' ' children of God,' joint members of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven ; and they received the assurance that ' what- 
 soever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of 
 the Lord, whether he be bond or free'§, their masters being at 
 the same time admonished that with God, the only true Master, 
 in heaven, all are equal, and that with him there is no respect of 
 persons ||. 
 
 When, in the course of time, the extension of Christianity 
 caused its general reception throughout the Roman Empire and 
 its adoption as the religion of the State, tlie ' Church ' of the Mes- 
 siah soon became like that which he had come to purify and 
 
 » Col. iii.ll ; and see 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28. 
 
 t Chapter XII. page 141. ^ Eph. vi. 5; and see 1 Tim. vi. 1. 
 
 § Eph. vi. 8. il Ibid. 9. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 207 
 
 reform. It had its Scribes and Pharisees, its ' publicans ' and 
 sinners, its ecclesiastics pretending to be the sole depositaries 
 and interpreters of the Sacred oracles, nobles to whom it ap- 
 peared monstrous to be told that ' they had hearts as sinful as the 
 common wretches who crawl on the earth,' and masses of the 
 ignorant and poor, whom the two superior classes between them 
 kept in a state of spiritual and temporal bondage, the thraldom 
 of the mind being more absolute and complete than that of the 
 body. The cry of the oppressed went up to the Throne of God, 
 and an avenger came in the person of the Arabian Mohammed, 
 who, as it were at the sounding of the trumpets by the six angels 
 after the opening of the Second Seal in the Apocalypse, swept off 
 one third of the Christian Church, and seemed to threaten to 
 usurp the place of the Messiah himself*. He, too, preached the 
 spiritual equality of mankind and brotherly love, the doctrine of 
 the Law of Moses, as interpreted by Jesus, the absolute equality 
 of all before God and before man ; and this was the cause of the 
 rapid spread of Mohammedanism, as it had been of Christianity 
 six centuries previously. 
 
 But whilst adopting the precepts of Jesus, Mohammed did not 
 follow his blessed example. Our Lord preached peace and good- 
 will to all men, and expressly forbade his disciples to use force, 
 ' Put up again thy sword into his place,' said he to one of them ; 
 ' for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword ' f. 
 Mohammed, on the contrary, promulgated Islam by the sword. 
 And what has been the result ? At the present day, the Chris- 
 tians of aU. denominations, in all parts of the world, are estimated 
 at three hundred millions, or perhaps more : the Mohammedans 
 are only about half that number. And whilst the former faith, 
 full of life and vigour, is daily adding to its numbers, the latter 
 is almost stationary. 
 
 Nevertheless it is a great mistake to imagine, as some do, that 
 
 Mohammedanism is effete. So far from this being the case, there 
 
 is an inherent vitality in its sublime profession of faith, ' La Illah 
 
 iUa Allah ' — ' There is no God but God ' ; and though in reality 
 
 * Ber. viii. ix. t Matth. xxvi. 52. 
 
208 JESrs TUB MESSIAH. 
 
 this is nothing but the divine truth revealed to Abraham, de- 
 livered to Moses, and inculcated by Jesus, as the Arabian law- 
 giver and conqueror himself admitted, still its professors in this 
 form may be excused for adding to it, ' And Mohammed is the 
 Apostle of God ' ; for truly he must be looked on in the light of 
 an Apostle, who preached and established this faith among his 
 idolatrous countrymen, among their heathen and polytheistic 
 neighbours, and among the worse than idolatrous polj'theists pro- 
 faning the name of the Messiah ('Christ'), who occupied the 
 countries where Mohammedanism has now its chief abode. 
 
 It is the comparative purity of this faith that enables it to 
 maintain itself against dogmatic Christianity, and even to make 
 converts where Christian missionaries have not met with the like 
 success. Still the contest between the two religions has for some 
 time past been an unequal one, and it may henceforth be ex- 
 pected to become even more so. For, at the same time that pro- 
 fessors of Christianity (though not all) have become more en- 
 lightened and tolerant, the gradual education of the generally 
 ignorant people among whom Mohammedanism prevails is re- 
 vealing to them the defects of their sole code of religion and morals, 
 the Koran, and at the same time the vast superiority of the 
 ' Books ' of the Jews and Christians, on which the Koran itself is 
 based ; and the result of the knowledge thus acquired must be 
 the eventual reception of those ' Books ' in the place of that of 
 their own Prophet and lawgiver. 
 
 A great deal has been said of late respecting the Wahabee 
 movement in the East, which is a sort of Mohammedan revival, 
 similar in spirit, if not in character, to the revivals that from 
 time to time have agitated Christendom ; its object being the re- 
 generation of Islam, which by the founder of this new sect, Abd- 
 el-Wahad, is declared to have departed from its original purity. 
 The main point contended for by these fanatics is avowedly the 
 principle, inculcated by Mohammed after the example of Jesus, 
 of the equality of all men before God and their fellow-men ; only 
 by this these Wahabees, like the Communists of Christendom, 
 do not understand merely a living principle intended to regulate 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 209 
 
 men's conduct towards one another, but an organization, giving 
 to all its members equal material rights and interests, and thus, 
 under the specious name of Socialism, overturning the whole 
 social sj'stem. But although Communism in its various forms, 
 whether in Europe or in Asia, may temporarily do much harm, it 
 cannot become permanent ; because, instead of making men free, 
 as it professes to do, it renders them slaves, by depriving them of 
 their individual liberty of action if not even of thought; whereby 
 it is opposed not less to the instincts than to the interests of the 
 community at large. Wahabeeism cannot therefore be expected 
 to eifect any material change in the destinies of Mohammedanism. 
 
 By many at the present day it is contended that the doctrine 
 of liberty, equality, and fraternity taught by Jesus implies equa- 
 lity in the distribution of temporal wealth, the community of 
 goods, the annihilation of individual property ; and that, in fact, 
 the practice of the early Christian Church was that of the Es- 
 senes, who were truly Communists in the strictest sense of the 
 term. 
 
 It is, however, a fundamental error to imagine these to be the 
 principles of Christianity. Jesus preached no such doctrine, nor 
 was it that of the primitive Church. It may be true that, in 
 this respect as in so many others, some of the early disciples did 
 not enter into the spirit of their Master's teaching, and that in 
 their anxiety to obey him they construed his words too literally. 
 But nothing of the sort ought properly to be inferred from con- 
 duct such as that of Barnabas and other members of the infant 
 Congregation, who, being ' possessors of lands or houses, sold 
 them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold and 
 laid them down at the Apostles' feet ; and distribution was made 
 unto every man according as he had need ' *. Such gifts were 
 simply acts of ' charity ' or brotherly love for the benefit of the 
 poor and needy, like those of the founder of Guy's Hospital, of 
 George Peabody, of the Baroness Burdett-Coutts, and so many 
 other benefactors of their fellow-creatures, to whom no one would 
 dream of imputing a tinge of such levelling doctrines. 
 * Acts iv. 34, 35. 
 
210 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 It is further manifest, from what is related of Ananias and 
 his wife Sapphira, that even theirs was no enforced community of 
 goods, like that of the Essenes, but simply a free-will offering of 
 ' charity ' ; and that they were punished, not for withholding their 
 property from the common fund, but for their gross, and at the 
 same time needless, deceit and falsehood respecting it. The words 
 of the Apostle Peter are qnite explicit : — ' Whiles it remained, 
 was it not thine own ? And after it was sold, was it not in thine 
 own power ? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart ? 
 Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God'*. 
 
 It was in a decidedly anti- communistic sense that Paul said, 
 ' Though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and have not love, 
 it profiteth me nothing.' Acts of real charity must be the spon- 
 taneous residt of the love of God and of one's neighbour. When 
 they arise from any ostentatious feeling, such as that so forcibly 
 condemned by Jesus f, then the Pharisaical' almsgiving is indeed 
 nothing but sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. But, on the 
 other hand, when they are exacted and enforced by any law or 
 custom, civil, ecclesiastic, socialistic, or otherwise, it is a mere 
 truism to say that they cease to be voluntary gifts, and become, 
 instead, a tribute or legal obligation. With Communism there 
 can be no charity, no freewill offerings of brotherly love: the 
 two are incompatible. 
 
 It will not be denied that at times Jesus appeared to condemn 
 the rich and commend the jioor, and to insist on the obligation of 
 the former to reHuquish their wealth for the benefit of the latter. 
 But these were abstract principles expressed in the figurative 
 and hyperbolical language of Orientals, and, like other abstract 
 principles, are not to be construed with Hteral strictness. Besides 
 which, the conduct of the teacher himself must always be borne 
 in mind. His direction to the young man, who asked what he 
 should do to inherit eternal life, was that he shoixld sell all that 
 he had and distribute unto the poor + ; but this was, in truth (as 
 has been suggested in a previous Chapter §) an intimation that 
 * Acts V. 4. t Matth. vi. 1-4. 
 
 \ Luke xviii. 22. § Chapter VIIT. page 104. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 
 
 2U 
 
 tlie questioner should follow the speaker's own example. The 
 addition made by Jesus that by so doing he ' should have trea- 
 sure in heaven,' shows that he was only repeating the maxim in 
 the Book of Proverbs, ' He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth 
 unto the Eternal ; and that which he hath given will He pay him 
 again'*; and his comment on the young man's rejection of 
 his advice, — 'How hardly shall they that have riches enter 
 into the Kingdom of God! for it is easier for a camel to go 
 through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the 
 Kingdom of God ' t, — is not only explained by the words attri- 
 buted to our Lord in the second Gospel, where the same incident 
 is recorded — ' Children, how hard is it for them that trust in 
 riches to enter into the Kingdom of God ! ' + — but it is further 
 exemplified in the following solemn parable : — ' The ground of a 
 certain rich man brought forth plentifully. And he thought 
 within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room 
 where to bestow my fruits ? And he said, This will I do : I will 
 pull down my barns, and buHd greater ; and there will I bestow 
 all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul. Soul, 
 thou hast much goods laid up for many years ; take thine ease, 
 eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him^ Thou fool, this 
 night thy soul shall be required of thee : then whose shaU those 
 things be which thou hast provided ? ' § 
 
 The application of this parable is unquestionable ; for that ap- 
 plication is made by our Lord himself. It is addressed not to 
 the rich, as the possessors of wealth making proper use of it, 
 but to the selfish and covetous, who think only of themselves 
 and not of others. ' Take heed,' exclaimed he, before beginning 
 the parable, ' Take heed and beware of covetousness : for a man's 
 life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he pos- 
 8esseth'|[. And then, after relating the fate of this selfish rich 
 man, he adds by way of moral, ' So is he that layeth up treasure 
 for himself, and is not rich toward God ' %. 
 
 * Pr07. xix. 17. t Luke xviii. 24, 25. 
 
 + Mark x. 24. § Luke xii. 16-20. 
 
 !| Liike xii. 15. If Luke xii. 21. 
 
212 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 This parable strikes at the foundation of the notion that Jesus 
 was a preacher of Communism, which notion is completely over- 
 turned by his stern reply to the man who wished him to desire 
 his brother to divide his inheritance with him, — ' Man, who made 
 mc a judge or a divider over you?'* — which was, in fact, the 
 occasion for the parable of the covetous rich man just cited. 
 
 Another important consequence of this doctiine of universal 
 love is the bounden duty of every member of society to submit 
 to the civil ordinances of that society, without which must ensue 
 anarchy and disorder, — the rupture of all those bonds which, 
 whilst restraining and seeming to coerce each individual member, 
 retain him in his proper place, and better enable him to do his 
 duty in that state of life to which it has pleased God to call him. 
 Submission to the civil authorities in all matters fiscal and admi- 
 nistrative is enforced by the emphatic precept of Jesus, when his 
 opinion was asked as to the lawfulness of paying tribute to the 
 Roman government of Judaea. ' Render unto Caesar the things 
 which are Caesar's ' f is but an application of the general principle 
 of submission to the Will of God, from whom all power is de- 
 rived ; and the amplification of this precept is thus given by the 
 Apostle, who was so fully embued with the spirit of his Master : — 
 * Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there 
 is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God. 
 "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance 
 of God ; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damna- 
 tion. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. 
 Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power ? do that which is good, 
 and thou shalt have praise of the same ; for he is the minister of 
 God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be 
 afraid ; for he beareth not the sword in vain ; for he is the 
 minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that 
 doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for 
 wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye 
 tribute also ; for they are God's ministers, attending continually 
 upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues : tri- 
 * Luke xii. 14. t Matth xxii. 21. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 213 
 
 bute to whom tribute is due ; custom to whom custom ; fear to 
 wbom fear ; honour to whom honour. Owe no man anything, 
 but to love one another ; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled 
 the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt 
 not kill, Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. 
 Thou shalt not covet ; and if there be any other commandment, 
 it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour : 
 therefore love is the fulfilling of the law ' *. 
 
 In this, it will be perceived, the great Jewish Apostle of the 
 Gentiles sums up the whole duty of man in the very same words 
 of the Law of Moses — -^ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- 
 self f — that his Master had used before him. Does it require 
 anything further to prove the true character of the ' new ' Com- 
 mandment, which the fourth Gospel so falsely, and at the same 
 time so ignorantly, attributes to our Lord J ? And is anything 
 beyond this requisite to explain and, it may almost be said, to 
 excuse the erroneous notions that Jews and other unbelievers in 
 Christianity entertain of this faith, when its teachers themselves 
 are so radically mistaken respecting its very principles ? 
 
 But whilst our Lord insisted on the duty of every member of 
 the Christian Congregation, of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, 
 to submit in all secular matters to the temporal authorities, as 
 God's delegates, he was not less precise in his injunctions that 
 his disciples should not submit to human ordinances in matters 
 of religion, adding example to precept by breaking down the 
 barriers between Man and his Maker, which had been raised by 
 a selfish and bigoted priesthood, and were maintained by the 
 whole clerical party. Whilst insisting on the observance of the 
 Law of Moses, he strenuously endeavoured to make his hearers 
 understand the diff'erence between the letter and the spirit, the 
 former of which killeth and the latter giveth life §. The Law had 
 been so hedged round with glosses and traditions, that its original 
 meaning and intention had become lost, and in their place was 
 substituted a mass of superstitious ceremonies and observances 
 * Eom. xiii. 1-10. t Levit. xix. 18. 
 
 J See above, page 202. § 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
 
214 JESrS THE MESSIAH:. 
 
 that \rcre most hard to bear, and yet might at any moment be 
 dispensed with by means of the most miserable and despicable 
 casuistry. To Jesus it was a duty, and at the same time a plea- 
 sure, to violate the rules of these self-constituted interpreters of 
 the oracles of God, and to hold them up to the derision and con- 
 tempt of the people. 
 
 The observance of the Sabbath, for instance, had been rendered 
 by the traditionists a pretext for the grossest superstitions, 
 which were carried by them to the height of absurdity. To 
 these Jesus made a systematic opposition, never hesitating to 
 disregard the rules that had been established in defiance of the 
 laws of nature and of common sense. His saying that ' the 
 Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath ' *, cut 
 at the root of the sanctimonious scruples of those ritualists. 
 It was right and proper to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest, 
 but not to make it a pretext for abstaining from acts of neces- 
 sity, of duty, of mercy, or of recreation f. 
 
 The same with respect to their Pharisaical ablutions +, which, 
 whilst cleansing the outward man, left his soul impure §. Jesus 
 taught his disciples that ' out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, 
 murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blas- 
 phemies : these are the things which defile a man ; but to eat 
 with unwashen hands defileth not aman'||. And, in sum, in 
 all his infringements of the ceremonial Law, our Lord looked not 
 to the observance of the strict letter of the written Law, but to 
 its intention and spiritual import. 
 
 It was only natural that, by conduct such as this, Jesus should 
 have excited the animosity of the whole clerical party. "WTiat 
 the consequences of this were will form the subject of a subse- 
 quent Chapter^. But it must here be remarked that the teach- 
 ing and practice of our Lord and his immediate disciples might 
 have been expected to serve as a sufficient admonition to those 
 who came after them against the introduction into the infant 
 Congregation of a sacerdotal class, similar in some respects to 
 * Mark ii. 27. t Luke vi. 9, xiii. lo, xiv. 5. J Matth. xv. 2. 
 
 § Markvii. 3-9. || Matth. xv. 19, 20. •, See Chapter XVIII. 
 
THE KIIfGDOM OF HEATEN. 215 
 
 that under the Mosaic Law, but far more injurious to the Con- 
 gregation generally than that could possibly have been ; because 
 the IsraeKtish priesthood was hereditary, and thus aristocratic in 
 the best sense, whereas the Christian hierarchy is self-elected 
 and oligarchical — an aristocracy of the worst character, and most 
 injui'ious to the community at large. Added to which, the latter 
 has arrogated to itself divine powers, to which the former made 
 no pretensions, except perhaps in the person of the High Priest, 
 the descendant and siiccessor of Aaron, and then only on rare 
 occasions, when performing his highest sacerdotal functions. It 
 must further be borne in mind that the Israelitish priesthood 
 was established on account of the ceremonial Law and the ser- 
 vice of the Tabernacle, — afterwards of the Temple ; and when 
 this latter was done away with, the necessity for a separate 
 sacerdotal class ceased to exist. Even whilst such a class did 
 continue, the minds of its members were full of their ministerial 
 occupations, so that they were little competent to raise their 
 thoughts to spiritual things ; and the whole Scripture history 
 shows that the priests were far from being the exclusive inter- 
 preters of the Divine oracles. The prophets soon assumed their 
 place ; and the Messiah came to complete their final suppres- 
 sion, and to constitute himself alone the head of the Kingdom of 
 Heaven upon earth, and the only Mediator between God and 
 men. 
 
 It is a mere human fallacy, originating in the greed for power 
 of crafty and ambitious men, to pretend that our Lord or his 
 immediate disciples established a separate sacerdotal class, de- 
 rived from them by direct appointment and perpetual succession. 
 This subject has been so ably discussed and elucidated by 
 many pious and learned members of the Christian church, that 
 it is unnecessary to dwell on it here. It will only be remarked 
 that the Christian hierarchy, in their assumption of supernatural 
 powers imparted to them by ' ApostoHc succession,' are the 
 imitators of the Eoman College of Augurs rather than of the 
 Jewish priesthood. 
 
 The assumed transmission of the Holy Spirit from one sinful 
 
216 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 man to another by simple contact, the pretended power to trans- 
 mute the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper into our Lord's 
 own flesh and blood, the arrogated authority to remit sins, the 
 enforced celibacy of the clergy, — these and other abuses were but 
 partially got rid of in the Western Churches at the time of the 
 Reformation. In the Eastern Churches, the wall of separation 
 between the clergy and the laity raised up by Rome does not exist. 
 In them, as in the Israelitish Church, it has never been ruled that 
 religious light and instruction are confined to the clergy ; but the 
 royal priesthood of every member of the Christian Congregation — 
 of God's Kingdom on earth — is fully recognized in theory, though 
 it may not be enforced in practice. The ' Old Catholic ' move- 
 ment in Germany is evidently tending in the same direction. 
 Dr. Dollinger, in his reply to the Catholics of Hungary, is re- 
 ported to have said that they were the first to perceive clearly 
 that the legally regulated participation of laymen in the order- 
 ing and administration of the affairs of the ' Church ' is the one 
 thing most needed ; as in this participation they will find the 
 proper means of casting off the despotism of the clergy. 
 
 The fiction of a mystically endowed sacerdotal class could 
 hardly have been maintained, had it not been for that which is 
 perhaps the grossest and most palpable of all the abuses existing 
 within the pale of the Christian Church, namely, the appropria- 
 tion to themselves by the clergy of the name, functions, and 
 authority of the ' Church ; ' as if this title belonged to them ex- 
 clusively, and not to the Laity or Congregation generally, of 
 whom they are propei'ly not the masters but the ministers and 
 servants. The Pope of Rome, with hypocritical humility, styles 
 himself ' servus servorum,' but only that he may lord it over the 
 consciences of the true ' Church,' that is to say, the Congrega- 
 tion ; and his example is followed, in a greater or less degree, 
 by all priests who pretend to belong to a class distinct from 
 the majority of the community, and as superior to them as the 
 Brahmins are to the rest of the Hindoos. 
 
 We have only to look to the original meaning of the name 
 ' Church,' to see how grossly it has been and still is misapplied. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 217 
 
 By this it is not inteuded to speak of the etymological significa- 
 tion of the word, — which in the English and kindred tongiies may 
 or may not be correctly derived from the Greek KvpiaKov, or perhaps 
 rather from Kvpiov oIkos, similarly to the Ethiopic ' Beta-kristian,' — 
 but of the idea it represents ; namely, that of the 'EkkXtjo-iu, an ex- 
 pression which has been adopted into the Latin in the form of 
 ' Ecclesia,' and thence in a somewhat similar form into all de- 
 rived or cognate languages. Now nothing can be more certain 
 than the meaning of this term. The ' Ecclesia ' was a heathen 
 institution, it being an assembly of such persons as were sum- 
 moned or ' called ' to it, from the verb e/CKaXew, ' to call out ' or 
 ' forth,' ' to summon.' Properly such an ' Ecclesia ' or assembly 
 should be duly summoned ; but we find the term applied to the 
 meeting (' Ecclesia ') hurriedly called together in the Temple of 
 Diana at Ephesus by Demetrius the silversmith*; which was 
 clearly not a lawful assembly, convened in the ordinary manner, 
 but a ' confused ' and ' uproarious ' one, such as we might sup- 
 pose an irregular and disorderly meeting of the freemen of the 
 Goldsmiths' Company, or any other of the city comjianies, in the 
 Guildhall of London, which the town-clerk, on hearing of it, 
 would hasten to disperse, telling the persons so assembled that 
 they ' were in danger to be called to account for this day's up- 
 roar, there being no cause whereby they might give an account 
 of this concourse.' And when he had thus spoken, Mr. Town 
 Clerk would dismiss the assembly, meeting, or congregation of 
 the Goldsmiths' Company, just as the prudent town-clerk of 
 Ephesus dismissed the 'EKKXrjaia f of silversmiths that Demetrius 
 had informally called together. 
 
 The ' Ecclesia ' being, then, a heathen institution, meaning an 
 assembly ' called together ' or summoned, the term became applied 
 ' imto them which were called' (avrois tois KXrjTois)^ to be mem- 
 bers of the Kingdom of Heaven, first by John the Baptist, as the 
 precursor of the Messiah, and afterwards by the Messiah himself; 
 and it necessarily comprises the entire Christian Congregation or 
 ' Church,' the ' Household of God.' It is therefore manifest that 
 
 * See Acts xix. 24, 32, 39, 41. f Acts xix. 41. J 1 Cor. i. 24. 
 
 L 
 
218 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 the appropriation of the term to themselves by the Christian 
 clergy is utterly unjustifiable ; especially as it is in direct oppo- 
 sition to the declaration of Tertullian, that to form an ' Ecclesia ' 
 or ' Church ' — that is to say an Assembly or Congregation of 
 Christians — no priests or clergy are needed ; for that where three 
 laymen are, there is a ' Church ' or Congregation, And the force 
 of this expression is very marked, inasmuch as the Xaos, ' laity,' 
 comprises not merely the ^rj/uos, ' plebs,' or free citizens, but the 
 population at large, including the bondsmen, slaves, or servants, 
 whom there is express warrant for including within the ' Ec- 
 clesia'*, or Congregation of ' them which are called.' 
 
 As long as any one class of men claim to possess the Keys of 
 the Kingdom of Heaven, they are participators in the fraud of 
 them who first pretended that those Keys were delivered by our 
 Lord Jesus to his disciple Simon Peter. If the argument in a pre- 
 ceding Chapter t is valid, thoseKeys have always remained, and still 
 are, in the hands of the Messiah himself, who is the only mediator 
 between God and men, and alone can give us sinful mortals access 
 to the presence of the Almighty in the world to come ; whilst, as 
 members of the Congregation — ' Ecclesia ' or ' Church ' — of be- 
 lievers in him here on earth, we are all true brethren, the ' elect' 
 childi-en of God, ' and if children then heirs, heirs of God, and 
 joint heirs with the Messiah ; if so be that we suflfer with him, 
 that we may be also glorified together 'J. 
 
 CHAPTEE XVII. 
 THE LOEDS SUPPER. 
 
 It is a fact deserving of special notice that the learned, critical, 
 and sceptical M. Eenan should implicitly believe the Apostle John 
 
 * See the texts cited above, page 206. 
 
 t Chapter XII. pages 150-157. } Horn. viii. 17. 
 
THE lord's sttppek. 219 
 
 to be the author of the fourth Gospel, and that in consequence of 
 this behef he should base many of his arguments on the assump- 
 tion that that writer's statements are of preponderating authority, 
 on account of their being those of the most intimate of Jesus's 
 companions, and an eye-witness of the events which he professes 
 to record. This is especially the case with respect to the Last 
 Supper of our Lord, which M. Renan says did not take place at the 
 Jewish Passover, but on the previous Thiirsday, on which day it 
 was commemorated in the primitive Church ; and that subse- 
 quently the mistake of a day was made, as is shown by the syn- 
 optical Gospels. And accepting as a fact, on the authority of 
 the fourth Gospel, that Jesus died on the very day on which 
 the Paschal Lamb was killed and eaten, the French scholar con- 
 tends that the institution of the Eucharist did not form part of 
 the Last Supper. He also relies on the corroborative authority 
 of the Talmud*, which in like manner makes Jesus to have died 
 on the vigil or eve of the Passover. 
 
 This reliance on the authority of the fourth Gospel and of the 
 Talmud, this insisting on the dogma of the Catholic Church in 
 ojiposition to the express assertions of the writers of the three 
 other Gospels and of St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians t, this flying in the face of the notorious and incontro- 
 vertible facts of the Quartodeciman controversy (when this ques- 
 tion was mooted and sifted to the bottom), this defiance of all 
 history, is truly a curious psychological phenomenon. 
 
 The reason why the Talmud adopts the views of the fourth 
 Gospel is, that from a very early period these were the dominant 
 opinions of all Christendom, and indeed continued to be so until 
 the more general study of the Scriptures, consequent on the Ee- 
 formation, enabled Christians to form a truer estimate of their 
 Lord's character and history. Thus it is that the Jews, as a 
 rule, know only the ' Jesus Christ ' of the fourth Gospel, and are 
 ignorant of Jesus tlie 'Christ,' or Messiah, of the synoptical 
 Gospels and of St. Paul. It is the same with the Mohammedans 
 and their Koran. 
 
 * Sanhed. 43a, 67a. t 1 Cor. xi. 23-26. 
 
 l2 
 
220 JESrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 "Without reference to the dogmas of the Catholic Church, which 
 cannot be allowed to stand against historical facts, nothing is 
 more certain than that Jesus kept the national feast of the Pass- 
 over with his disciples, precisely as the rest of his countrymen 
 kept it, and that he did not suffer death on the Cross till the 
 following day. In the first Gospel it is expressly said : 'And they 
 made ready the Passover. Now when the even was come, he sat 
 down with the twelve ' *. In the second Gospel the words are : 
 ' And they made ready the Passover. And in the evening he 
 Cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and dideat'f, &c. 
 The third Gospel is even more precise, for it says : ' And they 
 made ready the Passover. And when the hour was come he sat 
 down, and the twelve Apostles with him. And he said unto them, 
 With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I 
 suffer 'J. In addition to which, in all three Gospels, as well as 
 in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians §, the breaking of 
 the bread and the giving of the cup are described as forming 
 essential portions of ' the Lord's Supper,' the last meal of which 
 Jesus partook on earth. 
 
 In the fourth Gospel, bearing the name of St. John, it is alto- 
 gether different. There it is said, ' Now before the feast of the 
 Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should 
 depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own 
 which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper 
 being ended, the devil having now jiut into the heart of Judas 
 Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him ; Jesus knowing that the 
 Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come 
 from God, and went to God ; he riseth from supper and laid aside 
 his garments, and took a towel, and girded himself ||, and so 
 proceeded to wash the disciples' feet. After wliich, he sat down 
 again with them, and made to them a long discourse on various 
 subjects, doctrinal, allegorical, and mystical, but ha^-ing no rela- 
 tion whatever to the institution of ' the Lord's Supper,' which is 
 
 * Mattb. sxYi. 19, 20. t Mark xiv. lG-18. 
 
 X Luke xxii. 13-15. § 1 Cor. xi. L'3-26. 
 
 II John xiii. 1-4. 
 
THE lord's stjpper. 221 
 
 very ingeniously passed over in this ' copia verborum,' without 
 even the slightest allusion being made to the subject. 
 
 The reason for this variation in the fourth Gospel will be ap- 
 parent, when we take into consideration the changes to which 
 this institution of the Lord's Supper was subjected. The break- 
 ing and eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup, which 
 Jesus commanded to be done in remembrance of him, formed, 
 strictly speaking, no portion of the Paschal meal ; nor was it 
 considered so to be by the early disciples, who construed their 
 Lord's instructions literally, and performed this solemn act of 
 communion ' as often as' they met together at meals. This com- 
 munion of bread and wine was thus made to form an essential 
 portion of the ' Agapai ' or Love-feasts, the excess and abuse of 
 which was severely reprobated by the Apostle Paul*, and eventually 
 led to the separation of the two, the Lord's ' Supper ' being gra- 
 dually transferred from the evening till the following morning. 
 Of this a remarkable instance occurred when Paul and his com- 
 panions stopped at Troas on their way from Ephesus to Mace- 
 donia. We read that, ' upon the first day of the week, when 
 the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto 
 them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech 
 until midnight ' f. Now the first day of the week of these Jews 
 was Saturday evening, when, after the termination of the Sab- 
 bath, they met to break bread. But before sitting down to the 
 meal, Paul preached to them, — ' said grace,' or ' asked a bless- 
 ing,' as we might now express it, — and went on speaking until 
 midnight, that is to say, till it was Sunday morning, according 
 to the civil computation of time. So long did the Apostle con- 
 tinue his discourse, that Eutychus, one of his hearers, fell asleep, 
 and fell down and was taken up for dead ; but Paul restored him 
 to life. And afterwards we read that, ' When he therefore was 
 come up again, and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a 
 long while, even till break of day, so he departed ' J ; the supper 
 of Saturday night — ' the first day of the week ' — not having been 
 partaken of tiU. after midnight on the morning of Sunday. After 
 
 * 1 Cor. xi. 20-34. t Acts xx. 7. | Acts xx. 11. 
 
222 JESrs THE MESSIAH. 
 
 this the Apostle departed, and in so doing afforded a precedent for 
 
 Sunday travelling to those "who may think that St. Paxil's ex- 
 ample ought to be followed. 
 
 The Lord's Supper having been permanently transferred from 
 the evening to the morning of the first day of the week, — from 
 Saturday evening to Sunday morning, — the partaking of it became 
 so ' developed,' both in rite and in doctrine, that the disciples of 
 its institutor would fail to recognize it in the Eucharist, or Mass, 
 or Holy Communion, of Catholic Christendom. 
 
 On the other hand, whilst these changes were taking place in 
 the Eucharistic portion of the Lord's Supper, that part of it which 
 consisted of the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb, as a memorial of the 
 deliverance of the Israelites from the house of bondage, had be- 
 come quite immaterial to the Gentile converts, and in itself un- 
 meaning ; though, from its close coincidence with the Crucifixion 
 of the Messiah, it was seen that it might be made most significant 
 as a type, if only it could be brought to coincide in date with the 
 latter event, which would thus become the sacrifice of ' the Lamb 
 of God.' And this was apparently the motive for ante-dating 
 the Last Supper of Jesus, so as to make his Crucifixion to coincide 
 with the killing of the Paschal Lamb. 
 
 But then another difficulty arose. The Paschal meal was no 
 longer celebrated by the Christians as it had been and con- 
 tinued to be by the Jews. Among the latter the Passover is 
 essentially of a festive character, a day of general rejoicing; and, 
 as was onlj- natural, it seemed to the Gentile converts an anomaly 
 that this feast should be celebrated on the anniversary of the 
 Lord's Crucifixion, which they themselves kept as a day of mourn- 
 ing and fasting ; though were this momentous event to be re- 
 garded by Christians generally in the right light, they would keep 
 the Feast of the Sacrifice of the Messiah as gladly and as thank- 
 fully as the Jews continue to hold that of the Passover. Indeed, 
 were they to do so, they would only be following the example of 
 the Apostle Paul, whose character and conduct are so entirely mis- 
 understood as to lead the Duke of Somerset to make the following 
 observations : — ' At the period when Paul proclaimed this doctrine 
 
THE lord's stjpper. 223 
 
 [of the Atonement ?] many disciples were still living who had 
 accompanied Jesus in his wanderings, following him day by day 
 to listen to his holy words, to imbibe, if possible, something of 
 his divine thoughts, to watch the sublime devotion of his life, to 
 weep over his agonizing death. What must these disciples have 
 felt when they beheld Paul the Pharisee rejoicing over that 
 death, expressing no contrition for the share which the Pharisees 
 had in the Crucifixion, and shedding no tear on the page which 
 recorded the sufferings of Jesus ' *. 
 
 How those disciples actually did feel is sufficiently proved by 
 the Scripture History when rightly construed. As is shown in a 
 subsequent Chapter f of the present work, they manifested little 
 sympathy with their Master's sufferings : what they felt and said 
 was, ' We trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed 
 Israel ' ; and when, through the influence of the Divine Spirit, 
 they came to understand that that redemption had, in fact, been 
 accomplished, though not in the sense they had contemplated, 
 they also had reason, like Paul, to look on their Lord's death as a 
 subject of rejoicing rather than of mourning. 
 
 This mistaken and morbid feeling on the part of the Gentile 
 converts could not fail to lead to a speedy difference of ritual. 
 The Asiatic Churches, which still retained a strong Jewish ele- 
 ment, followed the example of Jesus and his Apostles, and con- 
 tinued to celebrate the Lord's last Paschal supper on the evening 
 of the fuU moon of the 14th-15th of Xisan. Li the Western 
 Churches, on the other hand, the Friday of the Passion Week 
 was observed as the day of the Lord's death, without regard to 
 the day of the month on which it might happen to fall. This 
 was, however, no arbitrary change. The Resurrection of the 
 Lord having occurred on the first day of the week, Sunday, — or, 
 to speak qu.ite precisely, during the night between Saturday and 
 Sunday, — this day soon became the weekly feast of the Christian 
 Church, it being called the Lord's Day, in contradiction to the 
 Sabbath or Saturday, the feast-day of the Jews. Hence it was 
 only natural that among the Gentile converts the Lord's Day 
 
 » ' Christian Theology' &c. pp. 130, 131. t Chapter XIX. page 258, sq. 
 
22-i JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 should have hcen fixed on as that of the celehration of the Lord's 
 Resurrection. Eut this fixation of the day of the Eesurrection 
 necessarily caused the like fixation of the day of the Crucifi:sion 
 on the third day inclusive before it ; and accordingly this latter 
 was placed on the Friday preceding the Festival of the Eesurrec- 
 tion, or Easter Sunday. The determination of the date of Easter 
 by reference to the Paschal full-moon was, however, still retained ; 
 only, instead of determining the date of the Passover itself by 
 that of the full-moon, and then regulating by this the days of the 
 Crucifixion and the Eesurrection, which might thereby have 
 fallen on any days of the week, they first settled dogmatically 
 that this latter Feast should be always celebrated on the Sunday 
 next after the Paschal full-moon, and then regulated the day of 
 the Crucifixion accordingly. By this means the actual Jewish 
 Feast of the Passover became of no account. 
 
 The question between the Eastern and Western Churches first 
 distinctly manifested itself in history on the occasion of the visit 
 to Eome of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, in the time of Anicetus, 
 Bishop of the former city, about the middle of the second century, 
 A.D. 157-168. At that time the rituals of the two Churches 
 had become quite distinct ; and each of those two reverend fathers 
 tried to bring the other over to his practice, but in vain. For neither 
 could Anicetus induce Polycarp to relinquish the observance of the 
 Jewish Passover, inasmuch as the latter afiirmed that these things 
 had always been so observed by John, the disciple of the Lord, and 
 by the other Apostles, with whom he had been conversant ; nor, on 
 the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus 
 to observe the Jewish Passover ; for the latter maintained that 
 he was bound to adhere to the usage of the Presbyters who had 
 preceded him. Still, this difference of opinion notwithstanding, 
 the two Bishops kept fellowship with each other ; and Anicetus, 
 by way of showing respect to Polycarp before the congregation, 
 conceded to him the celebration of the Eucharist ; so that they 
 parted from one another in peace, and maintained peace through- 
 out the whole Church, both those who did and those who did not 
 observe the Jewish Passover *. 
 
 * Irenseus, in Eusebius, ' Eccl. Hist.' v. 20. 
 
THE lord's suppee. 225 
 
 From this remarkable statement of Irenoeus, who himself per- 
 sonally knew the Apostle John, he having been ordained by him 
 or in his presence in about a.d. 100, two conclusions are to be 
 drawn. The first is, that, as the aged Polycarp appealed to the 
 personal example of John, the beloved disciple of our Lord, and 
 the other Apostles, — who as pious Jews differed from the rest 
 of their co-religionists in nothing but the belief that Jesus was 
 the Messiah, and therefore celebrated the feast of the Jewish Pass- 
 over as he had done, — it is certain that at the time of Polycarp's 
 visit to Rome the fourth Gospel could not have been written, or 
 at all events not that portion of it wherein the direct contrary is 
 asserted. And therefore it may not unreasonably be inferred 
 that, in consequence of the practice of St. John having been thus 
 held up and appealed to by his disciple Polycarp, the only eflfec- 
 tual way of neutralizing this appeal to his authority was to make 
 him appear to declare the direct contrary in the Gospel which 
 was palmed off upon Christendom under his name, by falsifying 
 the day on which the Last Supper of our Lord was eaten. AVas 
 it not ' for the good of Holy Church ' that uniformity should be 
 maintained within its pale ? 
 
 The other conclusion is, that, as Bishop Anicetus did not appeal 
 to the authority of Peter, the Prince of Apostles, the Vicar of 
 Christ, the possessor of the keys of heaven and hell, but to that 
 of ' the Presbyters who had preceded him,' we may be quite cer- 
 tain that Peter had never been Bishop of Rome before him, or 
 even one of the ' Presbyters ' of that Church ; otherwise Anicetus 
 would not have failed to appeal to him, just as Polycarp appealed 
 to John and the other Apostles. And it is also quite certain 
 that the Jew Simon bar Jonah, so noted for his Judaiziug ten- 
 dencies, would have been as constant as the son of Zebedee, if not 
 even more so, in following the example of their Master in respect 
 of the celebration of the Jewish Passover. 
 
 In this controversy between Polycarp and Anicetus it is fur- 
 ther worthy of remark that the former, as the representative of 
 the Eastern Churches, was of the orthodox party ; whilst it was 
 the Romish Bishop who was heterodox. In this Rome gave its 
 
 l5 
 
226 JESrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 first proof of heterodoxy ; its second great proof was iji the addi- 
 tion of ' filioque ' to the orthodox Nicene Creed. Another Avas 
 the introduction of the New Style, which, according to Oriental 
 notions, is as arbitrary a changing of the Feast Days of the 
 Church as was the alteration of the date of the Paschal festival. 
 
 Though the venerable fathers Polycarp and Anicetus parted in 
 peace, without allowing a question, which they both felt to be of 
 no spiritual importance, to cause discord between them and the con- 
 gregations under their charge respectively, it was not so with 
 their successors, between whom the controversy raged during a 
 century aud a half with unceasing vigour and increased Adru- 
 lency, without any prospect of the question being settled, till the 
 Gordian knot was cut by the hand of the Emperor Constantine. 
 As a still unbaptized heathen, inclined towards Christianity more 
 on accoimt of its political importance than from any true religious 
 feeling, Constantine may have cared little for the difference of 
 ritual between the Eastern and "Western Churches ; but as a 
 sovereign he must have been shocked at the want of uniformity, 
 and doubtless also at the ill-blood it engendered between the two 
 branches of what had then become the most powerful and influ- 
 ential institution in the vast Roman Empire. The Chui'ch ap- 
 peared, said Athanasius, to be halting on one leg. The sight of 
 some Churches feasting on the day when others were fasting, and 
 of two Passovers in one year, was opposed to the very idea of 
 Christian unity ; and as a proof of how completely Christianity 
 had lost sight of its origin, and of its total forgetfulness of the 
 fact that Jesus himself was born a Jew, lived a Jew, ate the 
 Paschal Lamb as a Jew, died a Jew, and was glorified on the 
 Cross as ' the King of the Jews,' — the chosen people of the Eter- 
 nal and of His Messiah — ' the Lord and his Christ,' — it was 
 actually contended that the celebration of the Passover on the 
 same day as that on which it was kept by the miscreant Jews, 
 who had jiut the Saviour to death, was an impious absurdity ! 
 
 Accordingly, by the solemn decree of the pagan Emperor in his 
 Council of Nictea, a.d. 325, the Friday before Easter Sunday 
 was declared to be the day of the Christian Passover, and not the 
 
THE lord's SUPPEE. 227 
 
 fourteenth of the month Nisan ; and ere long all the Churches 
 throughout the empire conformed their ritual to this decree. 
 
 It has been seen that the Apostle John was the chief authority 
 appealed to by his own personal disciple Polycarp in support of 
 his contention for the celebration of the Paschal Feast on the 
 Jewish Passover, in accordance with the fact, so very plainly and 
 unequivocally stated in the three historical Gospels, that our 
 Lord himself kept it on that day. And yet in the fourth Gospel 
 we read the direct contrary; it being there asserted not only that 
 the Lord's Supper was eaten ' before the Passover,' but also that 
 the trial of Jesus took place on ' the preparation of the Passover, 
 and about the sixth hour ' * ; so that the moment of our Lord's 
 death upon the Cross is made to coincide with that of the sacrifice 
 of the Paschal Lamb, which, on the evidence of the three his- 
 torical Gospels, he had himself actually eaten nearly twenty- 
 four hours previously ! If there were nothing besides this pal- 
 pably false statement to guide us, it would be sufficient to deter- 
 mine not only the animus but likewise the status of the 
 writer of the fourth Gospel. He was not the Apostle John ; he 
 was not even a Jewish believer. He was a Gentile Christian, 
 who wrote in the interest of the Anti- Jewish party, and took on 
 himself the name of the beloved disciple, in order that he might 
 the more readily impose on the ignorant and credulous ; and 
 this he has done most effectually, when even a scholar and a 
 sceptic like M. Eenan is brought to beheve in him. 
 
 In eating the Passover with his disciples, Jesus performed his 
 last ceremonial act as a Jew. Though aU that he did on the 
 occasion is not described by the historians, who naturally enough 
 thought of recording what related to the future rather than to the 
 past, there are sufficient particulars mentioned in the first three 
 Gospels to show that the feast was kept by Jesus and his disciples 
 in aecordance with the practice of their co-religionists, as handed 
 down to the present day, and as will now be briefly described, 
 principally on the authority of the learned Dr. Lightfootf. 
 
 At the institution of the Passover the people stood, each with 
 * John xis. 14. t ' Works,' i. 951-957. 
 
228 JESTJ8 THE MESSIAH. 
 
 his loins girded, his shoes on his feet, and his staff in his hand, 
 ready for his departure after the hurried meal*. Afterwards, 
 when eating, they sat or reclined, with the ease becoming free 
 men, who were to remember that when their ancestors stood at 
 the first celebration they had adopted the posture of slaves : not 
 even the poorest in Israel might eat till he was seated. Ac- 
 cordingly we read that Jesus 'sat down with the twelve'f. 
 
 From what is stated in the third Gospel J it is to be inferred 
 that Jesus, who as the head of the household was the celebrant, 
 began the meal by fiUing the first cup of wine, and asking the 
 usual blessing ' for the day and for the cup.' In accordance with 
 a rabbinical tradition, perpetuated in the ritual of the Christian 
 Church, the wine was mixed with water, not for any mystical 
 reason, as is now pretended, but because this was considered to 
 be the best way of using the best wine. The statement in the 
 fourth Gospel that, when Jesus was on the Cross, ' one of the 
 soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there 
 out blood and water '§, is a fiction, invented for the purpose of 
 giving a mystical Christian origin to an ancient Jewish practice. 
 
 After the first cup of wine it is usual for all present to wash 
 their hands, with the customary blessing, which practice Jesus 
 would probably not have dispensed with on this solemn occasion, 
 as he had done at other times when sitting down to meals with 
 ' publicans and sinners ' ; but whether he did so or not is imma- 
 terial. 
 
 On the table were then placed the unleavened bread, a salad 
 of bitter herbs, and a sauce caUed Kharesoth, consisting of dates, 
 figs, raisins, vinegar, &c., and afterwards the Paschal Lamb, 
 roasted whole, in front of Jesus himself, who, with a blessing, first 
 dipped a portion of the salad in the Kharesoth and ate it, his ex- 
 ample being followed by the others. 
 
 After the bitter herbs had thus been eaten, the dishes were 
 removed, and a second cup of wine was fiUcd and brought to the 
 celebrant. But before drinking it, the national custom is for the 
 * Exod. xii. 11. t Matth. xxvi. 20 ; Mark xiv. 18. 
 
 I Luke xxii. 17, 18. § John xix. 34. 
 
THE lord's supper. 229 
 
 children or proselytes who may be present to inquire, in ac- 
 cordance with the text, Exod. xii. 26, the meaning of the feast ; 
 when, in reply, an account is given by the master of the feast of 
 the sufferings of the Israelites in the house of bondage, and of 
 their deliverance, with express reference to the text. Dent. xxvi. 5. 
 If no such persons are present, the explanation is still given on 
 ordinary occasions ; but perhaps Jesus may have dispensed with 
 it as unnecessary, and availed himself, in its stead, of the pause 
 to explain to his disciples that one of them would betray him, 
 which led to the conversation between him and Judas*, who, 
 with the zeal common to all renegades, had undertaken to act 
 as a guide to those who should be sent to arrest his Master, but, 
 in order to avoid suspicion, had joined Jesus and his companions, 
 and eaten the Passover with them. 
 
 The dishes, which had been taken off the table, being then 
 replaced, Jesus repeated the usual commemorative words that 
 opened what was strictly the Paschal meal. This portion of the 
 ceremony can no longer be observed by his co-religionists ; for, 
 as the Paschal Lamb could be legally slain and the blood of it 
 offered only ' in the place where the Eternal should chose to place 
 His name there ' f, it was necessarily discontinued by the Jews 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem. Hence the Passover Eeast of 
 the modern Jews consists only of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 
 The celebrant then recited the 113th and 114th Psalms, being 
 part of the great Hallel or Thanksgiving, after which he drank 
 of the second cup of wine, which was passed round to the others. 
 
 They then all washed their hands again, after which Jesus took 
 one of the cakes of unleavened bread in his hand and brake it, 
 giving thanks (that is to say reciting the usual Jewish blessing), 
 and gave it unto his disciples, saying, ' This is my body, which is 
 broken for you : this do in remembrance of me ' i. The portions 
 of bread thus distributed were then dipped by the recipients, 
 together with the bitter herbs, into the Kharesoth and eaten by 
 them. It would have been now, if at all, that Jesus gave the ' sop ' 
 * Matth. xxvi. 25. f Deiit. xvi. 2. 
 
 t 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24 ; Matth. xxvi. 26; Mark xiv. 22 ; Luke xxii. 19. 
 
230 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 to Judas, as is stated in the fourth Gospel* ; though as such an 
 incident is quite immaterial, it is not requisite to lay any stress 
 on it. As to the further statement in that Gospel that Judas, 
 * having received the sop then went out immediately,' it is highly 
 improbable he should have done so. On the contrary, it is much 
 more natural that he should have waited till the meal was finished, 
 and gone out with the rest, and then left them. 
 
 The bread having thus been distributed by Jesus and eaten by 
 the disciples, they next all ate the flesh of the Paschal Lamb, with 
 bread, and also with the salad and Kharesoth as they might think 
 fit ; and then they again washed their hands, and a third cup of 
 wine, known especially as ' the cup of blessing,' was filled, over 
 which the customary blessing, or grace after meat, and the bless- 
 ing or thanks for the wine, were recited. It was here that Jesus 
 said ' This cup is the 'New Testament in my blood : this do ye, as 
 oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me'f. From the various 
 forms in which our Lord's words are given by St. Paul and in 
 the three Gospels J, it is manifest that there is no sacramental 
 force in the words themselves. 
 
 A fourth cup, being that of the Hallel or Thanksgiving, was 
 then drunk. The rabbinical tradition strictly enjoins that there 
 shall never be less than four cups of wine provided at the Pas- 
 chal feast, even of the poorest Israelite. Dr. Lightfoot consi- 
 ders this fourth cup to have been that of the New Testament, 
 being led to this conclusion apparently by Jesus's declaration, 
 when giving the cup to his disciples, •' I will not drink hence- 
 forth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new 
 with you in my Father's Kingdom '§. But this would be con- 
 struing our Lord's words too literally. He only meant that on no 
 future occasion would he drink wine with them. How fre- 
 quently do we say, when about to part from a friend, that we 
 shall not see one another again for a long while ; and yet we go 
 on seeing one another for some short interval of time after say- 
 ing so. Besides which, according to the third Gospel, it was 
 
 * John xiii. 2G. t 1 Cor. xi. 25. 
 
 + Matth. xxvi. 27, 28 ; Mark xiv. 24 ; Luke xxii. 20. § Mattli. xxvi. 29. 
 
THE lokd's supper. 231 
 
 before the commencement of the meal, and not at the end of it, 
 that Jesus said not only that he would not again drink of the 
 cup, but likewise that he would not any more eat of the Passover 
 until it should be fulfilled in the Iviugdom of Heaven * ; which is 
 entirely in accordance with the construction now contended for. 
 
 After the fourth cup of wine had been drunk, the concluding- 
 portion of the Hallel, consisting of Psalms cxv. to cxviii., was 
 recited or sungf, followed as usual by a prayer ; and then they 
 all (with the exception of Judas, who here gave them the slip) 
 left the city, for the purpose of returning to their resting-place 
 at Bethany on the Mount of Olives. At the institution of the 
 Passover by Moses, no one was allowed to go out of the door of 
 his house till the morrow i:. But this rule is said to have been 
 observed only on that single occasion. At all events, it did not 
 prevail in our Lord's time. 
 
 On their way to Bethany they came to a place called Geth- 
 semane§, or the Oil-press, at the western foot of the Mount, as 
 Bethany was on the further or eastern side of it. In the garden 
 there our Lord went apart about a stone's cast, taking with 
 him only Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, who throughout 
 were his most intimate companions ; and then saying to them, 
 •' My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death : tarry ye 
 here and watch with me ; ' he went a little further, and fell on 
 his face and prayed, saying, ' my Father, if it be possible, let 
 this cup pass from me : nevertheless not as I will, but as thou 
 wilt ' ; and again, ' my Father, if this cup may not pass away 
 from me, except I drink it, thy will be done ' ; and this again a 
 third time II . 
 
 It is contended by many, that the Agony of oar Lord was 
 caused solely by the thought of a violent death, the terror of 
 which pressed more and more heavily on his mind ; so that he 
 had need to summon up all his usual courage to maintain his 
 tranquil and heavenly inspired presence of mind. But this is 
 not sufiicient. The full explanation must be sought for in his 
 
 * Luke xxii. 16. t Matth. xxvi. 30. | Exod. xii. 22. 
 
 § Matth. xxvi. 36. || Matth. xsvi. 37-44. 
 
232 JESrS THE JIESSIAH : 
 
 words shortly afterwards to one of his disciples, who, when his 
 master was arrested, drew his sword and struck a servant of 
 the high priest and smote off his ear : — ' Put up again thy 
 sword into its place? for all they that take the sword shall 
 perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to 
 my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve 
 legions of angels ? But how then shall the Scriptures be ful- 
 filled, that thus it must be ? ' * 
 
 The Agony in the Garden of the Oil-press was a repetition in 
 a minor degree of the Temptation in the Wilderness by Jordan. 
 The Messiah was tempted to throw off his suffering and assume 
 his glorified character, and so perhaps to put off the redemption 
 of the world which he had come to accomplish. As he said to 
 his disciples, ' The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.' 
 He did however what they could not do. He prayed earnestly 
 that he might not be led into temptation ; and the spirit over- 
 came the flesh. 
 
 In the third Gospel, in which the history had already become 
 legendary, it is added, ' And there appeared an angel unto him from 
 heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed 
 more earnestly ; and his sweat was as it were great drops of 
 blood falling down to the ground ' f. As evidence of the truth of 
 this statement, there is shown at the present day what is de- 
 clared to be the very spot, the ' Grotto of the Agony,' — forming 
 a trio with the Grottoes at Kazareth and Bethlehem, — in which 
 Jesus thus prayed, with the inscription ' Hie factus est sudor 
 ejus sicut guttre sanguinis dccurrentis in terram ; ' and in the 
 litanies of the Catholic Church, what in the Gospel is merely 
 stated to have been ' sicut,' — ' as it were,' — is asserted as a fact, 
 our Lord being adjured by his ' Agony and Bloody Sweat.' 
 
 Near this Grotto of Gethsemane is also shown the identical 
 spot where Judas betrayed his Master with a kiss ; which pre- 
 cise identification is only surpassed by that of the spot in Jeru- 
 salem, where the cock stood and crew when Simon Peter denied 
 his Master ! 
 
 * Matth. ixvi. 52-54. t Luke izii 43, 44. 
 
HIS AEEEST AND TKIAL. 233 
 
 CHAPTER XVIIL 
 
 THE AEEEST AND TEIAL OF THE MESSIAH. 
 
 Otjr Lord had scarcely recovered from his Agony in the garden 
 of Gethsemane and ronsed his sleeping comj)anions, when Judas 
 Iscariot, who had quitted the party after the Paschal Supper, 
 approached, and with him a great multitude with swords and 
 staves *, commissioned by the chief priests and elders to arrest 
 Jesus. With a view to prevent mistakes and confusion, Judas 
 had given this sign to those who accompanied him : — ' Whom- 
 soever I shall kiss, that same is he : hold him fast.' And forth- 
 with he came to Jesus and said, ' Hail, Master ' ! and kissed him f. 
 Nothing could more plainly show the determined and unscrupu- 
 lous character of Judas than this cold-blooded act of treachery. 
 And yet, perhaps, had his Lord declared himself in the first instance 
 as the temporal King of Israel, no one among his followers would 
 have been a more zealous or resolute partisan, or would more 
 readily have laid down for him a life on which it is evident he 
 placed but little value. 
 
 There is one point connected with the arrest of Jesus, which 
 is deserving of notice as an additional proof of the apocryphal 
 character of the fourth Gospel. This arrest took place during 
 the night after the fourteenth of the month, when the moon was 
 precisely at the full, that particular moment having been chosen 
 b}'- Moses for the Exodus of the Israelites, in order that they 
 might have the benefit of the moonlight during the night-journey. 
 The writer of the fourth Gospel, unmindful of this, — or rather 
 being ignorant of it, because he was not a Jew, and ' a fortiori' not 
 the Apostle John, who was present on the occasion, and would 
 never have committed such a blunder, — describes Judas as ' coming 
 thither with lanterns and torches 'J. 
 
 To meet this very awkward difficulty it has been suggested 
 that the men who accompanied Judas were soldiers of the Eoman 
 
 * Matth. xxvi. 47. t Ibid. 48, 49. J John xviii. 3. 
 
234 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 garrison, who always carried lights on a night-march. But this 
 they could not possibly have been, because it is expressly said in 
 all the Gospels, not excluding even the fourth, that they were 
 people sent by the chief priests and elders *. Besides which, no 
 accusation had yet been made before the lloman governor ; so 
 that it could not have been Roman soldiers who made the arrest. 
 And further we read that they who laid hold on Jesus led him 
 away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the Scribes and the 
 elders were assembled f ; whereas a detachment from the garrison 
 would have forthwith conducted their prisoner to the citadel or 
 other military place of confinement. 
 
 When Jesus was brought before the Jewish council, or San- 
 hedrin, thus assembled, they ' sought false witness against him 
 to put him to death, but found none ; yea, though many false 
 witnesses came, yet found they none':f:. Every one who reads 
 with ordinary care the speeches of Jesus recorded in the three 
 historical Gospels wiU plainly perceive how difficult it must 
 have been to lay hold of what he had said to convict him of any 
 offence, — not against the priests, for that is not what they sought 
 for, — but against the Homan Government, in order that they 
 might have a pretext for accusing him before the Procurator, 
 Pontius Pilate, to be by him put to death. Most completely had 
 he acted up to his own advice to his disciples, * Be ye therefore 
 wise as serpents and harmless as doves.' 
 
 At the last came two false witnesses, that is to say, witnesses 
 to prove that Jesus had committed some overt act of rebellion or 
 sedition, for which he might be taken before the Roman governor. 
 But all that these could prove was ' This man said, I am able to 
 destroy the Temple of God, and to build it in three days '§. That 
 these may not have been the words used by our Lord is imma- 
 terial ; they were quite insufficient for the purpose required. 
 
 Before considering the further proceedings, it is expedient to 
 notice the views adopted by M. Renan and others respecting these 
 two ' false witnesses,' who are, inconsistently enough, supposed 
 
 * Matth. xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; Luke xxii. 52; John xviii. 3. 
 
 t Matth. xxvi. 57. I Matth. xx^-i. 59, GO. § Mattli. xxvi. 01. 
 
HIS ARREST AND TBIAL. 235 
 
 by them to have been the two formal, but true, witnesses re- 
 quired by the Jewish law to testify to the fact. The French 
 critic ridicules the ' naive impudence ' of the details given in the 
 Talmud of the mode of proceeding against the ' mesith ' — ' se- 
 ducer ' — the propagator of false doctrines, as if there were any- 
 thing absurd or improper in requiring the positive evidence of two 
 eye-witnesses to establish the truth of so grave a charge ; even 
 if, in order to simplify the process, they made the accused cri- 
 minate himself by repeating his blasphemy or heterodox opinions 
 before two witnesses, — men of good repute, and certainly not 
 ' false ' witnesses, — who were concealed from sight in an adjoining 
 room or behind a screen, two lighted candles being placed near 
 the culprit, in order that the witnesses might be able faithfully 
 to depose that they had not only heard but seen him. Forms such 
 as these, having become antiquated, may appear ridiculous in the 
 eyes of such as see no sanctity in the institutions of their prede- 
 cessors, and cannot themselves hope to leave anything to be revered 
 by those who come after them. But certainly this scrupulosity 
 of the Jewish law, which required two independent witnesses to 
 testify to their having both seen and heard what was charged 
 against the accused, is not so absurd as the practice of the Roman 
 civil law ; which, whilst like the Jewish law requiring two wit- 
 nesses, allows one of these witnesses to be the accused himself, 
 and then, in case the evidence required by the law is otherwise 
 insufficient, makes use of the most unjustifiable, and often the 
 most cruel and atrocious, means to compelthe person accused to 
 criminate himself, and thus become a witness against himself, 
 so as to make up the number required by the law. How often 
 has a wretched victim of the Inquisition, when on the rack, given 
 false witness against himself, in order to put a stop to the un- 
 bearable torture ! 
 
 M. Eeuan's mistake has been caused by his blindly following 
 his blind guide, the writer of the fourth Gospel, whose object it 
 was to represent Jesus as suffering not as the Messiah, the Son 
 of David, but as ' the Son of God,' and who accordingly states that 
 when Jesus was brought before the high-priest, the latter asked 
 
236 JESUS THE Messiah : 
 
 him ' of his disciples aud of his doctrine '*. The answer put into 
 the mouth of our Lord is, however, a most natural one, and such 
 as he might be imagined to have given, had such a question 
 been put. He is said to have replied, ' I spake openly to the 
 world : I ever tauglit in the synagogue and in the temple, whither 
 the Jews always resort ; and in secret have I said nothing. 
 Why askest thou me ? Ask them which heard me, what I have 
 said unto them : behold, they know what I said ' f. 
 
 It is needless to repeat all that is stated in this most ' humi- 
 liating ' document. But it is important to notice that in it the 
 narrative of the arrest of Jesus finishes by his accusers bringing 
 Jesus to Pilate, without, however, accusing him of any specific 
 crime, and by their not going into the judgment-hall lest they 
 should be defiled, and so be unable to eat the Passover, which, 
 according to this ' false "witness,' had not yet been eaten. So 
 careful was this pretended Jewish writer to give his narrative a 
 ' couleur locale ; ' and yet he forgot all the while that no Jew would 
 have made use of the expression ' the Jews,' put by him into the 
 mouth of Jesus when answering the high priest, — that is to say, 
 a J«w speaking to the spiritual head of his nation, and the pre- 
 tended recorder of his words, the most intimate friend of the 
 accused, being himself a Jew ! 
 
 Reverting to the veracious narrative of the three historical 
 Gospels, it has to be remarked that when the two false witnesses 
 had given their evidence, Jesus made no reply. On which the 
 high priest arose and said, ' Answerest thou nothing to what these 
 witness against thee ? ' But Jesus held his peace. 
 
 By his persistent silence oiu' Lord at length drove Caiaphas to 
 put to him a crucial question : — ' I adjure thee by the living God, 
 that thou teU us whether thou be the Messiah, the Son of God 'J. 
 This was the opportunity our Lord was looking for. He had 
 declined to answer the same question when put to him by the 
 disciples of John the Baptist, because he was not yet sufficiently 
 well known ; he had charged his own disciples that they should 
 tell no man that he was Jesus the Messiah, because, had the 
 
 * John xviji, 19, t John xriii, 20, 21. \ Matth, xxvi. G3. 
 
HIS ARKEST AND TRIAL. 237 
 
 truth been then divulged, the people would have deemed him to 
 be the Messiah of their own preconceived notions, who was come 
 to restore the temporal kingdom of his forefather David. He 
 now unhesitatingly avowed himself in his true character, because 
 he could do so without injury to the cause for which he was 
 about to suffer. Jesus saith unto him ' Thou hast said ' ; which, 
 being an admission, niight have been a sufficient answer, as the 
 same was in fact when he subsequently replied to the similar 
 question of Pilate*. But our Lord was not satisfied with this. 
 His answer, literally taken, was that he was truly the Messiah, 
 that is to say, the Anointed King of Israel so anxiously looked 
 for by the Jews ; and this might easily have been perverted by 
 the high priest into the avowal of his intention to attempt to 
 restore the temporal kingdom of his ancestor David, or, in other 
 words, to raise the standard of rebellion against the Eoman 
 government. To prevent this false interpretation of his words, 
 Jesus hastened to add what was totally uncalled for by the high 
 priest's adjuration, but nevertheless compelled him to join issue 
 on a totally difii'erent question ; and, instead of denouncing Jesus 
 to the Roman governor as a rebel, to put in force against the 
 prisoner, as a blasphemer, the utmost rigour of the Mosaical 
 law. 
 
 It was with this view, then, that Jesus added ' Hereafter shall 
 ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and 
 coming in the clouds of heaven.' On hearing these words the high 
 priest completely lost his presence of mind. He rent his clothes, — 
 an act forbidden to him, and only venial under such exceptional 
 circumstances, — saying, ' He hath spoken blasphemy. What fur- 
 ther need have we of witnesses ? Behold, now ye have heard his 
 blasphemy.' Then turning to the other members of the council, 
 he asked, ' What think ye ? ' They answered and said, ' He 
 is guilty of death 'f. And as they read the law, he was so 
 most unquestionably ; and had they chosen they might as un- 
 questionably have executed on him the judgment of the law, as 
 they did on the deacon Stephen, when he made use of almost the 
 * Matth. xxvii. 11. t Matth. xxvi. 64-66. 
 
238 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 same words*. But they would hardly have dared to put the 
 Jewish law in force against one held in such reverence by the 
 multitude, by many of whom it was trusted that it was he who 
 should deliver Israel f. Their only course therefore was to de- 
 nounce him to the lloman Procurator on his own admission that 
 he was the Messiah, and as such, they would jiretend, a claimant 
 of the temporal throne of King David, and consequently a rebel 
 and exciter of sedition. 
 
 It is unnecessary to enter into the question as to whether the 
 Jewish authorities had or had not the power to put persons of 
 their own nation to death for offences against their own laws. 
 The presumption is that they had that power ; but, if not, it is 
 certain that they might, at all events, have called on the civil 
 aiithorities to put their judgments into execution, as was the 
 practice within the kingdoms of Europe as long as the Church 
 of Rome retained sufficient influence over the sovereigns of the 
 several States to induce them to carry out its sanguinary decrees 
 against infidels and heretics. But this would not have served 
 their purpose, their object being to obtain his condemnation by 
 the Eoman governor himself. 
 
 WhUst waiting until it was time to deliver Jesus up to the 
 civil authorities, they treated him with every indignity: they 
 spat in his face, and buffeted him ; and others smote him vrith. 
 the palms of their hands, saying, ' Prophecy unto us, thou Mes- 
 siah, Who is he that smote thee? 'J 
 
 "When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of 
 the people took counsel together against Jesus to put him to 
 death. As the charge of blasphemy or violation of the religious 
 law was not a safe one, both in itself, on account of the multi- 
 tude, and also because the tolerant Roman governor might rea- 
 sonably have refused to execute their judgment in respect of such 
 a question, they therefore decided on accusing him of rebellion 
 or sedition. So, when they had bound him, they led him away 
 and delivered him to Pontius Pilate, the governor §. And Jesus 
 
 * Acts vii. 50. t Luke xxiv. 21. 
 
 t Mattb. xxTi. 67, 68. § Matth. xxvii. 1, 2. 
 
ms AEEEST AND TRIAL. 239 
 
 stood before the governor, and they began to accuse him, saying, 
 * We found this man perverting the nation, and forbidding to 
 give tribute to Csesar, saying that he himself is the Anointed 
 King,' or Messiah. In the Greek text of the third Gospel the 
 words are ^^^purroy (DaaiXea, which are translated ' Christ, a Kiiig' *. 
 But this is unmeaning : the sense is as given above. 
 
 This was a specific charge of rebellion, or inciting to insurrec- 
 tion, against the Imperial Government. Had there been any 
 reasonable grounds for such a charge, there can be no doubt 
 that the Roman governor would, without a moment's hesitation, 
 have inflicted condign punishment on the offender, the ' crimen 
 laesae majestatis ' being one that met with little mercy under the 
 Tlomau law. Still, though a harsh administrator of the law, 
 Pilate was not an unjust one ; and indeed the maxims of the 
 Roman law required him to administer justice impartially. Now 
 from none of the Gospel narratives does it appear that the 
 accusers of Jesus could bring a tittle of evidence of his having 
 been guilty of any overt act of sedition, of his having incited 
 the people to rebellion, and above all of his forbidding to give 
 tribute to Ctesar ; nor is there, in the whole history, a sign of 
 any conduct on his part that might have come to the governor's 
 knowledge through other channels, and have been construed into 
 an overt act of treason. This part of the accusation therefore 
 fell to the ground for want of evidence ; and there remained 
 only the charge that Jesus pretended to be the Messiah, or the 
 Anointed King of Prophecy, who was to succeed to the throne 
 of his ancestor King David. 
 
 To enable us properly to understand the whole transac- 
 tion, we will not place ourselves in the position of Pontius 
 Pilate, and decide what we should have done under the circum- 
 stances, as is the usual way of considering such questions ; but 
 we will place Pontius Pilate in the analogous position of a repre- 
 sentative of the British Government inlndia. Now, if in our Indian 
 possessions, a man were to profess to be an Incarnation of Yishnu, 
 or the Twelfth Imam, the British authorities would trouble 
 * Luke xxiii. 2. 
 
240 JESTTS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 themselves very little about him, although he might chose to say 
 he was come to inaugurate a new state of affairs, and even if he 
 went through the streets beating tom-toms, or with banners and 
 music, like some of our friendly — or unfriendly — societies at 
 home, provided only that he did not occasion a breach of the 
 peace. If it were seen that no danger to the State was to be 
 immediately apprehended from his doctrine and practices, but 
 that, on the contrary, he recommended to his followers submis- 
 sion to the constituted authorities, — had expressly said, * Render 
 under Cffisar the things that are Ctesar's,' and emphatically taught 
 that his kingdom was not of this world, — the British authorities 
 would look on him as a harmless enthusiast, undeserving of 
 notice ; if, indeed, they might not deem it politic to encourage a 
 preacher who inculcated submission to the powers that be, and 
 peace and good will among the community at large. 
 
 Even in the case of a reformer of the national faith, an op- 
 poser of the superstitious observances of the native priesthood, 
 like Chunder Sen, a charge of impiety brought against him by 
 the Brahmins of the sacred city of Benares would not be likely 
 to obtain much favour from the British oflBcial, who might, 
 on the contrary, rejoice in his heart to witness this open war 
 against the cherished forms and ceremonies of the idolatrous 
 Hindoos ; and this, although he might be far-sighted enough to 
 perceive that the spiritual regeneration of the natives of India, 
 coupled with their rapid strides in intellectual and social im- 
 provement, must eventually lead to the establishment of their 
 political freedom, by breaking the yoke of their British rulers, 
 which, in their present degraded state, is seen by the most 
 enlightened spirits among them to be necessary to be borne 
 cheerfully and loyally, if only with a view to their ultimate 
 emancipation from it. 
 
 To the practical Homan governor, David and his kingdom 
 would therefore have been as perfectly indifferent as Vishnu and 
 Mohammed to the British official in India. "Were he a mei'e 
 soldier, he might scarcely know more of David than his name. 
 If, on the other hand, he were a scholar, like so many of our British 
 
HIS ARREST AND TRIAL. 241 
 
 officers in India, he would have learned that the Messiah vras 
 regarded as a claimant of the throne of a king of Israel, who 
 had lived some three centuries before the foundation of Rome by 
 Romulus, and a century before the siege of Troy ! And if a 
 cultivator of belles-lettres, as so many of our officers are like- 
 wise, he would hardly have failed to be acquainted with the 
 writings of one Flaccus, the favoured client of Meccenas and a 
 fashionable poet of the age, and to know the verses, often quoted 
 in our own days : — 
 
 ' Vixere fortes cante Agamemnona 
 Multi, sed omnes illacrymabiles 
 Urgentur, ignotique longa 
 IVocte.' 
 
 Be this as it may, Pilate would have felt and acted like 
 his successor Festus, and like Gallic, the governor of Achaia, 
 and like the town-clerk of Ephesus *, who were all of them 
 officers of a Government which had under its rule nations 
 of many religious persuasions, and of many difterent opinions 
 and habits on all conceivable points, and whose policy conse- 
 quently was not to interfere, except in matters affecting the 
 well-being of the State. A substantial practical insurrectionist, 
 like Judas of Gamala of the previous generation, or like the 
 pseudo-Messiah, Bar Cocaba, of the following century, Avould 
 have been a fitting subject for Ccesar's representative to adojit 
 violent measures against ; but a theoretical Messiah like Jesus, a 
 king only in idea, was to be treated with supreme indifference. 
 The question, as it must have presented itself to the mind of 
 Pilate, was so perfectly absurd, that had it not been for the 
 respect he felt himself bound to pay outwardly to the religious 
 heads of the nation under his rule, he might well have said to 
 them, in the words of Gallio, ' If it were a matter of wrong or 
 wicked lewdness, ye Jews, reason would that I should bear 
 with you : but if it be a question of words and names, and of 
 your law, look ye to it ; for I will be no judge of such matters 'f. 
 And, like the governor of Achaia, he would have driven them 
 * Acts xriii. 14, 15, xix. 35-41, xxv. 14-27. t Acts xviii. 14, 15. 
 
 U 
 
242 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 from his judgment-seat. Even if the Gentile inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem had taken the accusers and beaten them before 
 Pilate's judgment- seat (as the people of Corinth treated Sosthenes, 
 the chief ruler of the synagogue there, for having brought a false 
 accusation against Paul), Pilate, like Gallic, might have ' cared 
 for none of those things'*. Indeed, as there was no friendly 
 feeling existing between him and the Jews, he would doubtless 
 in his heart have thought that they richly deserved such treat- 
 ment, not only for having brought so frivolous and unfounded 
 a charge against a respectable and inoffensive citizen, but also 
 for troubling him, the representative of the Emperor, with ' a 
 question of words and names ' that did not at all concern either 
 the State or himself. 
 
 The way in which the transaction is represented in the fourth 
 Gospel is perfectly monstrous. After Jesus had been brought 
 up by the Jews ' from Caiaphas,' — not by the high-priest him- 
 self, — to Pilate's hall of judgment, Pilate went out to them, 
 and said, ' What accusation bring ye against this man ? ' They 
 answered and said unto him, ' If he were not a malefactor, we 
 would not have delivered him up unto thee,' — a most unsuitable 
 and unlikely answer. Then said Pilate unto them, ' Take ye him, 
 and judge him according to your law.' The Jews therefore 
 said unto him, ' It is not lawful for us to put any man to death ;' 
 whereby it is pretended the saying of Jesus was fulfilled, ' sig- 
 nifying what death he should die 'f. By means of this ' pro- 
 phecy,' the writer evades the diificulty that attends the fact of 
 the execution of our Lord under the Roman law. For the offence 
 against that law in claiming to be the king of Israel, — or of ' the 
 Jews,' — and consequently being a rebel against Cnesar, is diame- 
 trically opposed to the fiction that the Roman governor was merely 
 the executioner of the judgment of the Sanhedriu against him for 
 blasphemy in calling himself ' the Son of God.' 
 
 What follows is perfectly inconsistent and unintelligible. It 
 says that Pilate then entered into the judgment-hall again and 
 called Jesus — the two being there alone — and said unto him, 
 * Acts xviii. 17. t John xviii. 28-32. 
 
HIS ARREST AND TRIAL, 243 
 
 ' Art thou the King of the Jews ? ' — though it is inconceivable how 
 he could have asked so irrelevant a question, seeing that the 
 alleged crime was against the Jewish law ! — Jesus answered him, 
 ' Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of 
 me ? ' Pilate answered, ' Am I a Jew ? Thine own nation and 
 the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou 
 done?'* Could anything be more preposterous than all these 
 fancies ? Sceptics object to the supernatural in the fourth Gos- 
 pel : with more reason may they object to the unnatural. Jesus 
 answered, ' My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom 
 were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should 
 not be delivered to the Jews ' — the ' Messiah ' delivered to ' the 
 Jews ! '— ' But now is my kingdom not from hence.' Pilate 
 therefore said unto him, 'Art thou a king then?' Jesus an- 
 swered, 'Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, 
 and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear 
 witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth 
 my voice.' Pilate saith unto him, ' What is truth ? ' f To this 
 no reply on the part of our Lord is recorded in the fourth Gos- 
 pel. But in another apocryphal document of fully equal value, 
 known as the Gospel of Nicodemus, the conversation is thus 
 continued : ' Jesus saith, " Truth is from heaven." Pilate saith, 
 " Is not then truth on earth ? " Jesus saith to Pilate, " See how 
 those who speak the truth on earth are judged by them who 
 have power upon earth." ' 
 
 Leaving these romances, we turn to the plain historical fact, 
 about which there ought to be no question, that Jesus was ac- 
 cused before Pilate of claiming to be the Messiah, and as such 
 pretending to the sovereignty of the kingdom of Israel, or of 
 ' the Jews,' as the expression was then vulgarly understood. M. 
 Renan contends, indeed, that Jesus never professed to be the 
 ' King of the Jews ; ' but this is surely a mere play upon words. 
 To the charge of claiming to be the Messiah, the lineal descen- 
 dant of King David, who had lived more than a thousand 
 years previously, and in this sense to be the King of the Jews, 
 * John xviii. 33-35. t John xviii. 36-38. 
 
 m2 
 
2-14 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 Jesus pleaded guilty. Beyond this he answered nothing to the 
 many things of which the chief priests accused him ; which 
 things were manifestly irrelevant, or they would have been 
 noticed by Pilate in his judgment, or by the several historians. 
 Pilate is, however, recorded to have marvelled greatly at Jesus's 
 silence *, the reason for his wonder doubtless being that the 
 accused should have so patiently put up with the injurious and 
 even foul language, which we may well imagine a number of 
 excited natives of Judaea would have been as capable of using 
 then as at the present day. 
 
 When the chief priests and their associates were tired of 
 bringing charges which Jesus did not even condescend to notice, 
 the Roman magistrate delivered his judgment in these words, ' I 
 find no fault in this man't. The attempt to attach to him cri- 
 minality against the State in claiming to be the descendant of 
 David — which, from a Roman point of view, would be much 
 like the pretension, here in England, to be a lineal descendant 
 of Alfred the Great — was seen to be merely frivolous and vexa- 
 tious. But this decision only made the accusers more furious, 
 and they exclaimed, 'He stirreth up the people, teaching 
 throughout all Judfpa, beginning from Galilee to this place ' J. 
 
 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man was 
 a Galilean ; and as soon as he learned that he belonged unto 
 Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod (who also was at 
 Jerusalem at that time, having come to keep the Passover), 
 — heartily rejoiced, no doubt, at having found such a conve- 
 nient means of getting rid of so troublesome a case. ' And 
 when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad ; for he had long 
 desired to see him, because he had heard many things of him ; 
 and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then 
 he questioned with him in many words ; but he answered him 
 nothing' §. 
 
 Herod Antipas was a Jew, and therefore understood the 
 popular notion of his nation respecting the Messiah. Had Jesus 
 * Matth. xxvii. 12-14. t Luke xxiii. 4. 
 
 J Luke xxiii. 5. § Luke xxiii. 8, 9. 
 
HIS ABREST AND TRIAL. 245 
 
 deigned to answer him, as Paul answered his nephew, Herod 
 Agrippa, thirty years afterwards, the former might probably 
 have said to Jesus, as the latter said to Paul, ' Almost thou per- 
 suadest me to believe that thou art really the Messiah' — 'to 
 be a Christian'*. But this was- not our Lord's object. He held 
 his peace ; and Herod with his men of war set him at nought, — 
 that is to say, disbelieved him, thought him to be an impostor, — 
 and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, as befit- 
 ting the title he had so madly assumed, and sent him back 
 again to Pilate f. 
 
 From the Jewish prince's treatment of Jesus, the Koman 
 governor was convinced, even more than before, of the frivolous- 
 ness of the accusation against him. He therefore called together 
 the chief priests and the rulers of the people, and said unto them, 
 ' Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the 
 people ; and behold, I, having examined him before you,' — the 
 fourth Gospel says that he examined him in private, and after- 
 wards ' went out again to the Jews ' i, — ' have found no fault in 
 him touching those things whereof ye accuse him. No, nor yet 
 Herod : for I sent you to him ; and lo, nothing worthy of death 
 has been done by him ' §. Pilate added, however, ' I will there- 
 fore chastise him and release him ; ' by which he must be under- 
 stood to have meant, that, though he exonerated Jesus from the 
 charge of ' perverting the people,' (that is to say maliciously in- 
 citing the Jews to rebel against Caesar in favour of himself as 
 their lawful native sovereign,) still the mere fact of his calling 
 himself, or allowing himself to be called, the King of the Jews, 
 even though without any evil intention, might easily have led to 
 a breach of the peace. In fact, the difficulty with Jesus had 
 been all along to prevent himself from being publicly acclaimed 
 as the Messiah ; he well knowing what wordd have been the in- 
 evitable consequences of such a. manifestation on the part of an 
 excited populace, chafing under the bonds of their Roman con- 
 querors. For such conduct, then, as provocative to evil, Pilate 
 
 * See above. Chapter V. page 66. t Luke xxiii. 11. 
 
 t John xviii. 38. § Luke xxiii. 13-15. 
 
246 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 might well deem the prisoner deserving of a slight beating with 
 ' virgae ' or rods, though even in this he would seem to have de- 
 sired to conciliate the high priest and his party, rather than 
 because he found any fault in Jesus. But this was far from 
 satisfying the accusers, whom nothing less would serve than 
 that Jesus should be condemned to death for the ' crimen loesae 
 majestatis ; ' and Pilate was so weak as at length to give way to 
 them. 
 
 The three historical Gospels, though differing slightly in the 
 details, all agree in representing Pilate as most unwilling to con- 
 demn Jesus on an unfounded charge ; for he knew that for envy 
 they had delivered him. And even after he had passed on him 
 a sentence which involved the penalty of death, Pilate was in 
 hopes he might yet be able to free him, by means of the custom 
 which prevailed, that at the annual national festival the Eoman 
 governor should release to the people a prisoner whom they 
 would. Now they had a notable prisoner, named Barabbas, who 
 was under sentence of death for insurrection and murder ; there- 
 fore, when the people were gathered together, Pilate said imto 
 them, * Whom wiU ye that I release unto you, Barabbas or 
 Jesus, who is called the Messiah ? ' The people, if left to them- 
 selves, might probably have preferred to liberate the prophet of 
 Galilee, of whom they had never heard anything but good, even 
 if they did not all believe him to be the true Messiah, as many 
 of them doubtless did. But, like the populace in all countries 
 and in all ages, they were easily swayed by specious demagogues ; 
 and the chief priests and elders easily ' persuaded the multitude 
 that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus ' *. 
 
 When therefore the governor said unto them, ' WTiich of the 
 twain wiU ye that I release unto you?' they said 'Barabbas.' 
 On this PUate said unto them, ' What shall I do then with Jesus, 
 who is called the Messiah?' They all said unto him, 'Let him 
 be crucified.' And the governor said, ' Why, what evil hath he 
 done ? ' But they cried out the more, saying, ' Let him be cruci- 
 fied.' It was like the cry ' ad leones,' afterwards so frequently 
 * Matth. xxvii. 15-20. 
 
HIS AEREST AND TRIAL. 247 
 
 used to express the condemnation of the followers of Jesns at 
 Rome by the demoralized inhabitants of the capital, who eared 
 for nothing as long as they had ' panem et circenses ' — food and 
 the inhuman amusements of the circus. The same rabble that 
 had joined in shouting Hosannas on the entrance of Jesus into 
 Jerusalem only a few days previously, now cried out ' Crucify 
 him ! ' But this was as natural to the mob of Jerusalem as it is 
 to the rabble of every other city. When the famous John WUkes 
 was complimented by a friend on the crowds assembled to greet 
 him on his liberation from the Tower of London, he cynically 
 replied, ' There would be a much larger crowd to see me if I 
 were going to be hanged I' And at the present moment, the fate 
 of the Emperor Napoleon, so recently the chosen of millions of 
 Frenchmen, affords a melancholy proof of the little dependance 
 to be placed on the ' arbitrium popularis aurse.' 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION OF THE MESSIAH. 
 
 It is unnecessary to enter into all the details of what occurred 
 previously to and during the Crucifixion of our Lord : so well are 
 the facts known by all, that they might have been passed over 
 here with merely a general allusion to them, were it not for the 
 endeavour of M. Renan* — on the authority of the fourth Gospel 
 and of the Talmud ! — to represent the condemnation and execu- 
 tion of Jesus, not as having been for treason in setting himself 
 up as the Messiah or King of the Jews, but for blasphemy in de- 
 claring himself to be the Son of God. ' We have a law,' the 
 chief priests are made to say in the fourth Gospel, ' and by our 
 law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God ' f. 
 But were this the case, the whole history would be inconsistent 
 * ' Vie de Jesus,' p. -115. t John six. 7. 
 
248 JEStJS THE ilESSIAH : 
 
 and unintellie:ible. In the first place, the punishment under the 
 law for such an offence would have been stoning*; and that this 
 was carried into effect, is proved by the case of Stephen a short 
 time afterwards f. The sentence of Pilate would therefore have 
 been unnecessary ; and even on the supposition that the chief 
 priests and the Sanhedrin had not of themselves the power of life 
 and death, the utmost that would have been requisite was for 
 them to obtain the lloman governor's authority to put their own 
 law in force. 
 
 In the next place, without suspecting the pagan soldiers of the 
 lloman garrison of being susceptible of any feelings of mercy or 
 delicacy in putting the sentence of death into execution, we are 
 bound to give them credit for something like common sense. 
 Now, the idea of a pretender to divine honours would have been 
 jiist as intelligible to them as that of a pretender to the throne 
 of the Kings of Israel or Judah — of ' the Jews,' as they would 
 have understood it. The would-be ' Sou of God ' (that is to say, 
 the Son of Jupiter or some other of their numerous deities) would 
 therefore have been a famous butt for them. They would have 
 worshipped him, have made him offerings, have asked him to 
 deliver oracles — to ' tell them their fortunes,' — and would have 
 played off all sorts of practical jokes on him as a pretended 
 divinity. But we do not read of anjiihing of the sort. On the 
 contrary, it was simply in the character of a mock sovereign, — a 
 pretended ' King of the Jews,' — that the rough Roman soldiery 
 amused themselves wath the condemned criminal on his way to 
 execution, after he had been scourged with the terrible ' flagel- 
 lum,' as a preliminaiy to his being attached to the cross. They 
 ' stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they 
 had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a 
 reed in his right hand (as a sceptre) ; and they bowed the knee 
 before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews 'J. 
 In fact, they treated him as a temporal sovereign. But there was 
 not among these heathen soldiers a thought of attributing any 
 supernatural powers to Jesus, by way of joke, as there had been 
 
 » Deut. xiii. 10. t Acts vii. 58. J Matth. xxviL 28, 29. 
 
HIS CRUCIFIXION. 249 
 
 amoug the Jewish attendants of the high priest, who, when they 
 mocked him as a pseudo-Messiah, said, quite consistently, ' Pro- 
 phecy unto us, thou Messiah, who is he that smote thee ? ' * 
 
 So, too, with the Inscription on the Cross, given in the three 
 historical Gospels, ' This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,' — ' The 
 King of the Jews,' — and ' This is the King of the Jews ' f ; which 
 M. Renan looks upon as something painful and injurious to the 
 nation, he being led to this idea by the statement in the fourth 
 Gospel, that when this title, which was written in Hebrew, in 
 Greek, and in Latin, was read by many of the Jews, the chief 
 priests said to Pilate, ' Write not, The King of the Jews ; but that 
 he said, I am King of the Jews ' J. 
 
 The answer which it is pretended Pilate returned to this re- 
 presentation is only a further proof of the apocryphal character 
 of that ' humiliating ' document. He is said to have replied, 
 ' What I have written I have written ' §. His true answer, if 
 the priests had really made such a representation to him, would 
 more naturally have been in the spirit of the declaration of his 
 successor Pestus to King Agrippa with reference to his sending 
 the prisoner Paul to Rome : — ' It seemeth to me unreasonable to 
 send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against 
 him ' II . The Jews had accused Jesus of ' perverting the 
 nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he 
 himself was the Anointed King ' ^, — that is to say, he pretended 
 to be the lawful sovereign of the Jewish nation, and was in 
 consequence condemned to death ; and the Roman governor 
 simply ' set over his head his accusation ' **. 
 
 The object of the writer of the fourth Gospel was to dis- 
 connect, as much as possible, the idea of ' The Son of God ' from 
 that of 'The Messiah' or Anointed King of Israel; which two 
 terms were synonymous and convertible in the Jewish mind, but 
 had totally different meanings in that of the Gentile Christian 
 World. Hence he suppressed the very significant revilings of 
 
 * Matth. xxvi. 68. t Matth. xxvii. 37 ; Mark xv. 26 ; Luke xxiii. 38. 
 
 + John xix. 21. § John xix. 22. || Acts xxv. 27. 
 
 •y Luke xxiii. 2. ** Matth. xxvii. 37. 
 
 M 5 
 
250 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 the people when our Lord was on the Cross, which are recorded 
 in the three historical Gospels in the following terms : — The first 
 has, ' If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. . . . 
 If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the 
 cross, and we will believe him ' *. The second Gospel has, 
 ' Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, descend now from the 
 cross, that we may see and believe ' f. In the third Gospel it is, 
 * He saved others ; let him save himself, if he be the Messiah, 
 
 the chosen of God If thou be the King of the Jews, save 
 
 thyself ' t- 
 
 The shght differences existing in these three separate state- 
 ments must, according to the principles of true criticism, be 
 admitted to establish the fact that Jesus, while suffering on the 
 Cross, was reviled by both Jews and Romans as a pseudo-Messiah, 
 or would-be King of the Jews ; and also that the Inscrijition on 
 the Cross, in like manner slightly varied but substantially identical 
 in all three Gospels, expressed this as being the gravamen of the 
 crime for which he suffered. As to M. Kenan's notion that 
 Pilate intended to insult or mock the Jews by this inscription, it 
 is purely imaginary. The Roman governor had not a particle of 
 feeling on the subject ; but merely intended to express in a few 
 words the * accusation ' against the criminal in a plain, practical 
 matter-of-fact form. 
 
 In addition to his misrepresentations and omissions in this 
 respect, the writer of the fourth Gospel further falsifies the 
 Inscription itself, by representing it as having been ' Jesus of 
 Nazareth the King of the Jews' §. So completely, however, has 
 the idea prevailed that this extended form of the title is pre- 
 ferable to that of the other three Gospels, that the initials 
 I. N. R. I. are shown in aU paintings within and without the 
 churches, on crucifixes, and in fact in every instance where the 
 Crucifixion is represented or referred to. On the authority of 
 the three historical Gospels the initials ought to be, at the most, 
 I. R. I. — ' lesus Rex ludseorum.' 
 
 * Matth. xxvii. 40-42. t Mark xv. 32. 
 
 I Luke xxiii. 35-37. § John xix. 19. 
 
HIS CRUCIFIXION. 251 
 
 According to the first and second Gospels, the suffering 
 Messiah, Avhen on the Cross, uttered a loud cry of anguish and 
 despair — ' My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ' * 
 Nothing could be more natural than such an exclamation ; and 
 as it is not at aU likely that it would have been invented at a 
 subsequent period, when the idea of the divine nature of Jesus 
 had acquired a definite form, it must be accepted as having 
 really been uttered by the sufferer. Subsequently, however, 
 when the third Gospel was written, a ' development ' of the his- 
 tory of the Crucifixion had taken place. The propriety of such an 
 exclamation on the part of our Lord had become questionable ; 
 and therefore in this document Jesus is merely said to have ' cried 
 with a loud voice ' f, without the words of the cry of despair 
 being given. At the same time we find introduced before this 
 loud cry the conversation with the penitent thief, which, though 
 not mentioned in the fourth Gospel, is marvellously elaborated 
 in the Apocryphal Gospels. And then, in the third Gospel, after 
 Jesus had so cried with a loud voice, it is added that he said, 
 ' Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit ; ' and that having 
 said thus, he gave up the ghost. 
 
 This development is, however, as nothing in comparison with 
 that which we find in the fourth Gospel, not only in this respect, 
 but likewise, and yet more so, as regards the persons who were 
 with Jesus when he breathed his last. The importance of this 
 subject requires that it should be discussed at some length. 
 
 In the first Gospel it is expressly said that, when Jesus was 
 arrested, ' all the disciples forsook him and fled 'J; and, with the 
 exception of Peter's denial of his Master, we find no further men- 
 tion of any of them till after the Resurrection. But it is stated 
 that, at the Crucifixion, ' many women were there, beholding afar 
 off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him ; 
 among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James 
 and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children '§. In the second 
 Gospel, in like manner, it is recorded that the disciples ' all 
 
 * Mattb. xxvii. 46 ; Mark xv. 34. t Luke xxiii. 46. 
 
 X Matth. xxvi. 56. § Matth. xxvii. 55, 56. 
 
JESUS THE :messiaii ; 
 
 forsook him and fled ' * ; that Peter denied his master thrice ; 
 and that, at the Crucifixion, ' there were also women looking oji 
 afur off, among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the 
 mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome ' f. In the 
 third Gospel the denial by Peter is recorded, but not the dis- 
 appearance of the disciples. On the contrary it is stated that, at 
 the Crucifixion, ' All his acquaintance, and the women that fol- 
 lowed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things ' J. 
 
 Now, in these three different accounts there is at all events 
 nothing inconsistent. The disciples of Jesus forsook him and 
 fled, and yet they may have been among 'all his acquaintance' 
 that 'stood afar off' ; though the ominous silence of the first two 
 Gospels in this respect would lead to the inference that the 
 panic-stricken disciples had been really afraid to show themselves, 
 and that the writer of the third Gospef deemed it expedient 
 to commence their rehabilitation by thus putting in an appear- 
 ance for them. But, however this may have been, all three 
 narratives absolutely concur in declaring that whatever persons 
 may have been present, they all 'stood afar off!' Hence it 
 must be accepted as a positive fact that, at the time of our Lord's 
 Passion, not a single one of his acquaintance was near him ; 
 certainly not any of his disciples ; and most assuredly not his 
 mother, of all persons in the world I Indeed, it stands to reason 
 that the officials of the law, who in this case were a band of 
 Roman soldiers, would not have allowed anyone, whether re- 
 latives of the three criminals or not, to approach very near to 
 the place of execution. 
 
 In the fourth Gospel, however, everything is changed, with 
 the exception of Peter's denial of his Master, There is no cry of 
 despair on the Cross ; none of resignation ; no promise of Para- 
 dise to the repentant thief ; no standing ' afar off.' Instead of 
 this, there is the incredible statement that ' there stood by the 
 cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife 
 01 Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene '§, — let this only be tested by 
 
 * Mark xiv. 50. t Mark xv. 40. 
 
 I Luke xxiii. 49. § John xix. 25. 
 
HIS CETJCIFIXTON. 253 
 
 supposing it to have occurred at the public execution of three 
 criminals at the Old Bailey ! — and that when Jesus therefore 
 saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, 
 ■ — that is to say, the pretended writer of this fictitious narrative, 
 — he saith unto his mother, ' Woman, behold thy Son ! ' and to 
 John himself he said ' Behold thy mother I ' And it is added 
 that ' from that hour that disciple took her unto his own 
 home ' * — soon to be taken up from thence to heaven as the 
 Immaculate Virgin Mother of God ! 
 
 The fourth Gospel then relates how Jesus, knowing that in 
 his death and the accompanying circumstances everything was 
 accomplished (reTeXeTrai), excepting the prophecy of the Psalmist, 
 ' In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink ' f — the fulfilment 
 of which was evidently so essential to the accomplishment of 
 Jesus's mission I — said ' I thirst.' And a vessel full of ' posca,' 
 the sour wine and water drunk by the Roman soldiers, being 
 there handy, they filled a sponge with it, and fastened it on a 
 stalk of hyssop, and put it to his mouth ; and when Jesus had 
 received the ' posca ' he said ' Everything is now really accom- 
 plished ' — rereXecFTai, the same word as before, not ' It is finished,' 
 as it is wrongly translated in the Authorized English Tersion, 
 leading to great mistakes on the part of expounders of the text, 
 — and so ' he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost ' J. 
 
 This same spurious document then goes on to give a series of 
 details peculiarly its own. Its words are : — ' The Jews therefore, 
 because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain 
 upon the cross on the sabbath day (for that sabbath day was a 
 high day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and 
 that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and 
 brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified 
 with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was 
 dead already, they brake not his legs : but one of the soldiers 
 with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out 
 blood and water ' §. 
 
 * John six. 26, 27. t Ps. Ixix. 21. 
 
 + John xix. 28-30. § John xix. 31-34. 
 
254 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 These particulars have formed the subject of frequent comment, 
 both adversely and with a view to the removal of the difficulties 
 they present. All that will be remarked here is, that if the order 
 for the ' crurifragium ' was really given, it would have been 
 carried out by the Eoman soldiers as a matter of routine ; and 
 the neglect of its performance in the case of one of the criminals 
 would have been a breach of military discipline, subjecting the 
 offenders to condign punishment. Let the transaction be sup- 
 posed to occur at the present day. Three criminals condemned 
 to death are executed together. For some special reason it is 
 desired to anticipate the usual time for the removal of their dead 
 bodies ; and therefore, in order to make sure of their death, the 
 ' coup de grace ' is commanded to be given. Now it is incon- 
 ceivable that the soldiers detailed for this duty, — a duty as simple, 
 and assuredly not so repugnant to their feelings, as firing at 
 a comrade of their own condemned to death by a court-martial, 
 and then going up close to him, and blowing his brains out if the 
 volley of the platoon should not have taken effect, — would have 
 troubled themselves to ascertain whether the criminals they were 
 ordered to put out of their misery were already dead or not*. 
 And it is even more incredible that, in addition to this gross breach 
 of discipline on the part of the whole band of soldiers, one of them 
 should have dared to take upon himself to stick his spear into 
 the side of one of the criminals, not to kill him (for it is cir- 
 cumstantially related that ' he was dead already,' or otherwise 
 they must have broken his legs), but in order that from the 
 dead body might ' forthwith come there out blood and water 'f ; 
 which, if it means anything at all, must mean the coagulum and 
 serum, into which blood drawn from a living body separates after 
 it has stood some time, but which never issue from a corpse ! 
 
 * The Times newspaper of March 21st, 1872, when describing the execution 
 of the Communist, Preau de Wedel, says : — ' His death must liave been 
 instantaneous, for the firing was so good that out of twelve bullets ten struck 
 him, eight in the vital parts. Nevertheless, after the medical examination of 
 the body, the usual coitp de grace was given, as a matter of form, by a soldier 
 with one of the spare rifles.' t John xix. 34. 
 
HIS CEUCIFIXION. 255 
 
 We now see revealed the motive for bringing the beloved 
 disciple to the foot of the Cross, in defiance of the concurrent 
 testimony of the three historical Gospels that all stood afar off. 
 ' He that saw it bare record ' — that is to say, this is the record 
 of an eye-witness — 'and his record is true : and he knoweth that 
 he saith trvie, that ye might believe' *. And it may not unreason- 
 ably be concluded that this story of the breaking of the other 
 criminals' legs bat sparing those of Jesus, and of piercing his 
 dead body with a spear, was invented for the purpose of iden- 
 tifying the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross with that of the Paschal 
 Lamb — the ' Lamb of God ' ; and enabling the writer to say, 
 ' For these things were done that the Scripture should be ful- 
 filled, A bone of him shall not be broken f. And again, another 
 Scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced ' J. 
 
 It is not in the least surprising that statements such as these 
 should during ages have been believed by all Christendom, when 
 in this intellectual nineteenth century a sceptic, who does not 
 scruple to impute charlatanism and fraud to our Lord himself, 
 stands forward nevertheless as the zealous advocate for the 
 authenticity of this most false and misleading document. In 
 the estimation of M. Eenan the fourth Gospel contains precise 
 information, such as could only have been imparted by an eye- 
 witness. It is true that the French critic can hardly satisfy 
 himself that the whole Gospel is from the pen of the aged 
 Galilean fisherman ; but he is still inclined to believe — in fact, 
 he does believe, inasmuch as he adopts the fourth Gospel in 
 accordance with his belief- — that ' John in his old age having 
 read the Gospel narratives then in circulation, and having on the 
 one hand noticed various inaccuracies, and being on the other 
 hand vexed at seeing himself not made enough of in the history 
 of Christ, took upon himself to dictate a number of things 
 which he knew better than anyone else, in order to show that 
 in many instances, where Peter alone was spoken of, he had 
 figured with and before him. Already during Jesus's lifetime 
 slight feelings of jealousy had been manifested between the 
 * John xix. 35. t Exod. xii. 46. | Zech. xii. 10 ; John xix. 36, 37. 
 
256 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 sons of Zebedee and the other disciples : since the death of his 
 brother James, John remained the sole heir of those intimate 
 reminiscences whereof those two Apostles were confessedly the 
 depositaries. Hence arose his constant care to remind his readers 
 that he is the last survivor of the eye-witnesses, and the pleasure 
 taken by him in narrating circumstances which he alone could 
 know. Hence so many marks of precision, which seem as if they 
 were the comments of an aunotator : — '* It was the sixth hour ; " 
 "it was night;" "the servant's name was Malehus;" "they 
 had made a fire of coals, for it was cold ;" " the coat was without 
 seam." Hence that disorder in the composition, the want of 
 connexion in the first chapters, features peculiar to this Gospel, 
 which are inexplicable on the supposition that it is merely a 
 theological discourse without historical value, but which, on the 
 other hand, become perfectly intelligible, if, in accordance with 
 tradition, it is looked on as the record of an old man's reminis- 
 cences, sometimes of prodigious freshness, but sometimes having 
 undergone strange modifications ' *. 
 
 It is strange that the learned and ingenious French scholar 
 should not have contemplated the possibility of this extraordinary 
 document being a literary forgery altogether, and should not have 
 detected in the minute details which he regards so favourably, 
 evidence of that desire on the part of the writer to make his 
 case appear true, which so often leads a false witness to overshoot 
 the mark and prove too much. For example, it is very unlikely 
 that, at Jerusalem, in the beginning of the month of April, it 
 was necessary to have a ' fire of coals ' in the hall of the high 
 priest's palace on account of the cold ; it is yet more unlikely that 
 under the bright liglit of the Paschal full-moon the myrmidons 
 of the high priests should have broi;ght lanterns and torches to 
 look for Jesus ; and it is most unlikely of all that the writer 
 of this document, who professes to be a Jew, should invariably 
 speak of his countrymen and co-religionists as ' the Jews.' There 
 is a story that King Charles the Second asked the Fellows of a 
 certain learned Society to tell him why a fish when alive took up 
 * ' Vie de J^sus,' xxv-xxix. 
 
HIS CRUCIFIXION. 257 
 
 less room in a vessel of water than when it was dead ; and that 
 this question quite posed the philosophers, till one of them — 
 probably the least learned of the company — suggested the expe- 
 diency of ascertaining whether it was reaUy a fact ; when it was 
 found that the Merry Monarch had been playing them a trick. 
 There is nothing waggish in the trick which the writer of the 
 fourth Gospel has played on Christendom, by putting that docu- 
 ment into circulation as the production of the apostle John, an 
 ej'e-witness of aU he related : on the contrary, it must, unhappily, 
 be regarded as the most deliberate and systematic of all the 
 ' pious frauds ' that the Clergy of the Christian Congregation — 
 it is a prostitution of terms to call that Clergy the 'Church' — 
 ever perpetrated on the ignorant and credulous Laity, for what 
 is impiously called ' the greater Glory of God.' Before M. Renan 
 ventured to conceive so monstrous an idea as that the pure- 
 minded Jesus could, under any circumstances, have been a party, 
 or even in the remotest degree privy, to ' a great miracle, which 
 should strike forcibly on the incredulity of the people of Jeru- 
 salem ' *, by the pretended raising of Lazarus from the dead (on 
 which subject it is sufficient to refer to what has been said in a 
 previous Chapter f), he would have done well to have first contem- 
 plated the possibility that the alleged event which gave rise to so 
 injurious a supposition might itself be a fiction. 
 
 After the death of Jesus on the Cross, Joseph, a native of Ari- 
 mathea, who was a member of the Sanhedrin, but not consenting 
 to Jesus's death, because he believed him to be the Messiah, came 
 and asked Pilate for his Lord's body, which he buried in a 
 sepulchre hewn in the neighbouring rock J. AU four Gospels 
 agree in this ; besides which Joseph is so mixed up in all the 
 Apocryphal Gospels and other writings of the ^rliest ages, that 
 his existence and interference in the way described must be re- 
 garded as an historical fact. 
 
 The writer of the foui'th Gospel cannot, however, be satisfied 
 
 * ' Vie de Jesus,' p. 359. t Chapter XV. pages 181, 182. 
 
 I Matth. xxvii. 57-60 ; Mark xv. 42-46 ; Luke xxiii. 50-53 ; John xix. 
 38-42. 
 
258 JESTTS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 with a plain matter of fact. To throw dust in the ej'es of 
 believers — and unbelievers too — by pretending that he possessed 
 special and exclusive means of information, he brings on to the 
 stage as a comi)anion of Joseph, the 'man of the Pharisees, named 
 Nicodcmus, a ruler of the Jews,' who had already been introduced 
 into an earlier portion of the same document, for the purpose of 
 enabling Jesus to speak, not as he is shown in the genuine records 
 to have spoken, but rather as a Gnostic of the second century, 
 when Christianity had became gentilized*. AVith that minute pre- 
 cision, which has so captivated M. Eenan, but which would cause 
 more serious thinkers to suspect trickery, Nicodemus is described 
 as bringing with him a ' mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a 
 hundred pounds' weight ' ; and then he and Joseph are said to 
 have taken ' the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes 
 with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to biiry'f, aud so 
 laid it in the sepulchre. 
 
 These details do not agree Avith those mentioned in tlie other 
 three Gospels, which also differ among themselves. This is, 
 however, of no real consequence, inasmuch as all concur as to 
 the material fact of the burial of the body of Jesus by Joseph of 
 Arimathea, and not by any of our Lord's own immediate disciples. 
 And this is only reasonable and natural, because they were 
 Galileans, strangers in Jerusalem, and besides had fled panic- 
 stricken on his arrest ; so that, if some one residing in Jerusalem 
 had not interfered as Joseph did, the body of Jesus must 
 have remained on the Cross, after the usual custom of the 
 Romans. 
 
 That our Lord should have been so entirely deserted by his 
 followers is one of the most remarkable facts of his history, as 
 serving to prove the peculiar character of his mission. Had he 
 been merely the founder of a new school of morality or even of 
 a new religious sect, the feelings of his disciples would, must, 
 have been similar to those of the members of any such secular 
 society or religious congregation, when suddenly deprived of their 
 head. However much these might love, respect, or even venerate 
 * John iii. 1-21. t Jolin xix. 39-42. 
 
HIS CRTJCIFIXION. 259 
 
 their teacher or pastor on account of his moral worth and 
 eminent personal qualities, however much they might admire 
 his talent and eloquence, their hearts would, first and above all, 
 be filled with grief and anguish at the loss of him individually. 
 With these feelings would naturally come to be associated regret 
 on account of the void in the chair or the pulpit which had been 
 so ably filled by him ; still grief for their personal loss would be 
 the predominant feeling. 
 
 So was it not at all the case with Jesus and his disciples. Of 
 the twelve persons chosen by him to be his immediate companions 
 and helpers, how many of them were really attached to his 
 person ? Not a single one ! Peter was anxious to know what 
 reward he should obtain for his services ; James and John 
 thought most of securing beforehand the best places in his 
 kingdom, to the great indignation and jealousy of their com- 
 panions ; and Judas betrayed his master. When Jesiis was 
 arrested, all the disciples forsook him and fled ; and though Peter 
 ' followed him afar off unto the high-priest's palace, and went in 
 and sat with the servants,' it was more out of curiosity — ' to see 
 the end,' as it is written — than from any real sympathy ; for 
 no sooner was he charged with having been with Jesus than he 
 denied it with an oath, saying ' I do not know the man ' *. And 
 at the supreme moment, when their Lord was put to death as a 
 malefactor, though ' all the people that came together to see that 
 sight,' — as any mob at the present day woiJd collect to see a man 
 hanged, — on ' beholding the things which were done, smote their 
 breasts, and returned 'f when it was all over; yet the discijjles 
 themselves seemed not to have mingled with the crowd, if, 
 indeed, they were present at all, which (as has already been 
 shown X) is very doubtful. 
 
 Even after the Resurrection, when two of the disciples were 
 accosted by Jesus on their way to Emmaus, as they talked 
 together of all these things which had happened ' and were sad,' 
 their sadness was not caused by any personal regard for Jesus, — 
 by the loss of a beloved master, companion, friend, or teacher, — 
 
 * Matth. xxvi. 58-72. t Luke xxiii. 48. J See above, page 252. 
 
2G0 JESrS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 but by their disappointment at not finding him to be the ^Messiah 
 they had calcuLated on his being. ' We trusted that it liad been 
 he who shoukl have redeemed Israel'*, was the predominant 
 thought in their minds, which quite absorbed and annihilated all 
 feelings of personal regret ; and when afterwards the true nature 
 of the Messiah's mission was revealed to his disciples generally, 
 it was still not the man Jesus who became the object of their 
 love and veneration, who was so eloquently preached by Paul 
 and the other Apostles, but it was the suffering Messiah, the 
 crucified ' Christ.' 
 
 It is therefore manifest how entirely wrong those are who look 
 on Jesus merely as a pastor or teacher. A striking parallel is 
 afibrded by the political occurrences in France during the last 
 few months. Previously to the declaration of war against Ger- 
 many, no ruler could well have been more popular than was the 
 Emperor Napoleon. All looked up to him ; all courted his 
 favour ; aU were devoted to his service ; all sought the good 
 things he had at his disposal. His dynasty had just been es- 
 tablished on what was regarded, and properly regarded, as the 
 almost unanimous voice of the French nation. The war was 
 likewise most popular : the national cry was ' a Berlin.' Had 
 the arms of France been triumphant, Napoleon might almost 
 have declared himself a god ! His doing so would hardly have 
 met with so much ojjposition among his vassals as the Pope's 
 declaration of his infallibility has raised among Catholics. Sedan 
 came, and instantly ' all forsook him and fled,' The heads of the 
 French nation solemnly disowned their sovereign, to whom they 
 had sworn allegiance, — unhesitatingly perjuring themselves, as 
 Peter the chief of the Apostles did. Since then, through all the 
 troubles of the nation, scarcely a voice has been raised in favour 
 of the man whom, but a short time ago, it was the fashion to 
 call the Saviour of France ! And those few partisans he may 
 still have are far more those of the Emperor Napoleon the Third 
 than of the man Louis Napoleon Bonaparte. He has not shown 
 himself to be that Saviour and Regenerator of France that he 
 * Luke iLxiv. 21. 
 
HIS CRUCIFIXION. 261 
 
 was believed to be : what do his countrymen care for him 
 individually ? 
 
 So was it with Jesus the Messiah — the Anointed King of 
 Israel ! It was not till after the true nature and character of his 
 Kingdom had become manifest to his hesitating, and perhaps 
 more than hesitating, disciples, that they returned to their 
 allegiance to their sovereign. And the fact that they did so is 
 of so peculiar a character, that, except on the assumption of the 
 Divine nature of our Lord's mission, it is utterly inexplicable. In 
 every other instance of an unsuccessful political or religious move- 
 ment, — and the mission of Jesus must, to all outward appearances, 
 be placed iu this category, — the death of its originator and leader 
 has been followed, not only by the dispersion of his followers, or 
 such of them as may not have shared his fate in the field of 
 battle or on the scaffold, but by the speedy, if not immediate, 
 extinction of his sect or party. In the instance of our Lord 
 Jesus, on the contrary, his death served but to increase the faith 
 of his disciples, and (as it were) to give to their zeal the impulse 
 requisite for securing the triumph of his cause. As this 
 never was the case with any human enterprise, the inevitable 
 conclusion is that our Lord was truly the Messiah of prophesy, 
 the Son of God ; and that, with the wisdom of the serpent and 
 the harmlessness of the dove, he adopted precisely that course 
 which alone was suited and fitted to carry out the decree of his 
 Father who is in heaven. 
 
 Had Jesus endeavoured to drive out the Roman armies as the 
 pseudo-Messiah, Bar Cocaba, did, or had he so much as thought 
 of organizing his followers for the purpose of aggression or 
 defence, his caiise might have enjoyed a momentary success, 
 only to terminate in an ignominious and complete failure. If 
 even he had made the slightest eff'ort to turn the enthusiasm of 
 his adherents to account at the last moment, he could not have 
 failed to excite the fears of the Roman governor, and to provoke 
 the hostility of the Jewish hierarchy against them likewise ; and 
 thus, after his Crucifixion, they too would have been subjected 
 to persecution, instead of being allowed to remain in comparative 
 
262 JESXTS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 peace and safety in their seeming obscurity, unharmed and, for a 
 time, unheeded. Instead of which his sole aim was to restrain 
 the exuberance of their zeal. When he was arrested by the 
 agents of the high priest and elders, one of the disciples drew his 
 sword, and struck a servant of the high priest and smote off his 
 ear; and had not Jesus immediately interfered, a broil would 
 doubtless have ensued. But he gently said unto his too zealous 
 partisan, ' Put up again thy sword into its place ; for all they 
 that take the sword shall perish with the sword.' Aijd then, 
 recalling to mind his own previous temptation in the wilderness, 
 he continued, ' Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my 
 Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions 
 of angels ? But'how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that 
 thus it must be ?'* And thus it was, and we are witnesses of its 
 fruits unto this day. By no other means, we may be assured, 
 could the Messiah's Kingdom upon earth have been established, 
 and have extended itself as it has done and it is still continuing 
 to do. Verily, ' My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are 
 jowT ways My ways, saith the Eternal. For as the heavens are 
 higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, 
 and My thoughts than your thoughts 'f- 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE EESUEEECTION OF THE MESSIAH. 
 
 In a sermon preached during the Church Congress at Southamp- 
 ton on October 16th 1870, the Bishop of Winchester is reported 
 to have said : — ' What is the great fact that shapes the whole 
 mission of Christ's Church on earth ? It is that she is witness 
 to the fact of the resurrection ; before all other things she is sent 
 out to tell the world that Jesus rose from the dead. The dis- 
 ciples and apostles were witnesses of that resurrection. Christ's 
 * Matth. xxvi. 51-54. t Isa. ly. 8, 9. 
 
HIS EEStTRRECTIOX. 2G3 
 
 ministers have much, else to say, but they must say this first, 
 because on this fact the existence and purpose of the Church 
 rest. If this be not a fact, both her preaching and her mission 
 are in vain. The Church, then, is witness to the historical fact of 
 the resurrection of Christ from the dead. In the next place 
 that historical fact is a miracle. It is impossible to say that it is 
 nothing but a myth handed down from remote antiquity, or a cloth- 
 ing of philosophical ideas in a garb of fact. This story is the story 
 of a miracle, or it is a lie ; and from this dilemma there is no 
 escape. It is on this point that the Church comes into immediate 
 collision with so-called science, because she brings the super- 
 natural into the field of the natural, of which science claims to 
 be the sole exponent and interpreter. Science says that miracles 
 are impossible ; but the whole existence and life [of the Church] is 
 bound up with its assertion of the miraculous. Nothing can be 
 more pitiful and foolish than the attempts, so common nowadays, 
 to explain away the miracles of Scripture, or to pare them down to 
 almost nothing — saying that this or that is not so very miraculous 
 or so utterly supernatural. "What can be gained by this, since, after 
 all, the fact must be faced that Jesus Christ rose from the dead ? 
 It is a pitiful thing to see men who are charged with the Church's 
 mission proclaiming the fact timidly, bargaining, as it were, for 
 this last fragment as a little miracle, so as to make it as little 
 offensive as possible to scientific vision — saying, with one of old, 
 " in this thing pardon thy servant." ' 
 
 Dr. Wilberforce, after his able fashion, has here seized the whole 
 question in his vigorous grasp, and laid it bare. Among those 
 who profess to be believers, there cannot be any half belief on 
 this vital point. By continuing, as they do, to daUy with the 
 question, they justify their opponents in saying that they are 
 unable to defend the cause they profess to advocate, and only 
 prevented by shame — if not by some more unworthy motive — 
 from giving it up altogether. Our Lord himself has said, ' He 
 that is not with me is against me' *. Let such persons then be 
 honest, at all events, and openly avow their convictions. 
 * Matth. xii. 30. 
 
204 JESUS XttE JIESSIAH : 
 
 The good Bishop may not have expressed himself altogether in 
 strictly correct language; but that does not much signify. What 
 he means is quite intelligible to the minds of all ; and, what is 
 more, it is perfectly true. The Resurrection of the Messiah is a 
 fact on which the whole Christian Dispensation dei)ends. The 
 Apostle Paul says, in unequivocal language, ' If the Messiah be 
 not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 
 Yea, and we are fouud false witnesses of God ; because we have 
 testified of God that He raised up the Messiah ' *. 
 
 It is then with this fact, thus certified, that we have now to 
 deal ; and in our consideration of this fact the first point to be 
 raised is, that, though it is the bounden duty of every Christian 
 not only to believe inwardly, but to confess openly the fact itself, 
 it does not at all follow that he is bound to accept the interpre- 
 tation put upon that fact by the ' Church ' — that is to say by the 
 priesthood. In order to know whether their interpretation is 
 the true one, it is essential that the believer should investigate 
 the evidence upon which the fact itself professes to be established. 
 Now, all the evidence that we possess respecting our Lord's resur- 
 rection from the dead is contained in the four Gospels, the Acts of 
 the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul. As regards the three 
 historical Gospels the ' humiliating ' admission of Archbishop 
 Thomson, already noticedf, deprives them of that value which 
 attaches to the testimony of witnesses of the first order, namely, 
 such as are eye-witnesses of the actual fact they desire to 
 prove. By this it is far from being intended that the testi- 
 mony of the Evangelists should be rejected as of no value. All 
 that is meant is that they must be passed over in the first in- 
 stance, and only called on for corroborative evidence. As a 
 matter of course, the writer of the Acts of the Apostles comes 
 within the same category. The testimony of the fourth Gospel 
 will unliappily have to be adduced, only to establish beyond all 
 doubt, that, in this instance also, that document is not an authentic 
 and veracious record of the circumstances attending the fact. 
 Thus it becomes valueless as direct evidence ; but at the same 
 * 1 Cor. XV. 14, IT). t See Chapter III. page 34. 
 
HIS EESURRECTION. 265 
 
 time its iinserupulous endeavour to give to that fact a false inter- 
 pretation must be regarded as strong circumstantial evidence of 
 the truth of the fact itself. There remains therefore only the 
 evidence of the Apostle Paul, as given in certain Epistles or 
 Letters, especially those to the Romans, the Corinthians (two), 
 and the Galatians, the genuineness of which is now admitted by 
 the most adverse critics*. 
 
 "Who and what Paul was has already been explained in a former 
 Chapterf. It has here to be added that from having been a de- 
 termined persecutor of the infant Congregation (' Church '), he 
 suddenly became, within a few years after the Crucifixion of our 
 Lord, a believer in him as the Messiah. The cause of this change 
 the Apostle solemnly declares to have been the Lord's appearance 
 to him J ; and thenceforth he was the most zealous assertor of his 
 crucified Lord's Resurrection, on which fact, mainly if not entirely, 
 he based the Mission to which he dedicated the remainder of his life. 
 
 Now Paul's personal evidence of the Messiah's Resurrection is 
 thus expressly affirmed in his First Epistle to the Corinthians : — 
 ' Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I 
 preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye 
 stand ; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I 
 preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I de- 
 livered uuto you first of all that which I also received, how that 
 the Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and 
 that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day accord- 
 ing to the Scriptures ; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of 
 the twelve ; after that he was seen of above five hundred 
 brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this 
 present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of 
 James, then of all the Apostles. And last of all he was seen of 
 me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of 
 the Apostles, that am not meet to be called an Apostle, because I 
 persecuted the Congregation of God ' §. 
 
 Here it is distinctly and unequivocally asserted as a fact that 
 
 * See above, Chapter III. page 28. t Chapter II. page 21. 
 
 \ 1 Cor. XV. 8; Acts xxii. 6-11, xxvi. 12-18. § 1 Cor. xv. 1-9. 
 
 N 
 
266 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 the Messiah, after his Eesurrcction, was seen by numerous per- 
 sons, and 'last of all,' says the Apostle, ' he was seen of me also.' 
 To an assertion like this the first and readiest objection will be, 
 that Paul, like many other pious and enthusiastic men (such as 
 Emanuel Swedenborg and Colonel Gardiner, for instance), was 
 labouring under an hallucination ; so that, although conscientiously 
 believing what was merely the imagination of a diseased mind, 
 and honestly and tmly expressing his conviction of the Lord's 
 appearance to him personally as an absolute fact, he was in 
 reality giving utterance to a figment of his own distempered 
 brain. It is thus that a recent writer, when describing Paul's 
 character, says, * That he was truthful, sagacious, far-seeing, with 
 a clear practical sense and a profound moral insight, appears 
 undoubted ; but these qualities are often found in actual Hfe to 
 be associated in the same individual with the readiest credulity 
 upon all matters that fall in with his preconceptions.' And he 
 instances Luther, who ' believed in the actual bodily temptation 
 of the devil'; John Wesley, who ' believed in omens, ghosts, and 
 witches ' ; and ' a modern professor who is understood to beUeve 
 that he has seen a man floating in the air without mateiial sup- 
 port, though in a very dim light ' *. But it must be replied that, 
 in the instances thus adduced, the belief preceded and led to the 
 ' preconceptions ' respecting the particular fact ; whereas, in the 
 case of Paul, his preconceptions were altogether adverse to the 
 belief in Jesus as the Messiah ; so that this man, endowed with 
 all the high faculties attributed to him in the passage cited above, 
 is just such a one as was not likely to have changed his opinion so 
 completely as he did without some strong exciting external cause, 
 such as that which he declares did actually operate upon him, and 
 thus decided his future destiny. 
 
 But even if the validity of the foregoing objection be conceded, 
 what is to be said of Paul's appeal to the testimony of others ? 
 Was the ground of this appeal imaginary hkewise ? Were there 
 no such witnesses ? The Apostle's reply to the Roman governor 
 at Cajsarea is deserving of most serious consideration on the jmrt 
 of the really impartial searcher after truth : — ' I am not mad, 
 * Sir Richard Norton, ' The Jesus of History.' 
 
HIS EESUKRECTIOJf. 
 
 267 
 
 most noble Festus ; but speak forth the words of truth and sober- 
 ness. For the kiug, before whom also I speak freely, knoweth all 
 these things : for I am persuaded that none of these things are 
 hidden from him ; for this thing was not done in a corner ' *. 
 
 The Apostle here openly asserts the Eesurrection of the 
 Messiah, which had occurred barely thirty years previously, to 
 be a notorious fact ; and he makes this unqualified assertion in 
 the puhHc judgment-hall of the Roman governor of Judaea, in the 
 presence of the Jewish King, Herod Agrippa, and his wife Bere- 
 nice, who had come thither with great pompf, — which means, 
 of course, accompanied by numerous Jewish attendants, — and in 
 the presence of the chief captains and principal men of the city, 
 both Jews and Gentiles ; among whom there must have been 
 many, including the Jewish king before whom he stood, to whom 
 the Resurrection of Jesus was known, if not as a fact, at all 
 events by report. So that, even supposing the report had not 
 previously reached the ears of Agrippa himself, some of the by- 
 standers would have been able to certify that Paul was no im- 
 postor, even though they might at the same time have expressed 
 their disbelief in Jesus as the Messiah. And it is most signifi- 
 cant that Festus, when explaining Paul's cause to Agrippa, is 
 described as saying that his accusers ' had certain questions 
 against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, who 
 was dead, whom Patd. afiirmed to be alive 'j; as if the matter 
 were one that was perfectly well understood. 
 
 Taking into consideration the sterHng character of the Apostle, 
 of which there can be no doubt, it would be preposterous to 
 entertain the idea that the whole afi'air was an impudent im- 
 posture from beginning to end, that Paul was a despicable 
 charlatan, an actor playing a part, an advocate suborned to 
 support a claim which he knew to be false and fraudulent. Or, 
 supposing it possible for him to have been all this, he would 
 most assuredly have been denounced and exposed on the spot. 
 Instead of which, the Jewish prince expressed himself in open 
 court as being not altogether disinclined to believe in the Apostle's 
 
 * Acts xxri. 25, 26. t Acts xxv. 23. J Acts xiv. 19. 
 
268 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 declaration * ; and concurred in opinion with the Roman governor 
 that the prisoner had done nothin^g' worthy of death or of honds, 
 but that he might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed 
 unto CaBsarf. 
 
 From Paul's public declaration that ' the thing was not done 
 in a corner;' from his appeal to the king himself, as knowing 
 the existence of the rumour, even if not assenting to the truth 
 of the fact ; from Agrippa's avowal of the reasonableness of the 
 prisoner's belief, — to say the least of the answer he made to 
 Paul ; and from the conclusion to which the king and the 
 governor came together, there is no room to doubt the fact that 
 Paul was perfectly sane, and that he did not speak as he did 
 without sufficient warrant. For it must be borne in mind that 
 he made his assertion, not merely on the evidence of his own 
 senses, but on the testimony of numerous other witnesses. 
 
 Confining ourselves always to Paul's evidence, the next portion 
 of that evidence to be noticed is his statement resijecting the 
 numerous other persons by whom our Lord had been seen. On 
 this point Dr. Strauss, after having summarily set aside Paul's 
 own testimony on the ground of his self-deception, says that the 
 Apostle, in deriving his information from the lips of eye-witnesses, 
 does not lead us beyond the fact that those eye-witnesses firmly 
 believed they had seen Jesus restored to life. Be it so. If, in 
 the ordinary circumstances of life, a number of persons — the 
 Apostle says ' above five hundred ' — were to assert their belief 
 (which, in a case like this, would mean their positive conviction) 
 that they had actually seen in life a certain individual who was 
 alleged to be dead, the world would be bound to accept their testi- 
 mony as to the truth of the fact asserted. It is quite possible 
 for all these witnesses, however numerous, to have been mistaken 
 as to the identity of such individual : but that they actually 
 saw someone, whom they firmly believed to be him, is all that 
 we have to do with at the present moment; and as to the truth of 
 this fact, their testimony must be accepted as conclusive. 
 
 Of course the evidence of others thus adduced by Paul has not, 
 * See above, Chapter V. page G4. t Acts xxvi. 31, 32. 
 
HIS RESURRECTIOiS". 269 
 
 ' prima facie,' the same value as that of the Apostle iudividually ; 
 but it being, as it is, appealed to by him in corroboratiou of his 
 own personal experience, and this, too, openly and before the 
 world as a matter of notoriety, such evidence cannot but be 
 most important. In fact, in our modern courts of law, such 
 evidence of public rumour and the like, ' though composed of 
 the speech of third parties not under oath, is original evidence, 
 and not hearsay, the immediate subject of inquiry being the con- 
 currence of many voices, which raises a presumption that the 
 fact in which they concur is true ' *. 
 
 But it is further objected by Dr. Strauss that Paul does not 
 tell us how these witnesses arrived at their belief, and what 
 reason they had for regarding the appearance of Jesus as some- 
 thing real, and, indeed, for believing the person they saw to be 
 their Master. The answer to this is that Paul expressly declares 
 that Jesus was ' seen ' by the persons named by him ; and if so, 
 those persons must either have really seen Jesus himself or else 
 an impostor. If it was really Jesus, it does not signify whether 
 the appearance was spiritual, as it was to Paul himself, or in the 
 flesh, as it is said to have been in the Gospels. In any case it 
 must have been an objective or external appearance of somebody 
 or something ; for it is inconceivable that any hallucination, any 
 mere stretch of the imagination, or, indeed, any trickery on the 
 part of others, could have made any considerable number of 
 persons concur in declaring they had seen Jesus, or someone 
 they believed to be Jesus, unless there had been some substantive 
 ground for such declaration. 
 
 It would be quite within the range of possibility for the 
 disciples, however numerous, to have been deceived by a pre- 
 tender, such as Perkin Warbeck, or the now deceased John 
 Sobieski Stuart. Indeed, there is nothing unreasonable in the 
 supposition that someone might actually have represented himself 
 to them as their crucified Master risen from the dead, as he had 
 predicted he would do ; and in such a case it cannot be denied 
 that the fact of his having been believed to be Jesus, even by 
 * Phillips ' On Evidence.' 
 
270 JESrrS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 ' above five hundred brethren at once,' woiild of itself be no 
 stronger proof of his identity than his being recognized by a 
 mnch smaller number of persons. On this point the opinion 
 expressed by the Attorney-General in his address to the jury on 
 the celebrated Tichborne trial is especially opportune. Speaking 
 of the numerous persons who had been induced to avow their 
 belief that the claimant was really the true Sir Roger Tichborne, 
 Sir John D. Coleridge is reported to have said : — ' But is this the 
 sort of evidence on which a man is to succeed to an estate ? It 
 is really childish ; but yet it is the sort of thing to which these 
 persons fall victims, and the sort of thing, remember, on which 
 the learned and astute people outside say, " There is an over- 
 whelming case on behalf of the plaintiff — it cannot be upset." 
 I need not remind you that if there are 500 people who faU 
 dupes to one and the same piece of charlatanism, the evidence is 
 not the evidence of 500 people, but the evidence of one. You 
 do not make the evidence a bit stronger because you multiply it 
 by the number of dupes. If you bring them over individually 
 by separate chains of reasoning, then, I grant, you have something 
 stronger ; but it is a mere fallacy and delusion to sup2)ose that 
 you strengthen your evidence by the testimony of 500 dupes. 
 People who do not estimate evidence properly, do not seem to 
 bear that in mind. They should bring to the consideration of 
 this case the principles of common sense, and should inquire, 
 " What is the worth of this piece of evidence ? How has it been 
 built up ? "Will the structure stand the test of common sense ? " ' 
 And then, a suggestion having been made to him by one of the 
 counsel on the same side, the Attorney-General added : — ' My 
 learned friend refers to the analogy of the tricks of M. Houdin, 
 or the Wizard of the North, and remarks that the conclusion 
 would be just as ill founded.' 
 
 But even if we assume that all the persons referred to by Paul 
 as witnesses of the fact of their Lord's appearance to them 
 were the dupes of some impostor, the question then arises Avhat 
 became of that impostor afterwards ? If he had put himself at 
 the head of a political party, it could only have been as an 
 
HIS RESTJRRECTION. 271 
 
 antagonist to Rome, in whicli case he woiild soon have been 
 defeated and slain, as Judah of Gamala had been a short time 
 previously, and as Ear Cocaba was in the time of the Emperor 
 Hadrian. Or if he had resumed the religious mission of Jesus, 
 he would, as a matter of course, have gathered about him his 
 former disciples. In either case there could not have failed to be 
 some mention of him either in Profane or in Scripture History. 
 But there is nothing of the sort ; and therefore, in the absence 
 of all evidence on the subject, we have no warrant for assuming or 
 even imagining the existence of any such i-epresentative of Jesus, 
 but, on the contrary, are bound to admit that the person whom the 
 witnesses said they saw was Jesus himself. 
 
 As to the idea that the disciples themselves could knowingly 
 and intentionally have put forward any such impostor, it is 
 simply an absurdity ; because, in addition to the absence of all 
 evidence of anything of the sort, and to the difficulty in the way 
 of disposing of such impostor afterwards, it would be necessary 
 to impute the grossest fraud, not only to all those disciples, but 
 to Paul likewise. And Paul, with all his zeal and enthusiasm, 
 was a clear-headed, practical man, of plain common sense, and a 
 perfect man of the world ; and though his prudence and con- 
 ciliatory disposition rendered him willing to become ' all things 
 to all men,' still these never led him to submit to anything he 
 knew or believed to be untrue, dishonest, or of equivocal character, 
 or even to countenance it ; as witness his dispute with Peter at 
 Antioch. He was, therefore, one of the most unlikely persons 
 in the world to participate in any such plot for imposing upon 
 others, or to be imposed on himself. And what is entirelv in 
 accordance with this argument, and in truth the most striking 
 and, it may be said, the most convincing feature of Paul's evidence, 
 is, that, whilst incessantly appealing to the Messiah's Resur- 
 rection from the dead, he does not think of proving or defendino- 
 it, but assumes it as an established and well-known fact, with 
 respect to which there was not, and could not be, any room for 
 doubt. The thought of its being questioned by anyone seems, 
 indeed, to have never entered the Apostle's mind. 
 
272 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 Bat, apart from this testimony of the Apostle Paul, hoth direct 
 as regards himself and indirect as regards others, we have that 
 of the writers of the four Gospels and of the Acts ; and though 
 they cannot be adduced as having themselves been witnesses of 
 the fact, their evidence is certainly not to be regarded as of no 
 value. They must, under any circumstances, be accepted as 
 bearing testimony to the notoriety of the occurrence. And the 
 fact that their several accounts of that occurrence differ not only 
 among themselves in various details, but also (as will next have 
 to be shown) from that of Paul himself in a most important 
 particular, ought to be regarded as the most convincing proof of 
 the absence of collusion among them, and of their being inde- 
 pendent witnesses of the reality of the main fact itself, whatever 
 colour they may, any of them, have been induced by subsequent 
 events to give to that fact. 
 
 If this be conceded (and there does not appear to be any legi- 
 timate or even plausible reason for disputing it), then all that 
 is contended for is gained. The Resurrection of the Messiah 
 from the dead is an historical fact. It may not be possible to 
 explain how this fact occurred ; but even if that be the case, it 
 is really more easy to believe in the reality of the alleged fact 
 than to imagine that all those persons, including Paul himself, 
 should either have been so egregiously deceived, or else should 
 have combined to originate such a palpable fiction, and also that 
 they shoiild have succeeded in palming it off upon the world. 
 This would indeed be a greater miracle than the occurrence 
 itself. That the simple fact of the Messiah's Resurrection from 
 the dead should ere long have been developed into something very 
 different from what it really was, and what it was originally 
 asserted and intended to be, is only in accordance with the treat- 
 ment to which, owing to the infirmity of human nature, the other 
 incidents of our Lord's history have been subjected. Errors and 
 misrepresentations have hidden the truth, as clouds obscure the 
 light of the sun ; but in like manner as the clouds pass over, and 
 the orb of day shines forth with its wonted splendour, so will it 
 be with the Light of the World, when the mists of dogmatism 
 
HIS BESUERECTION. 273 
 
 and superstition, in which it has so long been enveloped, shall be 
 dissipated and dispersed. 
 
 And this brings us to the momentous question, — What was the 
 nature and character of the Resurrection of the Messiah from the 
 dead ? To this the answer will naturally be, that, according to 
 the narrative of the four Gospels, the soul, spirit, or ' ghost,' 
 which left Jesus 's body on the Cross, returned into it whilst it 
 lay in the grave ; and that his body, thus revivified, rose again on 
 the third day, left the tomb, appeared to various persons, ate with 
 them, was touched by some so as to con-\duce them that it was 
 really his own natural body, and ascended corporeally into heaven. 
 And, as Paul testified before Festus and Agrippa that Moses and 
 the prophets had said that the Messiah should suffer, and that he 
 should be the first that should rise from the dead*; so the 
 Universal Church declares its belief in ' the Resurrection of the 
 Body,' as it is expressed in what is called, and vulgarly believed 
 to be, ' The Apostles' Creed,' though this, like that ' incompre- 
 hensible dogma folded up in unintelligible words ' f, ' commonly 
 called the Creed of St. Athanasius,' is well known to be the com- 
 position of a much later date than its name denotes. 
 
 Of late years, however, as Bishop Wilberforce laments, there 
 has arisen much doubt on the subject of our Lord's Resurrection, 
 and many attempts have been made to invalidate the fact ; though 
 this it appears impossible to do, certified as the fact is by the 
 Apostle Paul and others. Nevertheless, it must be borne in 
 mind that Paul is the only witness of whom we possess the 
 direct personal testimony, and who, therefore, is the only one 
 whose evidence is really to be relied on. And such being the 
 case, the question that now presents itself for consideration is, 
 whether the evidence of that Apostle was given and intended by 
 him in the sense in which it is generally understood, owing to 
 the dogmatical interpretation that has been put upon it by the 
 Priesthood. 
 
 Now Paul's evidence is not at all confined to the simple fact 
 
 * Acts xxvi. 23. 
 
 t Duke of Somerset, ' Christian Theology and Modern Scepticism,' p. 153. 
 
 n5 
 
274 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 of the Messiah's Resurrection from the dead : in the fifteenth 
 chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle describes 
 the nature and character of that occurrence. His words, -which 
 must be specially noted, are : — ' But someone will say, How are 
 the dead raised up ? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, 
 that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die ; and that 
 which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but 
 bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain : but 
 God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed 
 his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh ; but there is one 
 flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another 
 of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial ; 
 but the glory of the celestial is one, and that of the terrestrial is 
 another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glor)- of the 
 moon, and another glory of the stars ; for one star diff"ereth from 
 another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. 
 It is sown in corruption ; it is raised in ineorruption : it is sown in 
 dishonour ; it is raised in glory : it is sown in weakness ; it is 
 raised in power : it is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual 
 body. There is a natural body, and. there is a spiritual body. 
 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living 
 soul ; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit 
 that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural ; 
 and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the 
 earth, earthy : the second man is the Lord from 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 also bear the image of the 
 heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot 
 inherit the kingdom of God ; neither doth corruption inherit in- 
 eorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all 
 sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling 
 of an eye, at the last trump : for the trumpet shall sound, and 
 the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 
 For this corruptible must put on ineorruption, and this mortal 
 must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have 
 
HIS RE^[TIlEECTION. 275 
 
 put on incorniption, and this mortal shall have put on immor- 
 tality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, 
 Death is swallowed up in victory. death, where is thy sting ? 
 grave, where is thy victory ? The sting of death is sin ; and 
 the strength of sifi is the law. But thanks be to God, which 
 giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus the Messiah ' *. 
 
 Before proceeding to comment on this most remarkable decla- 
 ration of the Apostle, it is necessary to notice an objection made to 
 it by Professor Huxley, in his Address as President of the British 
 Association for the Advancement of Science, at the Liverpool 
 Meeting in September 1870. His words are : — ' The axiom of 
 ancient science, " that the corruption of one thing is the birth of 
 another," had its popular embodiment in the notion that a seed 
 dies before the young plant springs from it ; a belief so wide- 
 spread and so fixed, that Saint Paul appeals to it in one of the 
 most splendid outbursts of his fervid eloquence: — "Thou fool, 
 that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die." (1 Corin- 
 thians, XV. 36.) The proposition that life may, and does, proceed 
 from that which has no life, then, was held alike by the philoso- 
 phers, the poets, and the people, of the most enlightened nations, 
 eighteen hundred years ago ; and it remained the accepted 
 doctrine of learned and unlearned Europe, through the Middle 
 Ages, down even to the seventeeth century.' 
 
 To this it must be replied that the Apostle, in expressing 
 himself as he did, was not so unphilosophical as he is thus made 
 to appear. He employed the common form of speech, and so far, 
 doubtless, he may be understood as having asserted what scien- 
 tifically is not true. But in a practical sense, to the understanding 
 of the unscientific world, the seed itself becomes corrupted, and 
 (so to say) dies, though the germ of life within it remains, and 
 gives being to the new form of existence of the plant that springs 
 from its corruption and death. This is a very different thing 
 from the vulgar error first successfully combated and shown to 
 be fallacious two centuries ago by the truly great philosopher 
 Francesco Redi, ' a man of the widest knowledge and most 
 * 1 Cor. XV. 35-57. 
 
276 JESTJS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 versatile abilities, distinj^uislied alike as scholar, poet, physician, 
 and naturalist ; ' namely, that the ' low forms of life were genei'- 
 ated in the matters in which they made their appearance ' — the 
 doctrine, in fact, of ' spontaneous generation,' Avith which 
 St. Paul's argument has nothing in common. 
 
 Speaking practically and quite unscientifically, the Apostle's 
 exposition of the resurrection from the dead appears to be this : 
 that the corruptible human body itself, when consigned to the 
 earth, becomes corrupted and dies, but the living principle, the 
 soul, the spirit, the ' ghost ' survives ; and that this, disengaged 
 from the corruptible or ' natural ' body, is raised an incorruptible 
 or ' spiritual ' body. That there may be no misunderstanding as 
 to his meaning that the ' natural ' body is not raised from the 
 dead, he emphatically declares that 'flesh and blood cannot 
 inherit the kingdom of God.' The Apostle likewise declares 
 explicitly that ' the Messiah is risen from the dead, and become 
 the firstfruits of them that slept ; ' and as the whole of his argu- 
 ment is founded on the identity of the resurrection of mankind 
 generally with that of Jesus himself, the conclusion is inevitable 
 that it was not the corruptible and natural body of our Lord that 
 was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven, but his 
 incorruptible and spiritual body. And from this the further 
 inference is, that it was in this incorruptible and spiritual body 
 alone that the Messiah appeared to and was seen by Paul. 
 
 On the precise nature of this spiritual body of Jesus it is not 
 intended to speculate here. The expression used by the Apostle 
 is not in the least degree to be understood as a scientific defi- 
 nition ; and therefore, if theologians attempt to settle its meaning 
 dogmatically, they will only be guilty of absurdities similar to 
 those they have committed in most of their other definitions. 
 They had better leave this portion of the work to men of science, 
 who deal with things more than with words. Or, if the two 
 would but unite, and religion become scientific and science 
 religious, the union would be true philosophy, or "Wisdom itself. 
 All that can assuredly be afiirmed is, that the Messiah's a^jpcarance 
 to his great Apostle was not a subjective one, that is to say, an 
 
HIS EESTJBRKCTIOlf . S i i 
 
 idea conceived in the mind of the beholder : but it was objective, 
 or self-existing independently of the beholder. 
 
 But then there follows a most serious deduction from another 
 declaration of the Apostle, whose words must be repeated here 
 on account of their importance : — ' For I delivered unto you first 
 of aU that which I also received, how that the !Messiah died for 
 our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that he was buried, 
 and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scrip- 
 tures ; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ; 
 after that, he was seen of about five hundred brethren at 
 once ; . . . . after that he was seen of James ; then of all the 
 Apostles ; and last of all he was seen of me also ' *. And 
 taking these words in their simply natural sense, it is manifest 
 that the Apostle, in thus speaking of the appearance of the 
 Messiah to others as well as to himself, must be understood to 
 mean that that appearance occurred in like manner and form to 
 them all : that is to say, he did not appear spiritually to Paul 
 himself and corporeally to those others : but that, on every 
 occasion mentioned, that af)pearance was of the same spiritual and 
 incorporeal nature and character as it was to the Apostle himself ; 
 or, to express it more definitely, the corruptible or ' natural ' body 
 of the Messiah remained altogether in the grave where it had 
 been buried, and the incorruptible or ' spiritual ' body alone was 
 raised from the dead and 'appeared to all the disciples. Paul 
 included. 
 
 This interpretation of the text may be expected, in the first 
 instance, to give satisfaction neither to supernaturalists nor to 
 naturalists — using the two terms in the viilgarest sense. For it 
 disputes the priestly dogma of the Eesurrection of the body, and 
 yet does not do away with our Lord's appearance after death. 
 
 The scruples of the latter class of objectors have first to be 
 appeased. Xow every candid and impartial lover of science for its 
 own sake must admit that it is unphilosophical to declare dog- 
 matically that the spiritual Eesurrection from the dead is physi- 
 cally impossible, that is to say, against nature ! The most 
 * 1 Cor. IV. 3-8. 
 
78 .TKStJS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 materialistic amonj? them may not care to notice the existence of 
 a soul or spirit apart from the body, but they cannot prove its 
 non-existence. And because this separate existence is inexpli- 
 cable by them, it does not afford any warrant for their positive 
 denial of it. The arguments employed in the fourteenth Chapter 
 of the present work, on ' The Miracles of Jesus ' *, are quite 
 applicable here ; and therefore, in referring to what is there 
 said, it will be sufficient to ask: — Why may not the llesurrection 
 from the dead, however inexplicable it may be in the present 
 state of our knowledge, be the effect of a law of nature, quite 
 as miraculous as is the coming into existence of the individual 
 living being ? 
 
 But, on the other hand, it will be vehemently asserted that in 
 the Gospels we have the positive declaration, in the most explicit 
 terms, that ' Jesus rose in the body,' and that this has been 
 in all ages the belief of the Universal Church — * quod semper, 
 quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, creditum est.' To this the answer 
 must unavoidably be that this declaration is the result of a 'pious 
 fraud,' which goes back to a time anterior to the composition of those 
 Gospels ; or it should rather be said anterior to the composition of 
 the latter portions of them, which contain the meagre and very un- 
 satisfactory accounts of our Lord's Eesurreetion ; for it is manifest 
 that such could not have been the belief of the first disciples and 
 the Apostle Paul, if his express words, already commented on, 
 are to be read and understood in a natural sense. How they 
 should have been interpreted as they have been, is a problem that 
 may at first sight seem to be insoluble ; and yet, by an appeal 
 to the ordinary workings of the human mind, a solution can be 
 found, which is perfectly intelligible and reasonable, as well as 
 consistent with the rest of the Gospel history. 
 
 To the Jewish disciples of Jesus, as members of a nation 
 believing in a constant communication between the Creator and his 
 creatures through the medium of the spiritual world, whose whole 
 history is based on such communication, and to whom therefore 
 what is vulgarly called supernatural is simply natural, the 
 * Pages 170-178. 
 
HIS RESTJERECTIOJf. 279 
 
 spiritual Resurrection of the Messiali, as it actually occurred, and 
 as it is veraeiously recorded by their enlightened co-religionist, the 
 Pharisee Paul, better known to them by his Israelitish name 
 Saul, would have been perfectly intelligible. The Jewish nation, 
 or at all events the larger number of the people, expected the 
 spiritual appearance of the Messiah on earth : their descendants 
 at the present day continue to expect it. Consequently, his ap- 
 pearance to Paul, in the way described, would have been regarded 
 by them as a physical fact, as much within the laws of nature 
 as is the rising of the sun in the morning. 
 
 But to the Gentile converts to the belief in Jesus as the Messiah, 
 who soon outnumbered the Jewish believers, this spiritual and 
 incorporeal reappearance of the God ' Christos,' as they soon 
 learned to call him, could not but have been eminently unsatis- 
 factory. They had been brought up in the belief of the corporeal 
 presence of their deities on earth, of their assuming the form of 
 mortal men, and of their communicating in that form and 
 character with mortals. In Hades, too, the ghosts of the dead 
 were something more than disembodied spirits. They retained 
 their bodily senses and human passions ; they bore on their 
 bodies the marks of the wounds that had caused their death ; 
 and in the Odyssey we find them crowding to drink the blood of 
 the sacrifices of Tiresias, which, like an elixir of life, seemed to 
 reanimate them, and give them speech and utterance ; and 
 when, after death, thej^ revisited the earth, they did so in a bodily 
 form, as (to cite a most familiar instance) Pluto was induced by 
 Orpheus to allow Eurydice to do. 
 
 A curious description of the resuscitation of a dead body 
 according to Gentile notions, is given by the Roman poet Lucan, 
 the nephew of the philosopher Seneca, and a contemporary of 
 St. Paul. It is in his ' Pharsalia,' where he relates the visit 
 of Sextus Pompeius to the witch Erictho, with a view to ascertain 
 his father's fate. For this purpose she had to reanimate a 
 corpse, which the poet describes her as doing after the following 
 fashion : — 
 
280 JKSUS THE MKSSIAH : 
 
 ' When she a carcase fitting liad espied, 
 A hook she fast<»ned in his throat, and tied 
 To it a fatal rope, hy whicli tlie hag 
 O'er rocks and stones did that poor carcase drag 
 
 That must revive 
 
 Then with warm blood, opening fresh wounds she fills 
 His breast, and gore to th' inward parts distils.' 
 
 Erictho next adjures the Furies and Stygian deities, and — 
 
 ' Then lifting up her foaming month and head 
 She saw hard by the ghost of that dead man 
 Trembling to enter his old goal again, 
 Fearing those cold pale members, and into 
 That wounded breast and entrails torn to go.' ' 
 
 The witch's reiterated conjurations having at length forced the 
 spirit to re-enter the bodj:- — ■ 
 
 ' Then straight the clotted blood grows warm again, 
 
 Feeds the black wounds, and runs through every vein 
 
 And th' outward ])arts ; the vital pulses beat 
 
 In his cold breast, and life's restored heat 
 
 Mixed with cold death through parts disused runs, 
 
 And to each joint gives trembling motions. 
 
 The sinews stretch, the carcase from the ground 
 
 Rises not by degrees, but at one bound 
 
 Stands bolt upright ; the eyes with twinking hard 
 
 Are open'd ; not dead nor yet alive appeared 
 
 The face ; his paleness still and stiffness stays ; 
 
 He stands at this revival in amaze. 
 
 But his dumb sealed-up lips no murmur made, 
 
 Only an answering tongue and voice he had ' *. 
 
 This description of the raising of the dead, according to Gentile 
 notions, by the return of the spirit, ' ghost,' or soul, into the 
 material or natural body, — so different in character from the 
 bringing up of Samuel by the witch of Endor f, — was written by 
 the heathen poet almost at the very moment when the Apostle 
 Paul was telling the Gentile converts to Christianity at Corinth 
 that it is not the corruptible and natural, but the incorruptible 
 and spiritual body, that is raised from the dead ! 
 
 Independently of this, the heathens all knew by experience that 
 * Op. cit. lib. vi. tr. May. t 1 Sam. xxviii. 11-20. 
 
HIS EESUREECTIOJSr. 281 
 
 every one of their Emperors was made a God as soon as he died, 
 and mostly during his lifetime. Consequently they were not 
 likely to be content with what they could only regard as the 
 simple apotheosis of ' Christos.' With a view to conciliate thera, 
 to meet their prejudices, it became a necessity with the Elders of 
 the Church, who themselves were mostly converts from pagan- 
 ism, and could not altogether divest themselves of their heathen 
 notions, that the truth, which had been sufficient for the primitive 
 Jewish Congregation, should be modified in such a manner as to 
 render it more accejitable, more intelligible perhaps, to the Gentile 
 converts, who now formed the bulk of the Church. 
 
 This radical change would doubtless have taken place gradually 
 and almost imperceptibly ; for, whilst the doctrines of the 
 preachers of the Gospel operated on the minds of the converts, 
 the opinions and feelings of the converts could not have failed to 
 react on those of their teachers, and to lead to modifications in 
 their doctrines, as the same are known to have done in their 
 rites. The ceremonial law of Moses, for instance, though not 
 dispensed with among the Apostles themselves and their JcAvish 
 converts, was formally and authoritatively abrogated to meet the 
 case of the Gentile converts ; and thus it soon became no longer 
 binding on the whole Christian Church, including those who were 
 believing Jews. 
 
 This action and reaction in the diffusion and transfusion of 
 religious faith is, however, not a singular phenomenon. It is the 
 effect of what may be called the law of moral gravitation, wit- 
 nessed daily in the relations of nations with nations, classes with 
 classes, individuals with individuals. The more powerful of 
 the two may influence in a greater degree the actions, the 
 thoughts, the destinies of the weaker; and yet the weaker is 
 in like manner, though in a less degree, not without operation on 
 the stronger. We have a familiar example here at home. In 
 England the Normans conquered the Saxons, and impressed on 
 them their strong mark, which remains unto this day on the 
 conquered race, though in the result the conquerors themselves 
 have yielded to the preponderating Saxon element. So, too, in 
 
282 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 India, the British are introducing among the natives of that 
 country their laws, their manners and customs, their ai'ts and 
 sciences, their religion : it is for future ages to tell what will be 
 the ultimate effect upon the inhabitants of India both of native 
 and of foreign extraction. But, even at the present day, the 
 infant Bramo-Somaj reformation of Hindoo polytheism, though 
 manifestly a product of Christianity, seems to indicate that no 
 form of the dogmatic Christianity of Europe now preached in 
 India is likely to become the religion of the future population. 
 
 It was only natural, then, that the early Gentile converts to 
 Christianity should have required something tangible ; and that 
 the Elders of the Congregation, in obedience to this natural law, 
 should have connived at, acquiesced in, fostered, and eventually 
 promulgated as an article of faith, the belief in the Messiah's 
 Resurrection in the flesh, and, as a logical consequence, the belief 
 in the Resurrection in the body of all human beings. 
 
 Though the precise steps by which this momentous change 
 took place cannot be positively pointed out, still the several 
 Gospel histories show manifest traces of the course pursued. 
 
 In aU four Gospels it is stated that the body of Jesus was laid 
 in the sepulchre on Friday afternoon, just before the commence- 
 ment of the Sabbath ; and in the first Gospel alone it is added 
 that on the following morning the sepulchre was sealed and a 
 watch set by Pilate, at the request of the chief priests and 
 Pharisees, lest the disciples should come by night and steal him 
 away, and say unto the people, 'He is risen from the dead'*. 
 In the same Gospel it is added, that the saying that the disciples 
 had actually stolen away the body of Jesus ' is commonly reported 
 among the Jews until this day ' t ; which proves beyond all 
 question that this portion of that document, like the similar 
 statement introduced into the text of the Jewish historian 
 Josephus J, must have been written long after the event recorded ; 
 so that it is of no real value as evidence of the fact itself. 
 
 All four canonical Gospels likewise concur in representing that 
 
 * Matth. xxpii. 02-06. t Matth. xxviii. 15. 
 
 { See above. Chapter III. page 31. 
 
HIS KESIJRRECTION. 283 
 
 on the morning of the following first clay of the week (Sunday), 
 on the sepulchre being visited, it was found to be open and the 
 body of Jesus no longer there ; ' an angel ' in the first Gospel — 
 ' a young man ' in the second — ' two men in shining garments ' 
 in tlie third — ' two angels ' in the fourth — being seen there, who, 
 in the first three Gosjiels, informed the visitors that Jesus had 
 risen*; whilst in the fourth it was Jesus himself who did sof- 
 These discrepancies on so important a subject as that of the 
 Resurrection of the Messiah, the one great fact on which, as 
 Bishop Wilberforce truly says, ' the existence and purpose of the 
 Church rest,' are most significant, as showing that, althoiTgh at the 
 time when those histories were written, the fact of the Resurrec- 
 tion itself was accepted as indisputably true, there was no agree- 
 ment as to the manner in which it had occurred. 
 
 Another remarkable discrepancy is, that, whereas in the first 
 Gospel the sepulchre is described as having been sealed and 
 watched, the second and third Gospels relate how the women of 
 Galilee, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, 
 came early on the Sunday morning, bringing sweet spices, that 
 they might anoint the body of Jesus J ; which, unless they could 
 have withdrawn the watch and unsealed the sepulchre, it would 
 have been physically impossible for them to do. 
 
 The discrepancies with respect to the appearance of our Lord 
 to the persons by whom he was seen after his Resurrection are 
 even greater than those already mentioned ; but, at the same 
 time, they are of such a character that they seem to divulge the 
 process by which they came into existence. In the consideration 
 now to be given to those discrepancies it must be borne in mind 
 that, according to the direct testimony of the Apostle Paul, the 
 appearance of Jesus to himself was spiritual, and inferentially 
 that it was likewise spiritually that he was ' seen of Cephas, then 
 of the twelve ; after that he was seen of above five hundred 
 brethren at once ; . . . after that he was seen of James ; then of 
 all the Apostles ' § ; and as this testimony was given within 
 
 * Matth. xxviii. 6 ; Mark xvi. 6; Luke xxiv. 6. t John xx. 14-17. 
 
 I Mark xvi. 1 ; Luke xxiv. 1. | 1 Cor. xv. 5-7. 
 
284 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 thirty years after the occurrence of the events so recorded, it has 
 the best chiim to be considered as true. In fact, it will be as- 
 sumed to be so in the analysis now to be made of the statements 
 made by the several Evangelists. 
 
 In the second Gospel, which, as regards the latter portion of 
 it at least, was apparently the earliest written, it is said that, 
 after Jesus had risen on the first day of the week, ' he appeared 
 first to Mary Magdalene ' alone ; that afterwards ' he appeared 
 in another form ' unto two of the disciples ' as they walked and 
 went into the country ' ; and that subsequently ' he appeared \into 
 the eleven as they sat at meat ' *. It will be scan that though 
 this statement differs completely from that of Paul as to the 
 persons to whom Jesus appeared, yet the two agree in affirming 
 that he was ' seen ' only ; no mention being made of any personal 
 contact with the body of Jesus. And there is this further state- 
 ment peculiar to the second Gospel, that on the second occasion 
 when Jesus was seen, he ' appeared in another form,' which he 
 could hardly have done had he been in his natural material body. 
 And, besides this, when he appeared to the eleven as they sat at 
 meat, no allusion is made to his having eaten with them, as he 
 is declared to have done in the third and fourth Gospels. So 
 far, then, as the second Gospel is concerned, the appearance of our 
 Lord after his Resurrection was spiritual, as Paul declares it 
 to have been. 
 
 We come next to the first Gospel. In this the supernatural 
 occurrences at the se])ulchre are more strongly marked than in 
 the second Gospel, which shows the growth of the tradition ; and 
 it is narrated that as !Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were 
 running to bring his disciples word, ' behold Jesus met them, 
 saying, All hail ! And they came and held him by the feet and 
 worshipped him ' f. Here, then, is the first intimation that the 
 appearance of Jesus was in his natural material body. If the 
 expression, ' they held him by the feet,' is to be accepted in the 
 literal sense in which it would be understood at the present day by 
 the natives of northern Europe, — and looking to the meaning of the 
 * Mark xvi. 9-14. f Matth. xxviii. 9, 
 
HIS KESTTBRECTION. 285 
 
 Greek verb Kpareu), ' to seize,' ' to hold fast,' used in the text, it 
 certainly must be so, — the actual contact of Maiy Magdalene and 
 her companion with the person of Jesus is positively affirmed. 
 And yet it may be open to question whether the expression in 
 the Jewish original of Matthew's Gospel, of which the Greek 
 word e^■pa^7yc^cu' is only a translation, may not have been figura- 
 tive ; just as the courtly Spaniard of the present day, when 
 taking leave of a lady, says, ' Me pongo a los pies de listed ' (' I 
 place myself at your feet '), or even ' Beso a listed los pies ' (' I 
 kiss your feet'), where the matter-of-fact Englishman merely 
 says ' Good morning ' ; so that all that was really intended was, 
 that the women threw themselves at Jesus's feet, — prostrated 
 themselves before him. We see how the verb ' to adore ' has 
 lost its primary meaning, which is ' ore precari ' ; it being now 
 generally used in the sense of mute or silent worship, an inward 
 feeling of excessive love or reverence, rather than as signifying 
 the outward act of oral supplication. Should this construction 
 be the correct one, it will be seen that actual contact with the 
 person of Jesus is not absolutely affirmed even in the first 
 Gospel ; though it may well be implied (as jDcrhaps it was in- 
 tended it should be), owing to the ambiguity of the expression 
 made use of. At all events we perceive in this statement in the 
 first Gospel distinct traces of the transition from Paul's declara- 
 tion of the spiritual appearance of Jesus to the positive and 
 unequivocal assertions in the third and fourth Gospels that that 
 appearance was in his natural material body. 
 
 It has been pointedly remarked by the Duke of Somerset that, 
 ' even in relating the great miracle of the Resurrection of Jesus, 
 the two earliest Gospels close their narratives with expressions 
 of doubt and unbelief*. The first says that 'the eleven 
 disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus 
 had appointed them. And when they saw him they worshipped 
 him ; but some doubted 'f. The second says that Jesus ' appeared 
 in another form unto two of them, as they walked and went 
 
 * ' Christian Theology and Modern Scepticism,' p. 44. 
 t Matth. xxviii. 16, 17. 
 
286 JESUS THE Messiah : 
 
 into the country. And tlicy went and told it unto the residue : 
 neither believed they them. Afterwards he appeared unto the 
 eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their 
 unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them 
 which had seen him after he had risen ' *. Nevertheless, from 
 these concurrent statements, it is manifest it was not the nature 
 and character of our Lord's appearance that was the subject 
 of their disbeUef, but the actual fact of his Eesurrection. In 
 the third and fourth Gospels, on the contrary, it was not the fact 
 itself, but the nature and character of that fact that was doubted 
 by the disciples. 
 
 By the time when the third Gospel was written, the Gentile 
 element had gained, or was gaining, the preponderance ; and the 
 history, which had now become legendary, was modified accord- 
 ingly. Here Peter goes to the empty sepulchre after the women 
 had been there ; but neither to him nor to them does the Lord 
 then appear ; but to the ' two disciples ' of the second Gospel, 
 one of whom was named Cleopas, and the other apparentlj^ Simon, 
 but not Simon Peter f. The meeting is said to have occurred on 
 the way from Jerusalem to ' a village called Emmaus, which was 
 from Jerusalem three-score furlongs ' ; into which village he ac- 
 companied them, explaining to them on the road how ' the Messiah 
 ought to have suffered those things, and to enter into his glory.' 
 There they supped : ' And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with 
 them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. 
 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him ; and he vanished 
 out of their sight ' J. Here, by the breaking of bread, it is 
 manifest that Jesus was represented as being present in his 
 natural body. And this is confirmed by the further statement, 
 that when the two disciples returned to Jerusalem they ' found 
 the eleven [of course including Simon Peter] gathered together 
 and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, 
 and hath appeared unto Simon.' And then it continues that ' as 
 they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and 
 saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified 
 
 * Mark xvi. 12-14. t Luke xxiv. 18, 34. J Luke xxir. 13-31. 
 
HIS EESURRECTION. 287 
 
 aud affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he 
 said unto them, "Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts 
 arise in your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is 
 I myself : handle me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and 
 bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he 
 showed them his hands and his feet.' After this he ate with 
 them ' a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb ' ; and then 
 ' he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands 
 and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, 
 he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven ' *. 
 
 This statement, it will be perceived, is an explicit and cate- 
 gorical contradiction of St. Paul's declaration concerning the 
 resurrection of the dead : — ' It is sown a natural body, it is 
 raised a spiritual body ' ; for that ' flesh and blood cannot inherit 
 the Kingdom of Heaven.' Had the writer of the third Gospel 
 intended to aim at the Apostle's preaching, he could not have 
 done so more directly. And this would seem to confirm the 
 opinion expressed in a previous Chapter f, that this Gospel was 
 the first attempt on the part of the Elders of the early Christian 
 Church to assert their authority in putting forth an ' ortho- 
 dox ' narrative of the life of Jesus ; and as it was the preaching 
 of the Jew Paul that they had most cause to controvert, they 
 craftily attributed the composition of this Gospel, as well as of 
 its supplement, the Acts of the Apostles, to one of Paul's own 
 companions, Luke, ' the beloved j)hysician.' 
 
 In the fourth Gospel the evidence of our Lord's Resurrection 
 in the flesh is completely and conclusively established. The 
 details and circiimstances are, however, again very different. 
 Mary Magdalene is described as going alone to the sepulchre, 
 which she finds open. She runs and tells, not only Simon Peter, 
 but ' the other disciple whom Jesus loved,' namely, John, the 
 pretended writer of this Gospel, who is thus made to stamp it 
 with the authority of an eye-witness ; and these two visit the 
 sepulchre together, and then go home. But Mary Magdalene, 
 being left alone, sees two angels in white, and afterwards Jesus 
 * Liike xxiv. 33-51. T Chapter III. page 35. 
 
2S8 JESUS THE MESSIAH : 
 
 himself, the ' Noli me tangere ' scene with whom is indelibly im- 
 pi'inted on the minds of all Christians, through the representations 
 of it from the pencils of the most famous painters. Jesus next 
 appears to the disciples ; shows them ' his hands and [not his 
 feet, but] his side,' — because it is in this Gospel alone that when 
 on the Cross he was pierced in the side with a spear ; and after 
 this occurs the memorable conversation with the incredulous 
 Thomas, to whom Jesus said, ' Eeach hither thy finger, and 
 behold my hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into 
 my side ; and be not faitliless, but belie^'ing. And Thomas 
 answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God ! '* 
 
 Not content with this, the writer of the fourth Gospel must 
 needs add what he evidently intended to be a ' clincher,' as it 
 is vulgarly called ; namely, the raising of Lazarus from the dead 
 after he had been, in the grave twice as long as Jesus himself. 
 But, as has already been remarked in a former pagef, the 
 pseudo-John proved a great deal too much, as is usually the case 
 with an over-zealous false witness. 
 
 In a preceding Chapter of the present work J it has been asserted 
 and exemplified that no untruth, no fiction, ever obtains general 
 adoption, unless it has some real fact on which it is based. The 
 foregoing investigation and comparison of the several statements 
 in the four Gospels shows how the Resurrection of our Lord in 
 his natural body was, step by step, developed from the original 
 evidence of St„ Paul, that the Resurrection was spiritual and 
 not corporeal. In the second Gospel history, the earliest in date 
 as regards our Lord's appearance, nothing is alleged that is in 
 opposition to the Apostle's testimony. In the concluding portion 
 of the first Gospel, as has been already explained §, the bodily 
 presence of Jesus may or may not have been intended to be 
 affirmed by the statement that the women ' held him by the 
 feet.' In the third Gospel, however, not only is the appearance 
 of Jesus in the flesh asserted, but his spiritual nature is expressly 
 denied. And, lastly, in the fourth Gospel the fact is unblushingly 
 
 * John XX. 27, 28. t Chapter XV. page 182. 
 
 J Chapter IV. page 51 et seqq^. § See above, page 28."). 
 
HIS RESURRECTION. 289 
 
 asserted in the name of an eye-witness, the Apostle John ; it 
 being substantiated by the minutest circumstantial details, and 
 corroborated by a pretended miracle, which, if it were true, would 
 be a greater miracle than the llesurrection of the Messiah him- 
 self, besides depriving our Lord of his peculiar merit of being 
 ' the firstfruits of them that slept.' 
 
 A few words have to be added respecting the Ascension of our 
 Lord, which subject is narrated by the historians as discrepantly 
 as are his appearances to his disciples. 
 
 In both the first and second Gospels Jesus is said to have 
 declared to his disciples at the Paschal supper, ' After I am risen 
 again, I will go before you into Galilee'*. Accordingly, in 
 those two Gospels the angel at the sepulchre announced to 
 Mary Magdalene and her companions, ' Behold, he goeth before 
 you into Galilee ; there shall ye see him ' t ; oi', in other words, 
 ' Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before 
 you into Galilee : there shall ye see him, as he said unto you ' J. 
 And in the first Gospel it is added, ' Then the eleven disciples 
 went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had 
 appointed them'§. In accordance with this, the fourth Gospel 
 likewise states, in the last Chapter, that, after his appearance to 
 the disciples and Thomas at Jerusalem, — or, it may be, at 
 Bethany, — ' Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the 
 sea of Tiberias 'II, that is to say, in Galilee. In these three nar- 
 ratives the only allusion to the actual Ascension of our Lord 
 is in the second Gospel, where it is briefly said, ' So then after 
 the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, 
 and sat on the right hand of God ' ^ . 
 
 In the face of these concurrent statements in the first, second, 
 and fourth Gospels, it is asserted in the third Gospel that Jesus 
 said to his disciples when he appeared to them, ' Tarry ye in 
 the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on 
 high. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted 
 
 * Matth. xxvi. 32 ; Mark xiv. 28. t Matth. xxviii. 7. 
 
 X Mark xvi. 7. § Matth. xxviii. 16. 
 
 II John xxi. 1. •[ Mark xvi. 19. 
 
 o 
 
290 JliSUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 up his hands, and blessed them.* And it came to pass, while lie 
 blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into 
 heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem 
 with great joy ; and were continually in the temple, praising and 
 blessing God'*. In the Acts of the Apostles the actual place 
 of the Ascension is specified as being ' the mount called Olivet, 
 which is from Jerusalem a sabbath-day's journey' f. And from 
 the same Book it appears that the disciples remained in Jerusalem, 
 not only till the day of Pentecost, the feast of weeks, when thej' 
 received the promised gift of the Holy Spirit J, but subse(|uently 
 until the time of the martyrdom of Stephen, when ' there was a 
 great persecution against the Church which was at Jerusalem ; 
 and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of 
 Judoea and Samaria, except the Apostles ' §, who appear to have 
 continued to make Jerusalem their head-quarters. In other 
 words, they did not go into Galilee at all. 
 
 No attempt shall be made here to reconcile and harmonize 
 these discrepant and even contradictory statements ; though they 
 may be accounted for by the fact that they were not made till 
 long after our Lord's death, and then by persons who, not 
 having been eye-witnesses themselves, could only record what 
 they had gathered from tradition ; and it has been shown in a 
 preceding Chapter || in how short a period a ' tradition' may be 
 built up and also ' developed.' All that is necessary to be dwelt 
 on is, that, as regards the Resurrection of our Lord, the 
 assertions of the first Gospel in its last chapter, and of the third 
 and fourth Gospels, are quite insufficient to rebut the explicit 
 testimony of the Apostle Paul, whose writings may be relied on, 
 not only as being by far the earliest, but as being those of an eye- 
 witness, and actually written at the date they bear. At the same 
 time it is most important to be borne in mind, that, however 
 much the writers of those three Gospels may, for the reasons 
 here imputed to them, have altered the nature and character of 
 
 * Luke xxiv. 49-.')3. t Acts i. 12. J Acts ii. 1-4. 
 
 § Act8 viii. 1. II Chapter IV. pages r)2-5(). 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 291 
 
 our Lord's apj)earance on earth after his death and burial, they 
 all agree with Paul in affirming the absolute fact of his llesurree- 
 tion from the dead. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 In the preceding Chapter it has been explained how it came to 
 pass that the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus the Messiah was 
 dogmatically declared to be fundamentally different from what it 
 is described as having been by the Apostle Paul, the only witness 
 of his Master's appearance whose account is to be regarded as 
 authentic. It is not to be imagined that so great a change 
 would have taken place without its being accompanied by cir- 
 cumstances, less momentous perha^^s, but still important in them- 
 selves, and yet more important on account of their bearing on the 
 history of early Christianity. Above all, we may be assured that 
 a difference of opinion on so grave a subject could not have 
 arisen, without its causing a corresponding difference of feeling 
 among the persons entertaining such diametrically opposite 
 opinions. And the fact that such difference of feeling did exist 
 is established on coi] elusive evidence, though the reason for its 
 existence may not be correctly stated. 
 
 The Gospels profess to record the actions and sayings of our 
 Lord Jesus. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles in like manner 
 professes to relate the history of the foundation of the Christian 
 Chui'ch by the immediate disciples of Jesus ; and it is the only 
 memorial of that history extant, with the sole exception of the 
 Epistles of St. Paul. The authorship of that Book, as has already 
 been stated, is usually attributed to ' Luke, the beloved physician' * 
 of Paul, and a companion of that Apostle ; but this is apparently 
 only a portion of the gigantic fraud, stealthily and systemati- 
 * Col. iv. 14. 
 
 o2 
 
292 JEStrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 cally perpetrated, which took Christianity out of the hands of 
 the Jew, Saul of Tarsus, to place it in those of the Gentile Elders 
 of the Church, who succeeded and supplanted him. 
 
 How this fraud has operated down to the present day is shown 
 by the Duke of Somerset, who thus tersely states the prevalent 
 opinion respecting the differences between Paul and the other 
 Apostles : — ' The hostility to St. Paul arose not from his accept- 
 ance of Christianity, but from his repudiation of Judaism. "While 
 the older Ai)ostlos wore living undisturbed at Jerusalem, com- 
 bining a belief in Christ with a daily observance of the Jewish 
 law, Paul had broken loose from the law, and openly proclaimed 
 that its obligations, even for the Hebrew race, were now at an 
 end ; that the law was a miserable bondage, burdensome in this 
 life, and useless in the life to come '*. 
 
 The declaration of the Apostle himself respecting the virtue and 
 obligation of the Mosaic law, which will be quoted in a subse- 
 quent page t, demonstrates how entirely, how radically incorrect 
 the foregoing assertion is, and how erroneous it is to imagine that 
 Paul did not, until the latest hour of his life, remain a Jew, like 
 as did his Master, Jesus, whom we know to have kept the Feast 
 of Unleavened Bread and eaten the Paschal Lamb, with all the 
 rites of the most orthodox Judaism, on the very night before his 
 Crucifixion J, It is, therefore, the height of inconsistency, not to 
 say absurdity, to impute Paul's discredit among his own Gentile 
 converts to his anti-Jewish teaching and Gentile tendencies. 
 
 Without questioning the fact of Paul's serious quarrel with 
 Peter and the other Apostles respecting the obligation of the 
 Gentile converts to conform to the ceremonial law of Moses, which 
 he compelled those bigoted ritualists to relax in favour of such 
 converts §, it may be affirmed that the true cause of the disfavour 
 in which the great Apostle of the Gentiles subsequently stood in 
 the very Congregations (' Churches ') which he had himself 
 founded, arose from his having been too Jewish in his opinions 
 and teaching to please them, and, above all, from his having 
 
 * ' Christian Theology' &c. pp. 70, 71. t See pages 304, 305. 
 
 \ See above, Chap. XVII. pages 220-231. § Comp. Gal. ii. with Acts xv. 
 
IHE ArOSTLE PAUL. 293 
 
 preached the spiritual Resurrection and appearance of the Messiah, 
 which was so repugnant to the Gentile mind. 
 
 It did not take long for this to happen. When, less than forty 
 years after the Crucifixion of Jesus, Jerusalem fell before the 
 victorious arms of Titus Vespasian, most of our Lord's com- 
 panions, the first Apostles, must have ceased to exist, and the 
 Jewish members of the infant Congregation of believers in the 
 Messiah, whom they had taught, were either slain, made captives, 
 or disj)ersed. There was no longer any connected body of 
 'Apostles and Elders,' whose authority might be recognized by 
 the various Congregations that had been formed throughout the 
 Roman Empire ; and, consequently, each of those Congregations 
 was free to act independently, and without the conl,rol or super- 
 vision of any central body : although it is not improbable that 
 Antioch, where ' the disciples were first called Christians,' and 
 where the Apostle Peter is said to have been the first bishop, 
 may, to a certain extent, have assumed to be the successor and 
 repi'esentative of Jerusalem. According to Eusebius there was 
 not, after the death of the Apostles, a single Jew among the 
 bishops of the Congregations (' Churches ') outside of Judaea ; and, 
 even in that country, the Congregation that was established in 
 the new city of ^lia Capitolina, built by Hadrian on the site of 
 Jerusalem after the defeat of the Antichrist Bar Cocaba, consisted 
 of Gentile converts, presided over by a Gentile bishop named 
 Mark, who abandoned entirely the observance of the Levitical 
 law, in order that they might not be confounded with the pro- 
 scribed Jews. 
 
 A measure such as this could not but have been most offensive 
 to such members of the Christian Congregation as still followed 
 the example of the Apostle Peter in adhering to the Mosaical 
 rites ; and, accordingly, many of them separated themselves from 
 the brethren, and founded distinct Congregations (' Churches '), 
 in which the ceremonial law was maintained in its primitive 
 dignity, authority, and lustre. 
 
 These seceding Congregations, who are generally known under 
 the designation of Ebionites, are said to have held St. Paul in 
 
294 JESUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 abhorrence, denying his authority as an Apostle, denouncing him 
 as a heretic and latitiidiiiariaii, and treating his writings with 
 the utmost disrespect ; as it Avas only natural for them to do. 
 Epiphanius relates that the Ebionitcs circulated a wild story 
 of how Paul was a Pagan, who, for love of the high priest's 
 daughter, became a Jew, but that, being disappointed of his 
 wish, he abjured Judaism, and wrote against circumcision, the 
 Sabbath, and the Law*. 
 
 As, however, these Ebionitcs were regarded as heretics by 
 the Gentile Churches at Jerusalem and elsewhere throughout 
 Christendom, their anti])athy to Paul, which they evidently in- 
 herited from the Judaizing Peter and his companions, ought 
 rather to have endeared Paul to the 'orthodox' Gentile Christians. 
 And hence there is reason for the opinion that the original 
 dispute with Peter and the other Apostles, respecting the obli- 
 gation of the Jewish ceremonial law on the Gentiles, was 
 speciously put forward as the cause of Paul's subsequent disfavour, 
 instead of the vital question of the nature and character of the 
 Messiah's Eesurrection from the dead. 
 
 Such being the ease, a very natural course on the part of the 
 crafty heads of the Gentile Church of the period immediately 
 succeeding that of the Apostles would have been to ignore, as 
 far as possible, all that Paul had said and written on the subject: 
 where this coidd not be done, to qualify and distort it ; and 
 generally to modify the narrative of his life, adventures, and 
 teachings in such fashion, that, whilst professedly according to 
 him the merit of being the Apostle of the Gentiles, of which 
 they could not deprive him, they might still manage to divest him 
 of his peculiarities, and thus associate him with doctrines and 
 practices opposed to those he reallj^ professed and taught. As to 
 his writings, it was, of course, impossible to suppress them alto- 
 gether, because they were too widely in circulation among many 
 of the separate Congregations. And yet, as has been suggested 
 in a previous Chapter f, those writings were, doubtless, destroyed 
 wherever it was practicable ; and where this could not be, a gloss 
 * See ' Paul of Tarsus,' by a Graduate, 1872. t Chapter III. page 42. 
 
THE APOSTLK PAUL. ' 295 
 
 was put upon them, so as to cause them and tlieir writer to be 
 depreciated and maligned ; in addition to which, other writings 
 (' Epistles ') were imputed to him, of which he was not the 
 author. 
 
 It was then in this hostile spirit that the Book of the Acts 
 of the Apostles was composed, which was most assuredly not 
 written by a companion of Paul, as it so ingeniously pretends to 
 be, just as the fourth Gospel pretends to be the composition of 
 the Apostle John ; though it cannot well be doubted that it was 
 based on original materials furnished by some such person. As 
 to its being written partly in the third and partly in the first 
 person, this may have been done merely as a blind. But even 
 if it were otherwise, the fact of its being so written would of 
 itself prove nothing. How many plausible pseudo-autobiographies 
 do we not possess at the present day ! The Adventures of Robin- 
 son Crusoe and the Travels of Captain Lemuel Gulliver, for 
 instance, will hardly be accepted as genuine on the faith of their 
 being written in the first person. 
 
 Admitting, then, the Book of the Acts to be a substantially true 
 narrative of the main events it professes to record, and also — 
 as the general opinion is — that it was written with the inten- 
 tion, in the first instance, of slurring over the differences which 
 undoubtedly existed between the Judaizing Peter and the Genti- 
 li'zing Paul respecting the obligation of the ceremonial law on the 
 Gentile converts ; it has now to be shown that such differences 
 were insignificant, in comparison with the quarrel which subse- 
 (juently sprung up between the Jew Paul and the Gentile suc- 
 cessors of Peter and the other Apostles respecting the nature of 
 the Messiah's Resurrection. But before proceeding to the con- 
 sideration of what must be regarded as the main eaiise of dis- 
 sension, it is necessary to say a few words on the subject of the 
 earlier differences which, from the evidence of the Canonical 
 Scriptures alone, are proved to have existed. 
 
 Now, if we compare the Acts with the only certainly authentic 
 writings that we possess relating to the same period, namely, 
 the Epistles of Paul himself, the conclusion come to above with 
 
296 JEStrs THE MESSIAH. 
 
 respect to the suspicious character of the former Book is strongly 
 corroborated. A ■writer, wlio ivS well able to sift evidence, but 
 who appears to have treated the Jesus of History rather as an 
 advocate at the bar would do than as a judge on the bench, sums 
 up in the following lucid manner the question between Paul and 
 the other Apostles, as narrated by the writer of the Acts in his 
 fifteenth chapter, and b)^ Paul in the second chapter of his Epistle 
 to the Galatians : — ' No one can carefully weigh the account that 
 Paul there gives of his own position, conduct, and principles, and 
 of the relation in which he stood to the older Apostles, without 
 being struck by the great difference, and even contradiction, 
 between that accoimt and the description of him given in the 
 Acts. There is not often any direct denial in the latter of asser- 
 tions made by Paul himself, — so that harmonists and apologists 
 are able to reconcile the two accounts externally; but the real 
 difference is fundamental, and cannot be explained away. If 
 the author of the Acts be correct, then Paul in his letters is a 
 vain boaster — arrogating to himself the fruits of other men's 
 labours, and claiming an independence of thought and action 
 which his whole history falsifies. And, on the other hand, if 
 Paul is to be believed, then — subject to the deductions that are 
 always necessary when the most truthful man is defending his 
 own conduct, deductions that refer, not to the events as viewed 
 from his own point of view, but to the necessity of remembering 
 that these events will appear in a very different light to his 
 opponents, — the account in the Acts is altogether unreliable ; 
 and this appears conclusively to show that the work could not 
 have been written by a companion of Paul. For, even admitting 
 that he might have learned from Paul himself the real state of 
 the case, which he was compelled in the interests of truth to 
 depict, he could not have truly described Paul as acquiescing in 
 the subordinate position assigned to him, or have refrained from 
 giving a hint, at least, of his pretensions to originality and 
 independence ' *. 
 
 It must be repeated that what is here said docs not necessarily 
 * Sir Richard Norton, ' The Jesus of History,' p. 343. 
 
THE APOSTLE PATTL. 297 
 
 impugn or invalidate the authority of the Book of the Acts as a 
 substantially true narrative of the events it professes to record. 
 It is the colour its writer gives to those events, the light in 
 which he places them, that is at fault and has to be guarded 
 against ; just as we find to be the case with all histories, both 
 ancient and modern, which are rarely, if ever, written without 
 some strong bias on the part of their authors. We may take for 
 instance the events of the present century in the neighbouring 
 country of France, Avhich present themselves in widely different 
 lights, and almost in different forms, according as they are nar- 
 rated by Eoyalist, Imperialist, or Republican writers, all pro- 
 fessing to represent them truly and correctlj'. 
 
 It is unnecessary to discuss further the original dispute among 
 the Apostles themselves, for the purpose of showing how the 
 writer of the Acts systematically coloured and misrepresented 
 the various events recorded by him, even if he did not actually 
 misstate them. It will be sufficient to dwell on the fact that 
 the object of that writer evidently was to damn with faint praise 
 the great Apostle of the Gentiles, and so to invalidate his 
 authority, — not, however, among the Jewish believers, but among 
 his own Gentile converts. And with this view it was that Paul 
 is never spoken of as an Apostle, but is associated with Barnabas, 
 and pointedly distinguished from the original disciples. 
 
 Thus miich having been said on the general subject of this 
 systematic animosity against Paul, it shall now be shown how 
 the same was made to operate in respect of the particular fact 
 of the Messiah's appearance to his disciples after his death and 
 burial. 
 
 By Paul himself we are told that the Lord ' was seen of 
 Cephas ' and ' then of the twelve ' ; which statement alone, by 
 giving a priority to the disciple thus specially named, manifests 
 Paul's good faith, and the absence on his part of any personal 
 ill will toAvards ' the Prince of the Apostles/ whom he might 
 easily have refrained from mentioning, had he been actuated by 
 the same uncharitable feeling that jDrompted the writer of the 
 Acts. ' After that,' continues Paul, ' he was seen of above five 
 
 o5 
 
298 jESTTs xnE Messiah. 
 
 hundred brethren at once ; ' next * he was seen of James ; then of 
 all the Apostles ; and last of all [says he] he was seen of me also, 
 as of one born out of due time.' And in conclusion he makes 
 the humble and penitent confession, which more than all must 
 be accepted as a proof of his sincerity : — ' For I am the least of 
 the Apostles, that am not meet to be called an Apostle, because 
 I persecuted the Congregation of God '*. 
 
 Now, the chief fact to be considered here is the visible appear- 
 ance of the Lord, which is expressly asserted, and, as it would 
 almost seem, intentionally reiterated and insisted on by Paul :■ — 
 ' He was seen ' — ' He was seen.' And in another part of the 
 same Epistle, the Apostle again expressly asserts the visible 
 appearance to himself — ' Have I not seen Jesus the Messiah, our 
 Lord?'t 
 
 In striking contrast to these explicit declarations of Paul him- 
 self, the three several descriptions of the Apostle's vision given 
 in the Acts make no mention whatever of Jesus's appearance to 
 him. The first of these descriptions, in the ninth chapter, is 
 that of the historian ; the other two, in the twenty-second and 
 twenty-sixth chapters, profess to record the words of the Apostle 
 Paul himself. There are certain variations in the three de- 
 scriptions, but these would not, in themselves, be sufficiently 
 important to give rise to suspicion as to the general accuracy of 
 the record. They have often formed the subject of discussion, 
 and therefore they shall not be further alluded to here. The 
 main point in all three descriptions is, that whereas Paul him- 
 self, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, expressly declares that the 
 Messiah was ' seen ' by him, the Apostle is uniformly repre- 
 sented by the writer of the Acts as having merely ' heard a 
 voice.' And not only does this writer suppress the fact that 
 Jesus was actually seen by Paul, but he describes the Apostle as 
 having been struck to the earth and blinded by the light from 
 heaven, so that it would have been physically impossible for him 
 to have seen Jesus : in fact it is said that, when he ' arose from the 
 earth, and when his eyes were opened, he savj no man I' And 
 * 1 Cor. XV. 5-9. . t 1 Cor. ix. 1. 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 299 
 
 the writer then goes on to relate how ' a certain disciple at 
 Damascus, named Ananias,' was directed in a vision to go to 
 * Saul of Tarsus ; for, behold, he prayeth, and hath seen in a 
 vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on 
 him, that he might receive his sight ' * ; to all which marked 
 particulars — and especially that of his having seen Ananias in a 
 vision, instead of Jesus— the Apostle himself does not allude in 
 the slightest degree. 
 
 The testimony of Paul having been thus cleverly neutralized, 
 the next step was to represent the appearance of Jesus to the 
 other disciples as having been in his natural human body. The 
 gradual process by which this was effected has been detailed in 
 the preceding Chapter t. 
 
 But this in itself did not suffice. It was necessary, as regards 
 Paul, not merely to suppress what he had distinctly affirmed, but 
 to make him say, or seem to say, what he did not say. This was 
 done in the following manner : — In his discourse in the synagogue 
 at Antioch, in Pisidia, the Apostle is represented as referring to 
 the saying of the Psalmist, ' Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One 
 to see corruption 'J, and then as continuing : ' For David, after he 
 had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, 
 and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption ; but he, whom 
 God raised again, saw no corruption '§ ; which assertion, though 
 it may be construed so as not to be in direct contradiction to the 
 Apostle's own words cited and commented on in the preceding 
 Chapter of the present work||, would naturally be understood in 
 a contradictory sense, as it undoubtedly was the intention of the 
 writer it should be. And such a construction would the more 
 readily be put upon the words thus imputed to Paul, because Peter 
 had already been described as also quoting the same words of the 
 Psalmist, and applying them in like manner to the Resurrection 
 of the Messiah. Only Peter's words are, ' His soul was not left 
 in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption ' %; which is not 
 merely giving a meaning to the text that it does not necessarily 
 
 * Acts ix. 3-12. t Chapter XX. pages 284-288. + Ps. xvi. 10. 
 
 S Acts xiii. 35-37. || Pages 274-276. t Acts ii. 31. 
 
:iOO JKSrS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 bear, but is much more definite than the expression subsequently 
 attributed to Paul, into whose mouth it would hardly have been 
 safe to put the words ' neither his Jlesh did sec corruption,' when 
 speaking of the Messiah's Resurrection, which he had declared to 
 have been only sjnritual. 
 
 When once the Messiah's Resurrection in the ])ody had been 
 foisted by the Gentile priesthood on their ignorant and credulous 
 flocks and had become a dogma of the ' Church,' it is mere 
 surplusage to add that this dogma was maintained with all the 
 virulence of the ' odium theologicum ' which is so characteristic of 
 ' Christian' charity, in accordance with the 'new' or 'eleventh' 
 Commandment, that ' orthodox ' believers arc to ' love one 
 another,' but nobody else ! * 
 
 There can be no question as to the fact that in the early ages of 
 Christianity there was an intensely strong party-feeling against 
 Paul, ofwhich the Acts of the Ajwstles give but an indistinct echo. 
 In the Eook of the Apocalypse, for instance, the flattering com- 
 
 * See above, Cliapter XVI. pages 202, 213. 
 
 March 2ord, 1872. — Jast as this sheet is going tbrough the press, the 
 following striking instance of the true operation of the pretended ' New Com- 
 mandment' of the fourth Gospel has most opportunely presented itself, in a 
 notice of Dean Stanley's ' Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland,' 
 contained in the 'Athenaeum' of to-day: — 'The real blot on the book is that 
 which arises from the writer having .so sj^eedily forgotten the terms of that 
 "eleventh commandment," which he has prefixed to his Lectures as indicating 
 the spirit which pervades them. The lecturer starts with the excellent reso- 
 lution to forget, as far as may be, the faults and errors of those whom he 
 pas.ses under review, and to make the most of their virtues. The work was 
 designed to be an irenic, but, to use one of Dean Stanley's ovpti epithets, it 
 is a ''sulphurous'" irenic: by the time the reader has perused one half of it, 
 he discovers that it is, in truth, a bitter polemic ; that it is an elaborate and 
 defiant panegyric on the Established Church of Scotland at the ex2:)cnse of all 
 other denominations, past and jjrcsent. The virtuous resolution to look at 
 the best side of every man and every institution too soon becomes obscured, 
 and the lecturer, imbibing the genuine spirit of the old Covenanters of Dwnse- 
 Law, appears as the uncompromising advocate of a single party, animated by 
 the old Covenanting belief — 
 
 There is nane in the richt but we.' 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 301 
 
 pliment to the Church of Ephesus — ' I know thy works, and thy 
 labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which 
 are evil : and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, 
 and are not, and hast found them liars ' * — is generally understood 
 to be paid at Paul's expense. But this could not have been on 
 account of his anti- Jewish proclivities, but because it was desired 
 that his own Gentile converts in that city should cease to put faith 
 in their teacher. The like may be said of the allusion to the Nico- 
 laitanes, contained in the messages to the same Cburchf and that 
 of Pergamos J, and of the mention of ' them of the synagogue of 
 Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie'§, in 
 the message to the Church of Philadelphia. 
 
 So, too, there is a passage in the Epistle to the Smyrneans of 
 Ignatius, St. Peter's successor as Eishop of Antioch, occurring 
 almost immediately after his affirmation, not only of the Lord's 
 Resurrection in the natural body, but of his belief that he was in 
 the flesh even then (i^ai Triarevu) oyra), which is highly deserving 
 of notice. It says, * Now these things, beloved, I put you in 
 mind of, not questioning that you yourselves will also believe they 
 are so. But I arm you beforehand against certain beasts in the 
 shape of men ; whom ye must not only not receive, but if it be 
 possible must not meet with. Only ye must pray for them, that, 
 if it be the will of God, they may repent, which however is 
 difficult ' II . This truly ' Christian ' warning against ' beasts in the 
 shape of men ' was evidently directed against such as maintained 
 the contrary doctrine of the spiritual nature of the Resurrection 
 of the Messiah, as taught by Paul. 
 
 A further instance shall be given in the following extract 
 from a volume, which has been published since the manuscript of 
 the present work was placed in the printer's hands : — ' Among 
 the relics of early Christian literature is a narrative, .... which 
 gives certain imaginary conversations between St. Peter and 
 other Scriptural personages on the one hand, and Simon the 
 Magian on the other. The authorship of the work is ascribed to 
 
 * Revel, ii. 2. t Ibid. 6. J Ibid. 15. § Rev. iii. 9. 
 
 j] 'Ignatius' (Ante-Nicene Christian Ijibrary), p. 242. 
 
302 JESrS TlIK MESSIAH. 
 
 Clement of Rome. But this is a manifest absurdity. The date 
 of the composition is probably the middle of the second century. 
 Kut, though the title of the book is a forgery, it undoubtedly 
 depicts the opinions of those sectaries who existed up to the 
 fourth century in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea, and who, 
 recognizing the twelve Apostles a.s the only source of au- 
 thority, united Judaism to Christianity. At one time they were 
 a powerful party, and, as they combated with Paul in his life- 
 time, so they succeeded, for a century at least, in overturning 
 his authority in the Eastern Churches. The Homilies of Clement 
 represent Peter as arguing against and demolishing the sophistries 
 of Simon. Some of these are the fantastic tenets of Gnosticism. 
 But, in many particulars, Paul is plainly glanced at. Thus, the 
 authenticity of a personal revelation is distinctly repudiated, — 
 Peter alleging that even an angel could not address man except 
 through the interposition of a human body ; and, when Simon 
 replies that a vision is given to none but the good, Peter quotes 
 examples to the contrary from the Old Testament. " If," says he 
 to Simon, " you have been visited by him, taught by him in an 
 hour, and made an Apostle ; utter his words, interpret his 
 sayings, love his Apostles, and do not proclaim war against me, 
 who have lived with him. You have withstood me, who am the 
 solid rock, and foundation of the Church." It is difficult to avoid 
 concluding that St. Paul is referred to in these expressions'*. 
 
 The writer of the foregoing passage has, however, failed to 
 perceive the force of the assertion, that ' even an angel coidd not 
 address man except through the interposition of a human body' ; 
 which, though strikingly in accordance with the heathen poet 
 Lucan's description of the means adopted by the witch Erictho to 
 enable the dead soldier's spirit to inform Sextus Pompeius of his 
 father's fatef, is no notion of 'sectaries,' but is ' strictly orthodox.' 
 On the authority of the third and fourth Gospels, the fourth 
 ' Article of Ileligion ' of the Established Church of England, as a 
 branch of the Catholic Church, affirms that ' Christ did truly rise 
 again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and 
 * Paul of Tarsus, pp. 2.34, 235. t See the preceding Chapter, pages 279, 280. 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 303 
 
 all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature ; where- 
 with he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return 
 to judge all men at the last day.' It is scarcely requisite to repeat 
 that this dogma of the 'Church' is in direct opposition to the 
 teaching of St, Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, as 
 already shown in the preceding Chapter *. 
 
 It was, however, not on this account alone that the Apostle 
 was in such disfavour among the ' orthodox ' Gentile Christians, 
 but also because he was a Jew, who preached the advent of the 
 Messiah precisel}- as his master, Kabbi Gamaliel, might have 
 preached it, had he been a believer like his gifted and favoured 
 disciple, instead of being only a doubter, which he is represented 
 as having been f, and as King Herod Agrippa evidently was J. 
 This is the real cause of the eclipse which, as M. Renan 
 points out in his ' Saint Paul,' the memory of the great Apostle 
 of the Gentiles appears to have undergone, not only in Asia Minor, 
 but also in Corinth, and in fact everywhere among the Gentile 
 Congregations, to whom he had preached the spiritual nature of 
 his Lord's Eesurrection. The earliest post-Apostolic writers 
 never mention him ; no legend attaches to his name, like as to 
 those of the other Apostles ; in the countries surrounding the 
 Archipelago, which were the scenes of his ministration, it is not 
 Paul, but the pseudo-John, the writer of the fourth Gospel, the 
 inventor of the miracle of the raising of the body of Lazarus 
 from the dead§, who is traditionally looked up to as the great 
 historical link connecting them with ' Christ.' 
 
 It was not till after the sting had been taken out of Paul's 
 preaching by the dogmatical teaching of the Gentile priesthood 
 (of whom the fourth Gospel was the text-book and supreme 
 authority, as it has continued to be of the Catholic Church unto 
 this day), that the great Apostle was partially readmitted into 
 favour. Still he never acquired so firm a footing as the other 
 Apostles; and to the present day he is the least popular Saint in 
 Catholic countries. It may be — it doubtless was — on account of 
 
 * Page 274 sq. t See Acts v. 34-39. + See above, Chapter V. page GG. 
 s See above, Chapter XV. pages 181-183. 
 
304 JEaUS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 his ' heterodoxy ' in this respect, that at Eome, which was really 
 his own Church, Paul has been suijcrscded by Peter, who never 
 was there at all ! 
 
 The fate that the memory of St. Paul "has experienced at Malta 
 is, perhaps, the most extraordinary of all. It might have been 
 expected that the Apostle would have been revered there even 
 more than at Home ; and yet, within the last few years, the 
 ecclesiastical authorities there have, with one accord, withdrawn 
 their island from his patronage, and placed it under that of ' the 
 Mother of God.' 
 
 When the light resulting from a thorough investigation of 
 St. Paul's testimony respecting the spiritual Resurrection of the 
 Messiah from the dead shall come to be reflected on his writings 
 generallj', — that is to saj', such as are unquestionably his, without 
 regard to those others which improperly bear his name, — the 
 same will necessarily receive a verj' different construction on 
 several essential jjoints from that which has hitherto been put 
 upon them. Such an investigation must, however, be based upon 
 the fact, which seems not to have been taken sufficiently into 
 account, that Paul was a Jew by birth, b}- education, and in 
 feeling, differing only from the generality of his co-religionists in 
 the belief in the Lord Jesus as the Messiah, and in teaching, after 
 his Master's example, that the observance of the ceremonial law 
 of Moses was no longer essential to salvation, but that the Good 
 Tidings of the Kingdom of Heaven were to be preached to all 
 men alike, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, whether they be 
 bond or free. 
 
 How fully the Apostle comprehended his Master's doctrine, 
 and interpreted it in his Master's spirit, is convincingly proved by 
 his own words in the Epistle to the Romans : — ' Behold, thou art 
 called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of 
 God, and knowest his will, and approvest thb things that are more 
 excellent, being instructed out of the law ; and art confident that 
 thou thyself art a guide to the blind, a light of them which are 
 in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, 
 which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 
 
THE APOSTLE PATL. 305 
 
 Thou therefore Avliich teachest another, teachest thovi not thy- 
 self? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal ? 
 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thmi 
 commit adultery? thou that abhorrcst idols, dost thou commit 
 sacrilege ? thou that makest thy boast of the law, through 
 breaking the law dishonourest thou God ? For the name of God 
 is blasphemed among the Gentiles, as it is written *. For cir- 
 cumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law : but if thou be a 
 breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 
 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the 
 law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ? 
 And shall not uncircumcision Avhich is by nature, if it fulfil tbe 
 law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost trans- 
 gress the law ? For he is 7iot a Jew, which is one outwardly ; 
 neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But 
 he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is of the 
 heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not 
 of men, but of God. "What advantage then hath the Jew ? or 
 what profit is there of circumcision ? Much every way : chiefly, 
 because that unto them were committed the oracles of God ' f. 
 
 Thus did this Jew of the straitest sect, a Pharisee, the son 
 of a Pharisee, brought wp at the feet of Rabbi Gamaliel the 
 aged, the grandson of the orthodox Hillel,— who described him- 
 self as being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of his 
 fathers above many his equals J, — teach that even though the 
 Mosaic law was not necessarily to be dispensed with as concerns 
 those born under the law, it was in no sense binding on others ; 
 but that every human being, not of the house of Israel, stands in 
 the same relation to the One and Universal Lord, here and here- 
 after, as the most orthodox Jew ; in which he held to the capital 
 truth, taught likewise in the Talmud, that the truly pious of 
 every religious belief will enjoy everlasting bliss in the world to 
 come. 
 
 In other words, Paul was a ' Reformed Jew ; ' and the principles 
 of the Reformed Jews of the present day, as expounded by one of 
 
 * Is. lii. 5 ; Ezek. sxxvi. 20-23. t Eom. ii. 17-29, iii. 1-2. t Gal. i. 14. 
 
:m> 
 
 JESUS TUB MESSIAH. 
 
 their most learned and esteemed ministers, correspond, as it is 
 only natural and reasonable they should do, with those of their 
 great co-religionist, the Apostle of the Gentiles ; the main, if 
 not the sole, difference between them being, that he believed our 
 Lord Jesus to be the Messiah of prophecy, whereas they have not 
 yet come to perceive and acknowledge this great truth. The 
 Reverend Professor Marks, in a lecture delivered at the Philoso- 
 phical Institution of Edinburgh on December 5th, 1871, when 
 explaining why the Jews do not seek to make proselytes, is 
 reported to have said : — ' On being applied to, as is the case more 
 frequently than it is supposed, by persons of other persuasions, 
 to be received as converts to the Synagogue, the llabbi meets the 
 application by stating that it is not held by Jews necessary for 
 the salvation of the non-Israelite that he should formally become 
 a member of the Synagogue. " If," the Rabbi says, "if you believe 
 in and worship the One and Only God, refrain in thought and 
 deed from idolatry, observe the moral law of the Pentateuch, and 
 act towards mankind like one who believes himself to be always 
 under the eye of God, you will be regarded by Him that sees all 
 hearts in the same light, and you will meet with the same eternal 
 reward, as the most exemplary Israelite. Do not, then, impose 
 on yourself our ritual obligations, which are binding on the sons 
 and daughters of Israel only " ' *. 
 
 To Jews who entertain such sentiments as these all true 
 Christians must heartily hold out the hand of fellowship and 
 brotherly love, under the conviction that the belief in our Lord 
 Jesus as the Messiah is all that is wanting on their part to crown 
 their sublime confession of faith ; ■\A'hich, revealed to Moses, was 
 avowed and taught by the Messiah himself: — ' Hear, Israel ! 
 the Eternal is oui' God, the Eternal alone." Surely the hour is 
 come when the words of the Prophet may be repeated : — ' Comfort 
 ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably 
 to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her appointed time is accom- 
 ])lished, that her iniquity is pardoned : for she hath received of 
 the hand of the Eternal double for all her sins. The voice of 
 * ' Jewish Chronicle,' (N. S.) No. 143, December 22nd, 1871. 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 307 
 
 him that crieth in the wilderness, Prej^aro ye the way of the 
 Eternal, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 
 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall 
 be made low ; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the 
 rough places plain ; and the glory of the Eternal shall be re- 
 vealed, and all flesh shall see it together : for the mouth of the 
 Eternal hath spoken it ' *. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 As long as unity of doctrine prevailed throughout the early 
 Christian Church, there was no need of any formula that might 
 properly be called a Confession of Faith. The belief in the One 
 Eternal God professed by the Jews was necessarily that of the 
 primitive Christians, who simply added to it the conviction that 
 our Lord Jesus was the Messiah, or Anointed King of Prophecy. 
 
 But as soon as differences arose within the bosom of the Church, 
 not so much of rites and practices as of doctrines and opinions, 
 the dominant party, arrogating to itself the attribute of orthodoxy, 
 presumed to draw up and enact Creeds, which, whilst professing 
 to be confessions of faith, were in reality tests of unbelief, in- 
 tended to detect and eradicate heterodoxy and heresy. 
 
 Of these dogmatic symbols the earliest is that geucrally known 
 as ' the Apostles' Creed,' which, however, by no means expresses 
 the belief of the Apostles themselves, but is the production of the 
 period when ' the Resurrection of the Body ' had been adopted as 
 a dogma of the dominant party in the Church. 
 
 By the beginning of the fourth century of the Christian era 
 the doctrines of the ' orthodox ' party had become more ' deve- 
 loped,' and the history of our Lord's life and teaching loaded with 
 
 * Is. xl. 1-5. 
 
308 JESUS THK MESSIAH. 
 
 traditions; whilst ' heresies' of various kinds had arisen, which 
 required to be combated by the enunciation and enforcement of 
 more ehiborate aTid more stringent tests of heterodoxy. Hence the 
 Nicene Creed, which to this day is professed by the Orthodox 
 Greek, or Eastern Church, and also, in a somewhat modified form, 
 by the Catholic or Western Church. 
 
 Next came the Confession of Faith, commonly called ' the Creed 
 of St. Athanasius,' which, however, far from having for its author 
 the champion of orthodoxy whose name it bears, is the production 
 of the Church of Home in the fifth century ; it being, as a matter 
 of course, much longer, more metaphysical and unintelligible, 
 more dogmatical, and more intolerant. 
 
 The Reformation of the sixteenth century, whilst not dispens- 
 ing with the Creeds of the Catholic Church, introduced numerous 
 Confessions and Declarations of Faith, Catechisms, and Articles 
 of Religion, the framers of which seem to have studied more 
 to make them the manifestoes of parties than the professions of 
 faith, of believers in Jehovah and His Messiah, — the Eternal and 
 His Anointed, — ' the Lord and His Christ.' 
 
 These incessant endeavours to entrap and enslave the con- 
 sciences of ignorant men, by imposing upon them doctrines de- 
 vised by the ingenuity, and yet more by the presumption of their 
 fellow-men, have been most detrimental, not alone to professing 
 Christians themselves, by encouraging among them a spirit of 
 exclusiveness and intolerance, the very reverse of the true spirit 
 of Christianity, but yet more so by giving occasion for scepticism 
 and unbelief; inasmuch as conscientious doubters are thereby 
 induced, and too often driven, to reject such formularies altogether, 
 from their inability to decide which among so many conflicting 
 opinions is the right one, and are thence led to question the Scrip- 
 tures, on which those formularies profess to be based. 
 
 It stands to reason that there can be no Christian unity so long 
 as stress is laid on the expressions of technical theology, which 
 only serve to engender and encourage feelings of 'envy, hatred, 
 malice, and all uncharitableness,' instead of fostering the divine 
 
CONCLUSION. 309 
 
 principle of brotherly love inculcated by our Lord and his great 
 Apostle. 
 
 Such exclusive confessions of faith may in their day have been 
 deemed necessary, and may even have been found to be beneficial 
 in some respects ; but, whether so or not in past ages, it is now 
 high time for them to be repudiated by all true Christians, who, 
 eschewing traditional and dogmatical interjn'etations, should re- 
 vert to the original doctrines of the Gospel. 
 
 The singular event about to be related, may, without laying 
 undue stress on it, be regarded as a type of Christianity. 
 
 Less than half a century after the Crucifixion of our Lord 
 Jesus, and nine years after the capture of Jerusalem and the de- 
 struction of the Tcm2:)le by Titus Vespasian, the Roman provincial 
 city of Pompeii, at the foot of Mount Vesuvius, experienced a 
 fate more appalling in its suddenness and completeness than even 
 that of the Holy City. With scarcely any warning, an eruption 
 from the mountain overwhelmed the fated city ; and yet, strange 
 to say, at the same time preserved it almost in its integrity, by 
 the veiy means that had seemed to annihilate it so entirely. 
 
 After the lapse of nearly eighteen centuries, the remains of 
 the ruined city of Pompeii have been again brought to light, and 
 among them the wonderful discovery has recently been made, 
 in the kitchen of one of the disinterred dwelling-houses, of a • 
 ' fornello,' or fire-place, on which a copper caldron, or kettle, was 
 found, standing on a trivet, over what at the time of the erup- 
 tion had been a charcoal fire, just as it might be in any Italian 
 or French house at the present day. The vessel was hermetically 
 sealed and encrusted all over with ' lapilli,' or ashes from the 
 volcano, so as to require considerable force to open it ; but when 
 it was opened, to the amazement of the bystanders, it was 
 found to be nearly full of water — -pure, and perfectly sweet 
 and good. 
 
 May this extraordinary discovery be accepted as a sign that, 
 under God's providence, the day has dawned when the believer 
 in our Lord Jesus the Messiah may slake his thirst with the 
 'living water' of the Gospel, which, though in like manner 
 
310 JESUS XUK MESSIAH, 
 
 closed up during so many ages in the brazen caldron of dogma- 
 tism, and encrusted over with the foul ashes of tradition, super- 
 stition, and error, has yet been marvellously preserved pure, and 
 perfectly sweet and good ! 
 
 PBINTKU BY TAYLOK AND FRANCIS, RKU LION COl HT, FLEET STBEET. 
 
'J 
 
?S2420.B424 
 
 7ui!mT''""^ry 
 
 L]^^2 oooyf'; 
 
 648 
 
 ■ 
 
 PiTi^reT 
 
 --i |a 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 i